Expecting Rain

Go to main page
It is currently Wed June 26th, 2019, 00:46 GMT

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 133 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun December 27th, 2009, 20:23 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri June 27th, 2008, 20:28 GMT
Posts: 17309
Location: Maybe it isn't a tour, maybe he's just lost.
There's an ongoing discussion in many different threads that fall under the basic area of authorship. Many of these deal with issues of plagiarism, but not all. Just a moment ago there was a discussion about the authorship of the opening line of "Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues." Did Dylan write it? Or did Bobby Neuwirth write it? Did Neuworth make some off hand comment about being trapped in Juarez at Easter when it was raining, which Dylan later called up when he wrote the song, or did Neuwirth offer the line AS a line as Dylan was writing the song?

That sort of thing doesn't particularly interest me. What DOES interest me is the IDEA of authorship. Americans - and this forum is dominated by them - have a hostile stance toward history. Someone said, "Americans hate history but love nostalgia" which I think is very true. This hostility toward history has a number of side effects. There's the "Santayana effect" -- George Santayana said that "Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it." And there's what I would call the "naturalization effect" by which I mean that complex concepts (like "authorship") with long and complex histories get transformed into "natural" things that have been what they are now, forever.

But I digress....

Benjamin Mako Hill describes that early history as: "Before the rise and eventual dominance of the Romantic notion of authorship, new writing gained value from its creative affiliation with existing works, or what Martha Woodmansee describes as "its derivation rather than its deviation from prior texts." Before this important shift, the authorial role was often compared to that of a commentator, compiler, or transcriber. Contextualized in such a way, it is unsurprising that authors' actions in this period were intensely collaborative.

Prompted by shifts in the nature of book production and distribution ushered in by the printing revolution, authors began to take a more central role in the production of texts. Especially prompted by the rise of copyright in Britain in 1709, the eighteenth century introduced a new concept of individualized authorship based on the idea of a creative genius working alone. This idea—one at odds with collaborative, collective, or corporate creation—has remained widely influential despite powerful arguments made by theorists like Foucault and Woodmansee and a growing body of evidence that collaborative and collective creation is more effective than individual work. Peter Jaszi and a growing numbers of legal and literary theorists argue that it is copyright, a system designed to allow economic and political control of literary knowledge and expression, that has enshrined Romantic creativity in ways that have been difficult to challenge."

What makes Dylan so interesting in this context is that, more than any of his contemporaries, he displays the essentially collaborative character of his work so openly.

If you look at history and focus on the interrelationship bet ween ART and TECHNOLOGY you get a really interesting picture.

Changes in recording technology results in the ALBUM emerging as an aesthetic form. Changes in sound reproduction technology resulted in the shift from the Rudy Valee-style pop singers using megaphones and singing in operatic style to the intimate sound of the crooners (Crosby, then Sinatra) enabled by the technology to whisper a vocal. That results in a shift in songwriting which eventually produces the singer/songwriter writing about their internal emotional lives.

FOLK music was the last great arena for collaborative writing - people borrowing melodies and lyrics with no thought to questions of authorship. This was possible because - in that context - authorship was not directly tethered to economics.

As soon as ART and MONEY get drunk and fall into bed.... look out.

If the recording of "Whiter Shade of Pale" had not become an iconic representation of the times and had not been licensed for use in film and television and generated 8 figures of income, nobody would really care WHO the author of the organ introduction was. But it did and, 30+ years after the fact, Matthew Fisher successfully sued Gary Brooker & Keith Reid for co-authorship status.

You have to wonder what Al Kooper thought when he read that. :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon December 28th, 2009, 03:39 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon August 31st, 2009, 00:16 GMT
Posts: 2075
LJ,
I agree that the 18th century primarily economic origins of authorship as we understand it is crucial to understanding the idea and the debates about Dylan's writing. That is often how objections to his writing are couched: he didn't give so and so credit, robbing x or y. But it is the other part of the idea, the romantic idea of creative genius, that runs deeper in our culture and in the Dylan debates.

