MMDV. I consider it a masterpiece. For certain.
|
Pretty much Dylan's whole output since John Wesley Harding has probably disapointed him to some extent with regards what he was able to capture in the studio.
He hates the studio and nearly always struggles there.
Indeed even Blood On The Tracks was recorded twice.
It's never been his thing....he even hated Sgt. Pepper for being overproduced. |
Hdm and Ben,
I agree with your criticisms, no doubt my guess went way too far. A better wording might be "An verbal attack on the way modern music sounds and at the same time to take control of the sound production suggests a certain dissatisfaction with what was done previously."
Anyone feel that the sound on the MT album is in anyway similar to the Johnny Cash sound? (not the voice just the way the instruments are mixed with the vocals...just a thought) |
I agree with Ben that it is a real stretch to to interpret any of Dylan's comments as a personal attack on Lanois.
Frankly, I like quite a bit of the performance on MT, but I'm not so sure that it is a "masterpiece". This, of course, is entirely subjective and we can argue this until the cows come home.
What is not subjective, in my opinion, is the sound quality, and, as far as I'm concerned (I have the vinyl), that's fair game both within the context of this thread and Dylan's recent comments about sound quality. When someone states that the "production" is masterful, that's simply a load of crap. It's a mediocre to slightly above mediocre sounding recording at best as much as I might like the performance; it doesn't mean I can't appreciate the performance (I've got lots of great music that's not particularly well recorded). But if Bob is going to complain that most recent music sounds crappy, he's going to be fair game when it comes to criticism of the sound quality, particularly if he's producing it himself. I don't see that as an audiophile pissing match, but maybe Ben is just pulling our legs.
There's no doubt in my mind that if Joe Harley at Audioquest had done this record it would have sounded a ton better. If that makes me a Diana Krall or Holly Cole lover, so be it. |
I echo Ben's sentiments. I have both the CD and the vinyl. The sound is certainly better on the LP. I only own the CD because my wife hates burned CD's. I don't give a rats ass if the mix is muddy or the LP was stored on a hard drive. The vinyl certainly sounds more musically compelling. I use a Rega P-25 with a new Denon 103. The performance is the main thing. If you desire better sonics then dig out your Diana Krall or Holly Cole lp's. |
How anybody could make the assumption that Dylan's comments were an indirect attack on Lanois is beyond me.
Why use Lanois again if he hated his sound so much?
Dylan also produced Love And Theft the album before MT; this is not a new approach for Dylan on Modern Times.
It was only a matter of time before this became a "sound quality" Audiophile pissing contest.
:-)
|
Dylan deliberately took control of the sonic production of Modern Times as he rebels against modern CD and digital - he may be a great artist but IMHO his sound engineering skills are not up to scratch of other pros. I guess his criticisms of CD and digital are also an indirect attack on Daniel Lanois who was behind the arty and atmospheric sound of TOOM and Oh Mercy (which were both very successful albums). |
I borrowed the digital version this weekend and played it through my Esoteric P-03/D-03/G-0s combination. I agree with Shadorne's previous assessment and my vinyl findings. The mix is flawed.
Thank you |
Dylan ain't Diana Krall, thank god. Modern Times vinyl sonics are at least as good as LAT and TOOM vinyl, which is good enough indeed.
Lyra Helikon
Graham 1.5tc
VPI TNT IV
BAT P10 |
Audiofeil, so what your trying to say is that if I had a better Hi-Fi set up I would agree with all the criticism of the mix quality? That it's my stereo that is at fault. Did you not get my metaphor posted above? As far as my system goes, we won't get into that here. This thread is about music. Please feel free to check it out on Audio Asylum listed as " My analog system" rfigster |
I suspect that if one were to hear this recording on a highly resolving system, the deficiency would be readily apparent.
Good luck gentlemen. |
Imagine taken the scenic route through the beautiful mountains of Colorado and not being able to focus past the glass in the windsheild.... |
I do not think they were so inept as to master it poorly.
Everything was done for a reason and it is a MASTERPIECE. |
Audiofeil,
I agree with your description. The instruments have a far away kind of sound and the vocals are edgy. Whatever is the cause, I find it has the monotonous kind of sound of much of today's pop music, which lack dynamic range due to compression in order to sound loud.
