I don’t know if it says more about how old Bob Dylan is or how old I am, but today’s SOTD — the title track from Bob Dylan’s album of acoustic folk covers World Gone Wrong — is 20 years old.
World Gone Wrong was the second consecutive cover album Dylan released in the early 90s and at the time, given his wrecked vocals and seeming disinterest in recording new material, it felt a bit like the end of an era.
Little did we know the man had five more albums of original material in him, at least three of which would be ranked up there with the best work he’d ever done.
I can’t think of a career in modern popular music more extraordinary than Dylan’s.
My baby told me I would have to go.
I can’t be good no more, once like I did before.
I can’t be good, baby,
Honey, because the world’s gone wrong.
2. Feel bad this morning, ain’t got no home.
No use in worrying, ’cause the world gone wrong,
I can’t be good no more, once like I did before.
I can’t be good, baby,
Honey, because the world’s gone wrong.
3. I told you, baby, right to your head,
If I didn’t leave you I would have to kill you dead.
I can’t be good no more, once like I did before.
I can’t be good, baby,
Honey, because the world’s gone wrong.
4. I tried to be loving and treat you kind,
But it seems like you never right, you got no loyal mind.
I can’t be good no more, once like I did before.
I can’t be good, baby,
Honey, because the world’s gone wrong.
5. If you have a woman and she don’t treat you kind,
Praise the Good Lord to get her out of your mind.
I can’t be good no more, once like I did before.
I can’t be good, baby,
Honey, because the world’s gone wrong.
6. Said, when you been good now, can’t do no more,
Just tell her kindly, “there is the front door.”
I can’t be good no more, once like I did before.
I can’t be good, baby,
Honey, because the world’s gone wrong.
7. Pack up my suitcase, give me my hat,
No use to ask me, baby, ’cause I’ll never be back.
I can’t be good no more, once like I did before.
I can’t be good, baby,
Honey, because the world’s gone wrong.
Meet Me In Montauk 
Well, to your last comment, Paul Simon and Bruce Springsteen could give Dylan a good run for most extraordinary career. I would throw Costello in there, but Dylan, Simon and Springsteen clearly had broader popular appeal and social importance.
As amazing as Simon and Springsteen have been for decades, I don’t think they touch Dylan in terms of significance. In fact, both of them count Dylan as a major influence.
Yes, but, frankly, beyond hard-core Dylan fans like yourself and critics, Dylan’s music for the past 3 decades has gone largely unnoticed by the public as a whole. Certainly, his work in the 60’s was as influential on artists as were the Beatles, but, unlike Simon and Springsteen, Dylan has mostly faded from a social or popular impact standpoint, while Simon had his new life and popularity in the 80’s and continues to find his way into the popular memory (like the Wild Thornberrys song, etc.). Springsteen similarly was considered iconic in the 70’s, but then burst into popular acceptance in the 80’s. True, he doesn’t see as much radio play as he used to, but his albums are consistently well-reviewed and, while I could be wrong, his albums and singles probably have consistently outsold Dylan’s and he can still pack stadiums.
I disagree. First of all, I think we can set Paul Simon aside… he is essentially absent from the popular music landscape. He puts albums out infrequently, and when he does they don’t perform well on the charts. If we’re using sales and consistent presence as barometers, he is definitely a distant third on this list.
Dylan and Springsteen have both been fairly prolific in the past decade, and while Springsteen’s albums have outsold Dylan’s overall, it’s not a blowout. Two of Dylan’s last four albums have reached #1 on the charts and another reached #3. Springsteen gets the edge here, but it’s not a huge edge.
Dylan still tours regularly, often pairing up with modern alternative bands (Wilco and My Morning Jacket on the current tour). It was Dylan who shared the stage with Mumford & Sons that Grammy night when they blew up into big stars. Springsteen is often cited by new bands as a major influence, as is Dylan, so I’d say it’s a draw on that count.
