George, you're well off base here son. Let me start off by saying I happen to own every single live concert from 1964 until 2001. That's every single one that has been recorded not to mention all the studio outtakes, a 22-disc set from the 1966 tour, a 14-disc set of outtakes from the 81-88 period as well as anything else that has been released or recorded over the time Dylan started and that includes all of his "Robert Zimmerman" stuff, which only three songs (of 36) have been released to the public. I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about here. I own every studio album with the exception of 3 from the 80s and own all of Columbia's The Bootleg Series from Vol. 1 through the recent Scorsese soundtrack.
Dylan, mainstream? He was mainstream to political groups and those who tried to form him into something he wasn't. Go back and look at the sales charts and you'll see that other artists sold more copies with their covers than Dylan actually did. This could be Peter, Paul and Mary or The Byrds or even The Band. Even one hit wonders were selling more copies and to me this is the def. of "mainstream".
Quote:
|
Certainly from a rock influence point of view, Highway 61 and Blonde on Blonde were much more important than any of Dylan's 78-84 albums.
|
We can talk history and we can talk pure enjoyment. THE BIRTH OF A NATION is historically important but outside myself and a couple others it seems everyone here isn't too entertained by the film. We can do this with Dylan as well. There's no question those early folk albums are historically important due to their "cause" and HIGHWAY and BLONDE changed music history forever. I don't recall saying anything Dylan did afterward were more important but when it comes to an entertainment value we don't have to factor in history. You could also make the case Dylan broke more ground with SLOW TRAIN COMING, although this didn't go as far as Dylan had hoped (which led to his downfall in the 80s).
Quote:
|
Time of review doesn't really seem to be a factor. Across the board, the 78-84 albums never have been, and still are not considered anywhere near Dylan's greatest work. I'm sorry Michael, since you obviously hold them in greater esteem, but that is not now, nor has it ever been a mainstream view.
|
And where are you coming with this mainstream view? We're going to be snobish again but who in the hell cares about the mainstream? You want to take a poll serious that also lists Britney Spears in the same breathe as The Beatles, The Stones and Dylan? Unless I'm mistaken (might have been a VH1 poll), Spears and N'Sync both had songs higher ranked than Dylan and The Beatles. You had a Backstreet Boys song ranked higher.
You might give extra merit to these groups but I'll take the word from people who have followed this stuff from the start. Without studying the issue, no one of today's culture could possible understand the importance of Dylan,, The Beatles and Elvis. If someone would study this three they'd see how worthless Spears and Jessica Simpson is compared to these real legends. The problem with polls today is that they have to add something currently popular and try to mix it with legends of the past.
I'm also going to question which of these albums you've heard and enjoyed the most. I want your opinion and not the opinion of a mainstream guide that tells folks that Britney Spears has had better music than The Beatles and Dylan. I want your opinion and not a Rolling Stone poll that said the Spice Girls would be around just as long as the Stones.
Now George, what's your opinion on the 1978-84 period? Well cover 85-96 at a later time followed by Dylan's rebirth even later.
Quote:
|
If you'd like to provide mainstream reviews that place those 78-84 albums higher than the 60s ones, please do so, but I'm skeptical that such mainstream reviews exist. It may be true that those albums are more highly regarded now than when they came out (moving in some cases from 2 stars to 4 stars), but to say that they're Dylan's best or most highly regarded is just ludicrous.
|
But, as you've said, to call something great just because it's historic is also ludicrous. Once again, why are you so caught up on mainstream reviews? Rolling Stone is also the same guide that bashed every Led Zeppelin album.
Quote:
|
Please provide a contemporary bashing of Blonde on Blonde or the Basement Tapes.
|
Quote:
|
Except for the Beatles and Stones, there was no one in rock music from the mid 60s on more mainstream than Dylan.
|
The mainstream George equals sales, it has nothing to do with quality. Dylan was never in the mainstream because he never even allowed himself to become as popular as he could have been. He's simply too weird for the mainstream and that remains true today. The Beatles worst selling album has probably sold more copies than Dylan's entire output. That's not being very mainstream. You've seen Beatle docs and Dylan docs. Take a look at the crowds. You can take a look at today's rounds and where Dylan places among what McCartney and The Stones are drawing. Dylan's still taking a backseat.
People can make the argument that Dylan is the most important figure in music but that isn't going to make people go out and listen to it. It takes a special person to be a Dylan fan because his music isn't mainstream and it isn't something anyone could get into. How many teenage kids are going to understand "It's Alright Ma"? Dylan brought folk music to its highest level but the albums still didn't sell over a million copies and in fact it took FREEWHEELIN' nearly forty years to get past the million mark. Dylan's, "historic" first album still hasn't went over half a million in nearly 45-years.
Of the hundreds of song's his written only one went #1 (by Peter, Paul and Mary) and another hit #2. That isn't mainstream my friend, at least not in my view of things. Dylan might have been a major influence on The Beatles and music at that time but while he got the respect the others got more fans and brought in more cash. Even his 1976 Rolling Thunder tour had to be canceled due to poor ticket sales.
So again, how is Dylan mainstream? When was the last time you heard one of his current songs on the radio? Even the oldie stations only play a handful while The Beatles and Stones have dozens played.
Quote:
|
I don't know, nor do I care, what his current concert line-up is - he could be singing songs exclusively from Under the Red Sky, and that would in no way change the fact that his best albums were released in the mid 60s.
|
I'm SO happy you said this George. It's a
fact that his best albums were from the 60s. The word fact is something everyone here fights about and I agree with you here. When it comes to music and movies, what's great or bad is a
fact and our worthless opinions mean nothing in the end. CRIES AND WHISPERS might be the worst movie to you but that opinion is worthless since it's a
fact this is a four star film.
See how that word fact can play out?
Quote:
|
I don't peruse the fan sites
|
Which is interested George. You seem to put so much more into lists (AFI, Sight and Sound, Rolling Stone) than to actual fans who have heard everything, studies everything and would know a lot more about a certain item. You could read any Maltin book about Universal horror films but you're going to be missing a lot of knowledge that even Joe here could share with you. If you ever decide to run through those films I really hope you'd chat with Joe over taking a Maltin guide too serious.
Why would the opinions of Rolling Stone, AFI or S&S be any better or worst than someone here? If AFI lists a "Great Horror Movie" list I will make a guarantee that those voters haven't seen as many as Joe and I so why take their opinions over ours?
Quote:
|
I don't know how many of Dylan's early albums (up through John Wesley Harding, and including the Basement Tapes) you've actually heard, but if you've only heard songs from them via recent Dylan concerts, then, to be blunt, you haven't heard them at all. I've heard, and enjoyed many Dylan concerts, but he has NEVER, in any I've gone to, sung any of his classics anywhere near as well as he did on the albums themselves.
|
Again, you should know more about someone before throwing comments like this out there. It's clear you enjoy Dylan because the mainstream critics tell you to, which is a shame because it's also clear you know very little about the music or the man himself. Do you know why those live shows don't sound like the albums? Do you know the alternate versions of those early albums? You've fought with many people about your opinion on movies but I've really got to question why you keep going back to mainstream books to make a point. Again, I want to hear from you and not a book that calls Spears a great artist.
Did you know Dylan's personal favorite album is NASHVILLE SKYLINE? What's your opinion on this one?
And in the end, you're correct about his "three great" albums but if people stopped there they'd be missing even more incredible music.
Either way, it's rather fun to debate music for a while so hopefully other's will shine in with some opinions.
), I'll reply to you via e-mail on Monday; I'll just say here that you misunderstood me and that I'll be only too glad to (hopefully) make myself clearer.
:
