Yep, I like him.
22 responses Add your response
The latest wannabe, at best.
Dylan could read the paper or watch TV and get ideals and material for his songs. The then current events almost wrote his music for him. He lived in those sort of times.
Just like the great folk and protest singers before him. They had WWll and the great depression. Dylan had Viet Nam and Civil Rights.
Comparing this guy to Dylan is like comparing Eric Clapton to Howlin' Wolf.
Rok, we all know that you think there has been no music of note in many decades. So song writers today have nothing to write about? Man, I thought there were still many wars going on, and even some protests happening, and many poeple/groups still fighting for equal treatment.History is ongoing, great music and great bands are still creating, and great art is still being produced. IMHO. If your mind is open to it.
I was comparing Jakes voice,song structure to Bob Dylan.
To me, Jake Bugg is a very talented new artist!
damn good for a first timer--"lightning bolt" is a classic. i dug the jivey skiffley/buddy holly stuff a lot more than the folky acoustic stuff, which registers as kinda precious and more donovan than dylan. his voice is obviously an acquired taste--perhaps too reedy to cross over to america--but he's a natural. thanks for the rec.
Thanks for the recommendation. Checked him out and enjoyed what he had to offer. Always enjoy recommendations, and of course it is up to the listener to decide if it suits their tastes. Similar to the ongoing debate here about speakers, tubes vs. ss, etc. LOL And of course treading in the sacred territory of Dylan references brings what it brings. I love Dylan, but also appreciate that he is the benchmark for a style of music, so any comparison is just that - a reference point to an icon.
This is about music so apart from the secondarily important content/material, good luck putting together anything worthwhile listening to. Current events are a constant, musical harmony is finite. So how is it possible to be anything but a wannabe these days, even if you're by chance successful? No wonder rap came into being. Not sure if I'm agreeing with Rok but music is a done deal imo.
Haven't checked him out yet but I have to laugh because I remember the early 70's when there was a "new Bob Dylan" every time you turned around. Bruce Springsteen, Elliot Murphy, god-knows-who-else.
As you can see by the names, some survive on their own merits and some fade away. But every artist should make or break on their own, not by comparison to a superstar or legend.
Wow, some of the responses to this thread make it sound as though there's no hope for music. Do you guys just keep listening to the same stuff over and over again? There's no more inspiration for young minds? I invite you to search for the commencement speech Annie Lennox gave at Berklee College of Music in Boston last weekend. It's very inspiring. I'm sure these young adults would tend to disagree with the assumption that its over. In the grand scheme of things, maybe it's just begun.
Thanks for the post Todd.
I think there's plenty of hope for music. I've lived most of my life in two towns with plenty of way-off mainstream, experimental artists and have played with a few myself.
I just don't think there's hope for labeling a deserving artist as the "new" this or that. And, again, "the new Bob Dylans" have been showing up for over forty years, that's all I'm saying. It's a lazy and inaccurate thing to do and it's a disservice to both the older artist and the younger.
That said, the youngest artists I work with are 12 and 14 and all they want to play is swing and western swing. Nothing wrong with that either. Another young student of mine never wanted to play anything other than Bluegrass. He got a double degree (guitar and mandolin) at Berklee. There's a lot of ways to slice it.
If the music is good is doesn't matter if it's traditional or fresh and inventive in some way. If it's good it's good, if it's bad it's bad.
Is there a new Mozart or Wagner? Of course not. A new Dylan or Beatles? never. Society different. Exposure different (everyone listened to 2 or 3 stations). Generation gap. Fashion. Musical tastes too fractured. I could go on and on. The formative years of modern pop/rock were the 50s. The maturation and expansion to all genres was the 60s/early 70s. A new artist simply cannot have the same impact on the world mainly because the circumstances do not exist to do so.
The Beatles and Dylan were the most talented and prolific artists of the past 50 years and I'm sure their influence will be felt for many years to come. But I can't listen to them every day. So we must soldier on and there's plenty of music that is great and worth listening to today.
Had the Beatles and Dylan come of age today, they could not be the Beatles or Dylan. For those of us who grew up on them, it is to our great fortune that they came when they did and changed our lives and the world.
Let's never hear of the "new" Dylan again. Let's hear about a guy who is talented in a style reminiscent of Dylan.
I bought the 45 RPM Blonde On Blonde Box $74.99 free shipping from Soundstage Direct.I was very sceptical as I have not really been overly impressed by late offerings of MoFi.Must say I really like this one.Visions of Johanna is fantastic.Haven't noticed anything I don't like about this set.It seems all analog,and they say mixed from original 4 track tapes.Though the original is recorded over a bit of time,at different locations it seems to flow better with only two to three songs per side.Like I say I would never have believed I'd like it this much.
I just listened thru his material on MOG and thought that it's mostly very good stuff. It's easy to hear the stylistic inspiration that Dylan provided for Jake Bugg and why the OP drew the connection. Personally, I'd prefer to say that he's a promising disciple of Dylan rather than the "New Dylan" (that's not fair to anyone) but the OP's point is taken.
Thanx for the heads up.