|
| Headline | Bob Dylan |
|
Page:
[1] |
| Author | Comment |
markie
May-04-2009, 10:29 GMT
United Kingdom
 | Here in the UK, Dylan`s "Together Through Life" has become the number 1 selling album.
He has rewrote the record books to become the oldest musician to have a No 1 album at the age of 67.
There`s still time for Paul to to do the same yet!
|
| | |
Bodo
May-04-2009, 10:34 GMT
Austria
 | That is really the record age?
Wow, I thought that there have been artists like Sinatra who made nr1 records at the age of 80 or something.
However...nr 1 today are not compareable to nr 1 30 years ago IMO. The sales are too low. |
| | |
Scaaty
May-04-2009, 11:40 GMT
Ireland
 | Frank sinatra would have no 1 singles rather than albums |
| | |
deleted_user
May-04-2009, 12:00 GMT
Unknown
 | Sinatra´s last two albums, Duets I and II both made the top ten. He was in his late 70s. I think Duets I peaked at number 2. Neither of them made number 1. |
| | |
Bodo
May-04-2009, 12:15 GMT
Austria
| Ok, but at least Johnny Cash last album was No. 1, although he was already death.
|
| | |
Scaaty
May-04-2009, 12:48 GMT
Ireland
| How important is a number one (single esp) anyway?
In the UK
Art Garfunkel had 2
Simon and Garfunkel had 1
Paul Simon had none! |
| | |
Ian
May-04-2009, 12:57 GMT
USA - United Staates America
 | I thought Tony Bennet might have made that list somewhere too. Wasn´t 50 ways a number one single in the US. On a completely different subject,I just heard an interview with Jerry Springer,who said he went to school with Paul and Arthur. One or two years their junior I guess. |
| | |
Ian
May-04-2009, 13:09 GMT
USA - United Staates America
| Hi Bodo,I´ve asked this before somewhere I think. I have never been someone who buys singles,but before compact discs,the sale of 45´s must have been relatively easy to keep a check on. But how does a song become a number one or number anything there days? Is it down to the rotation a song gets on the radio,tv etc,or are they counting downloads?? Is there still such thing as a cd single? Out of the loop... |
| | |
mog
May-04-2009, 16:45 GMT
Canada
 | How Dylan still sell No. 1 albums remains a mystery to me. From his recent stuff, I have everything since Time out of Mind, and in my mind, this music can only appeal to a (very, very) limited audience. His voice is horrible too.
Also, probably 90-95% of people who attend his concerts are disappointed. So, in this context...how come always commercial success ?
By the way, let´s throw away a polemic here...who the greatest ? Paul or Bob ? Equal ?! Why ?
Personaly, I would say that Bob in the Top 10 artists, Paul solo would be around No. 100, like a list put it at the end of the 1980´s. S&G, yes, in the 1st 50, like Rolling Stone ranked them a few years ago.
I suspect Paul would see himself as equal as Bob. |
| | |
mog
May-04-2009, 16:46 GMT
Canada
| Sorry, the list I am referring to is for end of 1990´s. |
| | |
Ian
May-04-2009, 19:02 GMT
USA - United Staates America
| Now I climb into the abyss,clutching at Skyhooks...Dylan has had the most effect on the public consciousness,no question-We call him Dylan,or Bob or whatever,and most people over the age of 30 know who we mean! And in his younger years,he was dazzling-funny,sharp quick and prolific. I think that´s where The Greatness of PS comes into play. Having released way fewer songs,albums than Dylan,I think Paul has written individual lines that say way more than Bob does in seven verses of one song! You have to take each career as a whole,and each of their talents one by one I think,remembering that prolificy in itself is not a talent. Bob can certainly play a pretty mean guitar when he wants to,but I genuinely think Paul is the better player. The same for vocals,I Love Bob´s singing,especially on the 70´s material,but I think Paul has the better voice. It can´t just be a case of who sells more albums or tickets,that makes the greater artist either. If that were the case then ´Pink´ outranks them both! |
| | |
Klausi
May-05-2009, 09:03 GMT
Germany
 | Bob Dylan is a symbol. For political protest, Folk turning into Electric and he also really was the first who created albums instead of songs or singles. He became famous in 1963.
Simon in early 1966 as part of a duo. The first real S&G album was Parsley..., The Beatles with S. Pepper.
The world began to notice Simon as songwriter after S&G.
This will remain besides the fact, that Simon wrote less than half as many songs and is resonsible for much more than double Dylan sales.
But the S&G reunions and his constantly changing musical solo-work makes Simon the most unknown of the Superstars.
But don`t worry, imagine how things were without Graceland! |
| | |
Klausi
May-05-2009, 09:10 GMT
Germany
| By the way, S&G were the biggest record-selling act worldwide from 1968 to 1972 with their Greatest Hits. More than the Beatles, much more than the Stones or Dylan.
But who was No. 2 then?
"CCR". You don`t know them? Creedence Clearwater Revival. It`s true.
So being forgotten is relative... |
| | |
deleted_user
May-05-2009, 11:32 GMT
Unknown
| I agree with Klausi that Dylan became a symbol and that he had a head start on PS. I think Dylan´s success was a major reason why Wednesday Morning 3AM was a folk album.
One minor correction, Sinatra is the artist who made albums popular, not Dylan. Starting in the 1950s Sinatra released a number of theme albums which were very successful artistically and commercially. As an aside, the reason they are called albums is because prior to the long playing LP, they were released in book form with a number of 78s in sleeves. These looked like photo albums. Sinatra started with theme albums in that form, but the long playing LPs replaced 78s before Dylan. |
| | |
Scaaty
May-05-2009, 12:58 GMT
Ireland
| Thats an interesting piece of information.
I have always wondered why there wasn´t more cross over between Dylan fans and Simon fans. I feel the S&G years may have had something to with it- the music was too sweet and wholesome to appeal to the Dylan people. Wonder what would have happened had Paul Simon released the PS songbook Stateside?
He may have taken a completely different path.
There is also the "class" issue - Paul came from a very middle class background and well educated - not the stuff of protest.
Were himself and Artie ever called up for the draft or were they too young for that? |
| | |
|
Page:
[1]
|