[...] things twice ” Blog Archive ” Its Modern to Steal [...]

As I have posted elsewhere on the site that I take a more relaxed veiw about Bob’s ‘plagiarism’ tho’ share concerns that his publishers should have been more acurate about the genesis of some of the tracks.

Christopher Ricks writes in ‘Dylan’s Visions of Sin’ “Dylan doesn’t borrow things without making them his own.” and he was talking about song writen many many years ago!

Like many people here I am sure I have a large collection of bootleg concerts many of which repeat the same songs over and over i.e., 40 versions of All Along the Watchtower 36 versions of Knockin’ on Heavans Door. What keeps this stuff alive is Bob’s ability to reinvent his own songs almost every time he performs them. In this respect I agree with Will – what painter has ever acknowledged their influences in a work, they may have acknowledged them in commentray but not on the canvas. Bob has acknowedged more blues and folk artists than anyone performing in my lifetime and had done more to bring their work to public attention than anyone since Hammond.

Modern Times is, to my mind, an album worth listening to again and again. For me familiarity breeds apprecaition of the man’s ability to confront us with both personal and practical conumdrums and here we are rehersing them!

Anyone looking to have a pop at Dylan’s ability to draw on the work of others will find ample examples in Christoper Ricks ‘Dylan’s Vision of Sin”. Go on, have a ball.

Enjoy the music!

I mean, a lot.

I completely understand your argumentation and your point, eyolf, nevertheless I came to completely different conclusions regarding “Modern times”, especially after having listened to the originals – or should I say “sketches” – of the songs on this album. When I bought the album on its European release date I was content to listen to a great bunch of new songs, which seems to reach the heights of “Love and theft” and “Time out of mind” again easily. But when I first looked into the booklet, it took me by surprise that “Rollin & Tumblin”, popularized not only by Muddy Waters but also by Eric Clapton on his widely sold “Unplugged” album 12 years ago, was credited as a Dylan song. The title, the tune and the lyrics were so strikingly similar that I just couldn’t believe it. I agree with you that, although this one may be public domain, it should have been credited properly.

Now to the other songs: Dylan plays a bit of cat and mouse with his listeners on that one. For the well-educated Blues and Folk music listener (such as Jerry Garcia would be) it is a puzzle of famous roots (not complete songs!) put together in a completely new way. In my opinion it is perfectly fair to argue, as some people already did, that Dylan has stolen melodies much more considerably as with “No more auction block” becoming “Blowin’ in the wind”, “Lord Randall” becoming “A hard rain’s a-gonna fall”, and even more notably: “The patriot game” becoming “With God on our side” (little change in the subject as well), “The parting glass” becoming “Restless farewell” amo.
These were just the “bloody obvious” examples, but they prove that Dylan lifted melodies from known songs much more radically then than he does now. No-one would doubt that these old songs are “real Dylans”, since they wear his undeniable stamp in their performance and, most importantly, their lyrics. On the other hand, if he made a song his own, such as Eric van Schmidts “Baby let me follow down” (altered forever on the 1966 tour), it was a different situation: The lyrics remained mostly unchanged and he never credited that one as his own.

Now to the new songs: Some of them do resemble well-known blues and jazzpop classics, but for me they do not qualify as rip-offs due to the different performance, altered melodies, different arrangements and different lyrics. And the thought of Dylan consulting his library about new lines to fix up a post-modernist riddle sounds far less likely than your theory of phrases coming to mind, not necessarily knowing where they have their origins. Art is also about context and about the artist’s individuality and I think it is a bit awkward to argue that “Modern times” is not a Dylan album at all. Post-modernism might be an idea to solve the riddles around “Self portrait”, but it doesn’t seem exactly a probable explanation for “Modern times”.

But as I said, I respect your conclusion and highly recommend it to any “Modern times” listener. I can understand that your research kind of spoiled the album for you, since at first it did the same to me as well. But the more I compared the originals with Dylan’s songs (not versions) the more I realized there are far more differences than communities.

Wait I reread the thing and your really saying that Bob Dylan is a “thieving bastard”?

Eh, no, I’m not.
Learn to read, and watch your mouth – then we can talk.

Very entertaining stuff, Eyolf. Thanks for a good read.

I must confess that this aspect of your argument strikes me as similar to those who are unable to appreciate the work of say, the French novelist Celine because he was anti-semetic. Or those who are unable to listen to Mick Jagger because they find him sexist. Or basically, anyone who cannot view the art apart from the personal behavior of the artist.

Your complaint, in my opinion, is entirely valid. But I get the feeling that you are not actually seeing (or, more accurately, *hearing*) this record. You’re annoyed by what is essentially an action of Dylan’s publishing company concerning copyrights.

The other thing I think you’re missing is that Dylan is no longer a “pop songwriter”. He is a blues artist. There is not a blues artist on the planet who actually WRITES a song, and there never has been.

Blues has, right from the beginning, been a process of assembling existing phrases – both lyrical and musical – and putting your own vocal spin on them. Every blues record in the world says “music by so-and-so”, and there is not one instance where so-and-so actually wrote the music.

Yeah, Willie Dixon sued Led Zepplin and got a bunch of cash because they ripped off his version of “You Need Love”. Good for him. He had a good lawyer. But anyone who thinks what Zep did was a *smidgen* different from what Willie did all his life betrays their lack of knowledge of the history of blues music.

Mostly I detect in you the telltale signs of a fanatic who is finally recovering his vision. This process is similar to the disillusionment that children experience when they realize their parents are actually human beings. You have clearly devoted a disproportionate chuck of your life and energy to this one particular artist. Now perhaps it’s wearing thin.

This happened to me with another artist (who will remain nameless). When the fanaticism started to lift I found myself increasingly irritated by aspects of the artist. These aspects were always there, but I was seeing them for the first time without the rose-colored glasses of hero worship. I did not at the time consider myself to be a “hero-worshipper”. After all, I was not uncritical of this artist, nor was I a fawning “fanboy” type. I considered myself a critic. Looking back though I realize that the true test is to what extent your energy is occupied by ONE thing. Having followed your writings for some time, I’m guessing your time of hero-worshipping Dylan is coming to a close. Perhaps you don’t yet realize that’s what you have been doing. In any case, good for you for taking off “the glasses”. You are clearly an intelligent and perceptive man. Too intelligent and perceptive to remain a “fan” – even a critical one, which is an inherently subservient and immature position.

And perhaps someday you will return to Modern Times and really be able to listen to it without the smothering context of your own fixation.

You might find it a pretty fun record.

Cheers,
Chris