best singer/songwriter

Originally posted by manorastroman
i've never crossed paths with you before von doom, but saying bob dylan is immensely overrated just reveals a kind of ignorance. he's a bit overrated, hard not to be when you're a legend, but the number of brilliant albums he's done is mind boggling.

It's subjective. Ignorance isn't applicable. I know what he's done, and I feel the rating is out of proportion. You don't, clearly.

That's the fun of opinions. Ignorance is claiming a taste-based judgment is ignorant.

Originally posted by manorastroman

bringing it all back home, highway 61, blonde on blonde, blood on the tracks, john wesley harding, nashville skyline, desire...the list goes on'n'on'n'on.

Yes, what? Those are albums he's made. Is that proof, then? Did you win?

I'll counter in kind. Here are some albums he didn't make. Lateralus, The Real Thing, Delirivm Cordia, the list goes on.

Originally posted by manorastroman

the number of cultural, social, and political references in "subterranean homesick blues" alone makes him more thoughtful than the vast majority of musical artists.

So what? I don't judge musicians on references, I judge them on music. Show me how I can be ignorant about thinking his music is overrated and you win the prize.

weak. are you so self-centered that you cannot recognize socio-political importance if it doesn't directly apply to you? by saying you find bob dylan immensely overrated, are you saying that you just don't like him, or are you denying his importance/talent/relevance etc.?

all those albums are nearly universally considered genius. so because you don't appreciate them, they can't be called genius? i can do the same thing with the albums you mentioned. frankly, i think tool sucks bad, but i would never call them overrated. they jsut don't apply to me, that's all.

and don't hide behind the opinion shield. as far as i can tell, all of existence is subjetive, so you're not exactly breaking new ground by saying whatever you want and then daring people to disprove you because "it's just your opinion".

Originally posted by manorastroman
weak. are you so self-centered that you cannot recognize socio-political importance if it doesn't directly apply to you? by saying you find bob dylan immensely overrated, are you saying that you just don't like him, or are you denying his importance/talent/relevance etc.?

He's not doing any of that is he? He said he likes Dylan, you're being ignorant by ignoring his points.

He's saying that he finds the general consensus to not reflect what he personally sees in the music, THE MUSIC. He's not saying people are wrong for liking him that much, he's saying he doesn't, and therefore finds him to be massively overrated. If I'm wrong, he can correct me, but that's what it seems like.

That's my belief, at least. I like Dylan, but his music isn't anywhere near as good, to me, as people say. You would blindly call me or VVD ignorant for saying he's massively overrated, but it's as ignorant to say we simply have to accept and agree what you say.

Originally posted by manorastroman
all those albums are nearly universally considered genius. so because you don't appreciate them, they can't be called genius? i can do the same thing with the albums you mentioned. frankly, i think tool sucks bad, but i would never call them overrated. they jsut don't apply to me, that's all.

Funny how you're displaying such unbelievably ignorance in everything you say.

He's saying he simply thinks the man is well overrated. What part of that is causing you trouble? It's not ignorance to say that. It's fear on your part to not think otherwise. Nobody DARES question the almighty Dylan just because he's Bob Dylan, right? That's bs.

Originally posted by manorastroman
and don't hide behind the opinion shield. as far as i can tell, all of existence is subjetive, so you're not exactly breaking new ground by saying whatever you want and then daring people to disprove you because "it's just your opinion".

It is just his opinion that he's overrated, and it's your opinion he's not massively overrated. It's not a fact either way, is it?

So why don't you stop being a moron? All this boils down to is insecure Dylanphiles not being able to process the radical idea of passively being a fan of Dylan and not agreeing with how people rate him.

You think Tool sucks bad? Then clearly you must believe we are overrating them, but don't say so for some bizaare reason.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He's not doing any of that is he? He said he likes Dylan, you're being ignorant by ignoring his points.

He's saying that he finds the general consensus to not reflect what he personally sees in the music, THE MUSIC. He's not saying people are wrong for liking him that much, he's saying he doesn't, and therefore finds him to be massively overrated. If I'm wrong, he can correct me, but that's what it seems like.

That's my belief, at least. I like Dylan, but his music isn't anywhere near as good, to me, as people say. You would blindly call me or VVD ignorant for saying he's massively overrated, but it's as ignorant to say we simply have to accept and agree what you say.

