For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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!
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.
Quote
hbwriter
what about the plagiarism aspects the author talks about?
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!
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.
Quote
GazzaQuote
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
sweet neo conQuote
GazzaQuote
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?
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.