Can somebody explain Bob Dylan to me? His lyrics are phenomenal and there's no denying it, but honestly I'm super underwhelmed by the actual music.
In the 60s, the Beatles and the Beach Boys were absolutely revolutionizing pop with incredible arrangements, melodies, and harmonies, while Dylan was playing what seems like sort of cliched folk music.
Is it really just about the lyrics?
Other urls found in this thread:
Yes.
To understand Dylan (at least in the way you're trying to), it helps to think about the musicians of the time performing his songs. Many popular versions of Dylan's songs are regarded as better than the originals (All Along the Watchtower, Mr. Tambourine Man). So why don't you like Dylan—he still wrote the songs, right? They can't be that bad, right?
Well, if you listen to Dylan and think about the possibilities inherent in his music, he becomes more entertaining on his own. Think about his songs as blueprints, and they become more appreciable.
Depends on what music of Dylan's you're talking about, at least when it comes to the cliched folk music part. From 61 to 64, yeah, he was just a folk singer pretty much. From 65 to 66 he was a rocker. Fuck the folk-rock tag he gets, he was a rock artist pure and simple. If any other artist came out with Subterranean Homesick Blues they'd be considered protopunk. Then for the rest of the 60s he steadily went down a country music phase. Part of the allure for a lot of his fans are all the changes in style he made.
But yeah, it's mostly the lyrics.
interesting perspective, thanks.
admittedly i haven't listened extensively to his material, but wasn't subterranean homesick blues half electric and half folk?
either way, it does seem to me to be mostly about the lyrics, which i totally respect. it's just kind of strange to me the universal praise he gets for somewhat unoriginal music. it's not bad at all, the lyrics are great, but like i said, musically it's just totally not remarkable at all to me.
when i first heard mr. tambourine man the lyrics to the last stanza absolutely blew me away, they were so good. but it's like a 3 chord folk song. part of me thinks that dylan would be better suited as a lyricist to a talented songwriter or as a poet. imagine if dylan was providing lyrics to a brian wilson type figure who could orchestrate some crazy shit
>imagine if dylan was providing lyrics to a brian wilson type figure who could orchestrate some crazy shit
that'd be almost like ice cream on pizza, excuse the analogy
it's the rawness and honest simplicity that gives dylan's lyrics the power and gravitas necessary to translate his message properly
it just kinda fits. i could never see dylan as a full-on ghostwriter
He can write a top shelf pop song
Also i like his vocals a lot, generally
Also, yeah, the lyrics, even though a lot of the mid 60s lyrics he's known for are half baked af i think
yeah that's a fair point, i'd just be interested to have seen the results.
>half baked af
how do you mean?
I think you guys are seriously, deeply undervaluing the music of dylan. I mean solely his backing band. Bringing it all back home, Highway 61, and Blonde on Blonde was some raucous shit. Nobody made music as wild, loose, loud, and carefree as the stuff Dylan did in 64/65. It just didn't exist whether in rock, pop, or folk music.
Take Outlaw Blues from Bringing it all back home. The lead guitar in that song is noisy, aggressive, and loose as hell. Tombstone Blues, and really 7 of the 9 songs on highway 61 are similar. Blonde on Blonde is more subdued and gentle, but definitely has some heavy, rowdy songs that were genuinely way ahead of their time.
That, and his songwriting and lyricism were borderline transcendental.
>Outlaw Blues
what are you talking about man? it's literally just straightforward I-IV-V blues. the guitar seems super normal for this style
>Tombstone Blues
Mike Bloomfield is one of my favorite guitarists
It doesn't sound abrasive as fuck to you?
Dunno man, it's like a bunch of raw subconscious ginsberg-style babble sometimes, always with some excellent lines strewn throughout though. I get liking and even loving them, but he got way more concise and potent after blonde on blonde i think.
i guess i just don't know what you're referring to. the lead guitar seems really typical for a 60s blues tune, it doesn't sound abrasive to me at all, especially compared to stuff like hendrix or tvu which came like 2 years after
The american folk revival was early/mid 60's in case you guys forget.
