The Smiley Smile Message Board

Just wondering...

Mike may give it a spin after he has read 'Wouldn't It Be Nice' and heard BWPS. ;D

i.e. Another lawsuit from the Lovester?? I wouldn't be surprised if it happens, but let's hope to hell that it doesn't.

Over on the BBB board, Bruce was asked:

"Have you heard Brian's new album? Any thoughts you would like to share with us?"

His one-word response:

"Remarkable!"

Bruce was really positive about BWPS, but then in the run up to that release he was convalessing after his heart bypass operation...so he had time on his hands! I remember Bruce saying he'd bought a copy for Mike, who said he was too busy to listen!

I would have imagined Bruce would have more to say about TLOS.

bruce isnt the person to take sites or say a "bad" thing about a fellow member. Mike isnt positive about any new song brian makes ( wonder why  ::)) and from Al i dont know.

Bruce has said quite a few unkind things about Brian over the years, usually in reference to him perceiving him to be a shadow of his former self.

OK, thanks missed those

If I remember correctly, Bruce once said about BW's solo records to be little more than just a nice way to keep Brian occupied. Even though it might've been true at certain times in the past (or even present?), it struck me as kind of rough on his part. On the other hand Bruce himself has been very critical even about his very own musical output. He seems to be downright embarrassed by almost any song he's written, Disney Girls excluded.

Bruce says it like it is.

In recent years he's said of Brian, "He's improved a bit but he isn't back to what he was" and really...that is probably true.

TLOS is, however, remarkable. He's right there too.

I'm glad Bruce said something about TLOS, and I'm glad he still takes enough interest in Brian's work to listen to it. We all know from his previous comments (pop Rachmaninov and all that) that he's a fan, and since he came to the BBs a bit later, he probably is a little bit more in awe of Brian than the guys who grew up with Brian and worked with him since they were teenagers.

I don't know what to make of Mike's lack of comment (so far) on TLOS and claim not to have listened to BWPS. You'd think he probably would listen, if only out of curiosity. And I would think that TLOS, being fairly un-commercial, would not be Mike's cup of tea. Maybe it's a case of "if you don't have anything nice to say..." and I can respect that. I always thought it would be nice if he at least acknowledged what a hurdle it was for Brian to work on Smile again, but I don't think that's in Mike's DNA. Saying nothing is better than what he said about Brian's first solo album. I thought he should have been more gracious about that one, even if he genuinely hated it.

Probably.

But then again, what has he done the last 25 years?

My sentiments exactly. Brian coasting does a more than bruce working hard.

My guess is that when Love gets around to saying anything about it, he'll either say he hasn't heard it or say that it was good MUSICALLY and all but lacks that sort of boy-girl thing that makes it COMMERCIAL.

"'Took the Diamond from my soul and turned it back into coal'?

"C'mon Bennett, what are these lyrics supposed to mean?

"Whaddya mean you can't explain 'em!"

Bennett either couldn't or wouldn't explain them and shortly afterwards walked off the project. Within months Brian had scrapped the That Lucky Old Sun project, and claimed to have burned the tapes.

Subsequently the band gathered in Brian's home studio to record a self-produced album that would be but a poor reflection of the music Brian had been working on for months.

That Lucky Old Smiley Smile was, commented Foskett, "a bunt instead of a grand slam".

Yes, but wouldn't the album have been called "That Lucky Old Sunnier Sun"?  ;)

I think it is very commercial. Some of the songs have real hit-potential imho

Maybe Mike doesn't think Brian put much "work" into BWPS. Or, that it would've been more of a "hurdle" to compose an album of all new songs, instead of re-recording 38 year old ones...

I'm talking about the psychological aspect of revisiting something that represented such a profound failure for someone who was touted as this great genius. Whether he was a big part of "finishing" it or not, the fact that he was willing to present it after all these years was a big deal. In terms of workload, well, he did a hell of a lot of work in the 60s, and just performing it night after night couldn't have been easy.
Compose an album of new songs? He just did that, and as I said, time will tell whether Mike comments on that or not. I know there's a lot of talk about "Brianistas," but this backlash where Brian (who has been releasing music consistently) just can't win, and Mike (who has been sitting on an album for years) is beyond reproach is just too much sometimes.