It is hard to compare Dylan to other pop music (and unfair as he is such a legend) but I would contrast Modern Times with the Oh Mercy Dylan album where the sound has huge and impressive dynamics from very soft to loud. |
Shadorne, as mentioned previously I've not heard the digital version. However, after hearing the vinyl many times, I understand your concerns better.
I guess it's routine to record the instrumental portions first and "dub" the vocal track afterwards. What I'm hearing, you call it compression or whatever, is a "mismatch" for lack of a better term between the instrumental track and the vocals. I do not have any technical recording experience to better explain what I hear but there is a clearly defined difference between the instrumentation and the vocals in this release. In most recordings they are "blended" or "mixed" to sound as if the vocals and instrumentation were performed simultaneously I believe. In this recording it is very apparent the vocals were added afterwards; at least with my analog front end:
Basis 2800 Signature
Basis Vector 3 w/VTA
Zyx UNIverse X LO
All of course IMO |
My feelings pretty much mirror Hdm's in regard to sonics. While it isn't a bad sounding LP per se, there is little doubt it spent significant time on a hard drive somewhere. While you can hear some pre-echo at the beginning of a few tunes, indicating the album was tracked to analog, Dylan's voice itself is more edgy than it ought to be, and seems cut from a different cloth than the instrumentation itself. I find the album to be musically very rewarding, and while I wouldn't place it in the category of "instant classic", it will, I believe, be upheld as one of the better Bob Dylan albums from the opus. I also agree about Columbia's QC - my LP too was smudged and had several grimey fingerprints along the lead-in grooves, and around the first tracks, as if the quality inspector had just finished a grilled cheese sandwich before setting about his task. However, the surface is quiet, the pressing is flat, and overall I'm rather pleased.
-R. |
I just got the LP today. Have got through sides 1-3, haven't done side 4 yet. I think it would be a stretch to call it a "masterpiece" and I definitely have to listen more. There is a "flatness", sound wise, to the record that Ben describes above, without a doubt. I'd bet a lot of money the original master is digital not analog. While it sounds reasonable, I think it could've sounded much better with a bit more care in the studio. I find Bob's voice to be really miked hot on side 3 and think they should've dialed him down a bit. Then again, I've got a fairly big smudge and some scuffing on that side of the album (along with some problems on other sides including excessive label glue) which may be contributing to that but I doubt it. I like how Sony has a small blurb inside the record talking about the quality control etc. with their phone #. I'll be giving them a call but will probably just keep what I've got for fear that the replacement will be worse.
Bob taking writing credits for Rollin and Tumblin and Someday Baby is a bit of a joke. While he may have twisted a few words around on these ones, they are old blues songs that have been performed thousands of times. I like Bob, but he's really stretching it there. |
Wendell,
If you happen to get a chance to compare the two directly through the same system - do let us know...
BTW I like Dylan too - just not pleased with the quality of this CD - that is all. |
Ben, haven't you figuered it out by now??? America doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks. |
Just to add to the music debate.
I'm on one mailing list of long term Dylan fans nearly all European.
The reaction to the album has been quite muted (more negative than how I view it).
I think the concensous amongst the Bobcats (for want of a better phrase)is that it contains three excellent songs (NM,WMB#2,AT) and a fair share of ordinary songs.
A lot of then struggle with the Jazz shuffle material (which I don't).
Finally there is a very common conclusion that there is a flatness to the record but there is much debate about how to define that-some think it's the predictability of the music,others the production or finally the arrangements. |
Audiofeil,
You are right I am referring to CD and you may be right. The CD may be compressed mnore than vinyl ...another victim of loudness wars... |
"Classic"? I don't know. Time will tell. Compression? I don't hear it. I have both the LP and CD but have only listened to it in my car.
-Wendell |
The Mp3 CD copy I listened to first sounded flat and lifeless, that's why I bought the album. It rings true, I find that to be the norm. |
Shadorne,
If I'm not mistaken you're a digital only guy so the assumption here is your source is a cd. I've not heard the digital release so I cannot speak to its' sonics. However, like Narrod I have the vinyl. In my system it does not display any of the characteristics you describe. I'd like to hear the digital release for comparison's sake. |
Wendell,
Just compare Modern Times to Bob Dylan's "Oh Mercy", for example, take the track "Man in the Long Black Cold" and hopefully it will become clear what I mean about compression. I find Dylan's voice is uniformly loud clear and monotonous on Modern Times...sounds like compression but it might be bad miking....of course it may likely be an intentional "effect" rather than a mistake and some people may prefer it....to me it lacks dynamics of real music.
