Expecting Rain

Go to main page
It is currently Sun August 19th, 2018, 00:19 GMT

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 186 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri March 17th, 2017, 10:16 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon September 8th, 2014, 11:02 GMT
Posts: 1331
Location: Tiresome Town
I think the real problem and the core of the matter is that Dylan is now performing what is essentially 'dead' music. He may insist that he has dis-covered it, or whatever his phrase was, but the reason it needed to be dug up is that is was dead and buried. These are songs with corny lyrics with cornier arrangements; torch songs drenched in syrupy strings (replaced by whining pedal steel in Dylan's versions) are tasteful only to a long-dead generation or living people with deadly bad taste.

This music didn't die by dint of bad luck or neglect. It deserved to die, and it doesn't deserve reviving. By performing this music, Dylan isn't bringing it back to life; he's burying himself along with it. He's emptying the last vestiges of his creativity into a bottomless hole marked 'Sentimental Nostalgia' and it's a horrible stage of his career to witness for many of his fans.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri March 17th, 2017, 13:45 GMT 

Joined: Sat August 25th, 2007, 21:54 GMT
Posts: 1726
littlemaggie wrote:
I think the real problem and the core of the matter is that Dylan is now performing what is essentially 'dead' music. He may insist that he has dis-covered it, or whatever his phrase was, but the reason it needed to be dug up is that is was dead and buried. These are songs with corny lyrics with cornier arrangements; torch songs drenched in syrupy strings (replaced by whining pedal steel in Dylan's versions) are tasteful only to a long-dead generation or living people with deadly bad taste.

This music didn't die by dint of bad luck or neglect. It deserved to die, and it doesn't deserve reviving. By performing this music, Dylan isn't bringing it back to life; he's burying himself along with it. He's emptying the last vestiges of his creativity into a bottomless hole marked 'Sentimental Nostalgia' and it's a horrible stage of his career to witness for many of his fans.


By that logic his stuff is equally dead and he should be pounding on his chest doing hippity-hop.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri March 17th, 2017, 16:07 GMT 

Joined: Mon June 27th, 2016, 21:50 GMT
Posts: 1238
trip hop
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trip_hop


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri March 17th, 2017, 17:57 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sun November 28th, 2004, 02:57 GMT
Posts: 876
Location: I think I'll call it America
littlemaggie wrote:
I think the real problem and the core of the matter is that Dylan is now performing what is essentially 'dead' music. He may insist that he has dis-covered it, or whatever his phrase was, but the reason it needed to be dug up is that is was dead and buried. These are songs with corny lyrics with cornier arrangements; torch songs drenched in syrupy strings (replaced by whining pedal steel in Dylan's versions) are tasteful only to a long-dead generation or living people with deadly bad taste.

This music didn't die by dint of bad luck or neglect. It deserved to die, and it doesn't deserve reviving. By performing this music, Dylan isn't bringing it back to life; he's burying himself along with it. He's emptying the last vestiges of his creativity into a bottomless hole marked 'Sentimental Nostalgia' and it's a horrible stage of his career to witness for many of his fans.


Can you clarify what exactly you're dismissing? I don't think anyone disagrees that there's plenty of schmaltzy, terrible popular music from the era (20s-50s, more or less) Dylan is drawing from, but doesn't it make more sense to judge the music case by case? Dylan is not dredging the bottom of the barrel of the so-called Great American Songbook, he's doing quite a few well-respected standards. Do you think the entire standards genre deserved to die? For that matter, do you really think it IS dead considering how often it is rediscovered by older and younger artists and listeners? Do you recognize no artistry at all in the genre? Personal tastes and your entitlement to them aside, that seems a bit obtuse to me. No doubt we have to cast aside some generational prejudices if we're going to discern the good from the bad, but that's just a matter of being curious vs. not caring based on initial impressions. Feel free to tell me if I'm off base or making my own generalizations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri March 17th, 2017, 18:59 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sat March 11th, 2006, 18:45 GMT
Posts: 1447
Complete and utter tripe.
I can't pretend to like that genre, just because it's Bob.
SITN and FA went into the garbage.
I'm not buying Trip.

Nice to hear his current stuff is being appreciated though. Anything that may encourage him to return to the studio, has to be good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri March 17th, 2017, 19:06 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Tue July 1st, 2014, 19:16 GMT
Posts: 4672
Location: Beyond The Horizon.
songanddanceman wrote:
Complete and utter tripe.
I can't pretend to like that genre, just because it's Bob.
SITN and FA went into the garbage.
I'm not buying Trip.

