Expecting Rain

Actually there is a great fundamental incompatibility in that the essential premise of Christianity is the only path of salvation comes through acceptance of Jesus Christ as the messiah and savior. (Hence, the evangelical belief that all non-believers, Jews included, will suffer the fate of being tossed into a toasty lake of fire upon the second coming). In the Jewish tradition, the messiah is a human being, not a son of God to be prayed to for salvation. The idea of Jesus as the only begotten son of God couldn't be more incompatible with Judaism. Jesus may have lived a Jewish life as a rabbi but once the Christian religion emerged, deifying him, making him an object of prayer, a granter of mercy, and an arbiter of salvation and damnation, this became fundamentally incompatible with Judaism.

And how is that related to christian behaviour?
And I'd say it's often with incredible success and occasionally with lackluster results.

I think it's more related with his willingness to remember lyrics, and his long time commitment to improvisation.

Firstly, the one fundamental incompatibility, which you rightly identify, is the very one that Jews who accept Christ decide to disregard.

Secondly, the fact that Christ as 'the only begotten son of God couldn't be more incompatible with Judaism' is generally true but hardly applies to those who decide to accept Him as such. My point was that there is no incompatibility between the Torah side of Judaism and Christianity. Christians also uphold the Torah, which preceded Christ. Judaism since Christ has held the Talmud as its primary scripture (the most convenient way to describe it, although it wasn't written down until after the time of Christ) and this latter document is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. We are all aware of Dylan's usage of Old (and New) Testament material in his lyrics since the very beginning of his songwriting. Has he ever quoted the Talmud and, if so, when and in what context?

Finally, the Catholic theology (I refer you to Jewish convert to Catholicism Roy H. Schoeman and his thoughtful book, 'Salvation is from the Jews') is more nuanced than the Evangelical. It speaks of a final reconciliation between God and His Chosen people and leaves the final eschatological destiny of all generations of this noble people to the decision of God Himself. Ironically, Dylan initially opted for a strain of Christianity that would have had the least tolerance for the final destiny of his own people. He seems to have radically modified that position and managed to reconcile his Judaism with his Christic beliefs. In doing so, and going on the evidence of his lyrics and choice of song in performance, I have come to the conclusion that his concept of Christian theology approaches closer to that of the Apostolic Churches, in other words the Catholic and Orthodox, but perhaps more so to the latter (not inappropriate for a Russian-descended Jew).

@ gibsona and anr: I think you're both right.

There's a big difference between "sometimes flubs the lyrics" and "has only a vague idea what the lyrics are." Have you ever actually listened to any post-gospel tour recordings of "Gotta Serve Somebody"? Sometimes he holds it together for the first verse or two, sometimes it's gibberish right from the start.

It's never occurred to me that forgetting the words of your own songs is cool. I thought it was just careless, not really giving a shit about the song or the people who've come to hear you. Or that when you've written as many songs as Bob Dylan has, it's natural to slip up once in a while. But this is a song he's performed over 400 times. You'd think that once in a while, knowing he was going to do it on a given night, he'd think, "You know, I'd better check the lyrics on that one."

Yeah, Christians forget stuff too. Everybody does. But consider this. He performed those gospel songs for three years, and hardly ever forgot a word. They weren't just songs to him; they were a way of testifying, of telling the world what he believed. And he wanted to make sure that his audience heard every word. But when he came back to them, starting in 1984, he wasn't testifying anymore. They were just songs--just a riff, just some words that felt good to sing, or some other words if he couldn't think of the real ones, just something he felt like playing, because he had to play something. Empty vessels, broken cups. Maybe he still thought he was a Christian. Maybe he still does. But it's not something he has any interest in sharing with the world anymore. And that's what listening to the bizarre nonsense that "Gotta Serve Somebody" has turned into will tell you, very clearly.

You ignored my request for some hard data. Let's see some evidence of these lyrics you claim to be inferior. Are we supposed to accept your opinion without having the opportunity to decide for ourselves? Maybe some of these lyrics were an improvement. Regardless, it still doesn't take account of the fact that Dylan was very meticulous with the lyrics of all other comparable songs during the relevant period, so it doesn't come anywhere near proving your overarching claim. So, evidence please, or withdraw.

