Johnny E Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 I just want to add that there is a lot more to making a film than shooting the footage. I thought Scorcese did a great job of forming a cohesive narrative, creating unique perspectives on incidents we've all seen a million times (Kennedy assasination comes to mind), maintaining a consistent tone, and making sure the editing (and the ego that goes along with that) did not get in the way of the subject which is the case with many documentaries about musicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeith Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 I also wanted to say that during the closing credits, there is a some written language that appears on the screen that said something like: After 1966 Bob Dylan continued to write songs and perform. this cracked me up. Who did Marty think was watching this film, the Rotary Club? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 "He has never described himself as anything but an entertainer who was lucky to be working. His iconic status was thrust upon him by those who wanted to see a serious message in everything he did." I disagree with this - from his first days in NYC Dylan strove to create an iconic mythology for himself, to creat an image of ultra-cool/bohemian/counterculture/bard. This was a very conscious decision, and he used and than discarded people as necessary yto reach his goal. He was a great artist but not a nice guy, rather was manipulative and turned his back, after fame, on many of the people who had helped him out initially. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ValerieB Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 "He has never described himself as anything but an entertainer who was lucky to be working. His iconic status was thrust upon him by those who wanted to see a serious message in everything he did." I disagree with this - from his first days in NYC Dylan strove to create an iconic mythology for himself, to creat an image of ultra-cool/bohemian/counterculture/bard. This was a very conscious decision, and he used and than discarded people as necessary yto reach his goal. He was a great artist but not a nice guy, rather was manipulative and turned his back, after fame, on many of the people who had helped him out initially. ← seems like joan baez, for one, has never completely gotten over the hurt/rejection by dylan! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Fitzgerald Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 Related to this discarding of people, it was interesting to hear Joan talk about not being invited onstage, and to get Dylan's input too. Also, Joan-related - "Percy's Song" is one of my absolute favorite Fairport Convention tunes. Just stunning in Sandy's delivery, the vocal harmonies, and the simple accompaniment. Did FC get the privilege of having the premiere issue of that piece? Baez never recorded it and Dylan's version went unreleased until Biograph, right? Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 (edited) there's a lot of bitterness - Spoelstra felt that way, Van Ronk a bit too; and Dylan treated Phil Ochs like shit - Edited September 28, 2005 by AllenLowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Fitzgerald Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 I ain't looking to steal your song, put you down, or do you wrong All I really wanna do is baby, be friends with you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fent99 Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 Sure Percy's Song came from that bunch of Dylan stuff hawked around by his publishers (source of those early bootlegs?). Wasn't there an article in Mojo a while back? Brings me to my disappointment with this. Not many stones still left unturned about this period. Mojo must run a Dylan article every 6 months or so and its the bit after that interests me (actually the 70s dylan is the only bit I go back to and listen to) Interesting to hear him talk reasonably straight though and the footage from peace marches (63?) to the UK tour in 66 is great. I could do without all the analysis from old folkies but I'm grateful its from them and not ignorant folk who weren't around at the time like most documentaries. Ultimately it makes me think about the music and those exceptional performances which might just be the point... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 I can't help buy think what the Ken Burns version of this might have looked like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 In terms of major musicians of the time who were subjected to press conferences, I have to compare Dylan and The Beatles - and while totally irreverant, The Beatles ended up being seen more as "lovable" rather than being seen as "narcissistic" etc. Obviously there are differences - they had the benefit of four of them who could joke and juggle between themselves, etc. But The Beatles didn't turn the spotlight back on the interviewer the way Dylan did. ← That's the comparison I was making while watching as well. The Beatles, as far as I interpret it, were just as caustic and insulting as Dylan in their press conferences. They just covered their insults with humor, and the press didn't get it. Dylan seemed genuinely amazed at the bullshit that the press would ask and too stunned (or tired, as this film led us to believe) to play