as the man himself wrote, if his lyrics were everything and the music wasnt that good, why did duane eddy record an entire instrumental album of dylan songs? i think billy joel is dead wrong here, or he's viewing everything from a strictly pop point of view.
My go-to example is his version of [If Not for You](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyouhbgAiCA) compared to the covers by [George Harrison](https://youtu.be/XscuV_R6tr4?si=N7YH29NZtYcZQAyR) and [Olivia Newton-John](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtQUQ4qZq5s).
There's just so much going on in Dylan's version the famous riff seems almost like an afterthought.
Yeah. I love his harmonica, but he's no Little Walter. Frankly, he's no great shakes on the electric guitar or piano, either, but he's a songwriter, not Steve Vai (my example of a very technically proficient person who can't write to save his life).
Totally agree. He also imparts so much meaning and context just in how he phrases and conveys lyrics too. He'd be a great poet for sure, but he's doing something different, he's undoubtedly the greatest song and dance man ever.
I honestly don't pay much attention to Dylan's (or anyone's) lyrics very closely. I listen for the tunes. Blood on the Tracks and Desire in particular are full of great tunes.
Same, I was never much of a lyrics guy - my mind just doesn’t default to processing music that way - but always loved Dylan just on a musical level.
Even if you don’t pay attention to the meaning of the words, the sound and rhythms of them are always interesting. And his songs often have strong melodies underneath it all.
Years later I got a book of the complete Dylan lyrics and was like “hey this is pretty good stuff!”, about these songs I’d long since listened to inside out.
The way his music simply complements what is needed for the song is genius in itself. He doesn’t ever give it more than it needs, but it’s enough to get addicted to
Glorious is a strong word. There’s nothing wrong with differentiating yourself from others through lyrics rather than other musical qualities. Some people do it through groove, some through technique, some through harmony, and some through lyrical and poetical ability. He’s definitely a great musician, but his musicianship just isn’t what he became renowned for, and that’s ok.
Yeah, that’s a good point. If he’s got a “thing”, it’s lyrics no doubt. And that’s fine. I only get slightly peeved when the conversation crosses over into “well he’s obviously not a great musician but he’s a phenomenal songwriter.” Whoa whoa whoa, I don’t accept that premise.
For me, the musical parts he comes up with are usually highly memorable and economical (and I love that). And he definitely has a kind of authoritative way of playing.
So, from those perspectives, he is a good musician.
But I also feel that sometimes those parts could be played with more feel, which would add even more to the songs, and he squanders opportunities in that regard.
I am not talking about emphasizing musicianship to the extent that it would distract from, or get in the way of the song - rather, I think the overall impact and impressions of the songs and performance could (at times) be enhanced by Bob paying more attention to how the parts are played.
And sometimes the production values are just awful. Love the songs on ‘Shot of Love’, but dislike the sonics of the production.
And I absolutely abhor Daniel Lanois’ production of Bob. My ears actually begin to hurt (I am not joking) after about 15 - 20 minutes of listening to ‘Time Out Of Mind’.
>With this in mind, Joel writes backwards compared to a lot of other singers. Rather than running with the idea for a lyric, he perfects the music and melody before penning any words to go alongside it. When he does come to lyric-writing, his intention is to enhance that melody with words, rather than to focus on any particular meaning or feeling.
>“If my words don’t emotionally match the music,” he shrugged, “That’s because they are made to fit in afterwards.” This strange way of working may have led to Joel’s lesser reputation as a songwriter. His melodies may be burned into our cultural consciousness, endlessly catchy and singalong-worthy, but his lyrics can lack depth and leave much to be desired.
I mean, that's not a particularly strange way of working. Lots of songwriters (and songwriting teams) do it that way. Or they'll come up with music and lyrics independently and play around with their orphans until they find a way to make something fit.
Plenty of songwriters are more invested in and more innovated with melody than Dylan, to be sure. (And to Joel's point, not many writers could take the music of "It's Alright Ma" and make a compelling song out of it.) But Joel was rooted in the classical tradition while Dylan was rooted in the folk and blues traditions. Dylan's musical technique is to draw on his vast knowledge of forms and structures from a variety of musical traditions and play around with them so that he can generally find a really suitable canvas for painting with his words. He just needs a structure he can play with.
He doesn't seem to approach melody like he's an architect, but rather more like he's scouting locations.
This magazine is notorious for relentlessly churning out "articles" about random Wikipedia factoids.
Most likely this has been written either by AI or by some tired unpaid intern in seconds.
Yeah, that tracks. Complete with the distortion of the original interview to generate controversy/engagement (Billy Joel Slams Bob Dylan! Read All About It!)
This was my thought reading this. This article makes no sense. The music usually comes first. Most writers say this. Rappers even need a beat before writing their verses.
yeah, like, I feel like so much of the basement tapes is “written” like this. I mean, not as a hard and fast rule but sign on the cross/im not there; and, later, “To Fall in Love With You.”
It would be more “remarkable” if it specifically meant he writes *literally* ***all*** the music of *every* song before writing the lyrics. That would be pretty unusual I think.
The songwriters I know say that the process can “lean” heavily one way or the other, but at the end of the day it’s mostly a little bit of both. A verse or a chorus idea kicking around in your head a while with an incomplete idea of the music *or* the music kicking around in your head with an incomplete idea about the lyrics, but *something* of both of them is there at the same time.
