T things twice Eyolf Østrem

Document technical information

Format pdf
Size 2.8 MB
First found Jun 9, 2017

Document content analysis

Language
English
Type
not defined
Concepts
no text concepts found

Persons

John Cage
John Cage

wikipedia, lookup

Martin Lowry
Martin Lowry

wikipedia, lookup

Larry Bird
Larry Bird

wikipedia, lookup

Bob Dylan
Bob Dylan

wikipedia, lookup

Paul McCartney
Paul McCartney

wikipedia, lookup

Eric Clapton
Eric Clapton

wikipedia, lookup

Martha Reeves
Martha Reeves

wikipedia, lookup

Organizations

Places

Transcript

T
things twice
Eyolf Østrem
Contents
Preface
I

vii
Y’ B W  P
Analysing Dylan Songs
Methodological Considerations
The Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The harmony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysing an Idea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 ‘Beauty may Only Turn to Rust’
The Beautiful world of Bob Dylan
Beauty and the Beast . . . . . . .
Proportion and expression . . . . .
Expression and style . . . . . . . .


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
‘Going Through All These Things Twice’
The Ritual of a Bob Dylan Concert
The External Similarites: Ceremony . . . .
The Rolling Thunder Revue . . . . . . .
The Gospel Years . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Voice of a Generation . . . . . . . .
Secular Ritual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Functions and means . . . . . . . . . . .
Dylan and ritual revisited . . . . . . . . .
Postscript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.










.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.








 The Momentum of Standstill
or: Time Out Of Mind and the Blues
Dylan and the Blues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

i
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

ii
CONTENTS
In the Evening . . . . . . . .
I Pity The Poor Immigrant . .
Standing (Still) in the Doorway
Ring Them Bells . . . . . . .
Highlands . . . . . . . . . .
II

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
H  U
‘What I learned from Lonnie’
An exploration of some remarks in Chronicles
Secrets in the back room . . . . . . . . . . .
Melodies out of triplets – Axioms and numbers
Rhythm: The Link Wray ‘Rumble’ connection
Numbers: Dylan the Pythagorean . . . . . . .
Melody: Three times , and  and  . . . . . .
Formulaicism: Inventive Redundancy . . . . .
A translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 Three Tambourine Men
Preamble: The Song – A carneval in sound
First Man: Drammenshallen,  . . . . .
Second Man: Cascais,  . . . . . . . .
The Third Man: Vienna,  . . . . . . .
 Just Like A Woman Revisited
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.







.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.







.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.






 The propelling harmony of ‘Dear Landlord’

Level  – the Dry Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Level  – the Harmonic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Level  – the interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
 In the Garden

III A  S

 The Uneven Heart
Bob Dylan the Musician

CONTENTS
Sponge Bob (–) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Perfection and Break (–) . . . . . . . . . .
The Long Lost Weekend (–) . . . . . . . .
Bloody Tracks and Rolling Thunder (–) . .
Battling the Boundaries – Fighting the Form ()
Are You Ready? () . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Never-Ending Tour (– ) . . . . . . . . .
‘Mathematical music’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Pre/post-modern Dylan . . . . . . . . . . .
The Uneven Heart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iii
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.










 The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan ()

 It Wasn’t Bruce – Don’t Think Twice ()
A Musical Whodunnit

 Hattie Carroll ()

 Another Side of Bob Dylan ()

 Chimes of Freedom ()

 John Wesley Harding ()

 Self Portrait ()

 New morning ()

 Wedding song ()

 Blood On The Tracks ()

 Tangled up in Tangled up in Blue

 Saved ()

 Down in the Groove ()

 World Gone Wrong — A Body in Sound

Not-a-one-man-band . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
You speak to me in body language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Speaking Guitar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
iv
CONTENTS
The Limbs of the Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Mouth language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
 Can’t Wait ()
The story in brief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“That’s how it is” – ok, but how exactly, and where does it lead?
From “Getting to you” to “controlling the thing” . . . . . . .
Can’t wait – but for what? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“Can’t Wait” and the Blood on the Tracks effect . . . . . . . .
 ‘A day above ground is a good day’
Bob Dylan’s ‘Love and Theft’ ()
Dylan and Christianity, Woman, and Love
Analysing Dylan lyrics . . . . . . . . . .
The Apocalypse . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Love . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Music . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
IV M T  P







 It’s Modern to Steal
Modern Times ()
 The many ways of stealing
Academic borrowing . . . . . . . . .
Poetic language . . . . . . . . . . . .
The proof of the pudding . . . . . . .
Doubts and Benefits: Allusion or theft?







.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.





 Dylan: the Postmodernist?
Bricks and Images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Death of the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Author Resurrected . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ethics and Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dylan’s deeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dylan’s Message/“Message”/Message?/Message?!
Flowers and failings . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.








.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
CONTENTS
v
 Did Dylan steal ‘Dignity’?

V

I’ S H I A
 About Guitars and Kissing

Not a concert review of some fall shows, 
Oslo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Copenhagen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
 Genius, Guitars, and Goodbyes
I MISS FREDDY!

Preface
I
’  Eric Clapton entirely responsible for this book, but neither
is he entirely without blame. Being a musical scholar with a great love for
Dylan’s music, I’ve taken his statement quoted in the first chapter – that
Dylan’s music ‘doesn’t make sense musically to the scholar’ – as a personal
challenge.
The articles have been written over the past ten years, and they vary considerably both in style, in depth, in contents, and in quality. Most of them
have been published on my website, www.dylanchords.com, either as independent articles or as introductory remarks to specific songs or albums. Some
also come from my blog which has given name to this collection. Some are
new in this collection.
In the first part, Y’ B W T P, I’ve gathered the
heavier, more analytical articles which treat more general aspects of Dylan’s
music making, in relation to aesthetics, to music history, to musicology, and
to aspects of culture at large. Analysing Dylan Songs was the outcome of an
initial attempt of defining a field of study. It was partly conceived as a sample
chapter for a book that I had plans of writing together with Mike Daley. That
book never happened, but re-reading it now, the chapter wasn’t so bad. ‘Beauty
May Only Turn to Rust’ was written for Judas! and is an analysis of Dylan’s
concept of beauty (yes, he has one!). The Momentum of Standstill started out
as a reflection over Dylan’s use of time on Time Out Of Mind, triggered, I
think, by some early commentator who was surprised to find that ‘Standing
in the Doorway’ lasted as long as it does. It grew from there, however, and
in its present state is a wider study of Dylan’s experiments with time and
the blues. Finally, ‘Going through all these things twice’ is more about ritual
and ritual theory than about Dylan. It takes the ritualistic elements of the
concert culture around Dylan as a point of departure for a discussion of ritual
in general. It has been published in Genre and Ritual ed. by Østrem, Bruun,
Petersen, and Fleischer (Turnhout: Brepols, ).
The second part, H  U, is the outcome of my
belief that analysis of chord structures (or, to appease the non-structuralists:
vii
viii
CONTENTS
patterns) may be a valid path to understand what is going on in Dylan’s songs
and performances. ‘What I learned from Lonnie’ is my take at an explanation
of what Dylan means with his reference to a system of mathematical music
which he allegedly has learned from Lonnie Johnson some time in the midsixties. A word of caution: That I’ve written about it, doesn’t mean that I think
there is an explanation, but I do believe there is some sense behind it, and this
is my attempt at bringing out some of that sense. This is put to practical use
in an analysis of Three Tambourine Men.
Just Like a Woman, Dear Landlord, and In the Garden are all subjected
to a similar kind of analysis. If these chapters appear quite dry and tedious
on paper, it is the unavoidable consequence of the violent abuse that writing
about music necessarily is. My apologies for that. The tediousness may be
alleviated by reading them while actually listening to the songs.
The third part, A  S, contains discussions of single albums
or songs. This covers the whole span from short reflections on prominent
stylistic traits in some album, to the full-scale analysis of ‘Love and Theft’, ‘ “A
Day Above Ground is a Good Day” ’.
The last part, I’    , concerns Dylan’s live appearance(s). It contains my ‘farewell’ to Dylan. As this collection should prove,
that farewell wasn’t as seriously meant as it was taken by some.
I’ve been called a ‘pompous windbag mixed with deep knowledge’. I got
the feeling that it was intended as an insult, but it is a description I can live
with and even like. I consider questions about culture, music, society, identity,
and communication important enough to deserve to be treated with some
pompousness and gravity, especially in these dire times with Bushes and Blairs
around every corner, when national culture is used as a means of oppression
and not for edification and liberation. If I can use some of my ‘deep knowledge’ to rock someone’s confidence in ‘eternal values’ geniuses, and icons, I
don’t mind being a windbag. There may even be an answer blowin’ in there.
Or a question, which is better still.
All the music examples in the book have been typeset with Lilypond (www.lilypond.org).
The book is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike . License. This means that you are free – and encouraged – to copy, distribute,
display, and perform the work, and to make derivative works as long as you attribute the
work in the manner specified by the author or licensor, and don’t use it for commercial
purposes. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting
work only under a license identical to this one.
See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/./ for further details.
I
You’ve Been With the Professors
Chapter 
Analysing Dylan Songs
M C
E
 C once said about Dylan: ‘His way of playing anything is
totally hybrid. It doesn’t make sense musically to the scholar. [. . .] At
first listening, everything he does is just real hopeless. Then you look
back and realise it’s exactly right.’ As a scholar I take this as a challenge: If
something is ‘exactly right’, but still doesn’t make sense to the scholar, it is
either the scholar’s sense or the scholar’s analytical tools that are inadequate. I
take the liberty of disregarding the first possibility (although that is probably
the commonest cause for scholarly not-being-made-sense-to-ness) and concentrate on the second: the problems inherent in musical analysis of music of
Dylan’s kind.
T O
The practice of musical analysis is closely connected with developments in the
genres and styles of music making of the end of the eighteenth and throughout
the nineteenth century. This is the so-called classical-romantical period with
composers like Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert and Wagner. It is also the period
when the concept of art took the shape that is familiar to us today.
An analysis presupposes an object of analysis. A central idea in traditional
analysis is the double notion of a unified musical work with an internal development. The work may be the product of a composer’s free and creative
mind, but it is laid down once and for all in the score, and there ends the
I’ve discussed this a greater length elsewhere, see e.g. Apples and Pears – the ancient
and the modern concepts of art, available at http://hem.passagen.se/obrecht/, and ‘ “The
Ineffable”: Affinities between Christian and Secular Concepts of Art’, in Signs of Change:
Transformations of Christian Traditions and their Representation in the Arts, –, ed.
by Petersen, Clüver, and Bell (Amsterdam: Rodopi, )


I Y’ B W  P

liberty. Any realization of the work must be compliant with the score – add a
note, and you have, strictly speaking, a different work. There is really no room
for improvisation, except within very limited boundaries, and even these are
usually not exploited: in the place where the pianist is supposed to improvise
an exuberant cadenza, most performers are content with playing the cadenzas
that Mozart himself, or Beethoven, wrote. This is of course lamentable from
the point of view of musical creativity, but the analyst applauds: it gives him
a clearly defined object of analysis, from the first note to the last.
Contrast this with the situation of a Dylan song: what is the object of analysis of, say, ‘The times they are a-changin’ ’? The published ‘score’, usually
with some remarkably silly piano arrangement of Dylan’s guitar strumming?
The album version, tabbed and uploaded to some tab site? Clearly both alternatives are inadequate, to say the least. My first encounter with ‘Forever
Young’ was of this kind. I saw it in a song book before I had ever heard it. I
looked through the melody, the chords, tried to imagine how it might sound
– and rejected it as a fairly uninteresting post-motor-cycle-accident, pre-Bloodon-the-tracks-song. When I later, almost reluctantly, bought the album, this
song was a shock of emotional intensity, in this case even reinforced by the
tension between the two versions. And you can probably take any Dylan song
the same way: It doesn’t look much on the paper – whatever power there is
lies somewhere else.
This is one reason why a transcription in any form cannot do the song,
as a musical work, justice. The other is, of course, that no matter how meticulously you note every single detail of one particular performance, the next
time you hear it, it will be different, either because Dylan has rearranged the
song, or simply because of the improvisational character of popular music
in general and Dylan’s music making in particular. With an object of analysis which cannot be objectified, since it changes all the time, there is really
no other alternative than to endorse Paul Williams’ approach: to treat every
single performance of a song as an independent work of art. The performance
is the object.
We might have settled with this, but upon closer look, it is still too simple
an explanation. I used to be attracted to Jeff Todd Titon’s approach to the
improvisational character of blues . He assumes that most of the early blues
songs were improvised on the spot; that words and music were assembled
while singing, from the singer’s storehouse of phrases, situations, turns, de
Early Downhome Blues, nd edn (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, )
A D S

scriptions, according to some specific pattern, but without a fixed text that
is repeated exactly from performance to performance. Even when singing the
‘same’ song several times in a row, it is improvised from scratch each time, and
minor (and even major) differences occur between the versions (he actually
tested this).
I used to think of Dylan’s performances in the same way, given the huge
mass of text and the re-workings of some of the texts, until I realized that the
variations are too small to really fit the model. The texts are actually memorized in a next to exact form, and the different versions of a song like ‘Tangled
up in Blue’ are for the most part conscious re-writings, not improvisations.
There may be exceptions to this, such as the constantly changing lyrics to
‘Simple Twist of Fate’ during the  tour and of ‘Ain’t Gonna Go to Hell for
Anybody’ some years earlier, but whereas they may well conform wit Titon’s
blues model in their outward appearance, and to some extent also in their cognitive foundation, they are still not improvisations taken from a storehouse of
building blocks. Rather, they are literary sketches, worked out in front of a
live audience instead of in the poet’s solitary chamber, but they are literary all
the same.
Now, the same goes for the music. This may seem odd since what is usually considered to be a distinctive trait of Dylan as an artist is his way of
constantly changing the musical setting of his songs. The melody is probably
the most unstable element, but even the tempo, the rhythm, the instrumentation change all the time. But still: the songs are always recognizeable as such.
Usually the chords and harmonies are intact, and variations are within the normal limits of the genre. However different two performances of ‘Just Like a
Woman’ may be, they are versions of the same song all the same, and not only
two different works of art which happen to have the same words attached to
them. There is always something that is preserved, through all the variations.
This simple observation opens up a large field of interesting questions concerning Dylan’s relation to the different styles that have influenced him (blues,
English folk ballads, The Beatles and rock ’n’ roll) on the one hand, and to
the different genres of music production (the orally transmitted folk/blues,
the performed, score-based classical music and the commercial popular music,
transmitted through electronic media). To make this long story short: Dylan
relates strongly to improvisational musical traditions, but also to traditions
with an ultimately defined ‘work’: defined either by what the composer has
decreed, as in classical music, or by what is considered commercially most
efficient.
I Y’ B W  P

In this sense, Dylan’s songs are not improvisational once they have reached
an album: he seldom deviates strongly from and always relates closely to
the ‘official’ versions. This means that although each performance may be
considered an independent ‘work of art’, it is still meaningful to treat the
group of works that can be subsumed under the label ‘Just Like a Woman’
as one single work of art with many realizations, much in the same way as
fifty prints from the same plates are individual works but at the same time
representations of the same work.
Paul Williams has proposed a view similar to this. In the introduction to
his books Bob Dylan: Performing Artist he relates an anecdote about a backstage meeting with Dylan. He was going to make a comparison between the
different Dylan versions and a series of lithographs by Picasso, worked on over
the course of six weeks. He writes:
At first Dylan protested that he wasn’t interested in that kind of art at all, but he
looked at the page and seemed to be pulled in. Staying with his initial (it seemed
to me) anti-intellectual stance, he pointed to the second earliest of the drawings
and proclaimed it as the best: ‘He should have stopped at that one.’ Then, looking
closer: ‘Oh, but I see why he had to keep going . . ..’
But the problems still remains: what is it about a performance that makes it
worthy of the label ‘work of art’? What are the criteria, and are they the same
for Dylan as for, say, Pavarotti or U? Are ‘works of art’ from different media
or styles comparable at all? This discussion presupposes another discussion:
that about what a work of art is in the first place. One possible definition may
be: ‘A structure made up of elements that are considered apt for reflection
or contemplation, and conceived and presented in a way that stimulates this.’
That seems to be what we do with art: we enter a different state (of mind or
place) to expose ourselves to something that we allow to influence us, emotionally or intellectually. That implies several things: the ‘structures apt for
reflection’ are not objectively given, but open to interpretation on different
cultural or historical contexts – in other words: they are dependent upon style.
A work of art can only be efficient in some kind of relation – including the
revolutionary – to a style. In periodes of stylistic change this relation tends
to be explicit, whereas in most cases it is implicit. In Dylan’s case there are a
Although the creational process seems to involve a substantial element of improvisation.
The definition is taken from my aforementioned article on aesthetics, and I refer to that
article for a further discussion of this.

The entirely revolutionary art without any precedents, although thoretically interesting
is rare enough to be disregarded


A D S

number of such implicit styles involved: the blues background, the folk, the
standard rules of European/American harmony, the development of rock, traditions of voice treatment and the relationship with the text, including the
relationship between song and spoken language, etc. To be able to appreciate
a performance fully, as a work of art, it is in fact necessary for the listener to relate it to the stylistic systems he/she finds relevant, on all different levels, from
the individual style (Dylan’s own style), through genre style (rock/blues/folk
in general), and maybe even to some kind of ‘meta-style’ of song in general.
Seen this way, every performance can be seen as a contribution to an everongoing debate – what can be done within this genre? where are the limits?
which crossovers are possible or artistically interesting?
This brings us back to the definition given above, and the second implication that can be derived from it: that art-status presupposes a volontary act by
the listener, both by allowing it to influence us, and regarding the stylistical
references we make, whether these are explicitly volontary (I choose to regard
Dylan as a blues singer even when he sings ‘Emotionally Yours’, because I find
it rewarding), or unconscious (I don’t consciously realize it, but my appreciation of a Dylan song must derive from a whole lot of different things I’ve
heard and appreciated before), or for lack of knowledge (I don’t know enough
about the folk movement in the early s to really be able to understand that
possible relation fully).
Most of this happens unconsciuosly – we don’t ponder a performance and
then decide to let it hit us in the stomach with a feeling that changes our
life. Rather, the choices have been made beforehand: we choose to like a certain kind of ‘screaming’ or whining when it seems that it can be rewarding. I
seriously doubt that eighteenth-century Viennese, however sophisticated and
developed their taste may have been, would have understood anything of any
Dylan song. Even (half ) the audience at Newport in  and during the following tour with the Band chose not to be moved or touched by performances
that are now classical precisely because of their emotionality.
T 
The other problem with the concept of the work is its inherent idea of organicism. According to the organicist theory, a work of art is, very simply stated, to
be judged as an organism, where all the parts are related to each other in much
the same way as the limbs of the body are. This is one of the basic aesthetical
principles behind classical music. Even harmony is arranged in a similar man-
I Y’ B W  P

ner: all the available chords are related to the tonic, the fundamental harmony
of the piece, in a coherent and logical way, which determines the transition
from one chord to another.
This system found its way from classical music into the realm of popular
music through the hymns and the popular tunes of the Stephen Foster-type,
and the military marching bands. They even managed to influence the fieldhollers and laments of black Missisippi workers to eventually produce the
twelve-bar blues, and from here it spread to today’s popular music genres. But
in these new settings, most of the underlying aesthetic presuppositions of the
Western classical harmonic system were originally not present. The aesthetics
behind the rural blues is almost the exact opposite: instead of striving for a
coherent organical whole with beginning, middle and end, it rather emphasises timelessness, through ostinato patterns (the twelve-bar blues pattern itself
can be considered one) and through the predominance of the tonic and the
fifth. Wilfrid Mellers describes two songs by Pete Williams, an early blues
singer, as ‘still basically hollers in which speech is translated into pentatonic
tumbling strains, with the guitar providing an ostinato accompainment with
no sense of harmonic progression.’ Harmonic progression, which is so essential to western music, has virtually no place at all in blues music, and the
dominant chord, the means par exellence by which harmonic progression is
achieved, is also a foreign flower in the landscape of the blues. It is remarkable
how the dominant chord often sounds awkward – if it is clearly sounded at
all – in much rural blues, mainly due to the sharp contrast between the blues’
flat pentatonic seventh, and the sharp leading note of the dominant chord.
A  I
Knowing what a pie is doesn’t make anyone a baker. If the foregoing may be
taken as a statement that Dylan’s music can be analysed, it still remains to show
how that can be done. This is not entirely easy, and one major obstacle is that
there is no firmly established analytical tradition for this kind of music. The
tools and methods of musical analysis which are used today rely heavily on the
work of the founders of the discipline in the nineteenth century, for better or
for worse. They were certainly clever and skilled academics, but their material and theoretical background was limited, and modern musicology has only
Wilfrid Mellers A Darker Shade of Pale: A Backdrop to Bob Dylan (London: Faber and
Faber, ), p. 

A D S

reluctantly, and most often half-heartedly, realized that theories based upon
works by Mozart may work exellently for analysing works by Mozart, but may
be worthless for other genres. Popular music is one of these, but there are even
examples from within the ‘established’ field of musicology: Most, or all, early
(pre-Bach) music defies analysis with the traditional methods, in much the
same way as a Dylan song does. It quickly becomes evident that the established models or methods for musical analysis – Schenker analysis, functional
analysis, thematic analysis etc. – are all derived from and therefore applicable
only to music from the classical-romantical era. The moment one crosses this
border, in one direction or another, there is a tendency that the treatment of
the music itself stops at the descriptive level, or it is abandoned altogether,
in favor of a sociological approach. Counting measures and determining keys
can be done with any kind of music. Determining what is really contained in
those measures, is a completely different matter.
Not only the tools and methods are received for free within the traditional
fields of analysis; so is the goal of the analysis. When undertaking a Schenker analysis of a Schubert sonata, it is obvious what the goal is: to find the
underlying tonal structure of the piece and its relation to the ‘surface level’
of the sounding music. This goal rests on a number of implicit presuppositions (that there is such a tonal structure; that it stands in a certain relation to
the ‘surface’; etc.). These are basically presuppositions about the underlying
systems of musical ‘meaning’ at work in the piece. Since these belong to the
foundation of both the music in question and of the analytical method, they
can more or less be taken for granted. (organicism, harmony). This is not the
case when analysing a Dylan song or a Palestrina motet: there are no such analytical shortcuts available, because of the discrepancy between the underlying
ideas of the music and the established analytical methods.
Even though there is a growing tradition of popular musicology, each new
analysis will still tend to begin more or less from scratch and make up its own
goals and methods along the way. We will therefore start out each separate
analysis with very elementary questions: Why does the music sound the way
it does? Which are the desicions and choices the artist has made, and why
has he made them; what is his ‘goal’? Which are the means involved in reaching that goal? Which are the choices he has not made himself but that have
been made for him, because they are so integrated in his musical background?
Which are the underlying conceptions or systems of meaning that come out
of this background? How does he relate to the different traditions (blues, folk,
gospel)? Possibly also: What are the choices he has decided not to make, and

I Y’ B W  P
why? A further development of this, as a kind of ‘meta-level’ would be the
question of the cultural/aesthetic implications inherent in these choices.
Two basic presumptions are worth mentioning. One is that the music under consideration is interesting because of the effect it has on the listener, and
that this effect has causes that can be explained or at least related to or deduced
from specific characteristics of the music itself. Musical effect is not the result
of ‘one heart speaking directly to another’ or ‘the forces of cosmos (or God)
channeling energy through one individual in a mystical and ineffable manner’
or ‘the simultaneous contact with heaven and earth’ – it stems from a certain
use of dissonance, agogics and rhythms, phrasing, texture, tempo, breathing,
voice tessitura, instruments, interplay between musicians and a whole lot of
other factors which may be difficult to pinpoint, and the totality of which
may never be fully grasped, except in the immediate and intuitive manner of
the listener, but which nevertheless are at the basis of the experience.
The other is that the musician does not have complete control over the
making of an artwork. In one end is the influence of the musical traditions,
which may not be conscious on the part of the musician himself. On the other
end is the listener, who in the sense outlined above is the real ‘creator’. This
means that what Dylan himself has to say about his music may be interesting
but not necessarily essential for the understanding of his music.
On the other hand, this may be a too structuralistic understanding of music, which partly misses the point that music may also function as communication, not the least for Dylan. It is not an ‘empty’ structure to be filled by the
receiver, it is an intended sturcture with a specific content from Dylan’s side,
which may or may not be perceived by the listener, but which still should be
treated as an essential part of the ‘artwork’. In other words, to the extent that
musical elements are also expressive and communicative elements, it will be
of importance to the analysis what is being communicated, so that although
our emphasis lies on the study of the music, any song analysis which doesn’t
take into account the lyrics of the song will be incomplete.
* * *
These are the some of the elements that will show up again and again in the
articles that follow. I have seen it both as my task and as a pleasure to use
whatever knowledge I have of aesthetics and traditional music analysis and
theory, and apply that to whatever knowledge I have of Dylan’s music. If I
have a project, it is to demonstrate how long-ranging ideas are: when I discuss
ancient theories of the harmony of the spheres in connection with Dylan’s
A D S

music, it is not only because I happen to enjoy reading ancient texts, it is also
– and primarily – because I think they are relevant. We may not share the
beliefs and the world view of the Ancients, but our beliefs and views have
been formed out of whatever we as a culture have received and incorporated
from what has come before us, and there is no easy way of deciding where
that influence stops and something entirely new takes its place.
Chapter 
‘Beauty may Only Turn to Rust’
‘Dylan can’t sing.’
% of the Western population
‘That boy’s got a voice. Maybe he
won’t make it with his writing, but he
can sing it. He can really sing it.’
Woody Guthrie
I
t’s a pleasure to be able to begin an article about Bob Dylan with one of
the most widespread clichés about him: that he can’t sing. No matter what
standard response one has whenever the topic arises (‘Well, then Picasso
can’t paint either’, ‘Since so many people like him, there must be something
there to like’, ‘To each his own; if you don’t like him, it’s your problem’, etc.)
there is something about the question that goes beyond the urge to defend.
That is what this article is about: where the question stems from and in what
it consists, and it will bring us back to classical Antiquity, through medieval
and Renaissance aesthetics, and up to a modern interpretation of Dylan’s songmaking, against this background.
What does it mean, ‘Dylan can’t sing’? What does it mean to sing? Not
just to utter sounds; singing belongs to the sphere of music, and although
we all ‘know’ what music is, it is still useful to remind ourselves of what we
mean by it. A fairly wide definition, which covers everything from Gregorian
Chant to John Cage, goes: Music is organized sound, or slightly more precise:
Music is sound organized according to some generally accepted system of criteria for
production and reception of such sounds, or shorter: Music is aestheticised sound.
There are books to be written about this; at the moment it may suffice to say
that to most people aesthetics has something to do with beauty, and to most
people who disapprove of Dylan’s vocal capacities, this is the reason: he can’t
sing beautifully, and no matter how many other criteria for singing he fulfills –


I Y’ B W  P
a certain vocal dexterity, a sense of rhythm and harmony, etc. – all this doesn’t
help: Dylan can’t sing.
Thus, it would seem that for a broader appreciation of Dylan, a more
thoroughgoing study of beauty would be useful – his concept of beauty, and
ours, we who judge him. This is at the heart of the question of what it means
to be able to sing, and the reason why the verdict may differ is that there is no
one concept of beauty.
T B   B D
Dylan touches upon beauty in a number of songs, but in two songs only is
it a genuinely good thing: in the exuberant, I’m-such-a-happy-family-manwho-loves-my-beautiful-wife anthem ‘Never Say Goodbye’ (‘You’re beautiful
beyond words, You’re beautiful to me’), where it becomes such a huge word
that it almost tears the song apart; and in the endearing ‘Tomorrow is a Long
Time’, where the beauty of it actually works: ‘There’s beauty in the silver,
singin’ river / There’s beauty in the sunrise in the sky | But none of these and
nothing else can touch the beauty | That I remember in my true love’s eyes.’
But in the majority of cases it is rather the negative aspects of beauty that
are emphasised. Either its deceptiveness – most explicitly expressed in ‘Long
Time Gone’: ‘So you can have your beauty, It’s skin deep and it only lies,’ and
in ‘Trust Yourself ’: ‘Don’t trust me to show you beauty | When beauty may
only turn to rust. | If you need somebody you can trust, | Trust yourself ’ –
or its fickleness: the saddening inevitability of its decay in ‘Cold Irons Bound’
(‘It’s such a sad thing to see beauty decay’); the despairing inaccessibility of its
fading away in ‘Where Are You Tonight?’ (‘As her beauty fades and I watch her
undrape [. . . ] Oh, if I could just find you tonight!’); the ridiculed vanity of
it, when the beauty parlours on ‘Desolation Row’ are filled up with unshaven,
unwashed and generally rude, filthy, smelly, abusive, and ugly sailors. And the
world-weary realization that ‘behind every beautiful thing there’s been some
kind of pain’ ( ‘Not Dark Yet’).
Then there is a group of songs which treat the subject in a more ambiguous, ambivalent way. In ‘Dark Eyes’, beauty becomes an expression for the
real, which is left unrecognised in a (sadly human) world hanging between
I’m not quite sure what to make of ‘Sweetheart Like You’ (‘You can be known as the
most beautiful woman who ever crawled across cut glass to make a deal’), but the slight
sarcastic tinge to it makes it impossible to place it in the positive category.

‘B  O T  R’

discretion and lust for revenge, where life is a game and nothing is taken seriously (‘I feel nothing for their game where beauty goes unrecognised’). We
find the same utopian view on beauty in ‘Shelter from the Storm’ (‘Beauty
walks a razor’s edge, someday I’ll make it mine’). This is clearly a different
kind of beauty than in the other group of songs: a more intimate concept, not
directed at (or emanating from) things, but a way of taking in the world, be it
good or bad, pretty or foul; closer to ‘Song to Woody’ (I’m seeing your world
of places and things | of paupers and peasants and princes and kings’) than to
‘Sugar Baby’ (‘I can see what everybody in the world is up against’).
Finally, there is the beauty of divine justice in ‘I and I’ (‘Took a stranger to
teach me to look into justice’s beautiful face’), which is not at all concerned
with the appearances of the world, but with moral ideals in the widest sense –
far removed, perhaps, from the other examples, but nevertheless important.
In an interview from , the question of beauty came up during a discussion of the value of art:
Herman: Well, if it expresses truth and beauty then it’s leading you to God?
Dylan: Yeah? (laughs)
Herman: Well, wouldn’t you say?
Dylan: If it’s expressing truth I’d say it’s leading you to God and beauty also.
Herman: I’ve always thought that those were the only two absolutes that there
were.
Dylan: Well, beauty can be very, very deceiving. It’s not always of God.
Herman: The beauty of a sunset?
Dylan: Now, that’s a very special kind of beauty.
Herman: Well, how about the beauty of the natural world?
Dylan: Like the flowers?
Herman: Yes, and the beasts . . . and the rain . . .
Dylan: All that is beautiful, That’s God-given. I’ve spent a lot of time dealing
with the man-made beauty, so that sometimes the beauty of God’s world has evaded
me.
Here, all the different categories that I’ve pointed to in the songs are gathered:
the vain beauty, the god-given, natural beauty, and beauty as a general concept,
almost equated with God.
Before I go on with the exegesis of relating Dylan’s concept of beauty, as expressed in this handful of songs, with ‘our’ concept – that is: with the various
concepts that we find in the traditions of thinking around these things, and
that are still relevant, directly or indirectly, for how each one of us forms our
perception of the world around us (for no less a perspective than this is at stake

I Y’ B W  P
here) – I must bring up the most important text of them all from Dylan’s hand
concerning beauty: the liner notes to Joan Baez in Concert, Part .
B   B
The historical background of the text sets an interesting frame for the interpretation of it: the Beast’s story about his journey to appreciating the Beauty.
On the surface level it can be read as a story about how Dylan overcame his
resistance towards this voice of hers, that to him represented an untrue beauty
– untrue because it was unreal. The voyeuristically inclined might see it as the
closest we will ever get to an account of Dylan’s feelings about her. But it is
not only a story about Joan Baez – it is in fact a manifesto about beauty, reality,
ugliness, buffoonery, kingship. It begins:
In my youngest years I used t’ kneel
By my aunt’s house on a railroad field
An’ yank the grass outa the ground
An’ rip savagely at its roots
An’ pass the hours countin’ strands
An’ stains a green grew on my hands
As I waited till I heard the sound
A the iron ore cars rollin’ down
The tracks’d hum an’ I’d bite my lip
An’ hold my grip as the whistle whined
Crouchin’ low as the engine growled
I’d shyly wave t’ the throttle man
An’ count the cars as they rolled past
But when the echo faded in the day
An’ I understood the train was gone
It’s then that my eyes’d turn
Back t’ my hands with stains a green
That lined my palms like blood that tells
I’d taken an’ not given in return
But glancin’ back t’ the empty patch
Where the ground was turned upside down
An’ the roots lay dead beside the tree
I’d say ‘how can this bother me’
...
An’ I asked myself t’ be my friend
An’ I walked my road like a frightened fox
An’ I sung my song like a demon child
The full text can be found on http://www.slopbucket.com/bob/tbob/writtenword/joanb_li.html
and in Lyrics.

‘B  O T  R’

With a kick an’ a curse
From inside my mother’s womb –
To be slightly pompous about it, one might say that these lines introduce the
theme of the individual between physical reality (represented by the grass on
the railroad field) and surrounding humanity (the train and the throttle man).
They both leave him, one way or another, and the only option is isolation.
The realization of a something beyond the I sparks a desire to reach this other,
and to leave the vegetative level behind.
The end of the quotation is the first of a series of ‘An’ I walked my road . . . ’
phrases which are the backbone of the poem and which map the development
of the I-character. The first stage is that of the ‘frightened fox’: the savage,
the beast, the complete egoistic innocence, innocent because it is lawless, but
only to a point – is a kicking child innocent of the pain it inflicts at birth? Is
a frightened fox innocent just because it doesn’t mean any harm?
This is followed by a rejection of words and symbols (‘An’ I locked myself
an’ lost the key | An let the symbols take their shape | An’ form a foe for me
t’ fight | . . . | An’ my first symbol was the word ‘beautiful’). Why precisely
beauty should be the first target is explained in the following lines:
For the railroad lines were not beautiful
They were smoky black an’ gutter-colored
An’ filled with stink an’ soot an’ dust
An’ I’d judge beauty with these rules
An’ accept it only ‘f it was ugly
An’ ‘f I could touch it with my hand
For it’s only then I’d understand
An’ say ‘yeah this’s real’
The ugly and the tangible as all that is of value, opposed with beauty. It is
not the ugliness itself that matters, though. Rather, ugliness is a representative
of reality, or, more precisely: that part of reality which has not (had not, in
the early ‘s) traditionally been allowed into the beautiful world of highflying ideas about the world: art. The lines are a rebellion against that branch
of the late-Romanticist concept of art which overflows with elves and the
superhuman, hyper-real part of reality, be it expressed as beauty, power, or
any other fascist ideal.
This is not the only way to react, but the Dylan in the poem doesn’t know
that yet. For him, the reaction was to conflate the real with the ugly, the
opposite of the only version he knew of the first symbol in his crusade against
(and quest towards) the outside world: beauty.
The next few ‘An’ I walked my road’ lines are a merciless series of steps into
the deep isolation that the fundamental questioning of concepts must lead to.

I Y’ B W  P
First he is ‘Like a saddened clown | In the circus a my own world’, the clown
being the ridiculous character who doesn’t know the appropriate way to react
and act in a given situation, who like the child hasn’t yet learned the ways
of life (or, as Graham Greene so exquisitely put it: the clown is the one who
doesn’t learn from his mistakes).
Then he is ‘Like an arch criminal who’d done no wrong . . . screamin’
through the bars | a someone else’s prison’, and still ‘isolation’ is the key word:
the confinement of having to live in a world where the concepts through
which the world becomes meaningful are not your own. This may be the
most concise image ever carved of the terrors of adolescence on the verge (but
not yet there) of growing up. At the climax of this series, he is ‘Like a lonesome king . . . Starin’ into / A shallow grave’. He is now the supreme ruler of
his own world, but it’s a lonely world, and when he tries to look beyond it the
step forward also seems to lead six feet down: to give up his isolated kingdom
is also the ultimate liminality of death.
The last step in this journey of the sensitive mind towards the world is the
‘scared poet | Walkin’ on the shore . . . Afraid a the sea’. The poet is a madman,
but a madman who communicates, who transcends the limits of his own world,
despite the fear, either of the open grave in front, or of the infinity of the ocean
of people and words and voices out there. The image of the poet on the shore,
frightened of the sea, wonderfully captures the notion of the sublime: the
awe before the frightening immensity of the infinite, which during the age of
Romanticism became the most important correlative to beauty. The sublime
is terrifying, but necessary for the poet (and, by extension, the human being),
because in a wider sense it represents the awakening to the world outside.
And, significantly, unlike the previous ‘walked my road’ lines, this is not only
a metaphor: the person in the poem is physically placed somewhere in the real
world (perhaps on the same beach to which the Tambourine man led him and
where he danced with one hand waving free a few years later?).
This not only brings us full circle back from symbols to reality again, but
also to the topic of the text: Joan Baez and her voice. The next section of
the poem brings the peripeteia, the transformation of the protagonist after
the preceding crisis. During a car drive he hears Baez tell the story of how,
during a childhood spent in an Arab country, she watched dogs being beaten
to death in the street, to the general amusement of the onlookers, and how she
tried to save one of these dogs, but failed. This becomes the realization that
Iraq, actually, where the family lived for a year in , when Baez’s father was working
there.

‘B  O T  R’

that voice, which to him so far has only represented vanity, may be founded
in the ugly reality after all – even more so since, at the same time as he was
killing grass in Minnesota, she was actually trying to save life.
An’ that guilty feelin’ sprang again
Not over the roots I’d pulled
But over she who saw the dogs get killed
An’ I said it softly underneath my breath
‘Yuh oughta listen t’ her voice . . .
Maybe somethin’s in the sound . . .’
...
An’ at the time I had no song t’ sing.
Silence replaces the struggle. The song he has so painstakingly won for himself is no more real than hers. And if that which at first glance appears as
vain beauty proves to hide within it the most brutal reality, the whole system
of oppositions that he has constructed for himself must fall. His tired nerves
succumb to her singing, in something which may not be a wholehearted acceptance of it and its beauty (but rather a surrender to its force), but the
immediate consequence is liberation, both from the rationality of concept
formation, and from these very concepts.
This is again madness, of course, ‘An’ I laughed almost an insane laugh’.
The laughter is directed both at himself and at the foolishness of his previous
creed, that ‘beauty was | Only ugliness an’ muck’. And after finding his new
truth in ‘the breeze I heard in a young girl’s breath’ which ‘proved true as sex
an’ womanhood’, he finds himself, at the end of the poem, going back to the
railroad track in his mind. Again he is suspended between raw reality and
society, but this time it contains no threat, no danger, but also no desire:
An’ I’ll walk my road somewhere between
The unseen green an’ the jet-black train
An’ I’ll sing my song like a rebel wild
For it’s that I am an’ can’t deny
But at least I’ll know not t’ hurt
Not t’ push
Not t’ ache
An’ God knows . . . not t’ try –
This is not really resignation, but a realization that neither beauty nor ugliness
nor any other symbols need to be opposed; they are not more dangerous to
the ‘frightened fox’ than the poet is to the ocean (or vice versa?).
The consequence that runs parallel to this freedom is a reshaping of the
concept of beauty which has been so central to the development up to this
point. The journey to the appreciation of the beauty in Joan Baez’s voice is also
about personal maturation and growth. What started out as the assimilation

I Y’ B W  P
of reality and the ugly, and the opposition of this to beauty, has given way to
the insight that there are several concepts of beauty, and that at least in some
of them there is a place for reality.
This can be taken yet another step: ultimately, it may not be reality itself that matters, but the ability to perceive this reality and to express that
perception to someone else. Thus, the initial opposition can be rephrased as
that between beauty and expression, and the insight gained is that this does
not necessarily have to be an opposition: even the beautiful can contain the
expressive.
And with that, we are ready to step back into the history of aesthetics.
P  
The two stances in Joan Baez in Concert, Part  can easily be followed through
the entire history of art. One is the idea that beauty lies in an orderly and
proportionate relationship between parts of a whole and between the parts
and the whole. This idea forms the backbone of any concept of beauty up
until the eighteenth century. Pythagoras discovered that the sounds that we
find pleasing are based on simple proportions, while ugly sounds have more
complex proportions. Plato considered this kind of mathematical harmony
to be the fundamental property of the world. In his creation myth Timaios,
the creator-god shapes the world beginning with unity, then extending it with
‘the other’ and ‘the intermediary’, and along the corresponding number series
, , ,  and , , , . This specifically Greek idea found its way into the
Bible through the Wisdom of Solomon : : ‘thou hast ordered all things in
measure and number and weight’.
This is not to say that beauty was perceived as a purely intellectual, rational
matter of weights and measures. Behind the dry façade of beauty as numbers
lies the notion that numbers and numerical relations are reflections of the
divine principles governing the universe; that we find the same relations in
the universe as a whole, in human beings, in musical sounds, and in visible
beauty.
The belief that the harmonious is a reflection of the divine may (together
with the neatness of the system) explain why such a concept could rule supreme for two millennia. But it was never entirely unchallenged, and all the
other perspectives on beauty that we have encountered above are recognisable
in the history of aesthetics: the sublime, the beauty of the law, natural beauty,
and the ethics of beauty. These could all be seen as extensions of the basic
‘B  O T  R’

concept of beauty, as concessions to the assaults from reality (or truth) on the
neatness of mental constructions.
But the most persistent opponent has been the character that shows up at
the turning point of Joan Baez in Concert, part : the madly laughing poet.
Plato writes in the Phaedrus that one of the frenzies to which people are subject comes from the Muses. When these pour inspiration upon a man, it ‘inspires [the soul] to songs and other poetry. [. . . ] But he who without the
divine madness comes to the doors of the Muses, confident that he will be a
good poet by art, meets with no success, and the poetry of the sane man vanishes into nothingness before that of the inspired madmen’. The relationship
between art and beauty is a long and complex one, but we may condense it
here to the opposition, in Plato’s account, between the craft which rests on
knowledge of the divine principles, expressed as rules, and the expression – of
an experience of reality, and for the benefit of the rest of us – which defies such
rules.
This conflict between rule-based beauty and inspired expression pops up
now and again through history. Josquin des Prez (d. ), whose music to
modern ears is the epitome of soothing, Renaissance beauty, was chided by
his greatest fan for occasionally not having ‘repressed the violent impulses of
his unbridled temperament’.
The most famous occasion of such a conflict is probably the debate between
the composer Monteverdi (d. ) and Artusi in the early seventeenth century. Artusi took it upon himself to represent the true art of music, and he had
found a number of ‘errors’ in Monteverdi’s works. Monteverdi’s reply was that,
yes, he had broken the rules, but he had done so for the benefit of expression.
The words demanded it; in his practice, the words were no longer to be the
servant of harmony, but its mistress.
Even though Monteverdi’s new style was in one sense a radical breach with
the prevalence of beauty-as-harmony, the theoretical legitimisation that he
gives of his new approach plays on the same field as the old. He can place
words above harmony because ‘the words conform to the disposition of the
soul; and the rhythm and the harmony follow the words’. It becomes another
path to the divine principles: what appears as raw, ugly expression, nevertheless has something of beauty in it, because it, too, goes back to ‘the disposition
of the soul’.
Sounds familiar? With some modification, this could have been incorporated into the discussion of Joan Baez in Concert, Part  – the apparent conflict
between rational beauty and expressivity, and the tearing down of the boundaries between them.
I Y’ B W  P

E  
One point appears more clearly in the Monteverdi controversy than in Dylan’s
poem, but that at the same time is such a central point in Dylan’s whole work,
that it can easily be added to the discussion: the influence of the word.
Have a look at the Guthrie quotation at the top again:
He can really sing it.
It. Not just ‘sing’, but ‘sing it’. That little extra word turns this short statement
from the dying hobo-poet into the most precise description of Dylan’s art.
Because to sing is not only about music, but, as Plato knew, and Josquin, and
Monteverdi, and Dylan, it’s about words too. It’s about what you sing, what
you project, what you express.
It is a commonplace among musicians to claim to be influenced by Dylan,
but apart from a general desire to write meaningful lyrics, it is often difficult
to see more precisely how this influence really comes through. And by taking
only the style of writing, they miss half of the equation – perhaps the most
important part, for a singer, anyway. What makes Dylan so special, I believe,
is not only his ability to shape words according to the ‘disposition of the soul’,
but also to let this disposition come to expression, through the words, in a
style which is shaped precisely to fit this expression. As with Monteverdi, this
style will go beyond the requirements of the beautiful, of criteria of melodiousness, because Dylan’s art is founded in a perfect symbiosis between lyrics
and singing style.
And just as personal and individual as the perception that is expressed is
the style: the symbiosis between lyrics and style includes the singer himself,
in an identification between singer and song, so that when Dylan sings, we
not only hear the song, we hear Dylan. This is most immediately evident in
songs like ‘Sara’, where the singer is almost physically present in the song,
but fundamentally it is just as true about ‘Blowin’ in the Wind’, and just as
irrelevant a perspective on a song like ‘I Wanna Hold Your Hand’. What
we hear is one individual’s perspective on the world, and since it presumably
is the same world we ourselves relate to, as we tear up grass somewhere else
along the same train line, this perspective is potentially of vital importance –

This is precisely the point that Toby Richards-Carpenter made in his article in the
previous issue of Judas!, where he compared Dylan with Paul McCartney: ‘Bob Dylan owns
his songs. [. . . ] The songs are his tools and he will use them as he likes. Paul McCartney,
on the other hand, is the tool that ‘Hey Jude’ uses in order to get heard.’
‘B  O T  R’

far more so than some divine principle, long forgotten and well hidden in the
kind of beauty that will, inevitably, only turn to rust.
Chapter 
‘Going Through All These Things Twice’
T R   B D C
An’ here I sit so patiently
Waiting to find out what price
You have to pay to get out of
Going through all these things twice.
Bob Dylan, ‘Memphis Blues Again’
()
‘D
 in adiutorium meum intende.’
‘Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen! Would you please welcome
Columbia Recording Artist Bob Dylan!’
Two beginnnings – an invitatory from the
medieval office services, and the speaker’s
voice introducing a concert with Bob Dylan;
the two sound-events that are depicted
above do not necessarily lend themselves
to comparison beyond the fact that they
are both beginnings. In the case of the
Gregorian invitatory, we ‘know’ that this is
about ritual, a Medieval liturgical ceremony.
Likewise, ‘Would you please welcome Co- F . ‘Deus in adiutorium
lumbia Recording Artist Bob Dylan!’ is just
meum intende.’
as obviously an announcement of a rock concert. So what do they have to do with each other?
Or one might turn the question around and ask if there are not fundamental similarities which outweigh the obvious differences between the two


I Y’ B W  P
actions. One might suggest that they are both formalized ways, repeated exactly the same way every time, of introducing communal actions that involve
people in different roles that are more or less fixed (and an architectural space
with certain specific characteristics that are fitting or even necessary for the
occasion), and they are both laden with meaning which goes beyond the mere
fulfillment of the action.
Whether one considers these similarities significant, depends on why one has made the comparison, and on how significant the chosen criteria are deemed. The features I have emphasized in the comparison – formalism, iterativity,
symbolism, and the communal function – are
some of the features that are most commonly
brought to the fore whenever attempts to define
ritual are made. This approach to the comparison may already indicate that the similarities
F . ‘Good evening may indeed be significant, although significant
Ladies and Gentlemen! Would of what is still an open question. There is a fairly
you please welcome Columbia wide agreement among scholars concerned with
Recording Artist Bob Dylan!’ ritual that to give a definition which covers all
actions that somehow can be labelled ‘ritual’ is
an impossible task. The consequences that are drawn from this, range from
a slight caution to a questioning of the usefulness of the concept of ritual
altogether. The idea behind the comparison between a Dylan concert and
a medieval vespers service is not to uncover common, inherent traits which
unite the two activities under an objective, extra-/supra-empirical concept,
‘ritual’, which will tell us something about them beyond what we know about
them individually. My objective is heuristic rather than comparative – to circle
around the double question, what may a point of departure with traits that
are associated with ritual bring to the understanding of a Dylan show? and
vice versa: what may the application of this perspective on a Dylan show add
to the understanding of ritual? What is really ritual about a medieval service;
and what do we mean by really ritual?
‘G T A T T T’

T E S: C
It is not difficult to find the direct parallels between a Dylan show and a
medieval church service, once one starts scraping the surface. We’ve already
seen the ‘invitatory’. Since c. , this announcement, ‘Ladies and gentlemen, . . . ’ has been repeated in exactly the same way at just about every single
concert – to the extent that to the audience (or congregation) it is no longer
an announcement but an element belonging to the proper order of things – a
‘liturgical’ item. But even what precedes the invitatory is fixed: the preparation of the hall with buckets (literally) of Nag Champa incense, and portions
of the ‘Hoe-down’ from Aaron Copland’s Rodeo suite from the sound system,
while the audience (or congregation) fills up the venue; then houselights off,
invitatorium, and then – then the show begins.
Even here there is a ‘liturgy’, an order followed by Dylan and expected
by the audience. The most common topos in reviews of Dylan shows is that
he is so unpredictable. A brief look at his setlists will reveal the opposite. A
Dylan concert always involves fixed and variable elements. During most of
the s, ‘All Along the Watchtower’ was always played as the third song, and
other songs have had similarly fixed positions in the ceremony over shorter or
longer stretches of time. Then there is a group of songs that are chosen among
the songs that an ‘average listener’ – the ones who have three or four Dylan
albums at home – would want to hear: ‘Like A Rolling Stone’, ‘Blowin’ in the
Wind’, ‘Mr Tambourine Man’, etc. Finally, there is almost always one or two

The following description is based on my own experiences with Dylan concerts since
, encounters with fellow Dylan fans, and a varying but substantial involvement with
the Dylan community on the Internet. I am thus not a participating observer, but an
observing participant.

At one of the late summer shows in , there was suddenly another text: some
highfalutin summary of his carreer: ‘The poet laureate of rock’n’roll. The voice of the
promise of the s counterculture. The guy who forced folk into bed with rock, who
donned makeup in the s and disappeared into a haze of substance abuse, who emerged
to ‘find Jesus’, who was written off as a has-been by the end of the s, and who suddenly
shifted gears and released some of the strongest music of his career beginning in the
mid-s.’ The indefatigable Dylan-Influence Search Squad quickly found this to be an
exact quote from a newspaper article about the concert the day before. In the same article,
Under the Red Sky from  was called one of Dylan’s weakest albums, so when Dylan
played the title song from this album, which has not been performed regularly since the
mid-s, at the same concert, it is difficult not to see the new ‘invitatory’ as a wry comment
of some sort, on Dylan’s part. It stuck, however, and interspersed as it is with elements
from the old introduction, it almost resembles the tropes of Medieval liturgy, where the
original text is commented on or explained by textual additions.

I Y’ B W  P
songs for the die-hard fans: a rarely heard song from an obscure s album, an
old hillbilly standard, or an unlikely cover song. All in all a sequence of songs
that could very well be described in terms of the ordinarium and proprium of
the medieval mass: some songs that will be heard every night, like a Kyrie or
a Credo, and others that belong to the specific feast day, and which will make
that particular show unique.
Also concerning the songs themselves, the concert and the medieval service
share an important field: that of canonicity. They are both centered around
texts which are deeply rooted in their respective societies and which have canonical status of some kind.
During all this, the celebrant(s) and the congregation alike perform certain
acts, well aware of their respective roles. A Dylan concert is usually a seated
arrangement, but about two thirds into the show there is the so-called stage
rush – the moment when, as if on a given sign, in an act of communal attention the initiated rush to the front of the stage to spend the rest of the concert
at the Master’s feet – as a latter day equivalent, at least in outer form of action, to the communion. Post-concert talk within this group of people may
for instance take up whether or not one got eye-contact with his Bobliness or
someone else in the band.
Whenever Dylan has commented upon his role, it has always involved a
certain amount of dualities and ambiguities; they seem to be unavoidable in
all the areas where he, as an artist, meets the audience. One peculiar aspect
of this is possibly to be traced to his double role, being both the celebrant
and the object of veneration. On stage he acts with the unemotionality of a
celebrant who performs an office he knows goes beyond himself, thereby underlining the ‘objective’ character of the ceremony/concert, and downplaying
the personal: he hardly ever speaks on stage; he does move – not with the
normal ‘look-at-me’ gestures of your average rock star, but with quirky kneebends and awkward dance steps, looking like a cross between Elvis and a shy
kid from Hibbing, Minnesota. He is just up there, doing what he happens to
do best: being ‘just a song-and-dance man’.
At the same time, he is well aware that every movement he makes is being
monitored and interpreted by , pairs of eyes. One of his more mysterious
songs, Dark Eyes (), ends with the phrase ‘A million faces at my feet, and
all I see are dark eyes,’ which most immediately can be interpreted as the

The expression, with its slightly derogatory sound evoking images of shallow entertainers, was one of Dylan’s stock phrases when describing himself during press conferences in
the mid-sixties.
‘G T A T T T’

performer’s reflection on how idolization looks from the idol’s point of view.
But two other phrases in the song open up for the possibility to regard the
whole song as something heard more specifically from high up on a cross:
‘A cock is crowing far away and another soldier’s deep in prayer,’ and ‘The
French girl, she’s in paradise’ – a possible allusion to the thief on the cross.
If the preceding paragraphs have served to suggest that, given a certain
(common-sense) set of criteria for ritualness it is difficult to exclude one and
include the other of the actions, this does not mean that the differences
between a rock concert and a medieval service are not equally significant.
Especially two such differences seem particularly important. One is the dependence on a religious framework. The other is the role of artistic production.
Whereas the vespers service has a clear function related to the hereafter and
to interaction with the godhead, it would be difficult to claim that a Dylan
show entails religious observance in the strict sense – there are no ontological overtones, no dogmatics, no ‘theology’ (or ‘bobology’ ). Depending on
how important one considers the religious aspect, this may or may not be a
problem for the ritualistic reading of a concert: the mere presence of outer similarities is no guarantee for the usefulness of comparing religious observance
with secular entertainment. But one might instead weigh the similarities more
positively and consider them to go deeper than mere coincidences of common
surface traits; an activity like a rock concert – inscribed in the modern world
of art presentation and transmission and given a formalized frame in such a
context – may be seen to fulfill functions and needs that, in earlier ages, have
been covered by religious ceremonies, without for that reason necessitating an
explicitly religious explanation.
Apart from the notion of the transcendent in a very general sense, and the
role of artistic production, there is one aspect of Dylan’s production and its
reception which more immediately lends itself to comparison with medieval
liturgy: the ample occurrence of elements which are closely connected to a
traditional conception of religion in a Christian context, such as the prophetic,
divine inspiration, the high priest, the vocation, and the chosen who sacrifices
himself for others. These elements have, to various degrees, been present both
Although there is a website called Church of Bob hhttp://www.geocities.com/
churchofbob/i [accessed  November ]. See also the reflections cited in the Postscript
at the end of the article.

See the discussion of the quotation from Koenigsberger at the beginning of the introduction to this volume.


