| 12th November 2006 09:27 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
5 reasons Bob Dylan still rocks in '06
By Brian Mccollum , Detroit Free Press
Sunday, November 12, 2006 PHOTO GALLERY
There's hip, there's trendy, there's stylish.
And then there's cool.
We're talking about timeless cool. At 65, the grizzled rock icon continues to operate at the vanguard of American culture, as relevant now as he was four decades ago.
Cool isn't always easy over the long haul: While some peers have mutated into caricatures of their younger personas-see: the Rolling Stones-Dylan has aged gracefully, a master musician who retains a distinct sense of style as he calls his own shots.
Countless volumes have been written analyzing Dylan and his music over the years. But there are just five things you need to know about Dylan's perpetual cool.
1. He's on a creative roll
The Grammy-dominating "Time Out of Mind" in 1997 ushered in Dylan's latest career renaissance, a musical chapter that most recently produced his roots-blues masterpiece, "Modern Times."
With 2001's "Love and Theft," they make up a musical stretch that has been widely hailed as among the best of Dylan's career. Raw, real and expertly crafted, the latter-day albums reveal an artist who appears personally rejuvenated - with music whose vitality leaves most classic-rock contemporaries in the dust.
Melissa Behring of Royal Oak, Mich., is a 30-year-old fan who was drawn into Dylan's world by the new records.
"We're still in need of someone saying down-to-earth things in a down-to-earth fashion, and he does that so well," says Behring, vocalist with the Detroit band 7 Million Jigawatts. "He's taking the oldest style of blues and making it so modern and vibrant."
2. He continues to mold a distinct mythology
Few figures in popular culture understand the power of mystique better than Dylan, and perhaps none wields it more skillfully. Since his earliest days, he has proved to be a master of calculated aloofness, controlling his own story in an age when the media machinery prefers chewing up and spitting out personalities at its own pace.
Whether micromanaging last year's Martin Scorsese documentary, "No Direction Home," or waiting until late in life to reveal the barest of personal details, as in his 2004 autobiography, Dylan has shown a deceptively sophisticated approach to image management.
It would be too easy to say he prefers to let the music do the talking, though that purist approach to his art is certainly part of the equation. Perhaps more accurate is that the notoriously private Dylan is just smart enough to know that a little mystery can go a long way.
3. He's a maverick
Even as his legacy grows bigger than ever, Dylan moves through the world as if oblivious to his own impact and status. It's the picture of poise, a mellow-rebel stance that's familiar across generational lines. In its glowing review of "Modern Times," the youth-driven Pitchfork magazine wrote that "maybe the heart-stopping appeal of Bob Dylan has less to do with his output - which, tangentially, remains outstanding - and more to do with his cowboy-boot saunter."
Throw in a few left-field moves - a Victoria's Secret commercial here, an iTunes ad there - and you've got the mark of someone who knows he can get away with anything. Or, to put it another way: someone who is confident he's cooler than you.
4. He doesn't look like he's trying too hard
That doesn't mean he comes off lazy. It means he makes it look effortless.
"You risk your life to play music, if you're doing it the right way," Dylan told a Rolling Stone interviewer this year. Yet he shows no fear; with Dylan, the self-assurance seems second nature. Onstage, it's an engaging display of balance: He appears detached but deeply committed, spontaneous but in control, unpredictable but remarkably consistent.
"When I see Bob Dylan, I see a level of experience and a level of history there. It's a vibe you only get with certain musicians," says lifelong fan Jake Tobias, 44, of Royal Oak. "He brings something to the stage that only seasoned people can bring."
5. He's all about now
It's not just his penchant for embracing new music, as he's done with such acts as the White Stripes, Beck and the Foo Fighters, or his name-check of Alicia Keys on "Modern Times."
As a performer, Dylan is acutely aware that immediacy is the heart of rock music, recently remarking that the only fans who matter are the ones in front of him at a given moment. Though he immerses himself in a panoply of older musical styles, Dylan rarely comes off as a mere stylist; rather, he injects it all with fresh emotional blood.