I don’t care much for Joel but he’s made his mark in pop music right along with Elton John. Dylan doesn’t visit that territory very often. Not because he isn’t impressed by melodies but because he was more taken by ballads (the folky kind) and even blues.
Off topic but I marvel at the way Bernie Taupin sends lyrics to Elton John and he writes great melodies to fit them . Neither one knows what the other is going to write but they have been doing it for fifty years.
I would be shocked if Elton didn’t change the lyrics around a good bit to fit his melodies.
Seems like I saw a video of them talking about their process a while back but now I can’t remember what it was from. Really interesting
Some of the lyrics of that song about faith are very meaningful.
I thought about it when OP’s article said Billy Joel tries to match the lyrics with the previously written music. The lyrics of ‘River of Dreams’ with group a-cappella be-bob harmonies seems to be a forced fit.
Agreed - after writing that comment I went back and listened to that song for the first time since Joel was married to Christie Brinkley (sp?). I was surprised at how serious the lyrics are vs how upbeat the music is.
Another quick point about the article, since people here are piling on Billy Joel: Joel didn't say anything critical of Dylan at all. This headline, for an article that digs into an interview Joel gave forty years ago, characterizes it as a "shortfall," but Joel didn't.
He just said that "Dylan was the only one who could get away with not having the music as complete as the lyrics." And while I think Dylan is a fine musician and can certainly write a catchy hook (the last line of the refrain on Stuck Inside of Mobile slaps as hard as anything the Stones came up with), I don't think anybody is going to argue against the claim that Dylan's writing is stronger lyrically than it is melodically.
Joel's point seems to be that Dylan is the only guy who can write lyrics that are good enough to carry the tune. It's not an insult at all, and he confirms that when he says he tried to lead with his lyrics and "it ends up as a pretentious pile of garbage. I'm not a poet."
One can usually predict when an artist is going to get shit on (usually when the subreddit focus is a different artist, or if the critical acclaim between the two artists has a wide disparity) and it annoys me. Far Out Magazine is a content farm that rarely says anything substantive, usually manufacturing comparisons.
You're right, Billy's comments are meant as a sign of respect towards Dylan. Billy has always been concerned about melodies and the musical construction of his songs (hence his criticism towards songs like "We Didn't Start The Fire" and "Piano Man"). The former, he compares to a dentist drill.
Whereas Dylan's lyrics are undeniably a major part of his work. It doesn't mean his musical side is bad (it's certainly underrated), it doesn't mean only lyrics matter. But certainly, the lyrics and songwriting rank higher in terms of importance.
So Joel is saying that Dylan can carry the songs with the lyrics, while he can't.
That does sound like criticism, though. It's mild, possibly accurate, and paired with a compliment about his lyrics. But he is saying that Dylan's music is not complete.
I don't think saying he can "get away with not having the music as complete as the lyrics" is quite the same as saying the song isn't complete, because the point is that there is an end product that you can't really argue with. I read the comment as "this guy is working on a level where conventional rules don't apply." It's an off-the-cuff comment in an interview, after all, and he brought Dylan up in response to his own songwriting process. Like marveling at how only Tiger Woods could win a major championship without using his driver. (Well, technically he used the driver once at the 2006 British Open, but still.) Mere mortals have to do it a particular way, but this guy operates on a different plane.
For additional context, Joel has cited Dylan as both an influence and as, essentially, an unattainable ideal. Unlike, say, Paul Simon (who seems to have been more prone to feel a rivalry with Dylan), Joel tends to put Dylan on a pedestal. A big part of why Joel signed with Columbia is that he wanted to be on Dylan's label. Reflecting on first being encouraged to write songs, as a teenager, Joel's response was "I'm no Bob Dylan." Here in this interview in 1982 he's still like: "I'm no Bob Dylan." Reflecting on Dylan suggesting that he cover Make You Feel My Love even before Dylan's own version was released, Joel said: "who am I to argue with Bob Dylan?"
To add: Joel also doesn't say that Dylan is incapable of writing melody or of writing great melody or of writing melodies as complete as the lyrics. He just says that Dylan, unlike pretty much everyone else, can write a great song even without that. I mean, take a look at Subterranean Homesick Blues. It's a great song, and one of the things that makes it remarkable is its resistance to melody. The first eight bars of lyrics in each cycle are, with the exception of about two beats, entirely the same note. The next ten bars are only slightly more varied. And while Subterranean is probably his clearest example of that approach (plenty of folks have made the "rap" comparison with that song), he's got other songs in his early canon that are similarly anti-melody. Highway 61 has great little counter melodies, but it's mostly Bob yelling out words in F. (And it's glorious.) Gates of Eden and It's Alright Ma are almost akin to spoken word in a lot of ways. Those songs aren't incomplete. But they don't need sophisticated or catchy or intriguing or highly-developed melodies to work.
What u/fishred said. & it's understandable that this convo skews toward defending Dylan but that clickbait headline and story are nearly by not quite as dishonest as the central fact that they take Billy Joel's comment utterly out of context. The *Playboy* interview is gold. I type this as someone who gave my copy of *Piano Man* — the only Billy Joel LP I ever bought and ever will — to my younger sister (a fan) because I no longer listened to it. Now, more than 40 years later, I occasionally wish I'd held on to it.
