Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 04:11 PM

No, PoppaGator, the God of Guitars...

...or was that Duane Allman?

I agree that Dylan's songwriting had a "something" to it that made a certain type of song more "credible". But I think what we are talking about is the folk/rock singer/songwriter genre being born with Dylan, much more than his actual songwriting abilities.

I mean, how many "classic" Dylan songs are there compared to the Lennon/McCartney or Jaggers/Richards? Certainly not more in number, or quality really.

Now, if you want to argue body of work, I think you have an argument, just not one you'll win. ;-)

How many Dylan songs get covered nowadays? How many kids of subsequent generations have thought Dylan was a great songwriter? Nowadays, the only kids who look to Dylan as a god are the indie rock kids who look up to Beck and others of that ilk.

And I would argue, that Dylan is no better/worse than John Prine, Roger McGuinn, Paul Simon, Fairport Convention, Phil Ochs, Joni Mitchell. But I would especially say John Prine, who, IMO is the best "short story set to music" songwriter of the generation, and even out-Dylans Dylan in that genre of songwriting.

I don't want y'all to think I don't like Dylan. I agree he is one of the top songwriters of the 60s, but I don't see him as being more extraordinary a songwriter than others I mention above, who weren't exactly songwriting dummies. I just hate the "voice of the generation" propaganda, because I have always felt it shortchanged so many songwriters who really were as good as Dylan, and who at the time blew our minds just as much as Dylan did.

That's all I'm sayin'. And that I haven't bought a Dylan album in a couple decades because there just wasn't much there that interested me. Unlike John Prine and Joni Mitchell--I kept listening to their music for longer than I did Dylan's. There isn't much in the post-Band era of Dylan's I thought was worth much. Some, but not much.

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: GUEST,Danny
Date: 19 Nov 04 - 11:55 PM

I'd have to say that as a Brit in the '70s, we didn't get Bob Dylan at all. We just wondered why a jew changed his name to that of a great Welsh poet and ripped off a large part of the British traditional folk music catalogue, changed some words and then claimed it as his own.
From friends in America, his personality is apparently best described as "an Asshole".

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: Big Tim
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 03:49 AM

Danny, you're talking rubbish. If "Brits" didn't get Dylan, how come his fans nearly sunk the Isle of Wight in 1969, and sold out Blackbushe in 1978 (one of the biggest paying gigs of all time) and, finally, how come "Brits" have bought millions of his albums and are counted by Bob himself as being among his most loyal fans? I forgot, how come 100,000 paid to see him at Wembley in 1984, at a time when his career was not exactly at its peak? How many roads must a man walk down before you call him a man?

Sam Cooke felt that HE (Sam) should have written "Blowin in the Wind", which he recorded, so he sat down and wrote "A Change is Gonna Come". That's influence.

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 08:39 AM

And where are all the anti-Dylan folk nazis who reside in splendor here? Don't wanna rock the boat I guess

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 11:04 AM

Dammit, GUEST, I swore I wuz gonna drop this, but I can't!

1) I (too) stopped following every Dylan release, sometime around the mid-70s. My high opinion of his work is pretty much based on the earlier stuff. I think he's "back" -- into another one of his high-quality creative periods -- as of "Love & Death," which I like and admire (as I did other isolated latter-day albums, like, say, "Blood On The Tracks").

2) As far as that "Voice of a Generation" business goes, I plead guilty to having felt that he *was* speaking to me and my peers during a very turbulent time. The Beatles and others, too, but none so tellingly as Bob. Since then, I've come to realize that, while there was indeed "something happening here" within worldwide youth culture to which musicians with worldwide exposure gave voice, those musicians themselves were blundering their way through the times just about as blindly as everyone else. Their efforts to make sense of things, however, were welcome and admirable.

3) What surprised me the most when I read "Chronicles Vol I" last week was all the great, complimentary things Bob had to say about *folk music* in the final part of the book. Based on things I've read and heard over the years, I had thought his attitude was different -- that rock 'n' roll was his true calling and that he valued it most highly, that he played it in high school and then again in '65 and ever since, and that those years in the folk world were just a youthful diversion and/or a ploy to get involved in a briefly popular trend. What he says in his new book is quite different: as he recalls his younger days, when he first encountered folk music and threw himself into learning everything he could about it, he goes on for pages and pages about the depth and seriousness and timeless appeal of songs that have come down to us through various folk traditions -- thoughts that even the hardest-assed "folk Nazi" would applaud. Kinda surprising, and very nice indeed.

