Bob & Bob: Crumb & Dylan
rw51
occupies a similar place in art that Dylan does in music. I think he's the
best & most influential cartoonist since the 60s. He absorbed & reworked
virtually the entire tradition of folk & popular American graphic/line art &
made it his own. He's intellectual, but not scholarly or academic, and very
intuitive. He's weird, very private, almost reclusive, but his art is
confessional. He rejected daily cartoon strips, like Dylan rejected Tin-Pan
Alley/Brill Building song publishing, and aimed instead at creating his own
space: underground comix.
Of course, there's nothing like the market for cartoons that there is for
popular music, and underground comix never displaced other art the way "alt"
music did, so while Dylan became fabulously rich early on, Crumb remained
poor for a long time and (I think) has only recently become financially
comfortable - but mainly by emigrating (the Europeans "appreciate" him more
than his fellow Americans) and by selling off his sketchbooks & originals,
something Dylan never had to do.
I'm not a scholar of either, but I like both. Anybody think of more
parallels or references of one to the other? Or are there things written
about this? Off the top of my head, I can think of some cartoons Crumb made
of generic folk singers, tho not so specifically of Dylan. His Fritz the
Cat was a loveable/despicable fake, who sometimes used folk singing for self
aggrandizement & to seduce women. By the time Crumb drew that, Dylan had
become a cultural icon, so the reference was clear, but could be
representative of the whole class of folk singers in every Greenwich Village
in every town & city. I'm sure Dylan knows Crumb's work (I'd guess he likes
it), but I can't think of any references to it, specific or generic.
Personal on this: I was very interested in cartooning & roots/popular music
as a kid, & through college & a bit of art school, ca '60-75. I'm a good
cartoonist, & not a good musician. I thought about doing art, didn't, but
started again as a hobby. ...So (shameless plug) you can see my little
animations, which do well in the major web contests, at
http://members.home.net/rw51.
John Howells
genius. I've been a fan and collector of his for about 30 years
now. He's done some fabulous work, and not just the well known
underground work he's famous for. Like Dylan, he has an appreciation
for old blues singers and is well known as a collector of vintage
78s, and has been known to record his own recreations of favorite
blues songs. Some of my favorite Crumb works are his historical
renderings of pioneering blues singers, such as an incredibly good
illustrated biography of Charlie Patton. I believe he did one on
Robert Johnson too. Then there's the illustrations he did for a
book about Kafka. His best work, I think.
Crumb is a complex and certainly neurotic individual. He's also a
man of great integrity. He, more than any other cartoonist of the
'60s, could have easily become a multi-millionaire in the blink of
an eye, but it would have meant compromising his art - selling out.
He refused numerous lucrative offers from publications such as
Rolling Stone and Playboy - offers that would have made him a very
rich man (as he surely knows). He's also refused numerous merchandise
offers (any Mr. Natural and Keep On Trucking t-shirts and bumper
stickers you see are unauthorized), although I think he may have
relented somewhat these days because I once saw an authorized Crumb
screensaver at a computer store. Crumb lives modestly, but honestly,
and has always seen himself as a man out of his own time. Born 30
years too late, by his own admission. I'm glad someone brought him
up in this forum.
Kafka, Crumb, Dylan - my three favorite artists.
Oh, and how can anyone forget about "Bob Dill, the Singing Pickle"? :-)
--
John Howells
how...@bigfoot.com
http://www.punkhart.com
Alex Lehmann
He rejected daily cartoon strips, like Dylan rejected Tin-Pan
Alley/Brill Building song publishing, and aimed instead at creating his own
space: underground comix.
While R. Crumb truly shunned the main stream (after watching the film, it is clear that he could never be part of any mainstream) Dylan in fact embraced an already popular form and used it to his advantage, as he has admitted many times, writing the protest songs from which he received his initial popularity. One could arguably say the same thing about his shift to electric music, that it was done to increase his popularity on the mass market, which turned out to be a very successful move. (Of course I recognize that there must have been, primarily, a deep artistic impulse for this change). More importantly regarding Dylan's musical influence is the significance of his lyrics to the music. The hugely popular form of music called Rock and Roll became poetry for the first (and almost only) time in the hands of Bob Dylan (as continues to be the case). In comparison, Crumb's work was notable for its lack of refinement, for its weirdness in appearance and story, and through these means its tremendous expressivity (as continues to be the case as well). Clearly, much more to be said along these lines...
