Dylan is a Whore

To make sure I wasn’t reading anything out of context, I read the entire Bob Dylan interview in Rolling Stone magazine. Good interview, it goes all over the place talking about his new album, bootlegs, etc.

One paragraph has stuck in the craw of those who love their 1’s and 0’s.

Here it is, cut and pasted from Rolling Stone:

But getting the band of his dreams into the studio was only half the battle. "The records I used to listen to and still love, you can't make a record that sounds that way," he explains. It is as if having taken his new material down to the crossroads of the recording studio Dylan isn't wholly sure the deal struck with the devil there was worth it. "Brian Wilson, he made all his records with four tracks, but you couldn't make his records if you had a hundred tracks today. We all like records that are played on record players, but let's face it, those days are gon-n-n-e. You do the best you can, you fight that technology in all kinds of ways, but I don't know anybody who's made a record that sounds decent in the past twenty years, really. You listen to these modern records, they're atrocious, they have sound all over them. There's no definition of nothing, no vocal, no nothing, just like -- static. Even these songs probably sounded ten times better in the studio when we recorded 'em. CDs are small. There's no stature to it. I remember when that Napster guy came up across, it was like, 'Everybody's gettin' music for free.' I was like, 'Well, why not? It ain't worth nothing anyway.' ". . .

Okay. So Dylan thinks that Analog is better than Digital… I guess. He’s all over the place in terms of the process, jumping from the recording to the mastering to playback. Frankly, I’m guessing his hearing might be shot. It makes sense – he’s a sixty five year old rocker.

Whatever, I’ll give him his opinion. But this is Bob Dylan! If he wants, why doesn’t he record the way he wants? He could. He’s pining for something as if it no longer exists – which is a crock. It does. In fact, there’s plenty of analog machines gathering dust just waiting for you to use them, Bob.

Additionally, he’s wrong. Now, before any vinyl/analog nuts get annoyed, let me explain myself. There’s theoretically no end to how high you make a digital rate. So, the sound is only going to get better. Eventually, there’s no comparison. Whatever data rate 44.1k, 96k, 192k. 16, 20, 24 or more bit depth… you can keep throwing 1’s and 0’s at your problem fairly easily. You’ll blow that 4 track Brian Wilson used right out of the water sonically, if that’s what you want to do. (Genius not included)

Okay, Bob is right in some respects. Digital recordings can absolutely sound like crap. Just like analog tape that is slowed down to get the most recording time, when you listen to highly compressed digital recordings, MP3’s for instance, the sound quality can be atrocious. Low data rates, like the popular 128k MP3 rate, are where his griping rings very true. It can be a very mushy, flange-y listening experience.

So in that case, Bob, you’re right. To quote you, “It ain’t worth nothing anyway” – if it’s a low grade MP3.


But then…


Why did I see you pimping yourself in an Apple ITUNES commercial last night?






Are you expecting me to pay for that?