The Nobel Prize in Literature 2016 awarded to Bob Dylan(nobelprize.org)
nobelprize.org
The Nobel Prize in Literature 2016 awarded to Bob Dylan
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2016/press.html
345 comments
>When I see Trump rallies today full of angry people complaining their country has been 'taken from them' I can't help but think of that song.
Give me a break. "Taking our country back" is talking about wrestling power back from the political and cultural elite that has emerged in the last half-century. This elite formed when 1) all of the smart kids started going off to college together and forming their own social bubble, 2) they began invariably marrying people they went to college or work with (while in earlier times, the successful were typically married to very average middle-class people they grew up around), and 3) the economy shifted to highly rewarding intelligence while wages for lower-skill work collapsed. This has led to the splintering of American society. It has nothing to do with race.
I recommend Charles Murray's book Coming Apart, which is a thorough sociological study of this phenomenon and its effects.
Give me a break. "Taking our country back" is talking about wrestling power back from the political and cultural elite that has emerged in the last half-century. This elite formed when 1) all of the smart kids started going off to college together and forming their own social bubble, 2) they began invariably marrying people they went to college or work with (while in earlier times, the successful were typically married to very average middle-class people they grew up around), and 3) the economy shifted to highly rewarding intelligence while wages for lower-skill work collapsed. This has led to the splintering of American society. It has nothing to do with race.
I recommend Charles Murray's book Coming Apart, which is a thorough sociological study of this phenomenon and its effects.
> Give me a break. "Taking our country back" is talking about wrestling power back from the political and cultural elite that has emerged in the last half-century.
You mean people like Trump?
You mean people like Trump?
No not really. Going back millennia, there has always been an elite within a society. The difference that is recent to emerge is that there is a growing disconnect between the interests of the elite and the societies to which they supposedly belong.
Nationalist vs Globalist is a pretty good summarization.
The globalists seem primarily interested in using their positions of power to enrich themselves and gratify their egos, and they perhaps feel they are doing something right in their policy prescriptions, but it is driven by complete lack of understanding of human nature.
The nationalists understand that humans have concentric (genetic) loyalties, from self, to family, to nation/race. These are just facts of nature, fighting against them is a losing battle and arranging our societies along these natural lines will produce the best outcomes.
The nationalists want the best for the whole world, not just a tiny trans-national elite.
Trump is a nationalist.
(Yes I know this seems antithetical to the experience of many in SV, elite universities, etc. What these supposedly smart people fail to understand is that they are among outliers of outliers. Exceptions to rules are not unknown, but basing our policy on exceptions is an invitation to disaster.)
Nationalist vs Globalist is a pretty good summarization.
The globalists seem primarily interested in using their positions of power to enrich themselves and gratify their egos, and they perhaps feel they are doing something right in their policy prescriptions, but it is driven by complete lack of understanding of human nature.
The nationalists understand that humans have concentric (genetic) loyalties, from self, to family, to nation/race. These are just facts of nature, fighting against them is a losing battle and arranging our societies along these natural lines will produce the best outcomes.
The nationalists want the best for the whole world, not just a tiny trans-national elite.
Trump is a nationalist.
(Yes I know this seems antithetical to the experience of many in SV, elite universities, etc. What these supposedly smart people fail to understand is that they are among outliers of outliers. Exceptions to rules are not unknown, but basing our policy on exceptions is an invitation to disaster.)
There's nothing new about the current 'disconnect' between American elite and others; people pull out the same rhetoric every few years, it seems. And there is no long-term adherence of others to populism (which is being expressed by you as nationalism).
It's not a social truth, despite attempts to raise above reproach its horrible behavior and worse consequences, it's just an old political technique used by some political leaders for their own purposes, as Bob Dylan pointed out, a brushfire they set which now has turn into a raging, out of control forest fire. We can do something about it.
> These are just facts of nature
We can say murder and rape are facts of nature; is it 'elitist' to outlaw them? I don't feel they are 'facts' of my nature, in that they somehow inevitable, and neither is racism.
There are far better angels of our nature, and America was founded on them. 'All men are created equal' and liberty for those men (and women), not just people you happen to like. That has resonated with people's natures for centuries now; I think we can say it's not longer an 'experiment', as Lincoln called it, and it's attracted immigrants from every culture and inspired many more around the world. A lot of those populist 'white' people, as they call themselves, used to hate each other as Irish and Italians and Germans and Poles, Catholics and Protestants and Jews. It turned out those divisions weren't in their natures after all.
It's not a social truth, despite attempts to raise above reproach its horrible behavior and worse consequences, it's just an old political technique used by some political leaders for their own purposes, as Bob Dylan pointed out, a brushfire they set which now has turn into a raging, out of control forest fire. We can do something about it.
> These are just facts of nature
We can say murder and rape are facts of nature; is it 'elitist' to outlaw them? I don't feel they are 'facts' of my nature, in that they somehow inevitable, and neither is racism.
There are far better angels of our nature, and America was founded on them. 'All men are created equal' and liberty for those men (and women), not just people you happen to like. That has resonated with people's natures for centuries now; I think we can say it's not longer an 'experiment', as Lincoln called it, and it's attracted immigrants from every culture and inspired many more around the world. A lot of those populist 'white' people, as they call themselves, used to hate each other as Irish and Italians and Germans and Poles, Catholics and Protestants and Jews. It turned out those divisions weren't in their natures after all.
Nicely said -- however I would disagree with the claim that our best achievable society is no longer an experiment. To remove beta status and pretend it is an understood phenomenon leads to thinking like the parent's more so than thinking like the rest of your comment ...
>Yes I know this seems antithetical to the experience of many in SV, elite universities, etc. What these supposedly smart people fail to understand is that they are among outliers of outliers. Exceptions to rules are not unknown, but basing our policy on exceptions is an invitation to disaster.
I think you're giving them too much credit even. Their world view is ultimately incoherent, based more in "niceness" than in any consistent belief system. Contemptuous of Middle America for valuing cultural unity[1], they viciously demand adherence to their own rigid moral precepts, while also seeking to import mass numbers from populations that don't share one bit in those precepts.
[1] One of the wonderful aspects of American nationalism is that this unity is not racial, but cultural.
I think you're giving them too much credit even. Their world view is ultimately incoherent, based more in "niceness" than in any consistent belief system. Contemptuous of Middle America for valuing cultural unity[1], they viciously demand adherence to their own rigid moral precepts, while also seeking to import mass numbers from populations that don't share one bit in those precepts.
[1] One of the wonderful aspects of American nationalism is that this unity is not racial, but cultural.
> The nationalists want the best for the whole world
That's not even remotey accurate.
That's not even remotey accurate.
I too can wholeheartedly recommend Coming Apart. I think Mr. Murrays synopsis of why we've had a splintering post WWII is great and probably pretty accurate. I just wish I knew an easy solution to fix it. But there is definitely a loss of shared values among Americans. I'd also recommend Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam as a starter on this topic.
To say it has nothing to do with race, you'd need to prove race has no effect on whether you go to college and become a member of the elite.
Or am I misunderstanding the "it"? Do you mean "taking the country back" has nothing to do with race? For you, it sounds like that's true, so that's good. That's all I can conclude however. I can conclude nothing about Trump. Literally nobody has any idea what Trump's really about. He's juuuust incoherent enough that he never manages to actually, successfully say anything. In that way he succeeds at being all things to all people. Anyone can project anything onto him without fear of being contradicted. Including his opponents. You say he's about SOCIAL EQUALITY. His opponents say he's about RACISM. Who's right? Nobody knows.
Edit: Same is true of Clinton, for different reasons. The words are more coherent, but they're so vague and full of platitudes you can't really say what she's about either.
Or am I misunderstanding the "it"? Do you mean "taking the country back" has nothing to do with race? For you, it sounds like that's true, so that's good. That's all I can conclude however. I can conclude nothing about Trump. Literally nobody has any idea what Trump's really about. He's juuuust incoherent enough that he never manages to actually, successfully say anything. In that way he succeeds at being all things to all people. Anyone can project anything onto him without fear of being contradicted. Including his opponents. You say he's about SOCIAL EQUALITY. His opponents say he's about RACISM. Who's right? Nobody knows.
Edit: Same is true of Clinton, for different reasons. The words are more coherent, but they're so vague and full of platitudes you can't really say what she's about either.
It's possible that incidental racial correlations exist. He obviously meant "race is not a driving factor". By your logic, it would also be anti-male, because fewer men go to college than women.
"Nothing to do with" means no correlation.
Edit: And note that "by my logic" you cannot conclude any thing is anti- any other thing. That was your logic.
Edit: And note that "by my logic" you cannot conclude any thing is anti- any other thing. That was your logic.
>This elite formed when all of the smart kids started going off to college together and forming their own social bubble.
You say that as if it's a bad thing.
You say that as if it's a bad thing.
It is. When a society is splintered and the elites try to rule as if they understand the masses, you will have greater strife.
Can you blame them? A large portion of the masses have aligned themselves with a con man.
The Republican Party failed to field a credible candidate that spoke to Middle America. They, too, were blinded by the elite bubble. Trump saw the weakness and jumped on it.
The Republican Party has failed to field a credible candidate for quite some time. If you believe in science and equal rights for women and minorities, those damn "elites" are all we have.
For what it's worth, most HNers would be considered part of the "elite" (college-educated, a good portion have graduate degrees, employed and in the top 10% of the income bracket) by most people out there. So it makes sense that people on HN would support the policy of other elites in general.
Mitt Romney was a very good candidate, except for his ultimate lack of fight.
If you really believe that women and minorities don't have equal rights, then I can only urge you to dig a little deeper. Gender wage discrimination is a made-up problem, the statistics that you hear don't control for career choice, hours-worked, positions-sought, etc. The problem with our police force is that it's not professionalized once you get below the federal level. Police are too aggressive and quick to use force, but it's not a racial issue.
SJWism is a cancer on Western civilization and it's one of the most pressing problems we face, because it prevents us from having honest conversations about any other problem. Debates these days always devolve into accusations of racism/sexism/"ableism", or whatever the latest boogeyman "ism" is.
If you really believe that women and minorities don't have equal rights, then I can only urge you to dig a little deeper. Gender wage discrimination is a made-up problem, the statistics that you hear don't control for career choice, hours-worked, positions-sought, etc. The problem with our police force is that it's not professionalized once you get below the federal level. Police are too aggressive and quick to use force, but it's not a racial issue.
SJWism is a cancer on Western civilization and it's one of the most pressing problems we face, because it prevents us from having honest conversations about any other problem. Debates these days always devolve into accusations of racism/sexism/"ableism", or whatever the latest boogeyman "ism" is.
I agree with you, Romney has been relatively much more sane than other Republicans. I would have even voted for him if he was able to run as Massachusetts Governor Romney and not Pandering to the Insane Right Wing Romney. But he's certainly an outlier among the present class of Republicans.
I think the Republican Party's pro-life position to be discriminatory against women. No one can force you to be an organ donor. Even if donating your organs would save someone's life, you have autonomy over your body and you are allowed to decline to be an organ donor. How is abortion any different? Even if you could save the baby's life, a woman should have complete autonomy over her body, period.
Immigration is a huge issue, and I really thought the GOP was turning the corner on it, but it's all fallen apart since the GOP decided it would rather pander to an angry white base. Hopefully Trump will lose big and the GOP will actually follow the research they did in 2012.
You sound like a reasonable person. I agree that wage discrimination and police violence aren't black and white issues. I agree that SJWism stifles honest debate. But I believe that climate change is real. I believe that marijuana has medicinal benefits and that the War on Drugs has been a colossal waste. I believe that religion has no place in government or political discourse. I believe that it doesn't matter what your sexual orientation or gender identity is. These aren't partisan issues in my mind; it's reality. Romney seems to understand this. But I'm from East Texas, and I know for every one of him, there's a dozen Louie Gohmerts. The GOP needs to get its shit together and jettison the insane branch of its tent before we end up with a de facto one party political system.
I think the Republican Party's pro-life position to be discriminatory against women. No one can force you to be an organ donor. Even if donating your organs would save someone's life, you have autonomy over your body and you are allowed to decline to be an organ donor. How is abortion any different? Even if you could save the baby's life, a woman should have complete autonomy over her body, period.
Immigration is a huge issue, and I really thought the GOP was turning the corner on it, but it's all fallen apart since the GOP decided it would rather pander to an angry white base. Hopefully Trump will lose big and the GOP will actually follow the research they did in 2012.
You sound like a reasonable person. I agree that wage discrimination and police violence aren't black and white issues. I agree that SJWism stifles honest debate. But I believe that climate change is real. I believe that marijuana has medicinal benefits and that the War on Drugs has been a colossal waste. I believe that religion has no place in government or political discourse. I believe that it doesn't matter what your sexual orientation or gender identity is. These aren't partisan issues in my mind; it's reality. Romney seems to understand this. But I'm from East Texas, and I know for every one of him, there's a dozen Louie Gohmerts. The GOP needs to get its shit together and jettison the insane branch of its tent before we end up with a de facto one party political system.
>Immigration is a huge issue, and I really thought the GOP was turning the corner on it, but it's all fallen apart since the GOP decided it would rather pander to an angry white base.
Amnesty for current illegal immigrants + improved border security and visa enforcement, so that it never happens again, is the obvious answer to the immigration problem. What many people don't know is that the American people were sold on just that in 1986. It was a great compromise, a great humanitarian action, worthy of a great nation.
