I've been a fan of Dylan since 1963 when KSJO radio in San Jose was playing
songs from his first album or two.  Dylan was one of the greatest influences
on me during the 60s.  I saw him with The Band in Oakland in 1974, and he
was great.  I saw him in LA around 1984 with Tom Petty.  I didn't like him.
He made no attempt to make the lyrics understandable and he changed the
melodies.  If it wasn't for Petty, the show would have been a total waste.

In recent years I'd heard that he was better, that he was singing clearly.
I had my doubts, but I thought I'd give it a try - Friday night in
Hollywood.  Although the music was really good, I found Dylan's singing
useless.  I could not make out the lyrics nearly at all, even on the songs
that I knew the lyrics for.  I was surprised reading the setlist today that
there were songs I knew, that I couldn't even tell I knew at the time.  I
don't know what is Dylan's concept of what he thinks he's doing, but
whatever it is, it's not for me.  I said to my friend, if you didn't know
who Dylan was and heard this band, you'd say, "They need a new singer."  I
know Dylan has said that his lyrics are not as important as the music, but
for many of us, the lyrics are key.  I thought the band was a bit loud for
my taste, and the vocal probably not loud enough in the mix, but it's mostly
that Bob is making no effort to sing the songs audibly and the way he
recorded them.  Although I thought the band was really good, I thought the
arrangements needed to be varied a bit.  The instrumentation seemed too much
the same on every song.  Anyway, that's the last live Dylan show for me.  I
really don't understand it.  I know a lot of folks in the audience seemed
thrilled, but frankly, I don't get it.

Contrast with Merle Haggard, whom I'd never heard before.  He was not too
loud.  I could follow all the lyrics.  Just no complaints at all.  Same
thing with opener Amos Lee.  I've never heard of him, but I could hear his
lyrics and I thought he was a pretty good songwriter.

Each to their own Derek. How many other artists that you saw 40 years ago
are still around touring today? Not many, none, it's Dylans reinventions
of his past recordings that keep him going and long may it continue. One
day yet you may "get it". like you, he is probably physically incapable of
singing and moving the way he did 30 or 40 years ago but he is still
there, as he says "just working". God bless him.

I respect your opinion, Craig.  I don't think it's a question of age, or
voice, or ability to move.  Dylan's been doing this since at least '84.  I
see musical acts all the time.  Recently I saw Fogerty.  He was good.  I've
seen Jefferson Starship and Hot Tuna several times.  I saw Jesse Colin Young
and Country Joe in the last couple years.  Jesse's voice and Joe's voice are
not even close to what they were, but no one does what Dylan does with the
lyrics and the vocals.  I think it's something he does intentionally, but I
don't know why.

Derek:

Thanks for your post.

I saw him when he toured with Petty, sometime in the 80's, and was
disappointed
in him (I liked Petty). I found the lyrics nearly incomprehensible, as you
did.

I continued to listen to his albums, but had no further interest in live
performances.

I like Dylan better, the older I get.  Reading stuff in this newsgroup,
which I recently
joined, has rekindled my interest in seeing a live show, wondering if things
have
changed.

I wonder if other posters (and I gather they mostly love his live stuff)
could comment
on Derek's judgment as to the comprehensibility of the lyrics.  Do you agree
with
Derek on this point, even if you disagree as to the value of the
performances?

Peter

news:IHH1e.7007$z.5890@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Perhaps what we have here is a perfect storm:  Derek and Craig are both
right.  Dylan has been rearranging and changing his phrasing ever since
the beginning--since 65 & 66 (It Ain't Me Babe, One Too Many Mornings,
I Don't Believe You, eg).  Go back to say the years 96 to 2000 and just
list to Tangled Up In Blue, and note how much his singing changes from
night to night.  That's always been a part of who Dylan is, restless,
exploring, hitting and missing.  We love him for it.  But, at the same
time, the voice has suffered over the years, although reaching many
moments of beauty and more of power, especially in 99-2000.  But since
2003 there's been a rough patch for the most part.  Together, these two
realities can make a concert pretty challenging for someone of Derek's
aesthetic sensibilities, while others find it no problem, even
exhiliarating.

Thanks for the excellent comments, Johnny.  You know I wish I could love Bob
live!

Yes he does it intentionally - but that is just his style of singing, and
that style has aged with him. He's never had the voice of an angel, and
sometimes when i hear him live  I think "Bob that's shite, get your finger
out" then the next day it's "Bob that's beautiful" he's a singer, a unique
singer that is working the only way he knows how, he's not the purest
singer - but certainly the greatest interpreter of a line or phrase, and
has been for 40 odd years. Sometimes people will be dissapointed - but is
that not the beauty of art?

"Come all you people throughout the land,
And don't criticize what you cannot hear..."

;-)

<I wonder if other posters (and I gather they mostly love his live
stuff) could comment on Derek's judgment as to the comprehensibility of
the lyrics. Do you agree with Derek on this point, even if you disagree
as to the value of the performances?>

He is 100% on the mark. Having said that, I'm glad I've gotten to see
him perform in recent years. And having said that, I've no desire to see
him again unless he's playing awfully close to my home.

