Jump to content

Bob Dylan (1941-), Lyricist and Troubadour from Minnesota, and 2016 Nobel Prize Winner for Literature


The Hersch

Recommended Posts

On 10/30/2014 at 5:33 PM, DonRocks said:

But I suspect there's plenty of money to be made from a new generation of people (think The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Elvis Presley, etc.; or, if you don't want to go there, The Doors, The Eagles, etc.)

One of these is not like the others. Bob Dylan continues to be a solidly productive artist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of these is not like the others. Bob Dylan continues to be a solidly productive artist.

This is one of those times when I can't say what I really think.

Ask Jon Karl about this one - he loves Dylan. Neal Young, too.

I guess it's what you grew up with - I used to like David Bowie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of those times when I can't say what I really think.

Ask Jon Karl about this one - he loves Dylan. Neal Young, too.

I guess it's what you grew up with - I used to like David Bowie.

I don't actually know what you're talking about, but look at this catalog. There's nothing comparable to that in the history of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Song literature. No one artist has produced a comparable body of song literature since the world began, and if you can name one who did I'll eat my headgear. Even if you don't like the songs, if it comes to that.

Well, you've got me at an inherent disadvantage because one of the few things *I* have to work with, with any degree of expertise, is opera, and I'm the first to admit that the vast majority of opera libretti is lame - so, you're going to have to drag me into the 20th century, and probably the late 20th century.

Thanks a lot.

In all seriousness, I've been meaning to look at some Dylan songs more closely - do you have any recommendations for me? Rather than quarrel over nothing, I'd like to try and learn something.

Also, in all seriousness, do you think it's fair to say that Dylan's lyrics are more topical than timeless? If not, then why does he have such a disproportionate white American male fan base over the age of 40? Or maybe I'm mistaken about this, but that's how it seems.

And I just now thought of a challenger for you: Serge Gainsbourg, and I suspect I can think of several others; they just won't be white Americans. Gainsbourg's lyrics are less political and more overtly sexual, but they're super-intelligent (cf: "Je T'Aime; Moi Non Plus ("I Love You; Me Neither") which caused a scandal because the couple was actually accused of having sex while recording the song).

Here's one of his fun pieces, "Comic Strip," sung with Brigitte Bardot (I would not use this as an example, but it's still fun):

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want an opera libretto that's the opposite of lame, I'd commend to your attention Aufstieg und Fall der Stadt Mahagonny by Bertolt Brecht; the music is by Weill, of course. To me, the greatest post-Romantic opera.

As to Bob Dylan, his copyrights are pretty vigorously defended online. You can find all of his song lyrics on his own website, but recordings of Dylan performing his own songs aren't so easy to come by without paying for them. Most song lyrics don't stand up very well when considered just as poems; one of Dylan's that does is his "Chimes of Freedom"; you can read a version of the lyrics here. These are not exactly as Dylan recorded the song on "Another Side of Bob Dylan"; I think there's a combination of revisions and typos. I can't find a free recording of Dylan performing this, but you can hear the Byrds' wonderful version here. As usual, they left out about half the song to make it a conventional-length single, but it's still enchanting. I love all of the Byrds' Dylan covers.

Another of Dylan's most breathtaking lyrics is for "Mr. Tambourine Man"; you can read the words here and see and hear him perform the song at the Newport Folk Festival in 1964 here. But this is not just some very literary words set to music: this is a song, and there aren't many of this quality produced anywhere at any time.

Some others I'd suggest you listen to are "Senor (Tales of Yankee Power)", "Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands", "Desolation Row", and the incandescent "Blind Willie McTell". That's a handful of songs out of the hundreds Dylan has created, many of them as brilliant as these. Again, you may have to pay for them to hear the original recordings; covers by others are easy enough to find on YouTube. You can read all of the lyrics on bobdylan.com, but the lyrics alone don't convey the artistry of the songs.

Some of Dylan's songs, I have no doubt, will live for a thousand years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "problem" with getting into Dylan is you almost have to be an expert on his entire catalog to fully appreciate his brilliance. I'm talking about Bob as a live performer here.  For him, a song is a living thing that grows and ages and changes. This drives some people crazy because they want to hear the song they know, not the one that Bob is performing......."I couldn't even tell it was Tangled Up In Blue until halfway through the song" (said in cranky, whinny voice).

Sometimes he'll rework a song for an entire tour and then go back to the original way, sometimes the song will change from tour to tour to tour and never sound like the studio version again. Shelter From The Storm is a good example. The studio version is absolute perfection, but he's probably done 10 different and distinct versions - - a slow version, a fast version, a reggae version, an old time country version, a version where the first 3 lines of the stanza are normal, but the last one done in a completely different way, a version where he jams all of the lyrics of the line into the first measure of the verse instead of spreading them out over all 4 measures, etc, etc, etc.

Then there are a million variations of inflections and accents that he does within a line of verse or within a single word. (Not accents like an Italian accent obviously, but putting emphasis on the first part of the line, or the last part, or the first part of a word, etc.). So the chord progression might be the same for a couple of these different "versions" but the way he accents the delivery of the lyrics turns them into completely different songs.

Then he'll completely change the chords to the song while keeping the lyrics the same. I'm not talking about slight change in chords or an extended intro, I'm talking about a complete rewrite of the all chords so the entire sound and feel of the song is different.

Sometimes these re-writes are done in advance so a fully rewritten and fully realized song is presented. Other times, he'll rewrite the song as he's performing it so you end up with something very different than you started with.  I witnessed this live during once during what is now my favorite version of Mr. Tambourine Man.  The song started out fairly normally (not like the album version, but a standard version for that year (2000)).  The lyrics were delivered in a standard way, and were sung normally. But about halfway through the song he started stretching our the first word in each line and then singing the rest in a staccato type of delivery.  As the song went on, the first word got stretched out longer and longer and the staccato got more and more pronounced, so instead of lines being delivered like they're written:

Take me disappearin' through the smoke rings of my mind
Down the foggy ruins of time,
Far past the frozen leaves
The haunted, frightened trees,
Out to the windy beach
Far from the twisted reach of crazy sorrow

They ended up sort of like this:

Taaaaaake me disappearin' through the smoke rings of my mind
Dooooown the foggy ruins of time,
Faaaaaar past the frozen leaves
Theeeeee haunted, frightened trees,
Ooooout to the windy beach
Faaaaaar from the twisted reach of crazy sorrow

The bolded parts are the syllables that he emphasized in a staccato way.  It's impossible for me to accurately describe what the song and vocals actually sounded like but what I wrote is a rough approximation.  You have to hear it to fully appreciate it, but back to my first point, unless you know what it's supposed to sound like and have already heard a thousand other versions that weren't like this, this one wouldn't probably be as mind blowing.  But for me, who is very familiar with the song, this version was mind blowing.  And to see him rework it on the fly was even more mind blowing.