In addition to his music, Dylan is a best-selling author, has been the subject of more books than you can count and has been the focus of at least two award-winning movies in the past decade.
Now let’s look at their musical output. Dylan has been recording for 11 more years than Springsteen, and has released more than twice as many albums (35 vs. 17).
Springsteen’s albums have alternated between his big rock sound (which I think we can call his own) and stripped-down acoustic folk ballads (which owe a tremendous debt to Dylan).
Dylan pretty much invented folk rock, and ushered in the singer-songwriter era, revolutionizing the role of lyrics in pop music. I think the most conclusive argument in Dylan’s favor is the fact that without Dylan, there basically is no Springsteen (just listen to Springsteen’s first album).
Me think me touched a nerve.😄
If you had said most influential person in popular music, I would agree with you that Dylan beats Springsteen and nearly everyone other than the Beatles (who, by the way, were also influenced by Dylan, but there are far more artists who credit the Beatles as the reason they went into music than Dylan)
But you said you could not think of a career in popular music more extraordinary than Dylan’s. and there I give Springsteen a solid edge. Dylan may assemble some cool new artists to play with in concert, but, on his own, he would not and has not packed arenas for years. And, honestly, nobody beyond an ardent adylan fan gives a ray’s ass about his books, so touting him as an author is silly. And as for movies, again, those movies largely focus on a finite period of time in Dylan’s career because he was such an interesting and reluctant character to stand at the epicenter of social change and then change his sound to electric when he did to the dismay of his impassioned folk hippie followers.
I stand by my statement that, measured over the entirety of a four decade time frame, and not just the 60s, Springsteen wins going away. And, incidentally, Springsteen never hit a low musically like Dylan did during the entire 80s. That decade of relative garbage by Dylan alone costs him the title of most extraordinary career.
Obviosly the sentence in the second paragraph should read “beyond an ardent Dylan fan gives a rat’s ass…” although i do find the idea of a ray’s ass a bit amusing.😄
Elvis Presley anyone? The Rolling Stones? I guess I’m not sure what the rules are in this little game. What is the criteria for choosing “greatest entertainer” – are you looking for influence? lasting impact? seismic presence in pop culture? For the last two categories, I think it would be tough to beat Elvis!
If you’re talking sheer quality of the entertainment, then I’d probably argue for Springsteen – a great recording and live artist, who writes music and lyrics that resonate and rock.
When Rolling Stone magazine did their version of this list, they place Dylan second (to the Beatles) and put Springsteen in the 20’s (while populating the top ten with artists such as Jimmy Hendrix and Chuck Berry, interesting choices, to be sure) – http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-artists-of-all-time-19691231/elvis-presley-20110420
Greatest songwriter of all time? Dylan has a shot at that title, certainly. Most influential? That one, too. However, I agree with Dana that he has not been nearly as vital a presence in the past few decades as Springsteen, so if I’m weighing in on a choice between the two of them, I pick the BOSS! 🙂
Basically you’re both saying you like Springsteen better than Dylan, which is a perfectly valid opinion but not really pertinent to the discussion at hand.
Amy’s reference to Rolling Stone’s list of the “100 Greatest Artists” is close to what I’m getting at when I reference Dylan’s extraordinary career. And fittingly, they list him as second.
I’d argue that if they were considering the concept of a “career” when compiling their list, as I am here, they would push Dylan to the top spot because he has been recording for 50 years while The Beatles lasted only a decade.
Every other similar list I could find online had Dylan in the top 5, at least, and Springsteen near the bottom of the top 20. I honestly don’t think it’s much of a competition, objectively.
A better selection would be one Amy brought up briefly — The Rolling Stones. They, too, have been recording for 50 years, and have released about as many classic albums as Dylan. They have been hugely influential and continue to generate interest (if not great new music).
And once again, like everybody we’ve mentioned, The Stones cite Bob Dylan as a major early influence.
