i generally try to stay away from best-of compilations, especially with an artist like dylan whose albums stand on their own as cohesive efforts. bringing it all back home, highway 61 revisited & blonde on blonde are the best places to start - they're his greatest albums that best demonstrate what he did & does best. blood on the tracks is my personal favorite dylan album, but it's not the best introduction since it's kind of an oddity in his discography - dylan is best known for his surrealistic wordplay & pioneering the folk-rock movement, & BOTT is a more somber, reflective album about the dissolution of a relationship; definitely something you should check into later on down the road though. the three aforementioned releases see dylan cementing his reputation as a groundbreaking cynical street poet who played folk music as garage rock - bringing it all back home is dylan starting his transformation, highway 61 revisited is dylan solidifying his transformation, & blonde on blonde is dylan stretching the transformation. from there you can check into the rest of his catalogue, but those are his most acclaimed records that best represent what dylan basically stands for - i'm pretty sure we all have our personal favorites, but those three albums are really the best places to start.

Then how, in your next post, is he "underrated"?

Not sure about the Beatles being the best songwriters ever. As far as verse-chorus-verse-chorus four-beats-to-a-bar popular music-that-everyone-can-cheer-to goes, they may be in with a shout.

But that's an entire different topic altogether.

As for an introduction to Dylan, I'd say Bringing It All Back Home. Work your way back to his first album, Bob Dylan, and then after that start moving forward. That's the way I did it, leaving bootleg releases out and then filling them in at the end.

With an artist like Bob Dylan, he has so many albums that it's hard to say one album is the one. Strong arguments can be made for one studio album over another. A good sampling is his Greatest Hits album released in 1967. I've included a link to his discography, and as you can see, some of his best work is on this record: Blowin' in the Wind, Rainy Day Women, It Ain't Me Babe, etc.

I also like Blonde On Blonde, Highway 61 Revisited, and Blood on the Tracks. He did a great song (not sure which one of his albums) that was featured on The Soprano's Soundtrack Vol 1 called You Gotta Serve Somebody.

That's on Slow Train Coming, an album part of his "Christian" period.

Thanks Capo - I figured someone would know. You bring another interesting thought - the different periods of Dylan:

acoustic
going electric
Christian
rock

How many artists can we really say have such a diverse style of music through the course of a career? Very few.

While it could be argued that the Beatles at their peak (Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgtr. Pepper and White Album) were probably better than anyone of that era, there is no question that Dylan is far more prolific, he has lasted as a major influence for more than forty seven years, and like Picasso has had different "periods" as he grew as an artist. Lennon and Harrison died too soon, and McCartney, while a great tunesmith who occasionally comes up with something good and catchy has seen his best days long ago.

Great point Dontomasso. Dylan is one of the most prolific artists in rock history. While the Stones keep releasing albums and have been around nearly as long as Dylan, they are essentially a "greatest hits" band that tours on their past glories. That's not a shot against the Stones, but they've been making essentially the same music ever since Brian Jones left the band. Dylan keeps trying new things.

Springsteen has been following Dylan in a similar vein with different outlets. He has a couple of folk-style albums (The Ghost of Tom Joad and Devils & Dust) as well as a cover of old folk classics (We Shall Overcome). But even Bruce can't hold a candle to Dylan's changes in style and output of released music. I think Bruce is trying to catch up, but the Boss went many years between albums for a good portion of his career trying to release great "albums" instead of a collection of songs (not that I'm at all implying Dylan does the latter).

Great point goombah. The same can be said for The Who, Aerosmith and whats left of Pink Floyd as well. All great talents that have not maintained their creative edge.

As for Springsteen.... dont get me started!

I said his voice and his music are underrated.

