Joan Baez

[Sir Rob]

Saw Joanie on BBC Sunday breakfast programme with Andrew Marr.  Have to say it really made me realise why Dylan never wanted to be painted into the corner of being a 'protest singer'.  It's true - once the media have decided what you are, once they've nailed you, it's as though you've lost whatever you had in the first place.  Somehow you can be dismissed.  'Protest nostalgia' and the Bob Dylan association was the tone and theme of the interview.  It's true what Dylan says in 'No Direction Home' something like "As an artist you've always got to be in a state of becoming, once you've arrived you're finished." 

An amusing part of the interview was Marr apolgising for asking her about Dylan, because she's probably tired of it.  He asked her about Dylan going 'electric' etc.  Then he said "What do you think of Dylan's last two albums?"  Joan:  " Er, I think we'll move on to another question now."

[1-1-wonderful]

I wonder what Dylan thinks about her last 2 albums.

[b.dfzo]

Exactly.  To ask either what they think of their recent work is totally irrelevant to them and the other person.

[Sir Rob]

Exactly.  To ask either what they think of their recent work is totally irrelevant to them and the other person.

So you're not interested in Mike Love's opinion of BWPS then? 

[b.dfzo]

Exactly.  To ask either what they think of their recent work is totally irrelevant to them and the other person.

So you're not interested in Mike Love's opinion of BWPS then? 

Well, think of it like this: if Brian has little interest in Mike's new material, then why should Mike be at all interested in Brian's?  It's a reciprocative impulse, whether it be or not be necessarily conscious on their parts.

P.S. Joan Baez and Mike Love have a lot in common, in reference to the beginning of this thread.

[Sir Rob]

Exactly.  To ask either what they think of their recent work is totally irrelevant to them and the other person.

So you're not interested in Mike Love's opinion of BWPS then? 

Well, think of it like this: if Brian has little interest in Mike's new material, then why should Mike be at all interested in Brian's?  It's a reciprocative impulse, whether it be or not be necessarily conscious on their parts.

P.S. Joan Baez and Mike Love have a lot in common, in reference to the beginning of this thread.

Well, I suppose we're interested.  And we're interested because in both cases we're talking about former (and lesser talented) associates of very important artists.  Because their talent is less we're not so much interested in Dylan's opinion of Joan or Brian's of Mike (should he have a new album to have an opinion about).  Maybe Joan doesn't have any interest herself in Dylan's recent albums but because we're interested in her opinion, the question gets asked.

[Jonas]

I'm sure someones mailed 50 copies of BWPS to Mike Love's house...

[b.dfzo]

So, now are we saying that Joan Baez and Mike Love are, across the board, 'less talented' than their respective 'partners'?

[Aegir]

The problem here is Bob Dylan is still producing more or less popular music.. tons of people still buy Dylan albums. Joan Baez, on the other hand, is a hasbeen known more or less for being a folk singer from the 60s that was Bob Dylan's girlfriend at one point. Dylan's still comtemporary, Joan Baez is a figure of the past.

And in terms of talent, Joan Baez is a much much much much better singer than Bob Dylan, but Dylan's a better songwriter.

[b.dfzo]

The problem here is Bob Dylan is still producing more or less popular music.. tons of people still buy Dylan albums. Joan Baez, on the other hand, is a hasbeen known more or less for being a folk singer from the 60s that was Bob Dylan's girlfriend at one point. Dylan's still comtemporary, Joan Baez is a figure of the past.

And in terms of talent, Joan Baez is a much much much much better singer than Bob Dylan, but Dylan's a better songwriter.

I'm not talking about popularity, necessarily.  In terms of talent, Joan is a much better singer than Dylan.  There you go.  Each has their talents, so who can definitely say that one is entirely better than the other without injecting one's own opinion of what is good? 

"Impossible!", as he hands you a bone...

[halleluwah]

Exactly.  To ask either what they think of their recent work is totally irrelevant to them and the other person.

So you're not interested in Mike Love's opinion of BWPS then? 

I don't know that the analogy really works.  For one thing, even though some recent work was done on it, SMiLE was not really new work for the most part.  For another, Mike Love's opinion of the original SMiLE is, in many peoples' minds, one of the key areas of contention that led to the album never being completed in '67.  So Mike Love's opinion of that album actually is of some interest.


Maybe if you were to ask Mike's opinion of "Gettin' in Over My Head" or the Christmas album would be more like it.  And no, I don't think most people really give a sh*t about that.