(There are often two points of view; Daniel Lanois messed up U2 sound IMHO but he was also praised for the sound "style" by many. So we may disagree simply due to preferences) |
Wendell, I totally agree with you. The term "hero" is most often overused. Everbodies a hero now days. I listen to Mordern Times on a good Hi-Fi and the album just sounds right to me. Every aspect. Would you be more comfortable if I said the album is a "classic"? Classic means that over time it maintaned it's impact. I think this music will hold up over the years to come. |
I also really like the album having heard it a couple dozen times now but prefer both Time Out of Mind and Love and Theft. It is not a masterpiece. It is not a great album.
YMMV |
I'm not comfortable with the term "Masterpiece". Absolutes are used so often they have lossed their meaning.
I love the album.
-Wendell |
I don't think it sounds compressed. I'm quite impressed with the sound and pressing quality.
-Wendell |
I own the record and it sounds great. It's a double album with 2 to 3 songs per side. Great mix with nice center imaging. 180 gram pressing with an old school Columbia label. This album is a masterpiece. |
Has anyone bought the vinyl of the Modern times and does it sound compressed(going by Shadorn's comment above)as the CD? |
Dreadhead
I agree with you. That "Modern Times" works the same area as Leon Redbone's career. If I remember correctly Bob said at one time that if he ever started a record label he would sign, Redbone as his first artist. Bob did found a label and I don't think he ever followed through with that promise.
I like Redbone's music a great deal, but it is lacking in originality. And I think Bob has slipped into that camp as well. At least they are both finding inspiration in great music. But if you really like the sounds on Modern Times, you should explore the artists where this music comes from.
Against my better judgement and probably my wife's if she knew about it. I have shucked out a couple hundred dollars to see yet another Dylan concert in an acoustically challenged hockey rink. Maybe I'll like Modern Times better, when I hear it live. That being said, he has played this type of music in part at several shows i've already seen, so i think i know that answer already.
looking for a cure from bob-itis
matthew |
I can't help but wonder. Somewhere Leon Redbone is thinking,...."wait a minute, I did that shit 35 years ago". |
caught springsteen as a youngin' playin' on the same bill as sha na na. he is no 'bowser'...... |
Audiofeil,
The point I'm making is that no matter how good a lyric is and I acknowledge plenty of artists whose voices I can't stand have written great songs, I can't listen to their music. The flip side of the coin is I can't listen to a beautiful voice sing music I'm not into. So audiophile darlings like Jacintha, Nora, Diana, Mel Torme and tony Bennett don't do it for me either. A voice like any other body part deteriorates with age . I'm not gonna take up much more space here in deference to Ben Campbell who is correct in saying this thread is about Modern Times. |
DREADFULLY COMPRESSED RECORDING - WHAT WAS THE PRODUCER THINKING - this album cannot hold a candle to OH MERCY.... |
Jsonic,
I also love Slick, Jagger, and most of the artists mentioned. I hope I get what you mean and think I do. However, my post was not meant to defend Mel Torme, Bruce Springsteen, Sheryl Crow (well I guess that's indefensible), Bob Dylan or anybody else for that matter, only to point out the differences in styles that exist among them AND their technical abilities which truly differ.
Have fun. |
You guys just don't get it. My vocal tastes are my own. I loved joplin, Jagger and Slick and never liked Springsteen. You guys act like our sensibilities have to match up. Mel Torme has no bearing on whether or not I like Old Bob Dylan's voice or the deteriorating Garcia's. Voices are subjective. What my dislikes are have no connection to the soft-ass artists I supposedly should be listening to if I don't go with the general consensus. Chaq'un a son gout! |
Rock music is replete with lead singers that have limited range and/or "pleasing" voices. Dreadhead mentioned Janis Joplin. I couldn't agree more. Others include, Mick Jagger, Grace Slick (who by her own admission has only a fair voice), Eric Clapton, Rod Stewart, Phil Collins (yuk), Sheryl Crow (double yuk), et.al. Voices like Roy Orbison and Freddy Mercury are the exception, not the rule.