along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeith Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 (edited) In terms of major musicians of the time who were subjected to press conferences, I have to compare Dylan and The Beatles - and while totally irreverant, The Beatles ended up being seen more as "lovable" rather than being seen as "narcissistic" etc. Obviously there are differences - they had the benefit of four of them who could joke and juggle between themselves, etc. But The Beatles didn't turn the spotlight back on the interviewer the way Dylan did. ← That's the comparison I was making while watching as well. The Beatles, as far as I interpret it, were just as caustic and insulting as Dylan in their press conferences. They just covered their insults with humor, and the press didn't get it. Dylan seemed genuinely amazed at the bullshit that the press would ask and too stunned (or tired, as this film led us to believe) to play along. ← I tend to disagree Moose, and like Mike, I think the Beatles could be irreverent, but they did not personally attack individual members of the press the way Dylan does in No Direction and Don't Look Back. The nastiest Beatle comment I remember to the press was when Lennon and McCartney were being interviewed about the opening of Apple and a reporter asks why do this and Lennon says something like "so that people who want to make music or a film don't have to crawl on their knees in someone's office, probably yours" but that pales in comparison to Dylan's shtick. I think of the reporter who yelled out to the Beatles just after their arrival in NYC "when are you going to get a haircut" They all laugh and George just says "I had one yesterday". Can you imagine Dylan's reaction? Lennon was more than a bit contrite in an interview he gave after the we are more popular than Jesus comment. Again, imagine Dylan? So while I love his music he does come across as a bit of an asshole. The other thing is that Dylan basically refused to answer almost any serious question and the Beatles in a number of interviews entertained serious questions from the press, even the uninformed press. Now I am not saying the Beatles are better than Dylan or that Dylan isn't important as a musician or a songwriter or whatever you think he is, I just said what I said and now it's all this. Edited September 28, 2005 by skeith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereojack Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 The other thing is that Dylan basically refused to answer almost any serious question and the Beatles in a number of interviews entertained serious questions from the press, even the uninformed press. ← You can't really know if this is true unless you see the complete unedited press conferences. Much of the the footage in "No Direction Home" comes from Pennebaker's "Don't Look Back", and I suspect that Pennebaker intentionally selected the footage that he found amusing, either for the dumb questions or Dylan's comical and sometimes caustic answers. I have to believe that a fair number of reasonable questions were asked and answered, but not included in the films. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7/4 Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 The other thing is that Dylan basically refused to answer almost any serious question and the Beatles in a number of interviews entertained serious questions from the press, even the uninformed press. ← You can't really know if this is true unless you see the complete unedited press conferences. Much of the the footage in "No Direction Home" comes from Pennebaker's "Don't Look Back", and I suspect that Pennebaker intentionally selected the footage that he found amusing, either for the dumb questions or Dylan's comical and sometimes caustic answers. I have to believe that a fair number of reasonable questions were asked and answered, but not included in the films. ← Yeah, but that's no fun. I saw the last hour of the second night. Now I feel that I should have watched the whole thing. I must know someone I can borrow it from... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny E Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 Now I am not saying the Beatles are better than Dylan or that Dylan isn't important as a musician or a songwriter or whatever you think he is, I just said what I said and now it's all this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 ...surprise surprise, in his vocal time and phrasing, whic are absolutely masterful in the 1960s ← No surprise here. I've always thought that people who complained that Dylan "can't sing" were missing the boat entirely. His incredibly precise timing and controlled manipulation of vowels is easily the equal of Sinatra's, although, obviously, entirely different. Same for his harmonica playing - no accidents there. None. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7/4 Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 ...surprise surprise, in his vocal time and phrasing, whic are absolutely masterful in the 1960s ← No surprise here. I've always thought that people who complained that Dylan "can't sing" were missing the boat entirely. His incredibly precise timing and controlled manipulation of vowels is easily the equal of Sinatra's, although, obviously, entirely different. Same for his harmonica playing - no accidents there. None. ← Are you sure 'bout the harmonica playing? I'm more used to blues players, I guess. Dylan has that folkie thang goin' on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Fitzgerald Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 I don't hear "accidents" in the harmonica playing, I just hear massive limitations. But it serves its purpose. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeith Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 (edited) One other thing I just remembered. That event where Dylan got the Tom Paine award and Scorsese gives us Dylan insulting the audience, particularly the old people and the hair challenged folks. The most important thing to come out of Dylan's appearance for that award was that Dylan made a comment at the ceremony, coming just a month after the Kennedy assassination, that he could see where Oswald was coming from. Several other Dylan documentaries have included this. Marty airbrushed it! Edited September 28, 2005 by skeith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christiern Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 I haven't seen the film yet, but all this talk of Dylan's nastiness brings to mind what he did for an artist like Victoria Spivey, a blues singer whose career was, basically, over. I used her on a couple of Prestige sessions (reuniting her with Lonnie Johnson), which gave her a modicum of re-attention. Dylan took note, obviously liked what he heard, and insisted that a photograph of him with Victoria be prominent on the back cover (it just about was the back cover) of his next album. At Dylan's request, Victoria was not identified, which, predictably, resulted in the press demanding to know who the mystery lady was. I admired the way Dylan manipulated it so that the press would take interest. Victoria subsequently lent her name to a small label started by dyed-in-the-wool jazz collector Lenny Kunstadt out of his Collyer Brothers-like Brooklyn apartment and he appeared on her first release, as "Big Boy Grunt." I did not see a lot of Dylan, but I had a few personal encounters with him--at Columbia as well as at WBAI--and he was never less than friendly and down-to-earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ValerieB Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 ...surprise surprise, in his vocal time and phrasing, whic are absolutely masterful in the 1960s ← No surprise here. I've always thought that people who complained that Dylan "can't sing" were missing the boat entirely. His incredibly precise timing and controlled manipulation of vowels is easily the equal of Sinatra's, although, obviously, entirely different. Same for his harmonica playing - no accidents there. None. ← OY!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 I didn't mention this before, but doesn't it seem a bit odd that (apart from the drummer who was just along for the ride) no members of the Hawks/the Band were interviewed for this? Especially considering that this film was made by the director of "The Last Waltz?" I mean, the drummer was fine, but where the hell was Garth Hudson? Or Robbie Robertson? They were with Dylan during so many crucial moments in his career, it would have been interesting to hear their take on it (especially since we see them play throughout the film). I mean, given that the film usues a lot of footage of the late Allen Ginsberg, you'd think they might even have had some footage of Rick Danko! That was only serious omission I noticed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeith Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 have to agree with you there Alexander! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted September 29, 2005 Report Share Posted September 29, 2005 I don't hear "accidents" in the harmonica playing, I just hear massive limitations. But it serves its purpose. Mike ← Well, yeah, but I also hear total command of the limitations, so we're possibly getting into the realm of what's a limitation and what's not, which I really don't care to get into. But the thing that strikes me most is the impeccabilty, the purposefulness of his "microtiming" (if that really means anything) and his various attacks and dynamics. Not at all unlike Monk in end result, although, of course, in a totally different idiom using totally different raw materials. Different but alike. Or vice-versa. So, whatever that means, there it is! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Fitzgerald Posted September 29, 2005 Report Share Posted September 29, 2005 OK, I can agree with that. I remember noticing last night how on one of the solos it seemed just wheezing in and out, absolutely no regard for the chords. It was to the point where it was not a harmonic or melodic instrument, it was more like a cuica, a rhythmic instrument with some ability to create colors and shadings. On the whole, I'd rather hear John Mayall. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcello Posted September 29, 2005 Report Share Posted September 29, 2005 ...surprise surprise, in his vocal time and phrasing, whic are absolutely masterful in the 1960s ← No surprise here. I've always thought that people who complained that Dylan "can't sing" were missing the boat entirely. His incredibly precise timing and controlled manipulation of vowels is easily the equal of Sinatra's, although, obviously, entirely different. Same for his harmonica playing - no accidents there. None. ← OY!!! ← Oy Vey!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.