Expecting Rain

Maybe, his name is obviously massive the world over, but most people aware of the name aren't truly aware of the extent of his music. I'm pretty sure most people would not think he's the writer of "Make you Feel My Love", made truly mahoosive by Adele (though it is quite un-Dylanesque, no?).

Most bands/artists etc, in my opinion, nail songs in the studio - in the live arena it's normally faithful recreation. But that is open to opinion, I know, but out of all the artists/bands I've ever heard, I think Dylan is the most intruiging live over the years because he's been able to better studio performances in front of a live audience many, many times over - which makes tracking down the bootlegs worthwhile. I'm not just talking about the obvious here - his performance of "Mr Tambourine Man" at the Royal festival hall in 1964, may actually be better than one on BIABH, and "Tight Connection" from Supper Club is clearly a massive improvement on the eightiesfied rythmns on EB. But other stuff as well. I've heard a performance of "Tough Mama" from 2003 at Hammersmith Apollo, which I actually prefer over the Planet Waves version. Weird I suppose. And the performance of "Ballad of Frankie Lee and Judas Priest" from Portsmouth 2000 is better than the JWH. But its all opinion, I guess.

as much as I have appreciated Lone Pilgrim's post, I must say it is a real stretch to say Dylan's music is underground.

dylan's music can without any shadow of a doubt be considered *mainstream*, if not *THE* mainstream.
, together with the Beatles, Presley and few others.
Few people in the world don't know Blowin/Knockin/Lars.
not to mention the fact that he's the *creator*, so as to say, of electric folk and folk rock, in a way.
yes, there are angles of his work which are difficult and *high register*, but what difference does it make?
To say Dylan is underground is like saying Mozart, Bach & Beethoven are.
Paradoxical.

The thing is, if we're going to say that Dylan is "underground" (what does this mean, exactly?), then we'd have to also say that Elvis is underground. After all, the vast majority of rock fans, and probably a fair majority of Elvis fans, have never heard Elvis's Sun singles or Elvis Is Back! or From Elvis in Memphis -- i.e., they've never heard his best music.

it's somewhat comparable to Dylan, where people know 'Blowin' In The Wind' and 'Like a Rolling Stone', and they know some other songs like 'Tambourine Man' and 'Knockin' On Heaven's Door', but they have not actually listened to most (or any) of his greatest records / live performances.

Or the Grateful Dead.

Most people know Touch Of Grey, Truckin, China Cat Sunflower, and maybe one or two others. But you wouldn't call them 'underground' anymore.

The question implies absolute definitions of both Dylan and "underground." The latter carries a number of meanings associated with particular business practices, counter-cultural (whatever that means at any one point for any one person) politics or simple obscurity. Any of these factors may be present or absent and the term could be applied. It's also a relative. What ground are we referring to? I always think the concept of "underground" represents a desire to re-capture the lost folk (i.e. non-commercial) traditions that Dylan paradoxically memorializes and cashes in on. Some of the bootleg industry built on Dylan's music is perhaps underground. But I think the difference between obscurity and underground is that one just lies there buried and the other pushes up to mold the surface. Some of Dylan's music fits that description, some doesn't seem to. But if an avid hip-hop fan doesn't know how important "Like A Rolling Stone" and other high-profile songs were to the development of that genre, to that person, underground it is.