I'm a big Dylan fan--always have been, always will be. Someone showed me this article the other day - starts on the Christmas album and then gets into other areas - he makes some interesting points that I admit, frustrate me to a degree. See what you think:

[www.weeklystandard.com]

The article is a good read. Must agree about the Christmas album review. That album makes my Dylan ears bleed. He (the reviewer) does go a bit overboard about his other music. Grand, Dylan made some crap albums, but Blood on the Track and Desire are albums not to be messed with! Dylan is almost like a 'normal' musican, some stuff he creates is magic, and some is crap.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-08 09:37 by Meg's my Darlings.

Why doesn't the guy just admit he doesn't like Bob?

Because it may not be true. It's a critical, devil's advocate piece (at least that's how I interpreted it) that's probably meant to be provocative and cause people to post about it in forums

i love that article!

not that i dislike Dylan...I don't dislike him.
i'm not a devout follower either.

it is sort of like revealing Oz from behind the curtain.

i sometimes wonder if megastars have contempt for their audience..or at the
very least (after they've legitimately earned their status) begin half-heartedly phoning it in.

I don't know much of Dylan's work from the mid '80s on but...that Christmas album
sounds like a purposeful joke. In fact i think it will be a big seller for that reason.
i plan to get it for my hippie in-laws as a Christmas stocking stuffer. They romanticize the
Dylan of the '60s but will have to agree that the Christmas thing is painfully laughable.

Makes one wonder if a similar LACK OF EFFORT was put into other recent Dylan releases.
You will never convince me that he did more than 1 take per song (on the Christmas cd).

i would love to read Dylan's response to this article.

Always wondered if a Dylan-like star farted into a microphone..could reach Gold Record status
by selling to his devout worshippers. This might be the proof.


IORR............but I like it!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-08 04:48 by sweet neo con.

I love Bob. I've seen enough shows (16 starting with two in '84 in Europe) to see some great and some not so great shows. And like Bob said himself, he's "just a song and dance man".

Great read - I agree 100%.

Always enjoying good, consistent reviews. This one is particularly good.

But as far as the argument of the article goes, I always enjoy reading how some famous, praised artist is to torn into pieces. Usually there is - like now - some implicit idea what true genious really is what this particular case - Dylan now - is not representing but is a some kind traitor or swindler who is only fooling his audiences with his little tricks. The funny point is: there is no genious above what the audiences project over one. The plain truth is that the person - the critic here - just doesn't get it. He just don't get it why a certain artist can make such a big influence or impact on one's audience. And the bigger the artist is the more it goes to critic's nerves. There is probably no other commercial artist in the latter part of the 20th Century who is more controversial than Bob Dylan is. (To start with, he surely has the most critizied voice of any singer ever I believe.)

So, the critic implies, there is something wrong with all this admiration that is based on 'wrong reasons' or somehing (because the artist is not really as good as people think). Then starts the argumentation to go through the facts, or revealing myths - of which the people who admire the artist does not give damn. Or more mildly: one's half-empty bottle is other half-full, etc. I don't think the writer really beleives he could 'save' any Dylan-believer with his rhetorics, but I beleive he personally feels a bit better now after articulating his frustration. And there are lot of people who will be applauding him, who are also in pains with Dylan's 'unfair' reputation.

I mean this kind of 'story to reveal the swindler master and his foolish worshippers' article could be very easily written about some other big ones of baby-boomers: John Lennon, PaulMcCartney, Mick Jagger, Keith Richards... But I think none of them gathers so much interested than the 'voice of the generation' himself.

As a sort of pragmatist, I can only admire people who make such a difference that they - after a career of almost half a century - still gather such a critical response that their whole career or talent is made questionable. For example, for years no one has even bothered to make any serious or well-argued criticism of what Paul McCartney or The Rolling Stones does. No one really cares of their activies so much. But Dylan still seems to be 'relevant', and forces people to react. Somehow he alwas seem to 'challenge' us. In the case of the Stones - and their recent (and past) activies - I think the only good, well-argued criticism happens solely in the site like ours, among the die-hard fans. No one else really cares about it.

Thanks hbwriter for the link!

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-08 16:20 by Doxa.