Funny how you're displaying such unbelievably ignorance in everything you say.

He's saying he simply thinks the man is well overrated. What part of that is causing you trouble? It's not ignorance to say that. It's fear on your part to not think otherwise. Nobody DARES question the almighty Dylan just because he's Bob Dylan, right? That's bs.

It is just his opinion that he's overrated, and it's your opinion he's not massively overrated. It's not a fact either way, is it?

So why don't you stop being a moron? All this boils down to is insecure Dylanphiles not being able to process the radical idea of passively being a fan of Dylan and not agreeing with how people rate him.

You think Tool sucks bad? Then clearly you must believe we are overrating them, but don't say so for some bizaare reason.

-AC

you assume as much as i. my issue is with the blaise statement "dylan is immensely overrated", without giving any reason. this leads me to believe that you are adopting an unpopular opinion in some vain attempt at being more interesting. if you want to have a reasonable debate on the matter, i will gladly do so. but i've noticed that you and to a much lesser extent VVD rest entirely on laurels, simply stating your opinion and retreating to the "it's an opinion" tactic when questioned further. i've rarely read any actual reasoning, especially from you.

not everybody has your conceit; i accept that though i dislike tool, this does not make them garbage. i have the presumably normal ability to separate my personal biases from my rational thought. there are many people, who's opinion i respect, that love tool for perfectly sensible reasons. this is why i say "they don't apply to me", rather than "they're immensely overrated".

Originally posted by manorastroman
you assume as much as i. my issue is with the blaise statement "dylan is immensely overrated", without giving any reason. this leads me to believe that you are adopting an unpopular opinion in some vain attempt at being more interesting. if you want to have a reasonable debate on the matter, i will gladly do so. but i've noticed that you and to a much lesser extent VVD rest entirely on laurels, simply stating your opinion and retreating to the "it's an opinion" tactic when questioned further. i've rarely read any actual reasoning, especially from you.

Without giving reason? What reason need be given other than "I like his music, but I don't see what about his music causes him to be rated so high, so I consider him to be overrated."?

I don't believe there is anything there that merits the level to which he is rated, so I too consider him massively overrated, as do many others. It's not a numbers game, though. You simply can't accept the idea being presented.

There isn't anything about Bob Dylan's MUSIC (Put aside lyrics and iconism for a moment, focus on the music he made and nothing else) that warrants such rating, in my opinion. He's a very good songwriter who has made some very good songs and albums, but there are excellent songwriters who made excellent songs and albums, and they don't get rated half as much. He's not what people claim to be based on MUSIC ALONE. His MUSIC is overrated, and as a result, he is, because people rate his music based on facets of his career that are NOT his music.

"Bob Dylan is a great songwriter...because he had impact.", "Bob Dylan is a great songwriter because...his lyrics mean things.". Not "Bob Dylan is a great songwriter because he did things with music nobody else did, or will do.", because he didn't. His music was nothing otherworldly or revolutionary. People cannot separate Dylan's music from everything else he's so hyped for.

His music gets rated high because he's an icon, or because his lyrics were great, not because the music was worth the rating. Go listen to Subterrenean Homesick Blues again, tell me that the MUSIC is anything but a excellent blues song, because it's not. There were many excellent blues musicians.

You claiming to have not read any reasoning from me is up to you, but the very reason me and VVD have reputations here is because we don't actually need to beat about the bush with stupid wankery, it's precisely because we use reasoning and fact WHERE POSSIBLE to prove or back up what we're saying. I don't even like the man, and I know him personally, but he does what he does, as do I, and people here know that and notice it.

It's not my fault, or our fault, that we've earned respect. The fact is, it is entirely subjective. So what do you want? You say "Don't rest on it being opinion.", but it is.

Originally posted by manorastroman
not everybody has your conceit; i accept that though i dislike tool, this does not make them garbage. i have the presumably normal ability to separate my personal biases from my rational thought. there are many people, who's opinion i respect, that love tool for perfectly sensible reasons. this is why i say "they don't apply to me", rather than "they're immensely overrated".

