0
   

No Direction Home, comments?

 
 
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 02:38 pm
Well, I did watch the Dylan thing and enjoyed many of the clips, I was also disappointed. Many of the prime characters of influence from Dylan's early career where simply missing, people like Rich Von Schmidt, Richard Farina, Geof Muldaur, also many aspects of his life at the time seemed to have been erased/deleted such as his drug use, groupies and self-serving (giving no credit to others). It was nice to see so much of Dave Van Ronk's commentary (I was a big fan). Hardly a fair and balanced presentation (is that possible?) Perhaps Dylan is an enigma to himself as well as to others.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,124 • Replies: 16
No top replies

 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 02:42 pm
Didn't see it. Watched "Stand Up -40 years of Pop protest"

If you wanna see what a prick he(Dylan) was, watch Pennebakers documentary "Don't Look Back"
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 02:45 pm
Well, Pan, I really am a major Dylan fan, not here to bash him. I was just really looking foreword to a better, more accurate historical documentary. I was disappointed.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 02:52 pm
I only knew about it in time for part 2, but I watched that. I own "Don't Look Back." It was really fascinating to hear Dylan's very ordinary recent comments about his history. I think that one of the keys to Dylan is that much of what he does is an inherent talent, and not as easily subject to analysis as people tend to believe. Dylan himself, as a young man, would routinely express bewilderment with the questions he was asked about his music. It was also the only time I've seen Suze Rotolo interviewed, which was interesting.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 02:59 pm
Yeah really Brando, Suze was very intereseting.(She seemed, at times, almost an apologist for Dylan)
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 03:02 pm
Sorry to hear it wasn't better. I saw some of it but not being a huge Dylan fan I couldn't say where the problems were. Maybe PBS edited out certain parts and if you can obtain it on DVD those parts will be in there. (or maybe Martin Scorsese just chose to gloss over the drugs, groupies, etc.). The one thing it gave me was the happy moments of seeing Joan Baez and hearing her lovely voice. I seem to recall Baez, mentioning Dylan hearing a song which he had written playing on the radio and he apparently reacted like it was something he had no connection to. Perhaps his inability to acknowledge the influences of others was/is an inner part of him or maybe the drug use warped some of those areas of his brain.

Again dyslexia, I am sorry it didn't go better for you.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 03:08 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Yeah really Brando, Suze was very intereseting.(She seemed, at times, almost an apologist for Dylan)

To me, she has never before been more than the pretty girl on the album cover, walking down the NYC street.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 03:13 pm
Ive always l;iked Dylans music sung by others. I found his nasal whiney voice a constant annoyance. Now, having said that, I find Willie Nelsons nasal whiney voice great.
0 Replies
 
Synonymph
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 03:13 pm
I overheard parts of the Dylan thing, but only when I needed to walk through the room where my husband was watching it. Dylan's voice: cacophonous, his personality: annoying.

I did watch the protest thing last night, mostly to see Bob Marley and Michael Franti.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 03:14 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Well, Pan, I really am a major Dylan fan, not here to bash him..

Don't misunderstand. I'm not here to bash him either. He was a folk music sponge and appropriated a lot of material but never aknowledged it. I'm just not a great big fan...but I respect his talent.
0 Replies
 
Synonymph
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 03:14 pm
I'd rather hear Leon Russell's covers than Dylan's originals.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 03:17 pm
Gee!How lucky can you get.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 03:21 pm
Never mind folks.I know it went by a bit fast but that's our Bob.
0 Replies
 
tonyf
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2005 03:54 pm
the dylan thing
Sturgis wrote:
Sorry to hear it wasn't better. I saw some of it but not being a huge Dylan fan I couldn't say where the problems were. Maybe PBS edited out certain parts and if you can obtain it on DVD those parts will be in there. (or maybe Martin Scorsese just chose to gloss over the drugs, groupies, etc.). The one thing it gave me was the happy moments of seeing Joan Baez and hearing her lovely voice. I seem to recall Baez, mentioning Dylan hearing a song which he had written playing on the radio and he apparently reacted like it was something he had no connection to. Perhaps his inability to acknowledge the influences of others was/is an inner part of him or maybe the drug use warped some of those areas of his brain.

