I Don’t Get Dylan
February 12th, 2010
There are two types of art. The first, and I argue the most important, is art that is incredible during the time it is created and even more incredible as time goes by. The second type is art that while seemingly incredible and awe-inspiring during its heyday tends to leave people in the future a little vexed or at the very least embarrassed. Buster Keaton, Bach, Monet, and Jimi Hendrix and examples of the first type. They were popular during the time of their creation and will continue to be popular in the future. Everyone just “gets” them. Even if you don’t particularly like this or that style, you can still determine what makes it last. Vaudeville, Two Wild and Crazy Guys, innumerable other no name but very popular faddish entities and Bob Dylan I would put in the latter category.
I just don’t “get” Dylan in the same way I don’t get Two Wild and Crazy Guys. It’s just not entertaining and I vacillate between being embarrassed and bored. I remember laughing uncontrollably to Jim Carrie making his butt cheeks talk but to look at this now only brings embarrassing shudders. Buster Keaton can having you in stitches without ever changing his facial expression or making silly faces. This is the type of art where “you had to be there”. They are a product of the specific milieu in which they’re created. Dylan is the quintessence of this. I can understand the stream of consciousness poetry thing, the artistry of copying Woody Guthrie’s (who’s in the former category) style but not his substance, Dylan’s cool factor. I mean, he’s a cool guy, don’t get me wrong but did he create lasting art? I don’t think so.
I have tried over the years to “get” Dylan but I just can’t. His grating voice, barely capable guitar work – unfortunately his vocal slurrings and other silly mannerisms were copied by so many at the time. His songs are too obtuse to really mean anything. This has been admitted to by Dylan himself who has no idea what the songs means or how he wrote them. He basically got stoned which definitely doesn’t disqualify something as art, obviously, but being on drugs can create garbage as easily as it can Bob Marley. Jimi Hendrix wrote about being a Merman. That is art. Dylan wrote about nothing but everyone else just filled in the blanks regarding the meaning. The only time Dylan has ever entertained me was when he didn’t react during Soy Bomb. Maybe you just had to be there.
February 25th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
You’re kidding, right? Please don’t forget – NO DYLAN – NO SPRINGSTEEN
and it is questionable whether the Beatles would have done anything intelligent if they had not met Dylan. btw Dylan is not dead yet so maybe you’ll ‘get’ him before he’s gone. Do you ‘get’ John Lennon? Do you ‘get’ Picasso? Pollock? Ed Ruscha?
February 25th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
I definitely get Picasso, Pollack, etc. I never said that Dylan was a no talent, I said that he’s a “had to be there” type artist. Like the “Two Wild and Crazy Guys Skit”. I can see how for that time period he was revolutionary in the sense that he’s a lot more “rootsy” and cool than “The Kingston Trio”. His clothes weren’t pressed and his hair wasn’t styled. I get it but what I don’t get is the quality of the music – it’s listen-ability. “Like a Rolling Stone” is probably the only song I like but like many of his songs the Jimi Hendrix version is better.
What made me realize that I was onto something concerning Dylan was some interviews I saw where he basically said “I don’t get what all of these people who are fanatics about me are talking about. I don’t know what those songs are about.” There are a lot of important people who are very influential but they themselves aren’t that great in hindsight. Dylan is interesting but he’s not the Beatles. Everyone is influenced by them and even though they were influenced by Dylan it’s usually in a way that’s a little embarrassing – like in “You’ve got hide your love away”. It’s a shame so many artists copied his vocal delivery like in Steely Dan’s “Reelin in the Years.”
Dylan is considered great b/c the Boomers projected greatness onto him. They made him the poetic symbol of their generation. To compare him with Lennon just isn’t applicable. Lennon wrote “Woman is the nigger of the world”. No one in rock history has the balls to do that – to believe it and to say it. No one – and Lennon actually knew what his songs meant – they’re personal, they’re about himself – they aren’t stoned stream of consciousness blah blah about who knows what. Springsteen is overrated too. He wrote a few pop songs but his Dylan stuff is very boring with the exception of “Born to Run” which although lyrically like Dylan has all of the pop elements that made Born in the USA so listenable years later. Springsteen can write a pop song and that’s a good thing. He can keep his preachy liberal elitism to himself.
If Dylan had any balls he would’ve been like his hero Woody Guthrie. Guthrie’s songs aren’t abstruse – they hit you in the gut and although he was liked by a certain class of people, the middle class had no interest in discussing class-ism. Just like they didn’t have any interest in Lennon once he brought up sexism. Dylan and Springsteen never grew as artists. Springsteen went pop and gave up all of his Dylanisms lyrically, Dylan himself regressed into a very boring Christianity obsession. Dylan should’ve stuck with poetry and not ventured into music. He’s a cool cat and I like but I don’t love him. “Blowin in the Wind” is not “Imagine.” When you think about the differences between those two songs you’ll understand why one is played during the ball drop at new years and why one is only sung by bleeding hearts. Who’s the real revolutionary?
Dylan isn’t worthless by any means but I just can’t listen to it.