I strongly disagree about Dylan's delivery. He may not sing in tune, but he knows how to keep the listener's attention and tell a good story.
Yes but that delivery would be worthless if there was no good story.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5
i tried listening to dylan, and the shit is boring tbh. like a rolling stone is painfully boring and repetetive, same goes for desolation row
|
| |
lol
Case in point for this discussion, smaug is obviously focussing solely on the music if he thinks Desolation Row is repetitive, therefore not appreciating Dylan's greatest strength.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
Highway 61 Revisisted is a pretty exciting Dylan song Smaug, check it maybe not that I'm a huge Dylan guy...
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
Thanks for the info, man ;)
Guys, let's clarify one thing. Songwriting is the act of writing music and lyrics. Not lyrics alone. Thus, when Jamie says
For me the music on most of Dylan's albums isn't anything special. Average would be a bit harsh perhaps but his song writing is undoubtedly the main draw
he contradicts himself. Songwriting is the melody, riffs, chord progressions AND lyrics; not the lyrics alone. How can you think the music on Dylan's music is not special when you think that his songwriting is the main draw? Ok, this is just semantics, but I felt the need to be a little smartass biatch for a minute
As for Dylan, I consider him one of the finest songwriters of all time. I just love the man so this is a no-brainer opinion for me ;)
|
| |
I meant his lyric writing primarily. His compositions and musical arrangements are pretty standard and so I didn't feel the need to clarify that, my bad.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
no worries man, chill ;)
|
| |
Chill as could be, man.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
the right attitude ;)
|
| |
"some of the songs just don't stand out, but it's a concept album so that's to be expected"
that makes no sense
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
I think what he meant is that in these kind of albums which tend to be way longer it is certainly more difficult to mantain the consistency (since there are interludes and an obligation for all the songs to have some kind of connection), which is true for most double albums
But I dunno, that's what I think he meant
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
[2]
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
too much filler agreed
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
Album has as many boring tracks as it has good ones.
|
| |
Too much filler [2] but still good because this is still floyd.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
Nah is not "too much"
I'd probably give this a 4.0 if it was for a compensation between the good and the weak songs
But since the "weak" ones aren't bad, just decent, and the good ones are actually stupidly perfect...
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
"Then it would be a 2.5 you dumbass."
No, because if it was all boring tracks, it wouldn't be a 1. The good ones make this album a bit above average.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
"But since the "weak" ones aren't bad, just decent, and the good ones are actually stupidly perfect..."
there's only like two "perfect" songs on here, and they're both overplayed to death on classic rock radio
"You guys give this too much hate"
not really this album is total shit compared to what they achieved on their last five albums
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
In the Flesh, the 3 parts of ABitW (including Happiest Days), Mother, Goodbye Blue Skies, Empty Spaces, Young Lust, Goodbye Cruel World, Hey You and Comfortably Numb are all perfect for me tbh
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
There's some really good tracks and some decent tracks on here, for me. Not one song is bad but there are some weak ones. My logic behind my rating was: not enough amazing tracks for a 4.5, but not as many weak ones for a 3.5. So I just gave it a 4.
|
| |
|
|
