Richard Thompson on *Chronicles* and Hitler
harr...@my-deja.com
>From Richard Thompson's website, we have this:
*****
http://www.richardthompson-music.com/catch_of_the_day.asp?id=329
Me and Bob and Adolf
12/12/04
My comments on Bob Dylan's book seem to have been misconstrued.
Firstly, I consider Dylan the greatest songwriter of the second half of
the Twentieth Century, who paved the way for the rest of us. I have no
axe to grind against him. I met him only once, and it was a
non-meeting. My reference to other peoples' opinions about the early
Dylan were based on books like 'Positively Fourth Street', where he
comes across as rather mean, ruthless and ambitious. I've heard this
from other people who were around the New York and Boston folk scenes
as well. And then a few people say he was the most fun of anybody to be
with - but this contradiction seems consistent with someone
'chameleon-like', who is able to reinvent himself and present
different faces to the world.
I was not comparing Hitler and Dylan. What would be the point, or
basis, for that? 'The Hitler Diaries' were a big academic and
publishing scandal in Britain, and they bamboozled a lot of people who
should have known better. What seemed absurd about them were the day to
day trivial entries, totally at odds with the public image and doings
and historical legacy of a very public figure. This is what struck me
about the Dylan book - the contradiction between Bob's view of
things and the widely accepted view of Bob among musicians and the
music industry. Obviously it isn't a forgery, but to me, in my sad,
demented state, it read that way.
Sincerely,
RT
*****
What the hell is he talking about? It sounds as if it was a rather
innocuous statement that got misconstrued (rather like John Lennon's
statement comparing the importance of the Beatles to the importance of
Jesus in the lives of young Britons). I wonder, though, who he'd
consider the best songwriter of the first half of the 20th century.
Hoagy Carmichael?
I'm also startled to find out that Dylan and Thompson have only met
once and then only briefly. This was the leader of the band that,
after the Byrds (and maybe not even that), most prominently,
frequently, and competently covered Dylan's music. Though I'm kind of
glad that he did only meet Dylan once. Thompson is an exceptional
talent (not to everybody's taste) and that he sort of seems to have
avoided Dylan after his Fairport Convention years is a testament to his
independence. He didn't even cover his music in his "1,000 Years of
Popular Music" show that he still does occasionally.
By the way, this link is also to be found on boblinks, but even that
doesn't indicate what Thompson originally said.
I guess I won't be getting my wish of having Thompson join the
never-ending band any time soon. Maybe Danny Thompson. Or John
Renbourne.
don freeman
> basis, for that? 'The Hitler Diaries' were a big academic and
> publishing scandal in Britain, and they bamboozled a lot of people who
> should have known better. What seemed absurd about them were the day to
> day trivial entries, totally at odds with the public image and doings
> and historical legacy of a very public figure. This is what struck me
> about the Dylan book - the contradiction between Bob's view of
> things and the widely accepted view of Bob among musicians and the
> music industry. Obviously it isn't a forgery, but to me, in my sad,
> demented state, it read that way.
>
I never saw the original Richard Thompson post about this, but what he
says here makes perfect sense to me. I too feel that Chronicles has an
unreal feel to it, one which detracts from what a book should be.
J Buck
<I too feel that Chronicles has an unreal feel to it, one which detracts
from what a book should be.>
'What a book should be'....what's that?
Rib O'flavin
"J Buck" <jbu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3852-41F...@storefull-3134.bay.webtv.net...
Anything but what it is would be my guess.
gabriel
earlier entry at the website, in the 'Q&A' section :
http://www.richardthompson-music.com/catch_of_the_day.asp?id=324
D. Novack: Richard, Idea: How about playing concerts of songs written
by other artists? I would like to hear you do the following songs in
your own inimitable style:
You've got to hide your love away (Beatles)
Love Minus Zero/No Limit (Dylan)
I can't think of any more specific songs right now, but I bet you could
do great versions of many Dylan songs. By the way, have you read
Dylan's autobiography? If so, your thoughts...
What do you think of this? Perhaps alternate between your compositions
and the covers. I wouldn't want to miss some of your own songs at any
concert, unless you were really into the cover thing. If you decide to
do the cover thing, you could publish the set lists on your website, so
we could brush up before attending the show.
Will you be working with Earl Harvin again? That guy really rocks.
The '1000 Years' show is an excuse to do covers, and we do a
Beatles tune in that. I thought Dylan was a bit too obvious (not that
the Beatles aren't), in the sense that we can rearrange The Beatles
into something acoustic, and it's a bit different, and I'm not so
sure what I could do differently with Bob. In fact, we don't have
many singer/songwriters represented in the show.
