Talk:Bob Dylan/Archive 1

Antechamber

 * Dear Rhobite, concerning the "genius" issue, I'm sorry but "considered by many" does sound odd to my ears. Can we compromise on the word "gift"? After all, a gift is a democratic thing, I have a gift, you have a gift, Bob Dylan has a gift. I'm thinking of the words in Dear Landlord:
 * Now each of us has his own special gift/And you know this was meant to be true/And if you don't underestimate me/I won't underestimate you.
 * Best wishes Mick gold 08:28, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear Rhobite, I've made some changes to the Chronicles section which I would be happy to discuss. I feel strongly that Dylan's account of first hearing Robert Johnson, and his analysis of Pirate Jenny by Brecht/Weill are the most revealing accounts Dylan has given us of how he came to unlock his song writing genius. user: Mick gold


 * Thanks for the note. I think the section is very good now. A little worried about calling his song writing "genius". Although we obviously agree that Dylan's songwriting is genius, it isn't a neutral term. Rhobite 22:59, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reponse. Glad we can work together. Dylan's song writing genius is probably the one thing every contributor to this page will agree about. To call it Dylan's song-writing talent seems mealy-mouthed and inadequate. user: Mick gold London 23.04 //10 March 2005

I added a short section regarding the autobiography. I am happy to defend its inclusion, should anyone object.

I do question the list of Dylan's "best" songs as voted upon by a certain subset of his fans. I do not see the objective role this plays, especially in its position following a list of verifiable "most famous" songs. user: barry21

Much of this article appears to be derived from:

http://www.malaspina.com/site/person_434.asp

Do we have copyright permission for this? user:sjc

They have "Adapted from wikipedia". Not a very big attribution in the link-back and it actually appears to be the article itself. user:sjc


 * Holy living . Someone copied "my" article.  -- User:GWO

Yep, they got from here, not the other way around, and they attribute it, so it's completely legit on their part. --LDC


 * Shouldn't their link-back be active? I clicked on it and nothing happened. --mav


 * Worked OK for me mav. user:sjc

Somebody came in and changed the quote "What is this shit?" to "Who doesn't like Bob Dylan?" Since that person also created some nonsense articles, I am dubious about the change, but I also know nothing about the Rolling Stone quote so I am not changing it back, but perhaps it should be restored.
 * The new version was wrong. Its been reverted' -- User:GWO

Made mild changes to a few phrases, added a few mostly neutral statements, re-ordered and expanded the most famous songs list, added a 'best songs' list. Hope this is ok. I'm new here. Please let me know if I've broken any unstated rules. user:JDG - I made changes to the *fueled by drugs* line to *fueled by inner poetic vision*.The fueled by drugs line is based on speculation and not fact.The line also gave me the impression that without the use of drugs Bob wouldn't have written some of his best works, which (sadly) takes away from his poetic genius. -patti

I restored the 'fueled by drugs' statement but modified it with 'some say fueled by drugs'. I think patti's change wasn't too fitting. If she knew the drug thing to be untrue, it would have been better to simply remove the reference without substituting an unrelated phrase for it. However, there's little doubt Dylan used drugs pretty extensively in those days. Whether the lyrics were 'fueled' by them is a debate readers ought to know about. User:JDG - I know Bob did drugs .The word *fueled* is a bit harsh. Upon reading the sentence I get the idea that drugs might have taken a larger part in the creative process than creativity itself.
 * I wrote the original sentence (I think. It certainly reads like one of mine), and that is certainly not what I intended.  Dylan's creative burst was from within himself, but it was the drugs that enabled him to maintain such a sustained burst without collapsing (or, at least, delaying the inevitable crash).  I meant fuelled a quite literal sense: it was what enabled him to keep going.  Having said that, I've absolutely no problem with the rewrites... -- User:GWO

