Is Bob Dylan overrated?

I assume arthritis = no guitar playing, and it's been that way for awhile, yeah?

he actually played guitar on the opener — "things have changed" — and pulled off some surprisingly solid lead lines. but that was it ... yeah, i don't know if it's arthritis, back problems, or just that he's not into it.

how's the voice?

really good! obviously still gravelly, but he's not barking things out — phrasing is dead on target.

cool I was hoping the relative improvement from Tempest (which was really getting rough) to the standards records was reflected live?

do you remember where you were when Bob Dylan didn't die
and everyone who ever listened learned he lived a lie
they had reflected on their mortality
apparently entirely needlessly
while his Cadillac cruised down the backroad not leading to the sky

I was never the biggest dylan fan but I saw him this week partly out of "see this legend before it's too late" obligation despite not knowing much about his live shows. It was different/better than I expected and holy shit is Matt Chamberlain fun to watch.

this tour has been really excellent

I don't think I've seen this mentioned anywhere on ILM as yet: anyone else listened to this Dylan podcast? https://isitrollingbobtalkingdylan.podbean.com/

It's naturally dependent on the guest but the dudes are the right side of obsessive and it's engaging enough. Can recommend the Jonathan Lethem and Geoff Dyer episodes.

Thanks for this. I've just listened to Robyn Hitchcock. Good stuff

I've got that one lined up. Favourites have also included Andrew Male and Michael Gray. Billy Bragg was hard going.

To celebrate BD's bd, somebody recently tweeted tbis---haven't checked all its links to prev coverage & excerpts ("lone verse" presented here is bad not good, but he did discard it):
https://www.nodepression.com/bob-dylans-three-blood-on-the-tracks-notebooks-not-just-red/

I've been talking to some older, discerning listeners who have listened to Dylan since the '60s and more or less followed what he's done since then. It's kind of interesting to see how expectations of Dylan have evolved over time, and how they really went off a cliff in the late '70s.

For example, the late '60s and early '70s look like a lost period to me. There is enjoyable music to be found, even great music, but he was at best making pleasant but thin albums, nothing approaching what he did before. That seems to be a popular sentiment even then, but it doesn't sound like he was written off as someone who couldn't deliver anymore either. As bad as Self-Portrait and Dylan may have been, the latter was considered a malicious release that was never approved by Dylan while a lot of naysayers viewed the former as an anomaly. More importantly, people just assumed he lost interest in fully pursuing his music career. So when he "came back" in the mid-'70s, it seemed to reaffirm the most optimistic view people had on him. For starters, he was once again madly prolific - at the start of 1974, he launches a high profile reunion tour with the Band, their collaborative album comes out a few weeks in, and later that summer, just a few months after the tour ends, the live album comes out. A few months after that, he records Blood on the Tracks, and even though the release is delayed to January due to re-recording, the original version leaks out by Christmas. Regardless of how people feel about them now, each one was greeted with a lot of good will which seemed to grow exponentially with each album. Then when next summer comes up, the "Basement Tapes" are officially released (albeit in incomplete and tampered form), which eventually tops that year's Pazz & Jop poll. By the fall, he's already doing the Rolling Thunder Revue to much (if not universal) acclaim. Desire comes out in January, and he does another leg of the Rolling Thunder Revue tour (albeit to less acclaim) followed by an appearance at the Band's farewell show. So for a lot of people, he was still a major, vital figure mid-decade, and at that point, it's not too kind to say that the only broad consensus of an outright failure he's had is Self-Portrait.

Then comes the alimony tour. And the widely derided Street-Legal (at least in the U.S. - the British press is more receptive), and then the highly polarizing evangelical years, and then we're into the '80s where the albums spiral into a black hole. The growing number of detractors who turned on him or thoroughly mocked him really appear around this time, and it doesn't seem like you can overstate how abysmal the '80s were for him. He still had fans of what he was doing during this time, but even they get criticized for overrating his work, either for putting value into garbage or elevating so-so albums to the level of masterpieces.

