# Bob Dylan - Musical genius or over-rated and out of tune ?



## adrianallan (Mar 19, 2009)

I've never been a fan of Bob. 

I've never rated his ability to sing in tune, a skill which has seemingly diminished over the years. 

I find his guitar playing rudimentary, at best. And as a person, he comes across as a miserable old bugger. 

Those who have seen him live say that he rarely speaks and doesn't do an encore. He's now even put down his guitar and taken to miming on the keyboard.

And yet, the established music press are reluctant to say a bad word against this musical giant, despite such pitiful efforts as this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlmx9ks6koQ&feature=related

What I hear is a fine example of somebody who can't sing a note being "carried" by a fine set of musicians. What would it sound like without the musicians ? Would his voice bring tears to the eyes ?

I don't know about you, but I think his diction leaves something to be desired (I can't hear a word he's saying) and to notate his random pitches would be a good challenge for the most seasoned ethno-musicologist. 

So let's hear it for Bob, the musical genius who never did learn to pitch a true note.


----------



## Evan Gamble (Mar 19, 2009)

Bob Dylan is more a poet than a musician.

My teacher set his words to concert music not to long back. Interesting result.

Check it out if you want to...

http://www.amazon.com/Corigliano-Tambourine-Seven-Poems-Hallucinations/dp/B001DELX6W (http://www.amazon.com/Corigliano-Tambou ... B001DELX6W)

And I mean come on Hendrix's "All along the Watchtower" is amazing.


----------



## adrianallan (Mar 19, 2009)

I have a friend who insists that he's not just a great poet, but a great musician too.

I have to question the intellectual insight of Bob, who said that some of the music raised from Live Aid in 1984 could be put towards struggling US farmers. 

Talk about missing the point of mass starvation ! What a complete plonker.


----------



## lux (Mar 19, 2009)

judgin a pop/folk songwriter like Dylan based on his presumable formal skills makes no sense to me. Based on your words any music school graduate could kick dylans' ass. Of course thats not. 

The example you posted is not an average Dylan result. He has clearly some problems on it.

Did u ever listen to Tom Waits' "innocent when you dream"? Its one of the most suckin beauty i've heard in my life. There's something more than pitch in life


----------



## adrianallan (Mar 19, 2009)

I'm not saying that he should have classical phrasing, far from it. 

There are many great singers from pop whose techniques are unconventional. 

However, there has to be some threshold for tuning or diction. If it wasn't an "icon" like Bob Dylan, would an audience really enjoy the experience of hearing somebody singing with so little concept of pitch or diction ?

Put it simply - it sounds bloody awful, and people cheer because of who he is (or rather what he was).

And if you think I've chosen an unrepresentative example, check out any of his other performances over the last 5 years or so. And try *not *to cringe.

And sorry, I've never heard that Tom Waits song, but I'll try to listen to it if it's on Youtube


----------



## JohnG (Mar 19, 2009)

I love Dylan's album "Live at Budokan." I like Sex Pistols and Tom Waits and Neil Young too. 

I think all these guys make us curious about them -- what pain do they have that makes them sound like that (and I don't only mean that in a joking way)? They create mystery and surprise. For all I know they may be narcissists to the core, but they come across as natural and sincere, at least when it comes to their material. Possibly their girlfriends / wives had a different experience.

So, of course some of it is lame.


----------



## lux (Mar 19, 2009)

Adrian, Dylan is a 68 old guy with a very adventurous life behind him that had some effect....still doesnt make sense using as reference his last five years, c'mon


----------



## adrianallan (Mar 19, 2009)

I like the Sex Pistols too, and strangely enough, I think there's more musical interest in what they did.

However, their work, while being frequently strident... is rarely nuanced ... for example as in Chopin.


----------



## adrianallan (Mar 19, 2009)

I'm obviously being unfair using the past 5 years as an example of Bob's craft. 

But it winds me up to think that he probably knows he's past it, but carries on regardless. 

And it *infuriates* me to think that (like most of his sold-out contemporaries) he's most probably just doing it for the money. 

(let's put it this way, it doesn't sound like he's doing it for reasons of artistic integrity)


----------



## lux (Mar 19, 2009)

he's just lucky enough to have a patient public respecting him for an entire career and not just for what he does now. 

Probably he still does it because thats the only thing he can do. 48 years on the scene...


----------



## adrianallan (Mar 19, 2009)

Same with the classical guitar player Segovia.

He stopped performing in his eighties, and they almost had to wheel him on to the stage, and his fingers fumbled across the frets; and people cheered for who he was, even though the playing was a mess.

After a certain age, these "giants" should stick to interviews. 

Although Paul McCartney still does a great live show - but you get the sense that his brain's not fried like Brian Wilson's or Dylan's.


----------



## lux (Mar 19, 2009)

well, if people still pay for him...where's fun theres no loss


----------



## adrianallan (Mar 19, 2009)

Fair Point, but I do know some people who went to see him at the MEN Arena in Manchester and paid about £60 each; he didn't once speak to the audience, and to my mind, that's just plain rude.


----------



## Niah (Mar 19, 2009)

adrianallan @ Thu Mar 19 said:


> Fair Point, but I do know some people who went to see him at the MEN Arena in Manchester and paid about £60 each; he didn't once speak to the audience, and to my mind, that's just plain rude.



I always thought speaking to the audience was pointless, I usually don't like that at all, everything bob has to say is in his music, 

why is that rude? :D


----------



## tobyond (Mar 19, 2009)

Musician/poet, one of the best of his kind, his compositions are no Bach, never intended to be. Most of his catalog up till his born again period in the late 70's is good. Where would rock be without: Like a Rolling Stone, All Along the Watchtower, It Ain't me Babe, I Want You, Just Like a Woman, Hurricane, Mozambique, I'll be your Baby Tonight, I Shall Be Released, Lay Lady Lay, Mr Tambourine Man, Subterranean Homesick Blues, Blowin' In The Wind. Amazing catalog for a dude who sings a little out of tune and plays a pretty substandard harmonica.


----------



## Niah (Mar 19, 2009)

And to answer your poll question

I don't think that he is a genious or over-rated or just a poet or a musician

Bob Dylan is simply Bob dylan

there are certain individuals and emphasize the word individuals who transcend any kind of categorization or labels that we usually try to box them in

anyone who regards bob as simply a musician or poet or whatever is really missing out 

and now to contradict myself, if I were to call him something it would be a living ICON :mrgreen:


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 19, 2009)

Bob Dylan is a musician of the highest order. A truly great, great songwriter and performer. John Lennon thought so and was heavily influenced by him. Pete Townsend thinks Dylan is "quantum." Countless bands from the 60's including The Byrds, Crosby Stills and Nash and Young, Van Morrison were influenced by him - everybody really.

Dylans vocals are bent and funky but that's his sound. If you want to hear truly out-of-tune vocals listen to Springsteen's poor imitations of Dylan's style which are unlistenable. I can listen to Dylan all day.

Listen to Dylans tunes and chord changes, they are first rate and beyond.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 19, 2009)

dont like his stuff. 

seems like i should be sorry for it but its my opinion. 

to me, its more of the "other people say an think he is a genius so i should like it or i am wierd or somethin-sindrome". 
what!!!! you don like Dylan!!???! how dare you!!
well, thankfully not everyone like the same things. 

but no matter who tried to shove it down my ears i didnt like it much. for me its a grey scale but leaning to the darker shade of not liking it much but i have to say a few of his songs are ok and the messages are good. but no different for me than britney- or less epiphany of commercialism.

if no one ever told you about dylan , and suddely you hear it --hmm i dunno at a friends house.. would you say, wow that sounds great or would you say damn, that guy is out of tune or somethin and i can barley understand what the fuk he is sayin.


----------



## Stevie (Mar 19, 2009)

Well, I know that a lot of Dylan's songs have been covered. Maybe he is not such a good performer, but he wrote a lot of very good songs.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 19, 2009)

gsilbers @ Thu Mar 19 said:


> dont like his stuff.
> to me, its more of the "other people say an think he is a genius so i should like it or i am wierd or somethin-sindrome".



A genuine musician would never say they liked some other musician when they really didn't. I don't think Jimi Hendrix went on and on about Dylan and covered his songs because he thought other people would thinks it's cool. The greatest song writers and musicians of that generation thought Dylan was great. Lennon often referred to his 'Dylan Period' and those are some of his greatest songs. 

I don't put people down if they don't share my opinion. I'm only pointing out that Dylan is revered by many giants of popular music and I agree with their assessment based upon my own response to his work.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 19, 2009)

Dave Connor @ Thu Mar 19 said:


> gsilbers @ Thu Mar 19 said:
> 
> 
> > dont like his stuff.
> ...




so becuase other great bands covered his songs he is a genius? you are proving my point there buddy. 

i am not saying you or anyone here like dylan because others say so. specially not musicians... well, you never know. 


dont like hendrix niether and beetles was good for a while. not my cup of tea.
and even less dylan. its not related to "commercial music" or old music, i like for example.. bob marley's earlier works but i kinda like his legend stuff. it got into looking more for his stuff and found very cool stuff. 

just dont plain like dylan. so thinking he is a genuis when i can barley stand listening to any of his songs made me choose over rated. 


but everyone here seems to like him so i just wanted to expand a little this thread. spice it up :D


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 19, 2009)

gsilbers @ Thu Mar 19 said:


> so becuase other great bands covered his songs he is a genius? you are proving my point there buddy.



Did you read my post? I'll try again. Acknowledged geniuses like John Lennon and Jimi Hendrix loved the guy and incorporated his style into their own music or even flat out covered his songs. I'm saying great musicians thought very highly of him. So maybe there's something to Dylan who had a huge influence on an entire generation of musicians. Apart from that: I think so too _based upon my own response to his music._ 

I personally think that Dylan is a great, great songwriter which has nothing to do with anyone's opinion influencing me. His melodic sense, harmonic sense, mesmerizing stage performance and guitar playing are just as good as it gets. Watch the documentary from the 60's where he plays at Albert Hall. Spellbinding great stuff.


