Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20503
Topic: Nobel Prize for Literature goes to Bob Dylan Posted: November 04 2016 at 13:51
Just when you thought this thread was dead...
I would like to nominate other songwriters for the Noel Prize for Literature as follows: 1) Towns Van Zandt 2) Steve Earle 3) Neil Young and 4) Bruce Springsteen.
Who would you nominate?
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Online
Points: 64369
Posted: October 26 2016 at 16:46
^ It did become a discussion on his voice, didn't it. I think I probably caused that when I pointed out that the quality of, or one's opinion of, Dylan's singing was irrelevant to his talent in either music or wordcraft.
It is also possible to appreciate the awarding and still question the judgement and credibility of the Nobel committee.
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: October 26 2016 at 07:43
Dean wrote:
The T wrote:
^That's what makes it unique in my view. You're right the music is not irrelevant, but purely as music it is...poor? Simplistic? It's a conjunction of simple music and simpler poetry that generates a form of art that is neither music nor poetry.
That's simply because the lyric was written with the musical accompaniment. The song-melody line needs the underlying bass and/or rhythm line accompaniment to make musical sense and vice versa. It's quite difficult to explain what I mean by this, (but it's in practically every Beatles song - these songs were written by two musically illiterate writers and "break all the rules" yet when you look vertically through each song, from sung-melody to guitar accompaniment no rules are actually broken), in these kind of singer-songwriter songs the tempo and rhythm moves melody along on the horizontal axis but the harmonic content of each beat is resolved on the vertical axis - it's like (figuratively but not literally) a nice harmonic chord in the song becomes incomplete if you remove a horizontal layer from the recording. Dylan isn't unique in this, a lot of lyricists who compose at the piano or with guitar in hand work in this way and you'll notice that the rhythm of the accompaniment stays in step with the lyric whereas songs written separately don't always do this.
I see your point.
It's still poor as pure music. It acquires its importance as a combination of lyrics and sounds.
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20503
Posted: October 26 2016 at 04:10
^Now I'm pissed off.
Just kidding David. I really feel that Dylan's vocal technique is a shtick that worked extremely well for him. But ultimately, his vocals are an acquired taste. If you've acquired a taste for his singing, more power to you. I'm not in that camp but as said before, Dylan is as important to rock music as the Beatles.
However, as an aggressive chop oriented rocker, I think his guitar playing sucks too.
Btw, Dylan did pave the way for limited singers from Hendrix to Knopfler.
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Online
Points: 64369
Posted: October 25 2016 at 16:09
SteveG wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
If one equally eviscerates Jon's and Geddy's and Phil's voices, sure. But when it comes to those singers, most prog fans forgive, forget, and give a wink to their friends with a cheery "That's not a lady singing, I swear!" They don't really have much choice, do they, if they want to listen to a third of the progrock cornerstone bands.
Anderson and Lee sing high. Anderson is not a distraction to me. Geddy, especially early on, is. But the main problem with Dylan is that his nasal vocals are so forced that they have become a caricature. Geddy may sing like a hinge but it's genuine and not a vocal shtick. As for Knopfler, his vocals are real, and naturally, are much less nasal, if at all.
Dylan's vocals are anything but forced. That's how he sings (a right bit better than most people I know who "sing"). If it weren't for Dylan's caricatures, Knopfler would never have even started singing, I'd wager. Plus a whole slew of S/S's that realized they had something to offer even thought hey weren't vocally gifted.
But ultimately what's being completely missed is the simple fact that the man could sing, flat out, no bullsh*t sing. Not liking his voice has nothing to do with it, and I think that pisses people off.
Edited by Atavachron - October 25 2016 at 16:14
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20503
Posted: October 25 2016 at 10:45
Dean wrote:
^ technically it depends on where in the mask area the bulk of the resonance occurs and the timbres those areas add to the overall sound. Wonder uses a combination of throat and "front of face" (for want of a better description) which includes palate, cheek and nasal areas that adds brightness to his voice and that varies by how he places his tongue within his mouth while singing (just watch his vids). As I implied before with Dylan's speaking voice, his technique is limited to being predominately nasal cavity resonance because his tongue is comparatively inactive while he speaks and sings and that blocks throat resonance.
I agree. What Dylan does with paralysis of the tongue is not the same as "projecting from the face", as is the want of most pop singers. All the better, as I would hate if Macca sounded like Pavarotti.