I'd divide Dylan's career not by sound, but by theme; simplistic, and not without overlap (or outright oddities), but here goes:

Political (1962-65)
For which he made his name, and besides his first album being covers of existing material, his first four albums thereafter all come under this period.
Bob Dylan - Bringing It All Back Home

Abstract (1965-1967)
In which he seems most comfortable making obscure literary references, paying homage to TS Eliot and telling sweet fables such as "Frankie Lee and Judas Priest".
Highway 61 Revisited, John Wesley Harding, Blonde on Blonde

The "Down" Period (1969-1973)
I don't mean "down" in a negative sense, and he's certainly still very prolific, but there's definitely a loss of distinctive originality or creativity, though, I would argue, it's still very self-consciously so. From the smiling Dylan on the front cover of Nasvhille Skyline to the mish-mash of tunes and oddities on Self-Portrait, which isn't really a self-portrait at all (though it's a nice album cover).
Nashville Skyline - Dylan

Love-torn (1973-1975)
Despite The Basement Tapes with The Band in between the three albums which comprise this period, this is my favourite of Dylan's periods, and the one in which he is most consistent since his political period.
Planet Waves, Blood on the Tracks, Desire

Christian (1979-1981)
Street Legal in between Love-torn and Christian; this is the one in which Dylan found God, and as Omar once said, even if you don't believe in God, you don't doubt that he does.
Slow Train Coming, Saved, Shot of Love

1980s (1981-1990)
Seems a bit silly to call a period 1980s, but since this is the one I am least familiar with, it seems adequate enough right now. He's still very, very prolific, and still very, very good, though nowhere near as consistently so... and it's an interesting departure from his sixties stuff and his recent rejuvenation.
Infidels - Under the Red Sky

Reflection (1992-present)
The longest of the periods, I think, by some distance. There may be arguments to be made for a division after World Gone Wrong, since his last three albums seem to work together as a cohesive whole, but for now, I'll keep it as this until I revisit it. Time Out of Mind is one of his best albums. Anyway, in some form or another, he seems to be revisiting previous themes and reflecting on his own career, sometimes obviously, sometimes not.
Good As I Been to You - Modern Times

Any thoughts and revisions welcome.

don't you think that description is a bit reductive of the beatles' career? i find it almost insulting to the depth & profundity of their songwriting. can you name me one artist that had their stylistic range (from folk to country to blues to rockabilly to soul to r&b to music hall to psychedelic rock to hard rock, the list goes on & on & on) in such a short period of time, accomplished with such a dazzling array of success (including vast amounts of critical favor & praise nearly a half century later, peerless enduring popularity, record-breaking album sales & unmatched influence)? i doubt you could name a single musician. the beatles played these styles so successfully & exerted such influence - even now - that the type of music they popularised is commonly looked unfavorably upon as "simple pop/rock," but let's not forget that nobody was this daring before them & very few have been since. their production innovations, intricate arrangements & songwriting techniques have been worked so firmly into pop music that it's easy to reduce their music to mere vere-chorus-verse four-beats-to-a-bar rock & roll. the problem with discovering a work of art commonly lauded as influential at a later date is that you've probably encountered the work it influenced first, so its truly innovative qualities are lost - this is a real shame, especially with a band so wildly creative & talented.


i'd hardly call such masterworks as sticky fingers, exile on main street & some girls - all recorded after brian's departure - "the same music" over & over again. to be fair, they didn't truly sink into that territory until the 80's.


i'd end dylan's political era (& change the name to "topical") short of bringing it all back home since that album is filled with mostly surrealistic poetry, & it's mostly renown for his stylistic & lyrical diversions; an argument could be made for it ending before another side... as well, but i won't get nitpicky. also, desire was released in 1976, so the "love-torn" era should probably be extended thus far.

on another note, i quite like nashville skyline - it may be a bit slight in its ambition, but it's got a warm, earthy sound that's both comforting & friendly. i recall one critic referring to it as "a deep, humane & interesting statement about being happy" - i agree. not to mention, from a musically historical standpoint, it did much to popularise country-rock & concrete the genre as a significant force in pop music.

Yeah, I'd end the political/topical era with The Times.

I like Topical better than Political.