I Y’ B W  P
I picked up his body
and I dragged him inside,
Threw him down in the hole
and I put back the cover.
I said a quick prayer
just to feel satisfied.
Then I rode back to find Isis
just to tell her I love her.
in the way Dylan has been received by the public ever since the sixties, and in
his own relationship to his role. Let me just point to three examples.
T R T R
During the late  and the early , Dylan with friends went on the road
with a show that was called the Rolling Thunder Revue. The grand idea behind
the tour was that it was supposed to be a never-ending touring circus, where
the artists on the bill would change all the time. The Revue would also be
self-served with sound equipment and all the other practical aspects of a tour,
so that they could make landfall here and there without much prior planning,
and without having to go through the administrative treadmill of managers,
concert organizers, etc. In this respect, the Revue was yet another expression
of Dylan’s wish to be nothing out of the ordinary, just another musician, at
any time replaceable with any other member of this creative community.
One striking element of these concerts was the use of masks, facial paint,
and symbols of various kinds. Dylan would frequently come on stage with his
face painted white. A powerful scene from one of the concerts shows Dylan
The concerts themselves were generally lauded, but heavy criticism was raised against
the failure to sustain this idea of playing only small venues, which had been presented as a
promise. within short, most of the shows were after all played on the big stages. An insider
report on these and other aspects of the Revue can be found in

‘G T A T T T’

holding his hands crossed in front of him, with clenched fists. The song he is
singing is ‘Isis’, a mystical treasure hunt story which is ultimately about love
and death. The song is full of references to religious symbols and concepts, directly or indirectly: ‘a high place of darkness and light’ is where the protagonist
meets his partner in crime; they make a covenant (‘I gave him my blanket, he
gave me his word’) and set out ‘to the cold and the north’, to find the treasure
by the ‘pyramids, all embedded in ice’. Then, in the quick sequence of events
that is the dramatic climax of the song, his friend dies, he finds the tomb –
but the treasure is not there – he drags his partner inside and leaves him in
the tomb along with the missing treasure, and then: ‘I said a quick prayer just
to feel satisfied. | Then I rode back to find Isis just to tell her I love her.’
The song is a masterly example of Dylan’s lyrical art – the play with various
symbols and meanings, with time, and with his own life; merely as a set of
lyrics it opens up a lot of interpretational possibilities: the double partnership
(or double incarnation of the idea of partnership), one based on love, the other
on friendship, trust, and material gain, the latter of which must be sacrificed in
order to reach – which is also a return to – the first partner; the transformation
he goes through, as evidenced in the concluding dialogue between man and
wife:
She said, ‘Where ya been?’ I said, ‘No place special.’
She said, ‘You look different.’ I said, ‘Well, I guess.’
She said, ‘You been gone.’ I said, ‘That’s only natural.’
She said, ‘You gonna stay?’ I said, ‘If you want me to, Yes!’
and the eery treatment of struggle and death, madness and joy, pain and pleasure, which may or may not be connected with the programmatic introduction
to the song at several of the shows: ‘This is a song about marriage.’ None of
the interpretations are clear, but all are open.
The stage enactment of the song, as evidenced on the recent album Live
, adds to this openness – and to the uncertainty of meaning. The white
face (‘death mask’?), the crossed fists (‘power’? ‘Christ’?), the outstretched arms
(again: ‘power’? ‘Christ’?)– they are hardly random movements, they all seem
to mean something, but what? The concerts involved a play with symbols
of various kinds, symbols that are easily associated with religious ritual, but
These are the lyrics that were actually sung. They differ slightly from the official lyrics,
which can be found on the official website hhttp://www.bobdylan.comi.

Bob Dylan. The Bootleg Series Vol. : Bob Dylan Live : The Rolling Thunder Revue.
Columbia COL   (). The ‘Limited Edition’ includes a bonus DVD with live
video footage of two of the songs.


I Y’ B W  P
which lack a clear symbolic background in the specific context in which they
were used. The gestures thus appear as signs removed from a sign system
that can render them immediately understandable (which, on the other hand,
does not preclude that they can still be meaningful, in the sense of being
charged with meaning). Also the quasi-religious connections made throughout the tour to settings such as Gypsy mythology and Indian shamanism, can
be regarded in this light.
While the symbols that are used can be related to religious spheres of understanding, they are arguably not religious in content. The eclecticism which
brings together pyramids and prayers, crosses and canyons, precludes any connections with a narrowly defined symbol system; they are used precisely in
their general sense, evoking images of human conditions and relationships.
Thus, the cross – if interpreted in conjunction with the text that it accompanies, the climactic verse which sees the switch from the partner-friend to the
partner-lover/wife – becomes just as much a symbol of human as of divine
love.
All this is closely related to the fact that these
concerts weren’t just concerts, and the band wasn’t
just a group of musicians. Dylan had brought a
film crew on the road, and just about everything
that happened, on stage and behind it, was filmed.
The outcome of this was the nearly four hours
long cinema verité opus Renaldo and Clara, which
was released – as an immediate commercial and
critical failure – in . Be that as it may, the
meaning of the actions on stage go beyond that
of a rock concert; the movie, the songs that were
newly written before the tour, as well as the
‘drama’ that was enacted on stage, all and together brought up the ‘eternal themes’: love, death,
marriage, divorce, violence, trust, children, identity, dreams. This is enacted
in a meta-narrative taking place both on stage and in some sort of reality, but
the lines between the world as lived and the world as enacted (to paraphrase C.
Geertz) are blurred – every statement takes on a meaning which goes beyond
Clifford Geertz, ‘Religion as a Cultural System’, in: Anthropological Approaches to the
Study of Religion ed. by Michael Banton (London: Tavistock Publications, ), pp. –
(p. ).

‘G T A T T T’

the statement itself, because it belongs in all the different contexts at the same
time: both in the ‘real’ and in the ‘transcendent’ media-/hyper-reality.
T G Y
Three years later, Dylan ‘went Christian’. For a period, he was associated with
the extreme evangelical Vineyard Fellowship in Tarzana, CA. During the ‘gospel years’ –, Dylan mostly performed new songs, filled with evangelization and images of end-time and apocalyptic cataclysm. In one sense, his concerts from these years are directly connected with Christian ritual, by virtually
having been turned into Christian services, including ‘raps’ – mini-sermons
– between the songs. In another sense, however, the concerts from his bornagain period may, paradoxically, serve as an example, contrasting with the
Rolling Thunder Revue, of a period which from a ritual perspective is the least
interesting. The main reason for this assessment is that the message was overexplicit, in the well-established tradition of evangelical preaching; there was
little left of the transcendental message of the earlier tour – i.e. the message
which transcended what was physically presented on stage – only a message
about the transcendental, which is a completely different thing. What had previously been a play with symbolic elements, which then took on a meaning
beyond their contents, was now a mere use of them, as traditional elements
with a fairly clear meaning, used in a general way in a conventional context.
T V   G
The epithet that has stuck most stubbornly to Dylan through the decades
is probably that of ‘the Voice of a Generation’: the one who said things that
many felt. One way of gauging the quasi-religious importance of this role is to
watch the reactions when he stopped saying what at least some of his followers
wanted him to say. The world tour of  was a tour de force in a literal sense:
while the first half of the concerts still had the bard standing all alone on
stage, with nothing but a microphone, a glass of water, and a spotlight to
distract the attention, the second half of the concerts was an outburst backed
by The Hawks (later The Band), with the loudest sound-system anyone had
ever heard. This betrayal of his former art was famously greeted with the
shout ‘Judas!’ at the show in Manchester, May , . Hand in hand with
this musical betrayal of the folk idiom went the fact that he had left out the
political message from his songs; the step from ‘Come senators, congressmen,
The most striking example of this blur are the scenes between ‘Renaldo’ (Dylan), ‘Clara’
(Dylan’s wife, Sara), and ‘The Woman in White’ (Joan Baez, Dylan’s sometime girlfriend),
which is a painfully embarassing peek into a relationship in the process of breaking up,
at the same time as it is a play with cultural characters and cliches (one of which is ‘Bob
Dylan’), and metaphysical themes (‘I am the law’, quoth Renaldo).


I Y’ B W  P
please heed the call’ to poetic imagery like ‘Upon four-legged forest clouds the
cowboy angel rides’ was a bitter pill to swallow for many.
But in fact, Dylan has always claimed to be uninterested in politics. Already
in , before his break-through album The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan was released, he could be heard talking disparagingly about the folk movement in a
radio interview with Bob Fass, and in , in connection with his first public appearance in two years, he almost irritatedly answered questions about his
recent reluctance to address political issues:
Dylan: You check your old newspapers, you won’t be able to find too many
statements I’ve made on those issues.
Press: What exactly then is your position on politics and music?
Dylan: My job is to play music. I think I’ve answered enough questions.
Again, it is the ‘Just a song-and-dance man’ speaking, the artist-as-craftsman
who goes to work with what he is best at: ‘Basically, I’m just a regular person.
I don’t walk around all the time out of my mind with inspiration. So what
can I tell you about that?’
But his renouncement of his own ability or even desire to project a ‘profound’ message also takes on an almost opposite character, where this very
renouncement becomes important. In an interview from  where Dylan
comments upon Renaldo and Clara, we find the following discussion about
what he wants to do or not:
Dylan: Let’s say you have a message: white is white. Bergman would say ‘white is
white’ in the space of an hour – or what seems to be an hour. Buñuel might say
‘white is black and black is white, but white is really white’. And it’s all really the
same message.
Interviewer: And how would Dylan say it?
Dylan: Dylan would probably not even say it. He’d assume you’d know that.
If this is a way of saying that he does not have a ‘profound’ message, it is at the
same time as if this rejection itself is part of the message; ‘not even saying it’ –
or rather, not in principle having to say it, because it is already known, latently,
if not patently – is precisely what he wants to say. The statement does, after
The interview is available in various bootleg recordings, under the name Radio Unnameable (Bob Fass radio broadcast, WBAI-FM, New York, NY, March , ).

Press conference (transcript), Isle of Wight, August , , available at hhttp://www.
interferenza.com/bcs/interw/-aug.htmi [accessed  November ]

Rolling Stone Magazine, November , .

Playboy Magazine, March .

‘G T A T T T’

all, fall during a discussion of a film the meaning of which is anything but
obvious. It might also be related to the following, from an interview in ,
which plainly contradicts the faith in the audience’s ability to understand, at
least if the ‘He’d assume you’d know that’ is taken at face value:
I don’t think I’m gonna be really understood until maybe  years from now.
What I’ve done, what I’m doing, nobody else does or has done.
The same notion of the uniqueness of what he is doing in bringing out songs
that are true and that live, independently even of Dylan himself, is expressed
in a recent interview:
I don’t get bored singing the songs because they have a truth to them. They have
a life to them [. . . ] I don’t think there is anybody playing the type of songs that
we’re playing.
This could be interpreted as an ideology concerning meaning in artistic production, where the artist is no structure-erecting craftsman, whose production
is food for thought in an intellectual, modernist way. Rather, it is the Romantic image of the artist-genius, the intuitive medium, who, thanks to his
special gift, is able to pick up wisdom where others just see everyday reality –
who sees the answer that is blowin’ in the wind. He nods in recognition to a
statement from Woody Guthrie, that all the songs are already written, floating
around in the universe, ready to be picked up (Mojo Magazine, february ).
He uses a similar phrase to describe his own writing of Desolation Row:
Dylan: I don’t know how it was done.
Kurt Loder: It just came to you?
Dylan: It just came out through me.
In principle, his message is unneccessary because what he says is simply what
is just lying around to be picked up by anyone who cares to look, plainly for
anyone to see who has the ability. But at the same time his role as the medium
through which this wisdom can be channelled out among others, puts him
in a special position, similar to Schopenhauer’s description of genius, as ‘the
Sunday Times, July , .
Mojo Magazine, February .

Rolling Stone Magazine, December . The same notion, of picking up what is
available to anyone who cares to look, is given another twist in relation to language and
the social dimension in the following statement, ‘I’m just into language. I pick up what’s
in the air, what’s on people’s minds’ (Woodstock . Elliot Landy)



I Y’ B W  P
capacity for knowing the Ideas of things – in the platonic sense of Ideas – and
for revealing these Ideas in works of art for the benefit of the remainder of
mankind who, borrowing as it were the eyes of genius, may behold through
these works what the genius beholds directly.’ In an interview from ,
these two opposing approaches appear in the same part of the discussion:
I mean, if I didn’t have anything different to say to people, then what would be the
point of it?
[. . . ] Anybody who expects anything from me is just a borderline case [. . . ]
You can’t keep on depending on one person to give you everything.
It does not seem like an exaggeration to say that Dylan sees himself and his
role vis-à-vis his audience in the light of religious notions, whether they are explicitly presented as such or not. Even though he has never (to my knowledge)
explicitly called himself a prophet, the statements above – about universal
truths coming out through him and him alone – only lack the outspokenly
religious aspect and the ability to look into the future, and both these are
present in a comment during a concert in , during his ‘religious years’:
I told you ‘The Times They Are A-Changing’ and they did. I said the answer was
‘Blowin’ in the Wind’ and it was. I’m telling you now Jesus is coming back, and He
is! (Albuquerque, December , )
Even though his religiosity is less outspoken these days, he keeps referring to
what he is doing in religious terms, even in the latest interviews. Concerning
his currently ongoing ‘Never-ending’ string of tours, which has kept him constantly on the road since , he describes its beginning in terms of a religious
experience on stage:
It’s almost like I heard it as a voice. [. . . ] I’m determined to stand, whether God will
deliver me or not. And all of a sudden everything just exploded. [. . . ] After that is
when I sort of knew: I’ve got to go out and play these songs (Newsweek October ,
).
Consequently, although his task may be fulfilled through a craftsmanlike performance of a job no different than any other, in the larger perspective the
outcome of the job is conceived of in a higher order:
Quoted from Arthur C. Danto, ‘The appreciation and interpretation of works of art’, in
The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art (New York: Columbia University Press, ),
pp. – (p. –).

‘G T A T T T’

I don’t feel like what I do qualifies to be called a career. It’s more of a calling (Rolling
Stone Magazine, November , ).
S R
The preceding discussion of Dylan’s role, its contents and its form, can be
summed up in the suggestion that Dylan is seen – both by himself and by his
audience – as a secular prophet, performing a secular ritual, for a modern
world. This would in turn imply a notion of ‘secular religion’, but what is that,
if anything at all?
In one sense, it is a meaningless juxtaposition of opposing terms. But at
the same time it seems like an apt term to describe Dylan. First, because it captures a certain paradox in Dylan’s self-appreciation, in that he fundamentally
conceives of a religious framework for the transmission of a message which,
however, is not in itself religious. Second, because it opens up for an understanding of the way in which a Dylan concert can meaningfully be regarded
as a ritual. We are, thus, back to the question implied in the introduction: is
a Dylan show ‘really’ a ritual?
This is not the place to define ritual, nor to survey the existing definitions, but
a few words still need to be said about the premises for my understanding of
ritual.
First, I consider ritual a historical concept. This has a positive and a negative side. The negative determination of ritual entails a rejection of various phenomenological definitions of ritual – that ritual refers to something with constant contents, whether one discusses the chinese li, medieval liturgy, Balinese
initiation rites, or modern, secular rituals. I will also disregard biologistic and
psychologistic explanations, that e.g. take behaviour in birds and animals into
consideration in order to explain human ritual, or regard ritual as a response
to fundamental needs – psychological or even physiological – inherent in the
human nature.
On the positive side, this standpoint connects with a certain branch of
historicism, not in its Rankean form with the aim to establish ‘wie es eigentThe emphasis here has been on Dylan’s own perception of his role; for examples of
his fans’ appreciation bordering on the religious, see Nils Holger Petersen’s article in this
volume, and the Postscript to this article.

His ‘gospel years’ songs, where the religious message is more outspoken, play only a
minor role in Dylan’s current live repertory, which is the immediate background material
for this article.


I Y’ B W  P
lich gewesen’ (or, more narrowly concerning the content of texts, that it ‘receives its intelligibility from its connection to the social conditions of the
community that produced it or to which it was destined’ ), but rather by
claiming that a concept can only be meaningfully used and understood in
the light of its history. Most immediately, this involves the historical continuity of the term itself. The usage of the word ‘ritual’ has progressed from its
Roman Latin etymological origin, through its various medieval applications
(none of which correspond directly either with the Ancient or the modern usage) and its widened use in early anthropological and religious studies, to the
every-day application of the term to beer-drinking rituals and shoelace-tying.
As with other terms that have been used over long periods of time, the use
of the same term is no guarantee of co-extensiveness between early and late
instances, but their belonging to the same terminological strand enables us to
trace the changes that have occurred.
It also involves the importance of the historical continuity between the
various activities that are or have been characterized through the term, for our
understanding of them, in the sense that the historical continuity between a
medieval vespers service and a modern church ritual shapes our understanding
of both to a radically higher degree and more directly than either of those
shape our understanding of ‘rituals’ outside of this historical thread, such as
the Chinese li and Balinese initiation rites.
Just as important as the immediate historical continuity, is the fundamentally historical character of concept formation. Any concept will be meaningful
only through its use within the community of users, and is, thus, historical insofar as it goes beyond the lifespan and memory of the single users. Whether
it refers to events that took place yesterday or six hundred years ago, is insignificant concerning its historical character; it must in any case be incorporated
into the individual user’s language world and resonate with notions that are
already processed, or prefigured, to use Hayden White’s term.
This stance involves an opposition towards a structuralist understanding,
in favour of an orientation towards practice: the structure has no existence
of its own and no primacy in relation to practical experience. A general, abPaul Ricœur, Interpretation theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth:
Texas Christian Press, ), pp. –.

‘A discourse is itself a kind of model of the processes of consciousness by which a given
area of experience, originally apprehended as simply a field of phenomena demanding
understanding, is assimilated by analogy to those areas of experience felt to be already
understood as to their essential natures.’ Hayden White, Tropics of Discourse, (Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, ), p. .

‘G T A T T T’

stracted concept carries less explanatory force the farther it is removed from
the experience and recollection of a concretely lived life (memories) or one’s
appropriated ‘memories’ (history). In this sense, the ‘surface level’ is all there
is. A corollary to this is that surface similarities may be of importance – such
as the surface similarities between the Dylan show and the medieval service
alluded to in the introduction.
Second, I side with those who consider a concept of ritual which does not
in some way or another take into account a notion of religion to be too much
deprived of what has formed the definition of ritual outlined above.
‘The religious’ can be approached in various ways. A narrow definition
centering on the relation of one’s understanding of the important issues in life
– such as death, suffering, other human beings – to some divine being, and
(especially with respect to ritual) channelled through a more or less fixed set of
observances based on canonical texts, will only be part of the understanding
underlying the present discussion – albeit importantly so. As an example of
phenomena where av sharp line between religious and non-religious is difficult
to draw, one might mention the suggestion, building on Freud’s comparison
between ritual and neurotic behaviour, that the dramatic increase in cases
of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder over the past fifty years is related to the
decreasing importance of the traditional forms of religious rituals in the West,
as a consequence of the disappearance of established and accepted frames for
addressing or even answering the unanswerable questions.
‘The religious’ can also be taken to refer to a system of thought concerning
a wider notion of ‘the transcendent’, regarded as something with an existence
in reality, but still principally lying beyond the grasp of human sensory experience and rational capacity. With this definition, the transcendent, and hence
the religious, can be extended to the self ’s experience of something outside of
the self, which can only be known via a perspective outside of the self, because it in principle is determined and presented to the self from the outside,
independently of the self.
Diana Smay: ‘The Disease of Ritual: Obsessive Compulsive Disorder as an
Outgrowth of Normal Behavior’, hhttp://www.emory.edu/COLLEGE/MARIAL/pdfs/
ObsessiveCompulsive.pdfi. See also my ‘Ritualets grenser: Ritualbegrepets nytte og skade’,
i Ritualer i kontekst, ed. by Mette Birkedal Brun and Kim Esmark, Kirkehistoriske fragmenter,  (Copenhagen: Department of Church History, The Theological Faculty, University of Copenhagen, ), –, where I discuss safety demonstrations on airplanes as
rituals of death (pp. –).

This way of using ‘transcendence’ draws more on the scholastic tradition than on the
way it is used in Kantian philosophy.


I Y’ B W  P
More specifically, the notion of the transcendent is central to the approach
from language philosophy. There will always be something beyond oneself
which determines language, and hence also oneself. Derrida’s difference and the
blind spot, and Wittgenstein’s rejection of private experience are both expressions of the fundamentally transcendent character of language and thought.
The criteria which are usually brought forth as central for ritual – repetition in a formalized form and within a certain community of actions with a
certain symbolic character – have interesting parallels to Wittgenstein’s philosophy. His tenet that a word’s meaning is its use, can be expanded to say
that the constitution of meaning is based on repeated exposure to a certain
linguistic act, and the discovery of, appropriation of, and establishment of tacit knowledge about the formal(ized) system of rules behind, valid within the
community of language users. In this sense, one might say that all meaning
depends on ritual activity.
Community is thus central both to the historical and to the religious or
transcendental approach to ritual, as the precondition for meaning as well
as for the formation of the self and of identity. A community is necessary
for our process of defining our identity as historical beings, as well as for
conceptualizing this identity, both to ourselves and to others.
Such a perspective does not presuppose a concept of the divine or the
sacred, but it is certainly open to include it. Conversely, it provides a way of
borrowing notions that are central to a modern, Western understanding of
religion and of applying them to matters which are usually not considered to
belong to the religious sphere.
I have so far been reluctant to give a definition of ritual, other than the
general use I have made of it – for the reasons that are implied in the foregoing paragraphs: the need for a historical connection, and the discussion
of the transcendental. The latin word ritus has two different meanings. The

‘The speaker’s potency does not derive from solipsistic self-presence but from presence
to the community. The illusion of self-presence that Derrida sees as the essential blind spot
of metaphysics is the originary cultural illusion: the illusion of unmediated subject-object
interaction. It is a variant formulation of the constitutive ‘illusion’ of the sacred center:
the existence of sacred Being independent of human desire and representation’ (Eric Gans:
‘Chronicles of Love and Resentment’, hhttp://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/views/vw.
htmi).

Ludwig Wittgenstein: Philosophische Untersuchungen, § .

See also chapter  (‘Analysis of Chant Melodies – Methodological Considerations’)
of my The Office of Saint Olav: A study in Chant Transmission (Diss., Uppsala: Uppsala
University, ), where this perspective on musical meaning is developed at length.
‘G T A T T T’

first definition (as given in the Lewis-Short dictionary) is relatively unproblematic in relation to a medieval service: ‘the form and manner of religious
observances; a religious usage or ceremony, a rite.’ The second definition is
significantly wider: ‘a custom, usage, manner, mode, way,’ and it corresponds
more closely with the modern everyday usage, where just about any action
that is repeated the same way every time, and where some kind of meaning is
ascribed to the way it is done, can be called a ritual. Ritual, then, is no longer
exclusively a religious term.
For the purposes of the present article, however, it does not seem necessary
to operate with such a wide definition: it is my contention that a Dylan show
lies closer to a medieval service than to toothbrushing, however properly performed. The initial descriptions of a typical Dylan concert, and the analyses of
the religious element in Dylan’s production were meant to demonstrate some
of the reasons for this closeness.
As a first step, I will therefore take as my point of departure in the criteria
already listed in the introduction – repetition, in a formalized form and within
a certain community, of actions with a certain symbolic character – with the
explicit qualification discussed in the two previous sections: the need for a
historical understanding, and for some notion of religion.
F  
My suspicion towards a concept of ritual based on abstraction, away from the
level of practical experience, does not imply a discarding of any talk about the
function of ritual, or a philosophically based approach – on the contrary. The
most explicit statement of such a standpoint is probably Frits Staal’s claim
that ‘ritual has no meaning [. . . ] ritual is pure activity, without meaning or
goal. [. . . ] Ritual is for its own sake.’ Although Staal’s argument has strong
merits, it also serves to demonstrate the dangers this approach may run into.
Hans Penner has pointed out some of these, primarily that Staal’s discussion is based upon a notion of syntax and a theory of meaning which are
obsolete, and, furthermore, that the idea of ‘ritual for its own sake’ comes
strikingly close to the Romanticist ‘Art for Art’s sake’, only in reverse: ‘Staal
thinks that because ritual is for its own sake it is therefore meaningless. For
the romantics art for its own sake entailed a superabundance of meaning.’


Frits Staal, ‘The Meaninglessness of Ritual’, Numen,  (), – (pp. –).
Hans H. Penner, ‘Language, Ritual and Meaning’, Numen,  (), – (p. ).

I Y’ B W  P
Penner sums up his article with a comparison – as an alternative to Staal’s
thesis that the origin of syntax in language, and hence of language itself, is
ritual – between the ways in which language and ritual can be considered
meaningful, quite in line with the Wittgensteinian perspective I have hinted
at above:
Although the performers of the ritual may not be able to explain the rules, they do
know when they are broken and they also know what is to be done when the rules
are broken. [. . . ] There is a sense in which performers of ritual learn to perform
a ritual as we learn how to speak our language in spite of the fact that we cannot
explain the rules upon which both are based.
To Penner’s criticism, one might add that the reason why Staal can reach
the conclusion he does (‘ritual is meaningless’) is that he fails to distinguish
between the activities he is describing (the Vedic Agnicayana ceremonies) and
the theoretical framework (‘ritual’) in relation to which he performs his search
for meaning (or rather: lack of meaning).
This failure has the immediate consequence that because Staal has as his
point of departure in a Western concept of ritual (with references to van Gennep, Levi-Strauss, and others), chances are that this is a different theoretical
framework than that which informs what the participants in the ‘-yearold Vedic ritual’ think about what they do. When he claims that ‘the majority
[of the participants] would not be able to come up with an adequate answer
to the question why they engage in ritual’ (p. ), one might as well say that
they would not even know that what they engage in is a ritual, at least not in
the sense in which Staal uses it in the rest of the article.
But the main failure lies in the commixture of two different kinds of meaning. When he asks about the meaning of the Agniacayana ritual, he asks for a
meaning which is explainable in words, a reference to symbolic activity or to
a specific function – a semantic meaning. But his conclusion about the meaninglessness of ritual is based on the kind of meaning that Penner describes
in the quotation above, which sees rites as activities which are based on rulefollowing in a way which resembles that of other systems of activites where
it makes sense to talk about meaning – such as language – but without necessarily having semantic or conceptual meaning. This is implied in Staal’s
Penner, p. .
In this respect, ritual most closely resembles music; see my ‘Music and the Ineffable’, in
Voicing the Ineffable: Musical Representations of Religious Experience, ed. by Siglind Bruhn
(Hillsdale: Pendragon Press, ), pp. –, esp. pp. –.


‘G T A T T T’

conclusion that ‘ritual, then, is primarily [. . . ] an activity governed by explicit
rules. The important thing is what you do, not what you think, believe or say’
(Staal, p. ), but since Staal operates with a referential theory of meaning, he
still – despite his attempt to avoid the problem of logocentricity by placing the
origin of language in ritual – preserves the primacy of conceptual meaning.
Based on these considerations, we can modify the qualifications of the general approach to ritual theory given above even further by adding the principal
distinction between the functions a rite may have (including what a participant
or an observer may think about this function, be it symbolically, economically,
religiously, etc.) and the concrete means used to fulfill that function in each
particular rite. I will elaborate on this in four stages.
First, the connection between function and means can be described as
arbitrary, in the sense that the means may not necessarily have had the aim of
fulfilling a certain ritual function; they may have come to be used in a certain
ritual for many different reasons, including reasons that do not necessarily
belong within a ritual definition. Likewise, the function need not be explicit,
or even recognizable, in the means. The same function can be fulfilled by
many different means, and the same means can fulfill different functions in
different contexts. Once the specific means have been incorporated in the
system of rules that defines a certain ritual action, however, it is no longer
possible to talk about arbitrariness; although there are many means through
which one could have encountered a certain function, the specific means that
make up a ritual action are the only way one in fact encounters it. Ex post
facto, there is no arbitrariness, and there is nothing ante factum.
Function
Means
Second, any talk about the function of ritual will be an abstraction, a theorizing (whether it takes the form of a philosophy, a religious doctrine, or a
cultural theory) about the conditions of man and ways of influencing them.
This applies even when a function is explicitly stated (by the participants) as
the foundation of a certain ritual; functions are never absolutely defined, they
always belong within the realm of philosophy in a wide sense. The means, on
the other hand, are concrete actions in specific historical settings, and should
be studied as such, with whatever help the various scholarly disciplines of
textual and historical criticism can bring. When a historical perspective is applied to ritual, then, what is studied will usually be either theoretical systems
concerning functions (e.g. Amalar’s explanations of the liturgical items of the
mass), or specific activities, significant only – but significantly so – in their his-
I Y’ B W  P

torical situatedness. This distinction is meant as an aid to avoid the possible
pitfall of treating the function or the conceptual meaning of a ritual – such as
bringing salvation or rain, upholding social systems, or fulfilling basic human
needs – as inherent traits of the means.
.
Function
Means
&
historical
theoretical
Third, as implied above, I treat ‘the religious’ as a category of ‘the philosophical’, both as abstract systems of thought, and in the more general sense
concerning notions of ‘the transcendental’. The distinction has to do with essentials: whereas the essence of ‘the transcendent’ has been the problem that
has ridden philosophy since Plato, from the religious perspective it is not a
problem at all – it is assumed. Likewise, the aesthetic experience may be regarded as a category of the experience of a formalized action, in this case a
ritual action. They are both experiences of rule-bound activities having meaning as such (in the Wittgensteinian sense of ‘use governed by an internalized
understanding of the underlying rules’), but dependent upon a ‘philosophy’
in order to be meaningful in a conceptual sense (or: susceptible to translation into conceptual meaning through a ‘philosophy’). The bringing together
of aesthetic and ritual actions is a concession to the primacy of sensory experience (over theoretical speculation) in both, as well as to their historical
interconnections.
.
Function
Means
&
theoretical
#
historical
religious
aesthetic
#
Fourth, if the dichotomy between ‘function’ and ‘means’ has been upheld
so far, there is an interesting cross-connection between the aesthetic and the
religious, which unites the philosophical and the historical approach and illuminates the importance of the aesthetic means in ritual (historically speaking),
and of ritual connections for the development of aesthetic thought (theoret-
‘G T A T T T’

ically speaking). As I have discussed at greater length elsewhere, the conflict
between physical reality and rational thought has been solved in aesthetic theories in ways which approximate the religious: Plato’s ‘divine madness’, the
mysterious presence of the divine in a Byzantine icon, the ‘non so che’ (‘Idon’t-know-what’) of early modern theories of art, and the Romantic genius –
they all have the experience of physical reality as their point of departure, but
in each case this experience is supplemented by a notion of something transcending that experience, something which lies beyond the grasp of rational
thought. It is striking how, throughout the history of Western civilization,
aesthetic thought and religion have related to similar phenomena and to the
same ranges of experiences and given them explanations that overlap and interconnect.
.
Means
Function
&
theoretical
#
religious
historical
!
#
aesthetic
D   
It is time to return to Dylan again – to the interplay of functions and means
and the historical continuity, across the centuries, between medieval service
and modern rock show, which may or may not add to our understanding of
both.
I have presented the ‘surface layer’ of the two kinds of activities in such a
way as to bring out the similarities between them; they can both be regarded as
‘rites’ – as means to fulfil a ritual function, or as self-contained, ‘meaningless’
activities, the meanings of which are understood by the participants, regardless
of whether these have been explained, theologically or not, and whether such
an explanation is understood or known by the participants.

Eyolf Østrem, ‘ “The Ineffable”: Affinities between Christian and Secular Concepts of
Art’, in Signs of Change: Transformations of Christian Traditions and Their Representation
in the Arts, –, ed. by Petersen, Clüver, and Bell (Amsterdam: Rodopi, ), pp.
–.

I Y’ B W  P
One example of an area where there are elements of continuity, both
of functions and of means, is the concert genre itself. This way of presenting music has firm roots back to medieval ritual. The polyphonic mass of
the late Middle Ages defended its place only insofar as it fulfilled its liturgical function, essentially indistinguishable from its medieval counterpart,
but despite its functional basis, there is evidence that it was often enjoyed
primarily for aesthetic reasons; the Abendmusiken and the church recitals in
seventeenth-century protestant cities seem to have fulfilled a similar function,
being primarily entertainment, as forerunners of the public concert, but, significantly, usually performed in church before or after the ordinary church
services; and, last but not least, the public concert in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, of which modern ‘classical’ concerts are heirs, was closely
related to the cult of the genius and his ability to bring out the sublime, a notion akin to the transcendent – summed up in the notion Kunstreligion. These
are all practices where it is hard to draw sharp lines between the religious and
secular functions of the music – between worship and enjoyment.
When it comes to Dylan, this general aspect of Kunstreligion inherent in
the concert genre itself is brought together with popular culture, in its two
incarnations as folk culture – a tradition which until the twentieth century has
mostly remained on the outside of the line of continuity sketched above – and
mass culture – the commercial exploitation of entertainment-as-commodity.
Dylan – together with other artists – has started over again, so to speak: out
of a genre which was originally functional in a way similar to medieval ritual
music – only fulfilling other functions, such as dance or the ‘news reports’ of
a folk ballad – a new concert genre has evolved, in a way that is comparable
to the aestheticization of the functional mass music in the fifteenth century.
This is a genre that spans the whole continuum from mindless entertainment
– noticable both in the commercial mass appeal, as evidenced by the blatant
advertisement of the Columbia Recording Company in the ‘invitatory’, and
in the dancing in the aisles and visits to the bar (and, consequently, to the
restroom), vestiges of the traditional functions of popular music making – to
the deepest seriousness, which encompasses meaningfulness, world view, and
ideology, no less profound than that of a classical concert. For the most part,
a Dylan audience is completely quiet, hanging on to every word that comes
from the stage, and such has been the case ever since his break-through in the
early sixties. As a genre, the transformed, ‘serious’ pop concert takes its raison
See also my ‘Music and the Ineffable’ for a more thoroughgoing discussion of the
religious-aesthetical background of the mentioned genres.

‘G T A T T T’

d’être from the common understanding among the audience that something
is offered which goes beyond entertainment – that the actions carry a level of
meaning which transcends the surface level of the actions themselves.
The same ritual aspect can be discerned in the way the songs are used in
his current live repertory; their effect is partly based upon the assumption that
words that were laid down a long time ago can transcend their own historical
situation and can even transmit an esoteric meaning, or at least a meaning
which goes beyond the words themselves and the acts of performing and listening to them. Seen in a ritual perspective, it is not primarily the songs and the
texts themselves which are meaningful, but the context to which they belong
as meaningless – arbitrary – elements. I am reluctant to call this a complete
arbitrariness (cf. the discussion above), but would rather call it a meaningfulness which is disjunct from the primary function of the songs, historically and
generically speaking.
If the concert genre, thus, is an example of a continuity of means which
also go beyond the obvious similarities, the question of a possible continuity
also in function is more complex. One might for instance, claim that religiously charged concert music fulfills certain basic human needs, regardless
of the external frames, or that several of the functions that a medieval liturgy
fulfilled, in a society where the doctrine that had shaped the rituals also dominated every other aspect of society, will remain unfulfilled by that particular
ritual in a society where the doctrine is no longer universally acclaimed, and
must instead be fulfilled by other ‘ritualized’ actions, such as a Dylan show.
That such a functional aspect is possible in the case of a Dylan show, is indicated, e.g., by the emphasis Dylan places on performing his songs live (and
not just let them ‘speak for themselves’ on the albums), and the importance
for the audience to attend it in person. What is meaningful about it, is not
only the contents of the lyrics (important as they may be), the person (thrilling as it may be to see a cultural icon in the flesh), or the concert genre, but
all these taken together.
One problem is that it is not indisputable which functions a medieval ceremony has fulfilled; we may have some access to the practical means (prayers,
See the first remark in the Postscript below.
A concert with another band playing Dylan songs can hardly have the same function,
no matter how well they play. It works almost like a concert version of a medieval mass:
when one element of an original setting is removed, the action as a whole is changed, and
so is its function (and whatever function the new product is thought to fulfil, it will be
another than the original).



I Y’ B W  P
chants, texts, etc.), but both the unconceptual understanding the participants
have had of these means, through their repeated participation in them, and
the connections they have made between the actions and the wider conceptual
system are, in principle, beyond the reach of the modern scholar. The same
basic problem applies to the modern ritual – in one sense to an even higher
degree, since there is no over-arching theoretical system comparable to medieval christianity against which a means is tied to a certain function. Thus,
the question of functions, and even more of functional continuity, must remain open to interpretation, and the answers will vary depending on which
theoretical vantage points one chooses.
The comparison between a medieval church service and a Dylan show has
been made not only as a test case of a theoretical model, apt precisely because they they appear to be worlds and centuries apart. On the contrary, the
idea originated in the practical experience of a similarity, paired with the conviction that Dylan is probably the artist today who is best suited for such a
comparison: that there are good reasons to make the connection. As a way of
summing up and tying together the various threads that run through this article, I would like to point out three main areas where Dylan’s role approaches
that of religious services.
One is the notion of a transcendental truth, revealed and administered by
the artistic medium, as emphasised in the discussion of Dylan as the ‘Voice of
a Generation’. The second is that of creating a community and a sense of connection between the individual and the community around a canon of texts
and facts informed by the medium’s revelation – a canon which is potentially
of vital importance for one’s life. This relates to what has previously been said
about historicity and the transcendent. The third, which also relates to the
discussion of historicity, can be described with a cliché which has often been
used about Dylan: that he serves as the ‘soundtrack of our lives’ – as the one
whose music has ben allowed to shape our experiences of the important things
in life (perhaps even to define what have been important experiences); as the
one who points out those things that define our identity as historical beings,
through which our individual experiences are anchored to the continuum of
societal time. Dylan fans range from those with a deep appreciation of his
musical and lyrical artistic production to those who are almost religiously obsessive about everything related to him. But common to both extremes are the
sense of community created by repeated, communal activities, and the resonance of one’s own experiences with expressions – musical, literary or others –
that have acquired a canonical status.
‘G T A T T T’

P
The fact that surprisingly many people go surprisingly far beyond the stage of
nodding symphathetically to the words of Dylan’s songs, but also lead their
lives, make their choices in life, and form their outlook on life in accordance
with, or at least with an eye on, what Dylan says, does, sings, and means,
indicates an approach which borders on the religious.
The advantage one has in this field as opposed to medieval studies, is that
one can ask the participants what they think. I published an earlier version
of this article at the website http://www.dylanchords.com . Some of the reactions were posted at the Dylan Pool, currently the most popular and widely
used website for day-to-day banter about Dylan, where people from all around
the world with an over-average interest in Dylan gather. The following is a selection of the responses:
h
i
The performance of the thing is key. I would love Dylan’s music if I sat at home
and listened to his officially released albums. But it’s up on a whole other level when
you are there for the performance. [. . . ] I have often thought of Bob’s concerts
in terms of the Catholic Mass. [. . . ] Something special, something extraordinary
happens. And only an ordained priest can do this. It’s the Consecration and the
event of Transubstantiation. That bread and wine are transformed. Christ does not
change. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. But this miracle happens at
each celebration. And this is what Bob does with his music. It is not just singing
an old crowd favorite. The song is called forth in a new way. It’s creation, it’s
transformation. [. . . ] Maybe I sound like I’m going over the top, but I don’t know
how else to convey the sense I have of his music and performance. Just like at
Passover.
I’ve always felt that there is a shared consciousness at Dylan concerts that the
performance has some significance beyond its own entertainment value. It’s not
just what Dylan does – it’s the audience responses, the antiphonies.
And the following, from an article in New Statesman (January , ) by
Will Self:
I suspect that, like a good many fans of Bob Dylan’s work (the silent but sympathetic
majority if you will), my communion with his work is a link between the intimate
minutiae of my personal life and a moiety which, while non-specific, is still a great
deal larger. [. . . ] When I listen to Dylan’s music, I subconsciously apprehend this
connection, although at the same time I am transported to a place where, vis-a-vis
with my own wellspring of feeling, I am alone. This sense of being a communicant

The full exchange can be found at hhttp://pool.dylantree.com/phorum/read.php?f=
&i=&t=i

I Y’ B W  P
at an altar rail that is shared by millions has always inclined me to limit the amount
I know about the artist himself, or even the wider context of his work. For lyrical
music to conjure up such a powerful level of identification, it is better that it be
shrouded in numinous ignorance.
Chapter 
The Momentum of Standstill
: Time Out Of Mind   B
T
 O O M is a blues album. Dylan finally sounds like the old
blues man he wanted to be when he was . In the beginning of his
career – before the folk music got in the way – he was considered
a blues singer first and a folk musician second. His voice treatment and his
phrasing, as well as the songs he performed and the models for the songs he
eventually began writing himself – they’ve all got their roots deep down in
the Delta. Robert Shelton wrote in his review of Dylan’s first major gig – the
review that may have helped Dylan get his first record contract:
Mr. Dylan’s voice is anything but pretty. He is consciously trying to recapture the
rude beauty of a Southern field hand musing in melody on his porch. All the ‘husk
and bark’ are left on his notes and a searing intensity pervades his songs [. . . ]
Elasticized phrases are drawn out until you think they may snap. He rocks his head
and body, closes his eyes in reverie and seems to be groping for a word or a mood,
then resolves the tension benevolently by finding the word and the mood (from
the liner notes to Bob Dylan, ).
The blues: twelve or eight fixedly patterned bars of three-chord music – seemingly a low standard for exellence. But that depends on the perspective. One
thing is that the twelve-bar scheme isn’t the one, never-changing cliché it
is normally presented as; there are numerous variations within the pattern.
These are still small, though, and it doesn’t raise the bar considerably. The
real excellency of a good blues musician lies elsewhere: in the phrasing, in the
tiniest rhythmical changes (which is what creates the ‘mood’, the ‘feeling’),
in the timing. The Blues – even when played instrumentally – always seems
to give a nod to the rules of vocal delivery – and being plentifully rewarded
for it. Sometimes it could be seen as a way of speaking more than a way of
singing, with all the almost unnoticeable nuances of speaking available, to
help achieving the goal of speech – to express oneself and to be undestood.
This is available to a large extent because of the blues’ freedom from the con

I Y’ B W  P
fines of notation. But at the same time, what gives the blues it’s peculiar power
is the combination of the expressiveness of speech with that of music.
Music can be defined as ‘organization of sound in time’. It posesses detailed
systems for how this organization is to be brought about: rhythmical hierarchies, harmonic ‘laws’, frameworks of different kinds, upon which melodies are
built.
One of the most fundamental features of this organized object called music,
is the regulation of tension. It can be defined as that expectation of a release, a
return to a level of rest, which is created by a deviation from this level. This is a
very open definition, which must be supplied with extra information specific
to each particular style, such as: what counts as a deviation, what counts as a
return, which means are considered adequate to effect this return, and which
musical parameters are involved?
So what is the neutral level for a blues melody? There is the key note, of
course. That’s where most melodies start and end, and what comes between
is what is supposed to compell us to keep listening. If no deviation from this
note occurs, we lose interest, of course. Then there is the twelve-bar pattern
itself, using some kind of variation of the three basic chords tonic (key note),
subdominant (a fifth lower) and dominant (a fifth higher). But there are other
such neutral levels. The blues is an oral musical tradition, and like most of
these, it consists of a highly devloped set of standardized formulae – short
snippets that are appropriate in specific connections. They can range from
the shortest lick to a complete melody. This is a feature that is has in common
with both indian raga and Gregorian chant. Now, what separates an expert
performer from the strummers and hummers, is the ability to use these licks in
an interesting way: to balance between the traditional material which defines
the style, and the new, the inventive. As a harmonica tutorial puts it, after
giving numerous examples of blues licks: ‘To play a blues solo, all you have
to do is to put some of these licks together. To play a good blues solo – now
that’s a different matter.’ To rephrase this using our terminology: the licks of
blues may in themselves represent a neutral melodical level, where a new twist
to a well-known formula may suddenly give it that compelling character that
keeps us seated (or perhaps: brings us to our feet, dancing).
Similar elaborations can be made concerning rhythm and hamony: what
is musically interesting is (among other things) the interaction between the

See Mike Daley’s article on Like a Rolling Stone, available at his website
http://www.mikedaley.net.
T M  S

basic pulse and the tiny expressive deviations I’ve been talking about above, or
between the twelve-bar scheme and whatever changes are made to it.
D   B
So how does this relate to Dylan’s music in general and ‘Time out of Mind’ in
particular? Let’s begin with the quotation from Shelton’s review: ‘Elasticized
phrases are drawn out until you think they may snap. He [. . . ] seems to be
groping for a word or a mood, then resolves the tension benevolently by finding the word and the mood.’ Anyone who has heard Rocks and Gravel from
the Second Gaslight tape (The Gaslight Café, NYC, Oct ) immediately
understands what Shelton is talking about. Here Dylan halts every phrase on
some word, stretches it out and leaves it hanging in thin air for longer and
longer time as the verses unfold.
Takes Rocks and gravel-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l, baby, make a solid road.
This is accompanied by an unchanging D major chord in a monononous
fingerpicking pattern.
A long held note over an accompaniment where nothing happens – how
can that create tension? For two reasons. One is that to hold a tone like that
is actually not normal procedure – it is in itself a deviation from the neutral
level of melody. The other reason is that you never know how long he’s going
to hold the tone – there is nothing in the guitar part that says that ‘now comes
the turn’. Compare that to his unsuccessful first single, ‘Mixed up Confusion’,
also from . The similarities are striking, but so are the differences. Even
here there are long held notes once in a while, in much the same fashion as
‘Rocks and Gravel’. But this time there is a band involved, and that makes all
the difference. For a band to function, the band members must know when
to enter, when to change chords, when the verses end. So the long notes are of
pre-defined length, and the same length every time. It takes exactly one verse
for the listener to discovered the trick, and that robs it of any tension-creating
force it may have had. Predictability and interest never were close friends.
I  E
He apparently liked this trick, especially early in his career. ‘In the Evening’
from the Minnesota Hotel Tape from December  synthesises what I’ve

I Y’ B W  P
had to say about this. ‘In the Evening’ is a standard twelve-bar blues tune
(with a text that is so paradigmatically bluesy that once when I was howling
my own on-the-spot improvised blues clichés to this tune while washing the
dishes, I suddenly found myself singing exactly the same words as Dylan. . .).
Half ways through there is a harmonica solo which consists of one long draw
note held during a whole twelve-bar verse, until the standard finishing phrase
at the end.
The first time I heard this song, it struck me as a subtly brutal way of
creating tension. With a single sweep, all the conventions of blues licks are
swept aside, leaving us with an unfinished beginning. For it is normal to hold
a note for some time – only not this long. And it is normal to begin a lick
with a long note on the dominant, which is the note Dylan stretches here –
but then only as a beginning of a lick that is supposed to end on the key note
<ex: g f e c >, as it so often does in this particular style. In fact, on can say that
melodically speaking this kind of descent back to the key note represents the
neutral level of rest in this situation, and remaining on the dominant is a way
of creating momentum through standstill.
Equally interesting is the end of the song. Another harmonica solo, another
long held note. In fact the second solo is almost identical to the first one –
identical on all but one point: the effect on the listener. Where the listener
(this listener anyway) was captivated by the single note the first time – how
long is he going to hold it? when does the expected ending phrase come? how
much air does he have left? (was it true what he said, that he can hold his
breath three times as long as Caruso?) – with all attention fixed on that single
note, the second time it falls flat to the ground. It’s like reading a crime novel
for the second time. We know who killed Mr Black. We know it wasn’t Mrs
White, as the author would have us believe in chapter three. The similarity
with the crime novel is striking, because in both cases the effect depends on a
rather crude – in the case of the crime novel: literally brutal – technique, and
the cruder the technique, the faster its aesthetic effect wanes, since everything
depends on one single card. Once that card has been played, whatever power
it had has been spent.
In musical terms, we can say that what the first time was surprising because
of its defiance of stylistic rules, the second time has itself become part of the
‘work style’ or the ‘idiom’ of the song. It loses its place in the centre of the
listeners attention, and slides into the background, while other things become
more important, such as the guitar playing.
Thus, In the Evening is an interesting cross between Rocks and Gravel and
Mixed Up Confusion. It demonstrates that the long note can maintain its effect
T M  S

even outside the very free declamation of Rocks and Gravel, but that there
is a thin line between success and failure. If the effect is to be maintained
throughout a longer song, the technique must be reshaped in different form –
eiter more powerful or more subtle.
I P T P I
In , I Pity The Poor Immigrant was sung in a similar manner. It was sung
in duet with Joan Baez, and as so often was the case, this is just as much
a duel. It all starts in the instrumental introductory verse: Guam, the band,
plays through the whole song apart from the last line, but instead of tying
up the whole thing with the expected reprise of the first line, everybody stops
playing, except Bob himself, who does some odd strumming, as if to tune the
guitar (that was my first impression when I first heard it: they have stopped,
something went wrong, they have to tune the guitars) (maybe they should
have . . . !). Then, suddenly, Guam breaks loose again for the final line, and
the song starts again. This time with the vocals, one of the legendary Bob and
Joni duets.
The performance, preserved for eternity on the Hard Rain TV special, is
very energetic, until they reach the same place in the song. Once again the
instruments stop. But Bob and Joni go on.
And on.
And on.
They hold their tones for three hours, twenty-three minutes and fourteen
seconds. Maybe a little less, maybe only for the fourteen seconds, but the
point is: they cross a line, the line between what is a normally long held note,
and what becomes abnormal.
It is easy to imagine it as one of Dylan’s little ‘breaking Joanie’ tricks, but
upon second or third hearing you realize that the tones aren’t that long – he’s
not out there to prove that he has bigger lungs than her. Besides, they did this
on every show (and on other songs – the most wonderful moment of this kind
is the final note of ‘Railroad Boy’ as heard and seen on the Hard Rain video. If
I could ever have fallen in love with Joan, it would have had to be there), and
although they obviously have their little onstage skirmishes going on during
the tour, it is not fought on this trivial level – in short: it’s not a trick.

