I went to one of the Cream gigs at Madison Square Garden in 2005. They were fantastic! And I think they played one blues tune that wasn't part of their recorded work from the 60's. But all told, Cream released what, 4 albums in the space of 3 years? And 2 of those are split between live and studio recordings. That limited catalog narrowed the field of what to expect Cream to play at those shows.
I think if you know and follow Bob Dylan in the current day, then you are probably familiar with how he performs live, and the never-ending tour. His discography has around 40 studio albums, 20 live albums and his bootleg series has over 15 releases. He's written numerous songs that were hits for other artists. There was one epic album of around 20 songs that were recorded by a murder's row of artists that were just working from lyrics Dylan had written, but had never composed the music or recorded them. And then consider that his Greatest Hits compilations have 3 volumes. IT'S A LOT. He's been nothing, if not prolific over the past 60 years.
Taking all of that into account, I think people are bound to be disappointed if Dylan doesn't perform their favorite song. And I think that can be simply due to the volume of his output. Would I be disappointed if I went to his gig and he didn't play "A simple twist of fate", "Stuck inside of Mobile", "Ballad of a thin man", or "Tangled up in blue"? Sure. But Dylan has such a monumental catalog that he's probably going to play a lot of songs people know and love. But there's also this - these days Dylan seems to be playing for himself. He's an artist who has continued to try to evolve. I can't blame him for trying to do that. He's not a jukebox / cd player / streaming service. He's a living, breathing performer with an epically large catalog of amazing songs.
Can he structure a set to please the audience while still presenting a show that's different from his recorded work? Sure. But Bob is notoriously mercurial. He does what he wants. And I think that's probably why there's been some turmoil with his live band recently which has led to significant turnover with his guitarists. I know he's changed the arrangements for a lot of songs, and has taken to playing piano for much of his live shows. I think he might be more comfortable sitting for a show, and considering he's 85 years old? I get it.
I think Paul McCartney and Bob Dylan are BOTH right. They're both entertainers AND artists. Their fans want the hits, but they also appreciate the artistry of these performers and their epic careers.
Last edited:
