It's a brilliant 'Christmas Album' together with Elvis and Bing...



2 1 2 0

....don't come anywhere near Sandy Center's sexual-- Come On Baby It's Christmas



ROCKMAN

Quote
Ross

Quote
seitan
I agree.

-I like Dylan, but I'm allso suprised that he can totally get away with plagiarism. He keeps on playing old blues classic's with new lyrics. In fact - the best thing Dylan does is his lyric writing but not his ..well, where are the vocal melodies ? He's a real poet - and Stones are not poets. Most of Dylan's recent material have been musicially stolen from old blues legends. Re-written blues songs " Hell Is My Wife's Hometown" ( new lyrics for Muddy Waters/Willie Dixon classic " I Just Wanna Make Love To You") or "Early Roman Kings" (New Lyrics for Bo Diddley's I'm a Man) etc etc....

Do you really think that stealing somebody elses musicial compositions and giving them new lyrics, is being musicially inspired ? - Dylan writes great lyrics and his band is great and professional, but I wish he would write something more orginal, than re-writing old blues standards.

Ok, so did Dylan steal the "Early Roman Kings" riff from Bo Diddley, or from Muddy Waters (who stole it from Bo Diddley!)? As Dylan recently pointed out, it is traditional in blues and jazz to "borrow" things. Musically, there are only a few blues tunes that keep getting recycled. Its the lyrics and performance that makes each one unique.

Ross

Using an established blues form, such as this riff, is not stealing. It is using a form. Though I agree that Dylan has been scraping the barrel of late musically and lyrically. I do not think there is a bridge or a chorus on any single song on his new record - it
s pretty much all verses. He used to be a much more creative songwriter. But he still produces moments of magic on his records. I'm not sure the Stones have lately.

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
lazzzybones

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
lazzzybones
Yeah. Remember that Xmas album "Christmas In The Heart" from a couple of years ago?
Anyone buy it? Anyone LISTEN to it? Anyone?
Be great if the Stones did one to catch up on ol'Bob eh.

that album was for charity

Doesn't make it anymore listenable.

it doesn't but it seemed like you were using that to say dylan made a crap new album.

No I'm not saying that-but this thread is about if Dylan has pulled far ahead of the Stones.At least the Stones (God forbid) haven't done a putzy XMAS album whether it be for charity or not. I don't wanna hear Perry Como massacre "Masters Of War"dig?

Seitan,

Great job pulling the info on the songs Dylan "borrowed" from, but I am not denying that his Bobness has done this rather copiously of late. It apparently annoys you to the point that you cant enjoy what Dylan brings to those tunes, it doeesn't bother me so much in that I know this is acceptable within that form of music. Obviously those who own the rights to those songs don't consider it plagiarism, Modern Times came out 6 years ago and I have yet to hear of any lawsuits over this.

That said, I get your point. This man once wrote some of the most amazing music on the planet that was (for the most part) totally his...and totally unique. On recent works, he is drawing from things that have already gone down. However, that is not the case with Tempest.

And, sure, Good As I Been To You and World gone wrong are cover albums. It doesn't make them any less remarkable. Right now that kind of effort from The Stones would be more welcome to these ears than another ABB-type thing.

I am among the majority of critics and his fans that are really enjoying this 21st century version of Dylan. No, it's not his best stuff, but it is far from his worst. And, to the point of the title of this thread, his output has been far more prolific and well-received this century than The Stones. I am grateful that they are both still at it!

Ross

Quote
Ross
Seitan,

Great job pulling the info on the songs Dylan "borrowed" from, but I am not denying that his Bobness has done this rather copiously of late. It apparently annoys you to the point that you cant enjoy what Dylan brings to those tunes, it doeesn't bother me so much in that I know this is acceptable within that form of music. Obviously those who own the rights to those songs don't consider it plagiarism, Modern Times came out 6 years ago and I have yet to hear of any lawsuits over this.

That said, I get your point. This man once wrote some of the most amazing music on the planet that was (for the most part) totally his...and totally unique. On recent works, he is drawing from things that have already gone down. However, that is not the case with Tempest.

And, sure, Good As I Been To You and World gone wrong are cover albums. It doesn't make them any less remarkable. Right now that kind of effort from The Stones would be more welcome to these ears than another ABB-type thing.

I am among the majority of critics and his fans that are really enjoying this 21st century version of Dylan. No, it's not his best stuff, but it is far from his worst. And, to the point of the title of this thread, his output has been far more prolific and well-received this century than The Stones. I am grateful that they are both still at it!

