Fingerpointin' Bob's best songs
really real
listening to Bob Dylan in '63, it's made me think back to my favorite
Bob Dylan protest songs, the ones that really pointed a finger and
exposed something.
Blowing in the Wind, with its twelve questions, is Dylan's most
celebrated protest song, but I don't consider it a finger-pointing song.
Actually, I do, but my communistic interpretation of this song is not
going to convince very many people, so I'll leave it out.
Masters of War, looms at the top of the fingerpointers, and is still
sung by Bob in concert. Of course, Dylan also sings The Lonesome Death
of Hattie Carroll, but as Mr. Jinx points out, there's a way of
interpreting that song abstractly. And Dylan's always trotting out John
Brown, but I suppose, in times of going off to war to fight on a foreign
shore, the song still sounds powerful.
I've always been partial to Oxford Town, being a sucker for sarcasm,
though I guess most would consider that a minor song. Only a Pawn in
Their Game is another favorite of mine.
In looking for Bob's greatest fingerpointing songs, I don't think
Hurricane can be included, because it's really a neo-fingerpointing
song. Blind Willie McTell seems full of protest, but it's much more than
a protest song. I think the fingerpointing era has to include only the
60s songs.
I can't blame Dylan for moving irrevocably beyond the fingerpointing
song, but I do miss those great ones from 1963. I wish there were more
protesting young Bob Dylans showing up in the music scene all the time.
Wilbur Slice
wrote:
>Now that Neil Young has made such a wonderful homage to the spirit of
>listening to Bob Dylan in '63, it's made me think back to my favorite
>Bob Dylan protest songs, the ones that really pointed a finger and
>exposed something.
Talkin' Bear Mountain Picnic Massacre Disaster Blues
Bob Gill
> Now that Neil Young has made such a wonderful homage to the spirit of
> listening to Bob Dylan in '63, it's made me think back to my favorite
> Bob Dylan protest songs, the ones that really pointed a finger and
> exposed something.
I think Masters of War probably wins this competition, but Only a Pawn in
Their Game is pretty close too. I actually prefer that one to Hattie
Carroll, though obviously Dylan doesn't. I think the live versions of Hattie
Carroll, especially from the Rolling Thunder tour, are better than the
studio version, because I don't like that speed-up, slow-down rhythm thing
he was doing back at that time _ which he does on Only a Pawn too. He also
does it on another song I might rank above all of them if you count it as a
finger-pointing song: With God on Our Side. As with Hattie Carroll, I like
the live versions of that one better than the record, and for the same
reason.
There may be others that I've forgotten, but unless I'm missing something
big, those are my four favorites. And since people usually want a top five
rather than a top four, I'd add Who Killed Davey Moore? I know it doesn't
have much of a tune, but I've always liked it for the construction of having
everybody in turn denying responsibility, up to and including the other
fighter. "Don't say murder, don't say kill; it was destiny, it was God's
will." I still like that.
-- Bob G.
badlands420
> Now that Neil Young has made such a wonderful homage to the spirit of
> listening to Bob Dylan in '63,
Don't delude yourself to the point of hyperbole just because Neil Young is
your political cup of tea. In terms of artistic merit and societal
relevance, Neil Young's current protest music is to early 60s Dylan as
William Hung is to Enrico Caruso.
Mr Jinx
The reason why Dylan no longer writes 'finger pointing' songs is
presumably because he has noticed that the world has changed and
nothing is that simple any more.
"Reality has always had too many heads".
If you bemoan the lack of 'finger pointers' today then you must really
be nostalgic for a time when finger pointing was an appropriate way to
protest. The only direction for fingers to point now is towards
ourselves.
Mr Jinx
Mr Jinx
really real
> The reason why Dylan no longer writes 'finger pointing' songs is
> presumably because he has noticed that the world has changed and
> nothing is that simple any more.
>
> If you bemoan the lack of 'finger pointers' today then you must really
> be nostalgic for a time when finger pointing was an appropriate way to
> protest. The only direction for fingers to point now is towards
> ourselves.
Such bullshit, Jinxy.
Dylan changed. The world didn't change. Boxers dying in the ring are
just like Davie Moore. The people unnecessarily dying from foreign wars
now are no different from the people who died from unnecessary wars back
then.
You may have stopped caring about the injustices carried out by your
government, and by America, but don't say that everyone should now just
be a navel gazer instead of a protester.
Mr Jinx
I haven't stopped caring. I just think we are all complicit in the
atrocities our elected governments carry out in our name. America is
rich because its people vote for governments that impose a status quo
upon the world that ensures that America's prosperity continues.
Hearts and minds need to change. Those changes happen inside people.
The sight of some grizzly old rocker like Neil Young pretending it's
1963 is not going to change anyone's mind about anything. His fans
already agree with him and the rest aren't seriously listening.
Dylan shows the template of human behaviour and motivations on Love &
Theft. He said in the Rome interview that the record is about power.
Without having to resort to slogans he makes the points - the eternal
points - that need to be made.
Neil Young is saying nothing new. He is just replicating the protest
of another era.
I like Neil Young and I hope that somehow his record brings a few
people across to his point of view but I still think his approach is
pretty crass and outmoded.
Mr Jinx
really real
>
> Neil Young is saying nothing new. He is just replicating the protest
> of another era.
>
He's saying get the hell out of Iraq and get rid of Bush.
Imagine the people of Iraq being subjected to horrible murders and
bombings and wanting it to stop. Then, you tell them, we can't ask that
it be stopped because we went through all this in '63.
Mr Jinx
Imagine trying to fight a modern war with the weapons you had in 1963.
We both want the same end, rr (lovin' your lower-case, by-the-way).
But the question we need to ask is why we have thrown up a demon like
Bush. He did not spring from the living rock.
The US have decided to play world cop with their ongoing 'war on
terror'. Why is that? It's so their citizens can enjoy remaining top
of the pile with all of their luxuries and matrial goods in place.
Uncomfortable but true. No amount of liberal, guilt-ridden
hand-wringing can change that. Invading Iraq is just part of a rolling
program of ensuring that the U.S. remains supreme, top dog. It's
dirty, it's immoral and the nation voted for it. Oh, and let's not kid
ourselves that any other president would be allowed to let America
slump from pole position in the world rankings. As soon as peoples'
pockets are hit they begin to yelp. It's all about money.
It's rough out there ...
Mr Jinx
crazytimes
If Dylan would stop singing his songs from the Sixties, jinx might have
a point, but Bob keeps on singing 'em, and jinx keeps lauding him for
it. Heard Dylan do 'Blowin' In The Wind' lately? Hattie Carroll,
anyone?... Surely not 'Masters of War'... What an anacronism, that
song!
Painting people into a 'retro-stuck-in-the-Sixties' corner is too easy
and doesn't work toward helping solve today's problems. The same
methods, ones that were used when Neil Young came of age, are still
valid to whoever hears the messages and stops to think about them. The
bombs and bullets are still flying, last time I checked...
Pilgrim
A lot of it is about money, but a good portion of it is the culture
wars, which started with the changes in the '60's and it's much more
complicated than that (which you'd agree with here.) The Republican
party also plays up a lot of the anger that people have over the
various permutations of the Civil Rights movement. Subtle racism,
homophopia, anti-immigration, anti-environmentalism, etc., etc., and,
yeah, you're right, the unwillingness of Americans to make any
sacrifices for the greater good.
Pilgrim
The anti-sex/anti feminist crowd has been very active, too. Mustn't
forget them. So add the response to the sexual and feminist
revolutions to that. Anti-science is strong, too. In my optimistic
moments, I think it's just a natural pendulum swing, but I'll have to
chime in with the idea that some finger pointing songs are probably a
good idea and completely relevant to the situation we're in, even
though we're in a more complicated time period. The liberal blogs are
one of the new approaches and it's a good idea to become more aware of
the efforts of the phone company (AT&T) to control and manipulate that
environment. Plus:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
Big brother is here.
Pilgrim
really real wrote:
> Now that Neil Young has made such a wonderful homage to the spirit of
> listening to Bob Dylan in '63, it's made me think back to my favorite
> Bob Dylan protest songs, the ones that really pointed a finger and
> exposed something.
I'd say With God on Our Side is particularly relevant for today. It
needs a few new verses, though.
"For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side."
Nate Smith
also the Judas Iscariot line has returned....
- nate
really real
>
> I'd say With God on Our Side is particularly relevant for today. It
> needs a few new verses, though.
>
> "For you don't count the dead
> When God's on your side."
Cindy Sheehan was arrested for crashing the State of the Union address
with a shirt that read, "2,245 dead. How many more?"
I wish someone would write a new verse that said:
"And when you do count the dead
Only dead Americans are counted"
>
Bob Gill
Absolutely right. Jinx's stated position is basically the same as Bob
Dylan's _ surprise! _ and Dylan of course is entitled to believe whatever he
wants. (And he's not required to write finger-pointing songs if he doesn't
want to.) But Dylan's view, as he's said on several occasions, in slightly
different form, that since all flesh is corrupt there's no point in doing
anything about anything, leads you completely down a dead end. It's like
saying all life is just a dream, and you're the only one who's really alive,
so why worry about anybody else. There's no real way to disprove it, but it
sure leaves you nowhere.
-- Bob G.
Mr Jinx
True. But if you believe - as I do - that Dylan is here to point us
towards spiritual salvations (note the plural, let's not say there is
one answer here!) then his stance makes perfect sense. He played This
World It Can't Sand Long with particular fervour a few years back. He
believes that the only solutions to the problems of this world are to
be found beyond it. This seems bleak but extremely reasonable.
Mr Jinx
badlands420
> True. But if you believe - as I do - that Dylan is here to point us
> towards spiritual salvations
Did it ever occur to you, like for a single fleeting moment, that maybe
Dylan is just here to sing songs and make money?
really real
>
> Did it ever occur to you, like for a single fleeting moment, that maybe
> Dylan is just here to sing songs and make money?
>
Has it ever occurred to you that Bob Dylan might have something to say.
Listening to the collected works of Bob Dylan by the Hollywood Strings
is not the same thing as hearing Dylan's lyrics.
>
badlands420
> Has it ever occurred to you that Bob Dylan might have something to say.
Early on, perhaps. But even Dylan himself has said (or at least implied)
that his early protest material was geared toward the audience to which he
was playing, and was intended to gain him notoriety within that audience
which could be parlayed into bigger and better things. And whether it was
due to personal disillusionment or cold hard capitalism, it is an
indisputable fact that Dylan abandoned solo acoustic folk/protest music at
the earliest possible opportunity.
> Listening to the collected works of Bob Dylan by the Hollywood Strings is
> not the same thing as hearing Dylan's lyrics.
It's also true that the musical quality of Dylan's material tends to be
wrongly overlooked by people (usually non-instrumentalists) who fixate on
his lyrical subject matter first, foremost, and often solely. You can't be a
successful musician if you're not playing good music, and you can't be a
successful musician for 45 years if you're not playing great music.
really real
> Early on, perhaps. But even Dylan himself has said (or at least implied)
> that his early protest material was geared toward the audience to which he
> was playing, and was intended to gain him notoriety within that audience
> which could be parlayed into bigger and better things.
If you believe that, then Dylan never wrote a drug song.
And whether it was
> due to personal disillusionment or cold hard capitalism, it is an
> indisputable fact that Dylan abandoned solo acoustic folk/protest music at
> the earliest possible opportunity.
>
Yes, Mixed Up Confusion.
badlands420
> If you believe that, then Dylan never wrote a drug song.
I didn't say I believe anything. These are Dylan's words, they are
unambiguous, and they are supported by historical fact. Clumsy non sequiturs
do nothing to change this.
Do you know Dylan better than he knows himself? That certainly seems be your
implication here.
really real
>
> Do you know Dylan better than he knows himself? That certainly seems be your
> implication here.
No, I'm just saying that you have to read between the lines.
badlands420
> No, I'm just saying that you have to read between the lines.
In other words, if you're not looking for some deep existential meaning in
every lyric of every Dylan song, then you're not a real fan. Correct?
really real
>> No, I'm just saying that you have to read between the lines.
>
> In other words, if you're not looking for some deep existential meaning in
> every lyric of every Dylan song, then you're not a real fan. Correct?
No, don't confuse the two things I'm saying.
I'm saying that you don't take what Dylan says in interviews as the
truth. You have to read between the lines.
And I'm also saying that what Dylan is about, more than his
musicianship, is his songwriting.
>
>
badlands420
> And I'm also saying that what Dylan is about, more than his
> musicianship, is his songwriting.
Okay, this brings up another question: Is it your position that Like a
Rolling Stone would suffer no loss of overall quality if Dylan's harmonica
and Kooper's organ were removed from the recording?
badlands420
> And I'm also saying that what Dylan is about, more than his
> musicianship, is his songwriting.
PS- I think this statement is semantically disingenuous to your argument.
Songwriting involves writing lyrics *and* music. Your dismissiveness toward
Dylan's overall musical merit, however, is not a defense of his songwriting,
but rather a condemnation of it. If music doesn't matter and lyrics are
paramount, then you're saying Dylan sucks at 50% of his occupation, which I
would not view as anything resembling a defense of his songwriting.
really real
>> Your dismissiveness toward
> Dylan's overall musical merit, however, is not a defense of his songwriting,
> but rather a condemnation of it.
I'm not being dismissive of Dylan's musical merit. It's just that
Dylan's lyrics are the most important part of what he does.
Surely you agree with this statement.
badlands420
> I'm not being dismissive of Dylan's musical merit. It's just that
> Dylan's lyrics are the most important part of what he does.
>
> Surely you agree with this statement.
I agree that this is the general perception, but it's still a subjective
statement that doesn't take into account the different ways in which
different people choose to interact with music. The fact remains that there
are many, many people who listen to Dylan's music simply because it's good
music. In fact, some of my favorite Dylan songs (Peggy Day, The Man in Me,
Dirt Road Blues, Summer Days) have lyrics that are utterly banal by Dylan's
standards, and there's nothing wrong with that. Some songs don't need great
lyrics to be great songs, and I'd say there are a lot of Dylan tunes that
fit this description.
crazytimes
really real wrote:
> I'm not being dismissive of Dylan's musical merit. It's just that
> Dylan's lyrics are the most important part of what he does.
>
> Surely you agree with this statement.
I have to disagree here. I think that people have come to believe that
it's the lyrics that are the most important thing to it all, but it's
really the whole 'Bob Dylan' package that made/makes its impact.
If he had never written a song himself, and just continued to interpret
folk music, he still would have gained a certain following in the folk
scene, a la Eliot, Baez, etc.
He had, as Bruce Langhorne attests, the ability to put a song over.
HIs lyrics in the Lyrics Book are interesting as a reference, but only
in relation to where they came from - as a part of a song, with music,
and in discussion pertaining to them as songs. To me, they don't stand
alone; I don't seek out his Lyrics book as poetry or just for something
to read, especially when each song has a refrain/chorus repeated quite
frequently. For me, they only work as songs, and, for the vast
majority of the time, only when Bob sings them - ie. 98% of Joan Baez's
renderings of Dylan tunes are unlistenable, and that goes for most
other acts doing Dylan songs.
It's Dylan's voice and musical performance that are what it's all
about, along with the lyrics, of course, cause they are part of the
whole package. The lyrics came after Dylan found his voice as a singer
and performer; they are an extension of his voice, and they are often
lifeless on the page without his vocal/musical imput, and the words,
with a few exceptions, are left just hanging without his attitude
behind them.
The vast majority of Dylan songs as-covered by other singers are just
uniformly bad, in my opinion, so there's more to it than even the music
and lyrics. The key ingredient in all this is Bob Dylan, minstrel boy
of his song, or someone else's. He'll make it his even if it isn't.
(What's the difference between Kaavya Viswanathan and Bob Dylan?...
Answer: Dylan's been at it much longer, and he's better at keeping it
all hid, even when he's laying it all out there. That's real talent).
'
M. Rick
you can't be a successful musician for 45 years if you're not playing great
music.
Sure you can. There's Yanni, Kiss, and a thousand more successful
mediocrities. "The Who" are still selling out shows after 40 years. I
can't remember McCartney's last good song.
M. Rick
His lyrics may be the most outstanding feature of his entire career, but not
necessarily most important to him. I wouldn't overlook the impact of his
voice on popular music.
badlands420
>I can't remember McCartney's last good song.
You don't think Riding to Vanity Fair is a good song?
Barbara
"M. Rick" <ricchar...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:5nG9g.471$mU6.21@trnddc07...
I think it is for the most part.
crazytimes
Kind of is. I think the last 'new' album I anticipated was Brian
Wilson's 'Smile' - which in itself was just him completing something he
started in 1966, so maybe that doesn't even count!
I just hope this age of mediocrity doesn't morph into the age of
worldwide catasrophe... which it looks like it might be.
Treadleson
crazytimes wrote:
> really real wrote:
>
> > I'm not being dismissive of Dylan's musical merit. It's just that
> > Dylan's lyrics are the most important part of what he does.
> >
> > Surely you agree with this statement.
> I have to disagree here. I think that people have come to believe that
> it's the lyrics that are the most important thing to it all, but it's
> really the whole 'Bob Dylan' package that made/makes its impact.
I'm going to have to agree. I've never done a scientific poll, but
everyone I've ever talked to about it has agreed that what comes to you
first about a song is the music--melody, rhythm, attitude. Then, if it
makes a good impression, you explore more and start getting to the
lyrics. Dylan's no different and I would even venture to say that the
songs with the weaker music tend to be weaker overall as songs....no
matter how good the lyrics. And vice-versa. Since the outtakes are
readilly available, all one has to do is listen to the earlier takes of
Rolling Stone, before the music was fully worked out, to see how less
than stellar that song could have been. Also, attitude--or phrasing,
if you like--has a huge amount to do with Dylan's impact. I'd put that
under the category of music, not lyrics. In any event, to separate the
music from the lyrics is really a fool's errand: some of his best
songs fall flat on lyrics sheets. What was said earlier about the
arrangements also have a big influence. As far as covers, well, the
early covers for the Byrds wouldn't have shot to the top of the charts
based on lyrics alone. I Was So Much Older Then, Tambourine Man, All I
Really Want to Do are all standouts musically. Personally I've always
been struck by the inattention to the musical quality and also the
variety. New Morning, Mozambique, Jokerman, Father of Night, Frankie
Lee, Just Like a Woman, Sad Eyed Lady, Crawl Out Yer Window, Baby Blue,
Tom Thumb, Hattie Caroll, Mississippi, If Not For You, Hazel, to name
just a few, show enormous variety and breadth.