The idea that a person organically grows an idea, a song, a poem, an image in their soul, or is inspired by a magical power, a genni -- the idea that creation is entirely individual and personal -- is too laughable to be taken seriously and bears no scrutiny at all.

Your reference to history, and so to an historically-effected consciousness, is important. We are, we speak, we think the words, ideas, images, logic we inherit and grow up in. We are American by growing up in the American, But, the denial of the effect of history, the idea that we generate ourselves by ourselves sui generis, is important to the American myth. That Dylan is a nearly perfect instantiation of History and Self-Creation is fascinating in that regard. Here is a guy who is so deeply steeped in history, and the history of music, that he seems to me to be nothing but that history now. He has always spoken in mythemes, in American mythemes. That feels like wisdom. But one of those mythemes is self-creation (he gives himself a name, invents a childhood, I think in Don't Look Back he says something like, "This is America, I figure you can be whoever you want to be").

So, while he is totally at peace with the fact that "invention" and "new" are relative, are small tweaks to a tradition, he embodies the Romantic genius (historical) archetype. I love Dave Van Ronk's assessment in Don't Look Back, that Dylan had tapped into something like America's Collective Unconscious (if such a thing existed).

Your invocation of premodern idea of authorship, and postmodern ones, is just what I love about Dylan, especially on albums like Love and Theft. I recognize (thanks in part to Theme Time Radio Hour) the history he channels. I like the way he quotes and tweaks and recontextualizes. There's humor in it sometimes. Other times reverence. Other times a layer of meaning. Other times...just convenience. But always, inevitable.

The cuckoo is a pretty bird...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon December 28th, 2009, 04:24 GMT 

Joined: Thu August 30th, 2007, 22:44 GMT
Posts: 3982
I agree that this is a very American thing (and I am an American). Being a country with a short history, firm believers in our own exceptionalism, and rabid adherents of capitalism and commercialism, it's little surprise that we fail to see the forest for the trees in such matters. Of course, Dylan himself is an American, so perhaps it is best not to generalize too broadly. But your point is very valid, LJ. Some people just don't seem to understand the depth and value of the folk process in which his work is so firmly grounded.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon December 28th, 2009, 04:29 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri June 27th, 2008, 20:28 GMT
Posts: 17309
Location: Maybe it isn't a tour, maybe he's just lost.
MMD wrote:
LJ,
I agree that the 18th century primarily economic origins of authorship as we understand it is crucial to understanding the idea and the debates about Dylan's writing. That is often how objections to his writing are couched: he didn't give so and so credit, robbing x or y. But it is the other part of the idea, the romantic idea of creative genius, that runs deeper in our culture and in the Dylan debates.

The idea that a person organically grows an idea, a song, a poem, an image in their soul, or is inspired by a magical power, a genni -- the idea that creation is entirely individual and personal -- is too laughable to be taken seriously and bears no scrutiny at all.

Your reference to history, and so to an historically-effected consciousness, is important. We are, we speak, we think the words, ideas, images, logic we inherit and grow up in. We are American by growing up in the American, But, the denial of the effect of history, the idea that we generate ourselves by ourselves sui generis, is important to the American myth. That Dylan is a nearly perfect instantiation of History and Self-Creation is fascinating in that regard. Here is a guy who is so deeply steeped in history, and the history of music, that he seems to me to be nothing but that history now. He has always spoken in mythemes, in American mythemes. That feels like wisdom. But one of those mythemes is self-creation (he gives himself a name, invents a childhood, I think in Don't Look Back he says something like, "This is America, I figure you can be whoever you want to be").

So, while he is totally at peace with the fact that "invention" and "new" are relative, are small tweaks to a tradition, he embodies the Romantic genius (historical) archetype. I love Dave Van Ronk's assessment in Don't Look Back, that Dylan had tapped into something like America's Collective Unconscious (if such a thing existed).

