Bob's Voice
Dem
and am just starting to delve into Dylan's full catalogue, but when
did his voice turn to gravel? It sounded pretty good to me through
Rolling Thunder Review and up into his trio of born-again albums, but
at some point whatever range he had just seems to have dried up, and
now his voice is like gargling marbles. His most recent albums - to
me, anyway - are almost unlistenable because of it. When did this
start to happen in a noticeable way, and was it the result of illness
or surgery, or just a natural progression?
Hiram Cumming
Dem <demerara.new...@gmail.com> wrote:
He is become what he has longed to be.
really real
> Please don't take this the wrong way, because I'm a relatively new fan
> and am just starting to delve into Dylan's full catalogue, but when
> did his voice turn to gravel?
You don't want us to take this the wrong way? Just what is the right way
to take this?
You come to a Dylan newsgroup and point out to us that his voice has
turned to gravel? This isn't the kind of thing we can tolerate hearing
in here.
Dylan's voice has been a problem since the very first album. With his
problematical and very expressive voice, Dylan has been able to turn in
some fine vocal performances, including periods when he sang angel-like
or crooner-like, but even with his most accessible singing, Dylan always
sounded weird to people who hadn't gotten used to him,
Indeed, Dylan's voice turned gravel-like at some point in the last two
decades. I'm sure some people here could pinpoint when this happened,
but don't count on them responding to your question. It's the elephant
in our newsgroup that no one will talk about.
However, you shouldn't let the gravel voice stop you from listening to
Dylan's last three albums. I was listening to a song from Time Out of
Mind yesterday and I noticed how less gravely it sounded than the
current Dylan voice.
Jumbo
> > Please don't take this the wrong way, because I'm a relatively new fan
> > and am just starting to delve into Dylan's full catalogue, but when
> > did his voice turn to gravel?
>
> You don't want us to take this the wrong way? Just what is the right way
> to take this?
I'm still working out what is the right way to take it. I've tried
lying down, but I've got sinus problems at the moment and I started to
get a strong throbbing just below my right temple. Next, I tried
standing in the corner (of the room), and that felt better. From there
I could see the gravel in next door's garden. But I couldn't hear it,
to find out what is so bad about gravel sound. Then the heavy man who
delivers pizza menus came past and made the gravel crunch. It sounded
pretty good. Think I'll tape it. OTOH, it doesn't sound as good as the
late-70s gravel I remember from my childhood when everything was
better. Rolling 70s gravel sounded sublime. No 2 ways about it.
gabriel
> > You don't want us to take this the wrong way? Just what is the right way
> > to take this?
>
> I'm still working out what is the right way to take it. I've tried
> lying down, but I've got sinus problems at the moment and I started to
> get a strong throbbing just below my right temple. Next, I tried
> standing in the corner (of the room), and that felt better. From there
> I could see the gravel in next door's garden. But I couldn't hear it,
> to find out what is so bad about gravel sound. Then the heavy man who
> delivers pizza menus came past and made the gravel crunch. It sounded
> pretty good. Think I'll tape it. OTOH, it doesn't sound as good as the
> late-70s gravel I remember from my childhood when everything was
> better. Rolling 70s gravel sounded sublime. No 2 ways about it.
The sound of footsteps crunching on gravel, one of the most strangely
satisfying homely sounds... like rain falling on a tin roof.
Listening to 'Things Have Changed' from Oslo, the gravel is barely
there. My, things really do seem to have changed.
Martin
This isn't the kind of thing we can tolerate hearing
> in here. It's the elephant
> in our newsgroup that no one will talk about
You are way wrong, rr. I have been talking about it repeatedly for
ages. Bob's gravelly voice grew out of his Oh Mercy voice, which
first appeared on the Travelling Wilburys Vol 1. It was a gruffer,
far low register sound than he had used for ages, and came as a
(pleasant) surprise after his pretty high pitched mid 80's voice. The
Oh Mercy voice continued through the first years of the NET, but
something happened to Bob in '91 that resulted in the cheese grater
voice he had at the Seville Guitar Legends, so I would suggest that
was the beginning of the gravelly sound. It's something I believe he
has had to wrestle with ever since, and on the whole he does a damn
good job of it. He does not seem to have the range he used to, but
listen to some choice performances from recent years, and you'll be
surprised. Moonshiner from 1963 has often been cited as an example of
his great range - play Romance In Durango or Jokerman from London '03
next to it and tell me he can't sing that well anymore. He doesn't
have anything like the voice he had in 1963 anymore, but neither did
he in '66, or '69, or '74, '78, '84, '88 or '90. They're all great,
as is the voice he has now. Just look at the video I posted yesterday
- he sounds great. A little frazzled, a little gravelly, but great
nonetheless.
badlands420
> His most recent albums - to
> me, anyway - are almost unlistenable because of it.