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 12:17 PM

I know I'm going to sound cynical, but The Bob has had plenty of time to think about what he wanted to say in The Bob Chronicles. Considering the folk music arena is where he was most vociferously criticized for selling out (well, at least until the Victoria's Secrets commercial), it doesn't surprise me that he would speak affectionately and even authoritatively about folk music.

That said, I'm guessing Dylan picked up most of what he learned about songwriting from folk music and the folk musicians he learned from at the time of the 609s folk revivals in American, British, and Irish music. The folk traditions make for pretty good songwriting teachers, and the rest I put down to The Bob's natural gift and talent for lyric writing. The Bob's tunes are much less impressive than the lyrics. Which is why I put him on the second rung of songwriting greatness, rather than the top.

And finally, I appreciate that Dylan was the be all and end all for some people who value his type of song above all others. But that is hardly universal. I think it's pretty safe to say, most people on the planet would rather hear a catchy Beatles song than the best that Dylan has to offer. His kind of music, at it's best, is an acquired taste. Most people want music to speak to their hearts and their feet, ie to emotions put to rhythm so's they can dance to it.    You never see too many people dancing to Dylan, do ya?

Dylan is the undisputed master of a certain kind of intellectual song, a certain kind of music that appeals to educated Westerners. But his music just doesn't have the universal appeal of the Beatles. That is how I measure true greatness in songwriting ability: the reach of the song itself in terms of appeal, and it's reach through time, which makes it a classic down through the generations. There is a reason why "I Only Have Eyes For You" appeals down through the ages, even though it was written in the early 30s. How many Dylan songs will still be hits for the artists who cover them 50-75 years from now? My guess is, not a whole lot of them. A few, but not many. But there will be a huge slew of Lennon/McCartney tunes that will be covered and made hits anew.

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 12:37 PM

"Most people want music to speak to their hearts and their feet, ie to emotions put to rhythm so's they can dance to it.    You never see too many people dancing to Dylan, do ya?"


Ha! You just hit upon the crux of something there, my friend. I never listened to music at any age because I wanted something to dance to. Never. And you know why? Because I grew up listening to folk music. Music that made me think. Music that gave me a comprehension of history, philosophy, social causes, ideals, cultural change, and so on. Folk music, unlike most other musical genres, is NOT primarily intended as dance or entertainment music...it's primarily intended as "think and then feel that which you are thinking about and think some more" music. It doesn't merely entertain, it enlightens.

Popular music is intended as feel only...and then dance...but for heaven's sake, don't think! Just danc with the other sheep who aren't thinking. Do you think that commercial radio stations want anyone to think? Hell, if they did they'd turn off the damn radio station and listen to something real that wasn't permiated with an endless avalanche of advertising and obnoxious deejay blabber.

And therein lies the divide. I like the side of it that Dylan is on and I take to it naturally...hence I consider him the greatest songwriter of them all. You prefer the other side of that general divide, thus you are naturally more tuned in to the Beatles and a great many others. (who also did great music in their own fashion)

Dylan does not write songs for people to dance to. And that's just fine with me.

He either moves you profoundly or he doesn't. If he doesn't, there's nothing I can say that will faze you in the slightest.

And for the other yobbo from the UK...he did NOT name himself after Dylan Thomas!

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 01:08 PM

Dang, GUEST, are you *always* on line, lurking at Mudcat, or are you just always here at the same times I am? Did you put some kinda spyware in my computers (home & work both)? Soon as I open my virtual mouth, there you are again!

I had the same cynical thought about Bob's paean to folk music in "Chronicles," but I really felt as though he could only have formulated the thoughts he expressed if he had the requisite insights, if he had actually thought those thoughts himself. In other words, questioning his sincerity on this point is kinda moot. Of course, like all of us, I'm sure he has certainly entertained opposite points of view at different times.

I'll also concede that the Beatles' songbook probably includes more different numbers that will be long remembered by a wider public, but plenty of Dylan stuff will be immortal, too.

