Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Dylan Goes Satellite

By Richard Goldstein, The Nation. Posted May 13, 2006.


Bob Dylan is reaching a new generation of fans as a satellite radio DJ, but unlike his admirers from the '60s, they don't see him as a prophet.
Advertisement

That voice, softened by the erosion of age but still the sensate rasp that Joyce Carol Oates once compared to sandpaper singing. Even when it's prattling on, that voice reaches into the synapses of my youth. I'm a Dylan baby; I trekked down from the Bronx to hear him in his Greenwich Village hootenanny days, and I still have the program from his 1961 Carnegie Hall debut. E-bay beckons, but I won't sell it, or forget the moment when I first heard "Blowin' in the Wind" on Top 40 radio and realized that the times were... need I finish the line?

Now it's trickier. There's Dylan the artist in cap and gown, and Dylan the brand, hyping the new line at Victoria's Secret; Dylan the Nobel Prize nominee, and Dylan the franchise whose product is being diversified into a tribute musical by Twyla Tharp. And now there's DJ coming to the XM pay-radio network. Starting May 3 he'll go head to cred with Howard Stern, chatting up guests, answering e-mails and spinning platters of his eccentric choosing around selected themes (e.g., weather, dancing, whiskey). Those who knew him as the most inspirational voice of the 1960s can tune in to reconnect with their memories through this show. Those who fell away when he found God can hear what's most admirable about Dylan now: his musical erudition and his bond with what critic Greil Marcus calls "the old, weird America," the land of dusty 78s and desperate dreams. XM is betting that Theme Time Radio Hour With Your Host Bob Dylan will draw a very desirable demographic: haute boomers who are used to paying for premium channels and premium everything.

You could do worse than pass the drive time with one of America's most important pop artists. But to describe Dylan as merely important may seem paltry, even philistine. To his most fervent admirers he's not just another artist, certainly not a song-and-dance man, as he's often called himself. He's the emblem of his generation's splendor. Beatified in his youth, he's cruising toward sainthood today.

Like any holy man, Dylan is surrounded by a cultural guard that sings his praises and keeps his secrets. His recent autobiography, Chronicles, Volume One, doesn't deal with drugs (though they were abundant in his entourage), and neither does Martin Scorsese's definitive Dylan doc, No Direction Home (2005). That's the kind of tell-some treatment Dylan expects, and he's always gotten it from artists who hone and honor his myth. Todd Haynes is making a film with four actors playing avatars of Dylan. This is a sign that something other than appreciation is at work. We're witnessing a consecration.

As Dylan's original fans age, some feel a need to make the icon of their youth into an eternal object of worship. Things that last forever aren't subject to ups and downs, so the former consensus about Dylan -- that his later work is quite uneven -- has given way to a conviction that his oeuvre is one unbroken flow of genius, a gospel. Prophets don't have flops, and neither should Dylan. His woeful ode to assassinated mobster Joey Gallo ("What made them want to come and blow you away?") has to be of a piece with his master song "Like a Rolling Stone." His endless and tedious 1978 film Renaldo and Clara must be seen as an underrated masterpiece. This failure to distinguish between awesome and awful Dylan is evidence that his reputation rests less on his recent music than on his enduring status as a fetish.

Dylan has always inspired an awe that obtruded on and ultimately betrayed his songs. Back in the tie-dye days, those lyrics were read like the entrails of a certain sacred bird. No one searches his garbage anymore, but the frenzy of interpretation remains. The result is Saint Dylan, the patron of bitter boomers. He sings of their retreat from utopian dreams, of their disdain for politics, fixation on domesticity, resentment toward demands that intrude on their prerogatives; he speaks to their longing for order, their love-hate relationship with their fathers and with God the Father; and he does this with a mastery of ambiguity that can dazzle when it doesn't dismay. Those who once soared with Dylan and now face a sour senescence may be looking to leave something other than real estate for posterity. What better monument than the man who traced their changes?

No one who ever set finger to fret has inspired the scholarly fixation that Dylan now does. Amazon lists 398 books by or about him--not just the usual photo relics, back stories, bios and ex-girlfriend memoirs but competing encyclopedias, philosophical treatises, bar-by-bar deconstructions and syntactical Baedekers galore. Welcome to the Rolling Tenure Review.

Can Dylan's work sustain high scrutiny? Yes, if it's placed in a particular cultural context. Dylan's is a hybrid art, as Robert Christgau has observed. Synthesis is the key to its vitality. High and low are one; fishermen hold flowers. The best Dylan critics -- e.g., Christgau, Marcus, Tim Riley -- situate him in a musical/social tradition that includes, most notably, the blues. But there have always been intellectuals who insisted on yoking Dylan to the fine-art cart.


Digg!

Richard Goldstein writes about the connections between pop culture, politics and sexuality.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
HI RICHARD!!! HI RICHARD!!!
Posted by: Longdream on May 13, 2006 1:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
*jumps up and down, waving*

I loved you almost as much as I did Dylan! You sure could over-analyze a rock song, though. I over-intellectualized to beat the band in those days, too.

Bobby Dylan put the words in my mouth the first time I marched against the war, in 1967. He showed me how druggies saw each other when I was innocent, how it felt when love was worse than pain before I loved, how you could love people and HATE them at the same time. He went to high school and college with me as surely as did any of my friends. He was unplugged, plugged, and then unplugged, and then plugged into Jesus. He let us go through all his shit with him. I will always cherish him.

And you need to take Joni out of that pack. She rules as surely as he does.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dylan: Totally Straight?
Posted by: Cafe on May 28, 2006 6:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's easy to lock into the words and sentiments placed front and center in dylan's best known songs. his potency remains formidable. but i differ with the writer on dylan's sexual orientation as being totally heterosexual. dig a bit deeper into his oeuvre, and one might find hints of a hushed expression of ambiguity about where dylan is coming from.

if we agree that each and every word of a dylan song, however ambiguous, has been carefully cherry picked by dylan, and that nothing is random or casually tossed out, how can we explain away certain less famous lines?

for example, in 'not dark yet', dylan sings, "I've been to gay Paree, I've followed the river and I got to the sea
I've been down on the bottom of a world full of lies
I ain't looking for nothing in anyone's eyes." a seduction gone wrong? sea as in C? who knows? could dylan have been hiding a message in plain sight?

in 'things have changed', he sings, 'Ain't no shortcuts, gonna dress in drag, Only a fool in here would think he's got anything to prove.'

now, in a world where, apparently, even jodie foster, tom cruise, and others don't feel it is advisable to come out, would we really believe for one second that dylan would risk the franchise by exploring his own sexual identity too openly? after all, his life is his business, isn't it? same goes for springsteen. before you start thinking that i am a gay man fantasying, i might add that i'm a straight woman and devoted fan of both these artists, and as such i have to say that i read gay innuendo through the boss's work, too.

maybe it's time for the straight rock world to once again shed its faux naivete and acknowledge that these boundaries are just not that clearly drawn, not even for iconic, legendary, hot shot american rock heroes. and ain't nothing wrong with that, either.

another thing; my own nuanced read on dylan view of women is not that he is a woman hater, as such, but has real codependent tendencies. ps i loved what was said about leonard and other plumbing the depths of intimacy better than dylan. somehow, that's been the biggest disappointment in dylan's work, in my view at least. after all is said and down, he didn't seem to find enduring redemption in love, primal, elevated, or whatever. he's so self-consciously grumpy these days that you have to laugh. i guess wit and charm have worn thin in his world.

final comment; to quote the obvious, does anyone ever consider what a poison fame really is in this world? dylan would never be so ungrateful as to say it outright these days. when he was younger he tangled with the idea more openly. fame sure did feed him good, too. but really, it must be its own unending hell. here we are, strangers, concerning ourselves with his love life...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Re Dylan Straight x2
Posted by: Cafe on May 28, 2006 8:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
first, just realized that we dutch have different views of being gay than you americans, so in the interest of sensitivity, i would like to amend what i wrote in my previous post to read, in the subjunctive voice, 'were that tom cruise were gay' and 'were that jodie foster were gay', they might, given the the market demographics upon which they bank, resist exposing themselves as homosexuals. sorry for that, tom and jodie, if you happen to read this. of course, i know nothing more about your sexual preferences than i do about dylan's.

second, this thought occurred to me. i mean, if i'm speculating, why not speculate more fully? could a theory of dylan being gay explain why dylan's straight love life, in later years, has left him writing such apparently bitter, and sadly, cliched songs about love? i kind of dropped the ball on this in my first post, but upon reflection see it more clearly now. perhaps it's nothing more than a tangential observation tagged to wild, inventive speculation based upon a couple of lesser known lyrics, yet all the same, not necessarily irrelevant.

i really hope i don't begin a 'dylan is gay' rumor. that's not the point. i have no idea whether he is or isn't, but the door seemed open to pose the question.

also, wonderful and thoughtful as the article was, it was with such overwhelming self-assurance that mr. goldstein seemed to project pure all-american heterosexuality onto bob that, in my view, at least, it seemed to beg some kind of rebuttal. in the age of brokeback mountain, might we be allowed to view guys in cowboy hats in a different light these days....?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]