Bob's Voice
Martin
had to give refunds for every raspy performance he'd given, but that
doesn't mean his raspy voice is bad - most of the time - it's just not
the voice on the older records. So here's the annual what's your
favourite Bob voice question. I used to think I could identify the
year of a Dylan recording by his voice - and I quite often still can -
but the last deacde of the NET is tricky. My favourite voice of Bob's
(this week) is the late 2003 one that he had in London at the end of
that year. Using Jokerman from November 24th as an example, his voice
is rich and warm, with just a little rasp - enough to make it sound
well used but not in need of repair - and it leaps and soars
beautifully. I love most of the other voices too, but this one is
really great and possibly his best NET voice. What's your favourite?
badlands420
> What's your favourite?
His current voice. I just think it's more nuanced and interesting than any
of his other voices, and he's able to display a wider range of human emotion
with it. It also enables him to credibly inhabit the persona of the grizzled
old bluesman I think he's always aspired to be.
crazytimes
I'm partial to the solo spots he used to do at the beginning of the
NET... There was that delicate balancing act between guitar/voice/
harmonica that was a treat to witness...
crazytimes
First I've seen of this - here's from '88, not quite totally solo like
earlier that year (GSmith on extra guitar)... Gates of Sweden...
Martin
> I'm partial to the solo spots he used to do at the beginning of the
> NET... There was that delicate balancing act between guitar/voice/
> harmonica that was a treat to witness...
Absolutely - that element is certainly missing from the current
shows. In fact, anything like that kind of intimacy has been missing
for over a decade, and I'd wet myself if he just walked out and
started strumming all by himself again. The solo sets and band sets
actually complimented each other superbly. I sometimes think Bob
believes that a solo set disrupts the energy of the band, but I really
think the opposite. If he had given time to use that 2003 voice in a
solo set or two, it probably would have been my dream concert
badlands420
> In fact, anything like that kind of intimacy has been missing
> for over a decade, and I'd wet myself if he just walked out and
> started strumming all by himself again.
He's clearly no longer confident enough in his guitar playing to do any solo
acoustic stuff again, at least it seems that way to me.
crazytimes
Either that, or he doesn't want to pay the band to sit around and cut
him out of his share of toot backstage while he labors on!... I guess
he could adjust their wages accordingly if he wanted to...
AndoDoug
> He's clearly no longer confident enough in his guitar playing to do any solo
> acoustic stuff again, at least it seems that way to me.
It seems bob pays homage to the songs by gnawing on them like an big
old dog with an insatiable appetite for the occasional taste of bone
marrow. Meanwhile we get preposterous vocal arrangements that no one
in his right mind would transcribe. In Hamilton the highlight for me
was being able to sing along to Stuck inside of memphis, both annoying
and astounding my neighbours in rows 4 and 5. But what he does to the
original melodies on a nightly basis is pretty absurd. Actually it's
cool in a way, because you know he'll never sing them like that again,
but then who in his right mind would!
Jumbo
> On Aug 31, 7:36 pm, crazytimes <crazytime...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm partial to the solo spots he used to do at the beginning of the
> > NET... There was that delicate balancing act between guitar/voice/
> > harmonica that was a treat to witness...
>
> Absolutely - that element is certainly missing from the current
> shows. In fact, anything like that kind of intimacy has been missing
> for over a decade, and I'd wet myself if he just walked out and
> started strumming all by himself again. The solo sets and band sets
> actually complimented each other superbly.
Totally agree.
Jumbo
Oh come on, Andodoug, that's the whole frickin' point!
AndoDoug
Is it? Then he doesnt' do it well enough to be compelling, IMO
Jumbo
>
> > Oh come on, Andodoug, that's the whole frickin' point!
>
> Is it? Then he doesnt' do it well enough to be compelling, IMO
Good answer. You're right. It either works for you or it doesn't. But
I still say it's the whole point, IMO.
