Dylan is Dylan is Dylan, to quote (paraphrase, actually) someone I once read. He was not a folksinger in the traditional sense, but definitely knows his traditional music. He has a radio show on Sirius or one of those sattelite channels, and presents some damn fine music with background info and commentary that shows he knows his shit.

He also puts on the public a lot -- I even wonder if the public, or part of it, puts him on. When he does a number at a Grammy or Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame show, his vocal is an even more unintelligible growl than usual, and the crowd goes wild. My question is, I know he's putting that on, since his records are much clearer of voice, but is the wild crowd reaction their own version of putting him on, or are they truly that clueless? My guess is some are truly clueless, and the others are putting on BOTH Dylan and the clueless zombie followers (that would be a good rock band name, eh?).

As for his music, there are "periods" where I loved everything he did, and other "periods" when it was purest shite. The problem is, I disagree with the critics on which period is the shittiest and which was pure gold.

Yes, a promoter -- do you know anyone who's successful in popular culture who isn't? -- and hardly a purist in his product. But still, a presence in that same pop culture we both absorb and denigrate. His 'catalog' contains songs as good, and as influential, as anything Johnny Mercer, Hoagy Carmichael, Lennon & McCartney, A.P. Carter, or even Woody Guthrie ever put out. Yes, there is dross, but the others mentioned didn't always hit it out of the park.

And as for Dave Brubeck or Charlie Parker, you (above) won't have any of their singing to criticize, as they were jazz instrumentalists, and the point of that remark was that the limitations of the octave and bar lines do not mean that 'most every combination' has been tried.



Bob Clayton