Moshe

OH DEAR
That really is awful

__________________
http://moshe55.hubpages.com/

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=...2962343424893- listen to & enjoy music!

TockTockTock

Why does Dylan receive so much hype and praise for his music?

I realize this sounds a bit condescending, but I genuinely want to know...

blastingas10

Because he was great. He was a great lyricist. He was a poet. He inspired just about all the greats, such as the beatles and jimi hendrix and even blues greats like freddie king. He was the greatest protest singer and political songwriter of all time. You have to understand the time period that dylan rose to fame in. The 60s were a very crazy time. His songs were the anthems of the civil rights movement and anti war movement. He even performed at the famous march on washington where martin luther king would give his greatest speech.

He revolutionized perceptions of the limits of popular music. He defied existing popular music conventions. He added lyrical depth to rock n roll, which really didnt exist before him. Dylan has both amplified and personalized musical genres. His recording career, spanning fifty years, has explored numerous distinct traditions in American song—from folk, blues and country to gospel, rock and roll, and rockabilly, to English, Scottish, and Irish folk music, embracing even jazz and swing. Hes also very underrated as a musician. He didnt suck at guitar like some tend to think, he actually was pretty good. He was a good harmonica player, organist and pianist. Trust me, ive seen him live. I couldnt believe how good he was at the organ and harmonica, most of his records dont do him justice as an instrumentalist; mainly because his music is all about his words.

You wanted an answer, here you go.

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

A) Everything Dylan did was folk norm. The lyrics, the sound was pioneered by people like Woody Guthrie(Who was inspired by the songbook of countless unheard of songwriters in America since the 1800s.). Dylan did NOTHING that hasn't been done ten thousand times over.

B) Yes, sixties were the time when protest was a trend. So, all of the protester sing-songwriters before him could be considered having a tougher gig.

C) Anything he has explored beyond generic folk and rock probably can be attributed later in his career after his spotlight, and yes, when you have enough money to hire any producer, and musicians you can pull off any type of music, you don't even have to write it.

D) His lyrics continually use "Sky Die Lie" rhyme schemes. He writes songs about getting stoned, and hating Vietnam at the time where any two bit hack could wow people with such content.

E) I don't care who he influenced. If you ignore the massive folk tradition that influenced every aspect of him, you don't realize how dispensable he is.

He was a poppy trend that fed people the opinions they wanted, without an iota of subtlety, the way that was in the fashion at the time. Not a revolutionary in any regard.

__________________
Al Pacino = God

blastingas10

Thanks for the insight. I disagree with everything you said. Everything he did was folk norm? absolutely wrong. I dont ignore the massive folk tradition that influenced him, i love folk music. folk was his first type of music, not his only. He pioneered the folk rock genre. He writes about a lot more than getting stoned and vietnam; that statement proves your ignorance on this subject. Tell this to Hendrix, tell it to john lennon. Both are musicians of a much higher caliber than you are. Thanks for your opinion, youre entitled to it. You probably think hendrix and lennon were just poppy trends. Skie die lie? I dont know what songs you are listening to.

Howard the Duck

i don't think anybody will aver to the fact that he is a total original, he said himself all his melodies are "borrowed" from other songs, and you can hear this even in his latest material

it's just he stamped his own trademark over whatever melodies he "borrowed" and that's good anough

lots of people can imitate, but none can make what they imitate their own sound

__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

blastingas10

Youre right, but i wouldnt say that all of his melodies were borrowed. Some, yes. But saying that ALL of them were, thats saying a lot. He wrote so many songs, not every one of them was borrowed. But isnt that what just about everyone does? they take something that has been done and something that inspired them, and they put their own stamp on it.

Lets look at this quote.

"Everything Dylan did was folk norm. The lyrics, the sound was pioneered by people like Woody Guthrie(Who was inspired by the songbook of countless unheard of songwriters in America since the 1800s.). Dylan did NOTHING that hasn't been done ten thousand times over."

