Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
Doxa

Jagger really pushed hard to stay current, but unlike you, Dandie, seem to think, the results weren't really convincing, and not even in LIVE AID. If Bob, Keith, Eric, Neil, Page etc. really were 'old farts', Jagger was like 'an old fart desperatively trying to remain current or follow the trends', which, in a way, was even more comical.


So how 'solo' Jagger's solo career actually was (at least if think of its success side)? Or how independently he tried to build it up?

Next year, 1986, Jagger - alone - made a title song for movie RUTHLESS PEOPLE, and it was advertised a lot and talked about (especially prior its release). It didn't make TO 50 in Billboard, and no one remembers that now. That was something Mick Jagger ever had experienced by then: a total flop. Things didn't look much better next year with "Let's Work"....

- Doxa

You may be right, Doxa. Jagger was perhaps trying too hard to appear contemporary, and to fit into the mid eighties music scene, yet in a sense that opinion appears to be magnified with hindsight, also. One listen to Bob Dylan's EMPIRE BURLESQUE confirms it wasn't only Jagger who was attempting to stay current, it is just that Bob, in his Live Aid appearance with Keith and Ronnie, were the very antithesis of Jagger in many ways. Maybe it is wrong perhaps to say they appeared to treat Live Aid with contempt, but Dylan, being top of the bill too, seemed completely at odds with the euphoria surrounding the occasion, and his comments about using some of the money to pay off the mortgages on some of the farms that the farmers owed, made him appear dangerously out of touch with the general consensus of the money going to the starving in Africa. One senses though with Dylan, and even on EMPIRE BURLESQUE, that his heart was never truly in the sounds of the eighties, and the production on his album was merely an after thought made by his producers (including Arthur Baker) rather than an artistic statement, unlike the more calculating Jagger (with the help of Bowie's LETS DANCE producer Nile Rodgers). My thoughts are that Dylan, more than Jagger was seen as the more comical performance at the time. In hindsight though, and long after the Live Aid fever had subsided, in a sense what Dylan did was rather more brave, and perhaps much less cynical than many of the other stars on parade, including Jagger.

Excellent discussion chaps, really enjoyed it.

Quote
shortfatfanny

Col pics , SFF !

Top name dropping..

Of course it's top ....well that's cause there's only one horse in the race....haha



ROCKMAN

The problem with Jagger's performance at Live Aid was he did it without the Rolling Stones. his performance was quite good but what Mick Jagger has somehow failed to notice is that most of us could give a toss what he does away from the Rolling Stones. If Mick was ever going to be a solo star he needed to break from the Stones around 1974-75.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Hall & Oates were great at what THEY did. I have listened to their album, and enjoy some of them.

However, the sound of their band didn't suit Mick so good. Sure, they can play, but that 80s sound was a bit light-weight in this context, imo.

Some Darryl Hall specials aired recently on the music TV channels (at Darryl's House or something like that) where he jammed with other artists and sounded damn good!

Quote
slew
The problem with Jagger's performance at Live Aid was he did it without the Rolling Stones. his performance was quite good but what Mick Jagger has somehow failed to notice is that most of us could give a toss what he does away from the Rolling Stones. If Mick was ever going to be a solo star he needed to break from the Stones around 1974-75.

I think you are absuletely right here, and Mick finally did realize later that this is the reality he needs to cope with. The Stones fans didn't want him without the Stones and he couldn't charm the new 80's audience, no matter how hard did he try. Perhaps he thought he would have both of them, but he failed to get neither of them.

But that said, I think had he pushed longer, he could have finally won the Rolling Stones audience 'back'. I mean, if people finally had faced the fact that The Rolling Stones is gone for good, that would have been the closest thing they could have, and sooner or later, the people would have accepted it. If, say, he had released an album like WANDERING SPIRIT instead of re-grouping THe Stones and doing STEEL WHEELS, the things would have been different. Also, we can speculate, if he had released and album in the style of WANDERING SPIRIT instead of PRIMITIVE COOL back in 1987, the Stones fans had not been so 'disappointed' at the time. And in the long run, he would have done Paul McCartney style concerts, where The Stones - as the Beatles in the case of Macca - would have been a part of the package (actually that was something Mick had in his mind if we look at his 80's solo tours.)

