i'm saying that joyce and dylan are masters at this style/technique...is that standard enough?

Oh dear. Yes that is standard enough. And while agreeing that Dylan is a master of this technique, I am saying that contrary to what you suggested, "I'm reading James Joyce" cannot be considered as a example of this practice. Is that clear enough? Or am I missing the point again?

Well, I said I'd stop and this is really turning to hair splitting, so...

i'm reading james joyce is not joycean. i'm overjoyced.

I never said that. But I think that you are not in good faith, or you are simply misreading. James Joyce practices stream of consciousness (but not always: Ulysses and FInnegan's Wake are examples of stream of consciousness, but Dubliners isn't). Similarily, Dylan does it sometimes but not others.
Now as explained above, Stream of Consciousness is a specific type of writing with specific features which are not met by "I'm Reading James Joyce". That's it. Sorry, I'd make it more clear but I'd need a blackboard and a pen.

I was almost to write "oh never mind", but after I saw that last comment of Otennaaue I decided to talk a bit more.

---

Like with all big artists, the reference is not solely to the contemporary surroundings, it is also to one's own idiosyncratic history, and with the case of big ones, also to the history of art. That is the case with Picasso, that is the case with Joyce, and that is the case with Dylan. In common sense, it is the philosophy of "been there, done that - I don't need to repeat myself". The point is that it is a different case when otennoue writes a poem to charm his girlfriend who might have a degree in contemporary poetry or something... if there is a line like "I read James Joyce" that might not impress her or anyone else of his intellectiual friends. It might sound very "name dropping" if you like. but what makes the difference is that there is no "Shakespeare he is in the alley, with his pointed bells and his shoes" to refer in Otennaue's history of lyricism. But Dylan has. He knows it. Everyone who really follows his art knows it.

The way I see Dylan's recorded and 'lyrical' history is quite different than how Otennaue sees it. I know he is not the only one who are fascinated by Bob's young extrovert lyrical acrobatism - that's the source to find the "self-irony" or "humour" explicitly, even though I'm not sure that is really that; it is more like a young guy who have a world in his hands and who very well KNOWS it. If ever, at the time of his 65-66 period he was more than ever awere of his "genious" and role as the leader of the pack. The 'self-irony' is a bit TOO explicit to be convincing. In fact, I think you will find the "self-irony" and "humour" as well from his post motorcicle accident works - they are done much more sublime way, almost implicit way - that reflects the maturation and change of the man - he was not the sort of guy thinking it is "cool", to make a familiar analogy, to spend the rest of his life to move one's sweet ass like ihe did n his twenties, and sing with the same vocabulary and message (of chasing pussy, as one of our heroes does). The way Dylan made lyrics and music in his twenties belonged to the different phase as he did in his thirties, forties and so on - almost like people like Picasso - the blue phase, cubism, and so on - were doing.

Personallly I have fallen in love with Dylan's lyricism in his 'later yaers' - especially in the 70's works, and even in the 80's. He stopped throwing words like a madman or angry rebel but started to treat with more care - by giving every word a special care and role. I think Dylan matured a lot as a lyricist after his wild, rebellous youth days - the days Otennaeu loves so much. Of course, he was absolutely great in those early days - but what made him one of the most important artists of our time was the ability to change, to grow up. I can never stop wondering, for example, the incredible lyrical simplicity and genious of, say, "Most of the Time". And, of course, there might no stronger artistic document of the human feeling expressed in the the process of seperation or divorce than in BLOOD ON THE TRACKS. Lately, a song like "Times Have Changed" put everything into a new perspective - he was once again was putting the intuitions and feelings of the whole generatation, that was now aging, into words, no matter how we personally view them - there is no single true meaning, like always with great art. It is not a point of playing with the words or dropping names - it is expressing something, and somehow Dylan has the special and extraordinary ability to TALK to people - as a grown up person to each other. I think Dylan has a long ago passed the phase of trying to impress people of his way of words. He does need to prove anything in lyricwise, and I think this adds one more dimesion to his greatness as a true artist.

Especially in his very last years Dylan has made the lyrical simplicity one of his driving ideas. I think he seems to contemplate individual words more than ever. His attitude towards words and sentences, and to lyricism over-all, has changed quite a lot during the years. I guess there is a lot of academic studies to be done in this matter for years to come.

