Quote
otonneau
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!

Well, the Dylanisque word "freak" was my interpretation of the way you marginalize the "die-hard Dylan fans" from the other 'normal' people who without saying think that "Dylan's latest albums are rather weak, his concerts absurdly bad and the Christmas album ridiculous". Like that the latter opinions are not just opinions, but as the facts the blind Dylan worshippers do not grasp. I find that kind of talk annoying, and to be true, frightening. It is not as discussing about the value of the art, or what makes it good or bad, but that the whole way how these 'hardcore fans' see the art is twisted. That they are sick, because they do not see that Dylan has long time ago been just nothing but... shit.

I don't know who exactly those 'diehards' are - if I am one or not - but what scares me is the idea that the people who are fond of the art of certain artist are made incapable judging the art because they are fond of it, and equally, the people who are not fond of it should dictate the opinions what this particular art is all about (that it is shit). If that would have been the whole truth - I'm glad it's not! - there wouldn't have ever made any progress in art, nor there would be any avant-garde art etc. to have born, because it always be too controversial to the opinion of masses.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-09 09:20 by Doxa.

Doxa -

You are turning the tables on me. I am saying - and the author of the article is saying - that it is stunningly hard to dialogue with Dylan diehards; now you're saying, of course, that I'm the dogmatic one here.

You know, that sort of confirms my point, you being "scared" as if I had just committed a crime against freedom of thought, you saying that my attitude precludes progress in art. After the "roots theory" and the "philistine theory" comes the "people who say Dylan has lost it" are dangerous conservatives of some sort.

But there's no need to be scared really. It's not as if I was saying that Dylan fans should be stripped of their civil rights, forbidden entry into museums, or lined up in dark cellars, or even paid a disability pension! Just saying it's strange, what with all the art being created these days, wonderful new stuff, to pay such importance to old-fashioned renditions of cheesy christmas songs by a man who lost his voice... Doesn't seem so much forward-looking, does it?

Btw, I never said you could not judge art in general; I have clue what you like and what not, and you are welcome to your taste. It's only the Dylan thing that is funny (and just funny, you know, not BAD); you're in love, what can I say, you make all the touching moves that lovers make.

Hey, maybe you should just accept that from the outside, it does look quite funny, even rather touching perhaps; but if you insist on saying that the author of the article and myself are dogmatics who have prejudices on what is art, or conservatives, or (why not?) dangerous deniers of freedom or whatever, you risk coming accross as hysterical rather than touching and a bit funny.




Funny, after our last exchange here I listened very carefully to all Dylan's late stuff; I tried hard to like Midlands, or Poor Boy, or High Waters - I heard bits and pieces I liked, but really too little.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-09 12:25 by otonneau.

otenneau, I don't know if you tentatively or not do not get my point, but I try to once again describe it by other means.

The problem with the attitude you and the writer of the article is that you don't accept the people who are fond of Dylan as respectable, rational partners of conversation. You said that very plainly in the first post you replied to me. It is not that you are just stating your 'free' opinions, but that you don't value at all the subjective side of the things. You do not have any kind of 'principle of charity' in your mind. I find that very arrogant. To say it equal arrogantly, it doesn't matter what a hec you mean by 'art', if you know the whole thing from Proust to John Holmes, how much more interesting new art (according to you) there is. No, those things doesn't matter; it is you just stating your personal opinions as facts. Seemingly, it does bother you the fact that quite many people happen to find Bob Dylan relevant and interesting. Why does bother you? Because you personally don't 'get it', and because you personally don't get it - to see what is so great in Dylan - you seem to think there is something wrong with the people who seem to 'get it'. Like I don't 'get it' heavy metal in any its variations and genres, but I don't need to try to tell that to heavy metal fans. I can not understand what is the motivation behind, if not convert, but to show the idiocy of us, the 'die-hard Dylan believers' or what you might call us. Why is it such an important thing to cry out loud?