Too bad it was a total lie. Amnesty was granted, but the improved enforcement never came. The Democrats were happy to keep importing voters and keep a hot-button issue alive. The Republicans were happy to keep importing cheap labor. The people, who wanted an end to uncontrolled immigration, were the suckers. Sanctuary cities that refuse to hand over dangerous criminals for deportation, and a federal government that usually declines deportation anyway, have only added fuel to the fire.
The people are totally right to refuse to be fooled again.
>But I believe that climate change is real.
The funny thing is that the people beating the drums of climate panic tend to be the same ones that are opposed to nuclear power, which is the easiest and most obvious solution that doesn't require crippling our economy.
>I believe that religion has no place in government or political discourse.
I disagree completely. The government should certainly not favor one religion over another, but the religions are the source of our moral values, even for most of the non-believers among us. We take for granted just how much Christianity has shaped our secular culture and morality. If you believe in your heart that abortion is the taking of a human life, then you have a duty to fight to end it.
>I believe that marijuana has medicinal benefits and that the War on Drugs has been a colossal waste.
I agree for the most part, but I've lately had doubts about my previous position that we should just legalize all drugs. Drugs like heroin and meth and cocaine rob people of their agency, of the will to direct their own lives. They should not be available for purchase.
Amnesty for current illegal immigrants + improved border security and visa enforcement, so that it never happens again, is the obvious answer to the immigration problem. What many people don't know is that the American people were sold on just that in 1986. It was a great compromise, a great humanitarian action, worthy of a great nation.
Too bad it was a total lie. Amnesty was granted, but the improved enforcement never came. The Democrats were happy to keep importing voters and keep a hot-button issue alive. The Republicans were happy to keep importing cheap labor. The people, who wanted an end to uncontrolled immigration, were the suckers. Sanctuary cities that refuse to hand over dangerous criminals for deportation, and a federal government that usually declines deportation anyway, have only added fuel to the fire.
The people are totally right to refuse to be fooled again.
>But I believe that climate change is real.
The funny thing is that the people beating the drums of climate panic tend to be the same ones that are opposed to nuclear power, which is the easiest and most obvious solution that doesn't require crippling our economy.
>I believe that religion has no place in government or political discourse.
I disagree completely. The government should certainly not favor one religion over another, but the religions are the source of our moral values, even for most of the non-believers among us. We take for granted just how much Christianity has shaped our secular culture and morality. If you believe in your heart that abortion is the taking of a human life, then you have a duty to fight to end it.
>I believe that marijuana has medicinal benefits and that the War on Drugs has been a colossal waste.
I agree for the most part, but I've lately had doubts about my previous position that we should just legalize all drugs. Drugs like heroin and meth and cocaine rob people of their agency, of the will to direct their own lives. They should not be available for purchase.
> The people are totally right to refuse to be fooled again.
So are you saying we should just give up on the issue? We tried something and it didn't work. We should try again. The solution isn't "build a wall".
> The funny thing is that the people beating the drums of climate panic tend to be the same ones that are opposed to nuclear power, which is the easiest and most obvious solution that doesn't require crippling our economy.
I agree, I think it's idiotic to vilify nuclear power. Catastrophes have happened, we learned from them.
> The government should certainly not favor one religion over another, but the religions are the source of our moral values, even for most of the non-believers among us.
We agree to disagree then. I believe religion is a highly personal issue that has no place in public discourse. I do not see Christianity's influence on our culture and morality as a positive thing.
> Drugs like heroin and meth and cocaine rob people of their agency, of the will to direct their own lives. They should not be available for purchase.
I agree. When I rail against the War on Drugs, I specifically refer to the stance of incarceration rather than rehabilitation as a solution to the drug problem.
So are you saying we should just give up on the issue? We tried something and it didn't work. We should try again. The solution isn't "build a wall".
> The funny thing is that the people beating the drums of climate panic tend to be the same ones that are opposed to nuclear power, which is the easiest and most obvious solution that doesn't require crippling our economy.
I agree, I think it's idiotic to vilify nuclear power. Catastrophes have happened, we learned from them.
> The government should certainly not favor one religion over another, but the religions are the source of our moral values, even for most of the non-believers among us.
We agree to disagree then. I believe religion is a highly personal issue that has no place in public discourse. I do not see Christianity's influence on our culture and morality as a positive thing.
> Drugs like heroin and meth and cocaine rob people of their agency, of the will to direct their own lives. They should not be available for purchase.
I agree. When I rail against the War on Drugs, I specifically refer to the stance of incarceration rather than rehabilitation as a solution to the drug problem.
>So are you saying we should just give up on the issue? We tried something and it didn't work. We should try again. The solution isn't "build a wall".
Part of the solution is certainly to build a barrier. Mind you, this was once uncontroversial when it was just a flimsy "border fence", which is already authorized by law with bipartisan support. Now it seems that some are scared that a proper barrier, combined with real internal enforcement, might actually work.
Now that the trust is gone, the government must prove itself on border security and immigration enforcement. Amnesty should only be considered when the people are convinced that this crisis will never happen again, that we will never again have millions of people enter the country against the democratic will of citizens.
>I agree, I think it's idiotic to vilify nuclear power. Catastrophes have happened, we learned from them.
I suggest then that you base your vote on this issue not so much on who "believes" in climate change or not, but who supports the actual policies that can actually solve it.
>When I rail against the War on Drugs, I specifically refer to the stance of incarceration rather than rehabilitation as a solution to the drug problem.
Yes, I agree that we should stop imprisoning people for possession. But I do think that trafficking should remain a serious crime. I think you'll find that the prison population won't change much under this arrangement.
And even if you did stop imprisoning for trafficking, it wouldn't necessarily change much either. Most people in prison for "non-violent drug offenses" don't have that as their most serious charge.
Part of the solution is certainly to build a barrier. Mind you, this was once uncontroversial when it was just a flimsy "border fence", which is already authorized by law with bipartisan support. Now it seems that some are scared that a proper barrier, combined with real internal enforcement, might actually work.
Now that the trust is gone, the government must prove itself on border security and immigration enforcement. Amnesty should only be considered when the people are convinced that this crisis will never happen again, that we will never again have millions of people enter the country against the democratic will of citizens.
>I agree, I think it's idiotic to vilify nuclear power. Catastrophes have happened, we learned from them.
I suggest then that you base your vote on this issue not so much on who "believes" in climate change or not, but who supports the actual policies that can actually solve it.
>When I rail against the War on Drugs, I specifically refer to the stance of incarceration rather than rehabilitation as a solution to the drug problem.
Yes, I agree that we should stop imprisoning people for possession. But I do think that trafficking should remain a serious crime. I think you'll find that the prison population won't change much under this arrangement.
And even if you did stop imprisoning for trafficking, it wouldn't necessarily change much either. Most people in prison for "non-violent drug offenses" don't have that as their most serious charge.
>the religions are the source of our moral values, even for most of the non-believers among us.
I disagree in absolute. In my view religions do far more harm than good, and to claim religious thought is the basis of morality even for non believers is somewhere between condescending and insulting.
I disagree in absolute. In my view religions do far more harm than good, and to claim religious thought is the basis of morality even for non believers is somewhere between condescending and insulting.
I say this as a non-believer myself. I don't mean that modern western atheists are picking up their moral code directly from religions, I'm saying that the secular western moral code largely grew from Christianity.
Anyhow, my broader point is that religions are a source of moral conviction for people. And moral conviction is totally legitimate basis for political conviction.
Anyhow, my broader point is that religions are a source of moral conviction for people. And moral conviction is totally legitimate basis for political conviction.
> but the religions are the source of our moral values
The US government is not founded on enforcing morals, but guaranteeing rights. For example, the 10 Commandments and the Bill of Rights are at distinct odds with each other.
The US government is not founded on enforcing morals, but guaranteeing rights. For example, the 10 Commandments and the Bill of Rights are at distinct odds with each other.
> The Democrats were happy to keep importing voters
I think it's important not to discount the difficulty of securing the border because of the size of it. And as you mention, American companies (like Smithfield) are happy to create incentives for border hopping because they can use the threat of calling INS to keep wages low and prevent unions from forming.
The problem with the idea of widespread voting fraud is the data doesn't support it, at all. Bush's DOJ came up with an estimate of %0.00000132 of fraudulent votes in federal elections, for instance. Note that by then it was explicitly illegal for aliens to vote in federal elections.
> We take for granted just how much Christianity has shaped our secular culture and morality.
I'd argue that across peoples and times you see more variation in theological doctrine than moral teachings in the various religions. Hinduism, for instance, is practiced by different people differently and encompasses polytheistic, monotheistic, and even atheistic traditions. But morality remains a feature, specifically the concept of karma. Sweden is by some counts 85% atheist, but I'm not aware of anyone calling it a den of iniquity. Certainly my Muslim-American friends are moral.
In other words, people tend to be recognizably moral regardless of their very divergent beliefs about other things. That points to a general human capacity for morality, rather than one specific to any one religion (that the others, even those predating it, were presumably lucky enough to develop independently).
Certainly moral codes differ. But they also differ within the same religion across time -- for instance, the modern Christian view of divorce vs. the ancient one.
Christian orthodoxy varies. Ancestor worship is common in African Christian sects. Protestant and Orthodox churches abhor the Roman Catholic practice of praying to statues. Unitarians discount the trinity. Sure, there's a common thread of Christian morals there, but I'd argue that it's the same thread you find everywhere, modulo views on homosexuality and a couple of other things.
I don't mean to be cruel but I find the assertion that America gets its morals from Christianity to be somewhat narrow in that it presupposes that Christians got theirs from on high, and ignores the similar moral teachings you find throughout the world and throughout history.
It also runs contrary to the founders' explicit intentions for the role of religion in government, and I would argue that it does a large disservice to your fellow Americans who aren't Christian.
I think it's important not to discount the difficulty of securing the border because of the size of it. And as you mention, American companies (like Smithfield) are happy to create incentives for border hopping because they can use the threat of calling INS to keep wages low and prevent unions from forming.
The problem with the idea of widespread voting fraud is the data doesn't support it, at all. Bush's DOJ came up with an estimate of %0.00000132 of fraudulent votes in federal elections, for instance. Note that by then it was explicitly illegal for aliens to vote in federal elections.
> We take for granted just how much Christianity has shaped our secular culture and morality.
I'd argue that across peoples and times you see more variation in theological doctrine than moral teachings in the various religions. Hinduism, for instance, is practiced by different people differently and encompasses polytheistic, monotheistic, and even atheistic traditions. But morality remains a feature, specifically the concept of karma. Sweden is by some counts 85% atheist, but I'm not aware of anyone calling it a den of iniquity. Certainly my Muslim-American friends are moral.
In other words, people tend to be recognizably moral regardless of their very divergent beliefs about other things. That points to a general human capacity for morality, rather than one specific to any one religion (that the others, even those predating it, were presumably lucky enough to develop independently).
Certainly moral codes differ. But they also differ within the same religion across time -- for instance, the modern Christian view of divorce vs. the ancient one.
Christian orthodoxy varies. Ancestor worship is common in African Christian sects. Protestant and Orthodox churches abhor the Roman Catholic practice of praying to statues. Unitarians discount the trinity. Sure, there's a common thread of Christian morals there, but I'd argue that it's the same thread you find everywhere, modulo views on homosexuality and a couple of other things.
I don't mean to be cruel but I find the assertion that America gets its morals from Christianity to be somewhat narrow in that it presupposes that Christians got theirs from on high, and ignores the similar moral teachings you find throughout the world and throughout history.
It also runs contrary to the founders' explicit intentions for the role of religion in government, and I would argue that it does a large disservice to your fellow Americans who aren't Christian.
I'm not talking about fraudulent voting by illegal immigrants, I'm talking about the fact that they eventually become citizens when amnesty rolls around, and their kids become citizens automatically by birthright.
cb18(1)
How is the pro-life position discriminatory against women? The question is one of line drawing of when life begins that needs to be protected. The pro-life position believes that life should be protected earlier than the pro-choice position. That is not discriminatory against women.
We are obviously setting side abortion in cases of rape. So the pro-life position is equal in it's belief about women's autonomy over their bodies. It's only that the pro-life position believe the fetus should be proetect earlier the women's autonomy over her body is equally protected.
We are obviously setting side abortion in cases of rape. So the pro-life position is equal in it's belief about women's autonomy over their bodies. It's only that the pro-life position believe the fetus should be proetect earlier the women's autonomy over her body is equally protected.
> How is the pro-life position discriminatory against women?
In that you don't already comprehend, I doubt I'll be able to aid in your understanding, but here goes nothing.
The state allows men to exercise control over their own reproductive systems more completely than women.
It really is that simple.
Men have all options available e.g. vasectomy, wearing condoms, etc. Women on the other hand see the "party of small government" lead the charge into their hospital rooms, dictating to them what rights they have insofar as control of their own reproductive systems goes.
If men also could get pregnant, it wouldn't be discriminatory. That the only reproductive control technique to be denied women is a technique only available to women, any laws to restrict such techniques are inherently discriminatory toward women.
The attempts to restrict abortion effect women's rights directly, far more so than men, many of whom vanish before a child is even carried to term.
Does that help clear it up?
In that you don't already comprehend, I doubt I'll be able to aid in your understanding, but here goes nothing.
The state allows men to exercise control over their own reproductive systems more completely than women.
It really is that simple.
Men have all options available e.g. vasectomy, wearing condoms, etc. Women on the other hand see the "party of small government" lead the charge into their hospital rooms, dictating to them what rights they have insofar as control of their own reproductive systems goes.
If men also could get pregnant, it wouldn't be discriminatory. That the only reproductive control technique to be denied women is a technique only available to women, any laws to restrict such techniques are inherently discriminatory toward women.
