Jump to content

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


The Hersch

Recommended Posts

It's not about hitting a note per se. I don't know how to explain it in terms of musical theory or anything, but maybe an analogy works?

This is a burger.

This is also a burger.

I'm not suggesting Dylan sings in an abstract way, but his voice paints around the melody. His voice has texture and soul. He colors outside the lines, you know?

I love the mathematical (if you take my meaning) beauty of Bach's works, but I need some down and dirty stuff too.

And hey, are you going to give up when you reach a "certain age"? I plan on having sex with 80 year-old Paris Hilton when I'm 95.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about hitting a note per se. I don't know how to explain it in terms of musical theory or anything, but maybe an analogy works?

This is a burger.

This is also a burger.

I'm not suggesting Dylan sings in an abstract way, but his voice paints around the melody. His voice has texture and soul. He colors outside the lines, you know?

I love the mathematical (if you take my meaning) beauty of Bach's works, but I need some down and dirty stuff too.

And hey, are you going to give up when you reach a "certain age"? I plan on having sex with 80 year-old Paris Hilton when I'm 95.

No, what you write makes good sense. I used to think Dylan "couldn't hit a note" in general, but then I started going through his first album and realized that when he was young, he *could* hit notes ("Man of Constant Sorrow" demonstrates that very well). Yes, he had a nasal voice which threw me off for decades, but when I actually listened, he could hit notes; now, he's not hitting them anymore, or at least not in that recording. This is about the time someone might say, "He's probably missing them on purpose," to which I'd reply that Andy Warhol said, "Art is anything you can get away with," and he was right. All I'm saying is that now, Dylan has that same nasal voice *and* he's missing notes, for whatever reason. It is a well-known issue that singers lose the ability to sing as they age - listen to David Bowie try to sing falsetto - he doesn't even bother trying anymore. In this song, Dylan ranges from D3 to E4 - one octave plus a note (and he misses his final D3, falling a quarter-tone low, and I don't think he did it on purpose).

I hope nobody on this thread has ever defended people writing negative reviews on so-called "sacred-cow" restaurants. The defense of Dylan - justified though some of it may be - borders on the pathological, absolutely falls within the psychological, and is not unlike someone getting angry if you break the news to them that their childhood pizza parlor wasn't as infallible as they think it was. Don't get me wrong: I *love* the passion with which people are defending Dylan, and perhaps more importantly *I'm not disagreeing with them*, but I'm going to need time to form my own opinion, and the only thing I was commenting on two posts ago was the song to which you linked. Nothing else. Going back to your abstract hamburger painting (which was a good analogy), I didn't hear a singer who was making his own statement about things; I heard an older man who was wisely staying within a narrow range, and was still having some trouble.

The irony being that I have very much *enjoyed* going through his first album so far and listening to his younger self, and am looking forward to continuing, and learning more about him and his music.

All this said, I gave "Stay With Me" it a second listening, and can see where fans of Dylan might find it sad, perhaps even beautiful, as a tender reminiscence, but I suspect you *have* to be a fan of Dylan, probably a long-time fan, to be affected by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, what you write makes good sense. I used to think Dylan "couldn't hit a note" in general, but then I started going through his first album and realized that when he was young, he *could* hit notes ("Man of Constant Sorrow" demonstrates that very well). Yes, he had a nasal voice which threw me off for decades, but when I actually listened, he could hit notes; now, he's not hitting them anymore, or at least not in that recording. This is about the time someone might say, "He's probably missing them on purpose," to which I'd reply that Andy Warhol said, "Art is anything you can get away with," and he was right. All I'm saying is that now, Dylan has that same nasal voice *and* he's missing notes, for whatever reason. It is a well-known issue that singers lose the ability to sing as they age - listen to David Bowie try to sing falsetto - he doesn't even bother trying anymore. In this song, Dylan ranges from D3 to E4 - one octave plus a note (and he misses his final D3, falling a quarter-tone low, and I don't think he did it on purpose).

