The Bob Dylan Discussion Thread

**Jonathan Bogart** · 08-28-2006, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Valmore

HA HA! You f-ed your own snark! That's funny.

Bob Dylan still sucks as a singer.

Originally Posted by Dennis K

Fu*k Bob Dylan, there has been a lot of great music released in the time period he's talking about. He seems like a bitter "old man".

I'm not really wondering why two people whose taste in music seems genuinely awesome are so anti-Dylan. Opinions are opinions, and whatever. What I'm really wondering is...

Am I the only person on this board who knows how to spell the word fuck?

**leonaozaki** · 08-28-2006, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by Ilash

Wow, really? I've actually heard quite a few reviewers bring it up so I know it's not just me. Which version of the album did you listen to? Did you hear it on SACD or Vinyl? Was it the new remaster or old CD? It's probably just a subjective thing but maybe the format of the album makes a difference?

I bought it used in 1993/4. So I'm pretty sure it was the first CD version. It probably just doesn't bother me the way it bothers you.

rob

**howyadoin** · 08-28-2006, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by Jonathan Bogart

I'm not really wondering why two people whose taste in music seems genuinely awesome are so anti-Dylan. Opinions are opinions, and whatever. What I'm really wondering is...

Am I the only person on this board who knows how to spell the word fuck?

Nope.

I mean, fuck.

**berk** · 08-28-2006, 11:05 PM

It's funny, apart from The Ballad of Frankie Lee and Judas Priest and perhaps one or two other tracks I've never really been able to get into John Wesley Harding. I'm still half expecting that one day I'll listen to it and everything will suddenly click into place and I'll fall in love with it, as has happened to me before with other records I didn't particularly like after the first several listenings.

**Ilash** · 08-29-2006, 01:33 AM

Originally Posted by berk

It's funny, apart from The Ballad of Frankie Lee and Judas Priest and perhaps one or two other tracks I've never really been able to get into John Wesley Harding. I'm still half expecting that one day I'll listen to it and everything will suddenly click into place and I'll fall in love with it, as has happened to me before with other records I didn't particularly like after the first several listenings.

Huh. Funnily enough, the only song you like on the album is my least favourite track.

**Brian Cronin** · 08-29-2006, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by Dennis K

Fu*k Bob Dylan, there has been a lot of great music released in the time period he's talking about. He seems like a bitter "old man".

The fact that his comments drew a response like this suggests that the thread topic was misunderstood, so I changed the thread title.

-Brian

**Punchy** · 08-29-2006, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Brian Cronin

The fact that his comments drew a response like this suggests that the thread topic was misunderstood, so I changed the thread title.

-Brian

The new thread title isn't correct either.

He's not talking about vinyl vs CD. He's not talking about the quality of music.

He's talking about all of the over-production, mixing, and mastering that goes in to making 'music' these days.

Bob is old school. He plays with his band, hit the record button and go. But so much of today's music is totally manufactured in the studio (beats, samples, etc.) that the sound quality leaves much to be desired. In his opinion anyway.

I think there has been plenty of good sounding music to be released in the past couple of decades. And to those of you who think vinyl sounds better I would have to ask why? If you're talking about re-creating a musical performance as close to the original as possible than CDs sound better without a doubt.

If you like the warmth and character of vinyl then that's a different thing entirely.

**Valmore** · 08-29-2006, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by Jonathan Bogart

I'm not really wondering why two people whose taste in music seems genuinely awesome are so anti-Dylan. Opinions are opinions, and whatever. What I'm really wondering is...

Am I the only person on this board who knows how to spell the word fuck?

I have the utmost respect for Bob Dylan as a songwriter and musician. I just don't care for his vocal performances.

As for the other - I've been trying to cut down on my swearing ever since my wife gave birth to our daughter three months ago. The less I type it, the less I think it, the less I'll say it.

**rick** · 08-29-2006, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Dennis K

...and he's still wrong

No.

Actually he is not.

The difference in quality and depth of sound between digital and analog is extreme.

Digital is a numeric reproduction of sound, analog is an actual recording of sound vibrations.

Digital is clear, bright and fairly empty of resonnance.

Analog has warmth, clarity and depth.

The only advantage digital has over analog is that digital is eaiser to package and transport. But the sound is straight out inferior.

**Jonathan Bogart** · 08-29-2006, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by rick

Digital is a numeric reproduction of sound, analog is an actual recording of sound vibrations.

Kind of. As I understand it, that's how the earliest (acoustic) sound reproduction techniques worked: the sound vibrations were transcribed minutely into the wax, or shellac, of the earliest records. But with the electrical recording process that became the industry standard in the late 1920s, the sound was amplified and distorted before the stylus began to cut. The dynamic range became greater (by an enormous degree), but the recording was no longer an exact transcription of the sound waves.

Anyway. For those with any remaining interest in the topic, this is Wikipedia's typically taking-no-sides article on analog vs. digital. The arguments are presented clearly; I tend to fall on the analog side, based purely on the experience of my ears and not at all because I understand any of the science involved.

**Brian Cronin** · 08-29-2006, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by Punchy

The new thread title isn't correct either.

He's not talking about vinyl vs CD. He's not talking about the quality of music.

He's talking about all of the over-production, mixing, and mastering that goes in to making 'music' these days.

Bob is old school. He plays with his band, hit the record button and go. But so much of today's music is totally manufactured in the studio (beats, samples, etc.) that the sound quality leaves much to be desired. In his opinion anyway.

I think there has been plenty of good sounding music to be released in the past couple of decades. And to those of you who think vinyl sounds better I would have to ask why? If you're talking about re-creating a musical performance as close to the original as possible than CDs sound better without a doubt.

If you like the warmth and character of vinyl then that's a different thing entirely.

Good point, Punch!

I corrected it to go with Rick's take, which is the most accurate.

-Brian

**Brian Cronin** · 08-29-2006, 10:38 PM

Got it today (have to have it first day, naturally ;)).

It is quite good.

Not as good as the last two albums, but those albums were really, really good.

It is pretty close, though. I especially liked the opening track, Thunder on the Mountain, where Dylan rocks about, of all things, Alicia Keys!!

Anyone else get this one yet?

-Brian