J Buck
60's and 70's
AndoDoug
TK1
TK1
For me 2003 was the last time Bob's voice worked in concert. Although
some people may claim Dylan could never sing anyway I think it is only
in the last 4 years that his voice has really declined, in concert at
least, to the point where virtually anything he sings will sound the
same. Being tied to one octave will do that.
However I still think Dylan can aspire to greatness on record. I've
been listening to Huck's Tune alot lately, and I have to say the
vocal,and the song moved me more than anything on 'Modern Times' and
most of 'L+T' (Mississippi and HighWater aside)...
To answer your question though my favourite voice would have to be the
'raging glory' Hard Rain '76 one...as far as the NET goe , mainly the
voice used in the acoustic sets (1993, 1995) although I do quite like
the totally wrecked but not giving a shit vocals of 1989/90....
AndoDoug
> some people may claim Dylan could never sing anyway I think it is only
> in the last 4 years that his voice has really declined, in concert at
> least, to the point where virtually anything he sings will sound the
> same. Being tied to one octave will do that.
> However I still think Dylan can aspire to greatness on record. I've
> been listening to Huck's Tune alot lately, and I have to say the
> vocal,and the song moved me more than anything on 'Modern Times' and
> most of 'L+T' (Mississippi and HighWater aside)...
> To answer your question though my favourite voice would have to be the
> voice used in the acoustic sets (1993, 1995) although I do quite like
> the totally wrecked but not giving a shit vocals of 1989/90....
Insightful comments--but how is it he pulls it together so well in the
studio, where his timbre seems fragile but he still sports a decent
range?
--Fave bob voice.......phewwwwww.....it's hard to argue with basement
tapes bob's laying into Sign on the Cross, Tears of Rage, Goin to
Acapulco, all the heavy ones from that acetate are incredibly emotive,
esp. compared to the clipped ambiguity of the JWH vocals.
Gemini Jackson
<martin...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>I think Gemini was right...
<snip>
For me I think it'll always be the mid to late 70's. Those RT shows
are practically unequalled in anything I've ever heard him do. After
that I'd go for the earlier stuff, then the 'Nashville voice, and last
but not least the raspy stage. I like what he does these days but
clearly time has taken some toll, as to be expected of course.
But it ain't just the voice. I think the current band is on automatic
and doesn't do his work the justice others have done in the past.
-GJ
crazytimes
> > For me 2003 was the last time Bob's voice worked in concert. Although
> > some people may claim Dylan could never sing anyway I think it is only
> > in the last 4 years that his voice has really declined, in concert at
> > least, to the point where virtually anything he sings will sound the
> > same. Being tied to one octave will do that.
> > However I still think Dylan can aspire to greatness on record. I've
> > been listening to Huck's Tune alot lately, and I have to say the
> > vocal,and the song moved me more than anything on 'Modern Times' and
> > most of 'L+T' (Mississippi and HighWater aside)...
> > To answer your question though my favourite voice would have to be the
> > 'raging glory' Hard Rain '76 one...as far as the NET goes, mainly the
> > voice used in the acoustic sets (1993, 1995) although I do quite like
> > the totally wrecked but not giving a shit vocals of 1989/90....
>
> Insightful comments--but how is it he pulls it together so well in the
> studio, where his timbre seems fragile but he still sports a decent
> range?
>
> tapes bob's laying into Sign on the Cross, Tears of Rage, Goin to
> Acapulco, all the heavy ones from that acetate are incredibly emotive,
> esp. compared to the clipped ambiguity of the JWH vocals.
Dylan has so many great vocal periods... Freewheelin' is when it all
came together... BIABH... Highway 61... BOB... The '66 Euro
tour... The Basement Tapes era thru 1968 era was great... In fact,
I'd venture to say that if he had used the Band on JWH instead of his
BOB skeleton band, then JWH might be vying with those mid-60s albums
and BOTT as Dylan's best album... cause by the time of the Woody
Guthrie memorial concert in '68, the Band sound very cohesive in their
own right behind Dylan, and Bob's voice sounds arguably its best ever,
like it's the last time he used his '60s search-and-destroy voice in
its original evolution before the Nashville Skyline flattening... But
the NS voice has its moments too, don't it?... And then some of the
one-off singles and sessions from the early 70s sound great, as does
Bangladeshi, and of course the BOTT/Desire/RTR voice kicks vocal
butt... And then we take Dylan's voice for granted all the way up to
the NET... But some of those Dylan/Dead performances have Bob's voice
still serrating in a good way... WGW is really fine... TOOM, L&T...
