Music- Why the hell can't we have more Bob Dylans?

[odellthurman]

[ QUOTE ]
Even Bob Dylan couldn't be Bob Dylan today. No record exec would give him the time of day.

It's not the artists, it's the industry. And it's the attitude that artists only release one album every 3 years or so. What's up with that? The Beatles released more music from 1964 to 1966 than some of today's artists will release in 20 years. It's tough to become a legend with only 3 albums. That makes you Boston.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. Bob Dylan would be Bob Dylan in any era. Also, there are musicians out there that put out a large volume of albums. Ryan Adams, formerly of Whiskeytown, is an example. Here is a link to more about him - http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg...ifexqujldke~T1

There is plenty of good music out there, and it's very easy to find on the internet. The mainstream pop music industry is only one part of music distribution.

[samsonite2100]

OP--I think others are making this point, too, but the difference is that the good stuff has moved underground. Record labels in the 60s and 70s were owned/run by men like Ahmet Ertegun and Seymour Stein--businessmen, yes, but businessmen with taste and vision. That simply doesn't exist today. If you scratch beneath the surface, however, and look at the underground artists being put out by labels like Merge or Sub Pop, I think you find a lot of comparable quality to the artists you're mentioning, although not Bob Dylan-level.

[Tigermoth]

There are still great lyricists out there.

A few of these guys died too young, but they're still fairly recent:

Leonard Cohen (not recent, but he's still around)
Tom Waits (same here)
Jeff Buckley
Nick Drake
Elliott Smith
Neko Case

Pryor's list is great. When it comes to excellent music being made now, I'd add:

The Black Keys
The Dirtbombs
The Shins (I like the music, but the lyrics particularly can be brilliant)

Underground is the new mainstream. You can find some really good, radio-friendly music just under the surface. Who actually listens to Top 40 anymore? Dig a little deeper, and you'll find some incredible stuff, like Mike Patton, Animal Collective, Billy Bragg, Devendra Banhart...

Go any further down and you'll get amazing, more experimental stuff like Nervous Cabaret, Philip Roebuck, the Gunga Din, Jim O'Rourke. All very impressive musicians.

Any deeper, and it gets weird.

We won't have another Bob Dylan, but I for one don't miss him all that much. There's too much good stuff still out there waiting to be discovered to sit around lamenting a single musician.

Now, when Tom Waits dies, I may change my mind on that.

[mflip]

This musical recession is not exclusive to rock music. As a fan of rap music, this discussion is had constantly on rap forums as well.
The mainstream music is, for the most part, vastly inferior to that which is found in the undergroud scene. Since this thread was about lyricism I thought the similarities were relevant.

[Myrtle]

Methinks that there’s MUCH more to this issue than what is easily perceived on the surface…..I’ll throw my two cents in.

It seems to me that the “Bob Dylan’s” of music history are both creations and reflections of the times in which they lived.

Whether you want to discuss Bach, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Woody Guthrie, Billie Holliday, Byrd, Brubeck or Frank Zappa, I think if you look closely at their work that you’ll find that their true genius is their artistic ability coupled with their ability to use that to communicate (in music & lyrics) their experiences and those are directly relatable to the times in which they lived.

I consider myself very fortunate………I grew up during the 60’s. The richness of the proliferation of the creative forms of “pop” music that exploded on the scene from the early 60’s to the mid-70’s is unmatched in any other time that I am aware of.

I got used to it, as it was my normative experience. The drought began (IMO) when the socio-political climate in the USA began to change. IMO, it was the Watergate scandal that burst the bubble, and as a society we’ve been on a downward slide since then. It is no wonder that music has followed that trend?

Now, before someone gets their panties in their crack and tells me that I’m full of crap, what I am NOT saying is that there has been no creative genius in the music field since the mid-70’s.

What I am saying again is that the total output of such has been greatly diminished as far as we in the ‘mainstream’ have been able to access it.

The rules of the game have changed. The “Music Business” is now all about what will sell the most the quickest, and FWIW, that’s all about catering to the lowest common denominator.

IMHO, there ARE Bob Dylan’s out there and they will be heard from, much in the same way that Woody Guthrie and Dylan were.