You also rightly point out about R. Crumb that: He's weird, very private, almost reclusive, but his art is confessional.
Another fine comparison, however (again, in response to the R. Crumb film), Crumb makes Dylan look downright normal, which leads to an important difference. While Dylan enjoyed a largely supportive, cohesive, and loving family, Crumb was surrounded by utter weirdness, which certainly explains a great deal.
Thanks for the interesting parallels to two artists who altered the
course of their art forms forever.
Seth Kulick
Alex Lehmann <aleh...@together.net> wrote:
[...]
>Another fine comparison, however (again, in response to the R. Crumb film),
>Crumb makes Dylan look downright normal, which leads to an important
>difference. While Dylan enjoyed a largely supportive, cohesive, and loving
>family, Crumb was surrounded by utter weirdness, which certainly explains a
>great deal.
That was a great film. After seeing that, I thought "my god, he was the
*sane* one in the family!"
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seth Kulick "The hypnotic splattered mist
University of Pennsylvania was slowly lifting" - Bob Dylan
sku...@linc.cis.upenn.edu http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~skulick/home.html
Martin Abela
"rw51" <rw51.remo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Okay, here's another one people might have fun with. IMO, Robert
Crumb
> occupies a similar place in art that Dylan does in music.
>
> parallels or references of one to the other?
Yes, I can think of a link between Crumb and Dylan.
Crumb did a boxed set of Trading Cards some years back called (I think)
Heroes of the Blues. One of the cards was of Blind Willie McTell.
I have always been tempted to toss it on stage at Bob's feet. The only
thing holding me back is the fear that he would ignore it. The cards are
long out of print.
He also did one on early country stars. One of the cards is of Jimmie
Rodgers. Bob did a cover of Rodgers "Blue-eyed Jane".
It is certainly true that both Crumb and Dylan care about early 20th
century American music. Crumb is a big jazz record collector. Don't know
what Bob collects, but I do know he occasionally performs little known
classic songs originally recorded in the first half of the 20th
century.
--
-Martin Abela
"And she takes your voice
And leaves you howling at the moon"
Homepage: http://people.goplay.com/m-abela/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
rw51
published works are being collected & reissued. I think they're up to
volume 13 or 14, which takes things up to the early 80s. They include some
unpublished things. You can find most of them on Amazon, and I think
specialty stores can order some of the missing ones. I've got a few
websites bookmarked that give a little more guidance/info. I'll dig those
out later.
Thanks for the comments so far. I want to reply more later...
Alex Lehmann <aleh...@pop.together.net> wrote in message
news:39735C9E...@pop.together.net...
An interesting comparison. I am also a Crumb fan, although I have found his
work at times maddeningly difficult to find. I was given his coffee table
type art book a few years ago and have enjoyed it a great deal.
<snip>
Pete Oppel
sku...@linc.cis.upenn.edu writes:
<< That was a great film. After seeing that, I thought "my god, he was the
*sane* one in the family!"
>>
It gave a whole new meaning to the term "dysfunctional family." Incidentally,
R. Crumb had a least one sister who refused to participate in the making of
the film and I understand she is fairly normal.
Pete Oppel
Pete...@aol.com writes:
<< Incidentally,
R. Crumb had a least one sister who refused to participate in the making of
the film and I understand she is fairly normal. >>
I just checked my files and there were two Crumb sisters who refused to
participate. By the way, the director of the film, Terry Zwigoff was a close
personal friend of R. Crumb's and, so the story goes, was so depressed--at
the point of being suicidal--Crumb let him make this movie as a favor.
robertandrews
>IMO, Robert Crumb occupies a similar place in art that Dylan does in music.