Could his voice have been better taken care of along the way to retain
more of its old majesty?... Probably, but that's been the road taken,
and that's the grumbly sound you get after being frequently
travelled...
daysof48
Bob Hughes
<andod...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> For me 2003 was the last time Bob's voice worked in concert. Although
>> some people may claim Dylan could never sing anyway I think it is only
>> in the last 4 years that his voice has really declined, in concert at
>> least, to the point where virtually anything he sings will sound the
>> same. Being tied to one octave will do that.
>> However I still think Dylan can aspire to greatness on record. I've
>> been listening to Huck's Tune alot lately, and I have to say the
>> vocal,and the song moved me more than anything on 'Modern Times' and
>> most of 'L+T' (Mississippi and HighWater aside)...
>> To answer your question though my favourite voice would have to be the
>> 'raging glory' Hard Rain '76 one...as far as the NET goes, mainly the
>> voice used in the acoustic sets (1993, 1995) although I do quite like
>> the totally wrecked but not giving a shit vocals of 1989/90....
>
>Insightful comments--but how is it he pulls it together so well in the
>studio, where his timbre seems fragile but he still sports a decent
>range?
>
In the studio you can sing one line at a time and rest in between.
AndoDoug
> In the studio you can sing one line at a time and rest in between.
WHAT?? Bob don't do overdubs, it's all live in the studio
RJ
TK1
>
> Insightful comments--but how is it he pulls it together so well in the
> studio, where his timbre seems fragile but he still sports a decent
> range?
>
I think because the studio output, especially the more successful
songs, all depend on using the lower register of Bob's vocals for
effect. So Bob is not straining for notes he cannot hit. The downside
of this is this is it is hard to project in concert and quite
limiting. Think Johnny Cash, great artist, but you've heard one Johnny
Cash vocal, you've heard them all....
Jumbo
> The downside
> of this is this is it is hard to project in concert and quite
> limiting. Think Johnny Cash, great artist, but you've heard one Johnny
> Cash vocal, you've heard them all....
Interesting point about Cash. I kind of agree, but what Bob has over
Cash in this area is range of delivery *regardless* of vocal range,
iyswim.
Gemini Jackson
I agree with this, but aren't we getting into spirituality/zen now?
-GJ
TK1
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'range of delivery'...I've been
thinking about Dylan's voice and I can't quite pin down what is
missing, for me, these days. It could just be a case of familiarity
breeding contempt. For example Dylan commentators have been noting
Dylan's loss of range from as early as '81 yet if you listen,
especially to earlier recordings from the tour, to versions of say 'I
Believe In You' or 'Like A Rolling Stone' the singing is amazing. The
same applies to the '84 tour. It seems Bob's voice only really started
to get 'out there' with the 86-87 tours yet on both of these you can
still find great Bob vocals...but it is with the NET that we do see a
distinct lack of range. Although some see '97 as the turning point Bob
has been stuck in patterns of phrasing throught out the NET which
works well for some material, but never all. For example 95's
whispering acoustic voice doesn't translate well to the electric
material, while the roaring '88 voice while good on the electric songs
doesn't work, by and large (there are always exceptions of course,,)
acoustically (imho).
But you get to 2004- onwards and every song sounds the same. You can
almost pick any song from the setlist and know how Dylan will have
sung it, even without hearing it. Then again it doesn't help having a
pedestrian band, and I've never been a fan of the jazzy/swing tunes
that populate 'L+T' and 'Modern Times' just not my musical cup of tea.
And let's not mention the harmonica playing...same solo...evrey
tune..what's with the cross harp Bob? You can blow out y'know...
