Bob Dylan?
Stapler
Gandalf
"Stapler" <sta...@tmp.com> wrote in message
news:%mPok.1037$T91.290@trnddc04...
> Honestly with that nasaly voice, why so successful?
>
Its not just the music. Read his lyrics and then appreciate the fact that
he is one of the greatest students of American folk music who managed to
make other people appreciate it. It goes on and on. Do some study.
Probably a sad thing for people on this list to hear but he is more
influential than the Beatles. Not as proficient musically or in the studio
but he has a body of work that dwarfs the Beatles.
JohnB
> "Stapler" <stap...@tmp.com> wrote in message
I'm not sad hearing that. I've heard it before. It doesn't mean I
have to believe it.
But Dylan was/is one of the most influential musicians/writers popular
culture has ever known. But then again, so were the Beatles. And
they influenced each other and both acknowledged that.
Dylan as a performer isn't to everyone's taste - that is widely
accepted - but the quality in the best of his work cannot be denied.
Dale Houstman
Stapler wrote:
> Honestly with that nasaly voice, why so successful?
>
>
Maybe because he is intensely passionate about life's most important
subjects, and writes songs that precisely delineate our fears and joys?
dmh
iarwain
Vocals aren't everything. However, even though he isn't known as the
best singer on the planet, it helps that he has a very distinctive
voice. Plus what everybody else said. I've never been a big Dylan
fan, but you can't deny his influence.
RichL
> Honestly with that nasaly voice, why so successful?
If you have to ask...
Art Harris
> Honestly with that nasaly voice, why so successful?
>
Nasaly? He was nasaly in the 60's. Now he has almost no voice at all.
But I still like him.
Art
marcus
> "Probably a sad thing for people on this list to hear but he is more
> influential than the Beatles."
No, it's not a sad thing, but it is a false thing. Both The Beatles
and Dylan yielded such a powerful influence, and each wouldn't have
been so without influencing each other, that IMHO it is impossible to
say who had more influence on the public.
"Not as proficient musically or in the studio, but he has a body of
work that dwarfs the Beatles."
That is true, but he's been recording for 38 years more than The
Beatles did.
fatt...@yahoo.com
> Honestly with that nasaly voice, why so successful?
He's a gifted lyricist. Even John saw him as competition.
MikeLawyr2
Beatles heard Dylan, they dumped their electric guitars and went
completely acoustic.
Seriously: Dylan is, in his specific area, as innovative and creative
as The Beatles. But that's only one area.
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
> Honestly with that nasaly voice, why so successful?
I'd rather listen to 1000 hours of his nasal than 14 seconds of Celine
Dion.
Lyrics my friend..lyrics and his nasal goes hand in hand.
The Walrus was Danny
> Its not just the music. Read his lyrics and then appreciate the fact that
> he is one of the greatest students of American folk music who managed to
> make other people appreciate it. It goes on and on. Do some study.
> Probably a sad thing for people on this list to hear but he is more
> influential than the Beatles. Not as proficient musically or in the studio
> but he has a body of work that dwarfs the Beatles.
Yeah but do you remember him doing Live Aid with Keith Richards. It
was the most embarassing episode ever viewed by mankind ever made in
the world ever. Up there with YO in shitness stakes.
To me Dylan was overrated. Dire singer. There was a programme on Radio
4 recently with Lenny Henry asking the question :"Just what is it
about Bob Dylan?" in fact I think that's what the prog was called. He
interviewed loads of people who thought Dylan was the cog upon which
humanity spun. He made celebrities play their favourite Dylan songs
and explain why they thought he was good. I think eventually he was
talked around. Have a listen I would think it'll be in there in the
missed it programmes on the Radio 4 website.
I find Bob Dylan a bit crap.
.....now also....did JL dislike BD? There's all the piss taking on the
Lennon Anthology, and he didn't believe in Zimmerman in God.
Danny
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
wrote:
Lennon disliked ALL at various points in his life.
fatt...@yahoo.com
fatt...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
John the cynic.
marcus
>
> IMO John was jealous
John may have been fed up with the "religious hypocrisy" pass that
Dylan was issued by many people at the time.
If he was jealous, he certainly didn't need to be...his own
accomplishments as an artist and singer rivaled Dylan.
Dale Houstman
The Walrus was Danny wrote:
>>Its not just the music. Read his lyrics and then appreciate the fact that
>>he is one of the greatest students of American folk music who managed to
>>make other people appreciate it. It goes on and on. Do some study.
>>Probably a sad thing for people on this list to hear but he is more
>>influential than the Beatles. Not as proficient musically or in the studio
>>but he has a body of work that dwarfs the Beatles.
>
>
> Yeah but do you remember him doing Live Aid with Keith Richards. It
> was the most embarassing episode ever viewed by mankind ever made in
> the world ever. Up there with YO in shitness stakes.
>
> To me Dylan was overrated. Dire singer. There was a programme on Radio
> 4 recently with Lenny Henry asking the question :"Just what is it
> about Bob Dylan?" in fact I think that's what the prog was called. He
> interviewed loads of people who thought Dylan was the cog upon which
> humanity spun. He made celebrities play their favourite Dylan songs
> and explain why they thought he was good. I think eventually he was
> talked around. Have a listen I would think it'll be in there in the
> missed it programmes on the Radio 4 website.
>
> I find Bob Dylan a bit crap.
I usually believe that such aesthetic choices are mainly subjective -
everyone has a right to their opinion, etc. But the rather flat
crassness of your statements, and the fact that you find it evidentiary
for Dylan to have had a bad performance (like that doesn't happen to
every musician) leads me to tell you that I find you a "bit crap". Dylan
simply cannot be overrated. His singing is perfectly attuned to his mode
of expression, and his body of work is stunning in both its passion and
its breadth.
dmh
birnh...@insightbb.com
> Dylan
> simply cannot be overrated. His singing is perfectly attuned to his mode
> of expression, and his body of work is stunning in both its passion and
> its breadth.
>
to stick up for Dylan's voice. Take a few of his songs like:
* Just Like A Woman
* I Want You (The Dylan song, not the Lennon song - no (She's so heavy
at the end)
* It's All Over Now Baby Blue
* Like A Rolling Stone
These songs really take Dylan's voice to have them heard correctly.