Now, I don't believe the target you have is Dylan fans actually. It is Dylan. Because you think Dylan is shit, you find it amusing or pervert that someone is fond of his stuff. From this base I think a fruithful, equal conversation between you and I is unlikely possible.

For example, I don't understand how anyone can say that "with all the art being created these days, wonderful new stuff, to pay such importance to old-fashioned renditions of cheesy christmas songs by a man who lost his voice". Well, I don't find the Xmas album such a big deal - and I have reviewed it elsewhere - but what Dylan does - in to my eyes, in my aesthetic world - is something NO-ONE ELSE does - he is walking the road I find extremely exciting. What he does is unique, extraordinary. It is fascinating to see where he is leading us now, what he is doing next.

Some retrospect to explain my 'Dylan fanaticism'.... For years – from 1986 to 1997 - I thought his muse was gone (OH MERCY was a strange exception), and especially through the 90’s he was just a man with a incredible past but uninteresting presence (like the uncreative, Las Vegas-Stones have been for me a long time). But then he released TIME OUT OF MIND and that hit me hard. Even today it is perhaps the album I have most listened in my life (with TATTOO YOU I guess). With that album, I renovate my love with Dylan, but I realized that the name of the game had changed, and the things I got used to with ‘old’ Dylan, didn’t count anymore. But I found this ‘new’, matured, broken-voiced Dylan fascinating one, and I’ve been a fan of his ever since. (It is s sort of 'gestalt-shift' I have hoped the Stones would give me some day, but unfortunately it has not (yet) happened.) I don’t care if Dylan writes any goddamn masterful, high-class and praised poetry with brand-new metaphors and language-games (I never did that such a big thing in Dylan ever, in fact), nor to make innovative fresh melodies, or sings like he did in 1965 or 1975, or even 1985, but I hear him as an artist who talks me, moves me, effects me. With a plain simple phrase, articulated by a broken voice, he talks me more than all, say, Bono’s prayers and tunes taken together. That’s the kind of unique impact I don’t get from any other musician. So incredible connection. I think Dylan has a touch no one else has. That's the impression I find the most precious in any expereience of art I have. Dylan speaks to me as, say, Joan Miro, one of my other very favourites, does.

As a live act he got me back around 2000 when I after a long reflection dared to go to se him (namely I had so bad experiences of that in the past). As a singer, I think what Dylan of the late times have done has gone to the direction that no one has before him. He breaks the standards and boundaries and conventional music or singing is all about. His voice has been broke quite a long now, and perhaps quite many would advice him to retire because his instrument is gone, but I'm happy that he still continues. No matter what happens. To me his voice is pure avant-garde. Together with his well-oiled band - in fact, one of the best live band there is - he convinces me everytime I happen to see him. To be true, I am quite short of words in describing the effect he does for me. That's art.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-09 13:58 by Doxa.

Doxa -

I like the way you describe Dylan - always did; this is why you even got me to give another spin to his latest albums. As a matter of fact, I like that kind of talk much more than the kind of talk you give about me denying the subjective side of things etc.

And then, after I did listen to him, well it did remain impossible for me to square your description with the actual thing (his voice avant-garde? huh?). So that made it interesting for me to understand how one can extract such a discourse from such a thing.

But don't give me grief about me denying the subjective side of things. It's really a bit absurd that you end up comparing liking Dylan with liking Heavy Metal in order to then introduce a defence of Dylan that is much more ambitious than anything you could say about heavy metal. You find something in Dylan that you think is really there, and that I don't see; you may say that all you claim is 'to each his own', but that's not true, you make much stronger claims than that. And I don't believe for an instant that in your heart of hearts you don't believe that Dylan is objectively better than Bono and Heavy metal. For the record, I think he is!

The defense of subjectivity easily becomes pointless - it's a defense against what exactly? Nobody's under threat here.

I'll let you enjoy Bob, and even enjoy the way you speak of him, and perhaps you will let me wonder at the fact that you can say such thing about such music. And have a good day!

Oliver, I guess both of us have expressed all the relevant points needed by now, so we can stop here. I suppose our meta-talk might look amusing to many here...

