|
01 Feb 00 - 02:35 AM (#171548) Subject: Bob Dylans success From: GUEST,J. Eggcar Loser Why do you think Bob Dylan was so much more succesful than his contemporaries? J.E. Loser |
|
01 Feb 00 - 05:15 AM (#171571) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: Brendy I don't |
|
01 Feb 00 - 08:42 AM (#171616) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: Terry Allan Hall Talent |
|
01 Feb 00 - 08:50 AM (#171620) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: Amos Because he embodied the voice of prepubescent and adolescent baby boomers, the biggest population balloon in history, sounded (early on) like a spoiled, truculent idealist (which found a lot of sympathetic and kindred spirits in that population) and lashed out against the post-war dizzy hypocrisy of the Fifties, which that population was just breaking away from in their normal curve of maturation. In short, demographics - the right voice at the right moment. Plus, he had a certain quirky genius which was appealing. A |
|
01 Feb 00 - 09:42 AM (#171640) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: GUEST,aldus Most of his musical contemporaries were craftsmen, some were opportunists, some were self-righteous and decidedly untalented.....Dylan was a Genius. As for the baby boom factor...early sales of Dylan albums do not support this simplistic and overwrought sociology. Dylans original impact was not on "teenagers' but on those twenty somethings who were born before the baby-boom, many of whom lost a parent or parents to the war. Dylan made sense to these people. |
|
01 Feb 00 - 10:00 AM (#171646) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: Casey@50 Content Content Content...... Casey |
|
01 Feb 00 - 10:06 AM (#171648) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: Amos Gee -- I fail to see why Aldus' acerbic and condescending version of sociology is any less simplistic or overwrought than mine? Maybe we're both projecting personal experience. Early sales do not a career make. A |
|
01 Feb 00 - 11:24 AM (#171690) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: Steve Latimer I believe that Bob was simply a finer crafter of song than his contemporaries. He was extremely well rooted in traditional folk, and is much more of a bluesman than people give him credit for. He not only drew from these genres but had the vision and fortitude to write progressive songs, wrote biting protest songs, (Masters of War, Hard Rain etc.), mournful ballads (Girl From The North Country, Boots of Spanish Leather) and some very funny satirical songs (Talking World War III Blues, I Shall Be Free). I also feel that not many people give Bob his due as a musician, he is a fine guitar player and his deep understanding of music allowed him to write a greater variety of outstanding songs than his contemporaries.
|
|
01 Feb 00 - 11:29 AM (#171693) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: Amos I'm wit you, Steve. A good description of his abiding talent, no mistake. And he kept evolving as a musician, always pushing the boundaries of his musical turf. Many purists gagged when he wnt electric in the 70's; but I always felt he did wonderful things with the Nashville sound, soaked up the best that rock could add, and kept on trucking. A rare and wonderful talent. A |
|
01 Feb 00 - 12:27 PM (#171725) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: GUEST,Aldus Amos, my point was that I do not HAVE a version of sociology. My other point was that there were very few early sales. I am simply suggesting that Dylan appealed to a group of people more mature than those you described. |
|
01 Feb 00 - 12:34 PM (#171729) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: Amos Yes, I understood that; and you are probably right. I was right on the cusp, being just a little younger than Dylan, but older than most boomers; and he certainly captured my fancy early and kept it long. On the other hand, my revered Ma loved him too, and I have reason to believe she was considerable older than I. A. |
|
01 Feb 00 - 04:41 PM (#171832) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: Arkie In his formative years, Dylan relied heavily upon traditional music for tunes and extracted some which were not on the tips of every would-be folk singers tongues. He had a good ear for tunes when he used them and could hold onto peoples's attention with his lyrics even though they did not always follow a logical path. As his skill developed, he became less dependent on tradition for tunes but continued to address themes of traditional music, ie the things that were going on around him. He could also tell a tale. It is fun to try to analyze his success, but the man had, as has been said several times already, a touch of genius. |
