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.
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"
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.
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.
Yeah really Brando, Suze was very intereseting.(She seemed, at times, almost an apologist for Dylan)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'd rather hear Leon Russell's covers than Dylan's originals.
Gee!How lucky can you get.
Never mind folks.I know it went by a bit fast but that's our Bob.
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.
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.
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.