----------



## TheoKrueger (Mar 19, 2009)

Is there an option in the poll for "A very good modern poet with character" ?

I dont think he's either over rated or a genious. I think he's just got something to say and a crowd that likes what he says. I like the lyrics of "Blowin' in the wind" by him.


----------



## adrianallan (Mar 20, 2009)

I'm prepared to admit that he was reasonable in his day, but now he comes across as something of a sold-out has-been. 

There is a message in some of his songs, but I suspect an insincere one. This one-time poet of the people lives in a luxury mansion in Malibu.

So take away the message, and you're left with the music. 

I can accept that Rachmaninov was a musical genius, and maybe even a brilliant instrumentalist like Tommy Emmanuel could be given such a title.

But Bob-three-chord-trick-Dylan ......?


----------



## nikolas (Mar 20, 2009)

I've never cared too much for such styles of music (we have various Greek artists like this and can't say I like THOSE records). I do understand the appeal of Bob, as well as his genious in time when there wasn't something exactly as this. He's both a musician and a composer and we're judging it based on what can WE do, whereas we should be judging him according to what's he's given to the world. 

Or something... :-/

Still, as I said, I don't enjoy such music, I tend to enjoy polished productions, rock/pop, more complicated stuff. But it's a personal matter, or maybe the idea that "I deserve better, I'm fucking better, etc" to which I'm guilty I admit! :$


----------



## lux (Mar 20, 2009)

adrianallan @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> I'm prepared to admit that he was reasonable in his day, but now he comes across as something of a sold-out has-been.
> 
> There is a message in some of his songs, but I suspect an insincere one. This one-time poet of the people lives in a luxury mansion in Malibu.
> 
> ...




ooooohhh, c'mon.....the "i hate the popstar" stuff not....

insincere, poet in malibu, rachmaninov is better than dylan, three chords trick...

its pop culture guys, like or dislike. I think Theokrueger definition is the most adapt here. And everyone's entitled to not get the sense of anything out of the entire songwriter career.

But please, not the old hatery about the money and the number of chords...please


----------



## rayinstirling (Mar 20, 2009)

As with all polls. The result is determined by the choices given for a vote.

I'm noting the lack of choices! in other words you link "over-rated and out of tune"?

Neither he nor anyone else who has had or is having a successful career need worry about such a stupid question as the one you're asking here. Sorry Adrian but I'm long enough in the tooth know many people past their best but that doesn't diminish their undoubted talent through their life in music or anything else.

Let me ask you a question! Does it hurt that some old codger past his sell by date is stealing the money out of young composer/musicians hands? Especially those who know more than three or four chords on a guitar.

Ray


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 20, 2009)

Bob Dylan is the perfect example that it is not about theory, harmony, perfect pitch, sophisticated composition, sight reading and complex score writing, using locrian flat 11 over b13 with a dimished quadruplepuple, lightning out of the a*s and everything else which makes a highly respected musicial person.

Bob Dylan is the key to understand what's music all about. Think about this for a minute. Why? It's easy but so hard to really understand when leaving out personal taste of course.

Bob Dylan is such a talented person because he speaks out of peoples heart. Thats basically all said. Reaching your heart and making people following him onto a journey ... think of "Times are changing". It makes you drunk, wanna makes you following. Everything he tells (don't mean the lyrics speficially) is right and you simply wanna nod to it and go wherever he goes.

*Musicians or composers are most of the time something which is comparable to absolutely closed minded physicists, trying to describe LOVE with a formular.*

Simple chords + Playing mistakes + Out of tune vocals = crap song 
Easy huh? 


A few years back when I was in my high virtuoso guitar playing years, I thought the same about Eric Clapton.

"What is that guy who barely can't play a simple pentatonic scale. What is that guy doesn't play faster than three notes per minute. Oh, he is called Mr. Slowhand? No wonder why. Man is he slow and his guitar playing kinda sucks. He can't even intonate right. Most bendings are too high or too low. I can play so much better. Why is he even famous?".

Later on when I was a bit more grown up and listened to "Tears in heaven" and I had tears in my eyes, I understood.
By even not knowing that his son fell out of that skycraper window you would know that something speaks out of his soul - full of pain.


One more little story (sorry for repeating myself, but I think I told it somewhere before, but can't remember ):
Back on Los Angeles Music Academy we had little concerts after every years quarter. In the very last quarter I was part of the Fusion ensemble workshop. We were studying and playing stuff like Mike Stern's "Chromazone" and a John Patituci tune which was so damn complicated (don't remember the name).

So right before the final gig I was so damn excited and nervous. All those guys in the crowd: Frank Gambale, Joe Porcaro, Ralph Humphrey, Mike Shapiro etc. ... hell I was nervous.

So we started that Patitucci track and I had problems remembering all those scales and structures. I just remembered the actual melody lines and chords of the track, so basically all the songs notes, but everything I needed to do my improvisation solo I forgot.

So finally I said to myself that it doesn't matter. Just play what comes out of you and don't care about all that theoretical crap! Take a deep breath and relax.

Said and done, after the gig, Frank came up to me and named me little Holdsworth and that this solo was really killer!

From that day on I think I understood at least a part of what it is really about music. Don't think - just flow!

... and there goes the same for Bob Dylan and Eric Clapton. They just flow and everybody who tries to analyze it bit by bit will get an irregular and wrong formular which doesn't makes sense in the end ....


----------



## rayinstirling (Mar 20, 2009)

Alex,

I understand and agree with your post. My post above didn't go into such detail because I'm thinking........ someone who asks such a question probably isn't going to accept your answer!

Ray


----------



## adrianallan (Mar 20, 2009)

The argument has been made that in the case of Bob Dylan, his "X-Factor" overrides every one of his musical failings. 

Isn't it ironic that to make it in most fields of music (especially classical), you need to have top notch rhythm, pitch, timing, ensemble skills AND a special something (call it X factor) to put you ahead of the intense competition.

And yet with Bob Dylan we are supposed to overlook all this, because of X-factor is so enormous it compensates for everything else.

I'm sorry, but in my book, no matter how big the X-Factor, if you can't sing in tune and you spend your entire career playing cowboy chords in first position, you're not a good musician.

Maybe a good something else, but certainly not "good musician". And for that matter, "musical genius" is just off the radar screen.

And for those who question this judegement, take a listen to the link in my first post. Does that sound like a musical genius absorbed in his craft ?


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 20, 2009)

adrianallan @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> The argument has been made that in the case of Bob Dylan, his "X-Factor" overrides every one of his musical failings.
> 
> Isn't it ironic that to make it in most fields of music (especially classical), you need to have top notch rhythm, pitch, timing, ensemble skills AND a special something (call it X factor) to put you ahead of the intense competition.
> 
> ...



You know, I believe that all people in the world have a certain "something" around them. Kind of an aura. It doesn't matter if this is magical related, or if it comes from certain body chemistry processes or simply character attributes. Maybe it's all, maybe nothing and something completely different but to be honest I don't care where it is coming from - it seems to be just there.

So a few things to think about. Do you really think Bob Dylan got famous because he bribed certain people or bought himself into the music bizz? It is just his music and character, his "something" which brought him there.

Of course not everybody who is famous is it because of his/her something and there are lots of "stars" around which are just part of a complex industry thing.


So listen to Santanas guitar playing. Out of tune all the time, no accurate bendings, slipping of the fretboard.

Listen to Miles Davis. He is just stopping sometimes in between his playing, abruptly. Something like "Ah no, wasn't right, I can do better" ... sometimes his notes go wrong. He doesn't hit right on spot all the time.

Listen to John Scofield. One ass of a guitar player but he is always laid back. It seems like he took sleeping pills because he plays so much behind the beat. His album "A Go Go" is really a masterpiece regarding groove, but he is just so damn laid back it isn't funny anymore ....



Also you speak of musical failings. There are recordings of mistakes of almost every other musician or "star". We are human, don't forget that.

Isn't that what we try to achieve with samples btw? Making it imperfect?


Also you have to have one more thing in mind. Yes, as an orchestra or studio musician you have to have perfect timing, pitch and all that stuff since you are playing with 75 other musicians or you just have to get a job done.

But you can not compare someone who uses instruments to tell a story with an orchestra musician who simply has to work like a clock ...

Oh by the way, go up to a well studied orchestra violin player and ask him to play some really warm and smooth melody he just makes it up within this second. I guess 80% of all would answer: Uhm, sorry but I don't know uhm .. do you want some Vivaldi maybe? I don't have my notes here.


So if you say Bob Dylan is a bad musician all in all, it is like saying Picasso can not paint since all of his faces and portraits look totally f"cked up


----------



## Evan Gamble (Mar 20, 2009)

adrianallan @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> The argument has been made that in the case of Bob Dylan, his "X-Factor" overrides every one of his musical failings.
> 
> Isn't it ironic that to make it in most fields of music (especially classical), you need to have top notch rhythm, pitch, timing, ensemble skills AND a special something (call it X factor) to put you ahead of the intense competition.
> 
> ...



I'm sure Bob Dylan is waking up in the middle of the night from cold sweat's thinking about your opinion of his musicianship.

Meanwhile many artists have made great covers of his tunes which millions adore.

I mean come on..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgECKj9L ... re=related

just enjoy it for what it is and stop dissecting it.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 20, 2009)

By the way, speaking of perfect timing. Why are orchestras always sooo wrong when it comes to straight rhythm?

They are dragging, then they are rushing, no straight and constant rhythm. Classical scores are full of mistakes.