I hope nobody on this thread has ever defended people writing negative reviews on so-called "sacred-cow" restaurants. The defense of Dylan - justified though some of it may be - borders on the pathological, absolutely falls within the psychological, and is not unlike someone getting angry if you break the news to them that their childhood pizza parlor wasn't as infallible as they think it was. Don't get me wrong: I *love* the passion with which people are defending Dylan, and perhaps more importantly *I'm not disagreeing with them*, but I'm going to need time to form my own opinion, and the only thing I was commenting on two posts ago was the song to which you linked. Nothing else. Going back to your abstract hamburger painting (which was a good analogy), I didn't hear a singer who was making his own statement about things; I heard an older man who was wisely staying within a narrow range, and was still having some trouble.

The irony being that I have very much *enjoyed* going through his first album so far and listening to his younger self, and am looking forward to continuing, and learning more about him and his music.

All this said, I gave "Stay With Me" it a second listening, and can see where fans of Dylan might find it sad, perhaps even beautiful, as a tender reminiscence, but I suspect you *have* to be a fan of Dylan, probably a long-time fan, to be affected by it.

Perhaps Allen Ginsberg's liner notes for the Desire album will shed some light for you on Dylan the lyricist and Dylan the singer.  Of course he has lost range as he grows older.  But you work with what you have.  Johnny Cash's late career output showed us that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The defense of Dylan - justified though some of it may be - borders on the pathological, absolutely falls within the psychological, and is not unlike someone getting angry if you break the news to them that their childhood pizza parlor wasn't as infallible as they think it was. Don't get me wrong: I *love* the passion with which people are defending Dylan, and perhaps more importantly *I'm not disagreeing with them*, but I'm going to need time to form my own opinion, and the only thing I was commenting on two posts ago was the song to which you linked. Nothing else. Going back to your abstract hamburger painting (which was a good analogy), I didn't hear a singer who was making his own statement about things; I heard an older man who was wisely staying within a narrow range, and was still having some trouble.

Your last sentence here is not far distant from my remarks about the "Full Moon and Empty Arms" recording from the same album.

I really can't see how your "pathological" "defense of Dylan" refers to anything written in this thread. I hope you're not referring to what I've written, which I don't think constitutes any kind of defense of Dylan, and certainly not a pathological one, but I get the (understandable, I think) sense that my commentary in this thread is not very welcome.

Bob Dylan, let me state clearly, is not a personal idol or hero of mine. On the other hand, he needs "defending" about as much as the Bible or the works of Bach, and if you want to let off your pop-gun at his work, have at it. It doesn't matter. At all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really can't see how your "pathological" "defense of Dylan" refers to anything written in this thread. I hope you're not referring to what I've written, which I don't think constitutes any kind of defense of Dylan, and certainly not a pathological one,

Bob Dylan, let me state clearly, is not a personal idol or hero of mine. On the other hand, he needs "defending" about as much as the Bible or the works of Bach, and if you want to let off your pop-gun at his work, have at it. It doesn't matter. At all.

I deleted the quoted text about your commentary which is always welcome. (I assume you meant "Rach" and it was just a typo, so I left that alone, although I personally think that some of Rachmaninoff is pretty tawdry entertainment.)

It seems that many, many people - scholars and otherwise - believe the Bible needs an awful lot of defending, but I'll leave that to the theologians.

Here, I'd like to put forth a line by David Foster Wallace:

"Blind certainty - a close-mindedness so total that the prisoner doesn't even know he's locked up."

You're gonna love this one Don. I think it has even more note misses.

Full Moon and Empty Arms

scroll to bottom of article for track

I really liked this tune-- way more than "Stay With Me". Sounds like something that could have come off of Modern Times.

I recommend this cover by Cliburn - start watching at 24:50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I deleted the quoted text about your commentary which is always welcome. (I assume you meant "Rach" and it was just a typo, so I left that alone, although I personally think that some of Rachmaninoff is pretty tawdry entertainment.)

It seems that many, many people - scholars and otherwise - believe the Bible needs an awful lot of defending, but I'll leave that to the theologians.

Here, I'd like to put forth a line by David Foster Wallace:

"Blind certainty - a close-mindedness so total that the prisoner doesn't even know he's locked up."

I recommend this cover by Cliburn - start watching at 24:50.

As long as you amuse yourself, Don.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone catch Letterman last night? Dylan closed the show with "The Night We Called It a Day". I gotta say, I was a uncomfortable watching it. He missed a lot of notes and did a lot of weird fidgeting. Strange.