I'm thrilled to hear the next Dylan adventure - what is the next chapter.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009-03-05 18:50 by Doxa.

Club gig at Berns, Stockholm March 22, the nite before Globen Arena. [www.aftonbladet.se]

Well Doxa thanks for that! I can happily disagree with your well-put and stimulating account. I'll even give another try to Modern Times in case I finally see the light.

Quote
otonneau
I never said that. But I think that you are not in good faith, or you are simply misreading. James Joyce practices stream of consciousness (but not always: Ulysses and FInnegan's Wake are examples of stream of consciousness, but Dubliners isn't). Similarily, Dylan does it sometimes but not others.
Now as explained above, Stream of Consciousness is a specific type of writing with specific features which are not met by "I'm Reading James Joyce". That's it. Sorry, I'd make it more clear but I'd need a blackboard and a pen.

you have masterful grasp of the bleeding obvious; what you lack is a grasp of irony.

Well I'd lecture you on irony as well and explain that as a rhetorical figure, it does not involve purposefully misunderstanding your opponent's point in order to pretend that he misses it - but I think more than one trope per day would be too much for a healthy intellectual diet, don't you agree.

On the subject of Joyce, John Lennon once said he tried to read Ulysees but could not get past the first few pages.

Quote
otonneau
Well I'd lecture you on irony as well and explain that as a rhetorical figure, it does not involve purposefully misunderstanding your opponent's point in order to pretend that he misses it - but I think more than one trope per day would be too much for a healthy intellectual diet, don't you agree.

ironically, i do...and as i have some ironing to do, i await your lecture as i get my things straigtened out...

Quote
jlowe
On the subject of Joyce, John Lennon once said he tried to read Ulysees but could not get past the first few pages.

wonder how he fared with Tarantula...

Bob is one of the greats of our time in name dropping .... Whether one
takes it as educational or just plain ole showing-off is completely up to the individual I guess...



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
Bob is one of the greats of our time in name dropping .... Whether one
takes it as educational or just plain ole showing-off is completely up to the individual I guess...

what i like is that he also continues to keep things contemporary - whether it's citing peers like neil young or up-and-comers like alicia keys....he's an equal-opportunity name-dropper....

Woody Allen is another .... subtle but it's there in nearly all his work



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
Woody Allen is another .... subtle but it's there in nearly all his work

mhm - he even did a "song to woody"

Hey that's chippin' low on the log ta get a gag......



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
Hey that's chippin' low on the log ta get a gag......

i've chipped much lower

I know ....



ROCKMAN

So I listened to Things have changed and Most of the Time, and rather enjoyed it I must say. I actually saw the video of the first song too, which I thought was very good. I will probably never get to play these songs on a regular basis (because I still think the music is nothing special and the voice not to my taste), but it was good to hear some nice Bob words, and indeed they are rather funny in place. So I take some of my damning comments back! Maintaining, though, that there is also this pompous thread in his works which really annoys me (for instance I thought he was annoying in No Direction Home in the way he told his own story). But I'm glad I heard more endearing things from a singer who, after all, I've listened to a lot and play on the guitar and so on, and generally admire very much.

Do you know Tryin' to get to heaven or Highlands, otonneau? Those are both fantastic songs managing to be world-weary and funny at the same time. I just dig the melancholy of those songs combined with hilarious verses as for instance the sugartown line in Tryin' to get to heaven.

Don't mean to brainwash you ;-) Just thought you might enjoy those because from your last post I take you aren't acquainted with the more recent stuff yet.

"John Lennon once said he tried to read Ulysees but could not get past the first few pages"

That's like saying Picasso wasn't a great painter cos Oswald Blimey from Arsetown, Yorkshire "doesn't get wot he does"
Well Lennon wasn't the smartest bloke the 20th century ever saw and that's a HUGE understatement... I know dead guys become saints the minute they push the daisies but I still call a c*nt "c*nt"



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-03-07 14:46 by dcba.

Unfortunately for him Dylan doesn't stick to the standards of the medium he expresses himself in : in R&Roll you're supposed to play loud, be a womanizer and have 100 words of vocabulary. ("Joyce" is not among the 100).

