[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by michelej1

What are they talking about in this Bob Dylan article by Slate Magazine? I didn't think the 1997 performance was bad and I was glad they did Rhiannon instead of Dreams. Yes, I am sad it was just a nostalgic medley, but . . . I didn't think it was embarassing. I'm not saying the band has never embarassed me. I'm not sure what was going on with them on the Jay Leno show, for instance. They looked liked they'd never been on tv before, but I thought the Grammys went ok.

http://www.slate.com/id/1855/

Dylan got bad, but he never got stale. His constant reinvention and his constant touring saved him from rock geezerhood. If you go to a Rolling Stones or Eagles concert--and I strongly advise against it--three-quarters of the crowd will be paunchy baby boomers reliving their glory days. They'll sing along to 30-year-old songs performed exactly as they were 30 years ago. Were there any more embarrassing five minutes during the Grammies than Fleetwood Mac's performance? Bloated, sloppy, and greedy, the band regurgitated a medley of '70s hits to vast applause. But Dylan has been touring nonstop since 1988, winning over an entire generation of fans to his music (both new and old). America may be waxing nostalgic over Dylan, but there has never been a musician less concerned with nostalgia.

I remember watching that on TV. I thought Stevie sounded great...Lindsey sounded bad but his guitar was rockin...and Dont Stop sounded alright. They should've done "The Chain" or "Silver Springs" though...