I actually recognized the song, but not because I could understand any of the lyrics. It was actually a "perfect" song to close out a long run like Letterman's. However, it also made clear why singers like Sinatra, Bennett, Fitzgerald were/are so highly regarded: they clearly articulated lyrics that are as important as the music in most of the American Songbook. Dylan couldn't pull that off on a bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually recognized the song, but not because I could understand any of the lyrics. It was actually a "perfect" song to close out a long run like Letterman's. However, it also made clear why singers like Sinatra, Bennett, Fitzgerald were/are so highly regarded: they clearly articulated lyrics that are as important as the music in most of the American Songbook. Dylan couldn't pull that off on a bet.

I have to wonder exactly what it is that Dylan thinks he's doing with performances like this. Not that it was positively bad, just really puzzling. But then, I think it's pretty well established by now that Dylan is a very weird human being. But you can't say he didn't clearly articulate his own lyrics here: Chimes of Freedom. Yeah, yeah, it was a half-century ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So generally I'd have to agree w/ Letterman's advice:

Be nice to people

Dylan is the greatest song writer of modern times.

BUT...........................having been a big fan of Dylan's, I do think his voice and his singing really stink now.  It was and is weird to listen to him sing that song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to wonder exactly what it is that Dylan thinks he's doing with performances like this. 

He's recently put out an album of Sinatra tunes. Just like Rod Stewart issued an album of old standards. Neither one of them is going to make anybody forget the original singers of those songs--or even Streisand, who started her career singing some of that stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's recently put out an album of Sinatra tunes. Just like Rod Stewart issued an album of old standards. Neither one of them is going to make anybody forget the original singers of those songs--or even Streisand, who started her career singing some of that stuff.

On the other hand, there's "Classical Barbra" (much more "Barbra" than "Classical") which I actually think is kind of nice, but it's widely derided by classical singers (though none other than Glenn Gould gave it some mild praise ... I think).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Bob Dylan on David Letterman -- note my old Brush With Fame buddy Carol King on the piano.

This was *23 years ago*, and Dylan sang that entire song with a range of less than one octave: his low note was the F below middle C, and his high note was the E above middle C - all he was doing was trying to hit the right key to match the harmony. Seven different notes total - no sharps or flats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's recently put out an album of Sinatra tunes. Just like Rod Stewart issued an album of old standards. Neither one of them is going to make anybody forget the original singers of those songs--or even Streisand, who started her career singing some of that stuff.

Actually, Rod Stewart put out five albums of "American Songbook" material between 2002 and 2010. The first volume went triple-platinum in the U.S. (sold more than 3,000,000 copies), the second was double-platinum. Each of the five albums got to at least #4 on the U.S. album charts, with the third reaching number 1, although it went mere platinum. The sales and popularity were comparable in the other English-speaking countries. I suspect that a lot of people listening to these records were first introduced to the songs by Rod Stewart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was *23 years ago*, and Dylan sang that entire song with a range of less than one octave: his low note was the F below middle C, and his high note was the E above middle C - all he was doing was trying to hit the right key to match the harmony. Seven different notes total - no sharps or flats.

I don't really get the point of this. Folk and popular songs all have very narrow pitch ranges, and this performance of "Like a Rolling Stone" isn't much different in that respect from the studio version that appeared on the "Highway 61" album in 1965. If you're going to condemn songs with ranges of an octave or less, you're going to expel an awful lot of songs from the repertoire.

As much as I admire Dylan's work, which I obviously haven't made much of a secret of, I've never understood the fetishization of this song. I've always found it rhythmically confused and musically incoherent, and not even among the three or four best songs on the album on which it appeared (I think "Queen Jane Approximately," "Ballad of a Thin Man," "Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues," "Desolation Row," and the title track are all finer than "Like a Rolling Stone"). Rolling Stone magazine dubbing it the Greatest Song of All Time is about as idiotic as dubbing any song the Greatest Song of All Time, but they could at least have chosen a better song.

ETA: I meant to add that an octave is a hell of a lot wider range than hip-hop records typically display, where they don't actually sing any notes at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really get the point of this. Folk and popular songs all have very narrow pitch ranges, and this performance of "Like a Rolling Stone" isn't much different in that respect from the studio version that appeared on the "Highway 61" album in 1965. If you're going to condemn songs with ranges of an octave or less, you're going to expel an awful lot of songs from the repertoire.