Interesting parallel, but I think that relates more to their position &
place (to quote a phrase) than the content of their art. It's easier to
talk about money, marketing & fame than the work itself. I think you've
made a few good points, I wonder if you can probe a little deeper.
p.s. are there any women on RMD who are big fans of Crumb?
Mark Henteleff
It is on the cover of "Roots of the Grateful Dead", which
he was commissioned to draw a few years back. The drawing
depicts a group of musicians (including Dylan, Buddy Holly,
Chuck Berry, Rev. Gary Davis, and a slew of old blues guys)
playing on stage in front of an audience of skeleton folk.
It's a good one, which I have in the imprinted vinyl LP
version (the piece takes up the whole LP itself).
Crumb hated the music and scene which embraced his art in
the 60s, so he probably never thought much of Dylan. Crumb,
like Woody Allen, doesn't think much of post-WWII music.
Mark H.
phillip dokes
tier artist, i think you'd have to go for someone a little more
"upscale" Matisse, Picasso or Pollock if for no other reason than the
deluge of work Bob has created and the impact it's had on nearly every
level of society as well. Crumb will only be remembered as an
underground comix artist. Hell, the majority of the world has never even
seen an underground comix (Let alone Crumb's work) to begin with. Not
saying that being "popular" is the point of everything, but c'mon...
For comics/comix i would have to say Eisner, and certainly
Spiegelman's MAUS will resonate FAR longer than anything Crumb has/will
ever do.
And besides, he's pretty blatantly sexist. Bob "may" pander in that
direction at times, but even then it's coming from a personal thing vs.
a "lookit the purty girl" one. D's art overall goes so much deeper than
the juvenile level of Mr. Crumb.
Just a different point of view, flame away at your leisure if you so
wish...
All best~Phil
rw51
John Howells <how...@best.com> wrote in message
news:8kvgdn$10q6$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> R. Crumb is the Dylan of the comix world. Definitely an underappreciated
> genius. I've been a fan and collector of his for about 30 years
> now. He's done some fabulous work, and not just the well known
> underground work he's famous for. Like Dylan, he has an appreciation
> for old blues singers and is well known as a collector of vintage
> 78s, and has been known to record his own recreations of favorite
> blues songs. Some of my favorite Crumb works are his historical
> renderings of pioneering blues singers, such as an incredibly good
> illustrated biography of Charlie Patton. I believe he did one on
> Robert Johnson too. Then there's the illustrations he did for a
> book about Kafka. His best work, I think.
I like this stuff, too. He seems to see parallels between Kafka and
himself - he often presents himself as victim, as unable to engage in normal
human activities, as misunderstood. I scanned a couple pics from the book
as a visual example - http://members.home.net/rw51a/CrumbKafka.gif. The
upper left is his pic after a photo of K. UR is a looser interpretation of
K probably not based on a photo. LL is an interp of the hunger artist. And
LR is a self-portrait, showing himself as a tourist in Prague with a Kafka
t-shirt on. If you follow his self-portraits, the similarities between
himself & K & the HA are striking.
I think Crumb has 3 basic graphic styles. There is the quick & dirty, a
kind of middle category, and the stiffer copies/"fine art" style (there are
some other, minor styles, too). To me, the middle style is by far the best.
The Kafka book is completely in that style and beautifully done.
I don't like his pics of the blues & other old singers quite as well because
they're mostly based on photos, and Crumb tends to get graphically stiff on
those. I like his freely-imagined pics based on the old singers much
better. He has a couple wonderful imagined string bands.
>
> Crumb is a complex and certainly neurotic individual. He's also a
> man of great integrity. He, more than any other cartoonist of the
> '60s, could have easily become a multi-millionaire in the blink of
> an eye, but it would have meant compromising his art - selling out.
> He refused numerous lucrative offers from publications such as
> Rolling Stone and Playboy - offers that would have made him a very
> rich man (as he surely knows). He's also refused numerous merchandise
> offers (any Mr. Natural and Keep On Trucking t-shirts and bumper
> stickers you see are unauthorized), although I think he may have
> relented somewhat these days because I once saw an authorized Crumb
> screensaver at a computer store. Crumb lives modestly, but honestly,
> and has always seen himself as a man out of his own time. Born 30
> years too late, by his own admission. I'm glad someone brought him
> up in this forum.