I've read bits and pieces of Dylan's book, and it confuses me. Why
would the author of a lot of songs and poetry, and Tarantula, write
something so prosaic, and reflective of real time/place/incident? My
impression is that he's trying to set the record straight, somehow.
Does he feel misunderstood? The general version of Dylan from other
people, particularly other musicians, is that he was fairly obnoxious,
self-serving, and opportunistic in his younger days, stomped on a lot
of peoples' fingers, and for whatever reasons often seemed arrogant
and aloof. The book reads like a forgery, like the Hitler Diaries:
Took some lovely pictures of Eva this morning on the balcony. Himmler
sent over a jar of excellent truffles. Have decided to invade Poland,
it's for their own good. Weather continues clement, etc.
don freeman
>
> 'What a book should be'....what's that?
>
The way a good book is when you read it. Something bugged me about
Chronicles. Good books don't do that.
don freeman
>
> Took some lovely pictures of Eva this morning on the balcony. Himmler
> sent over a jar of excellent truffles. Have decided to invade Poland,
> it's for their own good. Weather continues clement, etc.
>
That's really funny!
Thanks for posting it.
Mr. Rick
Bob's view of things and the widely accepted view of Bob among musicians and
the music industry."
Thompson doesn't quite grasp what separated Dylan from the pack. Dylan
explained it pretty well in Chronicles, but the answer is staring at you
from the title & cover photo.
don freeman
> But that's it with Bob. You either go with the lazy, sheep-like consensus
> or you actually look for yourself at what the man is doing. What I see is a
> man never more committed to his art and never more relevant.
>
But Jim, what you're saying here sounds like sheel=like consensus too.
You make it sound like Bob Dylan never has bad days or bad years. Bob
seems very committed to his career these days, but to say he's never
been more relevant makes you sound like a teeny-bopper fan.
Jim (Guitar Centre Records)
You've never seen me. I might not actually be a receding-hairlined Homer
Simpson clone. I might be a teenybopper! ;-) Alright, I'm Homer... it's
a fair cop. Now, open the door....
But seriously, the best thing Bob could have is teeny-bopper fans. He loves
it when people dance. What he doesn't love is when the first 20 rows are
packed with the same old farts for 500 shows in a row: the kind of people
who have fixed their opinions and do not have open minds.
The most remarkable thing about Bob - and I can almost hear the howls of
disagreement around here- is that I think that THIS is his time. The '60s
and '70s were just a warm-up. He is old and mature enough to perform his
songs to their full potential now. It is only Western culture that makes a
god of youth. In the East the wisdom of age is what people gather round to
hear.
Bob is 10,000 years old, and 63, and 18. (sometimes all of these ages at
once). I'm listening.....
Teeny-bop Jim
(ps. He never has had a bad year).
"don freeman" <dfr...@nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:vwPLd.247432$Xk.161748@pd7tw3no...
don freeman
> (ps. He never has had a bad year).
But that's like saying he never had a great year in his career. It's
like saying that Empire Burlesque is as good as Highway 61 Revisited.
beppe
>> (ps. He never has had a bad year).
>
>
> But that's like saying he never had a great year in his career. It's like
> saying that Empire Burlesque is as good as Highway 61 Revisited.
Exactly, Don, spot on!
(i have already told him once the very same thing, but there's no way to
enter a blind fan's logics)
And also *people do not understand Dylan* enters full force the gallery of
most forgettable cliches about him.
And *Bob is 10,000 years old, and 63, and 18.*, is false and as far as it
could get from Dylan's attitude (read *it's alright ma* and *floater*, Jim,
read them, please), let alone banal and childish
I frankly hope the man will never happen to read Jim's posts.
It'd be seriously embarassing for all of us.
Deadly seriously.
--
Ciao
Beppe
John
of
> disagreement around here- is that I think that THIS is his time. The
'60s
> and '70s were just a warm-up. He is old and mature enough to perform
his
> songs to their full potential now.
Well said, Jim, couldn't agree more.
John in Ireland
John
> It'd be seriously embarassing for all of us.
> Deadly seriously.
> Beppe
Whoa there, Beppe, speak for yourself! Personally speaking, I think
Jim's posts, despite occasional intemperance, are some of the most
stimulating here. The last thing we need is a nice cosy consensus.
Best wishes,
John
beppe
"John" <coote...@eircom.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:a5ULd.46761$Z14....@news.indigo.ie...
>> I frankly hope the man will never happen to read Jim's posts.
>> It'd be seriously embarassing for all of us.
>> Deadly seriously.
>> Ciao
>> Beppe
>
> Whoa there, Beppe, speak for yourself!