|
01 Feb 00 - 07:35 PM (#171921) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: northfolk/al cholger I'll suggest that the pre-electric Dylan was a better poet, songwriter, protest singer, and possibly would not have gotten the attention and had the success that he had, if he had not consciously pursued commercial success by creating a less threatening message. It's just my opinion, but nothing Dylan did after Masters of War, was anywhere nearly as threatening as that song. |
|
01 Feb 00 - 07:41 PM (#171926) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: Rick Fielding Good points Steve and Amos. Face it folks the guy had charisma AND talent. Also don't forget the number of folks in his little circle who put up with his totally viscious insults, and still hung around for more of the same...for years. It helps to have a lot of flunkies around you as well. Rick |
|
01 Feb 00 - 10:09 PM (#171982) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: GUEST,Mr. O'Nanymous I think Dylan was so good because he got all of his early material from the clancy bros-the best band on earth! Dylan even said the Clancys were his biggest influence. |
|
01 Feb 00 - 11:40 PM (#172055) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: Rick Fielding Well, he lied. Rick |
|
01 Feb 00 - 11:52 PM (#172069) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: Amos I can't imagine the circumstances. Guthrie had more of Dylan in thrall than the Clancy Bros could have found with the lights turned up. I suspect Rick has summed it up neatly in three words. A. |
|
02 Feb 00 - 12:11 AM (#172077) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: catspaw49 But if you want a few more words......... Spaw |
|
02 Feb 00 - 12:32 AM (#172083) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: GUEST,ddw Great site, 'Spaw. How do you guys FIND these things? david |
|
02 Feb 00 - 10:55 AM (#172288) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: Steve Latimer Rick, I had a high school English teacher who would continually say, "gentlemen, brevity is art." This lesson is often lost on me, but man did you nail it. |
|
02 Feb 00 - 02:22 PM (#172409) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: Lonesome EJ Dylan also benefitted from the fact that he had a pipeline to the Top Forty and the huge teen market courtesy of an oft-maligned pop band called The Byrds. These guys kept Dylan-penned tunes in the charts from '65 til '68. Many of us who loved his music were shocked when we first heard Bob perform it... though over the years, his voice has certainly grown on me. |
|
02 Feb 00 - 02:29 PM (#172413) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: Marki What makes/made Dylan a success? Certainly not his, well, unique voice! I think it was his ability to throw words together in a seemingly haphazard way & come up with the most incredible lines! Such as "to live outside the law, you must be honest" (one of my faves). Or just simply his poetic songs like "Every Grain of Sand" (the imagery in that song! WOW!) Or his hilarious lines like "my head tells me it's time to make a change, but my heart is telling me, I love you but you're strange" (Abandoned Love). The most amazing thing about Dylan? His apparent ability to remember most of the words to most of his songs while on stage. I don't know how he does it, but when I've heard him in concert, he seems to manage it. I can't even think what it'd be like to remember all of the words to "Visions of Johanna", "Desolation Row" or even "Shelter from the Storm". |
|
03 Feb 00 - 08:21 AM (#172780) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: GeorgeH I do hate this "Genius" stuff attached to Dylan . . he was a popular music equivalent to Bill Gates . . in the right place at the right time, and (most important) with a good business sense. No doubting he's written some of the truely great songs of our time . . and can be a charismatic performer . . but he also knows just how far he can safely push "protest" against the economic clout of "the system". Which, to be fair, is further than most of us, and I don't criticise him for accomodating himself to that system. But it does mark him out as different to the Guthries, Seegers, MacColls etc.; those are the true, committed protest singers. And - taking their output as a whole - better songwriters, IMO. G. |
|
03 Feb 00 - 10:35 AM (#172834) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: Steve Latimer George, I respect your opinions, but can't agree with a single point NOI. I'm reluctant to use the term genius when discussing anyone, but Bob is one of the exceptions. And I'm certainly not saying this to detract from the people you mention.