I think one might mistake the intended surreal artform for spur of the moment, drug induced visuals. The debate among Dylan fans is whether or not certain phrases are drug references. To think a brillant collection of works like Dylan's is *fueled* by drugs is a gross misunderstanding of drugs.

patti - well patti, I hope you can live with the 'some say' modification user:JDG

Hm, this article has some POV issues both pro- and con-, as far as I can see. Dare I step into the fray? Koyaanis Qatsi 19:03 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I think there are som POV issues here. Also someone put a weasel word in the very first line with is widely regarded as perhaps America's greatest popular songwriter born in the Twentieth Century. That "perhaps" has no business being there. I hate "one of ... greatest" constructions, but even that's better, imo.


 * Could one of you expand on possible POV issues? Is it the 'greatest popular songwriter' bit, something else or something in addition to that? JDG 17:29, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Much of his best work... strikes me as suggesting a very definite point of view. Anyway, it's still a great article.  -- Tlotoxl 17:45, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs struck me as general material that would serve better as a preamble, rather than as part of the 'Beginnings' section. I've also shifted the picture to the top of the article. If people really hate it like that, then move it back by all means, but it looks smarter to me. R Lowry 15:07, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, for the record, those first two paragraphs were the original stub article, before I added a much longer, chronological article beneath (most of which comprises what is now this article.) Thats why it seems disjointed, it is. FWIW, I think it works well as a preamble, as you've arranged it. -- GWO 18:27, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * That's fair enough then. I can see how that came about. Glad you prefer the change. R Lowry 00:06, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I would like to formally apologize for any insensitivity I may have show to the work of others in my substantial edit of the Dylan page. I think that it is a function of both overzealousness as a new Wikipedia reader, and cockiness (at least in the realm of Dylan) which I became aware of only AFTER the edit.

I am still unsure about the 'most famous' and opposed the the 'best' lists. 'Most famous' can have some objective basis, if the songs so designated are accompanied by Billboard chart positions or lists of how many artists have subsequently covered them, but it is shaky ground. "Knockin' On Heaven's Door" certainly did better for Guns 'N' Roses than for Bob.


 * I have to agree. "America's greatest songwriter" would depend upon a majority of Americans knowing who he is, and few people I know have heard of the guy. Perhaps "one of America's greatest songwriters" wou;d work better? --b. Touch 13:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To deem any subset of his output as the best is much more difficult to argue objectively. To his record label, the best songs would be the most famous, as they probably made the most money. To an English professor nominating Dylan for a Nobel, the complexity of thought and construction might determine the song's quality. To a fan, the 1976 version of a 1965 compostion might bring it new life and raise it in that fan's esteem.

I understand the drive to include such a list, but I am convinced of neither its basis or value. Actually, I think the list is inappropriate for reasons similar to the headings that I took from his lyrics. If it is not a fanzine, then the article should not include a section which will be a cause for debate. Along with the authors before me, I did try to include the most famous or best (or whatever they are) songs within the body of the text.


 * It seems the Wiki style to include a list of singles & chart positions for musicians. Most of the other articles for musical acts feature such lists. --b. Touch 13:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The "fueled" by drugs line can be defended. By 1965, Dylan was a full-on speed freak. This does not diminish the songs of that period; drugs do have a long and noble history in the arts. Furthermore, meth cannot put together a thought, strum a guitar, or sing a note. It can however, occupy an important postition in the life of the artist, supplanting meals at times. The speed use was evidenced in his demeanor in interviews from that time, the sharpening features of his face as he lost weight, and second-hand accounts from the likes of Allen Ginsberg and Robbie Robertson. I think that the word 'fueled' was the sticking point; I never meant to suggest that a fuel somehow guided the inspiration and brilliance of his writing.

