Dylan Article in "The Weekly Standard"

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Christopher M. Coyle

unread,
Jan 4, 2001, 3:15:36 PM1/4/01
to
Happy New Year to all,
Yesterday while out I picked up the new issue of magazine which I'm sure
few of you read and so most likely have no knowledge of the article.
While paging through I came across a several page article encompasing
the whole of Dylan's career. Nothing out of the ordinary except for the
magazine in which I came upon it. It mentions Dylan as, "What Good Came
from the Sixties? The Answer, my friend, is Bob Dylan", as per the
title of the article.
Just thought you might be interested.
Christopher M. Coyle/All American Boy

--
“Yes, to dance beneath the diamond
sky with one hand waving free...”
-Bob Dylan “Mr. Tambourine Man”

willi...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jan 4, 2001, 6:11:14 PM1/4/01
to
In article <3A54DB06...@epix.net>,
Thanks for the notice. Actually, I like Weekly Standard, but you have
to be pretty discreet about that kind of stuff around here!


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Message has been deleted

devor...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jan 4, 2001, 10:17:05 PM1/4/01
to
geez pardon my ignorance but what is this publication you speak of?
Where is it published out of? I'd like to have a peek, especially to
read the dylan article mentioned here.
signed, devorahmuse
In article <3A550747...@ix.netcom.com>,
Spencers <rbsp...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I can't wait for my next issue to come!!!

Kenneth Miller

unread,
Jan 4, 2001, 10:54:56 PM1/4/01
to
It is a fine Political weekly magazine. It is on the conservative side.
The article really isn't much worth reading to those of us on the list,
tells us nothing we didn't already know, just a simple overview of his
career. I was just amazed that it showed up in this particular magazine.
Christopher M. Coyle

Jim Maynard

unread,
Jan 4, 2001, 10:49:09 PM1/4/01
to
The Weekly Standard is a right wing American fascist rag that Bob would not
even spit at.
Funny how conservatives, the target of most of Dylan's political songs, try
to embrace him as if
they have never even listented to The Times Are a Changin' or Blowin' in
the Wind or Masters of War....
While he correctly focuses more on his art now than politics, he definitely
maintains a liberal/left political perspective today.

"Capitalism is above the law, it say it don't count less it sells.... "
bob dylan, Union Sundown

--
Jim Maynard
Web Page-- http://home.midsouth.rr.com/jmaynard
Email-- jmay...@midsouth.rr.com


<devor...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:933ebb$j7i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

willi...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jan 4, 2001, 11:11:35 PM1/4/01
to
In article <933ebb$j7i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Larger bookstores and newsstands should have it. I guess you could
call it a fairly conservative fairly intellectual journal of the
acerbic variety.

Outfidel

unread,
Jan 4, 2001, 11:25:16 PM1/4/01
to
In article <933ebb$j7i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
devor...@my-deja.com wrote:
> geez pardon my ignorance but what is this publication you speak of?
> Where is it published out of? I'd like to have a peek, especially to
> read the dylan article mentioned here.

See http://www.weeklystandard.com/magazine/default.asp for the contents
of the current edition. Some articles are available online, but
unfortunately, the Dylan piece is not.

--
"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant
name for ignorance." - G.K. Chesterton

Outfidel

unread,
Jan 4, 2001, 11:59:18 PM1/4/01
to
In article <Vub56.10508$546.3...@typhoon.midsouth.rr.com>,

"Jim Maynard" <jmay...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote:
> The Weekly Standard is a right wing American fascist rag that Bob
would not
> even spit at.
> Funny how conservatives, the target of most of Dylan's political
songs, try
> to embrace him as if
> they have never even listented to The Times Are a Changin' or
Blowin' in
> the Wind or Masters of War....

Perhaps the conservative who wrote the article doesn't feel every piece
of art needs to conform to a certain political code in order for it to
be valuable.

Imagine that, appreciating art for art's sake, without first putting it
through a political sieve? Who'd of thunk it...

--
"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant
name for ignorance." - G.K. Chesterton

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Kenneth Miller

unread,
Jan 5, 2001, 8:31:54 AM1/5/01
to
AMEN!
Christopher M. Coyle

Spencers wrote:

> You know, Jim, this may surprise you, but as someone you would probably call a
> "conservative" I think "Times," "Blowin'," and "Masters" are right on target .
> . . There's more than one way to look at things. The entrenched and ossified
> establishment (like the one he rails against in "Times") is now solidly
> liberal, and "Blowin'" and "Masters" could have been written for Bill Clinton
> after he bombed the pharmacy in Sudan to distract us from Monica . . . (and
> then there was Kosovo, and the Chinese embasssy, etc etc etc etc etc)

KReilly

unread,
Jan 5, 2001, 8:40:40 AM1/5/01
to
>Imagine that, appreciating art for art's sake, without first putting it
>through a political sieve? Who'd of thunk it...

