The question is not so much: \u201cIs this a good Dylan album?\u201d \u2013 which it is \u2013 as \u201cIs this a Dylan album?\u201d \u2013 which it isn\u2019t.<\/p>\n
First the lyrics: as Scott Warmuth has discovered, through an ingenious google investigation, several lines of lyrics are lifted from the works of the \u201cPoet Laureate of the Confederacy\u201d Henry Timrod in much the same way as Yunichi Saga\u2019s Confessions of a Yakuza<\/em> unwittingly contributed to \u201cLove and Theft\u201d<\/em>. This has caused considerable reactions, in far wider circles than usual.<\/p>\n So, is Dylan a thieving scoundrel and a plagiarist, or a genius who transforms what he reads into new gems?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The lyrical side of his creative borrowings don\u2019t bother me a single bit, and I\u2019m surprised that such a fuss has been made over this. If anything, they add to the value of Dylan\u2019s effort, rather than subtract from it. I would never call any of that plagiarism<\/em>, neither in the case of Modern Times<\/em> nor of \u201cLove and Theft\u201d<\/em>. I can\u2019t imagine Dylan sitting there in his divine solitude, struggling with a line, then walking over to the bookshelf and picking out Timrod or Saga in search for a line that would work. Now, that<\/em> would have come closer to plagiarism: to let someone else do the job. I imagine it\u2019s the other way around: Dylan has read Yakuza and Timrod, certain phrases and figures have stuck in his mind, from where they in due time have popped up again, in a completely new context. This kind of use is not dictated by need but by circumstance, coincidence, \u201cintuition\u201d if you wish. That is what I find fascinating about the use of these sources on these two albums: they highlight just how it is that things \u201cpop up\u201d in one\u2019s mind \u2013 how people think.<\/p>\n But my surprise by the overreaction regarding a few creatively transformed word connections is multiplied by the lack of a similar reaction to the musical borrowings. These are both much more substantial and much more difficult to defend.<\/p>\n At the time of writing (Wed 20 Sept, 16:08 CET), the following songs on Modern Times<\/em> have known models for their music:<\/p>\n These are not just influences: in all cases, the chord structure is lifted from the models and the melody is clearly recognizable, and in some cases, the whole arrangement is \u201cborrowed\u201d.<\/p>\n That\u2019s five out of ten. Furthermore, I\u2019d be very surprised if the music to Spirit on the Water<\/em> is Dylan\u2019s own. Thunder on the Mountain could be by anyone, and probably is. That leaves us with three songs where the music is \u2013 at least until proven otherwise \u2013 truly \u201cby Bob Dylan\u201d.<\/p>\n It so happens that these are the three strongest songs on the album: \u201cNettie Moore\u201d, \u201cAin\u2019t Talkin\u2019\u201d and \u201cWorkingman\u2019s Blues #2\u201d. I don\u2019t know if this is good news or bad: it is reassuring that his own songs are the best, but why, then, did he have to put in the rest of it \u2013 didn\u2019t he have more than three songs in him in five years?<\/p>\n If this is a sign of creative drought, that may be a matter of concern regarding the possibility of more albums in the future, but in this<\/em> particular context, it\u2019s not my main concern.<\/p>\n If the various textual allusions and citations can be redeemed as a fascinating display of creative intertextual intution, it is quite the opposite with the music. When Dylan w\/band play the exact same notes and the exact same solos as Muddy Waters did on \u201cRollin\u2019 and Tumblin\u2019\u201d, that\u2019s not \u201cintuition\u201d or creative translocation, it\u2019s just \u201cletting Muddy do the job\u201d, plain and simple. That doesn\u2019t add to my appreciation of the work \u2013 on the contrary.<\/p>\n Not all the borrowings are as straightforward as \u201cRollin\u2019 and Tumblin\u2019\u201d. \u201cWhen the Deal Goes Down\u201d is a more interesting case. It is quite analogous to his version of \u201cYou Belong To Me\u201d or just about every live cover he has performed during the Never Ending Tour years: his melody is quite different from the original; he has clearly made it his own, although the tune is clearly the same. The difference is that \u201cYou Belong To Me\u201d doesn’t have \u201cWritten by Bob Dylan\u201d under it.<\/p>\n Putting the label \u201cAll songs written by Bob Dylan\u201d on this CD is plain indecency. Again, this applies only to the music; I would not<\/em> have wished to see anyhing like: \u201cWords by Bob Dylan and Henry Timrod\u201d. But I would<\/em> have liked to see: \u201cWords: Bob Dylan, Music: Muddy Waters\u201d (disregarding here the fact that Muddy didn\u2019t write the tune either, but that\u2019s moot: he<\/em> played those solos, he<\/em> shaped the song into the form which Dylan has taken over, so for all intents and purposes Muddy is the originator). If Dylan has copyrighted the tunes of Rollin\u2019 and Tumblin\u2019 and Beyond the Horizon, he gets money from selling something he didn\u2019t own in the first place. And regardless of the money, by putting \u201cby Bob Dylan\u201d under it he is taking creative credit for something he didn\u2019t create, stating \u201cThis is what I have to say\u201d without actually saying anything. That\u2019s<\/em> my main concern: he isn\u2019t saying anything. And as Tom Lehrer so eloquently put it: \u201cIf you can\u2019t communicate, the least you can do is shut up<\/em>!\u201d<\/p>\n As more and more references and borrowings were discovered on \u201cLove and Theft\u201d<\/em>, I got this wonderful vision: what if it wasn\u2019t just a few lines of Japanese gangster-lore here and there \u2013 what if every<\/em> note and every<\/em> lyric line were direct quotations, put together in a grand collage \u2013 that<\/em> would have been a major achievement, and a bold highlighting of the problematic of communication, by blurring the normally well-established pattern of sender-receiver; pointing (fingers) to our expectations and norms, and proving them to be wrong. It would have been like a game. And that title \u2026 But when the same thing happens on Modern Times<\/em>, only without the extra level of \u201cgame\u201d, it just becomes a sign of someone who is content with playing lounge music, but who has a reputation to live up to and a record company with an over-zealous sales department on his back.<\/p>\n Some have defended Dylan with reference to the folk tradition. \u201cThis is what one does there: one takes what one hears and builds on that. This is what Dylan has always done.\u201d Etc. Fair enough, but only to a point. Of course, there are contexts where, for historical or other reasons, a legalistic approach to authorship may be less relevant than in other contexts, or at least require an interpretation in the light of practice, the \u201cfolk tradition\u201d being one such context. The next question would then be if a multi-million seller is at all comparable to the swapping, sharing, reworking of songs in coffee-houses or dance halls which I would more immediately associate with the \u201cfolk tradition\u201d. If the folk tradition is about community, sharing, and freedom of expression, Modern Times<\/em> does that, but it does a lot of other things too, such as making money for the artist, the record company, and the manager\u2019s uncle, which places it in a completely different context.<\/p>\n\n