Learn to Play the Guitar in Two Weeks, Day 2: First songs, first theory

So why is, then, that D is such a boring chord? To answer that, I’ll have to give you some theory. You probably don’t mind, since you’re going to rest your fingers a little while longer anyway.

“Grau ist alle Theorie”

If you think theory is boring, think again. Think of it, not as something you have to know in order to do something right (as most schools teach grammar, e.g.), but as a way of explaining what it is that you already know.

All chords belong together in families — the famous three chords, plus relatives and friends. Every song, at least in the popular music repertory, has a keynote (also called the ‘tonic’, hence abbreviated T), the main tone or chord around which the song revolves. This is almost always the tone/chord on which the song ends, and most frequently the tone/chord on which it begins, but that is not always the case. It is safest to go by the end.  A song in C major ends on a C major chord, etc. The keynote represents the stable level from which everything develops and to which it all returns.

In addition to the keynote, there are two different functions: that of extension, and that of tension. They are represented by the tones (and the chords built over these tones) a fifth and a fourth above the keynote, respectively. They are called the dominant and the subdominant.

The dominant (D) is the stable, loyal companion to the keynote, always there, not without its conflicts, but they are always resolved, and always in favour of the tonic – somewhat like a good old (or bad old, depending on the perspective) patriarchal marriage. In fact, one might consider all music within the western musical tradition (until the late nineteenth century in the art-music tradition, and until this day in the popular traditions) as nothing more than a play with the balance between these two scale steps. The dominant is there to generate tension, which is then resolved by the keynote.

The subdominant (S) usually stands a little behind the other two in the lineup – doesn’t have the self-conscious power of the tonic, nor the rebellious subservience of the dominant. It has a double role. Partly it is a chord closely related to the tonic, in many cases hardly more than a variant of it. In this capacity, it functions as a reenforcement of the tonic. But it also has a more expansive role, as the first step away from the tonic, especially in combination with the dominant, in some kind of cadential progression. The mother of all such cadences, at least in text books, is T–S–D–T (the beginning of ‘Blowin’ in the Wind’ is an example). The dominant creates a tension which demands a resolution, back to the tonic, and the subdominant is a helper on the way to get there, roughly speaking.

What does this mean in practice, then? A few examples are in place, before you can go on to play them yourself.

Tom Dooley has two chords: the keynote (tonic) and the dominant. In this case, the tonic is D, the dominant A7. The musical “story” of the song thus is a simple one: Establishing the key; deviation; return. This is the basic structure of every tune you are ever likely to play. (Avant garde genres in classical music do what they can to eschew this pattern; the question is if they can ever succeed).

The beauty of it is that almost no matter how long one holds the A7, it will retain the memory of the keynote, and the urge to get back there will be stronger the longer it is sustained.

The Talking Blues genre is a perfect illustration of this flexibility, this time with the Subdominant taking part in the play. See e.g. “Talkin’ World War III”, where the buildup to the climax in the verses is accompanied — literally — by a gradual escalation through the S and D steps, which can be stretched almost indefinitely, to accomodate verses of different length, until the final resolution to the keynote and the textual punchline, to great effect. This is most clearly seen in the last verse, where the “half the people … some of the time” lines are finally released by “‘I’ll let you be in my dream if I can be in yours.’ I said that” — the young Dylan’s greatest punchline.

The legendary three-chord chords

To summarize: all songs have a primary key, and two main secondary steps. Just about every chord in any song in the popular music repertory can be reduced to one of the three chord steps. Thus, in theory it would be possible to learn only three chords and play everything with those. In practice, it’s a little more complicated, but the fact remains that three chords is enough to play 90% of popular songs satisfactorily.

The three chords in the most common keys, are:

+------------------------------------+
| Keynote  | Dominant  | Subdominant |
|----------+-----------+-------------|
|  C       |    G      |     F       |
|  D       |    A      |     G       |
|  E       |    B      |     A       |
|  G       |    D      |     C       |
|  A       |    E      |     D       |
+------------------------------------+

The Third Chord: G

With the G major chord, we have the full trio of chords in the key of D. Its basic form is:

G major
  000
======
||||||
------
|1||||        320003
------
2||||3
------
||||||

Beginners will face two problems here: it’s a bit of a stretch since it covers everything from the first to the sixth string; and it doesn’t share any fingers or finger positions with D or A7.

For now, this can be remedied with some cheating: leave out the two bass strings and play only xx0003. Then G goes from being the beginner’s first hurdle, to being almost the easiest chord in the book. You should not get into the habit of playing it like that, of course (and eternal damnation on you if you do), but it will allow you to play more interesting songs with fairly more ease. Why not the campfire classic “Blowin’ in the Wind”?

Blowin’ in the Wind

D         G            A7       D
How many roads must a man walk down
D          G          D
Before you call him a man?
D        G            A7         D
How many seas  must a white dove sail
D          G             A7
Before she sleeps in the sand?
D        G               A7           D
How many times  must the cannon balls fly
D              G       D
Before they're forever banned?
    G          A7         D              G
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
    G         A7             D
The answer is blowin' in the wind.

G, it’s good to see ya!

You need not pay much attention to what I’m about to say here at this stage, but if you need a break from Blowin’:

If D is my hate chord, G is the chord I love the most. It is full-bodied and versatile where D is thin and limited. I will save the full explanation for later, but if you know how to master the G major chord, you are a huge step towards mastering the guitar itself.

There are many ways to finger G. The form I’ve given above, with the index, middle and ring fingers, is usually favoured by beginners, because the alternatives all involve the pinky, which may be a bit awkward to use at this point:

G major, variant fingerings
  000       000       00 
======    ======    ======
||||||    ||||||    ||||||
------    ------    ------
|1||||    |2||||    |1||||
------    ------    ------
2||||4    3||||4    2|||34
------    ------    ------
||||||    ||||||    |||||| 

It may come as a surprise if I say that the middle form is the preferred, the goal you should work towards. Why bother putting that huge span over all the strings between the ring finger and its little brother when there are so much easier ways to do it?

It has to do with sonority and versatility. The rightmost version above does not just use different fingers, but has different tones as well, and it gives a different sound (incidentally, this is the chord shape that is used in The Times They Are A-Changin’ and which gives the special sound of that song). It it good to be able to vary the sound, and being used to using the little finger makes it easier to play this variant chord.

The second reason is a little further ahead in time, but I’ll mention it already now, to give you an idea where you’re heading. If you use the fingering in the middle, you have a space defined by the outer strings, and between them there are four wonderful strings that you can play melodies and fills on while still playing the basic chord, and two wonderful fingers (index and middle) that are free to play them, in exactly the right area. This is what makes G such a unique chord, and it’s no coincidence that many of Dylan’s greatest acoustic songs are in the key of G (Times; Girl from the North Country/Boots of Spanish Leather; It ain’t me, Babe; Blowin’ in the Wind, which actually uses chords from the G major family, although it is sounding in D major; Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door; You ain’t going Nowhere; etc.), and Dylan uses the “awkward” fingering with long, ring and middle fingers — so why shouldn’t you?

Compare what I’ve said about G with the D chord: three fingers are in use, in a rather fixed position; besides, since you are avoiding two strings, there isn’t much of a space to move in.

Further songs

Here are two more songs to practice on. First the definition of “bittersweet”: “To Ramona” off Another Side of Bob Dylan.

D
Ramona, come closer
                        A7
Shut softly your watery eyes

The pangs of your sadness
                              D
Will pass as your senses will rise
    G
The flowers of the city
                                    A7
Though breathlike, get deathlike sometimes

And there's no use in tryin'

To deal with the dyin'
                                D
Though I cannot explain that in lines.

(For the rest of the verses, see dylanchords).

Then one of the gems from his lastest effort, Christmas in the Heart:

          D
Come they told me, pa rum pa pom pom

A new born King to see, pa rum pa pom pom
A7           
 Our finest gifts we bring, pa rum pa pom pom
         D                 G                
To lay before the King, pa rum pa pom pom,
D              A7
rum pa pom pom, rum pa pom pom
D
  And so to honor Him, pa rum pa pom pom,
A7       D
When we come.

If this is not enough, you may take it as an exercise to find other songs and see how you can make them work with your three chords. Everything will not work, but most blues-based songs will.

Try to use the full version of G, but you are allowed to cheat. For now.

All the Lessons

[catlist name=Lessons numberposts=150 order=asc orderby=date excludeposts=419]

Learn to Play the Guitar in Two Weeks (and Impress Your Girlfriend)

So you want to be a guitar hero? Here’s how:

Day 1

Go to your local instrument dealer and buy the following items:

  • A tuner. It’s essential to have an instrument in tune, otherwise it will sound bad no matter how well you play it. You will think it’s your fault (and so will your girlfriend), and you will give up on the whole enterprise after day 5 or so. You play with your ears just as much as with your fingers, so you might as well get good habits from the start.
    You can get a good tuner for very little money. Make sure you get one where you can choose which tones to tune to, and not just to the standard tuning. You’re going to need that later on.
    You don’t have to buy a tuner, of course; there are excellent tuner programs around, which do the job just as good or better than a standalone tuner. I can’t give recommendations of tuner software for  Windows, but google “free guitar tuner windows” and you should find something that works.
  • New strings. They produce the sounds, not your fingers or your ears. Bad strings — bad sound. Again: your girlfriend will think it’s your fault, and so will you.
  • A new guitar. OK, this one is optional, at least until day 12, but even a great guitarist will only sound half great on a bad guitar. Besides, a good guitar will be easier to play on, hence easier to learn on.
    Nylon strings are easier on the fingers than steel strings. You will get sore fingers no matter what kind of guitar you have, so be warned.
  • A capo. This is not essential at this stage, to be honest, but you will need one eventually, so you might as well buy one while you’re in the store. There are three main types: Nylon capo the cheapest ones fasten with a piece of elastic or nylon. The elastic models cost less than a beer, but are also the weakest, so they may not be able to press down all the strings with the necessary pressure and thus produce a buzzing sound. Besides, they will break, eventually. If you want to stay in the cheaper range, go with the nylon model to the left. Shubb lever-operated capoThe spring based model is more expensive. Many players love this kind. I don’t. Tastes differ. For what it’s worth, I use the lever-operated, no-frills capo to the right: it does what it’s supposed to do, and it will last forever.
    Make sure you get a capo that fits your guitar. Nylon string guitars have a flat fretboard and need a flat bar, whereas most steel string guitars have a curved fretboard and need a curved bar, as in the picture to the right.
  • You may also want to buy some plectrums. They vary in thickness and elasticity. “Find the one that suits you best,” would be something to say to someone who has played for a while, so I won’t say that. I’ll say: get a Dunlop .71 mm. It’s glaringly pink, but other than that, it’s ideal: not too rigid (which will make it stick between the strings and you’ll loose it), nor too sloppy (which will produce more clicking than real guitar sound). Peter Stone Brown has told me that there is a brown Dunlop plectrum that is identical to the pink one. Ask your dealer.

You can now leave the shop and go home, change your strings (or ask the nice people in the shop to do it for you), tune your guitar (this you should do yourself — you will be doing it a lot, so you might as well get into the habit), and grab hold of your guitar.

Update: You may want to know a little more about tuning. If you’ve been a good student and done as the professor ordered, you can use your tuning device, and all should be fine. If you’re rebellious, obsessed about personal freedom, or for some other reason don’t have said device, here’s a quick run-through:

  1. The standard tuning of a guitar is (from deepest to highest): E – A – d – g – b – e’
  2. Tune the deepest string to an E. If you don’t have an instrument to tune to, find a CD, and go to dylanchords.info to find a song that ‘s in E. Most of Blood on the Tracks would do. Shooting Star is in E. Etc.
  3. When that string is ok, press it down on the fifth fret. The fifth string should sound like the tone you get.
  4. Repeat with the next two string pairs: the fifth string fingered at the fifth fret should sound like the open fourth string, same with fourth -> third.
  5. Between the third and the second strings, the distance is smaller, so you will have to finger the third string on the fourth fret.
  6. Between the two highest string, it’s again the fifth fret.
  7. The sixth (deepest) and first (highest) strings should sound the same.

Now what?

Chord charts

Chances are, you are going to read a lot of tabs from the Net. I will get back to the topic of how to read tab later on, two words about it now, before we move on. A common way to write down chords, is as a string of numbers, from the deepest string (E) to the brightest (e’). It is common to number the strings in the other direction, so the “first string” is the brightest, and the “sixth string” the deepest.

“0” denotes an open string, a number indicates the fret to push down the string in, and “x” means that the string should not sound. Thus, 000000 means all strings open, and — slightly more exciting — 022000 means: place fingers on the second fret of the fifth and fourth strings.
This could also be written graphically, like this:

 o  ooo
 ======
 ||||||
 ------
 |23|||
 ------
 ||||||
 ------

This time, the numbers denote the left-hand fingers (1=index, 2=long, 3=ring, 4=pinky, and — when we get there: T=thumb from behind the neck).

Above the chart are signs that show what to do with the open strings. “x” means: “don’t play this string.” “0” means: this open string should sound.

There are other signs as well, but this will have to do for now.

The first chord: D

Learning to play the guitar is a drag. The main reason is that the first chord you’ll have to learn, is the most unwieldy chord in the book. I’ve secretly hated it since I first learned it, 35 years ago. It’s a D major chord, and it looks like this: xx0232, or:

xx0
======
||||||
------
|||1|2
------
||||3|

In other words: index finger on the third string, second fret, long finger on the first string, second fret, and ring finger on the second string, third fret.

The frets are the strips of metal that run across the neck. When I say “at the second fret”, it really means “in the space between the first and second metal bands” — “in the second box”.

Place your fingers as close to the middle of the “box” as possible. The whole point of putting a finger there is to “break” the string with an edge against the next fret band. If you press it down too close to the fret, you will have to press down harder to get that edge, and if you get too far back towards the first fret band, you may not get a sharp enough angle over the next fret to “break” the string. In both cases, you will either get a buzzing sound, or a very muffled sound (or no sound at all).

This is the first challenge with the D chord: to get the ring finger far enough up into the third fret and away from the two fingers at the second fret. I remember having struggled with that, and I’ve seen beginners sweating blood over it. If it’s any consolation, I can’t imagine now what the problem was; it does become second nature, and quicker than you might think while you’re cursing that little bugger of a ring finger. The same goes for all the chords, by the way.

Try also to place your fingers so that they are as perpendicular as possible to the fretboard. This should not be overdone, of course, but it is essential to good playing that you don’t accidentally stop one string with the finger of another string. This risk is minimized by the straighter attack from perpendicular fingers.

According to classical guitar technique, the thumb should be placed somewhere below the middle of the neck. If you’re just going to be playing chords, this is impractical, but the reason for it is well worth keeping in mind: the thumb is not there to hold the guitar, but to give support to the other fingers. Hence, it should be where it is most needed, which will be opposite where you finger the strings. So, don’t grab the neck like it was a stick. Instead, hold your arm out, let your hang hang down, naturally relaxed (like the zombie-posture, or something). Then, holding that position, twist your hand upwards, and you have your starting position.

Again: the goal is to be relaxed. Save as much as your energy as possible for when you really need it.

The D chord is a drag for two reasons. First, it’s boring. I’ll explain why tomorrow. Second, because it’s rigid: it fixes the hand in a certain position, and there isn’t much you can do with it. Both reasons have to do with the two “x”s in the chord chart: you should not play on the two deepest strings. That means that for your first chord, you will not be able to take advantage of the full sound potential of your instrument, which means that your girlfriend will only be slightly impressed — if at all.

But you’ll get there, don’t worry. For the time being, you have what’s needed to play — “Frere Jacques”. Finger your D chord and strike the strings with your thumb or — as I would prefer — the nail side of your index finger. Strike down in a steady rhythm where there is a dot. Try to avoid the two deepest strings:

.       .         .       .
Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping
.       .     .       .
Brother John, brother John?
.                 .        .                 .
Morning bells are ringing! Morning bells are ringing!
.           .     .           .
Ding, ding, dong. Ding, ding, dong.