[jdavolt]

 

Joan Baez is a much much much much better singer than Bob Dylan

In terms of talent, Joan is a much better singer than Dylan. 

I wouldn't agree with those statements.

[b.dfzo]

Joan Baez is a much much much much better singer than Bob Dylan

In terms of talent, Joan is a much better singer than Dylan. 

I wouldn't agree with those statements.

I know, and I don't either.  I speaking in terms of what is considered good.  As of 2006, Joan still has a beautiful voice, if somewhat a bit limited in range, but that's to be expected; I can't say the same, aesthetically, for Bobbie, who for the past few years has achieved a sound akin to what a gravel road would sound like, if a gravel road had vocal chords.  Play "Love and Theft" and "Dark Chords on a Big Guitar" and ask the average music fan who has the better voice.  That is what I was proposing...but, to no avail.  Which of those two records do I think is better?  Do you have to ask?!?

[halleluwah]

Generally speaking, I'm quite fond of Bob Dylan's voice; I'd take it over Joan's 95% of the time (they meshed together horribly, by the way; the duet version of "With God on Our Side" from No Direction Home is absolutely painful).  But you're right; I don't know exactly when Bob lost his voice, but when he did he lost it COMPLETELY.  His last two albums have great songs on them, but Dylan's absolutely dead croak on them taxes even my sensibilities, and I'm usually very tolerant of, er, not technically "great" singing.  So at this point in 2006, I'd probably agree that Baez is now the better singer.

[rob68]

Her last studio CD is really good, IMO.......Dark Chords On A Big Guitar.......all cover songs.........amazing version of Gillian Welch's Elvis Presley Blues.

[Sir Rob]

So, now are we saying that Joan Baez and Mike Love are, across the board, 'less talented' than their respective 'partners'?

Surely the answer to that question is an unqualified 'yes'?!  I mean you can argue Mike's a better stage performer or Joan's a better technical singer or whatever but thats seems a bit beside the point to me in the context of what is meant when BW or Dylan are said to be 'talented'.

I agree with what someone said about Dylan and Joan singing together - absolutely bl00dy dreadful.

Dylan's voice - it is a bit of an acquired taste and I think it is the biggest stumbling block for some people.  But when you get past that, which I did without really thinking too much about it I have to admit, it's strangely and deeply affecting.  Even on his most recent albums, where it has become a bit of a croak in a technical sense, it just gets you.  Something to do with the way he puts certain emphases on words, his 'phrasing' I think they call it.  It just hits a certain emotional spot with me.  So though I suppose Joan Baez is a far better singer when looked at from a purely conventional technical point of view, I still think that Dylan also has great talent as a singer and one that many other people would find very difficult to emulate.  Listen to different versions of 'Tangled Up In Blue' - the Blood On The Tracks version, the Bootleg Series 1-3 version and the 'Real Live' Wembley Stadium version (my first Dylan concert!) and listen to the way he plays with the words and their meaning and the way he sings them on the different versions.  Fantastic!

[Aegir]

The problem here is Bob Dylan is still producing more or less popular music.. tons of people still buy Dylan albums. Joan Baez, on the other hand, is a hasbeen known more or less for being a folk singer from the 60s that was Bob Dylan's girlfriend at one point. Dylan's still comtemporary, Joan Baez is a figure of the past.

And in terms of talent, Joan Baez is a much much much much better singer than Bob Dylan, but Dylan's a better songwriter.

I'm not talking about popularity, necessarily.  In terms of talent, Joan is a much better singer than Dylan.  There you go.  Each has their talents, so who can definitely say that one is entirely better than the other without injecting one's own opinion of what is good? 

"Impossible!", as he hands you a bone...

I believe my post was completely devoid of opinion.. Joan (especially classic 60s Joan) has a better voice. I didn't say I liked it better, just that it was. It's an accepted that Bob Dylan doesn't have a good voice. And by being a better songwriter I meant that many Bob Dylan-penned songs have become hits, even by other bands.

Personally, opinion-wise, I think Joan's song "North" is a whole lot better than any Dylan song. But that doesn't beat the cold hard facts.

[b.dfzo]

Then I guess the question is: Is Joan pidgeonholed as a folk singer from a bygone era against her will?  From the way Bob tells it, he only got into folk because he knew that was the only way for him to become popular.  Once he was known by everybody and their grandmother as a protest singer, he started brilliantly switching things up.  How "Rock and Roll" is that?  Joan was all about folk, period.

