Saturday, October 15, 2016
Bob Dylan: The Poet's Poet
Then I went back to those people who had tried to get me to listen and I told them that I thought the revolution had begun."
Michael McClure's 1974 Rolling Stone article captures some of the profound excitement and revolutionary change Dylan represented in the mid-1960s.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
A Very Pretty Album

Have been re-reading Paul Williams' wonderful book, Performing Artist:
The Music of Bob Dylan (1960-1973). This is the first part of his
three-volume set on Dylan and includes the high praise of Allen Ginsberg, Sam
Shepard, Jerry Garcia and Bill Graham on the cover. Of all the critical works
on Dylan, it may be my favorite. (Though, granted, I haven't read many in the
last decade, after devouring everything I could find earlier in my life.)
As the title implies, Williams doesn't focus on Dylan as a "poet" or
songwriter as so many do, but as a performing artist. In doing so, he seems to
capture the real essence of Dylan and his creative work. Sadly, Williams died this past March. I would have enjoyed reading what he had to say about Another Self Portrait.
Some selections from his comments on Nashville Skyline:
Nashville Skyline is a very pretty album. That is the best thing one can say about it, and at times it's quite enough. The worst thing one can say about it is that if Dylan had stayed at this level of originality and commitment as a performer, it would be difficult today to make an argument for him as a great artist....From: Paul Williams. Performing Artist: The Music of Bob Dylan. Volume One, 1960-1973 (Lancaster, PA: Underwood-Miller, 1990), 250-252.
There is an interesting process of simultaneous retreat and advance going on here. In this case, Dylan is retreating from the supposed meaningfulness of his words, from the oppression of his much-trumpeted (by others) influence and power as a cultural hero, while advancing into new concepts of who he might be as a performer and of what music-making is all about.... He even invents a new voice for himself—another retreat from people's ideas of who Bob Dylan is, another assertion of his identity as someone independent of who you think I am.
No one could reasonably say Bob Dylan was playing it safe with this record—it was a radical move, in the context of his career so far, a great risk. But there’s also an aspect of this music, and of the image or public identity Dylan was toying with at the time, that suggest that he was running from something, looking for a place to hide. As elusive as he’d been up to now, he seemed to be searching for a kind of performing that would expose even less of himself, specifically of what he might be feeling inside. I think he wanted music to write and sing that wouldn’t confront him with his inner feelings, wanted to escape the enemy (restlessness might be one name for it) within.
Did he succeed? No, I don’t think so. He just forced himself into a corner where he had less and less energy for performing….
In Nashville Skyline he gives his fans as little of the “old Dylan” as possible … but at the same time is almost obsequious in his desire to be accepted as one of the gang in this new (to him) world in which he fantasizes himself some kind of a) good old boy and b) enduring songwriter and performer creating classic love songs, a cross between Jimmie Rodgers and Irving Berlin.
Inevitably, what Dylan ends up creating is nothing like what he seems to be reaching for. The Nashville Skyline album is almost inconsequential…. And Dylan the country performer is singularly lacking in projected identity—it’s as if he’s used himself up just getting here—sure, he sounds relaxed, but that’s striking only by contrast with who we’ve known him to be, it doesn’t stand by itself. There are no great turns of phrase on the record, which means none of these songs will be country classics (nothing remotely approaching ‘Your cheating heart will tell on you’). There are no real standout moments in the vocal performances, nothing that provokes awe or sends shivers down the spine. And yet…
And yet this is a magical album. It creates and sustains a unique mood, from the first note on side one to the last note open side two. The whole is tremendously greater than the sum of its parts.
Friday, September 20, 2013
A Dozen Thoughts on Another Self Portrait and Bob Dylan 1967-1971
This version was slightly revised on 09/24/2013.
1) Despite
the claim in Michael Simmons’ liner notes, Another
Self Portrait is not a new masterpiece painted out of old ones. It’s more listenable than the original because
it has more focus. The purposefully chaotic
range of material and arrangements on Self
Portrait has been flattened into a more cohesive selection of songs and
overall pleasant sound. But it’s also
less interesting. Self Portrait may have been an artistic disaster, but it
was a fascinating record that provoked a lot of energetic reaction and baffled wonder.[Actually, after listening more to both Self Portrait and Another Self Portrait, I would say that some of the songs without overdubs on the new collection do reveal something - that the overdubs on Self Portrait sometimes helped. The addition of bass, percussion and mandolin on "Little Sadie" propel that version more. The overdubbed horns on "Wigwam" gave it more power, which it needed on Self Portrait, given its prominent spot as the penultimate song before the reprise of "Alberta #2."]