Have a good day, too!

- Doxa

The argument of the author of the piece is extremely classist.

It's not about Dylan, it is about us who worship the Ellingtons not knowing the Prokofievs or Stravinskys.

Fine enough, he doesn't like Dylan's new work. I haven't heard it yet, but why should I feel a jerk if I ever decide to buy it?

Thank God there is always a Mr. Ferguson at every corner in this world to remind me what is "Art"!

C

Ops: I posted after reading the article but before reading what the others have wrote!

C

In some ways this reminds me (a little) of pgarof's recent thread in which he expressed his
unconditional love & worship of the Stones and scolded anyone that was on this RS Forum
that did not share his blind love for the band and all that they've produced.

I plan to read the Dylan article again. HB's take was that the author took the
role of the "Devil's Advocate"...but I'm not sure.

I also want to re-read it to see if the author truly dislikes Dylan or....??

re: the comment that the author should give Dylan a break...afterll the money is going to charity.

That's irrelevant. The premise of the article is more about blind worship and the possibility
that Dylan is purposely messing with his audience that about any specific fundraising albums.

re: the Christmas Album

I don't know how Dylan feels about the Holiday...is he Jewish or Christian or ?? Other than owning
a few of his '60s CDs, having general knowledge and the Dylan /Scorcese movie...I don't know much about his
personal beliefs etc..... Apparently he was raised Jewish & converted to Christianity in the early '80s
and then later distanced himself a bit from Chrisitianity.... I hope making such a half-hearted karaoke-style Christmas album
was not intended as an insult to Christians. Probably not since the money raised goes to Christian charities?

And if he wanted to make a good Christmas Album. It would have been
more fitting for him to write original tunes that fit his style & vocal-style.

(by the way...I'm totally aware that there are many Non-Christians that make Christmas Albums)


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

Superb post, Doxa. The last couple of paragraphs about your 'fanaticism' were brilliantly expressed.

I just re-read the article....

HB - about half way thru it appears as though the author
might have been playing "devil's advocate" ...but i don't think he was.

There are often times when it seems that the author sees himself as
an abused Dylan fan.

And then there are other times when he (author) is simply being cynical and
attempting to hold a mirror up to devout followers.

I again enjoyed the article and its perspective.

To me it's sort of a wake-up call to people/fans that put other artists/politician etc... on
such a high pedestal that they can do no wrong..that their sh*t doesnt stink. Reminding them
that they put their pants on one leg at a time & fart like the rest of us.

I don't think that's bad. I think it's a refreshing perspective.

I admire Dylan...........but I am also not fooled by him.
I think the Robbie Robertson quote was very telling.

To Gazza & Doxa...I respect your admiration for Dylan etc.... but to some extent (not good or bad) you are
sort of what the author is describing (Doxa wrote - " No matter what happens...." ) .

Past experiences strongly influencing future experiences. It's only natural.
You have new found appreciation for his "broken voice" etc.... would you have the
same appreciation for a no-name without the history of Bob Dylan? My point (like the authors) is that
we are all guilty of rationalization & excusing things in order to embrace them.

I know from reading your posts about the Rolling Stones (& Dylan Christmas album) that (for the most part) you can
recognize stinkers...so it surprises me that in some ways it appears that you are a little
insulted & offended by the author's premise. The author gives specific examples of poor efforts, plagarization
and possible examples of Dylan's contempt for his audience. Neither we nor the author know Dylan's true motives...but it is
interesting to speculate.


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



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-10 01:51 by sweet neo con.

Quote
Doxa
otenneau, I don't know if you tentatively or not do not get my point, but I try to once again describe it by other means.

