Bob Dylan, The Greatest

i agree about the best run of albums.

highway 61 is top 5 fav album for me. ;D

as a person i've always found him a bit off.

he's not the most engaging in interviews is he.

never been interested in seeing him live.

don't wanna destroy the myth.

actually i take that back on the run of albums. ;D

i regard steely dan's 1972-80 as the best run of albums.

it's fucking immortal man.

The Stones run of albums from Beggars to Exile is, in my humble opinion, the greatest album run. But that was only 4 and the above is 6 quality albums. Prolific.

No one can really doubt his influence of music. I've seen him live twice and he's disappointed. Still, ticked it off

John Wesley Harding came out in 1967. OK, in the Dylan story there is a clear break in continuity after the crash, but in terms of quality John Wesley Harding deserves its place up there.

Given the Basement Tapes were also recorded in '67 we could well be talking about 8 classic albums in four years.

He's my all time favourite. Agree with Iain about him live though. See him twice and first time I was just delighted to be in the same room as him. Second time was no fun at all. His voice is shot and the majority of the arrangements he does for the songs these days suck arse.

Listening to a few bootlegs though, sounds like he would have been worth seeing right up until about 2001. And he's played some on some of the greatest tours of all time in the past.

Love the new album too

Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere
After The Goldrush
Harvest
Time Fades Away
On the Beach
Tonight's the Night
Zuma

I'd choose that every single time.

Comparing Neil Young to Bob

I agree that it's probably the best run of albums from any single artist. Dylan was untouchable then, especially 65-66. You had his work with The Band afterwards as well. I've listened to the Basement Tapes a lot this year, some absolutely brilliant songs.

But none of that hides some of the awful, awful material he's released since then.

Who hasn't released some shit?

The list doesn't even include John Wesley Harding New Morning, Blood On The Tracks, Desire, Infidels, Oh Mercy, Time Out Of Mind. Even something as poor as Street Legal has Changing Of The Guards, Senor and Where Are You Tonight (Journey Through Dark Heat).

Dylan from Slow Train Coming through to Under The Red Sky is pretty patchy. A lot of people really rate Infidels & Oh Mercy but I still find you gotta wade through a lot of shit on both those albums.

Each album in that period though had 2 or 3 absolute gems though. And the Bootleg Series has showed that if he wasn't such a fucking weirdo with his song choices they could've turned out so much better (he's going through the worst patch of his career, churning out shite, and still contrived to leave off a work of sheer genius like Blind Willie McTell! )

I think he's been pretty solid since Time Out of Mind too, but I know there's not a lot of love round here for the pre-rock sound he usually goes with now.

Beady Eye

Bob Dylan won't be winning the Nobel prize for literature ever. And nor should he.
He's great, nearly as great as Neil young.

Neil Young > Dylan

In fact, I prefer Donovan's high points over a vast amount of Dylan discography.

Although Dylan has had a profound influence on me during my "formative years", I can't deny that I don't get much of the myth surrounding the man.

During his folk period, Dylan wasn't any better than most of his peers in Greenwich Village...people like Dave Van Ronk or Ramblin' Jack Elliot were doing the same stuff Dylan was doing years and years before him. Dylan was very lucky that his persona clicked with the protest movements and some of his songs (more accessible than other artists' songs) became hymns for the political protests, though Dylan, admittedly, didn't write them with a political edge in mind. Although I like Freewheelin' (and hate The Times They Are A-Changin'), by bringing folk music to the masses, Dylan was considered a legend before he even started producing something really legendary, musically speaking.

Also, a lot of his style and music he got from other artists, both before him and from his times. Dylan has always been a big thief and never gave credits, as in proper folk music tradition.

The interesting stuff, for me, begins with Another Side Of... which is really amazing and the point where I first see Dylan showing an original take on music and original material. The following albums are history, though Dylan found his goldmine in fusing standard blues/folk song structures with non-sense lyrics which he got from european poets of the previous centuries. After all, doesn't "Dylan-esque" mean "something that makes no sense"?!
After the incident in 1966 he released a lot of mediocre records that are considered masterpieces (John Wesley Harding, Nashville Skyline, please!!) and a lot of great records that are considered mediocre (see Planet Waves).

