Is Bob Dylan's music intentionally terrible for ironic purposes?

Hmm...while I don't agree with EVERYTHING you said there, I do agree with you on this more than anything you have ever posted, so props to you.

I will state for clarity though that Dylan did write a few good songs...even ones performed by him, but they are very simple musically (sometimes that's great...Dreams by Fleetwood Mac is two repeating chords), but when that's all you can do, it's boring overall. Dylan is also one of the worst famous singers alive. I would say that Leonard Cohen is worse, but I struggle to think of another.

Leonard Cohen has died though...but he's still the worst famous singer I've heard...not including novelty acts like Tiny Tim.

Yes they will. Many of his songs are popular and many have been made even more so by being covered. Doesn't mean his songs aren't simple musically. To wit, Knockin' On Heaven's Door (which I LIKE A LOT) uses 4 chords, and the way they are used is repeated without any changes. G, D, Am, G, D, C. A new guitarist can play that song on their first day. Again, doesn't mean it's not great...just means that's it is SIMPLE which is my main point in this thread about Dylan's songs.

Compare that to Elton John's Your Song. Filled with 7th chords and slash chords and sharps and even a 6th chord in there. Here are the 16 chords used in that epic song:

D, G, A, F#m, Bm, Em7, Bm/A, Bm/G#, A/C#, Gmaj7, F#, Em, G6, D/F#, G/D, A/D

Complexity isn't always great, but it CAN add depth and feeling that simple repeating chords can't.

I'm not really a music person (to say the least), but I've always liked Leonard Cohen. I'm surprised to see all the negative comments towards him. To each their own, I guess!

Sort of strange, but I could see myself being a fan of Dylan if I was from that generation. I tend to be overly sentimental, something I try to hide!

At times I've liked a song or artist that's not necessarily musically great because it evokes a feeling or is passionate. That being said, 'm mostly indifferent to Dylan, but I won't go out of my way to trash his music

I really like Leonard Cohen, for what that's worth.

And I choose my words carefully, because music is an art form, and to reduce it to analysis of its components may be of some use in understanding how it is structured and expressed, but it does not reflect on its overall worth and value.

I take this to be self-evident in regards to matters of art, but perhaps it needs to be said.

born in late 1960s here:

No serious person can say Dylan's music is bad. Unless they just don't like the folk-blues-rock genre. Bob has written a dozen immortals and maybe 30ish absolutely top-rank folk-blues-rock songs that will be played forever.

To those who don't agree...do you like rock music at all? If you don't like Dylan, what in the stream of classic rock from the 60s and 70s DO you like? It's probably some weird stuff, if anything at all.

You can't like the Stones or Beatles or The Who or Springsteen and not at least like and admire the top Dylan tracks.

Robert Zimmerman is a great lyricist. In fact his song 'To Make You Feel My Love' the the most covered song ever, surpassing the Beatles' top hits. It's been covered and recorded by more than 450 artists including Adele, Billy Joel, Garth Brooks and many many more.

He seemed like a nice enough guy, and he wrote some great songs...he just couldn't sing worth sh!t.

That's fair.

There's a kernel of truth in what you say, but for discussion's sake, The Beatles in your list are very different from the other acts you mentioned. Most of their songs are complex and musically interesting. Even I Want To Hold Your Hand has 8 chords in it complete with some 7th chords, and Ringo Starr was and is an amazing drummer who didn't just play it straight. It is more than reasonable to like The Beatles and not admire Bob Dylan at all...even to be unimpressed with Dylan by comparison.

Thx.

And I get that you are expressing your personal preferences in the music (Dylan's) that appeals to you. That's the demonstrative point as far as I'm concerned. It's an observation about his musical style and your preferences in that regard. All good.

But as for me, I have a different bent, and that is that taken as a composition, Dylan's arrangements are keenly structured and composed to emphasize his strength, and that strength is in the poetry comprising the verses, letting it unfold and lead us where it will through twists of irony, discovery, insight, and surprise. The chord structures are better off being very simple and secondary to the lyrics and their meaning. The worst thing he could do would be to distract from that.

