Aidan, I agree with most of what you said up to a point. However I had a similar conversation about how I felt Dylan was overrated with a friend of mine recently. His response was that while he agreed that dylan wasn't great musically, he is influential because he was one of the first people to write pop music that had lyrics about something a little deeper than the typical sugary sweeet 1950s style pop songs that said nothing more than "ooh, baby I love you" (or in rare cases if you wanted to be a bit more sombre, tragic tales of a girl who professes her undying love to a young man who then goes off and gets killed in a motorcycle accident. How come no-one writes songs about cool stuff like that any more? ). Anyway, basically what he was saying is that Dylan writing about slightly deeper and darker matters influenced others like Jim Morrison and Lou Reed to start writing about stuf that wasn't normaly covered in pop music. Of course other people had written songs about serious stuff before, centuries before Woody Guthrie even, but Dylan was among the first realatively well known pop musicians to do it, which despite the folk pretense is pretty much what he was. (Of course then again this was the 60s and the defintion of pop music was a little looser than it is now) Anyway, I'm not sure I totally agree with him, but I thought it was interesting view of things all the same.

tHERES NOTHING YOU CAN say to someone who reckons Bob dylan is only a mildly talented songwriter except would you go and s**te

Are you talking about the same person? Bob Dylan? Robert Zimmerman? Nah, it can't be the same artist you are on about....

Dylan is one of the greats, truly

Just wait until 'The_Thin_Man' drops in on this thread...

pack of w**kers i am finished with this message board. you cant slag keane but you can rip into bob dylan without causing any major disturbance . hfjk;hdsjk;hfjk;s again

and i am not the same person but that goes for me too goodbye. until then

sorry last person was dopefiend who was on this computer. i cant believe you just said all that s**t about hype and all that . who creates the hype if not the fans i believe that the artist is never actually involved in the hype . and even though i may not think bob dylan is that good he definitely is one of the best and most influential artist of the last two centurys . this thread should be blocked as slander . moderators remember that crap u where going on about months ago.

This thread won't be locked as there is a marked difference between informed criticism (e.g reasonable questioning and reasessment of the cultural importance of an artist) and childish name calling (simply stating that someone is a w**ker).

I have a few of his albums and while some have had only 1 or 2 listens, 'Blood On The Tracks' is a regular. That album alone shows his talent.

apart from binokular's point, none of you are even TRYING to explain to me why he should be so venerated and worshipped!! come on!! what do you all see in him?

Aidan's right, he posted a valid criticism of Bob Dylan, and nobody has yet tried to defend him in the same way. I agree with him entirely, except perhaps not so strongly, I mean there are a lot worse than him out there we are/could be considering legends. It's about time somebody was honest in their opinion about the man instead of just liking him because of that legendary status.

Ok, in terms of influence, i think i need only one example to refute aidan, and that was his influence on Lennon and McCartney. He encouraged them to go beyond writing bland (if very catchy) pop tunes, and delve into new areas. Starting with Rubber Soul and going on from there, and we can safely say that changed the face of modern music. Also there was that rather fetching railroad workers hat...! In terms of political tunes, he also had "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carrol" the excellent "Masters of War" and the unique "Hard Rains a Gonna Fall" to name but three. Lyrics wise i'm a big fan, two of my favourites being from the "Blood On The Tracks" album, "Simple Twist of Fate" and "You're Gonna Make Me Lonesome When You Go", but there are countless more examples of his lyrical genius. Actually a good one is the beautiful simplicity of "I Want You" which also has a lovely melody. I dont think he created a "cult of personality" but rather that it was created for him, the "spokesperson of a generation" tag never sat easy with him, and indeed he tried to get away from it on numerous occasions. And if we need further proof was he not revered by Joni Mitchell, Joan Baez, indeed the whole spectrum of 60s songwriters?