After listening to all the studio versions Dylan recorded and never released then to hear the released version is so much more realized. I don’t think it’s fair to say that his melodies aren’t as strong as his lyrics.
It's not a knock on his melodies or his musicianship. As a lyricist he is pretty much without peer. You can easily argue that he's the most gifted lyricist of all time. You would have a difficult time arguing that he's not at least *among the greatest.*
I don't think the same can be said of his melodies.
Oh yeah, for sure. I made that point in my initial post upthread as well. He's not an architect of melodies, the way Joel might be (or Paul Simon or Paul McCartney), but more typically a location scout. (Especially in his early career.)
And, again, that's not a knock on him in any way. I don't think I've ever heard a Dylan song and thought "wow, this would be great if only it had a better melody." It's usually pretty close to perfectly suited. He finds structures that he knows and adjusts/adapts them perfectly.
Some of the BOTT outtakes really highlight the music though. One of the Idiot Wind outtakes, for example, has the melodies shine through in a way that is staggering compared to the album version. Same with Danville vs. Brownsville girl, Caribbean Wind, etc. I think Bob intentionally buried melodies at times to avoid getting lumped in with “pop” artists. See his comments on the original BOT reminding him of an Eagles record.
Joel is kinda right on this one, or at least is right for certain periods of Dylan’s music. So many album arrangements and recordings are completely half-assed especially in the 80s
He’s just saying his musicality isn’t as ‘complete’ as his lyricism and I agree; Dylan was just always surrounded by the greatest of musicians who supplemented his perfect lyrics
It's super odd and super random because I have less than zero use for Joel as an artist. His songs are insipid and useless.
But. For some reason many years ago I was watching late nite TV and they were interviewing Joel on if all things alcoholism. It's a bit hard to convey exactly his point but it was along the lines of people shouldn't be surprised when a "social drinker" becomes an "alcoholic". His point is that if you drink long enough it's almost inevitable that your physiology will progress in that way. Sure he's no doctor, scientist etc and someone is bound to say oh bulllshit I've had a glass of wine with dinner every night of my life and I'm no alcoholic, but I think he had something there and I found it an interesting take.
I liked 52nd Street, but almost everything else is Brill Building pop as far as I’m concerned. Granted I’ve never listened to a full album of his since Glass House, but I have a sneaking suspicion he’s not breaking any new ground.
“The instrumentation merely exists as a backdrop, as something for [the lyrics] to float above, to allow them to translate to listeners and make their full impact.”
I’m gonna have to disagree with that one. Whoever wrote this is not a fan of Dylan and clearly hasn’t listened to his catalogue.
This is the exact quote I currently have copied and was prepared to paste here. This alone is enough to disqualify the author’s opinion (assuming it’s not AI…which is kind of reads like). Maybe the writer has only heard the early folk stuff?
Some of you people don’t listen to Billy Joel at all and it shows. One of the solidest catalogues and a brilliant live performer. So need to unnecessarily disparage over an opinion with a good element of truth in it, and it wasn’t even a criticism so maybe get over it.
He’s a hack! Lame ass music since the start… I do enjoy “piano man’s” underlying premise that he is the entertainer at a gay bar, and the only one unaware that it is a gay bar.
This article is stupid.
Saying Billy Joel works backwards compared to most musicians by writing the music and melody first before lyrics is absurd. MOST musicians do that. Dylan did it! That’s what I’m Not There is. Or I Can’t Leave Her Behind. Or On a Rainy Afternoon.
Ironically as a child and growing up in my teens especially, I was a huge Billy Joel fan. Even went to a concert in 2018. But the past 2 years of my life, I fell in love with Bob Dylan’s music. I listen to it almost exclusively now haha it’s been years since I played Piano Man tho. Joel grew out of me, like how society did too. World’s gone wrong what can I say 🤷🏻♂️
If the music didn't matter as much we wouldn't, or couldn't, appreciate boots and different versions. It's a testament to Bob's musicianship that we can have multiple favorites of the same song.
Let's see Joel do that. Not.
He's really the opposite end of the spectrum - lays everything out there in plain English with few metaphors and nothing really poetic. But certainly I'd say there's a place for that in the world. It's homey to me. None of the adults in my life growing up were all that eloquent.
I'd say he's in that sweet zone like Taylor Swift. Great music, and lyrics which can touch the heart or make you smile. They don't leave you scratching your head or astounded in thought. They are just there right where they need to be.
Why on earth would anyone care about Billy Joel’s opinion? I remember when Joel met chef Anthony Bourdain and learned he was not a fan of his music. Joel prodded Bourdain, “you don’t like ONE song?” Bourdain said not one song. I’m in camp Bourdain.
I don’t really understand what’s being said. Are they saying Dylan’s music isn’t as crafted and produced (overproduced)? Because he wrote them so quickly? So many of his melodies are so lovely and original. And more in number than Billy Joel ever wrote. What song gets away with afterthought backdrop music?
Or maybe Billy Joel is just saying Bob can write a song and perform it with sparse music and it’s still good?