Nobody can put what Dylan's voice put into these songs.
Dylan's first electric outings did what no other American did at that
time; He brought it all back home. He made it rock American again.
And it was deliberate as the titles to those first two albums reflect:
Bringing it All Back Home -- Obvious meaning
Hwy 61 revisited - Hwy 61 runs from Louisiana north through Minnesota.
It intersects with Hwy 49 - It is this intersection where Robert
Johnson was supposed to have sold his soul to the devil - The famous
"Crossroad"
I believe Hwy 61 Revisited is the greatest album ever made; second to
none. That reflects my biases.
RichL
> birnh...@insightbb.com wrote:
>
>> believe Hwy 61 Revisited is the greatest album ever made; second to
>> none.
>
Dare I say that Dylan's earlier albums are underappreciated?
I think "The Times They Are a-Changin" is my personal favorite, followed
closely by "Another Side Of Bob Dylan" and "Bringing It All Back Home",
which contain a number of his most frequently covered songs.
Nil
rec.music.beatles:
> These songs really take Dylan's voice to have them heard
> correctly. Nobody can put what Dylan's voice put into these songs.
Dylan could be one of the best rock singers of all time. I think his
performance on the live set with The Band that was finally released as
"1966: Royal Albert Hall Concert" is one of the best live albums ever
and it features my favorite Dylan vocals.
Gandalf
"Nil" <redn...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9AFADE7C...@194.177.96.26...
And you don't see a finer comeback album than "Blood on the tracks". A
magnificent piece of work.
el...@webtv.net
Blood on the Tracks is by far my favorite Dylan album followed by
Desire. I think anyone who has ever tried to write a song and then
heard one of Dylans masterpieces (Idiot Wind or Tangled up in Blue being
two examples IMHO), understands what all the fuss is about.
As far as his voice, it never bothered me because of the passion that
was behind it. (Although, truthfully, I was never a fan of the off key
harmonica playing). My question is, how was he able to change his voice
so much for Lay Lady Lay (and why)? Many people I know, when I tell
them who it is, they are shocked to hear that it's Bob Dylan singing
that song. They always say, "Well, if he could sing like that, why
didn't he sing like that all the time??" My only response is, "I guess
he didn't want to."
Gavin
"So, I'm sitting there hearing HAL say, "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I
can't do that...", and I'm thinkin, Damn!, I knew we should have gone
with a Mac..." David Bowman, 2001
fatt...@yahoo.com
Oh, I agree John should not have been jealous. However, he tended to
be insecure about himself and to diminish his own talents and
accomplishments.
Dale Houstman
fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Aug 14, 8:08 pm, marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 14, 7:13 pm, fattuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>IMO John was jealous
>>
>>John may have been fed up with the "religious hypocrisy" pass that
>>Dylan was issued by many people at the time.
>>
>>If he was jealous, he certainly didn't need to be...his own
>>accomplishments as an artist and singer rivaled Dylan.
>
>
> Oh, I agree John should not have been jealous.
Oh, I don't know - John's work as a solo artist simply do not measure up
(in either quality or quantity) to Dylan's output, which is usually more
passionate, more musically powerful, and lyrically more sophisticated.
Whether or not john WAS jealous of Dylan, I see plenty of reason for
John - post-Beatles - to have developed a little envy of Bob.
dmh
iarwain
Very good point. Like I said, vocals aren't everything. It's all
about the ART, baby!
BlackMonk
"RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:DsCdnS3JUYg8mjjV...@supernews.com...
I don't think Bringing It All Back home is underappreciated. It's part of
the Holy Trinty of Dylan albums.
It is a great album, though, and the first side might be the funniest
(intentionally, as in comic songs) thing ever done by a "serious" rock
artist.
M C hammered
> Honestly with that nasaly voice, why so successful?
Well some say the Yoke has a funny voice...and it aint zackly hurt her
carear!!
Now Dylan...another thing is, he plays one o them non plug in type
guitars...much like yours truely...
And did you know, when I take mine out and bang away, if I had enuff
Steel Reserve I can actually do a very respectable Dylan
impersonation!! Yep its true...
M C hammered
> Honestly with that nasaly voice, why so successful?
Besides Dylan likes them cheap wines and malt liquors much like yours
truely...Member at the Grammys, how he came onstage all sloshed, and
moaned and mumbled thru one o them songs o his?? It made me proud ta
be a product of the hippies erra...
Say didya ever mix Night Train with Steel Reserve! Its the shizznit!!
Manfred Noland
Honestly with that nasaly voice, why so successful?
He's a gifted lyricist. Even John saw him as competition.
_________________________________
John saw Tiny Tim as viable competition. John did drugs. dylan isn't
even as good as Tiny Tim.
Manfred Noland
folk garbage with the most whiny nasally croaking voice ever. He sucks
out loud royally.
Manfred Noland
the worst Herman's Hermits song is better than any of that putrid
musically inept whiny voiced poop.
Manfred Noland
So do pretty whores and STDs; doesn't meanit's a good thing. If
something sucks and is offensive we at least can close our eyes so as
not to see it. Unfortunately dylan's cacaphony makes one desire ear
muffs. I imagine hell as being a dylon concert with the grateful dead.
Manfred Noland
I'd rather listen to 1000 hours of Alvin and the Chipmunks than subject
myself to 1 second of dylan's asinine muzak , his whiny nasal voice, his
piss poor guitar playing, and his inept harmonica blowing.
that ain't rock'n'roll, it's crappy folk.
Manfred Noland
__________________________________
Oh, so you can sing whiny, nasally and out of tune ? I can listen to
Yoko and as talentless as she is, she's a million times easier to take
than dylan.
Dale Houstman
Is this a real opinion, or does it just play one in newsgroups?
dmh
Gandalf
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:48A6CEB3...@skypoint.com...
Pay attention. This person is obviously a student of contemporary music.
You'd love to see the music collection that it has wouldn't you? True
insight.
The Walrus was Danny
> I usually believe that such aesthetic choices are mainly subjective -
> everyone has a right to their opinion, etc. But the rather flat
> crassness of your statements, and the fact that you find it evidentiary
> for Dylan to have had a bad performance (like that doesn't happen to
> every musician) leads me to tell you that I find you a "bit crap".