That may be thrilling, I don’t know. Perhaps not. One is almost nothing; two is almost many. Let’s add another chord.

The second chord: A7

The second chord is a close relative of D. It is called A7 and looks like this:

x02020

or

x0 0 0
======
||||||
------
||1|2|
------
||||||

Here, you are allowed — even encouraged — to strike the fifth string as well. That’s good news. Even better news is that it doesn’t really matter if you happen to hit the sixth string as well.

I’ll explain the relationship to D tomorrow. At the moment, you may notice that the two fingers that you use here are in the exact same position as they were in the chord of D, only moved one string up. That brings us to the first real exercise (after you have strummed to Frere Jacques for a while):

Changing between chords

The secret of guitar playing — one of them, at least — is to learn how to be lazy, how to economize with your energy. Since the fingers are already in position, don’t lift off the whole hand from D to regroup the fingers for the A7; rather move the two relevant fingers as a group. This may sound obvious, but it does take some time to get it into the fingers, especially since you will also have to lift off the ring finger completely.

The exercise is simple enough: practice changing between the two chord shapes in a regular fashion: two strokes D, two strokes A7, two D, two A7 …:

D  D  A7 A7 D  D  A7 A7 D  D  A7 A7 D  D  A7 A7 ...

Focus on the index and long fingers — if you wish, leave out the ring finger completely from the D chord. Continue until you can do it as one movement with two fingers, rather than moving two fingers separately. Try to avoid touching other strings than the ones you are fingering.
At last we can play a “real” song:

Tom Dooley

D              .         .      .
Hang down your head, Tom Dooley
.              .        A7    .
Hang down your head and cry
A7             .         .      .
Hang down your head, Tom Dooley
.                .        D    .
Poor boy, you're bound to die.

When you can play this without making an embarrassing pause before “cry”, you will probably have fingers that as so sore that you can relate to poor Tom. Time to take a rest and prepare for tomorrow’s lesson.

All the Lessons

[catlist name=Lessons numberposts=150 order=asc orderby=date excludeposts=419]

Christmas in the Heart (2009)

I love this album. It’s a perfect follow-up, not to Dylan’s trilogy of albums vacuum-cleaning the American song tradition for inspiration, but to his Theme Time Radio Hour. (And for the record, my negative evaluation of his latest studio albums does not stem from indignation over ‘theft’, should anyone have gotten that impression, but from a number of lacklustre performances of material of declining quality.)

It’s hilarious. Finally, the ‘wolfman’ voice has found a home where it belongs: as a counterweight to the saccharine, a way to scare the living soul out of the unsuspecting innocent, and perhaps – just perhaps – blow some meaning into these songs again.

Because surely it’s hilarious. But that’s not the main reason why I’ve played this album more than any Dylan album since Time out of Mind. The reason is simple: the way he sings ‘ad Bethlehem’ in Adeste fideles sends shivers down my spine; his demonstration of Santa’s laughter in Must be Santa is the funniest thing since ‘Talkin’ WWIII Blues’; the sombre tone of Do you hear what I hear? is stunning and a perfect counterpart to the angelic serenity of Hark! The Herald Angels Sing, perspectivizing both qualities and leaving us, not somewhere undefined in the middle, but somewhere where there is room for both sombre and serene, hilarious and breathtakingly beautiful.

Of course, it’s a brilliant idea of Dylan to make a Christmas album, because it’s the last thing anyone would have expected (and, for that reason alone, perhaps not at all surprising). But Christmas in the Heart is much more than a funny idea, a joke, or, for that matter, just a nice way to do charity. It’s obvious that he loves this stuff. And somehow, amid the croaking and the frolicking, he manages to communicate that love, at least to this listener.

And when love is communicated, what more can one ask?

Have yourselves a merry Christmas!

*

[Update:] But wait, there is more. Two things more: “Dylan and tradition” and “Dylan and religion”.

Dylan and tradition

Quite a lot has been made out of the fact that this is a 1950s version of the American christmas song tradition. Someone pointed out that seven of the songs are from Frank Sinatra’s 1957 A Jolly Christmas album; others that Dylan secretly wants to be Dean Martin, another source for many songs.

I won’t repeat all that has been said about that. Here, just a brief remark about harmony. If there is one thing that runs through Dylan’s entire production, all period included, it is his consistent avoidance of the plain dominant, especially the dominant seventh: the strong harmonic tension generator, which is resolved to the key note, e.g. G7 ? C. Even when he plays covers, or when he relates to fixed genres, such as the blues, he usually finds ways to modify the dominant relation.

Not so here. In no other Dylan album will one find as many chains of dominant seventh as here. Just a sample:

Christmas blues has F#7   B7 E7  A7 Dmaj7
I’ll be home for christmas has Bm7-5 E7 Am7 D7 G
Here comes Santa Claus A7 Dm7 G7 C
Have yourself a merry Iittle Christmas, B7    E7 A7  D7 Gmaj7

This is not in itself surprising — that’s how the songs were written, and the room for taking liberties is smaller in this genre than in folk and blues. What is interesting about it, is the degree to which (and the ease with which) Dylan has subordinated himself to the style, without feeling the need to make a statement about it, the way he did on Self Portrait, the only album which is comparable in this respect (but not in many other).

