In Defence of Mr Dylan

Sparked by recent remarks concerning his voice – "face it, he's got a bad voice" and similar sentiments – I have decided to write an ill-prepared response to set the record straight. Firstly let me start by posing the question: what is a good voice? Frank Sinatra? The latest Idol™ machine? Is that what it's all about? Is a pyrotechnic singer necessarily a good one? No, of course not. Frank Sinatra can go to hell (if he's not there already). Good voices, in my opinion, are unique and powerful ones – it makes no difference whether they can hit a high C or sustain a note with wavering acrobatics. And Bob Dylan has a powerful voice.

Sure, to the casual listener he sounds like a lawnmower having an orgasm, but once you get under the skin of his work you'll discover a unique and amazing vocal style. Just listen to the conviction and raw energy in his voice as he snarls through "Like A Rolling Stone" and the frenetic "Subterranean Homesick Blues". No one could sing those songs better then he could. And believe me, they've tried. His phrasing is masterly. He makes each word come alive and burn with spirit. Cue "Jokerman" and the sensational word-hopping "Brownsville Girl", two of his finest vocal performances (both from the '80s, no less). Those raised on a strict commercial diet are still, unfortunately, instantly repelled when they hear his nasal stylings, and as a result miss out on one the finest songwriters of our time.

His voice is, above all, unique. Hate it or love it, it's still different from everyone else. Would he be better if he had the voice of an angel? No, his voice is part of the whole package, part of his charm, if you will. And also it's extremely iconic; it helped cement his place in popular culture – which wouldn't be quite as prominent (song writing aside) if he had a stock-standard voice.

Arguing about his vocal ability is, in the end, like trying to differentiate the ballads of Tom Waits: futile. Let's just leave it at this: it works.