Hey Dale, I just don't like Bob Dylan, I think he's a bit crap. Just
because I don't happen to dig your favourite whiner doesn't make me
some sort of wanker or something. There are many other much more
plausible reasons for me to be a twat (example : my odious and self
centered personality, or my irritating tendency to assault helpless
old ladies whilst lulling them into a false sense of security through
assisting them across Zebra crossings).
I can go into some kind of long diatribe about the Billy Bollocks
Audioness that is Bob Dylan but instead I chose to say "he's a bit
crap". It's enough for me.
Danny
The Walrus was Danny
> Oh, so you can sing whiny, nasally and out of tune ? I can listen to
> Yoko and as talentless as she is, she's a million times easier to take
> than dylan.
He's Bad Manfred, I'll give you that.....but he's not that bad!!!
Danny
marcus
Seems as if you are going out of your way on this.
Dylan's voice is unique. Admittedly, a bit rough, and originally an
affectation in honor of the folk singers he admired, but it is his
voice. His singing voice drove our parents crazy in the
Sixties...maybe that's why we loved Dylan so much. ;-)
(Imagine "Gates Of Eden" blaring from the family Hi-Fi in 1966).
Dale Houstman
The Walrus was Danny wrote:
>> I usually believe that such aesthetic choices are mainly subjective
>> - everyone has a right to their opinion, etc. But the rather flat
>> crassness of your statements, and the fact that you find it
>> evidentiary for Dylan to have had a bad performance (like that
>> doesn't happen to every musician) leads me to tell you that I find
>> you a "bit crap".
>
>
> Hey Dale, I just don't like Bob Dylan, I think he's a bit crap.
I know - I heard you the first time. And - believe me - I don't care
whether you like him or not: that's what it is. All i have taken issue
with is your mode of expression - it is crassly dismissive with no sense
that you have any subtle aesthetic ideas about the subject you are so
crudely dismissing.
> Just because I don't happen to dig your favourite whiner doesn't make
> me some sort of wanker or something.
Let's see - did I call you a "wanker or something"?
Looking...looking...looking...Nope - didn't happen. It only has to do
with your manner of expression, and the numb logic of your opinion -
Dylan gave one bad performance (according to you) and so that is somehow
part of your proof that he "a little crap". It isn't whether or not you
appreciate him, it's that your rhetoric isn't up to the job of clearly
delineating why...
> There are many other much more plausible reasons for me to be a twat
I am sure there are. I almost wish I actually had called you a "twat"
(or a "wanker" or a "something") just so I could enjoy your analysis of
your "twatness" with more exultation...but - since I didn't - I find
myself less than interested in the particular subject...
> I can go into some kind of long diatribe about the Billy Bollocks
> Audioness that is Bob Dylan but instead I chose to say "he's a bit
> crap". It's enough for me.
No problem - but here we are blowing off steam and winkles in a PUBLIC
space, so forgive me (and others) if I sometimes think you need to do
more in terms of expression than pleasure yourself in the commons, and -
if you don't - others have a right to voice their disappointment at the
shallowness of your communication. Sorright?
dmh
Dale Houstman
poisoned rose wrote:
> Dale Houstman <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>
>
>>And - believe me - I don't care
>>whether you like him or not: that's what it is. All i have taken issue
>>with is your mode of expression - it is crassly dismissive with no sense
>>that you have any subtle aesthetic ideas about the subject you are so
>>crudely dismissing.
>
>
> Why didn't you write this sooner? I could have just pasted it into about
> 200 different past threads, and saved myself some writing energy.
You didn't pay me in time...
dmh
The Walrus was Danny
You are pardoned.
Danny
marcus
wrote:
> so forgive me (and others)
>
> You are pardoned.
>
Dale Houstman
The Walrus was Danny wrote:
You're pretty sensitive - like a girl who just lost her red balloon...
dmh
crazytimes
wrote:
> birnhamw...@insightbb.com wrote:
> > believe Hwy 61 Revisited is the greatest album ever made; second to
> > none.
>
> <aol>Me too</aol>
The both of yous would get a 'hear, hear' from our collegeaue Martin
de rmd, as well as some others there... It's a great album, indeed,
but not the greatest, I'd say...
crazytimes
> Honestly with that nasaly voice, why so successful?
Cause you're soaking in it...
birnh...@insightbb.com
Well, I do state that it's my bias. I base my opinion on my
experience. I never listened to Dylan until the Beatles breakup. Then
I ran into Hwy61Rev. I've never quit listening to it since. I have
never grown tired of hearing that recording. I could listen to it ever
single day and never get tired of it.
It is the only recording I consistently have with me. I have a
remastered CD in my car. Another copy in my living room. Another copy
upstairs. I have it ripped and installed on my desk computer and also
have it ripped and installed on my phone. I also have a dedicated mp3
player I don't use anymore with Hwy61Rev on it that I now keep in a
travelling pack. I am never without this recording.
It is this CD that has made me determined to get a SACD player. Not
real high in my priority list, but I know that I'll get around to it.
No doubt in my mind that it was way ahead of it's time and stands as a
classic set of sessions. I can't think of another album that comes
close to it. But a number of albums could come in second.
BTW, I didn't hear your suggestions.
I cannot say that
marcus
> Well, I do state that it's my bias. I base my opinion on my
> experience. I never listened to Dylan until the Beatles breakup. Then
> I ran into Hwy61Rev. I've never quit listening to it since. I have
> never grown tired of hearing that recording. I could listen to it ever
> single day and never get tired of it.
I feel that way about "Who's Next".
"Highway 61 Revisited" is a great album.
It's Dylan's "Sgt. Pepper".
;-) ;-)
Dale Houstman
I prefer "John Wesley Harding" - but that's a different fish in another
stream...
dmh
Martin
Hwy81 has aged a hell of a lot better than SP.
The first 31 times I head SP I loved it... after that, not so much.
Hwy61 is timeless.
Manfred Noland
***********************************************
You know what ? I heard for years ..people raving about dylan. I guess
being raised on Beatle music has left me with immpeccable and high
standards. I like all sorts of music...but dylan just honestly irks me.