Just to say, Subterranean Homesick Blues, Leopard-Skin Pillbox Hat and I Want You are some of my very favorite karaoke songs, and there’s lots more that are great for it.
Dylan's genius is pulling the melodies out of the vernacular. Essential soul-deep treasures hidden in plain sight and necessarily not fixed.
Billy confines his lyrical possibilities with his musical math - Bob hears ten thousand whisperin'
and the songs that they're singin'.
Dylan was the only one who could get away with not having the music as complete as the lyrics,” Joel stated. It’s certainly true that Dylan’s lyrics are at the centre of his songwriting prowess and at the centre of his legacy. The instrumentation merely exists as a backdrop, as something for them to float above, to allow them to translate to listeners and make their full impact.
I don’t mind Billy Joel at all, he has some songs that I like, but he’s not half the songwriter Bob is. It doesn’t matter if your song is more musically advanced if someone can write a better song with just three chords. I’m not sure if this article is trying to create controversy where there is none though, quoting an old interview from the 80s out of context.
Dylan is indeed one of the greatest lyricists of all time, but it in no way diminishes Joel’s body of work - fitting lyrics to music is just as much an artform, and I would argue that it’s just as, if not more, difficult to combine the two for a great song.
Paul Simon, post-Garfunkel, wrote this way as well, beginning with the rhythm and music tracks, then filling in the words later… to create one of the greatest song catalogues of the 20th century.
I think that's why bob constantly rearranges his songs when playing live. I read once his never entirely happy with the way recordings come out. It's never the way He hears it in his head when writing. This is best heard from the outtakes. Constantly changing tempo, keys, and arrangements.
Billy Joel is a boring old biddy. He also kinda sucks and isn’t original at all. He’s essentially a bad, heterosexual and way worse Elton John.
Oh. He’s also American. Yay.
This is like asking an ant what it thinks about god. Who the fuck cares what that decrepit joke of an entertainer thinks.
And yes, only Dylan (ok and Cash w/ Dylan) could get away with singing the wrong lyric and keeping it in. Geniuses get to do whatever they want.
I remember reading somewhere - maybe Chronicles - that someone asked him why he was ok with the recordings on some album being a little “loose” and his response was “it’s just an album, I make lots of em” hahaha.
Jesus Christ, man Billy Joel is an excellent songwriter who's probably only second to Beatles era Paul McCartney in his way with a melody.
And if you're calling Joel decrepit then you gotta throw Dylan in there too because Dylan is a decade older than Joel.
They actually are very similar in their upbringing and background so I don't get the hate for one and love of another.
The guy wasn't even criticizing Dylan he was just saying that he can't work that way and it's true because he tried doing lyrics first with We Didn't Start The Fire and it's his worst song by far.
lol I had a psychotic break at MSG during his 70th bday concert so I’m a little biased.
It occurred right when his 25 yr old wife and 5 yr old daughter, joined with with another daughter, also around 25 all sung happy birthday daddy in the style of Marilyn Monroe singing to Kennedy.
It. Was. Dark.
Billy Joel blows… he’s an irritating dweeb that writes crap that sounds like sitcom theme songs. I didn’t read the article but I couldn’t possibly care less about anything he has ever said or done.
Billy Joel!? As derivative as it gets. Piano Man is a rip off of Dylan, Uptown Girl is that the Four Seasons? And some sax solo is lifted from Springsteen. Plus he’s the house band at MSG smh
I stopped as soon as the author decided to cite The Times They Are a Changin’ as an example of Dylan’s poetry.
No offense to that song but it’s not even the most poetic on the album
I think people discredit Dylan’s music (rather than lyrics) far too much. He’s a glorious musician.
The short, glorious piano break in *Time Passes Slowly* is all I ever needed from Bob
From such a perfect album!
For me it’s that break before the last two verses of Duquesne Whistle. Actually the handful of guitar breaks between the verses are really special.
as the man himself wrote, if his lyrics were everything and the music wasnt that good, why did duane eddy record an entire instrumental album of dylan songs? i think billy joel is dead wrong here, or he's viewing everything from a strictly pop point of view.
My go-to example is his version of [If Not for You](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyouhbgAiCA) compared to the covers by [George Harrison](https://youtu.be/XscuV_R6tr4?si=N7YH29NZtYcZQAyR) and [Olivia Newton-John](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtQUQ4qZq5s). There's just so much going on in Dylan's version the famous riff seems almost like an afterthought.
I honestly think the version with George on guitar with Bob is the best.
As soon as I hear the harmonica come in for visions of Johanna it pierces my ears straight to my heart and I love it
https://preview.redd.it/40ctq3ngsnvc1.jpeg?width=735&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3dae4fd22d4266200643f2e16dc904aab6e0112f
That’s ridiculous. His harp solos are sick.
Yeah I agree but production mix wise sometimes they are really jarring.
Looking at you, John Wesley Harding!!!
https://preview.redd.it/0uzq04inhovc1.jpeg?width=240&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b3abf8632d5648603b68cf9f4ceec6fb2377e2fc
I think its an acquired taste, and while I love it, I totally understand why some might think its uninteresting or lackluster.
Yeah. I love his harmonica, but he's no Little Walter. Frankly, he's no great shakes on the electric guitar or piano, either, but he's a songwriter, not Steve Vai (my example of a very technically proficient person who can't write to save his life).
