Expecting Rain

Go to main page
It is currently Wed November 21st, 2018, 10:07 GMT

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu August 27th, 2009, 05:50 GMT 

Joined: Thu August 27th, 2009, 05:49 GMT
Posts: 224
http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/i ... -his-band/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu August 27th, 2009, 06:25 GMT 

Joined: Wed February 6th, 2008, 23:05 GMT
Posts: 1471
Hallelujah!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu August 27th, 2009, 06:37 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Wed February 6th, 2008, 23:46 GMT
Posts: 3556
Location: Meh
How many band members talk about being "friends" with Bob?

Man, can't wait for the up-coming tours. Notice he said he will see where it goes. So it looks to be more than just one tour.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu August 27th, 2009, 07:44 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri April 13th, 2007, 10:43 GMT
Posts: 7672
Location: Bournemouth
Indeed, I think I'll be looking forward to that Setlist on October 5th than any other I've seen. over the last four years.
Think of it, seeing 'Charlie on Electric Guitar'.
:D :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu August 27th, 2009, 11:47 GMT 

Joined: Wed February 6th, 2008, 23:05 GMT
Posts: 1471
Not sure if it will have an (immediate) effect on the setlists, however I shall be downloading the show as soon as it's available and I'm sure it will be a great leap forward in playfulness, if not overall quality.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu August 27th, 2009, 13:06 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon April 2nd, 2007, 06:31 GMT
Posts: 898
Having Charlie in will be a huge advantage if Dylan wants to change up the setlists more often. Charlie already knows how it is touring with Bob and how quickly to get into new material. This would not be the case if a totally new guitarist was to join them. If we look at the statistics some of Bob's most creative years on the NET was when Larry and Charlie was in.
The recent years the amount of different songs played has dropped almost a third from the early 2000nds even if there has been more songs to choose from with MT and TTL getting into the equation.

amount of songs played the last nine years:

2000 125
2001 121
2002 128
2003 112
2004 101
2005 110
2006 79
2007 80
2008 86
2009 93


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu August 27th, 2009, 18:08 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri April 13th, 2007, 10:43 GMT
Posts: 7672
Location: Bournemouth
I'm surprised this hasn't for more "Horrays!"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu August 27th, 2009, 18:45 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Wed March 12th, 2008, 12:05 GMT
Posts: 276
now if only Larry would join back up to!!!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu August 27th, 2009, 19:28 GMT 

Joined: Wed February 6th, 2008, 23:05 GMT
Posts: 1471
Larry has a busy schedule for the rest of the year, but he should be available for the Euro 2010 tour. (We can dream, right?)

It would be like in that Blues Brothers movie (nice tie in with the "Christian" seasonal album as well): "We're on a mission from God. We're gettin' the band back together!"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu August 27th, 2009, 22:29 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Fri February 25th, 2005, 00:48 GMT
Posts: 8
One down...three to go (Stu, Donnie and, last but not least, Casio).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri August 28th, 2009, 01:44 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Tue April 7th, 2009, 23:02 GMT
Posts: 185
Hey i was just looking at that number of songs per year thing on boblinks. Coincidence that the year charlie left is the year the begins a decline in number of different songs?

Also interesting that this year it looks like we're on a nice upwards trend, 93 songs - not too shabby. And we still have the fall tour to add to it.

siruso


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri August 28th, 2009, 02:49 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue June 30th, 2009, 05:06 GMT
Posts: 8848
Location: you try to get away...they drag you back
2000 125
2001 121
2002 128
2003 112
2004 101
2005 110
2006 79
2007 80
2008 86
2009 93[/quote

right, it would be nice to know how these stats line up with the number of shows per year -- that would be a factor.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri August 28th, 2009, 03:07 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Wed February 6th, 2008, 23:46 GMT
Posts: 3556
Location: Meh
Troubadour64 wrote:
2000 125
2001 121
2002 128
2003 112
2004 101
2005 110
2006 79
2007 80
2008 86
2009 93[/quote

right, it would be nice to know how these stats line up with the number of shows per year -- that would be a factor.


Pretty similar amount of shows per year. I think the drop off in the unique songs had more to do with the direction Bob was taking the music. Since 2002/03 there has been very little standards/gospel numbers being played due. Add that in with the electric/rock treatment Bob has been giving songs and it does cut down the number of possibilities.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri August 28th, 2009, 03:15 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat October 27th, 2007, 12:44 GMT
Posts: 17685
Location: Workin' as a postal clerk
Being up in the 80-90 range ain't too bad...and being in the 120's is pretty amazing. Most bands with a 16 song set have...16.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri August 28th, 2009, 07:51 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon November 28th, 2005, 17:54 GMT
Posts: 5818
Location: boring gray cold france
wooooo-oooooh !!! Now come back, Larry, it'll be the best band in the land again !!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri August 28th, 2009, 10:59 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon April 2nd, 2007, 06:31 GMT
Posts: 898
Seems Larry has obligations with Levon at least till the end of the year.

