How much more popular would Dylan's music have been if he'd had Joan Baez sing many of the songs?

Oops, I did it again
Had a series of dreams
In a political world
Oh baby, baby
Oops, you think I'm in love
Most of the time
I'm not Blind Willie McTell.

 

I'm gonna take a different tack to the OP - "kinda like Simon and Garfunkel'..... well actually not like Simon and Garfunkel at all

1. I love both Dylan and Baez, but their harmonising together was essentially the merging of two reputations, not two voices, and hardly a spectacular vocal sound. .. and nowhere near the kind of elevated level attained by the likes of the Everly Brothers, and Simon and Garfunkel. It was much improved by the Rolling Thunder Revue, but by then Bob was already at the top of his profession some 12 years, he hardly depended on Joanie for vocal or reputational support. As for Baez singing instead of Bob, well i struggle to think of a single Dylan song where I'd prefer her version to his - in my view she struggles desperately with the phrasing on songs like It Ain't Me Babe, All I Really Want to Do etc. . There are a couple of good live Baez versions of 70s Dylan songs on From Every Stage.

2. I love both Simon and Garfunkel (in fact i'm a great supporter of Artie) but i'd guess that there are far more solo Baez performances of Dylan songs out there than there are of Artie doing Paul songs. Take the Bridge album - you have Artie lead on the title track and So Long, Frank Lloyd Wright (plus there's an Artie lead vocal middle section on El Condor Pasa, and I think he's prominent in the middle section of The Only Living Boy in New York ). On PSRS you have Artie lead on the the title track and For Emily (maybe i missed one or two here). On Bookends you'd be picking out Artie solo verses. On SoS he's the lead on the first verse of title track, and on April Come He Will....(again i may be missing one?). I know he's prominent throughout as harmony , joint vocalist. So anyway, there's already plenty of Joanie doing Dylan.. did we need more, and in what way was it kinda like S&G or could it have been?

Artie's role as harmoniser, occasional soloist, co-arranger , co-performer was an integral part of Simon and Garfunkel's sound, success and perception with the public and because of the way their careers developed I believe this did create both a reputational opportunity and issue for Paul Simon. Going back to Dylan and Baez therefore - do I see Dylan and Baez having more success than Bob solo (it is a nonsense to even type that sentence, how could anyone have more success than Dylan??)... well not as harmonisers in a joint vocal act, certainly not, as for Joanie doing vocals on Bob songs, I'm struggling to know which ones to give her off Highway 61 Revisited for instance, and as a reputational issue.. would 'Dylan and Baez' have been a successful act ('kinda like Simon and Garfunkel') which could have eclipsed Dylan's solo reputation .. well maybe for about 6 - 9 months in 63/64. but never thereafter.

 

Maybe Bob and Joan were better together on non-Dylan songs:

 

I am not obsessed with him period, you seem to be entirely obsessed with him.
My opinions are based on having been an adult during the guys rise as a celebrity and having listened to a great deal of his music and followed his career.
And, the thread is not about his music , it is about the popularity of it.
And of course, all musics popularity is governed by the artists level of exposure to the public. That is neither an image or distorted, it is just reality.
Once again, the guys music could very well have been far more popular had either his versions of the songs been produced and arranged a lot better, or had he been in a situation ( such as staff songwriter) that would have made it more likely that more of his songs would have been recorded by those much better at singing and playing instuments than he is, as well as those who had better recorded music.
There are a lot of people in this world who know the name "Bob Dylan" who cannot name 5 of his songs. That shouldn't be the situation.

 

His music really isn't appropriate for karaoke strippers.
But had guys like John Mayer done covers of his songs and tried to release them as singles, it would have counted. It worked when Hendrix did All Along The Watchtower.

 

The one song that Bob gave to Joan, but apparently never recorded himself (unless he's holding out on us again) was Love Is Just A Four-Letter Word. It's probably my favorite Baez cover of a Dylan song for that rarity factor alone.

Getting back to the OPs question, it was Peter, Paul and Mary who really earned Dylan his first measure of fame with Blowin' In The Wind in 1963, and his reputation grew stronger over the next two years with hit covers of his songs by the Byrds, the Turtles, and Cher. All of those artists smoothed out the rougher edges of his sound. Joan Baez scored no hit singles with Dylan songs during that period, but the two albums she released in 1964-65 -- Joan Baez/5, and Farewell, Angelina -- were chock-full of them, and they undoubtedly helped to bring his songs to the attention of a much wider audience.

 

The correct answer is: None. None more popular.

--Geoff

 

I see it slightly differently -- well, maybe this thread was conceived a veiled criticism of Dylan, but others like the Who thread are versions of the "underrated"-itis that afflicts many on the forum, which has baffled me but I think is a way of saying that "no one but me has appreciated this artist enough, i.e., as much as I do." So even groups who succeeded beyond their wildest dreams get reframed as forgotten causes, as underdogs.

 

God help me, I've had Britney Sings Dylan stuck in my head since yesterday. I was just walking my dogs and humming:

Oops, I did it again
With Arthur McBride
Down by the seaside
Oh, sugar baby
Oops, I'm so sick of love
I pay in bloo-oo-ood
But it's not dark yet

 

Tried Dylan sings Britney? Probably be better. "Oooooopssss, I DID it a-GENN!"

 

Ha! An old friend of mine used to do a brilliant Dylan + Peter Lorre impression:

[Bob] No, I WASn't very CUTE to him, [Peter] waaaaaaas Iiiiiiii?

Meanwhile, anybody who thinks Bob needs a ghost singer hasn't heard "Wild Mountain Thyme" from Isle of Wight, which I am enjoying as we speak.

 

The entire "Shadows In The Night" album, maybe?

 

It would have been much less popular with me; I can't stand Joan Baez or her voice.

 

Sounds more like being strangled than off key.

 

LOL!

Is this a troll thread?

 

This thread may be proof that any that has Dylan, Neil Young or the Beatles in the title will get pages and pages of comments regardless of how far fetched the topic.

 

You forgot the Monkees, Kiss, and Manowar.

 

No, very drunk and off key after being strangled by Joan?

 

Shadows in the night might be more popular if sung by Joan. Or it would be just as boring.

 

Some of his music really is suitable for the likes of Adele though!

 

She's already done quite well with "Make You Feel My Love."

 

0.0% more popular.

 

I can't really respond to that, I am not much into the pop singer T&A stuff. Or girl pop singers period.
It kind of baffles me that during the wave of nasally whiny male pop singers of the 90s a lot more Dylan songs weren't covered.
I think it is because there was a trend among male pop singers where everyone with an opinion about life became a guitar strumming singer/songwriter and wanted their own songs heard rather than to do covers.
Not that I think all of his songs lend themselves to that, but it seems there would have been a fascination with him.

I also think his songs did indeed fit well into the rock era style of recording and performing, and the social climate. Blowin In the Wind the way Neil Young did it live for example.

I really think modern pop bands such as My Morning Jacket would be fitting for Dylan songs.

 

I think what it is likely proof of is that rock era music in general tends to be more popular among serious music fans that music since or before.