The problem with the attitude you and the writer of the article is that you don't accept the people who are fond of Dylan as respectable, rational partners of conversation. You said that very plainly in the first post you replied to me. It is not that you are just stating your 'free' opinions, but that you don't value at all the subjective side of the things. You do not have any kind of 'principle of charity' in your mind. I find that very arrogant. To say it equal arrogantly, it doesn't matter what a hec you mean by 'art', if you know the whole thing from Proust to John Holmes, how much more interesting new art (according to you) there is. No, those things doesn't matter; it is you just stating your personal opinions as facts. Seemingly, it does bother you the fact that quite many people happen to find Bob Dylan relevant and interesting. Why does bother you? Because you personally don't 'get it', and because you personally don't get it - to see what is so great in Dylan - you seem to think there is something wrong with the people who seem to 'get it'. Like I don't 'get it' heavy metal in any its variations and genres, but I don't need to try to tell that to heavy metal fans. I can not understand what is the motivation behind, if not convert, but to show the idiocy of us, the 'die-hard Dylan believers' or what you might call us. Why is it such an important thing to cry out loud?

Now, I don't believe the target you have is Dylan fans actually. It is Dylan. Because you think Dylan is shit, you find it amusing or pervert that someone is fond of his stuff. From this base I think a fruithful, equal conversation between you and I is unlikely possible.

For example, I don't understand how anyone can say that "with all the art being created these days, wonderful new stuff, to pay such importance to old-fashioned renditions of cheesy christmas songs by a man who lost his voice". Well, I don't find the Xmas album such a big deal - and I have reviewed it elsewhere - but what Dylan does - in to my eyes, in my aesthetic world - is something NO-ONE ELSE does - he is walking the road I find extremely exciting. What he does is unique, extraordinary. It is fascinating to see where he is leading us now, what he is doing next.

Some retrospect to explain my 'Dylan fanaticism'.... For years – from 1986 to 1997 - I thought his muse was gone (OH MERCY was a strange exception), and especially through the 90’s he was just a man with a incredible past but uninteresting presence (like the uncreative, Las Vegas-Stones have been for me a long time). But then he released TIME OUT OF MIND and that hit me hard. Even today it is perhaps the album I have most listened in my life (with TATTOO YOU I guess). With that album, I renovate my love with Dylan, but I realized that the name of the game had changed, and the things I got used to with ‘old’ Dylan, didn’t count anymore. But I found this ‘new’, matured, broken-voiced Dylan fascinating one, and I’ve been a fan of his ever since. (It is s sort of 'gestalt-shift' I have hoped the Stones would give me some day, but unfortunately it has not (yet) happened.) I don’t care if Dylan writes any goddamn masterful, high-class and praised poetry with brand-new metaphors and language-games (I never did that such a big thing in Dylan ever, in fact), nor to make innovative fresh melodies, or sings like he did in 1965 or 1975, or even 1985, but I hear him as an artist who talks me, moves me, effects me. With a plain simple phrase, articulated by a broken voice, he talks me more than all, say, Bono’s prayers and tunes taken together. That’s the kind of unique impact I don’t get from any other musician. So incredible connection. I think Dylan has a touch no one else has. That's the impression I find the most precious in any expereience of art I have. Dylan speaks to me as, say, Joan Miro, one of my other very favourites, does.

As a live act he got me back around 2000 when I after a long reflection dared to go to se him (namely I had so bad experiences of that in the past). As a singer, I think what Dylan of the late times have done has gone to the direction that no one has before him. He breaks the standards and boundaries and conventional music or singing is all about. His voice has been broke quite a long now, and perhaps quite many would advice him to retire because his instrument is gone, but I'm happy that he still continues. No matter what happens. To me his voice is pure avant-garde. Together with his well-oiled band - in fact, one of the best live band there is - he convinces me everytime I happen to see him. To be true, I am quite short of words in describing the effect he does for me. That's art.

- Doxa

F-ing hell, Doxa! You've got me wanting/daring to go and see Dylan live again. Seriously!

Doxa - you have raised the debate bar to new, lofty heights - thank you

Its funny with opinions about Dylan. I have listened to him for 30 years and have every official album he ever released, but i always seem to have heretic tastes about him.

Someone said above they thought the last studio album was poor, i dont agree at all its great.

