Bob Dylan

Howard the Duck · 09-27-2011, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Pat

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.

I don't think Johnson invented anything "new" rather than play the same ole stuff differently

if you listen to other blues musicians of that era - Charley Patton, Blind Lemon Jefferson, Blind Willie McTell, they don't sound ALL that different

heck, even Leadbelly has somewhat a similar sound to Johnson

granted that of course, Johnson was a virtuoso as compared to the others (selling his soul to the devil and whatnot)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Pat

[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).

i don't think they're "over-hyped" at all - it's just Dylan put out as much crap as he did gems

i can't say anything about Cobain cos he's short-lived, but if he had stuck with the Bleach-sound and actually popularised that instread of coming out with Nevermind, people wouldn't go around saying Nirvana's a Pixies rip-off

blastingas10 · 09-28-2011, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes folk music had been around for a long time. But Dylan did put it on the map, he popularized it more than any other folk artist before him and he is responsible for the development of folk rock.

Really, It was just a childhood fascination? How do you figure? Considering that Professor Christopher Ricks was born 8 years before Bob Dylan, I think it was more than a childhood fascination. You think the professor of poetry at Oxford University knows a little more about poetry than you do? Maybe, just maybe.

I did not say that Dylan pioneered lyrics. I said He pioneered depth in song lyrics by adding the intellectualism of classic literature and poetry. I dont think you seem to understand that protest songs made up only a small fraction of his career. He was tired of writing them after a few years. He went in a different direction after that and that is when he became really unique. Its pretty obvious that Dylan was on another level of writing than Woody Guthrie was. It is evident when you compare their lyrics. Dylan was much more poetic. Everything you say leads me to believe that you know very little about Dylans music. Listen to Rock n roll before Dylan and then listen to it after him. There is no way you can tell me that you cant see a difference. There wasnt any rock n roll that sounded anything like the rock n roll that Dylan was making. His unique sound was obvious. He unquestionably added lyrical depth and intelligence to the music. If he didnt, tell me who did.

"The thing about rock'n'roll is that for me anyway it wasn't enough ... There were great catch-phrases and driving pulse rhythms ... but the songs weren't serious or didn't reflect life in a realistic way. I knew that when I got into folk music, it was more of a serious type of thing. The songs are filled with more despair, more sadness, more triumph, more faith in the supernatural, much deeper feelings." - Bob Dylan

I think that is pretty accurate.

You continue to think that Dylans entire career was just a rip off of Woody Guthrie. Dylans music was based on traditional folk for only around 4 years. He went electric in 1965. It was becoming clear as soon as 1963 when he released The freewheelin Bob Dylan that he was moving away from protest songs with songs such as Girl from the North country. And then by the release of Another side of Bob Dylan in 1964, it was evident that he was done with the protest songs. So, really, Dylan stuck to the traditional folk sound for only around 3 years.

George Harrison speaks about Dylans album The Freewheelin Bob Dylan:

"We just played it, just wore it out. The content of the song lyrics and just the attitude—it was incredibly original and wonderful."

Let me throw out some more musicians that covered Dylan songs and were influenced by him.

The Animals, The Band, The Beach Boys, Jeff Beck, The Black crowes, The Byrds, Johnny Cash, Nick Cave, Eric Clapton, Duke Ellington, The Flying Burrito Brothers, The Grateful Dead, Jimi Hendrix, The Beatles, Neil Young.

The list goes on. I suppose none of these people know anything about music or have the ability to recognize good music.

Howard the Duck · 09-28-2011, 01:06 AM

^^the protest movement was just something Dylan latched on

he was never all that sincere in it, he admitted it himself in Chronicles Vol. 1, I think

blastingas10 · 09-28-2011, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Il Duce

^^the protest movement was just something Dylan latched on

he was never all that sincere in it, he admitted it himself in Chronicles Vol. 1, I think

Exactly.

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra · 09-28-2011, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

Yes folk music had been around for a long time. But Dylan did put it on the map, he popularized it more than any other folk artist before him and he is responsible for the development of folk rock.