Here are my revised rankings of his albums:

1. Highway 61 Revisited
2. Bringing it All Back Home
3. Blonde on Blonde
4. Another Side of Bob Dylan
5. John Wesley Harding
6. Blood on the Tracks
7. Desire
8. The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan
9. The Times They Are A' Changin'
10. Bob Dylan

To be honest, I don't really see why people feel the need to consistently compare them to the Beatles and Dylan. The Stones are good, but a tad over-rated in that they're compared to two of the greatest artists of all time, when there were so many other bands around at that time worthy to be placed into the trinity of rock; Pink Floyd was starting (and honestly, I think they produced some of their best work from 1967-1972.. the pre-Dark Side years), the Grateful Dead were on a rampage, Hendrix and Joplin dominated, Steppenwolf maintains in being one of the best bands of the time but only receives acknowledge for "Born to be Wild" and "Magic Carpet Ride", and the Velvet Underground achieved a sound no one will ever match.

I just think it's weird that when people try to think of the "best" rock bands of all time, they ignore all of the great San Francisco bands of the 1960s. It's probably one of the best periods/scenes in rock... It defined an entire generation, and the basic parameters of rock music.

But I'm starting to go off on a wild tangent now.

i'm going to have to disagree with that by a long-shot, LLC -- the stones are, in my opinion, the third greatest artists to ever grace pop music (the beatles being the first, dylan being the second). furthermore, i think the san francisco scene was filled with bloated, pompous, misguided freak-out music that was all surface & no substance. the grateful dead are one of my top three most hated groups of all time, & i think pink floyd's post-syd work is highly over-rated, marred by being unbearably pretentious & bombastic; janis joplin was an incredible vocalist who suffered from not always having a first rate set of material, & hendrix obviously needs no introductions (best guitarist to ever walk the earth, hands down). therefore, i think the stones' general praise ahead of such bands is most definitely justified: keith richards is the greatest riff-writer in the history of pop music - there will never be a guitarist who wrote as many instantly memorable, effortlessly classic, life-affirming pop hooks; mick jagger's arrogant, macho yet flamboyant swagger was the perfect foil for keef's eye-of-the-storm, almost paradoxical elegant on-stage persona. records like sticky fingers & exile on main street (both would be on my list of the 20 greatest albums ever recorded) are down & dirty, weary, druggy hazes filled with so much heart & soul, & songs that absolutely explode with energy, even below the utterly beaten surface. rock & roll has always been about heart & soul, & to me the stones absolutely exemplify that better than almost any other band.

The Rolling Stones were indeed one of the most prolific bands of their time and rest somewhere behind Credence Clearwater Revival and The Beatles. Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile, and Beggar's Banquet are all essential. From there it's more of a personal thing, picking out what parts of their sound you dig and going from there. Their early albums do have some filler, sure, but I mostly take it in stride, because they're still a tight band with a thick sound even when their material is less than inspired.

Damn, I haven't listened to them in a while. Gotta get back on track.

along with the four albums you mentioned - which i completely agree with on the subject of being essential - i'd throw some girls into the mix too; that album is totally under-rated, always getting the shaft when it comes to discussions on the "definitive stones albums." it's often stated that the record is a "response" to the disco & punk era, & it's filled with piss & vinegar, a renewed focus, energy & soul, mick's determination to reclaim the title as rock's crowning frontman, & some of keef's best guitar hooks - his best since their 60's & 70's heyday, anyhow. they just sound plain nasty on that album. not to mention "miss you," "beast of burden" & "shattered" are some of mick & keef's greatest songwriting efforts. am i the only some girls fan here? along with the aforementioned releases, i'd say it rounds out their top 5 greatest albums...

i love how a topic on bob dylan's birthday has turned into a pop music free-for-all, haha - i guess it had to be expected.

Some Girls is okay...not on the level of their other stuff though.

What I say is totally irrelvant though, considering I haven't listened to the Stones in ages.

Listening to "Gimme Shelter" now though, because of this thread.