But like you said, if he really would have made a big solo career, and won new audiences with it (and not just the Stones fans), he should have started that during the 70's. By the 80's he was if not too old but at least too iconic to make convincing contemporary music.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-13 09:31 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
slew
The problem with Jagger's performance at Live Aid was he did it without the Rolling Stones. his performance was quite good but what Mick Jagger has somehow failed to notice is that most of us could give a toss what he does away from the Rolling Stones. If Mick was ever going to be a solo star he needed to break from the Stones around 1974-75.

I think you are absuletely right here, and Mick finally did realize later that this is the reality he needs to cope with. The Stones fans didn't want him without the Stones and he couldn't charm the new 80's audience, no matter how hard did he try. Perhaps he thought he would have both of them, but he failed to get neither of them.

But that said, I think had he pushed longer, he could have finally won the Rolling Stones audience 'back'. I mean, if people finally had faced the fact that The Rolling Stones is gone for good, that would have been the closest thing they could have, and sooner or later, the people would have accepted it. If, say, he had released an album like WANDERING SPIRIT instead of re-grouping THe Stones and doing STEEL WHEELS, the things would have been different. Also, we can speculate, if he had released and album in the style of WANDERING SPIRIT instead of PRIMITIVE COOL back in 1987, the Stones fans had not been so 'disappointed' at the time. And in the long run, he would have done Paul McCartney style concerts, where The Stones - as the Beatles in the case of Macca - would have been a part of the package (actually that was something Mick had in his mind if we look at his 80's solo tours.)

But like you said, if he really would have made a big solo career, and won new audiences with it (and not just the Stones fans), he should have started that during the 70's. By the 80's he was if not too old but at least too iconic to make convincing contemporary music.

- Doxa

Yes, it could have been artistically interesting to what had happened if Jagger had not stayed so amazingly loyal to Richards and gone solo from let's say Too Many Cooks. But I don't think that would have made the eighties easier for him, but in the the longer run maybe. Maccas post-seventies output haven't had much resonance and I think his concerts reflact that. He is caught in the past too. Jagger solo might in the 90's with a string of WS's have wrestled the past in glimpses. There would be no serious compåetition from Keith Richards' surprisingly boring Tom Waits-like output.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-13 10:19 by GetYerAngie.

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
Doxa

Jagger really pushed hard to stay current, but unlike you, Dandie, seem to think, the results weren't really convincing, and not even in LIVE AID. If Bob, Keith, Eric, Neil, Page etc. really were 'old farts', Jagger was like 'an old fart desperatively trying to remain current or follow the trends', which, in a way, was even more comical.


So how 'solo' Jagger's solo career actually was (at least if think of its success side)? Or how independently he tried to build it up?

Next year, 1986, Jagger - alone - made a title song for movie RUTHLESS PEOPLE, and it was advertised a lot and talked about (especially prior its release). It didn't make TO 50 in Billboard, and no one remembers that now. That was something Mick Jagger ever had experienced by then: a total flop. Things didn't look much better next year with "Let's Work"....

- Doxa

You may be right, Doxa. Jagger was perhaps trying too hard to appear contemporary, and to fit into the mid eighties music scene, yet in a sense that opinion appears to be magnified with hindsight, also. One listen to Bob Dylan's EMPIRE BURLESQUE confirms it wasn't only Jagger who was attempting to stay current, it is just that Bob, in his Live Aid appearance with Keith and Ronnie, were the very antithesis of Jagger in many ways. Maybe it is wrong perhaps to say they appeared to treat Live Aid with contempt, but Dylan, being top of the bill too, seemed completely at odds with the euphoria surrounding the occasion, and his comments about using some of the money to pay off the mortgages on some of the farms that the farmers owed, made him appear dangerously out of touch with the general consensus of the money going to the starving in Africa. One senses though with Dylan, and even on EMPIRE BURLESQUE, that his heart was never truly in the sounds of the eighties, and the production on his album was merely an after thought made by his producers (including Arthur Baker) rather than an artistic statement, unlike the more calculating Jagger (with the help of Bowie's LETS DANCE producer Nile Rodgers). My thoughts are that Dylan, more than Jagger was seen as the more comical performance at the time. In hindsight though, and long after the Live Aid fever had subsided, in a sense what Dylan did was rather more brave, and perhaps much less cynical than many of the other stars on parade, including Jagger.