What most of our popular singers offer is style. Jagger is a terrific stylist but a marginal singer. So as Dread pointed out, if you're listening for vocal purity, buy Mel Torme or Nat King Cole recordings.
IMO of course. |
People that complain about the sound of Dylan's, Springsteen's, etc voice and pronounce it unlistenable just don't get it. When I want to listen to tonal perfection I put on an opera. When I want to listen to two of this country's most prolific song writers I put on the fore mentioned. I can recommend Mel Tormae, the velvet fog. Now that's a beautiful voice. Just not for me. I guess you guys didn't like Janis Joplin either. A little to gruff for you. I am a fan. That being said, I always look forward to the next offering from the artist I admire. I find the latest from Springsteen not to my liking, not because of the sound of his voice but because it is not his voice. It is his interpretation of other artist's compositions. If he wanted to make an anti-war statement he should have written one himself. The SOUND of Dylan's voice fits the music perfectly. I wouldn't have it any other way. |
Jsonic-no worries my friend I wasn't particularly dealing in specifics regards your statement just comparing generalisations.
I've always found a fair bit of common ground with your posts.
I stand by my comment about Dylan's voice and Audiophiles;many of them hate it, full stop.
At least you can relate to the earlier years.
I couldn't disagree more about myself and Dylan as I would be heralding MT as a masterpiece and I certainly wouldn't be so critical of TOOM if I had lost my objectivity regarding him.
Indeed read my first post again.
"It's a fine record that delivers a honest picture of where Dylan is at musically just now and highlights his powers despite the weathering that the years have brought."
The weathering description relates to his voice which is clearly limited now,in the early 90's Dylan was struggling terribly with it.He did however imho find a way to cope with it-there was a massive change in his live performances around '95.
He remained strong for several years but he has had his dips and to be honest this is a battle against decline; it will never be as it was.
I think he does a pretty decent job in that context.I really can understand that the rasping tone and strange phrasing would have people putting off the disc within seconds.
I think Dylan is still massively relevant but it's a shame his voice won't allow you to hear that.
However this is my key point having clarified that background.
There are lots of music threads on Audiogon regarding artists I don't care for at all and unless I think have some kind of context and insight into it then I just ignore them.
If people were discussing the new Diane Krall album where is the value in me turning up and saying it is boring pap?
I'm not even in the zone to discuss it.
I think your reaction is an honest one but your whole post outwith of Dylan seemed a bit of a moan to me.
And really we can't have that on a Dylan thread.
:-)
Best wishes Jsonic,honestly.
|
Ben Campbell:
You are partially right. I am adding nothing to this debate regarding Modern Times. Your allegiance and hero worship of Bob Dylan is well-founded but blinds your objectivity. I have never bought a Patricia Barber, Diana Krall or Jacintha record and don't intend to. I am a classic rock listening MOJO- reading purist. I am simply stating that when an artist's voice goes , I can't listen to his/her music any longer. If Dylan came out with Blood on the Tracks today and Blonde on Blonde next year I couldn't listen to them. Look , for you it's Dylan for me it was the Grateful Dead. Jerry Garcia's voice started to go around '76 and although I went to shows from the late 70's to early 80's I knew the best years were in the past. Ben IMHO opinion you skirted the issue. I love early Dylan stuff . I'm not feeling what he's done for the last few albums due to the change in his voice. Dismissing my point by saying "Dylan isn't for everyone". is way offbase. |
Dreadhead I couldn't disagree more about Modern Times in terms of what it sounds like.
He's using the same templates but the music is closest to Love And Theft with tiny sprinklings of the Blues related stuff of TOOM done in a less "powerful" fashion.
There is no real strong connection to how Dylan used to sound pre-97 anywhere on this record.
Imho the real masterpiece of recent years is Love And Theft and until Modern Times resonates for me with the originality,depth and wit that album does then we need to debate this on a daily basis.
I can think of worse things to do.
:-) |
One could also be dismissive of so-called Audiophile music-who's going to listen to that in 50 years?
And what about all that crap about cables-sheesh.
And what about manufacturers that keep the badge and produce inferior products and claim the new model is better?
:-)
Instantly forgetable criticisms that have a grain of truth in them...for me at least
Joking aside I really do think actually singing quality is a real hang up for many Audiophiles and indeed that is why they go so often for such perfect female vocalists and cover versions and all that soft jazz and perfectly recorded pap...ouch I'm falling down that hole again.