I am really sorry for all the toes that I now see I stomped on. I hope I have cleared up some of the mess I made. (To be honest, this is the first time I have visited this 'talk' page, as I didn't even know about it then.) I would be happy to discuss any of my points further if necessary. Barry21 2/19/04 15:45

I also made a small addition in the text concerning The Basement Tapes and John Wesley Harding. I think it might be useful to highlight Dylan's self-imposed exile from the psychedelia he helped create. There is not enough said about Dylan influencing The Beatles on Revolver and beyond. Revolver is clearly referenced on both "Blonde on Blonde" and The Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds." Paul McCartney has said the "Sgt. Pepper" was the Beatles' effort to match Brian Wilson's brilliance. These guys tried to one-up each other with each release, and then Dylan took himself out of the game with JWH. He seemed to derive more pleasure from stern Biblical allegory than from LSD, Maharishi, or sandboxes in the living room. Barry 21 2/19/04 16:08

One more thing... the documentary is called "Dont Look Back". I don't know why, but they left out the apostrophe. Barry21 2/19/04 16:28


 * Well Barry, you've made quite a few worthy additions. Unfortunately you've also deleted quite a few sentences and phrases which certainly belonged. Also, proofreading isn't a particular strength of yours (example: "His 1978 album Street Legal was well reviewed and lyrically one of his most complex and absorbing, although its production was uncharacteristacally intrusive."). Have you discovered the PREVIEW button yet? You should preview all your changes carefully before committing them... On the whole I think the article will benefit from your coming around, but GWO and I and others will have to wade through it with pruning hooks. JDG 21:34, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This article is beginning to suffer from the obsessive detail beloved of devotees. I urge future contributors to stay away from factoids and tidbits and concentrate instead on saying something incisive about the music and its importance.JDG 21:01, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a better idea to have an actual photo of Bob Dylan, as opposed to some portrait of him? Shakeer 05:39, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * We had a pic for a while but somebody removed it due to copyright issues. I'm pretty sure it was ok under fair use but haven't got around to checking it out. Actually this portrait is sort of growing on me, and it's probably better to have an image from his later years.JDG 18:57, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest a convention for album and song titles. Album titles should be put in normal quotation marks while song titles should be italicized. I think it helps the look of the text. I've done quite a few but many more need to be changed. JDG 19:21, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * A convention already exists, and its the other way round. Italics for albums title, plain text and double quotes for song titles.

How did this article get Featured Article status when the photo would be an obvious copyvio? Crculver 16:28, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Because the photo was added today, as the slightest check would tell...


 * I notice that one of the copyrighted photos (The cover to The Essential Bob Dylan) is still being used on the Main Page as a link to this article. Presumably it shouldn't be there either... is there anything that can be done about getting it removed? R Lowry 19:08, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * An album cover is fair use. The previous image that was on the front page is the odd vector art illustration of Bob, which has no upload summary, and may not be fair use/PD/Creative Commons. If you want proof album covers are fair use, WikiProject Albums is the place to go, under the heading Album cover. -- user:zanimum
 * Thats not proof, its opinion. Big difference.
 * It's not opinion, its policy. I could see "That's not proof, its interpretation of law.", but even still, its the common standard. If you want to debate, don't do it here. Fair use backs the page up. Sign your posts. -- user:zanimum
 * Fair use backs the page up.  It does no such thing. It merely lists albums as one case where fair use may apply.  I refer you to this -- http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-February/014457.html -- for a more reasoned response.  PS : I'll sign what I choose to sign, thanks.

Either way, a record cover is 100% more legitimate than an image by "T. Ho", uploaded by a user who hasn't done anything else on the English Wikipedia, other than upload this file and add it to the article. This image is now listed on Possible copyright infringements. -- user:zanimum
 * Fair Enough. Can you list it add Hideously ugly pictures that add nothing to the article, too.