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: October 25 2016 at 10:19
The T wrote:
^That's what makes it unique in my view. You're right the music is not irrelevant, but purely as music it is...poor? Simplistic? It's a conjunction of simple music and simpler poetry that generates a form of art that is neither music nor poetry.
That's simply because the lyric was written with the musical accompaniment. The song-melody line needs the underlying bass and/or rhythm line accompaniment to make musical sense and vice versa. It's quite difficult to explain what I mean by this, (but it's in practically every Beatles song - these songs were written by two musically illiterate writers and "break all the rules" yet when you look vertically through each song, from sung-melody to guitar accompaniment no rules are actually broken), in these kind of singer-songwriter songs the tempo and rhythm moves melody along on the horizontal axis but the harmonic content of each beat is resolved on the vertical axis - it's like (figuratively but not literally) a nice harmonic chord in the song becomes incomplete if you remove a horizontal layer from the recording. Dylan isn't unique in this, a lot of lyricists who compose at the piano or with guitar in hand work in this way and you'll notice that the rhythm of the accompaniment stays in step with the lyric whereas songs written separately don't always do this.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: October 25 2016 at 09:58
The T wrote:
^That's what makes it unique in my view. You're right the music is not irrelevant, but purely as music it is...poor? Simplistic? It's a conjunction of simple music and simpler poetry that generates a form of art that is neither music nor poetry.
Well, as long as it has melody (and Dylan songs do have discernible verses even if they seem to almost run along in a procession) and is performed with the help of musical instruments, it is still music, very much so. I get that you don't like Dylan (and I don't like the music either) but I can't say a song like Blowin' in the wind is just poetry recital, it does have a melody. It just doesn't have the elegant shape of a great melody like Whiter Shade of Pale.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: October 25 2016 at 09:53
^That's what makes it unique in my view. You're right the music is not irrelevant, but purely as music it is...poor? Simplistic? It's a conjunction of simple music and simpler poetry that generates a form of art that is neither music nor poetry.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: October 25 2016 at 09:50
The T wrote:
Dylan's type of music is a unique art I have to say: technically not brilliant, musically irrelevant, but lyrically good (if not Nobel-worthy) and with other values. I just would call it something else.
I don't think it is musically irrelevant, without the music it lacks a dimension that "traditional" poetry carries, with any song (whether by Dylan or anyone) the two go hand in hand not because that's how we are accustom to hearing them, but because that's how they were created. It is rare for a lyric in printed form to leap off the page (in the way that a Byron or Hughes poem does when we read it) unless you know the tune that accompanies it.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: October 25 2016 at 09:40
Dean wrote:
I think most Dylan songs benefit from having someone else sing them, but that's just my personal view.
No, that is a great version. What I am saying is you can't try to literally sing, as in extensively embellish the melody of, a Dylan song and create ebbs and crests where there ain't none. Drake is not really trying too hard to do un-Dylan there and that's why it works.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: October 25 2016 at 09:13
The T wrote:
^I agree that Cash had a much more powerful voice. Also, you're right: I can't imagine Dylan's songs being performed by any proper singer, there's not enough melody or at least a sense of contour to warrant a true vocalist.
That has to do with the music itself: simplistic at max, nothing of interest.
Dylan's type of music is a unique art I have to say: technically not brilliant, musically irrelevant, but lyrically good (if not Nobel-worthy) and with other values. I just would call it something else.
Knopfler probably did even less singing than Dylan but he was a talented guitarist, so there's that.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: October 25 2016 at 09:12
Dean wrote:
^ technically it depends on where in the mask area the bulk of the resonance occurs and the timbres those areas add to the overall sound. Wonder uses a combination of throat and "front of face" (for want of a better description) which includes palate, cheek and nasal areas that adds brightness to his voice and that varies by how he places his tongue within his mouth while singing (just watch his vids). As I implied before with Dylan's speaking voice, his technique is limited to being predominately nasal cavity resonance because his tongue is comparatively inactive while he speaks and sings and that blocks throat resonance.
Yup, front of face is dead on right. You can't produce that Stevie like bright, sweet tone without feeling the resonance in the 'mask' as it is called. He uses it a lot in his singing and not always when going very high, even in mid fourth octave notes. So does Klaus Meine and it is much more pronounced in his case.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.130 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Nobel Prize for Literature goes to Bob Dylan
Topic Options
(though I disagree) 
Atavachron wrote:
