Fact: dylan was more famous & financially successful. Does this mean in engineering a successful mass appeal he stooped to a least-common-denominator level of communication, or pandered to the crowd? (Or made people feel ok because EVERYBODY'S voice was better than his..?)

The rest is opinion. I always found dylan a mixed bag at best. Never really liked his voice, but it worked well for some songs.

I can't see in him some special intrinsic merit greater than Phil & may other writers & singers. In fact, for the most part I find less merit or memorable in dylan than in Phil or almost any "peer" or contemporary of his. I don't listen to his old albums, but I do listen to MANY others from then (& now).

& when I found out about the trad song "The Leavin' of Liverpool" I really felt ripped off by dylan

As for being a "reporter." What's wrong w/that? One of the many things real artists do is "report" their observations of humanity, the world, etc thru their art.. They illuminate, explain, inform, record such for posterity, etc...

1 man's opinion. BK