...no one ever told him he can't sing, or at least, if they did, he didn't believe 'em.

One thing Bob Dylan's got going for him is that fucking everyone has covered his songs.

One thing Bob Dylan's got going for him is that fucking everyone has covered his songs.

Lol. And, mostly, done them better than him.

FACT: Dylan is a poet, a writer, not a singer.

FACT: Dylan is a poet, a writer, not a singer.

i disagree, his voice is perfect for his early music. it doesn't sound like clay aiken, no, but it's got more emotional honesty in it than most people can ever hope for.

i enjoy bob dylans voice, but to an extent. Nowadays, he sounds like everyone jokes like he sounded like, except he actually does sound that way. early sixties dylan is the best, plus desire and blood on the tracks.

Bob Dylan is the greatest lyricist of all time, and his vocals fit the feeling of each song perfectly.

the voice he had in his early career is now gone, I wouldn't be able to stand to see him today.

Indeed, back in the day his voice was ideal for the style of music, but now that he's old his voice is too.. raspy.

His vocals are fitting, mostly, even on the newer albums.

Also, check out Lay Lady Lay.

i disagree, his voice is perfect for his early music. it doesn't sound like clay aiken, no, but it's got more emotional honesty in it than most people can ever hope for.


TRANSLATION: It sucks but I like it anyway.

I mean, I love Dylan and his music but don't even pretend he sounds good.

TRANSLATION: It sucks but I like it anyway.

I mean, I love Dylan and his music but don't even pretend he sounds good.

yeah i didn't say he sounded "good"

music doesn't have to sound good to be great... the ramones sound like shit but make brilliant music. bob dylans music was enhanced by his voice, "spanish boots" would sound so much less haunting with a clean tenor on it

Lol. And, mostly, done them better than him.

I disagree, I think most Dylan covers have been pretty lackluster. I dig some of them, like the Nico and Rainy Day versions of "I'll Keep It With Mine", the Byrds' "My Back Pages", obviously Hendrix's "All Along the Watchtower", and the 13th Floor Elevators' "It's All Over Now Baby Blue" but not much else.


FACT: Dylan is a poet, a writer, not a singer.

Yeah, that's what he claimed once. But like almost everything else Dylan said back in the day, it's bullshit. Bob Dylan was and is primarily a folk & rock singer, with occasionally poetic lyrics. Isolated from the music, his lyrics would have never been taken seriously as poetry -- they're just not the same without his sneering, cig-damaged voice behind them.

As for him being a writer, have you actually fucking read Tarantula? It's like a hundred pages of the liner notes to Bringing It All Back Home. Incoherent, speed-addled pretentiousness, and endless self-mythologizing -- strictly for A.J. Weberman type fanatics. Some of his other stuff, like a few poems in Writings and Drawings, are decent for beatnik stuff but even in that sense still sub-Corso stoned meanderings. On the other hand, Chronicles Volume 1 was very moving, sincere and unpretentious, but not an incredible piece of writing in terms of the prose. The dude's a singer, first and foremost.

I think his older voice fits well on his more recent albums.


but I wouldn't want to see him...singing his early stuff in his old voice might be awful.

I don't care what anyone has to say. Dylan is God. lewlz.
nah, but despite his voice his lyrics and passion make up for his unique style.
I couldn't imagine his music with john mayor singing that shit. It'd lose its meaning.

Yeah well im sure if you informed him of this fact, he'd appreciate it OP. I mean, he probly wouldnt ask to see your 11 Grammy's, your 6 albums inducted into the Grammy hall of fame..that's just for starts, and I dont give a fuck if they're bullshit awards, when you win more than 4 of a shitty award, that's a reflection on public opinion and y'all can chew a fat one.

Not a writer? Where the fuck'd he get that Pulitzer then :S? Inducted into the songwriters hall of fame 20 years into his career, 20 years ago now...Listen man, you can shit talk a lot of people. You could conceivably shit talk Rod Stewart for going all weird and gay. You could shit talk Trey Anastasio for being in one of the worst bands ever conceived by man. But you CAN NOT shit talk the legend that has tantalized fans for 40+ years with his unique brand of folk and rock music, voice notwithstanding. If ya dont like his voice..listen to Queen, homo.

