Joined: June 2007
|Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 25 2009,10:23)|
|Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 25 2009,09:57)|
|Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 25 2009,09:56)|
|Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 25 2009,05:17)|
|Dylan Day today on WUMB, the local folk radio station. |
Main observation so far: Dylan does his songs much better than those who cover him. Hendrix excepted. Most Dylan covers remove both the mean and the funny.
The Byrds also did some Dylan songs better than Dylan. My Back Pages and You Ain't Goin' Nowhere come to mind.
Hendrix did Dylan songs better tha Dylan.
*okay, everyone tune to E flat*
and Rod Stewart did Dylan better than Dylan - hell everybody that did Dylan, did it better than Dylan.
Before he wierded himself out by going Christo on us, Dylan was always a writer, but he sings like Joe G does Info Theory.
Nah. No way. True Dylan's a writer, while Rod Stewart is slowly becoming the lounge singer of his childhood dreams, but Dylan's got a voice that's just right for his songs: he wraps his voice around a lyric. The proper comparison is to Frank Sinatra.
Plus, Dylan's Christian period was only like two albums long (two and a half if you count Shot of Love). And Dylan's renaissance in the last three CD's (starting with Time out of Mind) is astonishing: he's becoming a great old blues singer channeling the whole history of American music.
I'll say Hendrix and the Byrds do great versions. On A Nod to Bob, I like the Eliza Gilkyson version of Love Minus Zero/No Limit, and the Rambling Jack Elliott Don't Think Twice, but Martin Simpson's cover of Boots of Spanish Leather -- my god, how many ways can you ruin a song?
Most of the Dylan covers, especially the folk ones, are too damn reverential. They take the cloying sincerity of a few songs on The Times They are a Changing and make that the dominant tone on every song.
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB