Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 10:01 AM

Was he singing "Lay, Lingerie, Lay"?
RtS
(I'll get me basque....)

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 09:36 AM

Wow! Looks like you are working on a stereotype in your last paragraph guest! In fact, you have used numerous stereotypes in your comments such as "over the hill rocker".

Your interpretation of the commercial is different than mine - that doesn't make either of us wrong. I don't disagree with your thoughts about modern culture using sexism. I do disagree that this commerical is "crass and demeaning".    Watching this commercial does not make treat women as "sex toys" nor incite me to violence.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 08:57 AM

I've been the most outspoken voice in this thread about the sexism being used to sell VS undies by an over the hill rocker. I have seen the commercial, on television, and not as part of a news report, so I think I can speak to the commercial and the context in which it is being shown to hawk VS undies, Ron.

As to the comparison to Henry James, believe me, this commercial doesn't rise to that level of artistry. Not by a long shot. It is crass and demeaning.

Little Hawk, I find it interesting that your perception of a "mature" woman is one who buys into the corporate standard of beauty. Doesn't surprise me of course, because your responses show you to be pretty damn defensive when the "s" word is used in your presence, and I don't mean sex or sexual. You one of the boys who believes there is no such thing?

It's a commercial with an old man and sweet young thing. In US culture, that combination only happens when the old man has money and power, and the sweet young thing wants the money and power, not the old man. So the old man can buy young, greedy, ruthless women and use them as sex toys. That's the deal. That's the misogynist stereotyping going in the commerical. You need stereotypes to sell shit on tv, and this one is tried and true.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 07:25 AM

All depends what you mean by a leer - my dictionary gives the definition as sly or lascivious or malign. I'd say that "sly" just about fits that expression of his, and the song pretty clearly rules out "lascivious".

That's why, when I introduced the word into the thread I called it a "sardonic leer" - "bitter, scornful, mocking, sneering, cynical". But with a humourous touch, because he's parodying himself. As he always has been prone to do.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 04:16 AM

I don't think a man that age should wear a thong, suspenders and push-up bra!

RtS
(I'll stay with Y-fronts & singlets)

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 12:40 AM

HEY! Are you sayin' people have to be informed to have opinions??! Is that what yer sayin'? HEY!!! I'M TALKIN' TO YOU! THIS IS THE USA, BUDDY!!! ARE YOU LOOKIN' AT ME? HEY!!!

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 11:47 PM

It is amazing how people admit to not seeing the commercial and still pass judgement on content. Henry Miller's books were banned with exactly the same thought process.   We also have a government that never saw weapons and went to war. I guess we are all the same.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 11:47 PM

No, it's a joke. Or else it's just a lark. He doesn't need the money. He's doing 100 concerts a year and collecting royalties to the sky.

- LH

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Peace
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 11:44 PM

It may be demeaning to women: Direct that remark to the women participating in the commercial and the people who purchase from VS. And at Bob. If you're gonna use a shotgun, get 'em all, d.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 11:22 PM

I haven't seen the ad and I don't care if Dylan is leering or looking contemplative. I do think its a poor performance on Dylan's part and is demeaning to women. I'm disappointed that he would partake in such a blatant sell-out. He obviously doesn't need the money so he must be a greedy bastard, after all. Seems he has caved in to the forces that he urged everyone to defy. He has always been controversial so maybe it was the controversy he was craving. Who knows ... maybe its mid-life crisis gone public.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 10:51 PM

Vee need to get Herr Liebenscheiss in here, Guest, to determine chust vat nasty traumas you have suffered at ze hands uff ze vicious exploiters uff vimmen in ze past zat are inspiring all zis concern. Could it be a child-abuse situation percolating in ze old subconscious, perhaps? Hmmmm. Tell me vat you are zinkink about ven ze name uff your fadder comes up, ja? Vell, I sink vee are onto somezink here! Chust relax und let ze deeply buried associations pass sru your mind, ja? Und ven does a soughtful look transmute into a leer??? Und vy? Ja, dis iss gutt stuff...

I sink vee may yet arrive at a major breaksrough in ziss case und even uncover some nasty anti-semitism vile vee are at it! It iss qvite possible zat Victoria's Secret has conspired to embarrass Mister Dylan, who iss, as we all know, a Jew...by compromising hiss public image in ziss horrible fashion. Sink about zat!!!

Doktor Liebenscheiss

(Hey, nameless one...Joan Baez thought Dylan was sexy and Jenellen is light years ahead of you in the maturity department.)