Have you heard anything from Credence Clearwater Revival, Lombardi?

i never could stomach them, but lately their songs have been growing on me - i still find their melodies more annoying than catchy though...

Ok, I admit I misspoke about the Stones creativity ending with Brian Jones leaving. Their string of albums, from Beggar's Banquet through Exile are fantastic. I can't think of too many artists who have a string of four albums that are considered among the all-time greatest records. Let It Bleed was Jones' last recording and has always been my favorite Stones record. I do like Some Girls a lot, but in spite of crap like "Beast of Burden" and "Shattered." I think its best moments are "Before They Make Me Run," "Far Away Eyes," and "Respectable."

What I should have said is that after Some Girls, the Stones rehashed a lot of the same kind of material, with Tattoo You to now. Again, that's not a knock. They're one of my favorite all-time bands. Artists can only reinvent the wheel so many times musically. I'd take the Stones making the same music over artists who try to change each record for the sake of change.

Don't get me wrong. The Stones are spectacular. But I put so many other artists above them.

I think the San Francisco scene is full of a LOT of heart and soul... I mean, look at what it did with politics. It was actually quite similar to the London scene (it inspired the Beatles to change, and for the better) it was just a bit more blatant in its advocation of drugs... Which really shouldn't be a problem in rock music. But, San Francisco innovated the guitar, and use of politics in music. And the overall sound produced is brilliant to me.

Floyd are actually one of my favorite artists of all time. Roger Waters is most deffinately a mad genius. I actually see them as the opposite of pretentious, up until Roger Waters realized he's talented, and decided to go ape-shit insane. Which is funny, because I find rock music of the 70s and 80s to be incredibly pretentious, which is something I both love and hate about it at the same time (thank the lord or Darwin for punk rock, or we'd probably still be stuck in that mindset). I understand Floyd's live performances can appear a bit pretentious, but I think they serve the opposite purpose. Floyd's always had the intention of distracting the audience from the members of the band, and focusing more so on the music by using other elements to enhance the atmospheric experience of their songs, as they've said again and again in interviews. Furthermore, I feel like so many people overlook Waters' lyrics as nothing relevent. I think the idea of many of his lyrics, that being to write about little things that go unnoticed or ignored by the human race, is brilliant... But I think more so, people miss some of the political meaning to his lyrics, just because he's so subtle... Or very subtle compared to other artists of the time. It's just no surprise that the general public don't think of Floyd as a political band, while "Animals" is probably the most overlooked and most political album released during their "mainstream" period.

And the Grateful dead revolutionized the live performance and song structure in rock music.

To each his own.

Yeah, that's kind of my fault, isn't it?

"TOWNES VAN ZANDT is the BEST SONG WRITER in the world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table and say that."-Steve Earle


- Wikipedia-Townes Van Zandt

-Pancho and Lefty LIVE performance

-Waiting Around to Die from HEARTWORN HIGHWAY (THIS IS AMAZING)

-Townes Van Zandt movie trailor

actually, brian jones had very, very little involvement in the let it bleed sessions, as he was often far too strung out on drugs or out of it to participate, & was mostly supplanted by session musicians. i recall a story where brian jones came into the recording studio at one point & asked, "what can i play?" to which mick jagger replied, "i don't know, brian, what can you play?" beggar's banquet was really brian's last gasp.


it was actually the burgeoning folk scene (& particularly bob dylan, who was blurring the lines between folk, pop & rock) which inspired the beatles, & the san francisco scene, to delve into the realm of politics - especially in the beatles' case. bob dylan has been extensively noted to have been at the heart of inspiration for both pop music's immersion in political music, & the beatles' immersion into folk-rock & introspection. so, if anybody is going to get the credit for this, it's zimmy. furthermore, the sound of the scene - along with the completely blatant, clunky, cretin-like lyrics - is what turns me off so much; it sounds like a bunch of overwrought, in-your-face, unsophisticated hippie bullshit to me.


this is partially why i am fascinated by music - it's amazing to me how i could look at pink floyd (post-syd) & see the most pretentious band in the world, & someone else can look at them & see the complete opposite. albums like the wall & animals are textbook examples to me of over-the-top, super-pretentious, uber-serious, bombastic arena prog rock. his lyrics may have some relevancy to the real world - which, in this case, may turn out to be his fatal flaw - but they're delivered with no compassion, & little empathy; it's self-indulgence with no sense for self-ordainment, restraint thrown out the window, & forced metaphors that make his nastiness seem callow rather than inspired.

