Bob Dylan's Modern Times, a new Masterpiece?

Dreadhead I couldn't disagree more about Modern Times in terms of what it sounds like.

He's using the same templates but the music is closest to Love And Theft with tiny sprinklings of the Blues related stuff of TOOM done in a less "powerful" fashion.
There is no real strong connection to how Dylan used to sound pre-97 anywhere on this record.

Imho the real masterpiece of recent years is Love And Theft and until Modern Times resonates for me with the originality,depth and wit that album does then we need to debate this on a daily basis.
I can think of worse things to do.
:-)

Ben Campbell:
You are partially right. I am adding nothing to this debate regarding Modern Times. Your allegiance and hero worship of Bob Dylan is well-founded but blinds your objectivity. I have never bought a Patricia Barber, Diana Krall or Jacintha record and don't intend to. I am a classic rock listening MOJO- reading purist. I am simply stating that when an artist's voice goes , I can't listen to his/her music any longer. If Dylan came out with Blood on the Tracks today and Blonde on Blonde next year I couldn't listen to them. Look , for you it's Dylan for me it was the Grateful Dead. Jerry Garcia's voice started to go around '76 and although I went to shows from the late 70's to early 80's I knew the best years were in the past. Ben IMHO opinion you skirted the issue. I love early Dylan stuff . I'm not feeling what he's done for the last few albums due to the change in his voice. Dismissing my point by saying "Dylan isn't for everyone". is way offbase.

Jsonic-no worries my friend I wasn't particularly dealing in specifics regards your statement just comparing generalisations.
I've always found a fair bit of common ground with your posts.

I stand by my comment about Dylan's voice and Audiophiles;many of them hate it, full stop.
At least you can relate to the earlier years.

I couldn't disagree more about myself and Dylan as I would be heralding MT as a masterpiece and I certainly wouldn't be so critical of TOOM if I had lost my objectivity regarding him.
Indeed read my first post again.

"It's a fine record that delivers a honest picture of where Dylan is at musically just now and highlights his powers despite the weathering that the years have brought."

The weathering description relates to his voice which is clearly limited now,in the early 90's Dylan was struggling terribly with it.He did however imho find a way to cope with it-there was a massive change in his live performances around '95.
He remained strong for several years but he has had his dips and to be honest this is a battle against decline; it will never be as it was.

I think he does a pretty decent job in that context.I really can understand that the rasping tone and strange phrasing would have people putting off the disc within seconds.
I think Dylan is still massively relevant but it's a shame his voice won't allow you to hear that.

However this is my key point having clarified that background.
There are lots of music threads on Audiogon regarding artists I don't care for at all and unless I think have some kind of context and insight into it then I just ignore them.
If people were discussing the new Diane Krall album where is the value in me turning up and saying it is boring pap?
I'm not even in the zone to discuss it.

I think your reaction is an honest one but your whole post outwith of Dylan seemed a bit of a moan to me.
And really we can't have that on a Dylan thread.
:-)

Best wishes Jsonic,honestly.

People that complain about the sound of Dylan's, Springsteen's, etc voice and pronounce it unlistenable just don't get it. When I want to listen to tonal perfection I put on an opera. When I want to listen to two of this country's most prolific song writers I put on the fore mentioned. I can recommend Mel Tormae, the velvet fog. Now that's a beautiful voice. Just not for me. I guess you guys didn't like Janis Joplin either. A little to gruff for you. I am a fan. That being said, I always look forward to the next offering from the artist I admire. I find the latest from Springsteen not to my liking, not because of the sound of his voice but because it is not his voice. It is his interpretation of other artist's compositions. If he wanted to make an anti-war statement he should have written one himself. The SOUND of Dylan's voice fits the music perfectly. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Rock music is replete with lead singers that have limited range and/or "pleasing" voices. Dreadhead mentioned Janis Joplin. I couldn't agree more. Others include, Mick Jagger, Grace Slick (who by her own admission has only a fair voice), Eric Clapton, Rod Stewart, Phil Collins (yuk), Sheryl Crow (double yuk), et.al. Voices like Roy Orbison and Freddy Mercury are the exception, not the rule.
What most of our popular singers offer is style. Jagger is a terrific stylist but a marginal singer. So as Dread pointed out, if you're listening for vocal purity, buy Mel Torme or Nat King Cole recordings.
IMO of course.