I Y’ B W  P
The renaissance music scholar Rob Wegman has commented on a passage
in one of the masses of Jacob Obrecht (–), that is quite similar, mutatis mutandis (quite a lot in this case) to the Immigrant case. One of the
fundamental principles of renaissance music, is variety. Therefore it is quite
remarkable when Obrecht, after a passage of a few measures, repeats the passage one step lower, then repeats this procedure again. And again. The third
or fourth time the whole situation is beginning to feel uncomfortable. But
when Obrecht just continues, the situation is transformed. Just like Dylan, he
crosses the line between the normal and the abnormal. This is a dangerous line
to cross; there is a thin ice between what is abnormal and what is ridiculous
or mad. So what is this? Is it ridiculous, mad or something else?
Let’s examine more closely what is at issue here. What is he trying to prove?
Or more fundamentally: what does this mean? It is easier (and more trivial)
to do this when one has recourse to a text, but the idea here is a musical
idea of some sort. Musical ideas are generally more difficult to grasp than
other ideas, because they are not connected with a conceptual system, they
don’t automatically mean anything. Any talk of meaning in music must either
refer indirectly to and get its supply of meaning from an external conceptual
system, such as a program or a text, or create its own meanings, which are
then relevant only within the system: a purely musical meaning does not mean
anything in the outside world. But it is also my contention that in order for
an extra-musical meaning to be assigned to music (to say ‘this music is sad,
this describes a sunrise over a desert’ etc), this will have to be related to the
musical meaning, through analogies or conventions of interpretation.
By dragging an effect out of the ordinary, as in the case of the poor immigrant, the focus is shifted from the expected goal of the effect, to the effect
itself, including the ability of the effect to reach the goal. The effect becomes
a meta-effect, pointing to itself and its own effect-ivity. The danger lies in the
possibility that the effect is not strong enough to bear the closer scrutiny that
this metastasis involves.
The effects that are highlighted in this performance could be described
from the point of view of both these spheres. On the musical level, Dylan
creates a temporary point of repose in a cycle of hierarchical tonal relationships,
but on a tone which is usually characterized by momentum rather than by
standstill: he highlights an otherwise melodically unessential tone beyond the
normal by stretching it out in time, and by doing so, he emphasises its directionality by singeling out the potentionality which on the face of it nulls
out that very directionality. By standing still on the dominant, he holds time,
musically speaking.
T M  S

What is going on on the extramusical level, is necessarily less clear to define.
A striking element of the performance, as we can witness it on the TV special,
is how tired Dylan looks during the first few songs of the show. The circumstances certainly sound defatigating: an obligation to produce a TV concert,
unceasing rain, a soon-to-be-divorced wife on the set, and, for all I know, a
drink or two the night before. I’m not trying to say that the musical effect
of holding a certain tone in a certain song a little longer than usual is what
brought energy back to the band and the bard, but still, the change from the
beginning to the end of the recorded part of the show is so pronounced, that I
would hardly have raised a brow had someone told me that this was a carefully
planned, staged enactment of questions of fatigue and energy, all set to music
and culminating in this particular line.
Another possible approach is through the comparison with ‘Lo and Behold!’, which, in Greil Marcus’ exellent interpretation stops and starts as if
someone put another coin in the machine, with little or no regard for musical logic. Likewise with the Immigrant: it continues after the dissolution as
if nothing has happened. No matter how exhausted the singer is, or how complete the break-down of musical material is, the end of the verse is splendidly
unaffected.
S (S)   D
If I Pity the Poor Immigrant is stopping time by brute force, but thereby concealing (or revealing, both possible outcomes of pointing out) the delicacies
of the process, Standing in the Doorway is the direct opposite: subtly holding
back time, only to brutally realize its power.
E
/d# C#m
E/b
I'm walkin' through
the summer nights
E
/d#
C#m
E/b
the jukebox playing low
E
/d# C#m
E/b
yesterday everything
was goin' too fast
E
/d#
C#m
E/b
Today
it's movin' too slow
A
D/a
A
D/a
I got no place left to turn
A
D/a A
A B
I got nothin' left to burn
E
/d#
C#m
E/b
Don't know if I saw you if I would kiss you or kill you
E
/d#
C#m
E/b
It probably wouldn't matter to you anyhow
A
E
B
F#
You left me standing in the doorway cryin'
A
E
I got nothin' to go back to now.
I Y’ B W  P

It’s all in the chords. During the first part of the verse, nothing happens. Nothing at all. What we have is basically an E major chord, sustained all through
the first four lines. The only ‘ripple’ on this surface is the repeated, stepwise
descent in the bass, but it doesn’t really change anything. This is a waiting
progression, a technique for the prolongation of a chord, which usually takes
place on a dominant chord, as in Friend of the Devil, after the bridge, or in
Covenant Woman, after the chorus. In both these cases, it works as a suspension: the fourth time around the bass continues its descent, and reaches the
tonic, the key note, and we’re home again. But in Doorway? Even here the
fourth descent continues downwards, but this time we reach the Subdominant. This is quite in accordance with the general blues scheme: even here the
subdominant is the first new chord that appears. Here the subdominant (A)
alternates with its own subdominant (D), in such a way that it can be regarded
as a sustained A with an embellishment. This too is replicated exactly in the
blues – it is what lies behind the commonest blues patterns of all:
E (tonic)
.
.
.
.
|-------------------------|
|-------------------------|
|-------------------------|
|-------------------------|etc
|-2---2-4---4-2---2-4---4-|
|-0---0-0---0-0---0-0---0-|
A (subdominant)
.
.
.
.
|-------------------------|
|-------------------------|
|-------------------------|
|-2---2-4---4-2---2-4---4-|
|-0---0-0---0-0---0-0---0-|
|-------------------------|
Or to put it in musicologist’s cipher: T-T/-T and S-S/-S. After this it
is back to the tonic (E) again for the final four lines. So far, and with the
reductions we have done, Doorway and In the Evening follow exactly the same
structure.
But then it happens: the second time the waiting/sustaining bass line reaches
the subdominant, it doesn’t stay there, as it did the first time. What happens
instead is a straight and persistent line, up through chords a fifth apart in the
dominant direction: A – E – B – F#. Incidentally, this sequence occurs at the
point which corresponds to the shift to the dominant in the twelve-bar blues.
The rapid chord sequence can be likened with going up the stairs: each new
step costs some energy, but also increases the potential energy in the form of
a higher position. The energy it costs must be taken from somewhere, and in
this case it is as if a lot of tension that has been held back during the first two
parts of the verse, is suddenly released, and bursts out in one single, sudden
and climactic effort. Then it is as if this was too much to take: in the last line
we are back to the subdominant A again, which, after the rocketing of the
T M  S

previous line, seems like an anticlimax. We are back more or less where we
started: to the motionless state of . . . What?
What kind of immobility does this song deal with? Is it a still summer
evening at a lake, lying on the bank, with only the slightest ripple on the
surface? Or is it a sultry day, flies buzzing around your ears as you lay in the
grass, sipping at a cold beer, which is all you have the energy to do?
Neither. Let’s first have a look at the lyrics.
First verse: ‘I’ surrounded by signs saying ‘Nothing happening in here’.
Here’s the heavy summer night and the quiet jukebox, streets where things
move too slowly. But these are just the outer signs of what’s really at stake: the
inner inability to act, because ‘I’ don’t know what is to be done. This is as
exact a correspondence to what the music ‘says’ as one can possibly ask.
Then, in the last part, comes the real protagonist in absentio onto the stage:
‘you’. And all of a sudden there are signs of activity, talk about kissing or killing
– and leaving. The emotional climax of the text, the title line, which contains
both ‘you’, ‘I’, action and emotions, coincides with the musical climax, followed by the deceptive return in the last line, of the music as well as the text.
The same pattern is repeated in the rest of the verses. Strumming a ‘gay’
guitar, which doesn’t sound very happy at all; the possibility of an ominous
threat come true – only that it won’t happen, not here and now, anyway; then
the church bells ringing, and fatalistically accepted, although chance is they’re
ringing for ‘I’ himself.
Then meeting ‘you’ and the ghost of our old love, always at the beginning
of the last part of the verses. As the verses unfold, it becomes clearer and
clearer that the forced inability to act is caused by this ghost: its presence (it
‘will not go away’) is completely overpowering any initiative on the part of ‘I’
(‘Last night I danced with a stranger, But she just reminded me you were the
one’) – to the point that any attempt to fight its influence is treated purely
hypthetically (‘if I saw you’; ‘I would be crazy if I took you back’).
And the last line of each verse: always back to the mire of the first parts,
made even more desperate by the recurring intermezzo.
Here are the entire lyrics, the ‘I’ world in boldface, the ‘you’ world in italics.
I’m walkin’ through the summer nights
the jukebox playing low
yesterday everything was goin’ too fast
Today it’s movin’ too slow
I got no place left to turn
I got nothin’ left to burn
Don’t know if I saw you
if I would kiss you or kill you

I Y’ B W  P
It probably wouldn’t matter to you anyhow
You left me standing in the doorway cryin’
I got nothin’ to go back to now.
The light in this place is so bad
Makin’ me sick in the head
All the laughter is just makin’ me sad
The stars have turned cherry red
I’m strummin’ on my gay guitar
Smokin’ a cheap cigar
The ghost of our old love has not gone away
Don’t look like it will anytime soon
You left me standin’ in the doorway cryin’
Under the midnight moon.
Maybe they’ll get me and maybe they won’t
But not tonight and it won’t be here
There are things I could say, but I don’t
I know the mercy of God must be near
I been ridin a midnight train
Got ice water in my veins
I would be crazy if I took you back
It would go up against every rule
You left me standin’ in the doorway cryin’
Sufferin’ like a fool.
When the last rays of daylight go down
Buddy you’ll roll no more
I can hear the church bells ringin’ in the yard
I wonder who they’re ringin’ for
I know I can’t win
But my heart just won’t give in
Last night I danced with a stranger
But she just reminded me you were the one
You left me standin’ in the doorway cryin’
In the dark land of the sun.
I eat when I’m hungry drink when I’m dry
And live my life on the square
And even if the flesh falls off of my face
I know someone will be there to care
It always means so much
Even the softest touch
I see nothing to be gained by any explanation
There’s no words that need to be said
You left me standin’ in the doorway cryin’
Blues wrapped around my head.
T M  S

The last stanza is special. It seems conciliatory at first. The first part does not
have the desperate apathy of the other verses – rather a reconciled contentment, a satisfaction with the small details of life (if you can call the softest
touch a small detail). More than in the other verses, the words seem to be directed at someone – maybe ‘you’, maybe just ‘someone’. The effect is quite similar to that of Desolation Row and Gates of Eden (although this may be to drift
too far from where we’re heading with all this: what the music is all about):
after a long tirade reflecting ‘the World According to “I” ’ through scattered
images, the narrator sweeps all that aside and tells us (someone) what’s really
on his mind.
But all the same: this time it’s different; the bottom line of this doorway
is that it’s still no use – ‘there’s no words that need to be said’. Just as the
presence of ‘you’ for the first time is discernible in the first part of the verse,
this time the inactivity takes over the place in the verse where ‘you’ used to
come in. And the two last lines are as desperate as ever before, and so is the
singing.
Which brings us back to the music and the question that was left hanging:
what kind of immobility. What is described – musically – in this song, is a
way of stopping time, holding back time. Or maybe rather: disregarding time,
saying that it doesn’t matter. And at the same time it is a realization that it
can’t be done – time is too strong to be overlooked.
There are three elements in this musical story. First the long standstill itself. Just like in In the Evening and I Pity the Poor Immigrant, the holding in
itself creates tension. The longer the standstill, the more imperative it is that
something just has to happen, and the stronger the focus on and the attention
to the standing itself.
The standstill is accomplished through a figure that is normally associated
with suspense and preparation for a return – but a return to the point where
we already are. I don’t know if this kind of restlessness – because that’s what
it really is – has a name: the feeling that you ought to go somewhere, get
something done, but you can’t think of anything else to do or to be than
what you’re already doing, being. This is the kind of inactivity: the apathy
that stems from a dissatisfaction with anything you’re doing, no matter what,
because what you really want is too big to be wanted, but still standing in the
way of trivialities such as happiness, trout fishing or the coldness of the beer
on a warm summer evening.
And the third musical element is the consequence of this intense immobility. The dominant of the twelve-bar blues is stretched, beyond the breaking
point. And when something is stretched that far, it breaks. It’s a crash on the

I Y’ B W  P
levee, so to speak. In accumulated desperation you run up the stairs, too fast
to notice that there are only four steps, and you fall flat, despite the effort.
The brilliance of all this is the way he uses a blues-pattern as a template
for the writing of an elaborate song, where the various parts of the pattern
contribute to the expressive force of the song, but where this force is not
limited to the pattern, but draws on sources lying way beyond the simple
pattern. This is to say: it is not the blues that tells the story, it’s the way the
(purely musical) elements of the blues are combined with other elements (a
descending figure, a chord progression) and – through a web of expectations,
connotations and analogies – to the text.
R T B
He’s used the same elements before, without telling the same story: the bridge
in Ring them bells is one of the most prominent examples. First: the same kind
of standstill-like pendular alternation between C and Am that has earlier been
used as an interlude between the verses:
C
G/b Am
Ring them bells
G/b
for the blind and the
G/b Am
Ring them bells
G/b
for all of us who are
C
deaf,
C
left,
But then it all breaks loose in the kind of seemingly never-ending progression
that brings a smile to your face, a tear to your eye and a strong conviction that
man can fly (luckily, I was living on the ground floor at the time when I first
heard it, so I’m still alive). I’ve asked myself why this bridge differs so much
from the bridge in Shooting Star from the same album. Harmonically they are
almost identical.
C
G/b Am
Ring them bells
Am/g#
for the chosen few
Am/g
Who will judge the many
D7/f#
when the game is through.
F
Ring them bells,
C/e
for the time that flies,
Dm7
For the child that cries
F/g
When innocence dies.
T M  S

Am
Listen to the engine
Am/g#
listen to the bell
Am/g
As the last firetruck
Am/f#
from hell
F
goes rolling by,
G
C
all good people are praying
Am
It's the last temptation
/g#
the last account
/g
The last time you might hear
/f#
the sermon on the mount
F
F/g
The last radio is playing.
Again the main difference, it seems, is one of pacing and phrasing. In Shooting
star, the whole chromatic bass descent is part of the same phrase, just filling
out the interval between Am and F, in a fairly straightforward chord progression Am-F-G-C, which is then repeated. This ‘one-dimensionality’ applies to
the melody as well: it is all one phrase, beginning and staying on the same,
high note and ending with a cadential turn.
Ring Them Bells works differently, in both these areas. The downward
chromatic progression is slowed down. Every step gets its allotted time. Every
musical ‘sentence’ is given its own meaning. Every meaning is given enough
time to work. It is almost like a paragraph with short sentences. All the sentences separated by a full stop.
This is another way of saying that the sense of direction (or directionality)
is different. The passage in Shooting goes back to the three chords which
dominate blues, folk, and the rest of western (as in Western civilization, not
as in C&W) music since  (roughly). Am is the pivot between C and F,
to both of which it is closely related, harmonically, but as a chord in its own
right it can be disregarded. It works like this:
The Am and C belong to the same area, and the rest is a traditional cadence
pattern, going through three fixed levels.
The passage in Ring Them Bells works like this:
<bilde>
The one-thought-per-step character in the chromatic descent and the fact that
the descent continues past F, relieves Am of its role as ‘just’ a pivot chord
and gives it a character of its own, as the chord that sets a progression in

I Y’ B W  P
motion that spans the whole bridge, a continuous progression through the
whole scale.
This changes our perception of the first half of the bridge, of course, but
the strongest effects are on the second half, after the F chord – the half where
Dylan’s voice and delivery really takes off and leaves the ground, flying. It has
to do with the F chord and where in the scheme of the bridge it enters, but
even more with the G chord, which isn’t even there until it is hinted at at the
very end of the bridge.
The F chord first: It enters after four measures which in other cases, such
as Shooting Star, would have led back to C again. I.e., it takes the place of the
stable chord, and assumes its role. F becomes a second firm ground and a new
starting point – like a landing in a staircase – not just a stage on the way back
to C.
But G is the real beauty of this passage. In a sense, the second half is dominated by this chord, even though it is not heard. It is the complete absence
of this chord that explains the expansive character of the second part of the
bridge – the feeling that the music just goes on and on without ever coming
to rest, ever needing to. The last phrases hover around the resolution that
we know has to come, the final turn to G and C. This hovering begins with
D/f#, whose natural resolution would be to go to G, as the first step in a
chain of chords a fifth apart which would eventually lead to C again: D>G>C.
Here, that resolution is delayed by the detour to the F with its freshly gained
stability, but it is only a temporary stability. And it is this ambiguity between
fixity and progression which lends the bridge its special character, its expansiveness and its transcendency.
Another reason for the effect of this bridge is the contrast with the verses,
which are also dominated by a descending bass line. It is like a twisted echo:
where the verses sweep through a whole octave in one breath, the bridge is
a slow chromatic movement, where the melody on each step of the descent
becomes a phrase of its own.
Seen in isolation, each of these mini-phrases sounds quite like all the others,
but taken together, they almost form a musical narrative: there is a certain
expansiveness to the whole bridge, the voice seems to wish to break out of the
repetition of the same phrase. (Does it succeed? Sometimes when I hear the
song, I think so, other times not.)
Even live the same element has been used, this time more as a part of
a purely musical dramaturgy. During  Mr Tambourine Man was usually
played in a subdued, slow acoustical arrangement with Bucky Baxter’s slide
guitar solo as the climax. In Philadelphia on June , , the song starts
T M  S

slower than ever, and the singing is very calm all the way through. Then, at
the last harmonica solo all hell breaks loose. on that occasion the ‘story’ was
one of testing how long and how much one can hold back (and it worked: the
audience went wild, of course).
H
Time Out Of Mind ends with the seventeen minutes long Highlands. It is the
closest Dylan ever comes to a successful attempt at stopping time. It succeed,
not by trying to stop it in the tracks or hold it back, but by realizing that time
goes on regardless of everything, and by tapping into its flow and disregarding
it, instead of fighting it.
For this, the blues is a perfect vehicle. Musically, the blues is not a fixed
structure with beginning, middle, and end, but an infinite loop, which can begin or end anywhere – or nowhere at all. The little riff that dominates the song
is pronounced enough to be recognized as a separate entity, but unobtrusive
enough to quickly fade into the background, like a clock ticking.
Time is an explicit topic in the song: turning back the clock, going back,
stopping time. But more essential (to this interpretation, anyway) is its fragmented character, consisting of episodes without a combining narrative, interspersed with flashes of indefinite past and future.
A piece of wood drifting in a river does not move. An apple is completely
still only when it falls from the branch. Free fall is weightlessness. ‘Highlands’
is free fall translated to music, freedom from the bonds of time, possible, in
the end, only through complete submersion in time.
II
Harmony and Understanding
Chapter 
‘What I learned from Lonnie’
A      Chronicles
W
,    – the musical style that Dylan talks about in Chronicles? The mysterious style which he had been taught by Lonnie
Johnson in  and then dusted off again when he needed it
twenty years later, when his hand was severely injured and his heart was disconnected from his own songs? It seems to be important – to Dylan at the
time, and therefore also to listeners who imagine they can wrest a little tangible sense out of the enigmatic bard.
But ‘enigmatic’ is the word also for the way Dylan presents his method:
replete with references to numbers, metaphysics, and technical musical terms,
but little or nothing to go by in terms of direct clues. When Dylan talks freely,
he can be very eloquent, and one feels there is a profound insight behind the
words. But once he starts giving examples, it all sounds quite mundane and
very banal, and one is left thinking ‘Was that it?!’
And of course it wasn’t – it’s just that some people are better as poets than
as teachers.
S    
Dylan introduces this system in Chapter  of Chronicles, which is really about
the reawakening in the late eighties. He felt washed out artistically, and physically he was unable to play because his hand had been ‘ungodly injured in a
freak accident, [. . . ] ripped and mangled to the bone’ (p. ). Then, inspired
by an anonymous jazz singer he happened to hear in a bar, he realizes that he
already has the solution to all his problems: a specific style of playing and/or
singing that he had known for a long time, involving some mathematics, some
music theory, and some metaphysics, and which would always work.


II H  U
I didn’t invent this style. It had been shown to me in the early ’s by Lonnie
Johnson. [. . . ] Lonnie took me aside one night and showed me a style of playing
based on an odd- instead of even-numbered system. [. . . ] He said, ‘This might
help you,’ and I had the idea that he was showing me something secretive, though
it didn’t make sense to me at the time. . .
He had been talking about this before. The first time was already in /.
During the San Francisco press conference in December , he refers to
what he does as ‘Mathematical music’, and in the interview with Klas Burling
in Sweden the following year, he says:
Well you know my songs are all mathematical songs. You know what that means
so I’m not gonna have to go into that specifically here. [yeah, sure] It happens to
be a protest song . . . and it borders on the mathematical, you know, idea of things,
and this one specifically happens to deal with a minority of, you know, cripples
and orientals, and, uh, you know, and the world in which they live, you realize,
you know, you understand, you know. It’s sort of a North Mexican kind of a thing,
uh, very protesty. Very very protesty. And, uh, one of the protestiest of all things I
ever protested against in my protest years. But uh. . .
Very very protesty, no doubt, but not very clear. What it does demonstrate
clearly is that Dylan has had an idea about mathematical music already back
then. Even though the context here is tongue-in-cheek, it might perfectly well
be true that he learned something about this from Lonnie Johnson in .
But what was it that he learned? If one wanted, one could go as deeply
into this as one wished – the formulations are loose enough to allow for most
any interpretation. There is a long tradition, going back to the Pythagoreans
in pre-ancient times, of a connection between music and numbers. It is my
contention, however, that
• What Dylan talks about in Chronicles has nothing directly to do with
the Pythagorean tradition (but indirectly it may have),
• Dylan’s method is less clear-cut and conistent than what he presents it
as,
• it probably has little to do with whatever Johnson may have told him
in the s, at least in terms of what is actually done on stage,
• but that doesn’t matter, as long as it has worked for him,
• which it has, so it’s a good method.
Before we step down in the material too deeply to get out again easily, a disclaimer is in place: a consideration of the potentially embarrassing possibility
that this is just a ruse, a put-on – like it was (or at least appeared to have been)
in the San Francisco press conference – a cleverly devised smoke-screen or just
‘W I   L’

a joke on the fans who scour his every word in search of a hidden meaning
here, a key there, an explanation anywhere; in short: that there is no such system. When he says, ‘This was just something he knew about, not necessarily
something he used because he did so many different kinds of songs’ (p. )
– isn’t that just a way of covering his tracks, in the eventuality that someone
should try to find out what this invented system was by going to the source
and listening to Lonnie Johnson? When the Lonnie patrol comes back again
with a ‘Mission not accomplished’, he has the answer ready: ‘I told you, you
won’t find anything there, ’cause Lonnie didn’t use the system himself. Huh.
Huh.’
It is possible, but I don’t believe it, for two reasons.
One: Dylan is not a liar. Sure, he is a joker, a jester, and he loves carnevals,
but he’s always sincere. Not that everything he has ever said or written should
necessarily be taken at face value, but it is my impression that he never says
anything just in jest, there is always a strong sincerity behind what he says,
even – or: especially – when he is joking.
Two: it makes sense, and I don’t really care all that much if it is the ‘wrong’
sense – the investigation has been meaningful in any case. If it’s wrong, the
joke is on me, and I gladly take it upon me.
It makes sense because, judging from what he actually says and comparing it with what he does on stage, what he is talking about is the peculiar
soloing style that he has developed during the Never Ending Tour years: the
little two–three-note figure solos that he has kept churning out and that at
times has driven most of us crazy, but which also – in a strange way and to a
surprisingly high degree – work, musically. Another outgrowth of the system
is probably also the horrible mannerism in recent years, the ‘sing-song’ style
where every phrase is reduced to one single tone which skips up an octave
at the end of the phrase: it all fits his description fairly well, of a system of
infinite permutations of very simple formulas, seemingly nothing to do with
improvisation or inspiration, but a schematical approach to the basic chords
and melodic shapes, which can be applied to just about any song – which is
what he does.
M    – A  
With that option out of the way, we can finally get to work. The system that
Dylan describes can be condensed to four different elements: () a certain
approach to rhythm and () melodic cells, () based on more or less esoteric

II H  U
considerations of the power of numbers, () which, taken togehter, makes up
a formulaic system.
Where Dylan gets most eloquent is where the talk is of numbers. The
problem is that he seems to glide between talking about pitch and rhythm. This
calls for some untangling of concepts, and some caution in the re-tangling of
them.
In either case, there is no easy connection between what Dylan says he does,
and what one can hear him doing. Especially when he gets concrete. When
he says:
It’s a highly controlled system of playing and relates to the notes of a scale, how they
combine numerically, how they form melodies out of triplets and are axiomatic to
the rhythm and the chord changes
– there are a number of possible interpretations, but also a quagmire of possible mistakes, on Dylan’s part and on the reader’s. One is fairly easily taken
care of: ‘triplets’ is a rhythmical term, denoting the subdivision of a beat in
three instead of two units. What he probably has in mind, is triads, the units
of three tones separated by major and minor thirds, which have been the
foundation of Western harmony since the fifteenth century, and which is usually called ‘chords’.
But other points are less clear-cut:
‘How [the notes of a scale] combine numerically’ – is this a reference to
the esoteric tradition of harmony-of-the-spheres which goes back to the Pythagoreans, or simply a way of saying that there are certain patterns in the
scale?
‘How [the notes of the scale] form melodies out of triplets’ (i.e. triads). Is this
a reference to the triadic nature of melody in the western tradition, where
certain melodic tones get a particular emphasis because of their structural importance in the triads? In functional harmony, a certain sounding chord is
described according to which function it fulfills, which means that the same
chord can mean different things depending on the context (see the ‘D’ in different versions of ‘Girl of the North Country’), or a chord can be called a G
chord without even containing the tone G (see ex. ‘Blood in my Eyes’). As I’ve
argued in some of the other chapters, the skillful handling of these features
can be observed in Dylan’s music, but I still doubt that that is what Lonnie
told him.
‘Axiomatic to rhythm and chord changes’. Yes, again: the relationship between
rhythm and harmony is close, even though they are different phenomena. The
pivot is ‘structural importance’, which is decided in the interrelations between
‘W I   L’

triad and rhythm: a structural tone is one which is placed on a strong beat,
but in some situations, a weak beat may become strong because it is inhabited
by a structural tone.
This is fairly straightforward, but Dylan actually makes a much wider
claim when he says that the notes of the scale are ‘axomatic to rhythm and
chord changes’. ‘Axiomatic’ would imply that the notes of the scale are the
fundamental building blocks upon which the system is defined, without themselves needing any definition within the system. This would mean that rhythm
is inconceivable without a structured pitch hierarchy, which – as a general
statement – is pure bullshit. He may be thinking only of his own system, but
for an artist working in a tradition based so heavily on rhythm, this becomes
a strange statement, to say the least.
Is this what Dylan means, then, or does he actually mean ‘triplets’ when he
says ‘triplets’, and hints at some direct, mystical connection between harmony
and triple rhythm? If that’s what Lonnie told him, he lied . . .
R: T L W ‘R’ 
It makes sense, judging from Dylan’s singing style in the late s and early s,
that he has had considerations about various ways to circle around the different rhythmical strata in a song. When he says, ‘With any type of imagination
you can hit notes at intervals and between backbeats, creating counterpoint
lines and then you sing off of it’ (p. ), this is almost verbatim what Levon
Helm says in the VH/BBC TV special about the making of ‘The Brown Album’, about how people think it must be difficult to sing lead and play drums
at the same time. For him, he says, it’s the other way around, because he can
sing ‘around’ what he plays (or vice versa).
Rhythm seems to be at least part of the system: ‘The method works on
higher or lower degrees depending on different patterns and the syncopation
of a piece’ (p. ). Syncopations – that can only be a rhythmical term. It
usually refers to a local displacement of the accent from a strong to a weak beat.
But what does it mean here – ‘higher or lower degrees’, ‘different patterns’, and
‘the syncopation of a piece’?
Later on, in one of the few specific statements about this elusive system,
Dylan refers to Link Wray’s ‘Rumble’ as one of the pieces that uses this
method. He says:

Classic Albums – The Band: The Band (), directed by Bob Smeaton.

II H  U
Once I understood what I was doing, I realized that I wasn’t the first one to do
it, that Link Wray had done the same thing in his classic song ‘Rumble’ many
years earlier. Link’s song had no lyrics, but he had played with the same numerical
system. It would never have occurred to me where the song’s power had come from
because I had been hypnotized by the tone of the piece.
He then compares this to a performance by Martha Reeves where she ‘beat a
tambourine in triplet form [. . . ] and she phrased the song as if the tambourine were her entire band’.
‘Rumble’ is an instrumental, played by a combo of two guitars, bass and
drums. It is easy to see how the raw intensity may have caught Dylan’s interest.
The introduction goes something like this:
D
D
E
D
.
.
:
.
.
.
:
.
.
.
---0-----0-----|-0-----------------------|-------------0-----0-----|
---3-----3-----|-0-----------------------|-------------3-----3-----|
---2-----2-----|-1-----------------------|-------------2-----2-----|
---0-----0-----|-2-----------------------|-------------0-----0-----|
---0-----0-----|-2-----------------------|-------------------------|
---------------|-0-----------------------|-------------------------|
|
|
|
| :
.
.
.
| :
.
.
.
|
|-------------------------|-------------------------|
|-------------------------|-------------------------|
|-------------------------|-------------------------|
Bass
|-------------------------|-------------------------|
|-------------------------|-------------------------|
|-0-----1-----2-----3-----|-0-----1-----2-----3-----|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| :
.
.
.
| :
.
.
.
|
Cymbal
|-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-|-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-|
|
|
Bass drum
|-x-----x-----x-----x-x-x-|-x-----x-----x-----x-x-x-|
This is really all there is to the song – the riff above is repeated a couple
of times on each of the scale steps through which the tune goes. The only
deviations from this are a ‘solo’ verse, which consists of violent tremolo strumming, and a turnaround figure after each verse, which adds two beats to the
general four beats per measure, giving it all a limp that is certain to wake one
up, should one against all likelihood have fallen asleep:
‘W I   L’

D
D
B7
:
.
:
.
.
---0-----0-----|-------2-----------------|
---3-----3-----|------0------------------|
---2-----2-----|-----2-------------------|
---0-----0-----|----1--------------------|
---------------|-2-----------------------|
---------------|-------------------------|
E
D
D
E
:
.
.
.
.
.
:
.
.
.
:
|-------------3-0---------------------|-------------2-----2-----|-0----|-----------------3-0-----------------|-------------3-----3-----|-0----|---------------------2-0-------------|-------------2-----2-----|-1----|-------------------------2-0---------|-------------0-----0-----|-2----|-----------------------------2-0-----|-------------------------|-2----|---------------------------------3---|-0-----------------------|-0-----
It makes perfect sense that Dylan has liked this. There is the unpolished
character of the whole thing, which reminds one of the best moments of
Highway . There is the soundscape of sharply differentiated parts, each with
its own distinctive rhythmic pattern, in fact ‘creating counterpoint lines’:
• a raw electric guitar, slightly out of tune, pounding three-chord patterns
and a simple run at the end;
• a muffled bass playing simple, chromatic ascending figures over and
over again;
• two widely different percussion sounds – the cymbals with their insistent triplets and the bass drums with their dump ‘tam, tam, tam, ta-tata’;
• and the rhythm guitar, which only plays the strong beats and nothing
else.
Both guitars, in different ways, take the part of the drummer, as Dylan has
described his own solo guitar playing on several occasions, whereas the drums
do just as much ‘motivic’ or ‘thematic’ work as any of the others.
But what does it have to do with Lonnie Johnson and mathematical music?
At first sight: nothing.
At second sight: well, the number three is all over the place: the main line
of the guitar is three chords – silence – three chords – etc, ended by a measure
which is extended from × to × beats. The cymbals play differeqnt kinds
of triplets all the time, and the bass drum plays three long and three short.
Hey, perhaps we’re on to something here? Triplets – what is it about triplets?
He says earlier:
I’m not a numerologist. I don’t know why the number  is more metaphysically
powerful than the number , but it is.

II H  U
There is a long line of thinking behind this; the difference between two and
three has been central to all numerological systems throughout the history of
ideas, going back to the Pythagoreans and the Platonists.
I’m not saying Dylan is a Platonist (and he says himself that he’s not a
numerologist, so we better believe him, right?)(Right!), but it is not either
unlikely that he has picked up some sort of idea along these lines, and why
not from Lonnie Johnson? And if he believes the beauty of the system is that it
works, regardless of artifice: the audience will go wild, no matter – if it works,
then why not use it?
Be that as it may, the beauty of this explanation is that it works whether
Dylan is right or not and whether there is a firm basis for the system or not.
What Link Wray does, through his use of various permutations of threes, is
to create a polyphonic structure with different layers of rhythmic activity in
different instrument parts, all going on at the same time, and creating a remarkable complexity with very limited means. Whether it works because of
the number three or because of the raw sound, the hypnotic repetitivity, and
the underground Rumble of ominous ta-ta-ta in the drums and weird chromatics in the bass, barely audible as such, but mostly very disturbing – . . . who
am I to tell why it works?
And these elements: pared down resources, insistent repetition, sometimes
weird ‘chromatics’ (which one might – O horrible thought! – have mistaken
for mistakes, but now we know better . . . ), guitars playing drums and vice
versa – these are precisely what characterizes Dylan’s band and his playing
from  and in the following years.
Now it remains to take a closer look at some of his own music making
during those years, to see where the triplets went.
N: D  P
‘I’m not a numerologist’, Dylan says (p. ). But before and after this statement, he builds up such a metaphysical web around the force of numbers,
that the only definition of a numerologist that he does not fit into, is the kind
who calculate a lucky number from the letters of their name. Alright, this is
after all not a book about Rod Stewart.
In the Rolling Stone interview from November , where he first mentioned the Lonnie Jonhson method explicitly, he says:
Lonnie Johnson, the blues-jazz player, showed me a technique on the guitar in
maybe . I hadn’t really understood it when he first showed it to me. It had to
‘W I   L’

do with the mathematical order of the scale on a guitar, and how to make things
happen, where it gets under somebody’s skin and there’s really nothing they can do
about it, because it’s mathematical.
In Chronicles, he continues:
I had the idea that he was showing me something secretive, though it didn’t make
sense to me at the time. . .
So, we have an esoteric system communicated to him in the secrecy of
the back room, which works, regardless of what the player or listener know,
understands, or thinks of it, solely on the force of the mathematical structure
of the system – ‘because it’s mathematical.’ Methinks it’s time to step back in
time.
T P T   The belief that something can
work simply ‘because it’s mathematical’, depends in some way or another on
the idea that numbers have certain metaphysical qualities with a real influence
on things in reality.
This is the foundation of the Pythagorean theory of numbers, which I’ve
alluded to above. Most people know the Pythagorean Theorem, about the
relations between the sides in a right-angled triangle: a  + b  = c  (Dylan
knows it too, even though he got the formula wrong in the Rome interview,
where he presented it as ‘a square equals b square equals c square’, which may
reveal a truth on a more profound level, but which would do you no good in
your calculus  class).
But the classic didactical myth, handed down in numerous treatises throughout Antiquity and the Middle Ages, tells of how Pythagoras walked by a blacksmith who was pounding away on his anvils, and Pythagoras discovered that
some of the anvils produced harmonious sounds together, while others did
not. He investigated this closer, and found that the mass of the harmonious
anvils were in simple proportions to each other – :, :, or : – while those
in more complex relations produced unpleasing sounds. An anvil twice as big
as an other would sound an octave lower, whereas one . times the size,
would sound like . . . dunno, the Shaggs or something.
The physical facts of this legend have been proven wrong, but what matters is the belief () that harmoniousness depends on proportions that can be
expressed in simple ratios, () that these proportions, which can be described
in a purely mathematical form, not only govern harmony in music, but also
in the universe as a whole, between the soul and the body, and in the bal-

II H  U
ance between the body fluids, and () that there is some kind of connection
between the different kinds and areas of harmony. Thus, playing a tune in a
mode which emphasises certain intervals, will influence the balance between
the body fluids, and can thus alter the mood of the listeners.
This discovery and the theoretical/religious system that was built around it,
became essential to all ideas of harmony and beauty from Antiquity up until
the eighteenth century. Plato considered this kind of mathematical harmony
to be the fundamental property of the world. In his creation myth Timaios,
the creator-god shapes the world beginning with unity (which in this system
of thought is not considered a number at all), then extending it with ‘the other’
– two – and ‘the intermediary’ – three, and around the corresponding number
series , , ,  and , , , , the whole world is created. In Plato’s thought,
each number has its distinctive metaphysical character.
In the Middle Ages, this idea was adapted to the Christian frame of thought.
In the apocryphical Wisdom of Solomon in the Bible, it says, ‘You have ordered
all things in number, measure, and weight’ (Wisdom of Solomon . ), and
this verse was quoted time and again in medieval treatises on music.
Thus, what at first sight may look like a dry and slightly tedious exercise
in simple arithmetics, is of vast importance because behind the dry façade
lies the notion that numbers and numerical relations are reflections of the
divine principles governing the universe; that we find the same relations in
the universe as a whole, in human beings, in musical sounds, and in visible
beauty, and that by knowing the numbers, we can affect humans and glimpse
God.
This is why the slight irregularities in the purely mathematical definition
of the scale became such a heated topic. The theorists spent gallons of ink
on discussing the problem with the division of a tone in two equal halves,
which according to the Pythagorean system is impossible, because it is founded on ratios between natural numbers (the equal division of a tone requires
the square root of , which was unknown to ancient and medieval thinkers).
The Christian heritage from antiquity was largely Platonic. One of the
consequences of the humanistic re-appraisal of the classical traditions during
the Renaissance, was that other voices from antiquity were added to the stew.
Aristotle, with his less mystical and more rationalistic approach, was revived
from the twelfth century, and in the field of music theory, Aristoxenos, whose
theories were based on geometrical rather than arithmetical considerations,
was more palatable to the practically oriented writers of the Renaissance, who
were more concerned with actual sound and preferred the pure harmonies of
just intonation to the theoretically ‘correct’ but ugly-sounding harmonies.
‘W I   L’

A D . If you object that this doesn’t seem to have
much to do with Dylan and Lonnie, you’re absolutely right. It serves to
demonstrate how important the concept of mathematical music has been, way
back in history, and how widely the implications it carries reach.
In order to gradually work our way back to Dylan again, one might point
to yet another element that entered the picture in the Florentine academies in
the fifteenth century: an extension of the notion of the special mystical character of certain numbers. The mainstream medieval tradition had mainly been
concerned with twos and threes, but – partly owing to influence from the cabbalistic tradition – a more extended array of meaningful numbers was established and systematized. The Fibonacci sequences and other similar number
sequences, and all the sacred numbers of the Bible – just about every number
seemed to have a secret meaning, a value beyond the numerical one.
Furthermore, the mystical ‘range’ of the numbers widened. While the numerical foundation of the world had earlier been thought of more as a precondition on a structural level, more effort was now spent on pinpointing
how and where the force of the various numbers could be applied, and on
specifying the meanings of various numbers. Number symbolism flourished.
This is the background for Dylan’s perception of the system he learned
back in ’. In the following quotation from Chronicles (p. ), I have emphasised some words which highlight the strong dichotomy that Dylan sees
between the world of  and the world of :
The system works in a cyclical way. Because you’re thinking in odd numbers instead
of even numbers, you’re playing with a different value system. Popular music is
usually based on the number  and then filled with fabrics, colors, effects and
technical wizardry to make a point. But the total effect is usually depressing and
oppressive and a dead end which at the most can only last in a nostalgic way. If you’re
using an odd numerical system, things that strengthen a performance automatically
begin to happen and make it memorable for the ages. You don’t have to plan or
think ahead.
What is most striking, I think (apart from the description of popular music as based on the number , which quite bluntly disregards the blues/jazz
tradition, where a triple feel is predominant), is the statement that these are
different worlds, different value systems, which have an automatic effect on
At least that’s what some analysts think, but since secret numerological structures are by
definition hidden, ‘revealing’ these structures also means (re-)constructing them. In many
cases, the constructions are hardly more than the fantasies of the modern interpreters.


II H  U
the performance: it is not something the performer does, but something that
is done through the performer.
Regarding the opposition that Dylan claims to exist between  and , I’d
rather not go into that; what is worth noticing is that these are not symbolic
numbers – in the sense of numbers to which have been ascribed a meaning,
hidden or overt; what Dylan talks about is inherent properties of the numbers
themselves (or of the things that are governed by these numbers). This is why
the long detour through the ancient Pythagoreans is relevant: because that’s
where such ideas developed and where this kind of thinking, as expressed by
Dylan, stems from.
Does Dylan believe all this? Yes, I would think so. He is after all a poet, a
sponge, a mystic, a sage; he takes what he can gather from coincidence, mixes
it all together, and out comes . . . well, sometimes Knocked out Loaded, but we
can forgive him that, since he also produces Blood on the Tracks and Chronicles,
which is a fascinating read, even though what he writes is less clear than what
an academic might have wanted.
Time to look at ‘melody’.
M: T  ,    
In a diatonic scale there are eight notes, in a pentatonic there are five. If you’re
using the first scale, and you hit ,  and  to the phrase and then repeat it, a
melody forms. Or you can use  three times. Or you can use  once and  twice.
It’s indefinite what you can do, and each time would create a different melody.
Now, what is he talking about?!
In a way, it’s very simple. In a scale there are certain tones, and if you pick
some of them and put them together in a sequence, ‘a melody forms’.
I doubt it, however, that his point is as trivial as that. He’s not describing
just any melody, but rather a way of creating counter-melodies that – for
some mysterious reason, which in Dylan’s version of it is connected with the
symbolic force of numbers (or with the force of numbers tout court) – will
always yield good results:
In classical theory, two is the first of the feminine numbers, which were considered
weaker than the masculine odd numbers (divide an even number and nothing is left; two
evens can never make an odd; odd + even produces an odd, which are therefore the masters,
etc). One might take Dylan to mean that popular music has been forced into the weak
domain of , which makes it a depressive dead end because  is the productive number.
But again: I’d rather not go there.

‘W I   L’

There’s no mystery to it and it’s not a technical trick. The scheme is for real. For me,
this style would be most advantageous, like a delicate design that would arrange
the structure of whatever piece I was performing. [. . . ] And because this works on
its own mathematical formula, it can’t miss (p. f ).
T      . . . ?! And this melody – just what is
it? First of all, I severely doubt that the exact tones he mentions has anything
to do with it; most likely, they are whatever numbers popped into his mind
at the time of writing it (the passage in the book resembles the kind of vague
ramblings that he occasionally gets himself into during interviews). But for
the sake of completeness, let’s take his example at face value and see what the
result becomes. In the key of G, we get the following:
Chord
Scale
alternatively:
||--3--||-----------------0--2--3--|| --1--3---||
||--0--||--------0--1--3-----------|| ---------||
||--0--||--0--2--------------------|| ---------||
||--0--||--------------------------|| ---------||
||--2--||--------------------------|| ---------||
||--3--||--------------------------|| ---------||
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
7 8
\end{tab}
\begin{tab}
||--------2--------2--||-----------||-----2--2--||
||-----3--------3-----||-----------||--1--------||
||--2--------2--------||--2--2--2--||-----------||
||--------------------||-----------||-----------||
||--------------------||-----------||-----------||
||--------------------||-----------||-----------||
2 5 7 2 5 7
2 2 2
4 7 7
The first thing we notice is that the steps , , and  incidentally form a chord:
D major (or D minor, if we use the minor seventh for the ‘’). This might
be a clue to a solution, but I don’t think it is, for several reasons. The main
reason is that the tones and the melodic fragment that is mentioned here, a
broken D major chord against (or even ‘in’) the key of G, is not something I
recognize from Dylan’s music making. The dominant is not very important in
Dylan’s music – one might say: other than by being absent (in which capacity
it draws some attention to itself ).
The other reason is that the D major chord emerges out of the numbers
, ,  only under the assumption that Dylan uses the traditional numbering
of the tones in the scale, but this is not necessarily so. We know from the
terminology of blues musicians that there are many ways to refer to chords and
scales. I don’t know if Lonnie Johnson is known to have used any particular
terminology in this respect, but at least one alternative is worth mentioning
before we abandon the search for a meaning in those particular numbers: If we
II H  U

shift the relation between numbers and scale one step, so that ‘’ denotes the
first step above the keynote and not the keynote itself, we get the following:
Chord
Scale
||--3--||-----------------0--2--3--||
||--0--||--------0--1--3-----------||
||--0--||--0--2--------------------||
||--0--||--------------------------||
||--2--||--------------------------||
||--3--||--------------------------||
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
alternatively:
--1--3---||
---------||
---------||
---------||
---------||
---------||
6 7
||-----0--3-----0--3--||-----------||-----3--3--||
||--0--------0--------||--0--0--0--||--3--------||
||--------------------||-----------||-----------||
||--------------------||-----------||-----------||
||--------------------||-----------||-----------||
||--------------------||-----------||-----------||
2 5 7 2 5 7
2 2 2
4 7 7
This makes far more sense: a playing around with the main steps in the
chord, with a sixth thrown in for good measure. This accomodates both the
‘sing-song’ style of singing that we all love so well, and many of Dylan’s trademark licks.
F: I R
In a more thorough study than this, I might have gone through a number of
tapes and searched out examples to corroborate this interpretation. But when
I do go in that direction, in the next chapter, it is not in order to check for
these particular numbers. I strongly suspect that such a search would be futile;
one might find such examples, but they would not prove anything. A more
fruitful path is, I believe, to take Dylan’s statement more as an indication of a
general principle than as an exact example. This principle would consist in:
. a selection of some scale steps, either within the chord or, for that matter, outside of it,
. which are combined to simple patterns
. which are repeated or combined as building blocks.
What this means is that Dylan’s system is a formulaic system of composition/performance, where a set of generic rules can be applied in a variety of situations
and produce the goods.

This has been described in the field of literature by Albert Lord and Milman Perry, who
studied the formulaic composition of epic poetry in the Balkans, and compared it, as a
‘W I   L’

This not only makes sense in relation to Dylan’s music making since ,
it also makes sense as a description of an improvisational system. In order to be
usable in practice – not the least as a ‘learned’ system – such a system should
be simple, and it should be based on or related to a wider musical system (in
this case, e.g. the musical grammar of the blues and its descendants).
A    (   ) A tonal system means
a system out of which meaning can be gleaned from conjunctions of tones.
Fundamentally, musical meaning does not lie in the connection between certain tones and something in the outside world (i.e. a piece of music cannot
in itself mean love, rain, brick walls, etc.), but is founded on connections
between certain combinations of sounds and certain experiences and expectations, and this must be learned, through repeated exposure to the connection
and to the regularity by which the sound is accompanied by the experience.
This is what we know when we know a musical style: we know that in a blues
tune an E is followed by an A, and we expect a turnaround at the end. In this
way, and only in this way, can the tones of ‘Another Brick In The Wall’ mean
meat grinder, inhumanity, and bricks.
Musical meaning thus lies in a habitual fulfillment of the expectation of
this kind of connection to take place – and the constant adjustment of expectations against the experienced fulfillments.
A complex system at the base allows for a wide array of possible meanings
within the system. In the classical music tradition, harmony has been the central field of development since the fourteenth century, culminating in the invention of the twelve-tone technique in the early twentieth century. Thereby,
the range of possible connections between tones was stretched to the extreme
(some would say: beyond that): everything is accounted for (or accountable)
within the system.
But that is not the only option. Expectations can be established temporarily. Play an ever-changing series of tones, and nobody knows what to expect
for the next tone – play , , , , , . . . and you have already established a pattern with certain inherent rules which makes people expect a  to follow; and
play that against a song which follows another set of rules, and you already
(then, at least) living tradition, with the Homeric epics, and found the same fundamental
traits. The conclusion that the Iliad and the Odyssey are written-out versions of improvised
poetry, while upsetting some notions about the Genius who laid the foundation for
Western Literature, is hardly surprising, since Homeros was supposed to have lived before
the development of writing.

II H  U
have a quite complex field of potential meaning, created with very simple
means.
I  Against this background, Dylan’s description can
be rephrased in more general terms:
Make patterns out of any selection of tones, and repeat and combine them;
by repeating the patterns, you thereby temporarily establish a new tonal
system, exploiting the field of tension between the musical backbone of the
song and the new pattern;
this meaning is brought out in the interplay between expectations and experience – between the cultural knowledge that the listeners and the musicians
have, and the newly established tonal system;
in order for this to be recognized as a new tonal system, however ephemeral,
in the short time that is at the musician’s disposal, the patterns must be simple;
but if they are, and a balance is struck between redundancy and inventiveness (there is a limit to how long you can play      ), it will always work,
with these very simple means.
A 
This is, I believe, the core of Dylan’s technique, which he has explored – with
varying degrees of success, but mostly ending up with a huge surplus in the
balance – during the s and the s. It also explains some of his other statements where he explains his system in more general terms:
A song executes itself on several fronts and you can ignore musical customs. All
you need is a drummer and a bass player, and all shortcomings become irrelevant
as long as you stick to the system.
The method works on higher or lower degrees depending on different patterns
and the syncopation of a piece.
Very few would be converted to it because it had nothing to do with technique
and musicians work their whole lives to be technically superior players.
This can be translated fairly exactly, if not word for word then at least concept
by concept, into the following:
A song can exploit several different meaning systems at the same time, and you
are not limited to the rules set by one such set of musical customs. Since I play
rock, I need a drummer and a bass player, but all shortcomings become irrelevant
as long as you stick to the system, since this system is based on a conscious play
with ‘inventive redundancy’ and not on the intricacy of the base system and the
technical prowess of the musician.
‘W I   L’

Since the system works in the interplay beween the song and the newly established fields of meaning, the concrete way of playing or singing will have to be
adjusted to the different patterns already present in the song.
Very few would be converted to it because, whereas most music making takes
place in contexts where value judgement is based on complexity and most musicians
thus depend on technical prowess to accomplish this, the ‘Lonnie’ method instead
emphasises and requires simplicity, both on the part of the performer and as a
constitutive element of the system itself.
This is my take at what Dylan has meant: he describes a method for temporarily establishing a formulaic system of musical meaning, involving a conscious
use of certain numbers, at the base of which may lie a belief that these numbers have certain objective properties. In short, what I have called inventive
redundancy.
In Dylan’s description, he emphasises the redundancy part, and pairs it
with the metaphysical qualities of numbers which make the system Just Work.
My interpretation is a little different: That the redundancy may be a precondition for the system, but what really makes it Just Work is the other element:
inventiveness. I don’t think it is a system that someone else can learn to use, at
least not directly, as a system – it is hardly insignificant that there are twenty
years of touring and music making between the time he first learned it and
when he understood how to put it to use. It has taken him those years to gain
the musicianship (and perhaps also the need for routine which persistent touring must bring with it) which he then could cross-fertilize with what Lonnie
Johnson had told him, to produce his new method. In other words: I think
Dylan should receive more of the credit for it than Lonnie.
Chapter 
Three Tambourine Men
L
  D never gets better than during the moments when
one senses that he and his band are engaging in some kind of exploration on stage – where a small melodic figure is exposed to any kind of
treatment imaginable. This is a style which has been used consistently during
the Never-Ending Tour years, and it may have to do with the ‘Lonnie Johnson’
method. This chapter may therefore be seen as a more practical application,
to concrete music, of the more theoretically oriented points in the previous
chapter.
A personal favourite in this category is the trading of solos between John
Jackson and Dylan on ‘Positively th Street’ in Brixton, London, . But
there are three perforamances in particular which stand out as examples. As it
happens, they are all live versions of the same song – ‘Mr Tambourine Man’.
The first is from Drammenshallen, Norway, June , , the second from
Cascais, Portugal, July , , and the third from Vienna, Austria, March
.
Is this a coincidence, that they are all Tambourine Men? Perhaps not – as
I intend to show, there are some musical traits in this song which may have
opened up the possibilities that he explores in these performances.
P: T S – A   
Most songs begin with the key note, the tonic. A song in C major begins with
a C major chord, etc. Usually some kind of dynamics is created by moving to
other tonal areas – the dominant and the subdominant.
This is discussed more extensively in some of the other chapters, such as The propelling
harmony of ‘Dear Landlord’ (), Just Like A Woman Revisited (), and in the first chapter,
p. . – The following presentation will be full of references to chords, chord functions and
tones. I will distinguish between these with typographical means: note names will be set



II H  U
Put simply, this means that there is a contrast between two tonal areas: a
level of rest, represented by the keynote, and a contrasting level, represented
by the dominant, the tone a fifth above the keynote.
The fifth is the stable, loyal companion to the keynote, always there, not
without its conflicts, but they are always resolved, and always in favour of the
tonic – somewhat like a good old (or bad old, depending on the perspective)
patriarchal marriage. In fact, one might consider all music within the western
musical tradition (until the late nineteenth century in the art-music tradition,
and until this day in the popular traditions) as nothing more than a play with
the balance between these two scale steps.
But then there is the third important chord in the basic three-chord pattern: the subdominant. It usually stands a little behind the other two in the
lineup – doesn’t have the self-conscious power of the tonic, nor the rebellious
subservience of the dominant – but in ‘Mr Tambourine Man’, it’s the real
protagonist.
The subdominant has a double role. Partly it is a chord closely related to
the tonic, in many cases hardly more than a variant of it. This is most clearly
seen in the standard blues embellishment, presented on . In this capacity,
it functions as a reenforcement of the tonic. But it also has a more expansive
role, as the first step away from the tonic, especially in combination with
the dominant, in some kind of cadential progression. The mother of all such
cadences, at least in text books, is TSDT (the beginning of ‘Blowin’ in
the Wind’ is an example). The dominant creates a tension which demands a
resolution, back to the tonic, and the subdominant is a helper on the way to
get there, roughly speaking.
What is special about ‘Mr Tambourine Man’ is that it does not begin on
the keynote, but on the subdominant, from where it returns to the Tonic
by way of the Dominant (SDT). In other words: the song begins in the
middle of the cycle of tension and resolution that the cadential progression
is, but without ever establishing, or even hinting at, a level of resolution first.
Instead, Mr Tambourine Man starts on the second step of the TSDT cycle.
One might say that the song doesn’t have a real beginning: musically speaking,
it has already started before we hear the first sounds, since the Subdominant
implies someting to precede it.
in italics, chord names in bold face, and the abbreviated function names, T, S, D, in
typewriter style.
T T M

The chord on ‘. . . (song for) me’ is again a Subdominant, and in a way we
have come full circle – only it is the wrong circle. (S-D-T-S, instead of the
‘correct’ T-S-D-T).
After the initial burst, the Tonic that we were cheated of in the beginning is
now finally established. – Or is it? The next phrase, ‘I’m not sleepy and there is
no place I’m going to’, brings another fragment of the standard cadential cycle.
This time it’s the beginning: TSD. This gesture, which is supposed to be the
build-up phase in the cycle, where the Dominant proves its ‘proper’ function
as the disruptive force demanding a resolution, here works the opposite way:
it is how all the mid-verses, the full verses, and the mid-refrains end, after
shorter or longer stretches of uncertainty, and Dominant becomes the point
of repose, where some kind of resolution is actually reached.
Concerning the refrains, the exposition above can be summarized in the
schematical overview:
S D
S D
T S || T
T S || T
S D .
S D T
|
|
First an ‘upside down’ cadence going the wrong full circle, then a ‘reversed’
cadence resting on the unstable D step; this is then repeated, and we finally,
finally get the resolution in the very last line of the refrains.
And the verses? They can be found in the intersection between the two
‘wrong’ cadence gestures:
S D
|
______________
T S || T
|
S D .
The first ends with T S, the second begins with it. The chords are the
same, but the function is different: first an uneasy coming to rest on the wrong
step, next the start of a new beginning.
What happens in the verses is not so much that the T S || T S part
is repeated, as that the two halves merge into one little T S segment which is
repeated ad libitum.
S D
||: T S :||
D .
The difference is subtle but important: This segment becomes a single unit
which retains the character of both its former incarnations at the same time; it
is impossible to decide whether the chords to the line ‘the haunted frightened

II H  U
trees’ in the last stanza is an end or a beginning: it is both (and therefore,
perhaps, neither).
All in all we might say that in the musical narrative of Mr Tambourine
Man everything is backwards and upside down (as an equivalent to the textual
narrative of ‘All Along the Watchtower’). Every character plays someone else’s
role. It’s a musical carneval . . .
F M: D, 
Memories . . . This was the first concert I didn’t see. It was the first, because I
could have been there, but I wasn’t – because I had no idea it took place. I was
fourteen and also had no idea that Dylan had sent shock waves through the
musical world with his conversion. I don’t remember exactly, but I like to imagine that while Dylan was playing his first show on Norwegian ground, I was
playing football on my grandparents’ lawn, spitting distance from Drammen.
But it is also another ‘first’: it was the tape with which I lost my tapecollector’s virginity. A kind soul (thanks, Karl-Erik!) had allowed me to pick
five tapes from his list – five! – five more hours-and-a-half of live Dylan; five
drops from the ocean which I knew was out there. I had no idea what it would
sound like – concert tapes? could I expect to hear anything at all, apart from
screeches and scratches? I had no idea – but I knew I had crossed a line. I
was no longer a casual listener with a soft spot for Dylan – I was a dedicated
fan and a tape collector. I had gone to distances, I had made an effort to seek
out secret material. I had entered the circles which had access to this material.
I had become a memeber of a secret brotherhood. If the tapes sounded like
crap, this would in fact make me an even more dedicated fan.
Drammenshallen  was the first tape I put on. Out into my kitchen
flowed ‘The Times They Are A-Changin’ ’ in the most fantastic arrangement
I had ever heard (I had only heard the official releases, mind you), and the
rest of the show was just as brilliant. I don’t know if it is the thrill of the
first time experience, but to this day, many of the songs from this concert
are among my all-time favorite versions: ‘Just Like a Woman’, ‘Girl from the
North Country’, ‘The Times They Are A-Changin’ ’ – and then there was the
Tambourine Man . . .
The others were the ‘Judas!’ concert from May , the Boston show from the 
Rolling Thunder Revue, and one of the  Brixton shows. It is a list I can recommend
to any new tape collector.

T T M

F . Drammen : Mr Tambourine man (beginning)
It begins innocently enough (see Figure .). So much so that it took me
a couple of listenings to even notice it, among the other gems on the tape.
The intro and the beginning of the singing sounds nothing out of the ordinary – closer to the saccarine Budokan than to the desperate Charlotte from
December , which is a fierce contender for the # spot on my list .
But it grows. The end of the first chorus is a foreboding of things to come:
the audience doesn’t know it, Dylan himself doesn’t know it yet, but the final
measures contain in nuce everything that is needed for what over the next
couple of minutes will become a remarkable, memorable, performance.
These are the elements he plays around with: a displacement of the rhythm,
either in a simple, basic syncopation (|.. . . .|) or a looser phrasing, involving some kind of triplets, but which in many cases is impossible to fix
in notation; a reduction of the melody to a handful of tones and figures; a
positioning of the lyrics to these fixed, syncopated figures, with complete disrespect for the inherent rhythm of the text.

II H  U
F . Drammen : Mr Tambourine man, first verse
In the first verse (figure .), it is one figure and one figure only that rules.
The line c a g f e recurs again and again, and the tones a and e are elevated from
their anonymous positions in the original melody, to become the constantly
recurring start- and end-points in an endless series of repetitions.
In the second verse (figure .), the melody is raised from its position at
the bttom of the scale around the lower c an octave up above the upper c.
The tones a and e gradually loose their freshly aquired status. Their place is
taken by f, c, and g. These also happen to be the key-notes of the chords F,
C and G, but that should not fool anyone into believing that no harmonical
tension is left. On the contrary: the tones occur where the logic of the motivic
repetition decree – not where the harmony might suggest. And lastly, the span
of melodic movements widens in frequent, restless skips through c g f.
The last verse (figure .) continues the rumination over the three tones c,
f, and g. The rhythm becomes looser and looser, wilder and wilder, more and
more engaged, mostly rushed, but once in a while pausing, as if to give the
band a chance to catch up (or perhaps to allow the singer a chance to come
up for air).
T T M

F . Drammen : Mr Tambourine man, second verse
A new logic is created, a musical logic which only applies here, during
these five minutes, but which are undisputable while it goes on. Towards the
end of the verse, this logic has become so integrated in the performance and
the listener’s perception of it that it comes as a great surprise when a new
inflection is suddenly introduced. The direction of motion is reversed from
the predominant downward churning, to a rising figure, which also touches
the highest tone in the entire song, a high g. Coincidentally, this happens to
the lines ‘With all memory and fate | driven deep beneath the waves’, which
thus – had anyone been in doubt – becomes the emotional climax of the song.
The elements that make up the logic of the Drammen Tambourine Man
come together in a particularly successful union on this night and in this song.
But they are recognizable in other songs and on other nights during the same

II H  U
F . Drammen : Mr Tambourine man, last verse
T T M

tour. The reggae-ish syncopated looseness of phrasing is prominent during the
entire  tour (an obvious example from the same concert is ‘Knockin’ on
Heaven’s door’, to which the audience responds with an embarrassing display
of ‘stadium clapping’, to which Dylan mysteriously replies: ‘You people got
rhythm. You got more rhythm than they got back in Texas’ – either an insult
to the Texans, or a subtly ironic comment).
F   . What is it then, that makes this particular performance stand out? It is hard to tell – it could be that Dylan is
particularly inspired, but what is that? What is it that he’s doing, which either
brings about this inspiration (which doesn’t seem to be there in any particular
degree when the song begins) or brings it through?
In Performing Artist, Paul Williams quotes Christopher Ricks’ reaction to
the song:
Dylan alters his inflection throughout, his voice rising on a word or phrase where
we would expect it to fall, an vice versa. The effect is to invite and require us
to experience the song as something new (our old sense of its language has been
annulled, destroyed).
I like the description. It is only natural that a literary scholar like Ricks would
emphasise the sense of the song’s language. But I, as a musical scholar, would
much rather point out the musical work as the decisive playground here.
Tentatively, I’d like to point out three possible factors.
First of all, the the phrasing – the interplay between the singing and the
text – is in compliance with general rules for generating musical interest, not
the least the interest which is generated in the area where text and music meet,
where the sonorous aspects of text (such as rhythm, stress, vowel quality, speed)
become a matter of musical insterest – an area which has always been at the
centre of Dylan’s creative output. This is, I believe, the basic precondition for
the performance to work: Dylan makes the text talk in a different way than
usual – and than usual talk – by manipulating those elements other than the
literal meaning that words consist of, through a rigorous musical logic.
And this logic is the second factor: the performance of ‘Mr Tambourine
Man’ from Drammen is a worthy representative of the ‘Lonnie method’, seven
years before it was made into a conscious method. Even though most or all
Paul Willliams, Performing Artist –: The Middle Years (London: Omnibus,
), p. .

