Bob Dylan's New Album - Shadows In The Night

Just wondering, did you guys like the live "Stay With Me"?

 

I've never worked out the ravaged voice thing, or the criticism about his voice in general. People say it's out of tune, but to me he manages to hit the right notes to move me, and that is about as in tune as I need from anyone.

 

"Must Be Santa" is pretty rockin'.

"The First Noel"...not so much.

 

I'll defend Bob's voice in general to anyone, but it's hard to deny that his vocal cords are damaged, from a lifetime of smoking, hard living, and non-stop touring. I still love hearing him sing, but c'mon, I can understand why people call his voice "ravaged."

 

I always feel to some extent he's putting it on. His Theme Time Radio Hour voice is a put on and I think with his songs it's similar. As you said, the song circulated from Shadows in the Night had some smooth singing on it. Perhaps it is ravaged, but I don't see that as anything bad, but it's always used with negative connotations. I think that's my issue with it.

 

For me, both Full Moon and the live "Stay With Me" are gorgeous, late period Bob. I just love it. Zimmy can still pull off a song nicely.

Talking about "ravaged"... in some respects his voice was actually more ravaged in the Rolling Thunder Tour, though obviously that was a great tour. He shouted his way through a lot of songs and yet, he STILL made remarkable performances.

 

Which ones have you heard?

 

Ehh. I liked "Full Moon" a little better, though I haven't felt the need to play that one more than 2 or 3 times.

Shouting? Absolutely.

Ravaged? Not that I can hear, and certainly nothing like the gravelly mess we hear today. Seems like his range on the high end was at least an octave higher during RTR, and even as late as the magnificent 1981 shows. During that period, he sounded like he could do anything he wanted with his voice. (And I say that knowing that some fanboy will probably reply that he still can.)

 

I definitely noticed at the time that Dylan's voice seemed to grow weaker during the period between the Last Waltz (November 1976, post-RTR) and Street Legal/world tour '78. It didn't become ravaged, exactly, but less forceful, without any of the shouting mentioned by Dmitri, and definitely not as strong as it was on the '74 tour, or as twangy as it was in the early '70s, circa Bangladesh.

Of course the '78 tour and album also ushered in the era of the female backing singers, which allowed Bob to coast a little bit.

 

HR, I'll grant your point re the Street Legal album & tour, but if The Last Waltz isn't shouting or close to it, I don't know what is.

Allowed him to do some other things, too...

 

Yeah, for my money the '78 tour and then the Slow Train era were times of increased expressiveness in Bob's voice.

And so, while I don't consider myself to be a "fanboy", I think there is a real nice, reserved expressive quality on the two new songs Full Moon and Stay with Me.

Why do people want to talk about the negatives about Bob's voice anyway?? Sometimes coming here is like listening to my wife........

He's got a real nice older voice, not the range he used to have, but boy if you need proof go play TEMPEST.

GEEZ

 

THIS! Post of the day (at least)!

May Bob bless and keep you always...

 

No, I meant that the Last Waltz was the "end" of his RTR-style exhortations.

 

Maybe the issue is how we're defining "ravaged." To me, the word indicates damaged beyond repair, compromised to the point that rest can't "fix" it. That's the difference between 1976 (when he certainly pushed his voice to the limit) and now, when "ravaged-sounding" seems to be his default. As to whether he can still "bring it" -- well, I'll never stop believing in Bob's ability to surprise us. I thought his singing on "Full Moon And Empty Arms" was shockingly smooth -- I honestly didn't think he was capable of that anymore. But my favorite example is from the "dreaded" Christmas album -- which, again, I love most of when the holiday spirit is upon me. He does "Do You Hear What I Hear" and it's fairly standard current-day Bob -- rough, but he's hitting all the right spots. When he gets to the climax of the song, though -- "He will bring us goodness and LIIIIIIIIGHT" -- I remember thinking, "Oh no, Bob, don't go for it -- this could be ugly!" Not only does he go for it, he hits it, and he HOLDS it. Still impresses me.

 

Didn't feel the need to play that one more than 2 or 3 times either!

 

With the exception of Paul McCartney, everybody's singing voice gets a little toasty in old age -- I've heard Old Blue Eye's tunes recorded near the end of his life that have an absolutely stunning amount of expressiveness. Bob has the same gift, crooning, croaking, whispering, whatever.