& don't get me wrong, i like post-syd pink floyd well enough - i just think they're possibly the most over-rated band to ever grace pop music. animals is actually my favorite post-syd work, even if - along with the wall - it's probably their worst in the aforementioned areas. i guess the reason is because i don't like it as much as i'm fascinated by it; it's still lifeless & void of compassion (although the bookending "pigs on the wing" songs do their best to battle this issue), so over-the-top in its completely overwrought message that i can't help but be marveled by how far he can go.


again, i see the complete opposite here - i feel like their meandering, aimless, self-indulgent jams actually completely obliterated the rock & roll song structure, making it more pompous & affected than it needed to be. this sense of bloated pretense gave free reign to other rock acts to do the same, & tah-dah, out birthed (or at least inspired) progressive rock - the most overblown genre of music to ever have been created.

See, having read those comments on the dead--particularly the bit on their jamming, I think you and I view them in two completely different ways on the basis that I am an active musician (making the art of jamming a bit more personally relevant) and to my knowledge, you are not. If you are, then... Well that sort of dislodges anything I have to say of this matter.

But to me, when two, or three, or four, of ten or whatever musicians can get together, do something that is mostly improvisational, and make it work for both an audience, and more importantly, themselves, something beautiful has happened. Actually, as much as I love a lot of the bands mentioned here, the one complaint I have to offer of many is that none of them ever really engaged in much improvisational work in their live routines. Which is a shame, it really adds dynamic and energy to the performance, and separates it from the studio recordings we can listen to again and again.

But back on track, to me, an improvisational jam can be one of the most beautiful things to occur in music. It's so emotionally truthful and sincere, that I just can't help but be overwhelmed by the idea, in a purely positive way. No two jams will ever be the same... It's hard to explain. In my band, the way we make songs is we'll all get together, and someone will either bring in a riff or make one up off the top of their head, and we all jam on it. Sometimes for five minutes, sometimes for an hour. And from there, you digress into the original riff into so many others that you'd never would have discovered if not for the combined efforts of each member of the band, in such a way that no time is allotted to tweak it or divert it from its initial sincerity unless each member of the group were to come together and meet on one emotional or spiritual plane, or whatever, and allow it to naturally digress in the next direction. It really is a spectacular notion. Then we take the bits we like of that jam, and make them into a little ditty ranging from 3 to maybe 6 minutes. Jake, our guitarist/lyricist will write some lyrics, add them, and presto, we have a conventional song.

But even when we jam live, infront of an audience, a whole new dynamic is added that is just impossible to explain... You just have to experience. Back to my original point, when a group of musicians can actually connect on that level as to make something so raw, true, and maintain something that sounds good and feels right, it's a very cosmic thing, and it's my favorite part about being a musician. Finding a group of musicians that feel as comfortable together and can connect on such improvisational patches as to reach a seemingly telepathic level of brotherhood, as have such bands as The Dead, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Phish, etc... It's practically like finding that one person you'd want to spend the rest of your life with.

It's just the best feeling in the world for a musician.

Oh, and I'll point out that, yeah, most prog-rock is pretty ridiculous. But I think certain bands, the Floyd in particular, manage to surpass a hefty load of the ridiculousness by being originals, making a sound unlike anything else, feeling free to experiment with some really bizarre sounds and techniques, and trying to disconnect themselves from the notion of the band consisting of a mash-up of individual personalities, and instead presenting a whole being to the audience. In fact, when Floyd was touring the Wall in the early 80s, the first number, "In the Flesh?" would be performed by the band from offstage, while a seperate group of men dressed like the members of the band would stand on stage and mime along as if it were them playing the song. This was to play off of the fact that, despite Floyd being continually successful, they were technically a one-hit wonder, having only reached constant radio-play with "Money", and few people were able to name the members of the band or recognize them based on physical appearance. Mind you Floyd was an underground act until 1973, when Dark Side of the Moon blew up. I just think that is ingenious.

