Fair question, and I'll do my best to give an honest answer. Bear in mind, review my comments. I think there's been a generalized decline since 2002 or 2003, but I liked the shows I saw in 2003 and 2004 pretty well. I saw him in 2006 and it was pretty dozey, but I thought maybe it was an off-night. I saw a show in 2007 and was a little more aware of the decline and then came the 2008 show that I walked out on. I've been back-- for one show in the years since. So basically, I have cut way back.
There is always an element of the unexpected with Dylan. If you saw the NET in 1988 and liked it and stuck with it through those down times in, say 1991, you might have given up. But by 1994, it was a new and different thing. Maybe he comes back and fixes it.
I waited about 6 1/2 years to see another show, and I did like it better. But not enough better to go back to the ways of, say, 1999, when I saw six shows.
What would make it better for me? I would come back for a varied setlist, even if it meant a chance of seeing some sloppy versions. That was true in the 1997-2002 era, although it didn't happen a ton. I would come back if Dylan sang better-- which was the one thing I did find in 2015 that had been sorely missing in 2008. That (in a mild sense) was the improvement, basically. He sacrificed a fair amount of intensity, but managed not to bark every song. Either a new band or a new sound would be nice. If we had the first two, I'd probably be okay without them, but they would increase my interest generally.
I remember the early days of the old Dylan Pool and thinking, "Wow, maybe on this leg of the tour, he'll play some random songs we never hear" or "He'll start playing harp on every song" or "He might have a new drummer, who makes it all sound completely different." There's no real possibility in what he's doing now. The best you can hope for is, "He tightened up and played a relatively professional sounding show of the same stuff." I don't sense any burning commitment to the material and performance, which may be me, and again, is on the basis of one show two years ago.
Lest you think I'm just a cranky old man, there's an element of me acknowledging that he's paid any debt he owes anyone many times over. He can play the same songs in the most uncommitted manner possible with the worst backing in the world and it doesn't touch the years of delivering the goods. He has long ago earned the right to do whatever he wants. But as a live performer, Bob's just not that interesting to me now, and it's not that good.
Joe
Blind Boy Zimmerman wrote:
Makes me wonder why you even go back to concerts if you haven't liked his output since 2000-2002. Its been 15-17 years since then!
I think a lot has to do with peoples personal mental investment when going to concerts if they judge it as being good or bad. Also the venue, where you are seated in the arena has a lot to do with the experience. And ofcourse his performance and the sound.
Personally I think his output this year has been stellar. Checking back on 2015 shows they were equally good. His voice is better than its been in years. He is invested in his performances. The band is delivering steady good performances every night. One can argue as a fan that it boring with the stale setlists. But thats what 99% of all artists do. So if its boring don't waste time on listening to the shows or follow what he is doing touring wise.
So to all nay sayers - what is it exactly you wish for? It seems unclear. Saying 2002 was great doesn't really tell what you are looking for
- Setlist changes from night to night with the chance of many ragged performances?
- Bob playing the 'best of' set?
- A new band?
- More rocking sound?
- Bob's voice to be better?
- Something else?
Im pretty sure peoples opinions on this is very different - therefore it would be impossible for Dylan to fullfull (not that he would ever care anyway)