Dylan sold out a good while back, he even did some Victorias Secret commercials, and he criticizes other musicians for doing the same thing, goddamn hypocrite.

I personally do find his voice pretty annoying, his lyrics may be amazing and all, but thats not what I listen for in a song and overall I'm looking for something he just can't offer, I find his music stiff and sometimes even obnoxious (how many "I hate you bitch" songs has he done so far?... A million?), I think Wayne Coyne said it best.

"What can an 18-year-old possibly care about a wrinkled-up old man with a pencil-thin moustache hunched over a keyboard. "I mean, have you seen Dylan lately? You can't recognise a single song he plays anymore. "It's like you order a pizza and Dylan brings you a pile of dog food, and you're like, 'What's this? I ordered pizza.' And Dylan says, 'This is my version of pizza."

I think Bob Dylan has made some sort of impact on many artists enjoyed today..I was raised on him..my aunt lived with is and she was HUGE Dylan fan so much so that she named my cousin after him..I have a couple of Vinyls by him and I play them every once awhile..I say he is one my favs cause I dont think he has been copied.

I think he's amazing, but his voice is always changing. 'Tangled Up In Blue' has gotta be one of my fave songs and 'Blood on the Tracks' is an amazing album. But the 'Modern Times' album, even though I think it's o.k seems to lack an 'edge' to it.

When I read all these arguments about Dylan and whether he is amazing or not people seem to forget that he was only a "kid", 22 years old, when The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan was first released. He has said that he wrote many of the songs before even his self titled came out in '62, making him around the age of 20 or 21. Now how many people can say that they or their favorite band/lyricist have written such profound lyrics, as Bob Dylan, at that age?

And when I say profound, I don't mean lyrics that are good and touch you in some special way, I mean lyrics that can call the attention of great poets such as Allen Ginsberg (one of the most important poets of the latter half of the 20th century), who has said Dylan to be the perfect lyric poet and the greatest poet of this half of this century.

Bob Dylan is an okay lyricist and not nearly as good as people hype him up to be. I really hate to compare Conor Oberst and Bob Dylan since that happens enough, but the lyrics on Letting Off the Happiness were better then any Dylan i've heard and he released that when he was 18 and the album he put out when he was twenty Fevers and Mirrors is also better lyrically then anything i've heard by Dylan, and i've heard alot. Plus Bright Eyes was way more original and dynamic when he came out then Dylan, who just ripped off older folk artists.

Dylan didn't rip off older folk artist, he just followed the folk tradition of taking traditional folk songs and reworking them as his own; all folk artist did that, from Woody Guthrie down to Pete Seeger. Also, while I am not a fan of Bright Eyes, I can admit Conor Oberst does write some pretty strong lyrics but they still really can't compare to Dylan's lyrics. Just look at A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall, Masters Of War, Don't Think Twice It's All Right. And if you really want to get into it, look at his stuff later on like Chimes of Freedom, Gates Of Eden, It's Alright Ma I'm Only Bleeding, Ballad of a Thin Man, Desolation Row, Visions of Johanna... the list can go on and on. Don't get me wrong, Conor Oberst is a very good lyricist (especially with the lack of strong lyricist) but he still can't compare to Dylan. I mean give me a song of his that is as poetic as Desolation Row or Visions of Johanna and I will admit he is better:) .

I think Dylan can write good lyrics but alot of times people interrupt his nonsensical rhymes for some super deep meanings, and alot of fans overhype certain songs lyrics like tambourine man or when I paint my masterpiece and talk about the lyrical brilliance of those while you have songs like Idiot Wind that are way better, or songs like Blind Willie McTell that are just way more hard hitting.