In regard to Brian and Mike being compared as solo artists, songwriters, or composers, there is no comparison. And I don't see anybody making them.

Bruce does like to talk about I Write The Songs. If you remember the WOTS podcast where he commented on Disney Girls, he happened to slide in thta i Erite The Songs sold 25 million...I still can't figure that out.

Not sure they'd be hits given today's fickle X Factor type market, but it's certainly a commercial sounding album. Throw in the Wilson/Bacharach track What Love Can Do (I can't get that turn out of my head!), Just Like Me And You and a fully realised Message Man and I reckon you've the strongest collection of new work from any Beach Boy camp since POB (excepting BWPS, cos it seems the done thing to except it!).

While the Mrs and I were driving up to Stratford to see Hamlet a couple of weekends ago, the pop music station she was listening to played something by Bruce...kind of a disco tune...and then the DJ went into how it was by Bruce Johnston of the Beach Boys.

Pipeline maybe? Bruce's disco version of that song was a small hit in some countries...

Aye, think I heard it on Radio 2 recently, on a yester-year chart type prog. Must have been a minor UK hit.

When I say it's not commercial, I'm thinking of the whole album, with the narratives and all of that.

Yeah I think it was Pipeline. I'd never heard it before, and I don't usually listen to music on the radio. The wife might well have wanted Radio 2 on during a longish drive.

Still think its catchy moments could be called commercial, but I see what you're getting at.

In the sense, I guess, that radio airplay for the spoken narratives or for the entire suite is unlikely?

Be a bit like a DJ playing the entire Thick as a Brick, or Misplaced Childhood, or Lamb Lies Down... albums in their entirety, as they're essentially one track split by the need to turn LPs over.

Imagine being a DJ in charge of a show that allowed such indulgences! Money for old rope!

Ooooh I'd listen to that radio programme!

Radio 4 (of all stations) played "Counting Out Time" (From Lamb Lies Down) when Genesis released We Can't Dance...odd track to choose really but it was a single - albeit not a hit.

TLOS is more commercial in that the individual songs do not need the concept. Almost any track on its own could conceivably find a home on radio. I'd imagine Radio 2 could find it within itself to play Morning Beat, or Forever She'll Be MY Surfer Girl, California Role, Going Home, Midnight's Another Day....oh they already have played Southern California in that programme about BW's production technique.

Nah...not in today's fickle music market where hit music has loud, obnoxious beats and literal references to female body parts.  It's probably best that That Lucky Old Sun doesn't try to compete with that...

That's an over-simplification of "today's fickle music market." A quick look at the Billboard Top 200's Top 10 shows four hip-hop albums, two metal/hard rock albums, a hybrid hip hop-rock album, a country-pop-cheese album, a tween-pop album and a musical soundtrack. No, the current music scene isn't geared toward 60-somethings, especially if they're waxing nostalgic--imagine, teenagers don't want to hear people their grandparents' age talking about the old days!--but that's no reason to dismiss what it is. There's still diversity out there, whether you happen to like the various offerings or not. TLOS doesn't realistically have hit potential (outside the adult contemporary market); that isn't a negative about it OR the charts. It's just how things work.

Depends which "fickle market" you look at. A 60 year old was at #3 in the UK singles chart last week. With some promotion and perhaps a bit of luck there are several songs on TLOS which could chart as singles in the UK.

I took a look at the BBB 'yellow' board for the first time in a couple of years just now. Bruce did indeed describe TLOS as "Remarkable!"...he also said he hoped sound-scan was kind to it, meaning he hoped it charted well. I don't think Bruce would say those things if he disliked TLOS.

^ I don't at all mean it's impossible for an older person to have some success. In fact, I am trying to say almost the opposite. No, the market isn't geared toward older artists. It never was and never will be. And younger markets tend not to like older people playing backward-looking music. But that doesn't diminish that music and sure, somebody older can have a hit, just like a musical soundtrack or country album or metal album can chart well. My point: it's less likely to have a hit and not something to be expected, and more importantly, the charts aren't filled with the negative stereotype of a genre of music Awesoman doesn't like.