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 10:40 PM

You know Little Hawk, you have a very annoying tendency to say things like "he's looking thoughtful...certainly isn't leering" as if it were fact. It isn't. It is your opinion. Your opinion is not shared by everyone, hence the 200+ posts to the thread, a lot of which is discussing all the various ways this commercial feeds into the most sexist culture on the planet, the culture of corporate tv advertising.

In fact, a whole lot more of this thread is about the sexism in the commercial, and the sexism of corporate advertising, than it is about Dylan.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 10:25 PM

Superficial? Oh, no doubt they are... :-) But not like you and me, right, Guest? (Heh!)

I avoid and ignore advertising any way I can and I don't normally watch TV. I would've missed this ad entirely if not for Mudcat.

But I enjoy seeing Bob, just because he is Bob and we go back a long way. I don't give a hang one way or the other about Victoria's Secret...but look at all the yacking that ad has inspired! And yes, he's looking thoughtful...certainly isn't leering.

Meanwhile, there is a fascinating interview with Dylan on a thread that has garnered 11 posts up there somewhere. Amusing. Woogie Boogie!

- LH

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 10:21 PM

JenEllen, I have no idea what age you are, but you sound like a very insecure, and immature woman to me.

Some of us don't by our undergarments, or anything else for that matter, at VS or at WalMart. Jesus, is that the standard we are talking here? Are you married to Bubba?

Look, Bob Dylan isn't sexy--not even on his best day, and certainly not in the age group the commercials are aimed at, most of whom just consider him another over the hill, faded rock star. He is old. Putting an old faded rock star in a VS commercial with women young enough to be his grandchildren is creepy, not sexy, not tasteful, not even edgy. It is just plain creepy in that dirty old rich man, taking a pretty young thing as a sex toy kind of way.

In this commerical, to anyone who isn't into the whole The Bob things, he looks more than a little creepy in the commercial. Scowling to some maybe who don't want to think that is the way most young women are perceiving this commercial. But leering is also the way it is being seen.

Why can't people here just accept the fact that different people will, of course, view this commerical very differently, depending on their age, gender, and their social, cultural, and political sensitivities and sensibilities.

And why is it that there seems to be such a pervasive subtext in this thread of the corporate standard of beauty and sexiness as a legitimate standard anyway?

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 10:10 PM

"I don't think any woman who is at all at ease with herself is going to care one way or the other how things are marketed and sold to her, so long as the product itself stands. That was my point."

First off, you shouldn't be trying to represent yourself as if you speak for women, because you don't. You are one women, and I think you'd find a lot of women disagreeing with your statement I quote above.

Second, I care a great deal how things are marketed and sold to me, and I base most of my buying decisions evaluating those things. I also care about who makes the product where, and under what conditions. All those factors go into my buying choices.

Third, advertising just doesn't work on me, because I don't consume like a mindless couch potato.

Fourth, I have never bought from VS and never will because of my objections to the sexist, objectified way they sell. But I do know women who have and who do shop there, but they seem to make a lot of complaints about the quality and durability of the product they wear.

Fifth, the commercials seem tailor made for people who need to be entertained while they are being sold a bill of goods. I find those sorts of people pretty superficial.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: GUEST,i am victoria's secret
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 08:32 PM

i think bob looks bloody great in this video. and he certainly isnt leering. its a contemplative gaze, him thinking, as he does best.
myself, i cant fault the man on much (well, maybe self portrait or empire burlesque eh?) .. "the man has more voices than hats~!" cracked me up..
"i went back to find Isis.. just to tell her I LOVE HERRRR!"
long live bob!

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 07:27 PM

He isn't leering, John. He's scowling. Looking cynical and tired of the whole "romance" thing...and that is the message in the song "Sick of Love" as well. It's an interesting counterpoint to find in a lingerie ad.

- LH

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 05:00 PM

John - peace through understanding!   Aside from being the motto of the old New York World's Fair, I think it fits here.   It is very easy to misread intent and tone in e-mails. It is also easy for the writer (me) to not fully explain thoughts. I thank you for the post and I too apologize if MY words were interpreted as insulting, that was not my intent.

I do see your points John and I know that people consider him to be a "sellout", but I go back to an earlier point that people place too much on Dylan to be a "spokesperson" or hold him up to ideals that he never created. Sure there was an image, but how much of that was open to interpretation? How much did he really create and how much did the media and OUR generation thrust on him? There are numerous examples where he shunned the title of being a spokesperson. In a way, we all fell victims to "corporate masters" by turning Dylan into an idol instead of a great songwriter and performer, which is all he ever was.

