Shakespeare In The Alley

Well, pretty much all the articles about this thing seemed to jump to the "Dylan and Baez at the same event. This has to be a collaboration" angle, so it's not his fault.

Dylan sounded great. No duet, as I expected, but him and Baez were both quite good.

New Morning is an incredible album. It's probably Dylan's best "minor masterpiece," and I don't mean that in a bad way at all. It's a really, really good album, because it's so relaxed, and simple. There's plenty to like about it.

I'd rather see a musician honestly believe their new stuff is worthwhile than to play it on stage and give off an "I only released this to get a paycheck" vibe. Even if they're way off, and the new stuff sucks, the enthusiasm is good to see. I don't see how you can hold an artist's excitement about their new wrk against them. It's only natural, really.

But you don't seem to like non-Beatles McCartney as a whole, so criticizing his live act is a bit unfair, no? I haven't seen him, but I've heard many good reviews of his recent sets.

Simpsons ad was great. Other than that, there are none that I remember today. Weak year.

Am I the only one that doesn't necessarily see this as Dylan and Baez performing together? I'm not writing it off completely, but it seems to me that they're both performing there...but not necessarily together. It'd sure be interesting if they did do something together, though.

I'm a massive Who fan. And yes, they were always a tremendous live act. Hell, they were terrific when I saw them a few years back. But I personally don't think they can touch Prince as a live act. I've not had the pleasure of seeing him in person, but ever bootleg I've seen/heard has blown me away. The guy has more talent than most anyone else out there. I could see Fogerty doing this as well.

They were great, but Prince remains the very best Super Bowl halftime show yet.

Yes, but using a 30+ year old Dylan song in a commercial is worlds apart from using today's Dylan as a halftime performer. Like I said, the halftime show should have big hits that the crowd will recognize almost instantly, and Dylan's live show doesn't give that these days. I think he's smart enough to know this, too. He is big enough, yeah, but it just wouldn't go over well in that setting.

So good. Everything on this album that isn't the title song or Little Red Corvette is shamefully underrated. Such a unique album.

I don't see Dylan doing it, honestly. The NFL wants the big, recognizable songs, and Dylan won't deliver that. If he did do it, I don't see it being well reviewed.

You posted a list of albums you dig, thus fulfilling the original intent of the thread, which had been forgotten after numerous pages worth of comments about what is or isn't art.

Oh, I see what you did there.

But if the company has an intention, then that qualifies as the sender. The company is communicating, they just do it through someone else's ideas/skills. The illustrators intentions are to represent the company's intentions as clearly as possible. So the connection someone gets from it has a lot to do with the person who illustrated it.

Bingo.

Probably. He's awesome, I consider myself fairly awesome, so it all makes sense. And Art Garfunkel just won the thread.

So, is this...a consensus opinion? What do we do now?

I don't think a piece of art's definition/meaning/worthiness ends with the creator, though. If the illustrator finishes a project, and hates it, but someone looks at it, and forms some sort of connection to it, then it's a piece of art. To me, at least.

Prolific opinions in this thread.

I'm studying graphic design. The entire field is based on a designer being paid to do exactly what the client wants, which could be illustrating a bug for a textbook. And that does not take away from it's artistic value. All designers are artists, but not vice versa. Textbook bug illustrator is certainly an artist. I view the "art?" argument simply: if any one person views something as art, then it is. 'Nuff said. Visual communication is an art. An incredibly difficult one to master. But definitely an art.

How is that? I've never listened to them, but I love Grandaddy, and All Smiles opened for Gruff Rhys, so it must be good music. Now playing: The Undertaker by Prince. Live in studio album he tried to release in 94. Warner Brothers blocked it, but it's pretty widely circulated. Prince on guitar, with a bassist and a drummer. Straight up rock/blues. So much excellent guitar work here. Highly recommended for any Prince fans. It's a side of him you don't hear often enough on his albums. If anyone wants a link, I'll find the one I used.

Art is created to communicate. That bug drawing is art. To a realist, the bug drawing is miles better than a Picasso. I don't like realism, so I view a textbook bug drawing as the same as any number of still life drawings or paintings that don't have much thought behind them except rendering the object as realistically as possible. I find them boring, but they're certainly art, and I respect them as such. Many people think differently, and would prefer it. Which is why Picasso is such a polarizing figure in art history. I am studying art, by the way. Well...I'm studying design, which is enti

Anytime you bring Picasso into an analogy, you've probably blown your argument.

Doesn't look like it, but I'm very curious to hear one. I'll admit I've never heard the original, but Wilco's cover has been raved about, so I want to see it.