# Is Bob Dylan a great singer?



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Not necessarily in 2020, but in his heyday...

I used to loathe his voice. Now I love it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I like Dylan's voice, because it expresses his "being."


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

He has a great voice as an artist. But he's not a great singer.


----------



## Joe B (Aug 10, 2017)

I've always put singer/song writers into their own, unique category. Dylan's voice is not great. Dylan performing his own works is great. I feel the same way about Carol King.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Great singer? No. Distinctive voice? Yes. Iconic artist.? Yes. See also Neil Young.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Define great singer! If singers like Fischer-Dieskau or Schwarzkopf can get flak, think what Bob’s going to get!


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Since I eschew using the word "great" in this forum I'll say this: Dylan has a unique voice that is technically lacking. He has issues with intonation and his nasal tone can sound like "geese (f)arts on a muggy day." However, he has developed vocal inflection to a fine art. Nobody sounds as pi$$ed off as wonderfully as Bob does in Idiot Wind or Positively 4th Street. Heck, I'll listen to Tangled Up In Blue just to hear him sing the word "Delacroix."

So, while not using the word "great" one can easily insert the word "memorable" in its place. Oh, and he's a better singer than he is an electric guitar player.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Voted 'yes'. I didn't like his singing in the folk days as much, he was whining more than singing. I do like it in Blood on the Tracks, which is my favourite Dylan album.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Barbebleu said:


> Define great singer!


at least generally speaking, someone who is able to convey emotion and makes the song alive. 
I think that Dylan, even having a ugly voice and very limited range was quite good at it. Unlike many singers who have amazing range and great tone that instead of using it to celebrate the song, use the voice to celebrate themselves.
Dylan is not one of my favorite singers so I don't know if I would put him in the "great" category, but I would certainly put him at least in the "good" category.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

It is difficult to think of a closer coupling of a composer's gift with a singer's voice than Dylan singing Dylan. There is no way to insert a wedge of serious criticism between the two. I grant that others can sing Dylan songs with both conviction and excellence, but one remembers Dylan first and always when considering a Dylan song.


----------



## En Passant (Aug 1, 2020)

starthrower said:


> He has a great voice as an artist. But he's not a great singer.


You summed it up perfectly Sir :tiphat:


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Voted yes. But more importantly, he just about stands alone as being an artist who has cultivated such a unique sound and persona for himself, synthesizing so many different sources of music (and literature) into such an immediately recognizable voice, that he is an unforgettable cultural figure in himself. The only other popular musician I can think of who has done this is Bob Marley. 

Anyway, it wouldn't matter even if he wasn't a great singer (which he's not, in a classical sense). Bob is definitely one of the greatest artists alive.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I love his singing on Infidels. Songs like Jokerman, and Neighborhood Bully.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Nobody can sing Dylan like Dylan. Not the same as "great singer".

The comparison with Bob Marley actually favors the Jamaican IMO, but that's not to argue with it. I honestly think Marley is maybe the greatest global musical pop artist of the 20th century.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2020)

I think this is a terrific song. I used it with Year 9 (14y/o) boys when we had a 'poetry' unit. They were the lowest ability class in the year and when they saw me come in with CD player they suddenly got interested. It's very topical today, actually. The boys liked the song and grew very interested in Dylan; they also related to the concerns in the song as they were marginalized kids from dysfunctional families, many of them: (sadly one of the boys in that class was killed in a fight not far from my place when he was 21).






Thanks, Bob Dylan, for helping me teach reluctant boys about 'poetry' and all that this means!!


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

philoctetes said:


> Nobody can sing Dylan like Dylan. Not the same as "great singer".
> 
> The comparison with Bob Marley actually favors the Jamaican IMO, but that's not to argue with it. I honestly think Marley is maybe the greatest global musical pop artist of the 20th century.


I can't disagree with you there. But I didn't mean to compare the two Bobs. Each is in a class of his own, but I do see the pair of them as being part of a unique phenomenon among popular music.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Christabel said:


> I think this is a terrific song. I used it with Year 9 (14y/o) boys when we had a 'poetry' unit. They were the lowest ability class in the year and when they saw me come in with CD player they suddenly got interested. It's very topical today, actually. The boys liked the song and grew very interested in Dylan; they also related to the concerns in the song as they were marginalized kids from dysfunctional families, many of them: (sadly one of the boys in that class was killed in a fight not far from my place when he was 21).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A wonderful song! Dylan is like a Mount Everest towering above the foothills, and _Hurricane_ is just one example why. Christabel, great use for a great song.:tiphat:


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

He's an artist not necessarily a good singer .


----------



## ldiat (Jan 27, 2016)

i never liked his singing. great song writer. just did not like him. and when he went w/ the crowd of music, just no


----------



## gregorx (Jan 25, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> It is difficult to think of a closer coupling of a composer's gift with a singer's voice than Dylan singing Dylan. There is no way to insert a wedge of serious criticism between the two. I grant that others can sing Dylan songs with both conviction and excellence, but one remembers Dylan first and always when considering a Dylan song.


Except for All Along The Watchtower.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

gregorx said:


> Except for All Along The Watchtower.


You may have a point there. So many people have covered that song that there may be a favorite non-Dylan version for anyone. I like Dave Mason's for his guitar work.

That whole album was one where I felt Dylan went almost to free association and decided to let whatever "meaning " the songs might have just materialize on their own. Watchtower reminds me of a Giorgio di Chirico painting where what you see is what you get and you have to supply the context. Probably part of why everybody covered it.


----------



## gregorx (Jan 25, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> So many people have covered that song that there may be a favorite non-Dylan version for anyone. I like Dave Mason's for his guitar work.


Actually I was thinking of the Hendrix version; it is the quintessential recording. Dylan said he was overwhelmed when he heard it, and it changed the way he performed the song in concert. He said his performances of the song after Hendrix died were a tribute to him.

I didn't know Mason had recorded it, I'll have to check it out. He was a contributing musician on the Electric Ladyland sessions.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Asking if Dylan is a "great singer" completely misses the point.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

gregorx said:


> Actually I was thinking of the Hendrix version; it is the quintessential recording. Dylan said he was overwhelmed when he heard it, and it changed the way he performed the song in concert. He said his performances of the song after Hendrix died were a tribute to him.
> 
> I didn't know Mason had recorded it, I'll have to check it out. He was a contributing musician on the Electric Ladyland sessions.


I'll second the motion about Hendrix. His version is superb.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2020)

I love this song and all the baby boomers get together at my place and dance about to it and sing!! Nice and loud too!!


