This Just In: Bob Dylan Might not be God. Options

[mrmcpheezy]

from the 0ct. 13th Edition of the Sacramento News and Review:

With a new album and a new tour rolling into Sacramento this week, Bob Dylan’s name comes up rather frequently these days, and when it does, objectivity regularly gets trashed. I’m consistently amazed at the fawning, hyperbolic, pseudo-poetic fluff that gets passed off as critical discussion. A single disparaging word about Dylan invites tirades from offended myrmidons. Even a critic as esteemed as the New Yorker’s Louis Menand felt compelled to acknowledge, mostly in jest, that his “life may not be worth much” after he called some of Dylan’s lyrics “truly lame.”

Well, fans, the problem isn’t me or Dylan, it’s you. Fans, in general, suffer from an unwillingness to judge entertainment value and cultural status separately from musicianship, but there’s an important difference between the phrases “I like it” and “It’s good.” The safe haven of personal taste is, as Immanuel Kant astutely observed, the excuse “with which every tasteless person proposes to avoid blame.”

I believe Dylan is every bit the cultural icon--the embodiment of an era--that his fans, and most critics and historians, vociferously declare him to be. Instead, I take issue with the assumed impunity with which Dylan supporters weave uninformed paeans to his talent. I’m troubled by the need to “perpetuate the god myth,” as former Dylan girlfriend Suze Rotolo called it (that’s her on the cover of 1963’s The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan).

Dylan is a masterful songwriter, a skill born of his trenchant observation and his love of the form. Dylan is, despite his protests, a cultural touchstone. Dylan is a very good musician--but there’s the rub. Let’s be very clear: Putting aside his influence, when it comes to objectively evaluated musicianship, Dylan is very good and no more.

As a vocalist, the former Mr. Zimmerman’s tone and timbre--though hardly as bad as early critics proclaimed--are thin and inconsistent, but that’s offset by his impeccable phrasing. As a guitarist, he’s as solid a rhythm player as any troubadour should be, but for folk-guitar skills, look to his peers. He has little of Bert Jansch’s dexterity and none of Davy Graham’s broad technical palette. Dylan’s sound is very distinctive, but to declare that sound “great” is like taking comfort in a “great” case of cancer.

The irony here is that Dylan, older and wiser, seems far less impressed by the quality of some of his recordings than his fans are. “The record was an art form,” he told Jonathan Lethem in a recent Rolling Stone interview. “... Maybe I was never part of that art form, because my records were never artistic at all.” As to his legacy, Dylan’s own words often lie starkly in contrast to public opinion. In his 2004 autobiography, Chronicles, Volume One, he states quite unequivocally, “I had very little in common with and knew even less about a generation that I was supposed to be the voice of.” An exaggeration perhaps, but his fans should take a lesson from Dylan’s humility.

Prejudicial examination exists when we ignore the evident in favor of the empiric. Defending our favorite artists means assuming we share their tastes, but as Menand recently pointed out, the musical tastes of musicians are typically much richer and varied than that of their fans. How many of Dylan’s fans hold a special place in their hearts for Kurt Weill’s “Pirate Jenny”? Can’t we admit, all of us, that the music we revere too often becomes a fetish, adored not so much for what it is, but for what it represents? We expend so much energy defending the quality of our favorite musicians when we’re actually defending our own memories.

We need to remind ourselves that accurate examinations of influential artists, Dylan being but an example, accountings of their missteps as well as their triumphs, are more valuable than a cultural reliquary. Let’s concentrate on expanding our own cultural horizons and let the musicians defend themselves, if they even want to.

http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=oid%3A36586


So, yeah.

First:

Fans, in general, suffer from an unwillingness to judge entertainment value and cultural status separately from musicianship

there’s an important difference between the phrases “I like it” and “It’s good.”

The safe haven of personal taste is, as Immanuel Kant astutely observed, the excuse “with which every tasteless person proposes to avoid blame.”

Putting aside his influence, when it comes to objectively evaluated musicianship, Dylan is very good and no more.

As a vocalist, the former Mr. Zimmerman’s tone and timbre--though hardly as bad as early critics proclaimed--are thin and inconsistent, but that’s offset by his impeccable phrasing. As a guitarist, he’s as solid a rhythm player as any troubadour should be, but for folk-guitar skills, look to his peers. He has little of Bert Jansch’s dexterity and none of Davy Graham’s broad technical palette. Dylan’s sound is very distinctive, but to declare that sound “great” is like taking comfort in a “great” case of cancer.

Those are the most important points, for those of you too lazy to read the whole thing.


So, I'd like to hear some people's thoughts on this article. Not with specific regards to Dylan, but with regards to the author's manner of viewing music, and of viewing music criticism. I happen to agree with the author more than words can express.