Well, the album cover ain't hideous but it's all wrong anyway. Why have the cover of a particular album, especially one that carries the album title, as the showcase image for the entire article? I don't think T. Ho's vector portait is that bad, but would prefer it down at the "Hard-Working Elder Statesman" section. Can somebody find a decent fair-use photo, preferably from `65 or `66 as this was Dylan's height? JDG 20:36, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
 * There was one in this article once (the classic half-lit face photo), but it was removed due to copyright concerns. GWO

Sleeping in subways?
The part about sleeping in the subways comes from the guardian article with a 100-point dylan trivia in it. It's available on the Internet even, or at least used to be. --Lussmu 12:50, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * That's not really enough. The Guardian has a well deserved reputation for inaccuracy, and their fact checking -- in the jokier sections in particular -- is laughable. I can't begin to count the number of demonstrably untrue things I've read in G2.  I'm reverting, until you can come up with a decent secondary (or better, primary) source). -- GWO 14:16, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok. Hey, it's not my job to make this a good encyclopedia, I just try to do my part and if you think my sources don't count, it's OK. This is just kind of dull, if regularly cited literary sources aren't counted.
 * Besides, you'd have a hell of a job cleaning all the guardian links and citations from all the other wikipedia articles. --Lussmu 23:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You don't make a good encyclopedia by inserting apocryphal from uninformed tertiary sources. I've read plenty of Dylan biogs, and none mentions him sleeping in subways -- GWO

List albums?
Should we just list all the Bob Dylan albums? 'Recommended' is a POV issue, I personnaly like 'Hard Rain' very much. Can I just add a headline dicographies? --georingo 10:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Loyal and Obsessive"?
Umm... Isn't "Obsessive" (Re: "Loyal and Obsessive Fanbase") kind of POV? -Thorns among our leaves 17:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Recent picture
I think the article needs a more recent picture of Dylan in addition to this one of when he was like 20. Mlessard 03:38, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POV probs
Would anyone care to look at the Chronicles Vol. 1 section and remove the POV? Filiocht 15:43, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Other sections need POV work too. It's very hard to write about an artist neutrally, but in some places the article doesn't even attempt to be neutral. Calling the "Dylan" album appalling is unnecessary, the Masked & Anonymous paragraph has a little POV, etc. I think this article is featured quality but there are too many value judgments here. Rhobite 04:00, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry!
Is it advisable to post potential addtions here first for vetting? Also - I would like to discuss with you POV problems in order to avoid them in the future; they are not jumping out at me yet! barry21 december 2 10:53 am EST

THATS A DISCRACE!!!! BOB DYLAN WAS A GREAT ARTIST!!!!

Update
Took a bit of POV out of Oh Mercy description. bgk 05:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality
I hate to respark an old debate, but I think the neutrality needs to be considered in this article. The section on Dylan's recent tours is particularly slanted, as I (and many others) agree that he isn't performing as well lately. With that said, I love Dylan (I, personally, think he is the greatest living artist in the world today) but the neutrality of the article is something to consider. I'm going to clean up the paragraph about his recent concerts right now, but if there's any objection we can revert. Gsgeorge 06:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I like the additions you made. I am a large fan of his, but I personally don't think his concerts these days compare to in the 60's and 70's. however, when you compare them to his 80s live stuff...=P But yeah, good changes. SECProto 16:06, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Image removal
Why was Image:dylan_jams_with_campbell.jpg removed from the article under the "Recent live performances" section? Gsgeorge 05:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reference to other famous song-writers
I think the reference to other song writers in the first paragraph is completely unnecessary and pointless. It seems someone is simply trying to draw attention to songwriters they admire. Note that the pages of these writers don't have links back to Dylan's page. I think this should be removed as these artists have no link to Dylan whatsoever other than being the same profession (they aren't even the same time period or music genre). Posted by Zoso Jade
 * Agreed. I've removed that sentence. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 22:23, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Totally disagree. The reference to the other great American songwriters through the centuries is essential in conveying to the reader just how esteemed Dylan is. Your deletion leaves the impression that Dylan ranks somewhere near the top of his generation, among the Carole Kings, Diane Warrens, Neil Youngs and Kris Kristoffersons. This is a misleading impression. By consensus, Dylan is considered to be in a class of his own-- a consensus fully shared by almost all other contemporary songwriters. The best way to convey this is to list him among the nonpareils of preceding generations. In fact, the Stephen Foster-->Woody Guthrie-->Bob Dylan lineage constitutes the main trunk of American song from the mid 1800s to the present. Removing the expression of this lineage seriously diminishes the entire article... The primary author of this long-Featured article is GWO. I have been the secondary author. We will need more than the whim of Zoso Jade and TacoDeposit to overturn this long accepted intro paragraph. Reinstating references. JDG 00:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, nothing was done on my whim. I stated an opinion.  Second of all, I do not believe that in order to convey Dylan's status as premiere song-writer of his generation requires premieres of other generations to be included at the top of his article.  If it were to be referenced somewhere else later in the article that could be understandable, but it's place in the first paragraph of Dylan's page implies some sort of strong link between the writers when none really exists.  Note, Bill Gates' first paragraph has no reference to, say, John Rockerfeller and rightly so.  Third of all, if it is necessary to state the consensus that Dylan is in a class of his own for his generation it is probably less misleading to overtly state this fact than to simply list him with other writers who the average reader is less likely to have heard of than Dylan himself.Zoso Jade


