why isn't he discussed/referenced more in popular culture than someone like the Beatles, when he was arguably more influential?
Because the Beatles were marketed more.
>>63589392
Dylan doesn't need justification.
>>63589392
Is... is he not?
Bob Dylan lines are fucking quoted in court cases sometimes. I'd say his "image" isn't quite as popular as the Beatles, and his most well known songs aren't as popular as the Beatles' most well known songs (barring Like a Rolling Stone, maybe), but in terms of being iconic and being referenced/talked about I'd say they're about equal.
>>63589601
OP here. What I mean to say is that the Beatles seem to be shown more in movies/TV and they're more popular amongst plebian class music goers. Hipster in particular love to suck the Beatles off for being influential (which they were, i agree) but seem to over look Dylan
>>63589672
For the former, I'd say it's because the Beatles are more accessible and pop friendly. Not to say Bob Dylan is literally the number one "Yeah I like folk music" go-to, but his pop sensibilities were not even a tenth of Paul McCartney's or John Lennon's. Hooks are what's remembered over lyrics, so the Beatles' music has survived more. Similarly, that's why Like a Rolling Stone is a song that a person knows if they even know one. Further, there's a trickling-down effect; the Beatles were more popular than Dylan in the day, and thus their music and whatnot were passed down more than Dylan's. The only time Dylan came close to matching the Beatles was an extremely brief period in the mid 60s when he had a couple of chart topping hits. Before Highway 61 Revisited and after Blonde on Blonde he was more or less invisible to the public eye (partly because he wanted to be; see his disillusionment with performing live, the motorcycle accident, and the Basement Tapes with the Band).
Meanwhile, hipsters shit on the Beatles because they can't into music theory and/or they know absolutely nothing about the innovations they genuinely brought to pop rock music. Bob Dylan, on the other hand, is a less popular but still popular artist and it's easy to think he's more talented than the Beatles because >muh lyrics are a lot easier to focus on than actually learning about harmonic structure and reading into the history of rock as it was evolving when the Beatles hit the scene. The people you just described are just pseudo intellectual fuckwits and contrarians.
So people talk more about the Beatles and remember the Beatles more because they were poppier and had a more memorable image and hipsters/"music nerds" shit on the Beatles but jerk off Bob Dylan because they're fake music fans and contrarians who are too lazy to actually educate themselves on the nuances of the Beatles and their oeuvre so they take Bob Dylan's lyrics as a sign that he's instantly better than them.
>>63589828
tfw you forget that Dylan helped invent folk-rock, alt-country, psychedelia and parts of the punk/rebel scene
>>63589392
If Dylan was influenced by the Beatles, could you honestly say he was more influential than the Beatles?
>>63589997
the Beatles were influenced by Dylan so ??
>>63589978
I didn't forget that? What made you think I don't know that?
>>63590180
>know nothing about the innovations they genuinely hrought to pop music.
gave me the impression that you mean Dylan didn't bring any innovations. My bad, anon. Sorry.
>>63589392
Who is this handsome vaguely-Dylanesque lookalike?
Guys how do I get into Bob Dylan?
>>63590550
honestly, for me it was that martin scorsecej[ doc on him
>>63590550
http://dylantube.com/no-direction-home-2005
here you go desu
>>63589828
Very well said.
Dylan and The Beatles alike were legends and overlooking either one is a mistake.
>>63590474
Oh. That's a common thought so I can see why you thought I was saying that. No worries senpai.
>>63590550
Depends.
Do you want folk music? Then just start with The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan and move forward up to the last 4 tracks (i.e. side B) of Bringing It All Back Home (where imo his folk material peaked), then grab John Wesley Harding.
Do you want rock/folk rock? Start with Highway 61 Revisited, then listen to the first 7 tracks (i.e. side A) of Bringing It All Back Home, then listen to Blonde on Blonde, then the Basement Tapes (recordings from 1967 so ignore the seemingly strange decade jump).
Do you want country? Nashville Skyline.
So there's your 60s Dylan. Of his 70s albums, his best are definitely Blood on the Tracks and Desire, and you should snag those up for more folk rock with a mild country tinge.
I'd consider any of those three groups of his 60s material a good entry point, but either of those 70s albums are good places to start too if you don't mind working backwards.
>>63590608
>>63590723
thanks guys!
>>63590771
this was super helpful thank you!
>>63590771
i'd say you could even start with his late 90s to 00's stuff as an easy entry point
>>63590872
Quality-wise I'd agree (TOoM a best) but I'd prioritize Dylan at his most culturally significant when it comes to providing an entry point. Given how important he was in shaping the musical landscape of the 60s I'd say that's a fair approach.
>>63590960
Yeah, I definitely see that. But sometimes people dont appreciate cultural significance and only want a gkood melody to Jive to, which Dylan seems to be better at now.
excluding H61 and BoB
>>63589828
10/10 A+++
Also, Dylan introduced the Beatles to cannabis, or so it is heard. Beatles exist in their current legend because of Dylan.
>>63591243
the way i hear is that it was really awkward and he kept spilling the weed and passed oht.
>>63591243
yeah cuz the biggest pop stars in the world would have never come across it eventually...
>>63591243
They traded off so much. Hearing the Beatles gave Dylan faith in rock again after trailblazers like Buddy Holly died, he introduced them to pot and conveyed to John that he can write about more significant things than innocent teen love, the Beatles influenced the Byrds who in turn convinced Bob Dylan turn to going electric, it was such a wild series of encounters and back-and-forth influences and it all happened over such a short period. How cool.
