Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy, CAMBRIDGE TEXTS IN THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY (2007), Translated RONALD SPEIRS, opening paragraph,
We shall have gained much for the science of aesthetics when we have come to realize, not just through logical insight but also with the certainty of something directly apprehended (Anschauung), that the continuous evolution of art is bound up with the duality of the Apolline and the Dionysiac in much the same way as reproduction depends on there being two sexes which co-exist in a state of perpetual conflict interrupted only occasionally by periods of reconciliation. We have borrowed these names from the Greeks who reveal the profound mysteries of their view of art to those with insight, not in concepts, admittedly, but through the penetratingly vivid figures of their gods.
Click here for a different translation to see the subtle differences.
I think that a clear reading of the text does not support the framing and construction of your question. The Apollonian/Dionysian dichotomy has had reams devoted to it :) not least of which is Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy. As you know Apollo and Dionysus are mythological figures, sons of the Ancient Greek sky god Zeus, this makes them sons of the big cheese. These two figures have come to symbolise many different aspects of human nature but it is their relation to art and the artistic impulse and their interrelation that Nietzsche explores. This is what my edition, a Penguin Classic has to say,
In crudest outline, and not following exactly the course of Nietzsche's wavery narrative: the Dionysiac and Apolline are in the first places forces, or categories in a metaphysical sense. In a way they are opposites, and Nietzsche, who was both attracted to dichotomies and intent on overcoming them (hence, perhaps, his claim in Ecce Homo that BT 'smells offensively Hegelian') does not regard them as mutually hostile, as many commentators think. […] For the Dionysiac pertains to the nature of reality, while the Apolline is connected with modes of appearance.
It is not my business here to give a complete explanation of the dichotomy even if I could, nor is it to give a complete reading† of this short dense work. I aim to suggest that your question cannot follow from a standard reading. That is not to dismiss your question in its entirety, only the framing of it which I believe to be inaccurate. Sincerely hope this helps.
† I recommend this podcast on the topic. I've posted links to the Partially Examined Life podcast crew before because they base their shows on a close and, to my mind, faithful readings of the texts to hand.