Yeah, of any big legends of the past, Dylan was about the saddest case in the eyes of the 80's scene. He really was lost back then. But if we look where did came from, he hadn't played his cards that well at all (not that he minded). The religious period wasn't exactly the best way to enter the 80's imagewise, and for kids like me, he was about as 'uncool' as one ever can be. True, INFIDELS was a sort of relief for many of his old-school fans, but it wasn't something make him 'relevant' again. And surely, the over-produced EMPIRE BURLESQUE didn't made things any easier - nor did its less ambitious followers KNOCKED OUT LOADED and DOWN IN THE GROOVE. Dylan was really an 'odd man out' during those times - a huge history but rather weak presence (interestingly, even though OH MERCY was a masterpiece, noticed also by critics, Dylan himself saw that as a commercial failure, as he mentioned in CHRONICLES. It took some time for him to recover artistically, commercially and imagewise from the 80's, even though now in hindsight, even that period is a fascinating period in his artistic development).

But, ironically, I got into Dylan during those deepest 'lost' years - steadily from 1983 to 1987 (even though it was his 'back pages' which made him so interesting, not exactly his current doings). The Live Aid occurred about the time when I had already fallen deeply with the guy, so it was my 'hero' out there. And to those fresh Dylanizied eyes, I think what he did there was exactly a kind of classical 'Dylanisque' thing to do - never taking the easy route, or trying to go mainstream or according to wishes ("Judas", "Traitor", etc.). I am sure for to the most of the people in that euphoria of the occasion, he was very pathetic - with his controversial 'message' and poor acoustic performance with these two other ridiculous, caricature figures from the past - but I simply loved it. "My Bob"!! "My Keef!" "That's the thing to do - rock and roll spirit still lives!". I was rather young, too...

I also liked Jagger's performance very much, but like I have argued earlier, I could sense that Jagger will not be convincing for the crowds of the day (which kind of saddened me, a fan boy of his, who would like everybody to love him, like he wanted them), but with the case of Dylan I was sure that people simply hated him (and those three musqeteurs couln't care less). And that was cool...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-13 10:25 by Doxa.

<Dylan was about the saddest case in the eyes of the 80's scene. He really was lost back then.>

That goes for the mid-80s in particular, imo. Shot Of Love and Empire Burlesque.

Down In The Groove was quite good - same with Under the red sky.

Well, I personally weight both SHOT OF LOVE and EMPIRE BURLESQUE over DOWN IN THE GROOVE ("Brownsville Girl" saves a lot, but I find his spark, or even muse, missing) and UNDER THE SKY (a huge disappointment after masterful OH MERCY). But every Dylan album is interesting, and includes gems.

There is some really strong song-writing in EMPIRE BURLESQUE and Dylan sings powerfully, if one can get through the surface... I think that album is under-rated and under-studied in prevailing 'Dylanology' (but that might to do with the fact that I happen to have listen the album very closely)

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-13 10:50 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
Doxa

Jagger really pushed hard to stay current, but unlike you, Dandie, seem to think, the results weren't really convincing, and not even in LIVE AID. If Bob, Keith, Eric, Neil, Page etc. really were 'old farts', Jagger was like 'an old fart desperatively trying to remain current or follow the trends', which, in a way, was even more comical.


So how 'solo' Jagger's solo career actually was (at least if think of its success side)? Or how independently he tried to build it up?

Next year, 1986, Jagger - alone - made a title song for movie RUTHLESS PEOPLE, and it was advertised a lot and talked about (especially prior its release). It didn't make TO 50 in Billboard, and no one remembers that now. That was something Mick Jagger ever had experienced by then: a total flop. Things didn't look much better next year with "Let's Work"....

- Doxa

You may be right, Doxa. Jagger was perhaps trying too hard to appear contemporary, and to fit into the mid eighties music scene, yet in a sense that opinion appears to be magnified with hindsight, also. One listen to Bob Dylan's EMPIRE BURLESQUE confirms it wasn't only Jagger who was attempting to stay current, it is just that Bob, in his Live Aid appearance with Keith and Ronnie, were the very antithesis of Jagger in many ways. Maybe it is wrong perhaps to say they appeared to treat Live Aid with contempt, but Dylan, being top of the bill too, seemed completely at odds with the euphoria surrounding the occasion, and his comments about using some of the money to pay off the mortgages on some of the farms that the farmers owed, made him appear dangerously out of touch with the general consensus of the money going to the starving in Africa. One senses though with Dylan, and even on EMPIRE BURLESQUE, that his heart was never truly in the sounds of the eighties, and the production on his album was merely an after thought made by his producers (including Arthur Baker) rather than an artistic statement, unlike the more calculating Jagger (with the help of Bowie's LETS DANCE producer Nile Rodgers). My thoughts are that Dylan, more than Jagger was seen as the more comical performance at the time. In hindsight though, and long after the Live Aid fever had subsided, in a sense what Dylan did was rather more brave, and perhaps much less cynical than many of the other stars on parade, including Jagger.