If you look at it this way, then who didnt do something that had been done? Everyone was inspired by someone that came before them. I guess Robert Johnson, BB King and Stevie Ray Vaughan were all just doing something that had been done "ten thousand times over." I guess just about every musician has been doing something that has been done "ten thousand times over." This certainly isnt the case. As i said at the beginning of this post, musicians and artists alike take things that have been done and things that inspired them, and they put their own stamp on it.

Folk is where Dylan got his start. He put folk on the map. Dylan Initially modeled his writing style on the songs of Woody Guthrie, but he added increasingly sophisticated lyrical techniques to the folk music of the early 60s, infusing it with the intellectualism of classic literature and poetry. Not all of his lyrics were in the folk fashion. He moved away from the protest songs and went on to something different. He referred to them as "finger pointing songs", and he no longer wanted to be a part of it. So, to say that all his lyrics were pioneered by Guthrie is false. Dylan was something in his own right.

Professor of poetry at the Univeristy of Oxford, Christopher Ricks, published a 500-page analysis of Dylan's work, placing him in the context of Eliot, Keats and Tennyson, and claiming that Dylan was a poet worthy of the same close and painstaking analysis. Former British poet laureate, Andrew Motion, argued that Bob Dylan's lyrics should be studied in schools.

TockTockTock

Stevie Ray Vaughan... yes, but Robert Johnson invented so many guitar chords and techniques that it would be foolish to say that. Needless to say, Dylan didn't really do anything unique or innovative (unlike Johnson). Does that mean he made terrible music? Of course not, but that certainly doesn't make him the god that people made him out to be.


Folk has been around for hundreds of years... I'm pretty sure it has been on the "map" for a while now.

That's great news, but... here's the thing: being a versatile poet does not make one a versatile musician. For me, music comes first... lyrics come second (if the music even has lyrics).

At the moment, I view Dylan as I view Nirvana... They both popularized the genres they worked with, and they are both hyped to death by the media. However, I would love to have my mind changed, though (it's just unlikely).

Sneer

People don't make him out to be a god for his musicianship so much, though I think he's a great musician.

It's his lyricism. When considering the social and political context of some of his releases, they become hugely significant. He gave a voice to people who felt they didn't have one. His words have the capacity to communicate with everybody on some level, which is one hell of an achievement I say.

Also, he is a hugely influential musician, The Beatles, Byrds, Fairport Convention... All, to name a few, indebted to him in some way or another.

__________________
Fright Team radio show

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

How can you 'pioneer' lyrics? You're missing the point with the Guthrie comparison. My point is, Dylan just fit with the times. He was not better, or worse, and nowhere near as pioneering. And Guthrie got everything he did from Leadbelly(Whom he lived with many years studying from, Dylan would later study Guthrie):



/\ 1942. Then again, being a black man in the 40s doing protest songs doesn't have the same appeal as a scruffy haired young white man in the 60s doing protest songs, does it?

Then again, this style of music dates back to the freaking civil war:

Civil War Music: The Rebel Soldier

Both sides made songs like things, and from what I can tell, there some that date back even to the Mexican American war, and earlier.

Dylan was not doing anything new, really...

Just a vanity project to somebody who probably had a boyhood fantasy, and wanted to shock intellectuals all the time. Sometimes highly educated people have self indulgent vanity projects. May I refer you to a book I read just recently called 'Michelle Remembers' written by a credited psychatrist who tried to convince me that a five year old girl was kidnapped by a rape cult that would crawl on 4 legs, and tear cats to pieces with their teeth, transform people into devils, etc.

This is a suitable answer. I can't disagree. Not filled with ridiculous hyperbole like Dylan being the sole harbinger of intellect in rock n' roll.

Dylan shouldn't even be accredited for being an inventor when he was obviously more a preserver. I honestly think he was a regressive preserver more than a progressive reserver, anyway. Again, I think the advantage of Bob Dylan was, as mentioned before with the 60s comment, time and place.

__________________
Al Pacino = God