If you don't stick to the rules you're either :
- a faggot
- a name-dropping @sshole

No wonder Dylan stays on his own nowadays!

Quote
otonneau
So I listened to Things have changed and Most of the Time, and rather enjoyed it I must say. I actually saw the video of the first song too, which I thought was very good. I will probably never get to play these songs on a regular basis (because I still think the music is nothing special and the voice not to my taste), but it was good to hear some nice Bob words, and indeed they are rather funny in place. So I take some of my damning comments back! Maintaining, though, that there is also this pompous thread in his works which really annoys me (for instance I thought he was annoying in No Direction Home in the way he told his own story). But I'm glad I heard more endearing things from a singer who, after all, I've listened to a lot and play on the guitar and so on, and generally admire very much.

Generally I have the feeling that even though Dylan is a great lyricist I don't think his lyrics should be taken out of their musical context. For me, the Dylan IS the words, the music and the performance (the voice). They all are needed and essential. You like at all or you don't like it. For example, I think what is great in "Things Have Changed" and "Most of the Time" is the whole package - if you don't like the music or the voice, I don't think you get anything from the artist called Bob Dylan. You just don't "get it", that is, don't like him.

Dylan is vocal about it, too. In his great CHRONICLES (that can be read as a pure text because it is a book - and written with a style I have never witnessed any musician to do) - he describes how fascinated he is of the voices (for example, the way Woody Guthrie and Robert Johnson phrases, etc.), and I think he even describes of his own techniques there. As some Ludwig W. would say it is not solely the referential meaning but the use that defines the word. The way Dylan delivers the chosen words is a part of the story. Of course, he is a great songwriter as such but I think as an artist he is more like a trubador - you need to listen him in presence to get the point.

I hope this helps a bit explain why I don't much like for taking one line out of the context. The 'context' for me is quite complex thing, including many kind of things, sure.

- Doxa

Yes of course, the spoken/sung words... that's why my favourite singer is Sam Cooke, who can just sing "I'm in a sad mood tonight" and can make it work. Still, I do think there are some sorts of boundaries. For instance, Cooke has this absurd sentence (hilarious, too):

How would Romeo feel if his Juliet had turned out his advances and played hard to get? He would never let this bother him, 'cause where there's life there's hope"

Well Cooke can "save it" thanks to his glorious delivery, but I don't think he could turn that sentence into a good one. So I agree there is an interdetermination of words and use, but still within some sort of frame (and Ludwig W. would surely agree with this!).

But anyway, that's just a general point, nothing to do with Dylan in particular. And I must say his badly damaged voice makes me feel rather sad; I think one can easily hear "intentions" in the singing that cannot be carried through anymore, inflexions, bits of ornaments which fall flat because the voice falters. I don't feel that Dylan's voice today sounds "natural" in its brokenness as does, for instance, the voice of Tom Waits; it just sounds damaged. Well that's of course no blame - time takes its toll. And I'm sure you don't agree - but that is very subjective of course, so... all in all, I indeed don't "get it"!

Thanks otonneau and Doxa for your keen insight. Seriously, I'm enjoying reading both of your opinions about Dylan's craft.

There is an interview with Bob on his upcoming album Together Through Life on his official website. It's an interesting read and it's going to be continued also.

Bob on Together Through Life

Note that the image with the couple making out on the backseat is indeed the front cover of the upcoming album (!)

Thanks for the link, MacPhisto!

Bob doesn't talk much, but still worth listening to - always comes up with something interesting things - like now about to whom he aims his music, how he reflects the expecations of his possible audience. Usually we assume that he doesn't give a shit...

But the most promising thing the link provides is the description that the new album is very different to MODERN TIMES. Even though I liked it very much I also share with Bob the feeling that that concept is "milked out" by now, and time to do something "new" - whatever it is. The descriptions of the album having "Chess sound" sound good one - perhaps The Stones could also use this "Jack Frost"-guy who seems to be a brilliant producer these days...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-03-16 15:52 by Doxa.

suddenly the album cover of no security isn't looking so awful...

I would agree that Modern Times showed some tiredness in its approach, but doesn't that album mostly have a "Chess sound"?