JohnB
> d...@skypoint.com (Dale Houstman)
For the first 15 years of my life, there was the Beatles ... then
after a huge distance there were a few other pop/rock acts. I too had
high standards. I didn't get into Dylan until about 1974 when I heard
Desire, but I started hearing a lot of his songs by other artists and
I started to appreciate the quality in the writing, lyrically
particularly. Melodically he's not too strong - a lot of his early
melodies were "borrowed" from the folk tradition, but when I started
to listen to Dylan singing, it was the emotion and the storytelling
ability that got me hooked. I like Blood On The Tracks best, but
Blonde and Highway are pretty good too.
The thing is: I can understand how people can rubbish Dylan's voice
and the way he performs his songs, but I find it harder to understand
how people can rubbish everything Dylan when his songwriting is so
good - as is shown by the number of times his songs have been covered.
Marc A. Catone
> Hwy81 has aged a hell of a lot better than SP.
>
> The first 31 times I head SP I loved it... after that, not so much.
>
> Hwy61 is timeless.
>
>
again, and again.
Can't remember the last time I listened to Highway, which as I
previously stated is a great album, but not up to the level of Pepper
in musical prowess and significance.
Marc A. Catone
*******
> You know what ? I heard for years ..people raving about dylan. I guess
> being raised on Beatle music has left me with immpeccable and high
> standards. I like all sorts of music...but dylan just honestly irks me.
Yes, being raised on The Beatles tends to make us spoiled by
greatness, but you really should give Dylan a listen.
Martin
even The White Album are much stronger efforts.
Sean Carroll
>I didn't get into Dylan until about 1974 when I heard
> Desire, but I started hearing a lot of his songs by other artists and
> I started to appreciate the quality in the writing, lyrically
> particularly. Melodically he's not too strong - a lot of his early
> melodies were "borrowed" from the folk tradition, but when I started
> to listen to Dylan singing, it was the emotion and the storytelling
> ability that got me hooked. I like Blood On The Tracks best, but
> Blonde and Highway are pretty good too.
IMO his two greatest albums were 'Freewheelin'' and 'Bringing It All Back
Home'.
'Highway 61' and 'Blonde on Blonde' are close ties for second.
In the next tier I'd put his eponymous debut, 'Another Side', and 'John
Wesley Harding'.
'The Times They Are A-Changin'' is probably the weakest of his first eight,
but I still think it's a lot better than many claim; it just gets a bad rap
because people disagree with its politics, so they automatically think it's
pretentious and preachy just because *they* can't imagine how anyone could
sing such things and really mean it.
I'm a lot less familiar with his albums after JWH. I know a little bit of
'Nashville Skyline' and 'New Morning', and they're all right, but they've
never struck me as standing up to his 1962-1967 work.
I think it's pretty commonly accepted that 'Blood on the Tracks' and
'Desire' were his two greatest from the Seventies-Eighties period. I'm
tempted to agree, but as I haven't heard much of the others from those
decades, I'm really not qualified to judge.
I haven't gotten a chance to hear any of his most recent stuff, from the
last 3 or 4 albums, but I've heard they're generally considered a very
successful return to form.
It's a shame some of his great early singles -- 'Mixed-Up Confusion',
'Positively 4th Street', 'Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?' -- never
appeared on a regular album. I never got around to hearing them (via mp3
download) until just the past year or so. P4S should have been on BIABH, and
CYPCOYW on Highway 61.
In a perfect world, MUC would have been on his debut, but since it was rock
'n' roll rather than folk, that would obviously never have been allowed by
the record company execs. Maybe if it had been, the audience wouldn't have
been so bitter and nasty and claiming betrayal when Dylan went fully
electric later on. Rock was in Dylan's blood from the beginning -- he's on
record as stating that even his folk songs were so great partly because of
the 'rock 'n' roll attitude' with which he wrote and sang them. It was the
*audience* who betrayed *him* at the Isle of Wight (was that where it was?
or was it Man?), not the other way around.
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com
Cuddy: You. In the lobby. Now.
House: I hurt my leg. I have a note!
crazytimes
> Marc A. Catone wrote:
> > On Aug 17, 10:29 pm, Martin <martingross...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> Hwy81 has aged a hell of a lot better than SP.
>
> >> The first 31 times I head SP I loved it... after that, not so much.
>
> >> Hwy61 is timeless.
>
> > That's the way I feel about Pepper, I can listen to it again, and
> > again, and again.
>
> > Can't remember the last time I listened to Highway, which as I
> > previously stated is a great album, but not up to the level of Pepper
> > in musical prowess and significance.
Martin <martingross...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I couldn't disagree more ;-).For me, Revolver and Rubber Soul... and
> even The White Album are much stronger efforts.
I've always felt all of those albums lacking... The problem with
those Beatles lps and Dylan's Highway61 is that they lack their
attendant singles... At the least, they should be tacked onto the CD
releases as bonus tracks... Highway 61 is missing Positively 4th
Street and possibly Please Crawl Out Your Window (mistaken release);
Dylan even cheats somewhat by putting on his previous single, Like A
Rolling Stone - fair enough, since it's a great lead-in track...
Rubber Soul is missing Daytripper/We Can Work It Out... Revolver is
missing PaperbackWriter/Rain... Sgt. Pepper is missing Strawberry
Fields/Penny Lane... White album is missing Hey Jude/Revolution, and
possibly Lady Madonna/The Inner Light... But the Beatles could get
away with such a farming out of songs, since most of what they did
seems like it was a breeze to them... Something found blowing in the
wind...
F Parella
wrote:
Danny, I agree with you although I have a sort of sentimental fondness
for some of Dylan's stuff (on Nashville Skyline and Desire). He's got
a terrible voice (he sounds like something that strayed from a
barnyard, like the male answer to Stevie Nicks), he's a sloppy
musician, he's a wretched live performer (how about his notorious
Grammys gig?), and all those Christian records he churned out are
nauseatingly sanctimonious. In short, he's one of the most overrated
figures in music - an emperor with no clothes.
Sean Carroll
> "Sean Carroll" <sean...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> IMO his two greatest albums were 'Freewheelin'' and 'Bringing It All Back
>> Home'.
>>
>> 'Highway 61' and 'Blonde on Blonde' are close ties for second.
>>
>> In the next tier I'd put his eponymous debut, 'Another Side', and 'John
>> Wesley Harding'.
