Can someone help me not think of Bob Dylan as inauthentic and fake?
>People close to him have been quoted saying he has no idea what the fuck he is writing he just writes what sounds good.
>There is a long list of plagiarizing and "borrowing" from all periods of his music.
>He used people and "protest folk" only as a means to get famous.
>He treated lots of his friends like total shit. I don't have to post the paragraphs if you already know him you know the stories.
He's a hack, the industry was full of them even back then. He took off early and kept his momentum going by cycling through a variety of gimmicks (folk protest period, electric period, country period, Christian revival period, electric period pt 2, each one selling more and more) and he continues to sell records today.
Can someone help me not think of the people who make these accusations as bitter jealous losers who try to get attention off of talking shit about famous people they used to know?
The hilarious part about this is these smears are meant to discredit all his stuff that is against the leftist message but if any part of his career was insincere, it's that extremely brief period that they still try to hold up as important and perfect. It's exactly a song like Times They Are a-Changin' that should be dismissed for being insincere but those commies still give him prizes for it.
>He used people and "protest folk" only as a means to get famous.
No he didn't.
He grew out of it when he realized the folk scene was full of asshats who were way too self-serious. Everytime people tried to pin him down as the best or the voice of a generation he would intentionally swerve the opposite direction.
He was a dick, but all the best musicians are.
>People close to him have been quoted saying he has no idea what the fuck he is writing he just writes what sounds good.
How else would you recommend he go about songwriting?
>>People close to him have been quoted saying he has no idea what the fuck he is writing he just writes what sounds good.
[citation needed]
>There is a long list of plagiarizing and "borrowing" from all periods of his music.
[citation needed]
>He used people and "protest folk" only as a means to get famous.
Like a Rolling Stone isn't a protest song
>He treated lots of his friends like total shit.
Irrelevant. Has nothing to do with being inauthentic/fake.
It's better for the public to think of these people as saints and not actually know the truth of how these people treat others?
Bob Dylan isn't his real name. He's jewish and was planted to destabilize america and western values during the hippie sex revolution
Nobody thinks he's a saint. He presented himself as a dick.
if true, he did a pretty shit job of it considering he stopped making protest music and started making country records at the height of the hippie movement.
You need citations for very public things that everyone already knows?
>Like a Rolling Stone isn't a protest song
That's not his protest folk period.
>Irrelevant. Has nothing to do with being inauthentic/fake.
Being inauthentic and fake have nothing to do with being inauthentic and fake.
So then what harm are these people doing?
>You need citations
If you made a claim, you need to prove it
>That's not his protest folk period.
His protest music didn't make him famous. His pop music did
>Being inauthentic and fake have nothing to do with being inauthentic and fake.
How was he being inauthentic/fake in regards to his friends?
joan baez is better than bob dylan
Nobody said they were doing harm, they just look embarrassing and are clearly trying to up their own profile by shitting on him.
joan baez is one of the worst artists of the 60s
i'm no dylan fan, but he's definitely better than that no talent hoe
You sound like an incel
no, i just don't like joan baez
>His protest music didn't make him famous. His pop music did
That's just blatantly false, 1963 was his massive breakthrough. That said, his following had very little to do with pop or protest music, a lot of his songs from that time were neither and people loved all that stuff. Protest music is just why the communists chose him as the figurehead of their generation and when he took an abrupt turn, they tried to smear him but he already had a massive following. Still, I think we can all agree that in the end they won the narrative and when he dies he will be remembered for exactly a few months of his career when he was a protest singer, at least by the media and public at large.
>1963 was his massive breakthrough.
To only a small demographic (folk fans). That is not a "breakthrough". A "breakthough" is to the mainstream, which was "Like a Rolling Stone". Look it up.
>Protest music is just why the communists...
Irrelevant.
we are having a musical discussion here
he didn't have his first radio hit until he went electric
>when he dies he will be remembered for exactly a few months of his career when he was a protest singer, at least by the media and public at large
he will be remembered for 65-66
Blowin' in the Wind was 1963. He has always had way more hits as a songwriter than a performer himself. The March on Washington was in mid-63 which I believe is where the picture on the OP is from (either way he did perform there). He was a massive star before he ever went electric.
>Blowin' in the Wind was 1963.
not a radio hit
his first radio hit was subterranean homesick blues
To music fans only. Notice I said by the media and public at large. You even quoted it.
Blowin' in the Wind was a Number 2 pop hit in 1963, can you not read or some shit?
>He has always had way more hits as a songwriter than a performer himself.
>To music fans only.
No, his biggest songs are from that period.
>Blowin' in the Wind was a Number 2 pop hit in 1963
Not the version by Bob Dylan, the topic of this thread.
Like A Rolling Stone is his most famous song.
That Judas priest cover tho
Jesus, why are you being willfully retarded here? What's your angle?
>willfully retarded
You're just wrong.