Modern Times

Apparently I'm the only music writer in the entire community of nations who thinks the new Bob Dylan album is average, as opposed to a masterwork of genius that somehow manages to "reawaken the senses to sounds that float like the clouds, beat with the heart and ring with passion," as one e-mailer put it.

I've received a lot of e-mail about the review, which is great — this should be a dialogue. I'm amused, though, by the number of people who have told me flat-out that my review was wrong. It's an interesting claim to make, especially given that a review is merely an opinion. You can question my taste for not liking "Modern Times," or disagree with what I think about the record, but mine was an honest reaction: indifference, mostly.

"Modern Times" doesn't move me the way my favorite albums do. My favorite albums probably wouldn't move Dylan fans the way his albums do. That's neither right nor wrong, it just IS.

(Actually, I like the TV commercial for the album, where Dylan plays acoustic guitar almost in silhouette while singing into an old-time microphone. It's spare, classy and effective — made me want to buy the record, even though I'd already heard it.)

As for being the lone dissenter on the merits of "Modern Times," that's fine by me. The point of music criticism isn't to reach a consensus. One e-mailer called my take on the album "gutsy," but I disagree — I wasn't trying to be the iconoclast or take some rogue contrarian stand. I was simply doing what I always do: Describing the album as it sounds to my ears. I wasn't crazy about "Modern Times." But if you love it, then it doesn't really matter what I think.

Comments

[Jonathan]

For what it's worth, the New York Times didn't like the album very much either.

[Elliot Essman]

That's all right. It's perfectly legal to criticize Dylan. He still doesn't sing the way he talks. He had the good fortune to get there first, so many years ago.