Nice to hear his current stuff is being appreciated though. Anything that may encourage him to return to the studio, has to be good.


I admire your bravery mate. Prepare for the venom from the Dylanista's!!

:roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri March 17th, 2017, 21:43 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sun July 17th, 2005, 18:56 GMT
Posts: 1025
Location: Deep South
littlemaggie wrote:
I think the real problem and the core of the matter is that Dylan is now performing what is essentially 'dead' music. He may insist that he has dis-covered it, or whatever his phrase was, but the reason it needed to be dug up is that is was dead and buried. These are songs with corny lyrics with cornier arrangements; torch songs drenched in syrupy strings (replaced by whining pedal steel in Dylan's versions) are tasteful only to a long-dead generation or living people with deadly bad taste.

This music didn't die by dint of bad luck or neglect. It deserved to die, and it doesn't deserve reviving. By performing this music, Dylan isn't bringing it back to life; he's burying himself along with it. He's emptying the last vestiges of his creativity into a bottomless hole marked 'Sentimental Nostalgia' and it's a horrible stage of his career to witness for many of his fans.




Absolute nonsense from beginning to end.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri March 17th, 2017, 22:26 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed December 5th, 2012, 18:52 GMT
Posts: 5410
Location: In a hole in the ground there lived a....
littlemaggie wrote:
I think the real problem and the core of the matter is that Dylan is now performing what is essentially 'dead' music. He may insist that he has dis-covered it, or whatever his phrase was, but the reason it needed to be dug up is that is was dead and buried. These are songs with corny lyrics with cornier arrangements; torch songs drenched in syrupy strings (replaced by whining pedal steel in Dylan's versions) are tasteful only to a long-dead generation or living people with deadly bad taste.

This music didn't die by dint of bad luck or neglect. It deserved to die, and it doesn't deserve reviving. By performing this music, Dylan isn't bringing it back to life; he's burying himself along with it. He's emptying the last vestiges of his creativity into a bottomless hole marked 'Sentimental Nostalgia' and it's a horrible stage of his career to witness for many of his fans.


This kinda reflects how I feel too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri March 17th, 2017, 23:09 GMT 

Joined: Fri January 5th, 2007, 23:38 GMT
Posts: 2164
Location: Ireland
I think one should distinguish between what one considers 'bad' and what happens to be 'old' and 'dead'. There is much contemporary music that is irredeemible rubbish. Far more so than the older formulaic material, which at least usually was competent, in tune and skilfully arranged.

Personally, I have found it hard to embrace this material. In truth, I have hardly listened to it, but not because I think the songs are poor, I just don't think they suit Dylan. The songs are mostly, not all, too urbane and Dylan's more of a country boy. Folk, Country Blues, Country, Gospel are predominantly rural-derived phenomena and I think they're what suits Dylan best.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat March 18th, 2017, 00:07 GMT 

Joined: Sat July 31st, 2010, 06:41 GMT
Posts: 831
littlemaggie wrote:
I think the real problem and the core of the matter is that Dylan is now performing what is essentially 'dead' music. He may insist that he has dis-covered it, or whatever his phrase was, but the reason it needed to be dug up is that is was dead and buried. These are songs with corny lyrics with cornier arrangements; torch songs drenched in syrupy strings (replaced by whining pedal steel in Dylan's versions) are tasteful only to a long-dead generation or living people with deadly bad taste.

This music didn't die by dint of bad luck or neglect. It deserved to die, and it doesn't deserve reviving. By performing this music, Dylan isn't bringing it back to life; he's burying himself along with it. He's emptying the last vestiges of his creativity into a bottomless hole marked 'Sentimental Nostalgia' and it's a horrible stage of his career to witness for many of his fans.


Wrong. Firstly, this music didn't die. It continues to exist, continues to be played, continues to be listened to. Many of these songs are deeply engrained in the DNA of jazz musicians, for example. And recordings of these songs, by artists of true greatness like Sinatra and Billie Holiday, are very much extant and are a treasure trove accessible at the click of a mousepad. Secondly, some of the arrangers and bandleaders who worked with Sinatra were highly sophisticated and inventive musicians and their work stands the test of time. You won't hear 'syrupy strings' in the vast majority of it; in fact, in the best of it you'll hear exceptional ensemble writing that illuminates the many dark corners of the songs. One of Dylan (and Garnier's?) achievements with these albums is that they've found a way to preserve the essentials of those arrangements, but scale them down to a small band sound, and make use of the pedal steel (not an instrument you'll hear in the classic versions of the songs) as a surrogate horn/string/wind section. And if you think Donnie Herron's remarkable playing amounts to 'whining,' I can only pity you the ears you listen to it with.