Ross

To me, since Time Out of Mind, Dylan is almost a different artist than the "classic" Bob. But Whatever he is today, I think he's been great since TOOM. The voice is ravaged but it suits his recent material. And not to repeat everyone else, wether you call it borrowing, stealing, or whatever, it's been done in blues for ages. Musically there's only so many chord progressions in blues; anything more wouldn't sound like blues. Lyrics, well that's another issue....

Never understood the fascination with Dylan. He just can't sing no more. Completely unlistenable since the mid-80s. Even Keith sings better.

Pete.

Comparing a rock band to a solo folk artist is kind of like comparing apples and oranges imo. Their histories are also quite different. The Stones were more of a steady force as far as popularity and activity (at least until 2007), and Dylan seemed to start out strong then hit a lowpoint then a resurgence later in his career. From a historical point of view I think they will both go down in history as all time greats- maybe on that second level right below The Beatles and Elvis.

Maybe it is easier for a solo artist to make new music but I do give Dylan credit for continuing to put out new music whereas The Stones kind of got lazy in that area.

Quote
Pete66
Never understood the fascination with Dylan. He just can't sing no more. Completely unlistenable since the mid-80s. Even Keith sings better.

Pete.

I would not go go that far, because I think Time Out Of Mind is a late masterpiece, though it can't compete with Blood on the tracks and Desire. But after attending one of his highly praised concerts a few years ago, I must say you are quite right about his voice now a days. And the music he has produced lately has been so disappointing. Dinner table music - but hailed by most critics, because it is made by his bobness.

I heard Dylan this year, and he put up a wonderful concert, his voice maybe weak, but he knows how to handle it. Check out Tin Angel from Tempest and you will be thrilled. Silly boy!!!

Quote
windmelody
I heard Dylan this year, and he put up a wonderful concert, his voice maybe weak, but he knows how to handle it. Check out Tin Angel from Tempest and you will be thrilled. Silly boy!!!

Early Roman Kings and Duquesne Whistle are much better.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
windmelody
I heard Dylan this year, and he put up a wonderful concert, his voice maybe weak, but he knows how to handle it. Check out Tin Angel from Tempest and you will be thrilled. Silly boy!!!

Early Roman Kings and Duquesne Whistle are much better.

But Top five goes:

1/ Roll on John
2/ Tempest
3/ Long and waisted years
4/ Duquesne Whistle
5/ Narrow way




2 1 2 0

dylan left the stones in the dust over 20 years ago.no contest.(not live)as a creator of great new masterpieces.hes had 10 masterpieces in the 35 years since the stones had there last.only ian hunter is close to matching bobs creativity.

Quote
backstreetboy1
dylan left the stones in the dust over 20 years ago.no contest.(not live)as a creator of great new masterpieces.hes had 10 masterpieces in the 35 years since the stones had there last.only ian hunter is close to matching bobs creativity.

Great post!

I agree with Ross.
Now Dylan is different, his music is not at the same level it used to be, but it sounds honest and nice. And the last album is very very good; maybe no one will talk about it in 10 years, but i am enjoying it a lot. Now the music fits perfectly his limited vocal skills, and in the studio it does´nt sound bad at all, some times is marvellous

Quote
backstreetboy1
dylan left the stones in the dust over 20 years ago.no contest.(not live)as a creator of great new masterpieces.hes had 10 masterpieces in the 35 years since the stones had there last.only ian hunter is close to matching bobs creativity.

Well lets dig all the way down deep into the dust with the Rolling Stones, quick and dirty and let the 10 dylan "Mastersqeezes" be washed away by the ocean.

Quote
jamesjagger

Quote
backstreetboy1
dylan left the stones in the dust over 20 years ago.no contest.(not live)as a creator of great new masterpieces.hes had 10 masterpieces in the 35 years since the stones had there last.only ian hunter is close to matching bobs creativity.

Well lets dig all the way down deep into the dust with the Rolling Stones, quick and dirty and let the 10 dylan "Mastersqeezes" be washed away by the ocean.

In the last 15 or so years he's won about three grammies and an Oscar I'm not convinced the latter day classics will be washed away.

Men At Work has more Grammys than Led Zeppelin. Are Grammys the best measuring stick to decide what musical act is better?

