fisherman bob wrote:Hey Andragon, although I'm not a big Bob Dylan fan, his music, although sounding rather simple, actually is pretty hard to pull off. The combination of guitar, harmonica (look ma no hands!) rack, and vocals hasn't been done by too many people so effectively. He came along at just the right time in our musical history. Dylan was an historical figure. Here was a guy who really doesn't sing that well (IMO), doesn't play guitar that well (IMO), doesn't play harmonica that well (IMO) BUT his lyics had very deep meaning for the times. When he was becoming popular music was very vocal oriented (do-op) in the early sixties. He was completely opposite of what was commercially popular at the time, almost a rebellious musician. We were going through a major civil rights movement and the beginning of the Vietnam conflict and Dylan was a huge voice for those objecting to injustices. Plus he was so different than Dion and the Belmonts, or the Platters, etc. No. I don't think Dylan's songs completely sucked. There's a LOT to Dylan's popularity that goes beyond the music.
100% agreed. The way he described wars and politicians at that time was pretty groundbreaking.
http://ca.myspace.com/andragon_90
Kramerguy: "That chick was doggie-style-frenching a pumpkin. That was like veggie-porn"
Kramerguy: "That chick was doggie-style-frenching a pumpkin. That was like veggie-porn"