Dylan's interpretation of the (only very occasionally corny) lyrics falls some way short of Sinatra or Holiday, but, in doing these songs, he has found a way to sing that is clearly superior to his vocal efforts of many a long year. In the process, he has 'uncovered' his voice as much as uncovered the songs: and that alone is something to be grateful for.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat March 18th, 2017, 05:02 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sun November 28th, 2004, 02:57 GMT
Posts: 876
Location: I think I'll call it America
Mickvet wrote:
Personally, I have found it hard to embrace this material. In truth, I have hardly listened to it, but not because I think the songs are poor, I just don't think they suit Dylan. The songs are mostly, not all, too urbane and Dylan's more of a country boy. Folk, Country Blues, Country, Gospel are predominantly rural-derived phenomena and I think they're what suits Dylan best.


I think the relationship between urbane standards and rural popular music is close enough that Dylan can credibly walk the line as other artists who've waded into standards territory have before him. It's also worth pointing out that Dylan's most celebrated work, Blonde On Blonde etc, also walks the line between urbane and country, which is a big part of its appeal. That said, what you describe is exactly what I've always thought about his work between '78 and '90. The polished "contemporary" (read: dated) production clashes with Dylan's rough-hewn vocals, which are only ever truly at home in earthier, timeless sonic environs. No matter how well-crafted the songs are, the production is inherently a drawback.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat March 18th, 2017, 05:21 GMT 

Joined: Tue February 3rd, 2015, 19:05 GMT
Posts: 537
kuddukan wrote:
littlemaggie wrote:
I think the real problem and the core of the matter is that Dylan is now performing what is essentially 'dead' music. He may insist that he has dis-covered it, or whatever his phrase was, but the reason it needed to be dug up is that is was dead and buried. These are songs with corny lyrics with cornier arrangements; torch songs drenched in syrupy strings (replaced by whining pedal steel in Dylan's versions) are tasteful only to a long-dead generation or living people with deadly bad taste.

This music didn't die by dint of bad luck or neglect. It deserved to die, and it doesn't deserve reviving. By performing this music, Dylan isn't bringing it back to life; he's burying himself along with it. He's emptying the last vestiges of his creativity into a bottomless hole marked 'Sentimental Nostalgia' and it's a horrible stage of his career to witness for many of his fans.


This kinda reflects how I feel too.

You're not alone.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat March 18th, 2017, 05:25 GMT 

Joined: Tue February 3rd, 2015, 19:05 GMT
Posts: 537
likeatrain wrote:
littlemaggie wrote:
I think the real problem and the core of the matter is that Dylan is now performing what is essentially 'dead' music. He may insist that he has dis-covered it, or whatever his phrase was, but the reason it needed to be dug up is that is was dead and buried. These are songs with corny lyrics with cornier arrangements; torch songs drenched in syrupy strings (replaced by whining pedal steel in Dylan's versions) are tasteful only to a long-dead generation or living people with deadly bad taste.

This music didn't die by dint of bad luck or neglect. It deserved to die, and it doesn't deserve reviving. By performing this music, Dylan isn't bringing it back to life; he's burying himself along with it. He's emptying the last vestiges of his creativity into a bottomless hole marked 'Sentimental Nostalgia' and it's a horrible stage of his career to witness for many of his fans.


Wrong. Firstly, this music didn't die. It continues to exist, continues to be played, continues to be listened to. Many of these songs are deeply engrained in the DNA of jazz musicians, for example. And recordings of these songs, by artists of true greatness like Sinatra and Billie Holiday, are very much extant and are a treasure trove accessible at the click of a mousepad. Secondly, some of the arrangers and bandleaders who worked with Sinatra were highly sophisticated and inventive musicians and their work stands the test of time. You won't hear 'syrupy strings' in the vast majority of it; in fact, in the best of it you'll hear exceptional ensemble writing that illuminates the many dark corners of the songs. One of Dylan (and Garnier's?) achievements with these albums is that they've found a way to preserve the essentials of those arrangements, but scale them down to a small band sound, and make use of the pedal steel (not an instrument you'll hear in the classic versions of the songs) as a surrogate horn/string/wind section. And if you think Donnie Herron's remarkable playing amounts to 'whining,' I can only pity you the ears you listen to it with.