Very complex, and probably pretty troubled. I sometimes felt that his
unwillingness to compromise went somewhat beyond artistic integrity to a
kind of perverse orneryness. I think that after a certain point, he could
have dictated his commercial/artistic terms. I guess he must have made his
peace with fame & fortune to a greater extent more recently.
> Kafka, Crumb, Dylan - my three favorite artists.
Something else occurs to me in this regard. One reason Crumb & Dylan seem
so far above some of their contemporary folk/popular-art interpreters is
their adherence to an avant guard sensibility, rather than dour sincerity.
Some historians argue that the most important crucible of 20th century avant
guard was not so much Berlin-Paris-NYC as Vienna-Prague-Budapest. Along
with Kafka, there were Freud, Wittgenstein, Schiele & others. They stressed
the importance of the unconscious, folk art, the intuitive, the irrational,
the absurd, the surreal, the ugly-beautiful, the ironical, the tendency to
stand outside the self.
I have no idea to what extent Crumb and/or Dylan knew this work first-hand
when they started out, but it was certainly in the air if they were
sensitive to it - and of course, they were. Crumb's work on Kafka is
completely respectful & without irony or distance, in contrast to much of
his reference to himself & many of his contemporaries.
> Oh, and how can anyone forget about "Bob Dill, the Singing Pickle"? :-)
I don't remember this one! Do you remember where it is - even
approximately?
rw51
Mark Henteleff <ma...@pbrc.hawaii.edu> wrote in message
news:8l0147$ar3$1...@news.hawaii.edu...
> Anyone out here seen Crumb's cartoon rendition of Dylan?
> It is on the cover of "Roots of the Grateful Dead", which
> he was commissioned to draw a few years back. The drawing
> depicts a group of musicians (including Dylan, Buddy Holly,
> Chuck Berry, Rev. Gary Davis, and a slew of old blues guys)
> playing on stage in front of an audience of skeleton folk.
> It's a good one, which I have in the imprinted vinyl LP
> version (the piece takes up the whole LP itself).
I don't know this & would love to see it. Any leads on where to find it?
If it's very hard to find, would you consider scanning it?
> Crumb hated the music and scene which embraced his art in
> the 60s, so he probably never thought much of Dylan. Crumb,
> like Woody Allen, doesn't think much of post-WWII music.
It's funny. After I sent my initial posting, it occurred to me that Woody
Allen also fits this mold to a certain extent. Another couple parallels
among the - three - of them are that they are all almost scholarly in
digging out old material as grist for their art, but they have a love/hate
relationship with scholars. In turn, scholars and scholarly fans are
especially attracted to these artists and eager to find their sources and
interpret what they do with them. Woody Allen's recent film based on the
Django Reinhardt character is a nice commentary on his own love for the old
music - it made me think of both Crumb & Dylan.
The other Woody - Guthrie - is actually not quite as far from this pattern
as he is sometimes portrayed. He is generally thought to be one of the only
genuinely "proletarian" artists in the proletarian literature movement of
the 30s. But he told Alan Lomax in his Folkways records interview that he
was actually born into a fairly middle class family. They had terrible
luck, and various illnesses (quasi or fully mental) that helped bring the
family down. But Woody tells how ornery he was himself, both in the
interview and in his books (and others say similar things about him). He
created his own character to a certain extent, as Dylan did later. Like the
others, he used folk & popular forms to produce sophisticated art. He could
pick up or drop the Okie dialect seemingly at will (there are some wonderful
passages on this in Bound for Glory). He also mocks himself in BfG as a
hard-working man: he tells a migrant-laborer girl that he is, but notes to
the reader that his callouses were from playing the guitar. Another time,
he goes to a well-to-do relative to recover a little from the road, but
before the servant can fetch the relative, Woody takes off: he can't quite
let himself fall back into - something. ...Not entirely the
genuine-primitive Okie: like the others, he seems to have played with his
image in a fairly self-conscious fashion.