The attempts to restrict abortion effect women's rights directly, far more so than men, many of whom vanish before a child is even carried to term.
Does that help clear it up?
>If men also could get pregnant, it wouldn't be discriminatory. That the only reproductive control technique to be denied women is a technique only available to women, any laws to restrict such techniques are inherently discriminatory toward women.
This is preposterous logic. Women have the same access to birth control than men do. In fact, as it stands now, the options available to women are vastly superior, i.e. the pill.
The fact that only women can bear children does not make the regulation of abortion "discrimination". Discrimination would be if both sexes could bear children, but only abortion by females was banned.
Do you think that abortion on the day before birth should be legal?
This is preposterous logic. Women have the same access to birth control than men do. In fact, as it stands now, the options available to women are vastly superior, i.e. the pill.
The fact that only women can bear children does not make the regulation of abortion "discrimination". Discrimination would be if both sexes could bear children, but only abortion by females was banned.
Do you think that abortion on the day before birth should be legal?
> The pro-life position believes that life should be protected earlier than the pro-choice position. That is not discriminatory against women.
I disagree. I think it's absolutely insulting to say that an unborn, memoryless fetus/embryo/cell cluster has more of a right to life than the living, breathing, self-aware woman its inside.
> We are obviously setting side abortion in cases of rape.
This isn't obvious. Many conservatives believe abortion should be universally disallowed, including pregnancies resulting from rape.
I disagree. I think it's absolutely insulting to say that an unborn, memoryless fetus/embryo/cell cluster has more of a right to life than the living, breathing, self-aware woman its inside.
> We are obviously setting side abortion in cases of rape.
This isn't obvious. Many conservatives believe abortion should be universally disallowed, including pregnancies resulting from rape.
>I disagree. I think it's absolutely insulting to say that an unborn, memoryless fetus/embryo/cell cluster has more of a right to life than the living, breathing, self-aware woman its inside.
I think it's telling that instead of defending the core of your position, that abortion should always be allowed, you're falling back to periphery issues, such as what to do when the life of the pregnant woman is threatened by the pregnancy. Many (most?) pro-life people would agree with allowing abortion in such cases, and it's really a sideshow to the main question.
I think it's telling that instead of defending the core of your position, that abortion should always be allowed, you're falling back to periphery issues, such as what to do when the life of the pregnant woman is threatened by the pregnancy. Many (most?) pro-life people would agree with allowing abortion in such cases, and it's really a sideshow to the main question.
>SJWism is a cancer on Western civilization and it's one of the most pressing problems we face, because it prevents us from having honest conversations about any other problem. Debates these days always devolve into accusations of racism/sexism/"ableism", or whatever the latest boogeyman "ism" is.
Maybe if you look outside your bubble aka in the internet you can come to realise in the real world this isn't nearly a big and widespread of a problem as some people make it out to be.
Maybe if you look outside your bubble aka in the internet you can come to realise in the real world this isn't nearly a big and widespread of a problem as some people make it out to be.
>Maybe if you look outside your bubble aka in the internet you can come to realise in the real world this isn't nearly a big and widespread of a problem as some people make it out to be.
Ah, but it was in meatspace that I became alarmed by them. I saw them ruin my alma mater, go after freedom of association, smear everyone who dared oppose them racist. I saw the spinelessness of leaders who instead of fighting back would just capitulate. I saw the Obama administration embrace their cause and turn college sexual assault tribunals into modern Salem witch trials, where a mere accusation is enough to ruin a life forever.
This has spread beyond academia. I saw what they did to Brendan Eich in Mozilla, I saw the chill that has set in among my conservative friends, who dare not speak their opinions lest they be outcast from their industries.
Maybe it's you who needs to step out of whatever bubble you're in.
Ah, but it was in meatspace that I became alarmed by them. I saw them ruin my alma mater, go after freedom of association, smear everyone who dared oppose them racist. I saw the spinelessness of leaders who instead of fighting back would just capitulate. I saw the Obama administration embrace their cause and turn college sexual assault tribunals into modern Salem witch trials, where a mere accusation is enough to ruin a life forever.
This has spread beyond academia. I saw what they did to Brendan Eich in Mozilla, I saw the chill that has set in among my conservative friends, who dare not speak their opinions lest they be outcast from their industries.
Maybe it's you who needs to step out of whatever bubble you're in.
You suggest that the mechanism by which honesty is removed from debate is by dishonest application of a highly sensitive mechanism for measuring social missteps. This does occur in real life scenarios but you are wrong to attribute SJWism as the cause for the lack of honesty in debate. The dishonesty did not get applied to the situation as a result of the existence of social justice causes -- it got added because of the nature of tribal political blocks. Removing social justice issues won't remove the effects of tribal motivations from the debate.
Furthermore, your position is self inconsistent -- any attempt to wield your highly sensitive SJWism sensor will lead to the same variety of dishonesty that you claim of others holding similar sensors for other social topics.
You are right that there are specific instances where tribally motivated groups explicitly misuse social arguments in a way that disadvantages their opponents -- you are wrong to imply that all occurrences of disadvantage based on this pattern are misuse.
Furthermore, your position is self inconsistent -- any attempt to wield your highly sensitive SJWism sensor will lead to the same variety of dishonesty that you claim of others holding similar sensors for other social topics.
You are right that there are specific instances where tribally motivated groups explicitly misuse social arguments in a way that disadvantages their opponents -- you are wrong to imply that all occurrences of disadvantage based on this pattern are misuse.
You've attributed a lot to me that I never said. I do not call for a purge of SJWs, as you seem to imply that I do. I'm happy with winning the argument. I see no need to try to ruin people's personal and professional lives.
Are you saying that race/racism does not have a meaningful effect on a person's opportunities in life?
Race does. There's no doubt that being born into a inner-city black community is a devastating hand to be dealt. Such children are likely to be raised by single mothers, surrounded by violent crime, in schools with rampant gang activity, and in a culture that devalues success as an act of racial betrayal.
But racism is not a significant factor these days. In fact, minorities who do escape the fatalism of these communities are advantaged by widespread affirmative action, not just in school admissions, but in hiring, business loans, professional recognition, etc.
But racism is not a significant factor these days. In fact, minorities who do escape the fatalism of these communities are advantaged by widespread affirmative action, not just in school admissions, but in hiring, business loans, professional recognition, etc.
I disagree. The reason that being born into an inner city black community is a devastating hand is precisely because of racism.
Race does not exist in a vacuum. Look at the legislation that makes possession a crime. Look at the way selective enforcement results in blacks being over represented in prison systems.
Look at the way the urban school districts are underfunded. You can pretend that the system is not racist, but when one racial group suffers disproportionately from legislation that is regressive, unfair and has not been repealed or changed since the era when Jim Crow was wakking, you have a racist system.
We can put feel good bandaids over some college admission laws and we can even elect a black president, but until we fundamentally rework the laws and institutions of this country, we cannot call racism dead. That is the opinion of someone who has not been pulled over for driving through the wrong neighbourhood.
Race does not exist in a vacuum. Look at the legislation that makes possession a crime. Look at the way selective enforcement results in blacks being over represented in prison systems.
Look at the way the urban school districts are underfunded. You can pretend that the system is not racist, but when one racial group suffers disproportionately from legislation that is regressive, unfair and has not been repealed or changed since the era when Jim Crow was wakking, you have a racist system.
We can put feel good bandaids over some college admission laws and we can even elect a black president, but until we fundamentally rework the laws and institutions of this country, we cannot call racism dead. That is the opinion of someone who has not been pulled over for driving through the wrong neighbourhood.
Did Obama help to initiate any tangible change with respect to norms and institutions? What kind of changes happened in the inner cities during the past eight years? [I am an outside observer who really doesn't know]
The plural form is "con men"
It is if they run your country and you're outside the bubble.
Who would you rather have running the country? The alternatives aren't even viable.
If that is the case, we should consider splitting the country up into more homogenous chunks
Yes, some kind of federal system perhaps, with free movement between them, and a small national government to bind them together, so people can vote with both their ballots and feet. Too bad the progressive elite decided that system was too much of an obstacle to their agenda.
It's not so much the "progressive elite" as a general fact of human politics that in Federal systems power inexorably moves to the center as anything going wrong in the provinces will be taken over by the centralised state, but never vice versa. Nationhood is the only thing that seems able to resist this tendency at the present time.
[deleted]
I would have people running their own lives.
Humanity decided long ago that running our own lives as hunters and gatherers wasn't the best we could do, and we came together to form societies and governments. No matter how you feel about it, you live in a society and have benefited from its public services, and there has to be some group of people to administer those public services.
Agree. Good article on The Guardian about this[0]
If this was about racism, then why Trump now? Why were Republican nominees so conventional the last 50+ years?
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/13/liberal-media-...
If this was about racism, then why Trump now? Why were Republican nominees so conventional the last 50+ years?
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/13/liberal-media-...
I've often though Dylan's The Times They Are A-Changing was analogous to Barlow's 1996 A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace[1] (not that I thought that was a great document, but it is a convenient symbol).
The optimism and feeling of change was the same.
The Altamont concert[2] was the end of that feeling in the 60's, just as the 2016 US election campaign has been the end of it now.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Declaration_of_the_Independe...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Free_Concert
The optimism and feeling of change was the same.
The Altamont concert[2] was the end of that feeling in the 60's, just as the 2016 US election campaign has been the end of it now.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Declaration_of_the_Independe...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Free_Concert
Randy Newman says that racism and bigotry are not just limited to southern politicians and that it is a universal problem, at least that's what he says with 'rednecks'; i think that Randy would really deserve the price, but you can't get one for humour/satire, as satire is considered to be a minor muse.
My guess is that Dylan got the price because his generation is aging and they want a statement of that it all really mattered in the larger sense.
My guess is that Dylan got the price because his generation is aging and they want a statement of that it all really mattered in the larger sense.
It did matter in a larger sense. This is a so much better world than it was 60 years ago.
We still have a long way to go, but imagine if we wouldn't have taken all the small steps that actually were taken, and imagine if we wouldn't have had the leaders and singers that gave us a direction.
We still have a long way to go, but imagine if we wouldn't have taken all the small steps that actually were taken, and imagine if we wouldn't have had the leaders and singers that gave us a direction.
the counterculture was very vocal and very interesting phenomenon, did a majority of the young people of the day subscribe to it? I don't think so. Did they really change things in a larger sense? Don't know, might be 'too early to say'.
It is about time to officially introduce the 'Reductio ad Trumperum'.
Not quite - as a strategy by Republican politicians (and Democrats before that) it predates Trump by quite a long way.
Not for nothing has "demagogue" been in use for hundreds of years...
> it predates Trump by quite a long way
Are you suggesting history existed before I was born?
Are you suggesting history existed before I was born?
I hear a whooshing sound. Reductio ad Trumperum or something similar (I'm not real 'up' on my Latin grammar) would presumably mean "reduce to Trump." You know, like summing up a complex & nuanced issue in terms of how it supposedly relates to Trump. You're saying people have been doing this -- as a -strategy- mind you -- since before Trump existed?
[deleted]
That's not what it means. Reductio ad 'X' means assigning guilt by association to X. I don't feel like I really need to make the actions of the Republican Party in the 1960s in the south (yes - southern strategy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy) any more wrong by associating them with Trump. Lynchings kind of speak for themselves.
Do I think that Trump is drawing on the same political tradition by 'othering' Mexicans, LGBTs, Blacks to win political support? Do I think that most of Trump's political constituency comes from the 'base' that the likes of Karl Rove built? Do I think that 'liberal political elites' is a dogwhistle for 'progressive social change I don't like' - you bet.
Edit: By reductio ad 'X' I mean in reference to Reductio ad Hitlerum (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum), which as commenter below points out is actually a bastardization of Reductio ad Absurdum
Do I think that Trump is drawing on the same political tradition by 'othering' Mexicans, LGBTs, Blacks to win political support? Do I think that most of Trump's political constituency comes from the 'base' that the likes of Karl Rove built? Do I think that 'liberal political elites' is a dogwhistle for 'progressive social change I don't like' - you bet.
Edit: By reductio ad 'X' I mean in reference to Reductio ad Hitlerum (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum), which as commenter below points out is actually a bastardization of Reductio ad Absurdum
> Reductio ad 'X' means assigning guilt by association to X.
Not really. Reductio ad absurdum is a common proof strategy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Not really. Reductio ad absurdum is a common proof strategy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
I think what 1337biz was trying to point out is that mentioning trump sullied your point. Perhaps it was impossible to make your original comment without mentioning trump, but now you have "Godwin'd" your argument in a way, and have precluded any room for nuance in either discussing Bob Dylan, or the current political environment. Now it's all Southern Strategy -> Bob Dylan -> Trump.
Sure, Trump has tapped into a certain political current that has long existed in American life (since at least Andrew Jackson), but there are other reasons for his (un)popularity and are worth understanding in their own right.
Sure, Trump has tapped into a certain political current that has long existed in American life (since at least Andrew Jackson), but there are other reasons for his (un)popularity and are worth understanding in their own right.
Since I'm probably getting some downvotes that belong to Trump, I think the dude stands for nothing in particular; he's been boring me since the 80s when I first heard the name, and he's pretty much the last thing I'm interested in talking about.
Looks like I got the literal translation of "reductio ad something" right though. Also seems like the spirit is the same between me and Leo Strauss about how said reduction results in something pat, neat, simple and intellectually lazy. That's what I experience every time someone tries to tie up something interesting & complex with a nice Trump ribbon. It has been "reduced to Trump."