----------



## Evan Gamble (Mar 20, 2009)

Waywyn @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> By the way, speaking of perfect timing. Why are orchestras always sooo wrong when it comes to straight rhythm?
> 
> They are dragging, then they are rushing, no straight and constant rhythm. Classical scores are full of mistakes.



FUCKING [email protected]!!!!1 :wink:


----------



## lux (Mar 20, 2009)

Evan Gamble @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgECKj9L ... re=related



this is pretty cool, i also happen to like the eighties version of Dylan, like the nice album this song comes out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfTMVzbB-u4


----------



## rayinstirling (Mar 20, 2009)

lux @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> this is pretty cool, i also happen to like the eighties version of Dylan, like the nice album this song comes out:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfTMVzbB-u4



Well I heard this about this youtube UK blocking thing the other day and it's come to pass because I'm blocked from accessing your link Luca


----------



## Chrislight (Mar 20, 2009)

So what makes a "musical genius"? A piece that is technically perfect (whatever that is!) and sung in tune? Well, maybe, IF it has the one necessary ingredient that has to be there - and that is EMOTION - without it, a technically perfect piece goes nowhere in my opinion.

There was a very strong emotional undercurrent throughout the 60's that I doubt we will ever feel again. Having lived as a teenager smack dab in the middle of that (and survived!), I can tell you that Bob Dylan was able to capture perfectly the 60's energy/spirit and infuse it in some of his pieces - and that is what made him great to so many people! It was like he was able to embody the angst, the rebellion, the feeling of the need to change the world in his music that spoke to so many of us who were caught up in the energy of those times. 

No, his voice wasn't the best sounding and I can't judge his guitar or hamonica playing, but that wasn't the thing! It was that he was able to tap into that emotional energy that so many of us were experiencing at the time and make people FEEL it in his music and through his lyrics. I remember playing my Bob Dylan's Greatest Hits album over and over because it spoke to me in so many different ways. 

So yeah, I would give Bob Dylan the "genius" label for being able to capture the essence and emotional energy of the 60's in his music. Even though there were some rough times, I am glad to have been a part of the 60's experience and that Bob Dylan was part of it too.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 20, 2009)

Geniuses like Lennon and Hendrix say Dylan is a genius and record his songs. 

Some non-geniuses post that they do not appreciate him.

Do the math. Despite the prevailing cultural attitude, not all opinions are equal.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 20, 2009)

50/50? Wow! The guy certainly was great when it came to writing lyrics. He transcended in that department IMO, and i suppose that makes him a genius, although i don't like to use the world genius too much. For me, a real genius can write symphony or reinvent the theory of relativity at 5 and is subsequently kidnapped by the secret government to work in an underground bunker for the rest of his life. 0oD 

As far as singing goes he certainly wasn't great technically, but he did have character. His weakest flaws was his lack of pronunciation IMO. It always felt like he was really tired, drunk, hangover and hight all at the same time. :mrgreen: But he had this quality most singer lack and that he was the part as oppose to playing the part(in is own introvert way). I may be exaggerating a little here but lets just say he meant was he said.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Mar 20, 2009)

Dave Connor @ Thu Mar 19 said:


> Bob Dylan is a musician of the highest order. A truly great, great songwriter and performer. John Lennon thought so and was heavily influenced by him. Pete Townsend thinks Dylan is "quantum." Countless bands from the 60's including The Byrds, Crosby Stills and Nash and Young, Van Morrison were influenced by him - everybody really.
> 
> Dylans vocals are bent and funky but that's his sound. If you want to hear truly out-of-tune vocals listen to Springsteen's poor imitations of Dylan's style which are unlistenable. I can listen to Dylan all day.
> 
> Listen to Dylans tunes and chord changes, they are first rate and beyond.


I couldn't say it any better than Dave. Dylan is one of the great songwriters and performers of our time. Maybe the author of this thread evaluates Dylan through a filter of quantized midi-generated music. Dylan's music and words go straight to the heart of generations and his songs will live on.


----------



## midphase (Mar 20, 2009)

I think Bob Dylan is one of those artists whom you either get or don't get. Much like Warhol, John Cage, Piet Mondrian and many others.

I personally don't get Dylan, never have and never will. For me it's really not a skill or vocal quality issue (Randy Newman could give Dylan a run for his money when it comes to singing out of tune), but more about a style and lyrical content which just doesn't appeal to me and that I can't relate to (I feel the same way about Joan Baez, Jodi Mitchell, even Patti Smith).

I really don't think it's got anything to do with nuance or performance, it has everything to do with if you relate to the message and idea or not.


----------



## Chrislight (Mar 20, 2009)

midphase @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> I think Bob Dylan is one of those artists whom you either get or don't get. Much like Warhol, John Cage, Piet Mondrian and many others.
> 
> I personally don't get Dylan, never have and never will. For me it's really not a skill or vocal quality issue (Randy Newman could give Dylan a run for his money when it comes to singing out of tune), but more about a style and lyrical content which just doesn't appeal to me and that I can't relate to (I feel the same way about Joan Baez, Jodi Mitchell, even Patti Smith).
> 
> I really don't think it's got anything to do with nuance or performance, it has everything to do with if you relate to the message and idea or not.



Agreed. I think it would be very difficult for some people who were not part of the energy of the 60's and the message that Dylan conveyed through his lyrics and music, to "get" him. However, like Hans said, he spoke to the heart of our generation and even following generations who have been able to tap in and relate to the spirit of what was happening back then. 

As for Joni Mitchell, her music and lyrics spoke to the heart of many of us too. Rolling Stone magazine called her "one of the greatest songwriters ever" and I agree. She too in her own unique and gentler way, was able to brilliantly capture the energy of those times and convey it in her music and lyrics.


----------



## kgdrum (Mar 20, 2009)

Dylan is a great songwriter,look at all of the people who have covered his songs or have been influenced by him...........................Hendrix,Petty,Lennon etc......................
he changed the pop song paradigm,his lyrics are beyond brilliant,look at all of the singers who attempt to borrow his phrasing and writing style.
listen to highway 61 revisited and if you don't get inspired check your pulse.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Mar 20, 2009)

For an introduction to both Bob Dylan and Joan Baez, go to the link and listen to "It Ain't Me, Babe". This is a fabulous album and each song is a gem. You can listen to them all on the website player:
http://mp3.rhapsody.com/joan-baez/joan-baez-5--2002

8)

Edit: I noticed that two of the songs 12 and 13: "Tramp on the street" and "Long Black veil" are later additions and were not on the original record. They don't really fit in the overall feel of the album, in my opinion.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 20, 2009)

Hans Adamson @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> For an introduction to both Bob Dylan and Joan Baez, go to the link and listen to "It Ain't Me, Babe". This is a fabulous album and each song is a gem. You can listen to them all on the website player:
> http://mp3.rhapsody.com/joan-baez/joan-baez-5--2002
> 
> 8)



US only. Booo! :(


----------



## kid-surf (Mar 20, 2009)

JohnG @ Thu Mar 19 said:


> I love Dylan's album "Live at Budokan." I like Sex Pistols and Tom Waits and Neil Young too.
> 
> I think all these guys make us curious about them -- what pain do they have that makes them sound like that (and I don't only mean that in a joking way)? They create mystery and surprise. For all I know they may be narcissists to the core, but they come across as natural and sincere, at least when it comes to their material. Possibly their girlfriends / wives had a different experience.
> 
> So, of course some of it is lame.




How can an artist NOT be a narcissist? "Hi, I'm an artist and I want to be on this stage, or TV, or film with millions of people relating to my works, and I don't want to do that for free...you must pay for the privilege."

There's no way around it, no way to throw it off or disguise it - The FIRST trait an (commercial) artist possesses is a deep need for people to notice their work. Otherwise it would be a hobby and not a job.

As for the pain part, totally agree. I have a theory that the best artists manifest pain in their work -- even if the work is bright and lovely. The art is always compensating for something. Just a theory...

Dylan -- I think he's great at what he does. He wears the shoes that fit him.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 20, 2009)

The dictionary definition of narcissism is: "Extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type."

Using that definition, I totally reject the idea that one needs to be a narcissist to be a talented performer. I have worked with many, some very famous, and while many of them indeed were, others were not.

Should not our goal be to be a good human being first, and a great artist second?

Rabbi Hillel said, "if I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I?"

I do not know Bon Dylan so I cannot make an assessment on him in that regard, but for me, he is a great singer/songwriter with an enigmatic stage personna.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 20, 2009)

Ashermusic @ 20th March 2009 said:


> Geniuses like Lennon and Hendrix say Dylan is a genius and record his songs.
> 
> Some non-geniuses post that they do not appreciate him.
> 
> Do the math. Despite the prevailing cultural attitude, not all opinions are equal.



Jay raises an interesting issue that was dear to T.S. Eliot's heart -- that only experts really could have opinions. This elitism is not confined to artistic spheres, either. Despite the current gloss on the US' "founding fathers" as having been stern but populist guys in wigs, who trusted the man in the street, the reality is naturally more nuanced. Many of these be-wigged grandees believed that only property-owners should be able to vote, as they would have the greatest stake in the outcome; plus they were fearful of a "tyranny of the majority" that might vote, say, to give away land to people for free.

On the subject of Dylan, I think it's a bit more nuanced, as he's often described as a poet, on the one hand, but, on the other hand, he was / is still a pop entertainer and thus to some extent subject to the whim / opinion of the masses.

I really like Dylan, but I'm not going to compare him with John Donne or Bartok -- examples of a "real" poet or composer. I don't think that's what he was up to at all, but rather a combination of politics, zeitgeist-antenna, populist wordsmithing, and folk tunes. You can be a genius at that synthesis and still not rise to the level of Great Artist -- the two do not need to overlap. I'm not trying to denigrate the guy -- I really like his songs, including the way he sings and performs them. 