I'd say he permanently rights the ship with Time Out of Mind - it goes platinum within a year (much better than any album he's done in decades), finally gets him an AOY Grammy (meaningful only in what it says about how he's viewed within the industry), tops the Pazz & Jop poll, and despite missteps like a bad film, the three "Sinatra" albums (or the occasional oddity like a Christmas album), he's firmly a revered institution now, at least when you look at how well he does on the road (more impressive considering how many shows he puts on every year - he packs them in EVERY night) and how generous the press is to him.

The early ‘80s (Infidels, Empire Burlesque) and late ‘80s (Oh Mercy, Wilburys) were both strong for him, though. I feel like his real “lost decade” was the ‘90s.

1) New Morning is one of his greatest albums

2) the Another Self Portrait box totally changed the conventional wisdom on that period, it's up there with the best Bootleg Series

3) Street Legal owns

I've been talking to some older, discerning listeners who have listened to Dylan since the '60s and more or less followed what he's done since then. It's kind of interesting to see how expectations of Dylan have evolved over time, and how they really went off a cliff in the late '70s.

Honestly there's probably no one who's opinion I trust least than super 60s fans, maybe the early folk crowd

Both groups had this ideal of who Dylan was, something that he never was to begin with and they feel betrayed when he changed

2) the Another Self Portrait box totally changed the conventional wisdom on that period, it's up there with the best Bootleg Series

ums fiercely otm

As a kid, my dad owned only the Christian Dylan albums, since he tended to only play albums with Christian lyrics or instrumental music. So that was the Dylan I heard in my formative years. The first Bob Dylan album I ever listened to of my own volition was Under the Red Sky. I had started reading rock magazines around that time, read a review or two, was curious, and checked it out from the library. I couldn't really see what the fuss was about. A couple of years later, I finally went out and bought Highway 61 Revisited, and my years of serious Dylan appreciation began. I avoided anything after Blood on The Tracks for many years, though I did go to see Dylan in concert in the early 90s, which was fairly disappointing: unrecognizable versions of songs I loved with terrible vocals. It wasn't until Love and Theft really that I was ever interested in a "new" Dylan album.

morrisp, re: the '80s, I wish I could agree. I think "Infidels" and "Oh Mercy" could've been great albums, especially "Oh Mercy," but in both cases arguably the best songs were left out in favor of mediocre ones, and I have reservations about the way they were recorded as well. "Infidels" has a nice polish, but it sounds TOO polished and pretty slick after listening to better renditions of some of those songs. This was discussed in another thread, but while Lanois did a good job with "Oh Mercy," he didn't know when to stop and the results as released can sound overproduced. (I prefer the earlier mixes/alternates of at least a handful of tracks on "Tell Tale Signs.") I tried, but I'll never be a fan of "Empire Burlesque." The Wilburys stuff is a mixed bag for me. "Tweeter and the Monkey Man" is a hilarious song but I can barely stand Jeff Lynne's production. Between "World Gone Wrong" and "Time Out of Mind" (and how much better his live shows became) the '90s do not feel like a lost decade to me at all.

I actually like "New Morning," but there's no way I could call it a great album. It's good, but not THAT good. I think Tarfumes is spot-on about "Another Self Portrait," that was far better than I thought it would be, but "Self Portrait" is still a pretty terrible album and you can ever hear why on "Another Self Portrait" - the best "Self Portrait" cuts are no longer marred by goopy strings, even better songs were left off the album ("Pretty Saro" for one), the Isle of Wight songs are actually mixed correctly, and they even cheat a bit by adding some great "New Morning" stuff, though a few alternate mixes with Al Kooper's overdubs feel like they repeat the same mistakes made on "Self Portrait."

I like some of the songs on "Street Legal," but it also has some of my least favorite music period - tracks through 3 through 5 sound like terrible songs, especially "No Time to Think." I'm sorry, but that track alone is horrendous.

Anyway, in terms of fans of who think an artist should be a certain kind of artist, that's always been bullshit, and that's a problem virtually every great artist has put up with, not just Dylan. As it applies here, it's fascinating to see how Dylan responds to that. Most of the conversations I've been referring to revolve around that - Dylan grappling with nostalgia when he reunites with the Band (everyone involved in that tour was very aware of that), how he engages with the audience in his evangelical period, and struggling with his own loss of interest throughout an active '80s which he's mentioned more than once in recent years.