If you think their music is garbage, it's garbage to you. It's not factually good or shit, it's whatever you perceive it as. You dislike it? It's not good to you then is it? I love Tool, so to me their music is brilliant.

You clearly, by implication, find Tool overrated. Sensible people wouldn't take that as you saying they're shit, they'd take it as you saying they are overrated. Though you have said you think they suck bad, so clearly anybody who thinks more, is overrating them to YOU.

It IS personal opinion, taste IS personal, so why are you trying to separate personal biased from it? You can't be objective with taste.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Without giving reason? What reason need be given other than "I like his music, but I don't see what about his music causes him to be rated so high, so I consider him to be overrated."?

I don't believe there is anything there that merits the level to which he is rated, so I too consider him massively overrated, as do many others. It's not a numbers game, though. You simply can't accept the idea being presented.

There isn't anything about Bob Dylan's MUSIC (Put aside lyrics and iconism for a moment, focus on the music he made and nothing else) that warrants such rating, in my opinion. He's a very good songwriter who has made some very good songs and albums, but there are excellent songwriters who made excellent songs and albums, and they don't get rated half as much. He's not what people claim to be based on MUSIC ALONE. His MUSIC is overrated, and as a result, he is, because people rate his music based on facets of his career that are NOT his music.

"Bob Dylan is a great songwriter...because he had impact.", "Bob Dylan is a great songwriter because...his lyrics mean things.". Not "Bob Dylan is a great songwriter because he did things with music nobody else did, or will do.", because he didn't. His music was nothing otherworldly or revolutionary. People cannot separate Dylan's music from everything else he's so hyped for.

His music gets rated high because he's an icon, or because his lyrics were great, not because the music was worth the rating.

You claiming to have not read any reasoning from me is up to you, but the very reason me and VVD have reputations here is because we don't actually need to beat about the bush with stupid wankery, it's precisely because we use reasoning and fact WHERE POSSIBLE to prove or back up what we're saying. I don't even like the man, and I know him personally, but he does what he does, as do I, and people here know that and notice it.

It's not my fault, or our fault, that we've earned respect. The fact is, it is entirely subjective. So what do you want? You say "Don't rest on it being opinion.", but it is.

If you think their music is garbage, it's garbage to you. It's not factually good or shit, it's whatever you perceive it as. You dislike it? It's not good to you then is it? I love Tool, so to me their music is brilliant.

You clearly, by implication, find Tool overrated. Sensible people wouldn't take that as you saying they're shit, they'd take it as you saying they are overrated. Though you have said you think they suck bad, so clearly anybody who thinks more, is overrating them to YOU.

It IS personal opinion, taste IS personal, so why are you trying to separate personal biased from it? You can't be objective with taste.

-AC

in the first place, there was a misunderstanding. by "music", i assumed you meant the entirety of bob dylan's sonic presentation. of course his instrumentation wasn't revolutionary (though it was far from run of the mill), he wasn't an experimental musician. few would argue that point. but in terms of the whole package, bob dylan was incredibly cutting edge. and of course his songwriting prowess.

secondly, don't tell me what i think. i agree taste is personal, but i see no reason to superimpose my own musical taste on the greater understanding of music. not to bring back an old horse, but music has a defined set of aesthetic criteria. though not "fact" that brian wilson>>>fred durst, it's foolish to say otherwise. it's not as if we're all stumbling through an endless, incomprehensible void and everything must be boiled down to "fact" and "opinion".

Originally posted by manorastroman
in the first place, there was a misunderstanding. by "music", i assumed you meant the entirety of bob dylan's sonic presentation. of course his instrumentation wasn't revolutionary (though it was far from run of the mill), he wasn't an experimental musician. few would argue that point. but in terms of the whole package, bob dylan was incredibly cutting edge. and of course his songwriting prowess.

secondly, don't tell me what i think. i agree taste is personal, but i see no reason to superimpose my own musical taste on the greater understanding of music. not to bring back an old horse, but music has a defined set of aesthetic criteria. though not "fact" that brian wilson>>>fred durst, it's foolish to say otherwise. it's not as if we're all stumbling through an endless, incomprehensible void and everything must be boiled down to "fact" and "opinion".

His music is massively overrated to me, because that's what I care about, music. Lyrics, if great, are nice and all, but I don't buy CDs to relate to what a random man is saying to me, I buy it for the music, which usually says much more.