Looks like I got the literal translation of "reductio ad something" right though. Also seems like the spirit is the same between me and Leo Strauss about how said reduction results in something pat, neat, simple and intellectually lazy. That's what I experience every time someone tries to tie up something interesting & complex with a nice Trump ribbon. It has been "reduced to Trump."
When I click on link bait I feel like a pawn.
It's funny because when I think of "politicians who sow hatred, insecurity, fear and division for their own ends and don't care what mess they leave behind" I would first think of the Democrats.
So you just roll a 20-sided die to come up with your opinions, then?
?
He's pointing out that the Republicans are objectively the more divisive party in 2016. To be fair, it goes back and forth - 10 years ago I would have agreed with you.
Within the context of the song in 1964, Dylan was also objectively talking about Republicans (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy).
But, as you say, it goes back and forth and in the 19th Century it was the Democrats who were known for this. Neither party has a great history with race.
But, as you say, it goes back and forth and in the 19th Century it was the Democrats who were known for this. Neither party has a great history with race.
that is objectively false.
Is it? Tell me what has objectively improved for blacks in the last 8 years.
Wow... that's an easy one, but since you asked.
Black US unemployment went from 15% (peaking at 16% a year later) in 2008 back down to 9.1% in 2016 (close to the 2007 pre-recession low).
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20111005.htm
I encourage your fact based discovery of the economic condition of this country and it's citizens.
Alternatively, we can all live in total fear of ISIS taking over the country.
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-isis-will-take-over-us-...
Black US unemployment went from 15% (peaking at 16% a year later) in 2008 back down to 9.1% in 2016 (close to the 2007 pre-recession low).
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20111005.htm
I encourage your fact based discovery of the economic condition of this country and it's citizens.
Alternatively, we can all live in total fear of ISIS taking over the country.
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-isis-will-take-over-us-...
Black unemployment peaked at 16 when the national rate was 10. It dropped to 9.1 when the national rate is 5 so blacks did significantly worse than society as a whole.
Do you understand the difference between speed and acceleration?
Depends on how you look at it.
Going from 84% to 90.9% employment rate represents an 8.21% increase in the proportion of black people who are employed.
Going from 90% to 95% employment rate represents a 5.55% increase in the proportion of Americans who are employed.
Going from 84% to 90.9% employment rate represents an 8.21% increase in the proportion of black people who are employed.
Going from 90% to 95% employment rate represents a 5.55% increase in the proportion of Americans who are employed.
I am confused. How can a decrease in unemployment from 16% to 9 not be an objective improvement for american blacks in years?
Do they look back from todays "hellscape" recovery and remember the wonder days when we wondered how many people would lose their jobs or homes to foreclosure? Or did they rejoice when black RNC head Michael Steele was forced to kowtow Rush Limbaugh after Obama was elected?
Do they look back from todays "hellscape" recovery and remember the wonder days when we wondered how many people would lose their jobs or homes to foreclosure? Or did they rejoice when black RNC head Michael Steele was forced to kowtow Rush Limbaugh after Obama was elected?
Because unemployment improved for everybody, but it improved for a significantly smaller percentage of blacks that it did for the population as a whole.
It dropped ~6.9% for blacks, ~5% for the population as a whole.
Prior to the financial crisis it was 4.6% overall, 8.3% for blacks[1].
So now it is 8.9% worse that the per-crisis number for all employment (ie, (5-4.6)/4.6) vs 8.5% worse for blacks (ie (9-8.3)/8.3).
Sure, I'm sure you can play with the numbers to give it the spin you want, and I can spin them the other way.
But it's pretty difficult to argue that it is significantly worse now than it was before.
[1] http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/race-and-ethnicity/archive/r...
Prior to the financial crisis it was 4.6% overall, 8.3% for blacks[1].
So now it is 8.9% worse that the per-crisis number for all employment (ie, (5-4.6)/4.6) vs 8.5% worse for blacks (ie (9-8.3)/8.3).
Sure, I'm sure you can play with the numbers to give it the spin you want, and I can spin them the other way.
But it's pretty difficult to argue that it is significantly worse now than it was before.
[1] http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/race-and-ethnicity/archive/r...
Fake promises, and dreams.
It is a well documented strategy for left-leaning politicians to import voters through unchecked immigration in an attempt to create an unassailable electoral base.
In this case, the politicians who "sow hatred, insecurity, fear and division for their own ends and don't care what mess they leave behind," are the leftists.
See the rapid, shocking, galling decline of civil society in some western European countries in recent years.
These mass immigration leftists sow hatred and insecurity when they act as if the natives of the western world(genetic Europeans,) are somehow in debt to the rest of the world for past sins. Strangely overlooking the fact that the entire modern world with all its convenience and affordances, huge improvements in health and nutrition etc. etc., are more or less entirely the product of Europeans. All peoples can look at some past actions with regret, but Europeans have clearly been a net positive on the world at an unprecedented scale.
These mass immigration leftists sow fear and division when they support the importation of huge population groups with the bonkers notion that these groups will then start behaving along the societal norms of the country they've been imported to, rather than the country they came from.
So the Trumpers are right, their country is being taken from them in this way.
But before we get too far in the weeds on a patented HN thread of only the most tenuous relevance, Congratulations Bob!
In this case, the politicians who "sow hatred, insecurity, fear and division for their own ends and don't care what mess they leave behind," are the leftists.
See the rapid, shocking, galling decline of civil society in some western European countries in recent years.
These mass immigration leftists sow hatred and insecurity when they act as if the natives of the western world(genetic Europeans,) are somehow in debt to the rest of the world for past sins. Strangely overlooking the fact that the entire modern world with all its convenience and affordances, huge improvements in health and nutrition etc. etc., are more or less entirely the product of Europeans. All peoples can look at some past actions with regret, but Europeans have clearly been a net positive on the world at an unprecedented scale.
These mass immigration leftists sow fear and division when they support the importation of huge population groups with the bonkers notion that these groups will then start behaving along the societal norms of the country they've been imported to, rather than the country they came from.
So the Trumpers are right, their country is being taken from them in this way.
But before we get too far in the weeds on a patented HN thread of only the most tenuous relevance, Congratulations Bob!
And another example of how wrong you are about rising tensions in the US, how many times in recent years have we seen some huge clusterf*ck about a supposed murder in cold blood that turns out to be perfectly justifiable? (Where is any coverage of frequent and horrendous, totally unjustifiable black on white crimes?)
It's gotten to the point where we see all pretence dispensed with and we now see regular race riots in the US when someone is justifiably killed by the police.
All thanks to a get out the vote effort of Democrats and their media compatriots in the form of falsely portraying blacks as victims and stoking racial tensions, encouraging the tensions along with violence in many cases.
And a deafening silence in public discussion about the huge disconnect in rates of black on white crime vs white on black.
One must wonder, what is the endgame for these people? Facts can't stay hidden forever.
It's gotten to the point where we see all pretence dispensed with and we now see regular race riots in the US when someone is justifiably killed by the police.
All thanks to a get out the vote effort of Democrats and their media compatriots in the form of falsely portraying blacks as victims and stoking racial tensions, encouraging the tensions along with violence in many cases.
And a deafening silence in public discussion about the huge disconnect in rates of black on white crime vs white on black.
One must wonder, what is the endgame for these people? Facts can't stay hidden forever.
I like that pithy statement, Facts can't stay hidden forever. I have big dreams about big data proving various forms of rhetoric false and enumerating all the counter examples. For the time being I think we'll have to manually aggregate the examples like Heather MacDonald often does.
Totally 100% well deserved. Just imagine the 13 year old out there discovering "Masters of War" or "Idiot Wind" for the first time today. Their entire point of view is about to change. Mind upon to hitherto unknowable vistas. Ergo, the absolute benchmark of what Great Literature strives to embody.
Also worth checking out is Dylan's controversial speech upon receiving the the MusiCares Person of the Year 2015 award. I wonder what he'll have to say to the World when he gets to Stockholm ;)
Read Bob Dylan's Complete, Riveting MusiCares Speech
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/read-bob-dylans-compl...
And of course some essential viewing. D.A. Pennebaker's seminal documentary classic Don't Look Back which follows Dylan on his concert tour of the U.K. in 1965.
Inside Criterion's Incredible Restoration of Dylan Doc 'Don't Look Back'
http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/inside-the-restorati...
And from that timeless English tour, a masterful performance ;)
"It Ain't Me Babe" (Live, 5/7/65 - Free Trade Hall, Manchester, England)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d8o8vNTNao
Also worth checking out is Dylan's controversial speech upon receiving the the MusiCares Person of the Year 2015 award. I wonder what he'll have to say to the World when he gets to Stockholm ;)
Read Bob Dylan's Complete, Riveting MusiCares Speech
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/read-bob-dylans-compl...
And of course some essential viewing. D.A. Pennebaker's seminal documentary classic Don't Look Back which follows Dylan on his concert tour of the U.K. in 1965.
Inside Criterion's Incredible Restoration of Dylan Doc 'Don't Look Back'
http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/inside-the-restorati...
And from that timeless English tour, a masterful performance ;)
"It Ain't Me Babe" (Live, 5/7/65 - Free Trade Hall, Manchester, England)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d8o8vNTNao
That MusiCares speech is a great read if you have 30 minutes to spare. A few favorite bits:
On Dylan's immersion in classic folk:
>If you sang "John Henry" as many times as me – "John Henry was a steel-driving man / Died with a hammer in his hand / John Henry said a man ain't nothin' but a man / Before I let that steam drill drive me down / I'll die with that hammer in my hand." If you had sung that song as many times as I did, you'd have written "How many roads must a man walk down?" too.
On what's often missing from rock & roll:
>The other half of rock & roll has got to be hillbilly. And that's a derogatory term, but it ought not to be. That's a term that includes the Delmore Bros., Stanley Bros., Roscoe Holcomb, Git Tanner and the Skillet Lickers... groups like that. Moonshine gone berserk. Fast cars on dirt roads. That's the kind of combination that makes up rock & roll, and it can't be cooked up in a science laboratory or a studio.
On Dylan's immersion in classic folk:
>If you sang "John Henry" as many times as me – "John Henry was a steel-driving man / Died with a hammer in his hand / John Henry said a man ain't nothin' but a man / Before I let that steam drill drive me down / I'll die with that hammer in my hand." If you had sung that song as many times as I did, you'd have written "How many roads must a man walk down?" too.
On what's often missing from rock & roll:
>The other half of rock & roll has got to be hillbilly. And that's a derogatory term, but it ought not to be. That's a term that includes the Delmore Bros., Stanley Bros., Roscoe Holcomb, Git Tanner and the Skillet Lickers... groups like that. Moonshine gone berserk. Fast cars on dirt roads. That's the kind of combination that makes up rock & roll, and it can't be cooked up in a science laboratory or a studio.
The MusicCares speech is great; thanks. An interesting excerpt:
I learned lyrics and how to write them from listening to folk songs. And I played them, and I met other people that played them, back when nobody was doing it. Sang nothing but these folk songs, and they gave me the code for everything that's fair game, that everything belongs to everyone.
Does Dylan allow bootlegging? Are his songs libre? Does he limit their use or charge royalties? Can I sample one without his permission?
EDIT: The very last line of the speech, as printed: Copyright 2015 Bob Dylan
I learned lyrics and how to write them from listening to folk songs. And I played them, and I met other people that played them, back when nobody was doing it. Sang nothing but these folk songs, and they gave me the code for everything that's fair game, that everything belongs to everyone.
Does Dylan allow bootlegging? Are his songs libre? Does he limit their use or charge royalties? Can I sample one without his permission?
EDIT: The very last line of the speech, as printed: Copyright 2015 Bob Dylan
I think hes talking mostly about the folk song tradition. If you look in both blues/folk there are a lot of songs that are very similar, with almost interchangeable lyrics by many different artists.
The song Little Sadie is one example - its been known under a variety of names, with variations of lyrics. All the John Henry songs - they have been sung by blues and country players alike for almost a century.
The song Little Sadie is one example - its been known under a variety of names, with variations of lyrics. All the John Henry songs - they have been sung by blues and country players alike for almost a century.
> I think hes talking mostly about the folk song tradition.
He says he's part of that tradition, and at length talks about how he benefited from it. Does he give back?
He says he's part of that tradition, and at length talks about how he benefited from it. Does he give back?
It's not a debate about giving music rights out.
If someone makes a song that sounds a lot like a Dylan song, it would be telling how he would react. He's taking about musical evolution, not free streaming.
If someone makes a song that sounds a lot like a Dylan song, it would be telling how he would react. He's taking about musical evolution, not free streaming.
Yes, he goes into length explaining how he created his own versions of Ballad of John Henry and "Key to the highway". You are missing the point.
"Hey Joe" is thought to be inspired by Little Sadie. Its not about ripping off, its about telling the same story in a different way - story telling.
"Hey Joe" is thought to be inspired by Little Sadie. Its not about ripping off, its about telling the same story in a different way - story telling.
Based on what I know about folk music - at one time I listened to a bunch of it and learned about its traditions, but I'm hardly an expert - that's not true.
By that tradition, folk songs are for everyone to play and sing, not only for a professional to perform for you. There's a communal, shared, DIY philosophy behind it; it's art by and for regular people (folk art), to be shared; it's not about profit, and intellectual property is almost an opposed concept. To a degree, it's like free/libre software and makers.
IIRC, folk music legend Woody Guthrie kept his songs simple so that anyone could play them. And a more recent folk singer printed (maybe still prints) on all her recordings, where the copyright info usually appears, Unauthorized reproduction, while sometimes necessary, is never as good as the real thing.
