Regarding the first "Christian" concerts, don't buy the hype. I've read not that many people walked out. Listen to the tape, people seem to be enjoying it from night one. The press seized upon the fact that some did leave, but that wasn't the experience most people had. It makes a better story if there is drama. See Newport.
I downloaded Stardust from itunes and I am disappointed to report that, unlike Shadows and Fallen Angels, it has compression:
I was in the audience for the first show at the Fox Warfield in San Francisco. I don't recall anyone waking out. Certaintly there were no mass walk outs. I do recall booing... but booing bob Dylan has a long tradition. I loved the show. I was very impressed with the new Slow Train album...and it was great to hear, for the first time, all these unreleased songs (that would become the Saved album). It reminded me of what it might have been like to see Bob in 1962. One of my friends that also attended the show was furious...he wrote to Bill Graham productions demanding a refund. We argued about the show for years.
I went to the very first two shows. They were at the Warfield in San Francisco. About 20-30 people walked out of that first show. Maybe after the 5th or 6th song, maybe more. It created quite a scene of sorts. It's wasn't like 50 or 10o people walked out, but you could feel the tension and uneasiness in the theater . My guess is as the word spread, people at later shows knew what to expect. The first few shows upset many who expected to hear a few old songs. The lesson is never expect certainty from Bob Dylan
Amazing that people would walk out of a Dylan concert. They're probably enjoying a Wayne Newton show in Vegas these days.
Even our friend LW walked out after about half a dozen songs. He then melted Slow Train and nailed it to the wall in his office.
I don't remember it feeling tense it that theater. I thought people were just kinda sitting on their hands taking it in. I didn't really see people walk out. I thought the show was fairly pleasant and not very interesting. Which seemed to be the collective mood but who knows.
I saw the first two nights. Night one seemed tense and unsettling to a portion of the audience as it went on. Night two not so much.
20-30 is about 1 to 2 % of the audience. I think most people at the Warfield were pissed about all new songs rather than content of said songs. That percentage of people probably walk out of his shows to this day complaining about arrangements or lack of songs they recognize. Reminds me of the lady I heard exiting a show in Vegas that said, "But he always ends his shows with Like A Rolling Stone." No ma'm, he doesn't.
I always find it amusing when I walk by people complaining his voice doesn't sound like it did in the 60's. Find any record he's made in the past 20 years and you'll get a taste of what his voice sounds like live these days, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone at this point.
Absolutely! I'm shaking my head in disbelief at some of the suggestions here that I'm being cynical because I said if Bob was truly serious and wanted to get the vocals 'perfect', he'd redo the takes. Yes, I know Bob doesn't work this way and his usual methods have sometimes served him well (arguably not so well from the 70's onwards) but when he misses the vocal completely, come on!
Precisely. A good take is a good take and a bad one needs fixing, whether you're going for that "feel" or not, irrespective of whether you're band is playing live with you or not. I can't believe all the apologists. Some people must be smoking the funny stuff.
Yes, I notice the care he takes with the arrangements and the care the band take with their work and the complete disregard Dylan shows towards performing these songs in the same key as the band or hitting the right notes. He's becoming the vocal equivalent to Les Dawson's piano playing.
Cynical means believing the worst about people's intentions, for example presuming that Dylan is lazy or incompetent rather than following his artistic instincts. I was amazed to read on a Sinatra thread that Shadows in the Night inspired and transformed your appreciation of Sinatra's works. Yet on the Dylan threads you have only been negative about Shadows and the subsequent albums. Tim
You can wax lyrical all you like about "feel" but here are two things you can't deny: (1) Ella, Nat, Frank and Louis all had that "feel" and repeated takes until they got it just as they wanted. They would NEVER, EVER allow a record company to release a take with off-key, out-of-tune vocals. (2) The only thing I feel when I hear Dylan sing these songs now is laughter. Side-splitting laughter at that.
keithdylan and others: Fact: at the Fox Warfield in 1979, people walked out. Journalist Paul Williams called me on the phone and gave me a full report after each show he attended. A couple of reliable collectors who attended the shows also called and described the walk-outs. They weren't making it up. The first night in San Diego, the walkouts were constant. By the time Dylan reached the last song, 80% of the audience had left. I'll say it again: 80% of the audience had left. I reiterate: 80% of the audience had left. One more time, in case you missed it: 80% of the audience had left. The small crowd that remained cheered him on; I was there cheering him on. The second night in San Diego, about half the audience left. Not all at once, but people walked out. I witnessed this myself. In Santa Monica, where he faced down the most abusive and threatening audiences, there were many walkouts, especially the first night. He lost a sizable portion of the audience. Some people stayed just to hurl insults at him until the very end. Again, I was there.
One slight correction to make: Shadows In The Night as an album to play, listen to and enjoy did not in any way contribute to my appreciation of Sinatra. It's completely un-listenable to my ears. What you read in the Sinatra threads is me saying it was ironic that Dylan's latest phase turned me onto Sinatra. Or put another way, Dylan doing standards made me think more about this type of music again and want to delve further into the pre-war singers and Sinatra in particular. As a result of Dylan murdering some of these songs, I sought out the Sinatra originals to see how they could sound in the hands of a great singer. So yes, I appreciate Dylan's latest crooner phase in so far as it's encouraged me to listen to the American songbook again and fully appreciate the artists who know how to handle it but I don't want to listen to Dylan's own versions per se. Does that better clarify what I meant?
This must have been an amazing experience. Kind of a reprise of 1966 but on a greater scale. I can understand too that Dylan going full-on fundamentalist was harder to take than his simply going electric. Tim