My favourite Dylan albums are Street Legal, Real Live, Self Portrait, Planet Waves, Slow Train Coming and Modern Times. The critics wet over Love and Theft and TOOM, I thought they werent that exciting.

I hate Before The Flood, Infidels, and Oh Mercy. The first because its a hideous dirge and the other two because they are plastic and artificial even though Bob himself loves those 2 albums. I even prefer stinkers like Saved and Shot Of Love.
than these 3.

Live hes hilarious from the sublime to the ridiculous within 2 songs, but generally soulful and always worth seeing.lets face it hes a total genius and you will miss him when hes gone.

Luckily my opinions about Stones albums are a bit more mainstream

>To Gazza & Doxa...I respect your admiration for Dylan etc.... but to some extent (not good or bad) you are
sort of what the author is describing (Doxa wrote - " No matter what happens...." ) .

Sorry, but thats simply not true. I've already said on this thread that many of Dylans shows and albums for years on end were mediocre to awful.

I can easily acknowledge mediocrity when I see it. I'd be more concerned about the sort of people who cant accept the fact that fans of an artist who THEY think is consistently awful can have ANY enjoyment from their music whatsoever.

>Past experiences strongly influencing future experiences. It's only natural.
You have new found appreciation for his "broken voice" etc.... would you have the
same appreciation for a no-name without the history of Bob Dylan?

Absolutely. And I do.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-10 02:53 by Gazza.

Quote
Gazza
>To Gazza & Doxa...I respect your admiration for Dylan etc.... but to some extent (not good or bad) you are
sort of what the author is describing (Doxa wrote - " No matter what happens...." ) .

Sorry, but thats simply not true. I've already said on this thread that many of Dylans shows and albums for years on end were mediocre to awful.

Gazza...I know you have acknowledged the "mediocre to awful" ones but i guess i was still sensing
some defensiveness (& a little rationalization)...and noticed that you jumped on the author for not
acknowledging that the money raised from the Christmas album was going to charity...when that
was irrelevant to his critique. Not criticizing you for being a big fan...just trying to nail down your stance.

I think you and Doxa have been pretty honest recognizing Dylans highs & lows (in your opinions)...and that is appreciated.
The only reason I lumped Doxa into the author's "roots theory" (or whatever he called it) was because of the
"no matter what" line...after acknowledging peaks and valleys & broken voice he said "No matter what happens. To me his voice is pure avant-garde."
Believing something "no matter what" implies (or blatantly says) it's unconditional. And since you agreed with Doxa....

Anyway...I've learned a lot on this thread and now it makes me want to listen to more recent Dylan stuff.
Thanks for responding.


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

Quote
Gazza


I can easily acknowledge mediocrity when I see it. I'd be more concerned about the sort of people who cant accept the fact that fans of an artist who THEY think is consistently awful can have ANY enjoyment from their music whatsoever.

.

just for clarification..who are you referring to?


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

Primarily the author.

Quote
sweet neo con
I just re-read the article....

HB - about half way thru it appears as though the author
might have been playing "devil's advocate" ...but i don't think he was.

There are often times when it seems that the author sees himself as
an abused Dylan fan.

And then there are other times when he (author) is simply being cynical and
attempting to hold a mirror up to devout followers.

I again enjoyed the article and its perspective.

To me it's sort of a wake-up call to people/fans that put other artists/politician etc... on
such a high pedestal that they can do no wrong..that their sh*t doesnt stink. Reminding them
that they put their pants on one leg at a time & fart like the rest of us.

I don't think that's bad. I think it's a refreshing perspective.

I admire Dylan...........but I am also not fooled by him.
I think the Robbie Robertson quote was very telling.

To Gazza & Doxa...I respect your admiration for Dylan etc.... but to some extent (not good or bad) you are
sort of what the author is describing (Doxa wrote - " No matter what happens...." ) .