I give the nod to Dylan over The Stones simply because the idea of a solo artist staking out a 50 year career with all of the ups and downs and bizarre twists and turns is even more compelling than a band taking that journey together. (You could even argue that a huge part of the Springsteen aura is tied up in the E Street Band and Clarence Clemons, in particular).
Oh, and in light of our recent visit to the childhood home of Martin Luther King, Jr., I must submit that Dylan performed shortly before the ‘I Have a Dream’ speech during the March on Washington. Top that, Mr. Springsteen!
I’m not sure i necessarily like Springsteen more than Dylan. I’m not a tremendous fan of either one quite honestly. I like/love some stuff from each and am largely indifferent to most of each’s discography.
Frankly, the Rolling Stone rankings and every other ranking proves my point, not yours. With the Beatles, Hendrix, Presley and Berry so highly ranked, the litmus test of these lists is clearly more about influence and importance than longevity and popularity over time. Quite simply, if Dylan had stopped recording in 1975, maybe even earlier, he would still be number 2 on the RS list.
Perhaps your use of an extraordinary career is ambigous, but I maintain that, from an overall career standpoint, Springsteen has had the more extraordinary career hand’s down.
My point re: the Rolling Stone list is that, given that Dylan is the more influential and important artist (that’s not in dispute even here), and adding in the fact that he is still recording chart-topping albums after 50 years, how could he not also win the “career” title?
Granted, the criteria for “most extraordinary career” is unclear. I think you’re reading it as more about success doing the work of making music year in and year out. Springsteen played the Super Bowl recently, a gig Dylan would never have gotten, because Springsteen is a more accessible and energetic performer, and far more engaging onstage. You could say that means Springsteen’s career is in better shape… I see that.
I’m looking at it like this: When both of these men retire, or more likely, when they die (because I doubt either will retire), whose career will be written more about not just in music publications but in history books?
I think that answer is clear.
Yes, books have and will be written about Dylan, but most will be about his work and impact in the 60’s and maybe 70’s with a summary chapter or footnote at the end that Dylan continued to record quality, but not influential or important, music to his dying day. On the other hand, Springteen’s book starts in the 70.s and continues, with a recent chapter written about his signature song “The Rising” used as a post 9/11 healing moment for a nation, a rousing Superbowl appearance and whatever else he has yet to do. A career does not equal influence and importance in a single decade or two. From an entire career standpoint, Springsteen wins.
I said good day sir!
OK, now he healed the entire nation. What will you credit the man with next to support your argument? Manned space travel? 🙂
To avoid any more back and forth on this particular issue, let me pose another question: The Rolling Stones or Bruce Springsteen?
Well, you’re the one who tried to argue that Dylan’s books were a factor in his extraordinary career.😄
Closer call between Stones and the Boss. I probably have followed the Stones even less than Bruce, so I can’t really speak to the quality of the music over the past 20 or so years. The Stones certainly continued to matter more in popular music through the 70s and 80s (as compared to Dylan😄), though less so beyond that. They seem to be popular now more for their legacy of work than anything they have recorded in the past 20 years.
On the other hand, it seems to me that Bruce has been less content than the Stones to rest on his laurels or past sound and that he has remained more politically and socially relevant for a longer period of time (not that the Stones were ever really political).
So, in a close one, and with the term extraordinary “career” in mind, I give the nod to the Boss.
I am so impressed with the quality and content of your arguments. I, of course, agree with Clay. I remember when the first Springsteen album came out and he was compared with Dylan. Then I went on to like him in his own right. Still, for me, not even a dim candle to is Springsteen to Dylan. But I could not articulate my point so eloquently as all of you.
and Happy birthday Amy!
Well, Andie, I think this really all turns on the definition of an “extraordinary career.” Even you have admitted that you haven’t followed Dylan since the 70’s. That may well be true for you for Springsteen as well. So, if you were to assess their careers stopping the clock at say 1980, I would agree Dylan wins, hands down. However, if you look at the body of work since then, essentially for over three decades, I maintain that the Boss wins. 🙂