> If you really like Dylan's debut, you really should check out more of
> his later albums. He topped that one many times.
I've been planning to for a while. There's just so much in his damn
catalogue, it takes years to explore it all.
Sean Carroll
> Danny, I agree with you although I have a sort of sentimental fondness
> for some of Dylan's stuff (on Nashville Skyline and Desire). He's got
> a terrible voice (he sounds like something that strayed from a
> barnyard, like the male answer to Stevie Nicks), he's a sloppy
> musician, he's a wretched live performer (how about his notorious
> Grammys gig?), and all those Christian records he churned out are
> nauseatingly sanctimonious. In short, he's one of the most overrated
> figures in music - an emperor with no clothes.
Only someone who is totally unacquainted with how revolutionary Dylan's
early work was, how different from anything that came before (or since, for
that matter), and how thoroughly it changed the whole world of popular music
and began to turn what was previously just entertainment into Art with a
capital A could possibly spout such nonsense.
Certainly he had his flaws. All performers do. But the Beatles -- as well as
every other rock musician from the early Sixties on who has ever treated
their music as genuine art that could have real, timeless messages, as
opposed to just being commercial cash-ins on the latest trends -- owes an
incredible debt to Dylan. This is an objective fact, and is not changed at
all by the fact that some people have ears too tiny and narrow, and are too
tunnel-visioned and superficial, to know the difference between 'not to my
personal taste' and 'not of genuine artistic value'.
Sean Carroll
>> > If you really like Dylan's debut, you really should check out more of
>> > his later albums. He topped that one many times.
>> I've been planning to for a while. There's just so much in his damn
>> catalogue, it takes years to explore it all.
> Well, his later albums vary widely in quality...not counting the
> archival stuff, you could feel reasonably "Dylan-conversant" if you just
> heard seven or eight of the most important ones.
So, which 7 or 8 would you personally recommend?
I've heard good things about the latest 3, 'Time Out of Mind', 'Love and
Theft', and 'Modern Times'.
I'm already fairly familiar with 'Blood on the Tracks' and 'Desire', and I
know 'The Basement Tapes' should be high on my list for looking at next.
What about 'Planet Waves', 'Street Legal', and 'Empire Burlesque'? They seem
to be among the most commonly mentioned I've heard, anyway, if not
necessarily the most highly praised.
I've heard tell of the serious flaws in 'Self Portrait', 'Pat Garrett &
Billy the Kid', and 'Dylan' (1973), and I think I've probably already heard
most of the good songs from those, leaving the rest of them pretty low on my
list.
I don't know if I could handle 'Slow Train'/'Saved'/'Shot of Love', since
overtly Christian music really bugs me most of the time. But there are
exceptions (like 'Spirit in the Sky' and 'What If God Was One of Us'), so
I'd be willing to listen to recommendations on if any of them manage to rise
above the religion by just being good musically.
I don't offhand remember anything I've heard about 'Infidels', 'Knocked Out
Loaded', 'Down in the Groove', 'Oh Mercy', 'Under the Red Sky', 'Good as I
Been to You', or 'World Gone Wrong', but I seem to remember hearing mildly
good things about at least a couple of them.
I'm not really that interested in the live albums, but if there's any
particular one that really stands out, I might be willing to try it out. Or
maybe just some individual tracks.
I'm definitely interested in the Bootleg Series, especially Volume 1, but it
sounds like that's got multiple discs and is pretty expensive, so it may be
a while before I really get a chance to check it out. I might be able to
download a few outstanding particular tracks, through.
Babs
John Wesley Harding was my favorite for a long time. I don't really
have a favorite at the moment.
Manfred Noland
Re: Bob Dylan?
Group: rec.music.beatles Date: Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 8:32am (EDT-3) From:
marc_...@yahoo.com (Marc A. Catone)
I have and he didn't move me. I've heard covers of his stuff, most
noticably, Hendrix doing All along The watch Tower and I preferred the
covers and enjoyed them. I jst don't dig dylan. I can enjoy Louis
Armstrong, Glenn Miller, patsy Cline, Johnny Horton, Elvis, Gene Vincent
and The Bluecaps, Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, Little Richard, The
Yardbirds,
The Pretty Things...etc. There's just some stuff I'd rather not listen
to.
F Parella
> "F Parella" <f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > Danny, I agree with you although I have a sort of sentimental fondness
> > for some of Dylan's stuff (on Nashville Skyline and Desire). �He's got
> > a terrible voice (he sounds like something that strayed from a
> > barnyard, like the male answer to Stevie Nicks), he's a sloppy
> > musician, he's a wretched live performer (how about his notorious
> > Grammys gig?), and all those Christian records he churned out are
> > nauseatingly sanctimonious. �In short, he's one of the most overrated
> > figures in music - an emperor with no clothes.
>
> Only someone who is totally unacquainted with how revolutionary Dylan's
> early work was, how different from anything that came before (or since, for
> that matter), and how thoroughly it changed the whole world of popular music
> and began to turn what was previously just entertainment into Art with a
> capital A could possibly spout such nonsense.
That's the sort of Dylan deification that I'm frankly bored with.
I've heard Dylan's early stuff - take his first album, for example -
and it sounds like very conventional folk to me. Why, it was mostly
cover tunes! Revolutionary, my ass.
> Certainly he had his flaws. All performers do. But the Beatles -- as well as
> every other rock musician from the early Sixties on who has ever treated
> their music as genuine art that could have real, timeless messages, as
> opposed to just being commercial cash-ins on the latest trends -- owes an
> incredible debt to Dylan. This is an objective fact, and is not changed at
> all by the fact that some people have ears too tiny and narrow, and are too
> tunnel-visioned and superficial, to know the difference between 'not to my
> personal taste' and 'not of genuine artistic value'.
I never said Dylan's stuff was "not of genuine artistic value." I
presented specific criticisms of Dylan in my earlier post (concerning
his nasal voice, his sloppy musicianship, his often horrible live
performances, and the nauseating sanctimony of his series of Christian
albums) - none of which you challenge. I also think you seriously
overstate Dylan's influence. What debt do you suppose the Who, for
instance, owed Dylan?
marcus
>
There is no doubt that he influenced John, Paul, and George to use
words and phrases not normally associated with pop/rock song lyrics.