I think that sometimes the amount of political and social upheaval of the 1960s and 1970s is downplayed, perhaps because the collective perception of that era inevitably has been coloured by television and movies, which often trivialise that time into a petty hash of fashion, making out / snogging, and recreational drug indulgence. It was much more than that, and thank goodness. My cap's off to Dylan for articulating and even leading, to some extent, a movement that led many to question government, revamp radically gender and other societal prejudices, and usher in what I view as a better social pecking order, one based more on merit than pedigree.

So I'm a fan, even if he's not on the level of [insert Great Artist's name here].


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 20, 2009)

John, I do not maintain that "only experts can have opinions." I do however, maintain that an expert's opinion is worth more than a non-expert's.

If that makes me an elitist, I will wear the label.


----------



## rayinstirling (Mar 20, 2009)

Ashermusic @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> John, I do not maintain that "only experts can have opinions." I do however, maintain that an expert's opinion is worth more than a non-expert's.
> 
> If that makes me an elitist, I will wear the label.



Please define the word expert or more to the point the qualifications needed to be considered an expert.


----------



## adrianallan (Mar 20, 2009)

Is the opinion of John Lennon more valid than mine ?

Let's face it, Lennon was a man who thought that his wife was a great artist and musician - a lady whose idea of musical accompaniment consisted of screaming in a bag. Lennon was so deluded that he made his final album, Double Fantasy, a 50/50 affair...divided between his music and her wailing.

Lennon rebuke to the critics of his wife's music in the 60's was "this is 1980s music".

Pitiful, but true.

And on which basis his opinion is potentially much more misguided than mine.


----------



## rayinstirling (Mar 20, 2009)

adrianallan @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> Is the opinion of John Lennon more valid than mine ?



Yes


----------



## adrianallan (Mar 20, 2009)

but unlike Lennon I don't have a record of ridiculously bad judgement, even though he beats me in the songwriting department.


----------



## adrianallan (Mar 20, 2009)

Would you trust the judgement of a man who said that Yoko Ono was a great musician ?

It could be said that his musical judgement is on a par level to Paul McCartney's in his choice of a second wife.

ie. pretty crap.


----------



## rayinstirling (Mar 20, 2009)

adrianallan @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> but unlike Lennon I don't have a record of ridiculously bad judgement, even though he beats me in the songwriting department.



Well IMO you've shown pretty poor judgement in your opinions here.

Questioning success in this way is just being an "oxygen thief".


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 20, 2009)

rayinstirling @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> adrianallan @ Fri Mar 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Is the opinion of John Lennon more valid than mine ?
> ...



Yes.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 20, 2009)

adrianallan @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> but unlike Lennon I don't have a record of ridiculously bad judgement, even though he beats me in the songwriting department.



Sorry, maybe I get it wrong and I don't wanna sound attacking, but why do you put yourself in the same bag as with Lennon.

I mean, "he beats you in the songwriting department" ... to me this sounds like as you could also say: I beat him in the aspects of being a better musician in terms of technogical skills and playing more precise than him.

Even by not saying anything I made up here I have the feeling that you put yourself on the same stairs and compare yourself with famous musicians?

Are you kind of frustrated that people "who are not good as you" are more famous or earn more money?


Please don't get me wrong, but the whole discussion and your thread opening to me doesn't seem to be ONLY all about Dylan, but more like WHY you are not there, because you are a better musician than x or a better songwriter than y?

Again, doesn't mean to be rude, but I often read between the lines ...


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 20, 2009)

adrianallan @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> Would you trust the judgement of a man who said that Yoko Ono was a great musician ?



Love is blind and apparently sometimes, deaf, dumb and stupid. 

Also, John liked to say thing sometimes to provoke people or shock them. But all you need to do is listen to John's "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away" or I" Am The Walrus" to hear how much he admired Dylan.


----------



## adrianallan (Mar 20, 2009)

> Sorry, maybe I get it wrong and I don't wanna sound attacking, but why do you put yourself in the same bag as with Lennon.
> 
> I mean, "he beats you in the songwriting department" ... to me this sounds like as you could also say: I beat him in the aspects of being a better musician in terms of technogical skills and playing more precise than him.
> 
> ...



sorry, but you completely misunderstand my motives.

*I* don't deserve any success, but I DO feel for all those great musicians who are left playing pub gigs whilst an out of tune has-been fills vast arenas whilst being carried by the best backing group his fortune (this great man of the working class) can buy.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 20, 2009)

Okay, sorry for that assumption, but it sounded like .. maybe just to me 

But I want you to ask again. Look at all those musicians:

Miles Davis - abrupt playing, starting phrases over
Santana - out of tune, wrong notes, bendings not accurate
Eric Clapton - can't even play a pentatonic without making an error
John Scofield - laid back playing, I mean REALLY laid back
Holdworth - playing out of this word scales over out of this world chords
Meshuggah - shouting singer who doesn't even care about notes at all ...
Alanis Morisette - sings like under the shower
Jimi Hendrix - wrong notes, totally off sometimes

Think again, don't they deserve to be famous at all ... or is it actualy what makes THOSE errors being their characteristic brand???


----------



## rayinstirling (Mar 20, 2009)

I'll remember to have my handkerchief ready when I'm crying at my pub gig tomorrow night. :cry:


----------



## JohnG (Mar 20, 2009)

Ashermusic @ 20th March 2009 said:


> John, I do not maintain that "only experts can have opinions." I do however, maintain that an expert's opinion is worth more than a non-expert's.
> 
> If that makes me an elitist, I will wear the label.



I'm an elitist too, Jay. I wasn't disagreeing with you, just thinking aloud about what you said, though perhaps not as careful in what I said as I had intended. 

I meant to say that Eliot believed (as I remember) that the opinions of experts were the only ones that mattered, or at least the ones that should be given the most weight, so more in line with some of what you have maintained from time to time -- that it is arguably inappropriate to criticise the work of established artists unless one has reached a comparable level.

And to address Ray's question, "please define 'expert,'" I think it's very tough to define what an expert actually is. No doubt the reason for your point, Ray. At the extremes, perhaps it's easy -- John Donne was an expert poet, for example. John Adams is an expert composer. In both cases, they are / were creative artists who worked a long time at their craft and who created a fair amount of material that is widely admired by others who are knowledgeable in that craft.

I don't know how else to define expert. Some would include university professors who've studied poetry or music, but Eliot was very specifically arguing that, in the case of poetry, only another poet's evaluation could be considered conclusive and fully worthwhile, not that of a critic or professor. Only a practitioner, in other words, could evaluate another's work.

I am sympathetic, and would like to agree with Eliot, but then I've gained a lot of insight from non-composers about what I do, so it's hard for me to agree fully with him. Sometimes people who have no musical training at all will say something to me about what I'm up to that I find enlightening.


----------



## rayinstirling (Mar 20, 2009)

JohnG @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> And to address Ray's question, "please define 'expert,'" I think it's very tough to define what an expert actually is.



John, my opinion on the "expert" thing is pretty straight forward.

An expert is someone with expertise. So many are called experts because they studied a subject at university and passed exams. For me, they are not experts until they gain experience in using what they learned.

So when I put the question to Jay, I understand and hope he has expertise in using Logic 8 not just a degree. :D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 20, 2009)

"The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan" from the early '60s is an incredible album. It has 'Blowin' in the Wind,' 'Corrina Corrina,' 'Girl from the North Country,' 'Hard Rain,' 'Don't Think Twice It's All Right,' 'Masters of War...'

And those are just the ones I remember off the top of my head - there are probably a couple of other great ones that still stand up 40-odd years later. And they don't just stand up musically, but the anti-war messages still apply just as much today.

If you're looking for virtuoso guitar playing or singing, you're missing the point. You're not an expert!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 20, 2009)

Chrislight got it right (although I wasn't a teenager until '69  ).

Also, I have a question: if he's so overrated, why are we even having this discussion 40-odd years later? Obviously this music talks to someone.

But maybe we can go in and tune his voice when the new Melodyne comes out.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 20, 2009)

Still, I wouldn't want to be Dylan's neighbor.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... ?track=rss


----------



## adrianallan (Mar 20, 2009)

> Okay, sorry for that assumption, but it sounded like .. maybe just to me Smile
> 
> But I want you to ask again. Look at all those musicians:
> 
> ...



I get your point, but it's a matter of degree. I won't bore you by assessing each one, but for example with Hendrix, although he made mistakes, with that level of distortion, it really didn't matter, it all added to the mix. However, the general pattern of his melodic ascents and descents could be followed, same with his chords.

However, with Dylan (especially now) nearly every note is pitched wrongly, or the diction means that the words can't be understood at all. To me, that's the equivalent of an instrumentalist playing nearly all bum notes. 

*I do admit that this trend has got worse recently with Dylan*. But people still go to these concerts and feel that they've seen a musical genius, which is clearly not true.

Same with some of the other musicians you mention. For example, Miles Davis. He had his idiosyncrasies, but the melodic line can at least be followed, and there's no doubting his dexterity, even if he had his quirks. 

Same goes for Clapton

With these quirks that you list, musicians would notice these. Non musicians would probably not.

However, I've played a few people, all non musicians, that clip on my first post, and they all agree that the singing is out of tune, impossible to understand noise, to put it kindly.

Ok, he's older now, but surely if he was a genius in the first place, he wouldn't have lost his ability to sing so completely and absolutely by his sixties. 

I saw Julian Bream play in his late sixties a few years ago. He couldn't do what he used to be able to, and his fingers were less dextrous, but you could tell that all the brilliance had not completely dried up. 

I just question if there's now so little musical ability left, how much there was in the first place.


