Re: Guns n' stuff
jordie chambers (jordiekc@rocketmail.com)
Thu, 13 May 1999 22:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
Rob, good enough. I walked a tangent from your original
post. You write in absolutes, something I admire way more
than I do vagueries. I admire Dylan for that among other
reasons. It's characteristic of people that are (don't
make me list all the superlatives and modifiers) angry.
The tone of most of his songs is either full of anger,
sorrow, humor, yarn, or all of the above. Tunes like It's
Allright Ma (I'm Only Bleeding), Ballad of a Thin Man,
Idiot Wind, Under the Red Sky (the album), all have angry
tones in them. Talking Bear Mountain Blues is a great
yarn w/ angry irony, 'Send them off for a picnic at Bear
Mountain'. His poetry in Tarantula, almost all angry.
When I say angry, I don't mean for you to picture some guy
in tight jeans horking with a red faced grimace and a Kill
Your Grandma logo stitched to his jeanjacket, I mean
someone who wants change, and wants it bad, but is either
incapable or unwilling to make the change. I think Dylan
was unwilling, and his songs did become more passive with
time, like, Down in the Groove, Dylan wasn't a
revolutionary, by any means, Masters of War might be his
most poignant and focused. I don't appreciate suggestions
in music. It's like having a stranger tell me how and
what to believe, uncomfortable, makes it hard to resist
telling them to shut it. Masters of War is an obviously
powerful tune, but after that, I think Dylan was
apprehensive to write another superpowerful social
commentary type song, at least not in an angry way. His
anger in social commentary was probably diverted by
religion, possibly shown by the tune Slow Train Coming.
He has some bitter things to say in that song, but they're
trapped inside his idea of a greater purpose, or the idea
that righteousness will prevail in the face of a cesspool
society. This makes the bitterness less poignant and
almost inspirational, but I think it weakens his form. I
may be confusing Man in the Long Black Coat with something
else, but it bugs me to think that the man in the long
black coat might be the devil (in Dylan's mind). I sure
hope he didn't believe that because it seems so intrusive
to the soul of the song, which is bitter and not directed
at any thing. I think he's an expert on people's
feelings, and should speak that way (which he does for the
most part) rather than on social commentary or as a
religious voice. I get annoyed by atheists too, piping in
their reasons why instead of playing an objective tune. I
said earlier that I like absolutes, as subjective
statements of the way things are, rather than vagueries.
Objective absolutes are better, but it takes a tactful
person, like Dylan, to string the objective absolutes
together to make a whole, to sway beliefs and to change
minds. That, I respect.
About Seymour and Dylan. I wish I didn't compare them
now. I read my earlier post and feel silly for it. I
would rather talk about Seymour period, but I've already
worn my fingertips and brain to fleshy pulp.
---Robert Morris <winboog@gis.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Dylan was way angrier than Seymour, to compare them. I'd
> >say It's Allright, Ma is one of his best, because it
> >exposes him for what he saw and felt during the time he
> >was twenty two or so.
>
> I think you missed the point of my post entirely. I
was not comparing
> Seymour to Zimmy. I was referencing Dylan's comments
concerning on what his
> beliefes were. ie belief in Hank Williams singing "I Saw
the Light."
>
> As far as Dylan being angry, at that point. i really
couldn't disagree
> more. There is a lot of comedy on those records, the
one's you mention.
> Anger? I don't think so.
>
> I never compared the two (Seymour and Dylan). Were
you got that from is
> beyond me. If anything I compared myself and Dylan.
>
>
> Robert Morris
>
>
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com