Doxa - It's not so much Dylan that sparks the criticism in the article - it's actually you! That Dylan's latest albums are rather weak, his concerts absurdly bad and the Christmas album ridiculous seems to go without saying for the author of this article, as it does for me; and we know very well that to argue about THAT would be either 1) unnecessary for anyone who is not a diehard and 2) impossible with anyone who is.

But it's the diehards themselves that are a very odd phenomenon. How it is possible to delude oneself to that level, and put so much brain into so many arguments to defend the obviously horrible. You are a very curious bunch!

Of course, you could criticize my use of "obviously", say I have an implicit prejudice regarding what great art is etc. Which would, I think, not be true; my tastes range from Blind Willie McTell to Pierre Boulez via Michael Jackson, the Shirelles and Charles Aznavour, and I even really like Dylan's early stuff; I read Tolstoy as well as Tintin, the Bible as well as the X-Men, Wittgenstein and Mishima - I mean, I certainly don't consider myself narrow minded when it comes to what genius can be. But, well, Dylan has been a spent force for decades and no amount of open-mindedness can change that fact; unless, of course, you are a diehard; which means you become a very curious object of investigation but, unfortunately, loose a bit of credit as a reliable analyst!

Oliver.


Of course it is people like me who are the really target here. But the point of why people like me are as stupid and tasteless as you and the writer thinks, lies in the very simple fact that the art of Dylan moves us. You seem to possess an objective criteria according to which Dylan is shit. So good for you that you and the writer find us freaks "interesting".

Anyway, my opinion is that you just don't "get it", that is, you don't like Dylan of recent years. I don't need to write a list of my other objects of what I like, nor to define what I mean by the term 'art', to justify my taste. I could take this argument further, and to more general level, but I don't think this is the proper forum for that.

But I don't think there is anything wrong in my opinion or in my personal taste, even though it makes me to look like a freak to you. If you think that due to my personal taste - or lack of it - I am not qualified "analysing" music, well, hmmm... what can I say... good to have besserwissers like you around to tell me that!

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-08 16:57 by Doxa.

Quote
otonneau
Doxa - It's not so much Dylan that sparks the criticism in the article - it's actually you! That Dylan's latest albums are rather weak, his concerts absurdly bad and the Christmas album ridiculous seems to go without saying for the author of this article, as it does for me; and we know very well that to argue about THAT would be either 1) unnecessary for anyone who is not a diehard and 2) impossible with anyone who is.

But it's the diehards themselves that are a very odd phenomenon. How it is possible to delude oneself to that level, and put so much brain into so many arguments to defend the obviously horrible. You are a very curious bunch!

well said. but i wonder if Dylan is laughing all the way to the bank (?)

like i said earlier....he earned his superstar status with some great, relevant music.....even he's got
to know that the Christmas album and other recent stuff is way subpar.

he has defintely succeeded in creating a huge mystique.

is it possible that the creative juices have run dry?
is it possible that an artist can accidentally strike a chord for decades and
then be known for his true abilities...nothing special?

in the end i don't think dylan takes himself as seriously as his devout followers.....i give
him credit for that. it's just entertainment afterall.

i think i read once that Dylan wasn't really trying to be a voice of a generation..and didn't
necessarily believe the words he sang. (not sure)


IORR............but I like it!

Quote
Doxa


But I don't think there is anything wrong in my opinion or in my personal taste, even though it makes me to look like a freak to you.

relax..not sure anyone is saying that you can't like dylan...or that a different PERSONAL opinion is "stupid" or unworthy....it
is more about the phenomenon of his devout followers (en masse) blindly accepting anything that he spews..good or bad.

sort of like the reverse (if i remember the story correctly) of THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES.

in this case Dylan might be the one living in reality..while his followers see everything he does as a masterpiece.


IORR............but I like it!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-08 17:12 by sweet neo con.

what about the plagiarism aspects the author talks about?

Quote
hbwriter
what about the plagiarism aspects the author talks about?

i read the article yesterday..i don't think the author gives examples
but....i guess (if it's true) i'm not completely surprised.

i've never held Dylan to such a hgh standard that I would think
that it (plagarism) was unthinkable. know what i mean?

but for devout followers to rationalize it as "homage" etc... is interesting.
i think this sort of rationalization occurs with devout followers of
anybody...dylan, obama, oprah etc...


IORR............but I like it!