As much as I admire Dylan's work, which I obviously haven't made much of a secret of, I've never understood the fetishization of this song. I've always found it rhythmically confused and musically incoherent, and not even among the three or four best songs on the album on which it appeared (I think "Queen Jane Approximately," "Ballad of a Thin Man," "Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues," "Desolation Row," and the title track are all finer than "Like a Rolling Stone"). Rolling Stone magazine dubbing it the Greatest Song of All Time is about as idiotic as dubbing any song the Greatest Song of All Time, but they could at least have chosen a better song.

ETA: I meant to add that an octave is a hell of a lot wider range than hip-hop records typically display, where they don't actually sing any notes at all.

It's extremely different than the 1965 version, and if you can name a few songs (*songs*) to back up your claim, I'd appreciate it. This song does not have a narrow range; he wasn't singing "Like A Rolling Stone," which is keyed in C-major; not once does he hit the F-major dominant above middle C which is one of the three most important notes in the entire song (now that I'm typing this, I can scarcely believe it, but I heard the entire thing start-to-finish, keeping track of the highest and lowest notes I heard, and I trust myself.)

I take no pleasure in saying this, but It's hard to take anyone seriously who is so blinded by devotion that they can't hear how bad this rendition is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the gestalt. :)

Look, I understand that Bob Dylan is an important part of everyone's lives, but you're just not going to convince me that he was a good singer. Like Pat said way upthread: it's the gestalt - I can live with that very easily, and can even appreciate and enjoy it (and I do enjoy it, especially since this thread began and I started digging into him); the reality is that 99% of pop musicians (and yes, I absolutely consider Bob Dylan to be a pop musician) have less musical talent than a typical undergraduate college student in a decent music program; what they *do* have is Performance Balls: they're absolutely fearless on stage - maybe that's because what they're doing is so easy that there's very little chance of screwing it up, and even if they do, nobody is going to notice or care. Imagine Yo-Yo Ma jumping up and down and dancing while he's playing the cello.

(Admit it, I just made you laugh.) 

Vladimir Horowitz once said, "There are three kinds of pianists: Jewish pianists, homosexual pianists, and bad pianists." Billy Joel said his technique wasn't good enough to play classical piano, so ....

3986938.jpg

(Admit it, I just made you laugh again.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just away from my computer for a few minutes, and tried to think of something that I *loved* that is so subjectively bad that any reasonable person could say it's *objectively* bad. (Saying "Michael Jordan was a good basketball player," for example, is a subjective statement that's so obvious that it might as well be objective).

And what would I do or say, if someone called that thing out as being laughably bad?

Very quickly, I thought of many examples, and one of them is this:

horta2.jpg <--- The Horta!

This is, essentially, a guy crawling around in a life-sized costume that looks like a combination of a shag rug and a meatball pizza, and if any special effects artist (or for that matter, *anyone*) said to me. that Horta outfit is terrible, I would laugh along with them, and say, "Yeah, it sure is." But the episode, "The Devil In The Dark," is *awesome*, and there isn't one particular thing about it that I think is so out-of-this-world terrific; it's the gestalt - it's the whole package of childhood, science fiction, the characters, the parable, the suspense, the plot twist - none of which on its own is all that great, but the ensemble is the very definition of synergy. And I wouldn't change a thing about the Horta outfit because it's ingrained in my memory as "part of the package."

Compare to and contrast with:

<--- Kirk vs. Gorn!

This fight scene is equally bad (*), but there's nothing about this episode that's awesome - this scene is Star Trek's version of "Plan 9 From Outer Space." The only thing I'd miss about "Arena" if it disappeared is that there would be one less Star Trek episode. Oh, there are some things about it that I'm fond of, but I'd never rave about this, or urge someone else to watch it, other than to have a good laugh about the fight.

