What Bob Dylan says about modern music (I hope he's not including Pearl Jam)

FinsburyParkCarrots

suffragette wrote:

Mr Dickens released most of his stuff in chapter form. Not that I'm comparing him to Dylan or anything.

Well, he published his work mainly in two periodicals, in "Number" format, in "All the Year Round" and "Household Words". He was writing in the period of the three-decker, and was unique in his business practice. Dickens died in 1870, and the three-decker novel was still very popular up until the 1880s. (When assembled as novels, Dickens's works were often bigger than most other three-deckers.) Therefore, bringing Dickens into this discussion is irrelevant to the point of my comparative analogy (the explosion of mass-literature in the fin de siecle era of the 1880s and 1890s), which is very pertinent to discussion of how the format and production standards of "the album" have changed, since the introduction of the CD in the 1980s. I'm comparing the production of CDs with the evolution of pulp and bot boiler fiction, or the growth of the magazine and other cheap ephemera.

What I'm saying is topic specific and very relevant to Dylan's remarks. I am providing an analogy to illustrate how and maybe why this phenomenon of a lessening of quality has happened across the culture industry, over the years.

IWishIWasASailor

Dylan overrated?

You probably shouldn't open your mouth ever again. Total shit flows out.

Evacuation Rules

You guys don't realize...Dylan was the KING of the recording studio in the 60's. He would bring a bunch of musicians together, play them a verse and a chorus of a song, set up a bunch of mikes, press the record button, and record a classic version of a song in one or two takes. He was spontaneous, and he got the job done quickly. He didn't spend hours and hours recording like the Beatles did. His records were excellently produced and engineered on 4-Track recorders. That's why the new remasters of "Bringing It All Back Home" and "Blonde On Blonde" sound so good.

His comments about modern recording and mastering techniques are aboslutely correct. The "art" of producing a finished CD is in a sorry, sorry state, with the exception of a few audiophile formats (SACD, DVD-A, heavy vinyl) and labels that specialize in reissues and "restoring" the sound of the original vinyl. I hope there are some changes in the music industry soon in regards to sound quality. The Nirvana box set that was poorly produced by our very own Adam Kaspar is a perfect example of how the recording insustry has no grasp on quality control or preserving sound quality. It's an abomination.

Iron Maiden are also fighting back by releasing their new CD "unmastered". NO shrill EQ, NO compression, NO brick wall mastering!

Evacuation Rules

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

(However, saying that, my original Track copies of Tommy and Jimi's Electric Ladyland have side four on the flip of side one; side three on the flip of side two. Whether that was because of limitations in technology, though, I don't know.)

That was because many record players back in the day had long spindles with a magnetic arm attached that held records in place and acted as an "automatic changer". They would press the double LP's 1/4 and 2/3 so that you could play sides 1/2 in a row, flip them over and play sides 3/4 in a row. See?

LeilaMoonTurtle

"You listen to these modern records, they're atrocious, they have sound all over them," he added. "There's no definition of nothing, no vocal, no nothing, just like ... static."

Kind of what I think of the new pj album.

merkinball

Speaking of SACD's, I wonder how Dylan feels about his albums reissues on SACD, if they sound any better. I love the DVD-Audios I have, they sound much better than cd's to my ears. But I haven't heard the Dylan SACD's as I don't have SACD player.

I think it's partly the format, and as JWBusher put it so well, the production. You don't get that sense of groove so much as you used to on the early Dylan electric albums, where everything was one take, no overdubs or laying down seperate tracks. I suppose its no mistake that a lot of 'classic' artists have had more success going back and recording songs full in a take or two.

For example, the Grateful Deads 'In The Dark' was about the best sounding studio album they put out, and closest to their live sound. And it was essentially recorded live. A lot of their studio albums in the late 70's and early 80's suffered from extreme over production (just try to listen to Go To Heaven).

Or Neil Young, albums like Mirrorball, Greendale, or Living With War being recorded quickly, with minimal production sound a lot better to my ears than some of the 80's stuff he put out (although I've got a soft spot for re*act*or).

merkinball

I just noticed that over on Drudgereport, he's got this story listed as "Bob Dylan says moden music is worthless" while the article it links to is headlined as "Dylan says modern recordings 'atrocious'". Good journalism drudge, doesn't change the tone of the article at all.

Pearl Jam and toast

LeilaMoonTurtle wrote:

"You listen to these modern records, they're atrocious, they have sound all over them," he added. "There's no definition of nothing, no vocal, no nothing, just like ... static."

Kind of what I think of the new pj album.

I hope you mean production-wise.. which i can agree with.

Adam Kaspar worked for Soundgarden, but Pearl Jam needs Brendan O Brien back. It's just not the same.

I like Kaspar's production, but I just don't think it's quite right for Pearl Jam.

Echoes

what a fucking idiot

Echoes

at the best he is completely ignorant

Pearl Jam and toast

Echoes wrote:

what a fucking idiot

When was the last time you listened to modern rock music?

Nickelback, etc etc etc you all know the bands..

he's right.

I think he was talking about mainstream stuff.

Echoes

fair enough

catefrances

and hello!!!!!
dylan's backing band was The Band for crying out loud. respect just for that alone.

hailhail82

I love Dylan and all of his music, but you have to take things he says with a grain of salt. In my opinion, he's either putting on the longest show known to man or he's completely fucking insane. Either way, you probably shouldn't take what he says to seriously. Just read Chronicles to figure that out.
Not taking anything away from his music, old and new.

FinsburyParkCarrots

JWBusher wrote:

That was because many record players back in the day had long spindles with a magnetic arm attached that held records in place and acted as an "automatic changer". They would press the double LP's 1/4 and 2/3 so that you could play sides 1/2 in a row, flip them over and play sides 3/4 in a row. See?

I was thinking that must have been the case. Thanks.

intodeep

This thread frustrates me. I think most people believe he is talking about the music being made, but he is talking about the production of the music and it's sound quality......

I mean why would he say his stuff probalby sounded better in the studio then it did on the cd....

Evacuation Rules

Echoes wrote:

at the best he is completely ignorant

You're the one who's ignorant. He's exactly right.

hailhail82

intodeep wrote:

This thread frustrates me. I think most people believe he is talking about the music being made, but he is talking about the production of the music and it's sound quality......

I mean why would he say his stuff probalby sounded better in the studio then it did on the cd....

I think most people get it, but there contention is that Bob is just shooting his mouth off, not knowing much or just being snide.
Bob can be very incoherent and just plain crazy sounding, I don't take anything he says seriously. This is the guy who said he never heard of overdubbing until the late 70s. And don't forget his rant in Chronicles about his new music "system" told to him by an old bluesman, that is based on odd numbers instead of even (I probably don't have to tell you the whole passage was nonsensical).
I'm not ragging on the man at all, just putting forth some perspective on his state of mind. If I had been called the voice of a generation for 4 decades and put up with the celebrity he has, I might be a little loopy too.
As far as the recording process sounding better than the CD, of course hearing the real thing is better than hearing a digitally compressed recording.

Cropduster84

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

He's talking about the way the songs in modern crap rock are made.. he's 100% right on the dot there. Listen to a modern rock station.. it's just crap guitar distortion with unnoticable bass, generic drums that might as well be played on a keyboard, and vocals turned up higher than nessecary because that's all MTV cares about is the singer.

Spot on.

Pearl Jam and toast

Cropduster84 wrote:

Spot on.

finally someone doesn't skip over me :rolleyes: