Lester Bangs review of "Desire"

[Jordy Chase]

It's a very interesting, thought provoking attack on the album...

[Mark Dintenfass]

In article <3dc45ba0-d021-4a82...@googlegroups.com>,

Jordy Chase <icn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> It's a very interesting, thought provoking attack on the album...

And one can find it where?

--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, July 7, 2013 1:33:24 PM UTC-4, Jordy Chase wrote:
> It's a very interesting, thought provoking attack on the album...

That was Lester Bangs' feature length (and I think cover feature?) piece in Creem Magazine, "He's not an Outlaw, He's Misunderstood" I think it was? Yes, Lester blew the lid off both the Joey Gallo and Rubin Carter mythmaking in that one.

Great reading, though yes, kind of harsh on Dylan.

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, July 7, 2013 2:33:24 PM UTC-4, Mark Dintenfass wrote:
> In article <3dc45ba0-d021-4a82...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Jordy Chase <icn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > It's a very interesting, thought provoking attack on the album...
>
>
>
> And one can find it where?

I've read it online, and posted a link to it here, or found the link here, maybe a decade ago.

[khematite]

On Sunday, July 7, 2013 2:33:24 PM UTC-4, Mark Dintenfass wrote:

> In article <3dc45ba0-d021-4a82...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Jordy Chase <icn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > It's a very interesting, thought provoking attack on the album...
>
>
>
> And one can find it where?

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1299&dat=19760308&id=twFOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AIwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5485,916815

[Will Dockery]

Thanks, khematite!

[Mark Dintenfass]

In article <54dce98c-1a97-4268...@googlegroups.com>,

Thanks.

[really real]

>> It's a very interesting, thought provoking attack on the album...
>
> That was Lester Bangs' feature length (and I think cover feature?) piece in Creem Magazine, "He's not an Outlaw, He's Misunderstood" I think it was? Yes, Lester blew the lid off both the Joey Gallo and Rubin Carter mythmaking in that one.
>
> Great reading, though yes, kind of harsh on Dylan.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1299&dat=19760308&id=twFOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AIwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5485,916815


I'll say it's harsh. In retrospect, Lester Bangs is sounding way too
narrow minded about Dylan's career.

I always felt Desire was a somewhat flawed album, but over the decades,
Desire has now become a flawed gem, a wonderful album from the first
quarter of Dylan's career.


Lester finds Desire "sloppy and half baked" and claims the reason is
"precisely so people will keep talking about" Dylan.

He blames the Rolling Thunder Review for putting our sense of a new Bob
Dylan album as an event which eclipses whatever significance and
integrity it might possess. Lester seems to have no insight into Dylan's
artistic struggles to create new music for us. Sure, Rolling Thunder was
also sloppy and half baked. but what an event!

Lester's attack on the integrity of Joey doesn't really interest me,
because I agree with Lester that Joey is a "ponderous sloppy numbingly
boring 11 minute ballad ."

But Lester then says about Rubin Carter that he is not so much
interested in Rubin Carter as he is whether Bob Dylan is being straight
with me. And Lester concludes that Dylan is not being straight with his
audience and is exploiting the,m and the subjects of his songs, to keep
his image polished.

What hubris! Dylan is only concerned about his image and not his art?
This is very dumb criticism.

The question of how sincere Dylan was about Hurricane doesn't interest
me. Everyone has mixed motives, and someone in Dylan's position must
find things very complex. What i care about is if it's a good song or
not. And I think it's a great song. Even if Hurricane was as guilty as
O-Jay, it wouldn't detract from it being a great song.

Lester ends with this really petty criticism of Dylan

The reason why Dylan's joey is so at variance as most accounts of Gallo
is as same as the reason he doesn't like to do retakes of his songs -
he's lazy."

[Will Dockery]

And this was 1975-76... a mere decade and less from the first classic era, Bangs was so short sighted he was already ready to bury Dylan, seemed almost angry that Dylan was indeed "back".

[BobbyM]

Bangs does make a valid point that Dylan can be lazy. And he was lazy
with Desire by collaborating with Jacques Levy on writing the songs. In
the Bangs article, Levy says that Joey is his song & it makes sense
since he was probably one of those rubbing elbows with Gallo shortly
before Gallo's death. In an interview (youtube link posted in this
group a short time ago), Levy takes credit for writing most, if not all,
of Hurricane. The only song on the album that Levy doesn't take some
writing credit for is "One More Cup of Coffee". And lately he's been
ollaborating with Robert Hunter. Which words that make it to record are
Dylan's and which are someone else's, whether by credit, love or theft?

[really real]

>
> Bangs does make a valid point that Dylan can be lazy. And he was lazy
> with Desire by collaborating with Jacques Levy on writing the songs. In
> the Bangs article, Levy says that Joey is his song & it makes sense
> since he was probably one of those rubbing elbows with Gallo shortly
> before Gallo's death. In an interview (youtube link posted in this
> group a short time ago), Levy takes credit for writing most, if not all,
> of Hurricane. The only song on the album that Levy doesn't take some
> writing credit for is "One More Cup of Coffee". And lately he's been
> ollaborating with Robert Hunter. Which words that make it to record are
> Dylan's and which are someone else's, whether by credit, love or theft?
>

Why is collaborating a sign of laziness? Why can't it be an example of
expanding one's artistry?

I think Levy watered down Dylan's writing, but I sure don't blame Dylan
for trying.

Elvis Costello worked with Paul McCartney. Nothing great came out of
this, but who would have called them lazy for trying?

[BobbyM]

I'd rather believe it was laziness than writer's block, which he has
apparently acknowledged a time or two. Do you believe Dylan is
expanding his artistry by collaborating with Hunter? If so, how?

[really real]

>
> I'd rather believe it was laziness than writer's block, which he has
> apparently acknowledged a time or two. Do you believe Dylan is
> expanding his artistry by collaborating with Hunter? If so, how?

I thought Silvio was a minor masterpiece. I've never been able to
listen to Ugliest Girl.

Together Through Life was slight, but it was created to be slight - a
quicky movie soundtrack, or was it a play? Dylan had been releasing so
much around that time anyway, that Together Through Life seemed like a
nice treat, even if I never played it much. A few songs are keepers, I
think, and will still sound good in the next 20 years.

[BobbyM]

But given the fact that Hunter is a lyricist (much the same as Levy
was), do you ever wonder if those lyricists aren't writing the majority
of the words & Dylan is writing the music? Maybe Dylan is just changing
a word here and there, or maybe not at all?

I don't consider Dylan's collaborations as similar to a
McCartney/Costello collaboration. While both of them are good
lyricists, neither is known primarily for lyrics. OTOH, you have
someone who is considered by many to be the greatest lyricist of the
last 50 years farming out that job. And yet we Dylan fans still talk
about that work as if Dylan wrote the words & in many cases he did not!!

I hate to think that Levy had a hand in writing as personal a song as
"Sarah", but obviously he did or he wouldn't have gotten half-credit for
it. Now, how much of that song did he write? Isn't it possible that
Levy even wrote the lines, "staying up for days in the Chelsea
Hotel/writin' Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands for you"?

I'm not trying to burst anyone's bubble here, but it is a little food
for thought.

[DianeE]

"BobbyM" <massey...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:krd6hq$hbi$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> But given the fact that Hunter is a lyricist (much the same as Levy was),
> do you ever wonder if those lyricists aren't writing the majority of the
> words & Dylan is writing the music? Maybe Dylan is just changing a word
> here and there, or maybe not at all?
>
> I don't consider Dylan's collaborations as similar to a McCartney/Costello
> collaboration. While both of them are good lyricists, neither is known
> primarily for lyrics. OTOH, you have someone who is considered by many to
> be the greatest lyricist of the last 50 years farming out that job. And
> yet we Dylan fans still talk about that work as if Dylan wrote the words &
> in many cases he did not!!
>
> I hate to think that Levy had a hand in writing as personal a song as
> "Sarah", but obviously he did or he wouldn't have gotten half-credit for
> it. Now, how much of that song did he write? Isn't it possible that Levy
> even wrote the lines, "staying up for days in the Chelsea Hotel/writin'
> Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands for you"?
>
> I'm not trying to burst anyone's bubble here, but it is a little food for
> thought.

-----------------
It makes me think of the interview (with Ed Bradley?) where BD expressed
annoyance at people who talk about him only as a lyricist, forgetting that
he writes the music too.

DianeE

[Gemini Jackson]

On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 11:07:50 +0900, BobbyM <massey...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I hate to think that Levy had a hand in writing as personal a song as
>"Sarah", but obviously he did or he wouldn't have gotten half-credit for
>it. Now, how much of that song did he write? Isn't it possible that
>Levy even wrote the lines, "staying up for days in the Chelsea
>Hotel/writin' Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands for you"?

I do believe that 'Sara' and OMCOC were written solely by Dylan, Levy
co-wrote the rest.
-gj

[really real]

>
> But given the fact that Hunter is a lyricist (much the same as Levy
> was), do you ever wonder if those lyricists aren't writing the majority
> of the words & Dylan is writing the music? Maybe Dylan is just changing
> a word here and there, or maybe not at all?

I assume that Hunger wrote the lyrics to Sylvio but that doesn't detract
from the song at all for me. It's like those brilliant songs the Dead
did. If Hunter wrote all the lyrics, why should I care?

>
> I don't consider Dylan's collaborations as similar to a
> McCartney/Costello collaboration. While both of them are good
> lyricists, neither is known primarily for lyrics.

I disagree, but then again, I am lyric-centric. The genius of the
Beatles was in their lyrics, not their melodies. True, McCartney was the
melodic one, but he still wrote brilliant lyrics.

Elvis Costello, for me, was all about lyrics. Great music too, but
without those lyrics, I wouldn't have cared much about him.

Dignity is still a good song, even if someone else wrote it.

OTOH, you have
> someone who is considered by many to be the greatest lyricist of the
> last 50 years farming out that job. And yet we Dylan fans still talk
> about that work as if Dylan wrote the words & in many cases he did not!!

Even so, Dylan did the farming and created the final product, so it's
his now.

[Bernie Woodham]

On Monday, July 8, 2013 12:22:52 AM UTC-4, DianeE wrote:
>
> -----------------
>
> It makes me think of the interview (with Ed Bradley?) where BD expressed
>
> annoyance at people who talk about him only as a lyricist, forgetting that
>
> he writes the music too.
>

But then Dylan has been known to say, "I'm not a melodist".

[Mark Dintenfass]

In article <SWzCt.26605$Eu7....@fx20.iad>, really real

<reall...@shaw.ca> wrote:

> The genius of the
> Beatles was in their lyrics, not their melodies. True, McCartney was the
> melodic one, but he still wrote brilliant lyrics.

I think they wrote consistently great music and occasionally great
lyrics. And Lennon could be plenty melodic when he wanted to. "In My
Life" is as good as melody as one could want.

[BobbyM]

On 08-Jul-13 11:22 PM, really real wrote:
>
>>
>> But given the fact that Hunter is a lyricist (much the same as Levy
>> was), do you ever wonder if those lyricists aren't writing the majority
>> of the words & Dylan is writing the music? Maybe Dylan is just changing
>> a word here and there, or maybe not at all?
>
>
>
> I assume that Hunger wrote the lyrics to Sylvio but that doesn't detract
> from the song at all for me. It's like those brilliant songs the Dead
> did. If Hunter wrote all the lyrics, why should I care?

I'm sure Hunter did write the lyrics; it sounds like a Grateful Dead
song lyrically. I like it.

>
>
>>
>> I don't consider Dylan's collaborations as similar to a
>> McCartney/Costello collaboration. While both of them are good
>> lyricists, neither is known primarily for lyrics.
>
> I disagree, but then again, I am lyric-centric. The genius of the
> Beatles was in their lyrics, not their melodies. True, McCartney was the
> melodic one, but he still wrote brilliant lyrics.

I'll beg to differ with you there. I don't think Lennon or McCartney
were outstanding lyricists but they knew how to craft a pop song, both
lyrically & musically.

>
> Elvis Costello, for me, was all about lyrics. Great music too, but
> without those lyrics, I wouldn't have cared much about him.

Similar to The Beatles, a good combination of both lyrics & music. Does
he come to mind if you were asked to name the top 10 lyricist of the
past 50 years? Ok, to cut Costello some slack, the last 40 years.

>
> Dignity is still a good song, even if someone else wrote it.
>
>
>
> OTOH, you have
>> someone who is considered by many to be the greatest lyricist of the
>> last 50 years farming out that job. And yet we Dylan fans still talk
>> about that work as if Dylan wrote the words & in many cases he did not!!
>
>
> Even so, Dylan did the farming and created the final product, so it's
> his now.

Yeah, & people go around saying, "my, isn't that Dylan lyric great",
when there's a good chance he didn't write it - but he's not likely to
admit it.

[BobbyM]

My mistake - Dylan does take sole credit for writing "Sara".

[Mark Dintenfass]

In article <krfcor$nmm$1...@dont-email.me>, BobbyM

<massey...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> >
> > Elvis Costello, for me, was all about lyrics. Great music too, but
> > without those lyrics, I wouldn't have cared much about him.
>
> Similar to The Beatles, a good combination of both lyrics & music. Does
> he come to mind if you were asked to name the top 10 lyricist of the
> past 50 years? Ok, to cut Costello some slack, the last 40 years.

Costello seems to me right in there whatever the cut off is. For one
thing, he changed our sense of what a lyric could be almost as much as
Dylan did. Did anyone ever do better with the standard old-lost-love
theme than "Allison?"

[Martin Grossman]

I wouldn't say Costello was not known primarily for his lyrics. The
problem with Costello's career was that, IMO, both his lyrics and
melodies were overwritten and overwrought after his first few LPs. I
liked early Costello and had expected him to continue to write
interesting songs. He didn't.

--
Martin Grossman
www.martingrossman.net

[Martin Grossman]

Someday everyone may figure out that Dylan often contradicts himself. He
is generous. He contains multitudes. He is not and never has been a
systematic thinker.

--
Martin Grossman
www.martingrossman.net

[BobbyM]

Allison is fantastic! I think Costello can and does write great lyrics
but he has always been inconsistent, particularly after the first couple
of albums. I know its unfair to compare him to Dylan, but do you think
that people were anxiously awaiting each new Costello album to hear what
new he had to say? IMO, Costello's appeal is more about the way he
delivers those words than the lyrics themselves. I've heard Allison
performed by a lot of artists, male & female, with greater vocal prowess
than Costello; but none of them can touch him on this song - but the
song itself is so powerful that I haven't heard any versions that I
detest either.

[Mark Dintenfass]

In article <krfg9p$900$1...@dont-email.me>, BobbyM

While I won't argue that Costello is in Dylan's class when it comes to
lyrics (who is?), but I don't think it's all that meaningful to compare
which which of them has people more eager to hear what he has to say.
Dylan cultivated the pose (borrowed I think from the Beats,
particularly Ginsberg) that he had deep things to say and profound
insights that had to be pondered. Costello, in contrast, comes off as a
wounded cynic--the pose is that he has no special wisdom because there
is no special wisdom to have. There's just not anything there to cause
those people who want profundities from artists to salivate.

[Just Walkin']

Losing your muse is different than both laziness or writer's block. Sometimes our creativity isn't subject to our will but rather is the product of our situational chemistry.

Men tend to do their best work to impress the girls; not so much once they've gotten them, presuming that was their objective.

[really real]

>>
>> I disagree, but then again, I am lyric-centric. The genius of the
>> Beatles was in their lyrics, not their melodies. True, McCartney was the
>> melodic one, but he still wrote brilliant lyrics.
>
> I'll beg to differ with you there. I don't think Lennon or McCartney
> were outstanding lyricists but they knew how to craft a pop song, both
> lyrically & musically.

When the Beatles started out, they were crafting good pop songs. So were
the Dave Clark Five.

It was when the Beatles lyrics evolved, from Help and Hide Your Love
Away, to The Rubber Soul and Revolver songs, and then their quantum leap
into Strawberry Fields Forever. followed by Day In The Life, Mr Kite, I
Am The Walrus, Sexy Sadie, and songs like Come Together.

If the Beatles best songs had never been any more poetic than of All
Together Now, we wouldn't care very much about this band.

[really real]

>
> Costello seems to me right in there whatever the cut off is. For one
> thing, he changed our sense of what a lyric could be almost as much as
> Dylan did. Did anyone ever do better with the standard old-lost-love
> theme than "Allison?"

Allison is a great song indeed, but I don't see Elvis as a guy who
changed what a lyric could be. I consider him part of the power pop of
the time, with all kinds of people writing songs in this style. Elvis
just did it the best.

[really real]

>
> I wouldn't say Costello was not known primarily for his lyrics. The
> problem with Costello's career was that, IMO, both his lyrics and
> melodies were overwritten and overwrought after his first few LPs. I
> liked early Costello and had expected him to continue to write
> interesting songs. He didn't.
>

Elvis starts his career with an amazing run of four fantastic albums,
followed by five inconsistent but often brilliant ones.

After a misfire, he comes up with two more brilliantly inconsistent albums.

We still have songs like Veronica and The Other Side of Summer.

Now the good songs are few and far between, but how can you begrudge
this guy for not sustaining his career? True, I long for his Blood on
the Tracks, which will probably never come, unless he quickly breaks up
with Diana Krall and leaves his twins.

[really real]

>
> While I won't argue that Costello is in Dylan's class when it comes to
> lyrics (who is?), but I don't think it's all that meaningful to compare
> which which of them has people more eager to hear what he has to say.
> Dylan cultivated the pose (borrowed I think from the Beats,
> particularly Ginsberg) that he had deep things to say and profound
> insights that had to be pondered. Costello, in contrast, comes off as a
> wounded cynic--the pose is that he has no special wisdom because there
> is no special wisdom to have. There's just not anything there to cause
> those people who want profundities from artists to salivate.
>

Good point. Elvis definitely lacks a beat sensibility of profound
insights. Elvis is more of an attitude, a great protest attitude in some
places.

And he seems to have lost his attitude.

[BobbyM]

I can't speak for Mark, but begrudge is not the right word; disappointed
is a lot closer.

[Mark Dintenfass]

In article <krfu0t$347$2...@dont-email.me>, BobbyM

How many people have made four fantastic albums? Add "King of America"
to the list and you get five. Sure I wish Costello had made five more
great ones, but even many of the lesser ones have some great songs, and
"All This Useless Beauty" has half a dozen of them. So I'm sorry he
tapered off, but I just cherish what he has produced, without
begrudging and without actual disappointment, since tapering off is the
usual fate of many great artists. In the same way, I cherish what Dylan
produced in the 60s and, with the exception of some of "Blood on the
Tracks," mostly ignore what he has produced since. (I'm one of those
who thought Dylan was, in his way, a great singer in the 60s but I just
can't listen to the stuff he does with his current, broken voice.)

[Mark Dintenfass]

In article <ceKCt.20059$ny.1...@fx14.iad>, really real

Thanks. But I doubt you agree that one can pose, in the Beat manner, as
a profound thinker without having anything especially profound to say.

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Sunday, July 7, 2013 1:33:24 PM UTC-4, Jordy Chase wrote:
> It's a very interesting, thought provoking attack on the album...

What a great, honest, non-hero worshiping article about that album, but mainly Joey. They sure gave writers a lot of space. I'd like to see articles today about music that freely move away from the music to discuss separate-but-related topics in this kind of depth. Once upon a time museums weren't dedicated solely to art. There would be paintings, then new technology, then ethnographic exhibits, and it would be a much wider, more varied experience. This article slightly reminds me of that.

Nothing is stable. Everyone who speaks is but breathing his brother's breath.
--Montesquieu

[Jordy Chase]

I couldn't agree more... It's rare to find in depth music(or movie) reviews these days... sadly, it's the age of dumbed down, attention-span- of-a-fly reviews and reporting, generally speaking...

[Jordy Chase]

One of the many fantastic things about the Beatles is that both the music *and* the lyrics were well developed... Some artists(Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, Patti Smith, folk music etc...) are more about words than music... some artists are more about music than the words, and some artists strike an almost ideal balance, such as the Beatles...

[Will Dockery]

Hey, sue me, but I loved the Desire album from the day it was released to now... just one Hell of a fine moment in the Dylan story.

[Will Dockery]

Have to agree, there... after "Armed Forces" Costello may have done really great stuff and I think he has... just that he drifted from my core of interest.

[BobbyM]

On 10-Jul-13 6:24 AM, Will Dockery wrote:

> Hey, sue me, but I loved the Desire album from the day it was released to now... just one Hell of a fine moment in the Dylan story.

I never said I didn't like the album, quite the contrary. The only
point I was trying to make is that at least in these circles Dylan is
the only writer mentioned when speaking of the lyrics of Hurricane, Joey
& others. Of those two, it's likely Dylan had little to do with the
lyrics. Of the others where Dylan & Levy share the song writing
credits, it's questionable as to the extent (if any) of Dylan's lyrical
contribution. Although Bang bashes Dylan for recording Joey, he does
acknowledge that Levy was responsible for that song. And Dylan was a
bigger, better target than Levy.

[really real]

I read an interview with Levy where he says they passed lyrics back and
forth and wrote the songs together.

[really real]

>
> When artists are said to be Beatles-influenced, it's usually about the
> band's musical, rather than lyrical, traits. The vocal harmonies. The
> chords and melodies. The guitar sound. The band's various styles,
> whether it be Merseybeat bop, psychedelia, Rubber Soul's folk-rock, the
> tape-edit montages of Pepper, etc. That is their greatest legacy.



No argument there. The influence the Beatles had on later bands was very
musical. Look at Oasis for example. They copied the music but not the
lyrics at all.

The was a huge influence Sgt Pepper had on concept albums that came
later. But I don't find this relevant.

The Beatles are famously great for their songs, and the lyrics are
integral to that. Much of the Beatles' influenced music that came after
is a problem.



> Using a more fair dividing line, if the Beatles' best work had never
> been any more "poetic" than a mid-level lyric like, say, "Drive My Car,"
> I'd say the band still would be legendary.


Drive My Car has a good lyric, with its self referentiality. With music
like that, they'd be as big and important as The Animals.

[Martin Grossman]

On 7/9/2013 12:56 PM, poisoned rose wrote:

> really real <reall...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>> I wouldn't say Costello was not known primarily for his lyrics. The
>>> problem with Costello's career was that, IMO, both his lyrics and
>>> melodies were overwritten and overwrought after his first few LPs. I
>>> liked early Costello and had expected him to continue to write
>>> interesting songs. He didn't.
>>
>>
>> Elvis starts his career with an amazing run of four fantastic albums,
>> followed by five inconsistent but often brilliant ones.
>>
>> After a misfire, he comes up with two more brilliantly inconsistent albums.
>>
>> We still have songs like Veronica and The Other Side of Summer.
>>
>> Now the good songs are few and far between
>

> You sure are mighty confident about presenting your flip opinions as
> facts.
>
> I love Elvis Costello, both early and late. With the possible exception
> of North (2003), he has never released an album I disliked enough to
> "resent" it. I think he has sustained long-term inspiration and quality
> in a way very, very few other artists has managed. And he always works
> with great musicians (for starters, Steve Nieve is probably my #1
> keyboard hero -- such a casual virtuoso).
>
> There is a certain segment of people who like to say it's all downhill
> after Costello's initial run of punchy New Wave anthems, but I think
> these people who can't handle his eclectic shifts in style. Which is
> their problem.
>
> If there's a substantial problem with him, I think it's that his lyric
> style hasn't changed or evolved much. He's still writing those cutting
> portraits that tend to be about clever lines and images rather than an
> overall interesting idea. Not a lot of warmth in his work either, though
> it's always a joy when it pops up. But for the malcontents who wanted
> him to stay in This Year's Model mode for life, these traits ought to
> *please* them.
>
> The recent National Ransom (2010) was my favorite Costello album in
> quite awhile, so I have no complaints about him "deteriorating."
>
> Your own apparent bent is to proclaim he's on the right track whenever
> he does something rootsy/bluesy, without having any self-awareness of
> projecting your narrow stylistic bias onto him.
>

I don't have trouble with eclectic shifts in style. If I did, I wouldn't
be a Dylan fan. The quality of EC's music has declined by any measure,
just as much of Dylan's music did until TOOM, although I did like
Infidels (which would have been better with some of its outtakes included).

--
Martin Grossman
www.martingrossman.net

[Martin Grossman]

Street--Legal...which sounded much better when remastered was the one
Dylan LP I truly dug until Infidels came out. It would have torn my head
off if it had included BWMcT. Shortly after it was released I was having
a correspondence with Jonathan Cott and he sent me a cassette of the
Blind Willie (the song) and I had to laugh and nearly cry at Bob's
perversity in leaving it off the record. But that's why he's Bob.

--
Martin Grossman
www.martingrossman.net

[Martin Grossman]

On 7/9/2013 5:14 PM, poisoned rose wrote:

> Martin Grossman <marting...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't have trouble with eclectic shifts in style. If I did, I wouldn't
>> be a Dylan fan.
>

> Dylan is nowhere near as eclectic as Costello.

>
>> The quality of EC's music has declined by any measure,
>> just as much of Dylan's music did until TOOM
>

> I really have no patience for people obliviously making such casual
> proclamations of "truth."
>

It's an opinion, not a proclamation. Get over it.

--
Martin Grossman
www.martingrossman.net

[Martin Grossman]

On 7/9/2013 5:24 PM, poisoned rose wrote:
> Martin Grossman <marting...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I don't have trouble with eclectic shifts in style. If I did, I wouldn't
>>>> be a Dylan fan.
>>>
>>> Dylan is nowhere near as eclectic as Costello.
>>>
>>>> The quality of EC's music has declined by any measure,
>>>> just as much of Dylan's music did until TOOM
>>>
>>> I really have no patience for people obliviously making such casual
>>> proclamations of "truth."
>>>
>>
>> It's an opinion, not a proclamation. Get over it.
>

> It's not an opinion when you indicate your statement is true "by any
> measure."
>
That in itself is an opinion. Hyperbole is a time honored literary device.

--
Martin Grossman
www.martingrossman.net

[Martin Grossman]

On 7/9/2013 7:42 PM, poisoned rose wrote:
> Martin Grossman <marting...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Hyperbole is a time honored literary device.
>

> "Time-worn," more likely.

Wikipedia is not always a reliable source. But in this case it is. You
are making something out of nothing. Perhaps you enjoy useless
rhetorical combat. I don't.


Hyperbole (/haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-pur-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή hyperbolē,
"exaggeration") is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or
figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a
strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.[2]

Hyperboles are exaggerations to create emphasis or effect. As a literary
device, hyperbole is often used in poetry, and is frequently encountered
in casual speech. An example of hyperbole is: "The bag weighed a
ton."[3] Hyperbole makes the point that the bag was very heavy, though
it probably does not weigh a ton.

--
Martin Grossman
www.martingrossman.net

[Will Dockery]

Well, I was well aware of the collaboration with Levy at least as far back as the People Magazine article of 1975, myself... and the day I breathlessly bought the single for "Hurricane Part One" (Part Two was the flip side) around Halloween of 1975, and after eyeballing the menacing cover photo of Rubin Carter, the seeing the fine print credit of "Dylan-Levy".

I remember reading Ratso's Rolling Stone coverage as it was coming out in dribs and drabs on the ongoing Rolling Thunder tour and reading some about Levy from there, I suspect, the bits on how Levy was a theatre man and he was giving a "stage director" form to Dylan's lyric ideas, that it was a /collaboration/, and of course most of us were at least familiar with Levy from a while before that with "Chestnut Mare"... those were great days to be a Bob Dylan fan, to say the least.

Oh, and though a vast majority of us kids were scattered through the hinterlands hearing of the action from far away, there were little highlights like the John Hammond Tribute to give us a strong dose of, and a good idea of, where this bold new era of Bob Dylan was heading... kind of burned into our brains and memories forever, in fact.

[Will Dockery]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:14:36 PM UTC-4, poisoned rose wrote:
>
> Dylan is nowhere near as eclectic as Costello.

It can be argued that Dylan makes these shifts in style and genre /work/ more often than Costello, though.

And it could be speculated whether there would even /be/ an Elvis Costello if there had no been a Bob Dylan to show us all (even The Beatles) that these things were possible.

But we'll never know, since Dylan's mark on music is forever, and he's still going strong, with probably still a few tricks up his sleeve.

[really real]

>
>> The quality of EC's music has declined by any measure,

>> just as much of Dylan's music did until TOOM
>
> I really have no patience for people obliviously making such casual
> proclamations of "truth."
>

This is a key to your problem, poisoned rose. Your lack of patience over
a writing style is tedious, anal and autistic. Why can't you just accept
the fact that we all talk like this?

You, on the other hand, just get into slanging matches because of this
nasty quirk in your personality.

[really real]

>
> I don't agree at all. Dylan has stuck with the same set of
> folk/blues-based chords his whole career. Variety occurs on his albums
> because he uses different bands and producers, but the underlying music
> hasn't changed much.
>


Seems to me, the music got a lot different on Love and Theft and Modern
Times. And Dylan has done some musical experimentation, like If Dog's
Run Free.

[really real]

On 7/10/2013 12:10 PM, poisoned rose wrote:
> really real <reall...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>

> He did add that country-swing element on Love and Theft, true. That was
> one new wrinkle.
>


Sugar Baby isn't country-swing

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 3:10:46 PM UTC-4, poisoned rose wrote:

> He did add that country-swing element on Love and Theft, true. That was
>
> one new wrinkle.

I think of two big sixties acts, Dylan and The Rolling Stones, who didn't live out what seems their potential. New Morning (Dylan) and the Stones's Their Satanic Majesty's Request both broke the mold in good and interesting ways. I have no idea why they both fell back on their old tricks instead of developing the terrific things they'd begun on those discs. I don't think New Morning's in the same class as Satanic Majesty's Request, but I'd like to know where he would have gone had he stayed on that course. I like Love and Theft more than many other Dylan discs even if it sounds like Tom Waits singing Dave Alvin.

[Jordy Chase]

"Their Satanic majesties request" was a superb album, but it would have been an artistic dead end for the RS to continue in that direction... The RS were too raw and earthy to continue making druggy, psychedelic albums... Pink Floyd was suited to that type of music at that time, not the Rolling Stones...

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 12:24:11 AM UTC-4, Jordy Chase wrote:
> "Their Satanic majesties request" was a superb album, but it would have been an artistic dead end for the RS to continue in that direction... The RS were too raw and earthy to continue making druggy, psychedelic albums... Pink Floyd was suited to that type of music at that time, not the Rolling Stones...

I find it head and shoulders above the Sgt. Pepper album in so many ways, with the exception of final track. I find it head and shoulders above the repetitive bluesy "riffy" style identified with the Stones. I find it more entertaining than the Pink Floyd of that era. But I think a similar thing--it would have been artistic, or at least commercial, suicide. Not being suited means not playing their role. If they had busted out of their "Stones" sound less terrifically, I wouldn't have cared if they had continued on with Jumpin Jack Flash. But I find it such a step backward after TSMRequest.

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 12:55:00 AM UTC-4, poisoned rose wrote:

> luisb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > I think of two big sixties acts, Dylan and The Rolling Stones, who didn't
>
> > live out what seems their potential. New Morning (Dylan) and the Stones's
>
> > Their Satanic Majesty's Request both broke the mold in good and interesting
>
> > ways. I have no idea why they both fell back on their old tricks instead of
>
> > developing the terrific things they'd begun on those discs.
>
>
>

> I dunno...I'm pretty grateful the Stones didn't continue in the Satanic
>
> Majesty's direction. Beatles devotees tend to favor this album more than
>
> other folks do, but I don't. "She's a Rainbow" is the only track I
>
> really love, and "The Lantern" and "Gomper" are forgettable enough that
>
> I can't even remember how they go without replaying them.
>
>
>
> Now, if the Stones had gone *halfway* in that direction and continued in
>
> a Between the Buttons/"Sitting on a Fence"/"Dandelion"/"Lady Jane" mode,
>
> maybe I would have been pleased.

Yes, I like those too, but that sound feels very old next to TSMRequest. Citadel, In Another Land, 2000 Man, 2000 Lt. Yrs from Home, Sing this Song All Together, are all memorable, interesting, fun, funny, knowledgeable to me. The opening of the album is clever and funny--piano, trumpets, then the blues sitar(?). Then the Stax-like, Broadway-like horns. And that's just the first track. I don't wish they had replicated this sound on ever album that followed. I wish they had kept the originality and experimentalism.

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 1:41:23 AM UTC-4, poisoned rose wrote:
> luisb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>

> > I find [Satanic Majesties Request] head and shoulders above the Sgt.

>
> > Pepper album in so many ways
>
>
>

> This is literally the first time I have ever seen/heard someone say
>
> something like this.