One of the main concerns I have about Aidan's original post was the poetry referrance - 'his lyrics try too hard to be poetry'. A masterful songsmith, like Dylan, doesn't ever try to write in poetic form, they just do. Poetry is not all rhyming, hidden meanings, fancy phrases.... poetry is the most expressive form of writing there ever has been. Yes I do agree that Joni Mitchell is a superb songwriter, poet is you must, but so is Dylan. And if you have ever read anything concerning the infamous 'Rolling Thunder' tour, you will be enlightened of Mitchell's respect for Dylan and vice versa. But if we are going to compare Dylan's lyrics with that of poetry, then we must trawl through his huge catelogue and pick out specific songs that try to be poetic....I'm sure for every one you come up with, there will be two more to prove your point wrong. The best songwriters write alot of their songs like poems and Dylan is no exception to that. 'His voice is weak' - again I would disagree with this point. It is obvious that he does not contain the powerful punch of Van Morrison, the distincive pitch of John Lennon or the southern growl of Chris Rea but he does have a diversity to his vocal capabilties. This diversity allows him to mend his vocals around the particular tone that the song searches for. From his country tinged 'To Be Alone With You' (from Nashville Skyline) to the lonesome aching of 'Baby Stop Crying' (from Street Legal) to the croaky tether of 'Tweedle Dum & Tweedle Dee' (from Love & Theft), the diversity in Dylan's vocals strikes with efficaious results on the majority of his songs. Yes, his voice has changed considerably over the years but it really suits the type of songs that he is writing lately, which also displays his genius in recognising that he must alter his vocals, songwriting, involvement of different instruments etc in order to keep his sound fresh. You mentioned that 'only 'hurricane' comes near to justifiying his supposed reputation as a politically-aware writer'. To that I would ask what about the Soldier mini story of being the proud hero before he goes to battle and returning as a decaptiated mess (John Brown from MTV Unplugged), the trembling honesty of a truly important outspoken comedian (Lenny Bruce from Shot Of Love), the insightful overview of political cultures (The Times They Are A-Changing from The Times They A-Changing), the satricial thought-piece (Talkin World War III from The Bootleg Series Vol 6: Live 1964) aswell as the one's that Daragh mentioned. During his early career he was a very politically aware songwriter but as soon as he started to be labelled as a protest singer he changed his songwriting style. One of the things that showcases the true genius of Dylan is his flirtitation of different genres from the almost disco 'Empire Burlesque' to the bluesy outing of 'Oh Mercy' to the acid/hippie rock of 'Dylan & The Dead'. You said 'nonsense and deliberate vagueness have replaced creative or witty word-play', my answer to that would be to listen to the 'Blood On The Tracks' album. That album alone would dispel your argument. Not one corner of it is vague, instead it binds together ten beautifully structured, inspirationally creative songs that are crammed with various instruments, superb singing, pleasant melodies and exquisite lyrics. A classic Dylan album but more importantly, one of the best albums ever to be recorded in the history of music. There is not one artist who has stayed consistently brilliant, inadvertently original and awe inspiring throughout the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s, other than Bob Dylan. Think of a truly great songwriter from the 60s onwards who doesn't acknowledge his talent or hasn't been influenced by his music. No matter what persona the media have given him over the years, Dylan has always produced music that Woddy Guthrie started and many others have tried to master but couldn't for the amount of time that he has. Granted he is not the best novelist, but he is the best songwriter ever - I'm sure even Paul McCartney would agree on that one. He has kept releasing albums through the years and is constantly touring which proves that he doesn't neglect his thrist for having his music out there to the mass public. Is it any wonder that so many other musicians have covered his songs or hundreds of songwriters have attempted to capture the magic that he displays on every album he has released? His icon status is deserved and nowhere near over-rated.

very well put

Well put indeed!

Aidan, if the above excellent replies dont convince you, then at least consider that within the context of the world at the time, he was pretty remarkable. Cool thread though, fair play!

gar, jules, good points but I still am not convinced. I listened to the live CD of the rolling thunder revue a couple of times over the weekend and I still heard an only-alright singer-songer wheezing and whining through ordinary songs with pretentious lyrics: 'alone on the beach/except for some kelp' (and the inevitable rhyme with 'help') from 'sarah' is just brian mcfadden-esque! and while no one expects him to be sinatra or scott walker, to me he has no feeling or emotion in his voice. I AGREE that dylan IS hugely influential: that's why I despair - I think his influence has done more harm than good. in my op-ed on the irish music scene I criticised the wave of self-satisfied acoustic singer-songers who I feel draw on his influence and style of writing and playing. internationally, people like rufus wainwright (who may adore dylan for all I know) and stephin merrit are returning to the values of well-crafted melodies, hooks and choruses, witty and articulate lyrics... the major formative influence on the beatles was probably buddy holly. this hardly means that buddy holly is 'better' or even on a par with lennon-mccartney. your point re: dylan developing on pete seeger/woody guthrie's tradition is a valid one: the irish acts I've criticised in the past are simply content to replicate dylan and not build on what they love in him - I feel its because dylan's style offers a cop-out where an artist can just drone non-melodies, mumble incoherently, write gibberish and get away with being 'authentic': as you can probably guess, I'm not a damien rice fan either - 'stones taught me to fly' and all that.... damien rice is for me the classic example of someone wallowing in dylan. (apologies in advance for re-starting the damien rice wars!) the byrds obviously loved dylan: but they built on that, drawing also on the beatles and 12-string folk guitarists, if I'm not mistaken). dylan made a certain genre of music popular and thus more people became more interested in the likes of joni mitchell and the band (both of whom I like, so it's not a question of me not liking the genre)- for this, I gladly thank him for his influence! but that's all. jules, the guy who wrote 'itsy bitsy teeny weeny yellow polka-dot bikini' also had a massive summer pop hit and may well have written many others, but he isn't being deified like dylan (unless it was leonard cohen doing a nixer..) :D

