Category: RWB

Posted on

Preserved in Desire (Bob Dylan)

The Cinch Review

(Marking the death of Hurricane Carter, here’s a reprint of this piece from some years back reflecting on Bob Dylan’s songwriting around the time of his 1975 album, Desire.)

Bob Dylan Desire

Thanks to Jay for sending me links to two stories from NorthJersey.com (one and two) which ruminate on the case of Hurricane Carter, to coincide with the fortieth anniversary of the shootings in Paterson, New Jersey.

Just past 2:30 a.m., June 17, 1966, Paterson police detective Jim Lawless enters Lafayette Bar & Grill, 428 E. 18th St. A half dozen other officers are on their way to the scene.

Behind the long wooden counter, bartender James Oliver, 51, lies in his own blood, his spine severed by a blast from a 12-gauge shotgun. Dead.

Fred Nauyoks, 61, shot in the head, shot-gunned in the back, ice still melting in the drink in front of him, slumps onto the bar. Dead.

His friend, William Marins, shot in the head with a .32 caliber handgun, staggers around, blood flowing from his forehead and left eye. He dies in 1973, of unrelated causes.

Hazel Tanis, 51, hit in the left side with shotgun pellets and shot in the right breast, stomach, lower abdomen and genital area, has been rushed to a hospital. She lives, in severe pain in St. Joseph’s Hospital, for another month.

The articles take a fairly detailed and long view of the entire case, and are well worth reading if that interests you.

Relevant to Dylan’s famous song, there is this mention:

The New York Times features Carter in a front-page story in 1974, and singer-songwriter Bob Dylan brings out “Hurricane,” a decidedly one-sided account that includes the verse, “Here comes the story of the Hurricane, the man the authorities came to blame, for somethin’ that he never done. Put in a prison cell, but one time he could-a been, the champion of the world.” It has at least one local side-effect: Patricia Valentine, a key witness, finds her dog dead outside her house. Someone puts a bullet through her front window.

It’s not clear how the direct link can be made between Dylan’s record and those attacks on Patricia Valentine, but there you go. There can be no doubt that “Miss Patty Valentine” felt oppressed at hearing her name pronounced on the airwaves in a very unflattering tone.

Certainly, “Hurricane” is a “one-sided account” of the controversy. And it would be hard to think of a ballad ever written to honor or defend someone that didn’t present a one-sided view. It would be strange indeed to hear a song with verse after verse of arguments presenting both the defense and prosecution cases, and ending with something like, “Now it’s up to you the listener to figure it out.” One would guess that Dylan himself hopes to this day that Rubin Carter was indeed innocent. Clearly he believed it at the time: “Hurricane” cannot be dismissed as merely an exercise in writing a very particular type of song (although I think it is also that); it was an unabashed joining of the battle to have him freed. It would be interesting to ask Dylan how he feels about it now. Of-course, he didn’t sit in the courtroom through all the trials and appeals, so he can’t be expected to deliver a detailed and balanced opinion. But the question would be what made him give himself over entirely to this particular cause (when he had most certainly been entreated in vain for the sake of many others) and does he feel any ambivalence about it all these decades later? He hasn’t performed the song publicly since 1975. Continue reading “Preserved in Desire (Bob Dylan)”

Posted on

Bob Dylan in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Bob Dylan played yesterday, April 10th, in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon), Vietnam. He delivered a set list that was in keeping with the kinds of shows he’s been doing the last couple of years. Reportedly, the venue was “half-empty” (or, as one may prefer to think, half-full) but this didn’t prevent Bob from delivering a relatively rare second encore, with the song Forever Young. This is the full list of songs he played: Continue reading “Bob Dylan in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam”

Posted on

Spirit on the Water: A Return to Paradise

Bob Dylan’s song “Spirit on the Water” from his album Modern Times has been mentioned a few times on this website. It’s difficult for this listener to hear the tune any other way but as a kind of playful love song to God, or perhaps more interestingly as a playful dialogue between the creature and the Creator. I don’t think there’s any need (and at any rate this writer doesn’t have the appetite) to go down line by line and impose a rigorous interpretation. Each time I hear the song I hear something a little different, and that’s one of the great joys of Dylan’s work, after all.

One verse that has gotten close attention here previously, however, is the penultimate verse, the lyric of which goes like this:

I wanna be with you in paradise
And it seems so unfair
I can’t go to paradise no more
I killed a man back there

This gets one thinking just because it seems wrong, or seems like a puzzle demanding to be solved. On the face of it, if the singer is talking about joining God in heaven, then why is he saying that it’s impossible for him to do it, due to the killing of a man? It is biblically pretty much beyond question that even murder does not put one beyond God’s capacity for mercy and for love (though far be it from my intention here to unduly promote the behavior). And how could the singer have killed a man in paradise, anyway?

Well, some time back, a reader named Kim wrote and suggested a really neat way of hearing this verse. She suggested that Bob might be referring to an actual Earthly place named Paradise, e.g., Paradise, Texas (pop. 459). This opens up a new and amusing interpretation; basically, this involves hearing it as a pun which the singer is making to his Creator. He’s saying, “I want to be with you in paradise,” as if making a straightforward prayer, and then comically mourning the fact that he can’t go back to Paradise (the town) because he shot a man there — something that maybe only God knows; i.e., it’s like a private joke between them. Of-course, I’m destroying all possible humor in it by spelling it out, but it fits both because we know how much Dylan loves even the silliest-seeming puns and because we also know how he enjoys Western motifs.

So that’s one way of understanding the verse.

However, another reader, recently coming across the post where that idea was discussed, suggests an alternative understanding. Thanks to Kent for his e-mail:

I saw elsewhere on your site where one reader proposed the idea that the line: “I can’t go to paradise no more; I killed a man back there…” Was referring to Paradise as a town, perhaps in Paradise, TX, etc…

May I also make another proposal: Is it possible that in said line, “Paradise” could be referring to the fleshly desires of the old man, aka sinful nature, and Mr. Dylan is saying that it seems unfair, but he can’t go to “paradise” no more (returning to the sinful nature) because he “killed a man back there,” meaning he put to death the misdeeds of his own body when he became “crucified with the Messiah,” upon his salvation through Him?

That’s a fascinating idea. I honestly think that something like it has flitted through my own mind on listening to the song, but I never stopped to put it into words for myself. The reference would be to the New Testament, and St. Paul in Romans, chapter 6. Here’s part of where he writes on the concept of “dying with Christ” beginning at verse 6 (ESV):

We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.



So, with this in mind, when the singer refers to the fact that he “killed a man back there,” he’s actually referring to the death of that self which was enslaved to sin. This is very interesting and resonant indeed. The idea of paradise as a metaphor for that life enslaved to sin is not as obvious, but, on the other hand, total indulgence of one’s sinful desires can appear like a temptation of paradise. And who on this Earth isn’t sometimes guilty of mistaking paradise for that home across the road?

At a minimum, it’s another fruitful area of reflection to throw into the mix. It’s an illustration of how even the problematic or difficult-to-interpret lines in some of Dylan’s songs of faith can make their contribution simply by compelling one to ponder what they might mean.

Some might say that’s giving way too much leeway to a songwriter who is not getting across his point with sufficient clarity — but around these parts, we just call it a normal day.

Posted on

Bob Dylan Obit

There’s an exceptional article on Dylan — in particular latter day Dylan — written by Robert Roper, in an online magazine called Obit today. Thanks a lot to Karen for the link. It’s called Bob Dylan: Together Through Life.

While the Baby Boomers were busy building their ordinary lives, buying vacation homes and packing their IRA’s with ready dough, then getting foreclosed on a lot of those houses and seeing a third of the value of their pensions disappear overnight, Dylan was off somewhere shaking his head, sucking an eye-tooth, pulling at that mean little moustache he wears these days. He’s not surprised. Bad news is to be expected. Life is about harm, the collapse of hope; and then, at the very end, that unavoidable date with the Reaper. Whoopee! Thanks a lot, Bob! We needed to hear that.

Actually, many of us did, and do. When Dylan says it, it stays said. The credibility he enjoys is enormous among a certain demographic; he is the most honored American songwriter of our time, and by virtue of the prominence of American cultural product in the world, the most honored and influential songwriter on earth. Among Americans and Europeans and South Americans and Russians and South Africans and Israelis and Norwegians he enjoys the status that two centuries ago was accorded the preeminent poets – he is the Keats, Shelley, and Wordsworth of our time, our Emerson, Dickinson, and Whitman, and our Auden and Neruda and Mandelstam to boot. He has fulfilled for nearly 50 years the classic functions of the seminal poet, that is, to register his times in vivid and memorable words, and to prophesy.

It’s appropriate that an unusually perceptive article about Bob would appear in a publication that is devoted (I take it) to death, from various angles. The way in which Dylan’s work has always faced up to “death’s honesty” is arguably the single most distinguishing characteristic of it, in the context of the last fifty years of pop culture. That alone has qualified it to be called prophetic.

Of-course, one can in a certain sense “face” death’s honesty and come up with nihilism — and many have done just that and still do — but another distinguishing characteristic of Dylan’s work is that this is not his conclusion. It’s not the taste left on one’s lips after consuming his songs. He once joked back in some 1960s interview that all his songs end with: “Good luck, hope you make it.” In actuality, they do. “Everything’s collapsing, the world is depraved, you can’t trust anyone, you’re gonna die … hope you make it!” The question is what making it really means.

Posted on

Leonard Cohen: An Inducted Songwriter

The other night, Leonard Cohen was inducted into the Songwriters’ Hall of Fame.

Well, maybe you’re thinking like me: Given that there is such a thing as the Songwriters’ Hall of Fame, how come a guy like Leonard Cohen wasn’t inducted twenty years ago or more?

I guess they’ll be getting around to Jerome Kern any day now.

Cohen’s connections to Bob Dylan are many, although I think that the fundamental connection is likely way beyond any of the details.

One of the most quotable quotes regarding Dylan’s art has come from Cohen, who in an interview way back when recalled reading a review of Bob’s Shot of Love album in which the reviewer dismissed it as containing “only one masterpiece,” namely Every Grain of Sand. Cohen exclaimed, “My God! Only one masterpiece. Does this guy have any idea what it takes to produce a single masterpiece?”

Leonard said a lot with those few words, and he’s always been able to say a lot with relatively few words. I guess by that I mean that although he’s far from the most prolific songwriter of the last five decades, his songs resonate massively.

Posted on

A Commercial Message: Fight the Boycott

As at least a partial-Irish-ex-pat, I keep an eye on news from the Emerald Isle. Today I saw this story: Group calls for boycott of Israeli products.

The Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign is urging a boycott of Israeli products and services – saying Palestine must not be forgotten.

Two members of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla will be holding a public meeting at the Central Hotel on Exchequer Street in Dublin this afternoon at 2pm.

Fintan Lane and Derek Graham were on board different ships intercepted by Israelis while trying to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza.

The IPSC is also hoping to highlight what it calls the complicity of Veolia, the operators of the Luas in Dublin, with Israel’s regime. [sic]

A spokesperson for the Irish Anti-War Movement said: “It is vital the murders of peace activists trying to break the siege of Gaza, and most importantly the cruel siege itself are not forgotten and that Israel is held to account for what it is doing to the Palestinian people.

“The easiest and most concrete way, ordinary people can put pressure on Israel and show their solidarity with the Palestinian people is by supporting the campaign of boycott, sanctions and divestment.

“Today we want to make the shops and shoppers in Dublin city aware of the connection between Israeli atrocity and some of the goods stocked in Dublin shops, and appeal to them not to buy these goods or stock them.

“Israel does very significant trade with Ireland. We need to hurt Israel in the pocket if we are to put pressure on them to end their cruel oppression of the Palestinian people.”

Charming indeed. This kind of thing is breaking out all over, but it’s nothing new either. The campaign of divestment and boycott against Israel has been going on for years, centered amongst the European left. The current situation merely gives it a renewed head of steam and focal point. And make no mistake: The attackers on the Mavi Marmara gave their lives for just this purpose, knowing that the next day’s headlines would deal a massive blow to the image of “the Zionist regime,” and rally the opposition of those across the world only too willing to swallow the ready-made narrative of “Israeli atrocity,” pushed with vigor by the likes of Turkey’s Erdogan.

Most countries in Israel’s neighborhood refuse to trade with the Zionist regime anyway, so an economic boycott by the larger world is no small thing. In fact, it’s part of a growing multi-pronged existential threat.

That’s why I’ve added to my sidebar a link like this: FIGHT THE BOYCOTT: BUY ISRAELI!

That takes you to Amazon.com and some products labeled as “Made in Israel.” As an added bonus, buying anything from Amazon after following a link from THE CINCH REVIEW benefits this website at no added cost to you, the discerning consumer!

Of-course, there are plenty of other ways of buying Israeli products. You can find many listed on this page: Ways To Help Israel.

Shalom, and go raibh maith agat.

Posted on

More on Israel, Gaza, the Blockade and the Blockheads

Charles Krauthammer’s column today is as concise and powerful as his best.

The world is outraged at Israel’s blockade of Gaza. Turkey denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The usual U.N. suspects, Third World and European, join in. The Obama administration dithers.

But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel — a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets.

He goes on to assert, correctly, that this entire escapade has nothing to do with helping the people of Gaza, and everything to do with depriving Israel of any means of self-defense, even such passive means as a blockade. He also outlines the result of every recent “land for peace” gesture by Israel: only more attacks, from enemies who are now nearer. He finishes:

The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, six million — that number again — hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized, and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists — Iranian in particular — openly prepare a more final solution.

But read it all.

And courtesy of the Canada-Israel Committee, here are some figures on how much aid is regularly delivered to the people of Gaza.

Despite the fact that Israel publicly offered to inspect and then transfer the flotilla’s aid to Gaza several days prior to the incident, many opponents of Israel are now making wild accusations that humanitarian supplies are being blocked from entering Gaza.

The facts put these charges to rest – just take a look at how much aid Israel regularly delivers to Gaza, and what it means in real terms for Gazans:

  • Over one million tons of humanitarian supplies were delivered by Israel to the people of Gaza in the past 18 months – that’s equal to nearly one ton of aid for every man, woman and child in Gaza.
     
  • In the first quarter of 2010 alone (January-March), Israel delivered 94,500 tons of supplies to Gaza. It’s very easy to miss what that actually means for the people of Gaza. The breakdown includes:
    • 40,000 tons of wheat – which is equal to 53 million loaves of bread;
    • 2,760 tons of rice – which equals 69 million servings;
    • 1,987 tons of clothes and footwear – the equivalent weight of 3.6 million pairs of jeans; and
    • 553 tons of milk powder and baby food – equivalent to over 3.1 million days of formula for an average six-month-old baby.
  • This reflects a long-term effort on the part of Israel to deliver a massive and comprehensive supply of aid to Gaza’s civilians, while restricting the ability of Hamas to import missiles that have been launched at the cities of southern Israel. In 2009 alone:
    • During the Muslim holy days of Ramadan and Eid al-Adha, Israel shipped some 11,000 head of cattle into Gaza – enough to provide 8.8 million meals of beef;
    • More than 3,000 tons of hypochlorite were delivered by Israel to Gaza for water purification purposes – that’s 60 billion gallons of purified water; and
    • Israel brought some 4,883 tons of medical equipment and medicine into Gaza – a weight equivalent to over 360,000 260-piece mobile trauma first aid kits.

Read the full statistics and judge for yourself. Humanitarian crisis in Gaza? Not according to the facts.

Posted on

Positively Princeton: Professors, Pickers and Provocateurs

seminar protest music

meditation on music and politics

Yours truly was thrilled to be able to attend a lunch seminar held at Princeton University yesterday, titled “Pickers, Pop Fronters, and Them ‘Talkin John Birch Paranoid Blues’: A Meditation on Music and Politics.” (Say that five times fast.) It was held under the auspices of the James Madison Program at that university, whose founding director is Robert P. George.

Professor George introduced the speakers: Lauren Weiner and Ronald Radosh (it was Ron who had kindly invited me) and Professor George had also brought his guitar and mandolin, the better to later perform some tunes with those same speakers and with guest Bob Cohen (the estimable Cantor Bob who has been mentioned several times before in this space, e.g. at this link.). Cornel West, also of Princeton, was a guest attendee (and ended up contributing some deft backing vocals to the musical mélange).

I didn’t take any notes at all, but I’ll offer my flawed reporting on the seminar anyhow. The genesis for the get-together was Lauren Weiner’s fascinating and entertaining article (in the forthcoming issue of First Things) titled “Where Have All the Lefties Gone?” (Lauren is a writer who has written on history and politics for the Wall Street Journal, The New Criterion and many other publications.) Her article traces some of the history of various folk revivals in the United States and the efforts to turn the songs and the whole genre towards the goal of promoting, well, Marxist revolution. Her talk was very much centered on the same themes as her piece. One of her most interesting observations was on the way in which the whole effort finally gained its greatest traction by becoming focused on anti-anti-communism (in the wake of events in the 1950s related to the House Un-American Activities Committee and the Senate investigations of Joseph McCarthy). To quote a little from her article:

Betty Sanders did a jaunty 1952 version of “Talking Un-American Blues” about the subpoena (eventually canceled) that she and her coauthor Irwin Silber received from the House Un-American Activities Committee. Alan Lomax and Michael Loring sang (to the tune of “Yankee Doodle”): “Re-pu-bli-cans they call us ‘Red,’ the Demmies call us ‘Commie.’ / No matter how they slice it, boys, it’s still the old salami.”

This was a new, coy art that was to grow in significance: ridiculing one’s adversaries for correctly discerning one’s politics. […] The 1962 song “The Birch Society” by Malvina Reynolds has the typical Pop Front blend of brazenness and coyness — with an extra dollop of sanctimony, a Reynolds specialty. “They’re afraid of nearly everything that’s for the general good,” she sang, “they holler ‘Red’ if something’s said for peace and brotherhood.” The fact that they also hollered Red if somebody actually was a Red got lost in the shuffle. For here, at last, was a rallying point — anti-anti-communism — with a potential for wide appeal. It became fundamental to the politics of nearly everyone who was left-of-center and was adopted by legions of middle-class young people unmoved by concepts of such as worker ownership of the means of production.

Dylan’s song “Talkin’ John Birch Paranoid Blues” had to get a mention in this context and did. One observation I would make myself about Dylan is the following: Even while he was flirting with these themes and entertaining his left-wing friends and audiences, he also in some way seemed to be looking right through the transparency of it all. It might be summed up by a verse of “I Shall Be Free No 10”:

Now, I’m liberal, but to a degree
I want ev’rybody to be free
But if you think that I’ll let Barry Goldwater
Move in next door and marry my daughter
You must think I’m crazy!
I wouldn’t let him do it for all the farms in Cuba.

Those so inclined would hear that as a slam on Barry Goldwater, the conservative Republican. Yet, the humor is double-edged and, to me, the sharper edge is the one that has the intolerant “liberal” as the real clown. (And obviously that’s underlined all the more by Bob’s statement in his memoir Chronicles that his “favorite politician” during his early time in the Village was none other than Barry Goldwater, although he felt he couldn’t share this fact with anyone at the time.)

Anyhow, Lauren’s talk also proceeded to reflect on some of the ironies in how that which was once serious-left-wing-movement-music became assimilated into the capitalist musical culture, and transformed, and largely defanged.

Ronald Radosh then spoke. (Ron is the author of many books including his really essential memoir Commies: A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left and the Leftover Left and most recently A Safe Haven: Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel, coauthored with Allis Radosh.) Unfortunately, I don’t have an article to which to refer and with which to cheat when it comes to Ron’s talk, so I won’t attempt to summarize its main points, but it was a wide-ranging trip through related territory and beyond. He talked in particular of the role of Pete Seeger in the movement (under whose tutelage he himself learned to play banjo). He recalled watching a recent tribute to Seeger, on his 90th birthday, where Bruce Springsteen specifically gave him credit for having been “singing songs of peace since the 1930s.” As Ron observed, what was ironically left out and is doubtless unknown to many who watched the tributes is that those “songs of peace” in the 1930s were in defense of Joseph Stalin’s then-ally, Adolf Hitler. Ron was also interviewed for a tribute to Seeger, apparently at Pete’s own suggestion, so that a mention of Seeger’s errors (e.g. his persistent refusal to criticize Stalin until very recently) might temper all of the adulation. However, Ron’s remarks about such matters ended up on the cutting room floor, leaving only his pleasant recollections about learning how to play the banjo from Pete.

Ron also shared some memories of the late musician Erik Darling, who replaced Pete Seeger in the group The Weavers, and then had a fish-out-of-water perspective on the whole milieu, being himself actually more of a fan of Ayn Rand than Karl Marx.

There was some discussion after Ron’s talk but the people who had brought instruments were obviously eager to start using them, and things progressed quickly to a melodic exploration of the same landscape. One of the themes was the way in which old tunes are turned to again and again (or co-opted, if you prefer) with new lyrics applied; in particular the way old gospel and spiritual numbers were recruited for new causes. So we heard how “Jesus walked that lonesome valley, He had to walk it by Himself” became “You gotta go down and join the union, You got to join it by yourself”.

On a different but related angle, Bob Cohen illustrated how the great Hollywood composer Dimitri Tiomkin leaned heavily upon a Yiddish tune called “Dem Milner’s Trern” in writing his song “Do Not Forsake Me” for the film High Noon. Bob also pointed out that the same melody can be heard prominently in the film A Serious Man by the Coen Brothers. Later, Cohen also sang a little of “When The World’s On Fire,” a hymn recorded by the Carter Family, which provided the tune for Woody Guthrie’s “This Land Is Your Land.”

Lauren Weiner sang one of her favorite songs of the coming revolution, “The Banks Are Made of Marble,” with the support of the ensemble. Ron Radosh led the band in “Which Side Are You On,” also giving us some lines from the late Dave Van Ronk’s humorous rewrite of the tune, where he was looking back on some of the ironies and conflicts of the leftie/folk revival and asking “Which side are we on?” Robbie George also gently performed a beautiful folk gospel song (the name of which, to my great consternation, is escaping me today) with Cornel West’s poignant supporting voice. A rousing version of the Harold Arlen/Johnny Mercer classic “Ac-cent-tchu-ate The Positive” ensued, and the proceedings ended with a boisterous “This Land Is Your Land.”

So, I couldn’t tell you exactly what may have been established by the seminar, but one thing in any case seems clear to me: music is bigger than politics, certainly more enduring, and makes a much deeper connection to the human spirit. It seems that even when songs are turned to the most utilitarian ends and strapped to some flawed cause du jour that—if they are genuinely great tunes—they will ultimately be reclaimed by music herself.

…

And I couldn’t really close without mentioning this: When I had the pleasure of being introduced to Professor West, he told me that he had gotten the subtitle of his memoir from Bob Dylan. He was on his busy way and I didn’t ask for specifics, but I later checked, and his recently published book is titled Brother West: Living and Loving Out Loud. Well, that’s not a Bob Dylan line with which I was familiar. I wondered if it might be from Tarantula or something. But no; some Googling eventually supplied the answer:

The title of the memoir comes from a chance encounter with Bob Dylan’s drummer in an airport, who remarked to Mr. West that Mr. Dylan had said that “Cornel West is someone who lives his life out loud.” It was natural to add love into the title to produce Brother West: Living and Loving Out Loud.

So there you go.

Posted on

Some Good Words for Christmas

Let’s get back to some positivity around here. There have been many appreciative reviews of Christmas in the Heart, and here’s a smattering of those.

From U.S. Catholic and John Christman (yes, that’s his name, folks): Bob Dylan puts the mystery back in Christmas.

For some it’s a perplexing mess: traditional instruments, back-up singers who seem to have recently stepped out of a studio session with Patsy Cline, mention of former presidents “Nixon, Bush and Clinton” with reindeers Donner and Blitzen, and finally, Bob Dylan sings in Latin. But some may find delight where others find confusion. But when Dylan sings “Winter Wonderland” it is certainly a musical landscape filled with bizarre and strange wonders.

But with this album, Dylan has given us a little of the mystery that lies at the heart of Christmas. Childhood memories of Christmas, for many, do recall a sense of wonder. Dylan’s unexpected handling of Christmas music can remind us of the unexpected that resides at the heart of Christmas: the Incarnation. That mystery continues to perplex and delight.

This is not to say that I think Dylan intended this mystery as the central focus of his Christmas album. But, the gift of mystery or a true surprise at Christmas can be wonderful for those whose lives are burdened by hardships and the relentless mundane routine of Christmas festivities. Something new that strikes of mystery is welcome. I, for my part, had to wipe the tears from my eyes as I laughed whole heartedly at Dylan’s curious renditions.

From Detroit’s Metro Times, Bill Holdship gives us: Croakin’ around the Christmas tree.

One probably imagines blindly that a vocalist like Dylan should never croon “Do You Hear What I Hear?” or “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” — but neither rendition is at all bad, and they’re even actually kinda touching. There are parts of “Little Drummer Boy,” where he harmonizes with the choir, that are actually quite beautiful. And when he verbally croaks (literally) on other parts of the album, a true fan might simply think, “Well, that’s Bob!” and be kinda touched by that as well. He’s never been a traditional “singer,” but he’s almost always been able to “sell” a song.

[…]

What almost no one mentions about this album, though, is its great production, once again by Dylan under his “Jack Frost” pseudonym. Musically, it sounds just like those albums baby boomers of a certain age certainly, but I’d imagine most Americans in general, grew up hearing every year around this time, right down to the female backing singers. You could almost substitute Bob’s voice with Andy Williams’; that’s how authentic it sounds. Bottom line: You may very well hate this album, especially if you’re not a fan of Christmas music or Bob Dylan. But if you are a fan, you may think that — even though it’s one of the most inconsequential albums of Dylan’s career — it’s still pretty damn good … and a total hoot on top of it all.

From Douglas Newman in Houston’s Culture Map, we have: Isn’t it ironic? Dylan surprises again with holiday CD.

Surreal? That’s an understatement. A colossal miscalculation on par with the “Self Portrait” debacle of 1970? Not even close. While it certainly confirms his Colbert-sized testicles and a penchant for sly humor, more than anything else it solidifies his standing as a master stylist whose interpretive skills nearly match his songwriting acumen.

Once I got over the initial shock of hearing Dylan in such a warm and fuzzy setting, I soon realized that his haggard croak and simple arrangements added new life to these old chestnuts. “Silver Bells” is rendered as a stately waltz with an underpinning of pedal steel and Dylan’s overly-deliberate delivery. “Little Drummer Boy” marches along at a mellow pace, nudged forward by a haunting guitar reverb and steady drum roll, all of which is layered beneath Dylan’s vocal and the harmonies of a female back up singer. You can almost envision this song sitting alongside some of the darker tracks on “Oh Mercy” or “Time Out of Mind.”

I like how both of the reviewers above give props to Dylan’s production and to the musicians and vocalists on the album. Too many articles I’ve seen (written by people who’ve never made records themselves) have been dismissive of these elements, as if making the album sound like it does was effortless for all involved. No: it only sounds effortless.

From Cross Rhythms, Darren Hirst says a lot including this:

The first track, “Here Comes Santa Claus”, tells us a lot about where this album is going. The backing vocalists and Dylan’s lead vocal are hopelessly at odds. The backing vocalists sound like they’ve stepped out of another era. Imagine a pre-second world war vocal group who have not aged and who have not been effected by any musical ideas that have washed up on the world’s shores since that time. That is what you have here. Dylan, by contrast, sounds every bit of his 68 years and every bit an old blues singer who has been on the road for ever. There is a line on Dylan’s previous album about him having the blood of the land in his voice. You can hear here what he means by that sentiment. He sounds as old as the earth.

Also the childishness of the song, a real appreciation of the sentimentality of the holidays and the true meaning of Christmas come face-to-face in another clash of ideas: “Peace on earth will come to all/If we just follow the light/Let’s give thanks to the Lord above/.Because Santa Claus comes tonight.” On one hand, it might seem ridiculous but on the other it might actually work. I think it might depend on how much you like Christmas songs and how much you can tolerate Dylan’s voice.

That sense of three things coming together is all over this album – right down to its design.

We could go on forever here. And certainly, for every positive and appreciative review you can find a completely flummoxed and negative one, but that’s to be expected. I think all in all Dylan ought to be pretty happy with the press.

Currently in the U.S. charts Billboard has it at number 1 … in the category of “Folk Albums;” number 21 in “Holiday Albums” (where it originally entered at number 1); number 24 under “Rock Albums,” and number 95 overall on the main album chart.

With some gift copies that I have yet to buy (and I know I’m not alone), I would expect its sales are going to pick up further towards December 25th …

Posted on

Bob Dylan talks to Bill Flanagan about Christmas In The Heart

Just as there is no distance in the performances on Christmas In The Heart, there is little to wonder about in the conversation Bob Dylan has with Bill Flanagan, published by the North American Street Newspaper Association.

BF: You really give a heroic performance of O’ LITTLE TOWN OF BETHLEHEM The way you do it reminds me a little of an Irish rebel song. There’s something almost defiant in the way you sing, “The hopes and fears of all the years are met in thee tonight.” I don’t want to put you on the spot, but you sure deliver that song like a true believer.

BD: Well, I am a true believer.

BF: You know, some people will think that Bob Dylan doing a Christmas album is meant to be ironic or a put-on. This sounds to me like one of the most sincere records you’ve ever made. Did anybody at your record company or management resist the idea?

BD: No it was my record company who compelled me to do it.

BF: Why now?

BD: Well, it just came my way now, at this time. Actually, I don’t think I would have been experienced enough earlier anyway.

BF: Some critics don’t seem to know what to make of this record. Bloomberg news said, “Some of the songs sound ironic. Does he really mean have yourself a Merry Little Christmas?” Is there any ironic content in these songs?

BD: No not at all. Critics like that are on the outside looking in. They are definitely not fans or the audience that I play to. They would have no gut level understanding of me and my work, what I can and can’t do – the scope of it all. Even at this point in time they still don’t know what to make of me.

[…]

BF: The Chicago Tribune felt this record needed more irreverence. Doesn’t that miss the point?

BD: Well sure it does, that’s an irresponsible statement anyway. Isn’t there enough irreverence in the world? Who would need more? Especially at Christmas time.

[…]

BF: Why did you pick Feeding America, Crisis UK and The World Food Program to give the proceeds of this record to?

BD: Because they get food straight to the people. No military organization, no bureaucracy, no governments to deal with.

[…]

BF: Do you have a favorite Christmas album?

BD: Maybe the Louvin Brothers. I like all the religious Christmas albums. The ones in Latin. The songs I sang as a kid.

BF: A lot of people like the secular ones.

BD: Religion isn’t meant for everybody.

Read it all, of-course.

Posted on

Christmas with the Critics

It’s past time to look at an additional smattering of reviews of Bob Dylan’s Christmas In The Heart.

Ken Tucker at WBUR says:

As is consistent with current Dylan, the album operates as a further exploration of American popular song in all its forms, no matter how uncool. In the same spirit as his satellite radio show, Christmas in the Heart contains some put-ons, some sincerity, some goofy humor and some deep dives into the mystery of what it means to celebrate the birth of Christ in both Latin and the language of kitsch.

The Salt Lake Tribune gives it a “D”, calls it “ill-conceived,” and goes on:

Dylan’s voice is a unique, interesting, compelling instrument used to best effect on his own bluesy, harrowing work. But it is, and never should be, comforting, as it strives to be here.

Further evidence of the decline of the practice of proofreading in the major media. I take it that the writer means to say that Dylan’s voice is not and never should be, comforting. As for the sentiment itself, it’s ridiculous of-course. Dylan’s voice has never been one-dimensional, and neither has his work — it’s a false dichotomy he’s attempting to create, between that which is comforting and that which is — what? — disturbing, I suppose. You can be stirred in many complex ways by Dylan’s songs and by his performances. To say that Dylan on this album is striving to be merely “comforting” with his voice is absurd. In fact it’s the unconventional and subversive nature of his singing that gives Dylan’s versions of these songs their unique quality.

A very spirited defense of Dylan’s album against various critics is that of Ian Bell in the Herald Scotland. (I’d missed this, thanks to David B. for sending me the link.)

Bob Dylan Makes Fun Record Shock. Having spent time being mistaken for Woody Guthrie, or Rimbaud, or late Picasso, or Whitman, Frost and Kerouac, you too might feel in need of a break, or even a Christmas album. So here’s more trivia: Dylan’s nom de plume/guerre when he these days produces his own albums is “Jack Frost”. You would almost think he saw Christmas In The Heart coming.

Now he sings Cahn & Holt’s “The Christmas Blues” like a man building his own bar, drink by drink. He sings a truly weird thing called “Christmas Island” (with gratuitous “aloha”) as though Ry Cooder is waiting to be invented. He sings some Latin on “Adeste Fideles”, which is funny, and claims the “arrangement” too, which is funnier.

But when the talk turns to Americana, national identity, and the sense of cultural origin and roots, someone had to say: “There has to be a Christmas record”. It’s the poetry of the mundane and heartfelt. If it also includes a saucy Betty Page nostalgia pin-up and a Leonard Freed sax-playing Santa photograph in the package, so much the better. Dylan is utterly, as William Carlos Williams had it, in the American grain. Corny, corny at Christmas, corny to make you smile, is entirely American.

Sean Wilentz (who of-course is the “BobDylan.com Historian-in-Residence”) astutely examines many of the echoes, influences and resonances audible on Christmas In The Heart.

But the most salient thing about Christmas in the Heart is how much of it consists of hits written and originally recorded in the 1940s and early 1950s—the years of Dylan’s boyhood when these songs formed a perennial American December soundscape, even for a Jewish kid. “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” first appeared in the film Meet Me in St. Louis in 1944, as sung by Judy Garland. Other standards on the album come from the same era: “The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire)” (1944) later made famous by Nat King Cole; the Andrews Sisters’ “Christmas Island” (1946); Autry’s and, later, Presley’s “Here Comes Santa Claus” (1947); and Dean Martin’s “The Christmas Blues” (1953).

It is also striking that, much as Charley Patton’s shade presides over Dylan’s superb album of 2001, Love and Theft, the benign spirit of Bing Crosby haunts Christmas in the Heart. This is not entirely surprising: After Crosby recorded “White Christmas” in 1942, he practically owned the franchise on making popular recordings of Christmas music. Still, it cannot be coincidental that, of all the Christmas material available to him, Dylan has included three of the songs most closely identified with Crosby—“I’ll Be Home for Christmas” (1943), “Silver Bells” (1952), and “Do You Hear What I Hear?” (1962)—as well as other songs that were successful for Crosby, including “Here Comes Santa Claus” (written in 1947, recorded by Crosby with the Andrews Sisters in 1949), “The Christmas Song” (recorded by Crosby in 1947), and “Winter Wonderland” (written in 1934 and recorded by Crosby in 1962). In all, 13 of the 15 songs on Christmas in the Heart, including all of the carols, were also recorded by Crosby.

And there are so many reviews out there — I know I’m missing a lot of good ones, not to mention a lot of good bad ones. But even I don’t have the appetite for reading this quantity of stuff about one record. It’s a lot more rewarding and fun to listen to it. Indeed, it’s sheer pleasure for me (temporarily putting aside the too-loud mastering of the CD), and it’s really hard to erase the smile off my face from the opening notes of Here Comes Santa Claus to that great and final amen. There’s more I want to write about how I believe the album works in a way that’s quite distinct from most other Christmas albums, but that’s for another day.

Posted on

Christmas In The Heart by Bob Dylan: Coming Soon!

Bob Dylan’s Christmas album, entitled Christmas In the Heart, is to be released on October 13th. All of Bob Dylan’s American royalties on the album, “in perpetuity”, are to go to Feeding America, a charity which provides food to the needy. All of Dylan’s international royalties, in perpetuity, are to go to similar international charities. Apparently a donation equivalent to the value of four million meals has already been guaranteed for this year to Feeding America.

More details at BobDylan.com, including this:

Bob Dylan commented, “It’s a tragedy that more than 35 million people in this country alone — 12 million of those children – often go to bed hungry and wake up each morning unsure of where their next meal is coming from. I join the good people of Feeding America in the hope that our efforts can bring some food security to people in need during this holiday season.”

Christmas In The Heart will be the 47th album from Bob Dylan, and follows his worldwide chart-topping Together Through Life, released earlier this year. Songs performed by Dylan on this new album include, “Here Comes Santa Claus,” “Winter Wonderland,” “Little Drummer Boy” and “Must Be Santa.”

The phrase “Christmas in the heart” can’t help but bring to mind the words of the reformed Ebenezer Scrooge from Charles Dickens’ famous story, when he promises, “I will honor Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year.”

However, there is also a quote attributed to a man named William T. Ellis, which includes Dylan’s title more precisely: “It is Christmas in the heart that puts Christmas in the air.”

And there are more famous quotations on the subject of Christmas with mentions of the heart, not so surprisingly. Washington Irving said, “Christmas is the season for kindling the fire of hospitality in the hall, the genial flame of charity in the heart.”

And George Matthew Adams wrote, “Let us remember that the Christmas heart is a giving heart, a wide open heart that thinks of others first. The birth of the baby Jesus stands as the most significant event in all history, because it has meant the pouring into a sick world the healing medicine of love which has transformed all manner of hearts for almost two thousand years… Underneath all the bulging bundles is this beating Christmas heart.”

In any case, Bob Dylan’s gesture is honoring all of the above sentiments. Bless you, Bob.

Posted on

Bob Dylan and Professor Gates: One More Time

What with going off on a sentimental tangent about Mr. Limbaugh in that last post, I forgot to make one more point that I had intended to make about Bob Dylan’s encounter with the police and that of Professor Gates. I did already touch on it in previous posts but just wanted to emphasize it one last time before dropping the subject.

It is regarding the time-line of the events. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. had his encounter on July 16th, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Bob Dylan was picked up on July 23rd in Long Branch, New Jersey. That is, exactly one week after Gates’ blow-out and arrest. It should be recalled that Gates’ arrest was not huge national news overnight. It took a few days to build. But one week later, on that Thursday, July 23rd, when Dylan was walking in the rain and admiring the architecture in Long Branch, the Gates story was certainly big news, and all over the media. In fact, the press conference in which President Obama famously declared that the Cambridge police had “acted stupidly” ( something from which he later back-pedaled) was held the day before, on July 22nd.

Therefore, as I said in an earlier post, the Gates story was peaking in the news just as the incident with Dylan was taking place. Dylan, as we know from interviews, pays pretty good attention to the news, even if he casts a jaundiced eye on a lot of it. But there is no way that Dylan wasn’t aware of this story.

So, this is simply something to add to the mix when thinking about Dylan’s mindset that day, and how he chose to deal with his own situation. Like Gates, Dylan had done nothing wrong, and yet was being questioned and asked to verify his identity by police, who had arrived on the scene in response to another citizen’s concerned telephone call. Knowing what had gone down with Professor Gates, and the furor still going on over it, Dylan might have used it as an outrage-multiplier. It’s easy enough to see how someone would do that — and no doubt some people across the country did do it around that time. He could have said, “What the hell is this? What do I have to prove? What are you gonna do — arrest me for nothing, like you did that professor?” A lot of people would’ve said that, and much worse.

As we know, Dylan took a different approach, one based on empathy for the cop’s situation. As a result, we didn’t even hear about the incident till Friday, August 14th — three weeks later. (I don’t know what in particular made it public at that time—of-course the police records are public information—but I suspect it may have come from Long Branch business administrator Howard Woolley, who was heavily quoted in the first story from the Associated Press.)

For the sake of it, and before leaving the topic behind, let’s throw into the mix Christopher Hitchens’ recent column inspired by the Gates’ affair, and his own story of taking a nighttime walk in a California suburb this summer:

Suddenly, a police cruiser was growling quietly next to me and shining a light. “What are you doing?” I don’t know quite what it was—I’d been bored and delayed that week at airport security—but I abruptly decided that I was in no mood, so I responded, “Who wants to know?” and continued walking. “Where do you live?” said the voice. “None of your business,” said I. “What’s under your jacket?” “What’s your probable cause for asking?” I was now almost intoxicated by my mere possession of constitutional rights. There was a pause, and then the cop asked almost pleadingly how he was to know if I was an intruder or burglar, or not. “You can’t know that,” I said. “It’s for me to know and for you to find out. I hope you can come up with probable cause.” The car gurgled alongside me for a bit and then pulled away. No doubt the driver then ran some sort of check, but he didn’t come back.

This is almost identical to Bob’s situation — even in the respect of Hitchens being an old white guy too — except that in this case we don’t know that any call had been made to the police. We can probably assume that there wasn’t—that the mere fact of someone moving about with their legs in some California suburbs is sufficient to arouse suspicion in a passing police officer. Hitchens chose to stubbornly (but apparently not obscenely) assert his rights. The police officer let it go on meeting that resistance, probably satisfied at that point anyway that this guy made an unlikely robber or burglar. Hitchens goes on to doubt that he could have gotten away with this, or that he would have tried it, had he been a black man.

On the other hand, if Hitchens had reacted by saying, “Don’t you know who I am?!” (and his mug is a little better known, from TV, than that of Professor Gates) and loudly accusing the cop of violating his rights, then things also might have ended rather more unpleasantly.

And if he had claimed to be Paul McCartney, out on tour, perhaps the police officer would have wanted to give him a ride back to his hotel…

…

Also see Ron Radosh’s blog on the subject of Dylan’s encounter with the police, in which he picks up on some of what’s been said hereabouts.

Posted on

A Rush Judgment

U.S. radio talk-show host and living institution Rush Limbaugh mentioned the July 23rd Bob Dylan encounter with the Long Branch, NJ police department on his show today. He highlighted the difference between how Dylan responded to the cops versus how Professor Gates did (which I did in my own way here a couple of days ago).

Now, the situation was resolved uneventfully, the peace officers and Bob Dylan going their own way. There were no problems, not like Henry Louis Gates and Sergeant Crowley. You contrast that with what I call the Boston massacre, the insult that rocked the nation, the Professor Gates affair. The police didn’t recognize a professorial professor, and they reacted when yo mama got confrontational. They said, “Wait a minute, we’re going to arrest you, dude. You’re being contentious here with no reason.” Now, I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say that Bob Dylan, the name, is a zillion times more known that Henry Louis Gates, and so is Dylan’s face, and so is his voice. Now, the learning experience here is that a rock composer and singer 40 years back can teach civil behavior better than a tenured college professor.

Nevertheless Rush made some factual errors in telling the story. That’s not surprising, since he seemed to be referencing (and indeed on his site he linked to) the original “drive-by-media” Associated Press article on it. In that article, it was said that neither of the police officers involved had ever even heard of Bob Dylan. Later reporting by Chris Francescani of ABC, including a direct interview with Officer Kristie Buble, asserted that this was not true. The officers knew in general terms who Bob Dylan was, but they did not, however, recognize the rain-soaked man who’d been picked up as being Bob Dylan.

Mr. Limbaugh also made some swipes at the “Woodstock generation,” particularly in the light of all the remembrances of the Woodstock concert which have been flooding the media lately, with the 40th anniversary of the event. I certainly don’t mind hearing knocks at all that stuff, but it’s not accurate to include Bob Dylan with the same broad brush strokes. I guess it proves there’s still work to do around here. Oddly, Rush noted that Bob Dylan wasn’t actually at the Woodstock gig, but added, “He couldn’t get there because his son was sick.” Where the heck did he get that story? Mr. Snerdly doing some too-fast fact-checking?

Rush also took a swipe at Bob’s singing ability, which is too bad, but there you go. I think there are few if any better (and funnier) commentators on and observers of the political scene in America than Rush Limbaugh — and if you don’t agree you probably haven’t listened to him for any length of time — but when it comes to his taste in music, well … let’s just say that when he invokes something I genuinely dig it’s generally just a coincidence.

…

It’s doubtless not relevant to why Rush doesn’t dig Dylan’s singing voice, but for those who don’t know, including overseas readers: radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh went completely deaf in 2001. He lost all hearing in both ears. While this loss of hearing was occurring, over a period of months, he continued doing his daily three-hour radio talk-show without informing his listeners that he was becoming and indeed had become deaf. I recall that I was listening to him a lot back then, and noticing some strange changes in his voice. Others noticed too, and sent him e-mails wondering what was wrong with the broadcast, or with the microphone, or with him. I remember him point-blank telling his listeners one day that there was nothing whatever wrong at his end, and that they should just adjust their own sets! Of-course he knew very well what was wrong, and thinking back about this later it struck me how that statement was as poignant as it was also typically humorous on his part. Being unable to hear his own voice anymore, he was losing the ability to control how it sounded. And this was for someone who was not merely a radio talker but also a pretty talented mimic when he felt like it (his imitation of Bill Clinton remains the most hilarious and spot-on I’ve ever heard). When he finally told his listeners that he was deaf, I was flabbergasted and not a little devastated also. People who don’t listen to him, or who hate his politics — or both — will sneer, but to me, it was equivalent in its cruel irony to Ludwig Van Beethoven losing his hearing. Limbaugh is a master of the medium of radio like no other. He was clearly born to do what he does, and makes just about every other talk radio host sound like an amateur, a bore, or a screeching maniac. Rush Limbaugh takes his conservative political views, his sense of humor, his timing and just his ability to articulate and day after day pumps out three golden hours of radio, while lesser mortals trying to the same thing just repeat themselves, harangue the air and use callers and interviewees as crutches. Naturally, some are better than others, but I’m sure all of them would acknowledge that there is only one Rush, and that no one else even comes near him.

Rush continued doing his show while totally deaf and even continued taking callers (having their words typed on a screen in real time so that he could have conversations with them). He pulled it off astoundingly well, in fact. I’m convinced that had he not been a conservative talk-radio host, his story — one of great personal courage and triumph over adversity — would have been celebrated with in-depth sympathetic stories on all the major TV networks. But he was a conservative talk-show host, so it didn’t really matter to anyone. Except, of-course, his twenty million or so listeners across the United States of America.

Ultimately he had a cochlear implant surgically placed into one of his ears, and he regained a form of hearing. He has said that it allows him to recognize and enjoy music that he knew previously to going deaf, but that he can’t really hear and enjoy new music with which his brain is unfamiliar.

As far as doing his radio show is concerned I believe that no one today, just turning it on, would think for a minute that he has any hearing problem whatsoever. And he almost never mentions it. But in reality he is still a deaf man doing a radio show — the biggest radio show in the country; I suppose the biggest radio show in history. He can control his voice again. He can do his mimicry. And he is a huge force to be reckoned with in U.S. politics.

Before the blogs, before Fox News, before the “new media,” there was Rush Limbaugh, saying what so many people thought but what was almost never heard in the mainstream media. Contrary to caricatures of him, Rush Limbaugh doesn’t radicalize or rile up anyone; rather, by articulating what so many ordinary Americans perceive anyway, Rush is more like a safety valve and a source of comfort and levity in the face of political conflict. The really bad thing is to feel isolated in one’s political outlook, and to see only decay and doom ahead. Rush Limbaugh daily lets his listeners know that they are not alone, that liberals are rightfully a source of hilarity, and that the liberal agenda, being ridiculous, can be defeated.

When it emerged a few years ago that he had an addiction to pain killers, many of those who hate him rejoiced and figured that a lot of his listeners would abandon him. Conservatives are so intolerant of weakness, right? Instead, his listeners rallied around him. Even President Bush, instead of trying to distance himself from someone who was at risk of being convicted of a crime, publicly expressed concern for Limbaugh and pronounced him “a great American.” There wasn’t any need for him to do that. Limbaugh hadn’t always agreed with Bush on particular policies then and certainly didn’t always agree with him afterward. But Dubya well understood the kind of contribution that Limbaugh had made to political discourse in America.

Rush Limbaugh gets paid very well for what he does. But it’s still worth remembering how rare a gift he possesses and how well he utilizes it.

His comments on Bob Dylan, off-key as they may have been in some respects, at least provided this opportunity to salute him.

Posted on

Bob Dylan Picked Up By Cops In New Jersey!

DYLAN TO POLICE: “I’M JUST WALKING AROUND LOOKING AT HOUSES”

Cops say: HE HAD NO I.D.!

Asked to accompany law enforcement officers back to his hotel to confirm identity.

“He couldn’t have been nicer.”

…

The blurbs above just about summarize the story that has hit the wires in the last few hours, about an incident that took place back on July 23rd (oddly, exactly one week after Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested in Cambridge, MA for disorderly conduct, when police came to his house to check on a reported break-in — and very much at the time that the Gates story was peaking in the media). From the AP:

The incident began at 5 p.m. when a resident said a man was wandering around a low-income, predominantly minority neighborhood several blocks from the oceanfront looking at houses.

[…]

Dylan was in Long Branch, about a two-hour drive south of New York City, on July 23 as part of a tour with Willie Nelson and John Mellencamp that was to play at a baseball stadium in nearby Lakewood.

A 24-year-old police officer apparently was unaware of who Dylan is and asked him for identification, Long Branch business administrator Howard Woolley said Friday.

“I don’t think she was familiar with his entire body of work,” Woolley said.

[…]

The police officer drove up to Dylan, who was wearing a blue jacket, and asked him his name. According to Woolley, the following exchange ensued:

“What is your name, sir?” the officer asked.

“Bob Dylan,” Dylan said.

“OK, what are you doing here?” the officer asked.

“I’m on tour,” the singer replied.

A second officer, also in his 20s, responded to assist the first officer. He, too, apparently was unfamiliar with Dylan, Woolley said.

The officers asked Dylan for identification. The singer of such classics as “Like a Rolling Stone” and “Blowin’ in the Wind” said that he didn’t have any ID with him, that he was just walking around looking at houses to pass some time before that night’s show.

The officers asked Dylan, 68, to accompany them back to the Ocean Place Resort and Spa, where the performers were staying. Once there, tour staff vouched for Dylan.

The officers thanked him for his cooperation.

“He couldn’t have been any nicer to them,” Woolley added.

We’re just hearing about this now because Dylan didn’t rush to any microphone or newspaper to voice his outrage at being stopped, and essentially picked up, for doing nothing more offensive than looking at houses.

What could have been running through Bob’s head? Of-course, in his film Masked and Anonymous his character Jack Fate says to an armed guard, “I’ve got a lot of respect for a gun.” It’s a prudent attitude for anyone to have. Cooperating with the police works out better than confronting them, just about every time. It’s not solely about avoiding being shot; it’s about avoiding any kind of escalation of trouble, whether a summons, an arrest, or anything. Nevertheless, one could easily get huffy about being asked what one is doing, on a public street, causing no harm to anyone. Carrying I.D. is not required when out in public in the United States of America ( “I don’t need no stinkin’ passport”: more Masked and Anonymous), and long may that be so. You could get on your high horse and force the police to decide whether to arrest you (for what?) or whether to let it go.

Or you can take another tack. You can be empathetic to the young police officer who is doing a job and is responding to some kind of report that has to be investigated. You can choose to make things easy for that officer instead of hard. That is apparently what Dylan did.

We’re not all Bob Dylan, of-course. And we’re not all Henry Louis Gates, Jr.. All such situations are somewhat different. But the larger lesson, as always, remains this, I do believe:

Keep a good head, and always carry a light bulb.

…

And then there’s this:

In Long Branch that’s just the way things go.
If you’re white you might as well not show up on the street
‘Less you wanna draw the heat.

…

Addendum: A lot more details on this in a story by Chris Francescani at ABC, in which the police officer concerned speaks for herself. She maintains she knew who Bob Dylan was, in general terms, but didn’t believe that this guy was Bob Dylan. It’s quite hilarious.

Following her police training, [Officer Kristie] Buble said she indulged him.

“OK Bob, why don’t you get in the car and we’ll drive to the hotel and go verify this?’ ” she said she told him. “I put him in the back of the car. To be honest with you, I didn’t really believe this was Bob Dylan. It never crossed my mind that this could really be him.”

Buble made small talk on the ride to the hotel, asking her detainee where he was playing, she said, but never really believing a word he said.

“He was really nice, though, and he said he understood why I had to verify his identity and why I couldn’t let him go,” Buble said. “He asked me if I could drive him back to the neighborhood when I verified who he was, which made me even more suspicious.

“I pulled into the parking lot,” she said, “and sure enough there were these enormous tour buses, and I thought, ‘Whoa.'”

Posted on

More On Bob Dylan and His Hot New Jersey Night

Well, one post was never going to be sufficient on this story of Bob Dylan’s encounter with the Long Branch police department on July 23rd, 2009. If you think that it caused controversy when Bob Dylan went electric, it’s seems to be nothing compared to the roiling set in motion by his getting picked up while out taking a gander at some houses in New Jersey. Chris Francescani’s story at ABC remains the best I’ve seen on the whole incident, and taking a look at the readers’ comments which are attached to it is guaranteed to make your head spin right off.

What was he doing, anyway? I’m still far more fascinated by the events themselves, rather than what Dylan’s purpose was in being there, but there is speculation including by Mary at BabyBlueOnline that he may have been searching out the roots of another musical friend (as in his recent visits to Neil Young’s and John Lennon’s childhood homes). Could be.

On the other hand, the whole point is that he doesn’t need an excuse or justification to just take a walk, in the United States of America. He doesn’t need to carry identification while out perambulating either. Dylan knows these things very well (in the last post I quoted lines from his film Masked and Anonymous that highlight questions of freedom such as these, and it’s quite ironic that in the end here Dylan’s identity was demonstrated by his actual “stinkin’ passport”!). Yet, instead of making some kind of angry stand, he simply cooperated to the fullest extent possible with the police, and allowed himself to be detained in a de facto way (of-course he was never arrested as such and there was no crime in question).

Just say it wasn’t a trip intended to search out anyone’s childhood home. Say he just wanted to walk away from the concert tour hubbub and clear his head (even if it was in the rain). He walked around and looked at houses, in what happened to be a “low-income, predominantly minority neighborhood,” as the AP described it. Such a thing might have appeared bizarre in a place where people likely drive everywhere they need to go, and where the appearance of houses does not seem worthy of any focused attention. But take a look at Dylan’s “Drawn Blank” series of sketches and paintings, and it’s easy enough to see that he can take an artist’s interest in things that appear quite ordinary to the average person’s eye. Indeed, that’s a lot of what being an artist is all about, isn’t it? So, maybe what happened on July 23rd amounts to a guy being “picked up for walking while being an artist.”

Lest this sound like I’m joining those who are condemning Officer Kristie Buble for being some kind of constitution-shredding storm-trooper: I am not. The comparisons to the Gates/Crowley case (which I wrote about at this link) are many and are valid. In this case too, a police officer was responding to a complaint telephoned in by someone in the neighborhood, who saw a strange old man walking around in the rain peering at houses and for whatever reason felt concerned or threatened. Should the police ignore such a call? Buble was nearby, drove up, and asked the guy who he was and what he was doing. She asked. No law against asking a question, even if you are a cop. The man was entitled to refuse to answer and to challenge her to make a case out of it. Or, he could have answered but done so with loud anger and recrimination, yelling about his rights etc. He chose a different approach.

One thing that surprised me (and perhaps some others out there) most of all when I first read the story was the mere fact that Dylan admitted to being Bob Dylan right off the bat. That sounds funny, but I would have thought that he might be tempted to say, “Uh, I’m Frank Smith, and I’m just out taking a walk.” Try to avoid a lot of razzmatazz. But obviously Bob is smarter than me. He didn’t hesitate to just tell the plain truth of who he was. And when the truth wasn’t accepted, he just agreed to the request to get into the back of the police car and (as reported in Francescani’s story) told the cop that he understood why she had to take him to the hotel and verify his identity. He merely asked, amiably, if she might afterwards drive him back to where he had been picked up! (This, apparently, did not happen. Too bad, but it was probably too late for more house-gandering by then anyway.)

Some people commenting on the story seem to be assuming that Dylan was on his way to some kind of terrible unjustified punishment, had he not been proven to be Dylan (or if the man picked up in this way wasn’t Dylan to begin with). (If you get my drift.) That displays a failure to understand how police do their work on a daily basis, and the kinds of things they have to handle. This was not a case of someone being arrested for committing a crime, but rather it was a case of police responding to a citizen’s complaint, finding what appeared to be an oddly behaving character on the scene, and having the character then claim to be a world-famous individual. What do police do in such a situation? Wave bye-bye and good luck, and wait for the next call to come when said individual is perhaps found lying face down in a ditch? No. A responsible police officer does what a police officer is trained to do: ascertain the facts of the situation, provide assistance to someone who is in need and protect the public safety. If the rain-soaked old guy had turned out in fact not to have tour buses at the hotel, and not to have a harmonica to his name, then the police officer would have wanted to find out who he might actually be, if he had a place to stay, or if he in fact required shelter or indeed psychiatric attention. These kinds of things happen every day; indeed, many times a day in urban environments. There’s no reason to think he would have been tossed in jail on trumped-up charges with the key tossed in the garbage. But some people prefer to conjure false outrage rather than to take a moment to empathize with the police.

Bob Dylan, on July 23rd last, was not one of those people.

…

By the way, you’ve got to wonder if that drive to the hotel in the back of the police cruiser looked and sounded anything like this:

Posted on

“Both Ends of the Rainbow: Bob Dylan 1978 – 1989” on DVD

I wonder if I’m fascinated by 1980s’ Bob Dylan solely because that’s when I got into his music (first purchased album: Infidels, around age 16) or if I’d be just as fascinated with that period had I gotten into Dylan in the 1990s or later. I suppose I can understand why people who got into Bob during the 1960s and 1970s might think there’s too much directionless meandering in Dylan’s 1980s’ work, and not think it worthy of a great deal of consideration. However, whether due to personal blinkers or laser-sharp perception, I will say this: I disagree. 1980s’ Dylan is da bomb! From his incredible and courageous gospel material in the early part of the decade, to the intensely lucid and densely-written Infidels, the dated-but-irresistable pop flirtations of Empire Burlesque, and even the weird and at times absurd hodge-podges that are Knocked Out Loaded and Down In The Groove, I just can’t get enough of the stuff. His 1989 album Oh Mercy needs no defence from the likes of me, as it was one of those that was hailed as “best since Blood on the Tracks” by the usual critics.

And so the recently-released DVD called Bob Dylan: 1978-1989 – Both Ends of the Rainbow seems tailor-made for someone of my ilk.

Unlike some recent Dylan-centered films released on DVD, this one does feature actual Bob Dylan music, including some video clips and audio (e.g. a little bit of Dylan on “Saturday Night Live” in 1979). And some of the audio clips which don’t have original video are put to strikingly well-chosen visuals, I must say. But to me the real meat of the project resides in the interviews with various musicians and recording professionals who worked in the studio with Bob Dylan during the years covered. It is the anecdotes and insights of these people, who were actually there, which give the viewer something new. And, to a person, if I recall correctly, all of these individuals offer reminiscences which are warm and positive — nary a meanspirited jibe in the lot. For example, Chuck Plotkin and Toby Scott (producer and engineer respectively on Shot of Love) share their memories of how that unique and great-sounding album came to be (including Plotkin’s recollection of being literally trapped on his knees beside Dylan at the piano, holding a microphone near Bob’s mouth to try and capture an impromptu performance of Every Grain Of Sand that Plotkin feared might be the only one he’d get). Bassist Robbie Shakespeare and drummer Sly Dunbar recall playing with Dylan on Infidels, and their joking challenge with Bob as to who’d be the first to “fall out.” Engineer Josh Abbey watched Bob during those same sessions and says he was struck by how Dylan’s work in the studio was “driven by the lyrics.” Guitarist Ira Ingler recalls the recording of Brownsville Girl (from Knocked Out Loaded), and how Dylan stopped the taping because he wanted to write another verse. He took out an “impossibly small pen and an impossibly small piece of paper” and ten minutes later they ran through the song again, and everyone in the studio was left slack-jawed by the new lyrics. (We may well wonder which verse — a good guess would be the last one — but heck, all the verses are dynamite in that song.)

And so on. Guitarist Ted Perlman tells us a lot on Empire Burlesque. Malcom Burn and Mark Howard have fascinating remembrances of working on Oh Mercy.

So that’s one angle on this film, dwelling upon the positive.

The flip side, unfortunately, is a terrible rogues gallery of writers and critics (speaking as one myself, although for some reason I’m not in the film) who keep popping their heads up and bloviating in generally well-worn, dull and irritating ways. Like the proverbial stopped clock, they can’t help but be correct on some occasions, but it’s usually just a coincidence. There are perhaps about ten different critics who keep appearing and telling us how it was and what we oughta think about Bob’s work of that decade. Some of them are regurgitating clichés that they themselves are responsible for launching as far back as thirty years ago — especially when it comes to the gospel music. I was going to name names here and specify certain rubbish, but my better angel is clamping down. Readers are at least warned. I will give a positive shout-out to Scott Warmuth who appears (briefly) and makes a worthy contribution.

So, the film would be ideal if one could technologically filter out the critics and just stick with the musicians, producers and engineers and the various old footage and audio. The voice-over narration is inoffensive, as I recall. Of-course, if an editorial decision had been made to devote far more time to the interviews with the musicians and recording people, versus the critics, then the film would be better to begin with.