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2020)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Not necessarily in 2020, but in his heyday...
> 
> I used to loathe his voice. Now I love it.


If we're referring _only _to the quality of his voice, no, it doesn't do it for me. If we're meaning 'singer' as a synonym for 'artist'...I recognise his significant contribution to folk, rock and pop...but he still doesn't do it for me.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> Asking if Dylan is a "great singer" completely misses the point.


...which is ?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Which is that there is no finer vehicle nor interpreter of Dylan's unique music and lyrics than...Dylan. It's a total marriage. He shows us how the phrasing, the fitting of the words to the music is supposed to go, and everyone else's version, wonderful as it may be, is (only) a reflection in a distorting magic mirror that smooths out all the rough spots, offering a lesser experience.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

A great singer perfectly expresses the song they're singing. Dylan is not only a great singer, but one of the greatest. His voice has an attractive, charismatic sound, like a tough guy character actor, like Bogie or Lee Marvin, and he captures the essence of each song perfectly, from both an emotional and psychological perspective. And these qualities have been his since he was a calf in the 60's until now, almost 80 years old, where his singing on his new record is extraordinarily deft and varied, and ideally suited to the songs...


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

He is a horrible *singer* (even though I like his voice in his current/later years). He is a GREAT *song writer*.

V


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Varick said:


> He is a horrible *singer* (even though I like his voice in his current/later years). He is a GREAT *song writer*.
> 
> V


Out of curiosity, could you speculate upon a great singer who would offer us the entire Dylan _oeuvre_ with greater impact, authenticity, conviction, satisfaction than Dylan? I would like to hear that in my mind and see how it might go.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Just finished listening to _Blood on the Tracks_ on a drive home, and again wondered how anybody but Dylan could sing any song on that album as convincingly as Dylan? Try the first track: Tangled Up in Blue. Just not possible. There is one exception: Meet Me in the Morning, which would be very well done by Robert Plant and Led Zeppelin--in fact, it represents a strange and wonderful example of musical Convergent Evolution: I could hear an imagined Zep version of that song and Plant singing it as I drove and listened. Try it yourself. But then Robert Plant is often accused of not having the greatest singing voice in the world.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> Out of curiosity, could you speculate upon a great singer who would offer us the entire Dylan _oeuvre_ with greater impact, authenticity, conviction, satisfaction than Dylan? I would like to hear that in my mind and see how it might go.


Though they're nothing like the originals, I really enjoy the Jerry Garcia's covers of Dylan (with the GD and the Jerry Garcia Band). Do they offer "greater impact, authenticity, conviction, satisfaction than Dylan?" Perhaps not. But you can't really compare. IMO Garcia is the only singer I can think of who can - never mind that he actually did! - consistently do the greatest Dylan songs justice (besides Dylan himself).


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> Just finished listening to _Blood on the Tracks_ on a drive home, and again wondered how anybody but Dylan could sing any song on that album as convincingly as Dylan? Try the first track: Tangled Up in Blue. Just not possible.


Not a different singer, but one of the great things about Dylan is his ability to completely transform a song in his various renditions of the same tune. He can change everything: tempo, register, lyrics, harmony... and yet still stay so faithful to the spirit of the song. Often I prefer his alternate versions or live performances to the album versions (which is very unusual for other artists). This is my favorite version of Tangled up in Blue:


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Not necessarily in 2020, but in his heyday...
> 
> I used to loathe his voice. Now I love it.


I hated his voice to... you get used to it.He certainly does not have a good voice.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Varick said:


> He is a horrible *singer*


Compared to what? He sings in the style of folk/mountain singers. According to you, all of them are "horrible" singers. Somehow I think it is your assessment that is flawed.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> Compared to what? He sings in the style of folk/mountain singers. According to you, all of them are "horrible" singers. Somehow I think it is your assessment that is flawed.


I disagree that because his style is folk/bluegrass it's makes his voice OK.

I have no problem with anyone else's voice in that genre.

Dylan simply can't sing.

Sorry, did not mean to interrupt you two. :tiphat:


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Here's Bob Dylan putting the case for the defence:


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

eljr said:


> I disagree that because his style is folk/bluegrass it's makes his voice OK.
> 
> I have no problem with anyone else's voice in that genre.
> 
> ...


I don't think you have heard many mountain singers. If you think of Joan Baez or Pete Seeger as folk singers then you don't know what I am talking about or where Bob Dylan's style came from.

In any event your opinion about his singing is just that, an opinion. I actually think the entire question is silly since Bob Dylan is a singer-songwriter whose impact has been huge.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> Out of curiosity, could you speculate upon a great singer who would offer us the entire Dylan _oeuvre_ with greater impact, authenticity, conviction, satisfaction than Dylan? I would like to hear that in my mind and see how it might go.


No I can not. To elaborate on what I mean by a "horrible singer" is that I believe he has a "horrible singing voice." I think Bruce Springsteen is a "horrible singer."

It doesn't mean I can imagine a "better" voice to the songs they wrote and perform(ed). I try to be objective in these things in the sense that I separate what I think is "good (or great)" from what I "like" or "enjoy" or even "love." Sometimes these overlap, sometimes they don't.

In the cases above, I love both artists, are huge fans of both, and I think they are both fantastic performers. Each of their voices work for their songs perfectly. I just would never objectively call them "good" voices.

Here are some more examples of not so good voices that I either "don't mind" or even enjoy:
- Geddy Lee
- Jon Anderson
- Tom Waits (after his first 4 or 5 albums)
- Brian Johnson
- Macy Gray

V


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> Compared to what? He sings in the style of folk/mountain singers. According to you, all of them are "horrible" singers. Somehow I think it is your assessment that is flawed.


So wait, because I think Dylan is a horrible singer, I think that anyone who sings in his style (which probably about 98 - 99% of all folk/mountain singers I have never heard, nor hear of) is a horrible singer? Not quite sure how you assume because I think "A" I must think "Z." Talk about a flawed assessment.

and no one is talking about impact. That is a complete non sequitur. See my response to SM above.

V


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

May we have that example of a Great Singer? Could that singer sing Dylan? Pavarotti? Mel Torme?


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

In the pop (popular) genre, I would say Nat King Cole or your example of Mel, or more modern, Freddie Mercury or George Michael to name a few.

