They're both into horny women?
Posted on 04/29/2010 9:19:06 AM PDT by EveningStar
“Bob [Dylan] is not authentic at all. He’s a plagiarist, and his name and voice are fake. Everything about Bob is a deception. We are like night and day, he and I.” — Joni Mitchell, Los Angeles Times, April 22, 2010
Caterwauling Canuck “folk singer” Joni Mitchell got just about everybody riled up with that sweet morsel of self-serving insight, but the real shock is not that Mitchell is absolutely correct but that someone finally came out and said it. After decades of carefully manicured deification by Columbia Records, brain-dead rock critics and the slimy elite institution that elevated such barely able snake-oil salesmen as Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger to celestial heights, it’s high time to flout indoctrination and examine Dylan’s track record as a Grade-A phony.
(Excerpt) Read more at bighollywood.breitbart.com ...
1. Complexity.
2. Bravado.
3. Thematic elements. (Such as perverted/incestuous sex.)
4. An inability to be properly performed my most of their contemporaries.
5. Self parody.
Please add me to the Dylan ping list.
Freegards
A lot of composers had complexity and bravado. Zappa has more in common with Varese who he admired. Wagner never got to self parody. His last work, Parsifal, still showed development. He’s been parodied many times of course.
Gag me!
A phony calling someone else a phony? How unique.
.
Heh heh..
“Sounds like Joni is a bit jealous to be coming out and attacking him like that.”
Joanie is a marxist; does that help?
.
Yep, looks like she’s 170!
.
She doesn’t rate a pimple on Dylan’s long, productive career.
His voice was never his hook; it was the entire package of lyrics, music—which went accoustic 45 years ago.
Backing Dylan made The Band—put them in bigtime.
What is her name again?
Maybe not ever, but I agree they were great singer-songwriters. I never got Dylan and never understood friends who did. Joni Mitchell, on the other hand, perfectly expressed in music young, moody American female angst at a morally terrifying time, the mid 1970s.
Those who disparage Dylan or Mitchell are simply musically illiterate.
I took quite a lot of comfort in Mitchell's music. It was pretty sophisticated and interesting, but then, I can't say I'd actually be nuts about a guy who found the same there. I'm a sexist, so what.
To me, Dylan was not much of a musician. He was a self-absorbed poet-to-music, and a good singer. Not in Mitchell's league, musically.
My politics have always been pretty much the same, but musically ... I think differently now than I used to! I don't like much to listen to the same old stuff I listened to when I was 19.
Those who disparage Dylan or Mitchell are simply musically illiterate.
They're pop stars and wonderful American entertainers. Too bad Mitchell sounded off on Dylan.
Bob Dylan was always over rated. The fact that some people have fooled themselves into thinking he’s a “Cultural Giant” only tells us slightly more how rotten 20the century culture was than how vapid some views are about what constitutes culture.
LOL!!!
"Where have you been my blue-eyed son..." meggadittoes!
Yeah “Blond on Blond” was Zimmy’s peak for me. What a gret name for an album, a double album. The photos were great and some indecipherable. A complete package to guess about and to interpret
“Visions of Johanna” on that is my favorite Zimmy tune
They're both into horny women?
His influence is huge. There’s no way around that. The list of people who have recorded his songs is very lengthy.
Thanks for that Mr. Blonde
Jack White is not exactly to my taste, but I can see he’s sincere. It’s good to see the kids are looking at Dylan
“Isis” and “One More...”—I forgot to mention those. Matter of fact, most of the album is great.
I also failed to mention another song from “Street Legal”, “Senor>”. When I was back in college, a guy in the room next to mine bought that album and played it over and over. It annoyed the hell out of me, until one day I noticed I loved it. I had to buy my own copy.
Dylan, in that period, seems to have been going through a real spiritual crises and those songs seem genuine— even at times profound. It’s a deep vein for prospecting.
This business originality is the residue of modernism—there’s really nothing new under the sun. What an artist does is recombine the things of significance to them into something different. There’s another part: people need to be interested in it,and this takes a bit of selling.
I guess it takes a swollen ego to do these, so I don’t imagine artists are really pleasant as people.
The main point is, great artists aren’t original, they’re authentic. Jack’s on the right track.
I love Isis.
They would seem to foreshadow his Christian phase.
And I agree that authenticity and emotion are the most important parts. And authenticity isn’t just limited to starting something totally new. A lot of the really experimental music sucks.
The quintessential post of the "I don't like Bob Dylan, therefore his influence is negligible and anyone thinking differently is stupid and fooling themselves" crowd.
Thank you for sharing your personal opinion. Go ahead and take a Mantovani cd out of petty cash for your efforts.
I never heard of Mantovani - but your use of him probably merely confirms my point. Thanks.
‘probably merely’ is one heck of a construction.
Mantovani is orchestral easy listening. About as satisfying musically as sawdust is to a parched throat.
In my experience, a hefty percentage of those who don’t like Dylan want their music “pretty”. That may or may not describe you, but that’s what I was getting at.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.