Still Huck's Tune is great.....
crazytimes
> On Sep 4, 2:02 pm, Jumbo <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 3, 11:47 am, TK1 <Tonyka...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > The downside
> > > of this is this is it is hard to project in concert and quite
> > > limiting. Think Johnny Cash, great artist, but you've heard one Johnny
> > > Cash vocal, you've heard them all....
>
> > Interesting point about Cash. I kind of agree, but what Bob has over
> > Cash in this area is range of delivery *regardless* of vocal range,
> > iyswim.
>
> I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'range of delivery'...I've been
> thinking about Dylan's voice and I can't quite pin down what is
> missing, for me, these days. It could just be a case of familiarity
> breeding contempt. For example Dylan commentators have been noting
> Dylan's loss of range from as early as '81 yet if you listen,
> especially to earlier recordings from the tour, to versions of say 'I
> Believe In You' or 'Like A Rolling Stone' the singing is amazing. The
> same applies to the '84 tour. It seems Bob's voice only really started
> to get 'out there' with the 86-87 tours yet on both of these you can
> still find great Bob vocals...but it is with the NET that we do see a
> distinct lack of range.
He must have had a total vocal blowout somewhere right before the
NET... Cause with the Dead he's still got the sabre tooth (the eye of
the tiger)... and I've got some of those late '87 Petty Euro shows
that I can't remember exactly what his voice sounds like, but probably
is still fine... Definitely by the '88 NET shows there's some element
in his voice that sounds like broken windpipe paper, and he can't hit
or slide his voice up to certain high ranges anymore where some of his
songs are at their most effective... He's learned to work around the
growing limitations and the strain, but it's been deteriorating ever
since...
Jumbo
> On Sep 4, 2:02 pm, Jumbo <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 3, 11:47 am, TK1 <Tonyka...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > The downside
> > > of this is this is it is hard to project in concert and quite
> > > limiting. Think Johnny Cash, great artist, but you've heard one Johnny
> > > Cash vocal, you've heard them all....
>
> > Interesting point about Cash. I kind of agree, but what Bob has over
> > Cash in this area is range of delivery *regardless* of vocal range,
> > iyswim.
>
> I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'range of delivery'...
Phrasing, mostly.
Martin
> Dylan commentators have been noting
> Dylan's loss of range from as early as '81
I know someone who can't tolerate Bob past 1976 - he thinks the Street
Legal voice is a high pitched nasal drone. I can see where he's
coming from, but at the same time I think it's mostly down to personal
taste. You can draw a line almost anywhere and say 'this is where his
voice started deteriorating'. Having last seen Bob in Birmingham last
year, I can honestly say that he sang the fuck out of Ain't Talkin',
and gave a pretty good effort on most of the other songs performed
that night. I also think he had a nice delivery at Bournemouth in
2006, and he certainly hit a few high points during his Brixton
Academy residency in late 2005. But have any of these performances
got close to the power and passion of his vocals in November 2003?
No. That seems to be a recent high point. I will never write him
off, because he showed how strong his voice can be then, even 11 years
after giving a performance that would lead many to suspect he was
suffering from a life threatening vocal chord condition. I must say,
however, that his current voice seems very restrained, even by some
NET standards. My guess would be that he needs a shake up of the band
- someone of the Larry Campbell type - to light a spark that creates
the passionate vocals we all know are in him somewhere
Martin
> My guess would be that he needs a shake up of the band
> - someone of the Larry Campbell type - to light a spark that creates
> the passionate vocals we all know are in him somewhere
Having just read some recent reviews on Boblinks, it looks as if the
majority of reviewers have problems with the current band, and the
samey sound of the songs performed. When I saw the 2003 band, I was
50/50 as to whether Freddy was any good at all, but in retrospect it
was an exciting band. Freddy was the wild card and Larry the reliable
band leader. There seems to be neither in the current band
AndoDoug
seem to be bob's go-between but not as much now?
a tifele dot
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 06:02:23 -0700 (PDT), Jumbo
>
> <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 3, 11:47 am, TK1 <Tonyka...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> The downside
> >> of this is this is it is hard to project in concert and quite
> >> limiting. Think Johnny Cash, great artist, but you've heard one Johnny
> >> Cash vocal, you've heard them all....