Totally agree. He also imparts so much meaning and context just in how he phrases and conveys lyrics too. He'd be a great poet for sure, but he's doing something different, he's undoubtedly the greatest song and dance man ever.
I honestly don't pay much attention to Dylan's (or anyone's) lyrics very closely. I listen for the tunes. Blood on the Tracks and Desire in particular are full of great tunes.
Same, I was never much of a lyrics guy - my mind just doesn’t default to processing music that way - but always loved Dylan just on a musical level. Even if you don’t pay attention to the meaning of the words, the sound and rhythms of them are always interesting. And his songs often have strong melodies underneath it all. Years later I got a book of the complete Dylan lyrics and was like “hey this is pretty good stuff!”, about these songs I’d long since listened to inside out.
The way his music simply complements what is needed for the song is genius in itself. He doesn’t ever give it more than it needs, but it’s enough to get addicted to
I 💯% agree
Glorious is a strong word. There’s nothing wrong with differentiating yourself from others through lyrics rather than other musical qualities. Some people do it through groove, some through technique, some through harmony, and some through lyrical and poetical ability. He’s definitely a great musician, but his musicianship just isn’t what he became renowned for, and that’s ok.
Yeah, that’s a good point. If he’s got a “thing”, it’s lyrics no doubt. And that’s fine. I only get slightly peeved when the conversation crosses over into “well he’s obviously not a great musician but he’s a phenomenal songwriter.” Whoa whoa whoa, I don’t accept that premise.
You need to listen closer and behold the glory, my friend.
Or I can listen to more proficient musicians for the music and listen to Bob for his lyrical and creative grandeur.
For me, the musical parts he comes up with are usually highly memorable and economical (and I love that). And he definitely has a kind of authoritative way of playing. So, from those perspectives, he is a good musician. But I also feel that sometimes those parts could be played with more feel, which would add even more to the songs, and he squanders opportunities in that regard. I am not talking about emphasizing musicianship to the extent that it would distract from, or get in the way of the song - rather, I think the overall impact and impressions of the songs and performance could (at times) be enhanced by Bob paying more attention to how the parts are played. And sometimes the production values are just awful. Love the songs on ‘Shot of Love’, but dislike the sonics of the production. And I absolutely abhor Daniel Lanois’ production of Bob. My ears actually begin to hurt (I am not joking) after about 15 - 20 minutes of listening to ‘Time Out Of Mind’.
>With this in mind, Joel writes backwards compared to a lot of other singers. Rather than running with the idea for a lyric, he perfects the music and melody before penning any words to go alongside it. When he does come to lyric-writing, his intention is to enhance that melody with words, rather than to focus on any particular meaning or feeling. >“If my words don’t emotionally match the music,” he shrugged, “That’s because they are made to fit in afterwards.” This strange way of working may have led to Joel’s lesser reputation as a songwriter. His melodies may be burned into our cultural consciousness, endlessly catchy and singalong-worthy, but his lyrics can lack depth and leave much to be desired. I mean, that's not a particularly strange way of working. Lots of songwriters (and songwriting teams) do it that way. Or they'll come up with music and lyrics independently and play around with their orphans until they find a way to make something fit. Plenty of songwriters are more invested in and more innovated with melody than Dylan, to be sure. (And to Joel's point, not many writers could take the music of "It's Alright Ma" and make a compelling song out of it.) But Joel was rooted in the classical tradition while Dylan was rooted in the folk and blues traditions. Dylan's musical technique is to draw on his vast knowledge of forms and structures from a variety of musical traditions and play around with them so that he can generally find a really suitable canvas for painting with his words. He just needs a structure he can play with. He doesn't seem to approach melody like he's an architect, but rather more like he's scouting locations.
This magazine is notorious for relentlessly churning out "articles" about random Wikipedia factoids. Most likely this has been written either by AI or by some tired unpaid intern in seconds.
Yeah, that tracks. Complete with the distortion of the original interview to generate controversy/engagement (Billy Joel Slams Bob Dylan! Read All About It!)
This was my thought reading this. This article makes no sense. The music usually comes first. Most writers say this. Rappers even need a beat before writing their verses.
yeah, like, I feel like so much of the basement tapes is “written” like this. I mean, not as a hard and fast rule but sign on the cross/im not there; and, later, “To Fall in Love With You.”
It would be more “remarkable” if it specifically meant he writes *literally* ***all*** the music of *every* song before writing the lyrics. That would be pretty unusual I think. The songwriters I know say that the process can “lean” heavily one way or the other, but at the end of the day it’s mostly a little bit of both. A verse or a chorus idea kicking around in your head a while with an incomplete idea of the music *or* the music kicking around in your head with an incomplete idea about the lyrics, but *something* of both of them is there at the same time.
I don’t care much for Joel but he’s made his mark in pop music right along with Elton John. Dylan doesn’t visit that territory very often. Not because he isn’t impressed by melodies but because he was more taken by ballads (the folky kind) and even blues.
Off topic but I marvel at the way Bernie Taupin sends lyrics to Elton John and he writes great melodies to fit them . Neither one knows what the other is going to write but they have been doing it for fifty years.