Let me say a little more about my own experiences of seeing Bob.  When
I saw him in 1988, early in the NET, he seemed to me then to be good,
though not great.  By 90 he seemed a sad echo of his former glory.  By
1991 I thought it was all over--the performance was
near-indecipherable, confused, distant emotionally (or so it seemed to
me).  I figured I never would invite a casual fan or recommend him
live, though I'd probably go myself.  By 1994 he was sounding real good
again, by 1996 he was amazing, fantastic, just the most wonderful
concerts I'd ever seen, and there he stayed through 2002, in my
estimation.  I took plenty of casual fans or just curious folk, and
they were amazed.  But since 2003, I think, I've felt I need to warn
the casual fan who hasn't heard him since say Blood On the Tracks.
People can still dig him, but they need to have a certain thing they
are looking for in live music, and usually need to be willing to just
go with no expectations and see if they like what they hear.

A fair criticism, I think.  I was a huge fan of his in the '60s, but a
series of bad albums drove me away, and I paid little attention to him
until I heard "Love and Theft."  That album is so good that Dylan's
ruined voice is ok, and even enhances some of the tunes.

Live is another story, however; it's not that his voice is physically
shattered, it's that he persists in using mannerisms and phrasing that
obscure and mangle the lyrics.  Dylan cannot seem to help himself, or
perhaps he can no longer really hear himself.  He persists in annoying
habits: he rushes lines and crams them into the beginning or end of
verses, he begins lines with a whine, and he ends lines with a rising
note--the infamous "sing-song" voice.  These vocal tics fill almost all
the bootlegs of his concerts that I hear.  It's enough to discourage me
from attending his concerts, even though I regard him as one of the
greatest artists of our age.

Ditto.

--
Dan
Stuck Inside of Mobile

I saw him in 88 and 90 and was disappointed.  Couldn't understand a
darn thing he was singing.  Saw him in 1995 and was stunned at how
great his band was and how great he sounded.  Saw him a bunch of times
between 1997 and 1999.  He rocked, the band rocked.  His voice was
great -- distinctively Dylan -- but great.

I' ve listened to a boatload of boots from 2000 on and appreciated
them.  I went to a show last November, and thought his voice is
definitely in worse shape. I would have handled that fine (what do you
expect from someone whose been on tour for so long). but I actually
thought that the band arrangements were kind of boring.  I don't know
if this has anything to do with him being behind the keyboard,
changing band members, or whatever, but I didn't think the
arrangements were as creative.  In the 90s I felt they were performing
so many of the songs in so many different tempos, styles, etc.  Last
year, I felt they were stale and predictable.  In my opinion, the live
shows have always been about more than just his voice, and the
concerts suffer when the band's "performance" drops a little bit
(creatively, not technically).

I still would see Bob anywhere, and he's still the best ever, but I'm
hoping he and his band get some mojo back.

---------

At the three Oakland shows, I also felt at times that the music was
outshining Dylan's singing, but I seldom had a hard time understanding him.
He actually struck me as more clear than usual.

---------

and there he stayed through 2002, in my

---------

My experience has been similar, though the dates would be slightly
different. Starting with Spokane in 2001, I saw 8 or so shows that,
overall, didn't thrill me (Spokane being one exception). Then in 2002, I
only attended 2 (in Berkeley), because I simply didn't like them much.

However, based on the Oakland shows, I would once again urge people to see
Dylan -- whatever bumps existed, they all had thrilling moments.

---------

Finally, I'm not sure why Bob's shows weren't clicking with me for awhile,
but I don't think it had much to do with his age (or mine). Probably more
to do with stale arrangements that were frequently boring even the people
up on stage (though, of course, I don't know this to be true).

Have you listened to "Love & Theft"? The man's more on top of *his*
game than ever before, but, as he sings:

"Things have changed."

--
Shadowville/Netherlands project:
http://www.kannibaal.nl/shadowville.htm

"Autograph 0f Zorro" Mp3 & digital video:
http://www.kannibaal.nl/zorro.mp3
http://www.kannibaal.nl/

I don't know what you are talking about not understanding Dylan.
I have a recording of his Woodstock show and every word can
be heard.  I've probably seen Dylan 10 times in the 90's and
have had no trouble understanding him. This from a guy who has
to say "huh" everytime somebody says something to me in a bar.

As for arrangements and such you might have a point but I don't
have any trouble understanding him. I can't say I'm crazy about
every song he does but there are still many which hit with me.
"My Back Pages" at Bogarts, "Positively Fourth Street" at RiverBend
really stood out for me.

For another perspective, from what must be a very young fan, read this
(I think everyone should)--it's from the Utah University paper, and was
linked at Expecting Rain on Sunday:

http://www.utahchronicle.com/news/2005/03/24/News/Outside.The.Box.Mas...