But Bob,  in his typically perverse way, never delivered those lyrics in the same way again.  One and done.  On to the next version.  Constant change

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another of Dylan's most breathtaking lyrics is for "Mr. Tambourine Man"; you can read the words here and see and hear him perform the song at the Newport Folk Festival in 1964 here. But this is not just some very literary words set to music: this is a song, and there aren't many of this quality produced anywhere at any time.

...

Some of Dylan's songs, I have no doubt, will live for a thousand years.

Then he'll completely change the chords to the song while keeping the lyrics the same. I'm not talking about slight change in chords or an extended intro, I'm talking about a complete rewrite of the all chords so the entire sound and feel of the song is different.

Sometimes these re-writes are done in advance so a fully rewritten and fully realized song is presented. Other times, he'll rewrite the song as he's performing it so you end up with something very different than you started with.  I witnessed this live during once during what is now my favorite version of Mr. Tambourine Man.  The song started out fairly normally (not like the album version, but a standard version for that year (2000)).  The lyrics were delivered in a standard way, and were sung normally. But about halfway through the song he started stretching our the first word in each line and then singing the rest in a staccato type of delivery.  As the song went on, the first word got stretched out longer and longer and the staccato got more and more pronounced, so instead of lines being delivered like they're written:

Take me disappearin' through the smoke rings of my mind

Down the foggy ruins of time,

Far past the frozen leaves

The haunted, frightened trees,

Out to the windy beach

Far from the twisted reach of crazy sorrow

They ended up sort of like this:

Taaaaaake me disappearin' through the smoke rings of my mind

Dooooown the foggy ruins of time,

Faaaaaar past the frozen leaves

Theeeeee haunted, frightened trees,

Ooooout to the windy beach

Faaaaaar from the twisted reach of crazy sorrow

The bolded parts are the syllables that he emphasized in a staccato way.  It's impossible for me to accurately describe what the song and vocals actually sounded like but what I wrote is a rough approximation.  You have to hear it to fully appreciate it, but back to my first point, unless you know what it's supposed to sound like and have already heard a thousand other versions that weren't like this, this one wouldn't probably be as mind blowing.  But for me, who is very familiar with the song, this version was mind blowing.  And to see him rework it on the fly was even more mind blowing.

But Bob,  in his typically perverse way, never delivered those lyrics in the same way again.  One and done.  On to the next version.  Constant change

I'm finding this discussion fascinating, and the more detail people are getting into, the more interesting it becomes for me.

I know that it's impossible to convey the result of a song in a written discussion (similar to describing a great restaurant dish, or an exceptional wine), but you're conveying the ideas very well, and if I can find some performances on YouTube, it should tie things together very nicely.

I don't quite understand what the importance is of Dylan changing his cadence, accents, etc. with respect to "Mr. Tambourine Man." Other than shock value, what does it add? This is a song I probably first heard when I was a young child (my older siblings had the 45, but I think it was by The Byrds). I guess I never really understood it beneath a superficial layer, and I think I still don't.

Bart may be right when he basically said 'you need to master Dylan in order to understand Dylan at all.' Because when I hear his songs, I hear someone with no musical talent, a terrible voice, and lyrics that reflect his age. Now, I'm not saying I'm right, and I'm more than willing to believe the guy is a genius, and the burden is on me to roll up my sleeves and give him his due consideration. I would like nothing more than to see the Bob Dylan light one day, and I'm going in with that optimistic attitude. Obviously, enough experts think he is a genius, revolutionary, etc., so that he most likely is.

And then one day, sometime in the distant past, I'm going to try and "get" jazz. Bill Evans once said, "You can't explain jazz to anyone without losing the experience because it's feeling, not words," and I'm wondering if some of that applies here as well. (There are some really good jazz quotes at rateyourmusic.com, for anyone who's interested.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Don - start off with The Freewheelin Bob Dylan.

Dylan is a true poet. You have to open up to his voice - there's such a range of emotion and intensity in it, and the voice somehow adds a texture to his music that's quite beautiful. Once you begin to appreciate his genius, you wouldn't want that voice to sound any other way.

I've got some Sennheiser 600s gathering dust - that will soon change.

You know me, I have to start at the beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't quite understand what the importance is of Dylan changing his cadence, accents, etc. with respect to "Mr. Tambourine Man." Other than shock value, what does it add?

Bart may be right when he basically said 'you need to master Dylan in order to understand Dylan at all.' Because when I hear his songs, I hear someone with no musical talent, a terrible voice, and lyrics that reflect his age.

A couple of point here.

The changing the cadence/accents/chords/lyrics is not really shock value to shock the audience.  It's more to surprise you with awesomeness and show you a different presentation of the song.  Think Layla by Eric Clapton.  There's the original fast, rockin' version and then there's the mellow, laid back acoustic version.  Two different vibes, two different feelings, two different songs.  But really only one song.  Now imagine 50 different versions of Layla.  That's what you get with live Dylan"¦"¦.. dozens of versions of your favorite songs.  Imagine if you could see your favorite operas performed completely differently and they still packed as much of a punch as the original?  Or maybe ended up being more moving than the original?

But in all honesty, Bob isn't doing it for the fans, he's doing it for himself.  There's a quote by him from way back in the early 60s where he says something like "I can't imagine anything worse than playing a song the same way over and over again"  And many of his songs and albums were recorded in one take!  There are tons of stories of session players saying they didn't know the chords until seconds before playing the song and then 10 minutes later Bob would do the same song with all different chords (that they also didn't know) or with rewritten lyrics.

And I don't think you have to be a master of Dylan to appreciate him, but like anything else, the more you know about the subject, the more you can take from it.  I remember reading some Shakespeare play in high school and not really understanding and certainly no liking it.  But after we discussed it in class and learned what was really going on and the symbolism (or whatever it was), it took on a whole new meaning and suddenly became much better.