> Mark H.
>
>
>
rw51
couple other replies that maybe go in that direction. I'm "rediscovering"
Dylan for myself after a roughly 25-year absence, and I don't have a good
feel yet for his post- ca.'75 work.
One difference occurs to me. Dylan seems to move more successfully toward
high art than Crumb. Crumb seems a little locked in humor and irony - or as
in the case of his illustrations of Kafka or old musicians, in sober
respect. A couple weeks ago, a NY Times reviewer called Springsteen's music
one of the few irony-free regions of modern popular culture. I think Dylan
can enter this irony-free region much more easily than Crumb. Dylan doesn't
have to renounce humor or irony at all in his bag of tricks, but he has a
lot of control over how he wants to use them. Crumb has a very nice '97
comic about his own struggles with religion, wisdom & spiritualism.
Presumably, he's the Flakey Foont character, and Mr. Natural represents
wisdom in some fashion (both oversimplified). Even tho Foont is more mature
& has been through more life experiences, he still doesn't get it. And
Crumb expresses this with ironic humor. I scanned a pic, here:
http://members.home.net/rw51a/MrNatural97.gif.
As with the biographical (from an earlier exchange), I think the
sociological has its place. I'd agree with you that content is the core,
but the others help give it context & thus, to a certain extent, meaning.
Anyway, I'm still on a learning curve here!
robertandrews <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pPKc5.1490$Ft.1...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
rw51
wouldn't kick & scream. But I don't agree he's minor. The high-culture
comparison to Matisse, Picasso or Pollock is fine, but it goes in a
different direction than the comparisons within folk/popular/low culture I
wanted to make. I'm not a huge fan of Spiegelman - I find him a little
flat-footed and graphically not so interesting - I think Gary Trudeau is
more interesting in that direction (but not in Dylan's league). I
completely love Eisner, especially graphically, but his subject matter is
more limited. I agree that Crumb is just awful on the subject of women - if
he could have left it at bawdiness, it could have been okay, but the
misogyny is sick. Crumb also has the problem that he's so preoccupied with
his own neuroses. Some artists have made good art out of neuroses (Woody
Allen?), but with Crumb it wears thin, at least for me. But graphically, I
think he's had a major impact on American & world art. And thematically, I
think he's touched on lots of interesting & important questions. If you
want a high-culture endorsement, Robert Hughes called him a 20th-century
Breughel.
phillip dokes <phi...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10896-39...@storefull-284.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
John D. Williams
exquisitely drawn. Robert Hughs compares him to Bruegal.
As far as mainstream -- So Bob D used a popular form. So did Bob C. Comics
are the form -- not the stream...
John D. Williams
Crumb's work to be better that many who discipline automatically inserts
them in High Art status. For instance -- an artist I sort of like -- David
Hockney. Crumb has much more to offer.
rw51 <rw51.remo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a_Pc5.26726$oj6.1...@news1.rdc1.tx.home.com...
John D. Williams
Spiegleman is good. Nowhere near as raw as Crumb.
"Sexism", by the way, is not a fatal flaw in art -- it is a peccadello.
robertandrews
>Like the others, he used folk & popular forms to produce sophisticated art.
Would you consider Guthrie or Dylan high art? I'd comment on some of your
ideas, but I'm not familiar with the distinctions. I guess a few examples
of high, medium & low artists would help.
Alex Lehmann
John D. Williams wrote:
As far as mainstream -- So Bob D used a popular form. So did Bob
C. Comics
are the form -- not the stream...
Comics were a popular form, particularly in the mid-60's... with 8-12 year olds. Folk music, on the other hand, was based on a social conscience that comics were only beginning to understand and therefore was a much more intellectual and respectable pursuit, considerably more mainstream on a social/economic basis. Dylan was looking for a mass market to buy his songs. Arguably, Crumb didn't care who read his work and he was certainly not aiming at anything resembling mass distribution. Thankfully, they both turned their respective audiences on to new possibilities of aesthetic appreciation and understanding.