The same can be said about the way he treats melody: he actually sings the tunes, straight up, with none of the trademark “you couldn’t even recognize the melody” treatment. And he does it wonderfully. He takes his mastery of vocal delivery into this — for him, as a public persona — foreign territory, and does it convincingly.

Dylan and religion

This one is inevitable when Dylan chooses to make a Christmas album. What does he mean with it? Is it a clear sign that he’s still a Christian, or is it a just as clear sign of the opposite; that it’s all “just” heritage?

Coca Cola SantaI have no idea, and I don’t care (there is only one song that has made me wonder what he thinks in this area, but it’s not on Christmas in the Heart). What I do know is that the lyrics to “Here Comes Santa Claus” in the version that Dylan sings is a most fascinating mix of symbols. From the “jingle bells” intro with the smooth, soft jazz choir, and through the first two verses, it’s classic American pop culture Christmas all the way, with reindeer, stockings and toys.

But then, in the third verse:

[He doesn’t care if you’re rich or poor]
for he loves you just the same

Oh, that was Santa, was it? For a moment there, I thought I was in the wrong song — I thought that was Christ or something.

[Santa knows that we’re God’s children]
and that makes everything right

St Nicholaus
The real Santa: St Nicholas

OK, so it was something in that direction after all. From here to the end of the song, it is quite clear that this has something to do with God, but it is delightfully unclear if it’s Santa or someone else who comes as God’s gift to Man on Christmas day.

This is emphasised by the arrangement: the alternation between the slow, solemn “Let’s give thanks to the Lord above” and the jinglebellsy “Cause Santa Claus comes tonight” is … Well, I have no idea what to call it. Hilarious? not quite. Blasphemous? Not at all. Devout? Get out of here!

At the same time, it’s all of those, and more. The best way I can describe this album is as a balancing act. A balancing act that you can only perform if you’re enjoying yourself and what you’re doing, perfectly unaffected by the 70,000 fathoms of thin air between you and total disaster. Dylan seems to have been staring into that abyss for quite some time, ever since he first tried to shake off the yoke of being some Generation’s Voice. Christmas in the Heart is a sign that he is finally free.

Saved (1980)

While there is general agreement that no matter what one thinks about the lyrics on Slow Train Coming, musically it is one of Dylan’s strongest, the general verdict is not equally lenient with Saved. With its ghastly cover — rivalled in tackiness only by Shot of Love — and its unequivocal title, it has proved to be an even bitterer pill to swallow than the precursor.

Which is understandable, but not quite fair. Saved is an excellent album, provided one can endure the obnoxious born-again evangelization. It may be a far cry from Slow Train Coming in the areas of polish and commercial appeal, but it has an energy, a punch, and a new approach to communication and message that is quite unique in Dylan’s production, and, as such, quite refreshing.

It should be said, however, that this more positive verdict is only partly true about the published album. Saved is unique in connection with Dylan in consisting only/mostly of songs that had already been tried out on stage for a long time before they were committed to vinyl. There is critical and historiographical consensus that the album suffered from this: by the time of the sessions for the record, the band (the same band that had played the songs on tour — another Dylan rarity) was already tired, and the spirit of the live renditions, which even the staunchest critics could not deny, did not translate well into a studio production.

There may be something true in this. Many of the songs are exuberant numbers of praise and thanksgiving, which  come better into its own from a stage, where extatically jubilant confession seems more natural than on a record.

This applies to the title track, a born-again statement if there ever was one, slightly too over-eager to be taken quite seriously (unless one shares the sentiment), perhaps, but a powerful and driving gospel rock number all the same, which I don’t mind listening to.

The same could be said about the brother-in-arms, “Solid Rock” (or, as the full title goes when it is presented during the shows: “Hanging On To A Solid Rock Made Before The Foundation Of The World”); and, to an even higher degree, to  “Pressing On” og “Are You Ready?” — the intensity that grows out of the slow build-up of these two songs during the live concerts can make even the hardest of heart jump to his feet and rejoice: “Yes! I’m ready! Take me, Bob! Take me with you!”, but that is mostly lost in the album version.

It probably couldn’t be any other way. None of the songs I’ve mentioned are among his strongest — from the gospel period or any other — but their effect depends on presence — the physical presence of the person and the band producing a sound of wall to bang one’s head against, and the temporal presence, exploiting the contrast between the indefiniteness of not knowing where this is going to end, and the inevitability of the process set in motion by the first “on-an-don-an-don-an-doon”. In the absence that the record medium necessarily entails, some of that is naturally lost. But some remains (and five bonus points for trying).

Besides, it doesn’t matter: there are strong songs left that do make the transition from concert stage to recording studio. Partly, perhaps, because they are stronger songs altogether, but mainly because they don’t depend on the live situation to the same extent.

“In The Garden” is easily Dylan’s most harmonically complex song, and although it shares some traits with the likes of “Saved”, such as the escalating intensity and the lyric repetitiveness, it depends more on the harmonic meandering to hold our attention.

Both “Covenant Woman” and “Saving Grace” are harmonically interesting, although not as wild as “In the Garden”. They are also touching, introspective reflections on the role of faith and salvation in the trials and tribulations of everyday life (at least that’s what a theologian might say about them). Especially “Covenant Woman” stands out in this respect, in a way which transcends the religious sphere. Lines like:

He must have loved me so much to send me someone as fine as you.

and

I’ll always be right by your side — I’ve got a covenant too.

work well with or without God in the equation.

