Sorry but....
Posted by: woodface on 20 February 2002
quote:
Originally posted by woodface:
Well...it was frankly terrible are even his deciples finaly going to admit he has lost it.
Bob's lost it more than once before, and subsequently found it again. I wouldn't say one track would prove anything of anyone. Very few bands/artists don't have at least one real stinker on record if they've been going for a bit (there are notable exceptions IMHO, like Steely Dan).
Pete.
quote:
Originally posted by 1st Pentacostal Church of Vuksanovic:
Quote: " In a nutshell there was no tune, no discernable verse/chorus and of course it had his tiresome drone! The lyrics, well, bad 6th form poetry "IMVHO all Dylan sounds like this.
It may give you a tiny thrill to say this, but even if you don't like him, if all Dylan sounds like the above description to you then you aren't really listening. Which is your prerogative, of course, but then your assessment has no critical weight. Dozens of Dylan songs have strong melodies and easily discernible verse/chorus schemes. This is a fact whether you like his music or not.
For myself, I think his greatest work is long behind him, but many feel otherwise.
quote:
Originally posted by 1st Pentacostal Church of Vuksanovic:
FredMy apologies, you are prefectly correct.
However - the droning and the the bad sixth form poetry I stand by. And for that alone I'll leave him alone.
I'll never try to persuade anyone to like Dylan's singing voice, it's very much an acquired taste. In his earlier work (up through Blood On the Tracks) his voice just really speaks to me.
On his lyrics ... some may seem similar to "bad sixth form poetry" but to me there is a big difference between his and those of actual sixth form students which are a poor imitation of his. A good analogy is the reaction of some folks to the music of Debussy and Ravel that it "sounds like movie music," when, in fact, so much movie music is a poor imitation of them.
quote:
More importantly - when are you going to twist Naim's arm to do a follow-up to _Dreamhouse_? Much more important!Cheers
Jonathan Ribee
Thank you; much more important, definitely! To be frank, you actually wield much more arm-twisting power than I. Have you tried asking Anna and/or Paul? Perhaps start a campaign thread in The Music Room?
What I'd really like to do most is an expanded version of the Dreamhouse format, adding saxophone and guitar to the piano, bass, and drums. Similar concept but more colors. I have stacks of music waiting on the tarmac ready to take off.
As I've always said, I'm ready any time NAIM is. Thanks again for your interest and support.
quote:
Originally posted by woodface:
To be honest I found your post on Dylan a bit over the top. The inference being that if you don't like Dylan then you are unable to appreciate great music. Funny that, I am able to appreciate the work of Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, Thelonious Monk, John Coltrane, Randy Newman, Nick Drake, The Beatles, The Beach Boys, Sinatra, Billie Holliday etc etc. I have a very diverse misical pallet (I also really liked you last CD) but because I don't appreciate Dylan I am plain wrong?
I apologize if my tone was patronizing; I truly didn't intend that, just some good-natured debate.
To clarify: personal taste is sacrosanct but needs to be kept distinct from artistic evaluation, more so when the two don't intersect. Too often folks confuse their own likes and dislikes for critical appraisal: "I don't like it, therefore it sucks." A thoughtful, discerning listener should be able to appreciate the worth of a musician even if, perhaps especially if, that musician is not their particular cup of tea.
So in no way am I suggesting that if one doesn't like Dylan then one is unable to appreciate great music. What I am saying is that if one makes the hyperbolic claim that "all Dylan sounds like ... there [is] no tune, no discernible verse/chorus" when there are dozens of objective examples of proof to the contrary (sit down with me at the piano, I'd be glad to show you), regardless of whether one likes the music or not, then one has allowed their taste to cloud analytic thought.
For instance, I don't listen to Wagner much at all; he doesn't float my boat. But I would never suggest that his music sucks; I can hear how well constructed it is, how deep the inspiration and creativity are. It just doesn't groove me. Do you see the distinction?
By the way, thanks for digging my music.
'his influence on popular music is incalculable. As a songwriter, he pioneered several different schools of pop songwriting, from confessional singer/songwriter to winding, hallucinatory, stream-of-conscious narratives. As a vocalist, he broke down the notions that in order to perform, a singer had to have a conventionally good voice, thereby redefining the role of vocalist in popular music. As a musician, he sparked several genres of pop music, including electrified folk-rock and country-rock. And that just touches on the tip of his achievements. Dylan's force was evident during his height of popularity in the '60s - the Beatles' shift toward introspective songwriting in the mid-'60s never would have happened without him , but his influence echoed throughout several subsequent generations'
To me, one pointer to someone's greatness, is the influence they had on subsequent musicians, and whether you happen to like what he does, you cannot argue about his influence.
quote:
Originally posted by woodface:
I see Ellington as one of the the few geniuses in music (genius by it's nature must be a rare thing), to my mind he is an 'absolute' in that you cannot really argue against his greatness. Dylan on the other hand isn't really doing anything new, there were countless singer/songwriters before him who were in a very similar ilk. Woody Guthrie is a good example. I'm afraid I just don't appreciate his music but I don't think that makes my critical faculties flawed?
With all due respect, I do think your taste is clouding your critical faculties.
I agree that Ellington is an absolute, a bona fide genius. But I also think that Dylan is, too, but not necessarily in the same way Ellington was. Dylan's achievement is not as purely musical as Duke's, it's more of an overall cultural feat ... his lyrics, his views, his ability to communicate on many levels, his influence on other musicians (Beatles, for sure, just to cite but one example), his influence on culture at large, his innovations in blending rock, blues, and folk musics (he started where Guthrie left off), his contribution of some classic sociopolitical anthems to the world. There is an undeniable, significant artistic truth in much of his work. You may not like it, and I would never insist that you should, but that doesn't therefore mean that his work is not considerable.
quote:
Country Rock and Folk Rock, these are hardly two genres that set the world alight.
There is no less potential for artistic truth and meaningful human expression in these genres than in any other. To believe otherwise is "genre-ism."
[This message was edited by fred simon on THURSDAY 28 February 2002 at 22:08.]