All art is political. There is no neutral appreciation of anything.

devor...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jan 5, 2001, 9:39:53 AM1/5/01
to
wow, great feedback..so my ex, Mr. old Hippy turned CPA conservative
probably readS it! he he. They thought it was cute at his big
realestate corporation to have everyone at the chrismas party put in a
hat some "secret" and then the others had to guess who's secret it was!
His "secret": that he went to over twenty Greatful Dead concerts! HA!
so there are conservatives out there, once hippy turned yuppie and so
it goes and so it goes.THE REAL secret is that he has probably smoked
more pot than five acres worth! ha! oh! like they can't guess!
devorahmuse

In article <Vub56.10508$546.3...@typhoon.midsouth.rr.com>,
"Jim Maynard" <jmay...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote:

> The Weekly Standard is a right wing American fascist rag that Bob
would not
> even spit at.
> Funny how conservatives, the target of most of Dylan's political
songs, try
> to embrace him as if
> they have never even listented to The Times Are a Changin' or
Blowin' in
> the Wind or Masters of War....
> While he correctly focuses more on his art now than politics, he
definitely
> maintains a liberal/left political perspective today.
>
> "Capitalism is above the law, it say it don't count less it
sells.... "
> bob dylan, Union Sundown

> YES AND IAM PROUD I GOT FIRED FROM ONE OF THESE ASSHOLE CORPORATIONS
FOR STANDING UP TO THEIR FAKE VITAMINS CAUSE I KNEW TOO MUCH ...SO THEY
MADE UP SOMETHING TO KICK ME OUT..SET ME UP EVEN!!GOSH I AM SO PROUD OF
THAT!!HA!...
DEVORAHMUSE

Kenneth Miller

unread,
Jan 5, 2001, 10:41:04 AM1/5/01
to
But not all of Bob's material is political. I would consider very little
of it political. Also, I do not think that his political viewpoint in the
few songs it resonates in is all that left. I mean the only thing I can
think of him saying that is really leftist is the part about his daughter
marrying Barry Goldwater and being crazy.

Christopher M. Coyle/All American Boy

Kenneth Miller

unread,
Jan 5, 2001, 10:43:16 AM1/5/01
to
Believe me, I've learned the hard way about what does and what does not go
over well with the group for the most part. I was the center of last
months politcal discussion on the list.
Christopher M. Coyle/ All American Boy

Wolfds

unread,
Jan 5, 2001, 11:29:56 AM1/5/01
to
Chris "Manifest Destiny" Coyle wrote:

>Also, I do not think that his political viewpoint in the
>few songs it resonates in is all that left. I mean the only thing I can
>think of him saying that is really leftist is the part about his daughter
>marrying Barry Goldwater and being crazy.

Of course, the point of view expressed in Oxford Town, John Birch Paranoid
Blues, With God on Our Side (you should really give this one a listen, Mr.
Coyle), When the Ship Comes In, Only a Pawn in Their Game, Who Killed Davy
Moore?, Times, George Jackson, etc., can only be described as center-rightist.

You're better off arguing that Bob eventually renounced these "finger-pointing"
songs, and that they may never have expressed the songwriter's subjective
feelings to begin with (i.e., the artist picking up on a zeitgeist). To say
that Bob's early political songs (and even later ones like George Jackson and
Hurricane) are not leftist, though, defies reality.

Also: quit wallowing in self-pity. Your politics per se were not under attack
by rmd "liberals"; rather, your fascistic expressions were uniformly denounced.

Dave


willi...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jan 5, 2001, 11:17:19 AM1/5/01
to
In article <Vub56.10508$546.3...@typhoon.midsouth.rr.com>,
"Jim Maynard" <jmay...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote:
> Greetings, Mr. Maynard. You use the word fascist so reflexively that
I hesitate to engage you, but what the heck. I'm not as sure as you
are about Bob's political leanings as far as left and right are
concerned. The evidence seems mixed. Let's just look at the three
songs you mentioned. "Times:" seems pretty clear that this is a
challenge to entrenched power of any stripe, which I would say is the
one constant theme in Bob's political ruminations. "Blowin'": I think
this is the same as don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters;
again, uncertainty about established positions and parties seems to be
the point, maybe along with a grassroots emphasis. "Masters": sure,
we all agree with that. It's one reason I detested Clinton so much.
Who ever used military power for such personal reasons before in
American history? My opinion is that people retain their childhood
image of themselves as either left or right, democrat or republican,
while failing to realize that the real issue is entrenched power, and
the parabolic tendency of power to corrupt. Both, or all, parties, are
subject to that, and I would argue that we Bobcats, if we have some
remnant of cohesion, would generally find ourselves as the outsiders,
the challengers, saying no fairly often to all politicians. My few
forays into political stuff on this board have not been to support any
candidate, but basically to challenge all of them. Didn't Bob call his
so-called political songs "finger-pointing" music? Maybe we can agree
on that--I suspect we can both find some of the same people to point a
finger at, and say, you have betrayed your trust, you have sold your
office, your honor, and your constituents for money and power. I don't
exempt someone from that finger-pointing just because they conceal
their corruption and selfishness behind a label of "Democrat"
or "friend of working families" or whatever crap they come up with this
week. Best regards, William

tom

unread,
Jan 5, 2001, 11:54:07 AM1/5/01
to
> > Greetings, Mr. Maynard. You use the word fascist so reflexively that
> I hesitate to engage you, but what the heck. I'm not as sure as you
> are about Bob's political leanings as far as left and right are
> concerned. The evidence seems mixed.

and don't forget the late seventies and early eighties -- the last time he
wrote overtly political songs

pat buchanan would have been proud of our boy

KReilly

unread,
Jan 5, 2001, 12:03:12 PM1/5/01
to
>But not all of Bob's material is political. I would consider very little
>of it political.

