Quote
Doxa
I agree with you, GetYerAngie, about "All Along The Watchtower". But I never have thought Bob's and Jimi's - two strongest individuals the rock music ever has seen - versions are to be compared to each other. Namely, Dylan's original is just a 'throwaway' (for him) folk number he did in the mood of that album (NASHVILLE SKYLINE), which I don't think would be remembered that much if there weren't that version of Hendrix's. Namely, it was Hendrix who made that song a rock classic. Dylan has also acknowledged this himself, and for example, when he started to play that number live (first with The Band), it was done according to more Jimi's version than of his own.

- Doxa

Well, Doxa, i pretty much see your point on all things Stones related, but when it comes to Dylan, in this instance i think you are way off the mark.

'All Along The Watchtower' is not a thowaway track at all on JOHN WESLEY HARDING, and as much as i like Hendix's technicolour version, i feel the song actually works better (certainly if the lyrical interpretation is what you are after), in a more stripped down sense, without all the excesses and trimmings. I'd actually go as far as saying JOHN WESLEY HARDING is my favourite Dylan album, with only perhaps the original New York Sessions of BLOOD ON THE TRACKS, that can touch it. I believe you to be right about Dylan's preference for the Hendrix version, because he did stretch the song's possibility in a musical sense (and perhaps a commercial sense), but in doing so, he forfeitted much of the original's version's air of mystery and impenetrability. Dylan may have been grateful to Hendrix for much increasing the profile of one of his greatest songs, but what was inherent with Hendix is, it was his arrangement which gave the song, a new lease of life, more perhaps, than the virtues of the song itself. Ultimately, what Hendrix did was he gave the song a very different perspective, which was all his own. Dylan's original remains uniquely his own, too. JOHN WESLEY HARDING is the album for me from Dylan that stays with me the longest, because i can never quite penetrate its lyrical subtlelties. I feel Dylan's lyric writing is less extravagant than on, say, BLONDE ON BLONDE, but its is also a lot harder to get a firm handle on. I believe those biblical references work much better than those on Bob's later Christian albums which tend to be a great deal more heavyhanded (and leaves less to the imagination).

My thoughts concerning Bob Dylan's eighties output, is he really did seem at odds with what was happening in the then current music scene, with its modern technology, and videos etc. and the thought of popular music having some more complex and inner meaning at the time, seemed to go completely against the grain of the shiny and commercial ultra glossy pop. Dylan, after INFIDELS especially, was pretty much lost at sea, without any real direction home. However, and having said that, he was still showing signs of life, artistically, at times, even if the context in which he was displaying his songs seemed ill suited - 'When The Night Comes Falling From The Sky' comes to mind, for example. EMPIRE BURLESQUE, KNOCKED OUT LOADED, and DOWN IN THE GROOVE do however, mark a very low period. However, looking back at the eighties in more general terms, Dylan still managed to write and record some interesting material, and also classics of a sort. Some of the INFIDELS tracks work well - 'Jokerman' for example, and 'Sweetheart Like You' and perhaps 'I And I', not to mention some of those INFIDELS outtakes like 'Foot Of Pride' and 'Blind Willie Mctell'. OH MERCY is a very impressive album also.

Within the eighties timeframe, and especially from 83 onwards when the true eighties musical/commercial sensibilities truly took hold, Dylan, still managed in hindsight, to release some very worthwhile material. There may have been a huge slump from EMPIRE BURLESQUE to DOWN IN THE GROOVE, but even those albums have a few worthwhile moments. OH MERCY came along six years after INFIDELS, a relatively short period of time in fact, by more recent standards in a prolific sense, and was a genuine return to form, if not quite the classic some made it out to be.

It is strange in retrospect, to think that Bob Dylan may ultimately have survived the eighties in better shape than the Stones, because his lows/public embarrassments seem to a large degree so much more apparent than theirs (especially LIVE AID and the DYLAN AND THE DEAD album), for all their post TATTOO YOU mediocrity, yet there are some real nuggets of greatness (enduring songs), to be found spread around within his output, also, which i really don't think could be said for that of the Stones. Maybe his subject matter in terms of a more spiritual/personal outlook is rather more enduring for a man of advancing age than the eternal sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll Stones role playing philosophies, however much it may have gone a little against the grain of the mood of the times. However, Dylan and his followers were still in for a rather rocky road.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-15 11:26 by Edward Twining.