Your invocation of premodern idea of authorship, and postmodern ones, is just what I love about Dylan, especially on albums like Love and Theft. I recognize (thanks in part to Theme Time Radio Hour) the history he channels. I like the way he quotes and tweaks and recontextualizes. There's humor in it sometimes. Other times reverence. Other times a layer of meaning. Other times...just convenience. But always, inevitable.

The cuckoo is a pretty bird...


I think Dylan is far more attracted to mythology than history. His play with the outlaw ballad form, his reshaping historical fact to fit his own mythological outlook, that's his arena. Van Ronk described him as disinterested in the details of politics; in that sense Dylan fits into the model of the anti-war student movement of the middle-late 60s even though he ignored or was hostile toward it -- it was in the sense, again from Van Ronk, that the Village Marxists of the 50s were people who read and argued theory, but the student movement of the 60s was "not an ideology as much as it was a mood." Dylan has always responded emotionally rather than intellectually; myth, not history.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon December 28th, 2009, 04:37 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon August 31st, 2009, 00:16 GMT
Posts: 2075
Long Johnny wrote:

I think Dylan is far more attracted to mythology than history. His play with the outlaw ballad form, his reshaping historical fact to fit his own mythological outlook, that's his arena. Van Ronk described him as disinterested in the details of politics; in that sense Dylan fits into the model of the anti-war student movement of the middle-late 60s even though he ignored or was hostile toward it -- it was in the sense, again from Van Ronk, that the Village Marxists of the 50s were people who read and argued theory, but the student movement of the 60s was "not an ideology as much as it was a mood." Dylan has always responded emotionally rather than intellectually; myth, not history.


He may relate to history as myth, but it's history nonetheless. And he certainly has a kind of veneration for the past but not as historiography. Chronicles is interesting in this regard...its not factual, objective, complete, but, well, a chronicle...approximate, emotional, subjective... Old fashioned history.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon December 28th, 2009, 04:41 GMT 

Joined: Thu August 30th, 2007, 22:44 GMT
Posts: 3982
All history eventually becomes myth, does it not?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon December 28th, 2009, 06:14 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon August 31st, 2009, 00:16 GMT
Posts: 2075
The Mighty Monkey Of Mim wrote:
All history eventually becomes myth, does it not?


Like a founding, grounding story that gives meaning in a culture? I would say, no, not all history does so. Though any moment could become mythological. I think LJ is right that Dylan does treat history mythically: as a set of stories that can be appropriated with their cultural meaning and conveyed that way. As I said, what strikes us as wise in (even the early) Dylan's writing (and even the music) is his use of these mythemes: historical (but not necessarily factual) stories, events, ideas that are a part of American culture and history -- the stories and ideas that we use to build up our own identities. He says as much about the early years of "Blowin' in the Wind" and Hard Rain" in Don't Look Back.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon December 28th, 2009, 14:07 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri June 27th, 2008, 20:28 GMT
Posts: 17309
Location: Maybe it isn't a tour, maybe he's just lost.
And I'm using "myth" not in the sense of an unreal fantasy of Greek Gods and unicorns, but in Barthes' sense of real events and figures removed from their messy historical contexts and set aside to be considered solely for some uncomplicated and often romantic purpose. Like Joe Gallo or Pretty Boy Floyd, Gettysburg or Hiroshima.

In many ways Dylan is the romantic ideal of the genius poet artist individual. I'm also fascinated by Dylan's inestimable narcissism. The strength of it is such that it isn't just Dylan who is in decline and whose mortality is rising to the surface, it is the world itself; it makes so much sense that if he were to be seduced by a cult it would be the "end of days" style LA Christian cult that he got sucked into. It's not just my light that's getting dim, it's all light.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon December 28th, 2009, 15:30 GMT 