 * Sorry if my tone was a bit brusque-- I didn't mean it to be. But I must continue to (respectfully) disagree. I think if you were to look into the matter more you would be surprised at how consciously Dylan, and even certain other contemporary songwriters who are basically thought of as "rockers" by John Q. Public, have considered the past greats and the continuum of American song. Even before he seriously began writing his own songs, Dylan had made an informal but intense study of Stephen Foster's works, as well as Robert Johnson's and Kurt Weill's. And it's well known he all but patterned himself on Guthrie. You say it's wrong to imply "some sort of strong link between the writers when none really exists". I'd say the phrase "strong link" is an understatement. The Foster->Guthrie->Dylan continuum is beyond strong-- it's fundamental and irreducible and Dylan was aware of it the whole time (check out Chronicles Vol. 1). JDG 05:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Just finished reading that book and I do not recall any mention of Foster; Weill/Brecht yes, but they are hardly American. Filiocht 09:44, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * See (http://www.calendarlive.com/music/pop/cl-ca-dylan04apr04,0,3583678.story) particularly:"'It's only natural to pattern yourself after someone,' [Dylan] says, opening a door on a subject that has long been off-limits to reporters: his songwriting process. 'If I wanted to be a painter, I might think about trying to be like Van Gogh, or if I was an actor, act like Laurence Olivier. If I was an architect, there's Frank Gehry. But you can't just copy somebody. If you like someone's work, the important thing is to be exposed to everything that person has been exposed to. Anyone who wants to be a songwriter should listen to as much folk music as they can, study the form and structure of stuff that has been around for 100 years. I go back to Stephen Foster.'"JDG 04:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting, in that throwaway style he often uses in interviews, but not exactly a quote from Chronicles, is it? Filiocht 08:30, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nope not from Chronicles but you can find statements by him on Foster going back to the 60s. I expect Chronicles Vol. 2 will fill the official void, in addition to his recent contribution to a Stephen Foster tribute album. JDG
 * I think what's needed is a ==Background and influences== section, covering the musicians and writers Dylan has acknowledged a debt to: Gutrie, Ramblin' Jack Elliot, Foster, Weill/Brecht, T.S. Eliot, Harry Belafonte, The Clancy Brothers, Charlie Patton, Robert Johnson, various Beats, Dave Von Ronk, Ma Raney, Dominic Behan, the Cash/Carter clan, French symbolism, and so on. This would add to the article by 'placing' Dylan's work in a broader context of both American and Folk music and 'modern' poetry. Filiocht 10:06, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'll float the idea to GWO who really deserves first dibs at major new section. JDG

