Films/DVD Asylum

• RE: You seem unable to keep on topic. Dylan was an individualist. What does that - Jazz Inmate 09:40:31 02/04/10 (1)
  In Reply to: RE: You seem unable to keep on topic. Dylan was an individualist. What does that posted by tinear on February 04, 2010 at 08:46:14

  > > You began by saying Dylan kicked the anti-establishment to the curb and I pointed out how incorrect that claim was. < <
  
  No, I began by saying the anti-establishment kicked Dylan to the curb and treated him like a criminal for picking up an electric guitar and singing what was on his mind and in his heart instead of marching to the beat of their drummers like he did early in his career.
  
  > > Dylan's songs clearly were pro-civil rights: notice I said "songs." His songs are paeans against pretty much all facets of the "establishment." I linked, above, a song which inarguably is against the Vietnam War--- but being Dylan, it could apply to many of them. < <
  
  Well given that the establishment embraced civil rights, you hardly need to be anti-establishment to support them. And Dylan's songs went on to be just as critical of the left as the right. Like a Rolling Stone can be interpreted as an admonishment of Joan Baez and other lefties.
  
  > > Seeger's disenchantment, and you make it seem Seeger was threatening Dylan with the axe when he was seeking to sever the electric cord to the state--- was an individual reaction and hardly one by any movement. < <
  
  That's exactly wrong--and makes me wonder whether you even watched No Direction Home. Throngs of Dylan's fans turned on him, not just his companions like Pete Seeger and Joan Baez. Hippie kids in his audiences screamed out insults at his shows, calling him "Judas". This was not just Seeger's reaction--it was clearly the anti-establishment's reaction at large. And for a supposed pacifist like Seeger to even joke about picking up an axe--that is a real eye opener. That speaks volumes. He didn't seem to be joking. He was totally serious. And while he may have made the target of his rage the cords that gave volume to Dylan's music, let's analyze that, shall we? He didn't like Dylan's new image, music or lyrics. His "joke" shows that he wanted them censored. Censorship is exactly what Seeger faced from the establishment during his career, e.g., on the Smothers Brothers comedy hour. If anyone understood censorship or should have been sensitive to it, one would think it's Seeger. Yet as soon as his "protege" broke with the anti-establishment message, it was Seeger who seemed to advocate censorship.
  
  > > The displeasure which manifested over Dylan, including during his English tour, had NOTHING to do with any movement of Dylan's away from anti-establishment politics but everything to do with moving away from NON-amplified music. < <
  
  That's not true. The messages in Dylan's songs increasingly strayed from anti-establishment to include messaging critical of that very movement and to point out its hypocrisies. I mean, the Dylan of 1962 who wrote Masters of War is not the Dylan of 1965 who wrote Like a Rolling Stone. And that's what upset his left-leaning fans. But the Dylan of 1965 had more experience. He had gone to anti-war rallies with Joan Baez. He had turned around and seen the frowns on the jugglers and the clowns after they all did their tricks. He knew what the left was about and he wanted no part of it anymore, and for that he was attacked and criticized. I can relate.
  
  > > You continue to attempt to frame Dylan as some sort of apolitical personage to fit YOUR conservative political views. Get over it, Bob wasn't a Nixon Republican. < <
  
  Maybe not, but he did become a born-again Christian a couple years after Nixon left office. You're not a terribly nuanced observer of politics or pop culture.
  
  I once had very left leaning views. But like Dylan, I grew up. If you are unable, so be it.
  -------------
  
  We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
  
  

  ---

  • Your last sentence says it all. In other words, my characterization of you - tinear 11:58:41 02/04/10 (0)
    In Reply to: RE: You seem unable to keep on topic. Dylan was an individualist. What does that posted by Jazz Inmate on February 04, 2010 at 09:40:31

    is spot-on.
    You see, Jazz, I lived through that period. Dylan was excoriated for going electric, just as Simon and Garfunkel were. It was exactly the same thing. The two most intelligent folk artists (okay, 2 out of 3: I'd put Joan [Baez, not Collins] in there, too) went electric and this drove the "purists" crazy.
    Certainly, Dylan's increasingly apolitical and nuanced lyrics upset folks but you seem unable to appreciate that, as with S & G, leaving behind more political commentary isn't exactly going over to the other side.
    As far as what "anti-establishment" meant, you're very misguided. The establishment was for going slow, for the status quo, for aggressive American foreign activity. Civil rights was a "lefty," "liberal" thing and it got through Congress because of a massive, grass-roots movement and lots of arm-twisting by an unlikely player, a Southern Democrat named LBJ. Anti-war, anti-corporate America, anti-racism, anti-arms race--- these were the anthemic threads of the liberal "youth movement."
    They still are.
    Dylan is an artist, of course, and not a shill. He indeed did mature as an artist though, as with earlier Beatles tunes, the excellence of the younger material remains. Does his 70s conversion and enthusiasm for Christianity dull his earlier works? I don't think so. I think it's merely a progression along the same path.
    
    

    ---

Post a Followup:

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Signature Sound

[ Signature Sound Lounge ]

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---