Expecting Rain

It sort of applies to Dylan as a whole, in my view.

I do not think Blonde On Blonde is the greatest album of the 60s, let alone of all time. I don't even think it's Dyan's best record. I don't have sources to cite at the moment but I know it's been called all of those things fairly frequently. That alone is enough for it not to be unreasonable to call it overrated. Again, in my view.

Doesn't mean I don't like it or that I think it's not good. Terms like overrated and underrated are totally relative.

Of course, I'm being subjective. I don't get it and seems wrong to me, but I'm not the arbiter of who gets to love what. That mid-60s work is so obviously thrilling to me that of course I don't understand this. I always wonder if some younger people don't feel the same because they weren't around to be shocked to death when those albums came out, but instead found them after all the music that followed by others had been influenced by him, so the uniqueness of Bob's work then is hard to imagine.

Me, I can't imagine not loving Springsteen and Prince. It seems insane. But they don't get no love on this forum. As as far as I'm concerned, the folks who don't love them are also way way wrong.

After one listen of Early Roman Kings, I realise now that I was totally wrong to think of 65-66 Bob as being the pinnacle of his career.
Of course Bob is a better lyricist now, singer now and live performer now. Indeed, not only today, but for the past 7 or 8 years. Any such year is better than anything Bob did in the 60s.

Definitely. I mean, a line such as "ding dong daddy" blows "Desolation row" & Co right out of the water, no?

But wouldn't that mean that the shock was of greater value than the actual art - that once you get used to it, it doesn't stand up in the same way as before? I do think his work remains unique, it's not like those influenced by him ever reached those heights.

After listening to "Early roman kings" we should discuss how much underrated mid-1960s Bob is.
I never get bored hearing BABH-H61-BOB but I tell you I got bored after hearing the new song twice. (The band is playing awful, althouh hís voice is great)
the lyrics, well they are at least .................funny!
Hope the rest of the album is better.

After listening to Early Roman Kings then putting on say, Maggie's Farm, From A Buick 6, or Pledging my Time, I notice his sharp clarity of mind...no matter what age. Hope he don't go senile! Remember, as brilliant as those mid 60s treasures were/are, he was barely in his mid 20s and experimenting with all kinds of things. Also two of those classics pre-dated Revolver and Pet Sounds (often considered breakthroughs in 'Rock') for what its worth.

No! The shock was that rare thing where you are presented with not only an innovation (which he was) but also a talent that surpasses almost everything you've been exposed to. I don't think I ever 'got used to' his work from that period, no matter how much I've heard it or others have worked off of it. It's innovation and it's greatness as art are both intact for me.

The obvious comparison for me is with Shakespeare. In this way. I studied literature for a long time. My knowledge of Shakespeare was only a glancing blow from a few required things I read in high school and college from teachers who had no particular insight into him, so I never much cared about him or spent any time trying to understand him. I preferred reading other people. Then there came a time when I was studying in a program that placed tremendous emphasis on Shakespeare, taught by people whose mission on this earth was to devote their entire lives to studying, researching and teaching Shakespeare. That program was probably the great revelation of my life. I hadn't understood Shakespeare when I read loads of work that came after him and was influenced by him - I didn't really know any better, so I didn't think I lacked an understanding or perspective about how essential and profound Shakespeare was. Once I had spent a fairly long time focused on Shakespeare,
with the help of some great teachers, I was shocked by how great Shakespeare was in many ways - his innovation,
his influence upon everyone that wrote after him, and most of all, I was shocked by the size and variety of his talent. The variety and size of his talent would still be shocking right now even if no one had been influenced by him. He stands alone. There has been no greater writer, and possibly there never will be. He's important 'in addition' because of his tremendous innovation (which transformed almost all of subsequent literature) and his vast influence - because he's essentially inescapable through his place in the canon of literature. But if Shakespeare had been a minor writer in terms of fame and influence and I had only accidentally happened upon him by picking up a book in a library - I would have been no less shocked by his talent.

I'm a couple of decades into a Shakespeare obsession now and I never 'get used to' Shakespeare. I can't even imagine what that would entail, there is so much there and I am always finding new things as I read and reread him. A lifetime is not enough to adequately study him. And I'm also shocked over and over by his work, even things I've read hundreds of times - because of the beauty, depth, complexity, originality, innovation. No writer has said as much about what it is to be human or the meaning of life. It's endlessly shocking that one person managed to create what his work contains. It's like hundreds of people wrote that work, not one person.
He's unimaginable - the how and the why. No one who wrote after him has ever diminished him. Familiarity with him and rereading him over decades does not diminish him. New innovative writing by others does not diminish him. It sounds ridiculous to say this but Shakespeare really was all that - the greatest writer who ever lived. And it takes time and work to understand why that's true. In our time, most people don't understand that from a surface or casual reading of him, which is why he has fallen out of favor. That's a shame, but it doesn't diminish him. I saw a documentary Al Pacino made about performing Shakespeare where he told a company of actors that those who appear in his plays have a more profound understanding of Shakespeare than the scholars who study him. I don't believe that. I think they may have a different kind of understanding, but I doubt it's even more profound. I think the commonality that Shakespearean actors have with Shakespearean scholars is the amount of time and work invested in understanding him. Any real investment in Shakespeare is going to pay off, how ever you come by it.