The disappointing aspect to the film was discovering how little input Scorsese had. The Dylan interviews were recorded in 2000/2001 with Dylan talking to his manager - hardly the right person to ask the penetrating, in depth questions. The film clips were outtakes from Don't Look Back with some archive stuff. Apart from assembling these bits and pieces, did Scorsese and Dylan actually interact in the making of the film or was it merely a studio exercise by Scorsese to assemble bits of footage from elsewhere into a film? I don't think Scorsese glossed over anything, I just feel there wasn't the footage or anything in the bits with Dylan talking that gave him scope to explore the darker side of Dylan's history. Another example of Dylan's legendary 'creating the myth of enigma' about himself?
0 Replies
 
Gargamel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 08:29 am
I heard Scorsese jumped on the project after most of the content was gathered. Apparently he just got the whole thing moving.

I loved the documentary. You'll never get the answers you want from Dylan or any other icon, because they don't have them. They have their songs, and that's it, and I was pleased that that was the focus of the documentary.

Baez said in the documentary that some people get Dylan, and some people don't. And for the people who do "get it," he goes straight to the heart.

I agree. I don't mean "get it" as an intellectual accomplishment--simply whether you appreciate him or not. Those who do get it don't think his voice is the greatest either, but that's hardly a concern. That's not what his legacy is about. His legacy is about words. His melodies are pretty damn amazing, too.

His first albums drew from the history of American folk (and Irish), but he evolved. When he came out with Bringing it All Back Home, he freaked out the likes of Pete Seeger. NOBODY was writing Mr. Tambourine Man, and nobody has since.

His band for Highway 61 and Blonde on Blonde is extraordinary. He recorded live, so clean production and finesse isn't part of the music either. He did most of his stuff in one or two takes. Lo-fi production is still a trend among rock musicians.

For me the pleasure of Dylan is walking back from the library on a moonlit street and hearing:

The guilty undertaker sighs
The lonely organ grinder cries
The silver saxophones say I
Should refuse you

Their cracked bells and worn out horns
Blow into my face with scorn
But it's not that way I wasn't born
To lose you.

And suddenly I have these images bouncing in my head as lucid and crazy as the dancing elephants from Fantasia.

I can think of no other artist who does that. Who else writes, "Ghosts of electricity howl in the bones of her face?"

People love it and that's why they want to figure Dylan out and put him in their pocket. But it's silly. He will never be more than the songs. How could anyone expect that? The songs are so huge.
0 Replies
 
tonyf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 12:40 pm
I think I agree with everything Gargamel says about Dylan. I can't think of any other artist who has provided such an indelible soundtrack. Pop is ephemeral, of its moment, but Dylan has provided lasting lyrics and music that buzz around my head - and provide a backdrop for key events.
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 05:35 pm
That was beautifully put, Gargamel. Dylan and his two wives kept saying that he wasn't anything other than a musician--he wasn't political, he didn't join protest marches--he simply wrote and performed his music. Tha's all and, for me, that's enough.

How many geniuses are really nice people? I don't know or care. All that matters is the art.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Rockhead's Music Thread - Discussion by Rockhead
What are you listening to right now? - Discussion by Craven de Kere
WA2K Radio is now on the air - Discussion by Letty
Classical anyone? - Discussion by JPB
Ship Ahoy: The O'Jays - Discussion by edgarblythe
Evolutionary purpose of music. - Discussion by jackattack
Just another music thread. - Discussion by msolga
An a2k experiment: What is our favorite song? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
THE DAY THE MUSIC DIED . . . - Discussion by Setanta
Has a Song Ever Made You Cry? - Discussion by Diest TKO
 
  1. Forums
  2. » No Direction Home, comments?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 05:22:47