Wow. I wouldn't think twice about which to put on. I find it hard to resist lines like

Well my wife still respects me
I really misuse her,
I am having an affair
With the random computer.

Not just funny but prescient.

and

Oh Daddy, proud of your planet
Oh Mummy. proud of your son.

[BobbyM]

On 11-Jul-13 2:41 PM, poisoned rose wrote:
> luisb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> I find [Satanic Majesties Request] head and shoulders above the Sgt.
>> Pepper album in so many ways
>
> This is literally the first time I have ever seen/heard someone say
> something like this.

pr won't see my post because he killfiled me ages ago but there are many
others who say the same thing. IMO, Satanic Majesties works better as a
concept album than Pepper. Pepper's big concept was to have 2 versions
of Sgt Pepper & the tracks running together - big deal!

The problem with Satanic Majesties was that a lot of diehard Stones'
fans trashed it because it was so different than their typical r&b
influenced records. The Stones likely would have lost most of their fan
base had they continued in the Satanic mode & would not have gotten the
later tag of "the greatest rock & roll band".

[Jordy Chase]

There was at least one rock critic at the time who said that "Their satanic Majesties" was much better than St. Pepper, but I don't remember which critic it was...

[Gemini Jackson]

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 22:34:11 -0700 (PDT), luisb...@aol.com wrote:

>On Thursday, July 11, 2013 12:24:11 AM UTC-4, Jordy Chase wrote:

>I find it head and shoulders above the Sgt. Pepper album in so many ways

I think SP is overrated, but Majesties has only 2 songs I find
listenable. Even Keef regards it as a, and I quote, "pile of shit".

He hasn't warmed up to it recently either:
http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2012/11/crossfire-hurricane-keith-richards-is-embarrassed-by-rolling-stones-album-satanic-majesty.html
-gj

[Will Dockery]

I admit there are Stones records I would rather listen to, usually.

"Something Else" from The Kinks took off from Pepper's lead much more successfully, in my opinion.

[Gemini Jackson]

Ya know, I've never had a Kinks album. I'd actually have a hard time
naming more than 5 of their songs. But what I've heard I like.
-gj

[Will Dockery]

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 2:05:21 PM UTC-4, Gemini Jackson wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 08:18:19 -0700 (PDT), Will Dockery wrote:
>
> >"Something Else" from The Kinks took off from Pepper's lead much more successfully, in my opinion.
>
> Ya know, I've never had a Kinks album. I'd actually have a hard time
> naming more than 5 of their songs. But what I've heard I like.

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 2:05:21 PM UTC-4, Gemini Jackson wrote:

> Will Dockery wrote:
>
> >"Something Else" from The Kinks took off from Pepper's lead much more successfully, in my opinion.
>
> Ya know, I've never had a Kinks album. I'd actually have a hard time
> naming more than 5 of their songs. But what I've heard I like.

"Something Else" came out like two months after Sgt. Pepper and while there's sort of obvious influence in that "old" yet psychedelic sound, "Two Sisters" reminds me a lot of "She's Leaving Home" but in no obvious way, "Harry Rag" is in that "Mister Kite" direction, /maybe/... but really both Kinks and Beatles are more delving into that old English music hall pop stuff, I reckon. "Tin Soldier Man" has that sort of marching band thing that floats through Pepper... and so on.

And then frame all this with two Brit Invasion rock classics "David Watts" and "Waterloo Sunset"... and, oh, Brother Dave's solo spot "Death Of A Clown" in all his Dylanesque glory...

Here, this guy tells it better than me, I just know it's only rock-n-roll and I like it, like it...

http://www.adriandenning.co.uk/kinks.html#se

(Wow, I had to delete that last post since somehow I copy-pasted the entire page here, rather than just the review of "Something Else"... I'll try again)

"...Something Else 9½ ( 1967 )
*David Watts / *Death Of A Clown / Two Sisters / No Return / Harry Rag / Tin Soldier Man / Situation Vacant / *Love Me Til The Sun Shines / *Lazy Old Sun / Afternoon Tea / Funny Face / *End Of The Season / *Waterloo Sunset
The majority of this album had already been recorded before the release of 'Sgt Peppers'. The lazy, hazy atmosphere of several of the backing tracks may hint at the influence of 'Pet Sounds' by The Beach Boys, however. In England, at least, 'Pet Sounds' and The Beach Boys were THE band, circa 1966. 'Pet Sounds' influenced The Beatles with 'Revolver'. 'Revolver', among other releases, influenced the psychedelic rock underground. The same underground that enabled The Beatles to apparently lead the way with 'Sgt Pepper'. Still, 'Something Else by The Kinks', to give its full title? An unassuming title for an album, you might think, and you'd be right. It barely charted in the UK and did nothing in the US. 'Waterloo Sunset' reached number two in the singles charts and Dave Davies took the spotlight with his solo released 'Death Of A Clown'. 'Death Of A Clown' was actually a Ray and Dave co-write. Ray denies he got jealous about Dave's success, but then, he's only human. Chances are, he did get jealous. He responded by reminding everybody that before 'Death Of A Clown' was 'Waterloo Sunset' and after 'Death Of A Clown' was 'Autumn Almanac'. He has a point. Ah, brotherly jealously!! I have two elder brothers, trust me, I know all about it. 'Something Else' at the time was laughably out of fashion and even now, there's not quite anything else like it. Far from the album title suggesting this was just another album, lowercase - the title should be bold and uppercase. Boasting, 'SOMETHING ELSE!', yes, with added exclamation mark!!! Or three. This is a subtle album. The transition in the Kinks music, away from garage rock towards the likes of 'Sunny Afternoon' and 'Waterloo Sunset' is complete. Something else does indeed happen. It's so subtle you might miss it altogether.

Example number one, the added female harmonies during 'Waterloo Sunset'. A gorgeous, feminine, romantic song. Following Paul McCartney claiming The Beach Boys 'God Only Knows' to be the best song ever written, comes this. Ray does a similar thing, reveals sides of himself, although adds in a story about two characters, 'Terry and Julie'. You wouldn't think it was romantic actually sitting on the London Underground, riding on it, waiting for a tube train. The sound of 'Waterloo Sunset' echoing past the ears of unhappy commuters. Staring out of the window at London travelling away from Waterloo Station? The world is grey and unhappy, much as the artwork of 'Something Else' evokes. Still, terry and julie 'cross over the river'. All is well, a shining brightness. However bad you're feeling, there's still romance. 'Death Of A Clown' captures the London essence of The Kinks very well in a different way. The drunkeness, the character of the people. The way Dave sings the song is perfect, the feel of the backing track, perfect. Songs such as 'Afternoon Tea', 'End Of The Season' and 'Lazy Old Sun' all evoke summer turning to autumn, just before winter. 'Lazy Old Sun' is a hugely underrated track. Listen to the lazy feel of the drums, the vocals. It's like laying down drunk on a paving stone, 5pm some Sunday evening. The sun beating down as you struggle home. You're not too drunk, mind. The next day, or perhaps the day after, the sun shines again. This time you smile, a girl has given you the eye, or her phone number. "Sunny rays, shine my way". Again, 'Something Else' has romance. Speaking about The Beatles 'Revolver', as I was earlier, the feel of the drums for 'Lazy Old Sun' was perhaps influenced by 'Revolver'. Don't know what the ghostly backing harmonies was influenced by, but it's a brilliant touch.