However, Dylan's exact lyrical style was not imitated. It was,
instead, the lyrical freedom...the extraordinary way he had with
words, that "gave permission" for others to express themselves beyond
"moon, June, spoon".
Yes, his voice is/was nasally, but in the early part of his career,
his lyrics were the focus not the skill of his vocals. I'm not
familiar with sloppy musicianship...he is an adequate guitar player.
I have only seen him in concert once, his walk-on at the Concert For
Bangladesh, and I was so surprised and in awe of him being there, that
if he played in the wrong key, or made a mistake on the guitar, I
would never have noticed. As for his religious songs. That he became
an evangelist for those religious views was a mistake on his part, but
that was a long time ago...undoubtedly his spiritual beliefs now are
private and kept to himself. I think we can cut him some slack for
bad choices 30 years ago.
Dale Houstman
F Parella wrote:
> On Aug 16, 6:56 pm, The Walrus was Danny <dannyisthewal...@tesco.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>I usually believe that such aesthetic choices are mainly subjective -
>>>everyone has a right to their opinion, etc. But the rather flat
>>>crassness of your statements, and the fact that you find it evidentiary
>>>for Dylan to have had a bad performance (like that doesn't happen to
>>>every musician) leads me to tell you that I find you a "bit crap".
>>
>>Hey Dale, I just don't like Bob Dylan, I think he's a bit crap. Just
>>because I don't happen to dig your favourite whiner doesn't make me
>>some sort of wanker or something. There are many other much more
>>plausible reasons for me to be a twat (example : my odious and self
>>centered personality, or my irritating tendency to assault helpless
>>old ladies whilst lulling them into a false sense of security through
>>assisting them across Zebra crossings).
>>
>>I can go into some kind of long diatribe about the Billy Bollocks
>>Audioness that is Bob Dylan but instead I chose to say "he's a bit
>>crap". It's enough for me.
>>
>>Danny
>
>
> Danny, I agree with you although I have a sort of sentimental fondness
> for some of Dylan's stuff (on Nashville Skyline and Desire). He's got
> a terrible voice...
No he doesn't. You THINK he has a terrible voice, but he doesn't have a
terrible voice. He has a voice perfectly suited to the material he is
communicating, and - actually - it is a fairly flexible tool: he can be
tender, ferociously angry, absurd, "down home", and can even pull off a
fair approximation of a croon, plus more.
>(he sounds like something that strayed from a
> barnyard, like the male answer to Stevie Nicks), he's a sloppy
> musician, he's a wretched live performer (how about his notorious
> Grammys gig?), and all those Christian records he churned out are
> nauseatingly sanctimonious. In short, he's one of the most overrated
> figures in music - an emperor with no clothes.
Nope. This "sloppy musician" has almost every other musiciabn in the
world lining up to play with him, and many of them have said how utterly
complex his impovisational technique is: how they have to pay intense
attention to what he is doping, because he never does it the same way
twice. Are all this musicians deluded? The Christian records may not be
his crowning glory, but each of them has its moments. And so the guy
floated on rough waters after a divorce, and we either wnet along with
him or not - this is part of the reasonn he is interesting - he's NOT
just another show biz robot, and he is not consistent, and he's not
always (or often) playing to his audience - he expects you to keep up.
If you don't - it's fine.
But what the hey - you're the one missing out...
dmh
F Parella
Fair enough, Marcus. BTW, it's not just the lame music and preachy,
sanctimonious (almost PR-like) tone of Dylan's Christian albums that I
strongly dislike. Even if I ignore the Christian aspect to them,
those lyrics are just awful! They're childish-verging-on-retarded.
Seriously, have a look at the "Under the Red Sky" lyrics. They are SO
BAD.
BTW, I certainly don't deny that early Dylan influenced the Beatles.
But I don't buy Sean's assertion that he influenced every band from
the early 60s onward!
F Parella
We disagree on several points then. I just can't stand Dylan's nasal
voice. I also believe Dylan *is* a horrendously sloppy musician, and
I don't think the fact that some good musicians have played with him
counters that in any way. Hey, even Yoko Ono has summoned excellent
musicians for her records on occasion!
Dale Houstman
Yes - but just because you don't buy it doesn't mean it isn't mainly
true. There is scarcely a band of the 60s that isn't - in some way -
profoundly influenced by Dylan's music, either lyrically, or musically,
or by dint of adopting the more "serious" content that Dylan imported
from folk music.
dmh
Jeff
Dylan's first 2-3 album were good cause he had the right musicians to
back him. I wasn't aware of this until recently. I can't stand most of
his music either, unless
other artists cover his songs. The same thing goes for Buddy Holly.
marcus
. I can't stand most of
> his music either, unless
> other artists cover his songs. The same thing goes for Buddy Holly.-
I tend to enjoy cover versions of Dylan's songs better than his
versions with "All Along The Watch Tower" being the greatest Dylan
cover, and arguably Hendrix's best song.
But, Buddy Holly??? His original songs are gems.
I enjoyed Linda Ronstadt's covers of his songs, but IMHO they aren't
as good as Buddy's originals.
marcus
> BTW, I certainly don't deny that early Dylan influenced the Beatles.
> But I don't buy Sean's assertion that he influenced every band from
> the early 60s onward
The Archies to name just one. ;-)
abe slaney
> Dylan's first 2-3 album were good cause he had the right musicians to
> back him.
He didn't work with backing musicians until his 5th album.
abe slaney
> I've heard good things about the latest 3, 'Time Out of Mind', 'Love and
> Theft', and 'Modern Times'.
A friend lent me "Time Out of Mind" when I hadn't listened to any
Dylan in several years. I think "Oh Mercy" was the last album I bought
before that. I was very happily surprised, with a couple of songs that
really affected me. A couple of years later, another friend lent me
"Love and Theft" and I was smitten. It didn't leave my CD player for
months. Given a choice, I'd still listen to that one over any other
Bob Dylan album. "Modern Times" was good music, but it didn't quite
capture my imagination like the others. I'd listen to them in sequence
if I were you. But "Love and Theft" is a must have.
Sean Carroll
> BTW, I certainly don't deny that early Dylan influenced the Beatles.