Cf. the final discussion in the chapter ‘Beauty May Only Turn to Rust’, .


II H  U
of the elements in the performance are recognizable from other performances,
they are combined more consistently here than elsewhere, and in stronger
accordance with the Lonnie-principles.
And thirdly, the motif that he chooses or finds is strong enough to establish
this additional level of (musical) meaning, and it is strong enough to carry the
interest of the listener (and, not to forget, that listener most actively involved:
the performer himself ).
Take away any of these elements – and you may still have a decent performance. But the combination . . .
S M: C, 
The second T-Man is a wonderful example of the ‘Lonnie’-style of playing:
Cascais, Portugal  Juli . The  tour is notorious for its long solos,
causing ordinary songs to clock in on well over ten minutes. This is no exception, and every minute is glorious, of course.
The Lonnie hat comes on during the first solo section, c. : into the
song. The background for this solo is not choruses and verses, but the circling
around the Tonic and the Subdominant which makes up most of the verses.
This is extended indefinitely – or to be more precise: the sequence D G/d is
played  times. After the first nine repetitions, the solo itself begins. In the
beginning, it is far from remarkable. Dylan doodles around with a couple of
tones, and some of them clearly sounds like errors – all in all, one of these
two-string things which on a bad day can become slightly vexing.
This isn’t one of those days.
Throughout the entire solo – two and a half minutes – six tones are played,
in two groups: an upper cluster of f, g, and a (and an occasional f]), and a
lower with c, c], and d. That’s all. These tones are played around with, in a
way which resembles how an Indian sitar player presents the tones in the raga
he has chosen.
Gradually, the tones find more fixed places, and the doodle morphs into a
little motif (at :):
G/d D
G/d
.
: . .
||------|--------------||
||*-----|-------------*||
||------|--------------||
||--7-3-|-5-3----------||
||*-----|-----3-45----*||
||------|--------------||
T T M
F . Cascais solo, beginning
This is repeated a couple of times, then cut up and stretched out:
G/d
D
G/d
.
: . .
.
: . .
-----|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-------------7-3-|-5-3-------------|-----------------|-------------3-45|-----------------|-----------------|-------------

II H  U

And then: the whole thing is played again, but started one beat earlier (at
:):
G/d
D
G/d
. .
: .
||---------|---------||
||---------|--------*||
||---------|---------||
||-7-3-5-3-|---------||
||---------|-3-45---*||
||---------|---------||
After :, the thing is played in yet another position:
D
G/d
: .
. .
||------------------||
||*----------------*||
||------------------||
||--7-3-5-3---------||
||*---------3-45---*||
||------------------||
T T M

These are the main variations that are used; repeated over and over again,
with slight variations – most prominent of which is the reduction of the motif
to the gesture a f . . | a g . . which lends it an uncompromising
insistency:
The shifting of the motif to three different position in the bar looks innocent enough on paper, but when heard, the character of the motif changes
completely from one version to the next, because of the way different tones
are emphasised in the interplay between the motif and the underlying chord
structure.
In general, the selection of tones includes c and f, both of which go against
the c] and f] of the key (D major). In addition to that, the key notes of the
two chords D and G occur among the notes in the motif, but they appear in
different positions in relation to the underlying chords.
This is an exaggeration, made with the best intentions: to make the effect of the system
stand out as clearly as possible, as something truly striking. A more appropriate word
would be ‘subtly’.


II H  U
In the first variant, the tone g is concealed, as a mere auxiliary tone to the
f/f] in the D chord, and when the chord G/d is reached, the melody strikes a d.
Thus, in the sections that use the first variant, D is the dominating sonority.
In the second variant, it is the other way around: the tone g falls within
the G chord block, and these two aspects of G-ishness reenforce each other
mutually and emphasise the G sonority. Furthermore, the additional tones in
the beginning of the motif, a and f, give the G chord a character of G, which
strengthens the G chord’s proper character even more. The D chord, on the
other hand, is dominated by the tone c, which gives the chord a Dish quality
– a quality which leads away from D and over to G.
The third variant is the most neutral of the three. If anything, the c in the
melody gives the G step a touch of Gsus, which suggests the implied harmonization: D . . . | Gsus4 . G . – far from dramatical, compared
to the other two. Which is not necessary: the effect of shifting the motif is
more than enough.
The solo as a whole is a text-book illustration of the method Dylan describes in Chronicles: pick some tones, repeat them, make some changes, and
the effect will inevitably come, no matter what.
This is also to say that the analysis above is not a suggestion as to what
Dylan might have thought while he was standing there, on stage in Portugal,
playing some notes over and over again. He was not thinking: ‘if I start this
motif one beat earlier, this will emphasise the ambiguity between beginning
and ending in the alternation between Tonic and Subdominant’ – on the
contrary: he was just doing it, and the effect came afterwards.
A . After the solo follows a verse (‘Take me disapperaring . . . ’) which
is sung with a fire which I hear as inspired by the successful solo. But then
comes the real stroke of genius: In the middle of the following refrain, over
the Dominant chord A, what does Dylan play if not that little bugger of a
motif, again!
Not a single tone is ‘right’, but still, the effect is glorious.
The motif was devised to work in the environment between Tonic and
Subdominant, where it, in a mixture of serendipity and musicality, subtly
brought out different aspects of this environment.
Instead, the tone c gets a certain emphasis, so much so that an imagined harmonization
of those passages might be D . C/d | G/d. introduced in the arrangement in the long harp
solo towards the end change, uneven phrase lengths, everything emphasises the unstable
element, the ‘waiting for the resolution’ character of the dominant.

T T M

Now we’re on the Dominant, and and every one of the tones that have been
in play the first time around – g, d, c – clashes violently with the sustained A
chord. But by throwing in the motif like this Dylan proves two things: first,
that he is a true cubist: the motif works like a Picassean nose-from-all-sidesat-once, a synthesis of all the possibilities inherent in the song, in the motif,
in the combination of the two, in the interplay within the band (I haven’t yet
mentioned that Bucky Baxter also picks up on the motif after a while), in the
Portugese summer night – and with this little flick of the wrist, he also proves
that everything is possible.
One last time we get to hear our little friend the motif, towards the end of
the song (at :). This time we’re back in the Tonic area again, and it’s like
the afterglow of an orgasm. Hence, there is not much to say about it.
T T M: V, 
My third example of a successful use of the Lonnie method, is the Tambourine
Man from Vienna, April , . It is not as striking as the Cascais experience,
but it is interesting both because it is a vocal example, because of the interplay
between instruments and voice, and because of the ways the song was sung
before and after this night.
Again, it is a very simple figure, a selection of some tones from the scale,
that is in the centre of attention. In this case, it’s not just ‘some’ tones – it’s
the entire scale.
It turns up for the first time at the end of the first refrain:
There is, however, more to say about the performance, such as the final harp solo, where
the tempo slows down to a majestic pavane and the chords change – again! – to finally
give the Dominant the prominence it requires but has so far been denied. Then again:
perhaps the time has come to stop talking and succumb to the power of sound, which
words can only mimic.


II H  U
At the end of the first verse, we see two other elements being combined with
the downward scalar rush: first, the phrase starts on a different tone, and
second, the contraction of the whole phrase in a rapid succession of eightnotes, with complete disregard for any inherent phrasing in the melody or
any textual rhythm:
In the second refrain, the motif comes into full bloom in several downward
rushes, this time from the high e and down an entire octave or more, first to
the d below and later yet another half octave down to b:
T T M

As the song unfolds, these elements are combined and recombined in
ever-changing ways, never straying far from the simplicity of the original
downward scale, but always introducing some little variation which keeps
the listener (this listener, anyway) interested. And just as with the Man from
Drammenshallen, , much of what makes this particular performance stand
out, is recognizable from other shows at the time, and it’s hard to tell just what
makes the performance on this particular night sound like it was here he was
heading, even though he didn’t know it the night before.
This is the fine balance that calls for a qualification of Dylan’s statement in
Chronicles, that the system always works: creating a counter-system of musical
meaning from more or less random notes and sticking to that – such a method
works ‘objectively’, i.e. regardless of the inventiveness or skill of the musician,
because it works in the borderland between a given (the original melody) and a
‘taken’ (the random selection of notes), but it is not self-evident that it works.
Repeating a downwards scale twenty times would soon drive most listeners
crazy (just as stripping down any melody to a single tone which skips up an
octave on the last note of every phrase will – and has done): regardless of the
beauty and simplicity of the system, it takes a musician to make music come
out of it.
Chapter 
Just Like A Woman Revisited
I
t is generally pointless to perform a traditional ‘thematical’ analysis on a
popular song. The song structure, with the same – relatively short – music repeated for each verse, hardly allows for very intricate motivic elaborations. Neither is a harmonic analysis often very rewarding, beyond pointing
out the obvious: that the song (any song) is closely related to formalized chord
patterns. We knew that already.
But still – the temptation remains, and the desire to ‘find’ something in
the song. And lo! (and behold) suddenly a connection strikes you, and you
can’t help but grasping for your analytical box of tools, to see if there isn’t a
wrench somewhere that will fit one of the screws after all.
Take Just Like A Woman. It was one of the first Dylan songs I heard, yet it
took until friday (March , ) before I suddenly saw the genius in the song
(as apart from its beauty or its cleverness). It all works on a harmonical level,
of course. Not much more than three chords and its variations, but here it all
comes together very nicely. Whatever the text is about – drugs, transvestitism,
or whatever – the music is about pain and unfulfilled love.
‘Nobody feels any pain,’ the first phrase states. The music says precisely
the same, in its own language: F major-Bb major-C major-F major. Or more
technically: Tonic (T), Subdominant (S) , Dominant (D) and Tonic (T). The
oldest and most thoroughly established turn in tonal music, popular and classical alike, and it represents the highest degree of tonal stability. Full circle.
Nothing has happened. It means Rest, Stability, Repose, Return, Cadence –
No pain.
In the next phrase there is evidence of rain, but the chordal level is still the
same: No pain.
The third phrase – ‘Everybody knows’ – goes with the chords Bb major-C
major, or S-D, which is the beginning of the turn back to the tonic in the
basic tonal cadence, as it has already been exposed twice already. At this point,
at least the harmonically oriented ear begins to feel that, well, yes, we’re beginning to know by now, even musically. The expected tonic is further delayed


II H  U
by the declaration ‘that baby’s got new clothes’ to the same two chords as the
previous phrase – once again: think I’ve heard that before. (And why did he
have to do it twice?)
‘But lately. . . ’ – yes, it is late, and still no return to the tonic, only a quasidescent, but still circling around the Subdominant-Dominant area, waiting
to be resolved. This could be called: building up tension. Prolonging a preparation. Like when you’re travelling, you always reach a point when you’re
no longer leaving, you’re returning, and if you still have ten days left on the
road when you reach that point, that’s going to be ten long days. That kind of
tension.
And then, after all this: ‘have fallen. . . ’ You realize the train you got on
didn’t take you home, it went to the shitty, no-good neighbour town of yours,
Kill Devil Hill, Goosebum Gulch, Namsos or whatever it’s called, and you
still have a long way to go. In the language of tonality it’s called the relative
tonic, and is represented here by D minor. This harmonical turn, to the minor
key that is the closest relative of the tonic, which is just about the smallest
conceivable deviation from the ‘trodden path’ of the three-chordal scheme, is
nevertheless one of the pillars that the dramatical course of events rests upon.
The effect is a combination of the expectations that have been created and the
words that accompany this: ‘fallen’, ‘fog, amphetamine, pearls’, ‘I was hungry’.
It’s a punch in the stomach that forces you to reevaluate all that has happened
so far. The State-of-No-Pain was just make-believe. And what’s worse: there’s
more to come.
Whereas the introduction of D minor was more of a gesture, the real
drama begins in the bridge, and it’s hardly bringing anyone safely over troubled
water this time – ‘It was raining from the first, and I was dying there of thirst.’
The lyrics recount past events, as a reference to the rain in the first verse, but
the thirst is new information, you didn’t say anything about that then? The
chord here is A, what one might call a ‘reconciliatory gesture’, since A is
the dominant – the preparatory chord – of Goosebum Gulch, a.k.a. D minor.
Look upon it as an attempt to look at the Gulch from a more benevolent
perspective; maybe it isn’t such a shitty town after all. But just at the point
where the now longed-for D minor was supposed to enter, comes the most
fatal mistake: ‘I came in here’. Back to the Tonic, F major, instead. Really –
you shouldn’t have done that. The Tonic, which only a moment ago signified
Rest, Stability, Repose, Return, Cadence, No pain, is now rather an act of desperation in a hopeless situation. You can’t recover what’s lost. (She breaks, you
know.) But this time, you can’t escape: ‘This long time curse hurts, and what’s
worse . . . ’ – yes, what is? Once again the A-chord waiting to get to D minor
J L A W R

– ‘. . . is this. . . ’ – are we finally going to get a D minor after all? – ‘pain in here’.
Not even a Tonic this time, but a Bb major: the Subdominant of F major, but
not even remotely related to A. A complete loss of tonal direction, in other
words, or as the lyrics state: ‘I can’t stay in here.’ Well, don’t say I didn’t tell
you?
Back to start, but then not at all. The same full circle in the beginning
of the last verse (as in every verse), but this time: ‘I just don’t fit’. The same
music, but with a completely different ‘meaning’. Interestingly enough, this is
exactly the way a classical sonata works: The exposition is quoted again in the
end of the movement, but all that has happened in the mean time transforms
the music (or the experience of it) into something different.
These are the essentials of the song, musically speaking: A delayed release
of tension, then a release in the ‘wrong’ direction, before at the third attempt
the release is withheld completely. From here the analysis can go in several
directions. One is the rather obvious question: Is this withheld tension sexual
tension? And in that case: what happens when the string breaks? The musicologist Susan McLary has called Beethoven a rapist based on the evidence of
his ninth symphony, because of the enormous tension that is generated and
then violently released, with a ‘pelvic pounding’. The style of Beethoven had
such an influence on his followers, which remotely includes even popular music, that it is not entirely wrong to compare Dylan with him. Arguably, the
aesthetics of the violently released tension is fundamental to most or all music
written ever since. But in the case of Just Like A Woman, there is no pelvic
pounding, only frustration.
A more psychologically oriented analyser might find it an interesting task
to go through all the different live versions to see if there is more or less
‘pelvic pounding’ in the performances depending on how Dylan’s life was at
the moment. I prefer, in accordance with my analytical credo, to view the song
solely as a musical expression of a frustrated love affair and the laborious and
impossible way back from the point of no return. It is the flip side of Robert
Frost’s ‘The Road Not Taken’, if you like.
The Road Not Taken
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And look down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there

II H  U
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I –
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
In that sense it really is a ‘Just Like A Woman Revisited’. And it turns out that
that’s not any better place to be than Highway .
The journey is over. Please leave by the left hand side.
Chapter 
The propelling harmony of ‘Dear Landlord’
W
hereas a considerable number of Dylan songs use only a limited
number of chords, often the classic three-chord blues pattern, often just one sustained chord throughout a whole song (e.g. Political World), some songs stand out as far more advanced, harmonically speaking. I would like to discuss Dear Landlord from this perspective.
L  –  D D
Dear Landlord begins with a C  held for most of the first line. At the end of
this line (at ‘soul’) the harmony changes to E. The next line sees this E used as
a dominant to a, which, by way of a standard bass-descent, reaches F. Again,
after a short excursion to d, this chord is used as a new dominant, this time
even as a seventh chord (F), to the Bb of the third phrase. The last phrase
leads the harmony back to d, where it seems to end, until the accented F and
G chords bring back the C of the opening.
C
E
Dear landlord, Please don't put a price on my soul.
Am
F
Em
Dm
My burden is heavy, My dreams are beyond control.
F
F7
When that steamboat whistle blows,
Bb
(Bb7)
I'm gonna give you all I got to give,
C
Dm7
C
Gm/bb
And I do hope you receive it well,
F
Gm
Dm
F F G
Dependin' on the way you feel that you live.

I will refer to major chords with upper-case letters alone, and minor chords with an
added ‘-m’, e.g. Am


II H  U
L  –  H A
Now, this dry description of the basic harmonic outline of the song conceals
a very dramatic line of events. The move from C to E is in fact a wide leap.
Why this is so, can be explained in many ways. Traditional harmony considers
chords to be arranged according to the circle of fifths, based on the understanding that chords a fifth apart (i.e. with the lowest notes separated by five steps)
are more closely related than other chords. This gives two close relatives for
each chord: a fifth above and a fifth below. The chord above is, for different
reasons, the nearest relative, and is called the dominant, whereas the chord below is called the subdominant. A song in C will then have G as its dominant
and F as subdominant, and there you are: the three chords upon which %
of all blues, rock – and classical music – is based. The distance from C to E
along the circle of fifths is four steps: C–G–D–A–E, which is a long way to
go in a single leap.
Another reason for the wideness of the leap is that the e of the E chord
is the third in the C chord. As such, it is the tone that defines the chord as
a major chord – lower it one step and you get instead a minor chord, leave
it out, and you get no chord at all, just an interval, a fifth. Thus the third is
the most essential interval in traditional harmony. The variability of the third
makes a chord based upon this tone somewhat unstable, in relation to the
firm relations between C, G and F.
Thirdly the major chord over E contains two tones a half step removed
from the corresponding tones of the C major chord: E–G sharp–B, as opposed
to E–G–C. The half tone is the interval of suspense in traditional harmony –
‘demanding’ a resolution back to where it came from. This is the raison d’être,
so to speak, of the seventh chord: the G chord contains the leading note B
of the C major chord, and this is further enforced by the ‘extra’ tone f, the
seventh, in the G chord, which is experienced as leading to the tone E in the
C major chord.
All these factors contribute to the experience of the passage from C major
to E major as a wide leap, generating a certain tension, which ‘needs’ a resolution. In this perspective the leap from C to E works as a harmonic ‘motor’
for the music that follows. The E major chord immediately serves as a dominant chord for the A minor that follows. (It should be mentioned, at least in a
parenthesis, that this chord sequence – C, E, Am – is very common in several
genres of popular music. But usually the E is merely inserted between the C
and its close relative, Am. What is special in this song, is that the E major
chord is given a prominence of its own; not merely as a passing, preparatory
T    ‘D L’

chord, but as the goal of the first phrase. It is rather the Am that is a passing
chord in the following sequence, to which I will return, if only I can get out
of this parenthesis.)
I will be more brief on the following: As I said in there (it is not really
formally correct to refer to what has been said in parentheses, but that’s how
it is when you get stuck) the E may be seen as a preparatory chord to the Am
that follows. But this Am is also just a passing chord, on the way ‘down’ –
harmonically speaking – to F and its relative Dm, where the second phrase
ends (‘control’).
Compared with the high-point at E, we have now reached a more relaxed
level, five steps down, so to speak. But now enters the hand of God: The
F/Dm level of repose is turned into a level of tension by divine intervention,
i.e. by the artist. The F of relaxation is turned into an F of renewed tension
(the seventh makes the whole difference) and we tumble yet another staircase
down to Bb. And as if that was not enough, the last process is (almost) repeated, when even the Bb is turned into a Bb. The distinctive seventh note
of the Bb chord, which Dylan reaches on ‘got (to give)’, is the tone Ab. On
a piano this is the same key as the G# in the E major chord. In reality it is the
farthest away you can get –  steps along the circle of fifths, which happens
to make a full circle and get back to a tone that may sound the same, but
which feels very different. (Time for a new parenthesis. It is only on a modern,
equally tempered instrument like the piano that the tones Ab and G# sound
the same. The wonderful mystery of the tonal system is that  steps in the
circle of fifths do not bring one back to the same tone, but to a tone a little bit
higher. On a piano this little interval has been divided in  and distributed
among all the fifths, which means that any interval played on a piano is in
fact out of tune . . . A singer, on the other hand, will usually bring out this
difference, consciously or unconsciously.)
To put it bluntly: going from E to Am is just to follow the call of nature,
but to redefine F into F – that is a creative act. To repeat the act is daring,
but to refrain from fufilling it, is just as daring; the Bb never reaches its
‘natural’ goal, which would have been Eb. Instead we are left suspended in the
air, until we somehow land on C, but still not, since the C is just one among
many restless steps on the way down to the Dm which seemingly ends the last
phrase. At this point it may be correct to say that so much has happened in the
meantime, that one really doesn’t remember the sound of the C that started
it all. The C major chord has appeared here and there throughout the song,
but always in passing, never as the basic tonality upon which everything rests.
Now this C is evoked again through the abrupt hammering of F and G, which

II H  U
rashly sweeps away everything that has happened and very emphasisedly reestablishes C as the tonal centre again.
L  –  
What’s happening in here, then? I’m not about to argue that the E in the first
phrase by necessity leads to everything that follows. Nor, actually, that it is
a successful song – maybe the hand of God is too daring, maybe the return
from Bb to C is too blunt, and maybe the final directionless descent to Dm
and the following return to C is too contrieved, I really don’t know. What I
know is that the song and touches me, precisely because of these things. What
I’ve tried to do above, is to explain, in harmonical terms, why it is that the
tremendous burst of energy which I sense in the song, ultimately feels so tired.
Chapter 
In the Garden
I
   ‘Dylan’s strangest song’, there are few that can challenge
In the Garden. Dylan himself has expressed some bewilderment as to how
it all came about, and upon first hearing, one can only agree: The chord
changes seem to go randomly in any direction, but strangely, it doesn’t fall
apart, and somehow it even seems to make sense. What’s going on here?
The whole ‘mystery’ of the song hinges on the chord at the end of the
first phrase. For the sake of simplicity, in the following explanation I have
transposed the song up a semitone, to C.
When they [C] came for Him in the [G] garden, did they [Am] know? [?]
To begin with, it is all plain and easy chords, well within the C tonality. The
last chord, however, is the pivot. When it first enters, if one judges it according to what comes before it, it should either be seen as a Ammaj (i.e.
G]mmaj  in the song). The logical continuation would then be Am
– D, which could eventually lead back to C again, either directly or by way of
G – something like this (the next few examples are of course constructions,
just to provide possible, working continuations):
When they [C] came for Him in the [G] garden, did they [Am] know? [Ammaj]
When they [Am] came for Him in the garden, did they [D] know? (etc.)
Or it could be regarded as a variant of E, which would work as the dominant
of Am, with possible continuations to F or back to Am again:
When they [C] came for Him in the [G] garden, did they [Am] know? [E]
When they [F] came for Him in the [D/f]] garden, did they [G] know?
It could even be seen as a variant of C itself, which might have continued like
this:


II H  U
When they [C] came for Him in the [G] garden, did they [Am] know? [C/g]
When they [F] came for Him in the [C/e] garden, did they [D] know? [G]
The reason for this wide array of possible interpretations is that the chord
I’ve called [?] is an augmented chord, i.e. a chord where the fifth step – G in
this case – is raised a semitone (one fret). This gives a chord which consists
of three equal intervals – major thirds or four semitones – and they may in
principle be stacked whichever way you want. The tones in the chord are c, e,
and g], and depending on which tone is given priority and is interpreted as
the key note, it can either be heard as a C (c-e-g) , an E (e-g]-b) or a G] (or A[)
(g]-b]-d], or A[-c-e[). In each of the alternatives, the fifth is altered, for extra
flavour. The Ammaj option is basically a variant of the C interpretation.
Now, the C and E interpretations are both well within the limits of the
main tonality, as the examples above will show: they don’t really stand out,
and they don’t cause major disturbances in the tonal fundaments of the song.
This is because they are both united to C through their common ‘relative’,
Am.
What Dylan does in In The Garden, however, is to choose the third alternative, G], which is a much bigger step. True, it is ‘just’ a matter of going in
the opposite direction of E, and, true, it is used, occasionally (the James Bond
theme comes to mind), but the effect is much more spectacular than the turn
to E.
Once the augmented chord has been interpreted as a G], the whole trick
is done: we are now in the key of G] – for a little while. But first the chord is
reinterpreted again. In the following line:
[G]aug]
When they [C]m] came for Him in the [G]aug] garden, did they [E] know?
[F]]
both of the G]aug chords could be played as plain G], but as an augmented
chord, it is already almost an E, which is where it immediately goes to. So
one might say that Dylan repeats the trick: he has shifted the whole key of
the song down in two leaps, first from C to A[/G], then further down to E
– both times in the unexpected direction. The rest of the song is laboriously
working its way up again, step by step, whole tone by whole tone: E, F], G],
A], and finally back to C again.
The E doesn’t live long enough to take on the role of ‘tonal centre’ on its
own – it appears as an episode within the larger G] episode. But one might
I  G

call it, slightly figuratively speaking, the collecting of the energy necessary for
the ascent through the keys back to C again.
If we stay with the ‘energy to run up the stairs’ metaphor, this will account
for the end as well: the melody has reached the top, but needs an extra step in
order to gain balance and to really be able to come to a halt – it is not enough
just to rush up through the keys – an ending ‘needs’ something more to be
felt like an ending, and the final flourish, after the singing is over, is what
accomplishes that.
Thank you for your attention, will the last one to leave please wipe the
blackboard.
III
Albums and Songs
Chapter 
The Uneven Heart
B D  M
   to be seduced by Dylan’s lyrics: they were essential when he was
nominated for ‘Voice of a Generation’, and they stuck in the fans’ throats
when he converted to Christianity. Equally easy is it to question his musical abilities: ‘He can’t sing’, ‘he can’t play the harmonica’, ‘he only knows
three guitar chords’, ‘his lyrics are good, but I can’t stand the voice’. Et cetera.
But what if it’s first and foremost the music that has captured one’s attention?
Or put differently: if one is of the opinion that what is being said cannot
meaningfully be separated from how it is said? That the meaning of a word
is its use, as Wittgenstein expressed it, and that this is true to a high degree
about Dylan – both as a musician and as a poet. This article is predominantly
a survey of certain aspects of Dylan’s musical life, and the emphasis on these
particular aspects is intended to suggest that some of that which is most appealing about Dylan’s art and what creates the impression that what he does
and says is significant, is the sense of a direct address, as an expression of a
life and a pulse, and that this aspect of his work first and foremost comes to
expression through musical means just as much as through the lyrics.
I would like to introduce this theme through two examples. My very first
encounter with Dylan’s music was not through Dylan himself, but through
Peter, Paul and Mary, in a clip which I have later identified as a performance
from the Newport festival, taken from the documentary Festival (). They
were singing ‘The Times They Are A-Changin’’, and it was the most beautiful
thing I had ever seen or heard. Mary Travers’ blonde hair, waving in the wind
in the evening darkness of the festival around her powerful face, and the perfect three-part harmony in the refrain, where one voice remained on the same
tone as a pedal point around which the other two would circle, caressingly
I
This seems to be a more unproblematic premise in painting, where how something is
painted is usually considered more important than what the painting is of.



III A  S
like a cat around a leg – it impressed me deeply. When several years later I
heard Dylan’s own version, it was a completely different song. The voice was
one thing – I was prepared for that – but it was everything else: all harmonical
complexity was gone; the guitar may have played some of the tones that used
to accompany Mary Travers’ hair, but the sensual beauty was not there. The
same goes for the rhythm: where the trio had been soaring through the song
and the night, with the message: ‘We can fly wherever we want to, ’cause the
times are a-changin’’, Dylan’s voice and guitar hammered out, in the most unsophisticated way, the ominous perspective – like a desperate but controlled,
calculating man who was likely to stab whoever was blocking up the hall. It
was raw and insistent, unpleasant and yet inescapable. All the beauty was gone,
but when the loss of the pleasant dream had resided, what remained was the
experience of something much more real.
This is not to say that Dylan can’t fly. But when he does, it is the result
of his shimmering, nervous energy, like in the scene from Eat the Document
() where he’s at the piano playing ‘Ballad of a Thin Man’ – although
sitting? no, he is dancing, soaring, jumping, rocking, and his piano is dancing
along with him. He can’t sit still; he stands up, the fingers on the keys are
trembling and his whole body is glowing with a force which one could not
have imagined could have lived in the quiet song.
His entire carreer can be described in similar terms: there is a restlessness, a
quest for ever new challenges, new genres, new formats, new forms of expression, which is deeply engaging and which makes it an interesting project to
follow the process, investigate new aspects and angles, listen to screechy old
concert recording and figuring out what to say about them. It is interesting
mainly because it all has to do with ways of coupling meaning with sound,
whether it is the sounds of language or of music. Thus, it is not simply a
metaphorical description to say that Dylan’s and Peter, Paul and Mary’s versions of ‘The Times’ are completely different songs: they are different songs.
And Dylan’s well over a thousand versions of ‘All Along the Watchtower’ are
in a certain sense a thousand different songs, each with different layers of
signification.
It would be an exaggeration to say that all these thousand ‘songs’ are equally
exciting – some are clearly of the day-at-the-office-kind – but seen in the full
perspective, even the unsuccessful days contribute to the image of a heart
beating. Studying Dylan’s music over the years is thus the study of a life – that
life which comes to expression in the performances, but first and foremost
the musical ‘life’ whose pulse it is one is hearing. This life is not necessarily
accessible through a traditional study of genre, influences, and biography, be-
T U H

cause its life-character resides in a chain of interpretations which – possibly –
starts with Dylan himself, but which in any case has one necessary participant:
the individual listener. It is as a listener, then, that the following analyses are
made. I’m not trying to find out what Dylan has really been up to, objectively speaking and in splendid isolation, but how he has engaged in activities
which seem meaningful to me. To quote Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder,
the question is not ‘What’s that you’re doing?’, but ‘What’s that you do to me?’
or, with Gerry and the Pacemakers: ‘How do you do what you do to me?’
S B (–)
In the film No Direction Home, John Bucklen, Dylan’s schoolday friend from
Minneapolis, talks about Dylan’s return to St Paul after his first trip to New
York in :
He was playing at some party or something, and it was like a whole different guy.
You hear those stories about the blues men who go out to the crossroads and sell
their soul to the devil and come back all of a sudden able to do stuff – Robert
Johnson, Tommy Johnson, that whole mythology. It was one of those kind of deals,
almost. When he left Minneapolis he was just average, There was five, six other
guys doing the same thing. When he came back, he was doing Woody and he was
doing Van Ronk and he was fingerpicking, he was playing cross harp, and this
is a matter of a couple of months. I mean, this is not like he was gone a year or
anything.
It is tempting to do as Bucklen and associate to the Faust myth, especially
since Dylan himself in recent interviews and in the same No Direction Home
has more than intimated that that’s how he sees himself: he has made a deal
with the Chief Commander:
Dylan: Well, it goes back to that destiny thing. You know, I made a bargain with it,
you know, long time ago. I’m holding up my end.
Bradley: What was your bargain?
Dylan: Get where I am now.
Bradley: Should I ask who you made the bargain with?
Dylan: Ha, ha ha. With the Chief . . . you know, the Chief Commander.
Bradley: On this earth?
Dylan: This earth, and the world we can’t see.


Transcribed from No Direction Home.
Transcribed from interview with Ed Bradley, CBS  Minutes,  December .

III A  S
Be it as it may with this ‘bargain’: during this period, Dylan is frequently
referred to as a ‘sponge’, sucking up any influence he came in touch with. That
the development was quick, probably has more to do with hard, insistent work
than with spiritual covenants, even though Bucklen’s reaction is understandable. Dylan’s then girlfriend Bonnie Beecher gives a unique picture of this
process. She had bought him a harmonica holder, and Dylan was captivated.
And my friends would come in and they would just go, ‘Uurgh! Who is this geek?’
. . . I wanted him to play guitar, which he could play well and which I knew would
impress them, but he just wasn’t having any of it. He was saying, ‘Naw, I wanna
get this – hwang! WHwaongg!’
This means that when Dylan left for New York early in the winter of
, he already had a certain technical foundation, which, given his ambition
and energy, quickly was to be extended when he plunged himself into the
creative milieus in Greenwhich Village, and with the circle around Woody
Guthrie’s sickbed as a second power supply. Hungry, receptive, and with a
certain serendipetous luck he had all the prerequisites to take full advantage
of his new surroundings.
It is a commonly held attitude that Dylan may have written good lyrics
from the beginning, but that as a musician he is hardly more than mediocre.
This attitude is, for example, behind the estimation of the guitar track on
‘Don’t Think Twice’ from Freewheelin’ (): it is so good that it can’t be
Dylan himself – it must be somebody else. Clinton Heylin seems to be the
originator of the dogma that it is played by Bruce Langhorne. This dogma is
repeated here and there, with authoritarian certainty, although nothing supports it – apart from the quality of the playing.  Granted: ‘Virtuosic equilibrism’ has never been an adequate description of Dylan’s musicianship, but
if one looks beyond the cliché about the hoarse, crudely hammering threechord musician who mainly has good lyrics, and instead listen to what Dylan
is actually doing during these years, the picture one gets is far more positive.
First, there is a musician who has mastered certain techniques with the obviousness that only a solid foundation can give. Bucklen mentions his fingerpicking, and rightly so. In many of the recordings and live performances from
the early years, Dylan uses different variants of the ‘clawhammer’ technique,
where the thumb alternates between the three bass strings and the other fingers fill in between the beats, either simply with chord tones, or with more


Quoted from heylin:shades, p. .
See ‘It wasn’t Bruce – a musical whodunnit’ (p. ) for a decisive refutation.
T U H

advanced variants where a melody can be indicated – usually syncopated since
the strong beats is the thumb’s domain – or other figures may get a life of their
own. ‘I Was Young When I Left Home’, which was recorded in December 
and circulates as part of the the so-called Minnesota Hotel Tape, and which was
released as a bonus track together with ‘Love and Theft’ (), is a good example: the basic technique is simple, but by varying the thumb’s patterns and
picking out both melodies and counter-melodies with the other fingers, a remarkably full sound is achieved, with constant variations which give a guitar
track far more complex than the basic technique alone would accomplish.
On The Gaslight Tapes, the recordings which have survived from two concerts at the Gaslight Café in October , at about the same time as the
recordings for Freewheelin’, the finger picking is perfected. Two of the songs
where it is used deserve special mention: ‘Rocks and Gravel’, and ‘Barbara
Allen’. In both of the songs, there is a little figure in the upper voice of the guitar which is repeated over and over; one might imagine that it would become
monotonous, but it doesn’t – the figures get under your skin and become the
song.
They do this together with another important element which features
already in the early years: an unfaltering sense of timing and establishment
of a longer musical progression. ‘Rocks and Gravel’ is one of these performances which one finds here and there in Dylan’s carreer – songs which ask the
question: how long can a tone be held, in one verse after another, before it
becomes boring or pathetic? And it turns out that the answer is: exactly this
long.
In other words: through his persistent sponging, Dylan had gained a solid
technique which, joined by his strong musicality, laid a foundation upon
which his words could freely play out their themes, supported by the music.
(If he had jeopardized his soul to get there, I leave that to the theologians to
decide). Again, it has little to do with virtuoso technique but with virtuousity
in employing as little technique as possible to maximum effect.
P  B (–)
This musicianship was perfected over the following couple of years. One
hardly notices it. It’s like typography: if you see it, something is wrong. Hence,
the one example which best illustrates Dylan’s first perfection is the singular

See ‘The Momentum of Standstill’, p. .

III A  S
performance where something goes wrong. It happens during a magical version of ‘It’s Alright Ma (I’m Only Bleeding)’ from the ‘Halloween Show’ in
October , which (finally!) was released forty years later as The Bootleg
Series, vol. . Dylan is apparently in a very good mood throughout the concert; he jokes and laughs (at his own jokes, mostly), plays wrong here and
forgets a verse there. When he presents ‘It’s Alright Ma’ with its full title – ‘It’s
Alright Ma, It’s Life and Life Only’, someone in the audience finds it funny
and bursts out laughing, and Dylan replies: ‘Yes, it’s a very funny song’, before he hurls himself and the poor, unprepared audience into the most serious,
anything but ‘funny’, rendition of the song imaginable.
The first three verses are magical. Time and place cease to exist as independent categories, they are subordinate elements under a guitar, a voice, and
some words. But in the middle of the fourth verse, he forgets the lyrics, and
the enchantment is broken. The mood is still good; he solves it with a quick
laugh and completes the song in style, but the song is no longer the same.
And that may be just as good, because without that little mistake, we may
have had a performance for the history books, but not this demonstration
of how perfect Dylan’s stage art was: how with a few simple introductory
chords could transform the feeling in the hall completely, from unrestrained
hilarity to abysmal seriousness; and how he with purely musical means is able
to maintain and develop this mood through five, six, eight, twelve minutes.
When this one time he stops in the tracks, it is like an alarm clock which
drags one out of the most pleasant dream which one would have loved to
remain in; one curses the wrethced clock, but without it one would have just
kept sleeping, not even remembering that there ever was a dream. For this
reason, I value this performance higher than most – perhaps all – of Dylan’s
live accomplishments from the s: because it shows just how good all the
others are.
I have already described the music as a landscape. The musical technique
which has been perfected consists in the establishing of such a landscape which
is even enough for the character and characters of the lyrics to stand out clearly,
and still varied and exciting enough in its own right to give the characters an
interesting stage set on which to act. The acoustic set which introduced the
concerts in – does all this: the dominating impression which remains
in the listener, is the impact of the lyrics, which is how it is supposed to be.
But when songs like ‘Desolation Row’ or ‘Just Like a Woman’ can have the
T U H

effect they have, it is not the least thanks to the accompaniment which is the
background and foundation for the words.
And then it’s time to leave. If there is one theme which runs through
Dylan’s entire carreer, it must be this: absorb, internalize, and move on.
Bringing It All Back Home, the first in the trilogy of albums from –,
has one side which leaves one breathless in all its tremendous greatness: ‘Mr
Tambourine Man’, ‘Gates of Eden’, ‘It’s Alright Ma’, og ‘It’s All Over Now,
Baby Blue’ – is there a stronger side anywhere in the history of recorded music?
– and then there is another side (strictly speaking, the first), with electrical
instruments and a full band, which. . . well, what is it really? And what does it
do?
Ideologically speaking, it does all the things which ever since the Newport
festival in  has accompanied the myth of the electrified Dylan, whether
it is interpreted as a goodbye, a sell-out, a betrayal, a result of the increasing
power of the almighty manager Albert Grossman – or for that matter a return
to the roots: those roots, that is, which in Dylan’s childhood in Minnesota
were planted firmly in the other end of Highway  and nourished through the
radio. These elements have been amply discussed by others, and can therefore
be passed over quite briefly.
What is certain is that the concerts in – had the highest sound
volume that anyone had heard from a stage, that the ticket prices were higher
than the ordinary, and that many felt they had been cheated – also for musical
reasons.
Dylan’s position as a musician in the new performance situation was more
withdrawn. He strums on his new love, the Stratocaster, of course, but he
mostly plays the same things and in the same ways as before his electrification: simple flatpicking, frequently with a capo. If he ever became an electric
guitarist (which can be doubted), it didn’t happen until much later.
But there were also things that didn’t make it to the other side. Musically speaking, the transformation from folk-strummer to rock artist most of
all represents a radical simplification. Subtle nuances in bass progressions and
fingerpicking patterns were replaced with powerful effusions from a full rock
band where Dylan is no longer in exclusive control – he is still the conductor,
the band-leader, the choreographer, ideologist, and power supply, but the full
Not to forget are Dylan’s phenomenal diction and his alertness to the effect each line
of lyrics has on the audience. Prime examples are the first live versions of ‘Love Minus
Zero’ and ‘Desolation Row’, where the reaction – the audience’s and Dylan’s – to lines like
‘Draw conclusions . . . on the wall is fresh and spontaneous.


III A  S
control of the musical expression has been laid partly in the hands of others.
Fingerpicking has no place here anymore, neither have bass progressions and
licks à la ‘Barbara Allen’; and although he did re-tune his guitar from time to
time in the beginning, but one can hardly hear it, unless one puts in an effort.
All this, which had earlier been such important widgets in Dylan’s toolbox,
loose their raison d’étre when there is a solo guitarist (and what a solo guitarist!) there to do the ornaments; a bass player in charge of the lines in the lower
register; and a full band to take care of the variations in sound and register
which were previously accomplished through different tunings and capo positions. Even the one element that Dylan does keep for himself, the simple,
rhythmical strumming, is strictly speaking redundant: that is done better –
or at least more forcefully – by the drummer. All the technical elements that
were fundamental for the early Dylan fade into the background, and they have
barely been heard since. The main function of the guitar was – and has been
ever since – iconic, not musical.
The changes I have mentioned so far, have mainly to do with the external
sound, but also concerning the harmonical character of the songs, there is a
similar change. On the surface, there doesn’t seem to be that much of a difference between ‘Mr. Tambourine Man’ and ‘Subterranean Homesick Blues’,
both from Bringing It All Back Home (). Both songs consist of the three
chords which according to the classical theory fulfill the three main chord
functions: that of tonic, subdominant, and dominant. Simply put, the tonic (T)
is the keynote, the stable level of repose where the song usually begins and
ends, whereas the dominant D is the contrasting, tension-laden level represented by the chord five steps up from the keynote. It is an exaggeration, but
just a slight one, to regard all music produced within a western art- or popular
music tradition since the sixteenth century as a play with the balance between
these two steps.
The third chord, the subdominant S, assumes a double position in relation
to the other two. In many connections, it works as hardly more than a variant
of the tonic, but its classic function is that of being the first step away from the
The most pleasant surprise on the two acoustical retro-albums Good as I Been to You
() and World Gone Wrong () was the guitar work – he was actually still able!
Concerning re-tuning, the New York versions of Blood on the Tracks () are of course
legendary exceptions, but they stand pitifully alone.

It may even have been a mask; even though it was mostly redundant, it kept hanging
there, and wasn’t taken off until the performance of ‘Isis’ during the  tour – when it
was, significantly enough, replaced by another mask: the white-painted face.

T U H

tonic, as in the cadential figure T-S-D-T (see e.g. the beginning of ‘Blowin’ in
the Wind’). The dominant creates a tension which requires resolution back to
the tonic, and the subdominant is one step on the way to gaining this tenision,
simply put.
It is not unproblematical to use these terms about popular music. They
have grown out of a particular musical repertory – classic-romantical music of
the eighteenth- and nineteenth centuries – and with a theoretical apparatus
which is based on this music, and which cannnot easily be applied to any other
material without violating the material. When I nevertheless use the terms in
the following discussion of ‘Mr Tambourine Man’, I do this for two reasons.
First, the classical western tradition cannot be excluded from the study of popular music. Even though various African and European folk music traditions
– which can hardly be done justice through descriptions in a terminology and
a conceptual apparatus shaped with the eyes fixed on Mozart and Beethoven –
have been essential constituents in the popular music of the past century, this
does not mean that popular music is folk music. In his merwe:origins (),
merwe:origins convincingly argues in favour of the influence of classical ‘art
music’ – especially in the harmonical area but also concerning melodic outline
and phrasing sturctures – also in a ‘purely’ afro-american genre like the blues.
For a harmonically structured song like ‘Mr Tambourine Man’ I thus consider
it a relevant model of interpretation.
On the other hand, this doesn’t make the model as such a good model.
The value of the theoretical foundation of classical functional harmony can
be doubted also in its ‘native’ field of classical music, and even more so applied
on traditions which are farther removed from its original context. When I use
terms like ‘tonic’ and ‘dominant’, I use them as neutral designations – to the
extent that that is possible – for fundamental harmonic relationships like rest,
contrast, and dynamics, and for some of those relations between these which
are strongly established in classical western music and in traditions which
relate to it.
What’s special about ‘Mr Tambourine Man’ is that it does not begin on
the tonic (T) but on the subdominant (S). From there, it passes via D to T,
but without coming to a halt; instead, it returns back to S again. We thus
have a complete cadence cycle, but with the ‘wrong’ steps: S-D-T-S instead
of T-S-D-T.
The second phrase (‘sleepy, and there is no place I’m going to’) is another
variation of the standard pattern: we get the beginning, T-S-D. This progression, which is usually the build-up phase of the cadence cycle, here has the
opposite function: instead, D becomes the resting point were all half-refrains
III A  S

and every whole and half verse come to an end. Not until the end of the refrains is there a T which actually works as a resting point; all the others have
been part of movements somewhere else.
S D T S || T S D . |
S D T S || T S D T |
A similar analysis can be made of the verses, which follow the same basic
pattern as the refrains, but with an interesting twist. The two ‘wrong’ cadential
figures in the refrain, come together in the T-S which the first ends and the
second begins with.
Although the chords are the same, their functions are not. First time around:
an uneasy rest on the wrong step, then: a new beginning. In the verses, this
little segment assumes an independent role, and this little T-S block is repeated as many times as necessary for the unevenly long verses.
__________
|
|
S D T S || T S D .
=> S D |: T S :| D .
The difference is subtle but significant: in its emancipated version, the T-S
segment retains both its original characters – ending and beginning – and it is
impossible to decide at any single occurrence which of them is in action: both
are, at the same time.
An analysis such as this one isolates one element – harmonic functions
and interconnections – and ignores others which for the final impression are
just as important: the lyrics, of course, but also melodic shapes and gestures,
rhythms, phrasing. But given this limitation – and in spite of it – the analysis
intends to show that even a ‘real’ three-chord song like Mr. Tambourine Man
can hold harmonic complexity to an entirely different degree than the other
song in the comparison: ‘Subterranean Homesick Blues’. This does not mean
that the new songs are ‘simple’, only that Dylan sought other channels for his
expression.
If one only compares the two sides of Bringing it All Back Home one can
perhaps understand the enraged critics we see in Eat the Document and No
For a more extensive treatment of this song, which also takes some of these aspects into
consideration, see ‘Three Tambourine Men’, p. . See also the shorter analyses of ‘Dear
Landlord’, ‘Just Like a Woman’, and ‘In the Garden’ (pp. , , and , respectively).

It should also be added that Dylan’s use of the blues genre is far from simple. Only a
small handful of his countless blues-based songs can be called twelve-bar blues, and only
rarely do two songs use the simple blues pattern in the same way.

T U H

Direction Home, also without sharing their political or cultural-ideological s
indignation. One can easily miss the ability to hint at a melody with an inimitable mixture of stringency, simplicity, and what can best be termed sprezzatura
– the sophisticated, controlled nonchalance which was held in such high esteem in the court culture of the Italian Renaissance, and which Dylan embodies better than anyone else in today’s cultural landscape. Hearing the two
parts of the  shows, for example, it is impossible not to be swept along by
the sheer power in the electrical set, but when the sound orgasm has passed
it is the beauty, the perfection, the expressivity of the acoustic solo set that
remains, and one cannot but wonder what kind of nonsensical ramble – a jive
against the press, perhaps? – it is when he claims to have been bored to death
by the cursed solo sets and was only longing for the band to get on stage. No!
This is not the work of a tired man. Dylan must be lying. 
All of this he abandoned, and compared to this, the ideological changes
are mere ripples on the surface. It is tempting to regard it as an answer to the
question: what to do next when perfection has been achieved? Or, in the poet’s
own words: ‘You find out when you reach the top, you’re on the bottom’. It
is as if to say: done here, nothing more to do, must move on, must get away
from here.
T L L W (–)
And off he went. Chronologically speaking, the electrified revolution in –
 became only a short phase. Through three ineluctable albums, a hectic
I usually have no problem believeing what Dylan says. Sure, he is a sphinx who is
obsessed with carnevals and loves to tease journalists, but for an artist who is notorious
for being intagible, mystical, and a riddle, he has always been frank and communicative –
surprisingly so, perhaps – both in interviews and in the songs themselves, and to the extent
that I have checked his facts, they always make sense. But not this time.

Again, Dylan has been honest: he was never particularly political, and he became the
Voice of a Generation purely by mistake. Hearing the preserved recording of a Bob Fass
radio show from , where Dylan stumbles into the studio in the middle of the night
with the acetates of his new album, The Freewheelin’ and jokes liberally about the politically
correct folk purists; it becomes very difficult to uphold the thesis that a radical change
occured two-three years later which made him turn his back on ‘his’ movement: he was
already thoroughly uninterested in that part of the folk movement by the time ‘Blowin’ ’
and ‘Hard Rain’ came out.

Or, as he has expressed it more recently, talking about why old records sound better
than new ones: ‘Back then, it was more important to be great than to be perfect’.


III A  S
world tour and a uniting of textual fullness of meaning with a popular mode of
expression which changed both spheres, , he perfected this genre – whatever
it should be called; neither ‘mathematical music’ nor ‘drug song’ seem quite
adequate – in a short time. But then he was gone. There was rumour of a
motorcycle accident, but in those days, before chatrooms and newsgroups,
the rumours had less to work with, the uncertainty correspondingly more. In
hindsight, we are probably justified in saying that it should not be ‘Dylan survived a motorcycle accident’, but that ‘Dylan survived thanks to a motorcycle
accident.
It is easy to sympathize with the need to turn the page and start something
new after the long and intensive eruption through the previous two years, not
least given the new situation as a married man and a family father (and, in
, fatherless). But the same hindsight also tells us that the sharp break with
creative activity was only apparent; to the public, it may have looked like he
was spent, but  was in fact his most productive year ever, with the released
album John Wesley Harding as the tip of an iceberg the full extent of which was
only gradually revealed. Fourteen songs from the ‘Basement Tapes’ soon began
to circulate as the first bootleg album ever, but in its entirety the collection
counts more than a hundred tracks. They vary dramatically in character and
in quality, from funny but utterly meaningless ‘See you later, Allen Ginsberg’
and ‘I’m your Teenage Prayer’ and unfinished fragments like ‘Won’t You Be
My Baby’ and ‘I’m Alright’, to classics like ‘Tears of Rage’ and ‘I Shall Be
Released’ – and the most legendary of them all: ‘I’m Not There ()’. But
even though the collection is uneven, it is also a demonstration of a creativity
which is deeply fascinating, not only as a ‘document’ of the lost years, but as
an independent ‘work’.
Over the years between  and  – i.e. between John Wesely Harding () and Planet Waves (), Dylan recorded c. two hundred different
songs, in addition to the hundred Basement tapes. Just like them, it is an uneven batch of recordings. Close up, it is easy to perceive the whole period as
a long ‘lost weekend’ – a series of unengaged mediocrities, where the rubble
buries the occasional gems. Song by song there is little to be excited about; album by album they place themselves between the adequate (Nashville Skyline),
interesting (New Morning), and the strangely embarrassing (Self Portrait), but
even the best is far from great. But considering the period as a whole, it becomes easier to see a general direction for the creative process, beyond ful‘Dylan freed the mind the way Elvis freed the body’, as Bruce Springsteen said at the
introduction into the Rock’n’roll hall of fame,  januar .

T U H

filling contractual obligations for a number of albums – it may even only
gradually have become clear to Dylan himself what he was ‘actually’ doing.
It may be seen as a tripartite project. Most striking is of course the turn
towards country music, in all its variants. Nashville Skyline () comes close
to being a pure country album, but the country element is predominant also
on the other albums. It may be a small step from certain parts of the folk
tradition to certain parts of the country tradition (is Jimmie Rodgers a blues,
folk, or country artist?), but with a vantage point at the angry young man on
The Times They Are A-Changin’, or the powerful young man (skinny, granted,
but definitely powerful) on Blonde on Blonde, the slick crooner on songs like ‘I
Forgot More Than You’ll Ever Know About Her’ on Self Portrait will come as
a surprise all the same – to most listeners probably an unpleasant one. What
is he doing?
One can see the country ballads as a musical expression of the simple life,
which reaches its most unadulterated, enthusiastic, unabashed heights in the
‘la la la’-chorus of ‘The Man In Me’ and in lines like ‘Build a little cabin in
U-tah [. . . ] Have a bunch of kids who call me Pa, / That must be what it’s all
about’ from ‘Sign on the Window’. The message is actually so clear that one
is tempted to ask: ‘Is that really what you think, Mr Dylan? Is that really what
it’s all about?’
It is more productive, at least from a musical point of view, to see the
country period as another stage in Dylan’s exploration of band sound and
dynamics, of the possibilities it gives to play together with others, despite the
limitations it also entails. Hence, the period also marks the fruition of a feature
which later has become something of a trade-mark: the constant reworking of
songs.
Reviews of Dylan shows usually manage to mention how unpredictable
Dylan is and that he changes his songs completely from night to night. This
was just as untrue in the early s as it is today. Dylan’s concerts consisted of
thoroughly prepared and rehearsed songs, a fixed set of songs each night, and
in the same version throughout the tour. This is true also of the world tour in
’–’: a couple of songs were exchanged for others during the tour, but in
general, it is a fixed show that is presented.
With the intensivated collaboration in the quiet basement in Woodstock,
with musicians who knew each other inside out, we get radically different
versions of the same song – exactly as the myth about Dylan has it. ‘Like A
Rolling Stone’ from the Isle of Wight concert in  which is included on
Self Portrait, may not be impeccable, but hey! it’s an entirely new song.

III A  S
What we have is a musical exploration of and in the dynamic interplay
between musicians, arrangements, guitarist/singer. Had the official albums
been all we had this would mostly have been hidden, but thanks to the outtakes which have leaked into circulation over the years, we can peek into this
laboratory and see the whole period as a continuous processing, not just as the
motley bouquet that appear from the albums.
Two pearls deserve special mention. ‘Spanish is the Loving Tongue’ in
the version that was released on Dylan (; recorded April ) is probably the most tasteless waste of tape and minutes that has been released in
Dylan’s name. Complete with La-la-la chorus, mariachi band, and a performance which reveals little respect for either the song, the lyrics, or what energy
may have gone into the making of the track.
One year later: Dylan alone at the piano, accompanied only by Charles
Daniels on bass. The song is the same, at least on paper, but this time the outcome is the most magical creation Dylan has ever accomplished: an intensely
personal rendition where the grief in the text is tangible. The piano starts out
with a hint of a sound without a fixed rhythm; between the verses he rolls
out some arabesques which come from no known place, but which occupy
the space with the assuredness of the permanent resident; gradually a rhythm
materializes which together with the emotional drama of the lyrics and the
warmth and intensity of the singing forms a subdued climax which lasts and
lasts . . . No, it’s not the same song. But the question is if the glorious version
could have existed without the damned one.
Second pearl: The recording of the soundtrack for Pat Garret & Billy the
Kid was according to all reports a traumatic experience, and the result is, despite certain highlights, uneven. One of the tracks, which Dylan calls ‘Billy
Surrenders’, begins as a form- and directionless plucking of some notes on the
guitar, up and down on a couple of strings, nothing more. The other musicians try as best as they can to follow lead – something takes form in the chaos,
and suddenly one notices the musical idea which lies behind it all, which turns
out to have (or to become) both a melody, a rhythm and a direction, and it
was there all the time: a new variation of the ‘Billy’-theme and the verse about
being ‘hunted by the man who was your friend’.
Keeping these examples in mind, we may revise the history of the period
–: not as the story of a burned-out, tired artist with a new family situation, but as Bonnie Beecher’s harmonica story over again: a plunge into a
The question is purely rhetorical; of course the answer is ‘yes’, but the thought is as
enticing as the contrast is glaring.