Hey Doxa I did not use the word "freak"! I just thought it was wrong to formulate things as "Dylan is still relevant/stirs controversy" etc. It is indeed a bit of a mystery, the diehard thing - but not so much of a mystery; the author himself has a few plausible explanations - Dylan was there at crucial times, you grew up with him, a lot is projected unto him
etc.

I only listed my personal tastes because you hinted at the argument 'people who don't get dylan are prejudiced about what art is", which I find even more annoying than what the author terms the "Dylan roots theory". So I thought it relevant to say that one can definitely dislike Dylan's RECENT output without being somesort of ignorant or snob or elitist (all these terms, however contradictory, are often used).

Generally, I think when people don't like Dylan they are often treated with scorn by Dylan diehard who often come accross as is they had access to some sort of revelation. I never had this impression with you however.

So - it is a complete mystery to me how one can like the NET and Together through life, not to mention the Christmas album; but it's a begign mystery, you are welcome to it and no freak in my eyes!

Quote
otonneau
Doxa - It's not so much Dylan that sparks the criticism in the article - it's actually you! That Dylan's latest albums are rather weak, his concerts absurdly bad and the Christmas album ridiculous seems to go without saying for the author of this article, as it does for me; and we know very well that to argue about THAT would be either 1) unnecessary for anyone who is not a diehard and 2) impossible with anyone who is.

But it's the diehards themselves that are a very odd phenomenon. How it is possible to delude oneself to that level, and put so much brain into so many arguments to defend the obviously horrible. You are a very curious bunch!

Of course, you could criticize my use of "obviously", say I have an implicit prejudice regarding what great art is etc. Which would, I think, not be true; my tastes range from Blind Willie McTell to Pierre Boulez via Michael Jackson, the Shirelles and Charles Aznavour, and I even really like Dylan's early stuff; I read Tolstoy as well as Tintin, the Bible as well as the X-Men, Wittgenstein and Mishima - I mean, I certainly don't consider myself narrow minded when it comes to what genius can be. But, well, Dylan has been a spent force for decades and no amount of open-mindedness can change that fact; unless, of course, you are a diehard; which means you become a very curious object of investigation but, unfortunately, loose a bit of credit as a reliable analyst!

Olivier - where you been, man? Do you only post once a year or something? I remember when you were a regular presence on here ....

Anyway, I'm a big Dylan fan. I have all his albums, including the Christmas one, which, I'm happy to say, I really really like. I prefer it to his recent album of original songs, truth be told (his weakest since Under A Red Sky). I love the juxtaposition of Dylan's throaty husk of a voice with the syrupy arrangements. He really does sound like a semi-melodic tramp interrupting The Osmonds's Christmas album sessions. Made me laugh. I bet he recorded the whole thing with a smirk on his face.

I actually agree with you about Dylan's concerts. I've never seen a good one - and I've been five times, between 1987 and 2005 (when I thought it was soooo bad I left early - and got what passed for a roasting on here from the likes of Gazza). The last show was hideous, from the arrangements, to the band, to his spent, laryngyral gasp of a voice. When I found myself laughing (and I mean LAUGHING) at how absolutely awful it was, I just thought it was best to leave. I haven't been back. And I won't go back. I still love most of the albums and I have a load of great bootlegs (but nothing after 2000). I would have loved to have seen him on the Born Again tours, where he sang quite beautifully and sounded totally engaged with his material.

But Olivier - I'm docking you a credibility point for reading Mishima. He's crap, mate. Narcissistic, right wing, hysterical piffle.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-08 18:53 by Nikolai.

for me this most resonant bit in the article is: "He's doing this on purpose."
that's sure the conclusion i came to after that preview of the Christmas album literally gave me a nightmare.
a Christmas album that causes nightmares! very funny, Bob :E

another take

"this video is not available in your country due to copyright restrictions"

Quote
sweet neo con
relax..not sure anyone is saying that you can't like dylan...or that a different PERSONAL opinion is "stupid" or unworthy....it
is more about the phenomenon of his devout followers (en masse) blindly accepting anything that he spews..good or bad.

sort of like the reverse (if i remember the story correctly) of THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES.

in this case Dylan might be the one living in reality..while his followers see everything he does as a masterpiece.