Past experiences strongly influencing future experiences. It's only natural.
You have new found appreciation for his "broken voice" etc.... would you have the
same appreciation for a no-name without the history of Bob Dylan? My point (like the authors) is that
we are all guilty of rationalization & excusing things in order to embrace them.

I know from reading your posts about the Rolling Stones (& Dylan Christmas album) that (for the most part) you can
recognize stinkers...so it surprises me that in some ways it appears that you are a little
insulted & offended by the author's premise. The author gives specific examples of poor efforts, plagarization
and possible examples of Dylan's contempt for his audience. Neither we nor the author know Dylan's true motives...but it is
interesting to speculate.

Good, interesting, stimulating thoughts, sweet neo con. I think you are really hitting somewhere in your interpretation of the position of the author of the article. Like I said I also liked the consistent nature of the article, even though I don't agree with its argument.

I would say the dangers you recognize - that of not seeing the actual crap from great things due to 'fanship' - are, of course, real, but I think with the case of Dylan that is largely over-estimated. I would claim that the criticism doesn't hit the target. I would even insist that I would recognize if I'd been hit by shit by my idol. Unfortunately I wrote one line that seems to opposite this idea, and I regret doing it; I would reformulate it now as “and see what happens”. That I have optimistic feelings that I will not be disappointed is based on past good experiences; I trust the man (but acknowledge the danger or possibility of being disappointed). In fact, now when I now look back all those low points in his career those seem so human – and somehow logical chapters in a bigger story – he needed to have those to achieve some new inspiration again. In a long run his career seems to breathe in a way I find unique. For this reason I see Dylan a true artist in contrast to any other performer in ‘rock’ (in very wide sense of the term).

I got fed up with Dylan in the mid-80's, because I the stuff he was offering just was quite meaningless and sounded very uninspired (just think of DOWN IN THE GROOVE or KNOCKED - OUT LOADED). For years I thought he was an old, tired fart, whose hey-day was long gone (the way I think Otennaeu is perhaps thinking now). I even passed the acoustic folk albums in the beginning of the 90's because I thought the old fart is so run of ideas now that all he can do is go to strum archaic folk traditionals (I see the point of those albums different now, and I can see them as a logical step to the phase we are facing now). By the same time I show some shows of his after which I promised to myself: "never, ever again!". Anyway, Dylan won me back with TIME OUT OF MIND, because there I find the inspired artist reborn. And I have find his stuff ever since quite strong. Especially TALE TALES SIGNS is one of the strongest albums released in this decade by anyone.

Seemingly the X-mas album is now the point where the line is to be drawn, to see if one is a true Dylan believer or not. I don't think so. I find the album funny, such a little Dylanisque move, a nice little side note in a bigger story, but nothing more – something equal, say, to PAT GARRETT AND BILLY THE KID. I don't think it is so important as the author does as seeing as a evidence that Dylan is seriously fooling us, and has done that for years. It is more like Monty Python move, now something completely different... In fact, I don't really grasp the danger of being fooled by our idol. I have always admired the way Dylan is such an unpleasing artist towards his audiences and to expectations (i.e. turning to ‘pop’ by going electric; going pure country&western, turning to a new-born, etc. we know all that; it’s part of his ‘essence’). If anything he is not kissing anyone’s asses. Perhaps he is kidding us, perhaps he is teasing us, perhaps he just following an instant instinct, and just seeing what happens.

I personally think that a part of the charm of Dylan is his ambivalent attitude towards himself, his art and his audience. I also personally think that Dylan is not so 'clever' as some might think, but he is just following his muse. My impression is that he does what he does because it is all he really can. Even though he might upset some of his fans along the way, in a long run he seems to win after all, or at least seesm to create avery intersting career to reflect upon to. If there is something to learn from Dylan that is the example of believing one’s own very instincts, and doing things that sometimes seem to loath common sense. He is... lucky, but very talented bastard.

