Quote
shadooby

Quote
keefriffhard4life
just picked up the new dylan

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

haven't listened to it yet. i won't get a chance until next week

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
shadooby

Quote
keefriffhard4life
just picked up the new dylan

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

haven't listened to it yet. i won't get a chance until next week

I'm the poster boy for buying a new CD and then not getting a chance to listen to it.

Bob and Mark Knopfler at the Hollywood Bowl, three weeks from tonight, October 26th. Anybody else going?

The Stones are NOT an active band anymore, that's just it. It's absurd to want to "kick them in the ass" or to hope for this or that or whatever 11th hour masterpiece. We are fans of a band that belongs to the past and we all know it. How odd to nurture a disappointment about them.

As for Dylan, well, he has the most loyal and devoted group of fans, good for him - but to my ears he just churns out poor collections of patched-up songs which are hardly performed. But there is no debating Dylan anymore than religion these days. Just as the atheist only sees contradictions and falsities where the faithful sees paradoxes and mysteries, the aloof dylan listeners hears a croaking voice spur verbose trivialities on generic soundtracks and the dylan fan hears yesteryear's prophet explore the Great American Sounbook... To each his own.

Otonneau, you are right about the Stones. I admire Dylan, but I am not uncritical towards him, he is not a religion to me. You are wrong when you write that Dylan's younger songs are "hardly performed". Check out his setlists, Scarlet Town was played last night for the first time. His setlists are really ballanced.

Otonneau, have you listened to Tempest?

I hardly think Dylan has the most 'loyal and devoted group of fans'. They are not delusional. These are not Dead Heads, who I have yet to hear criticize their defunct group for anything. No one was more pilloried than Dylan in the 80s and 90. Marble mouthed, insane, you name it. You could hardly understand what he was saying for quite a while. And you were lucky to get one decent song on an album for a number of years.

I had friends invite me to Dylan concerts in the late 70s and through the 80s and I declined. Especially if the only attraction was to see him do the hits and he was performed them in some ridiculous new arrangement out of what seemed ambivalence towards the music his fans cherished. Then I went to see him in 1998 as part of a Van Morrison, Joni Mitchell triple bill. I couldn't resist seeing Joni Mitchell live, and I was right to see her then. (She hasn't toured since and probably never will again). The concert said be there at 7:30, but my friend and I lingered in the parking lot to smoke a joint, knowing concerts never start on time. We approach the venue to pounding music. We rush in to find Dylan is the opening act. And he's nothing like we expected. He's standing there defiantly at the mike with an electric guitar, belting out Maggie's Farm with clear vocaled defiance.

It still wouldn't have made me buy his new albums but it did make me see that he was on some kind of comeback, even if it was only on stage. The next time I saw him was a few weeks after 9/11, and he delivered 'Blowin' In the Wind' with a strange arrangement that was brilliantly wistful and tough. I decided to give his newer work a spin and I liked it. My problem now with hearing his work is that I no longer listen to entire albums from anyone. My habits have become chopped up and prone to making complilations of different kinds of music. That's not Bob's fault. I thought the new Jack White album is brilliant, but I've only listened to it once. I've pulled out certain cuts and heard them again and again, but not the entire work again.

It will take me a while to get to Tempest in its entirety. But I'm looking forward to it. As much as I want, really want, a new Stones album to be great, I find myself gobbling it down and then sitting there thinking, "Is that all there is?" Is that all they had to say? Is that all the musicality they wanted to express? Did that make them feel like they'd contributed positively to their recorded legacy? Why are they still singing about skanky chicks when life has become so much richer? Haven't their lives deepened? Why is it not reflected in their art? Or are they just trying to recreate a pre-determined sound? I can sympathize with trying to create new work at an advanced age when your past is full of some of the biggest heights pop music has ever experienced. Okay, so I'm greedy. I accept that the Stones will never again make a collection of new music that stands up to the old in quality or depth. It would be nice if they'd try.

Windmelody, I did not make myself clear: by not "performed", I ment the songs are not "interpreted", or in other words the delivery is just generic and uninteresting (to my ears).

Ross, yes, I have listened to Tempest - I must say I just find it weak and bland, especially the lyrics to the title track are just really silly to me. They pile up easy snapshots and fail to bring forth any of the huge significance of the event. To just conclude that there is nothing to say about God's judgement seems so very weak concerning a disaster that contains in a nutshell a metaphor of the dusk of a form of society seems really poor to me. As for Pay In Blood, for instance, I think people find depths here just because it's violent - not enough for me. Roman Kings is what I call a string of platitudes... In a word, really unimpressed, and also by the band (not to mention the singer).