Sucks for you. I think Dylan's current voice is better, more nuanced, and
more interesting than it's ever been.
really real
>
> The sound of footsteps crunching on gravel, one of the most strangely
> satisfying homely sounds... like rain falling on a tin roof.
>
> Listening to 'Things Have Changed' from Oslo, the gravel is barely
> there. My, things really do seem to have changed.
>
>
Is there somewhere I can hear that? I suspect, though, that as a lover
of Dylan's voice, you just aren't noticing how gravelly it would sound
to the outside listener.
gabriel
> > The sound of footsteps crunching on gravel, one of the most strangely
> > satisfying homely sounds... like rain falling on a tin roof.
>
> > Listening to 'Things Have Changed' from Oslo, the gravel is barely
> > there. My, things really do seem to have changed.
>
> Is there somewhere I can hear that?
check http://expectingrain.com/discussions.html
>I suspect, though, that as a lover
> of Dylan's voice, you just aren't noticing how gravelly it would sound
> to the outside listener.
Well, maybe, but I've pretty much found it difficult to listen to over
the last 2 or 3 years, this sounds much better.
crazytimes
> Please don't take this the wrong way, because I'm a relatively new fan
> and am just starting to delve into Dylan's full catalogue, but when
> did his voice turn to gravel? It sounded pretty good to me through
> Rolling Thunder Review and up into his trio of born-again albums, but
> at some point whatever range he had just seems to have dried up, and
> now his voice is like gargling marbles.
Somewhere between his 1987 tour with the Hearthbreakers - which I
haven't listened to all the shows of, so I don't know if it went south
on that tour or not... Somewhere between that tour and the first leg
of the 1988 NET, it got blown out somewhere, and Bob's pretty much
been singing in the middle and low registers ever since...
I saw him in Pittsburgh that first 1988 NET tour, and his voice was
already going gone then... And someone who saw him earlier in
Cinncinatti or Cleveland also reported that Bob's voice wasn't too hot
even then... I don't think it was a gradual deterioration; I think
earlier before 1988 he sang differently out of choice... but the way
his voice deteriorated by the beginning of the NET, it was a drastic
and apparently irrevocable reduction in his singing range that was
probably the result of one incident where his vocal cords were
damaged... Only he knows exactly when...
Martin
> I saw him in Pittsburgh that first 1988 NET tour, and his voice was
> already going gone then...
I majorly disagree with you on this, I have many recordings from '88
and his singing is superb. Have you heard Eileen Aroon?
Barbara
"crazytimes" <crazyt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1175447297....@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
crazytimes
Well, there were lots of shows in '88... I haven't heard them all, but
the ones I have show Bob's voice suffering... Of course, singing and
the state of his voice are not necessarily one and the same... The
singing might be superb, but Bob's vocal range definitely did change
at some point between Summer '87 and the end of '88... I don't know
if the NET contributed to this or not... I have some '87 Fall/Winter
Petty/Dylan shows on hard-drive, for the world tour, but I haven't
listened to 'em yet...
crazytimes
> "crazytimes" <crazytime...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
It could have been incrementally damaged from '75-'88... I guess a
good voice doctor with a good ear could tell us for sure...
craig...@mac.com
It happened on the afternoon of September 15, 1991 in Hollywood.
(That's why he writes the line in "Things Have Changed", ""I'm in the
wrong town, I should've been in Hollywood."") Earlier in the day as
Dylan was interviewed on the Chabod Telethon his voice was smooth and
sweet as honey in the rock. Afterwards while taking a short nap he
fell asleep and inhaled a lit cigarette that became lodged in his
throat. No amount of whiskey or black coffee would extinguish it.
Later that evening he appeared with Kinky Friedman and played "Sold
American" altho he could only accompany on guitar and not sing along
as planned. A month later on October 17 he showed up at the "Guitar
Legends" concert in Seville, Spain. All Dylan could do was play guitar
so they played instrumental versions of "All Along The Watchtower" and
"Boots Of Spanish Leather." On October 24, 1991 he was scheduled to
play Corpus Christi, TX but cancelled in horror when he realized his
voice sounded as it does now. He finally came to terms with it and
restarted th NET the next night in Austin, Texas. That was the debut
of his so-called "gravel voice" and the Texas crowd went wild,
thinking he was now one of them. The rest they say, is history.