But, I am a huge fan of experiential music, and I don't think other prog-rock bands really met the level of experimentation as Floyd... They couldn't, really, Floyd pretty much set the standards for the genre from 1969-1972 by producing 20 minute songs, rewiring wah pedals, sampling sound effects, and releasing lengthy, ambient, noise-jams, lacking traditional structure or melody. These are mainly the reasons that I still enjoy albums like "Atom Heart Mother" and "Meddle" over "Dark Side of the Moon" or "Wish You Were Here".

And beyond that, prog-rock, in a way, lead to one of my favorite, if not my favorite, classifications of music; post-rock, a genre that seems to be at its underground height right now with unconventional song structures but the exact opposite personality and mentality of prog-rock.

i actually play guitar - not so much anymore, but i understand the aesthetics of musicianship - so i understand the pleasure derived from that cohesive structure, everything sort of falling into place during a jam session with fellow musicians. my quibble with jam-bands, & the dead in particular, is self-indulgence; i find the fine art of restraint in music to be a much more difficult act to accomplish. to say more with less - without meandering, aimless, lifeless excursions - is a true act of beauty in itself. do i feel that all jam-bands, & all jam sessions, are embedded with such a bloated atmosphere or ambition? absolutely not. many of them feel natural, earthy; they have a feeling of purpose & destination in them. like i said, my problem is the act of self-indulgence, which almost inevitably leads to a messy lack of focus. bands like the rolling stones have that unifying theme as well - that you & so many other musicians feel when they jam - in their act of "guitar weaving" (if you don't know what it is, i'd look it up - it's rather extraordinary). but it's an understated, subtle technique that gives structure & foundation to a song. jamming may give the musicians, & fellow musicians, a certain feeling of unity - & that's fine & dandy - but making music for yourself & fellow musicians only, & assuming that non-musicians don't understand music, is rather elitist & esoteric to me. it's rather silly to state that if you're not a musician you don't understand music; it's like saying only writers understand literature. pretty ridiculous. i do get where you're coming from though, i just think the line between self-indulgence, & a natural, purposeful jam with a strong, earthy structure is very, very fine, & that only a select few musicians know how to walk that line.

as far as pink floyd goes, like i said, i do not loathe them by any means - i just feel that they're impossibly over-rated. the whole act of their live shows just has a whiff of pretense to me that turns me off. i remember the good old days when all a band needed to strike emotion in their fans was their instruments & some tight, structured songs - not bloated experiments as if their stage was a film set. i think their stuff with syd is a wonderfully swirling psychedelic bliss, filled with childlike enthusiasm & spirit, organic sounding experiments & strong songwriting; however, their latter-day stuff just leaves me cold because of the bloated sense of importance pervading everything they set to wax. i don't deny that they're a talented group of musicians, i just think their lack of restraint & their love of indulging in any pompous idea they have & blowing it up to the extreme is incredibly pointless.

I'm not quite sure if you're generalizing, or reflecting on my exact words, but that's not what I meant by my passages on jamming. I just think that a musician and a listener get two different things from a spontaneous act of music. But I think both points are viable and important. I kind of miss listening to music before having picked up an instrument, because I certainly listened to it from a different perspective.

But, then, what's lovely to me is different musician's will still listen to music differently. I think a drummer will listen to music differently than a guitarist. I think a bassist will try to listen to the common ground of a song to bring the two together. And so on.

What I'm getting at is the feeling or connection founded amongst musicians engaged in a jam. Which certainly is rather hard to explain to a non-musician, and pointless to explain to a musician.