BUT: 24FPS, I have not said that Dylan's fans were deadheads or delusional, but "loyal and devoted", which is not the same. Hey, I read on the net that what Dylan does with his voice compares to what Jackson Pollock does with painting; that not to "get" older Dylan is like not understanding Picassso, I read again and again that he is a poet, and each word is propelled into a sphere of meaning to which, in my view, it does not belong at all. So to me, that's a form of devotion. I'm not saying it was always there (in the 80s or 90s) but it's quite obvious that later day Dylan albums benefit from an enormous positive expectation and that his fans are really willing to make effort to find quality in them, patiently bowing to the Master's word.

The comparison with religion works in this sense: if a psychopath said "I do not the good that I want but the bad that I hate", you'd just think "yes, that's because you're sick". When the apostle Paul says it, we expect these words to have much greater significance. The expectation is not absurd: after all, Paul has a life and history that inclines his followers to assume that he makes sense. Similarily, because Dylan is Dylan, his fans are willing to apply the "charity principle" at great expenses and to assume that if quality is not obvious, it must nonetheless be there somewhere. I remember reading here an analysis of the Christmas album by Doxa that really took the cake.

You could even make an equation: the worst Dylan's work is to my ear, the higher the interpretative effort I find. Today he is Jackson Pollock and Picasso; when his voice will have degenerated even further, when his melodies will be even more dull and repetitive than that of the song "Tempest" (is that possible?) and when the lyrics will just say "we were dancing swing and Kennedy was dead, and Kennedy was dead, and Kennedy was dead, da-doop-dee-la" or something like that, I'm sure Dylan will have to be compared to Enstein to square things out!

Nothing wrong with that. But although I like a lot of older Dylan stuff, there is no point in his careeer where I put him as high as his fans do; therefore I have not the same belief in his mysterious genius and when what I hear sounds like pointless gruff clichés then that's what I call it. Surely i'm the one not being charitable!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-06 17:02 by otonneau.

Quote
otonneau
... To each his own.

Like you said!

>I ment the songs are not "interpreted"

I have no idea what that means; he comes up with new interpretations of his songs all the time.

Anyway, I checked out a review of the first show of the new tour which opened last night and was surprised by this comment -- a reversal of the roles these two guitarists have been playing on the prior tours:

>Charlie was hemmed in. It was really weird to see him strumming away,barely audible. ...He is such a monster guitarist. But Stu Kimball took nearly every lead.

[www.boblinks.com]

The Stones are my favorite group and Dylan my favorite solo performer.

Have had the pleasure of seeing both the Stones & Dylan about 15 times each.

Don’t see a reason to debate the merits of either. They were the best at what they did for a long, long time.

Hi I'm Corey, I just keep thinking the Stones still have something up there sleeve. But they always make me think that and then they let me down. Idk..I have a feeling this is really getting close to the last time for them and they are still really healthy. I have a feeling they could rock really good one more time....at age 70! Dylan is over.
f#*ck Dylan.

How is Dylan "over"? He's on tour with a hit album lol!

Quote
Glam Descendant
How is Dylan "over"? He's on tour with a hit album lol!

dylan is over because he has had two #1 albums here in america in the last 15 years and the stones haven't had a #1 album here in 30 years

And Dylan has been releasing numerous 'Bootleg Series'. I swear the one covering 1989-2006 is fantastic.

Quote
24FPS
And Dylan has been releasing numerous 'Bootleg Series'. I swear the one covering 1989-2006 is fantastic.

i don't have any bootleg series yet but thats the one that interests me the most other than vol 1-3. you didn't plunk down for the uber deluxe version that was over $100 did you?

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
24FPS
And Dylan has been releasing numerous 'Bootleg Series'. I swear the one covering 1989-2006 is fantastic.

i don't have any bootleg series yet but thats the one that interests me the most other than vol 1-3. you didn't plunk down for the uber deluxe version that was over $100 did you?

I don't think you were talking to me but yeah, I did. It was recently on sale at a great price thru Popmarket.

If you're about to get started on the Bootleg Series I envy you -- you have a lot of great music to look forward to! I would start w/Vol.1-3 if I were you.

Quote
Glam Descendant

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
24FPS
And Dylan has been releasing numerous 'Bootleg Series'. I swear the one covering 1989-2006 is fantastic.

i don't have any bootleg series yet but thats the one that interests me the most other than vol 1-3. you didn't plunk down for the uber deluxe version that was over $100 did you?

I don't think you were talking to me but yeah, I did. It was recently on sale at a great price thru Popmarket.

If you're about to get started on the Bootleg Series I envy you -- you have a lot of great music to look forward to! I would start w/Vol.1-3 if I were you.

i usually scout ebay for deals on this stuff

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

When it comes to Dylan and the Stones, a horse race doesn't come to mind indeed.