As far as I can remember 2006 had fewer concerts than the other years. Compared to other artist Bob plays a huge amount of songs each year. However the first years of this decade has caused his fans to be very expectant. What can be drawn form this statistic is only that more songs were during the Larry/Charlie years. It is however also worth mentioning that even in the years with less songs some rareties were played that Larry and Charlie never played like New Morning, I Dreamed I Saw St. Augustine, Billy, One More Cup Of Coffee and not to mention all the new songs from the era.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri August 28th, 2009, 12:34 GMT 

Joined: Wed February 6th, 2008, 23:05 GMT
Posts: 1471
It will be really exciting to see what (if any at all) stylistic changes will occur when Charlie rejoins. Apart from the drop in the number of songs played, the acoustic numbers and all backing vocals disappeared basically the minute Charlie left in 2002.

While the keyboard - which was introduced merely weeks before Charlie quit - could be blamed for the missing acoustic numbers, it would be a pretty freaky coincidence that Bob decided to drop the backing vocals the same week that Charlie left.

The big difference obviously was that he left, rather than got fired to make way for another player with a different style.

I remember rumors from the mid-90s that the JJ Jackson era band didn't have a big repertoire of songs because they weren't capable of handling huge numbers of songs. I always believed that this was at least partly the reason why the number of songs decreased again after Charlie (and then Larry) left, but I could be totally wrong of course. The bottom line is: Did Bob get more versatile players than ever before with Larry and Charlie because he wanted to have a bigger variety or did the bigger variety just creep in because the two of them could handle more songs and styles?

Also, it will be very interesting to see the stage setup in the fall. For some reason I cannot see Charlie taking Denny's spot, furthest away from Bob.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri August 28th, 2009, 19:51 GMT 

Joined: Sun May 10th, 2009, 09:40 GMT
Posts: 748
I'm a bit amazed at the endless praise what this regress gets here.
I would rather seen something new, we have alredy heard and seen this Sexton guy.
Apparently all here would have been satisfied if the Sexton/Campell-combination had played
all the time since 1999 and then forever.
But they seem to be some kind of Messiahs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri August 28th, 2009, 22:00 GMT 

Joined: Wed February 6th, 2008, 23:05 GMT
Posts: 1471
Futile Horn wrote:
I'm a bit amazed at the endless praise what this regress gets here.
I would rather seen something new, we have alredy heard and seen this Sexton guy.
Apparently all here would have been satisfied if the Sexton/Campell-combination had played
all the time since 1999 and then forever.
But they seem to be some kind of Messiahs.


Well, first of all the Sexton/Campbell line-up looked and sounded like a band, and that's something previous or subsequent line-ups never achieved regardless how many matching outfits they bought. This is simply because never before or since did Dylan hire a guitarist who was/is a frontman on his own. (The Band and The Heartbreakers excluded, but they were fully functioning bands before Dylan hooked up with them.)

Also, and this might be a coincidence, but most likely is not: never before or since has Dylan played so many different songs per year or covered a wider stylistic range.

And, probably most importantly, the Sexton/Campbell line-up was thought to be a country-ish backing band, yet they also where the band that introduced a whole new (or at least radically redeveloped) Dylan sound on "Love And Theft" - and did it in merely two weeks of studio time. Obviously I can understand why people would call Sexton's return "a regress", but seeing how the evolution of the sound that first took shape on "L&T" has in many ways come to a stand-still soon after he left, I'd just think that he will help Dylan to find or at least translate new ways of expression again in the future.

Obviously it's ultimately Dylan who has the final say, but just judging from the interaction on stage, Dylan didn't seem to have a lot of trust in Freeman (or Kimball, for that matter), while he gave Sexton (and Campbell) a lot more space to express their ideas and that made the shows a lot more flexible and also more enjoyable. maybe I'm just imagining this, but I always sensed Sexton and Campbell played what *they* thought was right for the song while Freeman and Kimball seemed to play what they thought *Dylan* wanted them to play.

