Bob Dylan says modern music is worthless

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."

"Even these songs probably sounded ten times better in the studio when we recorded 'em. CDs are small. There's no stature to it."

Forever Young
~ Bob Dylan ~

May God bless and keep you always,
May your wishes all come true,
May you always do for others
And let others do for you.
May you build a ladder to the stars
And climb on every rung,
May you stay forever young,
Forever young, forever young,
May you stay forever young.

May you grow up to be righteous,
May you grow up to be true,
May you always know the truth
And see the lights surrounding you.
May you always be courageous,
Stand upright and be strong,
May you stay forever young,
Forever young, forever young,
May you stay forever young.

May your hands always be busy,
May your feet always be swift,
May you have a strong foundation
When the winds of changes shift.
May your heart always be joyful,
May your song always be sung,
May you stay forever young,
Forever young, forever young,
May you stay forever young.

First Sinatra is not a great singer, now he's merely an entertainer? You imply the same of Holiday & Armstrong? Nice troll.

Do not put words into my mouth and save your childish insults for someone else.

We differentiate on the superlative "great", my thresehold appears to be higher then yours. I have named singers I have said were better then Sinatra, you have not. It would be interesting if you did.

There are plenty of entertainers who are great, w/o being great singers and the reverse also holds true.

What makes Sinatra a legend and "a great" is not his singing voice, it is his entire presentation and persona. That is all I have said.

Frank Sinatra can't sing? Whatsa matter with your ears? Sinatra was the finest interpreter of the Great American Songbook, (besides Ella, that is.)

There is a reason WHY he was nicknamed The Voice in the '40's. (listen to his recordings with Tommy Dorsey; circa 1940-1942) His voice is a treasure. His phrasing and breath control was amazing.

Sinatra's recording career started in 1939, and continued till his last recording sessions in 1993; when he recorded the "Duets" albums. And how many other 78 year old singing artists have albums that reach # 1 on the charts, huh? ("Duets" reached # 1 on the charts when it was released in late 1993.)

Sinatra's singing style has influenced, and is continueing to influence far more singers than any other in the last 70 years.

His voice was smooth as butter throughout the '40's; '50's and early '60s; but then, by the late '60's, through the use of cigarettes, and Mr. Jim Beam, took on a sound like gorgeous burnished mahoghany. It was around 1980 that Sinatra's voice finally began to catch up with his lifestyle. And yes, by the mid '80s, his voice was in tatters. BUT the man could still sing far better than any of his contemporaries; simply on the basis of his interpretative abilities.

Frank Sinatra was, and still is the Singers Singer.

Sinatra can't sing? Clean out your ears, man! Go listen to "The September of My Years" (Grammy winner for the best album of the year 1965) or "Only The Lonely" (1959)- then come back and tell me that Sinatra can't sing..I dare ya ! :>)

I do understand what you've posted. I am far from stupid. I did pay attention to what you've posted. You've stated in no uncertain terms that, in your opinion, Sinatra is not a great singer.

I don't know if this is your own situation..but quite possibly, you've, (like a few other people that I've spoken with;) formed this singular opinion regarding Sinatra's singing ability, only after hearing Sinatra sing "My Way"(1969); which isn't truly representative of the quality work that he did in the past, but that's the song that most people within a certain age group, for better or for worse; think of when they remember Sinatra.

"My Way" is simply not a great song, or even a good song.(the blame goes to the composer, Paul Anka!)

I suppose that anyone can't be blamed for thinking that Sinatra isn't a great singer after hearing just that ONE song. But, honestly..Frank recorded over 1,600 songs during his career. Again.. I don't know if you're baseing your opinion on hearing just that one recording..

Or, do you possibly have other legitimate critiques of his voice, or singing style that has lead you to come to the conclusion that Frank Sinatra was not a great singer?

Please listen to the classic Concept albums that Sinatra recorded with Nelson Riddles' arrangements- albums like "In The Wee Small Hours"(1955), or "Only The Lonely"(1958), or " Songs for Swingin' Lovers"(1956), or "A Swingin' Affair"(1957) or.. perhaps "The Concert Sinatra"(1963) or maybe "The Jobim Album"(1967).

If, after listening to any of these albums; you are still of the opinion that Sinatra isn't a great singer...well; I suppose that there's no hope for anyone who can't recognise greatness when it's obviously within his hearing.

I kinda doubt this poster is basing his comments on such a small sample as you're suggesting, but I don't see his posts as making all that much sense, either. First Sinatra's not a great singer, but there are other singers mentioned who also aren't great. Except there is mention of the greatness of one in another post. My protest against the characterization of Sinatra as not a great singer is replied to with a post saying something about the difference between a singer and an entertainer. Then there was something about voice quality, and a mention of Roy Orbison, who had pitch issues (along with others mentioned as well). I say these posts are in fact trolls, and reject the idea that this characterization is a childish insult.

Now there's some doubletalk backtracking saying something about how Sinatra is in fact great, but only within the context of semantical games wherein there are clear lines drawn between 'singer,' 'entertainer,' 'performer,' etc. But, the poster in question has boldly proclaimed the loftiness of his own standards without knowing anything about mine, though he seems to think he does.

Phrasing & the ability to emote have a lot more to do with great singing than voice quality, so far as I'm concerned. Dismissal of such vocal traits says a lot about someone else's standards, which I would consider to be faulty on that basis.

Performers who do not have quote-unquote 'great voices' are often the best singers of all, since they must rely on other skills & abilities to perform music. Shortcomings in certain areas sometimes bring out exceptional virtue in others. Sinatra, the aforementioned Holiday & Armstrong, and of course Dylan are fine examples of vocalists with artistic conceits finding a way to achieve a particular goal in a piece of music in spite of a lack of a perfect voice. Given that one with a perfect voice may well lack the artistic vision and/or imagination to do anything interesting, artistic, or praiseworthy with a given piece of music, I reject that as an omnipotent aspect of vocals.

I've also been attacked for offering little in the way of singers I consider better than Sinatra. That should hardly be a surprise, because it's tough to come up with many who I feel were better. But then I don't pay as much attention to voice quality as others. Or gymnastics, for that matter, so the likes of Streisand or Carey have not, and will never impress me, especially given Streisand's issues with pitch. But since I've been pressed, I'll say Holiday, Howlin' Wolf, Kurt Cobain, Jane Monheit, John Lennon, Van Morrison, Johnny Cash, Marvin Gaye, Nat King Cole, James Brown, Crosby, Madeleine Peyroux, Lee Ving, Hank Williams, Tom Waits, the Beach Boys, Exene, Elvis Costello, Shane MacGowan...all of whom reached great heights by finding something within themselves to compensate for their vocal shortcomings in this or that area that apparently some people think are far more important than people like myself.

Putting down some folks as entertainers, then praising the well-deserving Elvis Presley, seems odd, given that a significant aspect of his initial rise to fame was due to his charisma as a performer, which was probably before people realized how vocally gifted he actually was. Getting people to even consider the talent he had may have well been secondary to dealing with this then-aesthetically displeasing rock and roll stuff that many refused to accept amongst their youth. Dylan came along only a few years later. To suggest that it was not a good singer who managed to not only write, but get across the lyrics in question, makes no sense. Those who have never liked his voice, and, making the mistake of confusing voice with singing ability, will never get it, but they aren't worth arguing with.

If you're going to tell us that Sinatra wasn't a great singer, then some details as to why would be nice.

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.