Cross-posted in Awesoman's TLOS quickie-review thread too.

FWIW, my 8-year old daughter keeps hitting "repeat" on "Good Kind of Love" while playing the CD in the car, and she has the song pretty much memorized.  She likes "Forever She'll Be My Surfer Girl" too, but REALLY likes "Good Kind of Love" (which, odd for a Brian song, reminds me of a Brill Building-type tune in its simplicity and catchiness).

Now, this isn't scientific of course, but since these mid-elementary to tweener kids are THE demographic for everything nowadays, maybe "Good Kind of Love" is the single rather than "Surfer Girl."   And maybe Brian's version can make it.  (Unless they chicken out and give it to the Jonas Brothers or Taylor Swift or that American Idol guy, David Cook, to sing).

What does she think of Hey, Little Tomboy.

OK, getting coat.

It's not that the charts are filled with misogynistic hip-hop...its that the "hit music" radio stations like to play nothing but that stuff and don't bother with anything else that's on the charts, maybe with the exception of tweenie bubblegum groups.

I firmly believe that if there's one song on TLOS that could be a hit single, it's "Good Kind of Love". You can sing along with the chorus the second time you hear it and isn't that one of the main characteristics of a hit single?

I'd think so, or at least it was back in the day before hit singles became nothing but choruses and catchphrases being repeated ad nauseum for 3 minutes (i.e. songs by Fergie, Lil' Jon, etc.) or bland "rock" songs that all sound exactly the same (i.e. Nickelback, Hinder, Daughtry, 3 Doors Down, Fuel, Staind, Creed, etc.).

I just can't picture a song as sugary sweet and tame as "Good Kind of Love" sitting on the top ten with songs like "I Kissed A Girl".  There is nothing on That Lucky Old Sun that really could be a big radio hit and I'm fine with that.

I think "Midnight's Another Day" could have gotten A/C play with a better lead vocal.  It has that timeless ballad quality to it.

I don't know... Pocketful of Sunshine by Natasha Bedingfield is pretty upbeat and that spent 11 weeks on the Billboard top 10 earlier this year.

^ Yep. And the Jonas Brothers seem like the biggest thing going, and that's pure tween heaven right there, cute boys who are pretty squeaky clean, Disney style. (Probably actually literally Disney, in fact.) There are plenty of reasons for the charts not to favor Brian Wilson, not just one. He's old, the audience tends to be young, it's backward-facing music appealing to a mostly older crowd, and he probably looks below average in revealing clothing. There is no one issue to overcome or to blame. The stars could align and he could have a hit again, but it's really unlikely. No amount of vitriol toward rap or metal or dance-pop or charts or Billboard or Capitol or whatever else is going to change that. Such is life. The album is out and available. That's good.

:lol

Age is one important factor in what determines record sales and chart success but it's not the only one.  Singers mentioned like the Jonas Brothers and Natasha Bedingfield, besides being young, cater to what sounds "hip", production wise.  A lot of today's music that the "kids" listen to these days have an aggressive, in-your-face, sexually-drenched style (even the bubblegum music) that contains overproduced synthesizers and drum beats straight out of Pro-Tools.  I realize I'm making some generalizations but I'm not that way off base.  "Good Kind of Love" isn't a bad song, but it's far too quaint, far too hunky dory of a ditty to really get the attention of the average 14 year old.  I've said it before but it would be more at home as the theme to a really cheesy 80's sitcom than obliterating the charts in this day and age.  I honestly couldn't even imagine hearing it play on the A/C radio stations.  There just isn't as much integrity in the entertainment industry as there used to be.

There has absolutely never been integrity in the music industry. Ever. It may have once produced product more to your liking, but integrity? Ha! And in the 60s? Double ha. Read some of what Zappa (or many others) has to say about that "integrity." And as for the sexuality, it has always been "in your face" for the people to whom it isn't intended. Elvis was sexually in your face, the Stones were sexually in your face, Madonna blah blah and so on. The times, they aren't a changin at all. Audiences get old and new entertainers play for new audiences.