Joined: Wed July 30th, 2008, 01:43 GMT
Posts: 735
Location: on the scene missing
Dylan produces songs which a lot of Barthesians would consider exemplars of "readerly" texts, in which the reader (or listener) is the ultimate "destination" for the myriad meanings of the text, the "space for inscription". The text is not finally authoritatively produced by the author, rather by the reader - the author is dead.
And yet, Dylan the author is not dead - he lives on : his own mythology is one of the meanings the reader/listener supplies at the moment of listening. If I think of Ain't Talkin' as a cut and paste job of random extracts from Ovid tacked onto a Stanley Brothers song, it's an epic fail. But when I think of it as a Dylan song, it's an epic success.
The irony is that Dylan is producing classically postmodern work which eschews the idea of of a work "organically grown" (as MMD puts it) within an individual, of one clear decipherable meaning emanating from an omniscient author ... and yet the idea of the omniscient Author is provided by the omniscient Reader in order to enrich the text.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon December 28th, 2009, 15:40 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Wed April 11th, 2007, 01:22 GMT
Posts: 946
Location: East Coast USA
The Mighty Monkey Of Mim wrote:
All history eventually becomes myth, does it not?

On the way to myth, narrative passes through folklore and legend. In the present all three mix in our cultural stories. It is very interesting to discuss authorship and ownership of a "living legend" (English love of alliteration bypasses "famous folky" for the double-L sound) who is in the business of storytelling.

The quality of Dylan's songs (and his personal mystery) along with their longevity and penetration into mass culture, show him to be unique artist. Overlap or trespass into other's experience and description is no more criminal than declaring your writing is mine because we use the same alphabet.

True Art is a complex thing. It seems at once personal and universal, earthly grounded and ethereal. We, the consumers of this art, struggle to place it in our own context. How can something like this have an author? Yet it does and we honor that through ownership.

Before we mythologize the memory, lionize the legend, or honor the folk hero, we need to realize the man. In his own words, he's "only a man doing the best that I can." His best is very good indeed.
--
I apologize if the above is not as coherent as it should be. I wrote it off the cuff. -Fabe


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon December 28th, 2009, 15:46 GMT 
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri December 29th, 2006, 20:42 GMT
Posts: 1337
Location: Merrimack, NH
The Mighty Monkey Of Mim wrote:
All history eventually becomes myth, does it not?


The converse is also true. All myth eventually becomes history.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon December 28th, 2009, 16:08 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri June 27th, 2008, 20:28 GMT
Posts: 17309
Location: Maybe it isn't a tour, maybe he's just lost.
Fred@Dreamtime wrote:
The Mighty Monkey Of Mim wrote:
All history eventually becomes myth, does it not?


The converse is also true. All myth eventually becomes history.


No. It's not true at all actually. Not even a little bit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon December 28th, 2009, 16:27 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri June 27th, 2008, 20:28 GMT
Posts: 17309
Location: Maybe it isn't a tour, maybe he's just lost.
telltale wrote:
Dylan the author is not dead - he lives on : his own mythology is one of the meanings the reader/listener supplies at the moment of listening. If I think of Ain't Talkin' as a cut and paste job of random extracts from Ovid tacked onto a Stanley Brothers song, it's an epic fail. But when I think of it as a Dylan song, it's an epic success.


Nice point. It reminds me of that story about Picasso: The story goes that a young American admirer of Picasso managed to gain entrance to the august presence. Picasso, as usual, was affable to the young, once they could get by the guards around his villa. Overwhelmed by this kindness, the young man blurted out: "What is it like to be Picasso?" Picasso asked him to give him a one-dollar bill. The young man did so. Picasso pinned it to a canvas on his easel, took up a brush, and in a minute or two had redesigned the note with his characteristic bold touches. He then signed it. Giving it back to the admirer, he said: "Now your one dollar is worth five hundred dollars. That is what it is like to be Picasso."

A friend of mine sold a mint 1964 Epiphone Casino electric guitar to Paul McCartney (through a dealer/friend of Macca's) and hesitated before doing it bothered by the fact that the guitar, which was worth about $3,000 at the time, would rise in value to somewhere around $50,00-$100,000 simply be being Sir Paul's.