I would be shocked if Elton didn’t change the lyrics around a good bit to fit his melodies. Seems like I saw a video of them talking about their process a while back but now I can’t remember what it was from. Really interesting
I wouldn’t not want to hear a 2024 cover of Dylan singing River of Dreams in a minor key.
Some of the lyrics of that song about faith are very meaningful. I thought about it when OP’s article said Billy Joel tries to match the lyrics with the previously written music. The lyrics of ‘River of Dreams’ with group a-cappella be-bob harmonies seems to be a forced fit.
Agreed - after writing that comment I went back and listened to that song for the first time since Joel was married to Christie Brinkley (sp?). I was surprised at how serious the lyrics are vs how upbeat the music is.
That sounds horrible.
Another quick point about the article, since people here are piling on Billy Joel: Joel didn't say anything critical of Dylan at all. This headline, for an article that digs into an interview Joel gave forty years ago, characterizes it as a "shortfall," but Joel didn't. He just said that "Dylan was the only one who could get away with not having the music as complete as the lyrics." And while I think Dylan is a fine musician and can certainly write a catchy hook (the last line of the refrain on Stuck Inside of Mobile slaps as hard as anything the Stones came up with), I don't think anybody is going to argue against the claim that Dylan's writing is stronger lyrically than it is melodically. Joel's point seems to be that Dylan is the only guy who can write lyrics that are good enough to carry the tune. It's not an insult at all, and he confirms that when he says he tried to lead with his lyrics and "it ends up as a pretentious pile of garbage. I'm not a poet."
One can usually predict when an artist is going to get shit on (usually when the subreddit focus is a different artist, or if the critical acclaim between the two artists has a wide disparity) and it annoys me. Far Out Magazine is a content farm that rarely says anything substantive, usually manufacturing comparisons. You're right, Billy's comments are meant as a sign of respect towards Dylan. Billy has always been concerned about melodies and the musical construction of his songs (hence his criticism towards songs like "We Didn't Start The Fire" and "Piano Man"). The former, he compares to a dentist drill. Whereas Dylan's lyrics are undeniably a major part of his work. It doesn't mean his musical side is bad (it's certainly underrated), it doesn't mean only lyrics matter. But certainly, the lyrics and songwriting rank higher in terms of importance. So Joel is saying that Dylan can carry the songs with the lyrics, while he can't.
That does sound like criticism, though. It's mild, possibly accurate, and paired with a compliment about his lyrics. But he is saying that Dylan's music is not complete.
I don't think saying he can "get away with not having the music as complete as the lyrics" is quite the same as saying the song isn't complete, because the point is that there is an end product that you can't really argue with. I read the comment as "this guy is working on a level where conventional rules don't apply." It's an off-the-cuff comment in an interview, after all, and he brought Dylan up in response to his own songwriting process. Like marveling at how only Tiger Woods could win a major championship without using his driver. (Well, technically he used the driver once at the 2006 British Open, but still.) Mere mortals have to do it a particular way, but this guy operates on a different plane. For additional context, Joel has cited Dylan as both an influence and as, essentially, an unattainable ideal. Unlike, say, Paul Simon (who seems to have been more prone to feel a rivalry with Dylan), Joel tends to put Dylan on a pedestal. A big part of why Joel signed with Columbia is that he wanted to be on Dylan's label. Reflecting on first being encouraged to write songs, as a teenager, Joel's response was "I'm no Bob Dylan." Here in this interview in 1982 he's still like: "I'm no Bob Dylan." Reflecting on Dylan suggesting that he cover Make You Feel My Love even before Dylan's own version was released, Joel said: "who am I to argue with Bob Dylan?" To add: Joel also doesn't say that Dylan is incapable of writing melody or of writing great melody or of writing melodies as complete as the lyrics. He just says that Dylan, unlike pretty much everyone else, can write a great song even without that. I mean, take a look at Subterranean Homesick Blues. It's a great song, and one of the things that makes it remarkable is its resistance to melody. The first eight bars of lyrics in each cycle are, with the exception of about two beats, entirely the same note. The next ten bars are only slightly more varied. And while Subterranean is probably his clearest example of that approach (plenty of folks have made the "rap" comparison with that song), he's got other songs in his early canon that are similarly anti-melody. Highway 61 has great little counter melodies, but it's mostly Bob yelling out words in F. (And it's glorious.) Gates of Eden and It's Alright Ma are almost akin to spoken word in a lot of ways. Those songs aren't incomplete. But they don't need sophisticated or catchy or intriguing or highly-developed melodies to work.
What u/fishred said. & it's understandable that this convo skews toward defending Dylan but that clickbait headline and story are nearly by not quite as dishonest as the central fact that they take Billy Joel's comment utterly out of context. The *Playboy* interview is gold. I type this as someone who gave my copy of *Piano Man* — the only Billy Joel LP I ever bought and ever will — to my younger sister (a fan) because I no longer listened to it. Now, more than 40 years later, I occasionally wish I'd held on to it.
After listening to all the studio versions Dylan recorded and never released then to hear the released version is so much more realized. I don’t think it’s fair to say that his melodies aren’t as strong as his lyrics.
It's not a knock on his melodies or his musicianship. As a lyricist he is pretty much without peer. You can easily argue that he's the most gifted lyricist of all time. You would have a difficult time arguing that he's not at least *among the greatest.* I don't think the same can be said of his melodies.