3) Dylan basically produced an earlier version of Self Portrait in 1967, when he and The Band recorded together for several months at his home in Woodstock, NY. The 5-CD unofficial collection The Genuine Basement Tapes, which contains 105 tracks, makes this perfectly clear. Not only does it include first takes of some of the same songs from the Self Portrait period (“Spanish Is the Loving Tongue” and “A Fool Such as I”), and Dylan’s initial attempt at a crooning voice, but the overall trajectory of the 1967 recordings is exactly the same as the later project: mixing together historic folk songs, older popular music, tunes by his contemporaries (three by Ian & Sylvia, Curtis Mayfield’s “People Get Ready”), country & western, and his own original tunes, which, in 1967, were infinitely better (“Tears of Rage,” “This Wheel’s on Fire,” “I Shall Be Released,” etc.). In the Genuine Basement Tapes, Dylan and The Band fuse all of these styles together perfectly in a soundscape that’s both brand new and deeply-rooted, as opposed to the clashing mish-mash that occurs on Self Portrait. It’s almost an entirely new genre of music: The Dylan genre. In a long, twisting journey, he would finally come back around to this sound in his post-Time Out of Mind dark-valley folk-blues statesman persona. This early version of Self Portrait has much more energy and depth than the one released in 1970 or the “new,” re-imagined version of 2013.
[The variety of genres in the 1967 material is actually greater than on Self Portrait, including rockabilly; two songs in a New Orleans style, complete with trombone; a calypso-like piece ("Joshua Goes Barbados") and, most importantly when considering the rest of Dylan's career, gospel music. "Sign on the Cross" is the best and most obvious example, but there are several tunes with a similar sound. This is due in part to Garth Hudson's organ throughout the sessions.]
So, Another Self Portrait is basically Dylan’s
“portrait” of his earlier Self Portrait
as seen through the eyes of his older self. It abandons aspects of the original
project – the pop music and the re-interpretation of songs by contemporaries –
that he abandoned in his later career, and only includes elements of his work that
have become important (or popular) after his revival that more or less began with As Good As I’ve Been To You.[Bromberg does play on the best material on Self Portrait - songs like "Little Sadie," "It Hurts Me Too," "Gotta Travel On," "Copper Kettle" and "Days of 49." He and Dylan create a pleasant acoustic sound on these songs. But there is a reason why bass, drums and other instruments were overdubbed onto all of these recordings.]
Dylan also seems hesitant on Another Self Portrait, like he wasn’t sure what he really wanted to do. That’s not the case on the Genuine Basement Tapes, where he radiates confidence and is obviously having fun exploring a new soundscape. So what happened between 1967 and 1970 to cause such a difference?
8) One of
the other problems with Self
Portrait may provide a clue: Dylan just wasn’t writing very much or very
well in 1969 and 1970. In fact, his troubles go back to the end of 1967
when he finished working on John Wesley Harding.
In 1966, he produced Blonde on Blonde, a double album, along
with several high quality outtakes; In 1967, he pumped out at least three
albums worth of original material with The Band, and then John Wesley Harding. In 1968, he wrote a total of two songs: “Lay
Lady Lay” and “I Threw it All Away.” In fact, his complete (known) output of
new, original material between late 1967 and late 1974, a period of seven
years, includes Nashville Skyline,
which clocks in at 27 minutes even after
adding an instrumental and re-doing an old song; about four originals on Self Portrait (not including
instrumentals or 2nd versions); a dozen new songs on New Morning (another short
album); three new originals in 1971 (“Watching the River Flow,” “When I Paint My
Masterpiece” and “George Jackson;” and the 1973 soundtrack to Pat Garret & Billy the Kid, which
basically consists of two or three new songs.