----------



## kid-surf (Mar 20, 2009)

Ashermusic @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> The dictionary definition of narcissism is: "Extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type."
> 
> Using that definition, I totally reject the idea that one needs to be a narcissist to be a talented performer. I have worked with many, some very famous, and while many of them indeed were, others were not.
> 
> ...



Sounds like so much semantics to, but...

Ok, if not narcissistic what is the quality that posses one to seek this wide spread commercialized admiration? Why not, like the monks and their Sand Drawings, simply create it and erase it. (the trite answer is money, but as we well know, there are much easier ways to become wealthy, if not simply...comfortable)

I don't believe well crafted art and good humanitarianism are mutually exclusive.

What Rabbi Hillel said reads good on paper, yet we all know how flawed the human condition is in practical terms and which none of us quite escape.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 20, 2009)

What's narcissistic is the idea that only arteests have an ego.  Ego is ultimately what drives everyone, yet not everyone is a dick!

I used to get exquisitely annoyed when my old boss excused our head case art director's ridiculous behavior because he was "creative."

And the rest of us aren't?!

I hope someone shoots me if I ever turn into that kind of self-centered asshole!


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 20, 2009)

kid-surf @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> Ashermusic @ Fri Mar 20 said:
> 
> 
> > The dictionary definition of narcissism is: "Extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type."
> ...



I started as a performer. I was earning money as a semi-professional singer by the age of 9 and as a singing keyboard player by 13, a musicql director by 21. I simply loved to sing and perform. Did I like the applause and approval? Sure. Did I crave it? No.

I still perform sometimes. Do I like the applause and approval? Sure. Do I crave it? No.

I also do not believe well crafted art and good humanitarianism are mutually exclusive, which is why I do not believe one needs to be selfish to do both. Maybe if I were more selfish I would be more successful. Even if so, it is not a choice I would make.

Rabbi Hillel is talking about an approach to life. He did not expect anyone to be perfect in its practice but if that is not at least one's goal, one not turn out to be much of a human being.


----------



## kid-surf (Mar 20, 2009)

JohnG @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> Ashermusic @ 20th March 2009 said:
> 
> 
> > John, I do not maintain that "only experts can have opinions." I do however, maintain that an expert's opinion is worth more than a non-expert's.
> ...



I'm an elitist too, Jay. I wasn't disagreeing with you, just thinking aloud about what you said, though perhaps not as careful in what I said as I had intended. 

I meant to say that Eliot believed (as I remember) that the opinions of experts were the only ones that mattered, or at least the ones that should be given the most weight, so more in line with some of what you have maintained from time to time -- that it is arguably inappropriate to criticise the work of established artists unless one has reached a comparable level.

And to address Ray's question, "please define 'expert,'" I think it's very tough to define what an expert actually is. No doubt the reason for your point, Ray. At the extremes, perhaps it's easy -- John Donne was an expert poet, for example. John Adams is an expert composer. In both cases, they are / were creative artists who worked a long time at their craft and who created a fair amount of material that is widely admired by others who are knowledgeable in that craft.

I don't know how else to define expert. Some would include university professors who've studied poetry or music, but Eliot was very specifically arguing that, in the case of poetry, only another poet's evaluation could be considered conclusive and fully worthwhile, not that of a critic or professor. Only a practitioner, in other words, could evaluate another's work.

I am sympathetic, and would like to agree with Eliot, but then I've gained a lot of insight from non-composers about what I do, so it's hard for me to agree fully with him. Sometimes people who have no musical training at all will say something to me about wòàš   ™àš   ™àš   ™àš   ™àš   ™àš   ™àš   ™àš   ™àš   ™àš   ™ àš   ™!àš   ™"àš   ™#àš   ™$àš   ™%àš   ™&àš   ™'àš   ™(àš   ™)àš   ™*àš   ™+àš   ™,àš   ™-àš   ™.àš   ™/àš   ™0à›   ™§à›   ™¨à›   ™©à›   ™ªà›   ™«à›   ™¬à›   ™­à›   ™®à›   ™¯à›   ™°à›   ™±à›   ™²à›   ™³à›   ™´à›   ™µà›   ™¶à›   ™·à›   ™¸à›   ™¹à›   ™ºà›   ™»à›   ™¼à›   ™½à›   ™¾à›   ™¿à›   ™Àà›   ™Áà›   ™Âà›   ™Ãà›   ™Äà›   ™Åà›   ™Æà›   ™Çà›   ™Èà›   ™Éà›   ™Êà›   ™Ëà›   ™Ìà›   ™Íà›   ™Îà›   ™Ïà›   ™Ðà›   ™Ñà›   ™Òà›   ™Óà›   ™Ôà›   ™Õà›   ™Öà›   ™×à›   ™Øà›   ™Ùà›   ™Úà›   ™Ûà›   ™Üà›   ™Ýà›   ™Þà›   ™ßà›   ™àà›


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 20, 2009)

I think it's pretty simple what Jay's saying, Kid: if you haven't attained a certain level in music, your opinion isn't based on knowing what the hell you're talking about. You're as entitled to your likes and dislikes as much as anyone else, but there are going to be things you just don't hear because you don't have the intellectual attainment to recognize them.

The problem is when that works the other way - case in point, totally missing Bob Dylan because you can't get past his being out of tune.


----------



## synthetic (Mar 20, 2009)

In my high school band we used to play "Misunderstood Genius or Lucky Bastard?" You'd shout out a name and the band would vote. Bob Dylan always fared poorly. 

Jay gets the March 2009 "Prince Rogers Nelson Memorial Get Over Yourself" award.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 20, 2009)

Dylan's never done it for me, I have to say. He wasn't a great singer or a great guitarist, and his lyrics were either too deep or pretentiously meaningless for me to take notice.

However, I could say exactly the same about Jim Morrison, and I _absolutely adore him_.

So it all comes down to subjectivity. You either like him or you don't, simple as.

And I don't...... particularly.


----------



## kid-surf (Mar 20, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> I think it's pretty simple what Jay's saying, Kid: if you haven't attained a certain level in music, your opinion isn't based on knowing what the hell you're talking about. You're as entitled to your likes and dislikes as much as anyone else, but there are going to be things you just don't hear because you don't have the intellectual attainment to recognize them.
> 
> The problem is when that works the other way - case in point, totally missing Bob Dylan because you can't get past his being out of tune.



Nick -- this isn't only about music (re: what John expressed). What Jay is saying IS simple, too simple. My question is: What is this "certain level". Define it for us. Thus far it is vague and seems to be based on self-evaluation. If so, I'm not sure I'm ready to agree this is the definition of an "expert opinion", that's all...


----------



## kid-surf (Mar 20, 2009)

synthetic @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> In my high school band we used to play "Misunderstood Genius or Lucky Bastard?" You'd shout out a name and the band would vote. Bob Dylan always fared poorly.
> 
> Jay gets the March 2009 "Prince Rogers Nelson Memorial Get Over Yourself" award.



Which Jay? :lol:


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 20, 2009)

adrianallan @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> The argument has been made that in the case of Bob Dylan, his "X-Factor" overrides every one of his musical failings.



X-Factor? He's a great music writer. All the qualities of great composition are there: melody, harmony, form, rhythmic invention and innovation. That's not even counting lyrics where he was totally unique and masterful with greater depth than maybe any other songwriter of his time. And, an extraordinary guitar player! Just unconscious playing with great time and great feel. The guy is a monster and major musical figure and is going to be in all the music history books as such.

It may be that people here haven't really seen or heard the guy in his prime. You can't judge Paul MacCartney by Silly Little Love Songs, or the Stones by whatever their last single was or Muhammad Ali when he was older. Go to their premium output and then make the call.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 20, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> Still, I wouldn't want to be Dylan's neighbor.
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... ?track=rss



Well, that was news worthy! :lol: 

Got to love the corporate media!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&hl=e ... disf8&NR=1


----------



## Chrislight (Mar 20, 2009)

Just found this - speaks for itself... 8) 

"Throughout his career, Dylan has won many awards for his songwriting, performing, and recording. His records have earned Grammy, Golden Globe, and Academy Awards, and he has been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Nashville Songwriters Hall of Fame and Songwriters Hall of Fame. In 2008, a "Cultural Pathway" was named in Dylan's honor in his birthplace, Duluth. In 2008, he was awarded a Pulitzer Prize Special Citation for his "profound impact on popular music and American culture, marked by lyrical compositions of extraordinary poetic power."

That said, I am not a huge Bob Dylan fan myself - although during the 60's I could certainly appreciate the capability he had to infuse his music - along with some great lyrics - with the emotional expression of what was happening during those turbulent times. THAT is what drew people to him in my opinion and why he had such an impact on the culture. 

So again, it's not just about having technically perfect music and singing in tune.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Mar 20, 2009)

I still don't like him but can recognize the musical impact on society including grunge etc. Hendrix's rendition of Dylan's All Along the Watchtower was fairly significant in its day which I guess attributes to Dylan's song writing skills. But all in all, if Dylan is on the radio, I usually change the station to be honest.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 20, 2009)

kid-surf @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> Ashermusic @ Fri Mar 20 said:
> 
> 
> > kid-surf @ Fri Mar 20 said:
> ...



I do it because I like to perform, I am good at it, and they pay me, not because I crave applause and approval. Is that so difficult to track? 

And I did not self-describe as an elitist, John described me as such, and I said, if so, I could live with it.

As for the rest, Nick pretty much said it for me, so I will let that resonate with those it resonates with, and not with those it does not.

Kid as I said, I hope you are as talented as you say you are and I wish you success. I also hope that when/if you are successful, you turn out to be wiser than I believe you to be from the things you have written on this board, by and large.

And for the rest of you, why not spend less time pondering how good/not good successful people are and worry more about how good you are/are not.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 20, 2009)

Ashermusic @ Sat 21 Mar said:


> kid-surf @ Fri Mar 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Ashermusic @ Fri Mar 20 said:
> ...