As far as Dylan being praiseworthy only as a lyricist, not as a tunesmith: Bob speaks directly to this in "Chronicles," asking "Why then am I getting so many royalties for instrumental versions of my songs [e.g., elevator music, etc.]? True, much of his earliest folk-era stuff used "borrowed" trad melodies, but he eventually became a truly complete songwriter.

One example -- just the other evening, I was listening to the drive-time "Jazz From the Park" program on WWOZ-FM on my way home from work, when I heard a young female jazz singer doing her version of "You're Gonna Make Me Lonesome When You Go." Hearing that song in a new and unfamilar arrangement made me realize more than ever before what a truly remarkable piece it is! Either the lyric or the melody by itself would be impressive, and the two go together seamlessly, of course. Way more sophisticated than anything the Beatles ever produced, I'd say -- and I'm a pretty enthusiastic fan of the Beatles. This is a song where Bob pretty much beats Cole Porter at his own game; I don't think I could say that about *anyone* else.

And one minor, almost-unrelated little argument: "Only Have Eyes" was/is an outstanding composition, of course, but the original arrangement and presentation had none of the strange and mysterious quality of the Flamingos' doo-wop masterpiece. The reinterpretation was even further from the original than was the Marvell's gloriously tongue-in-cheek "Blue Moon" (which my mother, of course, considered an absolute desecration of one of her generation's lovliest ballads).

I'd argue that there's *much* more difference between the original and later "Only Have Eyes"s even than there is between Bob's original "Watchtower" and Hendrix's memorable reinterpretation. (And that's a pretty big difference.)

In all three of these cases (and many others like them, I'm sure), the song as originally written always needs to have contained the "seed" for the remake, or at least to encompass enough complexity so that a fresh approach can find a wholly new mode of presentation. But, for my money, what the Flamingos made out of a 20-25 year old pop standard was so completely original, so one-of-a-kind, that it is in some sense a completely new piece, and the originator gets credit for only a relatively minor contribution to the end result -- this particular case is something completely different from the typical "cover version."

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 01:14 PM

I love the Flamingo's version of "Only Have Eyes...". It's a beautiful song in many ways.

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 03:48 PM

Little-known doo-wop trivia: a very young Ernie K-Doe (later famous for his novelty hit "Mother-In-Law) was a member of the Flamingos for a short time in the 50s, and his picture is on the cover of the album which includes "One Have Eyes..." Is that him singing on the record? Maybe even singing the lead? I don't know, and don't know how to find out.

His mother brought him to Chicago when he was a teenager; he auditioned for Harvey Fuqua and cut a few sides before returning home to New Orleans and starting to record under his own name. Working primarily with producer Allen Toussaint, he cut a *lot* of records, most of them released only locally and/or within the R&B "race record" market; mainstream America (i.e., white people outside south Louisiana) never heard any of his stuff except for that one big hit.

The late great Ernie K-Doe was a popular local stage act who put on a hell of a show, comparable to James Brown's. He had the most irrepressible ego imaginable, and his constant self-promotion always included a litany of his many (local) hits. Only during the last year or two of his life did he begin claiming credit for the lead vocal on "Only Have Eyes." I have my doubts; that voice just doesn't sound like him -- although it's possible: K-Doe had an amazing range, he managed to sound quite different on different cuts, and we don't know what he might have sounded like at a very young age. However, it it were true that he was lead vocalist on that Flamingos record, I think he would have been claiming credit for it from an earlier date, much louder and more often. However, since I've seen his photo on the album cover, I'm willing to believe he might at least be one of the backup singers on the record.

I got to know Ernie and his wife Antoinette a few years ago, hanging out at their Mother-In-Law Lounge on Claiborne Avenue. He performed all his old hits every weekend, and after a while let me join in and sign some harmonies with him. Once I got to join him onstage at a benefit concert at another, much larger, venue. (See 2d photo down on this page.) Sadly, less than two weeks later, years of alcohol abuse caught up to him; he fell into a coma and passed away on July 5, 2001, due to kidney and liver failure. Rest in peace, Ernie.

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: GUEST,Number 6
Date: 20 Nov 04 - 07:16 PM

'Imagine' .... silly, boring, and rather embarassing.

I like that quote "Imagine was just Working Class Hero with sugar on for conservatives..." ..... thanks Chris!

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 01:03 AM

"Working Class Hero" was indeed a memorable song, probably Lennon's most powerful composition.

