Musicians/artists/writers you appreciate but don't worship like others (mine's Bob Dylan)

Cafe Society
1

So, I don’t want to make this all about Bob Dylan, though I’m happy to argue my case a bit. I want to hear about your examples too.

This is about being a semi-contrarian instead of a hater. Someone is worshiped to the skies, and you appreciate him/her as well–but you can’t quite get to the worship level.

My friend and I went through a big Dylan phase when we were in college in the 90s. We both bought a bunch of albums. He got more into Dylan than I did. Over the years, we’ve argued about Dylan. He can get a bit irate and say, “Dude, why do you have to put Dylan down?!”

Well… I think Dylan certainly has (or had) “It”: the ability to convey a sense of depth and substance. (I’m going to keep using past tense here because I think his best work was in the 60s and early 70s.) He seemed “big” in a way that very few other artists have been able. He was innovative, putting folk and rock together in a new way. He could write both exceptional lyrics and melodies. And I even like his unique mode of singing. But I also have caveats:

• There is the air of bullshit about a lot of his songs. This works both for and against him, IMO. A masterpiece like “Maggie’s Farm” wouldn’t be a masterpiece if it made real sense. But a lot of his songs are in that mode: overwritten and a bit “meaning-y,” as I call it. Instead of trying to say something specific, they rely on poetry overload to bonk you over the head and impress.

Moreover, even though a lot of his songs in this mode (and most are in this mode) work as individual songs, his body of work in the aggregate is a bit fatiguing for me. He’s kinda doing the same thing over and over. He doesn’t possess one of the great virtues of the Beatles, which is variety.

• His work tends to be a bit humorless, even when it’s absurdist. The tone of a lot of his work feels the same to me.

• He’s no master of structure. 95% of his songs are verse/chorus. The aforementioned best friend and I combined our knowledge and sought a Dylan song with a bridge: we came up with “Mozambique,” and even there he seems to have stumbled upon the bridge. I guess “You’re Going to Leave Me Lonesome When You Go” (one of my faves) has a middle eight. I’m sure I’m wrong and there are others–please let me know.

• His harmonica playing is genuinely terrible.

• After a certain date, sometime in the early 70s, he really sucked. There are exceptions after that. “Jokerman” is a genuinely great song. But as happens with most artists, he lost it.

So that’s my thought on that. What are yours on yours?

2

I know there’s another thread about the Nobel Prize thing, but personally I really don’t care. I have no idea why people take prizes of any type seriously. It’s the opinion of a small group of people who have managed to brand their opinion ultimately for their own benefit (see also: Oscars, Emmys, Grammys, etc. etc.). Nice work if you can get it.

3

I disagree with just about everything you said, Aeschines, but that is OK. I appreciate that you gave thoughtful reasons for your semi-contraianism.

Despite my username, Dylan wows me more than the Beatles most days (they flip-flop for my #1 artist).

I get what you are saying about poetry overload because I have had that same reaction to other artists at times. I never get it from Bob, though; his words never seem non-genuine or forced to me. I find a significant portion of his writing absolutely brilliant.

You say he “lost it” at some point. I am interested in knowing if you are familiar with a few of Dylan’s more recent albums (Modern Times, Love and Theft). You may be surprised to learn that I think some of his very best work has occurred within the last decade or so.
mmm

4

That’s what I’ve heard. He had one song that got a lot of radio airplay around 2005 or so… I thought that was pretty good.

For me, though, I feel as though I’ve had enough of what Dylan can do from his core period. Even my bff hasn’t looked into his new stuff. That doesn’t mean we’re right, however.

5

Bob Dylan is a god among men. Having that out of the way, I appreciate, but don’t worship:

Bruce Springsteen
Lou Reed
U2
David Bowie
Pearl Jam
Nirvanna

6

Well I suppose apart from the period between 1997 and 2012, when he released the critically acclaimed Time Out of Mind, Love and Theft, Modern Times and Tempest, he did really suck after “sometime in the early 70s.”

7

Looking at his discography:

http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/bob-dylan

I know I like Nashville Skyline (1969).

Blood on the Tracks (1974) might be my fave album by him.

Not really sure about the albums between those or after those, but by the time we get into his born again Christian period (WTF, Dylan?!) with stuff like Slow Train Coming, yeah, that’s not good stuff.

