Posted on 08/22/2006 10:20:10 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Bob Dylan says modern recordings sound "atrocious," and even the songs on his new album sounded much better in the studio than on disc.
"I don't know anybody who's made a record that sounds decent in the past twenty years, really," the 65-year-old rocker said in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine.
Dylan, who released eight studio albums in that time, returns with his first recording in five years, "Modern Times," next Tuesday.
Noting the music industry's complaints that illegal downloading means people are getting their music for free, he said, "Well, why not? It ain't worth nothing anyway."
"You listen to these modern records, they're atrocious, they have sound all over them," he added. "There's no definition of nothing, no vocal, no nothing, just like ... static."
Dylan said he does his best to fight technology, but it's a losing battle.
"Even these songs probably sounded ten times better in the studio when we recorded 'em. CDs are small. There's no stature to it."

I'm oooooold! And I'm not happy! And I don't like things now compared to the way they used to be. All this progress -- phooey! In my day, we didn't have these cash machines that would give you money when you needed it. There was only one bank in each state -- it was open only one hour a year. And you'd get in line, seventeen miles long, and the line became an angry mob of people -- fornicators and thieves, mutant children and circus freaks -- and you waited for years and by the time you got to the teller, you were senile and arthritic and you couldn't remember your own name. You were born, got in line, and ya died! And that's the way it was and we liked it!
Life was simpler then. There wasn't all this concern about hy-giene! It my days, we didn't have Kleenex. When you turned seventeen, you were given the family handkerchief. ... It hadn't been washed in generations and it stood on its own ... filled with diseases and swarmin' with flies. ... If you tried to blow your nose, you'd get an infection and your head would swell up and turn green and children would burst into tears at the sight o' ya! And that's the way it was and we liked it!
Life was a carnival! We entertained ourselves! We didn't need moooovin' pitchurrrres. In my day, there was only one show in town -- it was called "Stare at the sun!" ... That's right! You'd sit in the middle of an open field and stare up at the sun till your eyeballs burst into flames! And you thought, "Oh, no! Maybe I shouldn't've stared directly into the burning sun with my eyes wide open." But it was too late! Your head was on fire and people were roastin' chickens over it. ... And that's the way it was and we liked it!
Progress?! Flobble-de-flee! In my day, when we were angry and frustrated, we just said, "Flobble-de-flee!" 'cause we were idiots and we didn't know what else to say! Just a bunch o' illiterate Cro-Magnons, blowin' on crusty handkerchiefs, waitin' in lines for our head to burst into flame and that's the way it was and we liked it!
You are simply wrong. Dylan uses his voice like an instrument and when he wants it to sound nice and conventional he can.
Oh, please give that guy another three decades and a hundred great songs and we will talk.
LOL
So you say you know NOTHING about Dylan or his songs.
Did someone claim Sinatra was a song WRITER? I guess I missed it.
Did he express himself? Why don't you listen to Angel Eyes or In the Wee Small Hours of the Morning and tell ME?
To put it another way: Frank Sinatra does not have a great singing voice. Nor do any of the others that I named. The point being that popularity, record sales, celebrity status or 'greatness', does not depend on having a great singing voice. I would term Sinatra as a great entertainer, or performer, but he does not have a great voice.
If you want a great singing voice try Elvis or Roy Orbison, or Sarah Brightman, or Pavrotti.
Fred Eaglesmith bump.
Sinatra had an excellent singing voice. He had a greater range than Elvis and incomparable diction. Plus, he was pitch perfect.
lol. OK.
Have a good one.
Kind of hard to argue with Steve Earle, who is not a bad songwriter himself, or he was before he go too leftist political. But to be considered a "great songwriter, I think one needs to be:
1) prolific, while maintaining a high standard of quality.
2) recorded often by others and in a variety of genres.
3) able to turn simple moments or things into touching or clever verse.
Van Zandt scores high in two of the three, but not all three. One of the best, yes. Your (or Earle's) favorite, probably. But others who I would score high in those areas are:
Dylan, Morrison, Guy Clark, John Hiatt, Tom Waits.
To say one or the other is 'the best' though is too subjective to be fairly measured.
In other words you recorded crap and want to blame the technology rather then your failing ability.
Ok.
I think he is ready for his close up Mr. DeMille.
Son Volt: "Trace"
Can't believe some of the responses here. Bob Dylan is one of the greatest songwriters and performing artists of all time. He's right up there with Johnny Cash, George Jones and Waylon Jennings as the greatest recording artists of the 20th Century.
Agreed. I don't know why so many conservatives want to bash him. And those who dismiss him because of his voice have no appreciation for good music. Madonna has a pretty voice but her material sucks. That's because she can't write songs and has virtually no talent for music. But people only focus on transparent things and that is why Top 40 radio today is so full of crap.
Neko Case is a phenomenal artist. Hopefully she'll break out soon. Just saw her latest album in Starbucks today so maybe she's finally on her way to well-deserved stardom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.