Bob Dylan

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra · 09-27-2011, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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...

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu

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.

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.

blastingas10 · 09-27-2011, 11:51 PM

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.

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra · 09-28-2011, 12:50 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

TockTockTock · 09-29-2011, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

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.

He popularized American folk music, and he helped create folk rock.

Quote:

I did not say that Dylan pioneered lyrics

No, I think he helped bring abstractions to lyricism in modern music. I see that as a somewhat sizable contribution... especially since it became popular shortly after his inclusion of them.

However, if we're going to talk about pioneers in lyricism, I feel that The Velvet Underground (whose frontman was actually heavily influenced by Dylan) were much more important. They brought both intelligence and "forbidden" subject matters to rock, and this was around the same time that Dylan started to (1965).

Quote:

I said he pioneered depth in song lyrics by adding the intellectualism of classic literature and poetry.

Can you please share with us some examples of this?

Quote:

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.

I agree, but being a decent lyricist doesn't make you a decent musician.

Quote:

There wasnt any rock n roll that sounded anything like the rock n roll that Dylan was making.

You know what... I think you might be right. While his "regressive preservation" of folk music is down-heartening, he certainly helped change rock's sound (for better or for worse).

Quote:

He unquestionably added lyrical depth and intelligence to the music. If he didnt, tell me who did.

I think Leonard Cohen did a much better job, but Dylan was certainly one of the first.

Quote:

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

There's no such thing as "good" music. Since music is an art form, one's interpretation of it is entirely subjective. Also, being condescending on this website won't get you very far, my friend.

Howard the Duck · 09-29-2011, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Pat

He popularized American folk music, and he helped create folk rock.

he actually started out ripping off British folk before American folk as "his own songs". the debut was all covers

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Pat

I agree, but being a decent lyricist doesn't make you a decent musician.

i think he was a great finger-picker and a decent blues guitarist (you can only hear one instance of this on Leopard Skin Pill-Box Hat cos that was the only blues song he soloed upon)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Pat

There's no such thing as "good" music. Since music is an art form, one's interpretation of it is entirely subjective. Also, being condescending on this website won't get you very far, my friend.

ah, but oh so subjective

blastingas10 · 09-29-2011, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Pat

He popularized American folk music, and he helped create folk rock.

No, I think he helped bring abstractions to lyricism in modern music. I see that as a somewhat sizable contribution... especially since it became popular shortly after his inclusion of them.

However, if we're going to talk about pioneers in lyricism, I feel that The Velvet Underground (whose frontman was actually heavily influenced by Dylan) were much more important. They brought both intelligence and "forbidden" subject matters to rock, and this was around the same time that Dylan started to (1965).

Can you please share with us some examples of this?

I agree, but being a decent lyricist doesn't make you a decent musician.

You know what... I think you might be right. While his "regressive preservation" of folk music is down-heartening, he certainly helped change rock's sound (for better or for worse).

I think Leonard Cohen did a much better job, but Dylan was certainly one of the first.

There's no such thing as "good" music. Since music is an art form, one's interpretation of it is entirely subjective. Also, being condescending on this website won't get you very far, my friend.

Yes he did help create folk rock, more than anyone else. The Byrds are seen as the pioneers of Folk Rock and they owe a lot of their fame to Dylan. I cant think of anyone who covered more Dylan songs than the Byrds. The term "folk rock" was itself first coined by the U.S. music press to describe The Byrds' music in June 1965, the same month that the band's debut album was issued. The release of The Byrds' cover version of Dylan's "Mr. Tambourine Man" and its subsequent commercial success initiated the folk rock explosion of the mid-1960s

The Velvet underground was great. Its pretty apparent that Lou Reed was influenced by Dylan. You can hear it in his vocal style. However, I dont think he was better than Dylan. I dont think they more important either. As you said, Reed was heavily influenced by Dylan.

I dont need to provide examples. Just listen to the music, read the lyrics. Its a fact that Dylan was very influenced by classic poets. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize in literature every year since 1996. The only thing keeping him from winning is the fact some people dont think song lyrics are poetry. But there is no question that the two are linked.

"I don't think there's anybody that uses words better than he does," said Christopher Ricks, Professor of poetry at Oxford University and the author of highly regarded works of literary criticism such as "The Force of Poetry" and "Allusion to the Poets," as well as books on T.S. Eliot, Lord Alfred Tennyson and John Keats.