Coo-ee! Talk about digression, not to mention deviation.

So what about Bob Dylan then, eh? Bit of a cool cat, wouldn't you say? :lol:


----------



## kid-surf (Mar 20, 2009)

> I do it because I like to perform...



Why? You haven't answered the question.



> Kid as I said, I hope you are as talented as you say you are...



Where did I say that? Quote me...



> ...and I wish you success.



Let's be honest, no you don't. 



> I also hope that when/if you are successful, you turn out to be wiser than I believe you to be from the things you have written on this board, by and large.



Ditto...

Then again, I don't presume to know every last thing about you based on a few opinionated comments in regards to a very narrow subject.



> And for the rest of you, why not spend less time pondering how good/not good successful people are and worry more about how good you are/are not.



More? Like 24 hours a day?

I love the "all or nothing mentality". How 'bout you worry about what's important to you and leave it at that. Otherwise I'm gonna need to see your badge.

BTW -- I wrote 10 pages today, 14 the day before that...and I fit surfing in.

*And please don't forget about your thread railing against the use of source cues where you called people's hard work "STUPID, OBNOXIOUS, practice of putting a bunch of DREADFUl...". You aren't as righteous as you presume. Though, you'll never admit it.


----------



## kid-surf (Mar 20, 2009)

BTW -- what did you get done today?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 20, 2009)

Freddie, I'm not saying everyone should *like* Dylan, just that you have to appreciate the depth of what he's done. With a few exceptions I don't really like musical theater, but I don't say it's shite.

Okay, so maybe I do. But I know it's not really. 

Jason, I believe Jay was talking about using songs instead of underscore in that thread, not source music.


----------



## midphase (Mar 20, 2009)

"...and I wish you success."

"Let's be honest, no you don't. "


I love it...that one is a classic!


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 20, 2009)

kid-surf @ Sat 21 Mar said:


> > I do it because I like to perform...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



...and so it came to pass, for as the battle raged on, the sour pungent stench of blood and death did rise as the sun bowed its head in resignation to the chaos that continued beneath him as the sky darkened......


----------



## midphase (Mar 20, 2009)

Hey you two....would you mind taking this back on the "smaller boxes" thread so that I can get my post count up?


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 20, 2009)

midphase @ Sat 21 Mar said:


> Hey you two....would you mind taking this back on the "smaller boxes" thread so that I can get my post count up?



Does that include me? Sorry mate!


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 20, 2009)

kid-surf @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> > I do it because I like to perform...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1. Why do I like performing? It's fun. The very act of singing and playing is joyful, even when I do it alone. When the people are responsive, that is icing on the cake, not the cake itself.

2. Several times you have alluded to the idea that you are creating better quality work than the typical Hollywood stuff. Does that not imply that you think you have talent? If you don't, then why the hell are you doing this?

3. OK, I am busted, I do not wish you success. Nor do I wish you failure, since I have no idea if you are any good or not. I only know that here you talk a lot, say little.

4. The page count is irrelevant if it is not good. If it is good, then that is indeed productive.

5. Re-read that thread. Notice that I did not mention a specific movie, specific writer, specific songwriter, etc. I only commented on the trend. In my mind at least, that is more admirable than dissing specific individuals or their work. I accept that most others here disagree with me about that.

I suspect you will now want to have the last word. Feel free.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 20, 2009)

Erm.... Yurrss! Anyway, as I was saying Bob Dylan..... yeah! Vibes man! Boy, could he strum.. 

Actually, on a serious note. I've always liked 'Rainy Day Woman'.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 20, 2009)

alphabetgreen @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> Erm.... Yurrss! Anyway, as I was saying Bob Dylan..... yeah! Vibes man! Boy, could he strum..
> 
> Actually, on a serious note. I've always liked 'Rainy Day Woman'.



"Highway 61 Revisited" is probably one of my 30 favorite pop/rock albums. Which gives me an idea....


----------



## Frederick Russ (Mar 20, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> Freddie, I'm not saying everyone should *like* Dylan, just that you have to appreciate the depth of what he's done. With a few exceptions I don't really like musical theater, but I don't say it's shite.
> 
> Okay, so maybe I do. But I know it's not really.



Okay - the next I hear Dylan I'll probably listen ten seconds longer before changing the station based on why I'm supposed to like him. Its historic - probably significant - and to be honest I still don't like him - but I will submit however that I think he did change the course of music and many in the rock world were influenced favorably by him including the Rolling Stones and the Beatles who then influenced many generations of musicians.


----------



## midphase (Mar 20, 2009)

Can we get someone who hasn't voted yet to vote on the poll just to break the tie?


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 20, 2009)

I guess if we had Dylan's lyrics, Leonard Cohen's tunes, and Art Garfunkel's voice, we'd have the makings of a superstar.


----------



## kid-surf (Mar 21, 2009)

> I suspect you will now want to have the last word. Feel free.



You say that as if the last word has somehow been granted exclusively to you. Nope, just responding to you. Pull out anytime you wish. I'm free to do the same.



> 1. Why do I like performing? It's fun. The very act of singing and playing is joyful, even when I do it alone. When the people are responsive, that is icing on the cake, not the cake itself.



You say "even when I do it alone" which implies that this should be surprising. If it's joyful alone why the need for an audience?



> 2. Several times you have alluded to the idea that you are creating better quality work than the typical Hollywood stuff. Does that not imply that you think you have talent? If you don't, then why the hell are you doing this?



Don't look now but your trick question is showing. So let me get this straight, I have no business doing this unless I feel I have talent, if so, I'm the bad guy. Interesting logic. I suppose there are a lot of 'bag guys' out there. 

Now I'll answer - Yes, I feel I'm creating better quality work than 'typical' Hollywood fare. Which is different than feeling one is better than ALL Hollywood fare. Using your logic we all feel we're doing better than typical or we'd be idiots for playing the game. I agree with you, one would be wasting our time if they felt they were average.



> 3. OK, I am busted, I do not wish you success. Nor do I wish you failure, since I have no idea if you are any good or not.



Honesty...feels liberating, eh? Well, using your logic you are therefore incapable of deciphering whether or not I'm any good, as you do not posses the necessary qualifications to be deemed an expert...which is likely the reason you aren't producing this movie and the experts are.



> I only know that here you talk a lot, say little.



And yet you still read what I say. Kinda' peculiar. I promise, there's no (virtual) gun to your head and there will be no test.



> 4. The page count is irrelevant if it is not good. If it is good, then that is indeed productive.



Is that an attempt at screenwriting 'expertise' or an obvious attempt to try and disqualify my work sight unseen (rhetorical question)? How can a person who's never written a script assume to enlighten me about screenwriting? Please reread your own words regarding expertise and the qualifications as such.

My last script was written in 4 weeks, the one before that, 2 weeks. I work fast, no apologies. The actual 'experts' liked them. Case closed.



> 5. Re-read that thread. Notice that I did not mention a specific movie, specific writer, specific songwriter, etc. I only commented on the trend. In my mind at least, that is more admirable than dissing specific individuals or their work.



Like...how you're dissing me and my work as an individual? Fascinating! 

You wrote that thread after viewing a "specific" film, of which you formed "specific" thoughts. Then you sought to disguise and camouflage your 'actual' thoughts. Hey, I didn't have them you did. You claim this is admirable. I file it under disingenuous.

Anyway...sure come after me, but let's have a look at what you're doing, too. You're the expert not me, what are you working on presently?


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 21, 2009)

adrianallan @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> > Okay, sorry for that assumption, but it sounded like .. maybe just to me Smile
> >
> > But I want you to ask again. Look at all those musicians:
> >
> ...



Again, I clearly understand and accept if someone doesn't like singer, songwriter, musician, composer, artist ... since it is always a matter of taste.

But you approach so much from the technical side.

By seeing all those things from that side, I repeat myself, it is like saying Picasso, Van Gogh, Munch etc. can't paint only becuase they approach a different style or their message is completely different from "copying reality".

Also you have to see another point. It is not for Dylan to make perfect voice, guitar playing of whatever. It is to deliver a message to the people. But all in all HOW he does it is unique thing. His mumbling, the not so pitched voice etc.

Sorry, but I can't even understand really why you compare Dylan to top notch musicians. It would be like to compare highly professional classical trained musicians to form a little group of 5 people and simply improvise. They can't even do it to like 80%. What are those musicians with all their skills cannot play right out of their heart???

Please go and if you don't own it already get the album "King of the Delta Blues" by Robert Johnson. If you don't feel anything by listening to it I honestly feel really sorry for you .. and just to add that, he does a lots of mistakes and wrong notes


----------



## adrianallan (Mar 21, 2009)

As I said before, it's a matter of degree.

I accept that Dylan has his own unique style. However, in his more recent performances, there is apparently no sense of pitch and zero clarity.

This is not in the same league as all the other performers you have quoted, who drop notes and whose style includes mistakes. At least the general flow and direction of the phrases is still there, but in Dylan's performances over the last 10 years, it's almost impossible to follow. 

Just imagine what his vocals would sound like isolated from his backing band - would they be painful to listen to ?

This is why Dylan should call it a day.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 21, 2009)

adrianallan @ Sat Mar 21 said:


> As I said before, it's a matter of degree.
> 
> I accept that Dylan has his own unique style. However, in his more recent performances, there is apparently no sense of pitch and zero clarity.
> 
> ...



Sorry, it's not a matter of degree. It is a matter of your personal taste. How can you generalize that pitch is the most important? For me not! I am more rhythm oriented, but I am not generalizing that playing off rhythm is the worst! I have a very fine ear and I can listen to MTV music videos, telling guitars are out of tune on very expensive music productions, but still.

For others it is the wrong notes. Some people don't like Jazz since they think the off notes are wrong?!? Some people don't like laid back playing, since they think it isn't right on time.

