Because there is a mistake in the text, this is the corrected version:
Tim Finnegan wrote:
So basicly he's saying it's shit, but it's okay because it's Bob Dylan. And that he likes when other people think it's shit, because they just don't get it. Okay, I can dig that.
It's not shit, it's great. And if another person had the same power and charisma, I would be thankful and would be enthusiastic too. And I love it, when someone doesn't care what other people say but does his own thing (especially when there are lots of people left who are thankful for this), when someone is sure about the things he does.
It's you, who does not want to accept, that the Caruso-like voice isn't the standard, by which a rock-, blues-, pop-voice can be reviewed.
When I accept your view, I would have to say, voices like the ones of Tom Waits, Richard Thompson, Bonnie Prince Billy or even Bob's voice of the 80s and 90s are shit-voices.
And that's absolutely nonsense, because the standard you try to use, is - in my opinion - the wrong one.
Bob touches me with the voice he has and with the one, he had years ago.
And I'm not sure, which one is the best (for me).
But of course, it's your right to judge about his voice as you want to. But I think it's a strange thing to call Bob's vocal performances shit.
Don't try to convince those people who think something else. Don't believe that your look at the actual performances is the only right one - and that those, who love the 2011-Bob-voice, are dumb and deaf Bob-fans, unable to see what's the truth, blinded by their fan-dom.
I know I can't persuade you and I don't want it. But I don't want to accept either, that some people try to decide for all others what is wrong or what is right, what's good, what's bad.
That's the Pope's job, not yours!