I do understand the issues with corporations and people should question the motives.   However, I don't think we should always pre-judge or disregard a commercial just because it comes from a large company. Victoria's Secrets sells bras and panties - they aren't trying to change the world. They want to showcase their product in the best possible light and they aren't taking themselves too seriously. We all try to sell our own product in many ways, and I can't fault anyone for that. Dylan is having fun, he isn't pushing a product that will harm us.    I do respect your views on how the media sells sex, but in this case I personally feel the commercial is different.   Having a beautiful woman in a skimpy outfit is not an invitation to be a plaything and I don't feel the commercial treats it as such.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Strick
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 04:57 PM

You know, this ad doesn't really compare to the music video I just flicked past with my remote control. Real tame by comparison.

Not that I would want to bring any observations about the current state of the music industry into this kind of conversation or anything.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: JenEllen
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 04:41 PM

Victoria's Secret has some kittens in undies in their commercial, but Wal-Mart offered a 10yr old girl a $25 gift certificate to withhold litigation after she had been 'allegedly' fondled by a store employee. Who is sending the wrong idea to women about their sexuality, and given the choice, where would you buy your underwear?

So what if the media overlooks the sexuality of women over 40? There is no way that a woman over 40 is gonna 'out-kitten a kitten' without looking ridiculous. If by 40, a woman isn't secure in her sexuality, there is no outside influence that is going to matter one whit.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: John P
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 04:32 PM

Sorry, Ron. I wasn't trying to be insulting, or at least no more than you were when you said "By the way, ALL the models in VS are adults", as if you didn't know what I was talking about. I like discussions, and I dislike competitions.

I hope you can understand why I thought you were saying that I was hiding, or wanted to hide, sexuality. It was the "You can't hide sexuality" that you wrote in a post directed to me that made me think that. I think I understand better what you were saying now.

Yes, one of the things that came out of the revolution of ideas in the 60s was that sex, sexuality, and sexiness can be talked about openly, and shown in the media. Another idea that I took away from that time is that the corporate masters only have power over us if we let them. Sexuality as presented by VS, and by most of the rest of the media, is an example of corporations using the results of the revolution to sell things. But since they only portray a terribly narrow band of the idea, we can see that they don't really get it. They are just pretending to get it in order to make more money. By buying into the definition of sexiness as put forth by VS, we are letting the corporate masters have power over us. Oh, crud, this is way too esoteric and important sounding for a discussion of a silly TV ad. But Bob Dylan, as one of the chief voices of my generation calling for us see a better world, and to not give in to the status quo, loses my respect to some extent when he lends his face and voice to an advertisement, especialy since I'm pretty sure he's just doing it to get some attention. It is even worse that it is an ad for a company that presents women in such a narrow, contrained way. Did you say this was Dylan pursuing his art? Are you sure?

I'd love to actually see the ad in question. None of the web sites I've seen seem to show it. Does anyone know a web site where I can go see it? I'm certainly not going to sit around and watch the TV until it happens to come on.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 03:25 PM

I should clarify one thing in my last post.   I do agree with John in the sense that the media overlooks the sexuality of women over 40, and I do think he is right when he says that art CAN promote violence against women. However, I disagree that this is as pervasive as many people make it out to be. In the case of this particular Victoria's Secret commercial, I personally do not see it.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 03:05 PM

There is no need to get insulting John. I treated your opinions with respect and I think I am entitled to the same. This is a discussion, not a contest. That was uncalled for.

I did respond to what you said. YOU did not respond to what I was saying when I asked if you weren't being hypocritical to pass judgement on a commercial that you never saw and based your comment on opinions. From your original post, you "imagine" a leering Bob Dylan and make assumptions that the commercial is like the rest based on other Victoria Secret commercials you have seen.

You also said that the models look like "vapid children", yet you admit to not having seen this particular commercial.

I NEVER disagreed with your statements about the portrayal of women, nor did I EVER accuse you of saying that you were hiding sexuality. I'm sorry if my statment wasn't clear or if you didn't comprehend it, but I was trying to say that the sexual revolution enables commercials like this to be possible.   I do disagree with you that the woman is being treated like a "sex toy".

