Interesting thoughts here about Dylan's uniquess as a performer. It would interesting to know how much it is an option to him. Like, 'okay I could do it like the Stones: perform greatest hits in familiar arrangements in stadium'. I don't think he could. If he tried, think he would be the worst Dylan tribute band ever (in CHRONICLES he seemed to say that he tried that but lost totally connection to his songs during the 80's). So to me Dylan is so much haunted by his muse that he cannot but do exactly as she orders to.

But the result is such a treasure. His hardcore fanbase is educated for such an 'conceptual art' show and big enough to fill up the places he plays all around the globe. Surely those places are smaller than many of his big name contemporaries play, but more like places that traditionally are meant for presenting art, not sport. For casual fans and tourists to go to see the most legendary performer in the world those concerts might be nightmares if the expectations are like with other old guard big names. Probably for some open minded those shows could be even revalations what a live music show can really be like.

He is a solo act, but among those he is unique. I mean, one could go to see Paul McCartney, Paul Simon, Bruce Springsteen, Patti Smith, John Fogerty, even Neil Young and they all sound like safe and sure pop artists compared to Bob. None of them are able to provide anything as challenging, brave, 'here and now' happening performance art in which each song is like a recreated piece of art happening in the front of your very ears and eyes. Is it the case of reconstruction or deconstruction of the song, well, it depends of the night.

Paul McCartney said it a while ago that he admires Dylan for that and that he would never dare to do anything like that himself. Probably no one could if not haunted by such a merciless muse as Bob's is. Nietzsche once said 'What is not written with blood, is not written at all'. To me that describes aptly what Dylan's live performances are like.

Altogether my take on seeing rock stars as 'artists' has been like Keith's: art is a short for Arthur. But Dylan's really an exception to that. He is the Picasso of the Song. Not that his catalogue is exceptional in terms of creativity, it is his live performances that has an important role in that. The same merciless muse in both fields.

The Stones are a different animal, altogether, as we know. Their shows are huge mass entertainment, biggest shows on earth. Those are always aimed for a big crowd, making sure that each and everyone enjoys who has purchased a ticket. Surely we die-hard might complain about some details, but we are like 'useful idiots', the band knowing we will be there anyhow, no matter how much we might complain. They have won our hearts long ago. The real target is the casual fans and tourists: It's those people that makes them the biggest concert draw on earth. The Stones have worked hard and will work hard to keep it so. They want to give each night like a perfect representation of the greatest rock and roll band in the world, giving people what they want. Like all that history, charisma and songs in one package, served here and now. They do it bloody well each night, and Mick - the core of it all - especially is a wonder of the earth. If in the case of seeing Dylan, people go like entering a mess or a conceptual art performance, in the case of the Stones people will go to have a party, to have a great time. And they will have that.

The thing is that I love both of those acts very much: Dylan and the Stones are my biggest musical heroes. They both are top and unique acts by their own rights. Both of them as live performerd are best in what they do. Good to have them both, no matter how different they are like. Or exactly that's why.

- Doxa



Edited 11 time(s). Last edit at 2023-07-01 14:18 by Doxa.

"but we are like 'useful idiots', the band knowing we will be there anyhow, no matter how much we might complain. They have won our hearts long ago."

I would say that Dylan made his name long ago and that is the reason he gets away with performing his shows the way he does. There's an awful lot of explaining to do in order to enable someone to even appreciate it. The Stones however created a sound and style all of their own and it is expected by the audience and themselves that they live up to that.

Quote
Nikkei
"but we are like 'useful idiots', the band knowing we will be there anyhow, no matter how much we might complain. They have won our hearts long ago."

I would say that Dylan made his name long ago and that is the reason he gets away with performing his shows the way he does. There's an awful lot of explaining to do in order to enable someone to even appreciate it. The Stones however created a sound and style all of their own and it is expected by the audience and themselves that they live up to that.