By that tradition, folk songs are for everyone to play and sing, not only for a professional to perform for you. There's a communal, shared, DIY philosophy behind it; it's art by and for regular people (folk art), to be shared; it's not about profit, and intellectual property is almost an opposed concept. To a degree, it's like free/libre software and makers.
IIRC, folk music legend Woody Guthrie kept his songs simple so that anyone could play them. And a more recent folk singer printed (maybe still prints) on all her recordings, where the copyright info usually appears, Unauthorized reproduction, while sometimes necessary, is never as good as the real thing.
>> There's a communal, shared, DIY philosophy behind it; it's art by and for regular people (folk art), to be shared;
Yes, I agree. I guess I dont see the conflict. If you play any of these songs, change a few verses, some melody and some chords, then you can claim the copyright just like Bob Dylan did. That is what I think he is trying to get at in that speech.
Notice how is says the following in his copyright claim:
"Basis of Claim: New Matter: rev. melody & new music." [1]
There are many artists that have copyright claims for the same essential song title. Search for Walking Blues, John Hardy or any old fiddle tune like Shady Grove, Blackberry blossom, man of constant sorrow etc. There are a ton of these songs out there where anybody can make their own mark and claim the copyright because literally everybody does it.
Try doing that with 'Times are a changin' and I can guarantee you its not the same unspoken code because its not one of those tunes that have been passed down by generations of musicians and told and retold. The bar will likely be much higher for you to claim your artistic expression on that copyright.
That was the point I was trying to make here. I mainly objected to your 'Can I sample one without his permission?' since I don't think its the same thing.
[1] http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=14&ti=1,14...
Yes, I agree. I guess I dont see the conflict. If you play any of these songs, change a few verses, some melody and some chords, then you can claim the copyright just like Bob Dylan did. That is what I think he is trying to get at in that speech.
Notice how is says the following in his copyright claim:
"Basis of Claim: New Matter: rev. melody & new music." [1]
There are many artists that have copyright claims for the same essential song title. Search for Walking Blues, John Hardy or any old fiddle tune like Shady Grove, Blackberry blossom, man of constant sorrow etc. There are a ton of these songs out there where anybody can make their own mark and claim the copyright because literally everybody does it.
Try doing that with 'Times are a changin' and I can guarantee you its not the same unspoken code because its not one of those tunes that have been passed down by generations of musicians and told and retold. The bar will likely be much higher for you to claim your artistic expression on that copyright.
That was the point I was trying to make here. I mainly objected to your 'Can I sample one without his permission?' since I don't think its the same thing.
[1] http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=14&ti=1,14...
Thanks for your thoughtful response
> I mainly objected to your 'Can I sample one without his permission?' since I don't think its the same thing.
I understand your point and I agree that's the reality of it, but I'm saying that isn't how it has to be. It isn't the same thing in some qualitative ways, as you say, but mainly because Dylan chooses to make it different. Like all the FOSS developers, all those Grateful Dead bootlegs, and all those traditional folk tunes, and some folk singers (and other musicians) in the recorded era, he could have made his libre. My guess is that like Tim Berners-Lee, Linus Torvalds, and many others, he wouldn't be homeless, that is unless he prefers to keep traveling.
> I mainly objected to your 'Can I sample one without his permission?' since I don't think its the same thing.
I understand your point and I agree that's the reality of it, but I'm saying that isn't how it has to be. It isn't the same thing in some qualitative ways, as you say, but mainly because Dylan chooses to make it different. Like all the FOSS developers, all those Grateful Dead bootlegs, and all those traditional folk tunes, and some folk singers (and other musicians) in the recorded era, he could have made his libre. My guess is that like Tim Berners-Lee, Linus Torvalds, and many others, he wouldn't be homeless, that is unless he prefers to keep traveling.
Thats a good point, I agree completely. The whole music business has become very dog-eat-dog :(
> Does Dylan allow bootlegging? Are his songs libre? Does he limit their use or charge royalties? Can I sample one without his permission?
I'm not sure of the legal rights involved, but he spent nearly the first half of his speech thanking individual artists for covering his songs, so I'd say it's fair game in his eyes.
I'm not sure of the legal rights involved, but he spent nearly the first half of his speech thanking individual artists for covering his songs, so I'd say it's fair game in his eyes.
Musical covers are allowed under mechanical copyrights.
For live performances, the venue carries an ASCAP license, I believe on an annual rate. I don't know how royalties are attributed to individual songwriters.
For recordings, the recording company is, as I understand, responsible for paying royalties to the songwriter.
Note that songwriters and composers get royalties, but recording artists are typically only compensated for their studio time. This bit of legal context for revenues is a reason for the difference between recording artists (much better deal for the studio) and singer-songwriters (much savvier for the artist).
For live performances, the venue carries an ASCAP license, I believe on an annual rate. I don't know how royalties are attributed to individual songwriters.
For recordings, the recording company is, as I understand, responsible for paying royalties to the songwriter.
Note that songwriters and composers get royalties, but recording artists are typically only compensated for their studio time. This bit of legal context for revenues is a reason for the difference between recording artists (much better deal for the studio) and singer-songwriters (much savvier for the artist).
His representatives are generally very lenient on unreleased material and very strict on material that's commercially available.
The labels that distribute his works control that.
>The other half of rock & roll has got to be hillbilly. And that's a derogatory term, but it ought not to be. That's a term that includes the Delmore Bros., Stanley Bros., Roscoe Holcomb, Git Tanner and the Skillet Lickers... groups like that. Moonshine gone berserk. Fast cars on dirt roads. That's the kind of combination that makes up rock & roll, and it can't be cooked up in a science laboratory or a studio.
Considering that most of the rock & roll I listen to comes from Britain, I have no idea what he considers rock & roll to be. It's certainly not american folk music.
Considering that most of the rock & roll I listen to comes from Britain, I have no idea what he considers rock & roll to be. It's certainly not american folk music.
Keith Richards and his school buddy, Mick Jagger, bonded by nerding out over American folk music ('Life' is a fun read), including both rhythm and blues and the kind of hillbilly stuff Dylan refers to. So did Paul McCartney and John Lennon. It's kind of amazing how rock and roll became so much greater when it was exported and imported.
> So did Paul McCartney and John Lennon.
Do you hear this in any of their work? I only hear it in "Rocky Racoon", which is one of my least favorite beatles songs as a result.
I can't say I'm a fan of Stones-style rock and roll. I'd prefer Led Zeppelin; much less caterwauling and more music.
Do you hear this in any of their work? I only hear it in "Rocky Racoon", which is one of my least favorite beatles songs as a result.
I can't say I'm a fan of Stones-style rock and roll. I'd prefer Led Zeppelin; much less caterwauling and more music.
The same Led Zeppelin that borrowed all those American blues and country riffs throughout their career?
If you educate yourself on American music from the 20s-50s you'll realize the true extent of the influence on the British music of the 60s and 70s. It's a lot more than Rocky Raccoon but if you're ignorant of country music you're not going to hear the guitar licks, drum patterns and vocal inflections that show up in many of the recordings by the Beatles.
There's no shortage of literature on these influences so how about we just leave any additional education on the matter to personal study, eh?
If you educate yourself on American music from the 20s-50s you'll realize the true extent of the influence on the British music of the 60s and 70s. It's a lot more than Rocky Raccoon but if you're ignorant of country music you're not going to hear the guitar licks, drum patterns and vocal inflections that show up in many of the recordings by the Beatles.
There's no shortage of literature on these influences so how about we just leave any additional education on the matter to personal study, eh?
> The same Led Zeppelin that borrowed all those American blues and country riffs throughout their career?
I see that easily, it's the folk influence I have a (harder) time with.
I see that easily, it's the folk influence I have a (harder) time with.
Tangerine? Bron-yr-Aur Stomp? Stairway? They had Sandy "Fairport Convention" Denny as a guest singer.
Led Zep are absolutely in the English folk tradition – distinct but related to the American scene – as well as the blues one.
Led Zep are absolutely in the English folk tradition – distinct but related to the American scene – as well as the blues one.
Well, you hear it in Led Zeppelin, too. While the members were heavily influenced by the blues artists of the time, songs like "gallows pole" and "Bron-Y-Aur Stomp" and "Hey hey what can I do?" show that influence. They also have a variety of songs heavily influenced by the Rockabilly genre, which also has a folk-roots influence. "Hot Dog", "boogie with stu", and "Candy Store Rock" all count in that regard.
Rock and Roll has key influence from both the folk traditions, and the blues ones. And in many ways, baroque and early music which influenced bluegrass.
Rock and Roll has key influence from both the folk traditions, and the blues ones. And in many ways, baroque and early music which influenced bluegrass.
Excerpts from the Zep Wikipedia article:
"The band's heavy, guitar-driven sound, rooted in blues( and psychedelia on their early albums, has earned them recognition as one of the progenitors of heavy metal, though their unique style drew from a wide variety of influences, including folk music."
"The four played together for the first time in a room below a record store on Gerrard Street in London.[17] Page suggested that they attempt "Train Kept A-Rollin'", originally a jump blues song popularised in a rockabilly version by Johnny Burnette, which had been covered by the Yardbirds."
A lot of great rock-and-roll has come out of Britain... if you trace how it got there, it comes back to the same people Dylan is talking about (not solely, but the Hillbillies are there).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Led_Zeppelin
"The band's heavy, guitar-driven sound, rooted in blues( and psychedelia on their early albums, has earned them recognition as one of the progenitors of heavy metal, though their unique style drew from a wide variety of influences, including folk music."
"The four played together for the first time in a room below a record store on Gerrard Street in London.[17] Page suggested that they attempt "Train Kept A-Rollin'", originally a jump blues song popularised in a rockabilly version by Johnny Burnette, which had been covered by the Yardbirds."
A lot of great rock-and-roll has come out of Britain... if you trace how it got there, it comes back to the same people Dylan is talking about (not solely, but the Hillbillies are there).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Led_Zeppelin
If you search for the story of how they met, McCartney played Lennon some Little Richard (R&B) and some Gene Vincent (Hillbilly), both US imports. It impressed Lennon and his buds enough that they decided to invite McCartney in to the band. Listen to their earliest records, and look at who they cover, and you'll find more.
Speaking of Led Zeppelin:
The Crunge is a James Brown tribute. When the Levee breaks references the American Blues tradition pretty explicitly (I'm going to Chicago). In My Time of Dying is an old gospel tune from Louisana. Dazed and Confused was a cover of an American blues tune, etc.
Clapton was a similar story. He's the first to say his biggest inspiration was Robert Johnson.
The Beatles had a much stronger US influence in their earlier work than their later work. They had multiple singles that were Chuck Berry covers.
The Crunge is a James Brown tribute. When the Levee breaks references the American Blues tradition pretty explicitly (I'm going to Chicago). In My Time of Dying is an old gospel tune from Louisana. Dazed and Confused was a cover of an American blues tune, etc.
Clapton was a similar story. He's the first to say his biggest inspiration was Robert Johnson.
The Beatles had a much stronger US influence in their earlier work than their later work. They had multiple singles that were Chuck Berry covers.
All of Rubber Soul.
And outside of Rubber Soul, "I've Just Seen a Face" comes to mind. What a brilliant song.
And outside of Rubber Soul, "I've Just Seen a Face" comes to mind. What a brilliant song.
And closing the circle, it's been covered by many American bluegrass bands:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=i%27ve+just+see...
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=i%27ve+just+see...
For the Stones, specifically the blues.
I'd encourage you to investigate the link between Clapton and American folk music. I could post links, but I'd just be doing what I'm encouraging you to do - research this a bit.
I mean I realize the link—assuming you're calling american blues "folk", that is—but it's just that, a link, not an identity. Clapton certainly sounds unique. I'm more interested in the fact that he thinks rock & roll is actually a discrete genre rather than a band format.
I'm also not a huge fan of Clapton sans Cream OR the Stones, so maybe I just don't like american flavored rock & roll. It didn't really click for me until Iggy Pop showed up. It didn't feel right to be caught halfway between him and Woody Guthrie—both ends make sense, but the middle sounds terrible to me.
I'm also not a huge fan of Clapton sans Cream OR the Stones, so maybe I just don't like american flavored rock & roll. It didn't really click for me until Iggy Pop showed up. It didn't feel right to be caught halfway between him and Woody Guthrie—both ends make sense, but the middle sounds terrible to me.
I'd love to highlight Lynyrd Skynyrd as a prime example of American Rock. I think the link in their music is much clearer.
Do you like Wilco?
I can't say I'm a huge fan; I prefer the, erm, Iron & Wine style of soft crooning.
I don't know. I like Dylan's music alright, but reading the lyrics posted here and imagining how they would sound on their own (If you've heard the songs, you tend to impose the music on them when you read them), I don't think they're particularly impressive. If you slipped, say, "The Ballad of a Thin Man" into a poetry anthology I don't believe many people coming across it blind would consider it one of the greats.
Is it right to consider the lyrics without the music? Isn't that a little like reading a literal translation of a poem in another language?
Works for the Tao Te Ching, and others. You lose something but not enough you can't see the genius if it's there.
For Dylan I'd actually prefer to consider his lyrics without the music since sometimes I can't really understand what he's singing. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLCewTcb-jc)
For Dylan I'd actually prefer to consider his lyrics without the music since sometimes I can't really understand what he's singing. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLCewTcb-jc)
I love that comparison. Just came here to say that.
I don't know what the official criteria are but I'm going to think of the prize decision as recognizing his incredible songs as art in themselves rather than just the lyrics as "literature".
