From what I’ve read about Dylan, in some of his concerts, people can’t recognize the songs or understand what he is saying. Some of his concerts might the worst ever at making his music seem “alive”.
I’ve never bought a live album. The Led Zeppelin, “Does anyone remember laughter” The Song Remains the Same, live album is awful.
Artist usually dump a live album out when they are either behind on their record deal or when they want to get out of one. Usually they owe the company X number of albums per year/per contract term, so they just dump out a live album when they need to meet that quota.
I strongly disagree, and I think you are painting the music screne with too broad of a brush.
First, some bands and artists make music which is more uniquely suited to a performance, so their live albums will bring to life a side of them that might get lost in the studio. And the interplay with the audience is a force which can ignite a performer, and occassionally does.
Second, some musicians are talented enough to foster both good session skills plus an ability to improvise, so that each version (studio and live) are solid though different, and both are good. I think of Mark Knoffler (Dire Stratis) in this regard.
Last, some live albums are trully among the very best rock albums ever, contrary to what you think. The ones that come to mind are The Doors "Absolutely Live,", Lou Reed's "Rock 'n Roll Animal", and Little Feat's "Waiting for Columbus". If you understand the first thing about any of these performers, you will understand why they can (and do) bring something fresh and new to their live renditions, and why this neither detracts from nor upstages their more produced in-studio versions.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
eliminate redundancy
Man, NO generation is more prone to Goding Up their pop star heroes like the Boomers. While every generation has their music, all others seem very aware of the space in which these acts appear, and the context of their time in history... but not the Boomers.
Clapton is God!
People will listen to Dylan in 100 years!
(_____________) music changed the World!
These are all distinctly Boomer attitudes to pop stars. It's reflected in the fact that many of these acts refuse to step off the stage and continue to perform into their late 70's and early 80's.
If you want to know why no young people listen to rock n roll it's because the old rockers WONT LEAVE! They wont make space for the new. RnR is and has always been about YOUTH and YOUNG attitudes, YOUNG frustrations, the REBELLION and cockiness that comes with YOUTH.
The youth of today are all about hip hop because that genre has done a better job turning over acts and moving the old heads onto other things in the mainstream.
nah man
I'll die on the hill that the 1960s and 1970s were a peak of popular music that we've probably never seen before. An absolute summit of quality and quantity. It was like Florence in 1490 for art, or Philadelphia for political science in 1787.
We can hope that we'll get that again...but odds are against it for a long while.
In any other period Dylan would be Apollo reigning over the scenery...but the 60s and 70s were so great that he is just one of the half-dozen stars in the firmament.
Bob Dylan is an American singer-songwriter, author, and artist who has been an influential figure in popular music and culture for more than five decades.In my opinion, he and Elvis should be above the Beatles as they both influenced the Beatles as well as being very influential themselves. I really respect the Beatles and I know they were extremely influential and creative. But one of the main things people always say about the Beatles is that most music since then wouldn't exist without them, and I agree. But would the Beatles have existed without guys like Dylan, Elvis, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Johnny Cash, and Justin Bieber? No, they wouldn't, so those guys also deserve some recognition and a shot at challenging the Beatles for first. By the way, I'm not saying I necessarily think the Beatles shouldn't be first, and the Justin Bieber thing was a joke. And also, I'm pretty sure Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, and whoever else were very influential too.
It's always like that no matter what site/list we will always find Dylan among the icons the ultimate elite. And he does belong there,
I own all his stuff, also own all of Tom Waits, Hank Williams, The Beatles, Robert Johnson, Charley Patton, Elvis. Almost all of Bob Wills, Muddy Waters, Rolling Stones. Eric Clapton, Jimi Hendrix. Howlin' Wolf,
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Artist usually dump a live album out when they are either behind on their record deal or when they want to get out of one. Usually they owe the company X number of albums per year/per contract term, so they just dump out a live album when they need to meet that quota.
I strongly disagree, and I think you are painting the music screne with too broad of a brush.
First, some bands and artists make music which is more uniquely suited to a performance, so their live albums will bring to life a side of them that might get lost in the studio. And the interplay with the audience is a force which can ignite a performer, and occassionally does.
Second, some musicians are talented enough to foster both good session skills plus an ability to improvise, so that each version (studio and live) are solid though different, and both are good. I think of Mark Knoffler (Dire Stratis) in this regard.
Last, some live albums are trully among the very best rock albums ever, contrary to what you think. The ones that come to mind are The Doors "Absolutely Live,", Lou Reed's "Rock 'n Roll Animal", and Little Feat's "Waiting for Columbus". If you understand the first thing about any of these performers, you will understand why they can (and do) bring something fresh and new to their live renditions, and why this neither detracts from nor upstages their more produced in-studio versions.
I cannot comment on the bands you listed because I wouldn't so much as walk across the street to see any of them live and for free, much less actually buy a live recording of them.
To those of you who have never heard many of his songs and continue to claim his voice "flat out sucks," I challenge you to listen to any of the following songs and come back and say, "I still think his voice "flat out sucks."
Google any one of them.
"Moonlight"
"Ain't Talkin' "
"I Threw It All Away."
"I Forgot More Than You'll Ever Know."
He's got a great voice. You may not appreciate the voice he uses at times, and he's used a lot of very different voices over the last six decades. From a deep beautiful voice to old Delta Bluesmen. What you've been exposed to is probably really limited.
I know...you'll continue to denigrate his voice without ever really listening to it. You're missing out.
I LOVED the movie. Dylan was way way way before my time but I recognized a lot of the songs because my parents like him (and he was my godfather's favorite artist). I read a review (either NYT or Egbert) and basically it said that Chalamet pulled it off because he didn't try to make Dylan likeable (nor did he overtly proclaim that he, as Dylan, was a musical genius (though that fact was there as undercurrent in the film)). Loved Norton in it too though I kind of felt bad for him because the time's were a'changin and he was trying to hold on to the past.
Being a Dylan fan since 1966 I wasn't expecting the movie to be great. How could anyone capture Dylan's unique persona? I just watched it yesterday. That actor, Timothee Chalamet, did an unbelievable job. He was incredibly convincing and nailed the voice. Edward Norton WAS Pete Seeger. The cinematography and sets were great. It's hard to believe that all the actors did their own singing. Not only was Chalamet great, so was the woman who played Joan Baez. Maybe a new generation will discover the greatest singer-songwriter of the last hundred years. I can't think of anyone who even comes close.
Tim Chalamet can do no wrong. He is good at guitar, good at singing, good at anal sex, good at piano and good a pretty good actor too.
Please be cognizant that this is a Running site not a Music site. Attempting to get accurate and comprehensive knowledge concerning a musical artist on LRC is similar to asking Julia Child how to train for a sub-3:07 ‘Thon.