I've given Bob credit for being more active but anyone that thinks he has put out 10 masterpieces since the last Stones masterpiece is using their own definition of masterpiece- not an objective one.

Quote
FrankM
Men At Work has more Grammys than Led Zeppelin. Are Grammys the best measuring stick to decide what musical act is better?

I've given Bob credit for being more active but anyone that thinks he has put out 10 masterpieces since the last Stones masterpiece is using their own definition of masterpiece- not an objective one.

Fair point but I wasn't saying that Bob had made '10 masterpieces since the last Stones masterpiece' I was just trying to say that his recent stuff is very good, wins grammies, sells well (by Bob standards) and is well received by fans and critics alike so it is unlikely that 'the 10 dylan "Mastersqeezes" be washed away...'

I think these last few Dylan albums will be looked at in the future and they'll be trying to untangle them. I think there are some brilliant moments. Maybe none of them are Sergeant Pepper, but they're certainly interesting. And isn't that the point of this thread? Dylan's current, ongoing work is head and shoulders above anything the Stones have done since 1989.

Quote
24FPS
I think these last few Dylan albums will be looked at in the future and they'll be trying to untangle them. I think there are some brilliant moments. Maybe none of them are Sergeant Pepper, but they're certainly interesting. And isn't that the point of this thread? Dylan's current, ongoing work is head and shoulders above anything the Stones have done since 1989.

since 1982 maybe.
oh mercy
time out of mind
love and theft

thats 3 great albums in the last 25 years and in the same timeframe the stones have only released 5 albums

Rolling Stone: I want to ask about the controversy over your quotations in your songs from the works of other writers, such as Japanese author Junichi Saga's Confessions of a Yakuza, and the Civil War poetry of Henry Timrod. In folk and jazz, quotation is a rich and enriching tradition, but some critics say that you didn't cite your sources clearly. What's your response to those kinds of charges?

Bob Dylan: Oh, yeah, in folk and jazz, quotation is a rich and enriching tradition. That certainly is true. It's true for everybody, but me. There are different rules for me. And as far as Henry Timrod is concerned, have you even heard of him? Who's been reading him lately? And who's pushed him to the forefront? Who's been making you read him? And ask his descendants what they think of the hoopla. And if you think it's so easy to quote him and it can help your work, do it yourself and see how far you can get. Wussies and pussies complain about that stuff. It's an old thing – it's part of the tradition. It goes way back. These are the same people that tried to pin the name Judas on me. Judas, the most hated name in human history! If you think you've been called a bad name, try to work your way out from under that. Yeah, and for what? For playing an electric guitar? As if that is in some kind of way equitable to betraying our Lord and delivering him up to be crucified. All those evil motherf*ckers can rot in hell.

RS: Seriously?

BD: I'm working within my art form. It's that simple. I work within the rules and limitations of it. There are authoritarian figures that can explain that kind of art form better to you than I can. It's called songwriting. It has to do with melody and rhythm, and then after that, anything goes. You make everything yours. We all do it.

Bob has spoken.

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
24FPS
I think these last few Dylan albums will be looked at in the future and they'll be trying to untangle them. I think there are some brilliant moments. Maybe none of them are Sergeant Pepper, but they're certainly interesting. And isn't that the point of this thread? Dylan's current, ongoing work is head and shoulders above anything the Stones have done since 1989.

since 1982 maybe.
oh mercy
time out of mind
love and theft

thats 3 great albums in the last 25 years and in the same timeframe the stones have only released 5 albums

Daniel Lanois has been excellent at actually encouraging Bob to take a more disciplined approach to his music as in him being able to reconnect with his art with a larger degree of enthusiasm, yet i haven't especially enjoyed his production on OH MERCY and TIME OUT OF MIND. There is a certain formality and superficiality within the sound of both of those albums, for me, that becomes irritating really pretty quickly, and i much prefer the albums Bob has produced himself which has much more of a freshness and knockabout spontaneity about them. TIME OUT OF MIND is overrated beyond any sense of reason in my opinion, because most of those blues inspired tunes are fairly boring and anonymous in terms of them not really possessing any definitively memorable traits - they simply just meander along. The ballads are much better, however, although again, there appears a stiffness and formality within their sound i find most unappealing. Lyrically too, Bob hasn't quite got his eloquence back in full flow, in fact there a few real clunkers in terms of his lyrical rhyming.