The result? He continues to matter. "With Bob Dylan," says fan Tobias, "it's always history in the making."
|
| 13th November 2006 11:39 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
Tonight's the night... |
| 13th November 2006 11:51 AM |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
the #1 reason he rocks now (and has been for a long time) is because he's assembled a top notch band of road ready musicians that deliver the goods every single night. The band rocks. They take his songs to another level. Spot on every night.
|
| 13th November 2006 12:02 PM |
|
|
| PeerQueer |
[quote]Saint Sway wrote:
the #1 reason he rocks now (and has been for a long time) is because he's assembled a top notch band of road ready musicians that deliver the goods every single night. The band rocks. They take his songs to another level. Spot on every night.
___________
You are absolutely correct! I was blown away by how good his band is - there were times during the show where I looked over at other members of the audience, and we all had the same look of "Wow - these guys are GOOD!" Bob captains that ship with a tight fist - a quick look, a point of the finger, and when it's going well (which seems to be most of the time) he cracks a little smile, or sometimes just throws back his head and laughs.
Dylan in 2006 is simply amazing. I was too young to catch him in the 70's , but folks who saw him then say the quality of music is right there.
Sure wish the Stones could say the same... |
| 13th November 2006 12:25 PM |
|
|
| wisertime |
quote:
PeerQueer wrote:
[quote]Saint Sway wrote:
the #1 reason he rocks now (and has been for a long time) is because he's assembled a top notch band of road ready musicians that deliver the goods every single night. The band rocks. They take his songs to another level. Spot on every night.
___________
You are absolutely correct! I was blown away by how good his band is - there were times during the show where I looked over at other members of the audience, and we all had the same look of "Wow - these guys are GOOD!" Bob captains that ship with a tight fist - a quick look, a point of the finger, and when it's going well (which seems to be most of the time) he cracks a little smile, or sometimes just throws back his head and laughs.
Dylan in 2006 is simply amazing. I was too young to catch him in the 70's , but folks who saw him then say the quality of music is right there.
Sure wish the Stones could say the same...
I'm a great Dylan fan but I don't think his musicians are so good, these guys on guitars are average at best.
I really miss Larry Campbell, Charlie Sexton, Freddie Koella a lot. JJ Jackson was far better than Stu Kimball and Dennie Freeman, these 2 guys are really boring.
|
| 13th November 2006 12:30 PM |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
I miss Larry Campbell in the band too. Having him & Sexton together is tough to beat. But the new guys sound up to snuff. Plus the addition of Donnie Heron is a huge plus. He's amazing on lap and pedal steel. And just a wizard on every other instrument he picks up during the show.
|
| 13th November 2006 12:41 PM |
|
|
| wisertime |
quote:
Saint Sway wrote:
I miss Larry Campbell in the band too. Having him & Sexton together is tough to beat. But the new guys sound up to snuff. Plus the addition of Donnie Heron is a huge plus. He's amazing on lap and pedal steel. And just a wizard on every other instrument he picks up during the show.
It's Dylan's choice and he must be happy with their sound but there's a lot of great guitarists who could play far better than Freeman and Kimball. Check the DylanPool, a lot of posters are complaining about them. |
| 13th November 2006 12:45 PM |
|
|
| Martha |
quote:
wisertime wrote:
It's Dylan's choice and he must be happy with their sound but there's a lot of great guitarists who could play far better than Freeman and Kimball. Check the DylanPool, a lot of posters are complaining about them.
"a lot of posters are complaining about them"
Indeed. And what do they know about music really???? People seem to spend time complaining a lot.....
I for one dig the new band and loved the other guitarists Larry, Charlie, Fuzzy as well. This band smokes......the crowds are always bowled over.....I pay attention to that at each show. This band is cooking with rice!
BTW, only 5 reasons? LOL I can think of a lot more.
peace out,
Marthamelodylan |
| 13th November 2006 02:28 PM |
|
|
| Dear Doctor |
zimmerman sucks
enougn already
who could really watch him make nasal passages anyway for more than an hour
he sucks
|
| 13th November 2006 03:00 PM |
|
|
| Martha |
quote:
Dear Doctor wrote:
zimmerman sucks
enougn already
who could really watch him make nasal passages anyway for more than an hour
he sucks
Are these sentences? |
| 13th November 2006 03:14 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
>who could really watch him make nasal passages anyway for more than an hour<
Well, me, for one. 17 times over. And I'll do #18 this Sat. Bob uses his voice like a weapon. He can tickle you, or he can rip yer guts out.