V


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

No Dylan is not a great singer but he of course has a way of communication. Else why do people buy his recordings?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Varick said:


> In the pop (popular) genre, I would say Nat King Cole or your example of Mel, or more modern, Freddie Mercury or George Michael to name a few.
> 
> V


Are we to imagine Nat King Cole, or Mel Torme, or whomever singing _Idiot Wind_? I do appreciate the mental/aural impression.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

It seems to me there is a disagreement about the definition of "great singer." Which would make further discussion pointless.

Varick, if you think *Roscoe Holcomb* is a "great singer" but feel differently about *Bob Dylan* I would say you are inconsistent. If on the other hand you feel that both Bob Dylan and Roscoe Holcomb are "horrible singers" (as well as *Dock Boggs*, *Horton Barker*, *Clarence Ashley*, or any of the singers on the *Harry Smith Anthology of American Folk Music*) then I would claim that you are ignorant of an entire style of singing which does not share the same priorities as those of "Nat King Cole or your example of Mel, or more modern, Freddie Mercury or George Michael."

For the record, I enjoy *Mel Torme* and *Nat King Cole* but do not enjoy *Freddie Mercury* or *George Michael,* purely because I don't enjoy their music. But I would never call them "horrible singers" since I understand that it is I who do not appreciate them, which is not an objective determination about their talent.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

There is one singer that I forgot until recently who covered Dylan very well more than once. hInt he came from Oklahoma.... RIP. And we could debate how good a singer he was too...

in my personal experience he also held one of the greatest concerts I ever saw.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

philoctetes said:


> There is one signer that I forgot until recently who covered Dylan very well more than once. hInt he came from Oklahoma.... RIP. And we could debate how good a singer he was too...
> 
> in my personal experience he also held one of the greatest concerts I ever saw.


Mr. Leon Russell?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

starthrower said:


> Mr. Leon Russell?


Yep. Leon Russell did a number of Dylan songs, very well.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Leon... the one and only.............. I have recently marvelled over his singing... Song To You, Magic Mirror, along with the booty shake rockers... an incredible span of emotion and style...

Song To You sounds like something Elvis Costello would have killed to have written... surprised I've never heard him cover it... but I digress.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

philoctetes said:


> Leon... the one and only.............. I have recently marvelled over his singing... Song To You, Magic Mirror, along with the booty shake rockers... an incredible span of emotion and style...
> 
> Song To You sounds like something Elvis Costello would have killed to have written... surprised I've never heard him cover it... but I digress.


Leon Russell was an artist that meant a great deal to me, and the day he passed I started a tribute thread on another forum, but no one contributed anything. I was very disappointed to find that there were no other members who thought enough about his music to even say "sad news."

It is nice to have someone on _this_ forum express admiration for him and his music.

One of my favorite songs of his:

Ballad of Mad Dogs and Englishmen


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> Leon Russell was an artist that meant a great deal to me, and the day he passed I started a tribute thread on another forum, but no one contributed anything. I was very disappointed to find that there were no other members who thought enough about his music to even say "sad news."
> 
> It is nice to have someone on _this_ forum express admiration for him and his music.
> 
> ...


sad news, I never saw the thread

I was a big fan... loved that Elton John resurrected his career before the end.

In my rotation for 50 years, Leon Russel album and Asylum Choir album.

My fraternity bother was his next store neighbor in Oklahoma. He would take the time to get back stage passes for us all the way up in Boston for numerous artists.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

eljr said:


> sad news, I never saw the thread
> 
> I was a big fan... loved that Elton John resurrected his career before the end.
> 
> ...


Nice post. The first Asylum Choir, or the "II"? I always have thought more of the second than the first.

Another great somewhat unknown Leon album is the recording from the live concert with New Grass Revival.

View attachment 141657


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> Nice post. The *first Asylum Choir, or the "II"? * I always have thought more of the second than the first.
> 
> Another great somewhat unknown Leon album is the recording from the live concert with New Grass Revival.
> 
> View attachment 141657


The second. ..............................


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

I saw Leon in OKC in 72 - it was an absolute frenzy in his home state.

About 35 years later during a return trip to OK I mentioned Leon Russell in a bar to a group of college students and nobody knew who he was... right in Oklahoma... I was stunned.


----------



## Tero (Jun 2, 2012)

well, does it make any difference? It's the words that mean. But if you want to compare, as song Dylan tossed at Sheryl Crow





he then released his own version, something like the demo Sheryl had to have heard:





that's as close as I could find to the Dylan studio version. I like them both.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

Great songwriter? Undeniable. 
Good singer? Eh......


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Varick said:


> In the pop (popular) genre, I would say Nat King Cole or your example of Mel, or more modern, Freddie Mercury or George Michael to name a few.
> 
> V


But could George Michael or Freddy have sung Murder Most Foul, Nettie Moore, Visions of Johanna, and so on? I don't think so, and yet these songs say so much more than those two singers ever said in a song, or in all their songs. I think you're one the wrong side of this one, brother!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

*Is Billie Eilish a great singer?

Did I spell that right?*


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Kieran said:


> But could George Michael or Freddy have sung *Murder Most Foul,* Nettie Moore, Visions of Johanna, and so on? I don't think so, and yet these songs say so much more than those two singers ever said in a song, or in all their songs. I think you're one the wrong side of this one, brother!


Murder Most Foul, narrated by Bob Dylan.

*Was Claude Rains a great singer?*


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Murder Most Foul, narrated by Bob Dylan.
> 
> *Was Claude Rains a great singer?*


Claude Rains? :lol:

He may have been. But I wouldn't say that Murder Most Foul is "narrated" - he clearly sings it, even the lines where he's speaking...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Kieran said:


> Claude Rains? :lol:
> 
> He may have been. But I wouldn't say that Murder Most Foul is "narrated" - *he clearly sings it, even the lines where he's speaking...*


Clearly.

Make up your mind, speaking or singing.

He sings it? I'd hate to have to transcribe it. It sounds more like he's reciting poetry.

If you don't agree, then you must think a lot of rap songs are "singing." Public Enemy: yeah, that's some good singing!

On the other hand, a lot of touted opera singers are so "mannered" that I can't even hear the melody clearly.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> Varick, if you think Roscoe Holcomb is a "great singer" but feel differently about Bob Dylan I would say you are inconsistent.


 I agree (based soley on the one video of Roscoe above), but I never said that nor even infered it, anywhere.


