Bob's already had a few 'trilogies' - most notably the 'big three' from 1965-66

bringing it all back home, Highway 61 revisited, Blonde On Blonde

3 of the greatest albums of all time, one of them a double, and all recorded in the space of 12 months. Plus, he had a couple of great singles in that time too (eg Positively 4th Street)

The most sustained period of brilliance by anyone ever

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob's already had a few 'trilogies' - most notably
> the 'big three' from 1965-66
>
> bringing it all back home, Highway 61 revisited,
> Blonde On Blonde
>
> 3 of the greatest albums of all time, one of them
> a double, and all recorded in the space of 12
> months. Plus, he had a couple of great singles in
> that time too (eg Positively 4th Street)
>
> The most sustained period of brilliance by anyone
> ever

'scuse me sir........i believe you have overlooked the "REAL" most sustained period of brilliance ever...bar none....... by the Rolling Stones................that genius-laced trilogy of "Undercover", "Dirty Work" and "Steel WHeelies"

Unbelievable new album from Bob. Even surpasses the hype . His band are absolutely on . Great singing , great songs & great playing.
If only he would play it in concert ? maybe some songs on his next tour after the ballpark tour ? Her'es hoping.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob's already had a few 'trilogies' - most notably
> the 'big three' from 1965-66
>
> bringing it all back home, Highway 61 revisited,
> Blonde On Blonde
>
> 3 of the greatest albums of all time, one of them
> a double, and all recorded in the space of 12
> months. Plus, he had a couple of great singles in
> that time too (eg Positively 4th Street)
>
> The most sustained period of brilliance by anyone
> ever


Can you give me some of that stuff you are smoking man? It must be good. The most sustained period of brilliance by anyone ever?

Didn't you ever hear of the Rolling Stones? You know- that obscure little band that just happened to have six five star albums in a seven year period between 66' and 72' plus singles like Jumping Jack Flash, Honkey Tonk Women, Child Of The Moon, Dandelion, 19th nervous breakdown etc. etc.

Ever hear of the Beatles? Twenty number one hits in six years.

I don't mind jokes being told in this forum but pease make sure they are funny.

I hate to burst the bubble of Dylan fans but I listened to the album myself and it is not as good as the hype. From a music performance standpoint it is very good- besides the fact that Dylan sounds as if he is singing into a paper cup or something. His voice has this weird sound throughout the album- but it does hold up.

From a songwriting point of view the album has maybe three or four really good songs- no great songs and the album as a whole seems to be lacking melody. When I first heard all the hype I thought there would be some great songs like "Jokerman", "Sweetheart Like You" etc. There are no songs that match those let alone Bob's earlier classics.

Comparing this to his earlier work is as silly as comparing "Steel Wheels" to "Exile".

overrated but certainly not a bad album if you are primarily a music person as opposed to a melody person.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The most sustained period of
> brilliance by anyone ever? (Dylan 1965-1966)

NO doubt about it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-01 02:45 by Erik_Snow.

FrankM Wrote:
> Can you give me some of that stuff you are smoking
> man? It must be good. The most sustained period of
> brilliance by anyone ever?
>
> Didn't you ever hear of the Rolling Stones? You
> know- that obscure little band that just happened
> to have six five star albums in a seven year
> period between 66' and 72' plus singles like
> Jumping Jack Flash, Honkey Tonk Women, Child Of
> The Moon, Dandelion, 19th nervous breakdown etc.
> etc.
>
> Ever hear of the Beatles? Twenty number one hits
> in six years.
>

what has "hits" got to do with sustained brilliance? The friggin Spice Girls had a shitload of number ones over a couple of years. Does that make them wonderful?

The Stones "golden period" was as good as anyone's - but that was in a 4 year spell. That period Im referring to was in the space of one year. So, yeah - a pretty unbeatable burst of creative brilliance as far as I'm concerned.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-01 02:35 by Gazza.

Dream on people. The Beatles and the Stones are synonomous with the sixties. Dylan would be third fiddle at best.

If people think Modern Times is as good as his older stuff then his older stuff must not be as good as I thought.

The new album by "The Fray" had better songwriting than "Modern Times".

FrankM, I think even Beatles and Stones would say that Dylan in the Bringing... - H61 - Blonde would be the best work by any artist, any time.

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FrankM, I think even Beatles and Stones would say
> that Dylan in the Bringing... - H61 - Blonde would
> be the best work by any artist, any time.