Yeah, of any legends of the past, Dylan was about the saddest case in the eyes of the 80's scene. He really was lost back then. But if we look where did came from, he hadn't played his cards well at all (not that he minded). The religious period wasn't exactly the best way to enter the 80's imagewise, and for kids like me, he was about as 'uncool' as one ever can be. True, INFIDELS was a sort of relief for many of his old-school fans, but it wasn't something make him 'relevant' again. And surely, the over-produced EMPIRE BURLESQUE didn't made thing any easier - nor did its less ambitious followers KNOCKED OUT LOADED and DOWN IN THE GROOVE. Dylan was really an 'odd man out' during those times - a huge history but rather weak presence (interestingly, even though OH MERCY was a masterpiece, noticed also by critics, Dylan himself saw that as a commercial failure, as he mentioned in CHRONICLES. It took some time for him to recover artistically, commercially and imagewise from the 80's, even though now in hindsight, even that period is a fascinating period in his artistic development).

But, ironically, I got into Dylan during those deepest 'lost' years - steadily from 1983 to 1987 (even though it was his 'back pages' which made him so interesting, not exactly his current doings). The Live Aid occurred about the time when I had already fallen deeply with the guy, so it was my 'hero' out there. And to those fresh Dylanizied eyes, I think what he did there was exactly a kind of classical 'Dylanisque' thing to do - never taking the easy route, or trying to go mainstream or according to wishes ("Judas", "Traitor", etc.). I am sure for to the most of the people in that euphoria of the occasion, he was very pathetic - with his controversial 'message' and poor acoustic performance with these two other ridiculous, caricature figures from the past - but I simply loved it. "My Bob"!! "My Keef!" "That's the thing to do - rock and roll spirit still lives!". I was rather young, too...

I also liked Jagger's performance very much, but like I have argued earlier, I could sense that Jagger will not be convincing for the crowds of the day (which kind of saddened me, a fan boy of his, who would like everybody to love him. like he wanted them), but with the case of Dylan I was sure that people simply hated him (and those three musqeteurs couln't care less). That was cool...

- Doxa

I really like to read your thouhtful reflections, Doxa. And I agree on many of the notions you reflect so well on, but when it comes to Dylan it surprises me that of all people, you who listens so carefully and reflectively are so dylanized as you are. Dylan is occasionally a great song-writer, but not unbeateable performing the songs - take All along the watchtower as an example . His version was easily beaten by Hendrix (why Stones didn't make a try when they made Like a Rolling Stone I really don't know). And why is that? To my ears it's the general sloppy production (with Blonde on blonde as an example of the worst) and a tendency to choose versions where his voice has an unfitting slickness to it. Even Blood on the tracks suffers from this. The only exception - and beleive me I have bought and listened to them all - is Desire (and Time out of mind).

I agree with you, GetYerAngie, about "All Along The Watchtower". But I never have thought Bob's and Jimi's - two strongest individuals the rock music ever has seen - versions are to be compared to each other. Namely, Dylan's original is just a 'throwaway' (for him) folk number he did in the mood of that album (NASHVILLE SKYLINE), which I don't think would be remembered that much if there weren't that version of Hendrix's. Namely, it was Hendrix who made that song a rock classic. Dylan has also acknowledged this himself, and for example, when he started to play that number live (first with The Band), it was done according to more Jimi's version than of his own.

There is a lot to 'critizise' in Dylan catalogue (or in his performances, etc.), but I admit I am a kind of "deaf" to do that, since I just find him so unique, creative and fascinating. His whole career is like a masterpiece of its own, that has so many interesting chapters (now, thanks to the latest BOOTLEG SERIES episode, even NEW MORNING starts to make sense). The ups and downs belongs to the picture. He's an artist, he don't look back... I don't think there is any other artist who is able to have that over-all impact on me. He just had that pure, genuine artistic quality in him. And generally I am very critical...

Like I said some time ago in some other thread, I think the idea to record and release (even as a single with a video) "Like A Rolling Stone" was the worst artistic choice The Stones ever have done... The song is just 'too big' for them, and they watered down its edge and significance. A cheap move. [Jimi did okay at Monterey, though - he could internalize that song and to express its point.]

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-13 11:57 by Doxa.

<NASHVILLE SKYLINE>

John Wesley Harding

I listened to it yesterday, and AATW is in NO way a "throwaway", even for Dylan. That version will always be THE real version for me, even though I like Jimi's take on it - but for completely different reasons.