This leaves the two real gems. “What Can I Do For You” gives us Dylan’s best harmonica solos ever — for once captured better on an official album than in any live rendition, at least among the ones I’ve heard. It is inventive, it is raw, and it is fragile, all at the same time. (It may be to go way beyond what kind of metaphors are appropriate for this particular album to say so, but there’s good sex in those two solos.) The sound of the mix in general comes across to me as a bit on the hard side, but the harp sound is unsurpassed.

And last but not least, and the opener, “A Satisfied Mind”, which in my book is one of Dylan’s crowning achievements as a singer. It’s not powerful, it’s not showy, at times he breaks like a little girl, but there is an intimacy in the delivery which gives the message credibility and urgency. The interaction with the backing singers is exquisite all the way through, and my mental image of the song is that of calm deliberation, there is actually an intensity which just grows as the song progresses. There happens remarkably much in a little less than two minutes.

Have I made my point clear enough? Damn, this is one hell of an album. If you’re a godless heathen, don’t let the cover scare you away from this album. And if you’re a true believer, don’t let your benevolence and agreement prevent the album from grabbing hold of you in ways and places you might not have expected.

Someone Please Fire Jack Frost

… or at least his little helper. You know, the little guy who sneaks in when Mr Frost has gone for lunch, and turns knobs that are best left alone. His intentions may be the noblest, but as we all know, Satan sometimes comes as a Man of Peace.

Frost, who also goes by the name of Bob Dylan, has produced a number of said artist’s records, and one would suspect that he, of all people, would agree with Dylan’s harsh verdict in a recent Rolling Stone interview on the sound quality of records today:

You listen to these modern records, they’re atrocious, they have sound all over them. There’s no definition of nothing, no vocal, no nothing, just like — static.

fairly recent blogpost by Sean Curnyn takes up this statement and turns it back on Dylan. Curnyn refers to a series of posts by Pete Bilderback on his blog Flowering Toilet, which give graphical examples of the difference in dynamic range between LP and CD versions of the same songs.

Here’s the LP version of ‘Thunder on the Mountain’:

Thunder on the Mountain, LP version

And here is what most of us — who are not sound geeks and have therefore bought the CD — hear:

Thunder on the Mountain, CD version

The difference (according to the two posts — I’m no expert in sound engineering), stems from the abuse of compression, a technique that is used in order to fill the sound-space as much as possible, and make the music stand out more clearly, even in the soft moments. Put to moderate use, it can enhance a recording, but as a weapon in the “Loudness War”, it is lethal — it kills the dynamic range in the recording (as the above examples show), and since dynamics is one of the most important tools to make music alive, we may have a serious baby and bath water situation here.

I refer to the other posts for further evidence and explanation. I, for one, am convinced, and it’s ironic that the “static” that Dylan refers to is so predominant on his own latest albums.

Why there should be this difference between the CD and the LP versions, I don’t know. One of the commenters at the Flowering Toilet mentions that the same difference could be noticed between the version of ‘Beyond Here Lies Nothing’ which was given out as a free download, and the version on the released album. So apparently the little helper works late, and only in the CD plant.

For the record, if I consider Modern Times and especially Together Through  Life lacklustre and on the whole unsucessful, it’s mainly because of the material. But a sound (huh…) advice for Dylan/Frost might be: Don’t shoot yourself in the foot — shoot the sound engineer instead.

Thanks to Heinrich Küttler of SEAL fame for bringing those posts to my attention.

How to Die with a Clean Grave (aka Ten Blessed Minutes in Hell With Your Host Lou Reed)

I have to do this in a bulleted list, because that’s as long as I can hold a thought: why this is the most glorious ten minutes I’ve spent in any hell in a long time (at least since Christmas in the Heart)

  • The beauty of seeing an acid city slicker singing delta blues, which proves that there are many paths to the blues — too much of either whiskey, cotton picking, broken hearts,  or cocaine and educational electro shocks @ young & tender age
  • If Take no Prisoners is Lou Reed’s best album, this is the best remake of it: the refusal to let it die, the refusal to let the beauty of whatever you’re singing take over, and the song’s refusal to take your refusal into account.
  • if you’re ugly from the start and manage to communicate sublime beauty in/despite that condition (alternatively: if you choose to communicate your desperate take on sublime beauty in an ugly form) you will not age, and since you don’t age, you will never die.
  • Anyone who watches this and still wants a strat instead of a tele should have his brain checked (unless he has black curly hair, enormous hands (and you know what they say about big hands), and died in 1970).

(Thanks to Meinhard for putting this up on his Facebook profile)

“The Bob Dylan link Eyolf Østrem does not want you to read or see”

There are currently nine (and counting) [edit: ten and counting] [edit: twelve and counting, one of them to this post] identical comments in this site’s spam box, all pointing out the shocking instance of web censorship in the headline: “The Bob Dylan link Eyolf Østrem does not want you to read or see.” They’re all from a guy named Richard Clark, and they point to jamesdamiano dot yolasite dot com (see? I don’t mind you seeing it — or reading it, if you have a week to spare).
But it’s not just my blog that gets flooded. At the discussion board over at expecting rain, we find, from the same Richard:

“The Eyolf Østrem link about The Bob Dylan James Damiano Plagiarism Litigation”

And at rec.music.dylan (r.m.d.?!? does anyone actually post there anymore?!) we have:

New ! Dylan E-book
New Dylan Book Eyolf Østrem ?