>
> >Cash in this area is range of delivery *regardless* of vocal range,
> >iyswim.
>
> I agree with this, but aren't we getting into spirituality/zen now?
> -GJ
We may need to since a language to adequately describe many of Dylan's
ways to sonically impact the individual and collective consciousness
has not yet emerged in the main stream. His is one of those voices
that touches beyond the best known horizons, beyond the dualities of
good or bad, of pretty or ugly, of one-to-be-liked or not. Here we are
dealing not so much with the aesthetic of a voice than with its
authentic. An authentic voice is one that desires to find and share
its most intimate and truthful sound-moments with others. It is a
voice that digs deep, sometimes it plunders into self , it is a voice
that brings up the sound from its hidden place and then releases it in
the care of the wind, all this while the man witnesses time passing
through him like a speedy current in search of some strong and
committed outlets to handle and distribute a high frequency sound-
download.
The Dylan's voice is charged with a vitality and dynamism that impacts
and connects many emotional dots on the maps of our living. We
intuitively recognize some of those true feelings we carry within,
nice or not. Such a voice unmasks the nature of a constant changing
beingness, such a voice, when tuning in and turning on, wrestles with
and embraces the full intensity of the present moment , any one of
them. There are no insignificant moments, nor people for that matter,
only those that will go unnoticed and unnamed. There is a sheer and
sometimes very raw transformative power that comes through the sound-
vibrations Bob transmits. While at times Bob's stage voice can cut
like a blade does, at others the same man uses his sounds to court the
yearning he feels, that yearning that might lead him to simply
surrender to his soul's ancient loveliness and rest within it. I
ain't speaking of dyin' here, I am speaking of witnessing oneself
shift in easy gear and relaxing while the frequency rises, when it is
the voice that carries the singer, not the other way around.
May Bob's voice continue to generously imprint itself on the tracks of
time. Like the songs of birds. I hear many, many of those singing, a
splendid variety of them. They help me to remember to go, to go out,
to go for that walk, to go on, just to go, on and through.
Why not? Might as well.
Tif .
lowg...@ao1.com
An excellent essay. Many accurate descriptions.
With most commentators (not you, Pete), the more they write, the more they
get wrong. Not so here.
I applaud you.
kerry
I too am greatly impressed by this....the line about how his voice
"wrestles with and embraces the full intensity of the present moment"
especially resonates with me...it is always such an incredible drag to
meet someone and when Bob's name (inevitably, in my world at least!)
comes up, all they can say is..."I can't stand his voice, but he
writes great songs!", or some similar statement...I have explained
more times than I can begin to count that the raw authenticity of his
voice, that unpolished, unvarnished, and wholly unique voice is what
helps to make those songs so "great"...
michele l'ulysse
1993
Supper Club(s)
and so many others
a tifele dot
I hope you are right. Only Bob would know for sure.
> I applaud you.
Merci, merci beaucoup.
davidw
news:dbfada60-98da-437f...@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com:
All you have to do is listen to Dylan's first album and realize that sincerity
is the most important thing about singing - and once you can fake that you've
got it made. Some of Dylan's best singing was obviously insincere - all those
fake blues songs on 'Dylan', those nasaly crooner balads from Nashville on,
and the cynical prankster on Blonde on Blonde, captured so well in Don't Look
Back. Sincere or not, Dylan sang great either way. I imagine Dylan was less
sincere singing the great ballads on Freewheeling than the covers on Good as I
been to You. In the former he was acting a great role, like a Homerian poet,
his lyrics, images and voice coming from somewhere else. In the later he was
singing the songs as if he sang them.
Martin
> Some of Dylan's best singing was obviously insincere
I don't think his singing is ever insincere - whether it's good or
bad, he always takes it very seriously. He's as sincere on Temporary
Like Achilles as he is on Hattie Carroll