It seems that you are shifting the blame towards Dylan for a large percentage of Irish singer/songwriters who you dislike. Just because Dylan is an icon (and rightly so) and is extremely influential, doesn't mean that he is to blame when others try to copy what he has achieved and created. Woddy Guthrie and people like that started the folk singer/songwriter movement off but Dylan has been the one who has spiced it up through the decades with his injections of laudable pop, sulky folk, addictive rock and all of the other number of genres he has dipped his feet in. All of the artists you have mentioned from Frank Sinatra to Leonard Cohen to Buddy Holly have not reached the heights that Dylan's work ethic, songwriting skills, knack for reinventing his music, ability of using his vocals to great effect, etc etc has. The Beatles are regarded by many to be the greatest band of all time (you also cited Buddy Holly as having a major impact on their music, what about Beach Boys , Rolling Stones and Bach ), were clearly influenced by Dylan to which they produced great albums like 'Rubber Soul', 'The Beatles' and 'Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band'. Thanking Dylan for albums like that would in turn thank Dylan for so many great artists from Van Morrison to The Band to Joan Baez.....the list is endless. Dylan's songwriting captures something more than a 'summer pop hit', although he does have his fair share of them, it captures the underbelly of society, the taboo subjects in life, the tender feelings of a relationship etc. You seem to be trying to pick holes in his lyrics with your earlier posts. Of course there are holes in there. What artist doesn't have holes in their writing, instrument playing, singing, all round musicianship? And it would lose an awful lot if everything was perfect, in key, on time and polished. Music taps the vulnerability and flaws within the artist and exploits them to an extent where the listener relates and draws comfort from the fact that the musician is only human too i.e. prone to mistakes. Dylan doesn't this brilliantly, writing with a consciousness that begs out for a certain vocal style or a harmonica insert. If you cannot hear melodies and intelligent lyrics in his music, then you simply have not listened to enough of his stuff with an open mind.

dylan just isn't an artist I like, and because he's an icon to millions I'm trying to understand why. he seems to be almost unquestionably revered. I'm not questioning him just for the sake of killing sacred cows, though... of course dylan isn't to 'blame' for inferior singer-songers; BUT if they so clearly follow his style, and if both he and they are hugely popular, and if (as someone with strong feelings about music) I feel that their status is questionable, then it's valid for me to question the genre of music and also the person who (maybe through no fault of his own) is regarded as the figurehead and innovator of that style. obviously, any example I give of a particular song or lyric will seem like 'picking holes' in the context of his many albums and songs. and of course my favourite artists have all written some poorer songs in their time. but I assure you all that I HAVE listened to plenty of dylan - first of all, he's inescapable in our popular culture! secondly, I've made the effort to listen and understand because he is held in such high regard by half of my record collection and it's natural to investigate the influences of ones' heroes. I just don't hear what you hear, gar and others who love him, when I listen to dylan - I can hear those qualities when tom waits sings 'grapefruit moon' or marvin gaye sings 'inner city blues' or dionne warwick sings 'anyone who had a heart' or in the first verse of 'a case of you' ("oh canada!!!" - so many feelings captured in just two words...).that's a matter of taste, of course - there are people who can't stand my heroes, such as bowie. HOWEVER, there are otherwise sensible professors of literature and cultural commentators who are making claims such as 'dylan is the greatest living user of the english language' (christopher ricks in his book 'dylan's visions of sin', backed up by bryan appleyard in the sunday times review of dylan's 'chronicles'). it is possible that he could someday be awarded the nobel prize for literature (there is a sizeable lobby of academics pushing for it). for me, this is something I have to question because to my mind it shows that the idolatry of dylan has gotten so far out of hand to be ridiculous. this in itself isn't dylan's 'fault', but it's still necessary to question his reputation in this light.

Of course there are many reasons to question any artist's ability but with Dylan, I think that no matter what argument you put forward about his music on a whole, nothing will prove that he is undeserved of his icon status. I respect that you just don't get him but that's down to personal preferance, not that he is so bad that there is a lack of quality there. I agree with you on alot of matters (I'm a big fan of Tom Waits aswell as some of the other artists you mentioned) and I would ignore alot of the talk of a nobel prize for literature, but in terms of his releases Dylan is the best songwriter from the 60s to this day (which is a roundabout way to saying that he is the greatest ever). Yes, these are all opinions being shared but the evidence still remains of Dylan's musical superiority.

I suppose we won't fall out over it :D

Dylan = Legend. Simple as!

I think you have to go on your gut reaction to music and Dylan has always left me feeling...well...nothing really. His song writing may be good but the overall package leaves me cold. I think he's one of those artists that you are 'supposed' to like when truth be known far more people don't then would admit to.

thats definitely true, i hate that s**t, people claimin to be into someone cos its 'cool', its the Ramones t-shirt syndrome, and the skanger Bob Marley 'fans' who've never heard any of his studio albums, or ever even heard of the Wailers

As an overall package leaves me cold what is that supposed to mean jesus why say what can be said in four words in hundreds it doesnt make sense. to be honest i dont have the time or interest to argue with someone over whether bob dylan is good or bad.

i can't believe people are still arguing about Bob Dylan. Get over it! This is worse than arguing about the merits of Damien Rice.

Bob Dylan.....Damien Rice.....I do think there is a bit of difference there now.

Smart Arse

no, what I mean is, it's such a tired and rehashed and boring argument. It's like arguing about oasis V blur in 2011. The problem with rock music is its incessant backtracking, as clearing displayed on this thread. Let's get over it, shall we. PS, the Stones are better than the Beatles

Fair enough. The battle is over and I'll let that Beatles comment slide this time.