Tom Ekeberg wrote:
>
> Carl W.:
> > As a footnote to our discussion, see the new issue of the Atlantic,
> > including an article arguing that Dylan changed pop music more than
> > any other single figure, "including Sinatra, Elvis or the Beatles."
>
> Of course. He single handedly made it all right not to know how to sing,
> not to know how to play and still be a big star.
Ah, ha! I laughed my ass off at this one. Ekeberg rises from the mists
to denigrate His Bobness!
My feeling on this observation is that Dylan is much like other stars
who overcame vocal limitations, even used them to advantage. Offhand I
am thinking of Ernest Tubb, who actually used his flat, weird vocals as
a way to become famous. "Can't sing" means "can't sing as well as the
typical good singer" but doesn't really hurt anybody in this context.
Bill Anderson was another guy who "couldn't sing" but turned it into an
asset by calling himself "Whispering Bill". One example I have always
found particularly grating was the Dead's vocals, which are like
fingernails on chalkboards to me, but which apparently don't bother
their fans. I find Dylan's early stuff to be engaging, his later stuff
to be almost painful, vocally. It is true that he opened the door to a
lot of terrible singing in the rock bizniss.
I actually think he was a pretty good acoustic and rhythm electric
guitar player, if that was in fact him on the early records. I like the
jangly out-of-tune strat he plays on Hiway 61, etc. Its cool.
--
Joe Gracey
President-For-Life, Jackalope Records
http://www.kimmierhodes.com