Elsewhere? 'Tin Soldier Man' is fun, as is 'David Watts'. Dave contributes the great 'Love Me Til The Sun Shines' and the nearly as good 'Funny Face'. 'Harry Rag' is a more usual Kinks song, usual in that unlike the hazy, late afternoon, early evening autumn sunshine of the majority of the album, it evokes the usual London smoke of The Kinks. The smoke of 'Dead End Street', or 'Big Black Smoke', indeed. Still, I should reach some kind of conclusion. For me, 'Something Else' encapsulates all that's best of all the more reflective, romantic sides of The Kinks up and until this stage. There's black humour, story-telling, great songwriting. You know, people were happy in 1967. So i'm told. All the drugs I suppose. At least, I guess you would have supposed everybody else was enjoying free-love, so you tried to get into that mood yourself, drugs or no drugs. It rubbed off on the nation, even if free love was something you'd never dream of involving yourself in. The Kinks weren't just very English at this stage, they were very London. London was swinging. Although, The Kinks weren't swinging at all, they were telling stories and releasing 'Something Else', a strangely melancholy collection of songs that was released in 1967, but you'd never guess so, from listening to it. To my mind, that's a good thing."

Okay, that seems to have it now...

[Jordy Chase]

Anothher Kinks album you may want to consider is "Lola Vs Powerman and the moneygoround", there's some marvelous songs on that album...

[luisb...@aol.com]

Yes, that's certainly true. It makes me realize that they were far more talented than it seemed and that they could have gone interesting places if they'd wanted. But they didn't for the reasons you say.

[Will Dockery]

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 5:02:56 PM UTC-4, Jordy Chase wrote:
> Anothher Kinks album you may want to consider is "Lola Vs Powerman and the moneygoround", there's some marvelous songs on that album...

Yes, that's a great one... just "Strangers" alone is worth the price of admission.

[BobbyM]

Of course, Richards would regard it as such since there's no
guitar-based music, but there are still several rockers on it, e.g. 2000
Man & Citadel.

[really real]

>>
>> He hasn't warmed up to it recently either:
>> http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2012/11/crossfire-hurricane-keith-richards-is-embarrassed-by-rolling-stones-album-satanic-majesty.html
>>
>> -gj
>
> Of course, Richards would regard it as such since there's no
> guitar-based music, but there are still several rockers on it, e.g. 2000
> Man & Citadel.
>
>

This is good revisionism, similar to the idea that Street Legal is
better than BOTT.

Satantic Majesty's is definitely better than its reputation, but it
pales compared to what the Stones did with their next four albums. The
revival and evolution of the new bluesy Stones from Jumping Jack Flash
to Brown Sugar and Tumbling Dice is what cemented the Stones legacy for
all time.

[BobbyM]

What revisionism am I (or anyone who likes Satanic Majesties" being
accused of? I certainly thought at the time it was better conceptually
than Pepper, & i still think that way. Haven't revised my thinking at all?

Or are you speaking of Keith's revisionism? The headline of that
article is a bit exaggerated. The actual question/answer are:

Question: "Are there any albums you are embarrassed by?"
Keith's response: "Satanic Majesty, maybe". MAYBE!!!

No further response to the question provided by Keith.

[really real]

> What revisionism am I (or anyone who likes Satanic Majesties" being
> accused of? I certainly thought at the time it was better conceptually
> than Pepper, & i still think that way. Haven't revised my thinking at all?

You may have always felt this way, but for the rest of the world, June
5, 1967, was the moment that united Western Civilization's youth into
loving Sgt Pepper. Satantic Majesty was always considered a bit of a
goof off.

So, your going public with this is part of the great revisionism, like
people saying the Dave Clark Five were better than the early Beatles, or
Gene Clark was better than Gram Parsons.

[BobbyM]

Wow!! What a conclusion. Because I didn't (& still don't) go with the
flow, I'm now a revisionist. And even if that were the case, you're
insinuating that a person who changes his/her mind about something is a
bad thing. Revisionist history is totally different from a person who
revises his/her own opinion(s). During the last 150 years, a lot of
people have revised their opinions about race, women, and equality; but
this world would be better off if many more would revise their opinions.
A revisionist, on the other hand, might argue that there never was a
problem.

What's wrong with a person saying that Gene Clark is better than Gram
Parsons? It's an opinion, pure & simple. Some people just don't put
Parsons on as high a horse as others do or don't award Parsons extra
points for his mystical death; some may prefer Clark's voice over that
of Parsons. Your opinion or pr's is no more important than anyone
else's in this group, no matter what you tell yourselves.

[really real]

>
> Wow!! What a conclusion. Because I didn't (& still don't) go with the
> flow, I'm now a revisionist.

No you aren't. You're a curmudgeon. But your position is one that is now
favoured by revisionists.

> What's wrong with a person saying that Gene Clark is better than Gram
> Parsons? It's an opinion, pure & simple.

What's wrong with saying Bobby Vee is better than Bob Dylan? Plenty.

[BobbyM]

On 16-Jul-13 10:23 AM, really real wrote:
>
>>
>> Wow!! What a conclusion. Because I didn't (& still don't) go with the
>> flow, I'm now a revisionist.
>
>
> No you aren't. You're a curmudgeon.

What in this conversation would lead you to that conclusion? Because I
don't think like you or agree with you?

But your position is one that is now
> favoured by revisionists.

Is that my fault?

>> What's wrong with a person saying that Gene Clark is better than Gram
>> Parsons? It's an opinion, pure & simple.
>
>
> What's wrong with saying Bobby Vee is better than Bob Dylan? Plenty.

Are you comparing Parsons vs Clark to Dylan vs Vee? But to answer your
question, there's nothing inherently wrong with someone saying that Vee
is better than Dylan, even though I'd disagree. To you, it's admittedly
wrong; to a big Bobby Vee fan and/or one who doesn't like Dylan's voice
and/or his words, it's not.

I think you've become the curmudgeon you accused me of being.

BTW, what, in your opinion, are the outstanding conceptual aspects of
Pepper that puts it on such a high pedestal that you resent me for
thinking otherwise?

[Will Dockery]

And for In Another Land... it was great to see Bill Wyman get a bit of the spotlight.