Bob ain't for everyone. Then again, no-one is for everyone. I suppose it's an aquired taste. But man, once you aquire it, almost nothing else can satisfy those particular tastebuds. You know, yeah it's good, but it ain't Dylan good.
Having seen his "new" band a couple of times now, I gotta say that I do give the nod to the Larry and Charlie combo. But that is not to say that the new guys are no good. They are very good. It's just that Larry and Charlie are two of the very best at what they do.
I also agree that the steel guitar guy adds bunches to the sound of this line up. Top flight stuff. |
| 13th November 2006 06:10 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
quote:
Dear Doctor wrote:
zimmerman sucks
enougn already
who could really watch him make nasal passages anyway for more than an hour
he sucks
Oh my... |
| 13th November 2006 06:53 PM |
|
|
| Martha |
quote:
Saint Sway wrote:
I miss Larry Campbell in the band too. Having him & Sexton together is tough to beat. But the new guys sound up to snuff. Plus the addition of Donnie Heron is a huge plus. He's amazing on lap and pedal steel. And just a wizard on every other instrument he picks up during the show.
Larry was with Elvis Costello and Rosanne Cash a couple nights ago when they played on Letterman. He looked good! ;-) |
| 13th November 2006 06:54 PM |
|
|
| StarvinMarvin |
I respect what Dylan has accomplished over the years, but his voice is terrible now. His voice was great in the 60's, pretty listenable in the 70's, OK in the 80's, and annoying since the 90's. The man doesn't even TRY to sing the melodies anymore. He just barks, and has the vocal range of about 3 notes. I don't know, maybe he should stop singing through his nose, or at least clear his throat once in a while. It sounds terrible.
I'm sorry, but melody and good singing are essential ingredients of good music, and poor old Bob couldn't be bothered with either anymore. |
| 13th November 2006 07:47 PM |
|
|
| MrPleasant |
quote:
StarvinMarvin wrote:
I'm sorry, but melody and good singing are essential ingredients of good music, and poor old Bob couldn't be bothered with either anymore.
Melodies and good singing are obligatory for pop music, and Dylan has never tackled a pure, glossy, pop song. Ballads and love songs, yes ("I Want You"; "Is Your Love in Vain"), but not a "Let's Spend The Night Together" or a "Wouldn't It Be Nice". For folk and 12 bar R'n'B/blues, Dylan's chords are better than ever (Modern Times). Now, if his voice isn't comparable to the one that used to whistle through, say, "Love Minus Zero", well, neither are Brian Wilson's or McCartney's, for their classic stuff.
Everybody gets old, and if Dylan currently nasals "Like A Rolling Stone" in his concerts, so be it. He's the man who wrote it, after all. Besides, the way he reinvents himself, live, I'm sure his songs are never nasalled the same way twice. |
| 13th November 2006 07:58 PM |
|
|
| PeerQueer |
quote:
StarvinMarvin wrote:
I respect what Dylan has accomplished over the years, but his voice is terrible now. His voice was great in the 60's, pretty listenable in the 70's, OK in the 80's, and annoying since the 90's. The man doesn't even TRY to sing the melodies anymore. He just barks, and has the vocal range of about 3 notes. I don't know, maybe he should stop singing through his nose, or at least clear his throat once in a while. It sounds terrible.
I'm sorry, but melody and good singing are essential ingredients of good music, and poor old Bob couldn't be bothered with either anymore.
___________
Oh shit...
You don't get it, so I'll leave it at that.
I love the guy's voice - it emotes - far more important than hitting notes. Similar to what made Sinatra so great - he didn't have the smooth croon of Bing, but his songs gutted you - he carried it to another level far beyond simple notes.
By your criteria, the later albums by Cash were shit too huh? Stick to your MTV - I'll stick to my artists.
I'll sleep content knowing I'm getting the far better deal... |
| 13th November 2006 08:04 PM |
|
|
| Erik_Snow |
Well put, QueerPeer
edit: Well put, PeerQueer.
