Can find the online link but here is what WSJ said.
Last Friday night, Bob Dylan chugged through "Highway 61 Revisited" at the Borgata, an Atlantic City, N.J., casino. His always-raspy voice, now deteriorated to a laryngitic croak, echoed through the no-frills ballroom. Security guards wandered the seated audience, enforcing his no-cameras policy. Behind some empty rows in the rear, a handful of dancers shimmied mildly. A trickle of people peeled off for the exit, descending an escalator into the ringing rows of slot machines. One of the walkouts, 50-year-old Warner Christy, said he wouldn't be paying to see the singer again: "I've been scared straight."
For people of influence in any walk of life, from corporate leaders to sports stars, the question of when to leave the stage is a crucial one. Do you go out at the top of your game, giving up any shot at further glory? Or do you dig in until the end, at the risk of tarnishing a distinguished career? For the many and passionate fans of Bob Dylan these are questions that loom large. After 50 years in music, his place in the pantheon is unassailable. He is the age's iconic singer-songwriter and rock's poet laureate—a title even he lays claim to in the introduction read aloud before his concerts. And unlike other artists of the '60s who've been trading on nostalgia since the '70s, he has continued to release new material and wrestle with his art form...
Such are the consolations for fans who have seen one of music's best talents at his worst. The issue of whether Mr. Dylan should pack it in has been an enduring parlor game in music circles, whether part of the punk generation's attack on hippie dinosaurs, or the dismay of those hippie dinosaurs over their hero's notoriously dismal output in the '80s. Now, however, Mr. Dylan's detractors question whether he—at age 69 and having just wrapped yet another tour—is capable of another turnaround.