It’s like the flu: not every year, but with consistency to be counted on, it comes flushing over you and there is nothing you can do but wait for it to pass: James Damiano’s campaign to convince the world that he “wrote songs released by Bob Dylan”, as it says on his facebook page.
I have no idea what my name is doing there. He has nothing new to say, and neither do I, so I’ll just point to the conversation we had back in the 90s:

Did Dylan steal ‘Dignity’?

It’s remarkable that nowhere in the humongous material that he has amassed is there a sounding example — just a snippet would do — of the song “Steel Guitars” that Dylan allegedly stole.
Can we from this conclude that the song doesn’t even exist, to paraphrase Damiano?

[Update: I just found another incarnation of the videotaped depositions, which are a hoot to watch, btw, and lo and behold, there, in the background of Danny Gallagher’s testimony, is “Steel Guitars”! I have seen that snippet a couple of times now, but I had no idea that was the song, because I was listening for something that may have sounded like Dignity…]

What we do get is a musicologist who plays a generic melody line over the accompaniment of “Dignity”. Of course Dylan’s song sounds a lot like that…

We also get a number of other hit songs by mr Damiano, and man, would Dylan just die to lay his filthy, thieving hands on those beauties!

Swamps and passports: what it all means

I must say I like it when Dylan agrees with me. I once suggested to let the brown passports in ‘Desolation Row’ mean brown passports, and then see what happens. Now Dylan says:

Images don’t hang anybody [i.e. in the new audience] up. Like if there’s an astrologer with a criminal record in one of my songs it’s not going to make anybody wonder if the human race is doomed. Images are taken at face value and it kind of freed me up.

In what way?

Well for instance, if there are shadows and flowers and swampy ledges in a composition, that’s what they are in their essence. There’s no mystification. That’s one way I can explain it.

Like a locomotive, a pair of boots, a kiss or the rain?

Right. All those things are what they are. Or pieces of what they are. It’s the way you move them around that makes it work.

The image with the crooked astrologer is hilarious. The sad thing about it is that I can imagine that it is not just a hypothetical example exaggerated out of proportions. That at times, that’s what it’s been like to be Dylan. If it’s true that his project in the early nineties was to get that monkey off his shoulder, that’s quite understandable. I almost feel sorry for him, that poor Voice of a Generation.

The whole interview is a nice read. Highly recommended.

World Gone Wrong — A Body in Sound

World Gone Wrong (1993) is a body. Not just a great body of work, but a body.

The greatness of this album of folk and blues classics is that there is one voice speaking on it and one person speaking with this voice, whether he speaks guitar, harmonica, or English.

I’ll try to make it a little clearer. Continue reading World Gone Wrong — A Body in Sound

Church of Bob

Here’s to memories, to constancy, and to humour:

Church of Bob

The Church of Bob

This is the story: Ten years ago, I was sitting on the lawn outside the library with a beer and my good friend and fine Dylan interpreter Lars. Somehow, the similarities between Bob and Jesus came up: Carpenter/Zimmerman Jews from the north going south to change the world; performing their most important work in the country’s main city at 33, etc.

Since I was extremely busy at the time, working 24/7 to finish my Ph.D. in time (i.e., while I was still 33), I immediately sat down and turned our chat into a website.

I had this idea that it would be fun if it was completely anonymous: a full-scale religious framework developed solely out of religious fervor and love for the Cause. I think I spent more time on it than it deserved, and then I forgot all about it.

But that’s the nice thing about the net: I had almost forgotten that it existed, I have no idea anymore how to log in to the server, but it’s still there, the counter has been ticking in two visits a day and is now up to 21977, and it’s as anonymous as it ever was (which means that my name is there in the source code — this was in the days of Microsoft Front Page, and I’m not ashamed to admit it).

And I still think it’s hilarious . . .


Update: I couldn’t stand looking at that crappy html of the original site, so I decided to clean it up a bit. Since I can’t get in there, I put up a new version at a website near you. I cleaned up some of the mess, but left the layout mostly intact, as a memento of how things used to be. Don’t expect the external links or the mail address to work, though. The original is still over here.

“Say Only That Which You Have Figured Out Yourself”

These are the words of Thomas Blachman, the guy who has divided more water in Denmark than anyone since Moses (not that Moses was active in Denmark, but you know what I mean), the judge in Danish X Factor who according to some is a sadist who takes delight in sending aspiring stars home to their teenage rooms crying, according to others — yours truly included — a voice who actually has managed to say something important about culture in these Modern Times. In this case, it is from his book, The Colossal Human (p. 15).

Thomas Blachman - The first man to know everything again?

Anyway,

“Say Only That Which You Have Figured Out Yourself”.

Hm.

Is he a utopian, is he just out there to provoke, or is he plain stupid? What kind of an ideal is that, in these Modern Times when everything has already been figured out a long time ago, and when it takes at least a degreen in quantum mechanics and a super-advanced wheelchair to even start trying to understand even the questions that need to be asked to figure out that which still remains, let alone figure them out? And when there’s no need to figure out anything oneself, because wikipedia is always two clicks away? Is he calling for complete silence from the rest of us?

On the contrary, and I think he’s right.

