Okay, so when I first got Highway 61 four years ago, it seemed pretty cool and enjoyable. It also seemed genuinely revolutionary; mixing pop with poetry propaganda. But every time I listen to any of the five albums I own from him today (that, Blood on the Tracks, Bringin' it All Back Home, Blonde On Blonde, and Time Out of Mind), I'm genuinely bored.
His admittedly wonderful lyrics aside, what does Bob Dylan have to offer? I personally don't mind Bob's voice at all, but he's no Jeff Mangum. Meanwhile, 99% of the time his band is playing generic folk rock riffs. He's managed to make very good songs out of them (like "I Want You", "Subterranean Homesick Blues", "You're a Big Girl Now", and "Ballad of a Thin Man"), but almost everything on his early stuff is over a minute too long.
Bob Dylan isn't a bad artist, but I no longer understand what makes him any less of a rockist baby-boomer has-been than Pink Floyd or the Beatles (who I love).
What I want to know is, take away his grasp of the English language, and his cultural significance, and what is special about the music itself (including his voice).
Does anyone have an explanation?
Last edited by Applerill on 05/26/2013 19:07; edited 4 times in total
should we just bump the What is it with the Beatles thread to give an accurate preview of where this is likely headed (spoiler: a straight road to hell)
I'm sorry. Once again, it isn't that I hate him in any way. I just genuinely wonder how, with all the hate people put upon "rockist" touchstones like Pink Floyd and The Beatles and The Dead (which I all love) and Elvis, why is Bob Dylan not lumped in with them? Is it because of his "dada" influence and cultural commentary?
I like a lot of his songs, but it sometimes seems like his image is put in place of the music.
I'll be first to admit that I don't really get it either (at least, not yet) but... I'll pray for your safety on this thread (this might induce the third world war) _________________ <--suddenly...Bora!
#BodyRollSwag
I see where you're coming from. It's hard to say exactly what sets him apart from an objective standpoint (and yes, objectivity does apply in this scenario because we're trying to explain why he appeals to so many), though I would guess his cultural impact as well as his influence on other musical acts has a lot to do with it. Pink Floyd gets hate because they take themselves waaaaaaaaaay too seriously on everything that came after Wish You Were Here, and The Beatles get hate because they became famous from singing bubblegum pop and still managed to become legendary (and even the music from the good part of their career has been overplayed to the point of being annoying). As for Elvis, well, I just think his music sounds incredibly dated, even if I do appreciate its importance at the time.
His admittedly wonderful lyrics aside (which technically shouldn't be considered according to music theory) what does Bob Dylan have to offer that Josh Groban doesn't? I personally don't mind Bob's voice at all, but he's no Jeff Mangum. Meanwhile, 99% of the time his band is playing generic folk rock riffs. He's managed to make very good songs out of them (like "I Want You", "Subterranean Homesick Blues", "You're a Big Girl Now", and "Ballad of a Thin Man"), but he's never made a song as good as "Call Me Maybe". And before you bring up "Tangled Up in Blue", remember that Half Japanese did it a million times better.
And of course, compared to The Beatles, Frank Zappa, or Syd Barrett, his production is completely stiff.
Bob Dylan isn't a bad artist, but I no longer understand what makes him any more than a rockist baby-boomer has-been.
Does anyone have an explanation?
I'm sorry. I find the bolded statements above to be simply ridiculous. Jeff Mangum is a one album fluke whose one album worth hearing is so blown out of proportion on this site it's ridiculous. To even mention Mangum in the same breath as Dylan comparison wise is...insulting, for lack of a better word. What does Dylan have to offer that Josh Groban doesn't? Songs. Longeviety. Something to say. The ability to make quality album after quality album. The ability to make a non-traditional voice actually work. Comparing a classicfally trained vocalist to ANYONE in rock or pop is simply unfair. And if you hate Dylan's voice, then you simply don't get him. Too bad, because he should be at the top of your list of artists you could really learn a thing or a thousand from.
If you find a speck of merit in that 1/2 Japanese track I'm stunned, especially after slamming Dylan for his voice. If you're seriously claiming that it should be mentioned in the same universe as Dylan's version (much less "a million times better"? PAH.
As for the last one, if I talked about a current-day artist like that, I'd be blasted off this board for being a complete, closed minded asshole. The under legal drinking age crowd here throws around insulting terms like "rockist" and "dadrocker" like they're nothing, but God forbid anyone older says a damn thing negative about an artist who came out in this century. "Rockist baby-boomer has-been"? That's simply idiotic. And, as you would say if I said that about one of your favorites, again, insulting.
Credibility = 0. _________________ May we all get to heaven
'Fore the devil knows we're dead...
Guys, I said I DIDN'T MIND his voice. I just said that I didn't find it legendary, either.
And this post was simply asking a question: What
is it in his music that sets him apart from any other male singer-songwriter? Sorry, Romanelli, but aside from something about consistency, you really didn't mention his sound at all.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
<--suddenly...Bora!