So yeah, he's great, but you always have to take these things with a pinch of salt. History has the strange tendency to make some things so bright that the other things disappear.


ps. Dylan still IS a great thief and I won't be surprised if it turns out that his last record is half lifted from whatever forlorn book...

by the way, Neil Young's quote is probably correct: if it wasn't for Dylan who opened the door for other folk artists, Neil wouldn't have had the chance to become Neil Young as we know him. But if I had to choose between Neil Young and Bob Dylan, I'd go with Neil...his ethics, his ability of re-inventing himself and challenge the trends and his consistency in making great music make him the true legend he is.

Every once in a while i get into the argument with someone that amounts to: Dylan vs. Springsteen.

I'm a Springsteen guy. I think his talents far exceed those of a musician, songwriter, and live performer. His greatest talent, never attributed to him, is his ability to communicate with his audience on record and onstage. This is a connection that Bruce has never taken for granted and Bob has never actively sought. You can even say Dylan spent part of his career trying to alienate everyone (If I remember correctly, he admits as much in his autobiography).

I like much of Dylan's work. I even agree with the run of albums in the original post being a fantastic spree (though Another Side of... I've never heard all the way through). I've only heard bits and pieces of his more recent "late classic" run of albums. To my mind, the only reason these records are considered outstanding is that the industry and music press decided they were. You'd think the press would be hard on plagiarists, but if you sing your plunder, I guess it's okay.

Well, I come not to bury Dylan, nor praise him, for that matter. Yes, i know he had an influence on Springsteen, but Lonnie Donegan had an influence on The Beatles and I'm sure they would have been just brilliant without him.

Anyway, I'd like to nominate a string of Springsteen studio LPs for greatest run ever status (although I also agree with the Stones and Steely Dan nominations above):

Born To Run (changed rock and roll)

Darkness on the Edge of Town (Tied with The Stone Roses debut for what I consider to be the greatest album ever)

The River (a close second on that same list)

Nebraska (which, for some reason, if you say you like, but it isn't your favorite, adults who wear scarves in the summer won't invite you to the next rooftop pajama Candyland tournament)

Born In The USA (gets a bad rap for having "80s production qualities," for some reason. Has anyone ever heard "No surrender" and thought it was a Stock Aitken Waterman track?)

Tunnel of Love (Whether you like the more sensitive Boss or not, note the complete lack of songs about leopard skin pillbox hats)

When do you all get time to listen to that many albums by a single artist?

really heavy that record.

Really can't agree with the first part of what you've wrote, namely that he wasn't any better than his folk peers. At the time of his debut, a record that is only remarkable because of how completely average it is, he had nothing on what Dave Von Ronk did at that time - I'm sure Dylan would admit that.

Whatever happened in the year between his debut and The Freewheelin', it kicked a door open in Dylan's mind and from then on he was head and shoulders above anyone else in the Greenwich Village scene. The writing on the next 6 albums were lightyears ahead of any singer songwriter of those times. Although things clicked with the political thing, songs like Don't Think Twice, Girl From The North Country, One Too Many Mornings, Boots of Spanish Leather, Restless Farewell (all from the only two 'political' albums he made) don't have a political bone in them, but still completely brilliant songwriting.

In terms of him being a thief, that accusation has never totally stuck with me. He's nicked melodies from everywhere, but that's a given for any folkster. Most of the lyrics that people claim to have been plagiarised before Time Out Of Mind are just Dylan's modern takes on old tunes - changing more than enough to make them wholly his own work. It's only since Love & Theft really that he's lifted entire passages and can legitimately be accused of theft. The Japanese gangster book thing really is a headscratcher. Why he's done it I can only guess. He's a weird guy and maybe just gets kicks out of quoting obscure stuff just to see if people pick up on it. Probably should've credited it or referenced it at least, same with the Civil War poet guy, but who cares apart from the individuals involved.

Dylan, since I've started reading his interviews + autobiography, has always paid homage to his musical influences, more than other artists that I like. Also his theme-time radio program is basically hour long shows giving credit to his influences. If by giving credit, 'as proper folk tradition', you mean actually listing the source material in the credits, then you're completely wrong. The traditional has always allowed people to steal and borrow where you can.

p.s John Wesley Harding is one of his best records ;D