Maybe it's not all explicitly political but much of his early stuff is. The
rest is certainly political in the sense that it grows out of particular
convictions and represents a particular set of values. Everything is political,
there ain't no neutral ground. Of course, when we swim along with the
prevailing currents we aren't as likely to see how things are political, they
just seem "common sensical."

KReilly

unread,
Jan 5, 2001, 12:15:48 PM1/5/01
to
>Greetings, Mr. Maynard. You use the word fascist so reflexively that
>I hesitate to engage you, but what the heck. I'm not as sure as you
>are about Bob's political leanings as far as left and right are
>concerned. The evidence seems mixed. Let's just look at the three
>songs you mentioned. "Times:" seems pretty clear that this is a
>challenge to entrenched power of any stripe, which I would say is the
>one constant theme in Bob's political ruminations. "Blowin'": I think
>this is the same as don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters;
>again, uncertainty about established positions and parties seems to be
>the point, maybe along with a grassroots emphasis. "Masters": sure,
>we all agree with that. It's one reason I detested Clinton so much.
>Who ever used military power for such personal reasons before in
>American history?

Willie,
I think you object too strongly to Mr. Maynard. First of all, shouldn't you
look more closely at the context in which "Times" was written before you
allegorize it into a general indictment of the establishment? Second, the idea
that Clinton used military power to distract the country from the Monica
scandal borders on silliness. Can you really reduce it to that without sharing
a right-wing bent? You write as if the president and the president alone was
behind US military efforts. Was it not supported virtually across the board by
Republicans and Democrats alike? Get real. I'd bet that the enduring legacy of
the Monica scandal will be the partisan voyeurism of Kenneth Star. Clinton's
philandering will be a footnote just like the others that came before him.

>I would argue that we Bobcats, if we have some
>remnant of cohesion, would generally find ourselves as the outsiders,
>the challengers, saying no fairly often to all politicians.

Do you read RMD at all? Outsiders on RMD!? If this wasn't RMD I'd swear you
were being bitterly ironic here.

Wolfds

unread,
Jan 5, 2001, 12:33:27 PM1/5/01
to
> kre...@aol.com (KReilly) writes:

>Second, the idea
>that Clinton used military power to distract the country from the Monica
>scandal borders on silliness.

It doesn't even border on it: it's plain absurd, and reflects a complete
ignorance of how US foreign policy is developed. Makes for a damn funny and
prescient film, though.

>You write as if the president and the president alone was
>behind US military efforts. Was it not supported virtually across the board
>by
>Republicans and Democrats alike?

Not to mention the State Department (bureaucrats--most of whom were there
before Clinton assumed office--whose main concern, of course, was diverting
attention from Monicagate).

Dave


willi...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jan 5, 2001, 1:07:28 PM1/5/01
to
In article <20010105121548...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,

I'll agree that it would be more accurate to say "Times" includes or
intimates a challenge to entrenched power. As you well know, "Times"
is almost pure apocalyptic language, and once you go down that road,
anything can happen, context be damned. I think you could argue that
content and context are at odds in that song, but that's a longer
letter. But in terms of context, have you seen/heard how they use it
at the JFK library? Pretty powerful. On the second point, we are just
not going to agree. My primary resource for evaluating Clinton's
military exploits is Christopher Hitchens, certainly a reliable
leftist. Regarding your concluding remark, I just tip my hat. I'm
here every day. Take it easy. WR

nates

unread,
Jan 5, 2001, 11:05:07 AM1/5/01
to
Wolfds wrote:

> [Coyle's] better off arguing that Bob eventually renounced
> these "finger-pointing" songs


actually, i think bob is probably extremely repulsed by both
political sides of the spectrum. neither side has ever had
anything they could really really be proud of.


just why did he write it in Hattie Carroll in every refrain
"for those who philosophize disagrace..."? - notice this isnt
necessarily HIM (it isnt not HIM either)...covering his bases
as it were, in case someone later down the years called him
out on that. and we have the remark "how do you know i'm
against the war?" - which was much more an indictment of how
the mediots would read into things beyond what they were, than
a stand on the war. he wasnt gonna take a stand on the war
for this guy's article. not after "Restless Farewell" was long
ago in the books. but, see, he was gonna take a stand on the
reporter's presumption.


to say that dylan isnt political is just plain playing with
semantics. from certain points of view there is *nothing* dylan
can do that ISNT political, and they are right from their side.


- nate

"the revolution will not be televised" - g.s.heron
"somebody just asked me if i was registered to vote." - bd

nates

unread,
Jan 5, 2001, 11:14:54 AM1/5/01
to
willi...@my-deja.com wrote:

> Who ever used military power for such personal reasons before in
> American history?

dont get me started....there's a long list.
perhaps your question should be "who has NOT?"

who has NOT? hmmm....thinking......hmm......lemme get back to you.

> ..[]... the real issue is entrenched power, and


> the parabolic tendency of power to corrupt.

parabolic? that's like a thrown ball - it goes up then comes down.
maybe you meant exponential, like the way there are steadily more and
more people on the planet - the true reason freedom is declining? you
dont want to mean asymptotic either, as that implies a limitation.