Mention of Jakob Dylan
I was trying to figure out a place to mention Bob's son, but it doesn't seem to obviously fit anywhere. Any ideas on where it can be worked in? --Improv 22:16, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I personally don't think it's necessary unless all his children are listed somewhere. Bob should be at least mentioned on Jakob's page, but not necessarily vice versa. Tix 09:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV and "widely regarded as America's greatest living popular songwriter"
BlankFaze changed the line "[Dylan is] widely regarded as America's greatest living popular songwriter" to "[Dylan is] widely regarded as one of America's greatest living popular songwriters". At first glance it looks like a laudably NPOV edit. But in fact it's just a watering down of an already NPOV statement. And the act of watering down detracts from the article and its ability to convey just how strongly Americans of the post-WWII generation feel that Mr. Dylan is in a class of one. This is not fan stuff. It's just accurately portraying the consensus of a generation on one of its most important artists.

How can the line "[Dylan is] widely regarded as America's greatest living popular songwriter" be NPOV already? The key is the word "widely". Yes there are some who would not give Dylan this title. They are among the narrow strip of people with opinions on the matter who would choose someone else. The others (the great majority) are expressed in that phrase "widely regarded". That is all the qualification the statement needs to be NPOV. It is not the writer's POV, it's an accurate reporting of the American public's POV. Let's not doggedly try to level everybody out. Give greatness, and great renown, its due in articles and don't be ashamed of it.

If you find yourself disagreeing, please remind yourself that we are talking here strictly about songwriters, not singer/songwriters or performers or recording artists. This is not Bob Dylan vs. Aerosmith or 50 Cent or Madonna. It is Bob Dylan compared to other crafters of original lyrics and melodies. It makes no statement on the rank of his own recordings or live performances. Now, who will you seriously put up with Dylan since 1950 as a lyricist and tune composer? Remember also that we're talking about lifetime output. JDG 07:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The statement at current is most definitely not NPOV. I don't see how you can call any statement that refers to a person as the one and undisputed "greatest" of anything NPOV.  I don't think he is "widely regarded" as America's greatest living songwriter.  A lot of people can't stand him.  I know some people that think he's terrible.  That statement has to be NPOVed. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 07:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You misread the sentence. If the sentence read "he is America's greatest living songwriter", THAT would be POV. Saying "he is widely regarded as" is both NPOV and true. Yes, some people can't stand him. They are far outnumbered by those who belive him to be the greatest songwriting talent of his generation and nearby generations. Are you going to force me to cite surveys and polls to back up something so obviously true? Citations for common knowledge are tiresome and just act as sludge in an article. JDG ADDED: Ok, you just go on reverting despite having no real argument about the numbers involved. I'll let it stand until I have time to bring in a mediator. (JDG)