To your line about "no musical talent and horrible singing voice", I'll leave you with a quote from Gene Weingarten of the Post"¦.."People who think Dylan can't sing probably also think Van Gogh can't draw      :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of point here.

The changing the cadence/accents/chords/lyrics is not really shock value to shock the audience.  It's more to surprise you with awesomeness and show you a different presentation of the song.  Think Layla by Eric Clapton.  There's the original fast, rockin' version and then there's the mellow, laid back acoustic version.  Two different vibes, two different feelings, two different songs.  But really only one song.  Now imagine 50 different versions of Layla.  That's what you get with live Dylan"¦"¦.. dozens of versions of your favorite songs.  Imagine if you could see your favorite operas performed completely differently and they still packed as much of a punch as the original?  Or maybe ended up being more moving than the original?

But in all honesty, Bob isn't doing it for the fans, he's doing it for himself.  There's a quote by him from way back in the early 60s where he says something like "I can't imagine anything worse than playing a song the same way over and over again"  And many of his songs and albums were recorded in one take!  There are tons of stories of session players saying they didn't know the chords until seconds before playing the song and then 10 minutes later Bob would do the same song with all different chords (that they also didn't know) or with rewritten lyrics.

And I don't think you have to be a master of Dylan to appreciate him, but like anything else, the more you know about the subject, the more you can take from it.  I remember reading some Shakespeare play in high school and not really understanding and certainly no liking it.  But after we discussed it in class and learned what was really going on and the symbolism (or whatever it was), it took on a whole new meaning and suddenly became much better.

To your line about "no musical talent and horrible singing voice", I'll leave you with a quote from Gene Weingarten of the Post"¦.."People who think Dylan can't sing probably also think Van Gogh can't draw      :D

Your analogy of Layla makes everything clear.

I'm actually not an opera fan; I just happen to know a fair amount about it (it took me seeing about 30 of them to reluctantly conclude I just don't enjoy them as much as I should).

Gene Weingarten should not be critiquing music. You look at some of Cezanne's (late) paintings and think they're primitive, yet many people think he's the greatest painter in history; I don't see this with Dylan (I actually just literally shuddered writing his name in the same sentence with Cezanne's). Truly, maybe he can sing; I just haven't seen it yet because I've always looked away. I get what Al Dente says about "you wouldn't want him to sound any differently," but I can't imagine anything's going to happen that will make me think Bob Dylan is a good singer. Storyteller? Poet? Entertainer? Artist? Sure, I can see all of those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We may have to arrange a listening party for you. No food talk. All Bob talk

PS - I don't want to hijack this thread and make it all about live Dylan. His studio stuff is amazing and it's what 99% of the people know.

More on that later"¦"¦.off to a field hockey game with "Thistle" (well, her daughter)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We may have to arrange a listening party for you. No food talk. All Bob talk

PS - I don't want to hijack this thread and make it all about live Dylan. His studio stuff is amazing and it's what 99% of the people know.

More on that later"¦"¦.off to a field hockey game with "Thistle" (well, her daughter)

No, that's exactly what this thread is about, so keep hijacking. (And if anyone has hijacked this conversation, it has been me - this should be about Dylan; not Don's education about Dylan.)

But trust me, if I go into this little exercise expecting him to be a good singer, I'm going to come out disappointed (and possibly very quickly).

If it clarifies what I'm trying to say, I don't think Willie Johnson was a good singer either (although he could hit notes, and didn't sound like he was holding his nose), but I can't imagine a more riveting performance of "Motherless Children," and I wouldn't want it to sound any other way. I suspect this is almost exactly what everyone here is saying, in different words. d'Accord?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No disrespect to Dylan, but changing up how he plays a song live isn't exactly unique to Dylan. I've watched Dickie Betts (formerly of the Allmans) go off set lists, playing new variations on songs he and his band have played together hundreds of times to the point where his bass player had to walk over to see what the hell Dickie was playing. I'm sure Dylan is a master at it, but many musicians are like that. Of course many just phone it in and play their music note-for-note every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No disrespect to Dylan, but changing up how he plays a song live isn't exactly unique to Dylan. I've watched Dickie Betts (formerly of the Allmans) go off set lists, playing new variations on songs he and his band have played together hundreds of times to the point where his bass player had to walk over to see what the hell Dickie was playing. I'm sure Dylan is a master at it, but many musicians are like that. Of course many just phone it in and play their music note-for-note every time.

It's funny - there are two very distinct schools in classical music about this very issue. Is it the performer's job to play note-perfect what the composer intended, or does the performer have leeway, and if so, how much leeway, and in what time periods of composition (the post-classical, romantic period (1800-ish) is when more leeway begins to be generally accepted). If that sounds stodgy, recall that Mozart died in 1791 (Mozart is generally considered to be the apex of classical; Beethoven (1770-1827) was the transition between classical and romantic, his early work being classical, his later work edging into romanticism).

Emil Gilels was the best pianist I've ever heard at consistently staying faithful to a score; people that knew Vladimir Horowitz said they'd hear him play a piece multiple times, and it would be different each time. Both were tremendous pianists, and both have their critics (I've heard people say neither was a great musician, but I've never heard anyone say either wasn't a great pianist).

And this has nothing whatsoever to do with Bob Dylan. Talk about hijacking the thread!

Please don't dismiss this question: Does anyone know the best way to download (or have access to) an album these days? I don't mind paying. And in the case of Dylan, how important is it to actually watch him? If it's important, is there any reliable way to do it over the entire course of an oeuvre?

I think I'm going to spend some time getting to know Mr. Zimmerman.

Maybe one day I'll turn towards The Grateful Dead (I couldn't name five songs they wrote or sang).

Still, jazz has been quietly calling me for a long time now.

And have I said I *love* Tweaked's posts about obscure African-based music? I have learned *so much* from them. Hell, even SeanMike's posts about GWAR (which have four-times more views than any other thread in this forum) have enlightened me, although I need to spend more time with them, too. I just can't get over "Masturbate."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No disrespect to Dylan, but changing up how he plays a song live isn't exactly unique to Dylan. I've watched Dickie Betts (formerly of the Allmans) go off set lists, playing new variations on songs he and his band have played together hundreds of times to the point where his bass player had to walk over to see what the hell Dickie was playing. I'm sure Dylan is a master at it, but many musicians are like that. Of course many just phone it in and play their music note-for-note every time.

