|
19 Apr 12 - 06:48 PM (#3340615) Subject: Review: Pete Seeger to Phil Ochs From: Stringsinger Pete Seeger to Phil Ochs I thought this was an interesting article. I have my reservations. |
|
19 Apr 12 - 07:45 PM (#3340629) Subject: RE: Review: Pete Seeger to Phil Ochs From: GUEST,mando-player-91 Interesting for sure thanks for sharing. |
|
19 Apr 12 - 10:01 PM (#3340659) Subject: RE: Review: Pete Seeger to Phil Ochs From: GUEST,Gerry Thanks for the heads-up. I'd like to hear of your reservations. |
|
19 Apr 12 - 11:12 PM (#3340678) Subject: RE: Review: Pete Seeger to Phil Ochs From: Little Hawk Yeah, it is interesting. Ochs songs usually don't appeal to me too much in the way they sound or in their lyrics which I usually find to be too specific and too literal for my taste, but I can certainly appreciate his passionate political ideals. He does sound rather like a Pete Seeger disciple to me, whereas Dylan was definitely a Woody Guthrie disciple (as the article says). |
|
20 Apr 12 - 08:18 AM (#3340791) Subject: RE: Review: Pete Seeger to Phil Ochs From: GUEST,mando-player-91 Its funny I was thinking about Phil soon before I came across this |
|
20 Apr 12 - 08:30 AM (#3340795) Subject: RE: Review: Pete Seeger to Phil Ochs From: EBarnacle Dylan was not a disciple. He was a user of others' fame in his effort to get a reputation. He went for the Woody look and sound but focussed on his own message. Ochs was a disciple in the sense that Seeger inspired him. He, despite the comment about being a reporter more than a folksinger, seems to have legs. Many of his topical songs are still relevant today even though they were largely written about specific incidents. |
|
20 Apr 12 - 09:09 AM (#3340814) Subject: RE: Review: Pete Seeger to Phil Ochs From: GUEST,mando-player-91 I always found Phil Ochs real as bob dylan was in my eyes a fake taking whatever he could from people to make him famous |
|
20 Apr 12 - 04:26 PM (#3341005) Subject: RE: Review: Pete Seeger to Phil Ochs From: Little Hawk If you have studied Bob Dylan's life with any real attention, and I have, it is clear that he was a totally sincere disciple of Woody Guthrie in the early years leading up to and then encompassing about the first 3 years of his career, and he virtually worshipped the musical ground that Guthrie had walked upon, if I may use an analogy. He wanted to BE Woody Guthrie. (just as many have wanted to BE Bob Dylan) He was a fanatical fan of Guthrie's. The hero worship that he felt for Guthrie in those early years could hardly have been more intense, and it could not have been more real. The fact that he later moved beyond the Guthrie foundations and found his own unique voice does not in any way invalidate his earlier obession with Guthrie...it just means he eventually found his own voice, that's all. This is clearly explained by Bob Dylan in his recited work "Last Thoughts on Woody Guthrie"...an affectiona farewell to his greatest musical hero, and a recognition that he now has to move on and find his own way. It's good when someone moves on and finds their own voice. It's not betrayal...it's a maturing process. We almost all begin by emulating our heroes...and by learning whatever we can from them. This is not stealing. It's the natural learning process. To attack Bob Dylan for doing what everyone else does is stupid, and people wouldn't be doing it except for the fact that he succeeded so well. That's the only thing that sets him apart. Music is full of people who emulate their heroes, borrow from their techniques and ideas and approaches....but very few attain the very top in their profession...and Bob Dylan did. He became as big as Elvis, Sinatra or the Beatles. Accordingly, he is hated by some, envied, attacked, and resented by a lot of people who haven't grown up enough to be happy about someone else's success being far greater than their own will ever be. In my opinion. It's a mean and crummy attitude to take toward people who achieve greatness, and it has nothing to say about Bob Dylan, but a great deal to say about the one who looks to punish another for doing what they themselves didn't do...and for doing it so well. As for Ochs, yeah, he was utterly sincere. No question. It's unfortunate that he died so young, and