Maybe. I took the fact that this is a Nobel Prize in Literature and that the site states that they awarded it to him for "new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition" as meaning this was about his lyrics.
I was probably 13 or so when I bought a "Freewheelin Bob Dylan" cassette out of a bargain bin for maybe a dollar. I thought then, and think now, that "Masters of War" was embarrassingly juvenile. I mean, come on:
And I hope that you die
And your death’ll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I’ll watch while you’re lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I’ll stand o’er your grave
Til I’m sure that you’re dead
"Suicide is Painless" is a great song.
There are plenty of prices for excellence in young adult literature. The noble price shouldn't be one of them.
> The nobel price
You aren't even trying.
You aren't even trying.
Also No Direction Home, which encompass and expands on Don't Look Back is equally excellent.
[deleted]
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.
The rebel became part of the institution in the end. Somewhat sad if you ask me.
Eh, I don't know unless you are referring to some event I am not familiar with.
Yeah he's not writing protest songs anymore (unless you ask him [1]), but since he went electric, he's been doing what he wants, not what's expected of him. I saw him on tour this year, and it was a strange experience. The performance, song choice, and delivery felt more like he was just doing his music thing and I was paying to watch -- he wasn't trying to entertain me.
[1] I saw a video of this interview, but I can't seem to find it now, so https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_songs_in_the_United_St... will have to do. Search for "all my songs"
Yeah he's not writing protest songs anymore (unless you ask him [1]), but since he went electric, he's been doing what he wants, not what's expected of him. I saw him on tour this year, and it was a strange experience. The performance, song choice, and delivery felt more like he was just doing his music thing and I was paying to watch -- he wasn't trying to entertain me.
[1] I saw a video of this interview, but I can't seem to find it now, so https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_songs_in_the_United_St... will have to do. Search for "all my songs"
Very much the same with the time I saw him. I think he spoke to the audience once during the entire gig.
Experienced exactly the same thing. Surreal. Enjoyed the opening act (Mark Knopfler) more than Dylan, but at least I saw him live once ;)
And here's Knopfler playing Dylan's take on a classic Scottish folk tune (The Parting Glass)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fKszPYmj7s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fKszPYmj7s
I'm jealous you got to see Mark Knopfler. My opener was Mavis Staples.
Reminds me of Jean-Paul Sartre's letter in which he rejected the Nobel Prize:
> The writer who accepts an honour of this kind involves as well as himself the association or institution which has honoured him,” he said at the time. “The writer must therefore refuse to let himself be transformed into an institution, even if this occurs under the most honourable circumstances, as in the present case. (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/05/sartre-nobel-p...)
> The writer who accepts an honour of this kind involves as well as himself the association or institution which has honoured him,” he said at the time. “The writer must therefore refuse to let himself be transformed into an institution, even if this occurs under the most honourable circumstances, as in the present case. (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/05/sartre-nobel-p...)
Only sad if you believe that he didn't effect change in teh institution.
Based on current American society and especially the election, I would say he effected no change unfortunately.
In the time since Dylan started signing black people went from having very limited rights to winning a presidential elections. Obviously, there are many more factors than Dylan at play, and establishing causality, or the lack of thereof, is impossible. But, in my opinion, saying that society has not changed would be a big mistake.
Attributing any of that "progress" to Bob Dylan is a huge reach. He has a lot of fans and reached some segment of the population with his act, but he's basically just another guy peddling records and tap dancing for nickels.
>Attributing any of that "progress" to Bob Dylan is a huge reach.
While that's true, Bob Dylan was most likely the reason behind Hurricane's retrial, so that's something: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_(Bob_Dylan_song)
While that's true, Bob Dylan was most likely the reason behind Hurricane's retrial, so that's something: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_(Bob_Dylan_song)
This is an unfortunate outlook in my opinion. Art and literature are definitely more important than mere entertainment. The greatness of an artist is determined by how much impact they had on a society.
You don't need to attribute the change to him for it to not be sad if he joins the mainstream. If mainstream values converge with Dylan's, why shouldn't he?
I would argue he occupied a lot more mindspace than most Nobel Laureates.
[deleted]
[deleted]
He hasn't tried since '64.
Well he hasn't accepted the award yet ;)
Also known as the baby-boomer curse.
Found this 1968 song from an Israeli singer a couple of weeks ago, whose title says it all: "The Hippies Of Today Are The Assholes of Tomorrow" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joZU1fMFCAo).
[deleted]
I think Dylan would never have called himself a 'rebel' to begin with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guOaI6_cF10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guOaI6_cF10
This should be a textbook example of the halo effect.
Isn't that somewhat what My Back Pages is already about?
Oh, but you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears
Bury the rag deep in your face
For now's the time for your tears
Bury the rag deep in your face
For now's the time for your tears
Great song - for those wondering, it is The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carrol by Bob Dylan. I think the lyrics are more powerful in context of the rest of the song[0].
0- https://play.google.com/music/preview/Tjwyq4ppzw6s7xatkamydg...
0- https://play.google.com/music/preview/Tjwyq4ppzw6s7xatkamydg...
NPR(?) did an excellent analysis of the lyrics and rhymes in the song a while ago, but I can't find the episode.
Excellent comment/verse, given the context. Congrats on the insight.
Although listening to that song now I find it somewhat sad and dispiriting, because the "change" that came in the decades following that proclamation, was it really a change? Looking at politics and society? I think of that song in the context of its use in "Watchmen" [0] as more realistic.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVUDdQS2UxA
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVUDdQS2UxA
That film is without question my favourite set of opening credits, and honestly I think that short outdoes the rest of the film by an order of magnitude.
[deleted]
Bob Dylan now has Nobel Prize, Presidential Medal of Freedom, Officier de la Legion d'honneur, Pulitzer, 12 Grammy's, Golden Globe, Academy Award, ...
He's the second person in history to have an Oscar and a Nobel Prize. The first being George Bernard Shaw.
I believe Al Gore won both a Nobel and Oscar.
And the National popular vote for President of the United States!
For anyone wondering why suddenly there are two Al Gore jokes here, like I was, it's not a joke: he won an Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth.
Al Gore didn't win the Oscar, he gave the acceptance speech on behalf of the director of the documentary, he won a grammy though.
I'm a bit confused here.
Was that before or after he invented the Internet?
- - -
By the way, you're a mean person peter303, Al Gore is a nice person.
- - -
Edit: Oh, I spoke too soon. He actually has a Nobel, a Grammy and an Emmy award. That's actually even more impressive than I expected.
Was that before or after he invented the Internet?
- - -
By the way, you're a mean person peter303, Al Gore is a nice person.
- - -
Edit: Oh, I spoke too soon. He actually has a Nobel, a Grammy and an Emmy award. That's actually even more impressive than I expected.
And Al Gore
Baby Boomers run the world and dictate the culture from boardrooms, and he's Boomer Jesus. Newport 1965 is told just like the crucifixion story.
Despite being a massive admirer of Dylan's work, I'm not sure that I'm good with this
> for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition
There's no doubt he did this, but ... do songs count as literature? I'm not really sure they do, and much as I love the songs, the lyrics by themselves don't have anything like the impact (on me at least) of top-notch poetry
> for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition
There's no doubt he did this, but ... do songs count as literature? I'm not really sure they do, and much as I love the songs, the lyrics by themselves don't have anything like the impact (on me at least) of top-notch poetry
>There's no doubt he did this, but ... do songs count as literature?
They should. Literature and poetry started from rhapsodies, sagas, and other forms of song-based storytelling, and it's not very good that it diverted so much to some kind of literary ivory tower.
They should. Literature and poetry started from rhapsodies, sagas, and other forms of song-based storytelling, and it's not very good that it diverted so much to some kind of literary ivory tower.
I'm curious. Should screenplays also be eligible for the nobel in literature?
Several dramatists have won the Nobel in Literature. Harold Pinter, Samuel Beckett, Elfriede Jelinek, and probably some I'm not remembering.
EDIT: Eugene O'Neil, Jacinto Benavente, Dario Fo
EDIT: Eugene O'Neil, Jacinto Benavente, Dario Fo
Sadly Fo has passed away today.
Playwrights have won several times. The problem with screenplays, as they exist today, is that they basically never really have 'an author' in the traditional sense.
And should novels be eligible for songwriting awards?
Most early poetry was sung, and we're fine with calling that literature. Calling Dylan's work poetry does step over some normative lines, but they're fairly arbitrary lines.
I know you were being sarcastic, but your comparison isn't really apt. Novels are not a lyric medium: they're prose. Song lyrics are lyrics set to music. Some poetry is "lyrics" without the music (although lyric poetry is not quite the same thing).
I know you were being sarcastic, but your comparison isn't really apt. Novels are not a lyric medium: they're prose. Song lyrics are lyrics set to music. Some poetry is "lyrics" without the music (although lyric poetry is not quite the same thing).
I think the contention is that lyrics and novels are non-overlapping subsets of literature.
Songwriting clearly doesn't include novels. Literature includes both, and more.
If they have a tune and you can dance to them.
Spoken word does exist. You're just drawing up arbitrary lines when in real life boundaries between media and genre aren't so distinct.
>the lyrics by themselves don't have anything like the impact (on me at least) of top-notch poetry
To you they don't, to me and others they do. To the current Nobel committee they did this year.
At the end, Nobel prizes are highly subjective and people dependent recognitions - so arguments of the form of X deserves and Y does not are not too meaningful.
To you they don't, to me and others they do. To the current Nobel committee they did this year.
At the end, Nobel prizes are highly subjective and people dependent recognitions - so arguments of the form of X deserves and Y does not are not too meaningful.
> To you they don't, to me and others they do
Really? I've spent pretty much all my spare time and money on music for the last 30 years, but no lyrics by themselves have ever had the effect on me that, for example "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" has had
... but then maybe I'm looking at this wrong, and the prize is being awarded for the songs rather than just the lyrics. If that's the case then I guess the prize is well-deserved
Really? I've spent pretty much all my spare time and money on music for the last 30 years, but no lyrics by themselves have ever had the effect on me that, for example "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" has had
... but then maybe I'm looking at this wrong, and the prize is being awarded for the songs rather than just the lyrics. If that's the case then I guess the prize is well-deserved
Tambourine Man definitely struck me in a similar way to Prufrock. In fact, I don't think songwriting gets the credit it really deserves. Dylan is verbose, but most great songwriting is better equated to a sonnet than Prufrock. And an album to a sonnet sequence.
One example I might offer on the same line as Prufrock is Bookends by Simon and Garfunkel. From "Save the Life of My Child" all the way to "At the Zoo" we follow a life (or many lives) and its roller coaster. "America" and "Hazy Shade of Winter" are particular favorites.
(as an aside, one of my favorite lyrics of all time is by Gordon Lightfoot in his excellent "Black Day in July" -
"And then the tanks go rolling in
To patch things up as best they can"
Talk about summing up so much in a few words.)
One example I might offer on the same line as Prufrock is Bookends by Simon and Garfunkel. From "Save the Life of My Child" all the way to "At the Zoo" we follow a life (or many lives) and its roller coaster. "America" and "Hazy Shade of Winter" are particular favorites.
(as an aside, one of my favorite lyrics of all time is by Gordon Lightfoot in his excellent "Black Day in July" -
"And then the tanks go rolling in
To patch things up as best they can"
Talk about summing up so much in a few words.)
If it's because of music, Bob Dylan is not the best musician.
If it's solely because of lyrics, Bob Dylan is not the best lyricist.
It's a weird comfort-food-like pick either way.
If it's solely because of lyrics, Bob Dylan is not the best lyricist.
It's a weird comfort-food-like pick either way.
> Nobel prizes are highly subjective
Literature and Peace, yes.
Science? No. People will disagree on whether some person who didn't get the price really should have gotten it, but no scientist disputes the value and importance of the work of the people who did get the prize.
In science, perhaps there are people who should have gotten the Nobel prize but they didn't. However, few people would say that the people who did get the prize didn't deserve it.
With Peace and Literature, people do this all the time.
Literature and Peace, yes.
Science? No. People will disagree on whether some person who didn't get the price really should have gotten it, but no scientist disputes the value and importance of the work of the people who did get the prize.
In science, perhaps there are people who should have gotten the Nobel prize but they didn't. However, few people would say that the people who did get the prize didn't deserve it.
With Peace and Literature, people do this all the time.
Even in science there is a fair amount of subjectivity to the prizes. It was fairly questionable to give a Nobel to Kary Mullis for PCR, for example (the technique is certainly useful, but maybe not that deep scientifically and Mullis is kind of a nutjob who has used his fame to promote pseudoscience), not to mention prizes to work that hasn't held up well -- frontal lobotomies are not considered a great solution to mental illness anymore despite Egas Moniz's 1949 prize for it.
Songs are poetry, poetry is literature.
But then again, remember that Sinatra vs. Bieber meme... http://weknowmemes.com/2012/02/music-what-happened/
But then again, remember that Sinatra vs. Bieber meme... http://weknowmemes.com/2012/02/music-what-happened/
They put coffee in their coffee in Brazil.
It suppose it goes without saying, but that meme is some selective criticism.
It suppose it goes without saying, but that meme is some selective criticism.
Of course. Current youth generation's pop songs are always bad (mostly).
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. "
- Socrates, circa 470 BC
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. "
- Socrates, circa 470 BC
I believe this quote is apocryphal. AFAIK it's actually quoting a play by Aristophanes that poked fun at Socrates -- a play that put these words in his mouth.
Very possible. The point is merely that lamenting the ways of the youth is a very old phenomenon.
