How to market your new album, by legendary 60s icon Bob Dylan

[schoolbat]

From Reuters today (with translations):

Dylan says modern recordings "atrocious"

Bob Dylan says the quality of modern recordings is "atrocious," and even the songs on his new album sounded much better in the studio than on disc.

Translation: "Back in the 60s, songs sounded way better on LPs than they did in the studio. Now it's all crap!"

"I don't know anybody who's made a record that sounds decent in the past 20 years, really," the 65-year-old rocker said in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine.

Translation: "Back in my day, records were great. Now they're all crap!"

Dylan, who released eight studio albums in the past two decades, returns with his first recording in five years, "Modern Times," next Tuesday.

Translation: "I mean, new albums are all crap except for my new album!"

Noting the music industry's complaints that illegal downloading means people are getting their music for free, he said, "Well, why not? It ain't worth nothing anyway."

Translation: "I'm so legendary and rich, I can show utter contempt to anyone who thinks it might be worth paying money for my new album."

"You listen to these modern records, they're atrocious, they have sound all over them," he added. "There's no definition of nothing, no vocal, no nothing, just like ... static."

Translation: "Take lots and lots of drugs, kids, and someday you'll be able to spout authentic frontier gibberish -- just like a legendary 60s icon!"

Dylan said he does his best to fight technology, but it's a losing battle.

Translation: "Back in my day, technology was great. Like that one time when I used a new-fangled electrical guitar on stage. Everybody loved it. Now technology is all crap!"

"Even these songs probably sounded ten times better in the studio when we recorded 'em. CDs are small. There's no stature to it."

Translation: "I'm so legendary and rich, I can tell you straight up that my new album sounds like crap, and you idiots will still go out and buy it."

[dolivas]

Originally Posted by schoolbat

From Reuters today (with translations):



Translation: "Back in the 60s, songs sounded way better on LPs than they did in the studio. Now it's all crap!"



Translation: "Back in my day, records were great. Now they're all crap!"



Translation: "I mean, new albums are all crap except for my new album!"



Translation: "I'm so legendary and rich, I can show utter contempt to anyone who thinks it might be worth paying money for my new album."



Translation: "Take lots and lots of drugs, kids, and someday you'll be able to spout authentic frontier gibberish -- just like a legendary 60s icon!"



Translation: "Back in my day, technology was great. Like that one time when I used a new-fangled electrical guitar on stage. Everybody loved it. Now technology is all crap!"



Translation: "I'm so legendary and rich, I can tell you straight up that my new album sounds like crap, and you idiots will still go out and buy it."

just to defend Dylan he is right in a way. Many modern albums completely miss the boat when it comes to having any sort of dynamics and flaws. Better technology and tayloring stuff to sound good on all sorts of different mediums lends to just very compressed smooth sounding music or very lo-fi mush. Likewise, his last album was Love and Theft which is still miles away better than what most folk rockers are doing at the moment.

[mikegee]

yea, i wanna defend dylan too on this...

obviously, he has been around a long time, and has created more than his share of great, decent, and, at times, not so great music. but all in all, he's been around a long time, he has a very good grasp of the concept of writing and recording music in the studio, so i give him the respect. maybe i am being subjective too, as i am a huge dylan fan.

i dont read his answers as being haughty, or high faluten at all... i just think he's very opinionated about the current state of music today;

i agree with a lot of his comments. i am an avid lp fan, i still shop for albums, and i do think analog sounds superior to digital music; but i still like digital music too. everybody has their own personal preferences...

on this quote:

"You listen to these modern records, they're atrocious, they have sound all over them," he added. "There's no definition of nothing, no vocal, no nothing, just like ... static."

i think what he's trying to say is with current music, theres too many bells and whistles, too much of every/any sound being added to tracks, while the basic instrumentation is lacking, the basic concept of the vocals not standing out, like vocals used to be so forward in mixes, now people are building songs with 200 digital audio tracks, so its just a mish mash of too much sound, getting away from the basics of solid songwriting and production.

ie he's old school, which is cool to me.

albums from the 60s rule. i just bought the kinks greatest hits album (circa 1964 i believe...) wow! clean, clear, big tone, straight forward lyrics, great production, most songs 2 minutes long...

quote:

"Even these songs probably sounded ten times better in the studio when we recorded 'em. CDs are small. There's no stature to it."

i agree with that too... of course, you buy music for the music, not for the packaging... BUT i gotta say, when i buy an album, it is cooler than cds, cd packaging is so small, the printed words on them is microscopic, and the pictures are tiny too. i like the look and feel of an album better than a cd.

i have to agree with a lot of what Dylan says... but then again, i'm old too haha

[Professor Riffs]

Hats off to you, schoolbat. Dylan stinks like 2 dirty butt cheeks rubbing together, and always has. Just my opinion of course, but it's a strong one. Mostly because I'm a jerk.