so disappointed with how things had gone. I think most of his songs had a rather short shelf life, that's one of the things that bothers me about them, but their sincerity is very clear. Dylan's songs seem to have an almost limitless shelf life (with very few exceptions). That's one of the reasons why I like them so much. They are written in archetypes and universal symbols that work in any time or place, and that is their great strength. Ochs wrote at least one great song using universal symbols: "Changes". It's a masterpiece. Like many of Dylan's songs, it's timeless. It will always be relevant. Phil Ochs always spoke well of Bob Dylan, even when they were not speaking to one another (for a couple of years in the mid-60s). He defended Dylan vigorously against repeated attacks from the folk press in the mid-60s even when he and Dylan were personally estranged from one another. That speaks very well for Phil Ochs. He put principle and honest artistic criticism above personal issues. Others might learn something from Ochs when it comes to that...if they had any inclination to learn something, but most of them don't. |
|
20 Apr 12 - 04:53 PM (#3341014) Subject: RE: Review: Pete Seeger to Phil Ochs From: Stringsinger The idea that the early days in Greenwich Village was uncontrolled was written by someone who wasn't there. Pete had some influence of course, but much of Washington Square was populated by all kinds of folk performers who came from different interests such as Woody or Leadbelly or folk pop groups. The so-called newcomers were not much different than the general folk enthusiasts and many of them were not scruffy and some emulated the Weavers and the K.T. Two important figures not included in this journalists appraisal were Israel (Izzy) Young and equally important, Irwin Silber, the first managing editor of Sing Out! magazine. Dylan took the show biz persona of Woody, never learning to play the harmonica as well as Woody and had a different intent, that of being a star, which Woody never had. Woody was also a political activist (Socialist) which neither Dylan, or Jack Elliott was. There was a snide attitude on the part of journalists in those days that thought that folkies were either communists or "scruffy" but there were all kinds of enthusiasts in those days, not limited to the condescending labels given by the press or the writer of this article. 1967 was not the year that the folk movement resonated in Greenwich Village. That would have been more like 1954-1963 or so. The notion that there are "purists" in folk music is false because no aspect of folk music is pure. There were those, myself included, that thought the overt commerciality of music was bogus and that had nothing to do with "purity". Al Grossman, Dylan's manager was a entrepreneurial businessman who had studied economics at U. of Chicago and saw that he could make a lot of money on the folk "boom" which he did. He had a legendary wrestling match with Alan Lomax at one of the Newport Festivals over Dylan's use of the Paul Butterfield Blues band as a backup. Ochs might have been branded as a "journalist" rather than folksinger by Dylan, but Dylan was no "folksinger". He was a singer/songwriter who wanted to cash in on the current folk "boom" and aspired more toward Elvis than Woody. The idea that "Court and Spark" is related to folk music is silly. Joni Mitchell, an obvious talent as a songwriter was far too musically sophisticated to be in the folk realm although she may be humbled by the appearance of Esperanza Spalding who actually did what Joni sought out to do, jazz and contemporary songwriting. As for nervous laughter at "What a Friend We Have In Congress", I don't buy that and nobody's laughing now. There is a wide difference between Seeger in the Sixties and today at least politically because he finally recognized that Stalin was not the hero of the left that he was earlier during naive times. Pete even thinks that Gorbachev is just an apparatchik. Pete has done a 180 regarding Soviet Republic. Pete's even quoting the bible, these days. Pete was in fact, contrary to what this journalist has said, attempting a musical revolution and for the most part, I think he succeeded in many ways. If it wasn't for Pete