T U H

style, a tradition, and a method which was virgin territory, where he to a large
extent had to start from scratch. In this light, Greil Marcus’s legendary reaction to Self Portrait – ‘What is this Shit?’ – turns out to be exactly the same as
Bonnie Beecher’s. And the answer to Marcus’s indignant question is: it’s just
Dylan once again saying: ‘Naw, I wanna get this – hwang! WHwaongg!’
The third part of the project is closely related to this: it may be that Dylan
during these years has not had anything he wanted to say with the former immediacy or an intuitive way of saying it, whatever it is, but he is searching.
On New Morning () no song resembles the other, everything is tried out
– scat singing and swing jazz on ‘If Dogs Run Free’, country-waltz on ‘Winterlude’, and the strange but captivating ‘Father of Night’ and ‘Three Angels’.
B T  R T (–)
The above is a construction, as are all stories, and should be read with the
necessary reservation – he was of course burned-out and family father as well
– but it is undeniably a more interesting story, and not entirely wrong either.
It is also a story which makes it easier to present the next chapter: about the
Blood on the Tracks and Rolling Thunder Revue years.
Because without it, it becomes difficult to pinpoint what is the greatness
and novelty of this phase, even though everyone agrees that it is there. But if
one sees it as a natural continuation of the preceding years, one may have to
explain what ‘Tangled Up In Blue’ has to do with ‘Spanish is the la-la-la-ving
Tongue’, but it also provides an answer: they are extremes in the same quest
for a voice and a point (where the quest, and ot necessarily the answer, is the
most important).
On Blood on the Tracks, the enthusiasm of having something to say again,
both textually, musically, and formally, is unquestionable A unique combination of a renewed interest in open tunings (inspired by Joni Mitchell), a new
perspective on narrative and time (inspired by the mysterious art teacher Norman Raeben), and a broken heart (inspired by Sara), resulted in an outpouring
of creativity which bears comparison with the trilogy from the mid-s.

Cf. Dylan’s own statement that he had to ‘get to do consciously what I used to do
unconsciously’ (interview with Jonathan Cott, Rolling Stone,  November ).

Even though Dylan may not have been all too enthusiastic about the contents of the
message; cf. his remark to Mary Travis, that he ‘found it hard to understand how people
could enjoy hearing that type of pain’ (heylin:shades, p. ).

III A  S
It is a dear topic of dispute in Dylan circles which version of the record is
the best: the one that was recorded in New York in September  or the one
that was finally released, where Dylan, encouraged by his brother David had
rerecorded a number of songs. Many say that it would have been better had
he not messed around with songs that were already perfect, but instead kept
the intense New York versions.
Both versions have their strong points. On the one hand there is an undeniable emotional intensity in the original versions, which is occasionally
lost in the new recordings. On the other, the new versions make the album as
a whole a far more varied and – to my ears – satisfying listening experience
than the New York versions, which are all played in the same open E tuning
and only intermittently breaks away from a certain bitter melancholy. Luckily,
we don’t have to choose, since both versions are available.
But even though I tend to prefer the revised version, musically speaking
the New York versions are by far the most interesting, precisely because of the
open tuning and the way he uses it. Normally, the strings of a guitar are tuned
so as to make it possible to play as many different chords as possible: the tones
of the strings are placed at certain neutral intervals which, although they do
favour certain keys, do not exclude others.
Open tuning, on the other hand, takes the opposite approach, in that all
the strings are tuned to tones from one chord only. Thus, one is also limited
to this chord and its closest relatives, but as long as one stays within this area,
the many open strings boost the resonance and thus provides a fuller sound.
Even more importantly, one will tend to use the open strings of the base chord
also in other chords where those tones don’t naturally belong, which works in
two opposite directions at once: providing tonal stability, while the extra notes
produce ‘juicy’ chords.
Joni Mitchell is usually given the credit for having opened Dylan’s eyes to
the possibilities of open tunings. If so, it can’t have amounted to more than
a reintroduction: a substantial part of Dylan’s earliest repertory was played in
various open and altered tunings.
Also in other ways, Blood On The Tracks marks a return to the acoustic
Dylan of the early s. While the records since  have the character of
‘Dylan with band’, Blood on the Tracks is rather ‘Dylan with accompaniment’,
and the guitar playing is of the same kind as in the early days: a rhythmic,

One can of course play other chords with simple barre chords anywhere on the neck,
but this gives an unflexible sound and is against the spirit of open tuning (where the open
strings are essential), at least in the form Dylan gives it.
T U H

driving ground work; the full sonority that the open E tuning provides; the
same economical playing style with maximum effect achieved with a minimum of effort; similar licks between verses and stanzas; and Dylan’s guitar as
the obvious musical centre. But it is a return only under the influence of the
intervening period: both the expressivity of the mid-s and the later excursions to the broader harmonical palette of the jazz and country repertories can
be heard in the songs on Blood on the Tracks, e.g. on ‘Idiot Wind’, which with
simple guitaristic means (thanks to the open tuning) moves in the borderland
between major and minor with several different versions of the same chords.
What the acoustic set in  was in relation to the solo artist of the early s,
Blood on the Tracks was in relation to the preceding years: the perfection of a
process of absorption.
If Blood on the Tracks is primarily an album experience, Desire can hardly
be judged separately from the concerts of the Rolling Thunder Revue. Here,
the creative, musical community has central stage. Dylan originally wished
for the tour to function like a travelling circus, a carnival which could give
concerts wherever they happened to be, on short notice and in small venues.
It was not intended to be a Bob Dylan tour but an incessantly rolling caravan
where artists could come and go – including himself.
It didn’t quite turn out that way: Dylan was the obvious centre of attention
and interest, and fairly quickly the shows ended up in large arenas after all.
But nonetheless, the shows are characterized by an exuberant variety – of
styles, musicians, instruments, art forms – which lend them their very special
character, and which must have been deeply satisfying for Dylan and the other
participants. The full show lasted for c. four hours, and even though Dylan
was undoubtedly the protagonist, he was still one among many others on
stage and his set just a small part of a bigger whole. Thus, what the acoustical
set in  was in relation to the solo artist of the early s, the The Rolling
Thunder Revue was in relation to the concerts with the Band in : the
perfection of Dylan as a fellow musician who mastered sprezzatura in a musical
companionship the way he once did it as a soloist.
B  B – F  F ()
The Rolling Thunder shows used to end with the song ‘Gotta Travel On’, and
that’s exactly what Dylan did. Again, the perfection that had been attained
was a call for departure and not for further refinement. And again, there were
external circumstances which emphasised the break, beyond the artistic or

III A  S
musical reasons. A couple of years of divorce hassle and the undeniable failure with his cinematographic magnum opus Renaldo & Clara had apparently
made Dylan a poor man, and the world tour he embarked on in  – his
first real world tour – has been nicknamed ‘The Palimony Tour’.
The contrast with Rolling Thunder could hardly have been starker. Dylan
no longer performed in jeans and bandana, but in silk vest and brocade; the
band was no longer the former group of friends and musical libertines, but
a slick band to a large extent taken over from the remains of Elvis’ old show
band; the whole appearance radiated ‘Las Vegas’ instead of ‘Gypsy caravan’.
Musically speaking, the menu that was served during the tour was as close
to pop as we have ever seen it in Dylan’s carreer. It was music for the masses.
At the opening concerts in Budokan in Japan, Dylan even let the concert
arrangers dictate which songs he should sing.
And it certainly started bad. The live album ‘At Budokan’ which came out
of the visit to Japan starts off with a ‘Mr Tambourine Man’ where the pop
arrangement is dominated by a flute. Even Mozart hated the flute!
If  is a memorable year, it is maninly because of the autumn leg of the
tour. The greatness of these concerts has, strangely enough, been recognized
only in recent years. The expectations to the European summer shows were
enormous – this was his first appearance on European soil since , and for
most people it was their first chance to see him live. The concerts were gigantic; the out-door concert at the Blackbushe airfield in England is assumed
to have had , visitors. Another highlight – perhaps not the least for
Dylan himself – was the concert on Hitler’s stadium in Nuremberg where
Dylan played from the opposite side of the arena from where Hitler had been
standing, and introduced ‘Masters of War’ saying that ‘It is a great pleasure
to sing it in this place’. Hence, there is a certain mythical glow around this
part of the tour. But back in America in the fall, the reviewers were negative
to Dylan’s accomplishments, for reasons that had little to do with the music. The late shows have therefore been largely forgotten until they have been
resurrected thanks to a handful of outstanding bootleg albums.
It is an exciting period because it demonstrates Dylan’s battle against the
boundaries of genre norms. It can be heard as a long answer to the question
‘An artist like Bob Dylan, with his roots in folk and rock music and whose
version of perfection can be defined as sprezzatura: the studied, confident nonchalance, how can he find himself at home in a commercial soundscape and
Hush Hush, Sweet Charlotte (see below, p. ) has taken the place of pride among the
shows, but others are just as good.

T U H

under formal and artistic constraints which are dictated by what the people
wants (because he needs their money, or simply because he wants to)?’ And
the answer is that an artist like Bob Dylan solves the problem in part by redefining the genre norms so that they feel at home with him. It appears to be this
work with the form which is what generates the engagement in , in the
same way that the material and the companionship did it during the Rolling
Thunder years.
The same ‘Mr Tambourine Man’ is the song which most clearly illustrates
the radical transformation that this formal labour led to, between the first
concerts and the last. The flute is still there during the summer leg, but it has
become more frenzied, and come autumn it is gone. The arrangement is also
changed: the happy clappy pop song has lost most of its drive; instead, the
instruments weave a carpet of sound upon which his voice meanders. And the
vocal is as far from the spring tour as one can possibly come: the rhythm is
completely free and every phrase ends with stretched-out tones which tend to
slide upwards into the area of scream in a way which resembles John Lennon’s
primal scream therapy on his Plastic Ono Band.
The song that stands out as the true highlight of the  season undergoes the same treatment: ‘Tangled Up In Blue’. It was introduced in the setlist
during the summer in a new arrangement, a slow, broad, emotional grand ballad. The accompaniment, which consists of guitar, saxophone, and keyboard,
intimates more than marks a pulse. To begin with, the song is rather square,
with a fixed melody and predominantly a firm rhythm which because of the
slow tempo leaves the melody in a constant danger of falling apart in single
syllables; the rhythm decides in this song, and it is as if it takes some effort to
keep it together as a meaningful unit.
But how different isn’t the autumn version! The grand ballad arrangement
is basically the same as during the summer tour, but it now becomes a sounding background for the most intensive (and intensively slow) vocalizations
ever. And this time it is the text and the sound that reigns, and the soul in turmoil who restlessly roams the American continent in the song (and – one may
imagine – also on stage), gets free reins in a performance of the same cloth as
in ‘Mr Tambourine Man’. The square rhythm is gone; only in a single phrase
here and there is it perceivable, and the effect is striking: what used to be fixed
form, a musical straitjacket for a text that wants to get free, is now an effect
which kan be used or avoided at the wish of the singer in the moment. When
the fixed puls can suddenly be heard in the phrase ‘They never did like mama’s
III A  S

home-made dress’, it stand out dramatically from the surrounding phrases,
whether one hears it as an echo of the serious formality of the nuptial liaison,
or just as a musical expression. Regular rhythm is hardly anything new, but
this time, it’s as if it is heard for the first time.
A Y R? ()
In November , Dylan picked up a cross from the stage floor which someone
had tossed up to him, and the rest is history. The last few times he sings
‘Tangled Up In Blue’, the lyrics are changed. He no longer visits topless places
to have a beer, nor does he smoke pipes or read Italian poets: the topless place
has become the the Flamingo hotel, where ‘she’ is dancing in a dress made
of stars and stripes. He now reads the Bible and thinks about death (‘all the
people I used to know, at least the ones that ain’t in the grave’).
In other words: it is time for new chapter and a new departure, more
radical this time than ever before. As a reborn and saved Christian he suddenly
had an agenda which in one single blow rendered all his old songs useless. In a
quick succession, Dylan writes a collection of songs where he distances himself
from all the traditions he has always felt at home in and being inspired by and
instead turns to the gospel tradition. The suddenness and comprehensiveness
of the change means that in the ‘gospel years’, we have an unusually clear
picture of ‘Who is Dylan the musician right now?’
The conversion became an opportunity for Dylan to delve more seriously
into a tradition which had always been dear to him even though he had never
taken the chance to live it out. The Staple Singers had, according to Dylan
himself, been an important influence ever since he heard them on the radio at
night at age twelve. When Dylan became a gospel musician himself, this was
the direction in which he turned. He was attracted to Roebuck Staples’ voice,
which united a sweet and gentle voice with a rough bluesy edge which made
him ‘[sound more] like a blues singer singing gospel’. And the same could
be said about Dylan; a large portion of the new songs are undeniably blues
songs, even though they come with a different sound than before. The rhythm
section is more lively than earlier, and there are two keyboard players in the
In the version from Charlotte,  December. Other nights might have had other variants,
but the effect is the same.

The statement is from an interview Dylan gave on the occasion of The Staple Singers
tribute show,  Oct , quoted from gray:enc:staple, p. .

T U H

band. The backing singers, who all had their background in black church
choirs, were chosen more for their feeling than their perfection: It wasn’t so
much standing there with the music and trying to prove how perfectly you
could sing, but people who had a story in their voices, when they’d sing there
was a feeling there. That feeling comes from life experiences, and that’s what
he was after.’
In the best Christian spirit he throws himself into the , fathoms’
depth, and apparently sees it as liberating. The joy of absorbing the gospel
tradition the same way he earlier did with folk and blues is tangible, and never
before or after has his singing been more exuberant or the union of vitality
and joy and deep seriousness more contagious, no matter what one may think
of his conversion.
And he didn’t do a ‘hwang WHwaongg’ this time. Dylan had a message
to deliver, at any cost, and he hired some of the most outstanding producers
in the rock world, the duo Jerry Wexler and Barry Beckett; he brought in the
rising star Mark Knopfler on guitar; and he even overcame his own displeasure
at hard work in the studio. The result – Slow Train Coming () – did, not
surprisingly, turn out to be one of the strongest albums in Dylan’s catalogue –
if one can see through the layers of doomsday and armageddon that pour out
of many of the lyrics.
T N-E T (– )
The eighties were, for Dylan just like the rest of us, a difficult time. Down in
the Groove from  is a good representative of this period. Six of the then
songs on the album are straightforward three-chord rock in A major, where
the biggest difference between the songs is the titles. And undeniable gems
like Ralph Stanley’s bluegrass ballad ‘Rank Stranger’, the album as a whole
confirms that the eighties (here defined as the period between  and  –
incidentally Reagan’s central years in charge) are – hopefully – forgettable.
Down in the Groove is in good company: Empire Burlesque from the previous year has a couple of acceptable songs, but as an album it is fairly unbearable, mainly because of the production by Arthur Baker, the star producer
of the eighties. Knocked Out Loaded from the following year has only two
redeeming features: it lasts half an hour only, and a third of it is ‘Brownsville
Carolyn Dennis, who was to become Dylan’s second wife (Follow That Dream international, December, ).


III A  S
Girl’, a road movie better than any I’ve seen on the screen, which unfortunately means that one has to buy the album.
It was therefore a great surprise to all: nobody had expected anything more
to come from Dylan’s hand. The first two volumes of Paul Williams’ excellent Bob Dylan: Performing Artist have the subtitles ‘The Early Years, –’
and ‘The Middle Years, –’ – an entirely plausible plan for a trilogy
where one could expect a volume three ‘The Last Years’, where it would be
too much to hope for to get enough live material to fill a whole volume about
the ‘performing artist’ alone, but where the rest might be filled up with some
retrospective filler material to finalize the series in style. But such expectations
were shattered by events: Performing Artist vol.  has the somewhat tentative
and vague title ‘– and beyond’, and volume  is scheduled to appear
with the title ‘– and back again’.
The surprise that ruined William’s neat outline, was ‘The Never-Ending
Tour’. It started in  and at the time of writing it is still true to its name.
The name, the ‘Never-Ending Tour’ only indirectly goes back to Dylan
himself. In an interview in , he was asked: ‘The last tour has gone virtually
straight into this one.’ According to the published version, he answers: ‘It’s all
the same tour. The Never-Ending Tour.’ But as Michael Gray has revealed,
the name was formulated by the journalist, Adrian Deevoy, in a follow-up
question which Dylan answered affirmatively if ‘unenthusiastically’.
The term may still stand. It is well established, and it covers well a period
which forms a natural chapter in the history of Dylan as a musician – not
only for the obvious external reasons concerning biographical acts and facts,
but also because even though many traits of Dylan’s artistic profile are still the
same, there are also some thoroughgoing changes in premises.
The most evident change is quantitative: from the beginning until ,
Dylan had given a little more than five hundred concerts; today he is rapidly
approaching the two thousandth Never-Ending tour show, with an average of
one hundred a year. While there was a time when it was perfectly possible
to have a complete Dylan collection – not only all the official albums but
also every existing concert recording and bootleg album – as the years pass
and the tour rolls on, this has become virtually (and perhaps also practically)
impossible.
Williams:; Williams:; Williams:.
gray:enc, p. . The interview was first published in Q, no. , December . Dylan
has on several occasion rejected the name; in the booklet to World Gone Wrong () he
says that it ended in  when G. E. Smith left the band.


T U H

F . Registered concerts per year, –. Source: http://db.dylantree.com
Which also means that this is a difficult chapter to write. To present a
meaningful survey of these nearly twenty years of modern rock history is way
beyond the scope of an article like this. I will therefore go for a more limited
task: first, I will give a brief sketch of the whole period, then focus on a few
distinctive features.
* * *
The Never-Ending Tour was born out of an awakening, a spiritual experience
not unlike the one that led to the conversion in . In various interviews,
Dylan has explained how in  he was tired of it all, felt no connection
with the songs he was singing, and used the backup singers as a screen to hide
behind. During a short tour with the Grateful Dead (whom he seriously considered to join, as a regular member) he realised that what he could no longer
do – fill the songs he was singing, his own songs, with meaning – the Dead
did without any problem. Then, during a concert in Locarno, Switzerland, 
October, , it happened:
It’s almost like I heard it as a voice. [. . . ] I’m determined to stand, whether God will
deliver me or not. And all of a sudden everything just exploded. [. . . ] After that is
when I sort of knew: I’ve got to go out and play these songs.

Newsweek. October , 

III A  S
And so he did. The format was supposed to be as small as possible: no
more backup singers, just drums, bass, and a guitar. It was tailored to the new
project: to rediscover his own songs.
The years of the Never-Ending Tour are both very different and quite similar. They may be likened to bottles of wine from the same vineyard, which
may vary in quality and character from one year to another, but where there
are no sharp breaks.
The first year, , is a good one – vintage Never-Ending Tour. The shows
were fairly short, but in return, he worked his way through an impressive
amount of songs, and the energy Dylan draws from the joy of having found a
way to do his thing again, is apparent. A regular element, which remained so
for the first ten years, was an acoustic set in the middle of the concert where
Dylan, usually supported only by an acoustic guitar, pulled out songs from
the folk repertory again, but also early rock’n’roll, Tin Pan Alley schlagers,
and more recent songs. Alley-schlagere og nyere covers.
The general opinion on the years – is more mixed. Again, Dylan
has claimed it to have been his final blow against the myth of Bob Dylan,
Icon And Voice of a Generation. Whether this is true, or it was caused by
changes in the band or that Dylan’s visions went too fast and too far for the
others on stage to keep up, or simply by an excessive consumption of liquids
– during these years we find some of the worst concert experiences Dylan has
ever exposed us to.
And yet: it was never a clear ‘Hwang WHwaongg’. In his best moments,
Dylan managed to bring new life to the old songs, not least through a singing
which is both expressive and inventive regarding melody lines and phrasing.
In , band and leader had found a form, and we get a series of good
years. Characteristic of the ’ shows are the long, long numbers with many
long guitar solos (‘Tangled up in Blue’ lasts twelve minutes). The series culminates with , where particularly the spring concerts in Prague and Brixton stand out.
The music in the following years, until today, is more spotless than before –
for better or for worse. There wasn’t a tighter rock combo than Dylan’s band in
existence on the surface of the planet around the turn of the millennium. The
downside is that there was far less room for the expressivity, the unexpected
experiments of the former years. Instead we get a well-rehearsed, professional
programme performed with great technical and musical expertise – one knows
what one gets, and one knows that it is good, but one knows it.
Somewhat simplified one may summarize the tendency during these years
as a development away from simple folk and more expansive rock, towards
T U H

a cleaner rock style, in combination with other genres within Americana:
bluegrass, inspired by the Stanley Brothers; different shades of country music; and the improbable but highly satisfactory cross-over to swing-jazz which
is so prominent on the two latest albums.
* * *
What is it, then, that Dylan is doing and has been since ? How can he
keep going at his breakneck speed, year after year? the only year prior to 
that even comes close, is , and that, apparently, was an experience which
almost destroyed him. What is different now?
‘Never-Ending’ is probably part of the answer: he is now a hard-working
musician who goes to work every day and is happy with that. When the single
moments are seen ‘sub specie aeternitatis’, he no longer has to be a genius and
a prophet every time he goes on stage; he can instead be the skilled craftsman
who does what he is best at together with other professionals who can make
sure the job is properly done. He is, in the best and most relaxed sense of the
word, ‘just a song-and-dance man’.
Another interesting tendency, which also follows its own pulse, is the relationship between concerts and records. Dylan has always expressed a deep
disdain for recording studios, microphones, and producers, and – at least according to the myth – his best tracks are those which have not been perfected
through numerous takes, but which have been perfect on the first take, preferrably with musicians who haven’t even heard the song on beforehand, so that
they haven’t tired of it or learned it too well to be spontaneously creative any
more. The live situation, filling the moment with music which is born out of
that same moment – that is Dylan’s art form. Significantly enough, during the
periods which are held to be his weakest – the Self Portrait and Knocked Out
Loaded eras – the number of album releases has not gone down (even though
they perhaps should have): it is as a live performer that he has been absent.
During the Never-Ending Tour years, he seems to have taken the consequences of this. It may not be surprising that the new releases are scarcer
when he is on the road all the time, but he also seems to have had a more
relaxed attitude towards it, as if he is thinking: ‘I’m a song-and-dance man –
the records will have to come when they come.’
When they did come, they were not bad. His last three records, Time Out
Of Mind, ‘Love and Theft’, and Modern Times, have been received very favourably by critics and audience alike, and they have – hardly surprising, but worth
pointing out – found a natural place in his live repertory, side by side with the
classics of the s.

III A  S
It is not that the repertory needed expansion. In average, Dylan has played
a little over one hundred different songs per year since  –  different
songs altogether. The repertory falls in three different categories. The core
is of course his own songs, where a relatively small group of songs dominate,
but where he has also reintroduced a substantial part of his entire production,
reviving songs that most people had given up the hope of ever hearing live.
The second main group consists of old classics from the folk repertory –
the same treasure trove he pillaged in his early carreer and which has followed
him ever since. For a long time, the Never-Ending Tour concerts had a fixed
structure with an acoustic set in the middle where he was only accompanied by
a guitarist, and the gems are too many to mention: songs like ‘Eileen Aroon’,
‘White Dove’, ‘Roving Gambler’, and, in the later years, religious songs that
are best known – if at all – from the hymnals: ‘Rock of Ages’, ‘I am the Man,
Thomas’, and ‘Hallelujah, I’m Ready to Go’.
And finally his inimitable covers, spanning the whole range from evergreens like ‘I’m In The Mood For Love’ and Charles Aznavour’s ‘The Times
We’ve Known’, s’ hits like ‘Any Way You Want Me’ and ‘Blue Bonnet
Girl’, to modern standards like Leonard Cohen’s ‘Hallelujah’ (which I am
bold enough to claim that nobody has sung better, including the originator),
the odd Beatles song, Neil Young’s ‘Old Man’, and more obscure songs like
Charles Daniels’s ‘Old Rock’n’roller’, which he presented, at the one concert
where he played it: ‘In case you’re wondering what happens to people like me,
here’s a song to tell about it.’ A rare gesture was the inclusion of several songs
by Warren Zevon in  while Zevon was terminally ill in cancer. As one fan
expressed it: ‘Jesus is the last guy bob dedicated three songs to in a show.’
In a certain sense, he treats all three categories in the same way. When with
the help of the Grateful Dead he rediscovered his own songs, it was precisely
as a repertory of songs with qualities in themselves, independently of him as
the originator – that he had in fact written them, was almost an insignificant
coincidence. In recent interviews, he talks proudly about his old songs, but
also with a detached awe: they have come through him.
This also means that he is emancipated from them: he can let go of the
demand – from himself or from the audience – that he has to bring out new
emotional depths and write them down in heart blood: the songs have their
effect on their own. He is just the messenger. He performs them like a cover
act – ‘Dylan does Dylan’ – which also appears from the fact that he usually

Between  and the summer tour of .
T U H

returns to the original versions of the songs: the wonderful re-writes of songs
like ‘Tangled Up In Blue’ and ‘Simple Twist of Fate’ are gone.
One significant difference remains between how he treats his own songs
and those of others. When he sings Zevon’s ‘Accidentally Like A Martyr’ it is
by and large a faithful rendition of the original; the arrangement is the same as
Zevon’s own, and the text is presented clearly and audibly. It is as if he wants
the audience to hear the song, and to understand what they hear.
‘Like a Rolling Stone’, ‘Just Like A Woman’ or any other of the familiar
Dylan classics are a completely different matter. Here, it is often difficult to
follow the lyrics, unless one knows them already; the melodies are normally
(and – through the years: increasingly) reduced to short figures which are
repeated ad nauseam and boredom, so that just about every line in every single
song have at times consisted of monotonous recitations punctuated by rising
octaves at the end.
These performances are probably responsible for the concert review topos
about how unpredictable Dylan is and how he always changes his songs beyond recognition. But the truth of the matter is that if one disregards the
singing, the arrangements are overwhelmingly stable and mostly faithful to
the original album versions. This is an important point for the understanding of Dylan as a live artist during the Never-Ending Tour years: he uses the
listener’s knowledge of the songs as the foundation upon which he constructs
the evening’s show, the canvas on which he ‘paints his masterpiece’. Given
this ‘(p)recognition’, he can move freely around in his melody lines and his
phrasings, his accents and his gestures. The arrangements have the same function as the guitar accompaniment in the early acoustic years: as a necessary
but not sufficient point of departure; a field of action, not an independent
‘work’. Sometimes the result is forgettable, routine-like – and what else can
one expect? – but then there are all the other times, when a lyric line gets a
surprising twist because of a new accent, or a counter-melody brings out new
musical associations, and what we have is an entirely new song, even though
the arrangement is the same as the night before or the night after. These are
the moments which make it worthwhile to collect piles of almost identical
concert recordings: you never know where the nugget is, so you gotta have
’em all, and without a good knowledge of Dylan’s sometimes peculiar ‘canThere are exceptions, of course, such as the swing-jazz version of ‘Trying to Get To
Heaven’ and less radical but still new arrangements of songs like ‘Boots of Spanish Leather’,
‘Gotta Serve Somebody’, etc.

III A  S

vas’, there is the risk that one would overlook the brilliant strokes and mistake
them for specks on the canvas.
‘M ’
But there is also a method in the madness of variations. In a central and much
discussed passage in his autobiography Chronicles (), Dylan gives a candid account of how a certain, apparently very precise system of ‘mathematical
music’ which he had once learned from Lonnie Johnson in , was a decisive factor behind the change which set the Never-Ending Tour in motion.
He describes it as a system which can be applied mechanically, and which will
always work, because it is based on the properties of certain numbers:
There’s no mystery to it and it’s not a technical trick. The scheme is for real [. . .],
like a delicate design that would arrange the structure of whatever piece I was
performing. [. . .] And because this works on its own mathematical formula, it can’t
miss’
He is relatively detailed in his descriptions of this system and certain of
the number relations with respect to melodies and rhythms, but that does not
mean that everything is understandable (‘In a diatonic scale there are eight
notes, in a pentatonic there are five. If you’re using the first scale, and you hit
,  and  to the phrase and then repeat it, a melody forms. Or you can use 
three times. Or you can use  once and  twice. It’s indefinite what you can
do, and each time would create a different melody.’) But from more general
descriptions of the system one can form an outline of what he means, which
also corresponds well with what he does on stage.
What Dylan describes is a formulaic system for composition and performance, where a set of general rules can be applied to many different situations.
The system builds on a certain approach to rhythmic and melodic cells, based
on more or less esoteric considerations of the properties of numbers, but it’s
actually not very mathematical at all: rather, it is a method to establish a temporary musical system of meaning through a conscious use of certain numerically based formulas, and repetition of these – possibly but not necessarily
also against the background of a conviction that these numbers have certain
objective properties.


Bob Dylan, Chronicles (New York: Simon and Schuster, ), pp. –.
Chronicles, p. .
T U H

A summary of the system, which I would prefer to call ‘creative redundancy’ rather than ‘mathematical music’, might read:
. Make a random selection of tones and form patterns out of these, which
are then repeated and recombined.
. Through these iterations, new tonal centres are established, and hence
a field of tension between the original tonal focal points of the song and
the new patterns.
. For the patterns to be recognized as a new tonal centre (and not just a
random selection of tones) in the short time that the musician has at
his disposal, they must be simple;
. but if they are, and if one finds a balance between redundancy and
creativity (meaning: there is a limit to how long one can keep on playing
     , whatever it means), it will always work.
So when Dylan says:
A song executes itself on several fronts and you can ignore musical customs. All
you need is a drummer and a bass player, and all shortcomings become irrelevant
as long as you stick to the system.
The method works on higher or lower degrees depending on different patterns
and the syncopation of a piece.
Very few would be converted to it because it had nothing to do with technique
and musicians work their whole lives to be technically superior players’
it can be translated freely but contentswise fairly precisely to the following:
A song can exploit several different meaning systems and the tension between
them at the same time, and you are not limited to the rules set by one such set
of musical customs. Since I play rock, I need a drummer and a bass player, but
all shortcomings become irrelevant as long as you stick to the system, since this
system is based on a conscious play with ‘inventive redundancy’ and not on the
intricacy of the base system and the technical prowess of the musician.
Since the system works in the interplay beween the song and the newly established fields of meaning, the concrete way of playing or singing will have to be
adjusted to the different patterns already present in the song.
Very few would be converted to it because, whereas most music making takes
place in contexts where value judgement is based on complexity and most musicians
depend on technical prowess to accomplish this, the ‘Lonnie’ method instead
emphasises and requires simplicity, both on the part of the performer and as a
constitutive element of the system itself.
Dylan himself emphasises the ‘redundancy’ part and pairs it with the metaphysical qualities of numbers in his explanation of what it is that makes the
system Just Work. My interpretation is a little different: that redundancy may

Chronicles, p. .

III A  S
be a precondition for the system, but what really makes it Just Work is the
other element: inventiveness. I don’t think it is a system that someone else
can learn to use, at least not directly, as a system. It is hardly insignificant
that there are twenty years of touring and music making between the time
when he first learned it and when he understood how to put it to use. It has
taken him those years to gain the musicianship (and perhaps also the need
for routine which persistent touring must bring with it) which he then could
cross-fertilize with Lonnie Johnson’s secret. In other words, the system is based
less on mathematics and Lonnie than on ‘inventive redundancy’ and Dylan’s
own musicianship.
If it has seemed meaningful to give Dylan’s more or less clearly formulated
thoughts about his mathematical model this much attention, it is because it
has seemed to be a good key: this is what he’s actually doing. His solos mostly
consist of little figures which are repeated and varied, and the same goes for
his singing which makes unprepared first-timers shake their heads in bewilderment and say with the critics: ‘I didn’t recognize any of the songs; he has
changed them all.’ The ‘Lonnie theory’ may be seen as the principles behind
that which concretely happens when he uses the original songs as starting
points for his own variations.
Furthermore, it gives a vantage point for answering the question what is
different now and in . ‘Inventive redundancy’ is the successful outcome of
transferring Dylan’s governing principle as a guitar player – maximum effect
with minimum effort – to the live situation with a full band.
T P/- D
Dylan has always borrowed liberally from the traditions he has involved himself with: most of the melodies to his early songs are slightly reworked or
exactly copied versions of existing folk songs. On his last couple of albumsx,
this has come to the fore again, in ways which make one ask what his current
‘project’ really is.
It all started when Chris Barnes read the Japanese gangster biography Confessions of a Yakuza by Yunichi Saga and recognized phrases and whole sentences which he knew well from another context: the lyrics to ‘Love and Theft’.
He noted down several of these instances. When The Guardian picked up on
See especially my analysis of ‘Mr Tambourine Man’ from Cascais,  and Vienna,
 in ‘Three Tambourine Men’, –.

T U H

the story, it created a bit of a stir in the media for a while (and Saga’s book
skyrocketed on the bestselling lists).
New discoveries followed: not only the lyrics but also the music was borrowed. ‘Floater’ is virtually identical with Guy Lombardo’s ‘Snuggled On Your
Shoulders’; ‘Sugar Baby’ is Gene Austin’s ‘Lonesome Road’ with new lyrics
(mostly; the central admonition ‘Look up, look up, seek your maker / ’fore
Gabriel blows his horn’ is Austin’s), and so forth.
With Modern Times the story repeated itself. The texts have taken more
than scattered images from ‘the Poet Laureate of the Confederacy’, Henry
Timrod and from the Penguin edition of Ovid’s Tristia. And seven (so far) of
the ten songs have known models not just for the melodies but for all the
music: arrangements, solos, the whole thing. And yet, the record sleeve states:
‘All songs written by Bob Dylan’.
Again, one may ask: what is he doing? The media have mostly been preoccupied with the lyric borrowings, and this is perhaps understandable: that
the Voice of a Generation no longer finds words himself but has to steal them
from others, is a better story than that an old Bard who can’t sing anyway
nicks a melody here and there. But the musical borrowings are actually a far
more serious matter: they are more substantial and the implications are wider.
Playing around with fragments of existing texts and assembling them in new
ways is a well-established literary technique; playing music that someone else
has written as if it was one’s own, is less favourably looked upon.
When the method is as consistently and pervasively used as it is, it invites
the question if he has ran out of own ideas or if this on the contrary is a
new, grand creative model in a postmodern spirit: a gigantic collage where
the methods of the folk tradition are extended way beyond their established
genre limits. What if the models that have been discovered are just the tip of
an iceberg – what if all of ‘Floater’, or for that matter all of ‘Love and Theft’
has been borrowed (or stolen, as the title of the album indicates) from many
different sources, and put together like a jigsaw puzzle of ideas, images, and
cultural heritage?
Over the past ten years, Dylan has delivered three successful albums, the
acclaimed documentary No Direction Home, volume one of his autobiography
Chronicles, the motion picture Masked and Anonymous, he has his own weekly
radio show, and the tour – well, it hasn’t ended yet and probably never will.
During this period, Dylan has passed from a ‘has-been’ to an obvious mega
star with a constant media presence and a high status, not just among historians and fans, but in general. The only thing that may give cause for concern,
and which also makes the benevolent collage interpretation dubious, is that
III A  S

the quality of his live show seems to have gone down over the past few years.
One day at the office follows another, without any noticeable engagement.
If the live show, which has always been Dylan’s hallmark, is on the decline
and the record production ends up as competent renditions of cover material, where does that leave us regarding the question of the heart behind it all?
Should we consider whatever decline in quality we may sense as an inevitable
and temporary heart beat, or has the distancing involved in the ‘inventive
redundancy’ gone so far that the heart has left the project altogether?
T U H
I have construed Dylan’s musical carreer as an uneven heart, as a pulsating
series of phases of appropriation (of a genre, a style, or a form), which are
then used with internalized obviousness, only to slide into the background for
the next phase of appropriation. My fascination with Dylan’s nervous energy,
as I presented it initially, then becomes just one side of the coin: just as important is the element of controlled calm, and the combination of these. One
may also regard it as an oscillation between extrovert and introvert, between
phases of appropriation mostly for the artist’s own pleasure (Bonnie Beecher
will probably nod in recognition to this), and of use of the appropriated in a
communicative situation.
Whereby the final core concept has been introduced, which is the true
motivation for the emphasis of the ‘heart’: communication. For Dylan, it is
not simply a matter of a pulsation between different musical styles, but of
ways of using different musical styles as a means of communication through
organized sound.
Woody Guthrie has apparently said about Dylan: ‘That boy’s got a voice.
Maybe he won’t make it with his writing, but he can sing it. He can really sing
it.’
Not just ‘sing’, but ‘sing it’. That little extra word transforms the words of
the dying hobo-poet into the most precise description of Dylan’s work: as an
artist who can sing it.
Initially, this might be read as a devaluation of the musical side in relation
to the textual: that what counts is, after all, what one sings, which opinions
This is of course a personal judgement; see ‘Genius, Guitars, and Goodbyes’ (p. )
for a discussion of the reasons for this judgement. A similar criticism has been voiced by
Michael Gray, such as in the final chapter of gray:song.

T U H

and emotions one expresses. But that can not be what Guthrie has had in
mind: it is the voice, not the words, that brings ‘it’ out.
Even though this turns the most common opinion about Dylan upside
down, it is not difficult to agree with Guthrie: what makes Dylan special is
not only his ability to put words together in a way which has resonance in
many different listeners, but also to let these words come to expression in a
musical style which is shaped precisely to fit this expression, or even to amplify
it.
One might even turn it upside down once more and say that what makes
Dylan special is his ability to shape his music in a way which has resonance in
many different listeners, and then combine this music with words which are
able to amplify the musical contents.
This is not just a logical-rhetorical exercise. It is grounded in a Wittgensteinian understanding of language, where the meaning of a word is its use,
and where that connection between a sound even (a ‘word’) and a certain conception which we perceive as the word’s meaning, does not have any particular
metaphysical status determined by properties in the object (be it ‘red’ or ‘C
major’), but is founded in a conventional, internalized pattern of associations
between previous experiences of similar sound events and other regularly occurring events (‘G major’). In this perspective, there is no radical difference
between music and language; it makes perfect sense to say that language is a
kind of music.
The ultimate question is, then, what Guthrie’s ‘it’ is, and where the perception stems from that it is somehow communicated, through the voice or
in music. When it is felt that music says something, it is because connections within one system of meaning (e.g. music) can be based on elements
which are also important and can be recognized in others (e.g. language):
tension/resolution, compliance or break with conventions, etc. My survey of
Dylan’s musical carreer can be regarded in this light: as an exegesis of which
‘sounds’ he has used and which associations with other sounds and other meaning systems these may be made in hearing and interpreting them. Most directly, one may point to Dylan’s use of the sounds of language, where he, in
Mike Daley’s words,
uses pitch in a way that seems to directly draw on the meaningful properties of pitch
in everyday speech. This ‘speechlike’ pitch use he combines with more abstractly
‘musical’ pitch to create a performance. The dialectic between these two poles
of vocal expression causes Dylan’s performance to be received as ‘meaningful’ in
some rather specific ways; the linguistic [. . .] meanings that are encoded in Dylan’s
III A  S

performance find a high degree of concordance with some types of meanings
decoded by listeners.
But also the monotonous, insistent seriousness of ‘It’s alright, Ma’, the
bittersweet arabesques in ‘Spanish Is the Loving Tongue’, or the floating tonal
directions in ‘Mr Tambourine Man’, and in a more general sense the feeling of
restlessness both in single performances and in the musical œuvre as a whole –
they all give occasion to draw associations between musical and non-musical
patterns of meaning. To the extent that I have made explicit interpretations of
these elements, these should only be regarded as personal reflections; it would
be a degradation of the purely musical meaning of a song such as ‘Mr Tambourine Man’ to say, e.g., that the free relationship to fixed cadential patterns
means the same freedom as in the line ‘just to dance beneath the diamond
sky with one hand waving free’. Rather, one might say that Dylan at his best
manages to unite a distinct musical material with lyrics which are open and
undistinct enough in relation to a fixed, conceptual meaning, in ways which
opens up to associations of this kind, without giving neither the musical nor
the lyrical side the upper hand in the relation.
Just as personal and individual as the perception of reality is that comes
to expression in the texts, just as personal and individual is the musical style.
When Dylan sings, we not only hear the song, we hear an individual’s reaction
to the world: also in the music, we hear the person Bob Dylan, a human being
who talks to us as fellow human beings about the reality we all share, in a way
which makes it meaningless to distinguish between the musical and the lived
life.

daley:voices, p. .
Chapter 
The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan ()
A
,    I ...! This is the album that is responsible for my
addiction to Dylan (and not because I bought it when it was released).
It is not the one I play most regularly, but whenever I pick it out, I ask
myself why I don’t do it more often.
Several of the songs are part of the daily routine, of course. Don’t Think
Twice, Masters of War, Hard Rain, Girl of the North Country, not to mention
Blowin’ in the Wind – I do believe I hear at least one of these every day. Half
an album of songs, almost  years old, by a then folk singer, that still hold
their ground in the repertory of a man who has for  of those years been a
rock artist – that’s in itself a brand of quality. And the rest of the songs ain’t so
bad either.
What this album first of all shows (and which was confirmed by Good As
I Been To You) is what an accomplished guitar player Dylan was – and still
is, when he wants to. There is some really nice guitar work on some of these
tracks: the finger-picking on Don’t Think Twice and Talkin’ WW Blues, the
free-rhythmical blues a la Big Joe Williams of Down the Highway, the lyricism
of Corrina Corrina, and the persistent, rhythmical hammering-on of Masters
of War. None of it is really (really) difficult – he gets as much effect as possible
from techniques that are actually quite simple (once you master them). This
is not to say that he’s a cheater (those who have access to ‘Hero Blues’, an
outtake from the Freewheelin’ sessions, can hear for themselves that Dylan
anno  had a quite good control of his instrument).
A contributing element is the use of altered or open tunings. Three of the
songs on Freewheelin’ are in open D (I shall be Free, Corrina Corrina, and
Oxford Town) and three in Dropped D tuning (Masters of War, Down the
Highway, and Hard Rain). Several of the outtakes also use such tunings. It is
noteworthy that the playing style in these songs differs considerably from the
style of the Blood on the Tracks songs, which were also originally played in
open D tuning. It is said that it was Joni Mitchell who inspired and/or taught


III A  S
him to use open D tuning, and although he apparently knew it even ten years
earlier, he didn’t use the same style and technique then.
A striking unifying feature of the playing style on Freewheelin’ is the many
second-inversion chords, i.e. chords that have the fifth in the bass, such as D/a
(x) – so prominent in Blowin’ In The Wind. Another (I think related)
feature is the many ways he uses to avoid the dominant, such as the turn C –
Gadd/b – G in Blowin’ in the Wind and Bob Dylan’s Dream, about which I
intend to write a little piece some day.
Chapter 
It Wasn’t Bruce – Don’t Think Twice ()
A M W
Case -: People vs. Langhorne
Courtroom of Honor
Judge Paul N. de Disgavel
J We now come to case seven-seven-o-o-two, the People vs. Bruce Langhorne, concerning the guitar playing on a certain track, ‘Don’t Think Twice’,
recorded in Columbia Studio A, New York, in the afternoon of November ,
. The People holds and has always held that the guitar which accompanies
Bob Dylan’s singing on this track is played by Bruce Langhorne. Against this,
Dr. Eyolf Østrem contends that the guitar is in fact played by someone entirely
different.
I ask District Attorney William Gully to step forward and present the evidence on behalf of the people.
G Thank you, Your Honor. In addition to written evidence directly
connected with the case, I will present testimonials from esteemed witnesses
whose judgement is generally trusted and which should be weighed heavily.
Let me start with Exhibit A: the album sleeve of The Freewheelin’ Bob
Dylan, where the song was first released. They were written by Nat Hentoff,
a person very close to Dylan at the time. The People call Mr. Hentoff to the
bench to explain the facts.
N H There really isn’t much to explain:
Dylan’s accompaniment on this track includes Bruce Langhorne (guitar), George
Barnes (bass guitar), Dick Wellstood (piano), Gene Ramey (bass) and Herb Lovelle
(drums).

Liner notes to The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan, released May , .

III A  S

G Thank you, Mr Hentoff. I’m tempted to say, ‘Case closed’ already, but
if the defense wants to go through according to procedure, it’s your witness.
EØ We certainly do, Thank you.
Mr Hentoff, may I ask you: what happened to Misters Barnes, Wellstood,
and Lovelle? According to your testimony, they all played on this track, but I
can’t hear them anywhere. Did they play very quietly? That is hard to believe,
especially after hearing the track they had just spent fifteen takes on during
the previous hours, ‘Mixed up Confusion’. Am I right to assume that the
notes you wrote are in fact referring to another take of ‘Don’t Think Twice’,
recorded on the same occasion but never released?
H I’m sorry, I can’t answer that question – it’s too long ago now. You
might perhaps consult the documentation of the recording session.
EØ That’s a good idea. Meanwhile, I motion to disregard Exhibit A, the
liner notes to Freewheelin’, as inconclusive and irrelevant for the case.
J Sustained.
EØ Mr Gully – Bill, was it?
G I prefer to leave the first names out of this thank you very much.
The session documentation, yes. The People would like to call as our next
witness Mr. Olof Björner, distinguished and well-respected chronologer and
sessionologist, who will bring the details.
B This is what I know about that recording session:
Studio A
Columbia Recording Studios
New York City, New York
 November 
The th Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan session, produced by John Hammond.
. Mixed-Up Confusion
. Mixed-Up Confusion
. Mixed-Up Confusion
. Mixed-Up Confusion
. Mixed-Up Confusion
I W’ B – Don’t Think Twice ()

. Mixed-Up Confusion
. Mixed-Up Confusion
. Mixed-Up Confusion
. Mixed-Up Confusion
. Mixed-Up Confusion
. Mixed-Up Confusion
. Mixed-Up Confusion
. Mixed-Up Confusion
. Mixed-Up Confusion
. Mixed-Up Confusion
. Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right
. Ballad Of Hollis Brown
. Ballad Of Hollis Brown
. Kingsport Town
. Kingsport Town
. Whatcha Gonna Do
Bob Dylan (guitar, harmonica, vocal).
- George Barnes (guitar), Bruce Langhorne (guitar), Dick Wellstood (piano),
Gene Ramey (bass) and Herb Lovelle (drums).
- Bruce Langhorne (guitar).
Notes.
Recorded - pm.
Clinton Heylin mentions an electric Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right and a
Dixieland version of Mixed-Up Confusion as rumoured takes.
 overdubbed by unidentified musicians  December .
· Only , , , , , and  are in circulation.
· –, , and  are fragments only.
· , ,  are incomplete takes.
Reference.
Clinton Heylin: Bob Dylan. The Recording Sessions [ – ]. St. Martin’s
Press December , pp. –.
Glen Dundas: Tangled Up In Tapes. A Recording History of Bob Dylan. SMA
Services , page .
EØ Mr. Björner, let me first commend you on your outstanding work, which
I’ve myself perused extensively. Even on this occasion – although I dispute
one little detail in it – your summary of the session in question is an excellent
opportunity to recreate the events of that day. I ask you to go through it with
me.

http://www.bjorner.com/DSN%.htm#DSN

III A  S
They started, I can see, with fifteen takes – fifteen takes – of ‘Mixed up
Confusion’, where Dylan was backed by the musicians that Mr Hentoff has
just mentioned. There certainly seems to have been a fair amount of confusion
there, that’s for sure. Then, according to your survey, three of them left and
only Bruce Langhorne remained in the studio, to play backup guitar on four
more tracks: ‘Don’t Think Twice’, ‘Ballad of Hollis Brown’, ‘Kingsport Town’,
and ‘Whatcha Gonna Do’. Is that correct?
B To the best of my knowledge, yes.
EØ You also indicate the possibility of two more tracks recorded that afternoon: an electric version of ‘Don’t Think Twice’, and a Dixieland version –
God forbid – of ‘Mixed up Confusion’. That’s a whole lot to cram into two
hours of recording, wouldn’t you say? There wouldn’t be much time to rehearse and go through the songs on beforehand, would there?
B It certainly sounds like a lot, but I’m a sessionologist, not a session
musician, so I wouldn’t know.
EØ But as a sessionologist, would you say that it was possible?
B I suppose so. There are plenty of other examples in Dylan’s recording history where things have gone quickly.
EØ With rehearsals and all?
B Probably not. That would usually not have been the case. Dylan
is notorious for not rehearsing but rather working things out in the studio,
while recording. But he certainly was able to record a lot in a short time.
EØ Let us go through these songs. ‘Mixed up Confusion’ – fifteen takes.
Then we have a single take of ‘Don’t Think Twice’. Then a fragment of ‘Hollis
Brown’ followed by a full take. The same was the case with ‘Kingsport Town’
– a fragment and a full, single take, and finally there was a single take of
‘Whatcha Gonna Do’.
Now, on the last three, we can clearly hear two guitars. One is Dylan’s own,
hammering rhythmically and restlessly on ‘Hollis Brown’, strumming calmly
I W’ B – Don’t Think Twice ()

on ‘Kingsport Town’, and mainly marking the rhythm on ‘Whatcha Gonna
Do’. The other, then, is Langhorne, who embellishes the skeletal accompaniment laid down by Dylan. Would you agree that while ‘Mixed up Confusion’
is an attempt at working out an arrangement of a song, the last three songs
are more to be considered as Dylan-with-flourishes, songs which might as well
have been recorded by Dylan solo, but now that there was an accomplished
guitarist there . . . ?
B That sounds reasonable.
EØ I will come back to this point later on. Let me just ask you one more
thing: where have you got all this information? You refer to Clinton Heylin
and Glen Dundas – what about direct documentation of the session, isn’t it
common that such things are written down?
B That is correct. For most of Dylan’s session from the s we have
such documentation, but
Recording sheets from this session is missing, the info is taken from Dundas.
EØ Thank you. I have nothing further.
G The people now calls Clinton Heylin, a famous Dylan biographer
and sessionologist, who has also studied this case thoroughly. Mr Heylin, are
you of the opinion that the guitar on ‘Don’t Think Twice’ was played by Bruce
Langhorne?
C H I definitely am,
With all the musicians, save Langhorne, paid scale and sent packing, Dylan got
back on the program with a gorgeous rendition of ‘Don’t Think Twice, It’s All
Right’ that might just have illustrated how good a guitarist Dylan had become,
save that it’s Langhorne who provides the faultless accompaniment. Whatever ‘very
interesting things with guitar’ Dylan was coming up with, they were evidently best
expressed by a virtuoso like Langhorne.


ibid.
Behind the Shades, Take Two (London: Penguin Books, ), p. .

III A  S
G Very well. I think that settles it, don’t you think? Defense?
EØ Mr Heylin, if we leave the quippant bathos aside for a moment, let me
come back to the question: how do you know this? Have you had direct access
to source material the rest of us don’t know?
C H Unfortunately, no. The session records are, as Mr Björner
stated, missing. But I have worked with Sony’s archives in New York, and
produced
by far the most complete and accurate record of Dylan’s Columbia recordings to
date. [. . . ] With just a couple of dozen CO numbers [the numbers assigned to
each recorded song] and access to Sony’s overfull cardex system, I could at last
begin to reconstruct session after session. As the CO numbers multiplied, so the
gaps began to be plugged.
EØ Does that mean that you have plugged this particular gap too?
C H Uh, no, not this one. Because of Dylan’s
profound distaste for those who attempt to document his work,
and the obstinacy of Dylan’s people and their fear of a real critic like myself,
they have not let me in to study the tape boxes themselves. Instead,
the ostensible overseer of Dylan’s archive, Jeff Rosen, has finally put one lesser
Dylan authority to work on his behalf, rummaging through the very same vaults
[. . . ] [This l.D.a., Michael Krogsgaard,] has published two articles on Dylan’s
Columbia sessions. Largely because he is a discographer, not a critic, and therefore
no ‘threat’ to Dylan’s carefully constructed mystique (nor to Rosen), Krogsgaard
has been given access to the tape-boxes themselves, that Danish sonofabitch . . . 
EØ Sorry, say that again?
C H Oh, nothing.
Behind Closed Doors, p. xviii.
op. cit., p. xix.

Behind Closed Doors, p. .


I W’ B – Don’t Think Twice ()

EØ Oh . . . Well, whatever. So not even you have firm evidence that it is in
fact Bruce Langhorne playing on ‘Don’t Think Twice’?
C H Well, I should perhaps qualify my initial statement and
instead say that
It is presumably also Langhorne who contributes the tasteful guitar fills that embellish the last three songs recorded at the November , , session. If Dylan did
leave in a huff after the Dixieland ‘Mixed Up Confusion’, he evidently returned in
a minute, and a huff. Four songs – all acoustic – were recorded after the Freewheelin’
band packed up their instruments and left Studio A. I say four but, if Nat Hentoff ’s
liner notes to Freewheelin’ are to be believed, ‘Don’t Think Twice, it’s All Right’ was
actually recorded with the November  band and an electric version was assigned
to the album. Even more mysteriously, according to Columbia’s files, the released
version of ‘Don’t Think Twice’ was a first take [. . . ]. Could it be that the released
version was recorded with the session musicians, who were then subsequently
removed from the mix? It seems inconceivable – a band rip-roaring through the
same rendition as on the album? I think not. yet, as of  the mystery (and the
liner notes) remains.
EØ Do I understand you correctly – that the quality of the playing is an
important element in your verdict that this is Langhorne playing? You use
words like ‘tasteful fills’, ‘faultless accompaniment’, and you call Langhorne a
‘virtuoso’.
H That might be an element, yes.
EØ Oh, not only an element, if I may: it appears to be the main element,
the last straw to a stack of indices: Nat Hentoff ’s liner notes, the presence
of a renowned guitarist like Langhorne on the previous and following takes
. . . aren’t those the only ‘facts’ that substantiate the claim that Langhorne is the
man?
H . . . well . . . if you put it like that . . . perhaps . . .
EØ One last question, Mr Heylin. Are you a musicologist, or do you have
any other training in music analysis?
Clinton Heylin, Bob Dylan: The Recording Sessions [–] (St. Martin’s Press, ),
pp. – (emphasis mine).

III A  S

H No, sir. But I’m very . . .
EØ Then I have nothing further, at this point.
The defense now calls Mr Michael Krogsgaard.
Mr Krogsgaard, you are the ‘lesser Dylan authority’ that Mr Heylin referred to, is that correct?
K I would prefer to use other words, but I am the person who
was allowed to study the materials in Columbia’s archives, yes.
EØ So, did you find concrete evidence about this particular session, then?
K No,
Unfortunately the tapes (and recording sheets) for the next session were not
available.
EØ What are the implications of that? Can you explain to us what exactly is
contained in the recording sheets?
K
Recording Sheets are lists made during each session and put into each tape box.
The sheet records the date, the studio, the artist, which tracks were recorded and
the CO number (Columbia’s own reference number) for each composition (of
which, more later). Each recorded take is marked as complete (C), with a short
false start (b) or a long false start (B). It is indicated on these sheet which takes are
removed to other tapes for further use.
The Tape Boxes themselves also usually contain information about each take
and which takes are removed for further use.
EØ But in this case, even the tape boxes are missing?
K Correct.
EØ And those two source types are the only place where exact information
about who played on what take would be recorded, is that correct?


http://www.punkhart.com/dylan/sessions-.html
ibid.
I W’ B – Don’t Think Twice ()

K Yes.
EØ What is your conclusion about who played what, then?
K
Columbia Recording Studio
New York City, New York
November , , - pm
Produced by John Hammond.
Engineers: Knuerr and Dauria.
. Mixed Up Confusion CO
. Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right CO
. Ballad of Hollis Brown CO
. Kingsport Town (trad.) CO
. Whatcha Gonna Do CO
 overdubbed at Columbia Recording Studios, December , .
Backing undocumented, but probably same backing as November  for track 
and Bruce Langhorne on guitar on tracks –.
EØ And track  – ‘Don’t Think Twice’?
K I have no clear opinion about that, sir.
EØ Thank you very much. I have nothing further.
I do have two more witnesses. Would Mr Langhorne please come in?
[disorder in the audience]
Mr Langhorne, could you tell us a little bit about your playing during that
November session in ?
B L
I remember doing a version of ‘Corrine Corrina’ with Bob that was acoustic, and
I played acoustic. I think it was acoustic. I don’t really remember the session that

ibid.