AATW "throwaway", even for Dylan.


no way a throwaway .... Watch Tower and Wicked Messenger are the best two things on the album ..



ROCKMAN

BUT how did we end up here? .... Where's Tina gone?



ROCKMAN

<how did we end up here?>

As always, we're detouring into Mick's "Peter Pan-complex" - and in this case, Bob's too

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<NASHVILLE SKYLINE>

John Wesley Harding

I listened to it yesterday, and AATW is in NO way a "throwaway", even for Dylan. That version will always be THE real version for me, even though I like Jimi's take on it - but for completely different reasons.

Sorry, a typo (I guess my Dylan credibility is now gone).

Yeah, can't say of Dylan's mind (who can?), but I was thinking of it in a more general level, not particularly in my mind (or yours), of how the song achieved its status. (But I recall even Dylan once saying that it was "Jimi's song", I guess referring not to the greatness of his version, but its reception in the rock scene altogether.)

- Doxa

Quote
Rockman
Where's Tina gone?

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Quote
Rockman
AATW "throwaway", even for Dylan.


no way a throwaway .... Watch Tower and Wicked Messenger are the best two things on the album ..

Okay, okay... let's change 'throwaway' with 'just another song', if that would ease the pain...

But it would be interesting to make a gallup of people - for example, in here - how actually they get to know the song in the first place. Not just that Jimi's version is most likely the obvious answer, I would even claim that there are quite many people who know the song but probably never heard the original Dylan version in their lives...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-13 12:32 by Doxa.

First time I heard it was on my mom's vinyl copy of John Wesley Harding. I was ten. Loved it then, still love it.

I heard Jimi's version about five years later, just round the time I started to play guitar myself. I wasn't that impressed, since I thought a lot of the melody in the song disappeared with Jimi's singing. Jimi's guitar playing was cool, but at the time (and still too a degree) I found it a bit messy.

I've learned to appreciate it more in recent years - after I got used to the spaced-out mixing of Jimi's records, though

would even claim that there are quite many people who know the song but probably never heard the original Dylan version in their lives...


Oh for sure Doxa ... ya could say the same about tracks like Prodigal Son .. King Bee .... You Can Make It If You Try .... Shake Your Hips



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
would even claim that there are quite many people who know the song but probably never heard the original Dylan version in their lives...


Oh for sure Doxa ... ya could say the same about tracks like Prodigal Son .. King Bee .... You Can Make It If You Try .... Shake Your Hips

Exactly, like with many, many others, even though the original "Watchtower" might not be as 'obscure' as "Prodigal Son"...

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Rockman
would even claim that there are quite many people who know the song but probably never heard the original Dylan version in their lives...


Oh for sure Doxa ... ya could say the same about tracks like Prodigal Son .. King Bee .... You Can Make It If You Try .... Shake Your Hips

Exactly, like with many, many others, even though the original "Watchtower" might not be as 'obscure' as "Prodigal Son"...

- Doxa

I think this only goes for the generations after us, Doxa (Watchtower).

Quote
DandelionPowderman
First time I heard it was on my mom's vinyl copy of John Wesley Harding. I was ten. Loved it then, still love it.

I heard Jimi's version about five years later, just round the time I started to play guitar myself. I wasn't that impressed, since I thought a lot of the melody in the song disappeared with Jimi's singing. Jimi's guitar playing was cool, but at the time (and still too a degree) I found it a bit messy.

I've learned to appreciate it more in recent years - after I got used to the spaced-out mixing of Jimi's records, though

Blessed are those who have born with a good record collection! I needed to start it all from a scratch, do the study, and buy the damn vinyls on my own... and JOHN WESLEY HARDING was not in the top of my list of vinyls... (But ELECTRIC LADYLAND was, or actually SMASH HITS, of which I somehow knew two songs beforehand: "Hey Joe" and "Watchtower". Guess I was twelve or thirteen then).

But the always trusty Wikipedia says:

Covered by numerous artists in various genres, "All Along the Watchtower" is strongly identified with the interpretation Jimi Hendrix recorded for Electric Ladyland with the Jimi Hendrix Experience.[2] The Hendrix version, released six months after Dylan's original recording, became a Top 20 single in 1968 and was ranked 47th in Rolling Stone magazine's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time

But what is more interesting, from the same source, is what the author says:

Dylan has described his reaction to hearing Hendrix's version: "It overwhelmed me, really. He had such talent, he could find things inside a song and vigorously develop them. He found things that other people wouldn't think of finding in there. He probably improved upon it by the spaces he was using. I took license with the song from his version, actually, and continue to do it to this day."[25] In the booklet accompanying his Biograph album, Dylan said: "I liked Jimi Hendrix's record of this and ever since he died I've been doing it that way... Strange how when I sing it, I always feel it's a tribute to him in some kind of way."