Dylan's interpretation of the (only very occasionally corny) lyrics falls some way short of Sinatra or Holiday, but, in doing these songs, he has found a way to sing that is clearly superior to his vocal efforts of many a long year. In the process, he has 'uncovered' his voice as much as uncovered the songs: and that alone is something to be grateful for.


The small band sound doesn't cut it for everyone with standards. The only aspect of Fran Sinatra I like is the bands that backed him. With that missing from these standards, they fall flat. Couple that with Dylan thinking he can croon, and we have a disaster. Just my opinion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat March 18th, 2017, 10:40 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon September 8th, 2014, 11:02 GMT
Posts: 1331
Location: Tiresome Town
likeatrain wrote:

Wrong. Firstly, this music didn't die. It continues to exist, continues to be played, continues to be listened to. Many of these songs are deeply engrained in the DNA of jazz musicians, for example. And recordings of these songs, by artists of true greatness like Sinatra and Billie Holiday, are very much extant and are a treasure trove accessible at the click of a mousepad. Secondly, some of the arrangers and bandleaders who worked with Sinatra were highly sophisticated and inventive musicians and their work stands the test of time. You won't hear 'syrupy strings' in the vast majority of it; in fact, in the best of it you'll hear exceptional ensemble writing that illuminates the many dark corners of the songs. One of Dylan (and Garnier's?) achievements with these albums is that they've found a way to preserve the essentials of those arrangements, but scale them down to a small band sound, and make use of the pedal steel (not an instrument you'll hear in the classic versions of the songs) as a surrogate horn/string/wind section. And if you think Donnie Herron's remarkable playing amounts to 'whining,' I can only pity you the ears you listen to it with.

Dylan's interpretation of the (only very occasionally corny) lyrics falls some way short of Sinatra or Holiday, but, in doing these songs, he has found a way to sing that is clearly superior to his vocal efforts of many a long year. In the process, he has 'uncovered' his voice as much as uncovered the songs: and that alone is something to be grateful for.


Wrong. Jazz is as dead a musical genre as D'oyly Carte opera or doo-wop. To say that "these songs are deeply engrained (sic) in the DNA of jazz musicians" is the equivalent to saying that because woolly mammoth DNA exists, therefore woolly mammoths are not extinct. Whenever jazz songs are revived or imitated, the results are inevitably teeth-gnashingly torturous: Diana Krall, Manhattan Transfer, Harry Connick Jr, Kenny Ball and his bloody Jazz Men...it's an ever-growing pile of stinking rotten garbage that the general public laps up like candy floss at a fun fair somehow believing it represents some sort of 'sophistication' in musical taste.

Sinatra himself didn't find the so-called Great American Songbook a never-ending treasure trove. Many of his best recordings were of songs written for him by Jimmy Van Hausen and Sammy Kahn - and even those songs are often pretty awful pieces of work redeemed only by Sinatra's singing. Sinatra and Billie Holiday were great because they transcended the quality of the material they sang: the songs themselves were, in the main, dross. And that's why they deserved to die and stay dead - buried far, far away from the clutches of Krall, Connick, Ball...and now, Dylan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat March 18th, 2017, 12:48 GMT 

Joined: Sat July 31st, 2010, 06:41 GMT
Posts: 831
littlemaggie wrote:
Wrong. Jazz is as dead a musical genre as D'oyly Carte opera or doo-wop.


This is simply not true, and I can only assume you don't listen very broadly in that area of music.

Quote:
To say that "these songs are deeply engrained (sic) in the DNA of jazz musicians" is the equivalent to saying that because woolly mammoth DNA exists, therefore woolly mammoths are not extinct.


... only songs and music are not animals and can clearly evolve and remain 'living' by being passed down from one generation of musicians to the next - viz. Bob Dylan and American folk music.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/engrain

Quote:
Whenever jazz songs are revived or imitated, the results are inevitably teeth-gnashingly torturous: Diana Krall, Manhattan Transfer, Harry Connick Jr, Kenny Ball and his bloody Jazz Men...it's an ever-growing pile of stinking rotten garbage that the general public laps up like candy floss at a fun fair somehow believing it represents some sort of 'sophistication' in musical taste.