As for the last part, yes, that's where credibility of opinion comes in. Some are more credible than others, but taste will always be subjective. Brian Wilson being better than Fred Durst is as close to fact as you can be without being a fact, but it's STILL just opinion. Nobody can prove Wilson is better, but this has been done to death in another thread. Don't bring it up to save your ailing points.

-AC

eh? ailing pints? are you inventing a debate that never happened? i've just been trying to come to an understanding.

anyways, i think that's your fault for looking for bob dylan's genius in his music. i've honestly never heard anyone argue that his instrumentation was anything more than an excellent vehicle for his poetry.

i suppose we just disagree on the value of music versus lyrics. i can be moved by sigur ros song like anyone else, but i stay for the intellectual stimulation. i guess i'm a word guy.

Originally posted by manorastroman
anyways, i think that's your fault for looking for bob dylan's genius in his music. i've honestly never heard anyone argue that his instrumentation was anything more than an excellent vehicle for his poetry.

Yeah, woe betide we actually want to discuss rating musicians for their music on a music forum or in the world.

That's just silly.

Originally posted by manorastroman
i suppose we just disagree on the value of music versus lyrics. i can be moved by sigur ros song like anyone else, but i stay for the intellectual stimulation. i guess i'm a word guy.

There is no music versus lyrics. Music is called music for a reason, lyrics are a guest in the genre. That's a fact. It's not called Lyrics, or Music/Lyrics. It's music. Most artists don't even put priority on writing lyrics. You prefer them, it doesn't mean they're equal or they are as important. The fact that instrumentals exist proves that lyrics aren't needed, and that music is more powerful. Though I suggest you bump that particular thread if that's a debate you wish to have.

The importance of lyrics to a PERSON is subjective, to the GENRE, it's not. You might need words, music doesn't.

Bob Dylan reading the words to Subterreanean Homesick Blues in a normal speaking tone would be nothing compared to the actual song.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah, woe betide we actually want to discuss rating musicians for their music on a music forum or in the world.

That's just silly.

There is no music versus lyrics. Music is called music for a reason, lyrics are a guest in the genre. That's a fact. It's not called Lyrics, or Music/Lyrics. It's music. Most artists don't even put priority on writing lyrics. You prefer them, it doesn't mean they're equal or they are as important. The fact that instrumentals exist proves that lyrics aren't needed, and that music is more powerful. Though I suggest you bump that particular thread if that's a debate you wish to have.

The importance of lyrics to a PERSON is subjective, to the GENRE, it's not. You might need words, music doesn't.

Bob Dylan reading the words to Subterreanean Homesick Blues in a normal speaking tone would be nothing compared to the actual song.

-AC

the last three paragraphs were a waste of space attacking a statement i never made. i agree. i said simply that i prefer lyrics and that you were foolish to search for bob dylan's brilliance in his instrumentation, both of which seem pretty true. i re-iterate: you are fighting a battle against nobody. nobody thinks that bob dylan's instrumentation is revolutionary. it's always been about his words. where'd you get confused?

as for the first two, it's especially silly on a BEST SINGER/SONGWRITER thread. did you forget where you were or something?

i think you might be alone in drawing such a potent distinction between the music and lyrics in regards to the phrase "musician". when people speak of bruce springsteen as a musician, they're not talking about his rhythm guitar. music and instrumentation, two different things. the former of course encompassing the latter.

I think Dave Mustaine of Megadeth is great both ways especially in "Holy Wars...The Punishment Due" and the rest of the 1990 'Rust in Peace' album. But I think almost all metal songwriters are underrated, but I like Neil Young as well so I'll vote for him.

Originally posted by manorastroman
where'd you get confused?

I didn't, you did, because you are harping on about lyricism...

Originally posted by manorastroman
on a BEST SINGER/SONGWRITER thread.

So, I ask you...

Originally posted by manorastroman
did you forget where you were or something?

-AC

i forgot the part where lyrics aren't part of songwriting. again, magnificent job of picking totally irrelevant pieces of post.

Originally posted by manorastroman
i forgot the part where lyrics aren't part of songwriting. again, magnificent job of picking totally irrelevant pieces of post.

