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."
Good list, though Yoakam's a little too twangy for me. Crowell is a great singer/songwriter, but is also a blatant Bush-bashing lib. I've seen Keen, Eaglesmith and Crowell live and they were all excellent shows.
I consider better than Sinatra....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...
Johnny Cash himself said he was not a "singer" but rather he had a certain style that people liked. I agree with him.
all of whom reached great heights by finding something within themselves to compensate for their vocal shortcomings
We are mixing our terms, which has led to this disagreement. You admit that many of those on your list all have "vocal shortcomings". I believe Sinatra did as well.
I went back and looked at my original post, which was made to 'Cripple Creek' in his response that stated '(Dylan) Can't sing".
I put scare quotes around the phrase 'can't sing' to indicate that I was paraphrasing someone else. I then named a list of people, many of which are on your list and closed by saying:
All of the above have very limited range, but none are great singers. It often takes more then a voice to make a star.
Perhaps to be more clear I should have said: "None have great vocal quality, or all have 'vocal shortcomings'.
Putting down some folks as entertainers -- I have no idea how you construed that to be a put down. It was never intended as such.
then praising the well-deserving Elvis Presley, -- I base my opinion on Elvis on several things, starting with his Sam Phillips/Sun Session recordings, which I believe are a strong indication of what a great vocalist he was. His fall into Hollywood and Rock and Roll icon status was a circus like atmosphere which clouded how good his voice was. But even after all the crap associated with him, his voice still could ring loud, clear and undeniably great.
Van Morrison -- I am a huge Van Morrison fan having bought his first album when he was with 'Them' and I was 14 years old. I have probably 20 of his Albums-Tapes-CD's and listen to him regularly. I first saw him in '74 at the Shrine in LA and have seen him a half dozen times since. I believe him to be an all time great. But he to has "vocal shortcomings" and limited range. His music works and works well because he works within his limitations, arranges beautifully and is an extremely prolific writer. But he does not have a great voice, in terms of sound quality, others are much better. But most of those others do not have half the talent that Van the Man does.
BC-- My opinion on Sinatra is based not on one song, but admittedly is based on the later parts of his career.
Maybe I don't know much. I'm not like the people who hook onto specific acts and have to buy every album. I just hear what's on the radio mostly; the HITS, not the fringe.
The actual HITS of Dylan's, especially his own, do not impress me as anything but exactly what I said. Sorry if that offends you, but that's MO.
I love it too, but honestly my favorites are Blacklisted and Furnace Room Lullaby.
I can't wait to see what she does next!
LOL -- yep.
Without the amplifiers Madonna has no voice.
Dylan is a story teller and his songs are the stories. When they require a soft, pleasant voice he can oblige when they require a harsh, rasping or unpleasant voice he can also oblige.
There is no question that he is the greatest songwriter of the 20th century. No one comes even close. Cole Porter was wonderful but cannot match Dylan's output. Of course, he died fairly young and was screwed up physically so he did not have as many productive years.
Dylan towers above any of those said to compare.
Amen and Amen..I couldn't have stated it better. Indeed; there are other qualities to consider,when discussing Singers; as you have said.
Aside from Sinatras' voice alone..his inate ability to SWING is considerable. I suppose that's what endeared him to Jazz artists.
I've read, for instance; that during the last year of Lester Youngs' life (also known as Prez, one of the great Sax players of the '40's and '50's..) all he would do is listen to Sinatra's albums. Why?
'Cause Sinatra could "swing" like no one else! Listen to his albums that he did with Billy May, or Count Basie. He was marvelous to hear when he was hot!
This is simply another of many reasons why Sinatra is still generally considered to be the Singers' Singer, even today.
I do not dispute Dylan's influence on other artists, but that doesn't really sway me to admiration. I can only think of a handful of Elvis songs I like, and outside of Abbey Road I don't much care for The Beatles, and certainly Elvis and The Beatles have had a tremendous influence on other artists.
Great song.
Not only is your comment complete BS but you don't even know WHAT he is referring to.
Sinatra said that he tried to style his "vocalese", if you will, after Tommy Dorsey's trombone. Prez, if I recall, actually goes back to the 20s and 30s; he was a big pre-bop tenorman.
Now those are some nerdy-looking hipsters!!!!
Dylan's music rarely produced "hits". So any evaluation based on that criteria is invalid.
Nothing doing, but it is the song which soured me on Dylan while I was still quite young. It wasn't the only one, though--there are a lot of his songs that I simply do not like--Lay Lady, Lay, Blowin' in the Wind, The Times They Are A-Changin, that "placard" song, whatever its name is...nope, I don't like any of them. One could argue that such a small sampling is not enough to write off an artist, but the way I see it, these are some of his most popular songs. As such, I believe they probably represent, quite well, his overall canon.
With regard to Forever Young, sorry Michael, but I disagree. First, and excuse me if this sounds sexist, I don't know that there is a man alive who could come close to understanding how I felt the first time I held my babies, not even my husband. This isn't a failing and it is not a swipe at fathers. Men and women are completely different animals when it comes to such primal emotions, however. I don't think a woman could adequately sum up the emotions of a first time father, for that matter. That's not why I dislike the song, though.
Been a Dylan fan since I was 13 years old. He's the man. Just listen to Poor Boy from the CD Love and Theft for conclusive proof. LOL
Troubadour is the right term.
I thought Dylan was great up to and including Blood on the Tracks and Desire but then, like with a lot of 60s folks, things went downhill from there.
You're flaunting your ignorance of me, friend. I've been familiar with Dylan's work since I was a youngster. I'm fully aware that he has influenced hordes of artists (probably even some which he freely denigrates). I don't like him, I don't like his music. That doesn't make me ignorant, that means I have tastes which differ from yours.
Now I have to admit to being sexist, as I assumed you were a man when I was posting to you. My apology for that.
But, given that he held his son, lingered in the moment, then sat down and wrote what he did, regardless of if you like it as a song, indicates a remarkable ability to put into words feelings that are so difficult to either express or convey. I can respect people 'not liking' his voice, or his lyrics, but I do not understand why people refuse to admit that he has a remarkable talent for expression.
On a side note, The first time my wife held our son, this after 26 hours of labor, 6 weeks premature and 8 lbs 6 oz. her first words to me, after looking at him, were: "Let's have another one."
Take care.
That is a lyric worth singing! Cheers
Taste is pretty subjective. It's cool if you don't care for Dylan, but at the same time, you can't deny him his due as one of the country's best songwriters and musical artists of all time.
Personally, I hate Bruce Springsteen, Billy Joel, and Elton John, but I won't deny these cats are among the top in their craft.
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.