I have mixed feelings about this. I wasn’t a fan when he first appeared, and many considered him a weak Woody Guthrie imitator. Mike Royko wrote a scathing column about it long ago. Who knows? I’ll read the Nobel committee’s full explanation.
GREAT songs and lyrics, but sorry, lousy voice. Like many early Beatles songs, orchestral, or other singers versions, were better. Yes, a true poet, and deserving of the first award to a lyricist.
Dylan is primarily a writer but he is also a good tunesmith. In my opinion Dylan in his unique way, changed writing and the perception of and limits of poetry. I have seen him in concert 3 times, he doesn’t have the best delivery or voice. At the Gorge in George, WA he looked at the audience and said, " all I see are a line of tombstones." He is a strange cat. If you’ve ever tried to write a Dylan type tune you will find it nearly impossible.
He’s an impressive poet, in many ways. Elsewhere I have discussed why I think his poetry deserves the prize. But since the comments above are about his music, here’s my take. His voice is rough, but there’s a long tradition of rough voices in American music. I might mention Louis Armstrong, who is widely considered one of the most important jazz singers. On the blues side, where do we start? Robert Johnson? Charley Patton? So I don’t fault his voice. His intonation, by the way, is superb and that matters a lot. His own guitar playing is adequate, nothing special, likewise his piano, but his harmonica playing has been very influential, and his ability to work with a band is just about unmatched. The story of the organ line in Like a Rolling Stone is an example.
why do you require a “good voice” when many songwriters sing their own songs, and should, like Leonard Cohen – he has a craggy 85 year old voice and I hope he sings forever
I never liked to listen to Dylan sing. But hearing him sing “Masters of War” after having only heard Judy Collins singing an abridged edition of it, I realized that he was a powerful lyricist and that sometimes a pretty voice does not convey the message.
One of the important tasks for a literary scholar is putting aside matters of personal taste. For instance, i don’t happen to like D. H. Lawrence. He’s just not my kind of writer. But I would never say that he’s a bad writer, nor would I say that those who do like him are wrong. He’s clearly a great writer, just a great writer I don’t happen to like. When I judge him, I can see why he’s good, I can see why other people like him, I can see why he’s important, but I still don’t like him. Or take someone more recent: I don’t like Saul Bellow. But he got a Nobel Prize. I would never ever think of saying he didn’t deserve it. But I will never read another book of his. (I’ve read five or six, I would suppose, and that’s enough.) When I do literary scholarship I’m not trying to impose my own taste and preferences, I’m trying to figure out what the story or poem means, and I try to figure out how the writer creates that meaning and how the audience figures out that meaning. But I leave it up to each reader to say “I like it” or “I don’t like it”.
LuvThemPluggers over 7 years ago
Oh! I want that order, donkey included!
WOODNFLINT over 7 years ago
It also does a juggling act for entertainment …………
e.groves over 7 years ago
Where is Juan Valdez?
NeedaChuckle Premium Member over 7 years ago
Really great, he deserves it!!
emptc12 over 7 years ago
I have mixed feelings about this. I wasn’t a fan when he first appeared, and many considered him a weak Woody Guthrie imitator. Mike Royko wrote a scathing column about it long ago. Who knows? I’ll read the Nobel committee’s full explanation.
Happy Two Shoes over 7 years ago
Will they still be singing his songs in a hundred years?
Probably.
fritzoid Premium Member over 7 years ago
Unfortunately, this decision killed Dario Fo.
neverenoughgold over 7 years ago
Groan…
Perkycat over 7 years ago
I like it!
leeisme over 7 years ago
Very nice, Mr. Breen!
penny83522 over 7 years ago
Awww. What a cutie
Dtroutma over 7 years ago
GREAT songs and lyrics, but sorry, lousy voice. Like many early Beatles songs, orchestral, or other singers versions, were better. Yes, a true poet, and deserving of the first award to a lyricist.
Dtroutma over 7 years ago
Fritzoid: thinking musically, not emotionally, there IS power when he sings.
aerilim over 7 years ago
Well, there’s not a Nobel prize for singing, he surely wouldn’t win it. Poet, maybe a very good one, but not great in my opinion.
Happy Two Shoes over 7 years ago
Dylan is primarily a writer but he is also a good tunesmith. In my opinion Dylan in his unique way, changed writing and the perception of and limits of poetry. I have seen him in concert 3 times, he doesn’t have the best delivery or voice. At the Gorge in George, WA he looked at the audience and said, " all I see are a line of tombstones." He is a strange cat. If you’ve ever tried to write a Dylan type tune you will find it nearly impossible.
lonecat over 7 years ago
He’s an impressive poet, in many ways. Elsewhere I have discussed why I think his poetry deserves the prize. But since the comments above are about his music, here’s my take. His voice is rough, but there’s a long tradition of rough voices in American music. I might mention Louis Armstrong, who is widely considered one of the most important jazz singers. On the blues side, where do we start? Robert Johnson? Charley Patton? So I don’t fault his voice. His intonation, by the way, is superb and that matters a lot. His own guitar playing is adequate, nothing special, likewise his piano, but his harmonica playing has been very influential, and his ability to work with a band is just about unmatched. The story of the organ line in Like a Rolling Stone is an example.
parkerinthehouse over 7 years ago
why do you require a “good voice” when many songwriters sing their own songs, and should, like Leonard Cohen – he has a craggy 85 year old voice and I hope he sings forever
lordhoff over 7 years ago
I figured it to be a Democrat buying votes.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 7 years ago
I never liked to listen to Dylan sing. But hearing him sing “Masters of War” after having only heard Judy Collins singing an abridged edition of it, I realized that he was a powerful lyricist and that sometimes a pretty voice does not convey the message.
lonecat over 7 years ago
One of the important tasks for a literary scholar is putting aside matters of personal taste. For instance, i don’t happen to like D. H. Lawrence. He’s just not my kind of writer. But I would never say that he’s a bad writer, nor would I say that those who do like him are wrong. He’s clearly a great writer, just a great writer I don’t happen to like. When I judge him, I can see why he’s good, I can see why other people like him, I can see why he’s important, but I still don’t like him. Or take someone more recent: I don’t like Saul Bellow. But he got a Nobel Prize. I would never ever think of saying he didn’t deserve it. But I will never read another book of his. (I’ve read five or six, I would suppose, and that’s enough.) When I do literary scholarship I’m not trying to impose my own taste and preferences, I’m trying to figure out what the story or poem means, and I try to figure out how the writer creates that meaning and how the audience figures out that meaning. But I leave it up to each reader to say “I like it” or “I don’t like it”.