I think Conors lyrics are more poetic but Dylans are more powerful, and I think Conor was a better lyricist at a younger age (and lyrically I think hes already passed his prime, but thats another debate). While Dylan was writing stuff like this

Conor (at 17) was writing stuff like this

While alot of Conors earlier stuff held typical teenage topics he addressed it in a more poetic manner. I mean he wrote stuff like "To cling to memories you'll never get back again / And to sort through old photographs / Of a summer long ago or a friend that you used to know / And there below his frozen face / You wrote the name and that ancient date, that ancient date / And you can't believe that he's really gone / When all that's left is a fucking song" sometime between the age of fifteen and seventeen.

The hype Dylan gets as a songwriter is often placed in the wrong songs and typically given way too much when theres plenty of other lyricists who are just as good if not better. You have like Nick Drake, and Vashti Bunyan and stuff who were earlier and way more innovative folk musicians but they don't get anywhere near the amount of attention dylan gets. I don't think Dylan brought as much to the table as alot of folk musicians have, I think he brought lyrics. This was probably way repetitive and a headache to read since it was alot of rambling, its late ha. Hes a good songwriter and all, but I think you have fantastic songwriters like Conor who get alot of crap for being too "whiny" when no one really looks at the lyrics and they could easily stand their own against Dylan. But no one will dare believe tolerate that because Dylan is a "classic."

I like him alot in case this comes across as negative..Also you should stick around you're one of the best new posters i've seen in awhile.

my turn to repeativly ramble on 420, started at 4:20 am.
 

Well thank you.
I understand what you are saying about Dylan and how people can over-hype him; but when it comes to folk music there isn't really much you can do to innovate it. Folk music is just a person with an instrument (usually guitar) who sing topical songs; there is nothing really innovative a folk artist can do, musically, that would gain them much attention unless you change the picking/strumming style like the Carter Family did way back in the 20's and 30's or go electric like Dylan did. Also Nick Drake and Vashti Bunyan came after Dylan and have said he was a big influence on them. You need to remember as well that the songs Dylan was writing in the beginning of his career were on very heated subjects, as Joan Baez says in No Direction Home: "The times back then were very cut and dry you were either for Dr. King or you hated ******s, you were for the war or against it" people found in Dylan a prophet, someone to speak there mind for the troubled times. I mean after only one original album he was awarded the Tom Paine Award by the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee and was being called the "Spokesman" of the Generation; he was under a lot of pressure to be something he felt he wasn't, a prophet. I mean sure you can say Conors lyrics can stand on their own against Dylan's, especially since he was younger than Dylan; but do you think Conors could stand on his own if people expected the same thing that they expected from Dylan?

corliss-lamont.org/dylan.htm
check out this site it is the transcript of the Tom Paine Award that Dylan received in 1963. It contains the infamous speech he made along with his very poetic response to the speech he made.

Also I hope we can have more discussions like this.

I think folk can be innovated, you can approach it differently. I probably sound narrow minded bring up bright eyes over and over but its late and I can't think. You have screamy and loud folk like that and daniel johnston and then you have chill and lax stuff like Drake, or Iron and Wine. Then you have people like Elliott Smith who expand on it, he didn't at first and I guess the stuff on Figure 8 and From A Basement On the Hill and sort of XO wasn't really folk but he expanded on his sound which was folk, I don't know I can't really explain it properly. A better one just hit me, you have Patrick Wolf who takes folk music and broadens it and incorporates alot of different instruments as well as a huge amount of electronic music into it, it may not be that folk anymore but the sound is still apparent in the more folkish songs.

Also on the influence subject they were influenced not just taking his sound, they expanded on it which I basically covered in the above post.

I don't really know much about the era and reading that was kind of a surprise because I read the Bob Dylan chronicles and I could tell he was being humble but I didn't realize how humble until following it up a bit more. I was aware he was a prophet but he really played it down in those books, he talked about them breaking into his houses and how he wanted to alienate them, which is why he did all the image stuff at one point.

To answer your question I don't think Conor could have.

Folk isn't meant to be original. Since folk is based on old art concepts of recreation rather than originality.

It can of course and growth is good but originality just isn't one of the check points to a good folk artists.

My problem with Dylan is people before him did it better but everyone knows Dylan's name.