But I don't think he is any ‘big’ at all as a person; he might have many whatever motives behind his 'turns', or strange 'moves', etc, but I always sense he is always honest with his art, and his art - typically - is much bigger than the man itself (this, I believe, is a mark of the great artists generally). If there is one word I could describe Dylan's art, it is convincing. I think Dylan - contra to late-Lennon or recent Bono, no matter how talented they are - does not confuse the art with his own ego. He lets the art speak for itself. It is not him that matters, it is his art. As a concrete exmaple of that is the way he presents himself in stage (being famous for not ‘too much’ talking to audience…). And Dylan’s art has been speaking perhaps stronger than anyone’s from his genre. Even though one judges his art as shit, one can not deny its impact and influence (I think this is one of the motivations behind to 'reveal' the empirer's clothes)

There is one funny thing I need to mention about Dylan’s so called ‘mystery image’. Mystery of what – of the ‘real’ Dylan? What he really thinks? Is he a liberal or conservative? What is his motivation? Is he laughing all the way to bank? Does he pretends to be so ‘mysterious’, etc? I don’t get that. I think there is no mystery at all. What I think all that matters is the music – or the art he makes – and in fact, all he does as a public performer (DJ, writer, etc.). I am not interested in the man himself, or his real thoughts, and I haven’t read any of his biographies for a long time to ‘reveal’ his mystery (His own autobiography is an expection; but that is the public Dylan speaking - reflecting the world AROUND him, but not trying to discover or tell about the person behind teh public Dylan- the same as he does with his songs; a wonderful, genious book!). All I need is the public Dylan, what happen behind the curtains is totally irrelevant. I think by separating the private and public spheres so strongly and clearly he should be treated a role model to anyone. I think the publicity is such a teaser, and it is really difficult to turn one’s back on the public life and keep head ‘cool’ – especially if treated as the ‘voice of generation’ (one can only imagine how much a performer like Bono sees wet dreams of Dylan-like status). In a way Dylan is like Charlie Watts - the most ‘normal’ of them all, but one needs goddamn strong character to be one.

Jeez, I need to stop now. Sorry…


- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-10 12:32 by Doxa.

its not surprising that this magazine would have a negative piece about Dylan. The 'Weekly Standard' is pretty much negative about anything to do with the sixties.
One article about Dylan with a limited perspective of a vast career..thats all this is.

I cant add to that, Doxa. I dont know if youve ever written about music professionally, but if not, you should at least consider doing so.

Thanks, Gazza (and everyone else for kind words). This is just a very pleasent hobby for me to think aloud here. Well, to be true, I am supposed to write something very different for very different forums (that's what I do for living), but you know, I cannot help myself coming here time after time, and talk aboút music... This is a sort of therapy for me, actually. I just love it, to share thoughts with great people who happen to have same passionate interests as myself... cheers, everyone

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-10 15:18 by Doxa.

Yes I also appreciate the back & forth of this conversation.

Compared to Gazza & Doxa I'm sure my ignorance about all things Dylan is apparent
which is why I tended to discuss the general phenomenon & author's premise rather than cite specific
albums, songs or tours. Re: the Christmas album...I'm not offended by it. I might buy it.
It's kinda funny and a change of pace from more traditional sounding Christmas music.
It's almost like a parody album. (I wonder what Jakob Dylan thought)

It's nice to read contributors that have actually given it some thought
and defend their own position instead of expressing cliches.


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

Quote
Doxa
[In a way Dylan is like Charlie Watts - the most ‘normal’ of them all, but one needs goddamn strong character to be one.

Interesting comparison, considering they were born just eight days apart. Being another Gemini, I couldnt help but pick up on that,seeing as I'm also so 'normal'....

i love dylan and to me dylan is a genius

"No More Auction Block" the genesis and melody for blowin in the wind??
cool info. did not know that...good piece...interesting, cheeky...fresh...
but he sells bob way short in several instances imo

Quote
Beelyboy
"No More Auction Block" the genesis and melody for blowin in the wind??
cool info. did not know that

Absolutely. I recall a great article on that subject on the much-missed "Telegraph" Dylan magazine around the time of the song's 1991 release.

Terrific song, too.