I won't bore you (or perhaps, anger you) with one particular Berkeley review in full but will highlight this paragraph, which provoked an interesting thought:
It's his new work that truly separates Dylan from once-comparable songwriters -- it's just so much better than anything Neil Young, Paul McCartney, Paul Simon and many other legendary songsmiths have delivered in recent years. I'm just as likely to play one of his newer albums (including his latest, "Tempest," which he ignored in Berkeley) as I am any of his long-cherished classics -- and I certainly can't say a similar thing about any of those other Rock and Roll Hall of Famers.
Why interesting? It's not because it praises Dylan. After all, I've read so many Dylan reviews over the years, "highs" and "lows", that no single review has a great effect anymore. Also, I feel the same about MK as the reviewer feels about Dylan. For me, Mark's more recent work is at least as interesting as his earlier work, perhaps more so. No, it's the thought that maybe (just maybe, no more, no less) Mark feels exactly the same about Bob as that reviewer. If that is the case, then perhaps that will go some way towards explaining why Mark has hooked up with a Dylan tour not just once but for a second time.
Well, I found it an interesting thought, anyway