8

Elvis Costello. I just don’t get it. So I can forgive others who don’t get artists I adore (as long as they’re not obnoxious about it).

9

Bruce Springsteen for me. I have nothing negative to say, but he does nothing for me.

As for Dylan and harmonica, try “Absolutely Sweet Marie” or some of the songs on the bootleg albums, like Long Tall John. He’s no Sonny Terry, or even Magic Dick, but he is pretty good.

10

Dylan. There are plenty of great songs, but many that don’t do much for me. I can appreciate him, but he’s not a favorite.

Creedence Clearwater Revival. It’s the same thing: yes, I can appreciate their music, but I don’t really love it.

Jimi Hendrix. Great guitarist and has some excellent songs, but most of his stuff never really engages me.

11

The two musicians who come to mind for me are Stevie Ray Vaughan, and Madonna. I recognize their tremendous talents, but neither ever clicked for me.

12

When I was in college, in the 1980s, I hung around with a conservative Christian student group for a while. Several of my friends in that group loved those Dylan albums (because of the topic, of course), but that was his only music to which they listened – and they regularly lamented that he’d moved on from that theme.

13

I love Dylan but I won’t defend him (other than his harp playing. You are objectively wrong about that. He’s making clear choices with how he plays. ) People like what they like.

Me, I do not like Sonic Youth or My Bloody Valentine at all. I appreciate them. I totally get why people love them. Based on my age and the music I typically like I should probably love them. I can’t stand them. They are clearly pretty good, but very much not for me.

14

(dons flameproof suit)

The Beastie Boys.

:confused:

15

[ul]
[li]The Grateful Dead - I enjoy the songs I’m familiar with, but they seem no specialer than a hundred other bands[/li][li]Frank Zappa - Semi-amusing at times, but not something I’d ever seek out nor want to listen to repeatedly (and don’t get me started on Captain Beefheart)[/li][li]Rush - Their huge following baffles me[/li][/ul]
mmm

16

Some of Dylan’s stuff is absolutely incredible, but for me there is plenty that is not.

Other artists, REM, I just cannot get past that whining lead vocal, and the all too frequent repetition, such as ‘Call me when you try to wake her up’ there is another one that repeats the same word rather a lot - can’t recall the name, really did try to listen to Automatic and Green but gave up, and I actually can’t appreciate why anyone else appreciates them - my loss I guess but I won’t lose sleep over it.

T.Rex, just cannot like this lot, again some of the stuff is just so pointlessly repetitious, and yet occasionally there are odd lines if lyrics that are great.

Loose Windscreen is ok, but I don’t see the hype.
Prince, great guitarist, very original and some truly great stuff, but that does not include the dirge known as Purple Rain.

17

Springsteen
U2
Grateful Dead

Like some of their stuff, but more often than not, I change the station when something by any of these artists comes on the radio.

To the poster above who mentioned T. Rex. Their music was intentionally simple, Marc Bolan has been quoted as saying that he wanted to create “disposable songs” or something like that. Despite the simplicity, I really like most T Rex.

18

I’ve been a Rush fan since I was 14, when “Hemispheres” came out and my friends, who were into the Bay City Rollers, chastised me for listening to them because they weren’t cute enough. :stuck_out_tongue: I’ll be the first to admit that much of their output is extremely erratic in quality.

As for R.E.M., I discovered them long before they became famous. Had I not known about them until they did, I probably wouldn’t have figured out what the big deal was all about.

For that matter, U2 albums also seem to be uneven; the ones I’ve heard usually had a few good songs (and not necessarily the singles) and the rest was filler.

19

Pink Floyd have their moments, but mostly what I hear is a bunch of trillionaires moaning about how school was mean and being a rock star is hard, and anyway they’re all just miserable and lonely.

And the Beastie Boys I’d like a lot better if Mike D didn’t rap like a goose going through a wood-chipper. If there was a way of listening to *Paul’s Boutique * with the vocals mixed out, I’d love it; as it is, I’ll just listen to DJ Shadow or RJD2 instead.

20

U2. The early albums are fun, but the Bono worship and his massive ego turned me off in the the early 90s. I still will listen to U2 albums and there’s some decent music from time to time, but they aren’t worth the worship.