As for not 'sharing with the world anymore', there are none so blind as those who simply will not see. Most of his lyrical content of the last thirty years or so is Christian. When he released a Christmas album, an example of sharing his views with the world, he received nothing but mockery from many non-believers. Is not this forthcoming box-set not a huge example of what you claim he does not share with the world? The problem is not with Dylan, it is with those who deny what they simply don't want to accept.

You ignored my request for some hard data. Let's see some evidence of these lyrics you claim to be inferior. Are we supposed to accept your opinion without having the opportunity to decide for ourselves? Maybe some of these lyrics were an improvement. Regardless, it still doesn't take account of the fact that Dylan was very meticulous with the lyrics of all other comparable songs during the relevant period, so it doesn't come anywhere near proving your overarching claim. So, evidence please, or withdraw.

As for not 'sharing with the world anymore', there are none so blind as those who simply will not see. Most of his lyrical content of the last thirty years or so is Christian. When he released a Christmas album, an example of sharing his views with the world, he received nothing but mockery from many non-believers. Is not this forthcoming box-set not a huge example of what you claim he does not share with the world? The problem is not with Dylan, it is with those who deny what they simply don't want to accept.[/quote]

Anyone who asks for evidence that's abundantly available is usually trolling. No offense. If you really want that hard data, listen to the performances. It's all there. (I do think some of the lyrics are an improvement, actually, like the time he began with "You may be a professor, standing in the rain." Explicate that one, Dr. Ricks.)

What I said initially was that I doubted Dylan had any consistent belief system. He might still consider himself a Christian; obviously a lot of his thought is based in Judeo-Christian tradition (though of course it always was). But it's not consistent, in the way it was in the born-again days. You can't reduce it to a particular set of tenets. And that's a good thing. If he was all those things that people think he is, or want him to be, he'd be as boring as they are.

Anyone who asks for evidence that's abundantly available is usually trolling. No offense. If you really want that hard data, listen to the performances. It's all there. (I do think some of the lyrics are an improvement, actually, like the time he began with "You may be a professor, standing in the rain." Explicate that one, Dr. Ricks.)

What I said initially was that I doubted Dylan had any consistent belief system. He might still consider himself a Christian; obviously a lot of his thought is based in Judeo-Christian tradition (though of course it always was). But it's not consistent, in the way it was in the born-again days. You can't reduce it to a particular set of tenets. And that's a good thing. If he was all those things that people think he is, or want him to be, he'd be as boring as they are.[/quote]

You hint that I might be a troll, but say you mean no offense. I suppose I'm to accept that's alright then. I'm also supposed to accept an argument that's asserted as definitive (to paraphrase your word) on the basis of abundantly available evidence none of which you provide. Remember, you made the assertion, it is not up to me to Prove it for you. Now, you are also backtracking and undermining your own case, saying that lyrics which were supposed to be careless ('any crap that came to his head') might in some cases be an improvement. Anyway, so what? Dylan regularly changes lyrics, some for the better, some the worse. Your's is still totally threadbare as an argument, in my opinion, to support the size of the case you are attempting to make. I suggest you read Scott Marshall's book. That, whether or not you agree with it, is sufficient to what constitutes a case and, I would suggest, comprehensively refutes your own.

It's really not for me to say whether you're a troll. If I claimed you were, and you weren't, I would feel just terrible. So I'll just assume you're feeling belligerent for some reason. Have you tried taking some deep breaths, or a long walk? I'm not building a case, not making an argument, not spoiling for a fight. I'm just saying some fairly obvious things that you can take or leave. It also seems obvious that Scott Marshall's book is boring claptrap, but then I'm not much interested in spiritual journeys.

It's hardly undermining my "case," by the way, if I like the improvised lyrics better than the original sometimes. The unconscious is a wonderful place. Try listening to what happens to "When You Gonna Wake Up" in 1984. He's free-associating, it makes no sense at all, and it's glorious ("I got pulled and cheated, down by the railroad yard"--that's from June 9, if you want documentation).

You insinuate I'm a troll, but now say I'm just belligerent. Right...it's all on me.

Have you read Marshall's book?

I suggested to you way back that his change of lyrics might represent an improvement.

Since you're not interested in spiritual journeys, this whole debate has been a waste of time, so let's not waste any more.

Yep.