I'm an artist, most of my friends are artists, many of the people here are artists. We're "artists" with a small "a" in that none of us (or maybe only a tiny number of us) can support ourselves financially by our art. What we do isn't a "hobby" and we bristle at the suggestion that it is. It's something more than tinkering with a model railroad in the garage or spending the weekend rearranging our baseball cards or Spiderman comics.

I keep coming back to this ART and MONEY relationship. We are suspicious of artists who do stuff "for the money" but, at the same time, we are most impressed, and understandably so, by artists who manage to rise to the level of cultural icon - and cultural icon pays really well.

It is that combination of fame and wealth that creates a mythic being like "DYLAN" (not Bob Dylan) and when we look at a squiggle of lines with the knowledge that is it a Picasso, or hear some throw away ditty with the knowledge that it is Dylan, the added information in that cultural subtext is enormous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon December 28th, 2009, 19:51 GMT 

Joined: Mon September 10th, 2007, 17:11 GMT
Posts: 1379
Long Johnny wrote:
It is that combination of fame and wealth that creates a mythic being like "DYLAN" (not Bob Dylan) and when we look at a squiggle of lines with the knowledge that is it a Picasso, or hear some throw away ditty with the knowledge that it is Dylan, the added information in that cultural subtext is enormous.


That's a really important point. I am no expert on visual art and I most likely wouldn't be able to tell a piece of "squiggles" that's worth a million from something my two-year-old niece did with her Crayola crayons in a minute and a half.

There are nuances to every art form that elevates the greats but often a piece is unable to live outside the context of its "author." There'd be no artistic weight attached to a recording of three or four folk songs I did in my bedroom with a room mic. But if it's Dylan on those tapes, watch out.

This has been an argument I've heard many times over, that a piece is only important because artist A created it, and there's usually some bitterness attached to that line of thinking. I understand the frustration, but it's impossible to remove the human element as it is simply a part of the context of the piece. Sure, Elvis wouldn't have been such a big deal if he was born in 1995, but is that really relevant?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon December 28th, 2009, 21:08 GMT 

Joined: Thu August 30th, 2007, 22:44 GMT
Posts: 3982
I'd say the purpose of myth is to keep a culture in touch with its roots beyond the point where direct evidence and historical records are inevitably lost to time. And there's always an inseparable element of storytelling in recounting history from any given point of view. Factual details slip into obscurity but the stories and their ever-evolving characters/lessons/morals/meanings persist, preserving a consciousness of the past long after its physical footprints have crumbled to dust. The oral tradition of folklore, including music, is instrumental (no pun intended) in this process.

People often muse about whether Dylan will be remembered in 500 years, and it's hard to say. But I think this can be said: however long it may take for Dylan's name and the details of his life to be completely forgotten, at least some of his work (or at least elements of it) will be remembered much longer. No one knows who originally wrote SCARBOROUGH FAIR or GYPSY DAVEY, and the cultural context and content of such songs has changed over time, but at their core remains something deemed of value and worthy of passing on.

Dylan isn't shouting "marvel at my uniqueness and originality!" and then turning aside to snicker that he's put one over on us because he deceitfully appropriated it from elsewhere. He's taken in a wealth of influences and experiences over his lifetime and distilled from them what he considers worth preserving and sharing and responding to, and he's saying "let me pass on to you some things I've learned about and found value in."


Last edited by The Mighty Monkey Of Mim on Mon December 28th, 2009, 21:30 GMT, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon December 28th, 2009, 21:29 GMT 

Joined: Mon September 10th, 2007, 17:11 GMT
Posts: 1379
The Mighty Monkey Of Mim wrote:
Dylan isn't shouting "marvel at my uniqueness and originality!" and then turning aside to snicker that he's put one over on us because he deceitfully appropriated it from elsewhere, he's saying "let me pass on to you some things I've learned about and found value in."


Spot on. Someone says "those lyrics are stolen!" And all I say think is "So?"