I guess that if anything has changed it is societies' values.

Nah. They haven't changed much either. People just keep forgetting certain aspects of their youth. If there is a change, it is that advertisers are more blunt.

All of the mentioned reasons are valid, of course. But, please, don't ignore the voice. I know we all love Brian, but that can obscure reality. Brian has never been on a "hit" single with his post-1975 voice. The closest he came was "Getcha Back". I know many will disagree, but I consider his "I'll leave her, and you leave him" part to be the weak part of the song, and I feel it was given to him just to give him a prominent place on the song. Carl would've been a better choice.

You left out Brian's falsetto part on Getcha back.

Bob Dylan who has a less pleasing voice than Brian's (and is even worse asa concert performer than Brian) went to number 1 with his last album. I don't think Brian's voice is as much a barrier to his lack of commercial success as you like to think it is. 

I agree that his voice may be part of the reason Sheriff, but I disagree on Getcha Back. Firstly the production sucks (but okay, I know this was the 80s, something I never experienced - so maybe the production fit at the time) but I always thought Mike's voice was REALLY REALLY annoying on that song. It's an okay song ruined by Love's ultra-annoying vocal. I'm sorry, there are just certain periods where Mike's voice gets on my nerves.

Well Dylan was never known for his great singing.  :-)  I don't think Brian Wilson's voice is what is roadblocking his commercial success either.  I just don't believe that TLOS has enough commercial "oomph" to get significant airplay or break the Top 10 charts.  And the reason I don't believe this is because the album doesn't sound like anything you typically hear on the radio today.  It's just not the same kind of "hip".   

And I don't disagree with Luther's comments.  Of course the industry has always tried to make a buck and of course sex sells.  But the difference is that while Elvis and the Rolling Stones might have been "in-your-face" with sex appeal, they also had a great deal of substance in their music; something I don't see quite as much with today's artists.  The Stones have had a successful 40+ years making music and performing.  And there are many artists their age that still carry relevance in the industry.  How many artists that have been around in the last 10 years will achieve the same lengthy career?  Not nearly as many I'm thinking. 

Well, at least not many of the ones getting overplayed on MTV and top 40 radio. I think a lot of modern indie/alternative artists could have career longevity, though.

I thought that was Jeff Foskett singing the falsetto part.

And Bob Dylan is a far more respected songwriter than Brian Wilson is.

I have a theory about that. One of the reasons why Bob Dylan is such a respected songwriter is because everybody and their brother have recorded his songs, right? And I don't think that's because his songs were just better than Brian's... I think it has more to do with the fact that his songs are just a lot easier to cover and to make your own.

First of all, I think that Brian's voice now beats the hell out of Mike Love's voice since, oh, 1978. Yeah, Brian is not what he used to be, but the Mike Love vocals on Getcha Back and the few concert clips I'v seen are terrible. His voice on Kokomo is OK, but that higher pitched nasally voice(which worked on their early hits)? He lost that years ago. Brian sounds much better to me.

Secondly, Luther I disagree with you: I think that society's vallues have changed since the fifties and sixties; the sixties were all about changing values, after all. I could rattle off a list of differences in values between my grandparents' generation and my generation, but I'm too busy!! Think about your grandparents, your parents and your own generation. There are massive differences, even though perhaps some things do stay the same. Compare the political and economic positions of the USA or Europe with their relative positions now. Society HAS changed in the last fifty years in many ways.

 Some of those changes have been for the better, but some have not. It is reasonable to assume that pop music would reflect that change.
(But all this is a bit off-topic.)

That said, a lot of today's music is great--much of it just doesn't apparently make the pop charts, being as it is marketed to increasingly smaller segments of the population. In the sixties there was a subculture; now there are dozens of subcultures. And I think that radio, in particular, is far more corporatized than it was in the sixties, no matter how corporate it was then. Simply put nearly all radio stations are crap--there are a few good ones here and there, sure, but drive around the USA or Europe and you will find that the great majority of them are terrible. Most of them are owned by Clear Channel. Homogenization and globalization are not just a myth--it's something that affects people's daily lives.

