Bob Dylan
Modern Times

Reviewed by: Josh Love
Reviewed on: 2006-09-05

Posted 09/05/2006 - 10:00:23 AM by florenz6:
 There is some nonsense in hthis review apart from being a matter of taste! "Oh, Mercy", "Time Out of Mind" and "Modern Times" are his great late or quite late albums. This album (including fantastic vocal performances) is sending shivers down my spine.The last track is a "killer"!
Posted 09/05/2006 - 12:08:26 PM by mvdu76:
 Actually a pretty entertaining review, and I thought Stylus might give some grade like a C-. But I still disagree. His lyrics are just as vibrant as they've ever been. The CD is titled Modern Times, but Dylan keeps up with the times in his own way. An A-.
Posted 09/05/2006 - 03:32:37 PM by diggles:
 haven't heard the album yet but loved the review, this guy should have reviewed the latest stones album (did he?), which I think also got jerked off a little too much because of past glories
Posted 09/05/2006 - 05:20:51 PM by florenz6:
 Mr. Diggles, the last Stones album is a very boring one.(as were most Stones albums of the last two decades!) I don´t love this Dylan album, because he is one of our "old heroes", but because of the sheer intensity of the music delivered in a very down-to-earth-way. Listen to the last song, for example: it´s raw, intimate, but never ever putting the ego in front. I´m deeply impressed by "Modern Times" , please, please don´t compare this with the mainstream of the Stones´ latest output. That band really had their salad days long time ago. Dylan is a creative survivor, that´s a big difference. And a little excuse: Josh Love didn´t write nonsense (as I wrote in a first, too quick response) , he just comes to some other conclusions. One could talk about this. (Maybe I was still a bit influenced by the ridiculous review of M. Wars´ s little masterpiece "Post-War". By the way, M. Wrad and Bob Dylan kind of exorcise old ghosts in a very brave way.
Posted 09/06/2006 - 10:30:37 PM by kamera:
  the is probably the main reason i love stylus. though i completely disagree with your review, you don't flaunt your ego and "wit" around like a, say...pitchfork. sticking it into other people, pretending like your mere words deflate all discussion against you. is Modern Times a masterpiece? hell if i know, nor does josh love, or even bob for that matter. i think the definition of a masterpiece isn't something that's necessarily instant, but something that appreciates over time until it transcends and becomes timeless. granted the music doesn't actually change, so it's either there or it's not, but our understanding of it is what changes. my prime example is Stanley Kubrick's late life "masterpiece," Eyes Wide Shut. Upon release it got less than stellar reviews and was kind of panned. now, masterpiece. are people just jacking it to Kubrick and giving him one because they think he deserves it? or did it just take a few years to soak in and truly understand what he was trying to communicate? My opinion leans toward the latter, as it also does with this album. for now, i have no interest in calling it a masterpiece or calling him past him prime. they're both futile responses and do more to promote the person writing the response that they do the album. all I know is a have a great album to pass the time with before the levees break.
Posted 09/07/2006 - 03:22:29 AM by florenz6:
 Mr. oder Mrs Kamera, I enjoyed your text. Best wishes from Germany!
Posted 09/23/2006 - 07:30:01 PM by Bluesmoke:
 When I first listened to this album there is a chance I may have said these exact words to myself. All of 'em.