Quote:
Originally Posted by Il Duce
I don't think Johnson invented anything "new" rather than play the same ole stuff differently
if you listen to other blues musicians of that era - Charley Patton, Blind Lemon Jefferson, Blind Willie McTell, they don't sound ALL that different
heck, even Leadbelly has somewhat a similar sound to Johnson
granted that of course, Johnson was a virtuoso as compared to the others (selling his soul to the devil and whatnot)
i don't think they're "over-hyped" at all - it's just Dylan put out as much crap as he did gems
i can't say anything about Cobain cos he's short-lived, but if he had stuck with the Bleach-sound and actually popularised that instread of coming out with Nevermind, people wouldn't go around saying Nirvana's a Pixies rip-off
|
One of the things that sets Dylan apart from his contemporaries is the consistent quality of his albums, certainly up to the 1980s, with only the odd blip like Self Portrait.
If Nirvana had stuck with the Bleach sound, the band almost certainly would not have become as revered as it is. Nevermind and In Utero display a greater focus on songwriting and lyricism, which ultimately is what made Cobain such a significant figure in the social context of the early 90s. It's what he communicated to the youth that made the music so appealing, not how distorted and loud he could make his riffs. In this sense, you could view Dylan and Nirvana in a similar light. The Pixies-rip off thing is just lazy journalism/elitism at the end of the day, if you're playing that card, you could just as easily call Bleach a Melvins-rip off.
Anyway, back to Dylan.