III A  S
you’re talking about, though. It might have been overdubbed, or something. [. . .]
Don’t really know. I really can’t remember.
EØ What about ‘Don’t think twice’?
B L
I’m pushing the edges of memory here. If I remember correctly, he [Dylan] did play
the guitar. I didn’t play anything but ornaments. The bulk of the guitar playing is
himself on that tune.
EØ Ornaments, you say. Personally I find it difficult to hear more than one
guitar there; could it be that Dylan played that song all by himself?
L As I said, if I remember correctly, Dylan played the guitar. I
can’t remember. This was – when? some time in the sixties? If you can remember the sixties, you weren’t there. I was there.
EØ Thank you very much, mr Langhorne. By the way, what’s that with your
hand?
L Oh, it’s nothing. I was dabbling in rocket science when I was a
kid, lost three fingers. Django and me, you know.
EØ That’s on your picking hand too – how has that affected your playing
style?
L Quite a lot –
Since I have fingers missing, some styles of guitar playing were forever unreachable
for me. Like, I couldn’t really play good flamenco. Classical was difficult for me,
though I did play some classical. But since I couldn’t develop technique to the
point where I could just play the entire repertoire of guitar music, I had to develop
a technique based on my own aesthetics. Because I had to listen to everything and
say, okay, this sounds okay with three voices. Because I had pretty good control of
three voices on guitar. I could control four-note voicing, but it was only with extra
physical effort. Because it would mean, since I played basically with three fingers,

Interview
by
Richie
Unterberger,
http://www.richieunterberger.com/langhorne.html.

ISIS, November , .
[no
date],
I W’ B – Don’t Think Twice ()

it would mean that I would have to play two notes with one finger on a six-string
instrument, or I would have to strum. So I developed a style and a technique that
was based partially on classical music, because I separated voices. I used each of my
fingers to generate a line, a polyphonic line, or I would play, which is why I say I
really needed someone who had a thread going to really do my job. Because then
they could generate a couple of lines of polyphony, or a rhythmic structure. And
then I could enhance that.
EØ From what you are saying, I take it you would primarily play the kind
of fills and ornaments we can hear on tracks like ‘Corrina, Corrina’ and ‘Love
Minus Zero/No Limit’, and not the kind of plain – if also exquisit – accompaniment we hear on ‘Don’t Think Twice’?
L Definitely, yes.
EØ Thank you very much, Mr Langhorne.
My very last witness cannot be present in person, but he will be with us on
a satellite connection from somewhere in the world, where he is on tour. So,
once our fine technician has plugged in everything . . .
[waiting while the court technicians set up a video screen and a beamer]
. . . we are ready to welcome – Columbia recording artist Bob Dylan. Mr
Dylan, as you know, we are here to discuss a certain performance on one of
your albums – the Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan. Can you tell us a little bit about it
– what it was like making it?
B D
Well, I felt real good about doing an album with my own material, and I picked a
little bit on it. ‘Don’t think twice.’ Got a chance to do some of that. Got a chance
to play in open tuning . . . ‘Oxford Town,’ I belive that’s on that album. That’s open
tuning. I got a chance to do talking blues. I got a chance to do ballads, like ‘Girl
from the North Country.’ It’s just because it had more variety. I felt good about
that.
EØ You mentioned ‘Don’t Think Twice’ – did you play on that?


Interview with Richie Unterberger.
Interview with Jann Wenner, Rolling Stone, 

III A  S
BD Yeah, isn’t that what I said?
EØ Actually, no. You mentioned it, and then said you got a chance to do
some picking on that album. We would appreciate an even clearer answer.
There are some who maintain that the guitar on that track is not by you, mr
Dylan, but by Bruce Langhorne, who was also present at that session. Do you
have anytyhing to say to that?
BD People are entitled to their own opinion.
EØ But you ought to be the first to know, first hand, so to speak – can you
tell us: is that guitar played by you or by Bruce Langhorne? Did he play at all
on that track?
BD Bruce? Yeah, he was there. He . . . [screeches and white noise from the video
screen as the connection is lost]
EØ Mr Dylan? Can you hear us? Hello?
We appear to have lost him. What a shame.
But I don’t think we need it. Your Honor, Members of the Jury. Let us
gather together what we know by now: The recording sheets are missing. The
tape boxes are missing. All we have are some liner notes – which in any case
are wrong, stating that ‘Don’t Think Twice’ was backed by a full band – and
an assumption that since there was a tasteful, faultless virtuoso present that
day, he must be responsible for the fine playing on this track too.
The first point would easily be accounted for if we accept Heylin’s assumption that a full-band version was recorded – with Langhorne on guitar – and
scheduled for the album at least seriously and long enough for Hentoff to have
based his liner notes on it. But that there was also another version, which eventually ended up on the album.
And who played there?
It is time to look up from the recording sheets and the tape boxes, and
actually listen to the song itself – that we have, even though the rest is gone.
Three songs from that session have Langhorne on a second guitar. ‘The
Ballad of Hollis Brown’ – on first hearing, one doesn’t notice that there are
two guitars there. When Dylan played this on his own, it used to go like this:
I W’ B – Don’t Think Twice ()

: .
. .
: .
. .
|---0--keep--------|-----------------|
|---3-strumming----|-----------------|
|---2--------------|-----------------|
|---------0------3-|-0-------0-----3-| etc.
|-------3----------|-------3---------|
|-0----------------|-----------------|
This playing style is pervasive throughout the two shows at the Gaslight
Cafe, which were given just a couple of weeks before this recording session. An
important element in this playing style is the frequent variations in the thumb
pattern. Usually these go downwards, like here, in ‘Motherless Children’:
: .
. .
. .
: . .
.
:
. .
.
|-------------------------|-0---------------|-----------------|
|-------------------------|-3---------------|-----------------|
|-------------------------|-2---------------|-----------------|
|-3-------2-------0-------|-0---------------|-----------------|
|-------------------------|-0-----------3---|-0---------------|
|-------------------------|-0---------------|-----------------|
hard road ... mother... dead
: .
. .
: .
. . .
. .
.
:
-----------------|---------------------------------|-0--------------------|---------------------------------|-3--------------------|---------------------------------|-2----3-------2-------|-0-------------------------------|-0---- etc
-----------------|---------3-------2---------------|-0--------------------|-------------------------3-------|-0----
Langhorne’s playing on ‘Hollis Brown’ uses the same kinds of patterns, but
takes advantage of all the six strings, and plays figurations upwards too. That
is what he does: he adds to what Dylan is already doing.
In ‘Whatcha Gonna Do’, his contribution is a series of blues licks which
certainly sets the song off from the urgently straightforward strumming in
the version which was recorded in December, but again, it is very obvious an
addition to something that’s there already.
‘Kingsport Town’. Again, Dylan plays through the song as he would have
done if he were all alone in the studio. Langhorne adds another kind of figurations to that: a sweet, gentle melody line frequently in parallel sixths high
up on the guitar neck, the same style we can hear him use on two other tracks
he recorded with Dylan: ‘Corrina, Corrina’, also from Freewheelin’ and ‘Love
Minus Zero/No Limit’ from Bringing it All Back Home.
Here, it is even more clear that he is adding to what Dylan is already doing:
he is bringing in something from his own bag of licks and tricks and placing
that alongside, around, within what Dylan plays. He enjoys the freedom that
a soloing sideman has: he knows the basic stuff is taken care of, so he can

III A  S
concentrate on embellishment and arabesque, he can vary his licks as the song
proceeds – try out a dissonance here and an interval there.
In the company of lyric arabesques like these, the guitar part on ‘Don’t
Think Twice’ sounds like . . . yes, it sounds like it was played by an entirely
different musician. This is a musician who doesn’t worry about a rough edge
here and an inadvertently muted string there (such as in the first bars of the
intro) – in sharp contrast to Langhorne’s impeccable style; a player who is
entirely fluent in this particular style of fingerpicking – unlike Langhorne,
whose mutilated hand forced him to develop a distinct playing style, not particularly suited for laying down a basic accompaniment, but rather based on
listening and entering into an interplay with someone else who supplies that
kind of structure; a musician, furthermore, who drives forward at an insistent, nervous speed – in contrast to Langhorne’s lyrical lines; and who plays
a remarkably stable accompaniment during the verses and saves for the short
interludes whatever embellishment there is of the main pattern – nothing at
all like the varied solos on the other tracks Langhorne played on.
The guitar playing on the track uses an advanced version of fingerpicking,
but it doesn’t take a specially trained studio musician to play it – it’s not that
hard. It depends on one extra technique in addition to the basic fingerpicking
skills: the ‘limping’ anticipation of the highest tone of a new chord, played on
the last eigth note of the previous measure and hammered on to the first beat
of the next chord, simultaneously with the thumb stroke on the bass string:
C
G7
Am
C/g
F
: .
. .
: .
. .
: . .
.
:
. .
.
||-----------------|-------0h1-------|-----------------|-----------------|
||---------------1(|p0)------------1-|---------------0h|-1-----1-------0h|
||-----------0-----|---0-------0---(0|h2)2-------0-----|---2-------2-----|
||-----2-------2---|-----0-------0---|-----2-------2---|-----3-------3---|
||-3---------------|-----------------|-0---------------|-----------------|
||---------3-------|-3-------3-------|---------3-------|-1-------0h1-----|
C/g
G7
C/g
: .
. .
: .
. .
: . .
.
:
. .
.
|--------0---------|-------0h1-------|-----------------|-----------------||
|-h1-------------0-|---------------1-|-------1---------|-------1-------1-||
|----0-------0-----|---0-------0-----|---0-------------|---0-------0-----||
|------2-------2---|-----0-------0---|-----2-------2---|-----2-------2---||
|------------------|-----------------|---------3-------|-----------------||
|--3-------3-------|-3-------3-------|-3---------------|-3-------3-------||
Even a ‘lesser’ guitarist like Dylan – although he was otherwise incapable of
expressing what he had come up with, if we are to believe Mr Heylin – could
manage that. Here is what he plays on ‘Suze’, recorded a year later (when his
guitar skills were, if anything, declining):
I W’ B – Don’t Think Twice ()

C
F
: .
. .
: .
. .
: . .
.
-0-|---------------0-|-----------------|-----------------|
---|-----1-----------|-----1-----------|-------1---------|
---|-----------0-----|-----------0-----|---0h2-----2-----|
---|-----2-------2---|-----2-------2---|-----3-------3---|
---|-3---------------|-3---------------|-----------------|
---|---------3-------|---------3-------|-1-------1-------|
D7/f#
C/g
G
Am
/g
F
G
: .
. .
: .
. .
: . .
.
:
. .
.
|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|---------------0--||
|-----1---------1-|-------0-------0-|h1-------------1-|-------1p0-------*||
|-----------0-----|---0-------0-----|---2---2---2-----|---2-------0------||
|-----0-------0---|-----2-------0---|-----2-------2---|-----3-------0----||
|-----------------|-----------------|-0---------------|-----------------*||
|-2-------2-------|-3-------3-------|---------3-------|-1-------3--------||
And by the way, the guitar playing on ‘Don’t Think Twice’ from the Langhorne session sounds suspiciously like the version that was recorded as a Witmark demo in March , at a session where even Heylin lists Dylan as the
only musician present: a little more polished here, a little blunter there, but
essentially the same arrangement, the same playing.
I’ve saved my weightiest proof until last. The harmonica interludes.
Between the verses, Dylan plays the first line of the verses again, on harmonica. Only, he deviates slightly from the chord pattern that is used elsewhere in the song, in a way which would be virtually impossible to coordinate
between two musicians without overdubs, especially on a first take. Here is
what is played between the first two verses – the vertical bars indicate the
‘harmonica parts’:
C . | C G Am . F . C . . . |
Second to third verse:
C | C G Am . F . C . . |
And between the last two verses:
C | C G Am . F . C G7 C . . . |
The differences are subtle but significant: in the second interlude, he jumps
in with the C G Am part one measure earlier than the first time around. The
rushed entry is reflected – as if of one mind – in the extra emphasis on the
first tone of the harmonica. He also begins the following verse one measure
earlier.

III A  S
In the last interlude, he throws in a G at the end, followed by four full
measures of C.
Now, Langhorne may be an excellent guitarist and session musician, but
show me the musician who can, on the spot, interact that closely with Dylan,
pick up his little variations, without the slightest indication on the recording
of any surprise or hesitation.
Also during the verses, the interaction between the guitarist and the singer
is perfect – too perfect to be accomplished without former preparation.
The only possible way this could have been done in an interaction between
two musicians is if they had rehearsed it: decided on beforehand that ‘second
time, we cut one measure here and add a G there’. Then the shift to G could
come earlier one time, later the next. But why would Dylan – the man because
of whom Joan Baez dedicated a song ‘to some rehearsal time’ – do something
like that? How would he remember between the instances – ‘second time: now
we cut here and here . . . or was it . . . nah . . . ’ – and still accomplish a perfect
and coherent first take? And when would they have had time to sit down
and work out such an arrangment? Fifteen wretched takes of Confusion, a
frustrated departure in a huff, six more takes of four different songs – and on
top of that a chit-chat about details in the arrangement?
The last tones of the harp solo are the final nail in the coffin of the Langhorne hypothesis. Listen to the perfect synchronization between the two instruments in the final turn to F and the last guitar strum, followed by a little
dut on the harmonica, and tell me if that isn’t all done by the same person.
No, Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the guy who plays guitar here knows
when the chords are going to change. And the only man who could have
possibly known that, is Dylan himself.
Chapter 
Hattie Carroll ()
‘W
  D  in the line ‘. . . or criticize all fears.’ What
would someone be like who criticized all fears, and what would
that have to do with a person who prematurely reacted to the
unfolding tragedy of that song? Help!’
I usually don’t like questions like ‘what does the line so-and-so mean?’ but
in this particular case, I’ve been tempted to attempt an answer. As I hear
the song, the clue lies in two aspects. One is the preceding line: ‘You who
philosophize disgrace’, i.e. the ones who take a purely rational point of view
on disgrace and the injustices of society, the ones for whom the Hattie Carroll
incident was a racial ‘issue’ – just a racial issue, a pretext for making a critical
point about society, but without regard for the real issue, at least for the ones
involved: the personal tragedy of Hattie. If one forgets that – which is easily
done, even more so today that in the s, I think – whatever tears one has to
shed, will to some extent be dishonest. And conversely: a response to ‘issues’
like this must be open to a personal reaction – ‘Fear’ – and whoever claims
that one has to get beyond the personal – the ones who ‘criticize all fears’ – to
view the case objectively, are wrong.
That’s the point that I think Dylan conveys brilliantly – and if the line
is perhaps unclear on paper, the way he sings the song straightens out that
unclarity. It may be that the ‘philosophical’ punch line is the last refrain with
its ‘Now is the time for your tears’ (i.e. at the point when the legal system,
the representative of the rational perspective on the ‘issue’, breaks down). But
in most live renditions, it is the third verse that carries the song emotionally:
that’s both where the fundamental social injustice is outlined, in the very concrete representation of the structural repression (‘[Hattie Carroll] never sat
once at the head of the table, she [. . . ] emptied the ashtrays on a whole other
level’), and the narration of the murder-by-whim is literally hammered down
in the singing, which pungently emphasizes the internal rhymes of the text:
Got killed
by a blow,
lay slain

III A  S

by a cane
That sailed
through the air
and came down
through the room,
Doomed
and determined
to destroy
all the gentle.
And she never
done nothing
to William
Zanzingeeeeer . . .
(just writing this down sends shivers down my spine. . . )
When the final verse concludes that the rational, distanced observer of
injustice finally can bring out his rag, that’s in a certain sense an unimportant
afterthought: ‘we’ (the narrator and his listeners) have already seen the real
point: that injustice can never be detatched from actual injustices into an
abstract system. Besides, with the rag ‘buried deep in his face’, there’s little
chance that he’ll see the point anyway.
Chapter 
Another Side of Bob Dylan ()
A
 S O B D was recorded during one glorious, nightly
session on June  , over a bottle of Beaujolais – and it shows . . .
The album may be a ‘rich, complex album’ and a proof of his ‘genius’,
as Paul Williams and Paul Cable have it, but – for once – Clinton Heylin may
have given the most adequate description, as ‘a typical Dylan session – flashes
of sheer brilliance, improvisational flair, songs coming together and falling
apart (in fairly equal measure) – in the studio’. In other words: he can’t be all
right all the time.
In several of the songs, most notably in Ballad in Plain D and My Back
Pages, it is evident that Dylan hasn’t really learnt the chord changes properly
before he started recording. In these two songs it is difficult to find two verses
that are played in the same way. There are lots of temporary solutions. True
enough, the variations work out quite well, but it would be over-indulgent to
call them planned...
Apart from this, it is interesting to note how a few guitaristic specialties
recur in song after song. One is the use of the chord changes C/d G/d
(xx0553 xx0433), as in All I Really Want To Do, slightly varied in I
Don’t Believe You, and most beautifully in Chimes of Freedom. Another is
the progression xx0430 xx0210 320003 which occurs both in All I
Really Want To Do and in Spanish Harlem Incident. And the most persistent of these ‘tricks’ is the figure GG6G7 found in To Ramona, My Back
Pages, I Don’t Believe You and Ballad in Plain D. Add to this that all of the
songs (except, of course, the piano song Black Crow Blues) are played in G
or C, with an occasional capo, and you have an album which is quite simple,
guitaristically speaking.
Then there is the genius, of course.

Heylin: Dylan Behind Closed Doors: the Recording Sessions [-].

Chapter 
Chimes of Freedom ()
C
  F was, I think, the first Dylan song that I really
made an effort to transcribe. This was before the days of the Internet
and in my case also before the days of Lyrics, so if I wanted the words
on paper, I had to write them out myself.
Which I wanted, and which I did.
I was spellbound by those words. The layer upon layer of different meanings connected to different sensual experiences: the thunder storm, the lightning, the sounds, the ‘we’, which is not explained in the song, but I imagined
a loving couple, on their way home from a date, to . . . , well, you know –
all these and more, working together, flowing in and out of each other and
each other’s natural domains, lightning itself evoking sounds, not by laws of
physics, through its companion, the thunder, but by laws of association.
And all this channeled into Freedom, even giving that flashing sound a
political or at least social dimension. No wonder the post-pubescent me had
to love it.
And I had to see it on paper, to savour it, possibly also to understand the
bits that escaped me in their sounding form. I only had it on vinyl (of course,
this was back in those days . . . ), and it’s only owing to my quick (and illegible,
to anyone but me) handwriting that there aren’t more scratches and dents in
that track. Somehow, I managed to get through it, and even solve some of the
textual mysteries.
For this and other reasons, I have quite a special affection for the album
version. I don’t know if it is because of this, or because Dylan has never really
done it better, but I’ve never been quite satisfied with his live versions. They
always leave me cold, don’t do it for me, and the result of having listened to
all these versions that leave me cold, has been that the song itself has lost some
of its attraction.
Then came No Direction Home. I won’t claim that this is the best version
ever – it probably isn’t. The singing is the whining, slightly tense,  voice


III A  S
– not his best year. I’ve even heard the track before, without any noticeable
effect.
But this time, somehow, it worked.
I can’t explain why – probably a combination of circumstances (I was listening on headphones, walking around in our local grocery store, looking for
some aubergines and some washing powder), and the thing that caught me
was something as insignificant as the guitar playing between the verses.
It goes something like this:
G
: .
.
:
. .
: .
|-3---3---3---|-3---3---3---|-3---3---3---|
|-0---0---0---|-0---0---0---|-0---0---0---|
|-0---0---0---|-0---0---0---|-0---0---0---| etc.
|-0---0---0---|-0---0---0---|-0---0---0---|
|-2---2---2---|-2---2---2---|-2---2---2---|
|-3---3---3---|-3---3---3---|-3---3---3---|
Nothing much, and yet. . .
At first, the performance disturbed me. Especially two of the betweenverses passages, where he keeps strumming this one G major chord abnormally long. I thought, ‘Damn, he has forgotten the lyrics.’ It has happened
before. But this time, ‘phew’, he managed to get back on track again. Until
next verse, same thing again, even longer this time. But both times, the following verse with all its intricate images and assonances followed without any
hint of a problem, so relieved by this I ended up listening to the sheer sound
of the guitar: never have I heard a more perfectly ringing, shimmering tone
from Dylan’s hand. It’s not that it’s simple word-painting or anything – that
would have been trite; they don’t sound like church-bells, those guitar chords –
especially not the kind which are caused by lightning. But they chime alright.
And I started wondering, if he hadn’t forgotten the lyrics, perhaps there
was a reason he did it like this? Playing the waiting-game like that – unless one
believes it’s just a mistake, and all one can think of is how painfully embarrassing this is – it forces one to notice that which is going on in place of that one
expected but which is not. And what goes on here, is sound – simply sound.
‘Only silence is more beautiful.’
Chapter 
John Wesley Harding ()
T
   general remarks to be made about this album. One is
the consistent use of the capo. Several of the songs (John Wesley Harding, All Along the Watchtower, The Ballad of Frankie Lee and Judas
Priest, As I went out one morning, I pity the poor immigrant), are played
with the capo around the fifth fret, which produces the high, ringing guitar
sound that is so typical of this album (if it’s successful is another question: it
also creates a very thin, open sound-scape, with the bass and the guitar far removed from eachother and from the drums – they all stand very much alone;
maybe he should have gone back to the studio and added some tracks with
the Band as he originally planned).
The other is the very simple chord progressions in many of the songs (The
Ballad of Frankie Lee and Judas Priest, The Drifter’s Escape, The Wicked
Messenger, not to mention All Along the Watchtower). That these songs nevertheless stand out as some of the most effective on the album is a testimony
of Dylan’s superb singing on this album.
His harmonica work is also outstanding. A year of wild touring with the
Band may have come close to killing him, but his harp playing certainly became more expressive – and this is the only album where it shows directly,
IMHO.
One song stands out – in the negative sense: the title track. It was what
kept me from buying the record for several years.

Chapter 
Self Portrait ()
‘W
   ?!’ wrote Greil Marcus in his Rolling Stone review of this album, and there is something to that question.
There are only three possible explanations to the mix of the
blatant sentimentality of I forgot more (and a bunch of others), the ludicrous
chord changes of In search of Little Sadie, the duet between the old, nasal
Dylan and the new country-crooner Dylan in The Boxer, which is fun on the
first hearing, but gets quite dull already on the second (and I don’t know what
happens after the second hearing), and – the best of them all – All the tired
horses, which brilliantly captures the mood of this album.
Either it was, as Dylan himself has explained, conceived as a collection of
country standards, maybe inspired by the sessions with Johnny Cash in .
This would imply that it’s a serious effort. If so, it’s the best proof that his
muse was silent at the moment (as Paul Williams asks: if the tracks that ended
up on Self Portrait and Dylan were just warm-ups for the band, then where
are the real tracks?).
Or it was, as Dylan himself has also explained, an attempt to shake off
the annoying role of icon and voice of a generation that he felt he was being
forced into and kept locked up in – a big ‘fuck you’ to everyone caring to take
it as a provocation. But why then the effort? There are more sessions for these
albums (counting also New Morning) than for any other Dylan album. And
why the inclusion of tracks that are actually quite enjoyable, among the shit?
Or was it, perhaps, an ironic kick in the butt to the country idiom, and
a clever, multi-level analysis of sentimentality and of his own music-making,
where the packaging adds to the wit of the music?
I wish I could say that the third alternative is the correct answer, but I
can’t. What I can say is that Dylan was experimenting with his singing style,
not only in the direction of country, but also a blues style which sounds new
(and actually quite fresh!) in his oeuvre. They also seem to be having a good
time, at least on some of the tracks (whereas others sound very uninspired). It
is an amusing album, but not a good one...


III A  S
Postscript: Having lived with this album for a couple of days now, while
tabbing it, I have quite reluctantly reached the conclusion (‘insight’ is too
strong a word) that the most interesting songs on the album are In search
if little Sadie (heard in conjunction with Little Sadie, of course) and All the
Tired Horses. They both stretch some limits that aren’t usually touched upon.
What’s interesting about the Search for little Sadie, is that it’s a stylized search
– it sounds like (and is probably meant to sound like) Dylan sitting at home,
searching for a melody, trying out things, discarding them on the way, and
picking up the next thing to try out. But it isn’t: it’s a planned progression
through various stages, planned so as to sound erratic. At times it is genuinely
erratic, of course, but only on the surface level: the chromatic progression of
chords in the first half leads Dylan to melodic goals he can’t have foreseen
(which is evident from the recording – lots of sliding-up-to the last note of
a phrase, to make it fit the chord). But the course through the song is orderly enough to be labeled ‘planned’. This ambiguity puts the aesthetics both
of improvised and of pre-planned music (which is to say: the entire history
of Western Classical Music) under scrutiny, by using the one to nullify the
other. What remains, may be crap, but at least it’s interesting crap (oh my, I’m
turning into a garbologist!)
Chapter 
New morning ()
N
 M has been haunting me ever since I bought it. This
must be Dylan’s most stylistically varied album ever (possibly topped
by ‘Love and Theft’), but I still can’t decide whether it belongs in the
‘weak’ category together with Self Portrait, or if it is a glorious testimony to
the sprezzatura that only Dylan can handle without collapsing completely.
I’ve had heated discussions with a friend of mine about ‘The Man In Me’
– is it a good song? an exuberant jubilation of the bliss of true love? a rare
moment in Dylan’s catalogue of a love song with no hint whatsoever of uncertainty, bitterness, pain? No! it’s just too sweet; things that are too good to be
true usually aren’t. It’s like ‘Sara’ or ‘Wedding Song’, another couple of songs
that I just can’t take seriously. What they have, though, is an intrinsic seriousness which commands some kind of respect: only Dylan can say ‘I love you
more than blood’ and get away with it.
And what does ‘The Man in Me’ have ?
‘La la la la la.’ Not quite the same.
In the same category come ‘If Not For You’ (‘I’d be sad and blue’ or ‘I
wouldn’t have a clue / If not for you’ – c’mon Bob, you can rhyme better than
that!), and, to some extent, ‘New Morning’ and ‘Winterlude’. But they aren’t
too bad after all: Winterlude has this corny guy-on-the-sleeve-of-NashvilleSkyline-ish, country dude thing going on, and if such a down-to-earth guy
‘thinks you’re fine’, what is there to complain about? And ‘New Morning’ has
these wonderful snapshots of situations which may be just reminiscenses of
random glimpses, but which may also be filled with meaning (‘Rabbit runnin’ down across the road / Underneath the bridge where the water flowed
through’, ‘Automobile comin’ into style / Comin’ down the road for a country mile or two’), and they are introduced with a shade of desperation in the
insistent questions: ‘Can’t you hear. . .?’ (‘You really can’t hear it? Don’t you
remember? But. . . that was an important moment! I thought we shared it. . .
Don’t you love me anymore?’) Besides, the song is forever redeemed by the


III A  S
treatment it got in  – when someone goes though something like that,
you just have to care for them. . .
The three songs that really got to me and made me think of it as a great
album after all, were ‘If Dogs Run Free’, ‘Three Angels’ and ‘Father of Night’.
I’m not positive that the scat singing in ‘Dogs. . .’ is great, but I know it makes
me smile. And the choir on the other two. . . – heavenly! In fact, if Dylan ever
wrote a heavenly line of music, it’s the two bars of dirty-winged angels’ song
between the verses in ‘Father of Night’, or the very end of ‘Three Angels’.
Chapter 
Wedding song ()
I
   meek and mild. I try to be humourous too. And I’m always
serious. Honestly. To some people, those don’t seem to go together well.
I’ve never received more complaints – verging on the indignant — than
after I wrote about Wedding Song that
It may be a silly song, hastily written, badly rehearsed, and with some of the least
successful poetic images Dylan has ever written (‘I love you more than blood’ –
yuck!)
I’m sorry if I hurt someone’s feelings by trashing their favourite song, but I
do think it’s a silly song; all reports agree that it was hastily written; and the
recording bears ample evidence to the short rehearsal time, even though the
performance miraculously hangs together and succeeds in the way that only
Dylan can make it succeed and for which I love his music. For once I agree
with Clinton Heylin:
Though it is hard not to interpret the lyrics on a literal level, Dylan’s performance
once again transcends the at times slipshod sentimentality. Which may well stand
as the motif for all of Planet Waves. Though it is an album suffused with brilliant
performances from both musicians and vocalist, Dylan had yet to fully excise some
bad writing habits picked up during the amnesia. (Dylan Behind Closed Doors, p.
)
The ‘slipshod sentimentality’ keeps me from seeing the honesty that Dylan so
desperately tries to display (or: which the persona in the song so desperately
tries to display, or: which Dylan so desperately tries to make the persona in
the song display), and which makes it sound dishonest to me, despite all the
overwhelming images. ‘You try so hard. . . ,’ as the poet says.
Many have kindly suggested to me that ‘blood’ is not to be taken literally.
Frankly, I didn’t believe that Dylan was sitting at his breakfast table with
Sara’s hand in one hand and a glass of freshly poured blood in the other,
thinking ‘Now, which one do I love more. . . ?’ I’m well aware of the associ-


III A  S
ations between family and blood. That still doesn’t make it a successful poetic
image, for me.
There’s more to the poetic than making cunning connections or crafting
rhetorical figures. Those things are to a poetic text what a virus is to a computer: They can be very powerful, but just being there — on the harddisk or
in a text – isn’t enough. As long as they don’t run – if they aren’t executed –
they do no damage; they do nothing, apart from taking up space.
So, what does it take for an image to be executed?
The very sound of it is important, the physical qualities, that which is not
connected with concepts, words, ideas. Already here, ‘I love you more than
bleahd’ fails, and not only because of the kitchen-table associations.
A certain broadness in the range of associations isn’t a bad thing either,
instead of monomaniacal insistency on one topic (unless of course that insistency itself is what is on display). The blood image alone might have done it
for me in a different context, but in the company of the other larger-than-life
images in the song, trying to top each other in greatness of sentiment – More!
More!! More!!! – it reminds me quite a bit of Dan Bern’s song Tiger Woods,
which has the same escalation on overdrive:
I got big balls
Big ol’ balls
Big as grapefruits
Big as pumkins,
Yes sir, yes sir
And on my really good days
They swell to the size of small dogs –
Balls big as small dogs – now, there’s some poetic imagery for ya!
But most important for how I judge a poetic image is its ability to project a
persona which we all know is literary but whose experiences are close enough
to our own that we can make them our own as if they were genuine. This
is the fundamental failure of Wedding Song for me: I can’t for the life of me
think of it as a genuine, honest expression of anything. Too many things stand
in the way and prevent me from making it my own. And if that is the case,
I’d rather go out there and get those experiences myself – and tell myself that
I don’t need Dylan to tell me what it’s all about.
Which I did. There’s a reason why that particular song was featured on the
front page on that particular day. . .
Chapter 
Blood On The Tracks ()
B
   T is Dylan’s best album.
Others may tell you that Blonde on Blonde, Highway  Revisited or
even Desire is his best album, but they’re wrong, and when pressed (up
against the wall, and in the presence of a ., if necessary), they will eventually
agree.
Blood on the Tracks is also Dylan’s best album in its released form.
Others may tell you that had he not tinkered with the songs, but left them
alone as they were recorded in September , it would have been a far better
album, and that the songs that were rewritten and re-recorded over Christmas,
with local Minnesotan musicians brought together by Dylan’s brother David,
are inferior, both textually and musically, to the intensively emotional New
York versions.
They’re wrong even here, although they’re closer to the truth this time. In
a one-to-one comparison between the two versions, the New York versions
may get the upper hand (the one undisputable exception is ‘If You See Her,
Say Hello’, but even ‘Lily, Rosemary and the Jack of Hearts’ is better in the
Minnesota version). But even if we were to define the New York versions of
‘Tangled up in Blue’, ‘Idiot Wind’ and ‘You’re a Big Girl Now’ as perfection,
the Minnesota versions are close enough to this level, musically, and the extra
qualities they add to their New Yorkean counterparts (the rhythmical drive of
‘Tangled’, the angered bite of ‘Idiot Wind’, the softness of ‘Big Girl’), more
than make up for the lyric changes. In the case of ‘Idiot Wind’, these are
generally to the better.
But single songs is one thing – an album is another. And this is the real
reason why the re-designed album was a good idea. Let’s compare them: On
the one hand you have an album that starts with the cross-continental tour
(de force) of the never-surpassed masterpiece ‘Tangled up in Blue’, coast to
coast, north to south, performed with the same restless, unhesitant intensity
that the lyrics reveal – revolution in the air, indeed; continues with the sleepy
drama of ‘Simple Twist’ and the bitter-sweet tenderness of ‘You’re a Big Girl


III A  S
Now’ (which one of these two is Dylan’s best song?), the rage of ‘Idiot Wind’,
seemingly mellowed by the lyricism of ‘You’re Gonna Make Me Lonesome’
(’seemingly’ because the lyricism of the lazy river and the crimson hair can
only heighten the pain brought about by the inevitable loss of all this – this
must be the best song of the album); then exquisite blues; hilarious Western
movie script; loving recollection of things past, placed in a distant future;
salvation myth; and Zen in a bucket: all in all a caleidoscopic reflection of
love & loss in  movements.
On the other hand, you have  songs, all quite slow, mostly staying in the
emotional range between sadness and bitterness, all in the same open tuning,
played with the same three or four chords, where the constant ringing of the
open e’ and b strings will drive you crazy after a while.
I know which album I prefer.
That said, the most interesting musical remarks concern the New York
versions. This is of course mainly owing precisely to the open tuning. The
biographies (i.e. Heylin) say that Dylan had learned the open D/E tuning
from Joni Mitchell (I’ll refer to it as ‘open E’ hereafter). This can’t be all true,
since Dylan used this tuning extensively during the recording of Freewheelin’.
He does use it in a quite different way, though.
The center of gravity in the open-tuning Blood on the Tracks songs, is the
root chord E= (or ). It may seem odd to use a chord like this,
when you have the same chord on the open strings – after all, that’s the whole
point of open tuning, isn’t it?
Well, not quite. Beginners – like the Dylan of Freewheelin’ – may find
the  chord convenient. But a more proficient and mature player like
-Dylan, realizes that it has a series of disadvantages compared to .
First, an open string is like a binary number: it’s either on or off, and beyond
that, there is really nothing much you can do about it, whereas a skilled instrumentalist has a far greater control of the tone quality once there is a finger on
the string. Second, the uncontrolled sounding  has a fifth between the
two lowest string, which will easily produce a ‘muffled’ sound. This is avoided
through the  root, which instead gives the same full, doubled bass tone
as in the ‘Dropped C tuning’ that Dylan was so fond of in the s. Third, in
the  chord, the tone of the third string (g]) is doubled on the fourth
string. This shimmering, doubled tone is essential to the sound of the album.
This is the ‘third’, the tone which decides whether a chord is minor or major.
Here it is major, emphatically so. Odd, maybe, for an album so full of sadness,
but effective all the same. Fourth, one should not underestimate the value of
Blood On The Tracks ()

having somewhere to place one’s fingers. Besides, fingering a chord also means
holding the guitar still . . .
So much for  (did I say that I like that chord quite a lot?). the other
main chords also have their special characteristics. The A is fingered .
The attentive ones (and/or those with training in music theory) will notice
that although it is an A chord, the tone A is nowhere near the bass, where it
should properly be, to establish the key of the chord. Not until the third string
is there an A. Instead, the chord is dominated by the tone E, on strings , 
and . And, in fact, this A in this tuning is most of all an embellishing variant
of the main E sonority. This is precisely the same function as the C chord
has in Dylan’s most cherished figure: G-C/g-G (-x-). This
‘embellished E’ character is emphasized by the alternative fingering ,
where the open b string adds yet another tone from the E major chord. In
‘Buckets of Rain’, where the fifth string is not used, it is impossible to decide
whether the chord x should be regarded as an A or as an Esus.
Even the B is different: x is its standard form, and where the A was
merely a variant of E, this B is merely a variant of A. This conflation of A
and B (or in general, and more technical, terms: the subdominant and the
dominant) has a name: it’s called B, and is basically an A chord paired with
a B in the bass. This is a very frequent chord, especially in Dylan’s production
after Blood on the Tracks. Part of the explanation is that th chords are central
in the gospel tradition, which Dylan dived into shortly afterwards, but it is
not either impossible that he discovered its sweetness through the use of this
B chord. It is a quite rare guest in his songs prior to Blood on the Tracks.
When Dylan wants a ‘real’ B sound, as in the outtake ‘Up to Me’ he uses
the barre .
Two more figures should be mentioned:
G#m/
E B(iii) A
E Emaj7 B
A
E
|-0---0---0-|
|-(0)--0---0----0---(0)-|
|-0---0---0-|
|-(0)--4---2----2---(0)-|
|-0---0---1-| and |-(0)--3---1-or-1---(0)-|
|-4---2---0-|
|-(4)--4---2----0---(4)-|
|-5---4---2-|
|-(5)-----------2---(5)-|
|-0---0---0-|
|-(0)--0------------(0)-|
Although they go in opposite directions (E-B-A and G]m/B-A-E), they
are closely related, tonally. Look at the fourth string: that’s what it’s all about.
Both figures are realizations of the basic progression g]–f]–e (try it!), but this
progression is given different functions through different harmonizations. In
the first figure, g] is home base and e is part of the contrasting sonority A (see

III A  S
Up to Me). In the second this is reversed: here g] belongs to the contrasting
‘B-area’ (G]m and B are closely related), and e brings resolution to the phrase
by landing on the tonic (see You’re a big girl now). (I doubt that Dylan is
aware of this, but it’s a neat little twin-figure all the same).
These few elements account for most of the songs on the album. Some of
the songs stand out by employing other effects. The second figure above is
prominent in Idiot Wind, but here it is supplemented by the effect of the contrast between A major and A minor, through the chord Am=x (note also
the wonderful economy of means in the progression xx-xx-x).
The same major/minor A can be found in Simple Twist of Fate, whereas Meet
Me in the Morning holds this debate in the area of the tonic E itself, in the
blues manner.
(Did I mention that this is a tremendous album?)
Chapter 
Tangled up in Tangled up in Blue
This short essay was written as a commentary to a tape compilation of selected
versions of Tangled Up in Blue.
T
he four september days of  which saw the creation of Blood on
the Tracks, occupy a special place in the history of rock ‘n‘ roll – at
least regarding Bob Dylan’s share in it. A unique combination of a new
interest in open tunings (inspired by Joni Michell), a new perspective on writing and time (inspired by the mysterious art-teacher Norman Raeben), and a
broken heart (inspired by Sara), brought about a burst of creative energy comparable only to the making of his mid-sixties trilogy. Apart from the intensive
energy of singing and playing, the most fascinating aspect of the september
version of Tangled up in Blue (Studio A, New York, ) is the clicking
of the jacket buttons against the guitar; not only is it a vivid illustration of
the inspired state of mind, which would never let such trivialities interfere
with the creative work. It also creates a constant counter-rhythm, which is as
ephemeral as it is hypnotizing, once one becomes aware of it.
The official album version was recorded in Minneapolis with local musicians, December , . Dylan went home for christmas, proudly (one
may assume) played his fresh album for his brother and asked for his opinion.
Brother David answered: ‘Nah . . ., weeell . . .’, Dylan took the hint and gave
five of the songs a new finish. Most commentators seem to lament this and
think that Dylan chickened out by doing it: the subdued New York-versions
are certainly more naked musically, and the lyrical changes give some of the
songs (especially ‘If you see her say hello’) a more detatched character. On the
other hand, the Minnesota version sees the ‘rhythmic intensity‘ meter turned
up another  or  steps, and I for one think that it sets the album in motion
in a way that the New York version would not have managed (I just realized
that Paul Williams agrees with me too, so I can’t be all wrong).
Then comes the ‘Rolling Thunder’ era and two renditions that are truly
amazing. The Boston version (Nov , ; featured in Renaldo and Clara)
will always be special to me: I’ve realized that is was the first version I ever


III A  S
heard (and saw) of this song. Those eyes (which you can’t actually see for
most of the song, but you can feel them), in the white face . . . And the voice,
so full of I-don’t-know-what – anger, bitterness, fatigue, motion . . .
Toronto, less than two weeks later (Dec , ), is another story again.
The intro is very long: one can hear how Dylan searches for a rhythm, barely
finding it, changing his mind, taking his time, and then embarking on his
journey, coast to coast and from the great north woods to Delacroix, more
slowly than ever. Whether it was meant to be that way, or he just thought
‘Hell, I’ll take this tempo’ – it doesn’t really matter. It sounds uncomfortable
to begin with, but in the end it’s just right.
For the  tour Dylan came up with a completely new arrangement: a
broad, emotion-laden ballad in the grand style. Once again, it’s remarkable
how different two versions can be, that are basically the same. The summer
version, e.g. as sung in Paris (July  ), is actually rather sqare, with a fixed
melody and a remarkably regular rhythm, with just an occasional emotional
outburst – more and more as the song unfolds. And as tour proceeds, this
emotionality takes over completely, and all that’s left of the square rhythm is
the line ‘They never did like mama’s home-made dress’, which in its new context becomes higly expressive. In Seattle in November the song is introduced
with the words: ‘Here’s a love ballad I wrote a few years back, about three
people who were in love with eachother, all at the same time.’
Two weeks later, Dylan picked up a silver cross that someone had thrown
onto the stage. The rest is history, as they say, and part of that history is
the Charlotte miracle (Dec. , ), probably the most heartfelt and multidimensional version I’ve heard of this song. The desperation of a soul in turmoil is tangible throughout the performance. The grand ballad arrangement,
which is basically the same as in Paris, becomes a sounding background for
the most intensive (and intensively slow) vocalizations ever. And once again
the lyrics are changed: He no longer visits topless places to have a beer, nor
does he smoke pipes or read Italian poets: the topless place has become the
the Flamingo hotel, where ‘she’ is dancing in a dress made of stars and stripes.
And he now reads the Bible and thinks about death (‘all the people I used to
know, at least the ones that ain’t in the grave’).
Tangled up in Blue wasn’t played again until , and this time completely
re-written once again. Hearing the Real Live version (London, July , )
for the first time was like meeting an old friend whom you haven’t seen for a
long time, and suddenly discovering new sides of him: changed, but still the
same. The fact that ‘he nearly went mad in Baton Rouge’ comes as no surprise,
given what you already knew, or at least suspected, about his wandering years,
T   Tangled up in Blue

and changing the ‘it’ of the last verse to a ‘she’ adds another dimension to the
mystery of who the song is about (‘We always did love the very same one, we
just saw her from a different point of view’). Which lyrics are the best? Which
side of a coin is most valuable? Which of your children do you love the most?
The five versions on the B-side is at the same time a summary of the
Never-Ending Tour. This gives the opportunity for a reflection over ‘what
happened’. In an interview he has said that throughout the s he more and
more lost contact with his own songs, he didn’t know what they meant anymore. Then, while touring with the Grateful Dead in, during one show
(in Locarno, Switzerland) he got an intensive feeling that ‘I have to go out and
sing these songs, they mean something to others, The Dead play them better
than me. . .’. Since then two things have happened: He has toured relentlessly,
with about a hundred shows a year. And, which is quite interesting, he has
gone back to album versions of his songs. No more messing around with revised lyrics, no more grand ballad arrangements. It is as if rediscovering the
songs meant taking them back to the start and keeping them there, either because that’s the form the audience will have met them in, or because that’s the
form Dylan himself once met them in.
Hence the Never-Ending tour versions are five different versions of the
same song, rather than five different songs played by five different persons and
with five different contents. The ‘ version, here represented by the Berkeley
show (June , ; Neil Young was featured as a guest, although not on this
song), is typical of the energetic approach to many of the electric songs this
year, where the active bass of Kenny Aaronson plays a central role (just as Rob
Stoner’s did in ).
The version from Milan (June , ) is probably the weirdest of them
all.  was the year of the long improvisations, and this is no exception: it
takes him no less than : to get through the song. Along the journey are
some incredible howls.
From his ’ triumphs in the Brixton Academy (March , ) is the
up-tempo rock version that follows. Later the same year he switched to an
acoustic, almost country-style version, as played in Oslo (June , ). This
has been the standard version ever since, more or less. One outstanding specimen is the slow version from the Wolftrap (Aug. , ) which reverts the
song back into the slow lamento it was in the September days of .
Chapter 
Saved ()
W
   general agreement that no matter what one thinks
about the lyrics on Slow Train Coming, musically it is one of Dylan’s
strongest, the general verdict is not equally lenient with Saved.
With its ghastly cover — rivalled in tackiness only by Shot of Love — and
its unequivocal title, it has proved to be an even bitterer pill to swallow than
the precursor.
Which is understandable, but not quite fair. Saved is an excellent album,
provided one can endure the obnoxious born-again evangelization. It may
be a far cry from Slow Train Coming in the areas of polish and commercial
appeal, but it has an energy, a punch, and a new approach to communication
and message that is quite unique in Dylan’s production, and, as such, quite
refreshing.
It should be said, however, that this more positive verdict is only partly
true about the published album. Saved is unique in connection with Dylan
in consisting only/mostly of songs that had already been tried out on stage
for a long time before they were committed to vinyl. There is critical and
historiographical consensus that the album suffered from this: by the time of
the sessions for the record, the band (the same band that had played the songs
on tour — another Dylan rarity) was already tired, and the spirit of the live
renditions, which even the staunchest critics could not deny, did not translate
well into a studio production.
There may be something true in this. Many of the songs are exuberant
numbers of praise and thanksgiving, which come better into its own from
a stage, where extatically jubilant confession seems more natural than on a
record.
This applies to the title track, a born-again statement if there ever was
one, slightly too over-eager to be taken quite seriously (unless one shares the
sentiment), perhaps, but a powerful and driving gospel rock number all the
same, which I don’t mind listening to.

III A  S

The same could be said about the brother-in-arms, “Solid Rock” (or, as the
full title goes when it is presented during the shows: “Hanging On To A Solid
Rock Made Before The Foundation Of The World”); and, to an even higher
degree, to “Pressing On” og “Are You Ready?” — the intensity that grows
out of the slow build-up of these two songs during the live concerts can make
even the hardest of heart jump to his feet and rejoice: “Yes! I’m ready! Take
me, Bob! Take me with you!”, but that is mostly lost in the album version.
It probably couldn’t be any other way. None of the songs I’ve mentioned
are among his strongest — from the gospel period or any other — but their
effect depends on presence — the physical presence of the person and the band
producing a sound of wall to bang one’s head against, and the temporal presence, exploiting the contrast between the indefiniteness of not knowing where
this is going to end, and the inevitability of the process set in motion by the
first “on-an-don-an-don-an-doon”. In the absence that the record medium
necessarily entails, some of that is naturally lost. But some remains (and five
bonus points for trying).
Besides, it doesn’t matter: there are strong songs left that do make the transition from concert stage to recording studio. Partly, perhaps, because they are
stronger songs altogether, but mainly because they don’t depend on the live
situation to the same extent.
“In The Garden” is easily Dylan’s most harmonically complex song, and
although it shares some traits with the likes of “Saved”, such as the escalating intensity and the lyric repetitiveness, it depends more on the harmonic
meandering to hold our attention.
Both “Covenant Woman” and “Saving Grace” are harmonically interesting, although not as wild as “In the Garden”. They are also touching, introspective reflections on the role of faith and salvation in the trials and tribulations of everyday life (at least that’s what a theologian might say about them).
Especially “Covenant Woman” stands out in this respect, in a way which transcends the religious sphere. Lines like:
He must have loved oh me so much
to send me someone as fine as you.
and
I’ll always be right by your side
— I’ve got a covenant too.
work well with or without God in the equation.
S ()

This leaves the two real gems. “What Can I Do For You” gives us Dylan’s
best harmonica solos ever — for once captured better on an official album
than in any live rendition, at least among the ones I’ve heard. It is inventive,
it is raw, and it is fragile, all at the same time. (It may be to go way beyond
what kind of metaphors are appropriate for this particular album to say so, but
there’s good sex in those two solos.) The sound of the mix in general comes
across to me as a bit on the hard side, but the harp sound is unsurpassed.
And last but not least, and the opener, “A Satisfied Mind”, which in my
book is one of Dylan’s crowning achievements as a singer. It’s not powerful, it’s
not showy, at times he breaks like a little girl, but there is an intimacy in the
delivery which gives the message credibility and urgency. The interaction with
the backing singers is exquisite all the way through, and my mental image of
the song is that of calm deliberation, there is actually an intensity which just
grows as the song progresses. There happens remarkably much in a little less
than two minutes.
Have I made my point clear enough? Damn, this is one hell of an album.
If you’re a godless heathen, don’t let the cover scare you away from this album.
And if you’re a true believer, don’t let your benevolence and agreement prevent
the album from grabbing hold of you in ways and places you might not have
expected.
Chapter 
Down in the Groove ()
D
   G came at a time when Dylan wasn’t exactly at
the zenith of his powers as a recording artist. His struggles with the
modern recording techniques (at the time mostly resulting in lost
battles), as well as a steadily decreasing audience since his religious trilogy,
hadn’t been good for his reputation. And Down in the Groove didn’t make
things much better.
It is probably one of the last albums people buy. And in my most critical
moments I’m inclined to say: ‘And for good reason.’ But still: the album has
qualities, not only compared with Knocked out Loaded, which only has one
quality (‘Brownsville Girl’).
I’ll return to the qualities in a moment. First a general overview: The six
first songs, and eight out of ten songs on the album as a whole, are in the
key of A major, most of them are fairly standard twelve-bar blues, with slight
variations (such as the F]m in ‘Had a Dream About You Baby’, which in this
case is counterbalanced by the rather monotonous singing)(I didn’t say it was
bad, though). The main difference between ‘Let’s Stick Together, Sally Sue
Brown, Had A Dream About You Baby’ and ‘Ugliest Girl In The World’ is
the titles.
‘Death is Not the End’ is, I think, the only Dylan song that has left a really
bad taste in my mouth. It was a general joking subject around here, until an
old man wanted to borrow the album to play this song in his wife’s funeral.
They had heard it on the radio a few days before she died, probably the only
time it was ever played on the radio. I pass her gravestone every day on my
way to work. It hasn’t changed my opinion about the song, I just don’t laugh
about it anymore.
‘Silvio’ is a strange song in many ways. The lyrics by Grateful Dead-lyricist
Robert Hunter are often referred to as typical Dylan-wannabe-writing. Be that
as it may – on this album it compares favourably not only to the non-Dylan
songs. For a very long time it was the regular ending of the first electric set
of just about every show, which added to its strangeness: a song that for tape-


III A  S
collectors was a nuisance and a drag, as the eternal song no. , but which most
others had never heard – who had got Down in the Groove apart from the
collectors? (The song request of all times: in Stockholm, June   someone
yelled out SILVIO after song nr. .)
Musically it is a carbon copy of Isis. That’s perhaps not where the real
genious of Isis lies, but it’s a persistent little bugger of a riff.
The songs that are neither square rock ’n’ roll in A or ‘Death is not the
end’, go to the other opposite – three of them are played in a very loose
rhythm (‘When Did You Leave Heaven?’, ‘Shenandoah’, ‘Ninety Miles an
Hour’). These are not only standing out, they are really outstanding. Sure
enough, the drumming on ‘When did you leave heaven’ is a bit strange, but
that’s forgiveable. ‘Ninety miles’ is a perfect example of how to create an intensive pulse (quite fitting the lyrics) without a drum or even a fixed rhythm.
One song left, one performance, and what a performance! ‘Rank Strangers
To Me’ is one of the reasons to have this one on CD – not because of the
sound, but because of the repeat button.
Chapter 
World Gone Wrong — A Body in Sound
W
 G W () is a body. Not just a great body of
work, but a body.
The greatness of this album of folk and blues classics is that there is one
voice speaking on it and one person speaking with this voice, whether he
speaks guitar, harmonica, or English.
I’ll try to make it a little clearer.
N----
Perhaps if I start by saying what it’s not: The tracks on World Gone Wrong
are not those of a one-man band, a skilled display by a person who can speak
different languages at the same time, or, more down-to-earth, is able to sing
and play harp and guitar at the same time.
Instead, it is as if the different parts of the performance — words, guitar,
language, harmonica, rhythm, sound — come together and blend into one;
here more than on any other Dylan album (or any album whatsoever, probably).
Y      
It is as if the different parts of the performance represent different facets of the
same language, which materialize first as ‘mouth language’ (which is not to
be confused with spoken language): voice range, talking speed, voice quality,
and — as a special case — harmonica style; and as ‘hand language’: the guitar
playing. The languages of these different body parts are so prominent that they
together form, if not a full human body, then at least the image of one, the
impression of a full body in our presence, speaking body language in sound.
To phrase it differently, what I hear on World Gone Wrong is all the informational extras, the toppings on the ‘message’: that which we see/experience/understand

III A  S

when we speak with someone face to face, but which disappears in this medium, the disembodied text (or the un-incarnated Word, which is more or less
the same), where they are replaced with smilies or rhetorics (or parentheses
like this one).
Hence the distinction between ‘mouth language’ and the language that
comes out of the mouth: speaking is a physical act of communication, not a
structural representation of rational processes.
The stylized worlds of music and poetry frequently lead an uncertain life
in-between: poetry departs from the written word by drawing attention to the
physical quality of words and text. And singing usually takes one step back
from the act of speaking, by inserting a layer of artfulness and/or aesthetics
between what is said and who says it, adding something in the process, but at
the cost of blurring the person at the other end.
But on World Gone Wrong I can hear him. I hear all that which fleshes out
the message, i.e. makes it appear in the flesh, as a human expression and not
just as a stick figure.
S G
This would not have been possible had Dylan not been a great, natural guitar
player: technically speaking, World Gone Wrong is Dylan’s greatest achievement as a guitarist since Freewheelin’. Worth pointing out is the consistent
technique of picking out the melody line or fragments of it on the bass strings
and strum on in the higher strings as if nothing special was happening. Two
Soldiers is the standout track in this respect, but also Love Henry and one of
the many superb outtakes in Dylan’s production, You Belong To Me shine.
Delia and Ragged and Dirty do some of the same: the little riffs that go
through each of those songs, echo snippets of melody line as well. World
Gone Wrong could be on the curriculum of any course in “Solo song with
guitar accompaniment”.
But even more important is the way Dylan makes the guitar one with the
body, hence with the voice, hence with what comes out through the voice:
the words. The interludes and ornaments flow as freely and naturally as the
syllables of the text. An alacrity in the words is transformed into strokes on
the strings — a slightly harder strum here, a vaguely noticeable tempo gain or
hesitation there. The strokes set and adjust to a pace: the guitar breathes.
W G W — A B  S

T L   B
Among the individual performances, I have favourites, of course, musically
speaking. But at the other end, I really can’t pick any of them out as superfluous, just as little as I can tell which finger I could do without.
World Gone Wrong, the title track and opener, is the most unappealing,
unseductive opening track in Dylan’s catalogue. Never has his voice been raspier, more piercing, less redeeming. When the album came out, I still had
a couple of albums from the back catalogue left to buy, and I was standing
in the record store, trying to choose between some classic and this new one.
When I heard the first seconds, I thought: “This is grim! I must have it.” I
still feel the same about it.
Blood in my Eyes was one of the first songs I sat down to seriously figure
out the chords to, and it was one of the first tab files at what was later to
become dylanchords. It’s not revolutionary, it’s not pretty, and it’s not showy
or particularly difficult. But it’s hypnotic and near, and I thought: “I must
know how he does that.” I still feel the same about it too.
Apropos hypnotic: Ragged and Dirty . . . The hours I spent playing that
little riff over and over again — some would say they were spent in vain and
are now lost forever, but that’s a lie: they have etched that sound-and-body
union into my fingers and my soul, and brought the memories of that part of
my life with them. I’d be a poorer man and a lesser person without them.
The same goes for the little riffs and interludes in songs like ‘Love Henry’,
‘Lone Pilgrim’, and ‘Delia’. They are all based on the same figure, over the
same chord structure. And they are all repeated almost identically throughout
the songs: it would have easy for a musician with Dylan’s good knowledge of
the style to vary the riffs, but the only variation there is, comes from imperfection: a wrong finger placement here, an accidentally struck string there, and
here and there a missed beat.
In fact, the whole album is based on the same figures over the same chord
structures: most of the songs are played with C type chords (varied through
different capo position), embellished with Csus or Csus chords, either to
echo the melody line, or as “hints” of F; and the Gsus-like chord xx3300
which is so prominent in ‘Blood In My Eyes” is used in many of the other
songs too.
This lack of variation might have led to the same verdict as for Down in
the Groove, but it doesn’t. In fact, the difference between the albums couldn’t
have been bigger. The difference is in principle the same as between “Mixed
Up Confusion” and “In the Morning”, which I’ve discussed earlier: one fills

III A  S
a pattern the same way every time, and after five, ten, hundred repetitions,
it becomes clear that the pattern is all there is. The other can be seen as a
pattern the same way that people can (two arms, two legs, etc.), but in the
end, what we notice and remember are all the things that deviate from the
pattern, and we recognize the person as an individual, even though it may be
hard to describe why.
F . Down in the Groove: a stick figure
The use of Csus chords instead of F is a case in point: the pattern — the
three-chord pattern of most western music — prescribes F, and it is perfectly
possible to play F everywhere there is a Csus. But Dylan doesn’t want that.
The slot which schematically is an F chord, is occupied with every possible
shade of chord between C and F. The differences are hinted at more than
stated.
It is as if he is saying: this may be a song with a fixed verse and chord
structure, but musically, this isn’t poetry, it’s prose. It’s a human talking freely,
someone speaking guitar — not someone following and (ful)filling a given
pattern.
The same variability can be seen on the rhythmical level. Delia is the most
extreme case. The wait before the final “All the friend I ever had are gone”
is differently long every time. Sometimes the basic pulse is maintained, but
more often it is not. It is borderline annoying. The performance is balancing
on the edge of falling apart, but miraculously it doesn’t. Again: the variations
give body where the plain structure is just dead surface.
W G W — A B  S

F . World Gone Wrong: a body in sound
Greatest of them all, ‘Broke Down Engine’: Dylan’s best guitar track since
‘Hero Blues’, the outtake from Freewheelin’. The rhythmic drive and the precision of the playing is fabulous. The “Lordy lord” part is amazing, in more
ways than one: It’s well played, of course, but it is also a good illustration of
the synergy of body languages: I find it impossible to sing that line without a
guitar, but effortless when the two are together.
I’ve always heard this song as the shadow of a rock history in miniature.
There is a clear connection between Dylan’s version and Blind Wille McTell’s
original, but despite the strong continuity, Dylan could never have played the
way he does without forty years of rock in his baggage. This is not to say that
Dylan’s version is a rock’n'roll song — far from it. But there is an energy, a
punch, an attack in the playing which is not and could never have been there
in Blind Willie’s playing — because he hadn’t heard Chuck Berry and Little
Richard.
M 
I haven’t said anything about the texts. That’s not because I don’t care about
them — on the contrary, I feel very strongly about many of them. But while
my most common impression of the interplay between words and music is
that the music may enhance the words, it is the other way around here: I hear
the lyrics as a commentary to the music. If I can identify with the ragged and

III A  S
dirty one who sneaks out the back door when his lover’s husband comes home,
it is because I can identify first with the riff and the bodily state it puts me in.
Chapter 
Can’t Wait ()
    make Tell Tale Signs a god-send for the
Dylan analyst. One is that it shows how tightly interconnected Dylan’s
last three albums are, not only musically but also lyrically: text fragments and themes float between them as if they were part of the same triple
album. the other is that it gives an opportunity to study the process that so
many musicians who have worked with him have mentioned: that songs can
change radically from one session to the other or even between takes. The
three versions of “Can’t Wait” are particularly revealing in this respect.
T
T   
Here’s how I imagine the story behind the song (for the record: when I refer
to the narrator as “Dylan”, it is in the sense outlined in “Dylan the postmodernist”; when I refer to him as “I”, it’s because that’s how the narrator refers to
himself, not because of any attempt on my part to assume the protatgonist’s
part in the story – of course not):
Dylan has had an affair (extra-marital? “I’ve been drinking / drinking forbidden juices”. . .) with a woman and fallen deeply in love with her. But he
can’t have her (either because she’s out of reach, too good to get, doesn’t want
him, or because she belongs to someone else), and he goes through a deep
depression, but he gradually gets over it, gets a grip of himself, becomes more
rational about it. In the process, it is shown how depression turns to frustration and frustration breeds anger.
The album version takes place somewhere at the beginning of this last
stage, the original versions in the middle of the whole process. The album
version is a song about longing for something outside – you, people, places,
love – whereas the original was a song about a longing inside – for the internal
power and presence of you and love.
The original is a love song – a song about love, about the pain of love and
about the longing for death as a last desperate way out of it.