|
|
03 Feb 00 - 11:28 AM (#172860) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: Rick Fielding 'Fraid I have to agree with brother Steve on this one. As some of you might know, I'm fascinated with folks' background influences...why they bahave as they do, why others behave in a certain way around them, what gives them power, HOW they use it, etc. I've learned that I HAVE to separate the negatives from the positives (or I'd have no heroes at all). So when it comes down to Bob Dylan, it seems that he was a total bully right from his early teen years. He was always extremely attractive to women...but treated them all horridly..which sadly, seemed to make the attraction stronger. He constantly played nasty games with his friends...and they slavishly hung in there. His drive and ambition seemed to know no bounds, so a great many musical friends got used very badly. ie. Van Ronk, Paul Clayton, Martin Carthy, etc. So what was the result? A large body of magnificent work. Far more drek than good stuff, but my guess is that we could come up with at least 30 songs that have had huge significance. VERY FEW (if any) songwriters, have that kind of track record. Even folks like Foster, Berlin, Gershwyn, Rogers, Lightfoot, Rodgers (Richard), McCartney, or Guthrie, would start getting a bit thin at 30. But Dylan wouldn't. A talented artist with a ruthless approach, is still talented. So he was/is(?) a prick. He was/is a genius, as well. Rick |
|
03 Feb 00 - 11:33 AM (#172863) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: catspaw49 Excellent post Rick. Spaw |
|
03 Feb 00 - 06:24 PM (#173114) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: DougR I found most of the comments in this Thread very interesting. I didn't become acquainted with Dylan's work until very late in life and like most of it that I've heard. I'm on the side of those, however, who feel that writing, not singing is his strongest suit. DougR |
|
03 Feb 00 - 06:40 PM (#173127) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: Rick Fielding Doug, I think the age when one first heard Dylan is an important factor. I was about 15 and he was quite astonishing...but I WAS 15. Rick |
|
04 Feb 00 - 08:55 AM (#173426) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: GeorgeH Rick, granted it's all down to taste. I reckon at least 95% of Dylan's output is indifferent. And there was a period where his recordings, IMO, were dire. But I'm not sure any of his works indicate genius - do you think you could nominate a single work which you believe clearly suggests otherwise? G. |
|
04 Feb 00 - 09:37 AM (#173439) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: Steve Latimer DougR, There is no doubting that if Bob has a weakness it's his voice, which runs anywhere from completely incoherant to acceptable at best. I think that his success in spite of this often glaring fault is more proof of his songwriting genius. Rick, the question was posed to you, please answer it as I'm chomping at the bit to do so.
|
|
04 Feb 00 - 07:39 PM (#173737) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: DougR Steve Latimer: It's interesting to note though, that several singers with questionable voices have been very successful. In my opinion, examples are: Tex Ritter, Johnny Cash and Roy Acuff. I'm AM a fan of Tex Ritter's though. I realize the folks I cite are Country, not Folk, but I think they are pretty good examples. DougR |
|
04 Feb 00 - 10:20 PM (#173782) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: GUEST,sam the guest Bringing it ALL Back Home Blood on the Tracks Highway 61 Revisited Blond on Blond Street Legal Slow Train Coming World Gone Wrong Desire Infidels Even the album title, so often having nothing to do with the album content, and yet saying it all. He's a genius, allright. Not to mention inspired. |
|
04 Feb 00 - 10:51 PM (#173795) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: McGrath of Harlow Dylan was - no, not was - he's only the same age as me. I'm hoping he's got some great stuff still to come, as he moves into different stages of his life.
But what has been most remarkable about him is the way he finds phrases that catch in your mind, and put them together in a way that is somehow mean more than they say.
That's why I think in a way it's truer to call him a kind of poet than a songmaker. The songs work when he sings them - but I've never heard anyone else sing Dylan and really make the songs work as well.And that includes lots of technically far better singers.
I used to work on a movement paper called Peace News back in the late Sixties, and we used to use Dylan phrases all the time for headlines, and a lot of other people did too. All kinds of stories, you'd always find there was a Dylan phrase that would feel just right.