 It's not so much that I hate modern top forty music, some of it is pretty cool--it's that I do feel that the cream no longer rises to the top most of the time. IN the past of course it didn't always rise to the top--you had payola scandals and backroom deals going on--but something is different in pop music, and there is something crasser and more calculating about it.

I disagree. Brian's voice anytime now and Mike's when he's singing the higher pitched songs on stage are equally hideous. But Mike's soft voice, while a shadow of it was in 1970 (All I Wanna Do), is still halfway decent. Like, no one's gonna ask if he ever had a stroke.

Brian's solo albums would sell beyond his fan base if he were able to:
a. sing like he did in his prime
and/or...
b. write songs like he did in his prime

Unfair? Maybe. But that's reality.

OK, Mike's soft voice is still good. But I wouldn't characterize Brian's voice of today as "hideous."

the problem with what you said otherwise, is that even in his prime Brian hardly wrote loads of hit albums. Three years or four  years that was pretty much it. TLOS is his highest charting album since 15 Big Ones and before that Pet Sounds!

And I'm sorry, I also disagree with your argument as it seems to imply: good songs=commercial appeal. I just don't think that's true. Also, I like TLOS and think it's a very good album, but that's a matter of taste, of course.

 Comparing Dylan to Brian is in some ways apples to oranges-they are somehow different musicians, with different influences, tastes and appeals. There's no doubt that the fact that Modern Times was a decent album helped to make it number one, but I don't believe that most people bought it because it was good. There are probably lots of factors as to why an album hits big; and not least of all the notion that Bob Dylan is a genius and Brian Wilson is the guy who did those rather fluffy surf songs.

Oh, I meant "in his prime" in terms of quality, like 60's and 70's (YMMV).


Dylan's latter day success ia a bit of a mistery for me too. I guess Bob's been better at self-promoting through the decades.

What's "YMMV"?

Your mileage may vary, I believe.

Though Brian's voice is obviously not nearly as good as it's been, I've grown to like his 'new' voice. I think it sounds warm, friendly and gentle and has a lot of character.

Exactly. Thanks.

Well, at least it sounds much more natural on TLOS than on any of his other soloalbums imho. He definitely improved.


BTW one of northern-Germany's biggest radio stations played about a week or so ago the "MAD"-suite, say "Can't wait too long"-"MAD"-"TLOS-reprise". Was beautiful to hear it on a regular radio station

I agree that his prime was definitely the sixties and seventies, but other than 63-66/early 67, he has always been uncommercial. Your argument seemed to be: if the music was better, he'd reach a broader fan base. I'm saying, the music is good and in his greatest years he did not reach a broader fan base--in fact his albums charted significantly lower than TLOS! In other words, your argument which seems to somehow be equalling appeal with quality is bogus. I'm really  not trying to be a dick by any means but the facts are there--Discounting greatest hits style packages he's He's had two top 25 albums in the last twenty--no, make that FORTY!  years--TLOS and 15BO. So the quality=broader base of listeners thing doesn't really work.

 In terms of chart numbers and speaking only of the USA, he is more popular now than during the Friends, Sunflower or Love You eras--which most people would consider his prime.

I really don't know how far 'Love You' reached beyond the diehard fans in 1977. And maybe all the diehard fans running to the stores to buy a whole album produced and written by Brian Wilson in the week of release didn't have the same effect in the charts as TLOS in 2008, with the abismal CD sales that plague the industry.

Hmmm...so maybe there actually more of his biggest fans around thirty years later? Or maybe Brian Wilson fans or more likely to actually buy his music than the fan of, I dont know, someone more commercial?

That I can buy. :)

No, lots of people can die in 31 years.  :)


I don't know about that, but they're very good at blaming the record company when the new turkey fails to sell.  :)

Good point.

Don't forget BWPS, #13 US and # 7 UK.

I totally forgot that one.

More proof that quality sells.

As has been pointed out already, Brian WIlson as a solo artist has had two top 40 albums in the UK and the US in the last four years. Doesn't that match or indeed better the Beach Boys entire post-Pet Sounds output? Like 40 years?

