last thoughts on bob dylan
Do you remember in your conversation with Dylan, at one point Dylan encourages you to analyze Freud or Dostoevsky rather than his work, which he says he pretty small and insignificant compared to the voluminous writings of these two giants ? That's kind of the route I chose; I decided to analyze Joseph Conrad and Virginia Woolf, two giants in British Literature of the 20th century. I'm still typing my book onto the internet and making it available worldwide - for free !
Listen, A.J., and this is important: in my opinion, you have constructed a semiotic reading of Dylan's image repertoire as established in his songs, poems and other writings. This is something I admire greatly and want you to know that I think it is really deep and important. I have been listening to Dylan since I was in high school, starting at about 1986 and it is a real thrill to write to you. I wish you would update your Outlaw Website more often and put more new stuff on it. The question remains of whether or not you think Modern Times will be a last Dylan album. What do you think ?
I think Modern Times is a good way to "cap off" his career - but yes, you're probably right, there will be more Dylan for several more years to come. It is the realization of what he wrote about on the back of his first album, that someday he will carry himself like Big Bill Broonzy and will someday be a real blues artist - which may be what he is heading for. Think of the unreleased Bob Dylan recording of "Old Rock and Roller". That's the paradigm he has tried to make his way into. He's a fundamentally homeless creative artist, a poet whose lyrics are given significance by the force of electric guitars. He comes from a long line of Jewish poets who rise up to make their voices heard in the world. I like Dylan's music, but as I get older I realize he's a little bit too intense about his art and I think he feels the same way, too, and that's why he has created the disguise of being a blues musician that he wears so avidly.
I guess I don't take rock and roll seriously as poetry, so my inclination is to forgive him this momentary indiscretion. To me poetry and literature is something that is textual in nature and without the music I don't think Dylan's writings have any resounding literary significance. In the final analysis Dylan's work is going to be viewed as popular music that is powerful because it can be shared and appreciated in a live or non-literary setting. But this confuses the fact that for a text to be viewed as literature it must be something that can be analyzed on a deep level and fit a non-technology-based historical format. Why is Ginsberg a poet and not Dylan ? Because Ginsberg's work can be viewed in a continuum of poetic performances that take place on a page, whereas Dylan is a creative artist whose performances have been captured and/or preserved in absolute renditions of the artistic event. The fact that our culture is not able to produce artistic individuals who able to work in the poetic and popular fashion in a contemporaneous mode tells us something about present history and about the limits of the psychology of art.
Listen, A.J., and this is important: in my opinion, you have constructed a semiotic reading of Dylan's image repertoire as established in his songs, poems and other writings. This is something I admire greatly and want you to know that I think it is really deep and important. I have been listening to Dylan since I was in high school, starting at about 1986 and it is a real thrill to write to you. I wish you would update your Outlaw Website more often and put more new stuff on it. The question remains of whether or not you think Modern Times will be a last Dylan album. What do you think ?
I think Modern Times is a good way to "cap off" his career - but yes, you're probably right, there will be more Dylan for several more years to come. It is the realization of what he wrote about on the back of his first album, that someday he will carry himself like Big Bill Broonzy and will someday be a real blues artist - which may be what he is heading for. Think of the unreleased Bob Dylan recording of "Old Rock and Roller". That's the paradigm he has tried to make his way into. He's a fundamentally homeless creative artist, a poet whose lyrics are given significance by the force of electric guitars. He comes from a long line of Jewish poets who rise up to make their voices heard in the world. I like Dylan's music, but as I get older I realize he's a little bit too intense about his art and I think he feels the same way, too, and that's why he has created the disguise of being a blues musician that he wears so avidly.
I guess I don't take rock and roll seriously as poetry, so my inclination is to forgive him this momentary indiscretion. To me poetry and literature is something that is textual in nature and without the music I don't think Dylan's writings have any resounding literary significance. In the final analysis Dylan's work is going to be viewed as popular music that is powerful because it can be shared and appreciated in a live or non-literary setting. But this confuses the fact that for a text to be viewed as literature it must be something that can be analyzed on a deep level and fit a non-technology-based historical format. Why is Ginsberg a poet and not Dylan ? Because Ginsberg's work can be viewed in a continuum of poetic performances that take place on a page, whereas Dylan is a creative artist whose performances have been captured and/or preserved in absolute renditions of the artistic event. The fact that our culture is not able to produce artistic individuals who able to work in the poetic and popular fashion in a contemporaneous mode tells us something about present history and about the limits of the psychology of art.
posted by Andrew B. Noselli at 4:45 PM
0 comments
