Expecting Rain

Pardon me if it's been discussed on here before, but has anyone else ever thought that the "growl voice" Bob has had for the past several years is something he's doing purposely, rather than evidence of deterioration? Case in point, this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQm-3qeE ... e=youtu.be

I hear the usual growl interspersed with the less sandpapery, nasal sounding voice he's had for decades now. I personally don't mind the growl. I know some people hate it, but I'd rather here him sound like an old bluesman from the early 20th century than straining or "up-singing". Just a thought. I just get the impression Bob can sing like he used to when he feels like it. Obviously his voice has deteriorated dramatically over the years, but I see the current sound as more of a technique than a deficiency.

Anyone care to weigh in?

I think the recent quieter and acoustic shows suits his voice better.
And doesn't wear it out too much.

Oh, I thought this was about Growlers of beer...

I like the growl too!!!

I think that he is working hard to keep his voice where he wants it. Maybe that is part of the setlist holding the same, he knows how to do these songs and keep them in the voice range that he wants to be in. Whatever it is, he does seem to be enjoying performing this go round.....

Trying intentionally to sound like this? No.

Almost impossible to tell. Very occasionally maybe, but hard to tell with Dylan.

His voice is definatly raspy. As a result of singing, touring, more than likely a lack of voice training. But he most definatly puts emphasis on his "growl" intentionally. It probably came from hearing his own voice vear that way when singing certain words. It's harder to "growl" such syllables night after night than sing them softly/straight, it strains your voice more. So yes he does do it intentionally and sometimes it works, sometimes not so much. In songs like ERK, PIB and the majority of his modern day stuff it works so well, you just have to look at the lyrics of the songs and know it works. I feel that it has sunken into his mind that this is the effect I'm going for now. Personally I love the growl. But more recently hearing it over used in TUIB (e.g "she was MARRIED, when we first met") and many others can get a little tedious, and personally I think they would sound better sung more straight without Bob getting in under (or above) George's snare hit. It all works well to a certain extent, for people who know the lyrics and what Bob's live show is about (thankfully I am one) but for new comers, some may get lost or simply not know what is going on (that's what the encore is for . But basically, you either like it or not. It's good, like it.

The growl-rasp-bark is no affectation. No it's da Vinci's LAST SUPPER, the temples of Angkor Wat engulfed by the jungle. The fact is Dylan has always sung more sweetly (as almost all singers do) when he sings quietly. The whole of the Nashville croon period is soft delicate stuff. If you go back to 1999 and look on song after song is voice is often not straining.
There were late '80s shows where Dylan was assailed in the press for his voice and fans said he was chanting. The last time he was really effective with a super aggressive approach were the mid-'70s Rolling Thunder shows, and many people at the time hated those.

I love the Growl!

I'm not Bob but it isn't mighty hard to achieve that growl (Tom Waits has used it in the past and evened it out with smoother vocals at the same time), I do it on a constant basis and my voice can always be found, however, 50 years of this may become a problem.

Here are two videos from this guy on youtube, he does the growl and then he doesn't, although that second video is still probably not his real voice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEg1Cea-BwE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zSpBPDnOLw

I'm convinced Louis Armstrong did a similar thing. Bob used to sing nasally throughout most of his career, but he started singing in his throat in the late 80's and what a wonderful find he found.

I guess we'll know some lucky day. Haters continue to be hating.

I feel he has found his true voice. .An opinion shared by Steven Rings from Chicago University who recently gave a talk in Cambridge (UK) and made the following point:

Dylan began to compensate for his
decreased vocal flexibility by a proportionate increase in improvisatory variation in rhythm,
timbre, and contour. Necessity here truly became the mother of invention, specifically, of
incessant vocal invention. That Dylan made this choice somewhat consciously is evidenced
by an enigmatic passage in his 2004 memoir Chronicles, Vol. 1 in which he writes
mysteriously (and not a little impenetrably) of discovering a “new vocal technique” in 1987.
Transformational processes like this
are the norm in Dylan’s singing on the NET; one is almost tempted to speak of an
improvised practice of developing variation.
In addition to such variation processes, Dylan also introduces novel, performance-specific
schemata into many of his NET renditions.

I think the bottom line is that if any of you walked into your local bar and heard that voice from some nobody up on stage, you'd probably walk right back out. Correct? I find it hard to believe he sounds like that on purpose.

If I walked into a local bar and a heard a voice that didn't sound like Bob today, I'd probably walk out.

This tour, it seems to me that he learned where the growl/bark works and where it doesn't. For example, it works on Things Have Changed. It didn't work on TUIB last fall, and his approach to that tune is far more delicate this tour (and much better as a result).

On the flip side, I'd like to hear that growl on Pay in Blood. I feel like the new arrangement is too delicate (vocally and musically). It could benefit from a little more muscle all around.

Absolutely. I hate this whiney post-Coldplay affectation that young bands think is de rigeur.

No foolin- we used to refer to loud dumps as "growlers"

We had many euphamisms...

Listening to the sound cloud recording of Bowling Green on the home page, Dylan sounds good by comparison with recent years. In particular 'What good am I' and AATW are brilliant, with Dylan urging the crowd to clap louder at the end of the latter. The playing is more melodic, the phrasing unique and the harp is outstanding.

A commendably level-headed appraisal, senor10. I think so, too.

Lot of experimenting in his voice. I think he has experimented the least in the 2000-2013 time period, i think he found what he likes.

I agree with you on this.

This is very clever, to a certain extent makes sense and I am pleased to see it got all the way to the halls of Cambridge.
However, surely no man with enough hours in his day to be able to intellectualise over moderns Dylans voice further than the fact that as we get older we age can ignore the Cookie Monster conspiracy theories?

My favorite poem, bar none.

It feels more like a limitation of volume. I admit absolutely that I don't have deep understanding of any kind about the voice, so just based on observation. But when he is micd well and there is no need to sing loudly, he has range and there is beauty still in his singing -- e.g, Soon After Midnight (album and live last tour). When he goes loud, I just haven't heard any real control or subtlety (which is, obviously possible in general, and the Hard Rain era shows was possible for Dylan).

And "Growl" is too scatological for me. Like a 14 year old's parody poem.

Had to check that one MMD, to confirm what I thought. Yer funny.

sca·tol·o·gy noun \ska-ˈtä-lə-jē, skə-\
Definition of SCATOLOGY
1: interest in or treatment of obscene matters especially in literature
2: the biologically oriented study of excrement (as for taxonomic purposes or for the determination of diet)

— scat·o·log·i·cal adjective

Origin of SCATOLOGY
Greek skat-, skōr excrement; akin to Old English scearn dung, Latin muscerdae mouse droppings
First Known Use: 1876

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scatology

I think it's safe to say that there isn't a 14 year old on the planet with a voice that sounds like Bob's current one.
Nonetheless, does "rasp" work better for you?