(*) I think the funniest thing about it - which I've never heard anyone mention before because it's so subtle that it gets lost in the commotion - is the sound effect when Gorn has broken the stick and throws it down to the ground ("WHACK-took"). Also, what does Gorn hope to accomplish throwing the punches? Even if he landed one, it would be like being hit by a truck going 1/10th of 1 mph; notice how quickly, however, he throws the stick down. And when he has Kirk in his clutches, why doesn't he just bite him? Considering how much Kirk struggles to pick up the rock, it's impressive how fast and far he throws it. Maybe it's best not to over-analyze this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's extremely different than the 1965 version, and if you can name a few songs (*songs*) to back up your claim, I'd appreciate it. This song does not have a narrow range; he wasn't singing "Like A Rolling Stone," which is keyed in C-major; not once does he hit the F-major dominant above middle C which is one of the three most important notes in the entire song (now that I'm typing this, I can scarcely believe it, but I heard the entire thing start-to-finish, keeping track of the highest and lowest notes I heard, and I trust myself.)

I take no pleasure in saying this, but It's hard to take anyone seriously who is so blinded by devotion that they can't hear how bad this rendition is.

Good heavens, Don, I didn't say it wasn't bad. It's terrible! It's embarrassing to listen to.

If the studio version spans more than an octave, though, it can't be much more. As to other songs with narrow ranges, off the top of my head: "Ain't She Sweet", George Harrison's "Something", Dylan's own "Highway 61 Revisited", "Oh, Susannah","God Save the Queen", "Streets of Laredo", "Wild Thing", "Frère Jacques", "Walkin' My Baby Back Home". Is that enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good heavens, Don, I didn't say it wasn't bad. It's terrible! It's embarrassing to listen to.

If the studio version spans more than an octave, though, it can't be much more. As to other songs with narrow ranges, off the top of my head: "Ain't She Sweet", George Harrison's "Something", Dylan's own "Highway 61 Revisited", "Oh, Susannah","God Save the Queen", "Streets of Laredo", "Wild Thing", "Frère Jacques", "Walkin' My Baby Back Home". Is that enough?

For the record (NPI), he ranges from the C below middle C to the G above middle C.

I just gave it a quick listen, and he drops down to the lower C only once: at 2:12 he drops down a fifth from G to that low C when he sings "eyes" (he comes close to hitting it at 2:08 when he sings "alibis").

He hits the high G really solidly only once - he touches it 3:00 when he sings "OH ... You never turned around ...."  More importantly, he nails it at 4:28 when he sings "OH ... Princess on the steeple..." He comes close again at 5:21 when he sings "OH How does it feel?" (the second time in the final refrain) but this 3rd occurrence is somewhere between the G and the F-sharp below it - he didn't quite hit it (and I don't think he really cared). But hitting this G (especially the 1st and 3rd times) is more spontaneous exuberance than calculated musical decision; the high F (one note below this G) is the (sub)dominant note in this song. Read on ...

He hits this high F above middle C many, many times during the song, and going up that extra half-step from the third, E, to the fourth, F gives this song its unique character (this sentence just demonstrated the importance of commas). This F lends an air of dissonance to the song - when he sings "HOW does it FEEL," he's hitting that F on both "HOW" and "FEEL" (our ears are expecting him to hit the more resolved "E" (or the even-more-resolved "C") when he sings "FEEL") - sing it to yourself using F-E-C-E, singing "FEEL" with the same note as "DOES" - Dylan does this at 5:25 (or even using F-E-C-C, singing "FEEL" with the same note as "IT" - Dylan does this at 3:57) - either of those two choices sounds much more comforting. In the final refrain, he's camping on that F - it's the most important note of the song, other than the tonic middle C. In that final refrain, from 5:18 to 5:47, he hits the F between 15-18 times (I listened to that section multiple times, carefully, syllable-by-syllable, and when he sings "Like a complete unknown," he slurs so it's really difficult to tell if he's hitting the F, or is somewhere in between the F and the E right below it.; regardless, it's in the 15-18 range. There's your useless information for the day.

And I'm certainly not going to criticize Bob Dylan for losing some range at age 73 any more than I'm going to criticize Michael Jordan for not being able to dunk at age 73 - they're both physical skills that deteriorate with age (there's also an overall "energy" to his studio version that he simply cannot project anymore - such is life).

FWIW, it used to amuse my family endlessly when I could identify what note(s) people burped in (they're almost always a slur), what notes the doorbell played, what notes people clapped in, gargled in, etc. People used to ask me how I could do it, and I used to say, how can you not do it? To me, hearing the note G is like seeing the color red - it just "is." I have wondered if it made me a better wine taster, but I'm not sure there's a relation. What's interesting is that I think as I've aged, my sense of hearing has actually gone flat about 1/4 note - I can still guess notes, but sometimes I want to err on the low side, and I never used to do that (I wonder if it's because my piano gets out of tune on the low side, and that's what I get used to hearing) - when I was a kid, I could hear a 10-note chord in the next room, and walk over and play all 10 notes (sometimes my parents had to play it 2-3 times for me to sort things out). Anyway, if there are any scientists out there wanting to study absolute pitch, I'll be happy to be your test rat. Ironically, I've developed mild tinnitus, and I can't really tell what notes I'm playing inside my own head.  :(

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don: Thanks for the blow-by-blow. Given your analysis, it appears that most of Dylan's vocal in the studio version of "Like a Rolling Stone" sits between middle C and the F above it, so it's not surprising that an amateur in these matters such as I am hears the song as having a very narrow range. Still, C below middle C to G above middle C isn't a whole lot of ground.

Fun fact: Judging from the version of this song released on the Columbia records Bootleg Series, it was originally in waltz time. Maybe the change, which apparently was made in the studio during the recording sessions, accounts for the rhythmic muddle that the song sounds like to me.

By the way, I wish you wouldn't impute to me a fanatical devotion to everything Dylan does, which I do not harbor. A lot of what he's done over the years, including a great deal of what he did during the 1980s and 1990s, has been hopelessly awful. (And even in the 1970s: Try watching "Renaldo and Clara" some time.) That's more than offset by all the brilliant genius stuff, but it's still the fact, to which I am not blind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don: Thanks for the blow-by-blow. Given your analysis, it appears that most of Dylan's vocal in the studio version of "Like a Rolling Stone" sits between middle C and the F above it, so it's not surprising that an amateur in these matters such as I am hears the song as having a very narrow range. Still, C below middle C to G above middle C isn't a whole lot of ground.

Fun fact: Judging from the version of this song released on the Columbia records Bootleg Series, it was originally in waltz time. Maybe the change, which apparently was made in the studio during the recording sessions, accounts for the rhythmic muddle that the song sounds like to me.

By the way, I wish you wouldn't impute to me a fanatical devotion to everything Dylan does, which I do not harbor. A lot of what he's done over the years, including a great deal of what he did during the 1980s and 1990s, has been hopelessly awful. (And even in the 1970s: Try watching "Renaldo and Clara" some time.) That's more than offset by all the brilliant genius stuff, but it's still the fact, to which I am not blind.

Deal. I've been thinking about this on-and-off for the past few hours, and something crossed my mind: I don't sit around and dwell on the fact that I have absolute pitch - in fact, I haven't thought about it at all, and I'm wondering if my pitch sensitivity equates to a "Dylan sensitivity." In other words, it might bother me more than someone else that Dylan misses a note by a quarter-tone. For the record, it doesn't "hurt" or anything; it's more like listening to Fran Drescher, or seeing a subtle strobe light. It's just a thought, but it's a thought that might have some merit.

(Most of it is in the F-to-F one-octave range.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are among the best songs Dylan has written, but he also gives some of his greatest performances as a rock singer in these recordings, all of which were the studio releases. Very not-chronological:

Hurricane

Blind Willie McTell

Seí±or (Tales of Yankee Power)

I Want You

Dylan delivers these songs with a vocal intensity that I find irresistibly compelling. I hope you will enjoy them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhere up above, I lamented not being able to find an online copy of Dylan's recording of "Jim Jones" (also known as "Jim Jones at Botany Bay", concerning an English convict transported to the Australian penal colony) from his 1993 album of traditional songs "Good As I Been to You". Don's mention in the "Danny Boy" thread of the Australian anthem "Waltzing Matilda", which I've never had a great affection for, reminded me of the fugitive Dylan recording, which I just found on YouTube. It may not be around very long, but at the moment you can hear it here. (Incidentally, this song seems more like "anon." than "trad." to me.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Sunday is the 50th anniversary of the release of Highway 61 Revisited, which I would modestly suggest changed everything.

Edited to add: Remarkably, this was Dylan's second album of 1965; Bringing It All Back Home was released only five months earlier. Even more remarkably, only three years separated that album from Dylan's debut album, Bob Dylan, released in March of 1962, which Rocks has admirably rehearsed above.

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...