Must have been a different Dylan most of his 'followers' were watching through most of the 80s and part of the 90s then, when the opinion that most of what he was putting out was shite was pretty much universal.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
sweet neo con
relax..not sure anyone is saying that you can't like dylan...or that a different PERSONAL opinion is "stupid" or unworthy....it
is more about the phenomenon of his devout followers (en masse) blindly accepting anything that he spews..good or bad.

sort of like the reverse (if i remember the story correctly) of THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES.

in this case Dylan might be the one living in reality..while his followers see everything he does as a masterpiece.

Must have been a different Dylan most of his 'followers' were watching through most of the 80s and part of the 90s then, when the opinion that most of what he was putting out was shite was pretty much universal.

is that true?... i thought TIME OUT OF MIND and another one (can't recall the title) were considered
critically successes. 80s & 90s.

i'm not going to debate with someone that knows way more about
Dylan than i do....i was just trying to make sense of the article...and was also amused by it.
and you cna't hear the Christmas album without thinking WHAT WAS HE THINKING?

my statements about devout followers & blind worship were more universal than just about Dylan...i think.

So...Gazza Re: "..most of his 'followers' were watching through most of the 80s and part of the 90s then, when the opinion that most of what he was putting out was shite was pretty much universal."

Are you saying that the author's premise is complete bullsh*t?


IORR............but I like it!

Quote
sweet neo con

Quote
Gazza

Quote
sweet neo con
relax..not sure anyone is saying that you can't like dylan...or that a different PERSONAL opinion is "stupid" or unworthy....it
is more about the phenomenon of his devout followers (en masse) blindly accepting anything that he spews..good or bad.

sort of like the reverse (if i remember the story correctly) of THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES.

in this case Dylan might be the one living in reality..while his followers see everything he does as a masterpiece.

Must have been a different Dylan most of his 'followers' were watching through most of the 80s and part of the 90s then, when the opinion that most of what he was putting out was shite was pretty much universal.

is that true?... i thought TIME OUT OF MIND and another one (can't recall the title) were considered
critically successes. 80s & 90s.

i'm not going to debate with someone that knows way more about
Dylan than i do....i was just trying to make sense of the article...and was also amused by it.
and you cna't hear the Christmas album without thinking WHAT WAS HE THINKING?

my statements about devout followers & blind worship were more universal than just about Dylan...i think.

So...Gazza Re: "..most of his 'followers' were watching through most of the 80s and part of the 90s then, when the opinion that most of what he was putting out was shite was pretty much universal."

Are you saying that the author's premise is complete bullsh*t?

All but two of Dylan's 80s albums got fan-panned. Oh Mercy and Infidels were and remain praised to the hilt. Infidels is overrated in my opinion. Of the rest. Top of the shitlist was Down in the Groove (which I liked then and still like now), Saved (the weakest of the Born Again triad), Shot of Love (unfair - it's actually pretty good), Empire Burlesque ("disco Dylan" runs the tag - it's not, but he did have Arthur Baker at the controls; a HUGE mistake and a fairly forgettable set of songs ... but there are gems there: Dark Eyes, Tight Connection, When The Night Comes Falling) and Knocked Out Loaded (a Self Portrait for the 80s - outtakes, covers, none of them interesting, but it DOES have Brownsville Girl on it, and that was the finest 11 plus minutes of continuous greatness Dylan had put out in the whole decade).

There's only one bad Dylan album in the 90s - Under A Red Sky (which has Wiggle Wiggle and Cat's In The Well on it). It's lame-o. It's not very interesting.

But, guess what? Dylan, like Springsteen and The Stones, is incapable of releasing an out and out dud. There's always SOMETHING there to remind you that he's actually great ... just not that bothered this time out.

Which, I guess, puts me out there or down there or up there (delete according to personal/political preference) with the Dylan fans. But he's still shite live though.

Time Out Of Mind came out in September 1997 - the same day that the Stones released Bridges To babylon.

I'm referring specifically to a period from around 1985 through to maybe around 93-94 or so. He put out two good albums of acoustic cover versions in '92-'93, but Time Out of Mind was his first release which featured new material in 7 years. 'Oh Mercy' (1989) was the only album of original material released between 1983 and 1997 which was worthy of his talent. I think even most hardcore Dylan fans would acknowledge that, as well as the shambolic nature of many of his shows in the early 90s. For me, the live shows got back on track from '94 onwards.

