Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
" . . . . as a member of a younger generation, I'm just sick to death of having to hear about how SIGNIFICANT and IMPORTANT Dylan, the Beatles, Woodstock etc. were."
Why do you bring up Woodstock? Neither The Beatles nor bobby d. played there.
Yes, you're sick to death of hearing about them because there is nothing in your generation which can achieve their level of creative brilliance. You're jealous -- just as those who loved 50s rock 'n roll rejected The Beatles for also sorts of nonsense reasons, when the real reason was that not only did they blow all the crap off the radio, but those folks recognized that the crap they'd fallen for was exactly that.
"Did anyone read David Brooks' column yesterday?"
You mean the pro-Bushit neo-con[artist] right-wing hack?
"My God! I'm a musician myself, and I don't need some weiner from the E Street band telling me I don't know the history of popular music . . . ."
You show no evidence that you do know that history.
". . . any more than I need to see yet another film about how Mr. Zimmerman was actually Jesus Folkie Christ."
No one said he was, except those who confuse the artist for the art.
"One thing I appreciate about my parents (who are boomers) is that they actually follow and enjoy all kinds of contemporary music."
Who says bobby d. fands/"Boomers" other than your parents don't "follow . . . all kinds of contemporary music"? (Do you know the scope of the meaning of "contemporary"? The Beatles and bobby d. are contemporary.) Most of us do -- and explicity reject (as example) Britney Spears. And many of us have rejected those who came after The Beatles who engaged in freak shows because they hadn't the talent to reach the bar as it had been raised by The Beatles.
Ya see, most of us "Boomers" grew up during the latter 1950s, and remember the period between the deaths of Buddy Holly, Big Bopper, and Richie Valens; Elvis being drafted; Chuck Berry being in jail; and Little Richard quitting rock 'n roll and returning to "religion" -- and that the industry filled that gap with manufactured "teen idols". (It was The Beatles who blew away that crap -- and bobby d., and John Lennon, who made possible and acceptable a mature song lyric in popular music. It isn't their, or our, fault, that there hasn't been anyone since, rally, who can meet the high standards they set.)
So we well recognize that we are currently suffering the same imposition of manufactured crap.
"Also, I have to agree with the earlier poster who mentioned the apparently unmentionable (and highly embarrassing) "Christian" phase."
It was mentioned. And those in the know about bobby d. knew it was both genuine and temporary -- and that an artist has the right to explore whatever s/he wants, regardless whether we "approve". Ya see, bobby d. is the kind of artist who takes risks; he jumps in, goes through, then comes out the other side. A lot of people didn't like and disapproved of Yoko, and criticized Lennon for his relationship with her, even though they weren't married to her and it was none of their business; what mattered, what was relevant, was his work as an artist, not his private life as a human being, except as _he_ chose to make it so.
"I haven't heard anyone quote. . .
Dylan wrote some good songs. Particularly good (with his delivery) were "The Ballad of Hollis Brown" and "Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll". Others seemed better when performed by others. ("Bob Dylan's Dream" done by Peter, Paul & Mary, for example.)"
but.....
Dylan sold really well throughout the 60s and 70s; in fact his first two albums are about the only 60s ones that did not go gold. So, there was lots of people buying his music, then and now. It must have touched them. Plus, when the Byrds covered him, producers and record companies saw gold and opened up the studios to all kinds of new sounds.
"But the worship of this guy is out of control. Particularly among the critics, but also within the very narrow cultural segment where he appears to resonate. "
I would reply that the "very narrow cultural segment" (narrow relative to what?) you assume included most of the pop and rock musicians working in the mid-late 60s. And they (maybe not Neal Diamond, whose best work I also enjoy, especially while riding in my car on a spring day) passed it on to every young body in this country. You may not like Dylan's "delivery" or his later 60s music, but you can't deny his influence.
Can you?
Superstar's an amazing film, and it can be seen here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=622130510713940545
It's also all over the torrent networks. All hail the free exchange of cultural information!
Haynes: Sometimes brilliant, often extremely self-indulgent. Always worth a look.
Dylan: An acquired taste. "Blowin' in the Wind" has been so overplayed by so many melancholy teenagers that it's original bite can surprise. In Dylan's hands, B.I.T.W. is a protest song, not a dirge.
Dylan has released a lot of crap over the years, but his best is in a league by itself. No point arguing about it, though. Either you get Dylan or you don't. Obviously, a lot of smart people fall into both camps.
Peace, everyone.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