Well yeah, it's not particularly distorted or fuzzy. It's not going to feel like noisy stuff like TVU or Hendrix or whatever, because it's 1965. But for a typical folk singer it seems a bit bold.
i wasn't even talking effects though, i just mean stylistically. hendrix absolutely ripped it note-wise, this just sounds tame. maybe it's just me looking at it retrospectively but still.
i mean i guess it was a big deal since he got a lot of shit for it and it was 1965, but still. it just doesn't sound crazy to me
>wasn't subterranean homesick blues half electric and half folk?
No.
youtube.com
I'm not trying to sound like a cunt but part of Dylan's whole shtick is his leaving the folk revival movement. Bringing It All Back Home was the first moment he seriously put two feet out the door.
Dylan was kind of blatant about it too on that record. Listen to the laughter in Bob Dylan's 113th Dream. It's recently been revealed (though I guess it was obvious looking back) that this is two tracks spliced together. The laughter at the end of the first track is Dylan laughing at the folk style he'd been so well-known for up to that point. I'd post it but it's not on youtube in its originally released format.
I don't really get threads like these. If you listen to some music and aren't into it, I really don't think it's likely that someone can explain you into liking it. That's never happened to me. The boring answer is no it's not just about the lyrics, I just like listening to it and you don't.
Not even! It's about his charisma and delivery and the personality of the music. And by the way when Bob Dylan was a straight folk singer he was an all time great folk singer. He would be canonical even if he started making country music immediately after Times they are a-changing and never did anything good again
I listen to Bob Dylan (or anyway when I was still regularly listening to his music) because I like the way it makes me feel. I love his freewheeling style (as it were) on Blonde on Blonde and Basement Tapes, I love that eerie aura of importance on BIABH and HW61 (even though it's nonsense there are these lines that seem to have so much weight), I love the wisened old fart of Infidels and later bootlegs, man I fucking love the shit out of Bob Dylan. He is a great performer that makes compelling music.
AND I GUESS THAT I JUST DON'T KNOW
i get that, it's just that honestly i've never had this happen with any other popular/critically acclaimed album ever. 99% of albums i can somewhat appreciate for what they were during the time, this stuff i just can't really. but yeah maybe it boils down to that
how was mr tambourine man not still folk revival?
yeah i respect that, it might just not be my thing. i really respect him as a writer though
this is actually the best thread i've ever skimmed on Sup Forums
legit discussion
bravo
Apart from what other kind anons said, listen to the instrumentation on I Want You, Like a Rolling Stone or (even better) the piano on One of Us Must Know. All the parts are so catchy and play together so well, it's absolutely magical. That's one of the things I love most about those records.
>It's about his charisma and delivery and the personality of the music.
This
Would maybe say attitude over charisma though maybe
There's something really weirdly alluring about his delivery. Part of you thinks he knew what fucks were supposed to be given and didn't give them, another part thinks he gave those fucks so hard they stopped even being fucks, he transcended the fucks giving or something i forgot what i was actually going to say, you're right though
to use a cliche, it's like he knows something you don't. you believe in him when he's talking to you and it gives you this constant sense that there is more below the surface
I think this is a really interesting look at it. I think that's where his magic lies, he has so many brilliantly crafted songs throughout his career.
Sure a few of his songs were covered, and arguably better than the original.
But theres nothing wrong with his music, he has a good voice, plays some good guitar, and the harmonica gives the songs a nice ring.
His music is very minimalist, and yes the lyrics are the best part, but they would be nothing without the good vibrations behind them.
I didn't really get dylan either for a few years, I liked "like a rolling stone" because its very accessible, and then I got depressed and started listening to one to many mornings, but I think getting high or drunk and listening to the blood on the tracks album after some heartbreak is a surefire way to fully appreciate Dylan, at-least it was for me.
amen! we're nothin without drugs!