But I think he’s right not only for the reasons he gives:

Because if everything I say has already been said before, who is then speaking? My parents? Their parents?

Seen in this light, his statement is a protest against the postmodern state, the quotation society, where even the attempts at true originality is abandoned because everything has already been said; where the closest we can ever get is to piece together the quotations in new and — hopefully — interesting ways.

Seen in this light, it is a call to arms against the fear of originality: if you don’t even try, there is no way to tell if what you had meant to say really was original, the spark of genius which, against all odds, had let you figure out something new. Be brave — fight the odds.

This is a valid and necessary opposition. But the statement could be taken in another direction too:

Athanasius Kircher -- the last man who knew everything

Thomas Young -- the last man who knew everything

OK, there is a fair chance that everything I have to say has already been said before, in one way or another. There is such an immense wealth of information out there, texts, opinions, blogs, databases, journals, etc., that if I were to check if anyone has said what I wanted to say, I would never get around to even saying it. I have some times suggested a five-year ban on writing and publishing, to give us a chance to catch up, but even if we extended that to ten or twenty years, it would still just be a piss in the Pacific (as my teacher used to say; wonder who said it before him?). The last man who knew everything died a long time ago, whether we think it was Athanasius Kircher (1601/2–1680) or Thomas Young (1773–1829).

But if that is my predicament, it is also yours, the reader’s: the chances that whoever reads what I write knows exactly that particular article which I happen to have copied (without knowing it because I haven’t read it), are so slim that it might as well be disregarded. In a certain sense, everything is new to discover again, so let’s get started.

What distinguishes this from the post-modern “rearranging the quotations” model is that the quotations — which they most probably are — are not treated as quotations but as new, because to the individual reader, it most likely is new: not necessarily new knowledge, objectively speaking, but at least new statements, nevermind if they have been made before.

In other words: consider what is being said not primarily as information, but as action — communication as an act of human interaction, not as a transferral of knowledge. Or, to use a different image (which I hereby use for the first time, to my knowledge and presumably to yours): as sex, not in the sense of transferring information like a sperm to an egg, but in the sense of cuddling, enjoying someone’s company, body, and mind.

Even an expert in the same field as mine would have a different background, different reasons to say what he says, different ways of saying it. Hearing our different versions of the same information would still be to meet two different persons, witness two different realizations of being human, expressions of humanity. They are revealing, not so much in what they say as in how and why: here’s another person who is saying something — why is he doing that? why does he keep using “red” as an example? Which records did he listen to when he was sixteen?
Etc.

Then there’s always the thin line which separates bold greatness from trivial platitudes. Perhaps we don’t need hoards of people who have figured out for themselves that the world is round and are dying to tell the world about it. Or perhaps we do? Rather than hoards of people who don’t? Discovering that the world is round is a wonderful thing to do, even though Columbus has done it already. Too wonderful to be done once (and) for all.

Good Links: Theme Time Radio and Tell Tale Signs

Scott Warmuth, who first discovered Dylan’s extensive borrowing from Henry Timrod for the lyrics to Modern Times and went on to dig deeper into the Ovidian connection, presents more findings in his blog. Well worth a visit!


The third season of Dylan’s Theme Time Radio Hour is well underway, and it’s as good as it used to be.
Get the shows, and read up on them. Highly recommended!


Acoustic Guitar Magazine has an online lesson with the basics of the guitar styles of Maybelle Carter, Jimmie Rodgers, Roy Harvey, and Riley Puckett, compete with music examples, a video, and thorough background material.

Can’t Wait

Two things in particular make Tell Tale Signs a god-send for the Dylan analyst. One is that it shows how tightly interconnected Dylan’s last three albums are, not only musically but also lyrically: text fragments and themes float between them as if they were part of the same triple album. The other is that it gives an opportunity to study the process that so many musicians who have worked with him have mentioned: that songs can change radically from one session to the next or even between takes. The three versions of “Can’t Wait” are particularly revealing in this respect.

Continue reading Can’t Wait

Things Twice, the book — now in html

I admit it: the chords part of dylanchords may be in a decent state (apart from the use of frames, which is sooo last century), but the articles are a mess. There’s the collected pdf volume, the selected links on the Self-ordained Professors page, the blog posts here, and the introductions to some of the albums.

I’ve now decided to do something about it. Here’s the state of affairs:

  1. Things Twice — the book. This will always be the definitive version. If/when I do revisions to articles, this is where they are made. The layout is more pleasant than in any of the other formats. It’s a pdf file, currently c. 2 Mb.
  2. Self-ordained professors. This used to be where new stuff appeared, but that is no longer the case. Static html is not the most versatile format to work with, and when I moved on to greener pastures, the versions that were left here, became more and more obsolete. I therefore opted for the radical approach: the articles on the Self-ordained Professors page are now converted versions of whatever is found in the pdf version. This makes them an inferior option, for several reasons: some of the layout is lost, the images are of a horrible quality, and the way the footnotes appear is a bit cumbersome (and I care a great deal about my footnotes!). All in all, this should only be an option if you don’t fancy a 2 Mb download.
  3. Finally, there’s Things twice — the blog — this place right here. This is the place for experiments, drafts, work-in-progress. In other words, it will never be the final version of anything, but it’s where you have a chance to comment. There has been a time when there was more activity here than now, but let me also take this opportunity to say that some of the articles could not have been written without — and others have become immensely better thanks to — the feedback I have gotten from you at the blog.