Again, Dylan uses music to tell his story, not to be THE perfect show off musician. You simply can't stand up and tell someone to shut off only because he may doesn't do it quite as well as professionally always Mr. Perfect in pitch tuned and playing studio session instrumentalist.


Again, get the Robert Johnson album ...


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 21, 2009)

i would not ascribe the term "genius" to Dylan and he cannot sing worth a spit but he can pen some memorable songs. I prefer other people covering his songs personally.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 21, 2009)

If you listen to Dylan _in his day_ singing in the FOLK genre the guy is killing! His phrasing, tone and command of the FOLK STYLE is incredible! Not only that but with innovations right and left from Writing, Singing, Playing, Lyrics or whatever. The guy is a freak - a true genius in the correct usage of the word.

So you don't agree with me or virtually all the great Rock artists of the 60's and 70's. I'm sorry but you don't get it. This is one serious deep cat who can sing and play the shit out of the guitar. I don't care if he's done crap for years anymore than I care about Wings. (I'm not saying he has cause I'm not familiar with what's he done since his heyday anymore than McCartney has since his.)

btw, there was no more attentive student or emulator of Bob Dylan than John Lennon. No one idolized him or covered him more than Hendrix. These guys know what a great songwriter and musician *is* my friends.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Mar 21, 2009)

For me, John Lennon, Bob Dylan, are artists in the word's profoundest meaning. It is meaningless to measure their impact, uniqueness, and legacy, with the kind of performance evaluation you would measure a run-of-the-mill talented instrumentalist. 

It reminds me of when John Fogerty was making a come-back effort after being off the scene for many years (because of nervous breakdown?). John Fogerty is a genious song-writer and an iconic person because the embodiment of "Americana" in his work. When interviewed about his come-back he nervously talks about that he never really was that a great guitar player, but now he has been practicing for a year and he thinks that the finally has become much better, so he doesn't have to feel bad about it. As if his genious and stardom would have anything to do with how technically skilled he was in his guitar playing...it appeared to be a deep insecurity he had, kind of like the insecurity John lennon had about his own singing capabilities.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 21, 2009)

Dave Connor @ Sat 21 Mar said:


> If you listen to Dylan _in his day_ singing in the FOLK genre the guy is killing! His phrasing, tone and command of the FOLK STYLE is incredible! Not only that but with innovations right and left from Writing, Singing, Playing, Lyrics or whatever. The guy is a freak - a true genius in the correct usage of the word.
> 
> So you don't agree with me or virtually all the great Rock artists of the 60's and 70's. I'm sorry but you don't get it. This is one serious deep cat who can sing and play the shit out of the guitar. I don't care if he's done crap for years anymore than I care about Wings. (I'm not saying he has cause I'm not familiar with what's he done since his heyday anymore than McCartney has since his.)
> 
> btw, there was no more attentive student or emulator of Bob Dylan than John Lennon. No one idolized him or covered him more than Hendrix. These guys know what a great songwriter and musician *is* my friends.



The work that McCartney did with the Beatles is legendary, all the way up to "Abbey Road" (a giant of an album). Unfortunately, his post-Beatles work never came close. I would also say the same about John Lennon (and the other two, come to think of it).


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 21, 2009)

The point I've tried to make and perhaps can make better now is that if you compile a list of great artists of the 20th century certain people just can't be left off. You may not like them for whatever reason but you are going to be in the minority of a very discerning crowd.

Jazz:
Miles Davis
Louis Armstrong

Country: 
Hank Williams
Patsy Kline

R+B/Funk:
Stevie Wonder
James Brown

Folk:
Bob Dylan
Woodie Guthrie

Rock:
Beatles
Stones

Classical: 
Stravinsky
Bartok

Film:
JG
JW


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 21, 2009)

The only one of those I'm not so sure about is the Stones. Everyone else, absolutely.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 21, 2009)

Funny Nick but that was the only one I thought twice about. It's their canon of work that throws them over I would think. Lots of great Rock and Roll going on there. But of that list they would be the one choice open for debate I would agree.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 21, 2009)

Since when does it make sense to argue over taste? Live and let live. The same for the other obsolete thread (the one with the disliked composers).

These are just provocations, a little stirring in the mud, no reason to get emotional about each other.


----------



## adrianallan (Mar 22, 2009)

It's far more than just a matter of taste. It's about evaluating artistic merits. 

Presumably if you had your way all art would be regarded as equal, and only distinguished by personal taste, and there would be no more reason to study Mozart on university syllabuses than there would Kylie Minogue. 

If we, as musicians and educators, can't collectively have some prioritising over these issues, we all fall into a dangerous world of cultural relativism. 

And where does that leave the next generation ?


----------



## adrianallan (Mar 22, 2009)

And not just about evaluating artistic merits...

but re-evaluating - and questioning received wisdom, which can sometimes be misguided:

Such a re-evaluation led to the re-emergence of the solo suites of JS Bach after their re-discovery by the cellist Pablo Casals.

And such a re-evaluation led to the re-discovery of Rachmaninov's First Symphony, a piece once considered a complete failure.

And in pop music, the elevation of Abba as great songwriters, after their status (at the time) as gaudy kitsch.

So that is why we need to re-evaluate and question received opinion.

And if you lose the power to *question *or *re-evaluate*, you open yourself to enslavement, from both a cultural and political standpoint.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 22, 2009)

Hi Dave,

Interesting post. I'd like to make some additions (and I agree about the Stones. Maybe The Who would have been a better choice).

Jazz - John Coltrane

Classical - Schoenberg, Hindemith, Debussy

n.b. As you said yourself, you may not like any of them, but in the classical field, Schoenberg, Hindemith, Debussy, Stravinsky and Bartok are the five main protagonists of the early 20th century that led their own completely new direction.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 22, 2009)

Hannes_F @ Sun 22 Mar said:


> Since when does it make sense to argue over taste? Live and let live. The same for the other obsolete thread (the one with the disliked composers).
> 
> These are just provocations, a little stirring in the mud, no reason to get emotional about each other.



Hannes, it's just a bit of light hearted fun. It is the weekend after all.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 22, 2009)

adrianallan @ Sun 22 Mar said:


> And not just about evaluating artistic merits...
> 
> but re-evaluating - and questioning received wisdom, which can sometimes be misguided:
> 
> ...




Couldn't agree more. Good examples too.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 22, 2009)

alphabetgreen @ Sun Mar 22 said:


> Hi Dave,
> Jazz - John Coltrane



Nah, but not "Giant Steps". Recording is terrible, lots of wrong notes and out of tune playing, especially from - was it Tommy Flanagan who played piano on that?

Didn't manage the chord changes since he didn't except to have the song written at tempo 694 bpm when he approached the session, totally sucked on the solo.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 22, 2009)

Waywyn @ Sun 22 Mar said:


> alphabetgreen @ Sun Mar 22 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Dave,
> ...



Alex, don't you 'Yes, but not 'Giant Steps' 8)


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 22, 2009)

alphabetgreen @ Sun Mar 22 said:


> Waywyn @ Sun 22 Mar said:
> 
> 
> > alphabetgreen @ Sun Mar 22 said:
> ...



Nah, let's say nah in general. Coltrane is playing wrong notes too. I actually know a guy who gifted me all of his Coltrane records (wasn't actually much) since he found the playing terriòá   ™Ò˜á   ™Ò™á   ™Òšá   ™Ò›á   ™Òœá   ™Òá   ™Òžá   ™ÒŸá   ™Ò á   ™Ò¡á   ™Ò¢á   ™Ò£á   ™Ò¤á   ™Ò¥á


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 22, 2009)

Nobody had tried to play anything that hard before then! That tune is still the one that separates the men from the boys (and girls).

And I think you have to focus on the almost spiritual intensity rather than on Tommy Flanagan playing wrong notes.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 22, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Mar 22 said:


> Nobody had tried to play anything that hard before then! That tune is still the one that separates the men from the boys (and girls).
> 
> And I think you have to focus on the almost spiritual intensity rather than on Tommy Flanagan playing wrong notes.



I think I should have used this smiley  instead of this one


----------



## kid-surf (Mar 22, 2009)

The folks who admire 'everything' are the same folks who create terrible art and don't recognize it as such. They are also the folks who work the least...or not at all, and complain the most about society not recognizing their genius (whether outwardly or internally).

The greats absolutely recognize(d) 'terrible', what THEY believed to be terrible. Yes, subjective. This is what allowed them to move beyond it in their own work.

The threshold must be set by first calibrating the internal barometer as to what is GREAT but also as to what is TERRIBLE. The more at odds the two are, the more room one deciphers in which growth may be pursued objectively. 

If the greats did NOT have an extremely high threshold as to where 'terrible' resides, they would have been satisfied with their own work much earlier on in their careers, whereby they would have plateaued never reaching the heights they did. Clearly.

One can respect an individual's efforts without admiring the results. At the same time, it really is only about the results...which, clearly, yes...it's subjective. That much is blatantly obvious. Having said that, there has got to be an Ultimate Truth out there in the universe about art that we've yet to decipher. This illusiveness is what (I believe) allows the majority of mankind to agree, or not, as to the creative value a work intrinsically possesses.

I've heard far too many phenomenal artists say to me, "one can learn far more from the art they consider to be terrible than the art they consider to be genius".

It's always clear why something is GREAT, it's not always clear why something is terrible, or mediocre, or just ok, etc. The irony is perhaps that even when we recognize greatness we sure as hell have a hard time matching it. Obviously that is not the only sort of lesson to seek out. 

Agreed, grow up! Or not.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 22, 2009)

Yeah, on the taste issue I think there's a point where objectively someone can be just plain wrong whatever the reason may be.