The music Dylan has put out from 1997 (this laughable Christmas album excepted) has been almost universally lauded by fans and critics alike. And deservedly so. I've read ample fanzine articles and online comments by fans over the last 20 years that would certainly NOT give the impression that his more hardcore fanbase are so sheep-like that they cant see something awful when it hits them in the face.

I dont agree with this comment in the article that "no other performer (has) taken delight in actively abusing the people who pay money to enjoy his act". I havent felt that way at all. How enjoyable a show is depends on one's perspective and one's expectations. Some people get worked up about him not speaking much onstage, changing the arrangements, not playing all the 'hits'. The first of those doesnt bother me that much, and the other two are something I actually find worthy of applauding. Sometimes he takes chances that work, and sometimes they dont but I find the fact that at 68 he's still caring enough about his art to take chances to be a positive thing. At the end of it, at just £40 for a ticket, its still pretty good value and I certainly dont feel that I've been abused, exploited or taken for a ride.

Quote
Gazza
Time Out Of Mind came out in September 1997 - the same day that the Stones released Bridges To babylon.

I'm referring specifically to a period from around 1985 through to maybe around 93-94 or so. He put out two good albums of acoustic cover versions in '92-'93, but Time Out of Mind was his first release which featured new material in 7 years. 'Oh Mercy' (1989) was the only album of original material released between 1983 and 1997 which was worthy of his talent. I think even most hardcore Dylan fans would acknowledge that, as well as the shambolic nature of many of his shows in the early 90s. For me, the live shows got back on track from '94 onwards.

The music Dylan has put out from 1997 (this laughable Christmas album excepted) has been almost universally lauded by fans and critics alike. And deservedly so. I've read ample fanzine articles and online comments by fans over the last 20 years that would certainly NOT give the impression that his more hardcore fanbase are so sheep-like that they cant see something awful when it hits them in the face.

I dont agree with this comment in the article that "no other performer (has) taken delight in actively abusing the people who pay money to enjoy his act". I havent felt that way at all. How enjoyable a show is depends on one's perspective and one's expectations. Some people get worked up about him not speaking much onstage, changing the arrangements, not playing all the 'hits'. The first of those doesnt bother me that much, and the other two are something I actually find worthy of applauding. Sometimes he takes chances that work, and sometimes they dont but I find the fact that at 68 he's still caring enough about his art to take chances to be a positive thing. At the end of it, at just £40 for a ticket, its still pretty good value and I certainly dont feel that I've been abused, exploited or taken for a ride.

Though I refuse to go and see him live any more, I love the way he allocates front row tickets to his independently run fansites. The Specials did that through theirs. Imagine if the Stones did that here ...? Ha! Some hope!

Good point. Forgot to mention that, and something I've benefitted greatly from numerous times over the last two decades. For no extra cost either (in fact, it works out cheaper as there's no TM charges). I wish other acts would 'actively abuse' us so much!

This author hates "CHRISTIANS' ....nothing more nothing less.

He never once mentioned every penny generated from the Chrstmas Record goes to charity.

Carry on people....NWSooner

Yeah, I guess its hard for certain journalists to be uncynical for five minutes and accept that someone can go to the trouble of doing something charitable instead of twisting it into some kind of 'he's doing this just to piss you off' nonsense.

Hi Nikolai!

Yes, I seldom post now - I'm ashamed to say, the reason is simply that I am much less into the Stones. I still listen to their official albums very often and they are, you know, such a huge part of my musical "genes", but I have not listened to a bootleg in ages, and have very little to say about them therefore.

I remember we agreed on lots of Soul stuff; well I'm still into that! But mostly classical and jazz which was always, anyway, the lion's share of my tastes. And,these days, a lot of Michael Jackson. You saw the film?

Actually I think you're right about Mishima. I mentioned him in a silly display of internationalism, and there is one book I really liked of him when in my teens; The Golden Pavillion. But after that, I struggled through The Sea of Fertility and I agree with all you say. So I deserve the credibility point off!

Ok, I am a fan. And that article is very interesting. And I agree the Christmas album is utter crap. It is embarressing beyond belief! What was he thinking!? But Dylan has some incredible stuff that should never be under estimated. Like was post above, several albums he has made are beyond reproach.
But I won't be spinning the Christmas album until my guests have eaten the last giblet and have over stayed their welcome, then I will blast it full volum to clear my house of the hangers oners.

All - I think the debate generated by this article is fascinating - thanks to all have posted -