Maybe if you are just talking about the time span that encompassed those three ablums but when I think of sustained excellence I think of the Beatles 64-70 or the Stones 66-72. Those are much longer time periods.

That's not to say Dylan is a scrub. Like the Beatles and Stones he has some of the best albums of all time.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dream on people. The Beatles and the Stones are
> synonomous with the sixties. Dylan would be third
> fiddle at best.

The Beatles and the Stones couldn't/can't hold Dylan's jockstrap.

Yeah, the Beatles and Stones had some great albums in the 60s and 70s.

OTOH, Dylan had some great albums in the 60s, 70s, 80s (yes, even the 80s), 90s and the 00s. Neither the Beatles nor Stones could do much after their peak period.

Then again, if you're one of those who think that aBB, Bridges, Steel Wheels, Dirty Work, Undercover, etc. are GREAT albums, well, then I pity you. Each one of those albums had a gem or two sprinkled into the dross.

FrankM Wrote:
>
> Maybe if you are just talking about the time span
> that encompassed those three ablums but when I
> think of sustained excellence I think of the
> Beatles 64-70 or the Stones 66-72. Those are much
> longer time periods.

ok..Dylan 1962-69. 1973-79, 1997 to date.

For the Stones, delete 1967. Satanic Majesties is not "sustained excellence"

Apart from a couple of overdubs for Let it Be, the beatles didnt record in 1970. Their last album was made in summer 1969.

>
> That's not to say Dylan is a scrub. Like the
> Beatles and Stones he has some of the best albums
> of all time.


yep..they all do. for sure



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-01 03:11 by Gazza.

Ha ha, I saw your 2nd edit! I couldn't understand why you didn't care for Nashville Skyline.

highanddry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FrankM Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Dream on people. The Beatles and the Stones are
> > synonomous with the sixties. Dylan would be
> third
> > fiddle at best.
>
> The Beatles and the Stones couldn't/can't hold
> Dylan's jockstrap.
>
> Yeah, the Beatles and Stones had some great albums
> in the 60s and 70s.
>
> OTOH, Dylan had some great albums in the 60s, 70s,
> 80s (yes, even the 80s), 90s and the 00s. Neither
> the Beatles nor Stones could do much after their
> peak period.
>
> Then again, if you're one of those who think that
> aBB, Bridges, Steel Wheels, Dirty Work,
> Undercover, etc. are GREAT albums, well, then I
> pity you. Each one of those albums had a gem or
> two sprinkled into the dross.

If you think the Beatles and Stones can't carry Dylan's jock strap then you are just lost and none of your arguments can be taken seriously.

Dylan had great albums in all those decades? What was the great eightees album? The only one that broke the album chart top twenty was Infidels. It was rated a half star lower than the number one Tattoo You and sold about one eighth as many copies. Feeling silly yet?

All the rest of his albums didn't break the top twenty until 1997. Nearly twenty years of bad reviews, disappointing sales and bad chart performance. He has had a reival in the last nine years I will give you that, but the Stones have been more consistent over the last forty years than Dylan.

And don't give me that boloney about reviews, sales etc. not mattering. That is a losers excuse. ANY INDIVIDUAL STATISTIC DOESN'T TELL THE WHOLE STORY BUT ALL THE STATISTIC TOGETHER PAINT A PRETTY CLEAR PICTURE.

The Stones sold 10 million albums in the eightees just counting studio ablums. How many did Dylan sell? Not even a fraction. Now do you feel silly?

And you can't say with a straight face that Dylan was better in the ninetees either. Maybe his 97' album was better than Voodoo Lounge but the Stones also had another Platinum Studio album, THE biggest and two of the ten biggest tours of all time and many top forty hits in the UK, unlike Dylan who hasn't had a top forty hit in a looooong looooong time.