It's not irrelevant is it? You're popping off and VVD and myself because we find Dylan grossly overrated musically, which is the most important part of music (duh), in a music forum, simply because you are focusing on lyricism and things that aren't music.

Yet, you have the nerve to ask if I forgot where I am, somehow.

The song is independent from the lyrics, the lyrics are an addition to the song. Lyrics on their own would not be part of the song, the song would still exist.

-AC

Originally posted by manorastroman
weak.

You should have put a colon there, to show the quality of the following post.

Originally posted by manorastroman

are you so self-centered that you cannot recognize socio-political importance if it doesn't directly apply to you?

What are you talking about? I said it's irrelevant to music. The actual sound. You know, music. Stay with it.

Originally posted by manorastroman

by saying you find bob dylan immensely overrated, are you saying that you just don't like him, or are you denying his importance/talent/relevance etc.?

You're having trouble, aren't you?

Do you know what overrated means? It's not mutually exclusive with any thing you just mentioned. It refers to a disproportionate level of acclaim contrasted against deserved acclaim (in one's own opinion).

Originally posted by manorastroman

all those albums are nearly universally considered genius. so because you don't appreciate them, they can't be called genius?

Yes, that's exactly it. It's a subjective judgment.

Do you think that 'universal consideration', IE many opinions is closer to fact than one opinion is?

The line I've quoted can be summed up as follows: 'You think 'x', many people think 'y', therefore 'y' is more valid.

I'm already finding replying tiresome, because again, what you have 'replied to' is not what I said. Go and look up what overrated means, or at least think it through before you start vomiting over the thread.

Originally posted by manorastroman

i can do the same thing with the albums you mentioned. frankly, i think tool sucks bad,

Yes, fun isn't it? This 'discussion' thing.

Originally posted by manorastroman

but i would never call them overrated. they jsut don't apply to me, that's all.

Idiotic. If you don't agree with their rating, then to you, they are overrated. You think they 'suck bad', but you won't say they're overrated, to you. Why? It's bullshit isn't it, and you persevere to prove a ludicrous point, IE no-one can think Bob Dylan is overrated, therefore you wouldn't say someone else is overrated (only that they suck bad).

Bob Dylan 'sucks bad'. Better?

Originally posted by manorastroman

and don't hide behind the opinion shield. as far as i can tell, all of existence is subjetive, so you're not exactly breaking new ground by saying whatever you want and then daring people to disprove you because "it's just your opinion".

What kind of point is that? Though, we've already seen above that you have a somewhat troubled relationship with fact and opinion.

The opinion shield? You actually came here trying to say Bob Dylan isn't overrated, that it's ignorant to say so like it's something carved into a tablet on a mountainside, and then say everything is subjective?

You named a list of albums. Bob Dylan made them. That's not subjective.

You thought naming that list, and then saying many people like them, is proof of his genius. It's not, it's subjective.

Further, it's reason for someone that does not think as highly of the albums to feel he is overrated.

I'm a bit confused by the tone of what you say. You suggest I'm 'daring' you to do something, simply because you have trouble separating fact and opinion.

All that says to me is that you had to 'dare' to reply.

You needn't have bothered.

Originally posted by manorastroman
my issue is with the blaise statement "dylan is immensely overrated", without giving any reason. this leads me to believe that you are adopting an unpopular opinion in some vain attempt at being more interesting. if you want to have a reasonable debate on the matter, i will gladly do so. but i've noticed that you and to a much lesser extent VVD rest entirely on laurels, simply stating your opinion and retreating to the "it's an opinion" tactic when questioned further.

It was 'blaise' for a reason. I was joking with Bardock.

It is an opinion. What's the problem? The opposite is an opinion as well.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not irrelevant is it?
-AC

🙄 can you honestly not see that you quoted the parts of my post that had to do with you rather than what we were discussing? if discussion is an attempt at mutual understanding, than why would the relevant bits be the ones that have NOTHING to do with the conversation we've been having? it's entirely irrelevent.

"the last three paragraphs were a waste of space attacking a statement i never made. i agree. i said simply that i prefer lyrics and that you were foolish to search for bob dylan's brilliance in his instrumentation, both of which seem pretty true. i re-iterate: you are fighting a battle against nobody. nobody thinks that bob dylan's instrumentation is revolutionary. it's always been about his words. where'd you get confused?"