Interesting discussion, but I'd just add that post-'81 was when Dylan started to get careless/more loose with song lyrics in general so perhaps this is evidence of a lack of faith in performing in general, another way of keeping things fresh, or both. Certainly if you look at the lyrical mess that is Slow Train on the Dylan and the Dead record (even though I kind of like the sounds Dylan's making) it's a poor relation to the '81 versions, never mind '79.

Utter nonsense. There were some shambolic versions a few decades ago (my favorite is from Belgrade 1991, Dylan is completely deranged, perhaps not at all sure which side he has found himself on. During the guitar solo he suddenly channels the Sanford and Son theme and becomes the funkiest man alive, and when the vocals return literally speaks in tongues) BUT since maybe 1997 or 8 he has sung the song pretty straight, though reduced down to only a few verses. He wasn't out there just mumbling his way through it. Have you heard the Japanese version from 2010 or so? IT WILL KILL YOU.

PS:

For those wondering why Clinton Heylin is a douche...look at the way he dismisses a great little song like Heart of Mine.

Doesn't he say License to Kill is a meritless rant? To me that song was 34 years ahead of its time,

It's a song about human nature and is never out of time.

I wouldn't get too hung up on Heylin's opinions. He's entitled to be as wrong as he likes, but he produces well-researched books which are made no less entertaining by having to be frequently disagreed with by the reader.

Wise words, Mickvet. Hope I'll remember them the next time I leaf through Behind The Shades and get aggressive because he ACTUALLY dismisses TOOM...

I find little to like in what I've read by Heylin. Whatever the merits of Trouble in Mind, I have a problem with the subtitle: What Really Happened. Really? No need to take a jab at Paul Williams. His thoughtful exploration of Dylan's gospel songs, Dylan--What Happened?, is highly recommended. It can be found in Watching the River Flow: Observations on Bob Dylan's Art-in-Progress, 1966-1995. "Anything Paul Williams writes about Bob Dylan--and always in his wonderfully unpretentious, conversational, and heartfelt manner--is worth reading." --Jonathan Cott.

Heylin dismissing TOOM says a lot more about him than it does about TOOM.

Yep, when Heylin writes there's only one person in the frame and it isn't Bob. By comparison Williams brought a sanity to the treatment of Bob's work of this period that began to unlock what even those like me who are unresponsive to religion should have been paying attention to. His death was a sad loss.

Very true. Paul Williams simply loved Bob's music and was open to everything he did. He seemed very modest and unassuming about it-when I read his books, I remember the focus all being on Dylan. Paul Williams hardly intruded with his own ego at all, apart from expressing his admiration. Clinton Heylin is very opinionated and doesn't let you forget it, but I've still enjoyed his books.

Well, yeah, but it's simpler than that: just read his books (if you can stomach them): he is crass, naff, a vulgarian, a terrible, cringe-making writer, and his opinions - so haughtily held - are very often wrong. He can do research, but he has no business trying to be a critic, he simply isn't qualified, and anybody who pays him any heed is wasting their time. What he has to say has no value, and he simply cannot write. Plus, he really doesn't like (never mind love) Dylan, upon whom he looks down indulgently; he is more of a Rolling Stones fan.

If you want a biography, get Shelton. If you want critical analysis, get Michael Gray. If you want passion and love and occasional longueurs, get Williams. Get anybody - anybody - other than Heylin.

Shelton? Don't make me laugh. Smut-peddler. Can anyone back up any of this? SO much hate for Heylin, and all conjecture. I'll ask again: A paragraph, a chapter, something substantial to back up this hate...

And Heart of Mine should have stayed on the cutting room floor (though the 1981 live rendition is fair, but still flawed.)

Robert Shelton, smut peddler? I think you may have the wrong end of the stick.

I can't believe anybody with the discernment to be a Dylan fan cannot see how shite Heylin is.

I am starting to think, Fielding Mellish, that you are Michael Gray? Or maybe you are Clinton Heylin? All press is good press lol? If he is so awful (and maybe he is, I don’t know, I’m no literary critic, I’ve read a couple of his books, and while There are many other books on bob I prefer—Paul Williams, Ian Bell, whoever wrote that Bob Dylan in America book—I didn’t find Heylin terrible—though his tone i find sometimes irritating) why has Dylan Inc. chosen him for the past few projects?