SanAntone said:


> If on the other hand you feel that both Bob Dylan and Roscoe Holcomb are "horrible singers" (as well as Dock Boggs, Horton Barker, Clarence Ashley, or any of the singers on the Harry Smith Anthology of American Folk Music) then I would claim that you are ignorant of an entire style of singing which does not share the same priorities as those of "Nat King Cole or your example of Mel, or more modern, Freddie Mercury or George Michael."
> 
> For the record, *I enjoy* Mel Torme and Nat King Cole *but do not enjoy* Freddie Mercury, or George Michael, purely because *I don't enjoy their music*. But I would never call them "horrible singers" since I understand that it is I who do not appreciate them, which is not an objective determination about their talent.


You have illustrated my point, which I don't know how you missed since I thought I was very clear (perhaps I was not). I stated that I was not talking about voices I "enjoy" or "don't enjoy," I was discussing voices I don't think are "good" (or "great") and voices I think that are "good" (or "great"). They are two COMPLETELY different things. I stated how I think Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen have "horrible" voices, but I love them. I love their songs, their song writing, their performances and yes, I even "enjoy" their voices. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make that point. Perhaps you did not read? Or you read, but you willfully chose to ignore those clear distinctions I made? I don't know.

I have NO idea who Roscoe Holcomb is (other than the video I believe you posted earlier) or Dock Boggs, Horton Barker, et al. I do not follow that genre of music, so I am (as you pointed out) completely ignorant of their singing voices and styles. However, if I did/do chose to give them I listen, I just may come to the same conclusion I do with Dylan & Springsteen: Horrible voices, but I really ENJOY them. I could conclude that they have fine voices but I don't enjoy them or, the other two possibilities. Are you getting the difference now? I have now depleted my abilities to make this any clearer.

V


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> Are we to imagine Nat King Cole, or Mel Torme, or whomever singing _Idiot Wind_? I do appreciate the mental/aural impression.


Lol. That would be "something!"

V


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> Out of curiosity, could you speculate upon a great singer who would offer us the entire Dylan _oeuvre_ with greater impact, authenticity, conviction, satisfaction than Dylan?





Varick said:


> *No I can not*. To elaborate on what I mean by a "horrible singer" is that I believe he has a "horrible singing voice." I think Bruce Springsteen is a "horrible singer."
> 
> *It doesn't mean I can imagine a "better" voice to the songs they wrote and perform(ed)*. I try to be objective in these things in the sense that I separate what I think is "good (or great)" from what I "like" or "enjoy" or even "love." Sometimes these overlap, sometimes they don't.
> 
> *In the cases above, I love both artists, are huge fans of both, and I think they are both fantastic performers. Each of their voices work for their songs perfectly.* I just would never objectively call them "good" voices.





Kieran said:


> But could George Michael or Freddy have sung Murder Most Foul, Nettie Moore, Visions of Johanna, and so on? I don't think so, and yet these songs say so much more than those two singers ever said in a song, or in all their songs. I think you're one the wrong side of this one, brother!


Does anyone ever read the posts that an individual made BEFORE they post to said individual?

V


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Clearly.
> 
> *Make up your mind, speaking or singing.*
> 
> ...


Oh it can be both, and at times it's either. For instance, the lines, "play Merchant of Venice, play merchants of death, play Stella by Starlight for lady Macbeth" are clearly sung, as are many of the lines, but even the recited spoken words are within a song tradition and spoken with a cadence and tone that you wouldn't order your dinner with, if you get my drift. It's a performance voice, a beautiful one too - but the whole of Murder Most Foul isn't just a bloke reading old news from a scrap of paper.

As for Public Enemy - I would consider Chuck D to be a fairly great singer..


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Varick said:


> Does anyone ever read the posts that an individual made BEFORE they post to said individual?
> 
> V


Brother, it would defeat the purpose of debate if we were to represent the totality of an opposing view. :lol:

But! You mentioned Mercury and Michael as great singers, and in comparison to Dylan, I would say they're two phoneys...


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Kieran said:


> Brother, it would defeat the purpose of debate if we were to represent the totality of an opposing view. :lol:


lol Touché!



Kieran said:


> But! You mentioned Mercury and Michael as great singers, and in comparison to Dylan, I would say they're two phoneys...


1. How were they "phoneys?"

2. Even if they were (for argument sake, not really sure how they are), they had great voices!

V


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Varick said:


> lol Touché!
> 
> 1. How were they "phoneys?"
> 
> ...


It's possible their voices were great for something, but I just think of them as posers, throwing shapes but saying nothing. It has its place but it never did anything for me, never moves me, never connects with me on an emotional level, the way great singers do...


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Varick said:


> I agree (based soley on the one video of Roscoe above), but I never said that nor even infered it, anywhere.
> 
> You have illustrated my point, which I don't know how you missed since I thought I was very clear (perhaps I was not). I stated that I was not talking about voices I "enjoy" or "don't enjoy," I was discussing voices I don't think are "good" (or "great") and voices I think that are "good" (or "great"). They are two COMPLETELY different things. I stated how I think Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen have "horrible" voices, but I love them. I love their songs, their song writing, their performances and yes, I even "enjoy" their voices. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make that point. Perhaps you did not read? Or you read, but you willfully chose to ignore those clear distinctions I made? I don't know.
> 
> ...


I think I have discovered our difference regarding the topic of "singing/singer". You appear to separate the "voice" from the singing style. I do not. For me a voice is merely one aspect of a singer's art. Often someone who has been said to have a "great voice" bores me to tears. Most trained classical singers, lieder/opera, fall into this category. Many jazz singers like Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughan, Nat King Cole, Johnny Hartman, I enjoy more than classical singers, but still not as much as singers like Dylan.

I guess, most of my favorite singers would be described by you as having "horrible voices," besides Dylan: *Leon Russell*, *Kris Kristofferson*, *Lucinda Williams*, *Van Morrison*, *Mose Allison* ... well you get the idea.

But contrary to you, I don't focus on and isolate the voice, but experience the entire effect of *what they are doing with the song*. I don't care if they sing out of tune or have an "ugly" voice. They either get to me or not.

For me singing is more about communication than some ideal vocal sound.

I like attitude, a voice that is expressive, i.e. communicating the lyric, and one with some grit in it. I also like the styles associated with those kinds of voices, blues, bluegrass/old time, classic rock - probably more than classical music.