"think you might be alone in drawing such a potent distinction between the music and lyrics in regards to the phrase "musician". when people speak of bruce springsteen as a musician, they're not talking about his rhythm guitar. music and instrumentation, two different things. the former of course encompassing the latter."

those two are the relevant bits. then again, that's just my opinion.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
You should have put a colon there, to show the quality of the following post.

What are you talking about? I said it's irrelevant to music. The actual sound. You know, music. Stay with it.

You're having trouble, aren't you?

Do you know what overrated means? It's not mutually exclusive with any thing you just mentioned. It refers to a disproportionate level of acclaim contrasted against deserved acclaim (in one's own opinion).

Yes, that's exactly it. It's a subjective judgment.

Do you think that 'universal consideration', IE many opinions is closer to fact than one opinion is?

The line I've quoted can be summed up as follows: 'You think 'x', many people think 'y', therefore 'y' is more valid.

I'm already finding replying tiresome, because again, what you have 'replied to' is not what I said. Go and look up what overrated means, or at least think it through before you start vomiting over the thread.

Yes, fun isn't it? This 'discussion' thing.

Idiotic. If you don't agree with their rating, then to you, they are overrated. You think they 'suck bad', but you won't say they're overrated, to you. Why? It's bullshit isn't it, and you persevere to prove a ludicrous point, IE no-one can think Bob Dylan is overrated, therefore you wouldn't say someone else is overrated (only that they suck bad).

Bob Dylan 'sucks bad'. Better?

What kind of point is that? Though, we've already seen above that you have a somewhat troubled relationship with fact and opinion.

The opinion shield? You actually came here trying to say Bob Dylan isn't overrated, that it's ignorant to say so like it's something carved into a tablet on a mountainside, and then say everything is subjective?

You named a list of albums. Bob Dylan made them. That's not subjective.

You thought naming that list, and then saying many people like them, is proof of his genius. It's not, it's subjective.

Further, it's reason for someone that does not think as highly of the albums to feel he is overrated.

I'm a bit confused by the tone of what you say. You suggest I'm 'daring' you to do something, simply because you have trouble separating fact and opinion.

All that says to me is that you had to 'dare' to reply.

You needn't have bothered.

It was 'blaise' for a reason. I was joking with Bardock.

It is an opinion. What's the problem? The opposite is an opinion as well.

i apologize for my tone. and i have no problem separating fact from opinion, i just see no reason to act as if opinion cannot be discussed as fact. isn't that your side of the argument, with the tool thing? that if i think they're garbage, i must also think that it's fact they are garbage? because if not, than my opinions on tool seem perfectly reasonable; i don't like them, but i recognize them.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Show me how I can be ignorant about thinking his music is overrated and you win the prize.

Originally posted by manorastroman

i apologize for my tone. and i have no problem separating fact from opinion, i just see no reason to act as if opinion cannot be discussed as fact. isn't that your side of the argument, with the tool thing? that if i think they're garbage, i must also think that it's fact they are garbage? because if not, than my opinions on tool seem perfectly reasonable; i don't like them, but i recognize them.

No. I don't know why you would think that. What I am saying is that if you think they're garbage, then they're overrated, to you. There's no 'factually overrated'. It's just a personal opinionated reaction to other opinion.

Also, of course opinion can be discussed. You'll get nowhere calling a taste-based opinion ignorant, though. Even if it's a liking of Britney or what have you.

Originally posted by manorastroman

a dare in jest is still a dare.

It's not a dare. It's asking you to back up your statement, namely that it is ignorant to think his music is overrated. It is possible for that to be the case, but I am well aware of Bob Dylan's music.

Originally posted by manorastroman

this was a misunderstanding, i thought by "music" you might everything one hears on the record, not instrumentation.

I did mean everything, bar lyrics.

Having said that, I also think the lyrics are overrated.

Originally posted by manorastroman
🙄 can you honestly not see that you quoted the parts of my post that had to do with you rather than what we were discussing? if discussion is an attempt at mutual understanding, than why would the relevant bits be the ones that have NOTHING to do with the conversation we've been having? it's entirely irrelevent.