Martin
The Petty shows in Europe had some wonderful moments, but Bob was
frequently using a strange, kind of spastic way of singing that
certainly wasn't the 'old' Bob. The USA tour with Petty the year
before had some great moments also, but featured a lot of yelling that
was less than melodic. For me, the '88 tour and a good deal of the
'89 tour of Europe were preferable to these.
Harry
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bob can hold his breath 4 times lomger than any of the American
yodelers
hhhaller
Godzilla
1983's Infidels.
Dem
question, but I was pleasantly surprised. I didn't mean it as a
put-down of Dylan at all, and I'm glad it wasn't taken as one. You
guys have a lot of class.
Mr Jinx
"Take some rocks and some gravel .... make a solid road."
Mr Jinx
rin...@yahoo.com
> and am just starting to delve into Dylan's full catalogue, but when
> did his voice turn to gravel?
don't think of it as gravel, try thinking of it as toasted granola.
Gemini Jackson
This is all true.
~GJ~
Steve
"Martin" <martin...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1175442733.8...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
I agree with Martin-that is when I first noticed the change in Dylan's
voice. I don't count the live 70's voice because Dylan rarely sounds as good
live as studio(voice anyway, and I'm just referring to non-fanatics. Dylan
is required taste,even in 60s-70s but esp. now. Nowdays it seems he doesn't
nail any entire concerts for me, thought I don't fault him. He's done more
than anyone of his generation of artists. If 69 was his last year or even 66
his place in history would be assured. I've listened to him since 65 so it
is no big deal going through all the changes. I do wish for a greatest live
set from all the great ones that still need covering. I think Bob needs a
good CD to tour with. I noticed when TOOM came out and he won 3 Grammys his
concert singing went up for me. Same with L&T-Haven't seen anything from MT
except the web vids.
Steve
Steve
"crazytimes" <crazyt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1175447297....@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
I remember hearing or reading in 89 or 90 i think that he did damage his
voice in some way and was afraid his career was over. I think it was in ISIS
or another fanzine like that. Does anyone know anthing about this.
Steve
Jumbo
>
> I agree with Martin-that is when I first noticed the change in Dylan's
> voice. I don't count the live 70's voice because Dylan rarely sounds as good
> live as studio
Well, it depends what you mean by "good". Yes, there's an intimacy
that, like most singers, he can more easily achieve in the studio. But
there's also the occasional moments of communicated feeling he
achieves live which he has said does not happen in the studio. Where
is the studio equivalent of No More Auction Block?
> (voice anyway, and I'm just referring to non-fanatics.
It's always dubious to label people of a different opinion "fanatics".
While I agree Dylan is an acquired taste, can't a little more credit
be given to people who really like what he's been doing since 1988?
Must they always be accused of delusive straw-clinging? You can play
your old records as often as you like, so why does it matter if other
people think he can do things with his voice now, different but as
good as anything he's done before?
frinjdwelr
"Steve" <scott....@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:tA8Qh.26340$oV.23429@attbi_s21...
>
>> On Apr 1, 2:38 am, Dem <demerara.newsgroupNO_S...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Please don't take this the wrong way, because I'm a relatively new fan
>>> and am just starting to delve into Dylan's full catalogue, but when
>>> did his voice turn to gravel? It sounded pretty good to me through
>>> Rolling Thunder Review and up into his trio of born-again albums, but
>>> at some point whatever range he had just seems to have dried up, and
>>> now his voice is like gargling marbles.
>>
>
> voice in some way and was afraid his career was over. I think it was in
> ISIS or another fanzine like that. Does anyone know anthing about this.
>
J Buck
relatively new fan and am just starting to delve into Dylan's full
catalogue, but when did his voice turn to gravel?>
There are 2 ways to answer this, and both, of course, are subjective. In
live terms, I'd say sometime in '01 or '02. As far as albums go, I could
hear it coming in TOOM, and becoming more prominent in L & T.
If you've been on this group very long, you're no doubt aware of the
theory that his voice hasn't turned to gravel, but that our hearing has
turned to mush. Believe that if you want; I find it laughable.
gabriel
> "Martin" <martingayf...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
All very true, Steve, but I think you meant to say "acquired taste"
not required.
Although, mebbe not... some of us do find a little Dylan each day is
necessary.
Medicine for the soul.
I've been listening since 64, too, so changes (on both sides) are
simply the expected thing. But, I can't help wondering - if we'd been
hearing audience recordings through computer speakers of every concert
in the 74 tour, the day after it happened, what would our reactions
have been?
Bernie Woodham
"really real" <reall...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:ifPPh.14139$aG1.1353@pd7urf3no...