Hmm.. it looks like I really put my words too harshly or inaccurate about "All Along The Watchtower", since Edward Twining also thinks I am "way off the mark"...

My intention initially was just to emphasize the significance of Jimi's version in the reception of the song. No way I had in my mind bashing Dylan's original. When I stated that I don't compare those two version against each other at all, I literally meant that I think they are so much world's apart from each other, that there is no point in trying say which is 'better'. Happy to have them both. Well, that's the way I think, and I had no desire tell my personal opinions about the versions. Interestingly, I am rather surprised how much criticism Jimi's version got here - I have always thought that it is one of those classical pieces of rock art that goes beyond mortal criticism, but seemingly I was wrong. But it is also nice to see how much recognition and praisal the original JOHN WESLEY HARDING version gets here. I love them both.

My thoughts about Dylan vs. Stones during and after the 80's echo those of Edward's, in hindsight Dylan was more interesting then, and ever since (that is, came up with more memorable songs in compared to his legendary past, than what the Stones did in regards to their legendaric past), and I think the reasons Edward stated for this, sound plausible. It could be that the creative limits of'sex and drugs and rock and roll' philosophy, just got them during the 80's, when the guys hitted their middle-age, and there was not much the Stones could do, whereas with Dylan's more "spiritual/personal outlook" it was easier to mature up, and evolve/change. [What I talk about Dylan during the 80's here was just trying to project the image he had then - how the big crowds saw him, including the youth - and not necessarily saying that he was doing some bad music. The same with Jagger.]

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-17 15:35 by Doxa.

you guys seriously believe everything you read...all rubbish

Quote
longlongwinter
you guys seriously believe everything you read...all rubbish

It's not true. Namely, I don't believe you!

- Doxa

Quote
longlongwinter
you guys seriously believe everything you read...all rubbish

I don't...

Quote
Doxa

I think what he did there was exactly a kind of classical 'Dylanisque' thing to do - never taking the easy route, or trying to go mainstream or according to wishes ("Judas", "Traitor", etc.). I am sure for to the most of the people in that euphoria of the occasion, he was very pathetic - with his controversial 'message' and poor acoustic performance with these two other ridiculous, caricature figures from the past - but I simply loved it. "My Bob"!! "My Keef!" "That's the thing to do - rock and roll spirit still lives!". I was rather young, too...



- Doxa

I think you are spot on there, Doxa. What Dylan did at Live Aid was sort of typical of him. Throughout his career, he has never towed the line, so to speak, with the expectations of his fans and the music critics, not to mention the political activists in the sixties, when he stopped recording his protest songs. Those shows in the sixties when he plugged in his electic guitar was treated as a betrayal to all the left wing folkies. I believe Dylan's art pretty much thrives on provacation, and then sometime later everyone is itching to catch up (the Christian period being an exception). The difference, however with Live Aid is, no one necessarily could actually see any greatness within his performance on that day, or thereafter, although in another respect, his statement concerning some of the money being used to pay off the mortgages on the farms, was significant in inspiring Farm Aid.

I think Bob Dylan must be extremely thick skinned!

Quote
Edward Twining

I think Bob Dylan must be extremely thick skinned!

I think he's super-sensitive but he's learnt to deal with it.

Super-sensitive? In 92 during a Down Under tour he cried onstage while performing "Desolation Row".

"Hey where's Tina?"

Quote
dcba
"Hey where's Tina?"

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

........................................................................... Tina



ROCKMAN

Knowledge and a little bit of maturity Doxa. I once thought the world of Brian Jones too and that's turned out to have been quite foolish of me. Just a sign we've grown up I quess? And no longer see the world through such rose colored glasses as we once did.

Quote
Rockman


........................................................................... Tina

There's one man who knows where he wants to go!