I tend to think of LOVE AND THEFT as the moment he really did find his feet again, and through MODERN TIMES and TEMPEST he's been pretty consistent. TOGETHER THROUGH LIFE was a little less effective, however. I think his more recent work does stand up remarkably well, though, and i think it's a pretty redundant argument to be claiming that these newer songs won't stand up like his early songs. Those early songs were the very fabric of musical history in terms of importance and influence, whether in musical terms, and/or occasionally politically. These new songs won't be important in the same way in those terms, but that doesn't stop them being effective in what they set out to achieve. Bob's recent albums, for me, are equally as enjoyable as his early ones, although if you are looking for specifics, as in Bob's poetic lyrical phrasing and surreal imagery etc. as an example of his unique artistry, those early albums do remain untouchable. However, those later albums bring other very admirable merits to the table. I find them incredibly warm. Reconnecting with his roots and rejecting the need to appear contemporary has been Bob's biggest asset in terms of him refinding his form. Even with his diminishing vocal skills, he's managed to somehow turn a potential shortcoming into a real asset. In its own way, Bob's singing on TEMPEST is really quite superb.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-05 22:32 by Edward Twining.

Edward, you are so dead on! Although I may like TOOM more than that, I also thought the real rebirth and true return to form came with Love & Theft. The songs on TOOM are brilliant, but I find Lanois's production a hindrance (as I did on Oh, Mercy). The songs were good enough to cut through, but I think a more conventional approach without the atmospheric "distortion" would have been much more effective.

And I totally agree about the vocals. He is still as expressive as ever, and the growl just fits the music so well. These days, Jack Frost is the best producer for this unique and still awe-inspiring talent! (as always, IMO)

Ross

Quote
Ross
Edward, you are so dead on! Although I may like TOOM more than that, I also thought the real rebirth and true return to form came with Love & Theft. The songs on TOOM are brilliant, but I find Lanois's production a hindrance (as I did on Oh, Mercy). The songs were good enough to cut through, but I think a more conventional approach without the atmospheric "distortion" would have been much more effective.

And I totally agree about the vocals. He is still as expressive as ever, and the growl just fits the music so well. These days, Jack Frost is the best producer for this unique and still awe-inspiring talent! (as always, IMO)

Ross

Yes, i agree Ross. Those songs on TIME OUT OF MIND, especially, would sound so much better if they were re-recorded with Bob alone producing. TIME OUT OF MIND, for me, just sounds too darn precious for my taste. I'm just waiting for a wrong note or something out of place etc. - just a touch of spontaneity. I feel listening to TIME OUT OF MIND just so irritating - everything seems to be in its place - but the soul is missing, which is pretty unusual for Bob (that's no criticism of Bob's vocals by the way).

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Ross

Quote
seitan
I agree.

-I like Dylan, but I'm allso suprised that he can totally get away with plagiarism. He keeps on playing old blues classic's with new lyrics. In fact - the best thing Dylan does is his lyric writing but not his ..well, where are the vocal melodies ? He's a real poet - and Stones are not poets. Most of Dylan's recent material have been musicially stolen from old blues legends. Re-written blues songs " Hell Is My Wife's Hometown" ( new lyrics for Muddy Waters/Willie Dixon classic " I Just Wanna Make Love To You") or "Early Roman Kings" (New Lyrics for Bo Diddley's I'm a Man) etc etc....

Do you really think that stealing somebody elses musicial compositions and giving them new lyrics, is being musicially inspired ? - Dylan writes great lyrics and his band is great and professional, but I wish he would write something more orginal, than re-writing old blues standards.

Ok, so did Dylan steal the "Early Roman Kings" riff from Bo Diddley, or from Muddy Waters (who stole it from Bo Diddley!)? As Dylan recently pointed out, it is traditional in blues and jazz to "borrow" things. Musically, there are only a few blues tunes that keep getting recycled. Its the lyrics and performance that makes each one unique.

Ross

Using an established blues form, such as this riff, is not stealing. It is using a form. Though I agree that Dylan has been scraping the barrel of late musically and lyrically. I do not think there is a bridge or a chorus on any single song on his new record - it
s pretty much all verses. He used to be a much more creative songwriter. But he still produces moments of magic on his records. I'm not sure the Stones have lately.

I take it you're not counting 2005 as "lately".

Such a foolish topic title. Music is not a horse race.

just picked up the new dylan

Quote
keefriffhard4life
just picked up the new dylan

Kicks doesn't it? The Titanic tune especially resonates at first listen.