 * "... Americans of the post-WWII generation" don't alone make up "widely". Is Dylan widely regarded as the best in Japan? Russia? India? The rest of the entire world? If so, do cite. If not, accept NPOV. - Vague | Rant 10:33, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * We're talking about the estimation of an American artist by other Americans as ranked among Americans, though there'e no doubt of the tally among non-Americans also (those plugged into American culture enough to have an opinion at all, of course). Would they say "Dylan is the best songwriter in the world?" No. Would they say he is the greatest living American songwriter?" Yes, and that's what the pre-Blankfaze article said... You guys aren't using your heads. Come up with even one songwriter (not "singer", not "rock star", not "musician", not "performer") that can be mentioned in the same breath as Dylan for a body of original songs. You simply can't. But whatever. This is one of Wikipedia's big weaknesses and it will never change (blandness and timidity in all non-sci/tech/history topics). Have it your way. JDG 16:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone except you wants to argue about Dylan's merits. Arguments like this one are why we don't get into superlatives and peacock terms. Let the reader judge for himself - yes, even in art topics. I agree with Blankfaze. Rhobite 07:22, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * This makes two Admins unable to see the difference between reporting a widespread POV in an article and inserting an editor's POV in an article. A worrisome trend. JDG 02:14, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * We don't have any more control over the content of this article than you do. Please don't bring adminship into this. You brought up an issue, and several people expressed their disagreement. To answer your previous question, Bruce Springsteen and Paul Simon come to mind. Joni Mitchell and Neil Young if you count Canada (hey, restricting it to America is pretty arbitrary). Whether one of these artists is "widely regarded as America's greatest living popular songwriter" is unknowable, and discussing this is pointless. I'm not going to discuss the merits of any of these artists - I just want to point out that many people would disagree with the unqualified statement that Dylan is widely regarded as the best. Qualifying the statement doesn't detract from the article, nor does it signal the death of Wikipedia's boldness. Rhobite 03:46, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * The above NPOV point may seem reasonable in the abstract, but seems like a silly position in the context of what's actually been written by music and literary critics. I'm a big fan of Springsteen, and also of Simon, Mitchell and Young.  And if a vote for greatest were taken, I suppose each would get a few votes; ever fan is entitled to an opinion.  But to put them in the same league as Dylan in terms of the mass of critical opinion about who is the greatest living American songwriter is silly.  I mean let's get real. We can argue about whether Dylan actually is the greatest, but I don't think there's really any argument that he is widely viewed as such.  The fact that some would disagree about his merits does not change this; the fact that some think he's terrible doesn't change this.  To argue that one has to be universally viewed as such before one can be objectively said to be widely viewed as such really would be a worrying trend for Wikipedia to go down.  Dylan's songs have been covered far more widely than any of the above, far, far more has been written about them, he's been more influential, and so forth.  Particularly with regard to the lyrics, I think there is absolutely no quesiton that he can objectively be said to be widely seen as the the greatest.  His lyrics are, for instnace, considered to be serious poetry by serious students of poetry who are otherwise unconnected to the entire genre of popular music.  He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize for literature by serious literary scholars.  Nobody would take seriously the nomination of any of the others you mention, probably not of any other songwriter. living or dead.  The merits of an artist will always be a matter of opinion, but even matters of tast, broad (though never universal) consensus does sometimes emerge, and it seems fair to report on it: Bob Dylan is widely regarded as America's greatest living popular songwriter69.110.151.176 18:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Why not just stick in some citations from reputable critics, on the lines of "described by Blah Blah as America's greatest living popular songwriter"? Filiocht | Talk 07:30, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * If we're talking about American opinions of Dylan, then that should be said in the article. It doesn't say American opinions of Dylan. Are readers expected to check the talk page and ensure that yes, you are advocating the point of view that "opinions" means "American opinions"? - Vague | Rant 10:22, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Love and Theft, the theft part
I think the discussion of Love and Theft is incomplete without some reference to the "thefts" that the record is full of: both the musical appropriation of older songs for Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dum, Bye and Bye, Floater, and Sugar Baby, and the lyric thefts from Junichi Saga's Confessions of a yakuza, should be mentioned. Not only as an example of Dylan's "collage" style of writing, which puts L&T and Empire Burlesque in the same category, and the "folk" way of regarding tradition, but also as an opportunity to comment on the numerous accusations of plagiarism (Canadee-I-O, many of the early songs, Dignity, etc.). I think it's a necessary complement to the notion of folk-icon-turned-crooner. I've written quite a lot about this on my site, dylanchords, and I can easily put together a encyclopedia style summary of it, if it is wanted. eyolf
 * Yes, please. I've been using your site for years, by the way. It's great. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:18, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know too much about your general point, but I do know that on the official Bob Dylan page, Canadee-I-O (like everything else on Good As I Been To You) is not attributed to Dylan, it is said to be "arranged" by him, not written. He certainly arranged it, did he not?

