Glam Descendant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >But even if they are let's not forget Dylan
> basically "disappeared" for nearly twenty years
> unlike the Stones.
>
> Can you define what 20 years you're talking about
> here?

I meant disappeared as a strong musical force- he didn't disappear from the mucic scene altogether.

After the 1979 album (Slow Train Coming?) until his big comeback in 1997. I said nearly twenty years- about seventeen or eighteen to be exact.

During this time he had I think only one Gold Studio album and most studio albums didn't even chart in the top twenty on the album charts. And many had bad reviews.

But again I'm not trying to knock Dylan, It is just misleading when people praise Dylan as if he has been putting out four/four and a half star albums nonstop for the last forty years

In other words Dylan has been more consistent over the last ten years or so but the Stones have been more consistent over the last forty. Each artist has a feather to stick in their cap.

poor immigrant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DYLAN started the NEVER ENDING TOUR in 1988,
> playing 100 plus shows per year, doing on average
> 100-125 different songs through the year, playing
> mostly secondary markets. If that's disappearing,
> then I hope the STONES disappear soon.

Once again to clarify. I didn't say Dylan literally disappeared as if he were on the side of a milk carton.

As a musical force he disappeared. He may have toured but like I said only one of his studio ablums even broke the top twenty on the album charts and none of them sold well and few were reviewed well.

That is disappearing as a musical force. Of course we know he make a comeback in 1997, but the Stones have been far more consistent over the last forty years than Dylan.

Have the Stones EVER had ANY studio album not go platimum since 1967? Have they ever had any studio album not break the top twenty on album charts? Most of them reach top three at the very least.

>As a musical force he disappeared. He may have toured but like I said only one of his studio ablums even broke the top twenty on the album charts and none of them sold well and few were reviewed well.


So your criteria for "musical force" = "top twenty on the album charts"?

Paging Robert Johnson!

Glam Descendant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >As a musical force he disappeared. He may have
> toured but like I said only one of his studio
> ablums even broke the top twenty on the album
> charts and none of them sold well and few were
> reviewed well.
>
>
> So your criteria for "musical force" = "top twenty
> on the album charts"?
>
> Paging Robert Johnson!


Well what is yours? If an album doesn't break the top twenty there weren't too many people buying it so how good can the album be? This is only one factor.

If the album also has a bad review doesn't that tell you something?

What's your criteria? Low chart positions and bad reviews equal great music?

>If an album doesn't break the top twenty there weren't too many people buying it so how good can the album be?

You're joking, right?

Glam Descendant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >If an album doesn't break the top twenty there
> weren't too many people buying it so how good can
> the album be?
>
> You're joking, right?

I said that is one factor. In case you didn't know it album charts are based on sales.

How do you judge an album? There are only two ways. By the critics and by the public. How else do you judge it- by what Aunt Jemimah thinks?

The critics are the reviews and the public is album sales. If you think an album that doesn't sell well and doesn't get a good review is a good album then you are in the minority.

It doesn't mean you can't like the album or think it is good yourself but why would your opinion be worth more than the general public or critics?

I can see what you mean, but to also be honest, the STONES have sold far less albums in their career than alot of people think. Alot of acts have far outsold them that you wouldn't suspect.

The album is surely worth its money. It is better than Love and Theft. I love the opening track. The lyrics are great once more. Dylan as a moody old man, it's a class act. But yeah, it's no Time out of mind. But then, that was IMHO the best album he ever made.

>How do you judge an album? There are only two ways. By the critics and by the public.


I judge an album by *my* opinion. Sales are only an indication of popularity, not quality.

There is much tremendous music that was never embraced by the charts (granted the critics are a better guide for you here over the long run).

Try this: make some friends that are into something other than popular music and, if you're lucky, they'll turn you on to some good stuff. And if you hold critics in such high esteem, read some of the old masters like Bangs & Roxon.

You've got a lot to look forward to if you make the effort -- I wish you well!

poor immigrant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can see what you mean, but to also be honest,
> the STONES have sold far less albums in their
> career than alot of people think. Alot of acts
> have far outsold them that you wouldn't suspect.


I think they are around number thirteen on the riaa list as far as albums sold(Recording Industry Association of America)- I'm not sure about other countries but it should be about the same proportionately.

They have sold about 65 million in America. Artists like Led Zeppelin, Beatles and Elvis I think are way ahead of the Stones/Dylan- that's not to say Zepp is better than Stones or Dylan because you also have to take billboard hits, tours, longevity and a lot of other factors into account.