Sexton clearly is better with a great second guitarist at his side - Campbell in Dylan's Band, Bramhall in the Arc Angels - but I'm confident that he'll do great things in Dylan's band "on this own" this fall and beyond as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri August 28th, 2009, 22:39 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 18th, 2006, 17:13 GMT
Posts: 3636
Location: Spring 1990
Larry's versatility and command of his instruments was a HUGE virtue in the days of Larry/Charlie. Nothing against Charlie but I wouldn't say his role in the band was as critical as Larry's. Bob essentially added 2 players to replace Larry. Lead guitarists are a dime-a-dozen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat August 29th, 2009, 00:51 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon April 2nd, 2007, 06:31 GMT
Posts: 898
yeah well, one of the reasons why people are happy is very simple - Charlie showed everybody at the Austin show and apparently that included Bob as well. Agreed Larry was the backbone of the previous bands. But Im pretty sure Bob doesn't want this to be a reprise of the old band. However Donny's
contribution to the band can be utilized way more than it has been for the last 3-4 tours where he has been totally lost in the mix. It is clear that in Charlie we here got a guy who unlike many other isn't afraid of pushing Dylan in new directions - unlike the previous line up who continued to play these stale Boblike minimalistic and repetetive licks and pumping rhythms going nowhere on every song for the last few years. Everything was getting so repetetive that a shake-up was needed. Mind you I think Denny is a great guitarist in his field - just like the Jimmie Vaughans and Junior Watsons etc of great blues players - but like mentioned before it is a huge task playing lead and rhythm guitar on a repertoire as wide as Dylans and these texas blues greats might not be the best suited for this task.

Personally I hope he'd bring back the acoustic sets some time and maybe have a set build around say: 4 electric tunes 4 acoustic tunes both with Dylan playing guitar then 4 or 5 organ songs before 2-3 encore with Bob center stage only singing and AATW as finisher on guitar or organ. That'd be awesome..

Like Charlie already said: Lets see where it goes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat August 29th, 2009, 03:56 GMT 

Joined: Sun November 14th, 2004, 21:25 GMT
Posts: 974
AutodesSchreckens wrote:
This is simply because never before or since did Dylan hire a guitarist who was/is a frontman on his own.


G.E. Smith fronted a band that was pretty well known, at least in the US. And for most of 1989-90, Dylan's touring band was Smith plus a rhythm section from that band.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat August 29th, 2009, 04:53 GMT 

Joined: Thu August 30th, 2007, 22:44 GMT
Posts: 3981
Sphere wrote:
Larry's versatility and command of his instruments was a HUGE virtue in the days of Larry/Charlie. Nothing against Charlie but I wouldn't say his role in the band was as critical as Larry's. Bob essentially added 2 players to replace Larry. Lead guitarists are a dime-a-dozen.

I agree. Larry was truly the person who made that band work as well as it did. Still, that doesn't mean that we won't get something new and potentially exciting out of the new lineup.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat August 29th, 2009, 08:20 GMT 

Joined: Wed February 6th, 2008, 23:05 GMT
Posts: 1471
monicasdude wrote:
AutodesSchreckens wrote:
This is simply because never before or since did Dylan hire a guitarist who was/is a frontman on his own.


G.E. Smith fronted a band that was pretty well known, at least in the US. And for most of 1989-90, Dylan's touring band was Smith plus a rhythm section from that band.


Which one? I'm too young to remember and all the web resources just mention the SNL gig.

Sphere wrote:
Larry's versatility and command of his instruments was a HUGE virtue in the days of Larry/Charlie. Nothing against Charlie but I wouldn't say his role in the band was as critical as Larry's. Bob essentially added 2 players to replace Larry. Lead guitarists are a dime-a-dozen.


I didn't mean to diminish Larry's contribution at all, in fact I'd like to see him return (too), but, I think Larry was most effective during the Sexton years. There was a musical chemistry there that I simply didn't sense with Bucky Baxter and Stu Kimball. I felt there was some chemistry between Larry and Freddy Koella, at least they seemed to enjoy playing the songs together, but to my ears their styles and approaches just didn't blend in like Larry's and Charlie's did.

It's correct that Larry was replaced by two players (three, if you count Elana James), but following Charlie's departure the band also had four different lead guitarists within two years - hardly a sign that Dylan found him easy to replace. If I remember correctly there were rumors that he only played the 2002 fall tour because they couldn't find a suitable replacement in time after auditions with Dave Alvin and a few others reportedly failed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat August 29th, 2009, 10:31 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri April 13th, 2007, 10:43 GMT
Posts: 7672
Location: Bournemouth
Just to say, I agree with everything AutodesSchreckens has said.
Plus, Futile Horn who said [ i]"...we have alredy heard and seen this Sexton guy."[/i], you can't seriously know what you're on about. Dylan's had this band for such a long time and every year, they seemed to alter styles away from what they had the year before, with Elena James going, then the organ, then no pedal steel or lap steel heard and then all the ploddy rhythms on the songs. Someone who had seen them in 2005 would argue they sounded completely different in 2008 and you seem to think that 7 years on, Sexton will sound adsactly the same. He won't. And that's what makes it all the more interesting.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group