With art we can all make different interpretations, just like Bob Dylan's songs.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: John P
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 02:43 PM

Ron,
Who said anything about denying an artist the right to do whatever he pleases? Bob Dylan can do anything damn fool he chooses to, and I'm not claiming the right to regulate him in any way. I just said I don't respect his choice.

And who said anything about hiding sexuality? Where do you get these ideas? I like sexuality, and I like it when it is front and center in our media. I was objecting to the massively pervasive message that women stop being sexually appealing when they pass forty years of age. I stand by my assertion that objectifying women as sex toys helps create a culture where violence toward women is possible and expected. Please note: I'm not saying that women of any age shouldn't be sexual, or sexy, or shouldn't revel in their sexiness, or shouldn't dress in sexy clothes if they want to.

And if you couldn't figure out what I meant when I said that ads don't use adult women, given the context of everything else I said, then you need to work on your reading comprehension skills a bit.

Please respond to what I actually say, not to some strange spin you decide to put on it.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: JenEllen
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 01:50 PM

You are correct, John, it's not all that important. I don't think any woman who is at all at ease with herself is going to care one way or the other how things are marketed and sold to her, so long as the product itself stands. That was my point.

Bob is enough of a "BOB" to withstand snide remarks and VS has garnered enough of a following that they can do stupid things like prime-time fashion shows (that most of their customers didn't watch anyway) and vapid commercials. All of the chatter here is pointless to either party, simply because it's toothless enough not to matter. Through their previous dealings with their public, they have made enough of a name for themselves that we forgive their little indiscretions in favor of the product.

We had a discussion about this very thing at work this morning, and the consensus was something like this:
"It's what happens when you make a good product. Have you ever worn their "IT" bras? The commercial could have had models mugging old people and retarded children while Bob Dylan is in the background singing "Roll Out The Barrel" and whacking a burlap bag of newborn kittens against the Venician pillars, and I'd have most likely spooned my IT bras and said "They probably weren't real kittens anyway...."

The quality of product from either party is hardly effected by a single ill-planned commercial. The worst they are guilty of is bad judgement.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 01:45 PM

By the way, ALL the models in VS are adults

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 01:44 PM

"revolution of ideals in the 60s and 70s"

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to boast about revolution of ideals and then deny an artist the right to make their art? With all due respect John, it is one thing to critique a song/video/commercial on it's merit, but aren't you a bit guilty of stereotyping since you admit that you haven't even seen the commercial?

There are plenty of examples of art "objectiving" women throughout the ages, but I disagree that this automatically encourages violence towards women. You can't hide sexuality, that was one of the changes that resulted from the "revolution of ideals in the 60s and 70s".

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: John P
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 01:31 PM

JenEllen, It's interesting that you responded to points I didn't make, while not actually responding to points I did make. It's not about the quality of product or the tastefulness of the catalog. I agree that VS is several steps better in those regards than most of their competition. It's about the attitude and the message. I know that almost no one uses adult models. That was part of my point.

". . . the land where any publicity is good publicity . . ."
How sad that this is true. I still maintain that anyone who uses this fact is a sell-out.

Obviously this ad isn't going to change anyone's mind about VS or about Dylan. It's just not all that important. I like sexy underhings as well as most, but I don't agree with the way they are marketed and sold. I like a lot of Bob Dylan's work, but I don't respect his decision to pursue publicity in a way that, to me, displays a lack of integrity.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: JenEllen
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 01:08 PM

Whoa there, Nelly....

First off, let me say that I have no real affinity for Bob. Take him or leave him, in all the categories of writing, singing, appearance, I can think of men I enjoy more. HOWEVER, I think this commercial is really a cause for celebration.

(a small aside to JohnP, you might have missed the boat a bit about VS--catalogs are for the most part tasteful, and they manage to make a product that is fairly priced and well-made. Sears and JCPenney don't use 40+ models in their underwear section either. Sexy is what you do with it once you get it home)

Celebration, yes. Both of these entities, Bob and VS, have reached a point in their careers where they can acutally do something as stupid as associate themselves with one another, and it gets this kind of response. Last time I checked, we still lived in the land where any publicity is good publicity, and they have that in spades.

No VS wearer I know is going to throw out their undies because Bob was on a commercial, and no Bob-fan is going to trash their albums and boycott concerts because he was on a commercial. I think they will enjoy the new market, and ignore all the limp-wristed criticisms. Either way, they win.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: John P
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 12:24 PM

I haven't seen the ad in question (neither of the links given early in the thread seem to take me there), but all the other VS ads I've seen have been idiotic and offensive. I can only imagine adding a leering Bob Dylan would make them even worse.