Well, Dylan "gets away with the way he plays", but the cost of it is that even tough his followers love the way he does, knowing that that is his thing and that's what they - for example, me - want from him, but as a concert draw he is a second class act, and has been that for ages. He might tour more than any of his big name contemporaries, and him probably being the biggest name of them all in a theory, but we will never see his name in the lists of biggest grossing performers. Surely Bob does well, but the Big Money associated with touring these days is out of his reach. Bob probably has the happiest hardcore fans but the most miserable casual fans and tourists. With the latter he seemingly not is "able to get away with". But probably for the former - the hardcore fans - the uncompromised nature of his shows, and a kind of controversiality surrounding him, starting with his voice, is a part of the attraction.

Surely part of his attraction is who he is - his incredible history - but that is kind of thing with any big name of the past. It all is build on that foundation. In the case of Dylan - who is actually famous for surprising career moves that sometimes had been disappointing for fans - I think the way he keeps on moving on, making touring like a series of conceptual art exhibitions is a great example what one could do with a big reputation and deal with one's past. Some other folks do differently, but that is what Dylan does. During his 'Never Ending Tour' that seemed to end with 'ROUGH AND ROWDY WAYS tour' I think he has a couple of times re-created the idea what a concert can be. Or at least that has been my impression. A couple of times I've been after his shows like, 'What the hell that was?'. But that was just positive, having understood seeing something totally novel, unexperienced before. That's a big thing in my book.

Reminds me of the story of Mick and Keith watching a co-star Dylan's show in the desert festival some years ago. Both were amazed and Keith, according to his own words, said to Mick "look, this thing can be also done that way".

Yeah, it could be part of it is just getting away with it, the very thing Macca calls "daring", and it asks a huge reputation and arrogance for that. You know, that being sort of non-professional behavior in show business by not acting by the standard rules (for some people I've seen even him not talking to a crowd is a sign of him not caring about his audience, although for me that's, with lights out, an impressive way to emphasize the very substance, the performance of the songs) . So the moral could be - if someone is "look to Dylan" - that: 'Kids, don't try that at home. You don't have that big balls'.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2023-07-01 16:34 by Doxa.

very well put and written Doxa

Great post, Doxa. I was thinking about Dead and Co., and how they are closer to Dylan in chances taken, jamming of course, and not doing the same setlist (at least in 2022 and this year at Wrigley Field). I'm going to see the Boss, and his setlist is pretty steady with only a unique song or two for each performance (sound familiar?).

As a recording artist, Dylan is peerless. As a concert draw have gone only twice, hated the first in 88, loved the second in 98.

So I think the observations by Doxa & Nikkei are spot on. I've never gone to a Stones show that I didn't think was absolutely fabulous. For whatever downside there is to "Vegas Stones" they have perfected a show that everyone loves.

I don't think that Dylan depends on money from touring in any way (other than, say, Ronnie). He must have a more than decent income from songwriting royalties alone (his own albums as well as hundreds of covers by others).

The Dead have always been famous for never playing the same set list (and - the jamming factor - never playing a song the same way twice), that's what made people buy tickets for consecutive shows for decades, and what makes people now buy boxes of umpteen CDs of complete tours.

I have absolutely of problem with Bob Z playing live what songs he wants to play, and how to play them. Even if he doesn't draw audiences the size, say, Metallica does, I'm sure many "smaller" acts would be very happy to have audiences his size (and worldwide).

Acousticized and slowed down reimagings of “Layla” and “Hotel California” seemed to work for Eric Clapton and The Eagles a coupla decades back, when they needed a little rejuvenation.

Quote
doitywoik
I don't think that Dylan depends on money from touring in any way (other than, say, Ronnie). He must have a more than decent income from songwriting royalties alone (his own albums as well as hundreds of covers by others)

More than decent? He's one of the most covered artists in history and in 2020 he sold his publishing rights for a reported $300 million.

Bob has more money than the Vatican.