Maybe one day I'll turn towards The Grateful Dead (I couldn't name five songs they wrote or sang).

Still, jazz has been quietly calling me for a long time now.

I was going to put my 2 cents in by agreeing with Tweaked's comment, but you basically seconded her point before I got there by referencing The Grateful Dead.  Other examples might be Neil Young or Van Morrison.  Whatever.

Bart is correct that Dylan doesn't just change a song by, for example, taking it from a folk song to a rock number & he describes some of the other changes very well.  But I think (probably unlike Bart) that some of those changes aren't positives or indicative of genius, but self indulgent crap ("hey, what do you really think Steve?  Don't beat around the bush").  Yes, I can believe that some of the changes are to relieve the boredom of repetition over a very long career"¦ nice for him, but not necessarily for the song or the audience.  Bart says: "The changing the cadence/accents/chords/lyrics is not really shock value to shock the audience.  It's more to surprise you with awesomeness and show you a different presentation of the song".  But, for me,  the changes (like Bart's very well described stretched out first word approach) are often weak attempts at further creativity and not "awesome" at all.  In fact, the playfulness or differentness or jazziness or whateverness Dylan's going for much of the time he does these things wind up (IN MY OPINION) detracting from the songs' lyrics' punch and manage to convey less of the impact of the words, imagery & poetry of the original to the audience.  I would suggest that when the "Mr. Tambourine Man" that Bart states was "delivered as it was written" was heard, folks wound up feeling (& being moved) more than those who got to hear Dylan play with the accents, intonations, etc.

In short, "cool painting, that Mona Lisa"¦ could we see it all in red or maybe with the head as 90% of the canvas?" or (for us food board folk) "this meatball dish would be really cool if one meatball was giant sized and was surrounded by little meatballs made with bright red beet coloring and maybe giving everyone chopsticks to eat them with" might be fun when stoned or bored but they're far from displaying artistic genius & probably further from satisfying an audience that has one shot at seeing the artist's work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a not uncommonly-held opinion that Dylan's most transcendently brilliant vocal performance among all of his studio recordings was "Blind Willie McTell", the wonderful track rather unaccountably left off of the "Infidels" album of 1983. I've always thought Dylan left it off because it would have made the rest of the album sound even lamer than it already did. For the moment, it's available here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1ewJYxT0ZQ

Dylan's singing voice has never been conventionally pretty, to say the least, and perhaps as a result of his constant touring for the last thirty years he doesn't really have a singing voice left now. But at his best I still think he was among the greatest singers of the 20th century, and not even only singing his own songs. I wish I could link to Dylan singing "Jim Jones at Botany Bay", which he recorded on "Good as I Been to You", but there doesn't seem to be a free version out there.

A subtext running through a lot of the commentary in this thread so far but not explicitly articulated is that Bob Dylan is not an oldies act, and never will be. I haven't seen him live since 1974, but I know a good bit about his performance practice, and while he draws in his concerts from the astonishingly enormous catalog of songs that he's written over the course of the last 50-plus years, he never ever tries to duplicate his "hits".

Sorry I can't find a higher-quality version of this, but it's the coolest 2:15 of the 60s:

http://youtu.be/i7w4Ak-1pKE

If you want to hear Dylan when he was closest to being God, you can get "Blonde on Blonde" for seven bucks at Amazon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it not bother you that he sings out of key?

Does he? In the "Blind Willie McTell" I link to above, say, there are blue notes, but to me no singing off key. I'm probably not as sensitive to that as you are.

Does he? In the "Blind Willie McTell" I link to above, say, there are blue notes, but to me no singing off key. I'm probably not as sensitive to that as you are.

Or to answer another way, don't you think Billie Holiday was a great singer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or to answer another way, don't you think Billie Holiday was a great singer?

 

I have gaping chasms in my knowledge (not just of music, but of life in general). I'm embarrassed to say that I don't know the answer to this, but it's true.

Of course I know who Billie Holiday is, and I've heard her sing in the past (most likely on NPR), but I'll be darned if I can remember much.

Looks like I have a couple of projects to work on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I know who Billie Holiday is, and I've heard her sing in the past (most likely on NPR), but I'll be darned if I can remember much.

 

Billie Holiday had at best a puny little voice that was not in itself beautiful, but she was probably the most affecting singer of her time. Listen to her in the autumn of her career singing "Stars Fell on Alabama". Not that she bore any particular similarity as an artist to Bob Dylan (although she did write a handful of classic songs), but she was similarly less than rigorous, shall we say, with pitch. As in a different way, for the matter of that, was Maria Callas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't dismiss this question: Does anyone know the best way to download (or have access to) an album these days? I don't mind paying. And in the case of Dylan, how important is it to actually watch him? If it's important, is there any reliable way to do it over the entire course of an oeuvre?

I still order CDs (gasp) and have never downloaded a song from iTunes (double gasp).  If you want to get songs cheaper you can hear snippets of songs on bobdylan.com and also on amazon.  You can also go the pandora route and make a Bob Dylan channel, but I've tried that and it ends up being a greatest hits channel with very little variety.  There's a free streaming site called bobdylanradio.com which is great, but it's geared to the obsessed fanatic, not the casual fan or newbie.  For every album track they play, the next 5 or 10 will live songs or studio outtakes from bootleg recordings.  For you, that'd be like going right to a PhD class and skipping the 101, 201, 301 level classes.

There's also spotify"¦"¦"¦.but I don't know what that is!  Other than some kind of free music site.

Then there's the illegal download route on bit torrent sites like piratebay

As for the question on how important it is too actually watch him?  For a freak like me, it's hugely important and adds a whole other level of improvisation to what he does to the songs.  His facial expressions as he sings are sometimes priceless and nearly as entertaining as the music.  I've often though that the Smithsonian should film every one of his shows and just concentrate on his face as he delivers the lyrics.  It's art and it needs to be preserved!

Unfortunately Bob is very camera shy and would never and has never let that happen.  The best way to see it is up close at shows, and the modern day Dylan is less expressive than he used to be.  There is some live stuff on youtube, but I'm not sure if it's the "classic" over the top, expressive Dylan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it not bother you that he sings out of key?

You're trying to apply a conventional standard to something that has to be appreciated on its own terms.   I second the gestalt comment.  Until you discard your preconceived notion about what a "good" singing voice is, you're never going to get to Dylan.  You're building a wall that you then have to climb over before you can even get started.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Add me to the list of Dylan fans.  Not a fanatic nor one with encyclopedic knowledge.  Kudos to those folks for their devotion and knowledge.