My opinions:
Victoria Secret and the attitude it feeds (and feeds off of) helps to create a culture that objectifies women.

A culture that objectifies women helps to encourage violence toward women.

All the women in VS ads are young and "beautiful". Aside from the fact that they look like vapid children to me, this helps to create a culture that defines female beauty and sexuality in terms of a very narrow range of shape and age. Women in the their 40s, 50s, and 60s are so much more sexy than these kids, but our society doesn't notice this, and actually spends millions of dollars telling us that adult women are over the hill as sexually desirable people.

Anyone who uses their fame to make an ad for a major corporation is a sell-out. Especially those who were part of the revolution of ideals in the 60s and 70s. In Dylan's case, he doesn't even need the money. He just wants to get his face out there once again. A career move by someone whose ego is more important that his integrity.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 10:53 AM

And for something far more interesting than debating about a Victoria's Secret ad, check out the wonderful Dylan interview in the Los Angeles Times: got to the threads above (in music section) entitled:

Dylan in the L.A. Times

and...

Review: Bob Dylan - Biography

- LH

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: GUEST,guest-hater
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 10:41 AM

You suck dude.
How many albums has Dylan put out? He was a MAJOR influence on Jimi Hendrix, Beatles, Young, Cash, Garcia......and soooo many more. His voice? I cannot understand how people are still commenting on the greatest poet of all times' VOICE!!!???! I mean really, Have you heard his 63' album? How about Desire?? HAve you heard Desire? Hard Rain? Give it rest, you have no idea what you are talking about, he has more voices then hats~!

You SUCK!

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 06:11 PM

And the glorious thread rolls on! :-)

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 06:03 PM

"Where have you been, my blue-eyed son,
Where have you been, my darlin' young one?
"I've been cavorting with scantily-clad ladies...."

"It's some hard, hard, hard, hard,
Yeah, some hard cash is gonna fall...."

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 04:59 PM

I don't think I could have any serious regard for the opinions of anyone who doesn't like Garrison Keiller...

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 04:58 PM

I don't think I could have any serious regard for the opinions of nayine who doesn't like Garrison Keiller...

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 04:53 PM

Yahoo - AP story

Looks like someone from AP is reading Mudcat!   At least he could have done was give me credit for the quote! Why does Dennis Elsas get all the glory??   :)

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From:
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 02:44 AM

What's it all coming to?

Here's a link to the commerical in question for your Windows Media Player:

http://mfile.akamai.com/6313/wmv/vs.download.akamai.com/6313/fall_2003/vsangels_300k.wmv

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 09:54 PM

Just be glad you have escape the Harry Lee Wigley hype...

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 07:44 PM

More like confusing talent with notoriety.

He never had a decent singing voice, ever.

McGrath, my participation in the thread has been to discuss the commercial and Dylan's part in it. As happens with threads, there has been drift, and I've followed it.

I have seen the entire commercial while watching television a couple of times now, while many of the posters to this thread claim not to have seen it, yet don't feel shy about commenting upon it anyway.

Anyone who has been a part of mainstream culture in the US, and particularly in Minnesota where I live, hasn't been able to escape the Dylan hype over the years. Because I live in his home state, it is nigh on impossible to escape the PR and hype surrounding him, just as it is for Prince (at least he has musical talent), or Garrison Keillor (who also has a lot more notoriety than musical talent, and also cultivates and courts the phony icon status thing).

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Peace
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 07:30 PM

We seem to be confusing vocalist with singer.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 07:26 PM

I was evidently mistaken, Guest, when I assumed you were a former fan who got mad when Bob changed. You appear instead to be someone who never got what he was saying in the first place. You have plenty of company out there, but most of them are ignoring this thread. If you knew Dylan's catalog as well as I do you would have to be in some bizarre state of denial to assert that he has no singing talent. Ever been to any live Dylan concerts back in the 60's, 70's, 80's, or even 90's? I agree that his voice is pretty well gone now.

- LH

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 07:16 PM

Well, yes, the fact that you "don't give a shit about him" suggests to me that you probably don't know all that much about him either. I mean, why would you if you don't care? How MUCH don't you care? :-) Tell us.

- LH

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 07:15 PM

So why not just walk away from it GUEST Date: 04 Apr 04 - 07:08 PM?