>
>> Please don't take this the wrong way, because I'm a relatively new fan
>> and am just starting to delve into Dylan's full catalogue, but when
>> did his voice turn to gravel?
>
> to take this?
>
Mr Jinx
Dylan's singing was criticized on his first album. It was ever thus.
Let's just clear up one misconception here: nobody is saying Dylan's
voice hasn't become more gravelly nor that is has escaped the ravages
of time, simply that this does not stand in the way of his
communication of emotion and thought through song - as the thousands
of delighted and cheering people at the shows night after night amply
demonstrates.
If those people can be thrilled by what he is doing now then doesn't
that rather suggest that the people who say they can't enjoy him any
more have found their own limits not Dylan's?
Mr Jinx
Jumbo
> If you've been on this group very long, you're no doubt aware of the
> theory that his voice hasn't turned to gravel, but that our hearing has
> turned to mush. Believe that if you want; I find it laughable.
I think you're over-simplifying and over-stating the case here. I
agree with Mr Jinx. I can't recall anyone anywhere ever saying that
Bob's voice is sweet and canary-like these days, or any days since
1968.
I think doing a LARS as affecting as the studio original has been
impossible for Bob for at least about 20 years. But I also think the
1965, 1966, 1975, take your pick, Dylan could not perform Cry a While
in as convincing a way as on the Grammy's in 2002. Why does enjoying
(or preferring) one kind of vocal performance have to entail
misrepresenting people who enjoy the other?
More general rant: Why do I sometimes feel like I'm being impeached
for aesthetic dishonesty when I say my favourite version of Hard Rain
is the Gmex one? Like I'm a troll trying to get a reaction instead of
a midcore fan expressing an opinion. I'm not saying Dylan's voice
isn't different to his young voice, has less range, isn't sometimes
downright unpleasant, or protesting that on a given day in Ljublana it
sounds completely unlike a cement mixer fed with angry marsupials ...
That's why I like it. The very thing I'm being implicitly (or by
association) accused of pretending to like is the thing I'm being
accused of ignoring!!!
gabriel
>
> Dylan's singing was criticized on his first album. It was ever thus.
"Hoarse, wounded, affectingly ugly" - HiFi and Stereo Review, 1963
Martin
Come on Jumbo, you're just pretending to like the thing you're
implicity (or by association) being accused of ignoring again.
Personally, I think the 'cement mixer fed with angry marsupials'
period is almost as good as the 'protest' period.
Jumbo
>
> Come on Jumbo, you're just pretending to like the thing you're
> implicity (or by association) being accused of ignoring again.
> Personally, I think the 'cement mixer fed with angry marsupials'
> period is almost as good as the 'protest' period.
You got me. Really I listen to Dean Martin.
Mr Jinx
"Hoarse, wounded, affectingly ugly" Wow. what a coincidence. That's
exactly what I've got printed on my introduction card.
Mr Jinx
Harry
> "crazytimes" <crazytime...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
is change damage?
hhh
Martin
Well I listened to Andy Williams the other day, I love 'Moon River'.
Jumbo
Yeah, and there's Bing: Red Sails (Modern Times got me to go back to
that one), of course, but also ... Hot Time in Berlin ... Buddy Can
You Spare A Dime (brilliant) ... Answer Me ... Riders in the Sky ...
theProphet_dudley
Me & my cousin one Martha McBride...
it being on Easter evening.
This being a fine thread, it put me to mind of past discussions of
bob's "voice"...
Here's a coupla blasts from the past; try to find the common thread
(read everything within braces, or curly brackets, as one post):
}
> Forget Mel Blanc! "Bob Dylan: The Man of a Thousand Voices"! (though I'm told
> his Daffy Duck is lousy)
It's the Donald Duck/Popeye voice that people say is so lousy
{
(herein find not only crossreferenced the cartoon voice, but also a
Dean Martin crosstie):
}
> not that i dont cherish and appriciate everything dylan does but whatever
> happened to his voice.
> is it just old age, or a disease or what?
> i love it all the same
> but im just curious
Rather than old age, I think it's aged well. What amazes me is the
degree to
which he's honed his tonal breath control, not to mention that
wheezing rasp
he injects into some of his performances.
When he wants to, he can sing as sweet as sugared honey... the recent
"Return to Me" comes to mind; "Something" weren't bad neither.
He can also sing as fat as buttered lard, & he can still hold a note
twice
as long as Caruso if he wants.
I ain't joshin'... I think the voice you're curious about is as
intentional
as the "Nashville Skyline" voice, or that Popeye/Daffy Duck voice he
used
about a decade ago.
What bothers me more is what's happened to Janis Joplin's voice... I
rarely
hear it.