> so-called political songs "finger-pointing" music? Maybe we can agree
> on that--I suspect we can both find some of the same people to point a
> finger at, and say, you have betrayed your trust, you have sold your
> office, your honor, and your constituents for money and power. I don't
> exempt someone from that finger-pointing just because they conceal
> their corruption and selfishness behind a label of "Democrat"
> or "friend of working families" or whatever crap they come up with this
> week. Best regards, William


sure, there is plenty of room to agree here....


- nate

Howard Mirowitz

unread,
Jan 5, 2001, 4:20:14 PM1/5/01
to
Hey Chris,

Why are you using an alias all of a sudden?

H.

"Kenneth Miller" <ke...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:3A55EC3...@epix.net...

Howard Mirowitz

unread,
Jan 5, 2001, 4:36:13 PM1/5/01
to
The first time Dylan blew off politics was in "My Back Pages". After this,
he goes through a long period when whatever political content his songs have
is incorporated symbolically and allusively.
I personally think he was rejecting a generalized political stance against
social injustice in favor of engagement on a personal level with specifics
that caught his attention.

Occasionally (as with "Hurricane") this engagement with specifics surfaces
in his work in a politically liberal way, but I have to agree with Spencers
to some extent. Especially since his born-again phase, Dylan has attained a
different appreciation of the complexity of the world around him, which
leads him to appear disengaged and skeptical of politics. "I used to care,
but things have changed."

H.

"Spencers" <rbsp...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3A55B615...@ix.netcom.com...


> You know, Jim, this may surprise you, but as someone you would probably
call a
> "conservative" I think "Times," "Blowin'," and "Masters" are right on
target .
> . . There's more than one way to look at things. The entrenched and
ossified
> establishment (like the one he rails against in "Times") is now solidly
> liberal, and "Blowin'" and "Masters" could have been written for Bill
Clinton
> after he bombed the pharmacy in Sudan to distract us from Monica . . .
(and
> then there was Kosovo, and the Chinese embasssy, etc etc etc etc etc)
>
> Jim Maynard wrote:
>

> > The Weekly Standard is a right wing American fascist rag that Bob would
not
> > even spit at.
> > Funny how conservatives, the target of most of Dylan's political songs,
try
> > to embrace him as if
> > they have never even listented to The Times Are a Changin' or Blowin'
in
> > the Wind or Masters of War....
> > While he correctly focuses more on his art now than politics, he
definitely
> > maintains a liberal/left political perspective today.

(balance snipped)


nates

unread,
Jan 5, 2001, 2:56:37 PM1/5/01
to
Howard Mirowitz wrote:
>
> The first time Dylan blew off politics was in "My Back Pages"....[]....


i would say it was Restless Farewell....


- nate

Jim Maynard

unread,
Jan 5, 2001, 9:09:34 PM1/5/01
to
Let's start a new thread here since we have gone beyond the "Weakly
Standard" (sic) article....

First, in response to this person:

>"Spencers" <rbsp...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3A55B615...@ix.netcom.com...
>You know, Jim, this may surprise you, but as someone you would probably
call a
>"conservative" I think "Times," "Blowin'," and "Masters" are right on
target .
>. . There's more than one way to look at things. The entrenched and
ossified
>establishment (like the one he rails against in "Times") is now solidly
>liberal, and "Blowin'" and "Masters" could have been written for Bill

Clintonfter he bombed the pharmacy in Sudan to >istract us from Monica . . .


(and then there was Kosovo, and the Chinese embasssy, etc etc etc etc etc)

First, Mr Spencer whoever... you assume that Bill Clinton is a "liberal"
is is NOT and never has been.
In fact, I would argue that he has been one of our most "conservative"
Presidents....

Second, to refer to the current establishment as "liberal" is absurd....
Like the myth of the "liberal media"... try telling that to Al Gore who beat
the shit out of Bush in every debate yet was vilified by the "media elite"
who seemed to prefer George W. Bush for some reason....

Now, back to Bob Dylan.... I would not want to place Dylan in the current
narrowly defined political spectrum of Republican vs. Democrat because I
don't think there is much differnce between these two parties, thanks to
Bill Clinton and the "New Democrats" abandoning liberalism in favor of
punishing welfare mothers to win elections... Bill Clinton is no Kennedy or
FDR... hell he has been more conservative on many issues than Ronald Reagan
(reducing government, ending welfare, etc....) Clinton has been the best
friend big business has had since Herbert Hoover! Wall Street Loved his
fiscal policies and he kissed Alan Greenspan's ass!

We need to step back from the small picture and look at the large picture to
appreciate Bob Dylan as a Liberal. Dylan has consistently opposed
"conservatism" (those who support the powerful over the weak, big business
over labor, racial supremacy vs. racial equality,e tc. Bob is a LIBERAL
in the tradition of Kennedy and Martin Luther King.... His heroes were all
liberals or radical leftists.... Woody Guthrie! No matter how you try you
cannot make a "conservative" out of Bob Dylan....

True, he abandoned "protest" music which made him the "spokesman of a
generation" against his will. But I see not evidence that he has abandoned
his belief in social justice, equality, freedom... all LIBERAL values.
Conservatives oppose these values (opposed civil rights, opposed peace
movements, opposed women's movement, they opposed EVERY attempt to expand
freedom and democracy and to create a mover just society.

