This is a great performance

Yes it is a great performance, the whole show is great- But it strikes me how much better Bob sounded in 2007....most of the 2007 shows anyhow, not all of them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-06 21:33 by Erik_Snow.

...Erik is right....the dude just keeps getting better with age....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-07 17:05 by Lukester.

No. he doesn´t. If you really have followed him through the decades, that´s a strange statement. Exactly what is better now, compared with Dylan in the mid-seventies - his peak in my opinion. His voice? His songs? His stage present?

Svartmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. he doesn´t. If you really have followed him
> through the decades, that´s a strange statement.
> Exactly what is better now, compared with Dylan in
> the mid-seventies - his peak in my opinion. His
> voice? His songs? His stage present?


70s Dylan is unbeatable, no doubt, but same can be said about some of the performances he is doing these days....not to mention his last 3 albums !
I can't rank his voice from the 70s and from 2007...it doesn't make much sense, it's a different mood and a different voice and with a different way of saying things....how can one measure such greatness ?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-07 00:27 by Erik_Snow.

Bought a ticket to see Dylan again this July (if Mick invites me to a party on his 64th-birthday, sorry, I'll be seeing Dylan that night in Costa Mesa).

I blew a chance to see Dylan on his tour with the Band in 1974, when I was 16 years old. It wasn't until the mid-1980s when I finally saw Bob, but I've seen him regularly since then. The last time was in Long Beach, Calif., in the fall of 2006, following a show at the Forum.

Dylan's shows these days are magical; his backing band is superb; song selection could only be improved if he did 24 or 25 songs rather than 16 or 17. He's playing guitar now for the first four or five songs of each show.

There will come a day when Dylan will bring the Never-Ending Tour to a halt, either by deciding to do so or by dying (well, death happens).

Anyone who has ever cared about Dylan's music should be seeing him every chance that they get. Dylan's shows have a different kind of energy than his performances in the '60s and the 70s probably did, but so do the Stones' performances today differ from their shows in 1969 and 1972. I don't think that is a valid reason to not bother seeing Dylan or the Stones now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-07 01:06 by Monkeylad.

Thanks Monkeylad, couldn't agree more

I somehow envy you guys because you can see a beauty in this performance that I just cannot see

Lorenz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I somehow envy you guys because you can see a
> beauty in this performance that I just cannot see
>


That's because we found out something only dead men knows...

And what is it, Erik?
I wanna join the club of the knowing.

Lorenz, that was just a part of a Dylan lyric.
Some people "get" Dylan, and a lot of people don't. I can't teach you to "get it" over this messageboard, lol, sorry!

Monkeylad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Dylan's shows these days are magical; his backing
> band is superb; song selection could only be
> improved if he did 24 or 25 songs rather than 16
> or 17. He's playing guitar now for the first four
> or five songs of each show.

I don´t think his present band is suberb, far from it. The band he had in the 2001 tour was much more competent. The song list is very predictible nowadays,
there are many great songs from great albums totally neglected. Year after year.
He´s playing guitar, wow! What´s so great about his present habit of 4-5 songs on guitar and the rest on piano? Would that have been something to celebrate 10 years ago? Hardly.
>
> There will come a day when Dylan will bring the
> Never-Ending Tour to a halt, either by deciding to
> do so or by dying (well, death happens).

Hard to say anything else, obviously.
>
> Anyone who has ever cared about Dylan's music
> should be seeing him every chance that they get.
> Dylan's shows have a different kind of energy than
> his performances in the '60s and the 70s probably
> did, but so do the Stones' performances today
> differ from their shows in 1969 and 1972. I don't
> think that is a valid reason to not bother seeing
> Dylan or the Stones now.

The big difference between the present Dylan and the Stones is that Mick Jagger hasn´t lost his voice and he still has a lot of energy to compensate for the sometimes sloppy playing of the band. Imagine Mick on piano with the back to the audience, not saying a word the whole concert...would the Stones crowd accept that? Shouldn´t think so.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-07 10:08 by Svartmer.

Monkeylad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've seen him regularly since then. The last time
> was in Long Beach, Calif., in the fall of 2006,
> following a show at the Forum.
>
I was at that Long Beach show and I thought Bob was in great form...he continues to evolve, doesn't just play to audience expectations by putting on a "show" of his own warhorses.

My favorite moment was the cheer the audience gave at the beginning of "Thunder On the Mountain" Nice to hear that kind of enthusiasm for new music.

Lorenz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I somehow envy you guys because you can see a
> beauty in this performance that I just cannot see
>

That's precisely what I thought after seeing that clip. Don't get me wrong though, I think Dylan is one of the greatest artists ever. I have several of his cds and I think Modern Times is a masterpiece. I've never been to a Dylan show, but I've listened to lots of boots from his two latest tours and I've always ended up being very disappointed with his voice and so called singing. But the band is mostly top notch of course.

Svartmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Monkeylad Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Dylan's shows these days are magical; his
> backing
> > band is superb; song selection could only be
> > improved if he did 24 or 25 songs rather than
> 16
> > or 17. He's playing guitar now for the first
> four
> > or five songs of each show.
>
> I don´t think his present band is suberb, far from
> it. The band he had in the 2001 tour was much more
> competent. The song list is very predictible
> nowadays,
> there are many great songs from great albums
> totally neglected. Year after year.
> He´s playing guitar, wow! What´s so great about
> his present habit of 4-5 songs on guitar and the
> rest on piano? Would that have been something to
> celebrate 10 years ago? Hardly.
> >
> > There will come a day when Dylan will bring the
> > Never-Ending Tour to a halt, either by deciding
> to
> > do so or by dying (well, death happens).
>
> Hard to say anything else, obviously.
> >
> > Anyone who has ever cared about Dylan's music
> > should be seeing him every chance that they
> get.
> > Dylan's shows have a different kind of energy
> than
> > his performances in the '60s and the 70s
> probably
> > did, but so do the Stones' performances today
> > differ from their shows in 1969 and 1972. I
> don't
> > think that is a valid reason to not bother
> seeing
> > Dylan or the Stones now.
>
> The big difference between the present Dylan and
> the Stones is that Mick Jagger hasn´t lost his
> voice and he still has a lot of energy to
> compensate for the sometimes sloppy playing of the
> band. Imagine Mick on piano with the back to the
> audience, not saying a word the whole
> concert...would the Stones crowd accept that?
> Shouldn´t think so.


Why do people insist on comparing apples and oranges. Dylan is not a high energy rock gig. Its a guy twisting and turning, reinterpreting his wonderful catalogue. Its the sound of a restless spirit looking for something new in the songs he has written.
The Stones endeavour to make their songs on stage sound like the records. Dylan tries to make them sound like they would be if he had just written them. The end result is that The Stones sound is "Young", because its a timeless rendition (eg Satisfaction), whereas Dylan may sound old but the interpretation is modern.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-07 20:53 by letitloose.

great post - letitloose

The last concert I saw with Bob Dylan a couple of years ago (2003) there was nothing "new" in the interprentation of the songs. Almost every song sounded the same, a sort of mid tempo bluesrock, very static and boring.
The fascinating thing with Dylan is the very broad spectra of views from the people who attends his concerts. It really goes from brilliant to horrible depending who you ask. I don´t think there is no other artist who evokes such different opinions gig after gig.

For those of you who like Infidels, look at this before they remove it.