Really, It was just a childhood fascination? How do you figure? Considering that Professor Christopher Ricks was born 8 years before Bob Dylan, I think it was more than a childhood fascination. You think the professor of poetry at Oxford University knows a little more about poetry than you do? Maybe, just maybe.

I did not say that Dylan pioneered lyrics. I said He pioneered depth in song lyrics by adding the intellectualism of classic literature and poetry. I dont think you seem to understand that protest songs made up only a small fraction of his career. He was tired of writing them after a few years. He went in a different direction after that and that is when he became really unique. Its pretty obvious that Dylan was on another level of writing than Woody Guthrie was. It is evident when you compare their lyrics. Dylan was much more poetic. Everything you say leads me to believe that you know very little about Dylans music. Listen to Rock n roll before Dylan and then listen to it after him. There is no way you can tell me that you cant see a difference. There wasnt any rock n roll that sounded anything like the rock n roll that Dylan was making. His unique sound was obvious. He unquestionably added lyrical depth and intelligence to the music. If he didnt, tell me who did.

"The thing about rock'n'roll is that for me anyway it wasn't enough ... There were great catch-phrases and driving pulse rhythms ... but the songs weren't serious or didn't reflect life in a realistic way. I knew that when I got into folk music, it was more of a serious type of thing. The songs are filled with more despair, more sadness, more triumph, more faith in the supernatural, much deeper feelings." - Bob Dylan

I think that is pretty accurate.

You continue to think that Dylans entire career was just a rip off of Woody Guthrie. Dylans music was based on traditional folk for only around 4 years. He went electric in 1965. It was becoming clear as soon as 1963 when he released The freewheelin Bob Dylan that he was moving away from protest songs with songs such as Girl from the North country. And then by the release of Another side of Bob Dylan in 1964, it was evident that he was done with the protest songs. So, really, Dylan stuck to the traditional folk sound for only around 3 years.

George Harrison speaks about Dylans album The Freewheelin Bob Dylan:

"We just played it, just wore it out. The content of the song lyrics and just the attitude—it was incredibly original and wonderful."

Let me throw out some more musicians that covered Dylan songs and were influenced by him.

The Animals, The Band, The Beach Boys, Jeff Beck, The Black crowes, The Byrds, Johnny Cash, Nick Cave, Eric Clapton, Duke Ellington, The Flying Burrito Brothers, The Grateful Dead, Jimi Hendrix, The Beatles, Neil Young.

The list goes on. I suppose none of these people know anything about music or have the ability to recognize good music.

Three words: Rose Tinted Glasses

Sneer · 09-28-2011, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Il Duce

I don't think Johnson invented anything "new" rather than play the same ole stuff differently

if you listen to other blues musicians of that era - Charley Patton, Blind Lemon Jefferson, Blind Willie McTell, they don't sound ALL that different

heck, even Leadbelly has somewhat a similar sound to Johnson

granted that of course, Johnson was a virtuoso as compared to the others (selling his soul to the devil and whatnot)

i don't think they're "over-hyped" at all - it's just Dylan put out as much crap as he did gems

i can't say anything about Cobain cos he's short-lived, but if he had stuck with the Bleach-sound and actually popularised that instread of coming out with Nevermind, people wouldn't go around saying Nirvana's a Pixies rip-off

One of the things that sets Dylan apart from his contemporaries is the consistent quality of his albums, certainly up to the 1980s, with only the odd blip like Self Portrait.

If Nirvana had stuck with the Bleach sound, the band almost certainly would not have become as revered as it is. Nevermind and In Utero display a greater focus on songwriting and lyricism, which ultimately is what made Cobain such a significant figure in the social context of the early 90s. It's what he communicated to the youth that made the music so appealing, not how distorted and loud he could make his riffs. In this sense, you could view Dylan and Nirvana in a similar light. The Pixies-rip off thing is just lazy journalism/elitism at the end of the day, if you're playing that card, you could just as easily call Bleach a Melvins-rip off.

Anyway, back to Dylan.

Howard the Duck · 09-28-2011, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu

One of the things that sets Dylan apart from his contemporaries is the consistent quality of his albums, certainly up to the 1980s, with only the odd blip like Self Portrait.