Dylan isn't for everybody but to be honest Jsonic you ain't adding much to the debate which is about his new album. |
"Modern Times hit number one in its first week."
So did albums by Eminem and Fifty Cent. Justin and Brittney sell lotsa records too. Mass appeal is almost a reverse indicator of quality in America where Budweiser is the king of beers. I saw Bob Dylan perform live at Radio City for David Letterman's 10th anniversary show. This was over 10 years ago maybe 15. He couldn't sing at all and was almost unintelligible. I have heard his later albums and his denigrated vocals no longer work for me. When I listen to music the vocals are the one thing I can't get past. Springsteen has written some great songs but I hate his voice and can't listen. I'm sure Bob still writes some gems. I'll wait for someone who can sing to cover them before I buy them. It's all personal taste and early Dylan captures a time in music and America that I was lucky enough to live through and am still able to revisit through those early records. The same goes for the current output of The Stones, The Who, Clapton. The most maddening thing is groups who replace lead singers while retaining their original name. the Doors with that Ian whathisface from the cult? Freddie-less Queen with Paul Rogers? And worst of all "The Dead" who dropped the Grateful out of re$pect for Jerry. Do all the commercials you want guys. You earned the rights to that money. A graceful and timely exit is all I'm asking for. |
Marty, fair enough. I'm sure the Ipod spot didn't hurt the sales any, that's for sure. But the Ipod belongs to a different generation. I don't own one. I'm 50 years old and don't want to jam a million songs into a tiny little box. Never owned a Walkman either. Matt's absolutely correct. This album sound's like Dylan is rehashing his own material. Almost every song sounds like it came from another one of his own past albums. That's what I like about it. The man reinvented rock and roll years ago. Once is enough for any artist. There was a time not long ago when Dylan was nothing more then a parody of his former self. I think with this album, like the Stone's "A Bigger Bang" these aging rocker's have found a place they are comfortable with and so is the buying public. |
Dreadhead,
Easy there, fella.
I hope that I made it clear in my post: I like MT a lot (a WHOLE lot), but it still strikes me as a very odd #1 record. Ben's observations notwithstanding, MT replaced something called "Danity Kane" as #1. MT (deservedly IMHO) has gotten a ton of good press, but I seem to recall TOOM and L&T getting similarly rave reviews - without the sales numbers (I believe they peaked at #5 and #10, respectively). One obvious difference is the Apple tie-in in the marketing campaign. Don't overlook the impact.
Or maybe the record buying public has just suddenly woken up to Bob Dylan again. Either way, I'm certainly happy for the man and for the potential benefits to other personal songwriters who may benefit from MT's commercial success. |
There's little doubt since TOOM Dylan has came back into vogue critically.
Several things happened Dylan got ill gave everybody a fright he was on his way out and there was a sea shift in musical taste. Country,Blues and roots music (call it folk if you like) has been much more in vogue in the decade that followed, people picked up on Johnny Cash, alt-country et al and re-evaluated the worth of that type of music-in general terms(different generations converged musically)Also last years Scorcese documentary really captured peoples attention and reminded just how powerful Dylan was.
Finally with that in the background Dylan has marketed this album very well with his teaser sessions and masses of very positive reviews.
Obviously I'm a massive Dylan fan but there is an element of "this is the moment" for Bob again.
I can't say it's a masterpiece but it is widely seen as the latest proof that Dylan remains relevant and enjoyable today and I can't disagree with that.
For my money Love And Theft deserved the praise and attention more however that did get released on 9/11 so........... |
Media is so overblown if your not in it you have no chance, so good for BD. American consumers especially are like blocks of clay waiting for media-land to mold an opinion or thought. Ever watch football on ESPN, you can't get a feel for the game because of the high tech media circus, it's almost like watching a video game.
Looks like I'm burned out on TV! |
I've listened to it about 10 times so far which IMO is far too little for any final evaluation. However, at this moment I feel Highway 61, Blonde on Blonde, and Blood on the Tracks are better.
Everybody has their opinion on Dylan's best as evidenced in the two current threads, but Modern Times for me at this point is not his best. It has, however, received more hype than any of his releases I can remember. |