[Bellringer]

Dylan's written some good songs. Technology has gone the route of convienence over quality (most will agree). A well made LP on a good turntable is superior but you can't carry it around with little white earbuds!
Dylan has a new record to hock but still has to act like music doesn't have meaning anymore (different times!).
No surprise that he sounds like a burnout, that's how he sounded 30 years ago and he was a rude punk then and is a rude old bastard now.
He's forgetting what is important here. Just as the old folks in his day were probably telling him Benny Goodman or something similar was what was cool and he was crap, now he's the geezer that doesn't realize that a lot of music today relates to today's kids. Some styles benefit from a more sterile, digital sound. Plus as time goes on technology will improve.
What really gets me (and I'm no fan of his son's band) is his very rude comments about his son's music. As far as I'm concerned, if you care about your kid you can find a way around saying he sucks. He could just say that it's just not his thing. I guess his reputation for always having a strong opinion doesn't stop with family. So I half agree with what he says but I totally agree with Professor Riffs. Retire already!!

[mikegee]

haha

well, this just goes to show ya, dylan still has what it takes to sell albums. 75 million plus sold so far, not a bad career... 16 plus platinum albums.

i've read this over and over again; some of the best things you can do to help sell your music;

1. create a buzz
2. be audacious
3. be controversial
4. be outspoken
5. individualism (personality)

IMHO he is very good at being all 5 of the above things. whether or not you like Dylan's music, aspiring musicians who want to learn how to sell their music can learn a lot from Dylan. i'm not saying its the only way to sell your music, but it certainly is profitable, if done right. there's like 10 billion musicians out there, but only one bob dylan... ie; this is the very kind of chatter that helps keep him relevant, and generates interest, and cd sales, both recent and catalog, as well as concert revenues. it's all about publicity.

[smopo24]

i'm not a huge dylan fan....but i like the fact that he screws with people and intentionally misleads interviewers about things. he's more likely to give you an honest answer about anything other than music. all of his comments are supposed to be taken with a grain of salt, i suppose that's what has maintained his mystery for all these years.

[Whoopysnorp]

If he hasn't heard a good-sounding record made in the last couple of decades, he's not looking too hard. And I'm sorry, but vinyl LPs, in practice, just plain do not sound as good as CDs. Maybe in absolutely perfect conditions they would, but that's a purely theoretical thing, whereas it's pretty easy to get a very good sound from a CD. I have lots of CDs that were recent releases that I think sound great. Some of them, like Cardiacs' Garage vols. 1 and 2 discs, were even recorded digitally (the latter on Tascam DA88s of all things). I challenge Dylan or anybody to listen to the Frank Zappa 1988 tour recordings (done digitally on a 48-track system) and tell me there's anything wrong with the way they sound.

[mikegee]

Originally Posted by Whoopysnorp

If he hasn't heard a good-sounding record made in the last couple of decades, he's not looking too hard. And I'm sorry, but vinyl LPs, in practice, just plain do not sound as good as CDs. Maybe in absolutely perfect conditions they would, but that's a purely theoretical thing, whereas it's pretty easy to get a very good sound from a CD. I have lots of CDs that were recent releases that I think sound great. Some of them, like Cardiacs' Garage vols. 1 and 2 discs, were even recorded digitally (the latter on Tascam DA88s of all things). I challenge Dylan or anybody to listen to the Frank Zappa 1988 tour recordings (done digitally on a 48-track system) and tell me there's anything wrong with the way they sound.

yea, i may be wrong, but i think when he said " a good-sounding record" i'm pretty sure he's talking about quality songwriting. but then again, like smopo24 says, you really cant take much of what he says seriously, he's so enigmatic like that...

[smopo24]

Originally Posted by Whoopysnorp

If he hasn't heard a good-sounding record made in the last couple of decades, he's not looking too hard. And I'm sorry, but vinyl LPs, in practice, just plain do not sound as good as CDs. Maybe in absolutely perfect conditions they would, but that's a purely theoretical thing, whereas it's pretty easy to get a very good sound from a CD. I have lots of CDs that were recent releases that I think sound great. Some of them, like Cardiacs' Garage vols. 1 and 2 discs, were even recorded digitally (the latter on Tascam DA88s of all things). I challenge Dylan or anybody to listen to the Frank Zappa 1988 tour recordings (done digitally on a 48-track system) and tell me there's anything wrong with the way they sound.

i have a friend who got to listen to the same recording on the best equipment money can by on both vinyl and cd. to give you an idea of this "audiophile grade" system, the cable connecting from the stylus to the turntable (made of the purest extracted silver) cost $3,000. they listened to both; and a/b'd them at the same time. the vinyl version easily trumped the cd version......that said, it almost seems silly to bother with decrying the limitations of cds, when we have people using the lowest possible bit rate for mp3s so they can fit as many crappy songs onto their disposable ipods, listening to those tiny white earbuds (trying to drown out the el, as i try to ignore the eminem song they are deafining themselves to). it almost makes the conversation irrelivent - to me anyways.