If Nirvana had stuck with the Bleach sound, the band almost certainly would not have become as revered as it is. Nevermind and In Utero display a greater focus on songwriting and lyricism, which ultimately is what made Cobain such a significant figure in the social context of the early 90s. It's what he communicated to the youth that made the music so appealing, not how distorted and loud he could make his riffs. In this sense, you could view Dylan and Nirvana in a similar light. The Pixies-rip off thing is just lazy journalism/elitism at the end of the day, if you're playing that card, you could just as easily call Bleach a Melvins-rip off.

Anyway, back to Dylan.

i have made several allegations to that effect, but at least it's closer to true "grunge" than Nevermind or In Utero are

(playing the elitist card again)

blastingas10 · 09-28-2011, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu

One of the things that sets Dylan apart from his contemporaries is the consistent quality of his albums, certainly up to the 1980s, with only the odd blip like Self Portrait.

If Nirvana had stuck with the Bleach sound, the band almost certainly would not have become as revered as it is. Nevermind and In Utero display a greater focus on songwriting and lyricism, which ultimately is what made Cobain such a significant figure in the social context of the early 90s. It's what he communicated to the youth that made the music so appealing, not how distorted and loud he could make his riffs. In this sense, you could view Dylan and Nirvana in a similar light. The Pixies-rip off thing is just lazy journalism/elitism at the end of the day, if you're playing that card, you could just as easily call Bleach a Melvins-rip off.

Anyway, back to Dylan.

Youre right. Dylan was very consistent, self portrait was his only bad album for a long time. Its been said that Dylan released it as a joke, which is believable, considering the next album he released was the great New Morning. Self Portait consisted mostly of covers, which is a very unusual thing for Dylan.

I agree with your comparison of Dylan and Nirvana. I think Kurt was a good lyricist. Youre right about his focus on songwriting and lyrics with the Nevermind and In Utero albums. I think both of those albums were great. I dont see how Nirvana could be a rip off of the Pixies. I completely disagree with that. Like you said, just lazy journalism, or some jealous Pixies fans. I think Nirvana was better.

I dont see what more is left to be said about Dylan. It seems that the main Dylan hater doesnt have much left to say.

Whats your favorite Dylan album?

Sneer · 09-28-2011, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

Youre right. Dylan was very consistent, self portrait was his only bad album for a long time. Its been said that Dylan released it as a joke, which is believable, considering the next album he released was the great New Morning. Self Portait consisted mostly of covers, which is a very unusual thing for Dylan.

I agree with your comparison of Dylan and Nirvana. I think Kurt was a good lyricist. Youre right about his focus on songwriting and lyrics with the Nevermind and In Utero albums. I think both of those albums were great. I dont see how Nirvana could be a rip off of the Pixies. I completely disagree with that. Like you said, just lazy journalism, or some jealous Pixies fans. I think Nirvana was better.

I dont see what more is left to be said about Dylan. It seems that the main Dylan hater doesnt have much left to say.

Whats your favorite Dylan album?

The Dylan/Nirvana comparison can only be made to a very restricted degree in that, not only were their styles completely different, you cannot possibly compare a band that released 3 studio albums to a guy that has been releasing albums, many of them great, for nigh on 50 years. They just served the same purpose and had the same impact contextually. It's all relative.

I also don't think Nirvana were better than Pixies, but that's for a different thread.

And it's a toss up between The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan, The Basement Tapes and Blood on the Tracks!

blastingas10 · 09-28-2011, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu

The Dylan/Nirvana comparison can only be made to a very restricted degree in that, not only were their styles completely different, you cannot possibly compare a band that released 3 studio albums to a guy that has been releasing albums, many of them great, for nigh on 50 years. They just served the same purpose and had the same impact contextually. It's all relative.

I also don't think Nirvana were better than Pixies, but that's for a different thread.

And it's a toss up between The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan, The Basement Tapes and Blood on the Tracks!

youre right, they are nothing alike. I never said they were. I was agreeing with the point you made in the previous post, that they both spoke to a generation.

As for my favorite Dylan album, I dont even know. The Freewheelin and Blood on the Tracks are a couple of my favorites. But I would place New Morning and Planet Waves higher than them, they just might be my 2 favorites.