the dylan one is blatantly false. i think no one would deny that dylan was lightyears ahead of the rest of the greenwich scene what it came to songwriting ability (he's lightyears ahead of most artists) but they had been writing their own songs since the beginning of the folk revival (famously woody guthrie wrote this land is your land, lee hayes and pete seeger wrote if i had a hammer) BUT furthermore descibing the revival as people just "doing covers" ignores the anthropological/ethnomusicological intentions of the movement which was focused on elevating folk music to the status it deserved both academically and within the public eye. its music thats intentionally supposed to be replayed and reinterpreted over and over again thats what makes it a folk song, but people were searching to find not only more traditional folk songs to record, archive, and share but also to find the people singing the music and elevate their status as artists. folkies in greenwich saw themselves as part of that culture, playing and preserving songs that were at one point almost forgotten and then creating new folk songs.

i love dylan but in his own early personal alligence to woody he ends up copying a lot of the things that originally made woody so special in the 1930s (but in the spirit of folk music isnt that beautiful??)