I don't think it is necessary to go through all the famous political Dylan
songs to make that point clear, it is beyond question that Dylan sided with
the liberal/left in the 60s.....

What about the 90s and now? While I don't think Dylan is very interested in
current Democratic vs Republican politics (although he seems to favor
Democrats.... let's see if he performs at Georege Bush's inauguration!)...
but he is still on the side of social justice and equality. Even his later
music reflects the same values as his earlier "political" songs, Infidels
being a prime example where he lashes out against global capitalism and the
sins of usery (profiting from others misery).

Compre this line in Union Sundown (on Infidels) to the plight of a northern
industrial town in North Country Blues (from The Times Are A Changing) :

You know this shirt I weat comesf rom the Philipines
And the car I drive is a Chevrolet
It was put together in Argentia
by a guy making thirty cents a day...
All the furniture, it says "Made in Brazil"
Where a woman, she slaved for sure
Bringin' home thirty cents a day for a family of twelve
You know, that's a lot of money to her...

You know Capitalism is above the law


it say : "it don't count less it sells"

When it cost too much to build it at home,
You just build it cheaper some where else..."

That's just one example of how even in his "conservative" Christian phase,
Dylan still protests the exploitation of workers by "big business" (The
Union is big buisness!)

I am not saying that Bob Dylan would endorse a Democratic candidate over a
Republican Candidate (he probalby voted for the only LIBERAL in the
presidential race---Ralph Nader, like his son and many of his musical
friends!)

As a progressive/populist, radical leftist, democratic socialist... wew!..
I don't see much difference between the Republican - Democrat duopoly. They
are both money raising prostitutes to big business.

But....the music of Bob Dylan (and Woody Guthrie, Bruce Springsteen, U2...
all LIBERAL, ANTI-CONSERVATIVE artists) inspires me by critically analyzing
the taken-for-granted that we are suppposed to accept as unchaing truths.
We progressive, populist, LIBERALS, oppose the concentration of wealth and
power, social injustice, racism, sexism and class inequality that
conservatives tend to support and or defend.

So there is a "politics" to Dylan's music/art, like any other artist. And I
think there's a reason why Dylan appeals so much to liberals and not so much
to conservatives :) If you are a right-wing conservative who supports
laisez faire capitalism and growing wealth inequality, you won't find much
support in the music of Bob Dylan!

Jim Maynard
jmay...@midsouth.rr.com

Message has been deleted

tom

unread,
Jan 5, 2001, 9:58:18 PM1/5/01
to

> We need to step back from the small picture and look at the large picture to
> appreciate Bob Dylan as a Liberal. Dylan has consistently opposed
> "conservatism" (those who support the powerful over the weak, big business
> over labor, racial supremacy vs. racial equality,e tc. Bob is a LIBERAL
> in the tradition of Kennedy and Martin Luther King.... His heroes were all
> liberals or radical leftists.... Woody Guthrie! No matter how you try you
> cannot make a "conservative" out of Bob Dylan....

one question...who was trying to make him a conservative? why do you want to
make him a liberal? why do you want to label him at all? to make him be more
like you? this is just like the old battle between the christians and the jews
for the ownership of bob's soul. just lighten up, dude.

> True, he abandoned "protest" music which made him the "spokesman of a
> generation" against his will. But I see not evidence that he has abandoned
> his belief in social justice, equality, freedom... all LIBERAL values.

that's super.

> As a progressive/populist, radical leftist, democratic socialist... wew!..
> I don't see much difference between the Republican - Democrat duopoly. They
> are both money raising prostitutes to big business.

if one were so inclined, one could say bob is a money raising prostitute to big
business.


> We progressive, populist, LIBERALS, oppose the concentration of wealth and
> power, social injustice, racism, sexism and class inequality that
> conservatives tend to support and or defend.

sell your computer. go rob the bank. tell the judge i said it was alright.


> So there is a "politics" to Dylan's music/art, like any other artist. And I
> think there's a reason why Dylan appeals so much to liberals and not so much
> to conservatives :) If you are a right-wing conservative who supports
> laisez faire capitalism and growing wealth inequality, you won't find much
> support in the music of Bob Dylan!

this is why i think it's cool to steal bob's music and trade field recordings,
though i don't do that anymore because of this new fangled cd burner craze.

bob is just out there working for the man and lining his own pockets night after
night so too bad for him if we steal his music. eat the rich.

willi...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jan 5, 2001, 10:41:24 PM1/5/01
to
In article <3A55F2FE...@ll.mit.edu>,
Hi nate. I share your interest in precision with words. I intended
the second definition of parabolic: "of, pertaining to, or involving a
parable" (Webster's). I think in retrospect even that usage may be
imperfect because "power corrupts...etc." is not a parable, but a
platitude, or as the Bible says, a byword. At this tardy moment, I
realize I meant *proverbial*, right? I also defer to you on the Who
has not? question. The answer to that is obviously a terrible tale.

Outfidel

unread,
Jan 6, 2001, 12:06:02 AM1/6/01
to
In article <20010105084040...@ng-fk1.aol.com>,

I agree with your second statement -- we all have prejudices (= pre-
judge) when we create or evaluate anything, based on our beliefs and
life experience.