I always do, everybody always does.
In my opinion his posts are an embarassment.
But gentlemen never say *in my opinion*
They take it for granted.
Personally speaking, I think
> Jim's posts, despite occasional intemperance, are some of the most
> stimulating here. The last thing we need is a nice cosy consensus.
What's the nice cosy consensus?
Is it resting on Dylan being the best
guitarist/poet/harmonicasplayer/writer/wahteverhedoes ever or loving a
genius for what he does, keeping in mind it's not he or she or him that we
belong to?
In an artist-devoted NG the bandwagonsits are the majority and people *who
keep their minds open* are the salt and the pride of the very same artist
the NG is devoted to.
In my opinion.
:-)))
> Best wishes,
> John
same to you
Beppe
jmc
>
>>
>> 'What a book should be'....what's that?
>>
>
> The way a good book is when you read it. Something bugged me about
> Chronicles. Good books don't do that.
>
That is just about the least articulate statement I have read!
I would have thought that one of the definitions of a good book was that it
"bugged" you...
don freeman
>>Chronicles. Good books don't do that.
>>
>
>
> That is just about the least articulate statement I have read!
>
> I would have thought that one of the definitions of a good book was that it
> "bugged" you...
>
>
Yes, an artistically written book should be disturbing and not soothing.
Yet, Chronicles bugs me because I don't think it's artistically written.
It rings false to me.
J Buck
<What he doesn't love is when the first 20 rows are packed with the same
old farts for 500 shows in a row: the kind of people who have fixed
their opinions and do not have open minds>
And of course your opinion of Bob is flexible and your mind isn't closed
to another view.
Yeah....right.
Bob Gill
> > I would have thought that one of the definitions of a good book was that it
> > "bugged" you...
> >
>
> Yes, an artistically written book should be disturbing and not soothing.
That's not true at all. Tom Sawyer isn't disturbing; Midsummer Night's Dream
isn't disturbing. The list is much, much longer than that.
This is similar to another thing you'll hear often, to the effect that all
great art is considered disgusting at first. No one ever considered Homer or
Michelangelo or Rembrandt or da Vinci disgusting, as far as I know. And again,
the list is much, much longer.
-- Bob G.
don freeman
> That's not true at all. Tom Sawyer isn't disturbing; Midsummer Night's Dream
> isn't disturbing.
I think they are.
Alan Fraser
wrote:
>
>> (ps. He never has had a bad year).
>
>
>But that's like saying he never had a great year in his career. It's
>like saying that Empire Burlesque is as good as Highway 61 Revisited.
As an album it isn't. But if you listen to the circulating session
tapes of EB, before Arthur Baker got his hands on them, there's
definitely something going on that at its best is as good as anything
Bob did in the Sixties. Bob's work in the Eighties lacks the
consistency of his work in the Sixties, but his highs are as high.
Every Dylan album has at least one spinetingler (OK, maybe not Down In
The Groove, but I always like Silvio in concert).
Alan
beppe
>>like saying that Empire Burlesque is as good as Highway 61 Revisited.
>
> As an album it isn't. But if you listen to the circulating session
> tapes of EB, before Arthur Baker got his hands on them, there's
> definitely something going on that at its best is as good as anything
> Bob did in the Sixties. Bob's work in the Eighties lacks the
> consistency of his work in the Sixties, but his highs are as high.
I've always agreed on this, as you know.
There's a quote from you I have even adopted, which goes
like*.................in the seventies his lows are lower but his highs are
higher*
(don't ask me when you said that, I don't knwo, but I'm sure you did) :-)))
I totally identify with this view (and *desire* still remains my fav Dylan
by large and by far)
Still what you say confirms what *we* say about the equation *all dylan =
top dylan* being derogative of his genius.
> Every Dylan album has at least one spinetingler (OK, maybe not Down In
> The Groove, but I always like Silvio in concert).
...and, to my ears, *under your spell* out of KOL is at *BooT* level.
But KOL, without Boot, would now be an average work of an average artist.
With Boot, it becomes a bad work of an unreachable artist.
Stating KoL = BooT doesn't exalt Dylan, it diminishes BooT.
That's the point.
jmc
Haven't read Tom Sawyer, but A Midsummer Night's Dream is about two fairies
fighting over a pre-pubescent boy, and the queen of the fairies f**king a
donkey. If that doesn't disturb you, then you're a tougher man than I!
Pilgrim
"No one ever considered Homer or Michelangelo or Rembrandt or da Vinci
disgusting, as far as I know."