Gotcha - though I didn't think you were talking about your personal taste, as much as general reception of his work in those time periods... and my point was just that he at least had some critical heat & well respected periods in the '80s (whatever you may think of those albums); vs. the '90s, where he retreated after Red Sky, and nothing much really happened until Time Out of Mind (I guess MTV Unplugged did well).

Coincidentally, I was talking to my kids about Dylan today, and I was actually struggling to convey his importance. I mean, I think I did a good job, but it was a bit like trying to explain why the color yellow is important, you know?

xp It could also be that those two albums of traditional songs each got, like, 4.5 stars in Rolling Stone (I'd have to look it up) -- but I just don't recall much heat around Dylan in the '90s, they feel like the softest decade in terms of his rep.

the hate for street legal completely passes me by

like singling out “no time to think” as a particularly bad song... that song is awesome. the hook gets stuck in my head for days

Yeah, it rules. That album rules. (FWIW, "Is Your Love in Vain?" is the dud.)

I'm no Dylan obsessive, though I do own tons of Dylan stuff, officially released and otherwise. Anyway. some years back I caught an Alejandro Escovedo show down the street, and during it he covered "Dark Eyes." I'd never heard it because I've never really listened to any '80s Dylan stuff, but I thought, huh, that's a pretty good song.

You're partly right about the '90s because there wasn't much studio activity and it started off terribly with "Under the Red Sky." Dylan himself expressed regret about that one, saying it was a complete disorganized mess. (Basically he was trying to record that at the same time he was writing and recording the next Wilburys album, and he says he wasn't focused on his own album at all.) The tours kept coming, and pretty soon that was his main focus because his next two albums were the covers albums. They were knocked out quickly, and they helped fulfill his contract at a time when he wasn't really writing new material, but they also allowed him to regroup by diving back into the music that really got him into music as a way of life. The first one is pretty uneven - there is some good stuff, but he isn't completely convincing on everything, especially "Tomorrow Night" where he sounds awful. But he's begun righting the ship, and the next one, "World Gone Wrong," is very close to a masterpiece - his interpretations that are absolutely riveting. (Along with "In Utero," Patti Smith said it was one of the two albums she listened to most that year.) After that you had MTV Unplugged (which may have been more about the TV broadcast) and "Time Out of Mind," but that's it until "Things Have Changed" came out in 2000, so a pretty modest output for the decade, but I'd only call one of those albums a dud.

With Dylan (or Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, the Beatles, the VU, James Brown...) the first thing I zeroed in on was how much they changed music, and you have to look at what was made before they came along. There was no shortage of great music before they came along, but the music most people know today was completely shaped by their contributions. Dylan's influence was so varied and broad, it's really hard to imagine what songwriting would've been like without him. When Prince died, someone made that point and listed like 30 major artists from the past 30 years who were profoundly shaped by Prince - it was basically 30 names that collectively felt like the center of popular music. That's pretty much what it's like with Dylan, though the influences are becoming more second or thirdhand given how long he's been around (i.e. even artists who don't know his music are likely to be influenced via someone else who was). Anyway, that's how I've explained someone like Dylan to people who are unfamiliar with Western music.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of "Is Your Love in Vain?" either (it's one of the three duds I listed). I'm sorry, but that hook you're talking about on "No Time to Think" is one reason I find it so irritating melodically speaking. The singing and the arrangement are both horrendous to me. If I had to make the case for that album, there's probably four tracks I'd focus on: "Changing of the Guards" (which I prefer to hear from Patti Smith on "Twelve" - it's a much better, low-key arrangement, and transposing the cheesy sax riff to the piano is an enormous improvement), "Senor," "We Better Talk This Over" (reportedly, the new musical direction was inspired by the recently deceased Elvis Presley and what Presley was doing in the final 7 or 8 years of his life - this track reminds me of his best music from that era), and "Where Are You Tonight?" which sounds like Dylan's on the verge of collapse - it's a stunning piece of work and placed within the context of his subsequent conversion, it feels all the more perfect.