> But I don't buy Sean's assertion that he influenced every band from
> the early 60s onward!
Do you *ever* get tired of making straw men?
He didn't 'influence every band' in the sense that they all listened to him
and learned from him individually. What he did was introduce genuine poetry
into rock lyrics. He was a pioneer. All other rock songwriters who try to
make genuine art out of their lyrics owe the very possibility of their
existence to him, to a great degree (of course, he wasn't the ONLY source of
creativity).
Most great songwriters of the last 40-some-odd years owe a great deal to
Dylan. This remains true even if the musician in question has never *heard*
of Dylan. Their talents are entirely their own, but Dylan was the one who
went out there and built the damn stage that they would all stand on.
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com
[House interrupts a surgery, sneezes all over the place, and leaves]
Doctor: There's no way we can do this surgery now.
Surgeon: Ya THINK?!
marcus
> "F Parella" <f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > BTW, I certainly don't deny that early Dylan influenced the Beatles.
> > But I don't buy Sean's assertion that he influenced every band from
> > the early 60s onward!
>
> Do you *ever* get tired of making straw men?
>
> He didn't 'influence every band' in the sense that they all listened to him
> and learned from him individually. What he did was introduce genuine poetry
> into rock lyrics. He was a pioneer. All other rock songwriters who try to
> make genuine art out of their lyrics owe the very possibility of their
> existence to him, to a great degree (of course, he wasn't the ONLY source of
> creativity).
>
> Most great songwriters of the last 40-some-odd years owe a great deal to
> Dylan. This remains true even if the musician in question has never *heard*
> of Dylan. Their talents are entirely their own, but Dylan was the one who
> went out there and built the damn stage that they would all stand on.
>
> --
by them, one of the most influential lyricists was Chuck Berry. IMHO
he was the initial influence on the bands that came out in the 1960s,
and then, as you mentioned there was the poetry aspect of "Dylan"
later on.
The Beatles also contributed to the stage they all would stand on.
Sometimes, when I say that to folks who don't care much for the Fabs,
they look at me as if I told them that they had to finish eating the
liver on their plates, or no dessert.
Jeff
Thanks for the info.
Jeff
I just don't care for Buddy's voice. I love Lennon's impersonation of
him though..on Double Fantasty..like "Dear Yoko."
Harry
> On Aug 20, 11:09 pm, abe slaney <abesla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 20, 8:43 pm, Jeff <yourimageunre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > back him.
>
> > He didn't work with backing musicians until his 5th album.
>
> Thanks for the info.
he did on "Corrina,Corrina"
Jeff
Oh, is that a good song?
F Parella
> "F Parella" <f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > BTW, I certainly don't deny that early Dylan influenced the Beatles.
> > But I don't buy Sean's assertion that he influenced every band from
> > the early 60s onward!
>
> Do you *ever* get tired of making straw men?
In your reply to me on Aug. 18, at 2:52 PM, you said: "The Beatles --
as well as every other rock musician from the early 60s onward who has
ever treated their music as genuine art that could have real, timeless
messages, as opposed to being commercial cash ins on the latest trends
-- owes an incredible debt to Dylan."
That struck me (and still does) as more of the ridiculous Dylan
deification that I find so boring. In my earlier response to you, as
I asked you what debt you thought the Who owed Dylan. You didn't
answer me. Your silence was and is telling.
BTW, ever had a listen to all the disgustingly preachy (and musically
inept) Christian albums Dylan turned out in the 70s and 80s? Ever had
a look at his mentally deficient "Under a Red Sky" lyrics? Ever seen
his notorious Grammys performance? (It's on Youtube, BTW.)
Dylan put some songs in the 60s that became symbols of the hippy
movement. But I'm sorry, he is not a God.
Sean Carroll
> In your reply to me on Aug. 18, at 2:52 PM,
Oh, I love it when you bring out the numbers.
> you said: "The Beatles --
> as well as every other rock musician from the early 60s onward who has
> ever treated their music as genuine art that could have real, timeless
> messages, as opposed to being commercial cash ins on the latest trends
> -- owes an incredible debt to Dylan."
>
> That struck me (and still does) as more of the ridiculous Dylan
> deification that I find so boring. In my earlier response to you, as
> I asked you what debt you thought the Who owed Dylan. You didn't
> answer me. Your silence was and is telling.
No, my silence is likely due to the fact that Usenet is not my life, and on
occasion I wander away from it for a while.
> BTW, ever had a listen to all the disgustingly preachy (and musically
> inept) Christian albums Dylan turned out in the 70s and 80s? Ever had
> a look at his mentally deficient "Under a Red Sky" lyrics? Ever seen
> his notorious Grammys performance? (It's on Youtube, BTW.)
Even assuming for the moment that all of that stuff truly is crap ....
What about The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan? What about Bringing It All Back Home?
What about Highway 61 Revisited? What about Blonde on Blonde? What about
John Wesley Harding?
Have you ever listened to ANY of those? Or is your opinion of Dylan based
solely on his generally mediocre post-60s work?
A man can become great, and do great things, and then trail off and lose his
way. Perhaps Dylan lost his at some point in the late 60s. But whatever he
has done since then, it can never take away the impact of what he achieved
in those feverish early years.
> Dylan put some songs in the 60s that became symbols of the hippy
> movement. But I'm sorry, he is not a God.
Jeez, you actually literally physically *have* to speak in strawmen
language, don't you?
Of course Dylan isn't God. He's a man. And you're a moron.
F Parella
> "F Parella" <f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > In your reply to me on Aug. 18, at 2:52 PM,
>
> Oh, I love it when you bring out the numbers.
>
> > you said: "The Beatles --
> > as well as every other rock musician from the early 60s onward who has
> > ever treated their music as genuine art that could have real, timeless
> > messages, as opposed to being commercial cash ins on the latest trends
> > -- owes an incredible debt to Dylan."
>
> > That struck me (and still does) as more of the ridiculous Dylan
> > deification that I find so boring. In my earlier response to you, as
> > I asked you what debt you thought the Who owed Dylan. You didn't
> > answer me. Your silence was and is telling.
>
> No, my silence is likely due to the fact that Usenet is not my life, and on
> occasion I wander away from it for a while.