[Edited by Erik_Snow] |
| 13th November 2006 08:11 PM |
|
|
| Lazy Bones |
The thing to realize is that "new" only refers to Stu and Denny. George has been around for some time and Tony's been with him a since shortly after the waters receded.
It's these two - Tony and George - that have the most fun and give the driving beat that keeps these guys tight.
StarvinMarvin wrote:
I'm sorry, but melody and good singing are essential ingredients of good music,
...all is lost! |
| 13th November 2006 08:15 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
>but melody and good singing are essential ingredients of good music<
Well I hear loads of melody in Bob's songs, and especially in his voice. Good singing. Hmmmm. That's all in the ear of the beholder, no? I find Bob's voice very very expressive. The way he twists phrases, and changes the timings of the lyric...sometimes from verse to verse...sometimes in a single line...it's astounding. No one else plays with phrasings like Bob does.
I mean, I don't think a voice has to be pretty or palatable to be effective. I love all sorts of "non-traditional" types of singers. They are not bland and normal. They reek of individuality and personality. And they are instantly recognizable and unique. No one else sounds like Bob Dylan...not then, not now. You know from the very first utterance exactly who you are hearing. I think that's important. That's one of the things that I dig about Mick Jagger. Mick does not have a fabulous voice. His range is really limited. It's not a great "traditional" voice. But it is sooooo distinctive and expressive...and that is what makes it so great. Same with someone like Tom Waits, Neil Young, Iggy Pop, or Lemmy, or Joe Strummer, the list goes on and on....none of 'em were gonna win any vocal contests or sing opera at the Met. But they are all great Rock n Roll singers because of the emotion and distinctiveness of their voices. In fact, if those voices were all pretty and good(good as in what I'm taking your definition of good to be.)...none of them would have made it far enough to get a single album out.
I think that Bob, even now, is an incredible singer. I've seen him hold 8,000 people in the palm of his hand...hanging on every word that tumbled out of his mouth. And they were all so...quiet. Like no one wanted to miss a nanosecond of what Bob was doing. You could actually see people leaning forward...like they were trying to get as close to the voice as possible. It was so incredibly intense and emotional. That is the hallmark of a great singer, IMO. And that wasn't 60's Bob or 70's Bob...no that was THIS Bob. Yeah man, he's all gravel voiced and raspy, and it sounds like he's been swallowing 50 grade sandpaper...but he can still use that voice to break your heart, slap your face, get you up, touch your soul, kick your ass, steal your girl, take you back in time...whatever he wants. If that isn't the definition of a great singer I don't know what is.
And the music that he's doing now...his voice is perfectly suited for it. It's so cracked and lived in. It's the voice of experience. It's the voice of someone who just KNOWS. And if it wasn't that voice, those songs would not be nearly as effective.
So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on some of the most very basic ways that you & I hear things Starvin'. We are just in two completely different places, and we put the emphasis of what we like about music in completely diffent areas. Please don't misunderstand, I always repect where others are coming from, even when it is diametrically opposed to what I think. I'm not ragging on you...I'm just offering a counter-point to what you are saying. I just enjoy talking about this kind of stuff, and it's more fun, IMO, to do it with someone who sees things differently than I do. |
| 13th November 2006 08:54 PM |
|
|
| Martha |
Stonesy have I told you lately that I love you????
Well...
I do.
Nice write.....
;-)
xxoo,
MM |
| 13th November 2006 09:02 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
I love you too my dear Martha, and I always will. You are a kindred spirit. I'm glad you enjoyed my post. I was thinking of you while I was writing it. I can never listen to Bob without your spirit popping into my head.
|
| 13th November 2006 09:17 PM |
|
|
| Lazy Bones |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
And the music that he's doing now...his voice is perfectly suited for it.
Wait until you hear the singing on Nettie Moore, SS. A thing o' beauty! |
| 13th November 2006 09:21 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
I am so stoked to hear him play the new songs live. It will seem like an eternity until Saturday night!
I'm all atwitter and aflutter and stuff. |
| 13th November 2006 09:34 PM |
|
|
| StarvinMarvin |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
>but melody and good singing are essential ingredients of good music<
Well I hear loads of melody in Bob's songs, and especially in his voice. Good singing. Hmmmm. That's all in the ear of the beholder, no? I find Bob's voice very very expressive. The way he twists phrases, and changes the timings of the lyric...sometimes from verse to verse...sometimes in a single line...it's astounding. No one else plays with phrasings like Bob does.