To follow up on Zuke's comment, I'm listening even as I type to It's
Alright, Ma from Seattle 3-07-05.  It's a very new arrangement with a
strong, compelling beat. But every word is crystal clear and very
plainly enunciated.  So you may well not like the arrangements.  But
then Bob's always been about rearranging his songs.  A year or two ago
I watched some Paul Simon special on PBS.  A lot of his songs sounded
exactly the same as they did in the sixties when he and Art Garfunkel
recorded them.  But that's never been what you get with Dylan.

--
Delia

Are you guys listening to soundboard recordings?  Maybe there's a difference
between what you're getting on these recordings and what one can actually
hear at a show.  Anyway, there seems to be a lot of people on both sides of
this question.  Not that there's anything wrong with that..  ;-)

news:114ep2eht3lq96f@news.supernews.com...

I agree with every single word here.  I saw him Saturday night, and thought
the band was incredible, but found the vocals to be labored, especially in
the more uptempo songs.  I think that what people refer to as his
'reinventions' are merely attempts to disguise the decline of his singing
voice.

The simple fact that he is Bob Dylan is absolutely a good enough reason to
go see him in concert.  But the simple fact that he is Bob Dylan doesn't not
place him above valid, objective criticism.

I've read over and over again from posters and reviewers that when you
buy a Bob Dylan concert ticket you take your chances.  That's about
right.  I'm not sure how well his stage monitors are set up or how the
particular auditorium affects things, but at the Supper Club his
enunciation was super clear and in bigger spots it's been more foggy.
I saw him in 2001 or 2, the last of the shows with a guitarist named
Charlie.  It was a college basketball arena.  The mix was quite good
and he sounded like he was at Royal Albert Hall,1966, on the electric
numbers.  I was waiting for him to break into Tell Me Momma.  The
audience was transfixed when he sang a very quiet Boots of Spanish
Leather with his bass player Tony bowing the bass.  It was a truly
heartbreaking performance--about the most emotional I've ever witnessed
from him.  There wasn't a dry eye in the house.  But at other dates the
performances have been sloppy, uncommitted and hard to decipher.  Alot
of posters have evidenly had the same experience.  To quote Marvin
Gaye, "we're all sensitive people with so much to give," and Bob Dylan
has to be one of more sensitive ones...among many other qualities, of
course.  It seems that he can only put his heart out so far before he
retreats behind his enormous talent as a wordsmith.  You see it in his
songwriting and in his performances. This guy has walls behind walls
behind walls to hide behind if he needs to. He seems to want be
emotionally direct--desperately wants it--but, from my experience
anyway, he won't do it until he feels trust with the audience.  He
won't risk putting himself out there only to be rejected or laughed at.
He's a pro.  He knows who he is.  He knows why people come out to see
him.  There's a lot to calibrate when you know the kinds of
expectations the audience has coming into a show.  I give him credit
for the times he's able to break through.

        Well, I already have seen a lot of interesting replies to this, but
what struck me instantly was what Dylan wrote in Chronicles Volume 1
about the need to escape the expectations of the fans from his beginning
and to build a new following among concert-goers.

        Myself, I first was a Dylan fan when Music from Big Pink took me to
John Wesley Harding.  My first concert also was the 1974 tour, which I
long cherished as the greatest show I ever had seen.

        After that I found the journey into adulthood led me away from
following Dylan so closely.  When I saw him in '78. in '81, and then,
big leap, in '98 and '99, I was not familiar with where he was or what
he was doing, although I did enjoy all of the shows.

        My own reawakening, curiously enough, came with the commercial release
of the Live 1966 recording.  It blew me away.  It got me interested in
finding more of these bootleg recordings, and into following Bob Dylan
the contemporary performer.

        I love what I learned.

        Of course his voice is deteriorating.  But he still is out there, still
reinventing his music, still rocking away, at smaller and smaller
venues, in intimate settings, playing great music.

        Useless?  The man continues to be a treasure.

Dylan can be tough to get, but when you get him . . . I still say 2004
was one of the best for Dylan.

Sence 1988 Dylan has been distroying the legend..

In article <1111994759.047721.254...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,

I'm sure there are variations in sound from venue to venue, and within
each venue. Depending on where they're standing/sitting two people might
have entirely different opinions of the same show.

Definitely. The number of dates he plays it has to be that he's not always
on top form at every show. Nobody could be, and yet he doesn't take the
easy road of so many and just phone in a standard set. Maybe he doesn't
always pull it off to everyone's satisfaction but that's the odds.

"Are you guys listening to soundboard recordings?"

No, we aren't.  They are near non-existent for most tours, certainly
for recent concerts.  The sound of audience recordings varies a lot, as
does performance, and much depends on the hall and where the
sitter/taper is in it.  But at least 90% of the concerts I've heard in
the past 15 years (including the past 3 years) have shown Bob's
singing, whatever its problems, to be eminently decipherable lyric-wise.