I'm with you on this, and share your antipathy for the artists you mention. But you've chosen to name some of the most nauseating mainstream 'dinner jazz' acts you could think of - not the kind of jazz musicians I had in mind at all. I was thinking more in terms of instrumental jazz, and how these songs - as they always have for everyone from Miles Davis to Thelonious Monk to Ran Blake - continue to be an important part of a jazz player's lexicon, and continue to exist and evolve through all kinds of interpretations. Brad Mehldau would be a good contemporary example of this: a player who writes his own music and plays Radiohead, Elliot Smith, and Elvis Costello songs, but who returns frequently to the 'songbook,' often with beautiful, illuminating results.

Quote:
Sinatra and Billie Holiday were great because they transcended the quality of the material they sang: the songs themselves were, in the main, dross.


That's a tough one. You could spend hours debating whether they transcended the quality of the songs, or whether they brought that quality to light in their interpretations of them. Their versions of the songs resonate because they treat the lyrics with respect and wring meaning and pathos out of them - which suggests there was meaning and pathos in there to be wrung out in the first place. In any case, to dismiss the 'songbook' songs as 'in the main, dross' seems unfair, to put it mildly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat March 18th, 2017, 13:57 GMT 

Joined: Wed May 18th, 2011, 19:28 GMT
Posts: 940
Uncut is out now with their review of Triplicate, first one I've seen: 7/10*. Just browsing in the shop but general impression was this is more of the same, great musicianship, good vocals, a few standout tracks but the pace flags over three discs and it's time he got back to writing his own stuff.

*Not sure how to interpret this score. Looking across the rest of it anything below a six is rare, which seems to suggest that seven is faint praise indeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat March 18th, 2017, 15:46 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat October 27th, 2007, 12:44 GMT
Posts: 17297
Location: Workin' as a postal clerk
7 from Uncut is a disaster.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat March 18th, 2017, 15:52 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat October 27th, 2007, 12:44 GMT
Posts: 17297
Location: Workin' as a postal clerk
It seems to go without saying that Dylan feels there is much of worth in these songs, along with many other things pop culture has left to rot.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat March 18th, 2017, 16:20 GMT 

Joined: Fri July 18th, 2008, 16:22 GMT
Posts: 4280
Quite a nicely written review from a Graeme Thompson who suggests the third disc is the least compelling and "for all its easy charms, Triplicate labours its point to the brink of overkill." Stardust is "jaunty enough, if somewhat perfunctory." There are only "minimal shifts in mood and texture" as between discs.

On the plus side, the band are described as fantastic. Once Upon a Time is described as "particularly powerful, both bleak and beautiful." I'll Guess I'll Have to Change My Plans is compared to mid period Van Morrison. There's a Flaw In My Flue is "excuisitely forlorn" and Braggin' has a "breezy strut that could easily have found a home on L&T." He sings with "brio" all through Triplicate and The Best is Yet to Come contains one of his "best vocals in years."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat March 18th, 2017, 18:24 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sat September 10th, 2016, 12:46 GMT
Posts: 2012
MrJudasPriest wrote:
He sings with "brio" all through Triplicate


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat March 18th, 2017, 18:53 GMT 

Joined: Wed May 18th, 2011, 19:28 GMT
Posts: 940
On reflection, I don't think 7/10 is a disaster at all, it just confirms what anybody would suspect at this stage: if you liked SITN and FA then you'll probably find quite a bit to enjoy on Triplicate but even for those who us who are into this material 5 discs is more than enough, it's time to move on. My expectations are managed (they were already), I look forward to hearing the full album and if just a handful of tracks are up to the standards of, say, Lucky Old Sun then it'll be a worthwhile purchase (as long as you avoid the 'deluxe' version, - charging a premium for fancy packaging and no extra music is Sony taking us for mugs. Again.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat March 18th, 2017, 22:22 GMT 

Joined: Sat August 25th, 2007, 21:54 GMT
Posts: 1726
littlemaggie wrote:

Whenever jazz songs are revived or imitated, the results are inevitably teeth-gnashingly torturous: Diana Krall, Manhattan Transfer, Harry Connick Jr, Kenny Ball and his bloody Jazz Men...it's an ever-growing pile of stinking rotten garbage that the general public laps up like candy floss at a fun fair somehow believing it represents some sort of 'sophistication' in musical taste.