If a Jazz singer says I don't like Sinatra. A sax player says I don't like Michael Brecker playing at all. Or a Jazz pianist says I don't like Bill Evans playing. I mean there just missing the essence of something aren't they?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 22, 2009)

"there has got to be an Ultimate Truth out there in the universe about art that we've yet to decipher"

I don't think so. That's why it's different from a track meet or a basketball game.


----------



## choc0thrax (Mar 22, 2009)

Don't care for Dylan but I like how Bear McCreary has weaved "All Along the Watchtower" throughout two seasons of Battlestar Galactica.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WalRgIjH ... re=related


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 23, 2009)

kid-surf @ Mon Mar 23 said:


> But how about beyond that? You don't believe there is some greater purpose for art other than just "oh...neat"? I remember years ago scientists thought it may hold answers...don't know what ever became of that study or who it was conducted by.



Sorry, I edited my post, since I would like to ask differently.
What do you define art anyway? I mean it would be just humans doing that definition. Even if humanity gets over their current problems killing earth, they wouldn't be there in a few millions years anyway.

So if there would be an ultimate definition of art it would be just human-made, but totally senseless to other potentially beings throughout the universe.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 23, 2009)

Waywyn @ Mon 23 Mar said:


> kid-surf @ Mon Mar 23 said:
> 
> 
> > But how about beyond that? You don't believe there is some greater purpose for art other than just "oh...neat"? I remember years ago scientists thought it may hold answers...don't know what ever became of that study or who it was conducted by.
> ...



Maybe we should invite a couple more people in to discuss this Bob Dylan thread. (pause).... yeah, like Stephen Hawkins, or Wittgenstein maybe?


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 23, 2009)

alphabetgreen @ Mon Mar 23 said:


> Waywyn @ Mon 23 Mar said:
> 
> 
> > kid-surf @ Mon Mar 23 said:
> ...




Hehe, good one! 

Well, to get back to topic, the problem I have is Adrian is generalizing a personal matter of taste. Of course Dylan is not everybody's darling but so it is with almost every artist, musician, composer, singer, star.

No matter if he/she sings out of pitch, plays wrong notes, laid back, wrong intonation etc. .. pitch is NOT the worst or most important to care about. For other people other things are worse than only pitch. It is a personal matter, not a "mistake level issue". You simply can't say, wrong pitch is worse than laid back or rushing. I know people singing or playing in pitch but their instrument or voice vibrato drives me crazy. I would rather prefer to listen to a characteristing blues solo slightly out of tune


----------



## kgdrum (Mar 23, 2009)

well imo if someone happens to write several songs & albums that are remembered & discussed for close to 50 years and for many people defined a time or generation they are great creative artists, end of discussion.
you might not like the artists voice or lack of technical prowess but *millions* of other people do.
if the same artist also inspired many of the best performers of his time and changed the paradigm that spawned all of the artists that followed,how many people have made themselves such a place in musical history as Dylan?

he reached people with his songs,he touched an emotional nerve and people *remember the songs.*
many people who may have nicer voices or better chops will never be able to connect with the audience like Dylan has repeatedly over decades.

I have the song "like a rolling stone" in my head as I type this,I hear Bob's voice and it sounds beautiful to me! :D


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 23, 2009)

The irony of it is that Bob can sing very much in tune and with lovely tone when he chooses to. Listen to how well he sings "Lay Lady Lay" recorded back when there was no Autotune.

His off beat phrasing and disregard for pitch are a stylistic choice.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 23, 2009)

Kid, the point where my race analogy breaks down when you realize that saying there's no finish line is different from saying there's no baseline.


----------



## madbulk (Mar 23, 2009)

Dave Connor @ Sat Mar 21 said:


> The point I've tried to make and perhaps can make better now is that if you compile a list of great artists of the 20th century certain people just can't be left off. You may not like them for whatever reason but you are going to be in the minority of a very discerning crowd.
> 
> Jazz:
> Miles Davis
> ...



I don't see how you avoid the stones entry. I don't like the stones (or Dylan), and I like the who, but I'd have put stones on the list. Jazz choices are correct too. Similarly, Coltrane is my preference here too. But that begs Parker, different eras, etc. The list is "perfect," except maybe in that it has a film music category at all.
So, point well taken.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 23, 2009)

I'm getting peed off with this thread now. Every time I get an e-mail from V.I Control, I keep thinking that it's gonna be someone helping me out with my reverb problem, only to find that it's another yap yap about bloody Dylan!


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 23, 2009)

alphabetgreen @ Mon Mar 23 said:


> I'm getting peed off with this thread now. Every time I get an e-mail from V.I Control, I keep thinking that it's gonna be someone helping me out with my reverb problem, only to find that it's another yap yap about bloody Dylan!



Wow, now I feel guilty replying 

How about spare one click and unsubscribe to this thread instead of writing you are peed off. Life can be so easy ...


----------



## re-peat (Mar 23, 2009)

Dave's list sadly overlooks Frank Zappa - surely one of the greatest musicians/composers/improvisers _of all time_ - but maybe that's because there really isn't any category to fit him into.

_


----------



## adrianallan (Mar 23, 2009)

At this point in the proceedings I would like to declare where I stand. 

You may have guessed that I exaggerated my initial stance for the sake of argument. This is permissible, as nobody starts a good debate by sitting on the fence. Plus it hurts your bum.

You have managed to convince me that although his technique may not be text-book, he has managed to influence thousands of other musicians.

However, I still believe that Dylan's strength lies in the words AND the music. I don't think it translates well to a classical medium, like the Beatles, because the music on its own is not all that interesting. 

However, Fool on the Hill sounds beautiful for strings, or piano and oboe, etc - because forgetting the words, it is still inherently beautiful. 

I don't think that in terms of pure music, devoid of lyrical content, Dylan would work the same way.

But then again (I hear you say), why should he, as you have to accept the whole package, and not just the dots on the page with Dylan - the music is inseparable from the performance.

Where I still remain unchanged is on the subject of Dylan today. I have heard that he plans another big tour with many dates in the UK. However, I will not change my view on this :

Dylan today is a sad shadow of his former self, and his vocals border on the unlistenable and his performance is detached and uncommitted. 

Even many of his fans have to agree - and if you need convincing of that listen again to my link in post 1.


----------



## lux (Mar 23, 2009)

re-peat @ Mon Mar 23 said:


> Dave's list sadly overlooks Frank Zappa - surely one of the greatest musicians/composers/improvisers _of all time_ - but maybe that's because there really isn't any category to fit him into.
> 
> _


Yeah, Zappa is unplaceable in a box.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 23, 2009)

re-peat @ Mon Mar 23 said:


> Dave's list sadly overlooks Frank Zappa - surely one of the greatest musicians/composers/improvisers _of all time_ - but maybe that's because there really isn't any category to fit him into.



Well my list was only cursory to show that there are some people who's place is assured in history.

These are just some people who will also be at the top:

Duke Ellington
Earl Scruggs
Elvis
Chuck Berry
Little Richard
Aretha Franklin
Brian Wilson

of course there are others


----------



## Hans Adamson (Mar 23, 2009)

Dave Connor @ Mon Mar 23 said:


> re-peat @ Mon Mar 23 said:
> 
> 
> > Dave's list sadly overlooks Frank Zappa - surely one of the greatest musicians/composers/improvisers _of all time_ - but maybe that's because there really isn't any category to fit him into.
> ...


Nice to see you mentioning Chuck Berry and Little Richard. Chuck Berry is a song-writing genius, and Little Richard is a personal favorite of mine.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 23, 2009)

Waywyn @ Mon 23 Mar said:


> alphabetgreen @ Mon Mar 23 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm getting peed off with this thread now. Every time I get an e-mail from V.I Control, I keep thinking that it's gonna be someone helping me out with my reverb problem, only to find that it's another yap yap about bloody Dylan!
> ...



I was trying to drop a hint that someone might help me out:

http://vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11970


----------



## alphabetgreen (Mar 23, 2009)

lux @ Mon 23 Mar said:


> re-peat @ Mon Mar 23 said:
> 
> 
> > Dave's list sadly overlooks Frank Zappa - surely one of the greatest musicians/composers/improvisers _of all time_ - but maybe that's because there really isn't any category to fit him into.
> ...



Wow! Lux, you sure look different!


----------



## adrianallan (Mar 30, 2009)

So now the voting has closed, it's exactly 50-50.

An interesting result; thanks to those who took part.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 30, 2009)

adrianallan @ Mon Mar 30 said:


> So now the voting has closed, it's exactly 50-50.
> 
> An interesting result; thanks to those who took part.



Sorry, I really don't want to bash around on that topic for too long, but as someone has mentioned before in that thread, I find the voting a bit off.

Between overrated (which is basically a nice word for "sucks, but made it") and genius is a lot of greyscale. If you would have created a third one with "Not really my cup of tea, but he surely was THE GUY considering his time", then I am convinced everyone would have voted that.


----------



## adrianallan (Mar 30, 2009)

I know what you mean.

However, I started the thread as an antidote to the many people who are prepared to claim that he is a genius, as there are here.

It is a legitimate question. Imagine being set an essay at school "Bob Dylan is a musical genius, discuss". You have to conclude one way or another, but if the answer is no, then you might be entitled to elaborate by saying, "not a genius, but unique in his own way". 

However, polls are not essays, and the conclusion is more crude. 

It's like ending the essay with a one word "no" and not saying why.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 31, 2009)

adrianallan @ Mon Mar 30 said:


> I know what you mean.
> 
> However, I started the thread as an antidote to the many people who are prepared to claim that he is a genius, as there are here.



But when someone like John Lennon who will be recognized as a musical genius for centuries to come points to Bob Dylan (repeatedly and in every way: verbally, musically, lyrically) as influencing an entire musical period of his _(My Dylan Period)_ it really makes one wonder.
What did Lennon and so many others hear in Dylan that they can't?


----------