I disagree that all art is "political", in the narrow, political-
science definition of the word. To say art must conform to a certain
political orthodoxy (aka "putting it through a political sieve") is
what the Nazis and Stalin did. It reduces art to propoganda.

KReilly

unread,
Jan 6, 2001, 8:32:33 AM1/6/01
to
>So there is a "politics" to Dylan's music/art, like any other artist.

Very nice post Jim.

KReilly

unread,
Jan 6, 2001, 8:37:28 AM1/6/01
to
>I disagree that all art is "political", in the narrow, political-
>science definition of the word. To say art must conform to a certain
>political orthodoxy (aka "putting it through a political sieve") is
>what the Nazis and Stalin did. It reduces art to propoganda.

Whenever someone says "all _____ is political" it's more than unlikely that
they mean it in the political science definition of the word. What it means is
that _____ represents certain interests over and against other interests.

robertandrews

unread,
Jan 6, 2001, 8:46:37 AM1/6/01
to
"tom" <ye...@whocares.com> wrote:
>one question...who was trying to make him a conservative? why do you want
to make him a liberal? why do you want to label him at all? to make him be
more
like you? this is just like the old battle between the christians and the
jews for the ownership of bob's soul. just lighten up, dude.

I'm beginning to believe that Dylan is all things to all people, & nobody to
himself.


tom

unread,
Jan 6, 2001, 8:52:43 AM1/6/01
to

KReilly wrote:

where did they teach you this stuff, kreilly?


tom

unread,
Jan 6, 2001, 8:54:15 AM1/6/01
to

robertandrews wrote:

> tom wrote:

he's just a good ole song and dance man to me

and he ain't heavy, he's just my brother

willi...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jan 6, 2001, 10:25:58 AM1/6/01
to
In article <20010106083728...@ng-bj1.aol.com>,

Help me understand this, please. It seems the fancy in the ivory tower
these days to say everything is political, or as you say, that certain
interests have overcome others. But which of these statements are true:

Everything is sexual.
Everything is biological.
Everything is racial.
Everything is a gift from God.
Time flies.
This is the day the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it.

Also, can I look at a Vermeer as an aesthetic experience, or am I
exploiting someone? Did Vermeer exploit someone?
I'm not being a smart-ass. These are serious questions. All insights
appreciated.

robertandrews

unread,
Jan 6, 2001, 11:45:11 AM1/6/01
to
<willi...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Everything is a gift from God.

True, but God doesn't get the credit he deserves for giving us the Devil.

Message has been deleted

Howard Mirowitz

unread,
Jan 6, 2001, 9:58:47 PM1/6/01
to
"nates" <na...@ll.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:3A5626F5...@ll.mit.edu...

*Very* interesting comment.

I was going to post a snappy rejoinder, but since discretion is the better
part of valor, I decided to go back and look at the lyrics in more detail to
see what Dylan is really saying in each one.

After spending some time comparing the two songs, I agree that Dylan blew
off fighting for causes in "Restless Farewell." But the song is really more
about his own attitude towards his art, than it is a statement about
political engagement or disengagement. Dylan doesn't reject political
involvement per se in this song. Instead, he defends the validity of his
own past commitment:

Oh ev'ry foe that ever I faced,
The cause was there before we came.
And ev'ry cause that ever I fought,
I fought it full without regret or shame.

Instead he says he will leave that fight to others and move on quietly.

But the dark does die
As the curtain is drawn and somebody's eyes
Must meet the dawn.
And if I see the day
I'd only have to stay,
So I'll bid farewell in the night and be
gone.

But to what? We see his answer in the next two stanzas:

Oh, ev'ry thought that's strung a knot in my
mind,
I might go insane if it couldn't be sprung.
But it's not to stand naked under unknowin'
eyes,
It's for myself and my friends my stories are
sung.

Whatever subjects tie knots in his consciousness will drive him to new acts
of creation, even if only for himself and those close to him, regardless of
public reaction.

But the time ain't tall,
Yet on time you depend and no word is
possessed
By no special friend.
And though the line is cut,
It ain't quite the end,
I'll just bid farewell till we meet again.

He knows that he must remain true to his art and not be swayed by critics
who only see what he does through "unknowing eyes":

Oh a false clock tries to tick out my time
To disgrace, distract, and bother me.
And the dirt of gossip blows into my face,
And the dust of rumors covers me.

Yet he knows that his self-integrity will continue to manifest itself
through the use of sharply topical images in his work:

But if the arrow is straight
And the point is slick,
It can pierce through dust no matter how
thick.

And in the end, he must be true to himself, knowing that what he writes
reflects who he is:

So I'll make my stand
And remain as I am
And bid farewell and not give a damn.

Dylan clearly is not saying that he would "not give a damn" about
political subjects or any other subjects that inspire him to write new
music; rather, he is vowing that he will not give a damn what others think,
so long as the arrow of his art flies straight and true.

We find quite a different message in "My Back Pages". In this song Dylan is
clearly rejecting, not only political commitment in general, but the
shallowness of his own past involvement, using much more sarcastic and
ironic language than he does in "Restless Farewell". Political
involvement is a "trap"; over-intellectualization leads only into the
flames; the edgy rhetoric of an avant-garde political stance is like the
insulting taunt of a drunken squire challenging his opponent to a duel:

Crimson flames tied through my ears
Rollin' high and mighty traps
Pounced with fire on flaming roads
Using ideas as my maps
"We'll meet on edges, soon," said I
Proud 'neath heated brow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
'm younger than that now.