"the last three paragraphs were a waste of space attacking a statement i never made. i agree. i said simply that i prefer lyrics and that you were foolish to search for bob dylan's brilliance in his instrumentation, both of which seem pretty true. i re-iterate: you are fighting a battle against nobody. nobody thinks that bob dylan's instrumentation is revolutionary. it's always been about his words. where'd you get confused?"

"think you might be alone in drawing such a potent distinction between the music and lyrics in regards to the phrase "musician". when people speak of bruce springsteen as a musician, they're not talking about his rhythm guitar. music and instrumentation, two different things. the former of course encompassing the latter."

those two are the relevant bits. then again, that's just my opinion.

You were attempting to debate against VVD and then me, calling it grossly ignorant to hold the opinions that we hold of Bob Dylan's music. Why? Because you IGNORANTLY assumed we weren't discussing music, we were discussing other things. That's not the case, it's a music forum.

You made the mistake of assuming incorrectly. It's a music forum, if you wanna debate lyrics or poetry, do it in the appropriate forum.

You were arguing from a flawed stance from the start and I called you on it. Don't ask me if I've forgotten where I am, please. It's a singer/songwriter thread, not lyricism/iconism.

What kind of silly remark is that anyway? "I thought you meant everything except instrumentation.", which would be what? MUSIC refers to music, why did you think it meant ANYTHING but music? Especially things that aren't music.

-AC

lyricism is part of songwriting. neil young, leonard cohen, bob dylan, elliot smith...these are people renowned for their words, and coincidentally renowned singer/songwriters. i imagine there's a connection.

and you did it again. you said nothing about my points pertaining to this conversation.

also, i never said "everything except music". i said the entirety of sonic presentation. this is music, production, lyrics, vocals, songwriting etc.

think about it: if music refers only to the instrumentation, then there would be no word referring to the entirety of the sonic presentation, and two words referring to the instrumentation. music=the entirety, instrumentation=what you call "the music". the bruce springsteen argument. when people speak of him as a musician, they're not talking about his rhythm guitar. but if they spoke of his instrumentation, it'd be pretty hard to misunderstand, no?

regardless, dylan's "music" (as you define it) isn't half bad. he's had some delicious melodies.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Having said that, I also think the lyrics are overrated.

why?

Originally posted by manorastroman
lyricism is part of songwriting. neil young, leonard cohen, bob dylan, elliot smith...these are people renowned for there words, and coincidentally renowned singer/songwriters. i imagine there's a connection.

You can imagine all you want, imagining doesn't count.

Them being renowned for their words doesn't mean that lyrics are a part of songwriting. The fact that they aren't needed proves that. Writing the song is SONGwriting, writing the lyrics is...writing the lyrics.

Originally posted by manorastroman
and you did it again. you said nothing about my points pertaining to this conversation.

What are you on about? I've discussed nothing but the topic.

Originally posted by manorastroman
also, i never said "everything except music". i said the entirety of sonic presentation. this is music, production, lyrics, vocals, songwriting etc.

LYRICS are not audible, are they? Vocals are. Lyrics are not part of sonic anything, they're words.

Why on Earth would you cite production? We're discussing music, or at least we should be. You wouldn't call bands great just because they had a great producer, it's not them, it's the producer.

You obviously haven't got a clue what you're on about. Why would we be saying "Dylan is good/bad" based on ANYTHING but his music, in a music forum, about SONGwriting.

Originally posted by manorastroman
think about it: if music refers only to the instrumentation, than there would be no word referring to the entirety of the sonic presentation, and two words referring to the instrumentation. music=the entirety, instrumentation=what you call "the music". the bruce springsteen argument. when people speak of him as a musician, they're not talking about his rhythm guitar. but if they spoke of his instrumentation, it'd be pretty hard to misunderstand, no?

So? What people SAY and what actually IS are two different things.

If you judge Dylan for the whole package, then fine, but this isn't a thread about that, it's about singing and songwriting. So production, lyricism and other things that are NOT music, aren't applicable.

Originally posted by manorastroman
regardless, dylan's "music" (as you define it)

What do you mean; as WE define it?

It's not us. Music is sound, not lyrics.

-AC