"Imagine" was far too idealistic for anyone in a cynical frame of mind, so no wonder it bugs various people. My counterpoint to that, though, is this: Gandhi, Joan of Arc, Jesus Christ, and maybe even Abe Lincoln were idealists who believed that great changes for the better were possible and fully achievable...

Compare what they achieved against the puny achievements of the many pragmatic cynics who merely stood by and said, "That's a load of crap. It'll never happen."

I know who I'd follow through the fire, and it wouldn't be some clever cynic who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 03:25 AM

I personally think that "Positively 4th Street" was Dylan's best single, and the best 'F**k You' song ever written!

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 10:45 AM

Not much question about that... :-)

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 11:21 AM

Uh, Little Hawk, you must have grown up listening to some purty strange folk music if you never listened to dance music, seeing as the body of folk dance music is much larger than folk songs in most cultures. But hey--you keep referring to The Bob as a folk musician, so I doubt we'd ever agree much on folk music anyway!

I do find many of the arguments about Dylan's lyric writing ability compelling--I agree there is a complexity to them. I believe that is what won't make them "standards" or "classics" beyond our generation though, and the reason for that is the tunes. They just aren't that catchy. I mean, I can appreciate someone doing a jazz cover of a lot of Dylan songs, and I can imagine someone doing an R & B cover of some Dylan songs, but for the most part, there isn't a timeless quality to some of his lyrics. There are a number of Dylan songs that already sound very dated to me, for ex. "All I Really Want To Do".

Now, there are plenty of Beatles songs that are dated, not that great, etc. But I think it much more likely that somebody will pull "It's Only Love" off the shelf and do a great jazz cover of it in 50 years than "Like a Rolling Stone". Of course, in 50 years, I'll be dead wrong if I'm wrong.

I'll certainly agree to the complexity of Dylan's lyrics, but not his tune writing ability, which I would consider to be pretty average, nothing that stands out. If his stuff is covered, it's because of the appeal of the lyric, not the tune. And as I said, because Dylan songs are really songs written for Western intellectuals, those are the people his music appeals to, not us unwashed mashes who love to dance, sing along, sing in the shower, etc etc

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: GUEST,MojoBanjo
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 06:49 PM

Well, part of the problem evident here is that a lot of people believe the world started at the moment they were born.

Like A Rolling Stone was revolutionary on a number of levels. Besides an amazing feat of writing, it broke the 2:37 barrier on AM radio. Prescious little of merit has emerged in the last ten to fifteen years, especially with the most unfortunate wheel in the ditch known as Rap.


Mojo Banjo

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 07:28 PM

"...a lot of people believe the world started at the moment they were born."

Amen, brother! There's a lot of that going around -- have you been following the thread on "Why Does Anyone Like Elvis?"? (In this discussion, on the other hand, I believe GUEST is old enough to know better -- just disagrees with you, me Little Hawk, etc.)

All due respect, I always have my doubts when someone complains that successful popular art is excessively "middle-class" and/or "intellectual." Almost without exception, the complainant turns out to be an intellectual with deep roots in the *upper*-middle class, and is basically full of it.

Dylan's work won't lose any relevance for being too brainy or too bourgeoise. Future people on earth, in general, are going to become more and more educated (albeit slowly), not less so, and basic human nature isn't going to change, so Bob's best work will not only still be valid well into the future, it should steadily become more and more accessible to mass numbers of people.

Not every song, of course, will stand the test of time. But I'm sure people will always relate to "Positively Fourth Street"!

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 11:25 PM

I appreciate how revolutionary Dylan was believe me... I'm just saying that "Rolling Stone.." is the first song people think of in reference to Bob, and it's not fair to all of his great work!
It's in everyone's top 10 and it should be, but to a lot of people there's nothing else but "Hoooow does it feeeeeeeeeel!?"

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 11:29 PM

Like a rollin' stone? I thought it was about horses--like a stolen roan. Dang.

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 01:51 AM

'...nothing else but "Hoooow does it feeeeeeeeeel!?" ????

*IS* there anything else besides "Hoooow does it feeeeeeeeeel!?" ????

To me, that phrase has always expressed an awful lot -- for me, anyway, when I sing it!

