"I'll never forget it - not because he was so good, but because he was so self-absorbed and, well, just plain snotty. Everyone in the audience, including me, was just dying to hear his golden oldies. He'd finish some new track from "Slow Train", and the audience would call out "Blowin In the Wind!"   "Times They Are A-Changin" etc etc

Did He once even LOOK at the audience, or smile, or acknowledge we were even THERE?   Nope. Did He honour the wishes of the people who'd shelled out big bucks to see him even ONCE with a golden oldie before the night was over? Nope. It seemed like there was no one else in that Hall except Him, for Him anyway."

Who was being snotty, you or Dylan? It is one thing to not care for a performance, but it is another to base your opinion on a preconceived notion of what an artist should be doing.    If I went to see Neil Young and expected him to do card tricks and have trained poodles tap dance to his music would I be justified to give him a bad review and swear never to see him again? Of course not.

What people refuse to understand is that an artist has a perogative to perform what they want, and an audience has a perogative to go or not to go. Dylan isn't your cup of tea, fine.   But to knock him down because he refuses to chat with an audience or decides his own set list is wrong.   

I remember the tour you are describing, he was only doing his born-again songs. It was one of the best shows I ever saw from him. He was breathing life into songs that he believed in, not acting like a worn out rocker who plays his greatest hits without thinking about the words anymore.   Dylan tinkers with his "classics" to breathe new life into them and make them relevant.   Check out his latest shows.

I can only chuckle at the people who heap critiscm on an artist because they don't match the image that they look for.   Critique an artist for what they are, not for what they aren't.