Imagine a grandfather sitting in his living room with his kin spread around him and he tells them a story of two men going out to sea and the adventures they have getting to a faraway island. Is it truly important which details are real? If the story is an original? A copy? A little of both? All of these questions are irrelevant. What's important is that one generation is passing on something of value to the next. Why can't it be the same for music? For anything?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon December 28th, 2009, 22:36 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon August 31st, 2009, 00:16 GMT
Posts: 2075
Long Johnny wrote:
telltale wrote:
Dylan the author is not dead - he lives on : his own mythology is one of the meanings the reader/listener supplies at the moment of listening. If I think of Ain't Talkin' as a cut and paste job of random extracts from Ovid tacked onto a Stanley Brothers song, it's an epic fail. But when I think of it as a Dylan song, it's an epic success.


I keep coming back to this ART and MONEY relationship. We are suspicious of artists who do stuff "for the money" but, at the same time, we are most impressed, and understandably so, by artists who manage to rise to the level of cultural icon - and cultural icon pays really well.

It is that combination of fame and wealth that creates a mythic being like "DYLAN" (not Bob Dylan) and when we look at a squiggle of lines with the knowledge that is it a Picasso, or hear some throw away ditty with the knowledge that it is Dylan, the added information in that cultural subtext is enormous.



LJ, I would say your last point doesn't resonate. Assuming I understand you right. Many, I would guess there are quite a few here, are lovers of the obscure and maybe see obscurity of an artist as lending value and authenticity to the work of art. But, I think the idea laid out nicely by telltale and you is also operative: 'Dylan' = Artist or Poet or Genius. And in that way we bring that myth to the songs and they become Art.

So I go back to an earlier point: Dylan as a writer disappears into the history of American Culture and music while making that music what it is for us (and as you say, LJ, for him) under the light of Romantic Genius.

And telltale, there is a great book on Romantic Genius by Abrams called The Mirror and the Lamp, another called Natural Supernaturalism -- I took the organic thing from there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon December 28th, 2009, 22:56 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri June 27th, 2008, 20:28 GMT
Posts: 17309
Location: Maybe it isn't a tour, maybe he's just lost.
slocastro wrote:
The Mighty Monkey Of Mim wrote:
Dylan isn't shouting "marvel at my uniqueness and originality!" and then turning aside to snicker that he's put one over on us because he deceitfully appropriated it from elsewhere, he's saying "let me pass on to you some things I've learned about and found value in."


Spot on. Someone says "those lyrics are stolen!" And all I say think is "So?"

Imagine a grandfather sitting in his living room with his kin spread around him and he tells them a story of two men going out to sea and the adventures they have getting to a faraway island. Is it truly important which details are real? If the story is an original? A copy? A little of both? All of these questions are irrelevant. What's important is that one generation is passing on something of value to the next. Why can't it be the same for music? For anything?


Yeah.... But try appropriating the music of "All Along the Watchtower" and writing a new set of lyrics to it and see what happens.

And that's one of the effects of this idea of copyright and the individual ownership of ideas. The whole tradition of appropriation and re-appropriation grinds to a halt.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue December 29th, 2009, 04:30 GMT 

Joined: Wed January 7th, 2009, 06:06 GMT
Posts: 215
First of all, this is a great discussion.

I like the notion of Dylan creating "readerly" texts--hadn't really thought of it that way before.

Slightly off-topic. As an 'artist' I am a musician, I play guitar and write songs, etc. I am continually amazed at how much of my "original" material contains re-workings of songs, either musically or lyrically, I already know. This is unintentional of course.

I have always felt that Dylan not only has perfect pitch, but also has a photographic memory, which would make his ability to assimilate that much greater than most people. How much of Dylan's "borrowing" do you think is intentional, or simply accidental?

