Bob Dylan finally makes sense....

Ben Campbell - I don't know that we've ever really disagreed here on whatever subject, but I have nothing but respect for your knowledge of music! Nearly everyone here could learn a lot from you. I have to respect Capt for his willingness to revisit the issue, or should I say artist!

There is never going to be consensus on Dylan any more than there is on SS vs Tubes CD vs Vinyl, or anything else...

Johnny Cash said that "Dylan had a profound effect of country music..." I would contend, and Johnny Cash would I'm sure agree that his effect on much more than country music was profound. He changed the way the Beatles looked at music and the potential for what a song could achieve. His "Basement Tapes" had an effect (arguably) which brought about the end of Cream and a change in direction for Eric Clapton.

People will always debate "who made who?" but I will continue to believe that Dylan influenced his and subsequent generations more than they have him.

Musicians never criticize Dylan for his music, while they are often unsympathetic towards his personal choices or endevors(sp).

It's hard to take criticism of Dylan seriously when it is leveled by people who have made no lasting impact on society.

I would agree that the quality of music recordings other than a few startling exceptions is not good. Bass is boosted, mids and highs are compressed, soundstages are collapsed, and imaging is painfully thin. BUT when artists record with the idea that music will be heard on POOR quality formats, whats the point of making good recordings?

The 3-4 defense is practically impossible to do well. Most teams that employ it only get away with it because they are constantly blitzing to make up for the lack of pass rush and run stopping. The 3-4 demands three huge men with the mobility of a ballerina, and there are not enough people of that caliber to effectivly employ that configuration. UNLESS the 3-4 is just a name rather than a functional defense...

So at what point is an artist deemed irrelevant, and when should they stop doing what they love?

Because an artist is no longer handsome, or writing songs about teenage lust, underage drinking, or fighting with their mom and dad, they should just die! Maybe Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Nick Drake et al had the right idea albeit unconcious.

It verges on the hieghts of stupidity to expect someone like Bob Dylan, Pete Townsend, B.B. King, or Carole King to quit because someone who has never done anything relevant decided that they are no longer relevant.

If Bob Dylan loves to play concerts and fans continue to show their love for his concerts by buying tickets, good for Bobbie! When people dumber than the geniuses here decide Bob et al are no longer relevant they will discontinue the purchase of tickets and these gross offenders will stay in the old folks home where they belong. Until then, fans like me can continue to enjoy the shows and the new music.

FWIW my wife and I are going to see Gordon Lightfoot in the UP in a couple of weeks. No he can't hit the high notes he used to hit with ease, but we still enjoy the show, and he does too.

Audiofeil I'm not sure what you might have said, but I think it's more critics that deem the aging musician irrelevant. I was thinking of many who have condemned artists for supposedly not putting out material as good as their 'last LP.'

I'm not sure that there is a critic anywhere that has ever really added anything to the musical landscape! BUT maybe some of the earlier comments got me thinking along those lines...

Should any one of us be turned away from our jobs because we are aging, or not as handsome/pretty as we were in our prime, whenever that was... I'm still waiting. How did I get to be over the hill without ever making it to the top???

I bet he's devastated to hear of your turn around!