I mean, I don't think a voice has to be pretty or palatable to be effective. I love all sorts of "non-traditional" types of singers. They are not bland and normal. They reek of individuality and personality. And they are instantly recognizable and unique. No one else sounds like Bob Dylan...not then, not now. You know from the very first utterance exactly who you are hearing. I think that's important. That's one of the things that I dig about Mick Jagger. Mick does not have a fabulous voice. His range is really limited. It's not a great "traditional" voice. But it is sooooo distinctive and expressive...and that is what makes it so great. Same with someone like Tom Waits, Neil Young, Iggy Pop, or Lemmy, or Joe Strummer, the list goes on and on....none of 'em were gonna win any vocal contests or sing opera at the Met. But they are all great Rock n Roll singers because of the emotion and distinctiveness of their voices. In fact, if those voices were all pretty and good(good as in what I'm taking your definition of good to be.)...none of them would have made it far enough to get a single album out.
I think that Bob, even now, is an incredible singer. I've seen him hold 8,000 people in the palm of his hand...hanging on every word that tumbled out of his mouth. And they were all so...quiet. Like no one wanted to miss a nanosecond of what Bob was doing. You could actually see people leaning forward...like they were trying to get as close to the voice as possible. It was so incredibly intense and emotional. That is the hallmark of a great singer, IMO. And that wasn't 60's Bob or 70's Bob...no that was THIS Bob. Yeah man, he's all gravel voiced and raspy, and it sounds like he's been swallowing 50 grade sandpaper...but he can still use that voice to break your heart, slap your face, get you up, touch your soul, kick your ass, steal your girl, take you back in time...whatever he wants. If that isn't the definition of a great singer I don't know what is.
And the music that he's doing now...his voice is perfectly suited for it. It's so cracked and lived in. It's the voice of experience. It's the voice of someone who just KNOWS. And if it wasn't that voice, those songs would not be nearly as effective.
So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on some of the most very basic ways that you & I hear things Starvin'. We are just in two completely different places, and we put the emphasis of what we like about music in completely diffent areas. Please don't misunderstand, I always repect where others are coming from, even when it is diametrically opposed to what I think. I'm not ragging on you...I'm just offering a counter-point to what you are saying. I just enjoy talking about this kind of stuff, and it's more fun, IMO, to do it with someone who sees things differently than I do.
Yeah, singing is very subjective. I understand what you're saying about Bob. Believe me, I do. I too have been enraptured by his singing, his phrasing, his expression, his ability to break "the rules" in terms of his unique timing. The man does what he damn well pleases. I just don't like how his voice sounds now. It has nothing to do with the fact that it sounds worn and "lived in." I just think he's gotten lazy, and doesn't actually sing anymore. Some tunefulness would be nice. It is not uncommon for a singer's voice to deteriorate with age, and in my opinion this is what has happened to Bob. Some people may like his current style of singing better. Some may not. I fall into the latter category.
That being said, I generally do prefer "distinctive, untutored" voices over "polished, well-trained" vocalists. There's nothing worse than listening to some bland, generic Pop Idol karaoake vocalist. I love most of the singers you mentioned. Jagger, Neil Young, Joe Strummer, Wayne Coyne, Sid Vicious, Axl Rose....the list goes on....I would also add Keith Richards to the list as well. I love the warm-but-rough timbre of his voice - he sings with such soul. Like Bob, his voice is very raspy, but it sounds much more musical.
