For all you Bob Dylan fans out there, the first of two parts of "No Direction Home"(directed by Martin Scorsese), a chronicle of Dylan's early years (1961-1966), makes its premiere tonight on PBS at 9pm. The second part airs tomorrow night. It's must-see TV at its best for those who care.
my favorite Dylan album was always Blood on the tracks... when I first got it I was in shock.. had just finished blondeonblonde and thought it was great, didnt think anything could beat it... but then blood on the tracks came and I thought it was eons beyond anything I had ever heard before.. nothing even by Dylan to me has ever approached it... I liked his christian albums too... and his early stuff was obviously brilliant... but Blood on the Tracks was his most brilliant ... and that is saying alot.
Last edited by paulthefan on Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
>Just to put him into perspective - he was the #1 influence on the greatest
>musical & cultural phenomenon of the 20th C (whether you like it or else!) -
Some would argue that point to the death.
The Beatles are not everyone's cuppa. I certainly don't care for them much.
The King is every bit as worthy of that designation as those haircut-needin' hippies from over there...
He writes great ditties. He can't sing
>at all. Covers of his songs are great, but I can't listen to too much of his
Actually, in his early albums the voice, though gratingly distinctive, is at least singing the melody, after a fashion - though I agree with those who prefer "covers" of many of his songs.
I heard him a couple of years ago on tour (with Paul Simon) and realized that on the old numbers he's no longer even _trying_ to sing the tune. He's entirely into some strange harmonies (?) which don't work too badly IF the audience is old enough (as I am) to "supply" the melody themselves. Weird, but oddly compelling, as Bob always was, 1963 or 2003.
>He sings and writes nice ditties. Let's not get too carried away here.
For better or worse, people like Dylan, Baez, Phil Ochs, Tom Paxton, et al, had a major influence on this young kid from Brooklyn.
I was a regular patron of the Gaslight way back when, but, sadly, after Dylan had gone on to bigger and better things.
I remember very well how the booing at the post-Newport concert at Forest Hills stopped while everyone sang along on "Like a Rolling Stone".
The last time I saw Dylan was at Madison Square Garden a few years ago. Hardly recognized the songs the way he was singing them. Worst of all, I got busted for "scalping" an extra ticket(trying to get less than face value)!
The shows will be repeated (back-to-back) on Saturday night as part of PBS' fund-raiser. Don't know the time.
Here is my take on the show, for what it's worth, and I am sure it will be the minority report. It can be summed up in my first post referencing his big hit. I got a little tired of Baez endlessly deconstructing their love affair. The beatniks trying to turn him into a revolutionary didn't get it either. He wasn't interested. For him, it was about the ditties. Obviously though, he was conflicted about the role people thrust on him hence the title of the documentary. "I want to play Carnegie Hall." Highlight for me was the part about the recording of "Like A Rolling Stone". Al Kooper sneaks his way on to the organ and has to hold up a beat all the time to make sure he gets the chord because that wasn't his instrument. "Turn up the organ" Dylan says while listening to the tapes. "He's not an organ player" the producer says. Kooper's immitation of him was priceless. "I don't care. Turn it up." I'll never listen to the song the same way again. That's the kind of stuff I was interested in.
>the beatles rubber soul album was a largely an attempt to sound like dylan. at >least lennon songs were. so says john.<<
At the risk of sounding heretical, 'Rubber Soul' was much better melodies than Dylan ever produced. Lennon's lyrics never quite got to Dylan's level, but the song-writing 'with' McCartney was Bachesque (another heresy, I suppose).
>>Just to put him into perspective - he was the #1 influence on the
>musical & cultural phenomenon of the 20th C (whether you like it or
Some would argue that point
>to the death.
The Beatles are not everyone's cuppa. I certainly don't care for
The King is every bit as worthy of that designation as those
>haircut-needin' hippies from over there...
My self-indulgent fellow baby boomers think they invented everything, gm.
there is no bigger beatle fan than me. 2 of among the best pop songwriters of the 20th century in the same band! and dont forget george- something, while my guitar gentily weeps, here comes the sun, tax man and others.
the beauty of art is that everybody is right. its not science its art. if you think the beatles suck than they suck. i respect everyone's view on da arts even if theyre completely wrong!!
Last edited by SQUACKEE on Wed Sep 28, 2005 5:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
>>My>self-indulgent fellow baby boomers think they invented everything, gm.<
Um . . . they (we) DID invent the culture of the latter parts of the 20th C., which we are still 'in', so to speak. Brokaw thinks the WW2 generation was the greatest, whereas I think they 'just' (gross understatement) did what they thought they were supposed to. Starting in the 60s, the new generation (for better or worse - I think MUCH better - but then again, I is 1) got outside the box and reinvented the western world. We won't be able to sort all this out till 2150, by which time we'll all be 'dust in the wind'!
When he wanted to, Dylan could sing very well. For example, compare his singing of "The House of the Rising Sun" with The Animals' version. Dylan's interpretation is full of subtle, understated folkie twists and turns. In comparison, Eric ( The Animals) Burdon virtually shouts his way through the number. I've not listened to Dylan much since the mid-60s, but for a while back then, he meant a lot to me.
>I for one will be glad when the '60's self-absorbed, self-indulgent generation >will be too old to mouth their doggeral anymore.<
EVERY generation is self-absorbed and self-indulgent - thinks 'theirs' was the least hypocritical - thinks the ones preceding were clueless and the ones following are going to 'hell in a hand-basket'. It's just human nature.
The only thing I think 'my' (60s) generation did different(ly) is shift the paradigm a little more than average. I think tolerance for 'differences' expanded, the -isms were dealt with more openly, and the nation's 'consciousness' was raised to a little higher degree than previous ones - the 'sex, drugs and rock'n'roll phase' was just a different way of expressing the age-old determination to rebel and establish one's own identity separate from what had gone before.
i think the 60's got alot of things wrong. its not cool to lay around all day on drugs dude! love isnt free. like anything else it requires work. anything worthwhile requires work. work is not a four letter word! but they got some things right which we still value today. hope this isnt too political.