 

Sorry but Macca is no exception, either. On the other hand, I saw Allen Toussaint play this week and at age 76 he still sounds exactly like the man on the recordings, though he's limiting himself to about 45 minutes of singing during the show. Bob's voice has obviously changed with age and smoking, but I've enjoyed the 3 shows I've seen these past 5 years.

 

You have excellent taste in concert tickets.

 

Agreed completely. Because it's so wonderful, I'm thinking that the factors leading to his commercial demise are the others that you mention -- drugs, booze, no concerts, little TV, etc. His originals just weren't as good anymore, either. He had done a great job with his Randy Newman covers album, which benefited Randy a lot more of course, which makes me wonder who else he might have tackled. Warren Zevon ballads? Although Linda had those pretty well tied down. I dunno. I wonder if, like Rod, he'd spent a decade (or more) away from originals and just focused on interesting covers -- not just standards -- AND got his chemical life on the rails, if he could have kept his recording career on the rails too.

Several of us mentioned Stardust further up in this thread, and I just looked it up again. It's by far the best-selling album of Willie's career -- even outselling any of his Best Ofs. Two solid years in the top 10 of the main Billboard album chart, and 540 weeks on the country chart! I love this from Christgau's review:

I'm real happy this record exists, not just because Nelson can be a great interpretive singer--his "Moonlight in Vermont" is a revelation--but because he's provided me with ten great popular songs that I've never had much emotional access to. Standards that deserve the name--felt, deliberate, schmaltz-free.
​

Willie was 45 at the time, and Bob's voice at 75 isn't quite as, let's call it "nimble." (In fact, Willie's voice at 81 has barely lost a step. He and Macca are in a class by themselves on that count.) Interestingly, though, I don't think Bob will try to avoid schmaltz. His fondness for schmaltz really worked for him on Love & Theft, and he was swinging for the fences of sentimentality on the Christmas record. Good on him. His voice is...what it is...but I still find it expressive. I'm looking forward to this.

 

Even if you're talking about Sinatra's Duets-era stuff (which I believe are his last recordings), there's simply no comparing the two. As diminished as Sinatra's pipes were by that time, he still had more range/color/etc. than Dylan seems to be able to muster at this point.

 

Really? But did you see him live lately? He still can "hit the right notes". The problem is that there are only two or three of them left in his range... And yes, I'm also a fan. And it was a great concert and I'm glad that I went, but I wouldn't want to go to hear him craok his way through two notes standards... But in spite of this xmas album he's still the greatest

 

McCartney has never tried to escape the old standards, not 50 years ago and not now. Hasn't he been beaten up for his "granny music" for decades? And that was referring to songs in the Beatles. I think for many rock stars (Rod Stewart, for ex, and his awful songbook records) this is nothing but a cash in. But for McCartney and I would guess for Dylan, this sort of album is a labor of love.

 

Spurred by this post, I went back and listened to Full Moon again, and I still strongly dislike it. For both it and Stay With Me, the accompanying music/arrangement are just boring as hell to me. I have a bunch of Sinatra discs, but I typically prefer the brassy, agressive arrangements over the quiet ones (tho there are exceptions). "I've Got the World on a String" rocks (so to speak) with a confident, expressive vocal and a snappy, vibrant musical backing.

Both Full Moon and Stay With Me have all the verve of a Sunday hymn at the local presbyterian church (if memory serves - please don't make me attend!). And, while Bob appears to have more investment in the live debut of the latter track - there's at least a hint of Dylanesque phrasing there - in the former (studio) track, he sounds like he could be your neighborhood tax accountant following along, clumsily, in the hymnbook. Listen to his poor attempt to hit a note in the word "dream" at about 1:02 in Full Moon. Or the painful bit from 1:40-1:47 ("if my one wi-ih-ih-ish comes true, my ehh-mmm-pty arms WI-II-ILL be filled"). Ugh. It doesn't sound like he's ever heard the song before, to me.

I remember, in '92, at a particularly rough Dylan show, when he stunned us by pulling a gorgeous "Love Minus Zero" out of his hat, singing softly but evocatively. Or compare something like World Gone Wrong's "Lone Pilgrim" with this. "Pilgrim" just oozes emotion, whereas Full Moon just oozes ... puss, or something.

Of course, I'm more of an aluminum foil kind of guy, myself.

 

And how do you really feel, Mr. J?

 

Maybe you need to go feed the cat, Mr. Jinks!!