In the end, though, it all comes down to personal preference. I appreciate the fact that there are people like you on the board who I can have intellegent conversations with about music. And yes, it is more fun to have a conversation with someone that I disagree with, rather than someone who shares my views. If everyone agreed on everything, the world would be a boring place. Nicer, but definately more boring. (However, I think you may have gotten the wrong impression of my musical tastes based on the U2 thread). |
| 13th November 2006 09:37 PM |
|
|
| Prodigal Son |
Great posts, SS. The usual Dylan bashing plays up the fact his music is steeped in blues and other old forms as if Dylan is some kind of loser for not creating new genres! Um, he did singlehandedly show that folk-rock could be a style and created a school of songwriting singlehandedly. People who hate him just never seem to get that through their head. Hate his music all you want, though you'd be wrong IMO, but don't deny his legacy and impact. And though he's had rough patches to his career, give me his top 100 songs over nearly every single 20th century composer. Only jazz and classical guys can do more with music than he does. And then there's crap about how his melodies and chord patterns are basic and weak. Chord structure doesn't have to be complicated, meanwhile his melodies are fantastic.
Dylan is above all rock songwriters ever. No one else is so capable of having pure emotion, poetic genius, storytelling, personal thoughts and humorous anecdotes and transposing them to song. His melodies and tunesmith ability is timeless. "I Want You," "Just Like a Woman," I could go on for days. He is able to create timeless love songs, ballads, rockers, blues, folk, country, you name it. The only thing he didn't turn into gold was techno pop and all the other 80s garbage, but it doesn't matter since 90% of techno pop is utterly useless music. Bob is a legend and all you need to do is see him live for the proof. If listening to his records doesn't do it, that just might. And if it all fails, well I can't help you although I do count my blessings I can understand the rich body of work he has put forth. |
| 13th November 2006 09:42 PM |
|
|
| Martha |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
I love you too my dear Martha, and I always will. You are a kindred spirit. I'm glad you enjoyed my post. I was thinking of you while I was writing it. I can never listen to Bob without your spirit popping into my head.
That is so sweet to hear.....you really know how to make me smile! Thank you.
Wish I could hang out and have a bit of tea with you at a gas station along the roadside.
xxoo,
;-) |
| 13th November 2006 09:48 PM |
|
|
| mojoman |
quote:
Saint Sway wrote:
the #1 reason he rocks now (and has been for a long time) is because he's assembled a top notch band of road ready musicians that deliver the goods every single night. The band rocks. They take his songs to another level. Spot on every night.
when didn't he have a great set of musicians? i look forward to seeing dylan anytime, this saturday at the rectum included. |
| 13th November 2006 10:11 PM |
|
|
| Lazy Bones |
quote:
Prodigal Son wrote:
Great posts, SS. The usual Dylan bashing plays up the fact his music is steeped in blues and other old forms as if Dylan is some kind of loser for not creating new genres! Um, he did singlehandedly show that folk-rock could be a style and created a school of songwriting singlehandedly. People who hate him just never seem to get that through their head. Hate his music all you want, though you'd be wrong IMO, but don't deny his legacy and impact. And though he's had rough patches to his career, give me his top 100 songs over nearly every single 20th century composer. Only jazz and classical guys can do more with music than he does. And then there's crap about how his melodies and chord patterns are basic and weak. Chord structure doesn't have to be complicated, meanwhile his melodies are fantastic.
Dylan is above all rock songwriters ever. No one else is so capable of having pure emotion, poetic genius, storytelling, personal thoughts and humorous anecdotes and transposing them to song. His melodies and tunesmith ability is timeless. "I Want You," "Just Like a Woman," I could go on for days. He is able to create timeless love songs, ballads, rockers, blues, folk, country, you name it. The only thing he didn't turn into gold was techno pop and all the other 80s garbage, but it doesn't matter since 90% of techno pop is utterly useless music. Bob is a legend and all you need to do is see him live for the proof. If listening to his records doesn't do it, that just might. And if it all fails, well I can't help you although I do count my blessings I can understand the rich body of work he has put forth.
Your words, like scripture, Prodigal Son.
For your pleasure...
 |
| 13th November 2006 11:26 PM |
|
|
| Martha |
Lazy! You're teasin' me with those great shots!
;-) |
| 13th November 2006 11:59 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
Just got home from the Nassau Colosseum show & WOW! I'm not sure who's who in the band but I thought they were great. Not as exciting as the R Stones or the Who but I wasn't expecting same. I didn't recognize everything I heard but the highlights for me were Tangled Up In Blue, Visions of Johanna, the one from TOOM. Blowing In The Wind was in the encore & was sort of okay. My first time seeing Bob but NOT THE LAST! |
|
