[krapp]

>If you defrosted someone from the ice age and had them sit down and listen to Bob Dylan, they'd not identify it as listenable music. From a musical perspective, it's pretty bad. Limited melody, no harmonies, no counterpoint, limited syncopation, very limited vocal range...

As you say, everything is subjective, but I've heard "tribal" music and chanting (which is probably close to what someone from the ice age would be familiar with), and it's a lot closer to Bob Dylan than whomever you would consider "great." Complexity isn't the only valid measure of greatness, of course.

>but I think they're unconsciously talking about the social context around the bands more than the actual music

Maybe. Maybe they also actually like the music. Maybe it's a bit of both, and what you're describing applies generally to everyone, that part of musical taste is wrapped up in the nostalgia for the era it comes from.

[malvosenior]

You make a good point. Dylan is folk and that obviously has some similarities to tribal music. That being said, I think social context is super important to both styles, more so than musical aesthetic.

I would say that a lot of interesting concepts around poly-rhythms and syncopation come from tribal music though.

> Maybe. Maybe they also actually like the music. Maybe it's a bit of both, and what you're describing applies generally to everyone, that part of musical taste is wrapped up in the nostalgia for the era it comes from.

I agree. My point was mainly that Dylan is a great example to show how subjective "greatness" in pop music really is. There are a lot of cases you can make that he's actually not very good from a musical perspective.