I thought he was the Jack of Hearts.

Steve Latimer said most of what needs to be said, but I can't resist jumping in on a Bob Dylan thread. Once again, we're in the realm of definitions; since we've beaten the "What is Folk?" question to death, we're finding a back-door route to discussing "What is Rock?". In my view Dylan is one who expanded the boundaries of rock, thereby broadening the definition. But if you define rock only by what existed in the 1950s, then obviously he doesn't fit the definition.

Dylan has always drawn on more than one tradition, even back in the days when he was trying to be another Woody. I don't see the sense in trying to restrict him to one category, especially an artificial one like "folk rock" (in my opinion ALL rock is folk rock).

I only picked up Love and Theft the other day, and only got a chance to listen to the first half. It ain't Blonde On Blonde, but there's something there worth hearing. And even if his voice is more of an acquired taste than ever, it's better than it was five years ago. I'm still listening.