Bob's not Shakespeare. But this is a way for me to explain how yes, Bob's achievement still shocks me, I don't get used to him and his early work still stands up - in fact, I think it's better than when I heard it during the time it was released. My affection for that work may be influenced by the time and the age I first encountered it. But if I just enjoyed the nostalgia, I think i'd know that by now. I perceive that about lots of other things. I think what's real is that the work he did in the mid-60s really is great. And shocking even now.

Plus as someone added, look what came after! JWH, BOTT! It really makes you slap yourself upside your head.

The context of Dylan's work and what he achieved versus his times and peers is all fine and dandy if that floats your boat.

But really its how the songs sound that matters.

So now we have 2 wars going on in this thread. The original - an era war. Old Bob vs. Modern Bob - with the younger crowd wanting the storm battered Bob to be the peak era.

And then there is what I call the "content" crowd, those who place the highest value on the lyrics, vs. the "sound" crowd - those place the most value of their Bob experience on the sound.

Sir Benny has clearly entered the fray here with the sound crowd, which also meshes with original idea of the thread - was the 60's sound over rated and better? We know where Benny stands on that, and I'm with him all the way - the sixties and seventies Bob voice WAS the pinnacle.

I part ways with Benny and The sound crowd when they claim the sound is the most significant element of Bob's greatness - it is the lyrics. Of course, it is a VERY close race, but in the home stretch, the lyrics blew by the sound like a full race Ferrari.

You misunderstand me - the singing of the lyrics and the music together make the sound. They are really inseperable.

My beef is not with lyrics vs music but with the idea that Dylan's 'achievement' socio-culturally is more important than what he has actually produced artistically. I'm far more in the 'death of the author' camp.

People should stop slapping themselves upside the head, then! Should've stopped long ago.

I think we should have a Shakespeare thread though, seriously, esp in the light of Bob saying it's not valid unless you actually see a play. It's the same with the ancient albums, they're nothing without continual live performance.

Btw, who was Shakespeare really? Didn't he not exsist or something?

I'm not choosing sides in the 'sound' v. 'lyrics' war. Obviously the lyrics make him, but when I think of my favorite work from the 1960s, I can't divorce it from the sound. (And I don't much care for Bob's much later interpretations of his earlier work). I care a lot more about how the 1966 live shows SOUND than almost anything recorded in that era, and when I listen to "Crawl Out Your Window" or "Subterranean Homesick Blues" or "Queen Jane Approximately" the sound matters every bit as much to me as the lyrics. I agree with Benny that what matters (at least to me) is not the historical relevance/cultural context but just whether or not the sound grabbed you. Either the totality of that noise (voice, band, arrangements) picked you up and shook you or it didn't. Great lyrics were almost an unexpected secondary dividend.

The old albums are not just a collection of songs, it's also about capturing a moment in performance and recording it. The recording will last as long as there is anybody around to listen to it.
In the case of the 65-66 albums these (along with some on the 1966 tour) are the definitive performances. The songs don't die because Bob stops playing them.

You can love the ancient albums and not give a **** about seeing him perform live. There are lots of people all over the world who love those ancient albums who haven't bothered or never had an opportunity to see Dylan perform live. I think with Shakespeare that it matters if you see a very good live performance and not so much if you see a mediocre one. What scholars get is they know every single word in the play, and that's a difficulty for most theatergoers given how much language there is, how fast it goes by and how different Shakespearean English is from the contemporary English we speak. I think it's a huge advantage to know the plays as text prior to seeing them. It's possible to have your preconceptions blown by a great performance or interesting interpretation even if you know every line of dialogue. I've had that experience.

It might be interesting to have a Shakespeare thread - it's my impression there are plenty of people hERe who are interested in him. I would be worried that people might storm the thread trying to claim Shakespeare as one more genius who obviously had Aspergers - I would never stop throwing up.

The Zen aficionados will take our head slaps however we can get them.

^
Yep, I was trying to say this, but Fair Play says it better.

Common sense, aint it? And yet the fact that your post appears shimmering like an oasis of sanity in a desert of weirdness speaks volumes.

I guess knowing the songs means at least you might catch some of the words at a ModBob show.

In that, and only that regard, I'm prepared to compare Dylan to Shakespeare.

This might seem like a drastic and rather stupid idea, but it would do Dylan the world of good if sony were to delete every album he has made prior to L&T from the catalogue. If you think about it, only his good albums would then be available, so if someone bought one and it was their first Dylan CD, they would then invariably buy the rest of the available catalogue.
That most probably wouldn't happen [buying further albums] if they were to buy a 65-66 album, they would be put off by the weaker songwriting, weaker singing and poorer choice of studio session musicians.

The asylum's day release programme is kicking in nicely, I see. Anyone coming to this thread for the first time, or taking another look at it for the first time in a long time, should really check out the first page, as I just did. It should defy belief, but experience reminds you that it doesn't.

As far as those mid-60's songs are concerned, you can, but you really shouldn't, divorce the sound (music) from the lyrics, and vice versa. Both- taking 60's sound/ recordings, natch- reach peaks thereafter never scaled again. But they need each other, and their cumulative sum is greater than the sum of their separate parts. That sound dresses those words so beautifully, creating a whole that never fails to move and astonish you, nearly 50 years later. 'A song is anything that can walk by itself', wrote Dylan, in the liner notes to Bringing It All Back Home- in which case, his songs are Siamese twins.

This times infinity, with big fat organ swirls, acoustic strums, snarling indictments and tender compassions on top.

Yes please, buddy. And you can stick some Bearnaise sauce on the side.

Nicely put, sir. I am now playing the 'Highway 61 Revisted' album at significant volume. One of life's great pleasures.