Rick's right - the man may well have been or still be all kinds of a shit. People like Pete Seeger or Martin Carthy are worth a hundred of him, as people, or as musicians. But if the word genius has to be nailed to anyone around in his time, it has to be nailed on him.
|
|
04 Feb 00 - 11:45 PM (#173818) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: Rick Fielding Yeah, I doubt very seriously that I could cite one song from any composer and say "there it is, that makes him a genius". I don't think people do that with Mozart or Gershwyn...but they're still called geniuses. I decided to really think about that word for a while and see what it means to me (if anything). OK, who are the folks that are most often called geniuses? Einstein for one, and do any of us actually have a clue why he was so brilliant? And do we really care? Most of us only know the anecdotal stuff (he flunked math and may have had sex with Marilyn Monroe). How about Edison, the Wright Bros. Leonardo and Henry Ford? All seem to be acknowledged as geniuses, but really the thing that links them would appear to be good imaginations, and a work ethic that probably rendered them useless as entertaining human beings. I doubt any of those people would spare five minutes (let alone an hour) of their day to hang out on something like Mudcat and be funny, or informative, or generous. How about looking at some folks who were called geniuses by later generations? Van Gogh and Schubert come to mind. Both these folks in their own time saw themselves (and were seen by others) as abject failures. Are there any quite ordinary beings in each of our own lives currently who might in the future be called "genius?" Personally, I can think of two long time friends of mine: Grit Laskin, who has been building world class guitars for twenty five years, has started seeing some of his instruments (and with them his astonishing and ground breaking inlay work) go directly from his shop into museums, rather than into the hands of players. That might be an indication of something to come in the future. It was certainly the case with Stradivarius, and Michaelangelo. In their times they were merely known as great craftsmen. The other person I know is guitarist Tony Quarrington. Simply the most inventive player I've known. A quiet, usually rumpled eccentric who wouldn't have a clue how to toot his own horn. Someone else wuold have to toot it for him..maybe in 50 years they will. Others who have been called (without too much disention) geniuses: Muhammed Ali, Freud, Bill Gates(!) Ronald Regan(!!) Horowitz, MacArthur, Shakespeare, DeNiro, Michael Jordan, and even James Dean! It strikes me that perhaps genius may in part be the skill needed in becoming well known...and in some cases the skill of someone else in spreading the word about someone they admire(d) Even fictional characters from the past, who are so admired my great numbers of people can be part of the process..Thousands every year make pilgrimages to Baker St. to "see" Sherlock Holmes. Would not some of the best known (but factually deficient) religious deities fit in there as well? What do all the above folks have in common? Enough talent, and complete tunnel vision (at least until their main body of work was completed). It may be that the combination of those two factors can be said to be "genius" and that perhaps the rest of us may have either one, but not both. I feel comfortable putting Bob Dylan's name in that group. His work for the most part was decent, and 40 years after he started, he's still a topic of discussion. Much more so than others of his songwriting generation. As to one song? Well, lots of folks (including many here) can write as well as Dylan...but could we without having heard him first? Rick
|
|
05 Feb 00 - 12:15 AM (#173832) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: DougR Rick: You just gave us a bit to chew on for ahwile. That's what I'll do. DougR |
|
05 Feb 00 - 12:34 AM (#173837) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: Rick Fielding No more chewing for me tonight Doug. I made spaghetti and Italian sausage for dinner and had at least 3 normal portions. I can't move! Maybe geniuses don't eat too much! Rick P.S. Heather also eats her share, and hasn't put a pound on in 12 years. T'ain't fair! |
|
05 Feb 00 - 12:36 AM (#173838) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: MK I was privileged to see Dylan in Toronto many years ago, on a reunion tour with The Band, backing him up.
The Band opened....and of course they were great. The Hammond opening of ''Chest Fever'' got everybody's attention. Dylan came out after about 20 minutes and joined The Band and did some half hearted electric stuff. Then, The Band left the stage and Dylan was alone, with an acoustic, and harmonica rig, and for the next 45 minutes proceeded to blow me, and everyone else in the stadium away. He closed the evening rejoined with The Band. The real essence of Dylan at his finest, is when he goes solo. (IMHO)
|
|
05 Feb 00 - 05:33 AM (#173868) Subject: RE: BS: Bob Dylans success From: GUEST,Neil Davies To reply to George H "95% 0f Dylan's output is indifferent" I think it was the science fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon who upon being told 99% of science fiction is crap said "99% of EVERYTHING is crap" |