{
In part reply to which:
}
>When he wants to, he can sing as sweet as sugared honey... the recent
>"Return to Me" comes to mind; "Something" weren't bad neither.
>He can also sing as fat as buttered lard, & he can still hold a note twice
>as long as Caruso if he wants.
By an interesting coincidence "Not Dark Yet" is coming over the
headphones
at this moment, and as you say, Bob's voice is free of the crackling
rasp he
uses so often these days, interesting to think of him being able to
turn
that on and off.
}
>From the little i've heard of '07 tour the off switch being on...
mebbe it's a rheostatic control.
Then there's:
}
I think the height of the Donald Duck voice was around 1987. I've
got
some tapes where he's really quacking!
{
& finally a nunusual discourse:
}
> Not that there aren't exceptions. But the point is that Dylan's voice IS in its
> totality an exception, a huge one: it embodies, just like his art as a whole, a
> sweeping history of experiment, adjustment to limitation, and dramatic reinvention.
> Which is why one can always find hundreds if not thousands of examples to refute any
> over-arching narrative of decline, from '88, from '81, from '78, from '66, from
> whenever.
any "narrative of decline" is bound to be as vacuous as a "march of
progress" construction of history. vocology, as one person called
it,
is very subjective territory. what I am interested in is an
exploration
of changes as heard by a listener of a performance. as you may have
guessed by my frequent disclaimers, I have some trepidation about
posting as there is always someone who would prefer it if I just got
a
life and accepted that exceptions/subjectivity/etc. make the project
a
waste of time. and: fragile little internet sea-monkey that I am, I
scuttle off.
> All I can say is that I started hearing Dylan live at the outset of the Neverending
> Tour and, with the exception of the mid-nineties voice--a category unto itself--this
> is the best I've ever heard him.
I wish I had your source material.
> And unfortunately--or fortunately--in listening to a vocal performance like the ones
> I've mentioned, among so many thousand others both early and late, no amount of
> analysis, however fascinating, however useful, will ever be able fully to answer the
> question: How the **** did he pull that off?
this is absolutely right. no love song can ever really capture the
experience of love, however, and that never stopped Bob Dylan from
trying to show a corner of it. it's the anal in analysis that tends
to
bug people, though, and for good reason. especially when the
analyzer
assumes the clumsy fist of authority. pursuit of the analytically
ineffable is not for everyone, nor is un-analytical enjoyment of what
is
there. to each their own bend, right?
{
That's about it really.
As to Andy Williams, try listening to him backwards.
As to Bing, seek out the radio broadcast of him with Bix Beiderbecke
(sp???) singing "Try a Little Tenderness" ca. 1932.
That said i've lately been listening to "Tree with Roots" a bit,
perhaps my favourite dylna voice.
Until driving home from Ma's to see her on Easter & bring her pictures
of her most recent greatGrandson, i popped in bob's Jimmie Rodgers'
tribute & his "BlueEyed Jane"...
rasping in melody.
Take care, but take it,
rdd
np: "Down by the Riverside"--Cowboy Roy Brown
Harry
> "crazytimes" <crazytime...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1175447297....@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 1, 2:38 am, Dem <demerara.newsgroupNO_S...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Please don't take this the wrong way, because I'm a relatively new fan
> > > and am just starting to delve into Dylan's full catalogue, but when
> > > did his voice turn to gravel? It sounded pretty good to me through
> > > Rolling Thunder Review and up into his trio of born-again albums, but
> > > at some point whatever range he had just seems to have dried up, and
> > > now his voice is like gargling marbles.
>
> > Somewhere between his 1987 tour with the Hearthbreakers - which I
> > haven't listened to all the shows of, so I don't know if it went south
> > on that tour or not... Somewhere between that tour and the first leg
> > of the 1988 NET, it got blown out somewhere, and Bob's pretty much
> > been singing in the middle and low registers ever since...
>
> > I saw him in Pittsburgh that first 1988 NET tour, and his voice was
> > already going gone then... And someone who saw him earlier in
> > Cinncinatti or Cleveland also reported that Bob's voice wasn't too hot
> > even then... I don't think it was a gradual deterioration; I think
> > earlier before 1988 he sang differently out of choice... but the way
> > his voice deteriorated by the beginning of the NET, it was a drastic
> > and apparently irrevocable reduction in his singing range that was
> > probably the result of one incident where his vocal cords were
> > damaged... Only he knows exactly when...
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
procol wel on Procol's 9 th-
when they do
I Keep Forgettin'(Leiber-Stollrr)
& a surprisingly fresh 8m dayds s weeek
reid shoupd retire.
hhh