III A  S

The later version is not a love song but a loss song – a song about the pain
of loss, and about death as the logical consequence of this loss.
The differences between the versions is condensed in three sets of lyric
changes, relating to the State of Mind of the Love Sick, The Object of Veneration, and The Way Out.
For simplicity’s sake, I mostly treat the two outtake versions as one
“T’   ” – ,   ,    
?
One line is used in all three versions, but in three different ways which represent three stages of the desperate man’s relation to the world. “That’s how it is,
when . . .”
The first time it’s about the realization that I can’t get a grip on the world:
Every day,
I can’t say if I want the pain to end or not
Well, the blindness overtaking me
is beating like a drum
I don’t know where it starts
or where it’s coming from
That’s how it is
when I try to concentrate
That’s how it is when I try to concentrate: there’s pain, and the pain is so sweet
or so all-encompassing that I can’t do without it, because without it, I’ll be
losing myself. But it also makes me senseless, unaware of up and down, blind
and deaf from the pounding of drums or hearts, and the more I try to grasp
it, focus on it, concentrate on it, the more it disappears. I don’t know where it
comes from – could be from the outside, could be from within.
The lack of concentration stems from desperate pain, and it leads nowhere.
In version # we find the lines that ended up being used in “Sugar Baby”
on “Love and Theft” :
I pretend
being close to her is where I don’t belong
Well, my back is to the sun
because the light is too intense
I can see what everybody
in the world is up against
That’s how it is
when things disintegrate.
C’ W ()

I’m cut off from community, but with a heightened sense of reality; that combination can drive a man insane and make the world fall apart.
Where do I belong?
With her.
Can I be there?
No.
Can I be anywhere else?
No, because I belong with her.
Can I be with her?
No. Etc.
Pain is the path to realization. I can see the world, the reality that I desire
and in which I desire (the desire is no longer just a pain within), but I can’t
get there, and things fall apart.
Concentration is no longer the problem – disintegration is: I do get a grip
of the world, and I realize that it’s falling apart.
The third version is yet another take on the question “how is it when. . .”
Here, I realize that it’s not the world that is falling apart after all, it’s me, and
I don’t give a damn:
It doesn’t matter anymore where I go,
I just go
If I ever saw you comin’
I don’t know what I might do
I’d like to think I could control myself,
but it isn’t true
That’s how it is
when things disintegrate
The sense of being cut off from what I want, the incongruity between desire
and reality, is still there. This time, there not just disorientation clouding
everything or disconnection from everything, but the realization that there
may be an outcome to the mess, an active element, but it’s potentially violent.
I will probably not be able to control myself.
Interestingly, the next album in Dylan’s recent “trilogy”, “Love and Theft”
could be seen as a theme album about tenderness turning violent: just about
every song has a moment of a threatening mayhem in the midst of loving bliss.
(Cf. “A Day Above Ground Is a Good Day”). On “Can’t Wait” we have the
same thing within the song’s own development.
III A  S

F “G  ”  “  ”
The second motion goes from love as an inner condition which has lost its
direction, to love as a thing which has been lost. One couplet sums up this
difference and perhaps the whole development of the song. In the early version, in one of the most naked vocals ever, Dylan sings,
Skies are grey
Life is short,
and I think of her a lot.
Just like that. Three facts are stated. They stand there side by side without any
causal or dependency relationship between them. There’s sorrow and pain. It’s
going to end, somehow, sooner or later. Meanwhile, I think of her. A lot.
I think of her a lot. I do.
A lot.
Compared to the emotional turmoil of the surrounding verses, this is like
a sudden glimpse of sanity or calm in the hurricane’s eye.
Later, it goes:
Skies are grey
I’m looking for anything that will bring a happy glow
The elements are the same: The skies are still gray; there is the quest for happiness (which here replaces death as a way to end the sadness – a reasonable
exchange); and there is the focus. But where this used to be a directionless
whirlwind of thought about her, it now has a direction: there’s this thing I’m
looking for that might end it. Cause and effect.
Love. That’s the thing. It is no longer a feeling or a condition, but a thing,
and most of the song is spent wondering where it is and how to get it back:
I’ve tried to recover the sweet love that we knew
Well your loveliness has wounded me,
I’m reeling from the blow
I wish I knew what it was
that keeps me loving you so
and:
I left my life with you
somewhere back there along the line
Love has moved from the inside to the outside, and so has the main line of
action. I am now standing outside the gate, wondering how to get to the
inside. What is earlier best seen as metaphorical, internal landscapes becomes
more concrete. In the bridge, the “rolling through stormy weather” is first
C’ W ()

placed next to a distressed state of mind, later next to a hypothetical travelogue
of love:
First:
I’m torn and I’m tattered
I’ve been rolling through the stormy weather
My heart’s been shattered
But I’m holding all the parts of it together.
Later, love itself comes as a curse from the outside:
I’m doomed to love you.
I’ve been rolling through stormy weather
I’m thinkin’ of you
and all the places we could roam together.
C’  –   ?
This leaves one phrase to be discussed: the title line. In itself, it can be used
both in the literal sense and as an idiomatic expression, meaning “looking
forward to”, as in “I can’t wait to see that movie”. The song explores both
these options, as well as the undecidedness about what to wait for.
The song starts with a statement which in isolation might have sounded
like “I’m so excited – I just can’t wait!” The effect is the same as in “Summer
Days” off “Love and Theft” : it may sound nice, but the point is that those nice
days are gone.
After the initial “Can’t wait for you to change your mind”, there is no
indication in the early versions that there is anything in particular that is
being waited for: it’s the waiting itself that is unbearble. All the themes that
fall under the “That’s how it is” heading are part of this. There is nothing
worth waiting for, and that makes the waiting a directionless pain.
In the version on Time out of Mind, on the other hand, there is a development. The first verse is really just about the outer circumstances and a man
trying to find his way around and within them. The wait is that of a hunter
or a guard, patiently posted, people going up and down and here I am.
In the second verse, love is introduced, as a thing which can wound and
bind, be lostt and – perhaps – recovered. There’s the awareness of inside and
outside, and me
. . . breathin’ hard
standin’ at the gate,
and the concluding
III A  S

I don’t know
how much longer I can wait
would probably continue “. . . before I break in”.
In this perspective, the lines “I wish I knew what it was / that keeps me
loving you so” get their natural continuation: “. . . so that I could cut it off
(one way or the other)”.
This potential for violence is made explicit in the third verse with the “I’d
like to think I could control myself ” lines.
In general, this version is about balance: walking the line, thinking straight,
holding oneself back, where the earlier attention was to holding the parts of
the shattered heart together. In the earlier versions, balance isn’t an issue – it’s
not “I” who is thinking of walking the line, keeping the balance act – it’s “you”
who will hopefully step out on the thin, uncertain line, take the risk.
The End of Time
The last verse is about death in both versions, but even when the same words
are used, the statements are radically different.
My hands are cold,
the end of time has just begun.
becomes
It’s mighty funny:
the end of time has just begun.
The first is a premonition of death: this is it. In an earlier verse, all feeling was
swallowed up by the pain. Now, senses are awakened, only to find that what
one is reawakened to, is the end. The new version takes a step back and looks
at this with wry sarcasm: it’s mighty funny. Yes, isn’t it ironic, as Alanis says,
but that is something one can’t see when one is in the middle of it.
“C’ W”   Blood on the Tracks 
If there is one area where Dylan shines, it’s in the ability to transform a heartwrenching expression of desperation over an unfulfilled personal relation into
a detatched, poetic report of how a desperate man deals with the world. Many
have held that this is what he did it on “Idiot Wind” and other of the Blood
on the Tracks songs: that the revised lyrics removed the most personal element
from the texts – moving from “I’m sad” in the original versions to “You’re
C’ W ()

stupid” or “this sucks” in the new ones – and that this made the songs less
powerful.
I’m not sure if I agree with this: the final version of Blood on the Tracks
has tremendous songs, which goes to show that hiding one’s feelings does
not necessarily make a lesser song, just as baring them does not guarantee
greatness.
Be that as it may, my first impression was that this was exactly the case with
“Can’t wait”. The earlier versions are breathtaking in their emotionality and
intensity. The version that was released on Time Out Of Mind, on the other
hand, has some great lines, but I never quite warmed to it. At first, I blamed
this on the “Blood on the Tracks effect”.
But I have changed my mind: this is not a cop-out – Dylan is not hiding
his true feelings – he is displaying his feelings at a different stage in the process.
I just find it much more rewarding to listen to the earlier stage.
I have no clear anwer as to why this is so. The eleven years of familiarity
with the Time Out Of Mind version may be part of it – hearing the song
anew is refreshing.
Also, if the dominating emotion in the earlier versions is sadness and in the
later frustration, the former lends itself more easily to a “likeable” performance
than the latter.
This is so, not because people are the sadists that Dylan implicilty chastized
when he told Mary Travers in an interview: “A lot of people tell me they
enjoy that album. It’s hard for me to relate to . . . people enjoying that type of
pain”, but because there’s a difference between experiencing pain, experiencing
someone else’s pain, and experience someone’s communicated expression of
experienced pain. Pain may not be enjoyable – neither one’s own nor someone
else’s – but artistic expressions of pain are: they are not painful in themselves,
neither for the listener nor (necessarily) for the artist.
When painful songs can be so enjoyable, it’s because they are like emotional candy: anyone who has ever sighed in grief (and who know enough
about the cultural codes of orchestral music to recognize the gesture) can relate to the “sighing” descending seconds in baroque music, and anyone who
is asked:
Did you ever lay awake at night,
your face turned to the wall?
will have to answer: “Yes I have – I know how you feel!” There’s no fuss, no
intellectual filter, no web of metaphors to entangle, just basic human emotion
seen from the outside. It is art’s equivalent to the four basic tastes: sweet, sour,
bitter, and salt.

III A  S
That the emotions are simple, basic, does not mean that it’s simple to
produce them, or that works that are based in these emotions are worth less
than those presenting more complex ones. One might even say that since it
is so simple to add some sugar to a cake to make simple tastes happy, it takes
skill and courage to use the sugar in less blunt ways. That’s what Dylan – the
pâtissier of rock ’n’ roll – does, here and on Blood on the Tracks.
It’s more complicated with the Time out of Mind version. The semi-selfconscious detatchment from the world and from oneself, the mixture of cool
and warm which may snap at any point; the love-based violence – these are
more complex emotions, not kids’ stuff.
The later version is filled with cliches and commonplaces: “my heart can’t
go on beating without you”, “some on their way up, / some on their way
down”, “Night or day”, “rollin’ through stormy weather”, “Oh honey, you’re
still the one”, etc. Add to this the way love is moved from inside to outside,
and one may easily suspect that we are witnessing a de-emotionalization of
the song.
That’s probably why I didn’t quite like the song when this was the only
version we had. Seeing where it comes from, and how it fits into the larger
picture of the Time triptych, however, it seems more as if all these words have
been put in there, not to hide the true feelings, but as a poetic representation
of how it is that one hides one’s feelings; the protective measures one takes
when the pain of love is so remote as to be manageable but not remote enough
to have lost its power.
Chapter 
‘A day above ground is a good day’ 
B D’ ‘L  T’ ()
B
 D – the ‘Voice of a Generation’ in the s, the self-appointed
gypsy and divorce poet in the s, the sulphur-fuming prophet in the
years around , who through a series of mediocre albums in the following years lost whatever he may have had left of commercial status – what
does he have to say today, forty years after he first entered the stage? Quite a
lot, actually.
In  Dylan released Time Out Of Mind, which not only became his bestselling album ever, but which was also generally lauded, by critics and fans
alike. The follow-up Love and Theft has already positioned itself at the top of
the charts, and all worried predictions that Dylan would do as he usually has
done: follow up a masterpiece with an unengaged embarrassment, have been
put to rest.
D  C, W,  L
When Dylan issued the album Slow Train Coming in , it was a surprise to
most of his fans: the protest singer, beatnik, former Jew even, had converted
to Christianity, and to one of the more extremely evangelist directions, at
that: the Vineyard Fellowship in California. The message that is conveyed on
Slow Train Coming and the two following albums, Saved and Shot of Love,
is uncompromising. The lyrics, especially on Slow Train, are marked by the
strong conviction that we are living in the endtimes and that Judgement Day
is just around the corner.

This article was originally written for the journal Transfiguration, Nordic Journal for
Christianity and the Arts, hence the emphasis on connections with Christianity, which in a
different context would have been less pronounced. What was originally footnotes have
been placed in square brackets in this version.


III A  S
As it turned out, that particular day didn’t dawn (although Dylan himself
saw the events in Afghanistan in  as a confirmation of his exegesis of the
end time profecy of the Revelation), and the original fire gradually changed
into a more nuanced understanding of Christianity, in which there was room
for more than dystopias and over-zealous evangelization. In the years since,
there have been much speculation about Dylan’s religion. To the extent that
religious themes have occurred in his lyrics, the threads have gone to Jewish
just as much as to Christian thought. At the same time, he has on several
occasions stated that he does not believe in organized religious communities:
‘I find the religiosity and philosophy in the music. [. . .] I don’t adhere to
rabbis, preachers, evangelists, all of that. I’ve learned more from the songs
than I’ve learned from any of this kind of entity. The songs are my lexicon. I
believe in the songs.’
Several authors have pointed to another motive that seems to have been
inseparable from Dylan’s religiosity: Woman and Love. Dylan’s own salvation
history can be read as the story of the development of his relation to these two,
which for Dylan are almost one and the same. Not only was it through a woman (the actor Mary Alice Artes) that Dylan came in touch with the evangelic
Christianity. This is also a topic that recurs in many of the songs, both from
the time of his conversion and the years before it: the redemption, salvation
even, through carnal love. In a song like ‘Shelter from the Storm’ from Blood
on the Tracks () Dylan gives the I-character christological overtones (‘In a
little hilltop village they gambled for my clothes [. . .] ‘Come in,’ she said, ‘I’ll
give you shelter from the storm‘’), while the association between salvation and
earthly, carnal love is explicit also in the songs after his conversion (‘Change
My Way Of Thinking’ on Slow Train Coming,  has: ‘I got a God-fearing
woman, One I can easily afford | She can do the Georgia Crawl, She can walk
in the spirit of the Lord’).

Infidels () contains the song ‘Neighbourhood Bully’, which is an open defense of
Israel; ‘Not Dark Yet’ from Time Out Of Mind () contains a direct quotation from a
talmudic rabbi, and the same is the case with Dylan’s acceptance speech at the Grammy
show in .

Newsweek, Oct , 

The exact content of the expression ‘the Georgia Crawl’ is unclear, but its sexual
connotations are not. Dylan has proabably taken it from Blind Willie McTell’s ‘Broke
Down Engine’, which he recorded in the early s: ‘What made me love my woman, she
can really do the Georgia Crawl.’
‘A       ’

A D 
Dylan is often credited for having brought meaning into popular music through
his lyrics. That is not the same as saying that it’s always clear what his songs
mean. On the contrary, Dylan’s poetics is based on a resistance against clearcut meanings; instead he puts together seemingly unrelated images, characters
and situations in a collage which becomes confusing if one searches for exact
meanings. But if one lets that go, it is easier to approach his technique: some
of his greatness as a poet lies in his ability to serve the listener with a web of
associations and semi-graspable connections, in a way that imitates how the
mind works, and which therefore gives the listener a point of departure for
creating meaning, which by far exceeds what ‘meaningful’ lyrics, which say
what they want to say but nothing more, can give.
One of the texts that is often mentioned in this connection, is ‘Desolation
Row’ (), which may serve as an example here, both of Dylan’s technique
and of my own analytical vantage point. The song begins: ‘They’re selling
postcards of the hanging, they’re painting the passports brown. The beautyparlor’s filled with sailors, the circus is in town.’ The cast that glides by in
the song, is slightly surrealistic: Einstein disguised as Robin Hood, Dr. Filth
with his world in a leather cup, the death-romantic Ophelia, Cinderella as a
street-sweeper, Ezra Pound and T. S. Eliot fighting it out on the Titanic.
What, then, do these brown-painted passes mean? Is it a grand metaphor
of suppression in the modern society, an expression of the status of art, or
something completely different? It is hard to tell, first and foremost because
Dylan usually does not take his images and metaphors from coherent motivic circles, which would have opened up for ‘holistic’ interpretations where
the motives support each other. I therefore prefer a simplistic model of interpretation, where ‘brown passports’ means ‘brown passports‘, Cinderella is
Cinderella, and Romeo is the lover of Juliet, and then see what happens.
This is not as simple as it may sound: in order to do this, we must first
know what a brown passport really is, which involves all the associations we
have to each of the words, the connection between them and between similar
concepts that are invariably actualized in the juxtaposition of these concepts:
‘brown passport’ then becomes the outcome of the cluster of meaning ‘colour –
identity – document‘, etc., with all the layers of symbols and associations that
each of these brings with it – in short: a never ending chain of connections
that can in principle not be delineated: in the end it embraces our entire world
and world view, seen from one perspective: that of the brown passports.

III A  S
Usually it is not meaningful to stretch this horizon of understanding and
interpretation beyond the song itself and its references to someone’s (Dylan’s,
the listeners) reality. A close reading of Love and Theft, however, seems to
support an interpretation of the entire album as a more or less unified whole,
where certain central motives turn up in song after song, weaving themselves
around and within each other throughout the record: the main motives are
the same, but their value changes, gets reverted: the important becomes unimportant, the innocent becomes dangerous, and what remains when a song is
over, changes from song to song, depending on which motives are connected,
and how. Sometimes several motives are combined in an action- and ideapacked narrative of great dramatic force, other times the ‘narrative’ comes to
a halt, and the world is regarded from one single perspective – be it good or
bad – that dominates entirely. This can perhaps be likened to the function of
the aria in opera: characters steps out of the action for a moment, to present
their view of things, from their perspective.
This motivic web even extends beyond the songs on this album, and include both Dylan’s earlier production, and a more general Western symbolic
universe, above all the Christian and the American, and the combination of
these: the Christianization of ‘Americana‘.
The primary legitimation for using a model of analysis like this, which
might easily turn into a self-fulfilling hunt for hidden connections, is that
this procedure has a precursor in Dylan’s own production. The four-hour
film Renaldo & Clara from  was composed around motives, characters,
colours, symbols, in a similar manner. Allen Ginsberg witnessed the process,
and explains the working method as follows:
The ‘Dylanologist’ A. J. Weberman, who was in close (too close, in Dylan’s opinion)
contact with Dylan in the early s, has made attempts to read a consistent symbolic
language into Dylan’s texts, so that ‘rain’ always means e.g. ‘war’ or ‘heroin’ etc., but
this can hardly be regarded as more than a curiosity. Central to his ‘investigation’ was a
methodical scrutinizing of Dylan’s garbage, in the search for discarded scribblings and
other important material. Weberman’s interpretations stem from an obsession to prove
that Dylan is a drug addict and that he has AIDS. They used to be accesible on the web
site www.dylanology.com, but he has not been able to maintain it, apparently because he’s
in jail – for drug crimes.

It is not a coincidence that Dylan in recent years has expanded his catalogue with a
number of songs by the profoundly Christian and profoundly American bluegrass group
The Stanley Brothers, with titles such as ‘Hallelujah, I’m ready to go’ and ‘I’m the Man,
Thomas’ (‘Look at the nail scars here in my hand’).

‘A       ’

He shot about  hours of film or more, and he looked at all the scenes. Then
he put all the scenes on index cards, according to some preconceptions he had
when he was directing the shooting. Namely, themes: God, rock & roll, art,
poetry, marriage, women, sex, Bob Dylan, poets, death – maybe eighteen or
twenty thematic preoccupations. Then he also put on index cards all the different
characters, as well as scenes. He also marked on index cards the dominant color –
blue or red [. . .] and certain other images that go through the movie, like the rose
and the hat, and Indians – American Indian – so that he finally had a cross-file of all
that. And then he went through it all again and began composing it, thematically,
weaving these specific compositional references in and out. So it’s compositional,
and the idea was not to have a ‘plot‘, but to have a composition of those themes
(quoted from Clinton Heylin: Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades. Take two, Penguin
Books, p. ).
I will particularly emphasize three such motives on Love and Theft. They
can be called: The Apocalypse, The River, and Love. Along the way, several
others will turn up.
T A
The apocalyptic is the carrying motive in two of the songs, which can be regarded as the pillars around which the whole album and its motivic threads
spin: ‘Mississippi’ and ‘Highwater (for Charley Patton)’. The outer connection between the two songs is evident: Highwater takes its point of departure
in Charley Patton’s description of the big flood in Mississippi in  – the
Apocalypse in American form. This is a prominent feature in both songs. In
Highwater it is the thread that goes through the whole song, dominating it
to the degree that whatever positive bits of thread that are weaved in, lose
That the album reached the stores in the morning of September th, , the same
day and hour as the assault on the World Trade Center in New York, makes the album’s
apocalyptic strand even more prominent, but as was mentioned, this has been a strong
preoccupation for Dylan throughout his carreer.

Charley Patton (–) was one of the ‘Fathers of the Delta blues’ (for biographical
references, see e.g. Robert Santelli: The Big Book of Blues: A Biographical Encyclopedia,
London: Pavilion, . Patton’s life style follows all the cliches for a ‘blues man’: he was
raw and bullyish, enjoyed a good fight, drank heavily, allegedly had eight wives and spent
time in prison. His guitar style and song technique had an enormous influence on virtually
every blues musicians in the following generation, and is both directly and indirectly a
model for Dylan’s own blues style. Patton’s ‘High Water Everywhere’ is a long description
of the flood, even this a topic that Dylan has treated earlier, e.g. in ‘Crash on the Levee’
and the parodic ‘The Big Flood’, both from the  Basement Tapes).

III A  S

their good appearance and become twisted images: Dance: ‘You dancing with
whom they tell you to, or you don’t dance at all’; Art: ‘I can write you poems,
make a strong man lose his mind’; Justice: ‘Judge says to the High Sherriff: ‘I
want him dead or alive, either way, I don’t care’; God : ‘I’m preaching the word
of God, I’m putting out your eyes’. Love seemingly keeps its good connotations (‘I just can’t be happy, love, unless you’re happy too’), but still: this is an
ambiguous message: he isn’t actually saying that he’s happy, only that he can’t
be happy unless she is, and judging from the gloomy mood of the song, there
really isn’t any reason why she would be. All that remains is the threat of the
not-lasting, destruction, the Apocalyptic – hammered in through the refrains:
‘It’s tough out there’, ‘Things are breaking up out there’, ‘I don’t care’, ‘It’s bad
out there’, ‘It’s rough out there’.
At the same time, Highwater isn’t primarily a song about a natural disaster.
Rather, the physical calamity is the metaphorical starting point for the real
topic of the song: the way people react and interact when they are left to
themselves in a pressured situation (be it flood or love), where the solitude
and the pressure are allowed to dominate: ‘ “Don’t reach out for me,” she said,
“Can’t you see I’m drowning too?” ’
Highwater is a monothematic movement à la Haydn, both lyrically and
musically. Just as the feeling of disaster pervades the lyrics, so the sound is
dark an monotonous. The verses are dominated by a solitary banjo, which not
primarily (but also) is a reminiscing gesture to Patton and the delta-blues; even
more, it underlines the loneliness and hopelessness in the song itself: it fills its
part of the soundscape, high above the rest of the sonorous field and without
any contact with it, where its manic plucking over a sustained chord turns
into a musical representation of the nightmare situation where you run and
run without ever getting anywhere. The refrains are accompanied by ominous
thunder in the drums and growls from deep male voices.
T R
‘Mississippi’ is dramatically different, despite the common point of departure. Even here the Apocalyptic is the framework for the narrative, established
already in the second line of the song: ‘Your days are numbered an so are mine
[. . .] Nowhere to escape,’ and: ‘Sky full of fire, pain pouring down’. The song
This article was written before the official lyrics were available. All quotations from the
album are my own, inofficial, transcriptions, and they may be erroneous.

‘A       ’

culminates in wreckage and death: ‘Well, my ship’s been split to splinters and
it’s sinking fast. I’m drowning in the poison, got no future, got no past.’
But still, ‘Mississippi’ is a fundamentally positive, life-inspiring song. The
difference from Highwater is noticable already in the music: Highwater is
dark and heavy, Mississippi has one of the few ascending bass lines in Dylan’s
production (with prominent exceptions, such as ‘Like a Rolling Stone‘), and
a lighter sound overall. But even more interesting are the lyrical differences.
Again, the disaster situation is rather to be interpreted as a human (and interhuman) condition, but unlike Highwater’s isolated fates, it is instead the possibility of communication that is explored. The River is still the river of flood
and drowning, but at the same time it is used as an image of the Crossing of
boundaries (‘I crossed that river just to be where you are’). If we bring the two
together, we get a complex metaphor of the dangers of being close to someone
– a human-life version of the Biblical , fathoms, if one likes: approaching another human being is a voluntary matter (‘some people will offer you
their hand, and some won’t’, as it is said in the second verse), but doing so
entails a danger, one enters unknown territory, and there is no way back (‘You
can always come back, but you can’t come back all the way’, third verse).
A development seems to take place within the song, concerning the possibility of communication, from ‘We’re all boxed in’ in the first verse to ‘Stick
with me baby, stick with me anyhow’ in the last. One of the steps through
which this development goes, is the insight: ‘All my powers of expression, my
thoughts so sublime, could never do you justice in reason or rhyme’.
This can be seen as yet another one of the small motifs that recur here and there on
the record, which in this case may (possibly) be traced back to Petrarch’s Canto , Mia
benigna fortuna: I miei gravi sospir non vanno in rime, e ‘l mio duro martir vince ogni stile
(‘and my heavy sighs can not be brought into rhyme, and my hard fate conquers every
style’). In ‘Mississippi’ the narrator takes Petrarch’s position: Love cannot be described,
captured in poetry, whereas in ‘Bye And Bye’ he states, seemingly matter-of-factly, that
‘I’m singing love’s praises in sugar-coated rhyme’ (see below). It is not obvious that Dylan
has known these lines from Petrarch, but there is in fact a more or less direct link between
them, which at least invites speculation: in Tangled Up In Blue () the I-person follows
a woman home to her place, where she reads for him from a ‘book of poems written by
an Italian poet from the thirteenth century’. Well, Petrarch didn’t live in the thirteenth
century, but in an interview Dylan once intimated, in his usual, anti-intellectual way, that
the poet’s name is ‘Plutarch’ (Dylan: ‘I like that song. Yeah, that poet from the Thirteenth
Century.’ McGregor: ‘Who was that?’ Dylan: ‘Plutarch. Is that his name?’ McGregor:
‘Yeah’. Craig McGregor interview,  March . Published in New Musical Express on
 April ). Even thematically Petrarch seems to be a likely candidate, with his personal
relation, rich in contrasts, to Woman, not unlike what Dylan expresses in other songs.


III A  S
Not only the border towards other people is crossed, but also the limits of
time. Even here there’s a development through the song, from a perception
of time as a physical burden (‘time’s piling up’), to an almost Augustinian
concept of time, where time, in the moment of crossing, disappears completely (‘got no future, got no past’).
All through the song, the boundary-crossing is represented as a journey,
and here lies the main difference between ‘Mississippi’ and ‘Highwater’: in
‘Highwater’ the protagonist is content with his closedness and standstillness –
and it all ends in disaster; here, on the contrary, the necessity of the journey is
emphasised (‘Everybody got to move somewhere’), both related to communication and to time, and through the insight about this necessity (which despite
its hints at ‘fate’s decree’ nevertheless does not end up in fatalism, because it is
based on the necessity of choice), the fearful in the disaster dissolves. Therefore the apocalyptic climax in the central ‘wreck-scene’ quoted above, ends in
reconciliation and harmonious redemption, not in fear: ‘But my heart is not
weary, it’s light and it’s free. I got nothing but affection for those who’ve sailed
with me’ – one of the most loving lines Dylan has ever written.
Likewise, in Mississippi the presence of evil is counterbalanced by the good,
and, unlike in Highwater, the good is allowed to stand for itself: Higwhater’s
ambiguous concern is here explicit and clear: ‘I know you’re sorry, I’m sorry
too’. Thus, even though the last verse brings drowning and death as a consequence of the Crossing, and ends with the refrain ‘I stayed in Mississippi
a day too long’, it is still the tender declarations of love that remain when
the song is over: ‘give me your hand and say you’ll be mine’ – in dramatical
contrast to Highwater’s ‘Don’t reach out for me, can’t you see I’m drowning
too?’.
Two further motives are worth mentioning, because they show up in other
songs as well. The transformation from the ‘Highwater’ian isolationism to the
last verse’s empathy goes through the lines: ‘Walking through the leaves falling
from the trees, feeling like a stranger nobody sees.’ The same foliage shows up
time after time on the album, as a symbol of comprehension – either the one
not reached, as in ‘Lonesome Day Blues’ (‘Last night the wind was whispering,
That the quoted line has been of a certain import for Dylan, appears, not only from it
being the emotional climax of ‘Tangled up in Blue’, but also from the fact that after his
conversion, fall , precisely this line was re-written: now, the quotes are from the Bible
and Jeremiah.

Augustine’s discussion of time, where he concludes that neither the past nor the present
exists, other than in memory, can be found in his Confessiones, book .
‘A       ’

I was trying to make out what it was’), or the appropriated, dogmatic truth
of ‘Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum’: ‘They walk among the stately trees They
know the secrets of the breeze’, see below). As a motive, this reaches back to at
least two earlier Dylan songs: ‘Blowin’ in the wind’ from  – the answer is
there, in the wind, for whoever so wishes to pick it up, but at the same time:
who can catch the wind? – and ‘A Hard Rain’s A-Gonna Fall’: ‘I heard ten
thousand whispering and nobody listening.’
‘The Tree’ is in itself a motive with branches in many directions, appearing
both as one element of the idyll in ‘Floater’, with leaves rustling in a mild
summer breeze and logs crackling on the hearth, and as menacing ghosts in
the concealed murder ballad ‘Moonlight’ (‘The branches cast their shadows
over stone. Won’t you meet me out in the moonlight alone’).
Lastly, one of the Journey associations in ‘Mississippi’, is, maybe surprisingly, the Journey motives in the Biblical Christmas narrative. Both the wise
men – ‘I got here following the southern star’ – and Mary’s mule – ‘Well, the
devil’s in the alley, mule’s in the stall’ – are represented. In ‘Floater’ too, the
Christmas motive shows up, as one of the joyful memories of the untroubled
past (‘I had ’em [i.e. dreams and hopes] once, though, I suppose, | To go along
with all the ring dancing, Christmas Carols on all the Christmas Eves’).
L
Several of the other songs treat motives that may be referred to the Love
motive in different ways. What they have in common is that they – again
like opera arias – choose one perspective at the time, and try them out.
In an interview from  Dylan comments on a phrase in one of his new
songs – ‘the politics of sin’ – saying that ‘Yes, that’s what sin is: politics’. In
‘Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee’ he characterizes this version of the political
This last motive is also closely related to the culminating lines in another classic Dylan
song, ‘Mr Tambourine Man’ (): ‘Take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my
mind, | down the foggy ruins of time, | far past the frozen leaves, | The haunted, frightened
trees, / out to the windy beach, | Far from the twisted reach of crazy sorrow.’ Here the Tree
offers a whole chain of images in a rite de passage away from ‘the twisted reach of crazy
sorrow’, out to the freedom on the beach, where on can dance ‘with one hand waving free’.
(As an aside, one might, at least in a parenthesis, wonder when was the last time Dylan
himself did that; his present-day persona doesn’t invite that kind of images. Then again,
that’s his concern only.)

From an interview by Neil Spencer: ‘The diamond voice within’, New Musical Express,
. August, , s. –. Quoted from http://www.interferenza.com/.


III A  S
man. The characters are borrowed from Lewis Carroll’s Through The Looking
Glass, where they are the archetypical unruly brothers: well attuned to each
other, but just as quickly at each others’ throats, if necessary – or if just so
happens; not really evil, rather indifferent, unaffected, careless. In a central
scene they recite the poem ‘The walrus and the carpenter’ for Alice, where
it is hard to tell who of the protagonists is the most greedy: one grabs most
but the other one eats as much as he can (Alice concludes: ‘they were both very
unpleasant characters’.)
Dylan’s couple isn’t much better. Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee are in
the mason’s trade (‘They run a brick and tile company’), and they fulfill every
cliché about the slightly mafiotic craftsman with affairs on the side, who owns
the world and takes what he wants: ‘Looking at a window with a pecan pie
| Lot of things they’d like they would never buy’. They own the truth in the
same manner (‘They know the secret of the breeze’). When they ‘trust their
fate to the hands of God’, they don’t do so in religious confidence, but in
somnambulous indifference – they certainly don’t feel any need to take fate
in their own hands, but if he up there want’s to, that’s entirely up to him.
They’re living in ‘the land of Nod’ – the land to which Cain was exiled after
his fratricide. And it is not a nice neighbourhood that is presented in the
song. All traces of love and good thoughts are twisted, with money as the only
measurement of value, if at all there is one: ‘I got love for you, and it’s all in
vain’, ‘My pretty baby, she’s looking around. She’s wearing a multi-thousand
dollar gown.’ ‘Well, they’re living in a happy harmony [. . .] They’re one day
older and a dollar short, They got a paid permit and a police escort’. The song
is full of bizarre images and scenes, culled from the border land between the
horror cabinet and the boy pranks:
Brains in a pot, they’re beginning to boil
They’re dripping with garlic and olive oil,
...
They’re throwing knives into the tree
...
Two big bags of dead man’s bones.
The song ends with a final assessment of their relationship: ‘Tweedle Dee
is a low-down sorry old man. | Tweedle Dum, he’ll stab you where you stand.
| ‘I’ve had too much of your company,‘ | Said Tweedle Dum to Tweedle Dee.’
In connection with Dylan it is almost impossible not to associate the title with Dylan
himself, whose original surname was Zimmermann (‘carpenter’), and John Lennon with
his song ‘I am the Walrus’, which was based on the same poem

‘A       ’

‘Floater (too much to ask)’ is in a way a counter-image to ‘Tweedle Dum’.
Throughout most of the song, we are presented with a relaxed, almost idyllic
mood, where bees are buzzing, leaves are stirring, and trees inspire neither
insight nor fear, but simply heat, as firewood (‘There’s a new grove of trees on
the outskirt of town [. . .] | Timber, two foot six across, | burns with the bark
still on. [. . .] You can smell the pine wood burning.’)
Even though the River isn’t explicitly mentioned in the lyrics, it is apparent that the story takes place by the riverside, and the very title of the song
points to yet another aspect of the River as a metaphor: that which floats by,
always and never the same. The ‘Floater’ existence should not be misunderstood as carefree, but the cares are not given any importance. Motives that in
other connections (other songs) become fatal or problematic, just float by, not
unnoticed, but without import, with comments like: ‘It doesn’t matter in the
end’ and ‘We will just have to see how it goes.’ Some of the verses sound like
comments on other songs. ‘They [perhaps the flood victims in ‘Highwater’?]
say times are hard, | It don’t bother me, times are hard everywhere | We will
just have to see how it goes.’ ‘One of the bosses‘ hangers-on [Tweedle Dum
or Tweedle Dee?], trying to bully you, strong-arm you, inspire you with fear:
| it has the opposite effect.’ The wind, which elsewhere make leaves whisper
and boats sink, is here almost ridiculed: ‘Sometimes it’s just plain stupid | to
get into any kind of wind.’
The perhaps most beautiful strophe tells lovingly about the grandparents:
‘My grandfather was a duck-trapper | he could do it with just dragnets and
ropes. | My grandmother could sew new dresses out of old cloth, | I don’t
know if they had any dreams or hopes.’ This description flows straight into a
rejection of such things as dreams or hopes on the part of the narrator: ‘I had
them once, though, I suppose’. And the context in which the strophe occurs,
is far from idyllic: to begin with, he states that ‘If you ever try to interfere
with me or cross my path again, | you do so at the peril of your own life. /
I’m not as cool or forgiving as I sound’. What is described is a breakup scene;
a demanding partner is thrown out, and the unyieldingness involved in this,
stands in sharp contrast to the seemingly peaceful mood elsewhere in the song.
But this is the central motive in ‘Floater’ – the cool, disinterested observation,
as a price to pay to get away from the deeper problems. Both the price and
the reward are paid in hopes and dreams: he has escaped them, but also had
to let them go.
We find some of the ‘Floater’ mood also in ‘Bye and Bye’, only with the
contrasts drawn to an even stronger extreme. Most of the song is dominated
by an uncritical carefreeness, as an example of the above-mentioned phrase

III A  S
‘I’m singing love’s praises in sugar coated rhymes’, and supported musically
by the light swing-jazz arrangement. The last of these ‘sugar-coated rhymes‘
is: ‘You were my first love, and you will be my last’. But the very last strophe
brutally turns the whole situation upside down, and all of a sudden we are
back in the apocalyptic verbiage, this time explicitly connected with a love
relation.
Papa gone mad, mama she’s feeling sad.
I’m gonna baptize you in fire so you can sin no more
I’m gonna establish my rule through civil war
Gonna make you see just how loyal and true a man can be!
The same sudden shift to a violent reaction in a seemingly calm and peaceful
situation, can be found in just about every song on the album. ‘Lonesome
Day Blues’ presents, in strophe after strophe, lost relationships, all in accordance with the first line of the song: ‘Today has been a sad and lonesome day.’
Twice motives from ‘Floater’ turn up: family ties, with the straightforward
and honest ‘I wish my mother was still alive’ (Dylan’s own mother died in
January ), and the breakup from a woman, this time left standing in the
doorway, with the crushingly laconic remark: ‘Funny the things you have the
hardest time parting with are the things you need the least.’ (Last time, on
Time out of Mind, the roles were reversed – there it goes: ‘You left me standing
in the doorway crying.’; see The Momentum of Standstill – Time out of Mind
and the blues, p. , for a discussion of this song). The end is heralded with
the lightly reshaped quote from Virgil: ‘I’m going to spare the defeated, I’m
going to speak to the crowd | I’m going to teach peace to the conquered, I’m
going to tame the proud’ (The qoute is from book  in Virgil’s Aeneid, where
Anchises exhorts his son Aeneas about how to rule:
‘Remember, Romans, these will be your arts:
to teach the ways of peace to those you conquer
to spare defeated peoples, tame the proud.
In the final strophe there is again the echo of disaster, and again associated
with love: ‘The leaves are rustling in the wood, things are falling off the shelf
| You’re gonna need my help, sweetheart, you can’t make love all by yourself.’
We recognize the Help motive from ‘Mississippi’ and ‘Highwater’ – here it
shows up from yet another perspective.
In ‘Moonlight’, the connection is more subtle. The refrain is an innocent
invitation to a saunter in the moonlight, but small hints elsewhere in the text

VI,–; from Allen Mandelbaum’s translation, Bantam Books (pp. –).
‘A       ’

make us suspect that it may not be going to be a romantic stroll: the air is thick
and heavy, twisted trees cast their shadows (See note ) and ‘the earth and sky
[. . .] melt with flesh and bone’. Three lines in the middle of the song sound
like a direct comment to ‘Floater’: ‘I’m preaching peace and harmony, the
blessings of tranquility, yet I know when the time is right to strike.’ Perhaps
should the song be seen in relation to the murder ballad tradition, as, e.g.
in the traditional ‘Banks of the Ohio’, where the man takes his beloved’s life
during a walk on the riverside? The narrator in ‘Moonlight’ does say: ‘I’ll
take you ‘cross the river, dear’ (like a Charon across the Styx? – again a River
metaphor), and we are suddenly not sure if the bells call to a a wedding or a
funeral: ‘For whom does the bell toll for, love? | They toll for you and me.’
The bells are ringing in ‘Summer Days’ too. These bells are explicitly wedding bells, but not even here can we be absolutely sure: ‘What looks good in
the day, at night is another thing.’ This ambiguity is implicit already from the
song’s title: ‘Summer days’ foreshadows a light an merry summer song, which
is also supported by the poignant rockabilly arrangement. But what the song
really is about, is autumn: ‘Summer days are gone’. This song too is constructed around a series of images and motives that we recognize from other songs:
the Help motive (‘She’s lookin‘ into my eyes and she’s a-holdin‘ my hand’),
Time (‘She says, ‘You can’t repeat the past,’ | I say ‘You can’t? What do you
mean you can’t? Of course, you can’, , The River (‘standing by God’s river,
my soul’s beginning to shake’), and the breakup – again violent ad surprising:
‘I’m leavin’ in the morning [. . .], gonna break in the roof, set fire to the place
as a parting gift.’
On the surface ‘Cry Awhile’ is the most explicitly hostile song, with the
refrain ‘I cried for you, now it’s your turn, you can cry awhile’, and the final
point ‘I always said you’d be sorry, and today could be the day. | I might need
a good lawyer, could be your funeral, my trial’. Thus, the song seems to
point back to ‘Moonlight’ and ‘Floater’, from the perspective of the repenting
sinner: ‘I’m on the fringes of the night, fighting back tears that I can’t control
In the Doomsday-laden ‘Not Dark Yet’ from Time out of Mind () we find the line:
‘I can hear the church-bells ringing in the yard. I wonder who they’re ringing for.’

This line, one of Dylan’s most exuberant, is based on a dialogue in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s
The Great Gatsby. See this article at http://pool.dylantree.com/ for a lucid discussion of
this connection

Your Funeral My Trial is, among other things, the title of an album by Nick Cave ().
Cave has also recorded an entire album of Murder Ballads (), which also included
Dylan’s ‘Death is not the End’. This is not to suggest that Dylan has borrowed the line
from Cave, but rather to indicate a certain range of connotations.


III A  S
/. . . | But I’m crying to the Lord, trying to be meek and mild’. Thereby it
is also, in a twisted way, the most loving song – even though the perspective
entails that it may perhaps be too late.
All these songs, then, relate to the same basic motive – a breakup from a
love relation. It is treated in different ways, from different perspectives, but in
the final end, the outcome is always the same. It is as if Dylan wanted to say:
no matter where one starts or how one attempts to solve the problem, it ends
in disaster. All roads lead to Rome (or to Doom) – whether one wants to get
there or not.
The last song on the album, ‘Sugar Baby’, is a ‘Grand Ballad’ of the same
cut as the closing songs on several Dylan albums. The song begins with the
large overview, where the narrator stands alone against the rest of the world,
but is in possession of esoteric knowledge, thanks to his alienation: ‘I got my
back to the sun ’cause the light is too intense. | I can see what everybody
in the world is up against.’ The recurring theme is again separation – ‘Sugar
Baby get on down the road, . . . | you went years without me, might as well
keep going now’ – but here the perspective is more distanced than in the
earlier songs: sober and motto-like, the state of affairs is presented in clichélike turns: ‘Can’t turn back, you can’t come back, sometimes we push too far’,
‘Some of these memories you can learn to live with, and some of them you
can’t.’ His own painful experience of the separation is drawn into the same
distanced framework of both understanding and language: ‘Your charms have
broken many a heart, and mine is surely one.’ The deeply personal is mixed
with the general, without ever dominating: the generalization ‘There ain’t no
limit to the amount of trouble women bring’, leads directly into the next
generalization, about love, but with the opposite value: ‘Love is pleasing, love
is teasing, love – not an evil thing.’
The apocalyptic element is there, but only as a shadow, in another cliché
phrase: ‘You got a way of tearing the world apart, love’, followed by the album’s
only direct reference to the Apocalypse in a Biblical sense: ‘Look up, look up,
seek you maker ’fore Gabriel blows his horn.’ This might be read as if the
circle is closed, that the religious redemption is the solution to love’s problem,
but this would be reading too much into it. Rather, the message – if there
is a message – is that just as unfathomable as religious redemption, just as
difficult is the ‘redemption’ of earthly love. By using the one to describe the

The line is a direct quotation from Gene Austin’s ‘The Lonesome Road’ from ,
which has also contributed with the melody to ‘Sugar Baby’ – without credits, it might be
added.
‘A       ’

other, the problem is brought to an existential level, where religious themes
are relevant, for comparison or description, but we are not offered any solution.
As I pointed out in the introduction, this is the strength of Dylan’s poetic, and
in Love and Theft it is generally treated with great care and skill.
From the survey so far one might get the impression that Love and Theft
is a dark and somber album, and there are certainly plenty of dark strands in
the weave. But an equally salient feature is the exuberant joy of pouring out
words: the lines are filled to the point where they seem to burst, and the songs
are mostly long. They are also filled with humorous flashes, especially puns
of the kind that Dylan from time to time has delivered from stage during his
shows: ‘Call down to room service, say “send up a room” ’, ‘Politician got on
his jogging shoes, he must be running for office, got no time to lose.’
T M
Love and Theft is not a cycle of poems, it is a record, so a few words about the
music is appropriate. Most striking is the total mix of styles, and particularly
the unabashed use of swing-jazz from the ‘s. On several occasion Dylan has
expressed his liking for artists like Bing Crosby and Frank Sinatra, but he has
never used such a style in his own music. This may, perhaps surprisingly,
explain the musical freshness that pervades the record: when Dylan relates to
a style that is new to him (in the capacity of listener, not of performer), it calls
for an attentiveness and concentration which is not as compellingly necessary
when he sails in the well-known waters of the blues. The same phenomenon
could be observed when he, with the fervor of the convert, turned his attention to Gospel music in the late s. Add to this that Dylan this time has
left more than usual to his musicians, mostly taken from his very experienced
and tight touring band. Especially the two guitarists Charlie Sexton and Larry
Campbell demonstrate a full command of the various styles that Dylan explores, be it swing or blues. Therefore, Dylan can, for the first time in his
carreer, let his own guitar, one of his trademarks, be as good as absent (and his
other trademark: the harmonica, is not heard at all).
It needs to be said that the appealing notion of the -year-old Dylan who
all of a sudden turns into a s’ crooner, isn’t entirely truthful. There is a
reason why the record is called ‘Love and theft’. The title seems to be a direct
But he has played covers of this kind of songs during his concerts, with some consistency
since the late eighties.


III A  S
comment to its origin: he has not just ‘stolen’ the general style of music that he
loves – at least four of the songs have ‘borrowed’ (read: stolen) both melodies
and the entire arrangements from songs that were actually written in the s
and the s, performed by Bing Crosby, Billie Holiday and others. This does
not diminish the album’s musical merits, but a note on the album sleeve about
the origins and composers of the songs, would have been welcome; no such
thing can be found.
The other main group of songs consists of variations of the blues pattern.
Being a performer who has played the blues during an entire -year carreer,
there is remarkably little ‘straight’ twelve-bar blues in Dylan’s catalogue. He
is a master in varying the simple blues patterns; it seems like a self-imposed
constraint against which he constantly fights. The same can be said about
Love and Theft. Ca. half of the songs fall in this category. This might have
created a certain monotony, but so is in fact not the case. By exploiting large
parts of the range of subgenres to which the blues has developed during its
-years’ history (delta blues, rockabilly, heavy, electric Chicago blues etc.),
and through variations in phrase length and playful use of little riffs and licks,
Dylan and his band manage to keep the listener’s attention even in songs that
otherwise might have felt too long.
If one particular feature is to be emphasized, it will have to be Dylan’s
continuous ‘struggle’ against the dominant. In its most common form the
blues pattern is a principally unconcluded, cyclic form, where each round
through the scheme ends with a strong dominant figure (e.g. the ‘turnaround’)
which leads back to the keynote and the next verse. Dylan, on his part, has always preferred to tone down this function, either through different ‘diverting
maneouvres’, by modifying the dominant chord (e.g. by using an th chord,
which in effect is a subdominant chord with a dominant bass), or by leaving
out the dominant altogether. This is the case for most of the blues numbers
on Love and Theft. Particularly elegant in this respect is ‘Cry Awhile’, which is
never even close to the dominant, but precisely through its absence where it
is expected the most, makes itself all the more felt. By treating the dominant
‘Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum’ is taken from Johnnie and Jack’s ‘Uncle John´s
Bongos’, ‘Bye and Bye’ is based on ‘Having Myself a Time’ by Leo Robin and Ralph
Rainger, sung by Billie Holiday, ‘Floater’ is based on ‘Snuggled On Your Shoulders’ by
Lombardo/Young – and has lifted several central lines from Junichi Saga’s ‘Confessions of
a Yakuza’, and ‘Sugar Baby’ is based on ‘The Lonesome Road’ by Austin/Shilkret, sung by
Gene Austin, from which it has also taken the line ‘Look up, look up, seek your maker |
’Fore Gabriel blows his horn’.

‘A       ’

in this way the character of chord progressions is weakened – the different scale
steps are instead treated as stations, freed from the course of time. In a subtle
way this accords with the way the course of time is treated in the lyrics, both
in the time-dissolving ‘Mississippi’ (‘got no future, got no past’) and in ‘Sugar
Baby’s abstract, timeless catchphrase condition.
One song sticks out from the ones mentioned so far: ‘Po’ Boy’. It deals with
a poor guy who washes the dishes and feed the pigs, pays too much in the store,
has the police on his back and is (probably) made a cuckold by some Freddie,
but who is still basically happy and satisfied. In the middle of the song we also
get a glimpse of a conversation between Othello and Desdemona, about what
actually happened with that poisoned wine. All in all a text that fits Dylan’s
own description well, as a tune that sings itself and a text that doesn’t interfer
with the tune:
That song sort of plays itself. . . . Because, that’s a song that could exist without
any lyric. It exists just on chord structures . . . and the lyrics are just trying to stay
in the path and not to lay too much emotional rhetoric here and there.
It’s a charming little gem.
‘The Voice of a Generation’ is getting older, but Love and Theft proves
that he still stands comparison with any of the other generations to which he
has belonged. He can still be poignant and playful like in the s, pensive
and bitter as in the s, apocalyptic as in the s. Age has extended the field
of possible subjects, but this comes in addition to and not instead of earlier
periods’ preoccupations. This is a particular kind of novelty: to be able to keep
the old when the new is added. Not many artists master that art form better
than Dylan.