For an old guy he's actually had some chart success in this decade....but I think TLOS could and should have performed better in Europe.

See, my theory is that quality has little to do with it. I think its all about promotion. Certainly in the country I live in there is simply NO promotion, there is not even a wikipedia article in the native tongue on Brian Wilson.

My guess is that Capitol-EMI intentionallz focussed all their efforts on the American market because more Americans buy CDs because CD's are cheap there-- there is little incentive to buy CDs  elsewhere(my copy of TLOS cost me over 40 bucks; you can understand why people here think I'm a fool for not illegally downloading all my music--and you can understand why companies don't waste money promoting anything but ultra cheap bargain bin stuff.)).

The Beach Boys were has-beens and a golden oldies act in the 70s... Brian has now been 'adopted' by the alternative music scene as an icon... I think that's the difference...

I thought about that.... Pre-Endless Smmer, yeah. But after the Brian's Back campaign, we have a transition to the 90's icon. The difference is that in the 70s and 80s people expected him to go back to his 63-65 commercial heyday, and today the hipsters want another Pet Sounds or Smile.

I never knew that he was gone etc.

Quality is definately what sells. That is why 'Cotton Fields', 'I Write the Songs', 15 Big Ones and 'Kokamo' all did so well on the charts, while Friends, Sunflower, Love You and Pacific Ocean Blue flopped! :P

Now thou smellest that in which I do  step.

However, Cottonfields IS awesome.

Sorry to go off-topic, but this is also a sad thing about Carl Wilson not being around when he would also have picked up a lot of this affection and respect had he wanted it.

Mike makes a comment on Brians album...just!

http://www.canada.com/cityguides/victoria/story.html?id=f22081d4-88bb-4c05-8a46-edcecbc92a8e

I don't know if I would call that a "comment"...he simply acknowledged the existance of TLOS.

Oh ok. How about this then?


MIKE LOVE PROMOTES THAT LUCKY OLD SUN

 ;D

Much better!

i dont think mike would want to admit if it was a good album or not unless he was on it. i think at that age and the amount of years someone has been in the industry,new albums are looked at as part of the job,not in the enjoyable sence that we listen to them.it woulsd be "ok,this guy is doing this" or "this guy is doing that" mike would probably listen to old stuff and in brians case,mike would have brians album down the bottom of his list of albums to listen to.

Was The Facts of Life confused with Full House and/or Baywatch?

I think it has much more to do with the fact that he is a brilliant lyricist, and his music documents each generation. 

A lot of Dylan's songs, as great as they are lyrically, musically his songs are pretty simple and folky, quite straightforward, nowhere near as quirky, odd, and complex as some of Brian's stuff.

But it rocks. They come from different traditions, different influences(other than Chuck Berry).

I never said Dylan didn't rock. Just said his music is simple and straightforward. Dylan's lyrics, on the other hand, are often times poetic masterpieces. The only people who may have Dylan beaten or are on par with him in the lyric department, IMO, are Van Dyke Parks, Jack Reiley, Steven Page of Barenaked Ladies, and Jeff Mangum of Neutral Milk Hotel. I've always thought Dylan should write lyrics for Brian, even if it's only for one song. I'm surprised that Brian and Dylan haven't collaborated on anything beyond an overdubbed vocal on an unreleased song ("Spirit of Rock and Roll").

The Spirit of Rock and Roll is a released song now, finally. (Songs from whatever and then and back or whatever) Just not that version. so it's not an unreleased song.

Also, Barenaked Ladies guy in the same realm as VDP etc cracked me up.

I'd love to hear a true collaberation between Dylan and Brian, as long as Dylan was only responsible for the lyrics and was kept far far away from a microphone.  I'd be curious to see what Brian could make of his lyrics.

Its just my personal opinion (which really doesn't have a lot of weight)   ...give a listen to more than just BNL's hits and you'll understand...or most likely not.

They are all post-Dylan, I reckon, even BNL.(haven't heard that much of them. My Canadian boss loves 'em.)