Yeah, "Dark Eyes" is gorgeous. It's been singled out before, but Patti Smith used to sing that with Dylan when they toured together in the '90s. It's the one real keeper from "Empire Burlesque" IMHO.

Huh - I made a similar but much less informative post while you were typing that. Under the Red Sky was a head-scratcher for sure, then that early stage of the Neverending Tour (RIP) was widely derided, and well it should have been, D barking cryptic chunks of lyrics in this weird shambling state for many of the shows. But a major factor to remember was that The Bootleg Series Vols. 1-3 came out in 1991 and fired up some interest. And then the roots covers albums, which are great, didn't gain much attention, but Time Out of Mind dropped in 1997 and was universally hailed. So I don't think the 90s were a void, maybe 5 years were.

Just to clarify the point about Dylan's influence (it's late so I'm a little tired now), a good point of reference may be the "Sinatra" albums. Not many people like them, and Dylan's concerts noticeably lost attendance because of them. But those are GREAT songs. And Frank Sinatra's albums from the '50s to the early '60s were marvelous. The Capitol recordings are probably one of the great bodies of work in 20th century music. Ella Fitzgerald's Verve songbooks are almost up there too. These are great records tapping into the Great American Songbook, and it says a lot that Dylan's covers didn't captivate the imagination. He may have been a poor fit for this material, but these songs didn't feel like they had any connection to the present. What made these albums "work" conceptually was that it made one re-think the place this music had in the culture now - at one time this was THE popular music in the Western world, but the audience it was made for (the audience in the broadest sense, meaning the population at large) is now virtually gone. Dylan is preserving this music the way he's preserved songs that are centuries old. It's poignant knowing this music has now slipped into that side of history. It's also ironic because it was songwriting like Dylan's that made that music part of an old tradition instead of a continuing path to something new. We're in the middle of perhaps another major upheaval as some are arguing that rock music is now slowing down and giving way to hip-hop, but regardless any rock band can cover Dylan's songs now and the best stuff wouldn't sound out of place at all, even close to 60 years after the fact. I think that alone says a lot.

a major factor to remember was that The Bootleg Series Vols. 1-3 came out in 1991 and fired up some interest

Interesting you mention this; another thing happening in the ‘90s was Dylan sort of transitioning into the “legacy” phase of his career. You can think of something like The 30th* Anniversary Concert Celebration in this regard, as well.

(*I can’t believe that Dylan had been recording for only 30 years at that point... it sounds like nothing now! A band like, say, Mudhoney has been around for longer today than Dylan had been in ‘92.)

But seriously, New Morning is one of his best

Honestly there's probably no one who's opinion I trust least than super 60s fans, maybe the early folk crowd

― Blues Guitar Solo Heatmap (Free Download) (upper mississippi sh@kedown)

I can't post this often enough

I'm the fan for whom JWL, New Morning, and Empire Burlesque are essential Dylan.

UTRS is a fun album!

New Morning is awesome. So human, laid back, and fun. Few moments in his entire career bring more joy than the last verse of Went to See the Gypsy through the outro.

And what's great about Bob is the weird angles he takes on things. Like how Day of the Locusts was inspired by receiving an honorary doctorate from Princeton.

John Wesley Harding is absolutely one of his greats, I don't think many would disagree with that.

New Morning has a few great tracks, and I agree "Went to See the Gypsy" is one of them, but I actually prefer the alternate take on Another Self Portrait - completely different arrangement, but Dylan's vocal is exquisite on that one. And I would say my favorite song on New Morning is "Sign on the Window" - it may be the best song he released in this era (after JWH and before BOTT). I don't think the album gets better than those two tracks, but a lot of stuff on the first side is still pretty good: "Time Is Passing," "Day of the Locusts," and "If Not For You" which is now a standard though again I prefer the alternate arrangement on Another Self Portrait. (Elvis Costello even singled it out as a great discovery on that Bootleg Series set, but it's actually been widely bootlegged for a while, and in a better mix that has some lovely pedal steel on it.) "Winterlude" and "The Man in Me" are funny little novelties, maybe even "If Dogs Run Free" though it kind of wears thin by the end. Title track's okay, "One More Weekend" is pretty disposable, and "Three Angels" and "Father of Night" feel like a waste of space - not the worst songs he's written, but I don't think they're good songs either. I can see why Dylan would claim New Morning was a bunch of tossed off songs that evaporated into thin air, but "Sign on the Window" alone is much more than that.