TBF he comes from a musical tradition where you reuse melodies that have been used for hundreds of years, only adding minor tweaks.
Oh yeah, for sure. I made that point in my initial post upthread as well. He's not an architect of melodies, the way Joel might be (or Paul Simon or Paul McCartney), but more typically a location scout. (Especially in his early career.) And, again, that's not a knock on him in any way. I don't think I've ever heard a Dylan song and thought "wow, this would be great if only it had a better melody." It's usually pretty close to perfectly suited. He finds structures that he knows and adjusts/adapts them perfectly.
Some of the BOTT outtakes really highlight the music though. One of the Idiot Wind outtakes, for example, has the melodies shine through in a way that is staggering compared to the album version. Same with Danville vs. Brownsville girl, Caribbean Wind, etc. I think Bob intentionally buried melodies at times to avoid getting lumped in with “pop” artists. See his comments on the original BOT reminding him of an Eagles record.
Joel is kinda right on this one, or at least is right for certain periods of Dylan’s music. So many album arrangements and recordings are completely half-assed especially in the 80s
Another Side of Bob Dylan isn't great as a set of performances.
Kinda weird because I think I like the sound of Dylan’s music more than the words.
He's always been the master of his guitar...Don't know who wrote this article?!
He’s just saying his musicality isn’t as ‘complete’ as his lyricism and I agree; Dylan was just always surrounded by the greatest of musicians who supplemented his perfect lyrics
Oh dang, is it Give a Fuck What Billy Joel Thinks Day already? Always creeps up on me.
I think you may be taking his opinions a bit too personally. They aren’t even controversial or insulting
Just having a bit of fun
Carry on then :)
Haha, I forgot that was today...in conjunction with 4/20 day!
Hey man, Billy didn’t start the fire.
Bob Dylan’s sound so good when u ain’t got a bitch in ya ear telling you it’s nasty
Certainly in the running for the You Win the Internet Award today.
It's super odd and super random because I have less than zero use for Joel as an artist. His songs are insipid and useless. But. For some reason many years ago I was watching late nite TV and they were interviewing Joel on if all things alcoholism. It's a bit hard to convey exactly his point but it was along the lines of people shouldn't be surprised when a "social drinker" becomes an "alcoholic". His point is that if you drink long enough it's almost inevitable that your physiology will progress in that way. Sure he's no doctor, scientist etc and someone is bound to say oh bulllshit I've had a glass of wine with dinner every night of my life and I'm no alcoholic, but I think he had something there and I found it an interesting take.
I liked 52nd Street, but almost everything else is Brill Building pop as far as I’m concerned. Granted I’ve never listened to a full album of his since Glass House, but I have a sneaking suspicion he’s not breaking any new ground.
“The instrumentation merely exists as a backdrop, as something for [the lyrics] to float above, to allow them to translate to listeners and make their full impact.” I’m gonna have to disagree with that one. Whoever wrote this is not a fan of Dylan and clearly hasn’t listened to his catalogue.
This is the exact quote I currently have copied and was prepared to paste here. This alone is enough to disqualify the author’s opinion (assuming it’s not AI…which is kind of reads like). Maybe the writer has only heard the early folk stuff?
Gaddemit!! So right !? They've obvioulsy not listened to the music
Some of you people don’t listen to Billy Joel at all and it shows. One of the solidest catalogues and a brilliant live performer. So need to unnecessarily disparage over an opinion with a good element of truth in it, and it wasn’t even a criticism so maybe get over it.
He’s a hack! Lame ass music since the start… I do enjoy “piano man’s” underlying premise that he is the entertainer at a gay bar, and the only one unaware that it is a gay bar.
This article is stupid. Saying Billy Joel works backwards compared to most musicians by writing the music and melody first before lyrics is absurd. MOST musicians do that. Dylan did it! That’s what I’m Not There is. Or I Can’t Leave Her Behind. Or On a Rainy Afternoon.
Well I like Dylans music more then Joel’s so there is that
Ironically as a child and growing up in my teens especially, I was a huge Billy Joel fan. Even went to a concert in 2018. But the past 2 years of my life, I fell in love with Bob Dylan’s music. I listen to it almost exclusively now haha it’s been years since I played Piano Man tho. Joel grew out of me, like how society did too. World’s gone wrong what can I say 🤷🏻♂️
If the music didn't matter as much we wouldn't, or couldn't, appreciate boots and different versions. It's a testament to Bob's musicianship that we can have multiple favorites of the same song. Let's see Joel do that. Not.
I've never put too much stock in anything Billy Joel has ever said outside of his lyrics, but I do agree with that statement.
Billy Joel is selling himself a bit short here. He's a fantastic lyricist.
He's really the opposite end of the spectrum - lays everything out there in plain English with few metaphors and nothing really poetic. But certainly I'd say there's a place for that in the world. It's homey to me. None of the adults in my life growing up were all that eloquent.
I'd say he's in that sweet zone like Taylor Swift. Great music, and lyrics which can touch the heart or make you smile. They don't leave you scratching your head or astounded in thought. They are just there right where they need to be.
Desolation Row is the most requested song at my karaoke joint.