The DVD box is accompanied by an extra CD featuring “The Dylan Gospel Interviews”; this is about an hour’s worth of various taped question and answer sessions with Dylan during that gospel period, and it’s introduced unobstrusively enough by Derek Barker. These recordings have circulated among collectors before, and at a guess I would think that all of these interviews have been transcribed and published in various places, but it’s unquestionably a very interesting item for fans who are into that stage of Dylan’s career.

You can purchase the DVD via Amazon, and in my very next post I will provide details on my own exciting giveaway of one brand-spanking new copy to a lucky reader who might even be you!

Posted on

Jimmy Carter “abandoned” Bob Dylan with Slow Train Coming

Former President Jimmy Carter (who once described himself as a born-again Christian) is reported to have given up his affection for the music of Bob Dylan when Bob himself became “born-again” (I know Bob disputes the term but that’s a whole other kettle of hair-splitting).

The report is in a new book about Jimmy Carter by Kevin Mattson, and it was written about in the New York Post (thanks to readers who e-mailed me).

Mattson characterizes Dylan’s path of conversion in a gossipy way that I would not personally endorse, but here’s what the NY Post says about what he writes:

“Recently divorced, [Dylan] slept around with groupies and indulged in drugs while touring and recording his live album ‘At Budokan.’ Some labeled him a washed-up relic of the ’60s who recycled old material. Others called Dylan’s 1978 performances ‘The Alimony Tour.’ ”

It was under these conditions that Dylan converted to Christianity and released his controversial LP “Slow Train Coming,” with its signature number “Gotta Serve Somebody,” preaching against “foreign oil controlling American soil” and “sheiks running around like kings.”

Dylan’s born-again recording session “nailed the coffin shut” on his ’60s activist roots, and alienated him from Carter, according to Mattson, a professor of contemporary history at Ohio University. “The hippie rock star had pushed rock ‘n’ roll from celebrating love and drugs to providing apocalyptic warnings about decadence,” he writes. “Jimmy Carter’s favorite rock musician now refused to sing the songs the president most enjoyed . . . [those] written before Dylan found Jesus.”

Calls placed to Dylan’s camp were not returned.

Carter’s reported change of heart about Dylan is believable enough — hey, a whole lot of people rejected Dylan after Slow Train and Saved — but Mattson’s mistakes in his characterization of Dylan’s pre-gospel music (“celebrating love and drugs”), along with his general tone, don’t help his overall credibility level that much. Still, the irony attendant in the idea of Jimmy Carter hating Dylan’s gospel music is hard to resist. Carter has a curious habit of rejecting other peoples’ way of trying to walk with Christ as being illegitimate. He attacked President George W. Bush with his statement: “I worship Christ who was the prince of peace, not pre-emptive war.”

Carter has never gotten over his rejection by the voters in 1980, and I happen to think that his long history of bitterness distinguishes him among all other ex-presidents, regardless of what’s on his iPod.

Posted on

Yours Truly Gets Taken to School on Bob Dylan

bob_dylan_singing_live

bob_dylan_singing_live

Here in New York City there is an institution called the 92nd Street Y which offers, among other things, adult education courses. One such is a course on Bob Dylan taught by a devoted and knowledgeable Dylan aficionado named Robert Levinson. Yesterday he had a guest lecturer in the person of Bob Cohen, formerly of the New World Singers (with Happy Traum, Gil Turner and Delores Dixon), and a fellow-traveler—so to speak—with Bob Dylan in those early years in Greenwich Village. Some time ago I posted here a piece written by Bob Cohen recounting some of his memories of and reflections upon Dylan: “How Blowin’ In The Wind Came To Be.”

Bob graciously invited me and Mrs. C. to sit in on the class yesterday evening. Also speaking was a writer named Billy Altman, who ably illustrated some of the sources which Dylan draws upon with Together Through Life, including songs by Otis Rush and Leadbelly.

Bob Cohen engagingly reminisced about the old times and the old scene and about Dylan, and he also shared some of his considerable insights on the art of song generally, often breaking into snatches of this or that number to illustrate his points.

The highlight of the evening for me was when he picked up an accordion and sang an impromptu version of one of Dylan’s newest songs, “This Dream of You.” It’s his favorite song on the new album (as indeed it is mine). Before singing it he told of how he and his wife Pat, listening to it in the car, had more or less simultaneously come to the conclusion that it seemed to be not just an ordinary love song but instead a song addressed to the singer’s Maker. (Bob Cohen was not religious back in those Village days, but now he’s a practicing Jew and indeed the cantor of a synagogue in Kingston, New York—check out his website for his whole scoop.) By the end of his performance Bob Cohen had the class gamely singing along on the chorus. I found it extremely poignant; of-course, it’s a beautiful song, and Bob’s a very fine singer and musician. But I think it also struck me so poignantly because of who Bob Cohen is; he and Dylan were at one point part of the same crazy milieu back there in the early 1960s in New York. Their lives followed very different trajectories, and yet, in a certain way, they have both ended up singing the same song.

So, it was an evening I won’t soon forget, and nor will Mrs. C., and thanks again to Bob for having us.

Posted on

Israel, Iran and the Bomb

The headline from Haaretz describes the results of a survey conducted in Israel: ‘1 in 4 Israelis would consider leaving country if Iran gets nukes’.

Some 23 percent of Israelis would consider leaving the country if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, according to a poll conducted on behalf of the Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University.

Some 85 percent of respondents said they feared the Islamic Republic would obtain an atomic bomb, 57 percent believed the new U.S. initiative to engage in dialogue with Tehran would fail and 41 percent believed Israel should strike Iran’s nuclear installations without waiting to see whether or how the talks develop.

“The findings are worrying because they reflect an exaggerated and unnecessary fear,” Prof. David Menashri, the head of the Center, said.

It’s nice that the professor thinks it to be an exaggerated fear, and it’s also completely irrelevant, of-course. Put a fear of imminent annihilation over people, and over their children, and they will react. Many will be stoic, of-course. But many will vote with their feet. It’s just human nature.

Back in December, when rockets were flying from Gaza into southern Israel, and the world was condemning the Israelis for finally taking tough military action against Hamas, I wrote the following in this space:

Hamas’s strategy of firing missiles into southern Israel cannot be understood in isolation. Although in isolation it is bad enough. No country on earth can tolerate these kinds of open attacks against its citizens and long remain a nation at all. But Hamas in the south is acting with a strategy similar to Hezbollah in the north. Both receive support from the Iranians, who are themselves pursuing a nuclear weapon and talking publicly of wiping Israel off the map. Theirs can be seen as a three-pronged strategy for the destruction of Israel without ever having to fight the Israeli Defense Forces in one enormous battle. It is a war of attrition, of threat and of fear. Israeli residents in the south of that tiny country must evacuate their homes under threat of Hamas missiles, just as residents of the north had to in 2006 as Hezbollah’s rockets were launched over the border (and just as they might have to again at any time). The mere fact that Iran is pursuing an atomic bomb and talking about the destruction of Israel puts a threat of doom over the heads of all Israelis. Imagine how magnified that will be once Iran actually achieves the bomb, or announces that it has achieved it. Imagine trying to raise a family when enemy missiles, with ever-increasing range and lethality, are closing in from the south and from the north, and when a nation that openly wishes your family’s death achieves the practical capability to cause it. Imagine trying to carry on a business — trying to carry on anything at all. The Iranian strategy, with the enthusiastic support of Hamas and Hezbollah, is to simply make life in Israel untenable for a critical mass of Jews, who will then either go somewhere else (those that have somewhere else to go) or give up the fight. A conventional war of nations and of armies, of the kind that Israel has won repeatedly in its history since 1948, is therefore avoided. Or, at the least, postponed until Israel is much more weakened and demoralized.

It is not an outlandish strategy. It is a very practical one, and it is one that is being pursued with some effect.

Israel simply cannot afford the kind of crisis in confidence over her future that the fact of an Iranian nuclear bomb would create, most of all among her own citizens. That is why Israel will act against Iran before the day that Ahmadinejad can stand up and credibly say, “Our glorious Islamic Republic now has the ultimate weapon and we cannot be touched.” The consequences of Israeli military action against Iran may well include difficulties for everyone else, but the circumstances permit Netanyahu — or any Israeli leader — no other choice.

That is, unless President Obama’s sweet overtures achieve their purpose of getting the Iranian regime to reverse course and demonstrably renounce its pursuit of nuclear energy and weapons. The hour is getting late.

Posted on

Bob Dylan and John Ford: More on the Douglas Brinkley / Rolling Stone interview

bob dylan

I want to continue looking at some noteworthy things that came out of the Douglas Brinkley/Bob Dylan Rolling Stone interview, both the print version and the online outtakes (which are now gone but not forgotten).

There is this from the print article on Bob Dylan’s taste in movies: Continue reading “Bob Dylan and John Ford: More on the Douglas Brinkley / Rolling Stone interview”