sonwahtu wrote:... why not write a poem or a story or a speech... music is about the sound.
If this were true, then all music would be purely accoustic.
I often wonder what it is I enjoy about Dylan, and I think the closest I can get to it is that his music scratches an itch like no other artist, or at least nooen else does it as broadly.
Back when you could still listen to Pandora in Canada, I would try to get it to kick out similar artists for me, and the result was invariably crappy. A bit of Neil Young, maybe some Tom Waits, etc etc, depending on what I'd picked from Bob's catalogue for comparison... music that has a similar sound.
But Dylan's music isn't mostly about the sound of the mosic, it's mostly about the lyrical content. And pandora doesn't give you those kinds of comparisons (or didn't then anyway), and if it could, well there really aren't any direct comparisons.
Early in this thread someone called Dylan a folk singer. That simply belies ignorance. Dylan started his career and became initially successful singing folk songs. First he sang old standards, and songs by favourite artists of his, notably Woody Guthrie.
But to call him a folk singer would be, to me, like calling Einstein a patent office clerk. Yes, that's where he started, and perhaps is the source ofsome of his inspiration, but is hardly where he ended up.
Very little of his music after the mid-60s could be called folk, and virtually all of his catalogue, including a wide assortment of his best work, arrived much, much later. He's more of a musical chameleon, re-inventing himself over and over, sometimes to the chagrin of his close fans.
He's also a musicologist, working hard to preserve both the songs and the memory of artists long gone, either by recording old songs, or by tribute buried in the lyrics of his songs, or in rousing reinterpretations of brilliant earlier work (Rollin' and Tumblin' comes to mind here as one of many examples).
To me, the primary attraction is in the genius of his lyrics. He twists and tortures the English language in new ways. He uses humour frequently, sometimes very subtle, sometimes not. There was a lot of psychedelic imagery in some of his earlier work. He tells long, interesting and sometimes tragic stories, some based on truth (Hollis Brown is a prime example), some that we think come from his imagination (Tangled up in Blue).
The stories and morals of his songs combine to form a more or less complete philosophy that in some ways matches religious tomes (I mean the Bible as an example).
He has great albums in several genres. His first couple of studio albums could be called folk. Many of his best albums are rock, or some variation thereof. "Saved" is a brilliant gospel album. One of his better albums (Nashville Skyline) is country. Some people will laugh, but he has a very good Christmas album out last year.
He has worked with many world class musicians, and the musicianship on many of his studio and live albums is quite excellent. First, there's his work with The Band and Robbie Robertson. Mark Knopfler contributed guitar work to a couple of his albums. As examples.
And some of his songs are just so damned interesting, yet subtly written, that you can literally spend 2 decades or more listening to the same song at regular intervals and trying to figure out just what the hell exactly he means. "Highlands" just might be his Mona Lisa, although there are many other fine examples.
Anyway, I know not everyone "gets" him, or wants to try to, and the music isn't everyone's cup of tea. But that's more or less why I enjoy his music above any other artist. His music tickles an itchy spot somewhere in my brain. Haha