Classical singing often sounds artificial and pompous to me. But I still very much enjoy sacred choral music. But that is a different kind of voice than used in opera.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Maybe its "just" familiarity, but, if so, familiarity is a very powerful thing. We have posted often about "imprinting" and the way that often our first recordings of a new and loved piece of music become an internal standard of how we think it ought to sound. For me, Rush without the voice of Geddy Lee, or The Pretenders without Chrissie Hynde are difficult to imagine, though if we hear first a cover of a song that was made by someone other than its singer/songwriter, that may become a standard for a while. Later, the "real" version may knock the cover out of contention. Clapton's version of _I Shot the Sheriff_ is an example of a cover I heard first and still prefer to Bob Marley's original.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Some people seem to be willing to contend that:

(1) Bob Dylan is a great songwriter, and
(2) Bob Dylan is a great (the best) interpreter of his own songs,

and yet still do not feel that he is a great singer.

I can _sort of_ see the point here, but I'm still not quite sure I get it. If Dylan can bring his (great) music to life, does that not make him a great singer? Perhaps his voice isn't so adaptable to other styles and standards, but this seems to me like saying Chopin isn't a great composer because he only wrote (great) music for piano.

Could someone please explain this position further?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Can we say (I think you can) that it takes a Dylan to sing Dylan with maximum emotional impact and unquestionable authenticity? Dylan is the greatest singer of and interpreter of Dylan as it is possible to imagine, as he defines what a Dylan song should sound like. Everybody else sings covers--sometimes great covers.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> Can we say (I think you can) that it takes a Dylan to sing Dylan with maximum emotional impact and unquestionable authenticity? Dylan is the greatest singer of and interpreter of Dylan as it is possible to imagine, as he defines what a Dylan song should sound like.


And if this is the case, and if he's a great songwriter, then in my book it follows that he's a great singer.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Speaking for myself, I am not interested "singing."

But I am very interested in *songs*, which have to be sung to be fully appreciated. So, if the song is put across in an effective/moving manner - I appreciate and enjoy it. I certainly do not stand back and analyze the singer's technique, that is entirely beside the point for me.

To demonstrate, I vastly prefer Bob Dylan's performance of "Blowing in the Wind" over all the covers I've heard, especially the famous one by the more "professional singers" Peter, Paul & Mary. And Joan Baez's versions of Dylan songs are excruciating and I cannot listen to them. But she is thought to be a great singer.

I might be an exception, I don't know.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

SanAntone said:


> Speaking for myself, I am not interested "singing."
> 
> But I am very interested in *songs*, which have to be sung to be fully appreciated. So, if the song is put across in an effective/moving manner - I appreciate and enjoy it. I certainly do not stand back and analyze the singer's technique, that is entirely beside the point for me.
> 
> ...


Oh no! You're not an exception. Joan Baez sexless sweetheart singing, perfectly pitched to please the bland, is the antithesis of Dylan's songs. She sounds beautiful singing dated, meaningless and worthy "protest" songs, smug and prettified, earnest and needing affection, but she has about as much bite as a set of marshmallow dentures.

Dylan's voice was described by the poet Phillip Larkin as being "cawing, derisive", and it has at times fit that perfect description. Paul Simon said that he himself could only sing one way, which is with sincerity, but Dylan could accommodate both sincerity and sneering cynicism at the same time. He straddles ambiguity. He can sound reckless, raw, hilarious, warm, intense, smooth, whatever the character he's playing requires. He can open the first verse with a brief few words, and at the same line in the second verse, sing the line with twice as many words - and make it fit with ease. When he sings about loss, you believe he knows what great loss is.

And I totally agree, he sings his own songs much better than anyone else, especially the people you mentioned, and I think it's because he submerged himself so much deeper into the inner workings of a song than anyone else..


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Dylan is a great singer because he can make his voice vary so much depending on the song, the era, etc, and the voice fits so well in every case, except perhaps for his later career smoke damaged voice, but I noticed he recently recovered his voice from that smoke damaged sound. 

Consider the variations from his first, self named, album, to his early works, to Self Portrait, to John Wesley Hardin, to some of the later works. He is all over the place with his voice. To me a great singer is in the context of the music. 

If we ask Bob Dylan to sing opera, I will go home and not listen. But in his realm, he is a great singer.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

SixFootScowl said:


> Dylan is a great singer because he can make his voice vary so much depending on the song, the era, etc, and the voice fits so well in every case, except perhaps for his later career smoke damaged voice, but I noticed he recently recovered his voice from that smoke damaged sound.
> 
> Consider the variations from his first, self named, album, to his early works, to Self Portrait, to John Wesley Hardin, to some of the later works. He is all over the place with his voice. To me a great singer is in the context of the music.
> 
> If we ask Bob Dylan to sing opera, I will go home and not listen. But in his realm, he is a great singer.


TC is a Classical music forum with an active opera fanbase, so I would expect nothing other than a negative judgment regarding Dylan's singing. But that only highlights the taste limitation and thinking of singing in one dimension, i.e., classically trained singing.

There is another tradition of Folk, Blues, Country, and Rock singing of which Bob Dylan is a part. Contemplating Dylan singing opera is no more excruciating than Plácido Domingo singing the Blues.

The rest is nothing more than personal/individual taste determining what is "good singing."


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

He's sort of like Louis Armstrong. I heard someone give a sort of funny illustration how if Louis sung in a choir, they would put him in the back because of his gravelly voice. But for the purposes of what they were doing, they were both great.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I think he is quite terrible compared to other folk or rock singers. I prefer almost always cover versions of his songs because his singing is so bad.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

He is a pretty bad singer and his music is pretty dull (with a few exceptions). I value his poetic artistic output more than his music.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

He could be a hero to purposefully sing like that so that I can understand what kind of music generally escape from myself. It actually feels like his music try to avoid me not that I them. I mean both his singing and music. I will be direct to rocksters and popsters. Sorry.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

He may not have a beautiful voice but I like Dylan because for the most part he's articulate so I can decipher the lyrics. I've avoided the records of someone like Van Morrison because he always sounds like he's got a mouthful of jello.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

This is a question for the Opera forum. They are the singing experts.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Dylan isn't a great singer in the traditional sense; his greatness lies in the totality of his talents.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Red Terror said:


> Dylan isn't a great singer in the traditional sense; his greatness lies in the totality of his talents.


What is "the traditional sense?"

Dylan is a great singer in the tradition of Woody Guthrie, Charley Patton, or Buddy Holly. Dylan's singing tradition is obviously different from that of José Carreras or Maria Callas.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> What is "the traditional sense?"
> 
> Dylan is a great singer in the tradition of Woody Guthrie, Charley Patton, or Buddy Holly. Dylan's singing tradition is obviously different from that of José Carreras or Maria Callas.