The great melting pot that is the USA has been tepid for a while, but the temperature under it has been slowly but steadily increasing since the mid-80’s.

There is a combination of events that have fueled the fire under that pot these last few years.

My only question is when will the cauldron reach critical mass?

In any case, those are my very brief comments on the subject and I’m looking forward to how some of the rest of the Loungers see it.

Myrt………

[odellthurman]

[ QUOTE ]
What I am saying again is that the total output of such has been greatly diminished as far as we in the ‘mainstream’ have been able to access it.

[/ QUOTE ]

People in the mainstream have internet access.

[Tigermoth]

Myrtle, I argued about the same thing in my essay for the GMAT, only particularly about the Velvet Underground's influence on two different decades of music, and how it was completely different at least in part to the socio-political atmospheres of those times.

We also have to consider that we are comparing music now to music that has been around at least 20 years. There are problems inherent in that. Perhaps, 20 years from now, people will be listening to Justin Timberlake and Christina Aguilera and thinking, "Those kids could rock." Actually, probably not those two, but there are other groups that are popular right now that I can see being classics and on the same level as Dylan in 20 years. Radiohead is almost there, if they aren't already. The Pixies are there, or should be. Those two, and a few more, will be my generation's classics, and if I'm lucky, my kids will sing (if you can call it that) their music with me like I sang Dylan, Joni Mitchell, and Joan Baez with my mother.


mflip, I concur about there being true lyricists in the rap world.

[Hey_Porter]

[ QUOTE ]
OP--I think others are making this point, too, but the difference is that the good stuff has moved underground. Record labels in the 60s and 70s were owned/run by men like Ahmet Ertegun and Seymour Stein--businessmen, yes, but businessmen with taste and vision. That simply doesn't exist today. If you scratch beneath the surface, however, and look at the underground artists being put out by labels like Merge or Sub Pop, I think you find a lot of comparable quality to the artists you're mentioning, although not Bob Dylan-level.

[/ QUOTE ]

I figured that this would be mentioned, and it's certainly valid, but I just don't think it rises to the level of the 60s. Maybe I just don't like the sound enough to really let it impact me. Back in the day I LOVED Built to Spill, Pavement, Sebadoh, Modest Mouse, etc., and just haven't gotten into any of the "new" (as many have been around for ages) indie bands. Ben Gibbard writes some awesome stuff, but it's of a different vein. I don't know, maybe I need to give newer indie another chance.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I am saying again is that the total output of such has been greatly diminished as far as we in the ‘mainstream’ have been able to access it.

[/ QUOTE ]

People in the mainstream have internet access.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ummmm.....I think you missed my point(or perhaps I've not stated it clearly enough?).

There's a difference between having 'internet access' as a delivery system for music, versus the combined marketing power of what was AM & FM of the 60's.

[Idiotex]

I am not going to read all the replies. But I think we need to be aware of a few things. When Bob Dylan and Paul Simon first began making music, popular music, as we see it today was only in its beginnings. The beatles and Dylan will always be remembered for breaking through. That's not to say they aren't perhaps the best artists of all time. I love Neil Young ecspecially.

I will never love Thom York'e electronic work as much as I love Neil Young's "Harvest". But modern music that is groundbreaking is not going to be someone sitting down with a guitar and singing. It's going to be something else. It's already been done.

I think people also struggle to put the lives of the great artists in contexts. We often look at their best songs over their lengthy careers and consider that representive of them. Dylan released Christian albums that were a critical and commerical flop. He didn't write one masterpiece after another.

Also, depending on the how long this planet is able to survive, we really have no conception of what is possible. Tiger Woods will probably break Jack Nicklaus's record for major wins. It is almost impossible to imagine someone will ever be better at golf, on average, than Tiger Woods. But the game has only been played in world competition for less than a century. Who knows what will happen in the next 1000 years. Someone might win every golf tournament for three years running.

Similarly, popular music really only got started with Elvis. The kids growing up in future generations will have more influences to draw from and there will be a freak along the way that is able to produce songs so amazing that it is beyond our comprehension. We may not be alive to see it, however.

And when my generations gets older, if people like Eddie Vedder ( you could substitute a lot of people here) continue to produce music for 40 years they may be held in the same esteem as people like Neil Young.

Anyway, enough ranting.