> >>The splitting musical categories and stylings into the >>super-sub-genres is really not necessary....Bob Dylan is >>very much a pioneer in folk music....personally I'ver never >>heard the term neo-classist before...lol. > >no, Dylan was NOT a "pioneer" in folk music. the folk music >movement had existed for almost two decades before he came >onto the scene. in fact, by the time Dylan started >recording, folk was sort of starting to fracture under the >competing pressures of authenticity and commercialism. if >anything, Dylan's often been deemed a folk-pretender, a >Johnny-Come-Lately who jumped onto the sound when it was >hot, then once his career was going, he went electric and >dissed all his old homies, calling folk "music by fat old >people"
Bob Dylan brought the folks asthetic to rock/pop music....in my book that makes him a pioneer....he wasn't the first, he wasn't the best...but he did bring folk to the dinner table...
sugar hill gang weren't the first..they weren't the best...but their song broght rap/hip hop into the popular culture...so they were a pioneer....
being a pioneer doesn't have to mean the first..or the best...they pioneered into an area where their particular genre either hadn't been before...or hadn't garnered the respect.
and are you serious that you've never heard the term >"neo-classicist" before?
I have selective hearing when it comes to these hyper-syllabled terms....I just don't hear them...I'm more into direct and specific categorizing without limiting.....bob dylan to me has been a folk/rock..songwriting singer...one of my favorites in fact...