Whistlestop--I actually tried to change "dis" to something else, it was the only word I could think of allowed me to convey the thought in a little box--when I came up with a better word, it was too late, and I coudn't change it--nonetheless,"Dis" is, as you probably know, a slang truncation that was current in urban speech,, and came into general usage from is use by certain performing artists and songwriters--you all know what I mean, but I won't go there.

Mike--Of course I have read Marc Eliot, and know what he has to say about Phil--I am curious about what Dylan's motivation might have been.

The comments about Phil being as second rate songwriter, and lacking vision show make me think that you haven't listened to him lately--Whether you like him or not, Phil had a gift for melody and lyrics--and he was a very good and very versatile singer, and made effective use of his guitar.

Bob,Jr, I think it is pretty hard to make a case that Phil was a slavish imitator of Dylan--they are artists who may have started in the same place, but they took their work in different directions. Dylan's work tended to be oblique interior monologue, rendering both his emotions and his social and political commentary through surreal imagery, while Phil tended to focus on the concrete, the pictures of life, and their political and moral ramifications.

Like everybody, I tend to feel that I have a personal relationship with the performers and artists that I like. The truth of course is that we only know the work, and we know them only to the degree that the work expresses who they are.