I think it's driven home quite clearly when you consider that his mentor was none other than Woody Guthrie, the working man's bard, revered for very simple, direct ballards geared to the common man and his/her aggrandizement.

Dylan wanted that directness and his simple musical style is used as the backdrop for profound truths and revelations that may be discovered in his prose.

Go back to the beginning. Listen to his first album from 1961. A young man and his acoustic guitar & harmonica - nothing more. Dylan conveys feeling and emotion in a raw manner that was unusual for folk singers and uniquely powerful.

Good stuff.

From a song on that album,

"Hey, hey Woody Guthrie, I wrote you a song
Bout a funny ol' world that's a-comin' along
Seems sick an' it's hungry, it's tired an' it's torn
It looks like it's a-dyin' an' it's hardly been born"

Bob dylan my king!!!!

Well said. Hilarious to me that Flagpole’s harsh criticism of Dylan seems primarily centered around a chord-count.

I once ate two pieces of chocolate/weed cake after work and ran about 31 miles, from midnight to 4 a.m., listening to Bob the entire time, and I never became anything like “bored”.

In my opinion the biggest misconception about Dylan is that he found success in spite of his voice. I believe his vocals are just as powerful as his lyrics, and the two work in tandem to create something greater than the sum of the parts. He inhabits the lyrics and imbues them with such honest emotion. I can’t find the quote, forgive me, but I think it was Keith Richards who said that Dylan’s voice is “the most powerful instrument known to man”.

This is actually a pretty good summary of his vocal talents—#7 on Rolling Stone’s list of 100 greatest vocalists:

rollingstone.com

100 Greatest Singers of All Time (2008)

Rolling Stone

Rolling Stone ranks the 100 Greatest Singers: Aretha, Elvis Presley, John Lennon, Bob Dylan and many more

Link:www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists...

The best part there^ may be the Sam Cooke quote, that “from now on it’s not going to be about how pretty the voice is—it’s going to be about believing that the voice is telling the truth.”

yeah I hear you but there are so many different Beatles songs that you can always find a counter-example to what you are saying. Norwegian Wood is always cited as a Dylan-esque song that couldn't have existed without Dylan's influence. You've Got to Hide Your Love away is dylanesque. and others on Rubber Soul. Lennon said it wasn't JUST Dylan's words that got the Beatles to get past being the Yeah Yeah band and trying to write more sophisticated words- it was the full sound of Dylan's music the beatles wanted to emulate.

And of course Dylan wrote a parody back at the Beatles...4th Time Around is thought to be a friendly send-up of Norwegian Wood. Shows the back and forth of the 60s!

I do think there were generally three strands of rock music in the 60s:

Blues

Rockabilly

Folk

Early Beatles were in the rockabilly strain and Dylan was in the folk and blues strain. Which is to your point. But paths did cross at times.

Sure, in '67 and after the Beatles went off on their own musical jag, carousing in the heavens.

Neither - it was fake. Dylan's whole folky schtick was simply an act. That said, for me, he produced several unique exceptional albums that were great, and a whole lotta filler. Paid big bucks to see him live in '78. He was really bad.

I’ve seen him live six or seven times, mostly in North America but also in Rome and this year in northern Spain. Once, his opening act was Mar Knopfler!

To those who don’t appreciate Dylan for his recorded works, I can guarantee you would hate his live concerts more! He reinterprets his songs when he performs them live, never aiming for radio-friendly versions. He has been a notoriously inconsistent live performer when younger, often drunk or stoned and barking unintelligibly. I’ve loved all the shows I’ve seen except in Rome, where he was underwhelming. He is always backed by world class musicians, both live and in the studio.

Dylan is an acquired taste, and will never be to the tastes of most people. But those in the minority who love his music, like me, tend to see rare brilliance. For me, his work is not about the music (although he has been a very good guitar player and piano player), but the lyrics. His lyrical canon tickles my brain in a way that nearly nothing else has, in a way I can’t really explain. And, his complete works describe, if obliquely, a complete and complex philosophy.

Those who like him, like him a lot. The rest of y’all are idiots 😀