Legitimate criticisms versus personal bitterness: Why Donald Fagen once described Bob Dylans as “tedious”
Many musicians are drawn to Bob Dylan, not only because his artistic capability is indisputable but also because of the intriguing enigma that surrounds him, the layers upon layers of mystery keeping generations hooked. However, like most popular figures, Dylan also has his share of sceptics, and Donald Fagen is undeniably one of them.
Like it or not, everything about Dylan draws you in. His reluctance to shed light on the real meaning of his songs and his overt abstraction in lyrical storytelling only serve to entice listeners more. However, this almost sinister intrigue resembles less of a protagonist from an Anne Rice novel and more of a musical pariah—Dylan is a genius, and he acts like he knows it.
The only truth we know about such an overtly elusive figure is that his ways of working—whether musically or in the relationships he constructed around him—are very particular, and sometimes, his decisions rub others up the wrong way. Therefore, when Fagen’s response to an ad in 1981 expressing interest in joining Dylan’s band was ignored, biting his tongue was not an option.
Beyond the mere feeling that Dylan “passed up a good thing”, it seemed to spark a longtime aversion to the musician, and Fagen chose some of the most hurtful words you could opt for whenever asked for an opinion. For instance, in a 2013 Rolling Stone interview, he said Dylan is “tedious” because he “has about a dozen minor-key-drone tunes with three chords.”
Taking it a step further, he added: “He has songs with 512 verses and almost no melody. I think a psychiatrist would be more useful than a throat doctor at this point.”
Now, while his emotive distaste feels entirely personal, there are some potentially valid points of contention, namely the fact that Dylan’s music isn’t for everybody. For instance, it’s undeniable that what Dylan has done for music is untouchable and continues infiltrating many aspects of modern music. However, describing him as an acquired taste, especially when encountering deep cuts, might not be completely indisputable.
Delving into Dylan’s artistry often requires patience, especially if you’re interested in going beyond the hits, which means that for those who prefer instant gratification when it comes to music, Dylan isn’t always going to hit the sweet spot. That said, when in the right space, even his slower, more calculated compositions are anything but “tedious.”
Ultimately, perceiving Dylan’s catalogue as less engaging than that of other musicians often hinges on how deeply a listener is willing to delve. While some may find his songs intricate and paced accordingly, the depth, complexity, and storytelling in Dylan’s work reveal a musical prodigy capable of delivering profound experiences rather than tedious ones. While Fagen is entitled to his opinion, it’s difficult to ignore the bitterness in his statement, which only serves to undermine any potentially legitimate aspect of his criticism.