Bob Dylan fans: I'm reading Michael Gray's "Song and Dance Man III" now

[RandomKoolzip]

...and it's a tough slog, but a rewarding one. Gray wrote his first version of this exegesis in the early 70's, the first scholarly take on Dylan's work really, and he's been updating it periodically since. This is his third revision.

He's got a lot to say about Dylan's borrowings from obscure Pre-War Blues artists, which makes the chapters on that subject almost pathologically fascinating (In fact, I had to read the chapter "Even Post-Structuralists Oughta Have the Pre-War Blues" twice just get all the info I missed the first time around memorized), but there's a tendency to dig deep into Dylan's "religious" period that seems to short-change the endlessly underexamined "Self-Portrait"/"New Morning"/"Planet Waves" era while venerating some real second rate Fundy stuff. Honestly, Gray devotes WAY too much bookspace to a critical look at the Born-Again albums and their Biblical references; I don't think I can ever see a quote from the Bible ever again without groaning. Still, the better songs from that era ("The Groom's Still Waiting At the Altar," for example) get pages of examination and discussion, so it's not entirely dismissable.

I'm currently in the middle of the chapter about "Empire Burlesque'"s film-noir references (Apparently Dylan had been watching A LOT of Humphrey Bogart movies during the writing of this album; there's a three-page span of quotes taken directly from "The Maltese Falcon," et al. that's quietly damning in its limning of Dylan's decline as a lyricist/ascendance as a plagiarist).

Anyhow, I recommend 'Song and Dance Man III" for Dylan fans with more than a passing interest in his work, as well as for cultural studies freaks with time on their hands (over 800 pages!)

[6000eliot]

1. There's a very good article on Dylan in this week's Nation.

[RandomKoolzip]

2. Oh yeah? What about?

My boss stocks "The Nation" at our restaurant, but I haven't had a chance to read it yet. I'll look for it online.

:thumbsup:

[6000eliot]

3. The books that are written about Dylan, for one thing

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060515/goldstein

[RandomKoolzip]

4. Ugh...Goldstein. The man who panned "Sgt. Pepper" upon release.

I knew it'd be him. :eyes:

Of course, as one of Dylan's "Young fans" (I'm thirty-one) I take issue with his selective accusations of sexism in Dylan's work ("Sweetheart Like You," as a lyric, is a piece of shit, a mere parade of cliches, and not indicative of any larger political worldview, but a single (failed) song directed at a single female, not a condemnation of ALL women; plus, the other problem with both Dylan's critics and his sycophants is that they ignore the music in favor of the sociology - as a melody, "Sweetheart Like You" is a marvel: those descending chords that frame the chorus are the trademark of a mature songsmith with a delicate attention to craft. This last sentence would probably bring up most critics short, since they can't handle discussing aesthetics, especially when those aesthetics are grounded in territory they consider politically odious - which is why "Planet Waves" and "New Morning" get critical short shrift time and time again, even though they are the most melodically excellent of Dylan's works) and with his characterization of anyone who deigns to take a look at Dylan through the eyes of a Cultural Studies maven as a "venerator" or a "Worshipper."

I don't view Dylan as a God. But that doesn't mean I fall into the other extreme, which is a knee-jerk dismissal of the larger themes overaching his ouevre. Goldstein seems to think a crass disrespect of the artist is enough to sustain a critique. Dylan has lotsa weak spots, but even THOSE deserve some critical suss.

Still, that's an interesting article...thanks for the heads-up!