John Howells
<Ho Ho! Philistine :)
<Spiegleman is good. Nowhere near as raw as Crumb.
Also, would Spiegelman have been able to do what he did without Crumb
blazing the trail with Zap Comix? This argument is similar to the
Beatles->Stones, Dylan->Donovan controversies that sprout up here
every now and then :-)
rw51
Dylan and Crumb aimed more self-consciously at including high art in their
work than Woody. But the distinction eroded from the other side, too.
Earlier 20th C artists like Picasso or Dvorak used folk elements but wanted
to use them in their high art palatte. Pop artists like Worhol and then
Rauschenburg/Johns began to chip away at the distinction - really, began to
attack it. Conceptual, performance, video artists sometimes took it
further. In the transition from big band to bop, people had increasing
trouble knowing where to place jazz. Critics, museum curators, gallery
owners, club owners began to insist that the boundaries should be/were being
crossed. A week or two ago, there was a big article in the NY Times that
many of the most ambitious young artists today are trying to blur the
distinction between art & fashion. I think Worhol & Dylan helped pave the
way for that (along with Lou Reed, who's now married to Laurie Anderson, the
conceptual/performance musician, & also now writes music for modern dance).
Duchamp started a lot of this by doing things like putting a urinal in an
art gallery (it's now in a museum) and saying it was art because it was in
an art gallery. So some of the high-low definition became, who had the
authority to define? And fashion & social cachet & markets have played an
active role. I think Dylan was in the thick of things and, as far as I
know, wanted to be. Crumb less so, because he was more reclusive, but
couldn't prevent it happening to him. Like some high-low American artists
before him, Europeans took Crumb more seriously sooner than did Americans.
I sense that Dylan insisted on being taken seriously from early on and found
ways - and found "authorities" - to make that happen.
(In Crumb's illustrations for the Kafka book, he's got a whole page which is
a takeoff on Georg Grosz & is so labeled! Good example of a cross-over...
the more so because Grosz used a lot of cartoon style.)
Well, this is a little rushed & jumbled - sorry - but I hope the main idea
is in there.
robertandrews <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ABXc5.4$h92....@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
railroad gin
the other posters i find dylan and crumb among the greatest
artistss to come into full flower in the sixties. the poster who
dismisses crumb is either not familiar with his work or
automatically dismissing the medium. (for my money, btw,
speigelman is nowhere near the artistic force crumb continues to
be.)
anyone seeking material by crumb or any cartoonist of note need
only log onto www.fantagraphics.com...that is a seattle-based
publisher and mail-order house for the best in comic art.
both dylan and crumb work in ostensibly low- or middle-brow
cultural media but prove how to rise above categorizations -- and
lift their media with them. crumb IS high art -- far superior in
his way to some others.
along with the heroes of the blues and country-western cards,
crumb also did a set of cards on early jazz greats. he played in
a jug band also, though the instrument escapes me...i think it
was named yazoo street jug band or somesuch, which could be
another dylan connection, though i could well be wrong...
and while, yes, crumb is misogynistic, at least he makes no
effort to color himself as something else. that's a small
comfort, i know, but everyone seems to have forgiven woody allen
all his clearly problematic behavior...(woody is another hero of
mine, though i have had to take a long break from my admiration.
in their way, both he and crumb force me to confront the age-old
quandary of whether you can love the art even if the artist is
less than admirable...)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Mark Henteleff
rw51 <rw51.remo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>A couple comments interspersed...
>
>Mark Henteleff <ma...@pbrc.hawaii.edu> wrote in message
>news:8l0147$ar3$1...@news.hawaii.edu...
>> Anyone out here seen Crumb's cartoon rendition of Dylan?
>> It is on the cover of "Roots of the Grateful Dead", which
>> he was commissioned to draw a few years back. The drawing
>> depicts a group of musicians (including Dylan, Buddy Holly,
>> Chuck Berry, Rev. Gary Davis, and a slew of old blues guys)
>> playing on stage in front of an audience of skeleton folk.
>> It's a good one, which I have in the imprinted vinyl LP
>> version (the piece takes up the whole LP itself).