[Will Dockery]

Not to take sides in any fights here, but well put.

[Will Dockery]

really real wrote:
>
> What's wrong with saying Bobby Vee is better than Bob Dylan? Plenty.

Has anyone ever in the history of music ever said that?!?

[BobbyM]

I'm sure there are plenty who've said they like Vee's music better than
Dylan's. Not me, although I do enjoy a lot of Vee's records. OTOH, I
detest "The Night Has a Thousand Eyes," which some would say is among
Vee's best.

[Will Dockery]

About all I can remember about Bobby Vee was that Dylan claimed he was Vee sometimes when he was young, I think, and that he also played in Vee's band for a few minutes or so... without looking, I can't think of anything Vee ever did, and in fact can't tell him apart from Bobby Vinton.

Bobby Vee just went under or over my head...

[really real]

>> No you aren't. You're a curmudgeon.
>
> What in this conversation would lead you to that conclusion? Because I
> don't think like you or agree with you?

It's about your lack of sense of humour in this discussion

>
> Are you comparing Parsons vs Clark to Dylan vs Vee? But to answer your
> question, there's nothing inherently wrong with someone saying that Vee
> is better than Dylan, even though I'd disagree. To you, it's admittedly
> wrong; to a big Bobby Vee fan and/or one who doesn't like Dylan's voice
> and/or his words, it's not.

Technically you are correct but who cares? In the actual world we live
in, it is crazy to think Bobby Vee is better than Bob Dylan.

>
> BTW, what, in your opinion, are the outstanding conceptual aspects of
> Pepper that puts it on such a high pedestal that you resent me for
> thinking otherwise?
>

I liked Revolver better, just as I liked Between the Buttons better than
Satanic Majesty's.

Pepper had a creative conceptual framework. It's lyrics were
delightfully psychedelic. Songs like Lovey Rita and Mr Kite are
marvelous, as is Good Morning. A Day in the Life is quite impressive,
and George's sitar song is quite brave

Satantic Majesty's had a few good songs, but nothing as good as Lovely
Rita. And it overreached it's psychedelic creativity.

[BobbyM]

On 16-Jul-13 11:37 PM, really real wrote:
>
>>> No you aren't. You're a curmudgeon.
>>
>> What in this conversation would lead you to that conclusion? Because I
>> don't think like you or agree with you?
>
>
> It's about your lack of sense of humour in this discussion

I haven't seen anything in this discussion that was particularly
humorous, unless you want to admit that your side of the discussion was
purely a joke.

>> Are you comparing Parsons vs Clark to Dylan vs Vee? But to answer your
>> question, there's nothing inherently wrong with someone saying that Vee
>> is better than Dylan, even though I'd disagree. To you, it's admittedly
>> wrong; to a big Bobby Vee fan and/or one who doesn't like Dylan's voice
>> and/or his words, it's not.
>
>
> Technically you are correct but who cares? In the actual world we live
> in, it is crazy to think Bobby Vee is better than Bob Dylan.

Guess you care, because you raised the issue & asked the question -
though you didn't like a real world (not Bob Dylan worshipers' group)
answer. Is it wrong for someone to think Bobby Vee has a better voice
than Dylan? Is it wrong for someone to like Bobby Vee's music better
than Dylan's? After all Vee had 38 charting songs to Dylan's 23; Vee -
6 top 10 hits, Dylan - 4. Is it wrong to prefer Vee's style of music
over Dylan's? Is it wrong to like "Take Good Care of My Baby" but not
like "If You See Her, Say Hello"?

>> BTW, what, in your opinion, are the outstanding conceptual aspects of
>> Pepper that puts it on such a high pedestal that you resent me for
>> thinking otherwise?
>>
>
>
> I liked Revolver better,

Should you label yourself a revisionist here?

just as I liked Between the Buttons better than
> Satanic Majesty's.

I prefer Buttons as well. I consider it possibly the best Stones' lp &
I certainly rate it higher than Exile.

>
> Pepper had a creative conceptual framework. It's lyrics were
> delightfully psychedelic. Songs like Lovey Rita and Mr Kite are
> marvelous, as is Good Morning. A Day in the Life is quite impressive,

> and George's sitar song is quite brave

That's one way to describe it.

> Satantic Majesty's had a few good songs, but nothing as good as Lovely
> Rita.

You're entitled to your opinion; I think even some Beatles' fans would
disagree with you on that. It is one of the most lightweight songs on
the album, losing that race only to When I'm 64.

And it overreached it's psychedelic creativity.

To quote pr, "its" not "it's". I don't know what you're trying to say
here but how did it overreach? Part of the point of psychedelia was
stretching the boundaries. Speaking of humor, everyone seems to miss
the big Stones' joke of ending the lp with "On with the Show". It was
their way of saying, "now that we've done this, let's get back to
playing rock & roll." Did anyone really think they were going to
playing psych music the rest of their lives or at least until the fad
burned out, like the Beatles did?

[Will Dockery]

BobbyM wrote:
>
> Is it wrong to prefer Vee's style of music
>
> over Dylan's? Is it wrong to like "Take Good Care of My Baby" but not
>
> like "If You See Her, Say Hello"?

Okay, NOW I remember Bobby Vee!

[JD Chase]

On Sunday, July 7, 2013 at 4:12:59 PM UTC-4, khematite wrote:
> On Sunday, July 7, 2013 2:33:24 PM UTC-4, Mark Dintenfass wrote:
> > In article <3dc45ba0-d021-4a82...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Jordy Chase <icn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > It's a very interesting, thought provoking attack on the album...
> >
>
> > And one can find it where?
>
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1299&dat=19760308&id=twFOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AIwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5485,916815

For GD...

[Grave Digger]

>
> For GD...

=====
Thank's Gordy.
Yeah....I think I've read that article some time ago..along with many others in the same vein.

As I said I think that Levi did most of the writing....

I still love the album...I love "Street Legal" a bit more.
Man...we know many did not love "Street Legal"..but what da fuck do they know

[General Zod]

I thank thee................

[JD Chase]

You’re welcome! My pleasure, GZ! 😊😎❤️

[General Zod]

On Thursday, March 14, 2019 at 9:46:35 PM UTC-4, JD Chase wrote:
> You’re welcome! My pleasure, GZ! 😊😎❤️

Fond reguards to all.....

[Will Dockery]

"JD Chase" wrote in message
news:1fdcfdab-4570-4933...@googlegroups.com...

> Mark Dintenfass wrote:
>
> > > It's a very interesting, thought provoking attack on the album...
>
> > And one can find it where?

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1299&dat=19760308&id=twFOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AIwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5485,916815

> For GD...

Great read, it was serialized in Creem Magazine 40+ years ago.