Request for references
Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 17:06, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Vocabulary of popular music
I don't see how this can possibly be true:
 * More broadly, Dylan is credited with expanding the vocabulary of popular music, moving it beyond traditional boy-and-girl themes into the heady realms of politics/social commentary, philosophy, and a kind of stream-of-consciousness absurdist humor that defies easy description.

American popular music, especially folk music (which is what Dylan played) has never been composed primarily of "traditional boy-and-girl themes". Long before Dylan it was characterized largely by themes of political and social commentary. Woodie Guthrie is one obvious earlier example, but even he hardly invented the genre. --Delirium 19:26, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you're a bit off on the meaning of the term "popular music" here. The old folk music you refer to was not "popular music" in the sense meant here. It may have been "music of the people" (what else would "folk" music be?), but it was not "pop". The contemporary understanding of this term ("popular music") implies charting music at and since the advent of mass media. So, Dylan did expand the vocabulary of pop by opening it to the weird goings-on of the old folk stuff as well as his own rhymed-stream-of-consciousness stuff, which was new at the time even if it was inevitable, given what was happening with poetry and fiction. So... Woody Guthrie, Leadbelly, etc.,. weren't pop. Pop was Bing Crosby, Elvis, Nat King Cole, Bobby Vinton, 1963 Beatles. Dylan was the first to chart using a vocabulary that busted through all those well-worn themes. Why else do you think John Lennon knew it was time for a sea-change upon first hearing Freewheelin'? JDG 23:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I really see the distinction. Woodie Guthrie recorded several albums that sold quite well for major-label recording houses in the 1940s.  How is that not "charting music at and since the advent of mass media"?  At the very least, I think "popular music" ought to be changed to "pop music", as the two terms no longer mean the same thing, despite the historic derivation of one from the other. --Delirium 01:20, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

John Wesley Harding/Nashville Skyline
It isn't entirely clear that The Band didn't actually perform on Harding. And maybe some mention should be made of (and I know it's a little bit of a cliche) the Nashville studio musicians who are rather prominent on Skyline.

Also, where's Mick Ronson's name in the list of Live 75'ers. His signature guitar work really contributed to the overall sound of the shows.

Links
I've done some cleaning up and organizing of the links. Updated some, removed some (I don't know if a dylan tribute band home page belongs here, e.g., nor a blog post about Chronicles - why that particular one, and not the millions of other similar posts...?), and added some. I've also categorized them. The headings are just a suggestion.--eyolf 10:11, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Rhobite's general statement, that only links to sites with new contents should be included, but one of the links that was removed (the one to "It's not a house it's a home page") actually does contain new information: it is not simply a lyric site, but has outtakes, alternative versions, live covers, etc. - much of the same as dylanchords.com, but still with quite a lot of additional information. I won't re-add it, but I think it should be considered, as a useful resource well worth a link. Some of the other links also need some reconsideration, I think.--eyolf 15:33, May 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Eyolf I think you should "be bold" and add whatever links you feel are truly noteworthy. You seem to be versed in `net Dylandom so I think we can trust you to keep out schlock sites and people looking to boost their Google ratings, etc.,. I agree with Rhobite that we don't need various lightweight lyrics sites because bobdylan.com is up there with all official lyrics and a good dedicated search engine. However, since the D man is always stirring, and has always stirred, the pot so much, there are dozens of alternate lyrics for officially released songs as well as lyrics for never released songs which make no appearance on bobdylan.com. So, we should welcome one or two lyrics sites that have been prominent in Dylandom long before Wikipedia existed and that provide these variant and unreleased lyrics. Maybe you can decide which should be included here? Also, Rhobite, keep in mind that bobdylan.com does not have chords or tabbing. JDG 00:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah I try not to remove sites with additional info such as guitar tabs. Sorry if I removed a useful site, please don't hesitate to put it back. It's just irritating to see all these drive-by lyrics spammers. Lyric sites are a dime a dozen and Wikipedia gets spammed with them all the time. Rhobite 05:58, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)