LOL! But you've now replied to me *twice* - and evaded my question
(of what debt the Who supposedly owe Dylan) each time! No, your
silence is due to your having made an absurdly exaggerated claim about
Dylan that you can't defend. Bye.
Sean Carroll
> "Sean Carroll" <seanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> No, my silence is likely due to the fact that Usenet is not my life, and
>> on
>> occasion I wander away from it for a while.
> LOL! But you've now replied to me *twice* - and evaded my question
> (of what debt the Who supposedly owe Dylan) each time! No, your
> silence is due to your having made an absurdly exaggerated claim about
> Dylan that you can't defend. Bye.
Oh, yes, I spend hours thinking about what to evade and what to post and
such. I live in a tiny little world of constant flamewars, always trying to
one-up some other guy so I can feel like a man, despite my tiny inverted
dick.
Oh, no, wait, that's you! How silly of me.
Dale Houstman
Sean Carroll wrote:
>
> A man can become great, and do great things, and then trail off and
> lose his way. Perhaps Dylan lost his at some point in the late 60s.
> But whatever he has done since then, it can never take away the
> impact of what he achieved in those feverish early years.
>
I would assert that the fact Dylan has "wandered off" so publicly and
precipitously at times, and often refused to give the audience precisely
(or anywhere near) what they have demanded of him is a sign of his
integrity and value as an artist. Obviously not everything he does is
"great" - although his recorded work (as he himself notes) is not his
main interest. He is best live, where he can - on the spot - improvise
new arrangements - often radical mutations - to old work and make it
live again. He is not a cookie cutter artist, and he can be challenging
to our expectations. But...so what?
dmh
Sean Carroll
> Of course Dylan isn't God.
Forgot to mention -- it's actually Eric Clapton.
F Parella
> "F Parella" <f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > "Sean Carroll" <seanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> No, my silence is likely due to the fact that Usenet is not my life, and
> >> on
> >> occasion I wander away from it for a while.
> > LOL! But you've now replied to me *twice* - and evaded my question
> > (of what debt the Who supposedly owe Dylan) each time! No, your
> > silence is due to your having made an absurdly exaggerated claim about
> > Dylan that you can't defend. Bye.
>
> Oh, yes, I spend hours thinking about what to evade and what to post and
> such. I live in a tiny little world of constant flamewars, always trying to
> one-up some other guy so I can feel like a man, despite my tiny inverted
> dick.
>
> Oh, no, wait, that's you! How silly of me.
>
> --
> [House interrupts a surgery, sneezes all over the place, and leaves]
>
> Doctor: There's no way we can do this surgery now.
>
> Surgeon: Ya THINK?!
I'm sorry that your penis is miniscule, but that was TMI.
BTW, you *still* haven't demonstrated that the Who were in any way
indebted to Dylan. And I believe your talk about Dylan's influence on
the Beatles was also ridiculously exaggerated. I'm about to start a
thread on the Beatles' influences; feel free to give it a read.
Sean Carroll
> BTW, you *still* haven't demonstrated that the Who were in any way
> indebted to Dylan.
I find it exceedingly difficult to believe you are truly, honestly this
psychotically disingenuous.
I'll give it one more shot, and if it doesn't get through that
pachycephalosaur-thick skull of yours this time, that's your problem.
Pete Townshend's lyrics, for one thing, often involved very poetic
sensibilities, and were informed by his personal experiences in life. Before
Dylan started to get such great success from writing songs with such lyrics,
they were practically non-existent in the mainstream pop market. Dylan
started getting really big around 1964; it is no coincidence that The Who --
among many, many other bands who were starting to experiment with such
lyrics -- started very shortly afterward, in this case in 1965. And at that
time, in the mid-60s, the pop/rock music field was so close-knit that it was
impossible for any of them to NOT be influenced by what all the others were
doing -- whether Dylan or The Beatles or whatever. Dylan was absolutely one
of the towering figures of the time in the music scene, and one would have
had to have been deaf, dumb, and blind as a pinball player to have *not*
soaked up some influence from him, at least indirectly.
Do you really think the song 'My Generation' could have been written before
'The Times They Are A-Changin''? Or 'Won't Get Fooled Again' before 'Only a
Pawn in Their Game' and 'With God on Our Side'? Or 'The Seeker' before 'My
Back Pages'?
You don't have to directly copy, or intensively study, or consciously and
purposely imitate an artist's work in order for your own to owe a debt to
them. Art is a complicated thing. It subtly affects your values, your
feelings, your way of looking at the world, often in ways that you are not
consciously aware of. All those influences are then mixed together to
reemerge as your own personal style.
No one person is usually a direct role model for everything an artist does.
But some figures have been a major part of large-scale climactic cultural
and aesthetic changes, and, through their subtle influence on those changes,
infused certain aspects of their own style and sensibility into the culture
at large, through influence on all kinds of levels, directly and indirectly,
on their contemporaries and on succeeding generations. There is absolutely
no question that Dylan was such a figure, and I find it absolutely
incredible that you could be so clueless about this fact.
But hey, if all those big words are too much for you to handle, feel free to
ignore them and go on blithely muttering uninformed, emotionally psychotic
nonsense like 'Dylan is crap, what a loooozer.' Maybe you'll get a job as a
professional music reviewer someday!
> And I believe your talk about Dylan's influence on
> the Beatles was also ridiculously exaggerated.
Actually, I have *understated* the case. John Lennon himself is on record (I
believe it's in the Anthology) as saying that listening to Dylan's work was
the single biggest influence that drove him to start writing personal,
poetic songs like 'In My Life', instead of just nice-sounding rock 'n' roll
for the mass market.
Oh, but he probably just said that because Yoko ordered him to, right?
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com
Foreman: She'd only have to be out there for five minutes.
House: Without her mittens. Mom told me that was a bad idea. Especially that
winter when it was 80 below and I had dual kidney failure.
Sean Carroll
> "Sean Carroll" <sean...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > BTW, you *still* haven't demonstrated that the Who were in any way
>> > indebted to Dylan.
>> I find it exceedingly difficult to believe you are truly, honestly this
>> psychotically disingenuous.
> Err...have you read any of his posts about Yoko?
Yes, but still, on a regular basis, I find my mind boggling entirely anew at
him, when I stop for a second and reflect on just what he's saying *this*
time around.