The sales can also be misleading when it comes to certain artists. For example Garth Brooks is ahead of the Stones/Dylan but he was a product of the ninetees. Back in the sixties/early seventees albums did not sell the way they sold in later decades. A gold record back in the sixties was a huge release. Some of the Stones albums from the sixties only went single platinum but were still among the top hundred selling albums of the decade.

If an album like Aftermath were released in 1996 instead of 1966 it would have sold at least four to five million copies instead of a million.

If you adjust the numbers Stones would be in the RIAA top ten probably. And Dylan also would have sold a lot more albums as well.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Slick Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > poor immigrant Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
> > -----
> > > Just listened to MODERN TIMES, go get it
> > everyone.
> > > The Stones could do an album with the dignity
> > and
> > > grace of this one, mixed with the raunch and
> > punch
> > > of the latest NYDOLLS album and it'd be the
> > > greatest thing since EXILE. But they won't.
> > word. old men trying to be young and failing,
> > thats why they are ridiculed these days.
>
> Ridiculed by who? By the million or so people that
> bought ABB? Or by the hoards of people that are
> flocking to see them and giving them the highest
> grossing concert tour of all time. The Dylan album
> will probably not go platinum like ABB- as good as
> it may be.
by everyone else in the world not in the two groups you mention above that is paying attention lol. stones are a laughing stock outside of whats left of the fanbase and even within the fanbase.

Even at age 65 Dylan delivers the blues on 'The Levee's Gonna Break and again proves he might be the best white blues singer ever with his delivery,and how he writes and arranges the blues format with 4 bar progressions and how the band jams with Bob's music.A great record and Dylan wrote another masterpiece with Workingman's Blues #2 . The whole record puts you in a trance the way only Dylan can do a special comfort zone that gets you thinking and reflecting on life in general past and present.Dylan is still on a roll thats 3 masterpieces in a row Out of Time ,Love and Theft and Modern Times.

I don't agree. I like Eric Clapton a lot better.

Eric can,t write a good blues tune or arrange one anymore IMO.Listen to his version of Robert Johnson's Love in Vain . A boring cover Keith and Jagger for example took LIV and wrote a great acoustic arrangement with Keith's intro and
walkdown on the G chord etc.

OpenG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dylan is still on a roll thats 3 masterpieces in a row Out of Time ,Love and Theft and Modern Times.

I can't argue with that! )

never rated Clapton as a great blues 'singer' (love his playing though).

I've maintained for years that Dylan sings the blues better than any white man on the planet. Especially in his later years, when his ragged voice suits the songs better.

If you listen to Dylan's first album, which is nearly all blues and folk covers, it doesnt quite work as well because he looks and sounds about 12 years old although hes singing songs like "in my time of dyin' and "see that my grave is kept clean". If he were to record that album now, it would be a masterpiece. Nowadays - despite what he claims to the contrary - there is someone who "CAN sing the blues like Blind Willie McTell"

OpenG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eric can,t write a good blues tune or arrange one
> anymore IMO.


You have to check out the DVD from Sessions For Robert Johnson then. Red hot versions of many songs. A lot better than Me & Mr. Johnson.

JumpingKentFlash

OpenG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Dylan is still on a roll thats 3
> masterpieces in a row Out of Time

Time Out of Mind

Gregg Allman is still the best white blues singer.

yeah maybe but sometimes he just has to FEW lyrics for each VERSE for my TASTE

thks i will check out the dvd sessions over labor day weekend

I just gave the album my 1st listen and Workingman Blues really stood out for me as well. The cd is very much like his last on first listen which was only slightly dissapointing. Looking forward to letting it grow on me.

jackass - great song another epic song

So OpenG its as good as Love and Theft? One of my all time favs......

hi ablett - I think its another masterpiece the last three records are all great its hard for me to say which one is better they all give you the dylan
imagery and magic with great band support etc

If I hear Blind Willie Mc tell....he indeed is one of the best...truly heartbreaking!!Havent heard the new alum yet...heard one tune..I thought it sounded good.

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So OpenG its as good as Love and Theft? One of my
> all time favs......


Its certainly on the same level, and I personally love L&T

I actually think its maybe more consistent. L&T to me has three absolute classics on it -Highwater, Floater and Sugar Baby. This one has more. The ones that instantly scream 'classic' are Workingmans Blues, Thunder on the Mountain and Aint Talkin' but there are now 2 or 3 more that are getting there after a few listens - Nettie Moore, Someday baby and maybe Rollin' and Tumblin'.

I think if you enjoyed Love and Theft, you'll love this one as well.

Mike Bloomfield ??

what about him?

Shoot me down in flames but ...

Dylan cant sing for toffee.

He is great song writer I definately give him that.