In seven years, he produced about one album’s worth of good
material. It’s as much or even more of a
lost era as the commonly referred to “dark period” from the 1980s and early 1990s.“I … didn’t sense the importance of that [motorcycle] accident till at least a year after that. I realized then it was a real accident. I mean, I thought that I was just gonna get up and go back to doing what I was doing before … but I couldn’t do it anymore.” [1969].*
“One day I was half-stepping, and the lights went out. And since that point, I more or less had amnesia…. It took me a long time to get to do consciously what I used to be able to do unconsciously.” [1978]*
10) Before
listening to Another Self Portrait, I
had not only been exploring The Genuine
Basement Tapes but also a lot of early “country rock” and “rock country”
from the same 1967-71 time period: Gene Clark’s first solo album from 1967, as
well as Love of the Common People by
Waylon Jennings; The Byrds (with Gram Parsons) on Sweetheart of the Rodeo in 1968, the two
Dillard & Clark albums from 1968 and 1969; Flying Burrito Brothers from
1969 and 1970, Kristofferson’s first two albums; and in 1971, Gene Clark’s
wonderful White Light, John Prine’s
first album, Willie’s Yesterday’s Wine,
and Waylon’s The Taker/Tulsa. (As well as the two Gram Parsons solo albums
from 1972 and 1973.)In that larger musical context, Another Self Portrait makes me feel like Dylan’s work from 1969-1971 ultimately constitutes a great and sad missed opportunity. Especially as I listen to The Genuine Basement Tapes and dream of versions of Nashville Skyline and Self Portrait with The Band behind him. I’ve already put together playlists of those imaginary albums, using songs from 1967.
11) After diving into Another Self Portrait for several days straight, I woke up the next morning singing “It Hurts Me Too” in the shower. A song from Self Portrait that’s NOT on the new collection. Obviously, the music is very similar, but why would that song be the one to emerge from my subconscious?
*Clinton Heylin. Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades: A Biography. (New York: Summit Books, 1991.) 192
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Another Side of Another Side of Bob Dylan: The Mantovani-Mitch Miller Sessions (1964): The Bootleg Series Vol. 11 (Deluxe Version) [Box set]
“I wrote a glowing review of Another Side when it came out in ’64. But I was a complete idiot. I want to publicly apologize for that misguided piece of writing. Frankly, Another Side pales in comparison to Another Side of Another Side. It’s clear now that Bob Dylan was and is a musical genius, that he had a much bigger concept of music than the suits at Columbia, and that the real masterpiece was stripped away from him by bean counters and philistines.”
Sunday, July 07, 2013
My Favorite Dylan Songs
List-making out of an email exchange with a friend.
My 15 Favorite Dylan Songs
- Visions of Johanna – Blonde on Blonde (1966)
- Tangled Up in Blue – Blood on the Tracks (1975)
- Just Like Tom Thumb’s Blues – Highway 61 Revisited (1965)
- It’s Alright Ma (I’m Only Bleeding) – Bringing It All Back Home (1965)
- Up To Me – Biograph (Outtake from Blood on the Tracks, 1974)
- One More Cup of Coffee – Desire (1976)
- Simple Twist of Fate – Blood on the Tracks (1975)
- Stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again – Blonde on Blonde (1966)
- Señor (Tales of Yankee Power) – Street Legal (1978)
- Desolation Row – Highway 61 Revisited (1965)
- Gates of Eden – Bringing It All Back Home (1965)
- I Shall Be Released - Greatest Hits Volume II (1971)
- Mama, You’ve Been on My Mind – Bootleg Series Vols.1-3 (Outtake from Another Side, 1964)
- Blind Willie McTell – Bootleg Series Vols.1-3 (Outtake from Infidels, 1983)
- Most of the Time – Oh Mercy (1989)
- All Along the Watchtower – John Wesley Harding (1968)
- Where Are You Tonight? (Journey Through Dark Heat) – Street Legal (1978)
- Isis – Desire (1975)
- Dirge - Planet Waves (1974)
- Subterranean Homesick Blues – Bringing It All Back Home (1965)
- A Hard Rain’s A-Gonna Fall – Freewheelin’ (1962)
- You Ain’t Goin’ Nowhere – Greatest Hits Volume II (1971)
- Went to See the Gypsy – New Morning (1970)
- It's All Over Now, Baby Blue – Biograph (Live version, 1966)
- Clothes Line Saga – Basement Tapes (1967/1975)
Friday, April 22, 2011
Your Movie Sucks
I was reading David Denby's film reviews in this week's New Yorker and his opening line about Arthur (2011) caught my attention:
"Arthur," a remake of the sloshed "classic" from 1981, has so many things wrong with it that one can only stare at the screen in disbelief.Ouch.