Wonderful lyricist, terrible musician.

Lyrics =/= music

I always encourage people to analyze scores. If it looks easy to write, then it probably is, and therefore doesn't necessarily deserve your money.

Like I said, Dylan was a poet and not a musician. His career as a POET made him a good living, but if anyone is claiming that he made a living as a musician, then they're kidding themselves.

Wonderful lyricist, terrible musician.



I wouldn't call him a TERRIBLE musician.

Not a writer? Where the fuck'd he get that Pulitzer then :S?

He won an honorary Pulitzer for his musical career. It was called "Special Citation in Music". Coltrane won it last year.

if your going to try to analyze bobby's voice you can't think in terms of "good" and "bad" but more in terms of "on" and "off." i mean he'll never win american idol or whatever, but its pretty hard to deny that his voice is one of the all time best at just conveying pure emotion and injecting feeling into his songs. also if you think that dylan's voice sucks so bad take a listen to mick jagger & john lennon before and after say about 1966/67 and you realize how hard the rolling stones and the beatles were biting on dylans vocal style. i understand if his voice gets on your nerves, but thats like your opinion man, no go listen to journey or asia or whatever.

also its pretty hard to call him a "terrible musician." no, he'll never pass for a member of rush or play guitar like jimmy page but he never had to. in the beginning he just wanted to be a folk singer/guitarist and he was fairly competent at that. just because he doesn't play shredding guitar solos that go on forever doesn't mean he is a shitty musician. and as far as the argument that "if it looks easy to write it probably is and doesn't deserve your money" thats complete fucking bullshit. jimi hendrix songs were never super complex compostions, does that mean he isn't a good musician. most songs on kind of blue are like simple half-step jams or chordal vamps, does that mean miles "doesn't deserve your money." and man, i'm sorry, but anyone who goes by "sydmorrison" complaining about bob dylan being a "poet but a terrible musican" is pretty fucking bold (& i like the doors and dig syd barret, but come the fuck on).

i disagree, his voice is perfect for his early music. it doesn't sound like clay aiken, no, but it's got more emotional honesty in it than most people can ever hope for.

Who in their right mind would name their son Clay?

also its pretty hard to call him a "terrible musician." no, he'll never pass for a member of rush or play guitar like jimmy page but he never had to. in the beginning he just wanted to be a folk singer/guitarist and he was fairly competent at that. just because he doesn't play shredding guitar solos that go on forever doesn't mean he is a shitty musician. and as far as the argument that "if it looks easy to write it probably is and doesn't deserve your money" thats complete fucking bullshit. jimi hendrix songs were never super complex compostions, does that mean he isn't a good musician. most songs on kind of blue are like simple half-step jams or chordal vamps, does that mean miles "doesn't deserve your money." and man, i'm sorry, but anyone who goes by "sydmorrison" complaining about bob dylan being a "poet but a terrible musican" is pretty fucking bold (& i like the doors and dig syd barret, but come the fuck on).

Have you read through a score of a Jimi Hendrix song? Can you correctly read a score at all? Hendrix is actually an incredible musician that knew how to add different elements of music without even really writing it down, and some of it can be easy to miss sometimes unless you read a score to a song. As far as I've been able to tell, alot of Dylans stuff is exactly what he intended it to be - folk music. That's a great genre of music and all, but the musicianship in it is incredibly lacking.

Now is that their fault? No. That's the way it's supposed to be, because folk music is more based on stories and poetry than the actual music itself. Which again, is great and all, but people need to realize that folk musicians are more poets than actual musicians.

And brushing off "Kind of Blue" as simple half-step jams and chordal vamps is rediculous. That's one of the very first examples of modal jazz, a style that Miles pretty much invented himself (with the help of the rest of his combo, of course). I'm also going to assume now that you don't know how to read or hear music very well at all, seeing as how you'd be able to tell pretty easily in the opening measure of "So What" that the music itself is pretty monumental for that period in jazz.

And btw, I made this account when I was 14. Jim Morrison as a musician, in my mind, is no better than Bob Dylan. Syd Barrett still stands though, because of his role in starting up a really great band and having a huge role in the invention of psychedelic music.

He is a bad singer, that's fact. He has a good voice for his genre though, and is a brilliant lyricist so it balances itself out nicely.