Judging by the Rod Stewart thread, Alfred is a big booster of the synthpop-influenced rock of the '80s, so if you're into that era of Rod Stewart, you're likely to enjoy Empire Burlesque a lot. A lot of Under the Red Sky is too slick for my tastes, but with the novelty songs I can see it being a lot more fun if you have kids. "Handy Dandy" is fun in either form, but "Wiggle Wiggle" is too inane for me. The title track can be gorgeous.

empire burlesque doesn't really have that many synths

I don't consider myself a booster; what I've attempted for years is to eviscerate received boomer wisdom concerning technological innovations, s if a particular guitar sound from, say, 1965 >>> a Casio programmed in 1985. Also, if a song from 1981-1990 sucks, blame the song, not the production. I will not save Down in the Groove or most of Knocked Out Loaded (I would save "Brownsville Girl," "Got My Mind Made Up," "Driftin' Too Far from Shore," though).

As for UTRS, "Cat's in the Well," the title track, "Wiggle Wiggle" (Kenny Aronoff!), and "2x2" are perfectly fine songs.

one of those records where its reputation seems more based on the album cover than the actual music xp

The only song on which the synths go bonkers is "When the Night Comes Falling...," which I'll argue is a poorly realized song in any version. "Never Gonna Be the Same Again" is also meh. And the synths absolutely enliven the simmering "Something's Burning, Baby."

I suspect critics at the time wanted the Serious Dylan of Oh Mercy, so when they heard George Harrison, Kenny Aronoff, Elton, etc play on nursery rhymes they thought he was squandering his gifts or something when, if they wanted to examine their values, tracks like "Political World" and "Disease of Conceit" are worse than nursery rhymes. At least on UTRS Dylan and his crack superstar band treat nursery rhymes seriously.

i love that new morning ends with "three angels" and "father of night," it's such an interesting, rich, well-arranged record with these pockets of total abstraction

Funny, "Political World" and "Disease of Conceit" (and I'll throw in "Where Teardrops Fall") are actually the mediocrities I was referring to - those are definitely the three I would toss in favor of the stronger outtakes, including "Born in Time" which wound up on UTRS. But the crack band Lanois put together treated those songs seriously too - they're still terrible. I don't have a problem with Dylan doing nursery rhymes, but you don't want to give a free pass to all of them without any discriminating taste either. I enjoy "Handy Dandy" as much as "Tattle O'Day" (Another Self Portrait), and I have a fun time singing them to my nephews, but they're actual fun songs while "Wiggle Wiggle" is understandably polarizing. (I like Kenny Aronoff - one of the best things about those Mellencamp records he's on - but his drumming isn't enough to save "Wiggle Wiggle" for me.)

Alfred, you're generally right that technological innovations of the '80s, but I'd use a less broader range of music to make the case. Prince, New Order, the Pet Shop Boys and Depeche Mode make a rock solid case for the sounds of that decade, but I don't find a convincing case with some of those other records, quite the opposite.

Also, "Something's Burning, Baby" is actually not a bad song - there's some good lyrics in there - but the synths are kind of a trade-off where it becomes more radio-friendly at the expense of the darker and most interesting elements of that song.

To be brutally honest, Dylan's album covers are usually underwhelming regardless of the music inside, which is fine. There's plenty of terrible albums with covers worth hanging on the wall.

(some typos there, should be "generally right about the technological innovations" and Pet Shop Boys has no "the." Also with "Something's Burning, Baby," to be more accurate, it's not just the use of synths but probably the arrangement in general. Should probably add that "2 x 2" and "Cat's in the Well" are actually okay - maybe not great, but they're fine children's songs.)

We spend a lot of time here discussing the divisive albums and low-hanging fruit. I’d be interested to see someone try to make the case that, say, Blonde on Blonde is overrated.

hi!

j/k it's not overrated but I prefer the 12-bar blues on L&T.