"But I think his is an art of a mixed medium," Ricks said. "I think the question would not be whether he deserves (the Nobel Prize) as an honor to his art. The question would be whether his art can be described as literature."

"Dylan is a major American bard and minstrel of the 20th century" who deserves the award for his "mighty and universal powers," Allen Ginsberg wrote in his Nobel Prize nomination letter.

Dylan was more than a decent lyricist. If he was decent, then give me an example of a better one, besides Lou Reed and Leonard Cohen. Leonard Cohen is the one guy that I will say was better than Dylan, and im not even sure that he was better. I prefer Dylan. Lou Reed is close, but I wont say hes better.

He was also more than a decent musician. His songs focus on his lyrics, not his musicianship. He was a good finger picker and he could hold his own on the organ, piano and harmonica. Ive seen him live and I couldnt believe how good he was at the organ and harmonica, simply because his records dont display his skill as an instrumentalist. He was doing some soloing on
his harmonica when I saw him and it was great. I was very surprised by how good he was.

the first 30 seconds of soloing in this song is Dyan. Its not amazing, but its not bad by any means. He never was a lead guitarist. Actually, its pretty difficult to sing while doing some of his fingerpicking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dDHkRrJ9QE

Also, just about all of the lead guitar playing on his unplugged album was done by him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJpB_AEZf6U

If youre not a Dyaln hater and you know of some good examples of his skill as an instrumentalist, please post them.

TockTockTock · 09-29-2011, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

Its pretty apparent that Lou Reed was influenced by Dylan. You can hear it in his vocal style.

I mainly hear it in Reed's way of emphasizing certain words. He still had a very unique voice for his time (despite Dylan's influence), and many alternative rock musicians would later mimic it in the 80s and early 90s.

Quote:

However, I dont think he was better than Dylan.

Neither do I. As far as solo careers go, Dylan has a much more successful one, while Reed only has a handful of decent albums (with the majority of the others being either average or absolute crap).

Quote:

I dont think they more important either. As you said, Reed was heavily influenced by Dylan.

Oh, I definitely think The Velvet Underground were more important, more innovative, and more creative than Dylan, but that's another discussion for another time. We could debate it all day if we wanted to, but... it wouldn't really go anywhere.

Quote:

I dont need to provide examples. Just listen to the music, read the lyrics. Its a fact that Dylan was very influenced by classic poets.

I'm just curious in whether or not he uses any allusions in referencing certain classical poets' work or which poets specifically influenced him. I'm not dismissing Dylan's versatility in lyricism in any shape or form.

Quote:

Dylan was more than a decent lyricist. If he was decent, then give me an example of a better one, besides Lou Reed and Leonard Cohen.

Aesop Rock and (maybe) Townes Van Zandt

blastingas10 · 09-29-2011, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Pat

I mainly hear it in Reed's way of emphasizing certain words. He still had a very unique voice for his time (despite Dylan's influence), and many alternative rock musicians would later mimic it in the 80s and early 90s.

Neither do I. As far as solo careers go, Dylan has a much more successful one, while Reed only has a handful of decent albums (with the majority of the others being either average or absolute crap).

Oh, I definitely think The Velvet Underground were more important, more innovative, and more creative than Dylan, but that's another discussion for another time. We could debate it all day if we wanted to, but... it wouldn't really go anywhere.

I'm just curious in whether or not he uses any allusions in referencing certain classical poet's work or which poets specifically influenced him. I'm not dismissing Dylan's versatility in lyricism in any shape or form.

Aesop Rock and (maybe) Townes Van Zandt

Dylan was influenced by Dylan Thomas(where he got the name "Dylan" from). T.S. Elliot, John Keats and William Blake just to name a few.

I will agree that the velvet underground were more experimental and innovative, but i dont think they were more important. Nobody can match Dylans level of influence except maybe the Beatles with the Velvet Underground shortly behind. I feel that its pretty safe to say that Dylan is the most influential artist of all time. The velvet underground werent even very popular in their day, it wasnt till later on down the road that they really got noticed. But that being said, The Velvet Underground were wayyyy ahead of their time and very very influential. Im a big fan. Townes Van Zandt was good but he was no Dylan in my opinion. What about Van Morrison? I think he was a great lyricist. Were pretty much seeing eye to eye here. We agree on most things being said.

TockTockTock · 09-29-2011, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

What about Van Morrison? I think he was a great lyricist. Were pretty much seeing eye to eye here. We agree on most things being said.

I haven't listened to enough of his music to give a valid opinion.