and Alan Lomax, there never would have been a Dylan or a plethora of singer/songwriters cashing in. As to the idea of "restlessness", this is a Seeger hallmark. It was his restlessness that kept him at it in the face of repressive political elements, not being content to be anyone's "star" but at the forefront of a cultural revolution in music. I think that the contrast between Ochs, (not with us anymore) and Seeger, (very much alive and in the hearts of many of his acolytes, myself included) shows the motivation for each of their performing reasons. Pete was responsible for promoting Leadbelly, Woody Guthrie, Sonny Terry, Odetta and so many others and refused, (ala Woody) to give in to the demands of the music industry (which is rightfully suffering now) and to blaze a trail for those of us who really care about content in our songs and the preservation of the folk process. |
|
21 Apr 12 - 11:48 PM (#3341521) Subject: RE: Review: Pete Seeger to Phil Ochs From: GUEST,from Tokyo Thanks from Japan Kiyohide |
|
22 Apr 12 - 02:33 PM (#3341769) Subject: RE: Review: Pete Seeger to Phil Ochs From: GUEST,mando-player-91 I don't know why but I was given a book about Dylan written by Robert Shelton I read something about Alan and Albert fighting. Looks like Dylan caused quite the up-roar that night |
|
22 Apr 12 - 03:57 PM (#3341804) Subject: RE: Review: Pete Seeger to Phil Ochs From: The Sandman Stringsinger, thanks. |
|
22 Apr 12 - 08:16 PM (#3341913) Subject: RE: Review: Pete Seeger to Phil Ochs From: dick greenhaus Seeger and Ochs cover run the gamut of folk music from A to B (or maybe Bb) |
|
22 Apr 12 - 08:47 PM (#3341923) Subject: RE: Review: Pete Seeger to Phil Ochs From: kendall Pete was accused of being a Communist because he WAS a Communist during the Great Depression. So were countless other Americans who resented the failure of capitalism. Pete also quit the party when he saw what it really was. He seldom gets any credit for his honorable service in the US Army during WW 2. He's always been a hero to me. |
|
22 Apr 12 - 09:06 PM (#3341931) Subject: RE: Review: Pete Seeger to Phil Ochs From: GUEST,mando-player-91 I agree with Kendall Pete was always a hero in my eyes along with woody, Lee, Fred, Ronnie, and many others. |
|
23 Apr 12 - 06:30 AM (#3342032) Subject: RE: Review: Pete Seeger to Phil Ochs From: matt milton yes, and it's important to remember what access to The Truth was like in a world waaaaay before the Internet, way before 24-hour rolling news, before every home had a TV set, before plane travel became commonplace and affordable... All you had to base your ideas on were reports of other people who'd been to those countries. If you were a Communist in the US, you could be forgiven for thinking that what you were hearing about Stalinist Russia was propaganda/lies spread by the American Right, because, well, that's the sort of thing the American Right would have been saying anyway! I'm not sure you could even call the faith Western lefties had in Soviet Russia "naivety" (up to a historical point, of course). People had to decide what they thought about something by weighing up available facts, but there weren't nearly so many facts available. Pete Seeger changed his opinion about things when the facts changed. That makes him an intelligent person. (Oh, and that young Bob Dylan was very much a "disciple" of Woody Guthrie strikes me as indisputable, unless you want to split hairs on definitions on words. If you don't think the word "disciple" is appropriate, pick a different one: "acolyte", "groupie", "devotee", "champion" or just "very, very, very, very big fan". You don't have to like Bob Dylan's music, or his personae, or consider him folk, to recognize this fact.) (Oh, and to state Dylan was "cashing in on folk" is a bit like saying the early Beatles were "cashing in on R&B" or that the Rolling Stones were "cashing in on blues". Anyone who charges money for their music can be said to be "cashing in" on something or other...) |
|
23 Apr 12 - 12:55 PM (#3342162) Subject: RE: Review: Pete Seeger to Phil Ochs From: GUEST,grumpy Phil's 'I Ain't Marching Anymore' is one of the finest protest songs ever written and his album 'Pleasures of the Harbor' remains an utterly brilliant work. |