I don't know about Homer, but Michelangelo's work was actually considered
"obscene" by many members of the church, and he had to go back and paint
clothes onto a few figures. The 'Humanism' of the Renaissance was far
more disturbing to a great number of people in it's time period than it is
in our time period. Da Vinci had a very bad habit of experimenting too
much so that some of his work actually self-destructed or he focused on
brilliant but impractical projects that could not be implemented in his
time period. Fortunately, both were supported by key individuals or
families who had the power to defend them against detractors or with whom
they could find support (in Michelangelo's case, it was an often
exasperated pope, in Da Vinci's case, the Medici family and, particularly,
the French Royal family, with whom he was very popular). Both created
brilliant works of art, but there was more controversy over their work
(and lives - both Michelangelo and Da Vinci are now believed to have been
homosexual)than many people assume because we've filtered the history from
our perspective. Without certain key families who were progressive (one
of the Medicis was actually a pope) the lives of many artists would have
been far less productive.
Rembrandt came under criticism for painting 'too realistically', making
his subjects ugly, and adding unrelated figures to commissions which
angered the people who were paying for the work (The Night Watch is a
prime example where this issue has been documented). Despite the fact
that today we consider him one of the greatest artists to have lived, he
was more or less 'rediscovered' in, if I remember correctly, the 19th
century, when scholars began to take him seriously and actually study his
work.
Think of how 'non-disturbing' Impressionist paintings are today. In the
mid to late 19th century, Impressionism was ridiculed and considered a
travesty of bad painting (the name itself began as an insult). The same
can be said for much of contemporary art. Most, but not all, of what
becomes "popular" will fall into the dustbins of history, while there may
be a few surprises, in a hundred years, of what is considered 'great' from
our time period.
Mr. Rick
>Bob's work in the Eighties lacks the consistency of his work in the
Sixties, but his highs are as high.
Tell me a track as good as Like A Rolling Stone. Or any of his 60s
masterpieces -- Tambourine Man, It's Allright Ma, Baby Blue, Thin Man, etc.
beppe
>>Bob's work in the Eighties lacks the consistency of his work in the
> Sixties, but his highs are as high.
>
> Tell me a track as good as Like A Rolling Stone. Or any of his 60s
> masterpieces -- Tambourine Man, It's Allright Ma, Baby Blue, Thin Man,
> etc.
*Jokerman* is.
And *Grain Of Sand*, too.
--
Ciao
Beppe
don freeman
> *Jokerman* is.
> And *Grain Of Sand*, too.
>
Compared to Like a Rolling Stone, those two songs sound, to me, tired
and contrived.
Alan Fraser
wrote:
>
Bob has said that he had to craft songs consciously instead of
composing them spontaneously, but that doesn't make them any less
majestic for me. Much as I love the earlier songs, these later songs
connect to me far more strongly.
Alan
beppe
>>> *Jokerman* is.
>>> And *Grain Of Sand*, too.
>>
>>
>>>
>>Compared to Like a Rolling Stone, those two songs sound, to me, tired
>>and contrived.
>
> Bob has said that he had to craft songs consciously instead of
> composing them spontaneously, but that doesn't make them any less
> majestic for me. Much as I love the earlier songs, these later songs
> connect to me far more strongly.
To me, as well.
In my top 3 there's no room for the 60s, fancy that!
Hurricane, Jokerman, Tangled!
But that's nothing like saying all Dylan is top Dylan and/or people don't
get him; which is, I insist, highly derogative of his work.
--
Ciao
Beppe
Bob Gill
> In my top 3 there's no room for the 60s, fancy that!
> Hurricane, Jokerman, Tangled!
> But that's nothing like saying all Dylan is top Dylan and/or people don't
> get him; which is, I insist, highly derogative of his work.
I agree with your basic idea completely.
For me his best stuff is from the '60s, but I think there's a lot of
outstanding stuff from later years too, and I can understand how you or
anyone else might prefer some of them to his earlier classics. What I don't
understand is how anyone could say "it's all great."
What I would probably say, though, is that it's all *interesting.* When
someone has produced great stuff like Dylan's, his mis-steps are worth
hearing too, if only for the light they shed on his better work.
-- Bob G.
don freeman
> What I would probably say, though, is that it's all *interesting.* When
> someone has produced great stuff like Dylan's, his mis-steps are worth
> hearing too, if only for the light they shed on his better work.
"Well, but we were just us and of course you were you,
"John Wesley Harding" sure sounded new.
And then "Nashville Skyline" was even newer,
'Blood On the Tracks', an' the ringin' got truer.
Let's see -- there was another one in there somewhere...oh, I got it, I
got it -- "Self Portrait" --
Well, it was an interesting effort. "
-Talking New Bob Dylan by Loudon Wainwright