It is worth adding that though I agree that songs can be literature, songs also have non-literary elements, which means that songs that are not literature can still be good songs. Here I'm thinking of artists like DJ Shadow or the Beastie Boys, where some other element such as the soundscape or even just the beat carries the music.
I'm not a Bieber fan, but I think it's unfair to judge him strictly by his lyrics. Or Sinatra for that matter.
I'm not a Bieber fan, but I think it's unfair to judge him strictly by his lyrics. Or Sinatra for that matter.
Remember the Song of Songs in the Bible.
Or the Nibelungenlied ("Lied" is German for song).
Song and story are very much related, especially since back when the people couldn't read, singing stories was more popular than today.
Or the Nibelungenlied ("Lied" is German for song).
Song and story are very much related, especially since back when the people couldn't read, singing stories was more popular than today.
The psalter is a much better example than the Song of Songs, IMO, given that there's no particular reason to think the latter was set to music.
And telling the stories in poetic form and then singing them was a way to memorize them and teach them to next generation at the time when people had no skill to write and read.
> do songs count as literature?
Stephen Sondheim wrote that you can't fit as much complexity into sung lyrics as into read poetry. I wish I had the book in front of me to provide more details, but he reveals a lot about his craft here:
Hat Box
http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/215415/hat-box-by-st...
(For those not familiar with the genre, many think Sondheim is the great composer of musicals of all time; you might have seen some of his on film, Sweeney Todd and Into the Woods, recently. His lyrics (and stories) are not of the fun, clever, vapid variety often associated with musicals, but brilliant, creative, and multi-dimensional. - For those interested, Company and Sweeney Todd are probably good places to start.)
Stephen Sondheim wrote that you can't fit as much complexity into sung lyrics as into read poetry. I wish I had the book in front of me to provide more details, but he reveals a lot about his craft here:
Hat Box
http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/215415/hat-box-by-st...
(For those not familiar with the genre, many think Sondheim is the great composer of musicals of all time; you might have seen some of his on film, Sweeney Todd and Into the Woods, recently. His lyrics (and stories) are not of the fun, clever, vapid variety often associated with musicals, but brilliant, creative, and multi-dimensional. - For those interested, Company and Sweeney Todd are probably good places to start.)
My understanding is that Homer's poems were recited or sung along with musical accompaniment. I'd agree it's an open issue as to whether this is analogous to Dylan's singing.
I feel ambivalent about this nobel prize. I absolutely feel Dylan is deserving of an award on this scale, and I have no problem viewing his work as literature. So in that sense, I have no real objection.
Still... novelists, playwrights, poets, there were a lot of people practicing more pure literary forms who were passed over here... and they certainly aren't going to be considered for any music awards. I'm just not convinced this was the right way to go. I do feel a kind of unease about it. I'm not really the best one to make the case against it, because I'm not convinced it's the wrong decision either.
I feel ambivalent about this nobel prize. I absolutely feel Dylan is deserving of an award on this scale, and I have no problem viewing his work as literature. So in that sense, I have no real objection.
Still... novelists, playwrights, poets, there were a lot of people practicing more pure literary forms who were passed over here... and they certainly aren't going to be considered for any music awards. I'm just not convinced this was the right way to go. I do feel a kind of unease about it. I'm not really the best one to make the case against it, because I'm not convinced it's the wrong decision either.
literature (n) — written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit.
...don't see why lyrics shouldn't count. Radio plays, films etc. also count.
...don't see why lyrics shouldn't count. Radio plays, films etc. also count.
There was a Spanish band which used to take poems by various authors such as García Lorca and make songs from them. Did this mean the poems suddenly became worse?
Now, I do agree that you can have a great song with lyrics that wouldn't be that great by themselves. But that doesn't mean genuinely good poems can't be written as lyrics.
Now, I do agree that you can have a great song with lyrics that wouldn't be that great by themselves. But that doesn't mean genuinely good poems can't be written as lyrics.
They could. The psalms were originally set to music and are still quite popular works despite the music they were set to being long lost. But whether Dylan's lyrics really work on that level, well, that's a different question.
> There's no doubt he did this, but ... do songs count as literature?
Anything with text is potentially literature. The rest is up to the snobbery of the judges.
Anything with text is potentially literature. The rest is up to the snobbery of the judges.
In general, I'd have to say no, but artists like Dylan operate on a totally separate level. This is well deserved.
"Here comes the story of the Hurricane"[1] sure seems closer to a story than modern song writing.
[1] http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/bobdylan/hurricane.html
[1] http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/bobdylan/hurricane.html
C'mon, look at 'Hard Rains Gonna Fall'? Writing something with such wisdom and poetic deft at 22 years old? This award is massively overdue - not undue.
Considering that countless poems are turned into songs I can't see why it can't work the other way around.
Yes, songs are counted as literature (poetry), as well as code (computer programs).
It seems that Haruki Murakami is the Leonardo DiCaprio of Nobel prizes.
I can't upvote this enough. I have a degree in physics, but even so every year around this time for about the past decade I pay more attention to the literature prize, waiting for him to get recognized. The last chapter of Colorless Tsukuru hit me so hard I cried, and immediately went out of my way to get an autographed copy. His novels have certainly helped me transition into adulthood, and I think he definitely deserves the prize.
I wish I had a reaction as emotional as yours, but I still understand your sentiment. They're quirky, yet so relatable. Ultimately, Haruki literature resonates with the loneliness felt in the cold, detached 21st-century society.
Yeah, I just happened to read that last chapter of Colorless Tsukuru at the right time in my personal life where I could relate directly to just about every sentence, and at the end I just felt empty in a satisfying way, if that makes any sense. Then again, I find that with age I'm becoming more susceptible to melancholic or sappy fiction, even if it's not particularly well done (as in the case of some TV shows).
Unpopular opinion, but they're both overrated. DiCaprio just overacts and people interpret it as a sign of good acting (c.f.: "he cut his hand and kept acting!"; method acting is also given too much credit these days as well) I've read Murakami and it just felt soulless and bland, like he was just appealing to "lonely and lost" people, but not in any meaningful way. Just my personal opinion.
Lastly, if someone keeps getting passed up for an award, it just signifies that there are people who deserved the award more, not that they deserve the award by virtue of not receiving it. That's why I think it's silly that he won the Oscar for The Revenant, which was certainly not his best performance. You can make a case for someone deserving an award for cumulative achivement, but then there are even more worthy candidates.
Lastly, if someone keeps getting passed up for an award, it just signifies that there are people who deserved the award more, not that they deserve the award by virtue of not receiving it. That's why I think it's silly that he won the Oscar for The Revenant, which was certainly not his best performance. You can make a case for someone deserving an award for cumulative achivement, but then there are even more worthy candidates.
>if someone keeps getting passed up for an award, it just signifies that there are people who deserved the award more
I would be less salty if another author received it over Murakami, but to make the jump to songwriter sets a precedent I don't particularly like. You can make a reasoned argument for authors who deserve it more than Murakami, but to switch genres sort of implies that either all the Nobel caliber authors have been exhausted, or that nobody cares about literature anymore, or that the Nobel committee made this pick to satiate the complaints over the lack of American laureates, and Bob Dylan was the best the US could offer. In any case I find it troubling.
I would be less salty if another author received it over Murakami, but to make the jump to songwriter sets a precedent I don't particularly like. You can make a reasoned argument for authors who deserve it more than Murakami, but to switch genres sort of implies that either all the Nobel caliber authors have been exhausted, or that nobody cares about literature anymore, or that the Nobel committee made this pick to satiate the complaints over the lack of American laureates, and Bob Dylan was the best the US could offer. In any case I find it troubling.
Yes, I totally agree. I like Dylan's music a lot, but I cringed this morning when I read the news. Murakami deserves the prize. I suspect he'll get it one of these years, but I think his body of work has already made the case.
What is your favorite book by him? I've only read once thus far. "What I talk about when I talk about running"
Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World. Check it out, it's his personal favourite [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard-Boiled_Wonderland_and_the...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard-Boiled_Wonderland_and_the...
Can't recommend this enough, it's probably my favorite single piece of fiction.
Wind-up Bird Chronicle is my favorite of his works that I've read.
Wild Sheep Chase and The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle are also quite good. His tone can vary a lot from book to book, from absurdity (Wild Sheep Chase) to straight up nostalgic, umm, romance(?) (Norwegian Wood).
I'm not the OP, but Norwegian Wood and Kafka on the Shore are my favorites.
Thanks! I'll check them out.
1Q84 is my favorite, but I wouldn't start with it. Kafka on the Shore or A Wild Sheep Chase are excellent and better starting points.
Fantastic! Anyone know if it's the first Literature Nobel given to a pure singer-songwriter?
Here are three Dylan songs with big literary value:
* "Lily, Rosemary and the Jack of Hearts": an amazing example of musical story-telling
* "The Ballad of a Thin Man": Some of the most post-modern lyrics ever put to music...
* "Like a Rolling Stone": One of the most influential songs of all time
Here are three Dylan songs with big literary value:
* "Lily, Rosemary and the Jack of Hearts": an amazing example of musical story-telling
* "The Ballad of a Thin Man": Some of the most post-modern lyrics ever put to music...
* "Like a Rolling Stone": One of the most influential songs of all time
'Hurricane' always gives me chills.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_(Bob_Dylan_song)
Here's a great video on 'All Along The Watchtower'. I'm rewatching this today to celebrate!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In6gCrGeZfA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_(Bob_Dylan_song)
Here's a great video on 'All Along The Watchtower'. I'm rewatching this today to celebrate!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In6gCrGeZfA
I read the lyrics to Dylan's Forever Young at my nephews baptism as a poem, and half the audience was crying. Excerpt:
May you grow up to be righteous
May you grow up to be true
May you always know the truth
And see the lights surrounding you
May you always be courageous
Stand upright and be strong
May you stay forever young
May you stay forever young.
May you grow up to be righteous
May you grow up to be true
May you always know the truth
And see the lights surrounding you
May you always be courageous
Stand upright and be strong
May you stay forever young
May you stay forever young.
Rhyming "imagination" with "tax-deductible charity organizations" is worthy of a Nobel any day.
Technically, Dylan has written a number of novels, short stories and Poems and as such would not really qualify as a "pure singer-songwriter", even though the Nobel Prize comittee's reasoning references his work as a singer-songwriter...
I would suggest 'Visions of Johanna'.
At the other end of spectrum is 'Changing of the Guards' in which Bob Dylan seems to be intentionally parodying his own songwriting (still an enjoyable song though).
At the other end of spectrum is 'Changing of the Guards' in which Bob Dylan seems to be intentionally parodying his own songwriting (still an enjoyable song though).
>"Lily, Rosemary and the Jack of Hearts": an amazing example of musical story-telling
This song and 'Tangled Up In Blue' and 'Hurricane' are practically novellas in song form. I think the 'long form storyteller' Dylan is often the least acknowledged, but probably my favorite Dylan song format.
This song and 'Tangled Up In Blue' and 'Hurricane' are practically novellas in song form. I think the 'long form storyteller' Dylan is often the least acknowledged, but probably my favorite Dylan song format.
I started typing out a list, but there's really too many to name. Pretty much anything through Desire is definitely worth a listen, and he has some gems from past that period, too.
Winston Churchill also won the Literature Nobel Prize (for his book on the second world war). Writing history is probably even better than songwriting as an alternative to fiction.
"Only a Pawn in Their Game" has always been super impressive to me.
Darkness at the break of noon
Shadows even the silver spoon
The handmade blade, the child's balloon
Eclipses both the sun and moon
To understand you know too soon, there is no sense in trying
Pointed threats, they bluff with scorn
Suicide remarks are torn
From the fool's gold mouthpiece the hollow horn
Plays wasted words proves to warn
That he not busy being born is busy dying
Temptation's page flies out the door
You follow, find yourself at war
Watch waterfalls of pity roar
You feel to moan but unlike before
You discover that you'd just be one more person crying
So don't fear if you hear
A foreign sound to your ear
It's alright, Ma, I'm only sighing
Shadows even the silver spoon
The handmade blade, the child's balloon
Eclipses both the sun and moon
To understand you know too soon, there is no sense in trying
Pointed threats, they bluff with scorn
Suicide remarks are torn
From the fool's gold mouthpiece the hollow horn
Plays wasted words proves to warn
That he not busy being born is busy dying
Temptation's page flies out the door
You follow, find yourself at war
Watch waterfalls of pity roar
You feel to moan but unlike before
You discover that you'd just be one more person crying
So don't fear if you hear
A foreign sound to your ear
It's alright, Ma, I'm only sighing
A real testament to the power of imagery when skillfully and artfully handled.
Dylan himself was something of a hustler in his own way (not being negative here: he was also quite an amazing person) but he worked hard at his craft, delving deeply into Lord Byron and many others to hone his poetic skills - and it showed! So many artists gained fame doing his songs owing to the limitations of his own signing voice (his has a raw quality that is appealing in its own right but probably more for specialized audiences as compared to what the signing groups with more of a popular bent could achieve). "Can't sing, can't play" was one putdown popular in that era. But oh how this music soared from one with a raw force, a poetic inspiration, and a truly superb talent whatever the technical limitations - and all wrapped up with the zeitgeist of the times, perfectly capturing the sense and urgency of the civil rights movement.
Very nice to see the accolades now being bestowed on a man who effectively changed a generation in profound ways.
