Is Bob Dylan overrated?

seriously though i admire you a lot, for being so goddam sensible and smart when the culture here seems to mitigate against that so often

Is he still capable of doing cool things with it? Yes. Can it be an expressive tool? Yes. Has he even invented new ways of using his voice - ie., adapting his style to what's left of it? Yes. However, the main part of my criticism is that I think he still hasn't completely adapted himself to it- i.e., sometimes it sounds like he's still trying to sing as though he has his old range, and he doesn't. I think he should probably try to use more concision and brevity - do more with less - stick to a narrower range - perhaps go more bluesy - I think the bluesy numbers on Love and Theft tended to be more successful from a vocal performance standpoint. Because those epic ballads are becoming a bit tiring to listen to, and they didn't use to be.

(xpost)

There are superstar pop-cult icons beloved by millions who were or are meaner, nastier, and more spiteful than Bob Dylan (your mom for instance - followed closely by the likes of Lucille Ball, Billy Joel, Paul Simon, and Bill Cosby), but he's within spitting distance of the head of the pack. An idiot windbag and bully from the git-go, his tooth & nail-filled words (his tongue on fire like liar's pants) simultaneously functioning as self-righteous harangues aimed at everyone who doesn't get it/ain't us/in the know, wake up calls for any Mr. or Mrs. Jones-to-be who feels that their freedom is impinged upon by the responsibilities and duties thrown at them by, you know, church/state/manifest destiny/gym teachers/etc..., and hyper-literate (though often clouded with beatnik bombast and trickster whatzits) revenge fantasies designed not only to comfort bespectacled boys wronged by girls from the right counties but also assuage the fears of
those people who worry that the right fingers will not be pointed at people on the wrong side.
Early Dylan fans, not content with the murder balladeers and chain gang troubadours of previous generations, understandably wanted a blowhard to call their own. And as the thinking person's Elvis, Dylan single-handedly trumped the Depression-era love of hard work, war wounds, craftsmanship and dirt with youth, wit, and a cool-ass hair-do. His early appropriation of a dustbowl vocalese and aesthetic (what could be more natural for a 20-year-old kid from the sticks then to sound like a black-lunged miner with miles of bad road behind
him) may have been borne out of a deep and abiding love for dead and dying rail-riding pinkos, but more realistically it was his ticket in to a burgeoning folk scene always on the lookout for sympathetic fellow travelers who would show the proper respect for the decrepit elders
and originators of La Vie de Hootenanny. Once he was through genuflecting at Woodie Guthrie's bedside (and patted on the head by the story-song master), and once he was
through using his Midwestern wiles to get into Joan Baez's back pages (she the shining young star pre-Bob), he had made his mark and could proceed to do what he did. Which was: ruin everything! He was too cool! He was punk as fuck! His sneer was a mile wide! He raised the bar too high! His songs were too good! He looked really cool in pointy boots! He corrupted The Beatles! He made rock "important"! And "serious"! He subjected the world to thousands of horrible singersongwritercountryrockstreamofconsciousnessbroodingbadpoetry bands! He made people who had no business playing the blues play the blues! He was too big for rock, and ever after people wanted to be bigger than rock without ever realizing that rock is plenty big
enough already for whatever they could add to it. Rock before Dylan was mostly fun and then it wasn't (because of him), and it mostly isn't now (because of him). And the rock & roll that most people love doesn't have as much to do with him (it has more to do with Chuck Berry
than Bob Dylan), thus the most popular rock & roll is usually a lot more fun to listen to. As a rule, people who don't listen to Bob Dylan are usually a lot more fun to hang out with. Having said that, everyone should own at least four Bob Dylan albums (Freewheelin', Highway 61,
Blood on the Tracks, and Desire will do). It's funny that the only people who actually approached the ferocity of early pre-motorbike crash Dylan (1966 being the dividing line
between scary can-do-no-wrong Dylan and bloody, beaten, bowed, sometimes scary & good-when-he-feels-like-it Dylan) were the artless garage and punk bands of the 60's and 70's. The artistes of those eras mainly pegged the corn pone/po'boy/nasally/fake Carter
family/should sound like you're 60 when you're 20/spaghetti western Dylan that he could get away with because he was and is a freak of nature and because he invented the shit in the first place. That ferocity was hunger and could previously be heard on Charles Ives and
Eartha Kitt records, and thus it was alien to any pop or folk scene. The juvenile delinquents heard Dean and Brando in his voice, but unfortunately his words were too good and the boring people heard Shakespeare.

• 1963- Not Bad!!!!!
• 1964- Iffy!!!!!
• 1965- Pretty decent!!!!
• 1966- OK!!!!!!
• 1967 onwards- phew crikey Grandad!!!!!

  ― Old Fart!!! (oldfart_sd), Tuesday, 17 February 2004 22:09 (twenty years ago) link

Any Dylan alb is automatically 'interesting'

If anyone else had written these albums, they'd be considered genius.

And the scary thing is, the stuff Dylan left on the floor, the outtakes, are undeniably better than the official albums!

Yeah, I do like it....the Watchtower rocks, and hey, the band is tight.

