<strong>Whoa. Hey, I didn't mean 'copy' in a bad way. I said many of Jack Elliott's friends tried to get him mad for "copying" him, and Elliott came to his defense - as he was his friend and 'teacher' (at the time) - and said "he's the only one around here that sounds any good". And it's true.
...
I was simply wondering how many of Dylan's fans are familiar with two of the people that influenced him. Its good to know the roots of the music you appreciate IMO.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't take it that way, but I feel it is wrong to call Ramblin' Jack an influence especially in the same breath with Woody Guthrie. Guthrie was a huge influence on Bob. Jack was merely a contemporary (in my opinion).
[quote]Originally posted by seb:
<strong>
And I don't think the lyrics to every one of his songs have to be able to be read as poems - on their own - for me to feel he is a poet. The way he has lived, and worked, as an artist has more to do with that than the way I read his lyrics on paper, IMO.
Again, as I said, I didn't disagree with your statement. I just wanted to point that people often use that argument to actually attack Bob. I feel Bob's talents as a musician are often brushed away because "oh, sure, he's a great writer, but..."
But you're right, Bob is a true artist and that is why he is so great. It's nice to know that Bob is appreciated on the boards. I often try to use Bob as an analogy when explaining my love of Apple to people. Sure The Beatles may have been more popular, but who was better? Who had more influence with other artists?
honestly, Nirvana now that I look back, doesn't impress me that much, as musicians I don't think they were genius, Kurt as a songwritter sometimes shined.
Pearl Jam I believe to be a much more important band as far as the creation of music is concerned...
since we are discussing Pink Floyd of this generation (or of the 90's), there is another even more so important band, an even more so misunderstood band that was around... and I'm sure certain members of Pink Floyd would agree, one of their members performed on Wish You Were Here during their Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inauguration (i believe it was).
I also feel that I should add that there is something missing in much of this self-important rock these days, something that seems to be at the core of what "rock and Roll" was all about. Something that made Syd Barrett far superior than any replacement in post Barrett Floyd. Namely, the Pop-enthusiasm, and joyfull experimantation, and yes, willfull stupidity, that made Rock fun and danceable or just youthfully bold: think of the Beatles: optimism, fun, jangling guitars.
Even with good "dark" bands like the Velvet Underground: you get this kind of youthfull, enthusiastic, out-of-control, overreaching that's more about daring to reach far than it is about delivering a bad mood (Floyd, PJ et al)
the Ramones: not too 'smart' but not too dumb either. The perfect combination.
Pearl Jam: too 'smart' but not smart enough to be dumb.
<strong>I'd honestly say the Beatles are the most influential group in the history of music.</strong><hr></blockquote>Whoa, are you serious? Or do you mean music as in pop or rock music? There was a little bit of music in history before the Beatles, you know.
**** the Beatles. Actually, I don't really hate the Beatles that much, but far too many people think everyone should love them the way they do, well I don't. It's also awful when I'm out and see a band that has all these cheap tricks that pass for "songcraft" that are just bad imitations of stuff the Beatles did.
The Beatles were immense. They were more than influential simply as musicians. They were a pop culture force of nature. Can you name any band that stopped making music 30 years ago that still has any importance today? The only person I can think of would be Hendrix but even he comes in a distant second to what the Beatles were and still are. There are new generations of fans who weren't even alive when the Beatles broke up.
And that's the problem. Nobody can really be worth that much praise. How can the Beatles really be as important as the Beatles are? The Beatles weren't just influential. They were also influenced by others - Buddy Holly, Brian Wilson, The Byrds, Dylan. They were kind of a rorsach test for sixties culture - a repository of memory for some and for others maybe an important landmark on the road map showing how we got here... I was too young to have any idea what was going on or even care very much about music back then but the first song that really turned my head around was Hey Jude.
<strong>I also feel that I should add that there is something missing in much of this self-important rock these days, something that seems to be at the core of what "rock and Roll" was all about. Something that made Syd Barrett far superior than any replacement in post Barrett Floyd. Namely, the Pop-enthusiasm, and joyfull experimantation, and yes, willfull stupidity, that made Rock fun and danceable or just youthfully bold: think of the Beatles: optimism, fun, jangling guitars.
Even with good "dark" bands like the Velvet Underground: you get this kind of youthfull, enthusiastic, out-of-control, overreaching that's more about daring to reach far than it is about delivering a bad mood (Floyd, PJ et al)
the Ramones: not too 'smart' but not too dumb either. The perfect combination.
Pearl Jam: too 'smart' but not smart enough to be dumb.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Pearl Jam doesn't belong in the same discussion with Floyd, the Doors, Dylan, or the Beatles. So they're a good band. But they're not great. The Foreigner remark was spot on.
Personally, as active bands go, I think the most musically talented and adventurous has got to be Phish.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Phish?
1.) they are no longer active
2.) they are no where near the most talented/adventurous band
All this noise about "THE GREATEST BAND" it's a fun discussion for a little while... Right now I just feel like jumping up and down to anything that'll put a smile on my face... Cracker will be up in Boston next month. That would definitely be worth a road trip.
Comments
you can go back there... but by doing so you invalidate anything that follows...
--jk
Bob Dylan is great. Best live show of the year. ahead of U2. Larry Campbell and Tony Garnier rock!