>
>I don't know this & would love to see it. Any leads on where to find it?
>If it's very hard to find, would you consider scanning it?
>
be available through amazon or cdnow...the CD version at least, which
has a smaller rendition of the Crumb art work on the cover. The
CD is a nice compilation of some old music as well (the cartoon
being icing on the cake) with the version of Baby Blue from BIABH.
Mark H.
railroad gin
heartless really...but great art knows no mercy....
railroad gin
the night: the cheap suit serenaders...however, for some reason i
still connect crumb with some reference to yazoo street...he may
have named his publishing company that...
A1pump
writes:
>Also, would Spiegelman have been able to do what he did without Crumb
>blazing the trail with Zap Comix? This argument is similar to the
>Beatles->Stones, Dylan->Donovan controversies that sprout up here
>every now and then :-)
True and Spiegelman definitely acknowledges the trailblazers.But could Crumb
have written Maus? Of course I know you agree that Donovan towers way above the
other artists you mentioned.
robertandrews
>I think the distinctions are increasingly hard to maintain.
I guess I never learned those distinctions in the first place. What were
they? I don't see art as high, low or middle. I guess I'd need specific
artists who fit the definitions. If Dylan was low, but aimed high, where
did he land?
Wes Nixon
"Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeey"
-Bob Dylan
rw51
maintain now. People conventionally said that Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms
were high art, and field-hand, backwoods, and hillbilly guitarists were low
art. Except that the latter have included Robert Johnson, Woody Guthrie,
Hank Williams, and we consider them great artists now. Efforts to redefine
high & low were already in full swing by the time Dylan started, but he
(like Crumb) made a big contribution by filling the "low" form with such
artistry. Some people argue that it was mainly just class differences. But
now high status people (yuppies) love Dylan (/Crumb), so class differences
don't work so well either. We're more likely now just to talk about good or
bad art rather than high or low.
On the other hand, high & low might just be in a period of redefinition. I
think (not certain) that Verdi and much opera started out as popular music
and was considered fairly low, but became elevated over time. Could be that
Dylan (/Crumb) are in the process of being elevated now. If they ever
really had mass appeal, I doubt that they do now - at least not like the
Backstreet Boys or Brittany Spears. ...And Dylan fans would sneer at them.
...Well, big topic. I don't think I can really do it justice...
robertandrews <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oFcd5.1784$h92.3...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
Lloyd Fonvielle
> In article <BLGc5.25857$oj6.1...@news1.rdc1.tx.home.com>,
> "rw51" <rw51.remo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Okay, here's another one people might have fun with. IMO, Robert
> Crumb
> > occupies a similar place in art that Dylan does in music.
> >
> > I'm not a scholar of either, but I like both. Anybody think of more
> > parallels or references of one to the other?
>
> Yes, I can think of a link between Crumb and Dylan.
>
> Crumb did a boxed set of Trading Cards some years back called (I think)
> Heroes of the Blues. One of the cards was of Blind Willie McTell.
>
> I have always been tempted to toss it on stage at Bob's feet. The only
> thing holding me back is the fear that he would ignore it. The cards are
> long out of print.
>
> He also did one on early country stars. One of the cards is of Jimmie
> Rodgers. Bob did a cover of Rodgers "Blue-eyed Jane".
In one of the early Zap Comix, Crumb did a caricature of "Bob Dill, the
Singing Pickle" -- a pickle with a guitar and Dylan's early trademark cap.
robertandrews
>People conventionally said that Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms were high art,
and field-hand, backwoods, and hillbilly guitarists were low art.
I don't know which people you mean. There weren't many hillbilly guitarists
around in Beethoven's time. Also, I'm sure some of the hillbilly people had
a different opinion. These terms remain undefined.
>Efforts to redefine high & low were already in full swing by the time Dylan
started, but he (like Crumb) made a big contribution by filling the "low"
form with such
artistry.
Again, I ask which efforts were these. From what I know of Dylan, I don't
think he or his music had anything to do with making a contribution by
filling the low form of art.