The idea that there can be different musical traditions, even different ones that justly can be called "classical", is surprisingly controversial here. I suppose my lame joke above wasn't necessary, but FWIW, Leonard Bernstein, in one of his televised shows, spoke highly about Dylan (and the Beatles). I think his singing technique was highly effective in conveying what he was trying to convey, and your mention of Woody Guthrie, who obviously was a major influence for him, was especially appropriate.

Quick story: When I saw Arlo Guthrie in concert, he told the audience a story about a time (probably late 70s) when both he and Dylan were on tour in the US. According to Arlo, this was a time when Dylan had stopped performing the early songs that made him famous, but Arlo was covering several of them in his shows. Arlo flew into one city (I forget which) and one of the reporters covering his arrival at the airport told him that Dylan would perform in that same city the night after he was. Arlo quipped, "Yes, but if you want to hear Dylan's music, you'll have to come to my show."

Well, that off-the-cuff quip was plastered all over the local papers the next day and doubtless seen by Dylan, much to Arlo's chagrin. After telling that story (much better and in a much funnier way than I just wrote it), Arlo proceeded to do a couple of Dylan songs. This illustrates how Arlo Guthrie's great story telling ability is an integral part of his songs (not just Alice's Restaurant) and his shows. I think Dylan's distinctive singing voice is an equally integral part of his songs.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> Dylan is a great singer in the tradition of Woody Guthrie, Charley Patton, or Buddy Holly.


Is he? He doesn't sound like any of them.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Personally yes I do think Bob Dylan is/was a great singer. I'm not as enamored with his voice as I used to be, but it reminds me of my own: nasally, bitter, tough, unconventional. I am very insecure about my voice, but I find Dylan's singing inspiring and reassuring, despite the criticism it receives.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Is he? He doesn't sound like any of them.


I beg to differ. He sounds a whole lot like Woody Guthrie.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Is he? He doesn't sound like any of them.


Dylan has cited all of these singers/musicians as influences on his singing and songwriting/song selection, as well as the tradition they represent forming his overall style. He need not sound exactly like them in order to be coming out of the same tradition, which is a folk/blues/country tradition.

Buddy Holly is early rock 'n' roll which was a hybrid of country and blues, what some have called rockabilly. Dylan tells a story of going to see Buddy Holly and feeling like they connected when Holly looked right at him and Dylan felt like he was passing a baton to him, or something like that. Buddy Holly died shortly after that concert.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

SanAntone said:


> Dylan has cited all of these singers/musicians as influences on his singing and songwriting/song selection, as well as the tradition they represent forming his overall style. He need not sound exactly like them in order to be coming out of the same tradition, which is a folk/blues/country tradition.


It was demonstrated beautifully on his debut album 60 years ago.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> What is "the traditional sense?"
> 
> Dylan is a great singer in the tradition of Woody Guthrie, Charley Patton, or Buddy Holly. Dylan's singing tradition is obviously different from that of José Carreras or Maria Callas.


My point is Dylan's voice isn't one generally recognized as being patently beautiful.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Red Terror said:


> My point is Dylan's voice isn't one generally recognized as being patently beautiful.


Why is that the criteria, and who decides?

It all comes down to your personal preference and what attributes you value. Dylan's voice is great for his music and that kind of music. It not great for lieder, or opera; obviously- although he has done a good job with the Great American Songbook. But the reverse is also true. I've written before that Placido Domingo (insert any opera singer) can't sing Blues or Rock, nor would anyone want him too. Does that make hm any less of a great operatic singer?


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> Why is that the criteria, and who decides?
> 
> It all comes down to your personal preference and what attributes you value. Dylan's voice is great for his music and that kind of music. It not great for lieder, or opera; obviously- although he has done a good job with the Great American Songbook. But the reverse is also true. I've written before that Placido Domingo (insert any opera singer) can't sing Blues or Rock, nor would anyone want him too. Does that make hm any less of a great operatic singer?


I didn't say Dylan was any lesser than a great operatic singer; they do completely different things. The general public tends to gravitate toward things that are obviously beautiful-Dylan's voice is not _that_.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Red Terror said:


> I didn't say Dylan was any lesser than a great operatic singer; they do completely different things. The general public tends to gravitate toward things that are obviously beautiful-Dylan's voice is not _that_.


I don't know what the "general public" gravitates toward. And I don't think you do either. Dylan has sold 125 million records, so at least a sizable portion of the general public does gravitate to his singing.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

He's great in the folk/country sense where personality and storytelling ability are more important than outright beauty. Folk and country are the American genres where above all, you need to be able to express personality.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I don't even like "beautiful" singing.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> I don't know what the "general public" gravitates toward. And I don't think you do either. Dylan has sold 125 million records, so at least a sizable portion of the general public does gravitate to his singing.


Celine Dion and Taylor Swift have sold much more than that. They both possess voices that adhere to the general public's conception of beauty. Personally I think their brand of music and singing is worthless but many millions disagree with me.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

SanAntone said:


> I don't even like "beautiful" singing.


I want to hear some soulfulness and personality. Bert Jansch doesn't have a "beautiful" voice and he's got a heavy accent but he resonates with me because it's coming from the heart. Martin Simpson is another favorite of mine. He's a wonderful guitarist, master of the folk and blues traditions, and a soulful vocalist.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Red Terror said:


> Celine Dion and Taylor Swift have sold much more than that. They both possess voices that adhere to the general public's conception of beauty. Personally I think their brand of music and singing is worthless but many millions disagree with me.


My point is that there is more to singing than the quality of the voice, for me it's about communication. IMO a "beautiful voice" does not equal "great singer". So, I guess we can agree to disagree because our conversation is going in circles.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> My point is that there is more to singing than the quality of the voice, for me it's about communication. IMO a "beautiful voice" does not equal "great singer". So, I guess we can agree to disagree because our conversation is going in circles.


I think we have different perspectives but agree that Dylan is a great artist.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Depends on how you're defining "great singer." If you're talking in terms of technical ability and beauty, then no, he's arguably one of the worst ever. If you're talking about in terms of artistry, in being able to express himself in a way that makes the lyrics seem real and alive and meaningful, then yes, he's one of the best ever. If you doubt the latter, just do the fun exercise of reading a Bod Dylan lyric in isolation and then listening to the song to see how much substance he brings out through his voice that isn't innately there in the lyrics. Back when I was studying poetry I actually had an assignment to write an essay on the difference between lyrics-on-the-page and lyrics when sung, and I chose Dylan's Most of the Time. Working on that really made me appreciate Dylan's vocal artistry in a completely different way that I hadn't before. He has so many songs that wouldn't have 1/10 of the impact they do with a more traditionally talented, beautiful voice singing. Something like Like a Rolling Stone absolutely needs the ugliness and attitude that Dylan brought to it. Singing beautifully has its place, certainly, but not every song calls for it, and many would be made worse by it.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

125,000,000 flies can't be wrong

Edit: I voted no


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I posted this in a different thread, but it is more appropriately put here.