This comes through plainly, and I think, brilliantly in the Budokan album (and in his other live albums, esp. Hard Rain and the Rolling Thunder Bootleg). He loves fucking with his songs, changing the cadence and lyrics, changing the whole damn melody sometimes. And its amazing how different the songs can sound. Listen to Simple Twist of Fate from Budokan. Or the Lonesome Death of Hattie Carrol from the Rolling Thunder Review. Or listen to the narrator shift from early versions of tangled up in blue. Or listen to his version of "Make you Feel My Love," then listen to Garth Brooks' version and tell me he doesn't know how to fill a song with meaning. To me, this is not idle fiddling, but reflects his mastery of the form of popular song and its different possibilities.

In case it's not clear yet, my answer to the thread's question is "No. No. No. What? Are you uhh... NO!" and I think live at Budokan is great. I think it is fair to say he is UNDER-RATED as a singer/general performer.

And, yes, I understand that it is people like me that lead to other people asking the question, "Is Bob Dylan Over-rated"

I like this: Dylan to me seems like someone you don't understand so much as live with, constantly revisiting and rediscovering from spittle's piece. And I also realised that, despite basically growing up to an almost exclusive soundtrack of little Apple Label Beatles 45s, just as someone else said upthread, I rarely listen to the latter yet regularly throw on some Dylan still.

I can't imagine ever getting tired of Dylan. There's always something you've overlooked, or forgotten, about him. Hence the polarized disagreements on so many of his records (Budokan, Planet Waves, Slow Train Coming, Street Legal, etc.).

(Yet, at the same time, i can understand the Boomer adulation/canonization putting a lot of people off, and don't really blame them for their initial responses -- however, I do think it's fair to expect those people to at least give him a chance, as he isn't going away even when he goes away, if you know what I mean.)

Dylan as comedian: Underrated.

He's not bad, but apparently Leonard Cohen was better when he did stand up!!!! (Fact!!!!!)

― Old Fart!!! (oldfart_sd), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 16:39 (twenty years ago) link

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100816/ennew_afp/entertainmentdenmarkusmusicartdylan_20100816152417

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/afp/20100816/capt.photo_1281972199149-1-0.jpg?x=400&y=266&q=85&sig=m1HqIjP297LSUCg1AMo1_Q--
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/afp/20100816/capt.photo_1281972199149-1-0.jpg?x=400&y=266&q=85&sig=m1HqIjP297LSUCg1AMo1_Q--
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/afp/20100816/capt.photo_1281972199149-1-0.jpg?x=400&y=266&q=85&sig=m1HqIjP297LSUCg1AMo1_Q--http://d.yimg.com/a/p/afp/20100816/capt.photo_1281972199149-1-0.jpg?x=400&y=266&q=85&sig=m1HqIjP297LSUCg1AMo1_Q--
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/afp/20100816/capt.photo_1281972199149-1-0.jpg?x=400&y=266&q=85&sig=m1HqIjP297LSUCg1AMo1_Q--http://d.yimg.com/a/p/afp/20100816/capt.photo_1281972199149-1-0.jpg?x=400&y=266&q=85&sig=m1HqIjP297LSUCg1AMo1_Q--

"hmmm...yes...art"

*sips cappuccino*

cups empty imo

overarted

that scott post up there is great, should be in some liner notes somewhere or other

i think dylan was overrated lyrically at times. something like "it's alright ma" is undeniably brilliant, but Blonde on Blonde, though a great record, suffers from too much jester/clown/random dated imagery that works far less often than it should. and though that record was supposed to capture the "thin...wild mercury sound" that he was after, it's ultimately flat and bloodless-sounding when compared to "royal albert hall concert"

i also never understood why people freaked out over Blood on the Tracks, which to me is sort of boring, with the exception of a couple of tracks (esp. you're a big girl now). the oft-maligned Self Portrait is leagues better, i think

that being said, of course he was amazing. so many little-seeming things, like titling a song (positively 4th street) w/no reference whatsoever to the lyrical content, i think was virtually unprecedented in pop music world up until that point? or suddenly and totally changing his trademark singing voice for nashville skyline?

so, i don't think that he's overrated, necessarily, but more that people rate him for the wrong reasons! but same could probably be said about the grateful dead. or the doors, for that matter...

I remember reading that "Boots of Spanish Leather" appeared in the Norton Anthology of American Literature and this seems so appropriate in a way.

Blonde on Blonde, though a great record, suffers from too much jester/clown/random dated imagery that works far less often than it should

Surprisingly I kind of agree with this. BoB used to be my favorite Dylan album - but lately it doesn't quite move me like it used to. It doesn't quite leap out of the stereo with the overwhelming brilliance of something like Freewheelin or Highway 61 - you have to be in the right mood for it. Maybe I've just listened to it too much.

yeah, i mean i like a bunch of songs on blonde on blonde a great deal, but then i'll hear something off of highway 61 and just be delivered those moments where it's truly like whoa, jeepers, no wonder this guy is a legend or whatever

dunno, i love almost everything about Blonde on Blonde -- all the layers of instruments, the sound of his voice. i can see how some of the lyrics could be dated (mainly becuz they were imitated by others for the rest of the 60s), but so much of it is actually pretty straightforward.

that scott post up there is great, should be in some liner notes somewhere or other

thanks for posting that link. great stuff!

BoB is great, obviously, but the band/performances/production just aren't as good as the previous two.

yeah, i like the record lots, but i always feel slightly disappointed by it, production-wise