Is his intention to create "readerly" albums?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue December 29th, 2009, 05:43 GMT 

Joined: Wed April 22nd, 2009, 03:33 GMT
Posts: 554
It seems rather disingenuous to suggest that Dylan could accidentally have incorporated entire phrases and sentences from sources like Confessions of a Yakuza and that Frommer's Guide (or whatever it was) into a work like L&T or Chronicles, given the frequency with which they occur. Similarly, ripping off old songs by the likes of Johnny and Jack, note-for-note, part-for-part, right down to the bloody solo, seems appreciably different to patterning a new original song's chord progression after an existing one. The folk process is vital and real, but I'm afraid it's too often invoked as a kind of excuse, or apology, for Dylan's recent outright and quite inexcusable theft.

I mostly agree with the things LJ has said in this discussion, but I take exception to what appears to be his somewhat flippant stance regarding copyright law. As a working artist who has been burned by thieves in the past, I have a personal stake in ensuring that certain restrictions are upheld in order to protect those with a vested interest in a given intellectual property. Is it acceptable for Dylan to plagiarize significant portions of an in-print novel written by a man who is alive and owns the text in question? How about synthesizing lines from a popular travel guide and passing them off as remembrances in a book that was marketed as a memoir? It should go without saying that this type of scenario is significantly different from making obvious references to canonical blues lines originally written by Robert Johnson, Blind Willie MacTell and their contemporaries.

This is not a wise old grandfather passing pearls of accumulated wisdom on to the next generation; this is an old man bereft of new ideas who is opening his mouth and saying things due only to force of habit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue December 29th, 2009, 06:16 GMT 

Joined: Thu August 30th, 2007, 22:44 GMT
Posts: 3982
You illustrate the point perfectly, sphinx. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue December 29th, 2009, 06:48 GMT 

Joined: Wed April 22nd, 2009, 03:33 GMT
Posts: 554
Neat! You can be dismissive. Now address what I said.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue December 29th, 2009, 10:56 GMT 

Joined: Sun May 10th, 2009, 09:40 GMT
Posts: 755
sphinx wrote:
It seems rather disingenuous to suggest that Dylan could accidentally have incorporated entire phrases and sentences from sources like Confessions of a Yakuza and that Frommer's Guide (or whatever it was) into a work like L&T or Chronicles, given the frequency with which they occur. Similarly, ripping off old songs by the likes of Johnny and Jack, note-for-note, part-for-part, right down to the bloody solo, seems appreciably different to patterning a new original song's chord progression after an existing one. The folk process is vital and real, but I'm afraid it's too often invoked as a kind of excuse, or apology, for Dylan's recent outright and quite inexcusable theft.


Why does this bother you? Just envy?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue December 29th, 2009, 13:53 GMT 

Joined: Wed April 22nd, 2009, 03:33 GMT
Posts: 554
Would you please listen to yourself? The only person you're embarrassing with this type of childish retort is you, not me.

Look, it's just a simple a fact that a number of songs on L&T were lifted note-for-note from other songs, with zero variation on their sources. This isn't a case of Dylan reworking an old folk traditional and transforming it into the foundation of Percy's Song or Masters of War. This has about as much to do with the folk process as me stealing from a bank. Similarly, liftening dozens of lines from a single contemporary source for a single album is nothing like appropriating approximately as many stock blues lines over a period spanning decades. You know it. I know it. So what the x is going on here?

What I'd most like to know about the Dylan apologists on this site is why they insist on wasting everyone's time by turning a blind eye to reality when it fairly stabs them in the x face. Try actually dealing with it if you want your ideas to be respected. It's especially disheartening to see LJ fall prey to this kind of nonsense, given the intellectual honesty with which he approaches the vast majority of Dylan's catalogue. You're almost there, LJ! Just one more hurdle to clear!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue December 29th, 2009, 14:07 GMT 

Joined: Sat December 20th, 2008, 23:30 GMT
Posts: 285
Come all ye young rebels
And list while I sing
For the love of one's country
Is a terrible thing
It banishes fear with
The speed of a flame
And it makes us all part of
The Patriot Game

:twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 133 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group