Chekhov’s Mistess

Questioning Modern Times

Isn’t it funny that Bob Dylan still can’t sing and we still love him anyway? James Marcus approaches an answer to that quoting Gary Giddins:

“In the ’60s, his singing was often found so repellent that his admirers readily apologized for it. Forget the voice, they said, listen to the words…Yet it was Dylan’s unmistakable anti-stylish stylish singing that made him irresistible and unique to those very admirers. His singing was so original that they praised it chiefly for what it wasn’t: smooth, which is to say commercial.”

But now Dylan is anything but anti-commercial (have you seen the Apple ads?). His “subtle” and “brutally powerful” lyrics still can come up short (“Woke up this morning / Feeling blue / Seen a good looking girl / Can I make love with you? / Hey hey babe, I got blood in my eyes for you” [even with the music, James]) and his singing can be downright funny. Marcus says “When the poet falters, in other words, the singer picks up the slack.” That sounds mostly right, but I can’t quite imagine, as Jody Rosen cheekily suggests in Slate, that this “wheezy old man” has put out the “best make-out songs of 2006.” That comment at least gives us a different perspective. But when you’re an “individual crying in the wilderness,” as Dylan says of himself, is it enough to be an “oddly endearing crooner?”

Ron Silliman, among others, seems to love Modern Times and after demonstrating deep knowledge of Dylan’s career says the new album is “at once both cynical & nostalgic, retro &, for a balladeer, still restlessly innovative, all at once, a depth his work hasn’t held before.” That’s an interesting statement considering that Dylan had more depth as a teenager than some of the wisest of wheezy old men. I have to ask, have the acute perceptions of his youth weathered into even more telling signposts of our times, or queasy make-out songs? There’s a big difference between the two.

I’m not necessarily trying to be a naysayer, I do like Dylan’s new album in a humalong sort of way, and on a scale of interesting with Jack Johnson at zero, I’d probably put Dylan, taken as a whole, at the other end of the scale by which I judge others. But as much as I do like his music and respect the critics who love him, a big part of me wonders if this isn’t all part of a big Dylan thinnng, in the same way that, say, Picasso might have painted the siding on a house white and have everyone regard it as brilliant.

Has the enigmatic iconoclastic star (a contradiction Dylan once fit nicely into) turned into an overtly commercial persona? Part of the fun of pop culture is that it’s, well, popular. So not only do you get to tell your friends you downloaded the album with the special videos of a straight-faced Dylan and “limited edition” silly little booklet, but you get to discuss the (rather good) Lethem article in Rolling Stone, the coverage in New York Times, Slate, and so on. You can also keep up with the filming of the new Bob Dylan biopic, “I’m Not There“ that includes all of Richard Gere, Christian Bale, Heath Ledger and Cate Blanchett playing Bobby if you didn’t get enough Dylan in the Scorsese documentary. There’s so much Dylan it’s hard not to get taken into the phenomenon.

I’m reminded of the time I was in the lobby of a movie theater and heard a teenager enthusiastically tell his pals about how “Aristotelian” The Matrix was. He seemed absolutely convinced that he was seeing something far deeper than an action film, not realizing that whatever philosophical underpinning this movie may have had, his idea was not original in the least but was fed to him so thoroughly it became his own.

As for Dylan, it seems that it’s difficult to separate the mythical man from his music. Like when they hailed his singing as being “anti-stylish,” fans explain away his more questionable lyrics as ironic or, ‘oh, he was just being wry, don’t you get it?” If this be the renaissance of a genius, then genius has been compressed like a song to fit neatly into your i-pod along with a thousand others – 99 cents and worth every penny.

comments

Firstly, very insightful writing.

I for one only visualize Dylan as something out of the old and yet unchanging. To be the so called ‘rebel’ today requires a person different from what the man was and was perceived in his 60’s. He’s been modelled after, loved and adored, ultimately becomingthe ‘tends to’ so to speak for everyone. It’s this reason alone that Dylan does not come off as shocking any more.

How long before a non-conformist is the norm?

    – Aayush Iyer (09/13  at  01:15 AM)

Hi Bud,

I always love to make an above-the-fold appearance at CM, but I cannot tell a lie: the sentences in your tint box were written by Gary Giddins, not me. Perhaps that wasn’t sufficiently clear from my own post. Anyway, I don’t think this is a case of Picasso painting the side of his house white, sophomoric dumbbells going ga-ga over The Matrix, etc. After a longish period of floundering, Dylan seems to have snuck into his Old Master period. And I’m really enjoying it.

    – James Marcus (09/13  at  08:54 AM)

Thanks Aayush. James, I fixed the quote. I enjoy the music enough, but just wonder what all the hullabaloo is about.

    – Bud Parr (09/13  at  10:09 AM)

I really like the new album (much moreso than Love and Theft). It’s got a great old style to it, but somehow it also sounds new.

I think Dylan is just one of those figures that causes hullabaloo, based on the sheer influence of his work and his contentious media relationship.

    – derikb (09/13  at  01:27 PM)

you quote from “blood in my eyes” as a way to say his lyrics sometimes fail...he didn’t write that song. he only sang it. that particular album was an album of obscure covers.

i haven’t heard the new record yet, but if the last two records haven’t worked for you, and you haven’t really been struck by his older work, then why think about him? think about something else maybe.

    – James Chapman (09/14  at  01:29 AM)

James Chapman, how upsetting.

First: you are wrong - “Blood in my eyes” was written by Bob Dylan.

Second: I chose those lyrics fairly randomly can could have easily chosen others.

Third: you haven’t even heard the album yet and you’re critical of my questioning?

Fourth: Where did you get the idea that I haven’t been “struck” by his older work?

I never said that, in fact I said that taken as a whole I would put Dylan’s music at the very top of the scale by which I would judge others. I have 13 Dylan albums and enjoy them all. Also, I said I like the album. It’s okay, but my view is that it’s not the work of genius that it seems to be made out as.

If you’re going to come around here and be critical you yourself should think about what you’re saying.

    – Bud Parr (09/14  at  09:09 AM)

did not mean to upset you. i’m glad you’re more of a fan than i thought.

here is bob dylan’s own liner note, on the album “world gone wrong,” an album of covers. “blood in my eyes” is credited as being “arranged by bob dylan.” he didn’t write any of the songs on that album.

“BLOOD IN MY EYES is one of two songs done by the Mississippi Sheiks, a little known de facto group whom in their former glory must’ve been something to behold. rebellion against routine seems to be their strong theme. all their songs are raw to the bone & are faultlessly made for these modern times (the New Dark Ages) nothing effete about the Mississippi Sheiks.”

    – James Chapman (09/14  at  11:29 AM)

when i really like an artist, i try to ignore any hype and hullabaloo about them. no reading of “think pieces” if i can help it.

for me it’s better to have my experience of their work as a private perception, as if nobody else knew about them at all. then you get to feel what the art actually is.

if i get immersed in that sort of critical response, i end up feeling a little sickened, feeling that that, the noise, is the artist and the art. which is always kind of crappy and reduced.

there aren’t that many good artists who get that kind of noise around them anyway, but dylan is certainly one. think how hard it’s been for him to function with it. that’s the story of “chronicles” really.

    – James Chapman (09/14  at  11:39 AM)

Hi James - you’ll find that I come on strong in the comments whenever I find flaws in someone’s argument, which only serves to hopefully keep unthoughtful people from hanging around. Clearly you know of what you speak, so my apologies, particularly for declaring you wrong on the writing credit.

That’s interesting about the album of covers. I should have chosen something from the main album (although I’m convinced I easily could) instead of the extras.

That ‘sickened’ feeling you describe is exactly what I was feeling - I also believe that the media, as large as it is, is a finite world and when everyone goes ga-ga over a 65 year old artist that’s doing good stuff but may not be nearly as important (currently) as some 20 year old (and this is not an age thing, it’s about creative arc) that’s going unrecognized, then that’s a problem and a big part of what I respond to. Same thing happens with books.

    – Bud Parr (09/14  at  11:47 AM)

Page 1 of 1 pages of comments

Next entry: The Exquisite Trailer
Previous entry: Champion on Murakami

« Back to main

About this Post

• Posted by: Bud Parr
• Date: September 12, 2006
• Filed Under:
  Music

• Comments:9
• Links to this Post: Technorati

Recommended Links

- top -