;^D

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 02:16 AM

GUEST - Yeah, I follow you. I know there's lots of folk music that was dance music too (jigs and reels come to mind), but that's not the genre of folk that I was drawn to. I was attracted to the genre that was lyric-driven and intended to be listened to rather than danced to. First of all, you've got the old English, Scottish, Irish ballads....things like Mary Hamilton, Barbrie Allen, and so on...they're mostly rather mournful and introspective. Joan Baez covered pretty well all of them, and she was my first real obsession as a folk performer. Then you've got the singer-songwriter ballad tradition, made strong by people like Woody Guthrie, Ramblin' Jack (who followed Guthrie), Bob Dylan (who followed Guthrie AND Ramblin' Jack), and so on...

That stuff tended to be modern in theme, yet strongly built on older tradition, and it could be either personal or topical, but it certainly wasn't dance music.

It's not that I look down on dance music, it's just not my main area of interest. I'm more interested in history, philosophy, spirituality, social change, and stuff like that.

Now as for the tunes..."Like a Rolling Stone" is not particularly tuneful, it's a visceral vocal recitation of anger and disgust for the most part rather than a tune. But...there are a great many marvelous tunes in Dylan's writing. I think it's the oddly particular tone of his voice that causes this to elude people. If you hear Joan Baez or Judy Collins or Shawn Colvin do Dylan songs you cannot deny the presence of those beautiful melodies.

A melody, put on paper, usually looks like a line of mountain ranges with peaks and valleys. Those peaks and valleys often mirror one another in various geometrical fashions and sometimes take a surprisingly big jump at some point. If you put Dylan's melodies on paper in this fashion and look, you will discover that he's just about as good at penning fine tunes as most other great songwriters.

It's just his voice that's throwing you off. I know this, because I can easily sing about 50 or 100 Dylan songs and I do not find the tunes lacking in the least. They're beautiful.

If you want to complain about lack of tunefullness...talk about Rap!!! :-)

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 02:29 AM

You can't say 'crap' without sayin' 'rap'... anyway, I've done Bob Dylan tunes and when my fiancee hears the original versions she says "I think you do this better."
Of course, I disagree with her. My voice might be more tuneful, more melodic (than a lot of earlier Dylan), but you can never beat the originals. Especially his...

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 10:11 AM

Exactly the experience I've had singing Dylan songs.

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 10:26 AM

I've always sung a lot of Dylan songs, but (unlike many other wannabes I've witnessed over the years) never tried to imitate Bob at all. My voice may not be the world's most beautiful, but like almost anyone's, it's probably a bit more conventionally appealing than Bob's.

Also, I never learned to play harmonica well enough to meet my own standards, and although I owned a rack at one time, I never put it to use in performance. So I never "imitated" that element of Bob's presentation.

After the release of "Big Pink," I'm sure I began making an unconsicous effort to sound like Danko, Levon, and/or Robbie when singing Dylan songs -- even the earliest pre-Band songs. Their approach was pretty close to the way I always wanted to hear that music anyway, and my versions of their interpretations came pretty natural.

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 11:30 AM

Well thanks PoppaGator for telling me my opinion is "full of it" and "upper middle class" because I disagree with you!

As to the rest of the Mudcat Dylan cult, I believe this is where it's time to say you have your opinions, I have mine, and they don't agree.

And I'll politely leave it at that.

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 12:26 PM

Sorry, GUEST.

I had been biting my virtual tongue on that thought, but kept thinking it for several days, and finally blurted it out. Since I/we don't know who you are, there's no way of knowing whether my generalization would apply in any way to you personally.

And you're right, we certainly can and should agree to disagree and perhaps it IS finally time to leave it at that.

The differences have been interesting, though, and I have certainly taken most of your arguments quite seriously and even modified my own opinions (some of them) in response. It's been real!

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 12:38 PM

Nice, nice Fellas.............

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 05:19 PM

"They asked for some collateral and I pulled down my pants..."

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 06:19 PM

Apology gratefully accepted, PoppaGator.

BTW, I have no problems with "upper middle class"! I only wish it was me!

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 10:11 PM

There we go, boys. Much better...

Subject: RE: Dylan: Rock Legend, Maybe Folk Legend?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 23 Nov 04 - 02:36 PM

*Wishing* to be more affluent looks like something GUEST and I definitely have in common!

Little Hawk, on the other hand, seems to have sufficient assets to put up some serious collateral...