>If they ever really had mass appeal, I doubt that they do now - at least
not like the Backstreet Boys or Brittany Spears. ...And Dylan fans would
sneer at them.
Bob Dylan is one of the most successful & famous singer/songwriters in the
history of music. He has much more broad & lasting appeal than the artists
you mentioned. I'm not up on the sales figures, but I assume he's also sold
more albums & played more concerts. Almost every famous singer & band has
covered his songs. Certainly, Dylan had huge mass appeal in the
mid-sixties, & aside from some of the folkies, I don't think most of his
fans resented his success or sneered at him.
High, medium & low art?
railroad gin
he's also sold
>more albums & played more concerts.
from the tone of your post i take it you're just being playfully
argumentative...i don't think there's much of a problem
understanding the previous poster's points.
concerning brittany spears and back street boys, though, not so
fast. while i don't know the sales figures, i'd daresay that they
have easily outsold any single dylan album, and probably any
group of, say, five dylan albums...hell, they may have already
outsold him in toto...and of course it's early in their careers.
having said that, i'd like to think we agree that sales are not
the mark of any true measure of artistic value, merely commercial
worth.
rw51
good shot to try to reply. But I'm afraid I've run out of gas here. I
started a couple threads simply for some fun discussion & to think about a
couple interesting questions during work breaks or after hours, but this is
getting a little serious for me. Possibly, as railroad gin said, you're
just being playfully argumentative. With all respect, I can't keep up with
this part of the line; possibly, other people will choose to jump in here.
My apologies.
robertandrews <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Upod5.731$Qd5.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> rw51 <rw51.remo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >People conventionally said that Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms were high
art,
> and field-hand, backwoods, and hillbilly guitarists were low art.
>
> I don't know which people you mean. There weren't many hillbilly
guitarists
> around in Beethoven's time. Also, I'm sure some of the hillbilly people
had
> a different opinion. These terms remain undefined.
>
> >Efforts to redefine high & low were already in full swing by the time
Dylan
> started, but he (like Crumb) made a big contribution by filling the "low"
> form with such
> artistry.
>
> Again, I ask which efforts were these. From what I know of Dylan, I don't
> think he or his music had anything to do with making a contribution by
> filling the low form of art.
>
> >If they ever really had mass appeal, I doubt that they do now - at least
> not like the Backstreet Boys or Brittany Spears. ...And Dylan fans would
> sneer at them.
>
> Bob Dylan is one of the most successful & famous singer/songwriters in the
> history of music. He has much more broad & lasting appeal than the
artists
> you mentioned. I'm not up on the sales figures, but I assume he's also
sold
rw51
connection (I mean, I bought it when it came out & looked right past it, I
guess!) - but that's him all right! :o}
Lloyd Fonvielle <navi...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:3975CD34...@compuserve.com...
rw51
:o{ Oh well...
Mark Henteleff <ma...@pbrc.hawaii.edu> wrote in message
news:8l2qrv$3e5$1...@news.hawaii.edu...
robertandrews
>Possibly, as railroad gin said, you're just being playfully argumentative.
Maybe so, but I don't think art is served by concepts of high & low. There
was a huge discussion on another group about Kenny G. The guitarist Pat
Metheny insisted that Kenny G be considered a jazz player, and an atrocious
one at that. I think that's one way of analyzing art, but not the only way.
Kenny G sucks in his own right. It doesn't matter if we call him, jazz,
pop, muzak, or just Kenny G. He's a shallow man who makes shallow music for
people who need background music while boiling potatoes.
By attempting to elevate Dylan into the realms of "high art," we're really
doing the same. If Dylan's written & sung a great song, if he's probed the
depths of his soul, if he's expressed something in a beautiful or
unforgettable way, he's already at the level of great art. It doesn't
matter that he can't play like Segovia, sing like Caruso or rhyme like
Coleridge. Little Richard is just as good as Beethoven, & he did those high
OOOOOs a lot better too. I think it's time we put the concepts of high &
low art to sleep, though I confess I've never learned them in the first
place.
I expect a swift critique from Mr. Reilly.