Next time do your homework before posting nonsense. Nice try though.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FrankM Wrote:
> >
> > Maybe if you are just talking about the time
> span
> > that encompassed those three ablums but when I
> > think of sustained excellence I think of the
> > Beatles 64-70 or the Stones 66-72. Those are
> much
> > longer time periods.
>
> ok..Dylan 1962-69. 1973-79, 1997 to date.
>
> For the Stones, delete 1967. Satanic Majesties is
> not "sustained excellence"
>
> Apart from a couple of overdubs for Let it Be, the
> beatles didnt record in 1970. Their last album was
> made in summer 1969.
>
> >
> > That's not to say Dylan is a scrub. Like the
> > Beatles and Stones he has some of the best
> albums
> > of all time.
>
>
> yep..they all do. for sure

Let it be was released in 70' not 69' so it's sales, top forty hits etc. were in 70'

I said the Stones had six five star albums in seven years not six consecutive. Who cares about Satanic... Between The Buttons also came out in 1967 did it not? Regardless it is still six five star albums in seven years.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dylan had great albums in all those decades? What
> was the great eightees album? The only one that
> broke the album chart top twenty was Infidels. It
> was rated a half star lower than the number one
> Tattoo You and sold about one eighth as many
> copies. Feeling silly yet?

OH Mercy was so awesome, that You wouldn't believe it.
But anyways, he did some magical shows in that time....which he strangely enough didn't release, typical Dylan, though.
"Feeeling silly yet?"???? You know, selling things doesn't mean that much.
All those stinking writers out there.... they sell more books than Tolstoj (who is unexplainable)....people are crazy and times are strange.


> All the rest of his albums didn't break the top
> twenty until 1997.Nearly twenty years of bad
> reviews, disappointing sales and bad chart
> performance. He has had a reival in the last nine
> years I will give you that,

Among the not-knowing-journalists perhaps. I even read about a review of GYYYO, who said that "this is really lousy, and it shows that the Stones were NEVER a good live band"(!!!)

> And don't give me that boloney about reviews,
> sales etc. not mattering. That is a losers excuse.
> ANY INDIVIDUAL STATISTIC DOESN'T TELL THE WHOLE
> STORY BUT ALL THE STATISTIC TOGETHER PAINT A
> PRETTY CLEAR PICTURE.

People, in general are f...... s.... m............!


> The Stones sold 10 million albums in the eightees
> just counting studio ablums. How many did Dylan
> sell? Not even a fraction. Now do you feel silly?

HAHA

Sorry Gazza, I know your reply is much better, I just couldn't resist.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-01 04:21 by Erik_Snow.

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FrankM Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Dylan had great albums in all those decades?
> What
> > was the great eightees album? The only one that
> > broke the album chart top twenty was Infidels.
> It
> > was rated a half star lower than the number one
> > Tattoo You and sold about one eighth as many
> > copies. Feeling silly yet?
>
> OH Mercy was so awesome, that You wouldn't believe
> it.
> But anyways, he did some magical shows in that
> time....which he strangely enough didn't release,
> typical Dylan, though.
> "Feeeling silly yet?"???? You know, selling things
> doesn't mean that much.
> All those stinking writers out there.... they sell
> more books than Tolstoj (who is
> unexplainable)....people are crazy and times are
> strange.
>
>
> > All the rest of his albums didn't break the top
> > twenty until 1997.Nearly twenty years of bad
> > reviews, disappointing sales and bad chart
> > performance. He has had a reival in the last
> nine
> > years I will give you that,
>
> Among the not-knowing-journalists perhaps. I even
> read about a review of GYYYO, who said that "this
> is really lousy, and it shows that the Stones were
> NEVER a good live band"(!!!)
>
> > And don't give me that boloney about reviews,
> > sales etc. not mattering. That is a losers
> excuse.
> > ANY INDIVIDUAL STATISTIC DOESN'T TELL THE WHOLE
> > STORY BUT ALL THE STATISTIC TOGETHER PAINT A
> > PRETTY CLEAR PICTURE.
>
> People, in general are f...... s....
> m............!
>
>
> > The Stones sold 10 million albums in the
> eightees
> > just counting studio ablums. How many did Dylan
> > sell? Not even a fraction. Now do you feel
> silly?
>
> HAHA
>
> Sorry Gazza, I know your reply is much better, I
> just couldn't resist.

If all those albums are so good then how come nobody bought them? Dylan has a large fan base but many an album bombed in the eightees and ninetees.

And it wasn't some 2nd rate critic that gave those ablums bad reviews it was AMG. The most revered of all the critics. And I'm glad you got a laugh when you heard the Stones outsold Dylan ten to one in the eightees. I guess you know how ridiculous it is that Dylan was outdone like that.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your argument. And you are right the post by gazza was better. At least it made some sense unlike yours. Keep trying though. Maybe you will be enlightened someday.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If all those albums are so good then how come
> nobody bought them? Dylan has a large fan base but
> many an album bombed in the eightees and ninetees.

Some of Dylans albums in the 80s, and even 90s, weren't that good, I know.

> And it wasn't some 2nd rate critic that gave those
> ablums bad reviews it was AMG. The most revered of
> all the critics. And I'm glad you got a laugh when
> you heard the Stones outsold Dylan ten to one in
> the eightees. I guess you know how ridiculous it
> is that Dylan was outdone like that.

Stones didn't do that much in the 80s...do you know that?

> And you are right the post by gazza was
> better. At least it made some sense unlike yours.
> Keep trying though. Maybe you will be enlightened
> someday.


Gazza can beat make me speechless in a conversation, he knows what he's talking about about when he opens his mouth.
It doesn't mean that I allow to take crap from slimeballs like you.

ooh name calling- what are you fourteen? They should have some kind of age limit in this forum to keep teenyboppers like you out. Grow up.

I guess that means your arguments are worthless if you have to resort to name calling. Better luck next time.

-



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-01 05:02 by Erik_Snow.

No, I'm definately not a teenager. If you thought a "slimeball" makes my posts worthless, then; hide behind that belief.
"Teenyboppers like you"....I'm not a teenager, and that silly remark puts you down to the "name-calling-people, you know.

The reason I called you slimeball.....I guess I was a a bit upset, for having to talk to people like you, during my vacation. It's a bit frustrating, spending time on things that should have been left alone, you know.

If you call me a teenybopper...I can call you a fat-old-geezer-sucking-fat-old-man. Yeah, that sounds good.

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> -

? Your last post was as empty as every Dylan album between 1981 and 1997 lol.

Have I met you before....?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-01 05:33 by Erik_Snow.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Erik_Snow Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > -
>
> ? Your last post was as empty as every Dylan album
> between 1981 and 1997 lol.


Just as your life was empty in that period.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-01 05:23 by Erik_Snow.

Are you some kind of crackpot or something? You accuse someone you don't even know of threatening you. I just started using this site a month ago and wouldn't threaten someone over a music argument. I didn't even know this website existed six months ago.

If someone threatened you why don't you get the email address of the person that threatened you and take it to the police instead of accusing everyone you have an argument with of threatening you. When you do that you just make yourself look like a loose cannon.

Anyway I'll stop arguing with you since you seem unstable and I'm tired of being accused of things I didn't do but if you accuse me of anything like that I'll report you to the owner of this site.

This site is for good natured and even heated arguments I guess- not for throwing accusations at people.

Hey, I'll eraze that comment, right away, if it bothers you. I assumed it would be the same "Frank"....same way of writing. Of course I'm not on drugs.
The rest of my posts was quite good, I think.

FrankM Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------.
> If someone threatened you why don't you get the
> email address of the person...

hotmail.

> Anyway I'll stop arguing with you since you seem
> unstable and I'm tired of being accused of things

Ha ha, so you've being accused before? It doesn't surprise me!

> I didn't do but if you accuse me of anything like
> that I'll report you to the owner of this site.

I didn't accuse you, I said "IF". That was a kind of a "PS". It's not important.
Now, it's gone from this world.

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey, I'll eraze that comment, right away, if it
> bothers you. I assumed it would be the same
> "Frank"....same way of writing. Of course I'm not
> on drugs.
> The rest of my posts was quite good, I think.

I appreciate that. I have only been here for about a month and although these arguments get heated sometimes I would never threaten someone. There are a lot of Franks in the world lol.

Anyway enjoy your vacation.

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey, I'll eraze that comment, right away, if it
> bothers you. I assumed it would be the same
> "Frank"....same way of writing. Of course I'm not
> on drugs.
> The rest of my posts was quite good, I think.

I appreciate that. I have only been here for about a month and although these arguments get heated sometimes I would never threaten someone. There are a lot of Franks in the world lol.

Anyway enjoy your vacation.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I appreciate that. I have only been here for about
> a month and although these arguments get heated
> sometimes I would never threaten someone. There
> are a lot of Franks in the world lol.
>
> Anyway enjoy your vacation.


That was a sporty reply!
Well...maybe I'm too hard on the trigger, I guess I do mistakes too.
I send you my greetings.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-01 05:50 by Erik_Snow.

ummmm...by the way did you like the album?