Not only does he look back with detached amusement on his political
engagement in the past, he makes specific references to his positions on
individual causes. He now knows that the black-and-white answers that are
so easy to give are satisfyingly romantic, but lacking in foundation and
missing the maturity that knows the depth of the grey fog in which life is
really lived.

Half-wracked prejudice leaped forth
"Rip down all hate," I screamed
Lies that life is black and white
Spoke from my skull. I dreamed
Romantic facts of musketeers
Foundationed deep, somehow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.


The play on "black and white" is echoed in this verse, where Dylan
specifically questions his involvement in the Civil Rights movement.

A self-ordained professor's tongue
Too serious to fool
Spouted out that liberty
Is just equality in school
"Equality," I spoke the word
As if a wedding vow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.

Other lines reinforce the sarcasm with which Dylan portrays his youthful
political life: "My pathway led by confusion boats/Mutiny from stern to
bow"; "Good and bad, I define these terms/Quite clear, no doubt, somehow".
The language of "My Back Pages" carries no hint of wistfulness, no tinge of
sentimentality. And the music, unlike "Restless Farewell", does not slowly
lilt or pause or hang on the phrases of the lyrics; it pushes the words
along and forces their meaning to the forefront with a strong cadence.
(The music's strong beat is more noticeable on the Byrds' electric version
than it is on the acoustic version from "Another Side of Bob Dylan").

Would welcome counter comments, but I still feel after this comparison that
"My Back Pages" is Dylan's first *direct* rejection of politics, although
"Restless Farewell" does give clues to where Dylan's art is going in the
next album.

Howard

SDW

unread,
Jan 7, 2001, 2:27:11 AM1/7/01
to
In article <zZQ56.74$KU5.1...@news.pacbell.net>, "Howard Mirowitz"
<miro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
[...]

>We find quite a different message in "My Back Pages". In this song Dylan is
>clearly rejecting, not only political commitment in general, but the
>shallowness of his own past involvement, using much more sarcastic and
>ironic language than he does in "Restless Farewell". Political
>involvement is a "trap"; over-intellectualization leads only into the
>flames; the edgy rhetoric of an avant-garde political stance is like the
>insulting taunt of a drunken squire challenging his opponent to a duel [...]

Very well said, Howard, and fine commentary all around--after a half-hour
of firing off snappy or not-so-snappy rejoinders, the real work you've
done here makes me want to do a penance.

I can't help but wonder, when I hear Dylan sing "My Back Pages" now, what
could possibly be going through his mind as he performs it. "Restless
Farewell," though crude in patches, is so much more nuanced lyrically: do
you agree? On "Pages" the strength of the speaker's reaction is such that
it actually, to my ears anyway, finds him preaching *against* preaching,
thereby becoming his own enemy all over again. Though I don't think
that's an intended irony in the song as written, I sometimes think I hear
it now, live, in the wistfulness, even bemusement of Dylan's delivery. He
really is younger than that now. Or maybe it's just the violin.

--

"In the fury of the moment I can see the Master's hand
In every leaf that trembles, in every grain of sand."

Howard Mirowitz

unread,
Jan 7, 2001, 6:10:02 AM1/7/01
to

"SDW" <sdwa...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:sdwalter-070...@pool-63.53.108.219.nwrk.grid.net...

(snip)


>
> I can't help but wonder, when I hear Dylan sing "My Back Pages" now, what
> could possibly be going through his mind as he performs it. "Restless
> Farewell," though crude in patches, is so much more nuanced lyrically: do
> you agree?

I do agree that the combination of the music and lyrics gives a much more
nuanced feel to it.
But I think the lyrics to "Pages" are better, or at least more interesting
to read (for me).

> On "Pages" the strength of the speaker's reaction is such that
> it actually, to my ears anyway, finds him preaching *against* preaching,
> thereby becoming his own enemy all over again.
> Though I don't think
> that's an intended irony in the song as written,

But "Pages" is very consciously ironic throughout. What fascinates me in
the song
is the very reflexivity you mention, which resolves when one "jumps out of
the loop"
in realizing (as Dylan intends) that "preaching" of any type is a
self-undercutting and
futile thing.
Chaucer uses the same kinds of ironic infinite loops in "The Pardoner's
Tale"
(from _The Canterbury Tales_) to link the reader's judgment
of the Pardoner's character to the question of whether Jesus is human or
divine.

> I sometimes think I hear
> it now, live, in the wistfulness, even bemusement of Dylan's delivery. He
> really is younger than that now. Or maybe it's just the violin.

Dylan is actually one of the greatest ironic writers in modern English
literature.
If he ever wins the Nobel Prize (which I seriously doubt) it will be for his
ironic
catchphrases, which have had more impact on contemporary colloquial English
than the work of ny writer since Shakespeare.

H.


KReilly

unread,
Jan 7, 2001, 8:34:02 AM1/7/01
to
> It seems the fancy in the ivory tower
>these days to say everything is political

The statement "the personal is the political" has been widely understood and
accepted since the early seventies.

>Everything is sexual.

See Freud.

>Everything is biological.