From the earliest days when I first recall being introduced to Dylan through the decades I have known countless people who were music, rock, folk, etc fans who didn't like Dylan.  They especially didn't like his voice.

On top of his lyrics and melodies and the extraordinary rhyming imagery of those lyrics was a voice that either had an emotional impact upon you...or didn't.  It did and does for me, although as mentioned above his singing voice has gone downhill over the decades.  I don't find his live or current performances as moving as old tracks.

Besides Dylan there have been any number of rock musicians with similarly "gruff voices".  I've found some to be extraordinarily moving...some not.    I also found a similar number of males and females that were and remain devoted to his music.

I certainly don't sense it as a period topical type of music only connected to males of a certain generation. Never experienced that at all.  Males and females have been fans for generations.

But alas there always have been those not attracted to Dylan.  Most are soulless.  The others have a deep emotional attachment to larder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly don't sense it as a period topical type of music only connected to males of a certain generation. Never experienced that at all.  Males and females have been fans for generations. 

 
You may be right, but so far we're batting 1.000 on this thread. :)
 

But alas there always have been those not attracted to Dylan.  Most are soulless.  The others have a deep emotional attachment to larder.

And then there are world-class musicians. I got this last night in response to this email, name withheld to protect the innocent: "Dudes, what am I missing with Bob Dylan?" The response:

If you want to get Bob Dylan you need to lose your hearing, smoke a bong for half the day at least for the duration of a decade. If you have not, it's too late. I'm happy to include myself in that I don't get Dylan category. PS. I also don't get Harlan estates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may be right, but so far we're batting 1.000 on this thread. :)

 

And then there are world-class musicians. I got this last night in response to this email, name withheld to protect the innocent: "Dudes, what am I missing with Bob Dylan?" The response:

If you want to get Bob Dylan you need to lose your hearing, smoke a bong for half the day at least for the duration of a decade. If you have not, it's too late. I'm happy to include myself in that I don't get Dylan category. PS. I also don't get Harlan estates.

It appears Pat likes Dylan per her comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're trying to apply a conventional standard to something that has to be appreciated on its own terms.   I second the gestalt comment.  Until you discard your preconceived notion about what a "good" singing voice is, you're never going to get to Dylan.  You're building a wall that you then have to climb over before you can even get started.

I don't think this is true. I can "get" (although maybe not "get to") Dylan without thinking he's a good singer, and my preconceived notion has been being formed for like 45 years of hearing him sing without paying much attention; now, I'm willing to try and pay some attention to see if he has something to say to me.

Please reread the last paragraph of this post - Willie Johnson, gravel voice with limited range though he may have, speaks to me in volumes. So I would ask people to please nix their preconceived notions about *me*. :)

I am, however, starting to get the feeling that going through Dylan's discography is going to be like reading Dune. I would never dismiss this as being a "bad book" (and a lot of very smart people think it's the ne plus ultra of science fiction novels) but it's just not for me. I spent six months slogging through that sandworm, and tried my best to like it. Same with opera. Not for me except in small doses (although I started out liking opera, and then grew to like it less as the years went by - partially because I don't like sitting still for that long). Speaking in Pat's terms, especially with Dune, I "get" it, but I was unable to get *to* it, or, it never "got me" - it never became part of my inner core.

There are some things in this world that it helps - a lot - to be exposed to as a teen, and for me, Dylan, Dead, Floyd, and Young weren't four of them; Bowie, Beatles, Stones, and Doors - I would never turn them off because I grew up with them. It may be as simple as that.

Okay, enough about DonRocks. By all means, continue talking about Mr. Dylan all you'd like; I don't know enough about him to participate further, at least not meaningfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think this is true. I can "get" (although maybe not "get to") Dylan without thinking he's a good singer, and my preconceived notion has been being formed for like 45 years of hearing him sing without paying much attention; now, I'm willing to try and pay some attention to see if he has something to say to me.

Please reread the last paragraph of this post - Willie Johnson, gravel voice with limited range though he may have, speaks to me in volumes. So I would ask people to please nix their preconceived notions about *me*. :)

I am, however, starting to get the feeling that going through Dylan's discography is going to be like reading Dune. I would never dismiss this as being a "bad book" (and a lot of very smart people think it's the ne plus ultra of science fiction novels) but it's just not for me. I spent six months slogging through that sandworm, and tried my best to like it. Same with opera. Not for me except in small doses (although I started out liking opera, and then grew to like it less as the years went by - partially because I don't like sitting still for that long). Speaking in Pat's terms, especially with Dune, I "get" it, but I was unable to get *to* it, or, it never "got me" - it never became part of my inner core.

There are some things in this world that it helps - a lot - to be exposed to as a teen, and for me, Dylan, Dead, Floyd, and Young weren't four of them; Bowie, Beatles, Stones, and Doors - I would never turn them off because I grew up with them. It may be as simple as that.

Okay, enough about DonRocks. By all means, continue talking about Mr. Dylan all you'd like; I don't know enough about him to participate further, at least not meaningfully.

Clearly there is no point in trying to prove, by logic or art, that someone who doesn't really want to like Dylan/rock and roll (and I think it's clear that at the very least Don doesn't want to be browbeaten into liking Dylan -- at this point it would be an admission of defeat), actually should like Dylan/rock and roll.  It's like saying, "no, really, try the Murgh Massalam at this place, it's freakin' brilliant.  It will open up the whole world of Indian food for you" to someone who, for whatever reason has no actual desire to eat Murgh Massalam and have the world of subcontinental cuisine unfold before them.  No matter how vigorously you expound upon the nunace of the spices, the quality of the chicken ("c'mon, you like chicken, don't you?"), the skill of the chef, the extraordianry alchemy of indredients and preparation. They're just going to like it.  Maybe, someday, they'll be walking by the restaurant and wander in just for the hell of it, and maybe they'll catch on and maybe they won't.  In the mean time, you just force them into a defensive posture.

The only hope is sneaking something on in the background next time Don's working his way through a decent Puligny.  Get some good associatons, let that little plinky second guitar in Tambourine man infiltrate his subconscious -- maybe then,  Hell, it took 20 years, but my kid eats fish now. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some things in this world that it helps - a lot - to be exposed to as a teen, and for me, Dylan, Dead, Floyd, and Young weren't four of them; Bowie, Beatles, Stones, and Doors - I would never turn them off because I grew up with them. It may be as simple as that.

I came to an appreciation of Dylan and his genius indirectly -- he wrote a significant number of my favorite songs played by other bands. The fact that so many great artists have recorded Dylan tunes is a clear testament to his brilliance. The fact that it is those artists and not the author that popularized these songs is equally a testament to his singing.

HOWEVER, there are some Dylan tunes that no one else could sing without it sounding...wrong. "Like a Rolling Stone" is one.

The Grateful Dead are a different matter entirely. They are a very good band with an impressive number of good songs in their genre. As with Dave Matthews, Phish, and many other bands that have generated a literally cult-like following, they're not much more than that. Their music spoke very deeply to a particular segment of the population at a particular time. What happened after was mostly just people following along, generally because they like to smoke pot and found a culture that legitimized it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HOWEVER, there are some Dylan tunes that no one else could sing without it sounding...wrong. "Like a Rolling Stone" is one.

The Grateful Dead are a different matter entirely. They are a very good band with an impressive number of good songs in their genre. As with Dave Matthews, Phish, and many other bands that have generated a literally cult-like following, they're not much more than that. Their music spoke very deeply to a particular segment of the population at a particular time. What happened after was mostly just people following along, generally because they like to smoke pot and found a culture that legitimized it.

I take it you have not heard Hendrix perform Like a Rolling Stone.

I disagree with the rather dismissive assessment of the Grateful Dead and their fans on so many levels that I cannot possibly respond.  I just do not have adequate time.  I prefer Bill Walton's response when asked how many Dead shows he had seen.  His reply was simply:  "Not enough."  He had probably been to more than 750 by his reckoning.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL

I take it you have not heard Hendrix perform Like a Rolling Stone.

I disagree with the rather dismissive assessment of the Grateful Dead and their fans on so many levels that I cannot possibly respond.  I just do not have adequate time.  I prefer Bill Walton's response when asked how many Dead shows he had seen.  His reply was simply:  "Not enough."  He had probably been to more than 750 by his reckoning.

I believe one of the reasons Walton was one of my all time favorite basketball players, was besides being one of the best centers ever during that all too brief time while he was healthy (college but only 1.5 years while in the pros) was that he was a crazy deadhead.  Crazy.

"Not enough".   How descriptive.   Hahaha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pre-ordered the two cd set of unreleased Basement Tapes (there's a 6 cd set out of my price range). And I really enjoyed this year's Another Self Portrait. ASP has some really fine voice. Belle Isle. When I Paint My Masterpiece. Spanish is the Loving Tongue. Pretty Saro. Sing Tattle O Day! And I love the raspiness of his voice on New Morning. His voice has been pretty much shot since We Are the World.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pre-ordered the two cd set of unreleased Basement Tapes (there's a 6 cd set out of my price range). And I really enjoyed this year's Another Self Portrait. ASP has some really fine voice. Belle Isle. When I Paint My Masterpiece. Spanish is the Loving Tongue. Pretty Saro. Sing Tattle O Day! And I love the raspiness of his voice on New Morning. His voice has been pretty much shot since We Are the World.

The original 2 LP set was released in response to the bootleg of the full tapes that made its way out of the vault.  The new 2 CD set seems to expand upon that. The complete tapes are well documented in the Greil Marcus book Invisible Republic.  Listening to the entire collection while reading the book is probably the best education in American folk music history that one can get, apart from the Harry Smith Anthology of American Folk Music.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Not for You  was a simple Dylan love song that came out in the early '70's.  Always liked it.  George Harrison did a version as did Olivia Newton John    Really interesting to listen to the different versions, the difference in musicality by the Harrison and Newton John versions and of course their voices...and its not surprising that the Olivia Newton John version hit the top of pop charts.

I always liked the Dylan version.

....and it worked as a little love song.... ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there's also a great version of If Not For You on the "Another Self Portrait" official bootleg that MC Horoscope motioned.  Same song, only completely different!

And I'll second the disagreement with RWBoone's assessment of the Grateful Dead!  While they were the first "jam band", they really have almost no relation to the current crop of jam bands other than they all play long songs.  Musically, lyrically, and vocally the Dead were head and shoulders above Phish, moe, Leftover Salmon, etc.  Dave Mathews is just a pop band with some "weird" instruments thrown in, which I guess gets them grouped with the rest, but they really don't belong!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it you have not heard Hendrix perform Like a Rolling Stone.

I disagree with the rather dismissive assessment of the Grateful Dead and their fans on so many levels that I cannot possibly respond.  I just do not have adequate time.  I prefer Bill Walton's response when asked how many Dead shows he had seen.  His reply was simply:  "Not enough."  He had probably been to more than 750 by his reckoning.

Hendrix is beyond an exceptional case. The dude made the Star Spangled Banner a counter culture anthem.

I'm far from dismissive of the Grateful Dead. I love their music and I'm glad I got to see them a half dozen times. One of the strangest days I can recall was working security back stage at a Dead show at RFK. But the band's significance musically is an entirely different conversation from Dylan. Dylan is critical to understanding nearly everything that occurred after. The Dead is just a very good band with a ton of good songs. Their cult status owes more to pot culture than the music itself.

Dave Matthews Band's enduring ability to sell out stadiums is exactly the same phenomenon. As a Virginia college student in the early 90's, DMB is essentially the Dead for me and my peers. I've seen them at least 60 times -- I've even gone on road trips to see them. Though a ton of people sound like them now, DMB was truly ground breaking when they started. But the fact that they sell out Jiffy Lube year after year owes as much to the 10,000 stoned twenty-somethings as it does to the music.

Phish is the most extreme example of this phenomenon. Like the two other major "jam bands," they're absolutely brilliant musicians. They're great to see live, and I have a couple times. But their catalogue of good songs isn't close to the Dead or DMB. The main reason they sell out multiple shows at Merriweather every year is that it's a pot-fueled Buffett show.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm far from dismissive of the Grateful Dead. I love their music and I'm glad I got to see them a half dozen times. One of the strangest days I can recall was working security back stage at a Dead show at RFK. But the band's significance musically is an entirely different conversation from Dylan. Dylan is critical to understanding nearly everything that occurred after. The Dead is just a very good band with a ton of good songs. Their cult status owes more to pot culture than the music itself.