"Dylan himself declares since the 60' s, following Rimbaud, that je est un autre, that the *self in his songs is not the same as the writer of the song*. As the then only sixteen year old Rimbaud writes in the same Lettre du Voyant: "La chanson est si peu souvent l'oeuvre, c'est-à-dire la pensée chantée et comprise du chanteur-the song is so rarely the work or the sung thought of the singer himself."

The statement is beautifully illustrated by a witness statement, by Malcom Burn, musician and recording engineer of _Oh Mercy_, in the fascinating Tell Tale Signs Special interview series in Uncut: Nothing on the record took a lot of takes really. The only thing we took a lot of time getting-and this is another interesting thing about is approach-is like, if he was fixing a vocal part. Y'know if he wanted to punch in just a part of a song again. *It was never about whether it was in tune or out of tune or anything like that.* It would be-let's say he's singing a replacement line-he'd sing it and you'd try to mix it into the original track, he'd listen to it and he'd say, "Ah, nah, nah, nah. That's not the guy." And I'd say, "The guy?" And he'd say, "Yeah. It's not the same guy." "It's not the guy," it's not the person whose character the performer Dylan takes on for this particular song.

Burn learns a lot from it, he says. *It's not so very important whether a verse sounds a little out of tune, or not quite in time, that doesn't interest Dylan in the least-the personality, "the guy" has to be right.* It is, in short, acting; je est un autre."

- _Mississippi: Bob Dylan's midlife masterpiece_ (The Songs Of Bob Dylan) by Jochen Markhorst

I've always thought that singing is about communication, primarily, and this story illustrates that Dylan is more concerned with communicating an attitude than with beautiful singing.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Oh, absolutely a great singer! And a virtuoso of the harmonica too!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Many people consider him a great singer in his particular genre, and I'm happy to take many people's word for it, but for me listening to him is akin to a massage with a cheese grater.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> Many people consider him a great singer in his particular genre, and I'm happy to take many people's word for it, but for me listening to him is akin to a massage with a cheese grater.


I feel the same way toward many opera singers, with their hooty wobbling and shrieking.


----------



## Subutai (Feb 28, 2021)

I spent 3 years listening to nothing but Dylan. Ended up collecting every studio album he released. Truth is the guy can't sing. I don't think he'd have been satisfied as being a great songwriter so sing them he did. I heard Rodriguez Searchig for Sugarman album, and there is something of the Dylan in his lyrics and his voice is sweet and lilting. It made me think that if Dylan could sing like Rodriguez then he'd be bigger than Elvis and The Beatles combined today, but his handicap has always been his voice which most people just can't get past. Makes no matter to me as his lyrics is what I paid for.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

A lot of people in that period had similar vocal styles, some of which were explicitly influenced by Dylan. Rock was for a while a very populist medium, and one of the aspects of it was that vocals shouldn't be limited to those who can necessarily sing "correctly".

Lou Reed was probably one of the most similar to Dylan in his delivery, and is responsible for my favorite song of the 70s, and one which almost always brings me to tears, and it absolutely wouldn't work with a more conventional vocal style- the song is too explicitly autobiographical, and the more speech-like inflections give it a sense of excitement that a more musical style would filter.






The coda is one of the greatest expressions of pure ecstacy of any rock from the 60s and 70s, and absolutely only works with Reed's speak-singing voice turning into shrieks of joy. In other words, there's a purpose for every tool.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Subutai said:


> I spent 3 years listening to nothing but Dylan. Ended up collecting every studio album he released. Truth is the guy can't sing.


QFT

I have found these Dylan threads interesting because as much as I love him, it is obvious he is a dreadful singer.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

eljr said:


> QFT
> 
> I have found these Dylan threads interesting because as much as I love him, it is obvious he is a dreadful singer.


And yet, I consider him an excellent singer. Just goes to show there is no answer to this question except according to individual taste. However, a significant exposure to and interest in folk, blues, and early country genres would be a requisite for anyone to accurately judge Dylan's singing within the context that is appropriate.

If you were to listen to the *Anthology of American Folk Music *that came out in 1952, edited by Harry Smith, you would hear the context of Dylan's style. Also, the singing style of Woody Guthrie was an early influence. Dylan is a consummate singer for the kind of material he writes and songs of the American folk tradition.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

It's not so difficult to imitate if one doesn't really open the mouth and sings mostly through the nose.  
It creates a certain atmosphere and fits with some songs like "Like a rolling stone" (mmmmnnnmmmhow does it FEEL) but I am usually still in favor of cover versions. I like the "sexless" Baez, also the Byrds and other 60s/70s Dylan covers by people who can and do actually sing.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

This might be apocryphal and please tell me if it is, but didn't Hendrix say that hearing Dylan is what convinced hm that he needn't be self-conscious about his (also bad) singing. Presumably because with Dylan on the job there would always be someone worse out there?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

EdwardBast said:


> This might be apocryphal and please tell me if it is, but didn't Hendrix say that hearing Dylan is what convinced hm that he needn't be self-conscious about his (also bad) singing. Presumably because with Dylan on the job there would always be someone worse out there?


As I've said before, Dylan's style of singing is not new, unique, or in any way out of the ordinary - for the tradition of early American music. That story is probably not true since Hendrix was well aware of the same country blues singers like Rabbit Brown, Blind Lemon Jefferson, Willie McTell, Willie Johnson, and others whom Dylan mined for material and would have known where Dylan's style came from - and would not think of it as "bad". That sounds like something some intellectual would think, not a musician of the caliber of Jimi Hendrix.

The Harry Smith _Anthology_ I posted previously was very important for the folk revival movement:



> This document is generally thought to have been enormously influential on the folk & blues revival of the 1950s and 1960s, and brought the works of Blind Lemon Jefferson, Mississippi John Hurt, Dick Justice and many others to the attention of musicians such as Bob Dylan and Joan Baez. The "Harry Smith Anthology," as some call it, was the bible of folk music during the late 1950s and early 1960s Greenwich Village folk scene. As stated in the liner notes to the 1997 reissue, the late musician Dave van Ronk had earlier commented that "we all knew every word of every song on it, including the ones we hated."