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-13 13:16 by Doxa.

Quote
DandelionPowderman


I think this only goes for the generations after us, Doxa (Watchtower).

Is there life after us?><

- Doxa

Just like the Stones are inserting Otis-stuff when they play Satisfaction

I know all of this, and my first Hendrix album was Smash Hits as well (on cassette)

But don't underestimate the HUGE fan base Dylan had already in 1968, and more than 50 percent of them loved his folky stuff. They probably preferred the laid-back original.

Jimi's rendition was a rock hit, but I would like to hear a 60s Dylan-ite say he prefers Jimi's take on it

Quote
Doxa
I agree with you, GetYerAngie, about "All Along The Watchtower". But I never have thought Bob's and Jimi's - two strongest individuals the rock music ever has seen - versions are to be compared to each other. Namely, Dylan's original is just a 'throwaway' (for him) folk number he did in the mood of that album (NASHVILLE SKYLINE), which I don't think would be remembered that much if there weren't that version of Hendrix's. Namely, it was Hendrix who made that song a rock classic. Dylan has also acknowledged this himself, and for example, when he started to play that number live (first with The Band), it was done according to more Jimi's version than of his own.

There is a lot to 'critizise' in Dylan catalogue (or in his performances, etc.), but I admit I am a kind of "deaf" to do that, since I just find him so unique, creative and fascinating. His whole career is like a masterpiece of its own, that has so many interesting chapters (now, thanks to the latest BOOTLEG SERIES episode, even NEW MORNING starts to make sense). The ups and downs belongs to the picture. He's an artist, he don't look back... I don't think there is any other artist who is able to have that over-all impact on me. He just had that pure, genuine artistic quality in him. And generally I am very critical...

Like I said some time ago in some other thread, I think the idea to record and release (even as a single with a video) "Like A Rolling Stone" was the worst artistic choice The Stones ever have done... The song is just 'too big' for them, and they watered down its edge and significance. A cheap move. [Jimi did okay at Monterey, though - he could internalize that song and to express its point.]

- Doxa

Well it's o.k, Doxa, you are not the only one. I just have this ambivalence in me, when I listen to most of his output - that he or the producer somehow doesn't manage to nail the performances. Many bootleg-series versions are often more convincing. Dylan is no doubt an important artist, but he is an artist I almost prefer to read about, instead of listening to. With Desire as an exception. I really agree with you on the RS (mis)take of Like a Rolling Stone, but do not think that it was too huge for them, it was just a wrong way of paying hommage and maybe an illchosen move to do that song in the Stripped-concept. Hendrix was much greater performingwise - and most of his coverversions are great and ad something. Which RS usually does too. To make them their own. And Tina Turner too her version of Under my thumb could have been mixed a bit better, but in a simple way she makes it her own (without beaten the original though). Ike and Tina Turner also had this ability sometimes to make these brillant interpretations (Proud Mary for instance). Just to bring this excursion sort of back to the thread...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Just like the Stones are inserting Otis-stuff when they play Satisfaction

I know all of this, and my first Hendrix album was Smash Hits as well (on cassette)

But don't underestimate the HUGE fan base Dylan had already in 1968, and more than 50 percent of them loved his folky stuff. They probably preferred the laid-back original.

Jimi's rendition was a rock hit, but I would like to hear a 60s Dylan-ite say he prefers Jimi's take on it

True, but those 60's Dylan-ites - bless their hearts, great people - would would have loved any song in that album, and for example, there is not any other song there - not even Rockman's "Wicked Messanger" - that is even close to it as it is nowadays seen in Dylan's songbook. If it only been them - who couldn't push the single into BIllbooard, as it was released as a second single from the album - the song would not have gained its tremendous classical status.

Anyway, it is claimed to be Bob's most performed song (by him), by the way. So he surely also has helped a lot to keep it in mind. And with Hendrix arrangement...

- Doxa

<not even Rockman's "Wicked Messenger">

I actually caught the Faces-version of that one before Bob's







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-13 13:52 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
Rockman
BUT how did we end up here? .... Where's Tina gone?