A 'horse race' can be very inspiring when it comes with a smile though

just listened to the new dylan. i liked it more than the last 2 albums but its not better than time out of mind or love and theft

VT22, it is funny that you are posting this video. I am a Paco De Lucia fan, but this combination with Al Di Meola did not work. It sounds like a very stupid parody of great guitarmusic. By the way, I saw another concert of this tour, and as I learned from a man who was working backstage Paco de Lucia and Al Di Meola had violent confrontation during the break. Unfortunately Paca did not manage to knock his opponent out!

Quote
otonneau
Windmelody, I did not make myself clear: by not "performed", I ment the songs are not "interpreted", or in other words the delivery is just generic and uninteresting (to my ears).

Ross, yes, I have listened to Tempest - I must say I just find it weak and bland, especially the lyrics to the title track are just really silly to me. They pile up easy snapshots and fail to bring forth any of the huge significance of the event. To just conclude that there is nothing to say about God's judgement seems so very weak concerning a disaster that contains in a nutshell a metaphor of the dusk of a form of society seems really poor to me. As for Pay In Blood, for instance, I think people find depths here just because it's violent - not enough for me. Roman Kings is what I call a string of platitudes... In a word, really unimpressed, and also by the band (not to mention the singer).

BUT: 24FPS, I have not said that Dylan's fans were deadheads or delusional, but "loyal and devoted", which is not the same. Hey, I read on the net that what Dylan does with his voice compares to what Jackson Pollock does with painting; that not to "get" older Dylan is like not understanding Picassso, I read again and again that he is a poet, and each word is propelled into a sphere of meaning to which, in my view, it does not belong at all. So to me, that's a form of devotion. I'm not saying it was always there (in the 80s or 90s) but it's quite obvious that later day Dylan albums benefit from an enormous positive expectation and that his fans are really willing to make effort to find quality in them, patiently bowing to the Master's word.

The comparison with religion works in this sense: if a psychopath said "I do not the good that I want but the bad that I hate", you'd just think "yes, that's because you're sick". When the apostle Paul says it, we expect these words to have much greater significance. The expectation is not absurd: after all, Paul has a life and history that inclines his followers to assume that he makes sense. Similarily, because Dylan is Dylan, his fans are willing to apply the "charity principle" at great expenses and to assume that if quality is not obvious, it must nonetheless be there somewhere. I remember reading here an analysis of the Christmas album by Doxa that really took the cake.

You could even make an equation: the worst Dylan's work is to my ear, the higher the interpretative effort I find. Today he is Jackson Pollock and Picasso; when his voice will have degenerated even further, when his melodies will be even more dull and repetitive than that of the song "Tempest" (is that possible?) and when the lyrics will just say "we were dancing swing and Kennedy was dead, and Kennedy was dead, and Kennedy was dead, da-doop-dee-la" or something like that, I'm sure Dylan will have to be compared to Enstein to square things out!

Nothing wrong with that. But although I like a lot of older Dylan stuff, there is no point in his careeer where I put him as high as his fans do; therefore I have not the same belief in his mysterious genius and when what I hear sounds like pointless gruff clichés then that's what I call it. Surely i'm the one not being charitable!

very interesting thought laid out here. Love this post

i will not tolerate any more of this inane discussion. nobody's pulling ahead of anyone. it's not a contest or competition. you can't objectively qualify such a debate with anything tangible that any two people would ever accept. so stop it. music is just music. you can like it or not. please!

besides, everyone knows dylan's been far ahead of the stones for decades already.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-09 21:32 by StonesTod.

No, "Gloom and Doom" will show Stones are 2000 lightyears ahead of Dylan.

Quote
mtaylor
No, "Gloom and Doom" will show Stones are 2000 lightyears ahead of Dylan.

you just broke my sarcastic meter

aleastsweresa besaae abblels tuuss unsternss whas theyss r sayin

Quote
StonesTod
i will not tolerate any more of this inane discussion. nobody's pulling ahead of anyone. it's not a contest or competition. you can't objectively qualify such a debate with anything tangible that any two people would ever accept. so stop it. music is just music. you can like it or not. please!

besides, everyone knows dylan's been far ahead of the stones for decades already.

Perhaps musically, but collectively, I'd say the Stones are more physically fit. Keith weighs them down a bit true, but on average, you have to give it to them.

dylan is making albums that sound pretty much like what the stones should have been doing the last 15 years

Mick's voice is still better than Bob's - has always been.

Quote
mtaylor
Mick's voice is still better than Bob's - has always been.

that doesn't mean shit if all we get are greatest hits with a few new songs, the superheavy album and "streets of love". the stones should be doing the stripped back blues stylings that dylan has been doing since time out of mind