See E.O. Wilson and the evolutionary psychologists.

>Everything is racial.

This may be a version of "All white people are racist."

>Everything is a gift from God.

Campus Crusade for Christ. I've always hated statements like this that try to
spin every personal tragedy as a gain of some kind.

>Time flies.

...when you're having fun. A trip to the dentist can seem like a week.

>This is the day the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it.>

It all depends on where you wake up. If your head is on a cardboard box pillow
in the street, it comes off as trite.

>Also, can I look at a Vermeer as an aesthetic experience, or am I
>exploiting someone?

If the Vermeer is very high up on the wall and you're standing on a child to
see better, you're exploiting someone.


>I'm not being a smart-ass.

Sure

>


tom

unread,
Jan 7, 2001, 8:40:33 AM1/7/01
to

SDW wrote:

although this was a good post...he must have sobered up a bit after all those
others...

good morning, stevie...kisses to jennifer for me

and i was just kidding about no drinking and rmd'ing

it's what makes this place ok sometimes

and i just wanted to say that peter stone brown ROCKED the fucking house last
night

he so rules

tom

unread,
Jan 7, 2001, 8:45:26 AM1/7/01
to

Howard Mirowitz wrote:

> Dylan is actually one of the greatest ironic writers in modern English
> literature.

oh please

SDW

unread,
Jan 7, 2001, 11:27:10 AM1/7/01
to
In article <3A5871D1...@whocares.com>, tom <ye...@whocares.com> wrote:
[...]

>although this was a good post...he must have sobered up a bit after all those
>others...
>
>good morning, stevie...kisses to jennifer for me
>
>and i was just kidding about no drinking and rmd'ing
>
>it's what makes this place ok sometimes

In the future I would appreciate receiving only nasty replies from you.
I'm much more comfortable with those.

tom

unread,
Jan 7, 2001, 12:00:48 PM1/7/01
to

SDW wrote:

> In article <3A5871D1...@whocares.com>, tom <ye...@whocares.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >although this was a good post...he must have sobered up a bit after all those
> >others...
> >
> >good morning, stevie...kisses to jennifer for me
> >
> >and i was just kidding about no drinking and rmd'ing
> >
> >it's what makes this place ok sometimes
>
> In the future I would appreciate receiving only nasty replies from you.
> I'm much more comfortable with those.

if you thought my little silly joke about not drinking and rmd'ing was nasty, your
think is way too thin, dude. come on. i know hangovers can be tough, especially
as we get so old like we're getting, but it's all in fun. peace out.

tom

unread,
Jan 7, 2001, 12:05:54 PM1/7/01
to

tom wrote:

damn it. i'm really a horrible speller sometimes.

duh.

skin, not think.


Lloyd Fonvielle

unread,
Jan 7, 2001, 2:25:22 PM1/7/01
to
KReilly wrote:

> >This is the day the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it.>
>
> It all depends on where you wake up. If your head is on a cardboard box pillow
> in the street, it comes off as trite.

Perhaps -- but it's all on how you look at it, all on how you study it.

"Sleeping under a table in a roadside park,
"A man could wake up dead,
"But it sure feels warmer than it did
"Sleeping in my king size bed . . ."

Howard Mirowitz

unread,
Jan 7, 2001, 6:11:09 PM1/7/01
to
OK, name betta one, you so smatt. Last 50 year only. (Before this not
"modern".) I beat you any one.

You say Joseph Heller I only laugh one time Yossarian. What else he done?

What else you got left?

H.

"tom" <ye...@whocares.com> wrote in message
news:3A5872F6...@whocares.com...

tom

unread,
Jan 7, 2001, 6:31:20 PM1/7/01
to


well, howie, i know this might come as quite a shock to you but i don't think
bob writes modern english literature. he writes songs. a really good writer
of songs. that's all i was saying. i know, i know, there is tarantula and
some poems. but you know what i'm saying. with that said, i often wonder
whether (and in the past have even suppothulated) he has a couple of shoe
boxes full of self penned literature under his bed at the farm. my guess is
he does but is being very salinger about the whole thing.


Howard Mirowitz wrote:

> OK, name betta one, you so smatt. Last 50 year only. (Before this not
> "modern".) I beat you any one.
>
> You say Joseph Heller I only laugh one time Yossarian. What else he done?
>
> What else you got left?

---

willi...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jan 7, 2001, 9:09:25 PM1/7/01
to
In article <20010107083402...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
> I guess it shows you just don't know when you're being a smart ass.
I liked your reply, but can't think of anything intelligent to say in
response. Might try later. I will say that "has been widely
understood and accepted since the early seventies" is not a premise at
your usual level of intellectual rigor. I would take that as a fairly
good reason not to believe something. But you were being ironic,
right? Later. WR

Outfidel

unread,
Jan 7, 2001, 10:24:05 PM1/7/01
to
In article <20010107083402...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
kre...@aol.com (KReilly) wrote:
> > It seems the fancy in the ivory tower
> >these days to say everything is political
>
> The statement "the personal is the political" has been widely
understood and
> accepted since the early seventies.

Footnote: those who once professed "the personal is the political"
became incensed at the very same idea during Bill Clinton's
impeachment.

Irony can be ironic sometimes, wouldn't you say?

--
"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant
name for ignorance." - G.K. Chesterton

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages