|
|
Post by mrholmes on Oct 13, 2019 5:24:27 GMT -6
I am in my 40s and very late I discover the literature Nobel Prize winner. Sure I used to sing and play one of his most famous songs first "Don't think twice its alright".
I do like his vocal work, singing through the nose and pressing a little.
So to speak ....
I love the 1963 The Freewheelin Bob Dylan Album.
The thing is.
If I travel forward in time the vocal work gets lazy, muffled and there are some recordings / arrangements I can't stand listen to.
In other words I am an OK singer but I could do better than this with ease.
This brings up the next question.
My guesswork is he could do better too, like I heard on the 1963 recording.
His muffling and wrong articulating sound must be intended???
|
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Oct 13, 2019 7:18:17 GMT -6
Bob did, And does whatever he wants without too much thought put into it I think. He gets away with it just fine IMO.
Check out the film “No Direction Home” - worth the watch and the insight.
Also - you might dig his Nashville Skyline record. The singing is more “standard”.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Oct 13, 2019 10:48:06 GMT -6
Bob did, And does whatever he wants without too much thought put into it I think. He gets away with it just fine IMO. Check out the film “No Direction Home” - worth the watch and the insight. Also - you might dig his Nashville Skyline record. The singing is more “standard”. Cool this answers a lot. He just don't cares? |
|
|
|
Post by LesC on Oct 13, 2019 11:15:29 GMT -6
Great songwriter, crappy singer. If it's because he can't sing or because he doesn't care, same difference to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Oct 13, 2019 12:42:51 GMT -6
Bob did, And does whatever he wants without too much thought put into it I think. He gets away with it just fine IMO. Check out the film “No Direction Home” - worth the watch and the insight. Also - you might dig his Nashville Skyline record. The singing is more “standard”. Cool this answers a lot. He just don't cares? I wouldn’t say that he doesn’t care. He’s an artist staying true to his vision and did what he wanted to do. Some people don’t like it but that doesn’t make it good or bad. I personally like the way he presents his voice. The music wouldn’t be the same if it was sung in a different manner. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Oct 13, 2019 13:13:01 GMT -6
Dylan delivers a song the way he feels is effective at the time he's performing it. I feel that he does that very well, usually far better than most others. His choice of technique may frequently diverge from the conventional idea of what constitutes "good singing" but he sure can put a song across like nobody else. I'd say that he compares with Sinatra in effectiveness in putting a song across, although they have very different ways of going about it. Also, if you've ever seen him live you'll know that he rarely performs a song the same way twice, and often will do it totally differently in live performance than on the record and, if you've been watching the Dylan segments in the Ken Burns country music series you'll know that the way he performs a song is deeply influence by who he's playing with at the time and he tends to record songs in single takes. In the book "A Simple Twist of Fate" which purports to chronicle the recording of "Blood on the Tracks" (which I don't think did a particularly good job on most counts) it's clear that if he doesn't like the direction of a given session or group of sessions he'll tend to scratch the whole thing and go with a completely different bunch of players in search of what he's looking for.
EDIT: Currently on TV there's a commercial for an educational institution with a rather feminist bent (which I tend to support) in which they use a recording of "The Times They Are A-Changin'" as the backup music, sung by a female vocalist with a very good voice and (conventional) technique. I find it unlistenable and reach for the mute button every time it comes on, even if the remote is on the other side of the room. The problem is that the "conventional" approach, complete with cute, staged phrasing destroys the feel and meaning of the song, removing all the urgency and anger of Dylan's original snarled version, and hence diluting the meaning to nothing.
Of course you can't cover that song and still keep the force without it seeming (rightly) that you're doing a "Dylan imitation". Some things should just be left alone.
FWIW (and I hope this isn't veering too far into the "political"), I think that a copy of the original recording of that song should be sent to every elected official in Washington....
|
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Oct 13, 2019 14:42:18 GMT -6
Dylan delivers a song the way he feels is effective at the time he's performing it. I feel that he does that very well, usually far better than most others. His choice of technique may frequently diverge from the conventional idea of what constitutes "good singing" but he sure can put a song across like nobody else. I'd say that he compares with Sinatra in effectiveness in putting a song across, although they have very different ways of going about it. Also, if you've ever seen him live you'll know that he rarely performs a song the same way twice, and often will do it totally differently in live performance than on the record and, if you've been watching the Dylan segments in the Ken Burns country music series you'll know that the way he performs a song is deeply influence by who he's playing with at the time and he tends to record songs in single takes. In the book "A Simple Twist of Fate" which purports to chronicle the recording of "Blood on the Tracks" (which I don't think did a particularly good job on most counts) it's clear that if he doesn't like the direction of a given session or group of sessions he'll tend to scratch the whole thing and go with a completely different bunch of players in search of what he's looking for.
EDIT: Currently on TV there's a commercial for an educational institution with a rather feminist bent (which I tend to support) in which they use a recording of "The Times They Are A-Changin'" as the backup music, sung by a female vocalist with a very good voice and (conventional) technique. I find it unlistenable and reach for the mute button every time it comes on, even if the remote is on the other side of the room. The problem is that the "conventional" approach, complete with cute, staged phrasing destroys the feel and meaning of the song, removing all the urgency and anger of Dylan's original snarled version, and hence diluting the meaning to nothing.
Of course you can't cover that song and still keep the force without it seeming (rightly) that you're doing a "Dylan imitation". Some things should just be left alone.
FWIW (and I hope this isn't veering too far into the "political"), I think that a copy of the original recording of that song should be sent to every elected official in Washington....
THX John very well explained.
I had the feeling that I can learn something if some fellow RGO-friends would give me some insight. In other words he stays authentic, and he does not care if some like or dislike it. And that's a great lesson for someone with ADD....
Cool ....
|
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Oct 13, 2019 14:45:09 GMT -6
FWIW (and I hope this isn't veering too far into the "political"), I think that a copy of the original recording of that song should be sent to every elected official in Washington....
 |
|