I don't find Jack Reilly all that great, though, certainly not on a par with Dylan--though definitely influenced by him. I think you don't get more embarrassing than Feel Flows, though I like Trader.

 Even Dylan himself, sometimes, is not as good as Dylan, though.

Are you calling me too stupid to understand?  ;)  It's ok if so, I can take it. Anyway, I've heard quite a bit of BNL--too much for my taste, and more than just the hits. Friends of mine like them, and I don't. What's worse, after nearly every show of my own music I've ever done, somebody (soundman, someone from the crowd, whatever) ALWAYS says "hey, cool ... kind of a Barenaked Ladies thing." So what was once only dislike is now vicious wound-salting.

 
[/quote]

A lot of Dylan's songs, as great as they are lyrically, musically his songs are pretty simple and folky, quite straightforward, nowhere near as quirky, odd, and complex as some of Brian's stuff.
[/quote]

I think that's why they lend themselves to cover versions - simple musically, provocative lyrically - plus the fact that Dylan's ragged voice makes his own versions less approachable and "commercial" than the same songs sung by more talented singers.

Brian's songs have more complex chord changes, are harder to cover both musically and vocally.

No, I wasn't calling you stupid. Its OK if you don't like a certain band. There are bands that I can't stand that other people swear their life on.

Kind of like Parker and Stone being told that South Park is just as good as Family Guy?

Jack Reiley???  Barenaked Ladies?  Seriously, none of these people you mention even hold a candle to Dylan's lyrics.  Have you ever even listened to Dylan other than "Blowin' In The Wind"?

Maybe I'm just trying to delude myself because I'm tired of always hearing about how great Dylan is/was.

Dylan is great; nothing wrong with that.  No harm done if he's not your taste; but to deny his profound impact on popular music is absurd.  The same could be said for Brian Wilson.

Stop challenging gospel. Opinions are allowed, but impotent. The songwriters you prefer are inferior. If you insist on liking them, we will smile, pat your head and excuse you to the kids' table.

I agree that Dylan had a profound impact on popular music, but he is not untouchable! Guess what, inferiority is highly subjective! Neither of our opinions really mean much in the long run, but I'm going to stand by mine because I'm a stubborn asshole. And gospel needs to ALWAYS be challenged!!!

And yes, I realize this thread has gone wayyyy off-topic, I apologize for that.

No man, Dylan is at the top. Maybe one day you will hear this. Seriously, it's all about the Dylan. I was just having a conversation about this today. He was definitely the most influential amongst his peers, and his talent is so multi-faceted it wouldn't be right to try and summarize them.

Side note: Streaming Bootleg Series 8 - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95047293


Also, TLOS is a good album

Chalk me up for Dylan. He's awesome. Find "Jokerman" on Youtube. Or anything early, like "Only A Pawn In Their Game" or "Hard Rain". Gospel doesn't always need to challenged, not for it's own sake. You do it because you feel it, not just to be an irreverent gunslinger. Waits is also a brilliant lyricist. And Robert Hunter, too.

Jack freaking Reiley vs. Dylan??? And I thought that standing for the non-Wilsons in the band was tough.  :)

you can't deny the dylan. just listen to blood on the tracks.
lyrically he's basically king. he's like t.s. eliot.

but let's see him write a piece of music like "cabinessence" ;)

Agreed...Dylan is probably hands down the best lyricist ever in rock music.  That is where his influence was felt.  Musically though, someone like Brian wipes the floor with him, easily. 

Makes you wonder what might result if Dylan wrote lyrics for Brian...

Probably a total disaster but you never know...

I'd love to hear that "total disaster", though, if it were to ever happen.

I doubt they'd work with four hands on a piano.... Brian would write the same kind of songs he's been writing, and Dylan would set lyrics on it. Like the Wilson/Parks The Waltz. Judging by the supremely overrated and overhyped Bacharach / Costello colaboration, this could be a Brian release that would atract a new audience.

At least Bob wouldn't write about how "he used to call the shots around here" and the sorts.  :)

You can't ask questions about the greatness of Bob Dylan because he has 'God on his side'!