So when Dylan proposed to join the Dead as a member in 1989 he was doing it for the pot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when Dylan proposed to join the Dead as a member in 1989 he was doing it for the pot?

No, he did that for the opportunity to collaborate with some great musicians. It's the same reason he was playing with the Traveling Wilburys at that time.

Pot explains the cultural phenomenon that the Dead became. It has nothing to do with their music. Actually, their most famous drug-reference song is about cocaine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, he did that for the opportunity to collaborate with some great musicians. It's the same reason he was playing with the Traveling Wilburys at that time.

Pot explains the cultural phenomenon that the Dead became. It has nothing to do with their music. Actually, their most famous drug-reference song is about cocaine.

And the drug they are most famously associated with as a band historically is LSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the drug they are most famously associated with as a band historically is LSD.

This is part of the reason that working security at a Dead show was so strange.

Pot explains the cultural phenomenon that the Dead became. It has nothing to do with their music. Actually, their most famous drug-reference song is about cocaine.

 

Thanks to all the above.   This is positively nostalgic.   :D    In a mostly good way.

"what a long strange trip its been"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Not for You  was a simple Dylan love song that came out in the early '70's. 

On the album New Morning, released in October of 1970 (during my first semester at BU). The album led Ralph Gleason to gush "We've Got Dylan Back Again" in his Rolling Stone review. (Back from that other guy who did Nashville Skyline and Self Portrait.)

I should add: New Morning was the first Dylan album I bought as soon as it was released, and it was during my first months of living in the big city, after a very suburban youth; it has a special significance for me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just received an email notifying me of his concert tour. It appears he will be performing at the D.A.R. Constitution Hall on Nov. 25.

I've never been a fan, although I don't dislike him, either. I think he is a wonderful songwriter. He wrote two of my favorite songs, and I didn't even realize that until recently. This post has made me want to listen to more of his music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/5/2014 at 11:04 PM, DIShGo said:

I've never been a fan, although I don't dislike him, either. I think he is a wonderful songwriter. He wrote two of my favorite songs, and I didn't even realize that until recently. This post has made me want to listen to more of his music. 

Bob Dylan (1st Album, Released March 19, 1962)

Side A

1) "You're No Good," (1:33) - lyrics This is a wonderfully peppy cover, and the first song on Dylan's first album (his first album was almost all covers, with one of his two original songs a tribute to Woody Guthrie).

Here's Jesse Fuller's original version which sounds downright mellow in comparison, and almost not like the same song (incidentally, it was Fuller who gave Dylan the idea of using a harmonica rack, so Fuller's place in history is assured right there):

2)  "Talkin' New York" (3:17) - lyrics. One of two songs whose lyrics came at the hand of Dylan's pen. This was a very tongue-in-cheek piece in which Dylan was poking fun at both New York and himself. I guess this is officially "the first" of Dylan's witty lyrics that I'll undoubtedly come across many more times in the future - he clearly had a good education and a sharp wit. Riding off into the western sunset, heading to East Orange, New Jersey - that's rich. Does anyone know what kind of student he was in high school, and where he got his smarts from? And where *did* he get that hillbilly accent? That's not from Duluth, Minnesota. Maybe that's one of his insufferable "eccentric artists" traits that I'll just have to live with. 

3) "In My Time Of Dyin'" (2:39) - lyrics. The first song on the album that I don't much care for, this cover by Dylan was reportedly sung by him in the recording studio without rehearsing, and if that's true, it shows - it has no depth of soul to it, and all I could think of is "middle class white kid from Minnesota" (I've searched for information about Dylan's childhood, and I can't find much about it). The song itself is gospel, but in a minor key and with a very limited range, very simplistic lyrics, and almost a sitar-like quality with all the fifths and fourths - you either sing this from the heart, or you leave it alone. Even this recording by Willie Johnson (the first recorded version from 1927) just doesn't move me as much as I thought it might - I guess this is just such a modest song that you need to *really* be in the thick of things - and I mean being a slave surrounded by despair - to really, really get it. Of note: this is one of the longest "songs" I can remember that never once changes key: Willie Johnson stays in E-minor the entire time, and Dylan stays in G-minor the entire time, hammering away on the tonic - not one single key change in the entire song except that the last chord fades away in a piano major-third (E-major in Johnson's version, G-major in Dylan's version) which is both fitting and bizarre. (Here is just the opposite - a song that has a one-note melody, but changes harmony.)

4. "Man Of Constant Sorrow" (3:06) - lyrics. This is a real train song, and captures the open skies of Colorado very well. The extended D notes, both in Dylan's voice and in the harmonica, are really evocative of a train whistle - notice at the end, how soft it gets because the train is going off into the distance (this is before the harmonica refrain kicks in forte). It's a thoughtful effort of an old American ballad, and comes off as more interesting and complex than "In My Time Of Dyin.'" Here's a live version of Dylan singing it in 1963, the year after the album was released, and two years after it was written (it's definitely different than the studio version):

And to show how different an older version of this song can be, here's Emry Arthur from 1928. Notice in Arthur's version you count one-two (almost a ragtime base) and in Dylan's version you can count one-two-three-four if you wish. The song is even older than this, perhaps from the 1800s. After hearing Arthur, I will never again accuse Dylan of not being a good musician, despite him having to struggle mightily just to hold a single note.

5. "Fixin ' To Die" (2:21) - lyrics. For someone who's fixin' to die, Dylan gives us one perky rendition of this Delta Blues song written and first recorded by Bukka White in 1940 - White wrote it, and eleven other songs, in several days time.

Dylan singing it on a radio show in 1962. Note the neutrality in what should be one of the emotional highpoints: "But I hate to leave my children cryin" - I just don't think Dylan is old enough to understand what it would be like to die and leave your children heartbroken, and it shows in the performance. I think of the first five songs, this is my fourth-favorite (I like it more than "In My Time Of Dyin,'" and perhaps not coincidentally, songs dealing with death are my two least-favorite - at the time, he was just too young to understand the deep sorrow that would be involved, and I bet if you asked him now, he'd agree). I don't consider this a criticism of the young Dylan; just an observation.

Here's White's 1940 recording of "Fixin' To Die Blues," syncopation and all:

6. "Pretty Peggy-O" (3:21) - lyrics. This was a Scottish folk song called "The Bonnie Lass o' Fyvie." Dylan ripped out anything to do with Scotland, and made it sound like a perky American train song. Whether that's good or bad, I'll leave up to the readers to decide, but to my ear, it has no soul, no sorrow, no blues - it would have been more appropriate to me had he slowed it down, saddened it up, and sung it like an adult, mournfully looking back at the sad tale. This one's painful for me to listen to.