And so my point in posting this article is this:

If you don't talk about music in this way, if you view the statements "it's good" and "I like it", as the same thing, then don't talk to me about music. Don't respond to me when I say things about music.

Also, if you're one of those people, then please explain/defend your point of view here




so that I can tear it apart and call you an idiot.

Thank you.

[Senghe]

Pheezy - I had a fucking great explanation for it while I was in bed, just before I dropped off to sleep, but it evaporated overnight. Why am I proud of having 'no taste'? Because I have a LOT more fun listening to a band like InMe and Dave McPherson slicing through chords, throwing some unexpected flourishes in with the effects pedals and singing with emotive venom and a range of growls, screams, gorgeous falsetto, perfectly timed breathing and whispers often all in the same song than some interminable noodling that somebody tells me is technically good. Or John Frusciante coming alive on his own music rather than his bridled and turgid work with the Chili Peppers that's got him a reputation for being a technically good guitarist in many critics eyes. I'll go for the shiver up my spine every time, I'm afraid.

Asking an average music fan to objectively view the band they are so wrapped up with emotionally is pointless in most cases. If it was any different there wouldn't be so many Nirvana fans about when it's laughable, simplisitc juvenile bollocks to my ears and always has been (apologies to any Nirvana fans). So the author of that article can see that Bob Dylan isn't god, but the majority of his fans never will. He'd have better luck banging his head in a wall.

This post has been edited by Senghe: Oct 14 2006, 11:57 am

[mrmcpheezy]

Why am I proud of having 'no taste'? Because I have a LOT more fun listening to a band like InMe and Dave McPherson slicing through chords, throwing some unexpected flourishes in with the effects pedals and singing with emotive venom and a range of growls, screams, gorgeous falsetto, perfectly timed breathing and whispers often all in the same song than some interminable noodling that somebody tells me is technically good.

Why do associate well written music with "interminable noodling"?

Why do you seem to feel it's impossible to emotionally enjoy a well written song? Perhaps this is not exactly what you're saying, but it seems, from the tone of this post, to be an assoiciation you make. I don't understand why.

Or John Frusciante coming alive on his own music rather than his bridled and turgid work with the Chili Peppers that's got him a reputation for being a technically good guitarist in many critics eyes. I'll go for the shiver up my spine every time, I'm afraid.

Again you seem to feel that anything thought of as technically proficient cannot be emotionally involving. Why?

Asking an average music fan to objectively view the band they are so wrapped up with emotionally is pointless in most cases. If it was any different there wouldn't be so many Nirvana fans about when it's laughable, simplisitc juvenile bollocks

Seriously.

I don't at all expect casual music fans to be able to objectively critique music, simply to aknowledge that it's possible, and to realize that statements like "It's great because I like it lol" do no qualify as an objective critique, and to realize that them liking it does not mean it's well written.

Is this too much to ask for?

[Senghe]

I'm not going to reply to that lot individually as my head is slightly noodled from the AFI concert I've just got back from and had the best night in a while at. Plus I think I unintentionally wandered off the point as I'm won't to do. I just presume I'm wrong if somebody tells me I am instead of telling to fuck off, put up or shut up.

There are many times that I've heard a song and thought it's a certain chart topper and it has been. I've even sometimes thought it was cleverly, even well written and appreciated if still not liked it. Then there's stuff that I know is beautifully written and I know it's not going to appeal to the masses because it's not being sung by Justin Timberlake and most people can't see past that. I can see past the face value of my own personal taste, but can I tell you WHY I think a certain song is well written? Nope, not at all and that's the slight problem I have.

I don't at all expect casual music fans to be able to objectively critique music, simply to aknowledge that it's possible, and to realize that statements like "It's great because I like it lol" do no qualify as an objective critique, and to realize that them liking it does not mean it's well written.

Is this too much to ask for?

Quite probably it is too much to ask for from a casual music fan... how do you think James Blunt sold a shitload of albums? The general record buying public don't look much deeper than the Beavis and Butthead school of musical critique - it's either 'cool' or 'it sucks' depending on if hey like it or not. (dude, you said critique... huh huh! yeah critique, huhuhuh, can I stick my tongue in your critique?). You get the idea. It's fast food for their ears.

And like I've said before, many people who are slightly more than casual fans are too close - though it does get a bit silly when it gets to the stage where a band like U2 could release a full CD of them farting and it automatically shoot to the top of the charts. Objectively, they haven't written a good song since One and that must be 20 years ago. I think that's more of a personality quirk than anything - some people like to follow others blindly and a band will do as nicely as a football team or religion.

[mrmcpheezy]

some people like to follow others blindly and a band will do as nicely as a football team or religion.

Hella.