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 07:08 PM

The suggestion that there is anything I can't handle about Dylan is silly. I don't give a shit about Dylan. I think he is a money grubbing, attention seeking jerk. I think he has cultivated and courted an image that is phony. I don't think much of him as a musician (for instance he has literally no musical talent whatsoever when it comes to singing, and I've never been impressed with his playing either) most of the music he's created.

Why is that so hard for you to handle LH? Hero worship is what it looks like to me, as I said in my post above. For Dylan devotees, he can do no wrong. For the rest of us, there is no reason why we shouldn't use the same yardsticks to measure the man, the musician, the celebrity that we do anyone else.

Don't like my opinion of Dylan? C'est la vie.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 06:48 PM

Dylan did not seek the "icon" image, he had it thrust upon him while doing what came naturally...playing and writing great songs. As soon as he perceived that he was being used by a large contingency of people as a front man to further their political concerns he became uncomfortable and deliberately stepped out of the mould they were trying to put him in. This has happened repeatedly throughout his career. Dylan's a natural writer. He doesn't write by pre-calculation, it just happens. His sincerity in the protest songs he wrote in the early 60's was as plainly obvious at the time as his sincerity in the late 70's-early 80's when he was preaching a Christian gospel in his songs. He has tried to dodge being labelled ever since about 1963 (when he became famous). Even Joan Baez, who was very upset with Dylan's apparent abandonment of "protest" in the later 60's has stated quite clearly in her writing that there is simply NO WAY that he didn't mean what he said in those early protest songs. What you can't handle, Guest, is that he changed. He did not wish to become someone's icon. People who are unwilling to change themselves don't take it too well when their heroes change. The songs stand on their own merits, and always will.

Nothing can change one's starry-eyed idealism as fast as hanging out with people who are fanatical about something and are determined to make you their spokesman whether you want to be or not. I encountered the same thing when I was hanging out with a lot of Native North Americans, and I got sick of it. Fortunately though, I wasn't famous at the time, so I could just walk away from it all and be left alone.

- LH

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Strick
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 06:32 PM

"BTW, I don't know of any person who would use the words "advertising" and "honest" in the same sentence, but I do understand there are people who actually believe in sexualizing capitalism if that's what it takes to keep the public well sedated and preoccupied."

I'm disappointed. Are you really sure you couldn't have worked the word "bourgeois" into that sentence? Did you even try?

I promise, Dylan wasn't lying in the ad. He doesn't wear ladies underwear in public. Well, not often, not any more.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Peace
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 03:55 PM

What's a TV?

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 02:01 PM

The reason why Dylan is perceived by so many as a sell out is because of the way he cultivated his career image over the years. It was in Dylan's heyday that the "spokeman for his generation" crap started, when his songs with political content were given as proofof that status, which many of us now believe wasn't really an accurate portrayal of Dylan at all. When it was advantageous for him to be perceived as a political radical in tune with the radical left at that stage of his career, he cultivated and courted that image. Many of us believe he was blatantly opportunitistic about it, just as we believe he is being blatantly opportunistic in this era of slick soft porn sex sells sensibilities. It's all about the image with Dylan, it seems to us.

For those of us who have perceived him negatively in this regard all along, or at least were suspicious and wary of it, it has appeared to us that he has continued to cultivate and court that iconic image of himself from those early days right on down to the Victoria's Secret commercial.

BTW, I don't know of any person who would use the words "advertising" and "honest" in the same sentence, but I do understand there are people who actually believe in sexualizing capitalism if that's what it takes to keep the public well sedated and preoccupied.

Subject: RE: Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret
From: Jeanie
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 01:14 PM

Bruce, all is not lost. You may yet find out Victoria's Secret, if my theory is correct. Have a read of my crazed ramblings suggesting that Victoria's Secret is the American equivalent of Joanna Southcott's Box. This sealed box of mystical secrets (which, despite appearing in a Monty Python sketch, really does exist and is taken seriously by some) is only allowed to be opened in the collective presence of 24 Anglican Bishops, in a typically tedious, tea-drinking British kind of way. Two or more centuries since the box was sealed, they haven't managed to get around to it yet. Now, with the appearance of Dylan, the conditions for revealing Victoria's Secret seem to be a lot more interesting. According to my warped "theory", it is only allowed to be revealed in the presence of 24 singer-songwriters, and dear old Dylan just happened to be the first. I reckon you are in with a very good chance of being in on the action, Bruce !

- jeanie