Here's a 1992 recording by Old Blind Dogs (lyrics) on their "New Tricks" album:

And a 1970 recording by The Corries which is, I believe, from their (live?) "Scottish Love Songs" album (this one reaches out to me):

7. "Highway 51" (2:54) - lyrics. Perhaps Dylan's most lively song on Side A, he really goes at it in E Major (I like his youthful cockiness when he plays fast). This is how the song sounded when originally sung by author Curtis Jones - as you can see, it's barely even the same song. You can like Dylan's playing around with original recordings, but he shows no respect for the original songs in his covers (whether or not that's an asset or a liability is up to the listener):

Side B

8. "Gospel Plow" (1:47) - lyrics. The second-shortest song on the album, I could tell by the first few chords on the harmonica that it was going to be played *very* fast for a "gospel plow" song (slaves just didn't move plows that fast). As I write this, I've listened to less than one second of music, so let me not judge harshly when there's no reason to. Okay, here I go ....  I just heard the entire piece, and now I'll listen to some other interpretations (as you might understand, after listening to Odetta's version, you'll see why this is, so far, my least favorite song by Dylan on the album - I'll use the word "immature" rather than "disrespectful" to cut him some slack because he was young.

Here's Tyo Bazz singing it in French. Remember, this is a gospel songs about slaves pulling a plow, and looking forward to getting home to Jesus, Mary, and Company, so while it can be uplifting, it shouldn't be excessively perky - Bazz renders a respectful cover while not really capturing the soulful aspects about this piece of longing.

More importantly, here's Odetta at Carnegie Hall (Apr 8, 1960) who really captures the gospel aspect. I think Bob Dylan should have listened to this (if he didn't) before recording his terrible, immature, Mach Two version:

9. "Baby Let Me Follow You Down" (2:37) - lyrics. The tribute Dylan makes to Eric von Schmidt; other than that, this is essentially a non-song. There are a couple of chords, and lyrics that are childlike in their banality. At this point, I understand this is Dylan's first album, and that it largely consists of tributes - that's all fine, and I also get that "the real Dylan" - the genius that I keep hearing about - is coming in the future, so I'm not going to bust the guy's chops for recording tripe such as this.

Here's a 1976 recording of Bob Dylan and The Band with electric guitars, amplifiers, etc. The audience is going crazy, so I guess they liked it - or, liked the experience of seeing him perform it.

And a horribly out-of-tune version by Eric von Schmidt, to whom Dylan dedicated the song. This recording is at the same level of an untrained teenager who first picked up the guitar six months prior, and who was told that maybe he should sing something as an accompaniment.

http://youtu.be/ui9LeBLjCnE

10. "House Of The Risin' Sun" (5:20) - lyrics. It's hard to go wrong with this ballad, although it is a weeder piece, but Dylan did just fine with it. He attributes his version to Dave van Ronk who sings a wonderfully restrained version sounding almost like Al Hirt. I love this cover, and I'm going to remember Dave van Ronk just because of this one song (although I'm sure he has many others worth remembering - incidentally, he was friends with Dylan in New York City).

http://youtu.be/NX2ZYLTGu4E

So far we have two good renditions, in both of which the artists reveal their souls. I'd be remiss if I didn't include two more, "the most popular one," by The Animals in 1964:

http://youtu.be/hRXb7K7k7bQ

The Animals sped this up by a good deal, and made it sound pop, not folk. Of *course* this was going to be the most popular, and it suffers greatly for it, too. As long as we're seeing organ work, why not Ray Manzarek and The Doors? This is a sad ballad dealing with destruction, and the American public couldn't accept it as something that wouldn't play on the radio, so The Animals took care of that problem, even going so far to end it on C Major.

And now the oldest recorded version, by Applachian singers Tom Clarence Ashley and Gwen Foster from 1933. They actually play the entire piece in F Major, and it sounds almost happy. Whoever was the first to switch this to a minor key made a good call. Was it van Ronk, or was it done before that?

http://youtu.be/147kS8O59Qs

It's hard to judge Appalachian folk singers from the depression, so I'll just say that this version didn't resonate with me, and we have two that did (Dylans and von Ronk's) and two that didn't (The Animals and Ashley & Foster).

11. "Freight Train Blues" (2:20) - lyrics. Well who knew that Bob Dylan could yodel, and do a reasonably good job at it! I'm very curious now to hear other renditions of "Freight Train Blues" and compare. That second high C5 he held lasted *15 seconds* before falling off into a reasonably accurate descending "hoo-hoooo-hoo-hoo" A-G-E-C4 (impressed? ;)) I'm impressed with him - no, that feat doesn't quality as "great," but it was impressive even though he was struggling, and it's a heck of lot better than I thought he could pull off. And he had the guts to try. He had fun singing this song and you could tell. My only question, never having heard it before (and not yet looking into the other versions) is one I have with several of his pieces: Is it too perky? It's pretty damned perky. A real toe-tapper.

Let's hear a 1947 version from the legendary Roy Acuff, "The King of Country Music":

http://youtu.be/TmclgyXIrYY

I could tell from the introductory notes that I was going to like Acuff's version, and sure enough, I did - I prefer it to Dylan's, mainly because it's perky without feeling rushed, and is more of a railroad song, than someone whipping through a railroad song.

And now, Hank Williams Sr.'s 1939 version which I suspect will also be slower (it was just written in 1936 by John Lair from Kentucky, so I suspect Williams consulted with Laird being that he lived in Montgomery, Alabama at the time):

http://youtu.be/6ivRF-t24D0

Yes, it's slower still, and the recording quality is quite poor, but you can still get the full character of Williams' version. Dylan's version reminds me of someone asking the legendary Canadian Classical pianist, Glenn Gould, "Why do you play Mozart so fast?" His response: "Because I can." Dylan's was not bluesy, and it was not a railroad song; it was, well, I'm not sure what it was. I didn't dislike it, but he was showing his immaturity, and he was showing off. For the record (honestly, no pun intended), I have *no problem* with a performer putting his or her personal stamp on a cover, but that stamp absolutely must have a raison d'ètre, and I'm not sure this cover did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...