So any talk about Dylan's singing being somehow strange or especially "bad" is just not true.


----------



## new but obsessed (Dec 19, 2021)

Many years ago I was very lucky to sit in on a Q&A of music critic Jim DeRogatis. He pithily defined Rock music as "personality amplified". And I think that is indeed a defining characteristic of the art form. 

There are many "virtuoso" singers and musicians who play rock music. But it fails when it's just empty. Somehow this might be different from when a perfect voice sings Amazing Grace or something non-rock. But the essence of Rock, what makes it moving as an art form, isn't necessarily that virtuosity. 

Dylan was an extremely effective singer. His voice and his music and his lyrics conveyed great meaning. People understand him, are moved by him emotionally and intellectually, even when the text of his songs are impossibly cryptic. 

By the way, I think that somewhat describes the impossibly cryptic The Magic Flute, too. Despite the seemingly lost-to-time in-jokes of Mozart's Freemason libretto, that music still moves people deeply. (I may be out of my depth here, but that's how the opera was prefaced when I first saw it, and the lack of clear understanding of all the symbolism, in my mind, didn't render the work meaningless to me). 

I think, case in point: see all those American Idol singers. Some of them are indeed very talented. Many of them likely have "better voices" than Bob Dylan. But if they have nothing to say, are they actually going to be good singers? What can they sing that will be of any value? 

I'd take Dylan and Tom Waits over that lot any day. Their voices sound like them. Their voices put me in a time and place and mood. Each and every time. That interchangeable lot of "good singers" that grace our top 40? I couldn't remember what they were singing about in a week's time.

Interestingly, with regards to being an artist and embodying meaning, I've heard many top opera singers in their masterclasses say the same thing. Stressing the importance of saying something with their art and acting, of bringing in insight and truth and life experience to their work, even when the story and the lyrics are hundreds of years old and have been done endlessly by other people. In a live opera performance are we thus more taken with a convincing, embodied, but imperfect performance than by a pitch-perfect but soulless rendition? Can we tell the difference? I don't know enough about opera to decode this on the spot -- but with Dylan I am certain that it is true.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> So any talk about Dylan's singing being somehow strange or especially "bad" is just not true.


Would I lie to you?

:angel:


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Many people consider him a great singer in his particular genre, and I'm happy to take many people's word for it, but for me listening to him is akin to a massage with a cheese grater.


There are lots of folks who's voices I do not like but I recognize as excellent.

Bob is the opposite. I love Bob's use of his voice but objectively I have never heard a case made that was anywhere near reasonable for him being a great, gifted, naturally talented... singer.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

eljr said:


> I have never heard a case made that was anywhere near reasonable for him being a great, gifted, naturally talented... singer.


Those adjectives could describe one kind of singing. What constitutes "naturally talented"? Dylan is usually said to generally sing "in tune". Does that demonstrate natural talent?

But there are as many kinds of singing as there are singers. Are you trying to say that "gifted, naturally talented" singers are the best no matter the kind of song they are singing?

This entire debate is pitting one set of values against another set of values: trained voices, or voices that convey a beauty of tone as opposed those whose material demands a different set of values such as grit, attitude, and traditional folk qualities.

For me, the material determines the singing style, and what is great singing. I don't have an abstract concept of "great singing" separated from the song being sung.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> Those adjectives could describe one kind of singing. What constitutes "naturally talented"? Dylan is usually said to generally sing "in tune". Does that demonstrate natural talent?
> 
> But there are as many kinds of singing as there are singers. Are you trying to say that "gifted, naturally talented" singers are the best no matter the kind of song they are singing?
> 
> ...


:devil:

Peace brother, great rock music threads!

..................


----------



## new but obsessed (Dec 19, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> Those adjectives could describe one kind of singing. What constitutes "naturally talented"? Dylan is usually said to generally sing "in tune". Does that demonstrate natural talent?
> 
> But there are as many kinds of singing as there are singers. Are you trying to say that "gifted, naturally talented" singers are the best no matter the kind of song they are singing?
> 
> ...


I wholeheartedly agree. And to extend this further, I think you can go beyond any limitations of genre or form and convey lasting emotion and meaning. Take Louis Armstrong. Hardly standard, even in the world of Jazz. And he's often singing standard tunes. In spite of all that, his vocal take is often seen as THE STANDARD or leading take on a tune. Or at the very least are among the most memorable.

Hell, he and Ella even tackle Porgy and Bess. And it is besides the point to ask which is better -- the operatic version of P&B, or the Jazz version with Ella and Louis. Or the Miles Davis version. For me, it's sufficient to say that I was immediately taken by the Louis Armstrong renditions of Porgy and Bess, and those were probably the first "opera" songs I knew by heart, way before I even knew they came from opera, and before I had ever sought out any opera or classical music.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

eljr said:


> :devil:
> 
> Peace brother, great rock music threads!
> 
> ..................


This is the second time I have gotten the impression that you enjoy "winding people up" with posts that in hindsight do not reflect a sincere desire to discuss a topic.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> I feel the same way toward many opera singers, with their hooty wobbling and shrieking.


So do I. :tiphat: ................


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

new but obsessed said:


> Many years ago I was very lucky to sit in on a Q&A of music critic Jim DeRogatis. He pithily defined Rock music as "personality amplified". And I think that is indeed a defining characteristic of the art form...


I think your post can be summed up with the idea that there's a difference between great singing and great artistry, and the two are neither mutually exclusive or mutually inclusive: ie, you can have great artistry with or without great singing and vice versa. I'm very much of the mind that it's fine to appreciate both too. There's plenty of singers I love to listen to just because they're great singers even when I don't care much for their music, and there's artists I love to listen to even when I don't care for their voice, and you mentioned two of them in Tom Waits and Bob Dylan.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Who, The name rings a bell but I don't know what he sounds like...


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Well, this is rather unexpected, but I finally got to appreciate Dylan after trying for about 50 years - re-listening to Blonde on Blonde did the trick.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> This is the second time I have gotten the impression that you enjoy "winding people up" with posts that in hindsight do not reflect a sincere desire to discuss a topic.


Or maybe I just want to keep the threads friendly after disagreeing with a poster I enjoy and or respect? 

Message boards are not a perfect communitive tool to accomplish this I suppose.


----------