>>63591341
>He never spilt the weed or drank the bong water
>>63591371
It was a crazy time brug
Because musically he was mediocre. He's mostly just known for his lyrics. The Beatles have a lot more hummable songs that get stuck in your head. They were also marketed more.
>>63591656
>musically he was mediocre
jesus christ
>>63591668
>droning on with his tuneless voice over a guitar + harmonica solo
Hey I'm not bashing him but come on.
>>63591656
Like A Rolling Stone, Visions of Johanna, I Want You, It's Alright Ma, Fourth Time Around, All Along the Watchtower, Tangled Up in Blue, and a lot more respectfully disagree
>>63591656
>Because musically he was mediocre.
Just because he didn't have an ear for melodies as magnificent as Paul or John doesn't mean his music was mediocre. His blues tracks are admittedly boring musically for the most part, and he wasn't a virtuoso on the guitar, but the boundaries he pushed with songs like Subterranean Homesick Blues, Like a Rolling Stone, Tombstone Blues, and Desolation Row/Sad Eyed Lady.
>>63591707
His voice is absolutely not tuneless and very little material past 1965 has been just his guitar and a harmonica.
>>63591707
>dude i've never listened to any of his albums post-another side lmao
>>63590550
listen to blonde on blonde and highway 61 revisited
>>63591668
not sure how anybody can think "it's alright ma" is anything but musically riveting completely independent of any lyrical content
>>63591735
>wasn't a virtuoso on the guitar.
listen to Good As I Been to You or World Gone Wrong. Or even his self titled debut
I live around the same area that Dylan is from in Minnesota. He's huge here.
>>63591818
I have. Really not that impressive. He's not bad or anything, and the melodies he plays can be plenty affecting, but he just wasn't a great guitar player in the 60s.
>>63591887
he got the job done. and i'd argue Masters of War, kr It's Alright Ma are excellent guitar melodies.
>>63591933
Yeah, I'm not saying he didn't know his way around the guitar, but that's not what a virtuoso is. He also had a really restrictive grasp on what a guitar is capable of and a lot of his 60s material relies on the same dozen or so chords recycled. Nothing wrong with that or anything, but if anyone was to ever claim to me that they aren't excited about his chord progressions, I certainly wouldn't balk at it.
>>63591887
>>63591933
>I can only evaluate guitar playing in terms of melodic or rhythmic sophistication
He's an insane guitar player. The momentum he achieves is just otherworldly. Pay attention to the effortlessness with which he adds or drops beats to underscore his vocal adlibs. Learn to appreciate this sort of rhythm guitar playing because it's quite special if you can wrap your mind around why.
>>63589828
Gosh, that second paragraph. Dismissing someone's opinion because they don't understand music theory is as obtuse as telling someone his opinion on a film is worth less because he can't tell the difference between a 16mm lens and a 30mm lens, ergo: we're all real impressed you can dissect the mechanics behind a melody but ultimately art is almost by definition something that transcends technical definition and any criterial fixation on technique probably stems from some vain need to impress or justify the money you spent on music college, in any case a well-written song shouldn't need to be dissected for artistic purposes, that's fundamentally against the point of popular music so next time you go to invalidate the ad hominem hipster's opinion in your head come up with a better opinion than your pretence riddled rhetoric and fuckin' music theory.
Also to imply that lyrics are some separate aspect from the music itself is hellaciously retard.
>>63591992
i see that, desu. i know what you mean. he was nk Hendrix
>>63592031
>>I can only evaluate guitar playing in terms of melodic or rhythmic sophistication
Untrue. It's just what I think is most important in considering how good someone is at the guitar. I don't find the "momentum" you're talking about particularly impressive, but it's very effective and individualizes his playing (especially on It's Alright Ma).
>Dismissing someone's opinion because they don't understand music theory is as obtuse as...
That isn't what I'm doing. I'm saying the only people who think the Beatles are plebshit but love Dylan are lyricsfags who can't into music theory and don't understand the harmonic complexity of the Beatles' music. You can have your hot opinions, and they can be baseless, and that's just fine. Don't get so defensive.
>Also to imply that lyrics are some separate aspect from the music itself is hellaciously retard.
I'm not saying they're separate. I never said that. I'm saying they're easier to focus on and be smug about than harmonic structure or time signature or some other such thing. That's why self satisfied dipshits put good lyricists on a pedestal but musicians with bad lyrics fly under their radar no matter how complex the music they make is.
>>63592163
>I don't find the "momentum" you're talking about particularly impressive
I get that and that is what I am objecting to.
The same set of notes has the potential to tell or not tell a musical story depending on how they are played. Getting simple notes to tell their story is often much more difficult than with a piece made of sophisticated notes.
I'm not very articulate about this sort of thing but it is an aspect of musicianship that I think often goes ignored.
>>63592259
That's an abstract concept, but I can sort of see where you're coming from.
>>63592289
I feel like it must have some basis in theory, like how when jazz musicians talk about playing "in the pocket" to refer to a sweet spot that isn't quite exactly on the beat but somehow sounds more rhythmically synchronous.
>>63589392
Have you ever been to a music section in a bookstore? There's usually as many books about him as there are about The Beatles when they were a group and post.
>>63592414
To some extent its silly to compare to artists who are obviously in the 99th percentile of acknowledged fame and influence.
That said, I think the consensus we've sort of come to in this thread is that it's rather shocking that Dylan was anywhere near as influential as the beatles seeing as he didn't make catchy pop tunes. Most of Dylan's best songs are like, 7+ minutes long and harmonically/rhythmically monotonous (visions of jo, sad eyed lady, its alright ma, gates of eden).
It's like the Godfather films. It's kind of insane to look back and realize that we as a culture once had patience for this sort of shit.