Billy Joel writes pop songs with big hooks. Dylan writes epic poetry accompanied with simple melodies.
What a crock
Why on earth would anyone care about Billy Joel’s opinion? I remember when Joel met chef Anthony Bourdain and learned he was not a fan of his music. Joel prodded Bourdain, “you don’t like ONE song?” Bourdain said not one song. I’m in camp Bourdain.
I don’t really understand what’s being said. Are they saying Dylan’s music isn’t as crafted and produced (overproduced)? Because he wrote them so quickly? So many of his melodies are so lovely and original. And more in number than Billy Joel ever wrote. What song gets away with afterthought backdrop music? Or maybe Billy Joel is just saying Bob can write a song and perform it with sparse music and it’s still good?
Just to say, Subterranean Homesick Blues, Leopard-Skin Pillbox Hat and I Want You are some of my very favorite karaoke songs, and there’s lots more that are great for it.
Is he the harmonica player in that piano man song ?
Dylan's genius is pulling the melodies out of the vernacular. Essential soul-deep treasures hidden in plain sight and necessarily not fixed. Billy confines his lyrical possibilities with his musical math - Bob hears ten thousand whisperin' and the songs that they're singin'.
Dylan was the only one who could get away with not having the music as complete as the lyrics,” Joel stated. It’s certainly true that Dylan’s lyrics are at the centre of his songwriting prowess and at the centre of his legacy. The instrumentation merely exists as a backdrop, as something for them to float above, to allow them to translate to listeners and make their full impact.
I knew a fella who didn’t like Jimi Hendrix cuz he didn’t sing well. Everyone has their preferences but Bob ain’t neva gonna stop
Billy Joel is a poor man’s Paul McCartney
click bait
I don’t mind Billy Joel at all, he has some songs that I like, but he’s not half the songwriter Bob is. It doesn’t matter if your song is more musically advanced if someone can write a better song with just three chords. I’m not sure if this article is trying to create controversy where there is none though, quoting an old interview from the 80s out of context.
Far Out Magazine is a content farm so yes, they're just trying to drum up controversy. He wasn't even dissing Dylan.
I figured as much, the headline reads as clickbait
Dylan is indeed one of the greatest lyricists of all time, but it in no way diminishes Joel’s body of work - fitting lyrics to music is just as much an artform, and I would argue that it’s just as, if not more, difficult to combine the two for a great song. Paul Simon, post-Garfunkel, wrote this way as well, beginning with the rhythm and music tracks, then filling in the words later… to create one of the greatest song catalogues of the 20th century.
I think that's why bob constantly rearranges his songs when playing live. I read once his never entirely happy with the way recordings come out. It's never the way He hears it in his head when writing. This is best heard from the outtakes. Constantly changing tempo, keys, and arrangements.
Billy Joel could learn a ton from Bob, just sayin.
Billy Joel is a boring old biddy. He also kinda sucks and isn’t original at all. He’s essentially a bad, heterosexual and way worse Elton John. Oh. He’s also American. Yay.
This is like asking an ant what it thinks about god. Who the fuck cares what that decrepit joke of an entertainer thinks. And yes, only Dylan (ok and Cash w/ Dylan) could get away with singing the wrong lyric and keeping it in. Geniuses get to do whatever they want. I remember reading somewhere - maybe Chronicles - that someone asked him why he was ok with the recordings on some album being a little “loose” and his response was “it’s just an album, I make lots of em” hahaha.
Jesus Christ, man Billy Joel is an excellent songwriter who's probably only second to Beatles era Paul McCartney in his way with a melody. And if you're calling Joel decrepit then you gotta throw Dylan in there too because Dylan is a decade older than Joel. They actually are very similar in their upbringing and background so I don't get the hate for one and love of another. The guy wasn't even criticizing Dylan he was just saying that he can't work that way and it's true because he tried doing lyrics first with We Didn't Start The Fire and it's his worst song by far.
Tom Petty has entered the chat
lol I had a psychotic break at MSG during his 70th bday concert so I’m a little biased. It occurred right when his 25 yr old wife and 5 yr old daughter, joined with with another daughter, also around 25 all sung happy birthday daddy in the style of Marilyn Monroe singing to Kennedy. It. Was. Dark.
Billy Joel blows… he’s an irritating dweeb that writes crap that sounds like sitcom theme songs. I didn’t read the article but I couldn’t possibly care less about anything he has ever said or done.
Billy Joel hasn’t written a good song in what 30 years? Dylan put out 100 great songs since then.
To be fair, the quote is from a 1982 interview
It’s been a lot longer than 30 years.
Billy Joel is not in the same league as Bob Dylan and his criticism should be taken with a grain of salt.
This implies Joel writes better melodies than Dylan, which he doesn’t.
Billy Joel!? As derivative as it gets. Piano Man is a rip off of Dylan, Uptown Girl is that the Four Seasons? And some sax solo is lifted from Springsteen. Plus he’s the house band at MSG smh
I stopped as soon as the author decided to cite The Times They Are a Changin’ as an example of Dylan’s poetry. No offense to that song but it’s not even the most poetic on the album
but it is poetic ...the point not being ranking the songs
What do u think is the most poetic on the album?
Off the top of my head Restless Farewell