Sinatra himself didn't find the so-called Great American Songbook a never-ending treasure trove. Many of his best recordings were of songs written for him by Jimmy Van Hausen and Sammy Kahn - and even those songs are often pretty awful pieces of work redeemed only by Sinatra's singing. Sinatra and Billie Holiday were great because they transcended the quality of the material they sang: the songs themselves were, in the main, dross. And that's why they deserved to die and stay dead - buried far, far away from the clutches of Krall, Connick, Ball...and now, Dylan.
[/quote]

Straw men. You're picking out lousy artists which isn't difficult. You can hear lousy versions of any song you want to name, including plenty of Dylan songs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat March 18th, 2017, 22:44 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri July 15th, 2011, 02:23 GMT
Posts: 22555
There must be more beer coming.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat March 18th, 2017, 23:49 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sun July 17th, 2005, 18:56 GMT
Posts: 1025
Location: Deep South
littlemaggie wrote:
likeatrain wrote:

Wrong. Firstly, this music didn't die. It continues to exist, continues to be played, continues to be listened to. Many of these songs are deeply engrained in the DNA of jazz musicians, for example. And recordings of these songs, by artists of true greatness like Sinatra and Billie Holiday, are very much extant and are a treasure trove accessible at the click of a mousepad. Secondly, some of the arrangers and bandleaders who worked with Sinatra were highly sophisticated and inventive musicians and their work stands the test of time. You won't hear 'syrupy strings' in the vast majority of it; in fact, in the best of it you'll hear exceptional ensemble writing that illuminates the many dark corners of the songs. One of Dylan (and Garnier's?) achievements with these albums is that they've found a way to preserve the essentials of those arrangements, but scale them down to a small band sound, and make use of the pedal steel (not an instrument you'll hear in the classic versions of the songs) as a surrogate horn/string/wind section. And if you think Donnie Herron's remarkable playing amounts to 'whining,' I can only pity you the ears you listen to it with.

Dylan's interpretation of the (only very occasionally corny) lyrics falls some way short of Sinatra or Holiday, but, in doing these songs, he has found a way to sing that is clearly superior to his vocal efforts of many a long year. In the process, he has 'uncovered' his voice as much as uncovered the songs: and that alone is something to be grateful for.


Wrong. Jazz is as dead a musical genre as D'oyly Carte opera or doo-wop. To say that "these songs are deeply engrained (sic) in the DNA of jazz musicians" is the equivalent to saying that because woolly mammoth DNA exists, therefore woolly mammoths are not extinct. Whenever jazz songs are revived or imitated, the results are inevitably teeth-gnashingly torturous: Diana Krall, Manhattan Transfer, Harry Connick Jr, Kenny Ball and his bloody Jazz Men...it's an ever-growing pile of stinking rotten garbage that the general public laps up like candy floss at a fun fair somehow believing it represents some sort of 'sophistication' in musical taste.

Sinatra himself didn't find the so-called Great American Songbook a never-ending treasure trove. Many of his best recordings were of songs written for him by Jimmy Van Hausen and Sammy Kahn - and even those songs are often pretty awful pieces of work redeemed only by Sinatra's singing. Sinatra and Billie Holiday were great because they transcended the quality of the material they sang: the songs themselves were, in the main, dross. And that's why they deserved to die and stay dead - buried far, far away from the clutches of Krall, Connick, Ball...and now, Dylan.



And this is really a bizarre interpretation from one so smart. Krall, Manhattan Transfer, Connick, Ball, what do they have to do with jazz? If you're only listening to Jazz FM (in the UK) maybe you'd think they were jazz, but there are myriad actual jazz musicians currently performing and recording who are busy proving that jazz is far from dead. That's a purist's nonsense stance that has been around since the 60s when Coltrane joined forces with Impulse! Records. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now.

In fact it's a post so blindingly obtuse that it calls into question the validity of all your posts on this subject.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun March 19th, 2017, 04:29 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sun November 28th, 2004, 02:57 GMT
Posts: 876
Location: I think I'll call it America
MrJudasPriest wrote:
Quite a nicely written review from a Graeme Thompson who suggests the third disc is the least compelling and "for all its easy charms, Triplicate labours its point to the brink of overkill." Stardust is "jaunty enough, if somewhat perfunctory." There are only "minimal shifts in mood and texture" as between discs.

On the plus side, the band are described as fantastic. Once Upon a Time is described as "particularly powerful, both bleak and beautiful." I'll Guess I'll Have to Change My Plans is compared to mid period Van Morrison. There's a Flaw In My Flue is "excuisitely forlorn" and Braggin' has a "breezy strut that could easily have found a home on L&T." He sings with "brio" all through Triplicate and The Best is Yet to Come contains one of his "best vocals in years."


Link?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 186 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]


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