<strong>Whoa. Hey, I didn't mean 'copy' in a bad way. I said many of Jack Elliott's friends tried to get him mad for "copying" him, and Elliott came to his defense - as he was his friend and 'teacher' (at the time) - and said "he's the only one around here that sounds any good". And it's true.
...
I was simply wondering how many of Dylan's fans are familiar with two of the people that influenced him. Its good to know the roots of the music you appreciate IMO.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't take it that way, but I feel it is wrong to call Ramblin' Jack an influence especially in the same breath with Woody Guthrie. Guthrie was a huge influence on Bob. Jack was merely a contemporary (in my opinion).
[quote]Originally posted by seb:
<strong>
And I don't think the lyrics to every one of his songs have to be able to be read as poems - on their own - for me to feel he is a poet. The way he has lived, and worked, as an artist has more to do with that than the way I read his lyrics on paper, IMO.
[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: seb ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, as I said, I didn't disagree with your statement. I just wanted to point that people often use that argument to actually attack Bob. I feel Bob's talents as a musician are often brushed away because "oh, sure, he's a great writer, but..."
But you're right, Bob is a true artist and that is why he is so great. It's nice to know that Bob is appreciated on the boards. I often try to use Bob as an analogy when explaining my love of Apple to people. Sure The Beatles may have been more popular, but who was better? Who had more influence with other artists?
<strong>lol. this thread is crazy.
Bob Dylan is great. Best live show of the year. ahead of U2. Larry Campbell and Tony Garnier rock!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Where did you see him at? He was fantastic in La Crosse.
Umm.
Who's better? It's heresey to say either one is superior! It's like choosing between God and Jesus!
I'd honestly say the Beatles are the most influential group in the history of music.
honestly, Nirvana now that I look back, doesn't impress me that much, as musicians I don't think they were genius, Kurt as a songwritter sometimes shined.
Pearl Jam I believe to be a much more important band as far as the creation of music is concerned...
since we are discussing Pink Floyd of this generation (or of the 90's), there is another even more so important band, an even more so misunderstood band that was around... and I'm sure certain members of Pink Floyd would agree, one of their members performed on Wish You Were Here during their Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inauguration (i believe it was).
<strong>
Where did you see him at? He was fantastic in La Crosse.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Saw him at Madison Square Garden. great setlist, great performance, great seats thanks to Larry
Even with good "dark" bands like the Velvet Underground: you get this kind of youthfull, enthusiastic, out-of-control, overreaching that's more about daring to reach far than it is about delivering a bad mood (Floyd, PJ et al)
the Ramones: not too 'smart' but not too dumb either. The perfect combination.
Pearl Jam: too 'smart' but not smart enough to be dumb.
<strong>I'd honestly say the Beatles are the most influential group in the history of music.</strong><hr></blockquote>Whoa, are you serious? Or do you mean music as in pop or rock music? There was a little bit of music in history before the Beatles, you know.
Ahhh, that sounds like a compliment to me!
<strong>Whoa, are you serious? Or do you mean music as in pop or rock music? There was a little bit of music in history before the Beatles, you know.
yea.. and?
Beatles all the way
And that's the problem. Nobody can really be worth that much praise. How can the Beatles really be as important as the Beatles are? The Beatles weren't just influential. They were also influenced by others - Buddy Holly, Brian Wilson, The Byrds, Dylan. They were kind of a rorsach test for sixties culture - a repository of memory for some and for others maybe an important landmark on the road map showing how we got here... I was too young to have any idea what was going on or even care very much about music back then but the first song that really turned my head around was Hey Jude.
[ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
<strong>I also feel that I should add that there is something missing in much of this self-important rock these days, something that seems to be at the core of what "rock and Roll" was all about. Something that made Syd Barrett far superior than any replacement in post Barrett Floyd. Namely, the Pop-enthusiasm, and joyfull experimantation, and yes, willfull stupidity, that made Rock fun and danceable or just youthfully bold: think of the Beatles: optimism, fun, jangling guitars.
Even with good "dark" bands like the Velvet Underground: you get this kind of youthfull, enthusiastic, out-of-control, overreaching that's more about daring to reach far than it is about delivering a bad mood (Floyd, PJ et al)
the Ramones: not too 'smart' but not too dumb either. The perfect combination.
Pearl Jam: too 'smart' but not smart enough to be dumb.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree.
<a href="http://lot47.com/VideoDVD/TheBalladOfRamblinJack.html"; target="_blank">http://lot47.com/VideoDVD/TheBalladOfRamblinJack.html</a>;
<a href="http://www.ramblinjack.com/l_dylan.html"; target="_blank">http://www.ramblinjack.com/l_dylan.html</a>;
Hope no one minds that I bring all this up again. I just came across some cool links and thought I would share.
That's all I have to say about that.
[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: seb ]</p>
You're stoned. It's official.
<strong>Pearl Jam doesn't belong in the same discussion with Floyd, the Doors, Dylan, or the Beatles. So they're a good band. But they're not great. The Foreigner remark was spot on.
Personally, as active bands go, I think the most musically talented and adventurous has got to be Phish.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Phish?
1.) they are no longer active
2.) they are no where near the most talented/adventurous band