I was reminded of the famous opening line of Greil Marcus' 1970 Rolling Stone review of Bob Dylan's Self Portrait album:
"What is this shit?"(It was an awful album. Though it had a few gems buried in the muck.)
Which got me thinking about Roger Ebert's book and ongoing web site section that collects his most brutal reviews: Your Movie Sucks. Critics always seem to save their most entertaining work for the least entertaining films. Here are a couple of excerpts from recent dogs:
"Battle: Los Angeles" is noisy, violent, ugly and stupid. Its manufacture is a reflection of appalling cynicism on the part of its makers, who don't even try to make it more than senseless chaos. Here's a science-fiction film that's an insult to the words "science" and "fiction," and the hyphen in between them.There's also a special section called Ebert's Most Hated, which has a number of enjoyable reviews."The Green Hornet" is an almost unendurable demonstration of a movie with nothing to be about. Although it follows the rough storyline of previous versions of the title, it neglects the construction of a plot engine to pull us through. There are pointless dialogue scenes going nowhere much too slowly, and then pointless action scenes going everywhere much too quickly.
And now I am faced with this movie ("Atlas Shrugged"), the most anticlimactic non-event since Geraldo Rivera broke into Al Capone’s vault. I suspect only someone very familiar with Rand’s 1957 novel could understand the film at all, and I doubt they will be happy with it. For the rest of us, it involves a series of business meetings in luxurious retro leather-and-brass board rooms and offices, and restaurants and bedrooms that look borrowed from a hotel no doubt known as the Robber Baron Arms. . . .
There are conversations in English after which I sometimes found myself asking, "What did they just say?" The dialogue seems to have been ripped throbbing with passion from the pages of Investors’ Business Daily.
I hated this movie (North, from 1995). Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it.
I have to say, though, Ebert's never been as gleefully vicious in his reviews as others. He likes too many films, giving some pretty bad movies decent ratings. I mean, he awarded two stars to "Batman & Robin," the 1997 motion picture turd with George Clooney as Batman. Even the teenage boys at IMDB gave it a 3.5 rating.I've been enjoying the reviews of Andrew O'Hehir at Salon for the last few months. He's a good writer. And he does get gleefully vicious:
"Your Highness" must have seemed like a great idea at the outset -- and by "the outset," I mean the six baked minutes it took co-writer and star Danny McBride to scribble the basic concept on the back of an unpaid invoice from the swimming-pool guy. That basic concept appears to be "Cheech & Chong make 'The Princess Bride,'" or perhaps "Beavis and Butt-head meet 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail.'" Except, two things: Both of those concepts sound way funnier than this movie is in practice and, no, it shouldn't take six minutes to write that. I'm thinking there was a lot of giggling and high-fiving and talking in junior-high Shakespeare accents involved. . . .Anyone have a favorite brutal review?
Gingival surgery would be more fun than watching this brain-draining, spirit-sucking attempt at a stoner spoof, which combines the cutting edge of frat-boy wit, the excitement of a mid-'80s made-for-TV action flick and the authenticity of a Renaissance Faire held in an abandoned field behind a Courtyard by Marriott. A bus trip from Duluth to Sioux City would be more fun, and don't think I didn't do my research: That takes 13 hours and costs 96 bucks. . . .
For a few hours after having seen "Your Highness," I considered the possibility that it was the worst movie ever made. The image of McBride as the dim, smug and beefy Prince Thadeous, who begins the story as an irritating lardass loser and ends it as an even more irritating hero, was burned into my brain. . . .
Almost a full day of near-sobriety later, "Your Highness" no longer looks like the worst movie in history (although it might make the top 1 percent). . . . It's not a criminal act, exactly, that [Danny McBride] has dragged a once-promising director and several talented co-stars down the cannabis-scented rathole that is this epic, unwatchable disaster. I can only assume that his parents and friends and various other people genuinely enjoy his work as a writer and performer, and do not wish as fervently as I do that he would find some other occupation.

