[Sir Rob]

Then I guess the question is: Is Joan pidgeonholed as a folk singer from a bygone era against her will?  From the way Bob tells it, he only got into folk because he knew that was the only way for him to become popular.  Once he was known by everybody and their grandmother as a protest singer, he started brilliantly switching things up.  How "Rock and Roll" is that?  Joan was all about folk, period.

That's a very good question!  I don't know for sure but my feeling must be that singers of Dylan's vintage from  that Greenwich Village scene envy the scope of expression Dylan has won for himself as well as his success itself.  I was reading or hearing somewhere (possibly Howard Sounes book 'Down The Highway'), quite a few of those people ended up taking their own lives -not just Phil Ochs.

[jdavolt]

It's an accepted that Bob Dylan doesn't have a good voice

Not true at all.

Think about this: Dylan barely wrote anything on his first album. He wasn't seen as a songwriter at that point, but primarily as a singer.

And, for the record, to make myself absolutely clear: free of context, had I never heard (nor heard of) either Dylan or Baez before, and you played me thirty-second clips of the two of them singing, and asked me to evaluate which one was the better singer, which one I preferred, I honestly believe I would choose Dylan. I find Baez's voice to be deeply and extremely annoying. Nothing personal, wish I dug it more, but...nails on chalkboard. Dylan, on the other hand, I never had a problem with. I've always thought he was a great singer. Just because the timbre of a voice is distinct doesn't mean the singing isn't "conventionally/technically" good.

[Sir Rob]

I find Baez's voice to be deeply and extremely annoying. Nothing personal, wish I dug it more, but...nails on chalkboard.

I think you're letting your distaste for some quality in Baez's voice affect your judgement of her singing in a purely technical sense.  I mean I'm no expert in these matters but my hunch is that she could've cut it as an opera singer.  Her voice is stronger than Dylan's.  That doesn't mean one should necessarily prefer it more.

[b.dfzo]

It's an accepted that Bob Dylan doesn't have a good voice

Not true at all.

Think about this: Dylan barely wrote anything on his first album. He wasn't seen as a songwriter at that point, but primarily as a singer.

And, for the record, to make myself absolutely clear: free of context, had I never heard (nor heard of) either Dylan or Baez before, and you played me thirty-second clips of the two of them singing, and asked me to evaluate which one was the better singer, which one I preferred, I honestly believe I would choose Dylan. I find Baez's voice to be deeply and extremely annoying. Nothing personal, wish I dug it more, but...nails on chalkboard. Dylan, on the other hand, I never had a problem with. I've always thought he was a great singer. Just because the timbre of a voice is distinct doesn't mean the singing isn't "conventionally/technically" good.

  I don't think it was his voice alone that drew people to the album.  His first album introduced Dylan as a young (20 years old!) individual performer, who threw some fire into a collection of trad. folk, blues, and gospel material.  Basically, Woody Guthrie & Robert Johnson cum Elvis's Sun Recordings.  I think it's the enthusiasm he has for the material that wins me over, not how good his voice is.  But, face it: Joan is equipped with the voice of an angel in comparison.  And I say that without irony.

[cabinessence]

Joan has a very lovely voice, but she way overdoes the vibrato (that's the irritant for me) ; btw her guitar playing sounds pretty fine to me

[Sir Rob]

An amusing postscript to Ms Baez's recent appearance on British television by Simon Hoggart of 'The Guardian' (UK newspaper):

"I met a heroine of my youth, Joan Baez, this week. She was on Andrew Marr's show on BBC1 on Sunday - me just to help review the papers, her to delight everyone by singing. I'm always fearful of meeting people I admire, because you might catch them on an off-day, or fretting, or because they might turn out to be not very nice. But she was lovely. I was placed opposite her at the breakfast which follows the show, and she could not have been more charming.

Someone asked her if it was true that she had once threatened to hit Henry Kissinger. She said indignantly that she had never offered violence to anyone. But she had met him once. Kissinger, of course, was the Great Satan to that generation, even more hated than Richard Nixon. They had been in an elevator, and she had thought: "Goodness, it's Henry Kissinger! What an opportunity to tell him what I think." But she couldn't think of anything to say. He, however, declared in his gutteral German growl that he was a great admirer of her music.  Driven to a panic-stricken silence, all she could say was: "Thank you." So that was the extent of the encounter between the world's second most famous protest singer and the evil Doctor Strangelove figure."