Dylan himself was something of a hustler in his own way (not being negative here: he was also quite an amazing person) but he worked hard at his craft, delving deeply into Lord Byron and many others to hone his poetic skills - and it showed! So many artists gained fame doing his songs owing to the limitations of his own signing voice (his has a raw quality that is appealing in its own right but probably more for specialized audiences as compared to what the signing groups with more of a popular bent could achieve). "Can't sing, can't play" was one putdown popular in that era. But oh how this music soared from one with a raw force, a poetic inspiration, and a truly superb talent whatever the technical limitations - and all wrapped up with the zeitgeist of the times, perfectly capturing the sense and urgency of the civil rights movement.
Very nice to see the accolades now being bestowed on a man who effectively changed a generation in profound ways.
Sets a useful precedent - songwriters are the poets of our time and are under-appreciated from a critical perspective.
There's still time for Leonard Cohen; he'd have been my choice. But another songwriter probably won't happen again so soon.
There's still time for Leonard Cohen; he'd have been my choice. But another songwriter probably won't happen again so soon.
I love how so many on the thread have Dylan lyrics to contribute. Seems like empirical evidence for his impact. I listened obsessively to every shred of Dylan I could lay my hands on when I was a teenager.
With apologies to Bob Dylan...
Then she opened up a book of poems
And handed it to me
Written by an American poet
From the twentieth century
And everyone of them words rang true
And glowed like burnin' coal
Pourin' off of every page
Like it was written in my soul
From me to you
Tangled up in blue
With apologies to Bob Dylan...
Then she opened up a book of poems
And handed it to me
Written by an American poet
From the twentieth century
And everyone of them words rang true
And glowed like burnin' coal
Pourin' off of every page
Like it was written in my soul
From me to you
Tangled up in blue
This song is my personal favorite :) Thanks for posting.
Everything is Broken always felt like a theme song for my job in telecommunications at a service provider. Especially the parts about broken lines and broken switches. That's just how universal Dylan's literature really is:
Broken lines, broken strings
Broken threads, broken springs
Broken idols, broken heads
People sleeping in broken beds
Ain’t no use jiving
Ain’t no use joking
Everything is broken
Broken bottles, broken plates
Broken switches, broken gates
Broken dishes, broken parts
Streets are filled with broken hearts
Broken words never meant to be spoken
Everything is broken
Seem like every time you stop and turn around
Something else just hit the ground
...
YouTube version of the song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngVMh3vJsVU
Broken lines, broken strings
Broken threads, broken springs
Broken idols, broken heads
People sleeping in broken beds
Ain’t no use jiving
Ain’t no use joking
Everything is broken
Broken bottles, broken plates
Broken switches, broken gates
Broken dishes, broken parts
Streets are filled with broken hearts
Broken words never meant to be spoken
Everything is broken
Seem like every time you stop and turn around
Something else just hit the ground
...
YouTube version of the song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngVMh3vJsVU
Perhaps to top it with Nobel Prizes are broken?
This goes up there with Obama's Nobel for peace. It's an insult to the thousands of more deserving real authors. Baby Boomer's 1960s pop culture has been overhyped for so long that it's just exhausting at this point. I always find it disgusting that Dylan is celebrated as anti-war even though he wrote Neighborhood Bully, a rabid defense of Israel's wars where he ridicules calls for peace.
I disagree with the Nobel committee here. They choose to ignore numerous deserving, hard-working writers toiling in obscurity and instead heap more praise on one of the most worshipped musicians of the era.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/04/books/l-positively-fourth-...
On the whole I agree with Rorem. But on the range of Nobelists for Literature, I guess that Bob Dylan isn't all that much an outlier.
On the whole I agree with Rorem. But on the range of Nobelists for Literature, I guess that Bob Dylan isn't all that much an outlier.
Inside the museums, Infinity goes up on trial
Voices echo this is what salvation must be like after a while
But Mona Lisa musta had the highway blues
You can tell by the way she smiles
"Visions of Johanna"
I don't think that anyone in modern culture has impacted society in the ways Bob has.
"Visions of Johanna"
I don't think that anyone in modern culture has impacted society in the ways Bob has.
I have always wondered what is blowing on the wind, it seems Dylan must have captured something important, I am still wondering many things and thinking that wind curves are very windy.
Added: For a good singer it must be fatal to be poisoned with the virus of fame, you become one more commodity, good for selling books and records but no more genuine value.
I hope the next Nobel in Literature to be for a twitter writer, I don't have anything against Dylan, it is only that I find his works are not Literature but very good songs.
Added: For a good singer it must be fatal to be poisoned with the virus of fame, you become one more commodity, good for selling books and records but no more genuine value.
I hope the next Nobel in Literature to be for a twitter writer, I don't have anything against Dylan, it is only that I find his works are not Literature but very good songs.
My main complaint about Dylan is his terrible singing voice. Imagine what could have been if he had swallowed his pride and teamed with a great singer!
Of course, this complaint is invalid for a literature prize, so I can only say it's well deserved.
Maybe this can open up for film and TV writers to be considered. They're the ones mostly filling the storytelling needs book authors did when Nobel instituted the prize.
Of course, this complaint is invalid for a literature prize, so I can only say it's well deserved.
Maybe this can open up for film and TV writers to be considered. They're the ones mostly filling the storytelling needs book authors did when Nobel instituted the prize.
I watched this great documentary on Ramblin Jack Ellis, I highly recommended it, and one thing I learned was "singing pretty" was against the aesthetic of that folk movement.
So, no I don't think he should have teamed up with a singer.
So, no I don't think he should have teamed up with a singer.
Do you mean Ramblin' Jack Elliot? If so then it's ironic because Bob Dylan wrote in his autobiography about Elliot's voice and guitar playing and that he was jealous when he first heard it because it was more or less what he wished he could sound like. I personally also think he has a great voice.
[deleted]
.... I mean... I don't know , really I don't know... you put close to each other Bob Dylan and Mario Vargas Llosa and you want to cry
This might be interesting; the original, Swedish/English/French/German-language announcement, including audience reaction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0ybJQs8_rs
(Yeah, the "permanent secretary of the Swedish academy" is showing off her multilingual skills quite a bit...)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0ybJQs8_rs
(Yeah, the "permanent secretary of the Swedish academy" is showing off her multilingual skills quite a bit...)
Am I the only one who said "Bob Dylan‽"
They must have been talking about Dylan Thomas, whoever he is.
Not sure whether you were referring to an early Paul Simon song here:
"He's so unhip when you say Dylan, he thinks you're talking about Dylan Thomas / Whoever he was" http://genius.com/Simon-and-garfunkel-a-simple-desultory-phi...
"He's so unhip when you say Dylan, he thinks you're talking about Dylan Thomas / Whoever he was" http://genius.com/Simon-and-garfunkel-a-simple-desultory-phi...
No. No, you were not.
Bless that man. It saddens me that when I finally saw him in concert his voice had long since gone.
Which voice? He's used several. His voice really changed a lot after the motorcycle wreck that about killed him.
I always love playing "Lay Lady Lay" for people and asking if they know who it is. His voice is unrecognizable due to the months in the hospital w/o cigarettes.
OH wow I didn't know that. This was in ... 2010. His voice had the sound of a death rattle, absolutely unrecognizable.
He's always ... distorted his singing voice. The motorcycle wreck was 50 years ago and he about broke his neck. He cracked a vertabrae. At least in recordings his voice was different after that, but it's impossible to say how much was mechanical damage and how much was his Bobness reinventing himself again.
I've seen him in concert twice, once about ten years ago and another about 15, and though he didn't sound great, they were still great concerts. Lots of singing along and crowd pandering. He was clearly enjoying himself and so did we.
Yeah, I was pretty disappointed as well. But he wouldn't be touring if he didn't enjoy it.
Two famous laureates are Sartre and Bertrand Russell. Both wrote more in more conventional genres for the prize, but most think the prize was awarded not simply for the literary quality of their work.
Another thread connecting their awards with Dylan is that all three authored widely read and acclaimed autobiographies or memoirs.
Another thread connecting their awards with Dylan is that all three authored widely read and acclaimed autobiographies or memoirs.
It's important to note that Sartre refused the Nobel Prize because he felt that a writer should not be part of an institution. That's a moral courage that's rarely seen.
[deleted]
A less well known but powerful Dylan song, sung by his then lover Joan Baez (from Palo Alto)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUZGGFOV6FM
With God on Our Side (Live 1966)
With God on Our Side (Live 1966)
As part of the Bootleg Series, Dylan released recordings of the Rolling Thunder Review tour where this song features. It's one of my favorite live albums and Dylan at probably the most satisfied and happy point of his career.
Am I mixed up too much, am I mixed up too hard
Why am I walking, where am I running
What am I saying, what am I knowing
On this guitar I'm playing, on this banjo I'm frailin'
On this mandolin I'm strummin', in the song I'm singin'
In the tune I'm hummin', in the words I'm writin'
In the words that I'm thinkin'
In this ocean of hours I'm all the time drinkin'
Who am I helping, what am I breaking
What am I giving, what am I taking
But you try with your whole soul best
Never to think these thoughts and never to let
Them kind of thoughts gain ground
Or make yer heart pound
But then again you know why they're around
Just waiting for a chance to slip and drop down
-- Last Thoughts On Woody Guthrie
Why am I walking, where am I running
What am I saying, what am I knowing
On this guitar I'm playing, on this banjo I'm frailin'
On this mandolin I'm strummin', in the song I'm singin'
In the tune I'm hummin', in the words I'm writin'
In the words that I'm thinkin'
In this ocean of hours I'm all the time drinkin'
Who am I helping, what am I breaking
What am I giving, what am I taking
But you try with your whole soul best
Never to think these thoughts and never to let
Them kind of thoughts gain ground
Or make yer heart pound
But then again you know why they're around
Just waiting for a chance to slip and drop down
-- Last Thoughts On Woody Guthrie
I'm not sure literature would be as highly esteemed if oral history and the bards / singers / poets had not established roots in various cultures as the way to convey large, abstract or emotional things. They're good relatives I think. Writing by the masses is still fairly new in the grand scheme of things. Singing songs to each other, quite a bit longer tradition, from what I can tell looking through some stuff back in uni (including an Early Middle English course).
"I just want to know how your head feels under something like that/Under your brand new leopardskin pillbox hat"
- Bob Dylan, 1966
Was always a fan of these lyrics that are unfortunately still relevant; http://lyrics.wikia.com/wiki/Bob_Dylan:Masters_Of_War
You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatenin' my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood that runs in your veins
You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatenin' my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood that runs in your veins
Has Dylan himself commented on the award?
He's unpredictable (and irascible) enough to make me want to hear what he thinks about all of this.
He's unpredictable (and irascible) enough to make me want to hear what he thinks about all of this.
Listen to this excellent literary analysis of one of Bob Dylan's best songs: https://beta.prx.org/stories/19352
"Christopher Ricks, Professor of Humanities at Boston University explores the poetry in Bob Dylan's songs."
"Christopher Ricks, Professor of Humanities at Boston University explores the poetry in Bob Dylan's songs."
I know I'm super late to the game, but Neighbourhood Bully is really underappreciated. Great song, great poetry.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=neighbourhood+b...
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=neighbourhood+b...
Nobody's written any books recently?
The times, they are a-changin'! Never expected to see a songwriter honored with this prize.
Well, I try my best
To be just like I am
But everybody wants you
To be just like them
- Maggie's Farm
To be just like I am
But everybody wants you
To be just like them
- Maggie's Farm
You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows
"Bob Dylan hasn't Recanted Praise for Rabbi Meir Kahane.Yes, you read that right. Bob Dylan said Meir Kahane, who favored the forced expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland and whose racist Kach party has since been banned from Israeli politics, is “a really sincere guy” who’s “really put it all together.”
https://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/bob-dylan-joins...
There is a line from Paul Simon from the 60's about how people who called him and Dylan poets didn't read real poetry. (aww snap)
I dig Dylan, though. He's awesome.
I dig Dylan, though. He's awesome.
It's like giving a medicine award to yoga instructor.
Great! Funny thing, just have been talking with friend this morning about his special status as a songwriter. Very brave and I believe right choice.
Finally some news that makes me truly happy!
Somewhere, Steve Jobs is smiling.
We've reached peak Boomer.
Is it just me or has the conversation on this thread gone completely off topic?
I can't find a video or pod cast of this anywhere - anyone got a link ?
Well, I guess I can play a song for you
Yours truly, Tambourine Man
Yours truly, Tambourine Man
Well deserved.
My love, she speaks like silence
Without ideals or violence
She doesn't have to say she's faithful
Yet she's true like ice, like fire
Without ideals or violence
She doesn't have to say she's faithful
Yet she's true like ice, like fire
I never really "got" Bob Dylan.
https://lee-phillips.org/dylanreally/
https://lee-phillips.org/dylanreally/
Must've been a slow year for books
543y4eryy4(6)
hiou(6)
maybe Michael Crichton or the Harry Potter lady will win it next year...
Thank goodness! He deserves it much more than Peter, Paul, and Mary.
What's up with the low-effort comments in this thread?
I'm blowing in the wind...for I have no job...
A South politician preaches to the poor white man
"You got more than blacks, don't complain
You're better than them, you been born with white skin" they explain
And the Negro's name
Is used it is plain
For the politician's gain
As he rises to fame
And the poor white remains
On the caboose of the train
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game.
YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KY2lQV3ADfc
As it seems especially relevant today. It's a song about the killing of civil rights activist Medgar Evers by a poor white farmer in the 60's. Dylan addresses the civil rights movement in a way that avoids laying the blame squarely at the feet of the angry racist who pulled the trigger, instead placing the blame with politicians who sow hatred, insecurity, fear and division for their own ends and don't care what mess they leave behind.
When I see Trump rallies today full of angry people complaining their country has been 'taken from them' I can't help but think of that song.