The ‘Rome interview’ (July , )
IV
Modern Times and Plagiarism
Chapter 
It’s Modern to Steal
M T ()
T
  is not so much: “Is this a good Dylan album?” – which
it is – as “Is this a Dylan album?” – which it isn’t.
First the lyrics: as Scott Warmuth has discovered, through an ingenious google investigation, several lines of lyrics are lifted from the works of the
“Poet Laureate of the Confederacy” Henry Timrod in much the same way as
Yunichi Saga’s Confessions of a Yakuza unwittingly contributed to “Love and
Theft”. This has caused considerable reactions, in far wider circles than usual.
So, is Dylan a thieving scoundrel and a plagiarist, or a genius who transforms what he reads into new gems?
The lyrical side of his creative borrowings don’t bother me a single bit, and
I’m surprised that such a fuss has been made over this. If anything, they add to
the value of Dylan’s effort, rather than subtract from it. I would never call any
of that plagiarism, neither in the case of Modern Times nor of “Love and Theft”.
I can’t imagine Dylan sitting there in his divine solitude, struggling with a line,
then walking over to the bookshelf and picking out Timrod or Saga in search
for a line that would work. Now, that would have come closer to plagiarism:
to let someone else do the job. I imagine it’s the other way around: Dylan
has read Yakuza and Timrod, certain phrases and figures have stuck in his
mind, from where they in due time have popped up again, in a completely
new context. This kind of use is not dictated by need but by circumstance,
coincidence, “intuition” if you wish. That is what I find fascinating about the
use of these sources on these two albums: they highlight just how it is that
things “pop up” in one’s mind – how people think.
But my surprise by the overreaction regarding a few creatively transformed
word connections is multiplied by the lack of a similar reaction to the musical
borrowings. These are both much more substantial and much more difficult
to defend.
At the time of writing (Wed  Sept, : CET), the following songs on
Modern Times have known models for their music:


IV M T  P
• Rollin’ and Tumblin’ – Taken from Muddy Water’s version of Hambone Willie Newbern’s “Roll and Tumble Blues” from .
• When the Deal Goes Down – based on Bing Crosby’s trademark song
“Where the Blue of the Night (Meets the Gold of the Day)” by Roy
Turk and Fred E. Ahlert
• Beyond the Horizon – Taken from Jim Kennedy’s “Red Sails in the
Sunset”
• The Levee’s Gonna Break – taken wholesale (apart from a few new lines
of lyrics here and there) from Kansas Joe & Memphis Minnie’s “When
the Levee Breaks” from .
• Someday Baby – taken from “Worried Life Blues” (aka “Someday Baby”
or “Trouble No More”), performed by Sleepy John Estes, Fred McDowell, Lightnin’ Hopkins, Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry, Eric Clapton, the
Animals, and Bob Dylan himself (Toad’s Place, ), just to mention
a few.
These are not just influences: in all cases, the chord structure is lifted from the
models and the melody is clearly recognizable, and in some cases, the whole
arrangement is “borrowed”.
That’s five out of ten. Furthermore, I’d be very surprised if the music to
Spirit on the Water is Dylan’s own. Thunder on the Mountain could be by
anyone, and probably is. That leaves us with three songs where the music is –
at least until proven otherwise – truly “by Bob Dylan”.
It so happens that these are the three strongest songs on the album: “Nettie
Moore”, “Ain’t Talkin”’ and “Workingman’s Blues #”. I don’t know if this is
good news or bad: it is reassuring that his own songs are the best, but why,
then, did he have to put in the rest of it – didn’t he have more than three songs
in him in five years?
If this is a sign of creative drought, that may be a matter of concern regarding the possibility of more albums in the future, but in this particular context,
it’s not my main concern.
If the various textual allusions and citations can be redeemed as a fascinating display of creative intertextual intution, it is quite the opposite with the
music. When Dylan w/band play the exact same notes and the exact same so‘Workingman’s Blues #’ is vaguely related to Merle Haggard’s Working Man’s Blues,
but the influence stops at the title; musically, they are totally unrelated. In the case of
‘Nettie Moore’, the odds are slimmer: the melody and chord sequence are clearly related
to/based on Roy Rodgers’ ‘Gentle Nettie Moore’, but the character and the melodic details
are quite different.

I’ M  S

los as Muddy Waters did on “Rollin’ and Tumblin’ ”, that’s not “intuition” or
creative translocation, it’s just “letting Muddy do the job”, plain and simple.
That doesn’t add to my appreciation of the work – on the contrary.
Not all the borrowings are as straightforward as “Rollin’ and Tumblin’ ”.
“When the Deal Goes Down” is a more interesting case. It is based on Bing
Crosby’s “Where the Blue of the Night (Meets the Gold of the Day)”, and
Dylan has in fact been open or semi-open about this. In a Live Talk with
David Gates, who interviewed Dylan for Newsweek after Chronicles came
out, Gates answered questions from the audience. One of them was:
Did Bob share any details with you regarding the songs for his next album? What’s
the scoop?
And the answer was:
David Gates: Really only that he’s working on them. he did say he’s written a song
based on the melody from a Bing Crosby song, “Where the Blue of the Night
(Meets the Gold of the Day).” How much it’ll actually sound like that is anybody’s
guess.
We now know the answer to the last question: Not much, actually. Although
the song structure and he chords are identical, the phrasing, the melody line,
and the pace in Dylan’s version are all very different from Crosby’s slow, insinuating crooning. It is indeed “a song based on the melody” from “Where
the Blue of the Night” rather than “Where the Blue of the Night” with new
lyrics.
The case is quite analogous to Dylan’s version of “You Belong To Me” – or
just about every live cover he has performed during the Never Ending Tour
years: his melody differs considerably from the original; he has definitely made
it his own, although the underlying tune is clearly the same. The difference is
that “You Belong To Me” doesn’t have “Written by Bob Dylan” under it.
Putting the label “All songs written by Bob Dylan” on this CD is plain
indecency. Again, this applies only to the music; I would not have wished to
see anyhing like: “Words by Bob Dylan and Henry Timrod”. But I would have
liked to see: “Words: Bob Dylan, Music: Muddy Waters” (disregarding here
the fact that Muddy didn’t write the tune either, but that’s moot: he played
those solos, he shaped the song into the form which Dylan has taken over, so
for all intents and purposes Muddy is the originator). If Dylan has copyrighted
From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id//site/newsweek/. Thanks to Jörgen Lindström for directing my attention to this.


IV M T  P
the tunes of Rollin’ and Tumblin’ and Beyond the Horizon, he gets money
from selling something he didn’t own in the first place. And regardless of
the money, by putting “by Bob Dylan” under it he is taking creative credit
for something he didn’t create, stating “This is what I have to say” without
actually saying anything. That’s my main concern: he isn’t saying anything.
And as Tom Lehrer so eloquently put it: “If you can’t communicate, the least
you can do is shut up!”
As more and more references and borrowings were discovered on “Love and
Theft”, I got this wonderful vision: what if it wasn’t just a few lines of Japanese
gangster-lore here and there – what if every note and every lyric line were direct
quotations, put together in a grand collage – that would have been a major
achievement and a bold highlighting of the problematic of communication
by blurring the normally well-established pattern of sender-receiver; pointing
(fingers) to our expectations and norms, and proving them to be wrong. It
would have been like a game. And that title. . . But when the same thing happens on Modern Times, only without the extra level of “game”, it just becomes
a sign of someone who is content with playing lounge music, but who has
a reputation to live up to and a record company with an over-zealous sales
department on his back.
Some have defended Dylan with reference to the folk tradition. “This is
what one does there: one takes what one hears and builds on that. This is what
Dylan has always done.” Etc. Fair enough, but only to a point. Of course,
there are contexts where, for historical or other reasons, a legalistic approach
to authorship may be less relevant than in other contexts, or at least require
an interpretation in the light of practice, the “folk tradition” being one such
context. The next question would then be if a multi-million seller is at all comparable to the swapping, sharing, reworking of songs in coffee-houses or dance
halls which I would more immediately associate with the “folk tradition”. If
the folk tradition is about community, sharing, and freedom of expression,
Modern Times does that, but it does a lot of other things too, such as making money for the artist, the record company, and the manager’s uncle, which
places it in a completely different context.
I don’t know what Dylan’s motivations have been – perhaps he hasn’t even
had anything to do with what’s written on the album sleeve (he probably
hasn’t cared), but all the promotion material from Sony goes in the direction
of: these are all new songs, newly written by this great genius who was counted
out but now is back in the ring with a vengance, buy it, buy it, buy it.
Besides, as Nick Manho said on the dylanpool (making a point that he had
borrowed/stolen from emily smith):
I’ M  S

The difference between Bob ripping off the blues guys in the s and Bob ripping
off the blues guys now is that in the s Bob’s rip-offs were better than the originals
There’s a point in that. Not that quality would be a justification for rip-offs,
nor that the statement is always true, taken literally, but to the extent that
standing in a creative tradition would imply taking in something from a common storehouse (whether or not an original composer can be identified), processing it, and putting out something which adds something to the input. The
point of standing on others’ shoulders should be to see farther, not to stand
taller. “Being in the folk tradition” isn’t a valid excuse for acting more like a
thieving bastard than as a creative musician with a rich heritage.
Chapter 
The many ways of stealing
I’
   before: I don’t mind Dylan lifting lines from Timrod. I do mind his uncredited appropriations of entire pieces of music,
but little snippets of text here and there – that’s a completely different
matter.
In all the many discussions and opinions about this matter, two areas have
been mentioned with some frequency, either in order to emphasise the offense,
or to diminish it. In each their way, they add some interesting twists to the
case, although they don’t change my verdict concerning the musical theft.
A 
One of the references is to the academic world. The argument goes that if
something like this had happened there, Dylan would have been sent home
with an F and a relegation.
I would argue against this, although in some cases he does, admittedly,
come close. Plagiarism in an academic context is when one passes off someone
else’s work as one’s own. If someone has written:
I have compared the lyrics on Bob Dylan’s Modern Times to Henry Timrod’s poetry
and found a number of lines to be remarkably similar, beyond the coincidental.
and I write:
My scrutiny of the corpus of Timrod has revealed several lines borrowed by Bob
Dylan on Modern Times. These are too conspicuous to be the result of chance.
this would be a clear case of plagiarism, and would obviously be worth an F,
even though hardly a single word is the same.
However, what if I wrote:
I have compared the pictures in Andy Warhol’s exhibitions to shots of Marilyn
Monroe and labels of cans of Campbell’s soup, and found a number of images to
be remarkably similar, beyond the coincidental.


IV M T  P
Most of the words are the same, and the structure of the sentence and the
argument is identical, but I can hardly be accused of passing off someone else’s
work as my own, because the “work” in this case is not the words themselves,
but that which they express. The first text expresses that Dylan has used lyrics
from Timrod, the second that Warhol has used images from other places. The
obvious similarities are inconsequential, irrelevant for the statements’ status as
academic texts.
One may lament this and think that the job of the academic should be
not only to write stuff, but to write stuff; to shape sentences which are worth
reading regardless of which ideas they express. But it remains a fairly established fact (or at least a convention), that if I rewrite a scholarly article and
present the same evidence and conclusions with different words, it will still be
the same article, whereas if I present the contents of one of Horace’s odes in
other words, it will be a different poem. It would take a very strict definition
of plagiarism to claim that I’ve plagiarized Horace.
P 
A poem can not be separated from the words in it. It’s probably an exaggeration to say that the words are the poem, but at least one can safely say that
whatever ideas are expressed in a poem, they are not the poem.
This distinction may get Dylan off the hook of academic plagiarism, but at
the same time it may appear to strengthen the case against him on the poetical
side. After all, didn’t I just say that the words are the poem?
Ehem, no, I didn’t. Without going too deeply into the history and theory
of poetics, let’s just say that every text is a combination of words and ideas,
and where the emphasis will lie closer to the “idea” side for an academic text,
it will move closer to the word for a poem.
The “words” side should also be subdivided into the sounding part: rhythms
and rhymes, letter sounds and word bounce; and the rhetorical part: how
words are combined into figures of speech – the kind of metaphors one uses,
rather than the meaning of the metaphors – and the choice of stylistical level:
whether one says “gal” or “girl”, “babe” or “sweetheart”, “woman” or “lady”,
“ma’m” or “ma dame”.
A poetic text will also usually involve some kind of meta-reflection: a consciousness about the combination of word and idea itself, so that the words
not just point to the corresponding ideas or are to be enjoyed for their sonorous qualities – more like a musical work – but also point to this very relation:
T    

e.g. the absurdity of having a sequence of sounds stand for something as silent
as a rock; the meaningful coincidence of the first letters in “frail” and “flower”
or “silent” and “stone”.
So whereas an academical text would be judged primarily according to the
ideas expressed in it, the judgement on a poem will be based on the combined
effect of all three elements, in some mixture or other. Thus, taking over the
words but putting them in a different context where they present another
idea; placing them in a startling new metrical context or embedding them
in a different sequence of allitterating words; or turning their metaphorical
reference upside down through a combination with other words and ideas
than in the original – all this would constitute a change in poetic substance.
T    
Is this what Dylan has done? Let us take a closer look at some of the borrowings. Here is Timrod, some lines from his “Rhapsody of a Southern Winter
Night”:
A round of precious hours
Oh! here, where in that summer noon I basked
And strove, with logic frailer than the flowers
Timrod’s “I” spends the hours of his summer days in heated, desperate speculation, trying to get to grips with something, but that something eludes him;
rational thought can only get us so far, and beyond a certain point, logic
proves to be a weak helper – frailer, even, than the flowers.
Then Dylan:
The moon gives light and it shines by night
Well, I scarcely feel the glow
We learn to live and then we forgive
O’er the road we’re bound to go
More frailer than the flowers, these precious hours
That keep us so tightly bound
(“When the Deal Goes Down”)
We are no longer in the baking sunlight of noon but in the heatless moonlight
at night; there is an echo of desperation here, but more of an afterglow, won
over in calm and wisened subordination to fate and to the necessities of life:
forgiveness and the need to take some road, no matter where it leads and
what injustices and tribulations have brought us there in the first place; what
is important is to belong together with someone, and although it may be a
disheartening observation that the tight bonds are indeed frailer than flowers,

IV M T  P
the other option is also open: to regard it as a comforting paradox of life that
even though the bonds seem frail, they are after all tight enough to hold.
The differences between the two texts are marked also on the rhetorical
level, where Dylan introduces paradox as the carrying figure (inviting us to
ask, “how can something so frail bind so tight?”), and the sounding level,
where he has straightened out Timrod’s disrespect for the line boundaries and
instead brought the two rhyming words together in a rapid sequencee of halflines.
No matter which interpretation we choose, it is evident that the only
things that remain are the phrase “frailer than the flowers”, and its companion rhyme “precious hours”. It is the exact opposite situation to Dylan’s own
introduction to his topical songs in live performances in the s (was it Hattie Carroll?), that “Nothing has changed, except the words.” Here, instead,
“Everything has changed, except the words”.
The same goes for many of Dylan’s other borrowings:
My memories are drowning
In mortal bliss
(“Beyond the Horizon”)
says something quite different than Timrod’s
Which drowned the memories of the time
In a merely mortal bliss!
(“Our Willie”)
These examples may show that although Dylan has taken over one of the three
elements of a poetic text, he has indeed made something new out of it: he has
not passed off Timrod’s work as his own. Other borrowings are less clear in
this respect. In these lines from “When the Deal Goes Down”
In the still of the night,
in the world’s ancient light
Where wisdom grows up in strife
the last line is a single unit, both of words, ideas, and imagery, which differs
little from Timrod’s:
There is a wisdom that grows up in strife
(“Retirement”)
And the strange line from “Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dum”
Well a childish dream is a deathless need
takes everything, including its strangeness, from Timrod, who says:
T    

A childish dream is now a deathless need
(“A Vision of Poesy, Part ”)
Dylan doesn’t add to this: he has stolen the line.
D  B: A  ?
I’m nevertheless tempted to give him the benefit of some kind of doubt: as
isolated examples, they may be illegitimate appropriations, but seen in combination with the other examples, they merely appear as unsuccessful applications of his poetic technique. In many/most cases, he has “appropriated” the
lines in the literal sense of the word: made them his own. In some cases, he has
tried, but not quite succeeded. The important thing is that he has tried. The
“benefit” I offer him, then, regarding these particular examples, is the choice
between being a thief or a bad poet.
I have disregarded the question whether Dylan’s textual borrowings should
be seen as allusions rather than theft. I’m inclined to think not – that an allusion would require a source which was fairly well known (cf. Christopher
Rick’s distinction between allusion, where you want the source to be known,
and plagiarism, where you don’t), so that the play between the different fields
of meaning, the original and the new text, will have a chance of being recognized. This would be the case if one uses phrases from the Bible, Shakespeare,
or Homer, but not in the case of Henry Timrod.
Again, there is a benefit of doubt: one can certainly allude to or play around
with things which are known to oneself regardless of whether it is familiar to
one’s audience, i.e. the reader who is supposed to spot the reference and take
pleasure in the subtle intertextuality, may very well be the author himself. I
know, because I’ve played this kind of game too: while I was finishing my
dissertation in medieval musicology, during the final dreary weeks the only
fun left was to put in hidden allusions to Dylan, which nobody in that field
were ever likely to discover.
More important is that the criterion of analogy is a blunt knife, and the decision (from latin: caedo: cut) will inevitably have unsharp edges, with blurred
lines towards the area of ethics and honour, whereas an argument based on a
comparison between academic and poetic language works without this criterion.
The major question which remains for me is the double: why has he done
it? And how? In his blog Ralph the Sacred River, Edward Cook lists some

IV M T  P
passages in Chronicles which are also borrowed from previous literary works.
The passage
Walking back to the main house, I caught a glimpse of the sea through the leafy
boughs of the pines. I wasn’t near it, but could feel the power beneath its colors.
(Chronicles, p. )
has borrowed quite a lot from Marcel Proust’s Within a Budding Grove:
But when, Mme. de Ville-parisisnus carriage having reached high ground, I
caught a glimpse of the sea through the leafy boughs of trees, then no doubt at such
a distance those temporal details which had set the sea, as it were, apart from nature
and history disappeared ... But on the other hand I was no longer near enough to
the sea which seemed to me not a living thing now, but fixed; I no longer felt any
power beneath its colours, spread like those of a picture among the leaves, through
which it appeared as inconsistent as the sky and only of an intenser blue.
How have Proust’s words entered into the text of Chronicles, at that particular
place? Has it made it easier for Dylan to write? Hardly. It seems more like he
has shaped the surrounding text particularly to make space for the quotation –
he has wanted those words there, and thus had to write the rest of the sentence
to make a spot where they would fit. In none of the references that Edward
Cook has found in Chronicles do the borrowed phrases seem necessary. On the
contrary: it would have been easier to write this without the Proust reference
– it is there only through an effort on Dylan’s part.
One uncomfortable suspicion only remains for me: if all the poetic ideas
in Chronicles – all those ideas, that is, which sets the book apart from a runof-the-mill academic biograpy where the words don’t matter, only the ideas –
are borrowed, wouldn’t that affect our appreciation of the book’s merits, and
of Dylan as the author of a remarkably readable biography, negatively?
This, I would say, depends on three things. First, the amount and general
character of the borrowings: are most of them of the “frail flowers” kind or
the “deathless need” kind? are the borrowings found so far all there is or just
the tip of an iceberg? This will surely be studied more closely in the future, so
the jury’s still out on this one.
Second: even if every single poetic image in Chronicles, on Modern Times,
and “Love & Theft” were found to be borrowed from somewhere, the mere
act of bringing them together and reshaping them in the way I have indicated
above would still make it a major creative act. The means and materials that

http://ralphriver.blogspot.com///more-dylan-thefts.html
T    

have been used may lie on the border to the illegitimate, but precisely since
we then move from the area of aesthetics into the related but separate area of
ethics, the judgement will have to be for everyone to make, individually.
Third, if the one who says the things that make these texts into more
than a transmittal of information and ideas isn’t Dylan after all, doesn’t that
constitute a breakdown of communication? Again, communication is an individual matter, and so is the feeling that one is left out of it. Is this important?
Depends. This will be the topic of my next post about Modern Times and
plagiarism, where I will discuss the second main area: whether Dylan is a postmodernist.
Thanks to Scott Warmuth and Edward Cook, without whose discoveries this post would
have been impossible to write
Chapter 
Dylan: the Postmodernist?
The author is dead.
Roland Barthes
No, you’re not.
The “Author”
W
’  in a text? Is anyone? or: Isn’t that obvious? The answer is no to both questions, and to a large extent the question
about Dylan’s borrowing of lines on “Love & Theft”, Modern Times,
and in Chronicles can in fact be regarded as a question about authorial roles.
B  I
Everybody will agree that if I write the word “flower” in a poem, I’m not
plagiarizing anyone, even though many have used that word before – it is too
common to be any single author’s “intellectual property”; whereas if I tried to
copyright the stanza: “How many roads must a man walk down | Before you
can call him a man?” I would – hopefully – be kicked out of the copyright
office with my head first.
But where does the line between the two go? After all, even the second
example consists only of single words and phrases which in and of themselves
are common property. Can I write: “How many roads must a man walk down
before he reaches Rome?”? Or “How many roads are there for a man to choose
between before he can finally sleep in his grave?”? Or the simple “How many
roads lead to Rome?”? Or “I need to get to Rome | To show that I’m a man |
Now, baby, say: Which road must I walk down?”?
The term “property” here introduces a lot of other issues which are not
necessarily relevant for the question of poetic inventiveness but which rather
concern societal conventions and legal issues to which I will return later on.


IV M T  P
In order to keep these out of the calculation for a while, let us take the detour
through a more concrete metaphor: bricks and cathedrals.
If I build a beautiful cathedral out of mass-produced bricks, I’d consider it
a major creative act and the cathedral itself my own creation, even if I haven’t
made a single brick myself.
Now, the stone carvers in the medieval cathedrals took great pride in their
work – they signed their stones, and one can, on that basis, but also on more
general stylistical and technical grounds, locate trends and individual traits in
single churches and between cathedrals, even in different countries.
The word “flower” is a mass-produced brick, “frail as a flower” is close
to that – two mass-produced bricks put together using the “mass-productive”
technique of metaphor, and hardly an individual creative achievement. “Precious hour – frail flower” is more of the same: again, mostly a mass-produced
item but with some individual traits: a stone which is distinct from the next
stone, but not quite the beautifully hewn piece of craftsmanship with flowers
and acanthi for which the stone carver would be rightfully admired. Only the
full lines of poetry, where all three elements, sounds, style, and ideas, are combined – only there would I call it an individual creation, but that’s also where
Dylan deviates from Timrod. So in the case of the “flowers | hours”, he has
acquired some stones for his Cathedral from the mason down the road. In
“Tweedle Dum & Tweedle Dee”, he has taken a whole column from Lincoln
Cathedral and moved it to Westminster. But they are still different cathedrals,
enjoyable as complete structures, whether or not one knows that one of the
columns has been somewhere else before.
This is also to say: it is the complete experience of the cathedral – its
atmosphere, lighting, mural paintings, grandeur, smell, columns, temperature
and humidity, the baptismal funt and the stained glass – which determines
what we feel when we enter it, not the individual stones and tiles.
The important point is that the words and the ideas don’t belong together
– you’re not necessarily missing an essential half when you cut off the “idea”
part – unlike the way it would be to cut off a leg. Hence, a poem is more like
a cathedral than like a body.
As a general rule; one may imagine exceptions where some element is left out and
replaced by some self-reflective meta-level of discourse, such as is the case in “silent poetry”,
concrete poetry, dadaism, etc., but I would argue that even in these cases, the missing
element is still prominent in its absence – in fact more prominent than in an ordinary
poem.

D:  P?

But what if someone took the entire Lincoln Cathedral and moved it to
Santa Fe?
Or better: meticulously copied every single stone from Lincoln and built
an exact replica in Duluth, so perfectly forged that not even a trained eye
could spot the difference? The experience upon entering Duluth Cathedral
would be exactly the same as in Lincoln as far as the sensual stimuli goes.
Only if told would a visitor be aware that he is in fact not in a twelfth-century
church in England, but a twenty-first-century copy in Minnesota.
In other words: does the knowledge that Dylan has borrowed some lines –
or an entire musical composition and arrangment – matter for our judgement
of these songs? If the physical experience is exactly the same with or without
that knowledge – why should it matter?
D   A
It shouldn’t, necessarily. When we tend to think that it does, this depends on
a number of conventions which are embedded in the cultural practices of the
art-world. We expect individuality and independency from previous works,
but also conformance with certain genre criteria/norms; we expect novelty,
but also quality – a quality which can only be judged against previous works.
There is also an expectation, going back at least to the eighteenth century,
but known explicitly as early as the ninth century, and probably more fundamental than that, of knowing who is speaking, of being able to single out an
authorial voice from amidst the common words.
It may seem trivial and simple: person A [writes|sings] something, which
person B [reads|hears]. A message has been transmitted from A to B. End of
story.
But that is too simple. In any text, there are at least two different authors
and equally many readers, and this number can be extended indefinitely. First,
there is the person A – we can call him Bob Dylan, a living person in flesh and
blood who picks his nose, goes to the toilet, plays concerts, visits friends, and
who at dinner may says things like:

We of course assume that the innocent visitor has been drugged with a RapidSleep™
potion in one of the back-alleys in Lincoln on his way to visit the cathedral, then, unconscious, brought across the Atlantic, fed intravenously during the crossing so as not to
notice any physical difference when he is reawakened (with the corresponding RapidEye™
counter-potion) in a similarly reconstructed back-alley in Duluth. One can do that in
examples like this, I’ve been told.
IV M T  P

Could I have some rice and beans, please
where “I” refers back to himself. Occasionally, this person may also sit at his
desk with a pen and write things down. He may for instance write:
Could I have some rice and beans, please.
Here, “I” no longer refers to the person Bob Dylan, but to the speaker in the
text – we may call him “Bob Dylan”. If Bob Dylan wanted to be clear about
this, he might have written:
Could “I” have some rice and beans, please
to accentuate the difference between him and this other person “Bob Dylan”,
who only exists in the text. But usually, this distinction is not made explicit
– on the contrary: it is easier to assume, by default, that they are one and the
same; seeing “I” written seduces us into thinking that someone is talking to
us, that we are hearing Bob Dylan’s voice, when in fact we are reading “Bob
Dylan” ’s.
If Bob Dylan wanted to be extra mean, he could write,
Bob Dylan sat at the end of the table and suddenly asked, “Could I have some rice
and beans, please.”
This brings in yet another character, another bearer of the “I”, whom we
might call “ ‘Bob Dylan’ ”. Within the text, “ ‘Bob Dylan’ ” is created by “Bob
Dylan”, but since Bob Dylan has created them both, this also means that in
reality – i.e. in the world outside the text – there is no hierarchical relationship
between the two: “Bob Dylan” the creator and “ ‘Bob Dylan’ ” the created are
on the same level.
Thus, in this little text, we have the three roles lined up:
• Bob Dylan as the author-person,
• “Bob Dylan” as the author-persona, i.e. the (literary) character who (or
in this case perhaps “which”) poses as I disguised as “I”, and
• “ ‘Bob Dylan’ ” as the author-personatus, i.e. the speaker who appears to
have been given life by the author-persona.
This problematic will be familiar to anyone who has seen Dylan’s movie Renaldo and
Clara, where Ronnie Hawkins appears as some version of Bob Dylan (although it is hard
to decide exactly which version: he certainly is “Bob Dylan”, to some extent also “ ‘Bob
Dylan’ ”, but for the lady in the hotel lobby, who acts as the “lady in the hotel lobby”, he
may actually have played the part of Bob Dylan).

D:  P?

And the chain can be extended indefinitely – as e.g. in this text, where Eyolf
Østrem and “Eyolf Østrem” both force themselves in front of the many Bob
Dylans.
When Roland Barthes in  declared the “Death of the Author”, it was
partly to avoid the confusion between the two main authors: the person and
the persona. Barthes sides with the persona: his aim is to liberate the text
(and hence the author-persona) from the interpretive tyranny of the authorperson: too much emphasis on the intention of the author-person limits the
text and prevents us from taking advantage of the full range of interpretive
possibilities and the many layers of meaning that it may (nay: does) contain.
Quite in accordance with Barthes (but not necessarily in agreement with
him; see below), I have always shied away from any kind of argument which
involved considerations about what Dylan might have been thinking, what
his intentions have been, how he has thought that this or that might be received, what message he has wanted to send and to whom (to fans? “fans”?
critics? dylanologists? his ex-wife/-ves?), etc. This is not because I consider it
uninteresting per se, only uninteresting for me. If someone discovered that the
first letters of every quotation on Modern Times formed the sentence “I can do
whatever I want – screw all you petty critics” – that might have been funny,
but it would neither add to nor, for that matter, subtract from my appreciation of the album. Or, to take a slightly less contrieved example: if Dylan
revealed that “Idiot Wind” was written after a row he had with Sara in the supermarket, March , it wouldn’t change my “version” of the song the least
bit.
Even if not a single line in Dylan’s entire corpus of lyrics had had any basis
in his own life – if he has never in his life has felt the empowering frailty of
belonging – the image he makes out of it in “When the Deal Goes Down” is
still clear and strong enough to be meaningful to me, regardless of whether
it is authentically founded in a true experience in Dylan’s life or not. I truly
don’t care about Dylan’s life, here or on any other record. When Blood on the
Tracks works for me, it’s because he has put together some words which make
something click in my mind, not because I imagine Dylan and Sara and then
identify with them. And if it’s all fake, he’s at least damn good at faking it.

Roland Barthes, “Death of the Author”, Aspen, , available online at . “My” presentation of Barthes’ position is unforgivably simplified, but I forgive “myself ”, since my aim is
not to discuss Barthes. “I” also note with a certain presumptuous pleasure that the “death
of the Author” coincides with the birth of this author-person.

IV M T  P
The point, taken from Barthes, is that the songs and the texts can stand as
communicative acts of several kinds at the same time, and they can be studied
as literary/musical objects within those discourses, regardless of what authorial
or personal intention Dylan has had other than the literary one – i.e. the one
which is expressed in the text, by “Bob Dylan”. That is an important lesson
to be taken from Barthes (who, by the way, died in ).
T A R
That said . . . I’m still not quite happy. Barthes’ killing off the author is not
a murder, nor a mystical animation of the illusionary author-persona, but
primarily an empowering of the reader and the reader’s access to and control
over the text. The text becomes a sign system which is open to any interpretations the reader wishes to make, and these may be completely different
from those the author-person had in mind. They may also be different from
the ones the author-persona presents, but as soon as we make the distinction
between different authors, this is already self-evident: already in gaining an
awareness of the difference between person and persona, between Bob Dylan
and “Bob Dylan”, we have assumed control of the persona, since he exists
nowhere but in the text, and – since he is nothing but an element in the text
– the reader is free to do with him as he pleases.
This is the sense in which the author is dead, and in this sense, he may rest
in peace. But what is the cost, what is the gain, and whose gain is it exactly?
Which reader is it that is empowered?
For there are just as many readers as there are authors. There is the actual,
physical reader-person, and there is the implied reader – the reader which the
author has in mind – but one might even here distinguish between the reader
implied by the author-person and the one implied by the author-persona.
As a reader-person, I greatly enjoy the freedom to rule over the text as
I wish. But I’m not sure that it would have been necessary to kill the poor
author-person to acquire this freedom, or, even, that it accomplishes what it
was supposed to do. In fact, I think this murder is just as dubious on aesthetic
grounds as it would have been out of its metaphorical bounds. I can understand the historical reason for the urge to sever the bonds between person and
persona, but I also resent it.

“Barthes”, on the other hand, is still alive and kicking, and so is “ ‘Barthes’ ”.
D:  P?

When I interact with a “sign system”, whether I hear a piece of music, read
a text, or visit a cathedral, I am only secondarily interested in the signs and
the sign system themselves. I either want an immediate kick, something that
makes me want to laugh or cry or dance (in the widest sense of the words), or I
want wisdom: something which makes me better equipped to navigate in the
rough waters of cultural codes, and to communicate (again in the widest sense
of the word) with the people who use these codes; tools to better understand
others, the world, and myself. I like to think of it as the double path to the
same goal: to make my world a better place to live in, and the difference
between the paths being that of instant and delayed gratification.
My main objection against the semiotic emphasis on the text and the reduction of it to a sign system, free to be used by the reader as he pleases, is that
it severs the meaning from the meaner, the person who has meant something
and expressed it. It emphasises the functions involved in the communicative
process, rather than the persons involved in the communicative act.
I’m not interested in texts as texts, music as sound, nor in the communicative process as such – they only interest me as kinds of communication, as
acts: a processing of someone’s experience of life through a medium which
is apt for the transformation and re-formation of such experiences. Machine
poetry or a stone – anything which is not produced with an artistic intention
– is uninteresting as art.
In other words: I want a person there, on the other side: the sense that
there is a person behind the text. I expect the text to have come into being
against a background which is similar to the one I have when I read it, and
to which I can relate – that what I take out of the text, by putting the words
together to form images and connections that are meaningful to me, somehow
has been put into the text against a similar background of human experience.
Fundamentally, the text is there only as an intermediary between me and
this other person, and since it’s my reality, it’s not good enough if the other
person is implied, created, killed, or nonexistent. The author has to be real
too. The author-persona won’t do, ficticious as he is. If the author is dead, he
has to be resurrected.
And the freedom I have, as a reader, is the freedom to disregard the separation between the authors, and to create my own implied author, so to speak:
the person I wish to see on the other side of the divide, who is neither Bob
Dylan nor “Bob Dylan”. To make it simple, let’s just call him Bob Dylan. He
is just as fictitious as any of the other authors, but he is no longer in the text,
and he is my creation, as a reader. Bob Dylan’s only role in this, is to produce
that text through which I can create Bob Dylan.

IV M T  P
E  A
Since there are now two real people surrounding the text (“real” in the sense
of belonging to my reality; the fact that I have created one of them does not
mean that he is less real, in this particular reality – the only reality I know),
the text can no longer be regarded exclusively on aesthetical grounds: since
the text functions as an intermediary between two people, interacting with
the text also involves ethical questions, just as interacting directly with the
other person would.
We then have to take into account – whether we like it or not – the huge
area of ethics and morals. In order not to confuse things more than necessary,
let’s condense it to “Do right unto others”. But what is morally right in a
song lyric? And who are the “others”? More specifically: does the eigth Commandment apply here, and if so: how? Can one steal an idea? A phrase? What
is this thing called “intellectual property”?
“Property” and “propriety” – they are speciously similar-sounding words,
and for that reason apt to invite confusion. Properties of a text make them
someone’s “intellectual property”, and going against this is a breach with propriety – aesthetics become a moral issue.
Writing a song text is a way of using language, which is fundamentally the
area where the inalienable meets the alien, the Self meets the Other. Thought
is the only inalienable domain we have, only it isn’t really our own, since we
have it on loan from community, through language.
I’ve used two different words about the literary technique Dylan has used
in his later works: theft and appropriation, and although they appear as synonyms with only a stylistic difference – one being direct and blunt, the other
more subtle and euphemistic – they are oceans apart when language is the
object.
“Appropriation” literally means “to make something one’s own”, and if it
refers to a car the activity would be morally suspect and a synonym would be
car thief. But appropriating an expression, making it one’s own, is a necessary
condition for using the expression and thus for understanding it in the first
place, and therefore, if we want to condemn someone for this, it must be
grounded in something other than the act of appropriation itself. By “taking”

A more extended version is the “Cardamom Law” from the Norwegian Childrens’ book
People and robbers in Cardamom City: “One should not treat others badly, one should be
good and kind, and apart from that, one can do what one likes.”
D:  P?

a combination of words, we don’t take anything away from anyone. “Die
Gedanken sind frei” as the Germans say – thoughts are free.
There are some cicumstances under which this freedom is curbed. Artists
have a right to make a living off their work, writers to have their opinions
correctly quoted, either in order not to be misrepresented, or in order to reap
whatever benefits society is willing to bestow on them for their work, and so
forth. These limitations are fair and good, but they are also deeply problematic since they limit that which is our one fundamental area of freedom: the
right to think and the right to speak our mind. This limitation is not a natural right that some people (such as: authors and poets, scholars and singers)
possess – it is a convention: a contractual agreement between the members of
a society that certain limitations are necessary in order for the society to work
in a way that we want it to work. We want to have people around who can
dazzle us with song, dance, and play, who can tell us stories about others who
are better or worse off than ourselves or about gruesome murders in the neighbour town; who can spend their time looking at the stars to ensure that the
harvest yields more or the space-ships may land safely. It would be a dreadful
society which did not find space for such limitations, but yet: only in relation to socio-cultural contracts such as these does it make any sense to apply
the word “steal” to language or ideas: “intellectual” and “property” are words
that belong together only through such a contract: a society’s self-imposed
limitation to freedom of speech.
In short: the right to think and speak are inalienable and natural, the right
to charge money for this is not. Words can be commoditified when they are
used in the various interactions with society that the individual can take part
in, but it is a price-tagging that comes at a price, and every such limitations
of the right to appropriate and reprocess should be motivated.
Since this is a contract, it can also be re-negotiated, and various such renegotiations have been undertaken. The development of legal copyrights is
one such line of negotiation. The nice version of the story goes that it was the
result of the recognition that it would be beneficial for the functioning of this
I will not go into the debate about the limitation grounded in respect for other people’s
beliefs, recently brought to the fore by twelve Danish cartoons and a German Pope – I do
have things to say about it, but since it is a slightly different, although related, problem
area, I will leave it aside here, with the qualification that I consider the Caradmom Law’s
“do not treat others badly” to apply to direct actions towards fellow human beings, not to
actions that someone may feel obliged to take offense of on behalf of super-human beings,
prophets, gods, or poets.


IV M T  P
aspect of societal life to give some kind of explicit and formalized acknowledgment to authors of their right to control the distribution of their work.
The not-so-nice version might instead point out that copyright became an
issue only when printers’ control over their material was no longer regulated
through royal privileges, and that rather than protecting the rights of authors,
it continued to be a protection of the right of the printing-trade to secure its
income.
The staunchest defenders of “intellectual property” today are not the artists,
the authors, and the performers whose work it is that is allegedly protected,
but the publishers, the recording industry, the billion-dollar software companies, who all seek new ways of extending their rights to turn ideas into profit.
I consider such a materialistic view on language to be more harmful than
the opposite: if in doubt about the freedom to appropriate a word, a phrase,
or a poetic structure, I would as a starting point go with the freedom. I also
believe in the conceptual separation of the notions of literary and legal copyright, because even though they certainly meet in a gray area in the middle,
the first field covers the ground from “thought/language” to “community”,
but the second takes it from there to commerce, which is where the freedom
to think is sacrificed for the freedom to sell. Even though there is room for
noble ideals in the copyright legislation, the driving force is not noble.
But it is also interesting how artists themselves have taken part in such
re-negotiations, and, with the authority that their status as artists gives them,
have spoken strongly against that very authority. Many examples can be –
and have been – mentioned (Andy Warhol’s pop-art is among them), but we
really only need to discuss the one case which stated the point once and for all
– every new work in this vein will only be re-statements of the initial question.
I am of course talking about Marcel Duchamp’s (–) sculpture
Fountain (see figure ), which was first exhibited in . It consists of a shining white urinal, signed (with the fake signature “R. Mutt”, a variation of the
name of the porcelain factory, Mott Works), turned on the side and displayed
on a pedestal. By taking a mundane object, as far removed from traditional
notions of aesthetic quality as possible, and exhibiting it as the equal of Mona
Lisa, Duchamp declared a complete renunciation of the right of the author to
be treated in any special way.
For an alternative, see the work of Lawrence Lessig with the “Creative Commons”
licence, which attempts – hopefully with some success – to uphold the authors’ right to
control the distribution of their work, without stifling creativity and the communal benefit
of a free exchange of ideas.

D:  P?

F . A picture of the Artist as a young thief – M. Duchamp: Fountain ()
Andy Warhol’s pop-art does more of the same. Concerning the status of
the work of art, Warhol’s statement is the same as Duchamp’s; the only difference is that where Duchamp chose a useful but vulgar every-day object for
his demonstration that any object is as good as the work of the divinely inspired artist, Warhol is more specifically interested in the visual objects of a
commercial mass culture.
Duchamp’s and Warhol’s contributions are all in the field of the arts, with
its long heritage and roots into philosophy, church rituals, secular power, and
notions of the divinity, be it God’s or man’s. But there are many areas where
the role of the author is either irrelevant or questioned. One, which lies close
at hand, is the so-called folk-process. In simplified form, one might say that
there the authorial voice is secondary to the performative voice. What’s of
importance is not so much what one says, but how one does it.

One literary example is Tahar Ben Jelloun’s novel L’enfant de sable from , where one
of the main characters is a professional story-teller who travels the villages of Morocco
telling stories that everybody already knows – again, it’s all about how it’s done.

IV M T  P
It’s also about the recognition of precursors, which particular shoulders one
is standing on. While this is fairly straightforward on the village scene (even
the Greewhich variety), where people can be counted on to know a model
when they hear it and the guy who wrote a tune may still be around to feel
honoured by the upshoot who finds his tune worth working more with, in the
“global village” this is more problematic. And even though the folk scene may
be a context where a legalistic approach to authorship may be less relevant
than in other contexts, or at least require an interpretation in the light of
practice, it still remains a question if a multi-million seller can be compared
to the swapping, sharing, reworking, and, for that matter, stealing of songs in
coffee-houses or dance halls. The liberties of the folk may be used to increase
the common good, or as an excuse for gathering an extra royalty check.
D’ 
What has happened in the Modern Times debate is that the confused field
of intellectual property and propriety has been used also as a justification
for a certain judgement about quality, about artistic merit: since Dylan has
stolen lines and tunes, the album’s artistic quality suffers. This is not necessarily wrong – it is just a field where many different discourses are involved,
and therefore, the questions need to be phrased carefully, to avoid, as much as
possible, this confusion.
One possible specification is: What are the obligations the artist should
fulfill in order to merit the special treatment that this contract allows him?
And: Has Dylan fulfilled his part of the contract?
The first question goes in two different directions: it both concerns the
internal, aesthetic part – Dylan’s responsibility as an author/lyricist, to deliver
the goods: to produce a text which allows me to create him in a sensible
way, so that the product is able to make the world a better place, for me
(first) and (thereby) for my fellow human beings; and the societal part – his
responsibility as a human being in a society which is governed by certain rules
and principles, such as: give due credits (either out of “decency” – a word with
such a foreign feel to it that I have to quote it – or out of fear of someone else’s
lawyers). Thus, which function(s) a text fulfills is a moral issue, whereas how
it fulfills these functions (by which means, according to which art discourse),
and whether or not it does, is for the aesthetic judgement to decide.
Or we could say, simply: what is it that Dylan has done? why has he done
it? And: Is it ok?
D:  P?

The “what” part can perhaps be done away with quickly: he has borrowed
expressions – ranging from simple word combinations to whole lines – from
authors such as Timrod, Ovid, Proust, and many others, and set this to music
which in several cases is also borrowed wholesale from other musicians.
But this answer is too quick, because the interesting part of the answer
depends on why, just as a statement: “X hit Y” could be a short version of “X
prevented a robbery by hitting Y” or “X killed his arch-enemy Y by hitting
him”. “Why” is of course a much more difficult question to answer. We might
of course ask Dylan himself, but not only would he probably never give an
answer – he might not even have one – but the previous discussion about the
many authors in a text should have shown that the answer we’re after is not
Bob Dylan’s but the one we would get from the one we have called Bob Dylan
– the one we have created. So when we ask, “Why has Bob Dylan done it”,
what we really are after is: what are the possible reasons someone in Dylan’s
position might have had for incorporating text and music from other sources
to the extent that we see on Modern Times and “Love and Theft” ? What can
he have meant? What is his message?
D’ M/“M”/M?/M?!
Message?
“Message? What message? There is no message in the use of quotations – I just
used them, it just fit in.”
This answer is the simplest, and probably the most likely. It covers a lot
of different scenarios: that he is a lazy, thieving scoundrel who takes what he
wants; that he’s a washed-out, uninspired icon-poet who takes what he needs;
that he is driven by greed and takes whatever can get him a quick buck; that
he is a poet with a remarkably active and retentive subconscious; or that he is
doing what he always has: taking in, filtering, and putting out again – nothing
remarkable in that.
Whatever the reason, this answer means that there is nothing the texts as
literary objects can do to help us decide about the moral issues. The various
answers connect with different aspects of Dylan’s activities as a human being
in a society, who cares about money, work, food, honour, and not specifically
with his activities as a poet. A literary analysis is futile if what we want to
know is whether he is a skilled craftsman or a spineless crook.

IV M T  P
Message!
“Of course there is a message! Look carefully how the quotations are ordered,
and you will see a pattern.”
This answer is the dylanologist’s dream. A hidden meaning, a larger picture,
formed from small tiles which are meaningless in isolation but which seen
together as a mosaic present an over-arching narrative about the South, or
about love, or the conditions of life. Or something else.
The ridicule of the dylanologist hunting for meanings in garbage bins and
lyrics is fully justified, but it stems from his failure to distinguish between
Bob Dylan and Bob Dylan, and not from his seeing meaningful connections
between seemingly unrelated aspects of a song. In fact, the latter is what we
always do when we interpret a text, and it is “wrong” only if we expect to have
found the author-person behind it.
To take “Floater” as an example: lyrically speaking, it is an absolute favorite
of mine on “Love and Theft”, even though – or perhaps precisely because – it is
the song with the most borrowings from Yunichi Saga’s Memories of a Yakuza.
I can’t help forming a pattern: the amount of lines from a Japanese gangster
novel in a song about reconciliated life by a river (an image which I somehow
associate with Eastern, zen-like calm and paradox), with tender childhood
memories (the “grandparents” line is the most beautiful and bitter-sweet line
Dylan has ever written – if he has, that is . . . ), uncompromisingly mixed with
sudden outbursts of violence – knowing the source of those bits of lyrics just
adds to my appreciation of the song.
Bob Dylan may not have meant any of this, but with the assistance of my
Bob Dylan he certainly has – he has created a text which becomes meaningful
even on this level, where the borrowing does carry a meaning, and the verdict
must be: “Yes, he has fulfilled his literary obligation.”
“Message”
“There is a message, not directly, in what the words express, but indirectly,
concerning the relationship between texts; the quotations are there to question
the role of the author. I’m not divine, I just put words to music, and any words
will do.”
This is the most exciting version of the answer, because it involves the
author’s active rejection of his own cultural privilege – not the announcement
of the death of the author, but the suicide of the author, so to speak.
D:  P?

But as I hinted at in the little dialog in the epigraph of this chapter, there’s
a twist: the author can only make this point by using his authority, thereby
either annulling his own statement or undermining it. Duchamp may have
changed our conception of what art is, but he was still an artist (until he gave
up art in favour of chess – the only consistent critique of the authorial role).
The “Any words will do” part of the answer is not the same as saying:
“words are meaningless (so any word will do)”, but rather: “Words are meaningful, that’s what they do: convey meaning (so any words will do)”.
But if the technique that Dylan has used in his latest works is one of appropriation of what others have said, how does that affect my ability to create
the Other?
The answer, which Dylan has actually given excellently, if not explicitly,
through his Chronicles is that it may be impossible to distinguish between
all the things that the author has been inspired by on the one hand, and
the artist’s “own” creations on the other – that there is no such thing as the
artist’s own creation that can be separated from his influences. In that sense,
Chronicles is the long version of the liner notes to World Gone Wrong, one of
the greatest pieces of (self-)interpretation ever written.
Message?!
“Waddayamean message?!”
The most radical version of the answer, not just denying that there is a
specific message, but that there is any message at all, since messages are either
dubious or impossible. I don’t for a second think that Dylan belongs in this
category, but some remarks are nevertheless worth making, because he does
seem to stand closer to this position than he appears to do.
If there is a trend in Dylan’s attitude towards the public in later years, it is
this: a constant hammering on the image of him as a spokesman for anything
or the “Voice of a Generation”; the bickering about today’s music; the war
on modern technology, both in the field of music (“CDs can’t reproduce the
character of my music” etc.) and in society at large (“Internet? I would never
go there!”); and the singleminded promotion of the good ol’ music – music
of the thirties, forties, and fifties, which has been emphasised again and again
in interviews and now also in his own radio show, Theme Time Radio.
Taken together, this could easily translate into a statement like: “It’s meaningless for me to try to communicate anything special, and especially in these
Modern Times.” This is no longer a questioning of the author’s special privileges in doing what he does, but a questioning of the point in doing that

IV M T  P
which the author does in the first place: communicate through certain established means and media. And whereas I have no problem regarding the former
as a positive, constructive message, I see the latter as the negative version of it:
to point out the futility of communication is the ultimate defeat.
This holds regardless of the reason for the cop-out: whether it stems from
a feeling that everything has already been said, that everything will always be
misunderstood anyway, that technology overwhelms and kills everything, that
society is a cold place, or that it was better in the s; or a combination of the
two: that whatever message one has will drown in the chaos of modern times
and technology and over-communication, etc.
In Norwegian, the postmodern position (no, wait, it’s not postmodern
to have a position; “the postmodern pose” is what I meant to say) is sometimes summarized in the phrase, “Alt er like gyldig” – Everything is equally
valid. Remove a space, and the sentence instead becomes: “Alt er likegyldig” –
everything is indifferent, nothing matters.
I have earlier mentioned my suspicion that this, to some extent, is Dylan’s
position and that it is also the reason why the quality of his live music making has dropped so markedly during the (very modern) twenty-first century. I
may be wrong, and I both hope and think so, but should it be the case that
indifference is his the main emotion and that this is Dylan’s message (“message?!?”), it is my contention that he has failed in making use of the borrowed
lines in a way which justifies the borrowing – in which case he might just as
well not have bothered in the first place.
Again, this is not necessarily a criticism of Bob Dylan, but of the Bob Dylan
that I have pieced together after following him closely for a number of years,
listening attentively and with great reward – until that reward has eventually
started to shrink.
F  
Can a nazi write edifying literature? Can a plagiarist communicate? Can a poet
whose well has run dry pose as a Warholian and pretend there is a message
where there isn’t? Can a conscious poet use a Warholian pose to present the
message that there is no message? And, for all the questions, the crucial followup question is: does the knowledge that the author is immoral or dishonest
change our perception of his work? Is the life’s work of Günther Grass null
and void because we now know that he was a member of the SS at seventeen?
Does Dylan’s working methods make Modern Times a bad album?
D:  P?

In one sense, it’s really very simple: Dylan’s only transgression is to have
put – or allowed someone else to put – the line “All songs written by Bob
Dylan” on the album sleeve.
I have serious doubts that Dylan himself has had anything to do with that
line. I don’t believe that Dylan has had the intention of plagiarizing, hiding
his influences, fooling and deceiving his audience or giving winks or fingers
to his fans and scrutinizers. For all I know, all the writing royalties for those
songs may go to a support fund for blind harmonica players. So even though
the act seems like a wrongdoing, it is not obvious that Dylan is acting unethically, although it would have looked better and felt better if he had given due
credits.
It’s not either down to sloppiness – he has in fact talked freely about his
working methods on many occasions, both in general and more specifically in
connection with Modern Times. In the interview with Robert Hilburn of the
Los Angeles Times in , Dylan described his methods in a way which is
immediately recognizable for anyone who has listened to both Modern Times
and its sources:
My songs are either based on old Protestant hymns or Carter Family songs or
variations of the blues form. What happens is, I’ll take a song I know and simply
start playing it in my head. That’s the way I meditate. A lot of people will look at a
crack on the wall and meditate, or count sheep or angels or money or something,
and it’s a proven fact that it’ll help them relax. I don’t meditate on any of that stuff.
I meditate on a song. I’ll be playing Bob Nolan’s “Tumbling Tumbleweeds”, for
instance, in my head constantly – while I’m driving a car or talking to a person
or sitting around or whatever. People will think they are talking to me and I’m
talking back, but I’m not. I’m listening to a song in my head. At a certain point,
some words will change and I’ll start writing a song.
And concerning “When the Deal goes Down” he has told the interviewer
David Gates that “he’s written a song based on the melody from a Bing Crosby
song, ‘Where the Blue of the Night (Meets the Gold of the Day)’ ”. There
is no secret here.
Thus, I blame his record company more than Dylan himself for the line
“All songs written by Bob Dylan”. Lawyers, publishers, the money-mongers
who run the machinery; who couldn’t care less if Dylan sang “Darkness at the
break of noon” or “Ooops, I did it again!”, as long as it makes money (and
who would have looked the other way when he sings “Money doesn’t talk it
From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id//site/newsweek/. Thanks to Jörgen Lindström for directing my attention to this.


IV M T  P
swears”, if they had any decency). The San Diego Union-Tribune have given
the following short report from a conversation with one of them:
When questioned how Dylan could take credit for a song first recorded in the late
s, Dylan’s publicist responded that “Rollin’ and Tumblin’ ” is in the public
domain. While this may be true, for Dylan to not give just due here is spurious.
If this brief snippet is a reliable witness to what was said, and if the further
interpretation is correct: that Dylan (i.e. in this case: his publishers) have indeed taken credits for the writing, not just by putting a label on the CD, but
by actually cashing in royalties for it; and if they do this in the knowledge that
Dylan hasn’t written the tune, but with the pure conscience only a lawyer or
a capitalist pig can have, knowing that it’s not illegal since the song is public
domain – then it’s utterly dishonest, in a way which makes me want to scream
out. Not because Dylan or Sony make a few extra bucks, but because they do
so by stealing – not from Timrod, but from us all: It may not be against the
law, but it violates my standards for righteousness and good conduct. What
it tells me, is that money rules, even over the law; that there is a discrepancy
between “legal” and “right”. They are stealing that distinction, and it makes
me sick.
But even though I don’t hold Dylan “literarily” responsible for this, he is
still the central character in that circus, and whether he wants it or not, or
cares or not, he obviously has a responsibility for the way he is being used.
In that sense, I do charge even him of fraud and unjust behaviour. This is a
responsibility he has failed to fulfill, regardless of anyone’s verdict about the
literary merits of his technique; whether or not one thinks that Timrod is
well-known enough for the borrowings to be recognizable as allusions, or if
one instead holds that “well-known” is too unsharp a criterion, and that the
examples of Joyce and Eliot make unknown allusions a legitimate technique,
well established in the canon.
In any case, I couldn’t get too irate about the recycling of a few lines of
Timrod here and there. On the other hand, I can hardly listen to “Rollin’ and
Tumblin’ ” anymore with anything but a detatched sigh of “oh well”, “why?”,
or “next, please”. For me, that track is tinged with indecency – ethical considerations influence the aesthetic perception of the work.
Conversely, it can be maintained that some of the lyrical borrowings do so
little to contribute to the whole that the act of borrowing itself seems unjustified – aesthetical considerations influence the ethical judgement.
D:  P?

The failing, in both cases, is the violation of the simple principle, “Play by
the rules, and break them only if necessary” – or with a borrowed phrase: “to
live outside the law, you must be honest.”
Honesty, righteousness, decency – this is where the possibility to give general
answers to the question of Dylan’s guilt ends, because they depend on our
perception of this Bob Dylan character as a human being with whom we
would interact just as with any other human being, and react to in the same
ways. And although Bob Dylan is the same person for all of us, Bob Dylan
isn’t. We all have created him differently and have different relationships with
him. For many, this is a personal relationship, and just as we are disappointed
if our children are caught cheating at school, so we are if we think Bob Dylan
has cheated.
My take on this whole matter has been to try to figure out what kind
of literary technique he has used here, then to see if he has been successful in
applying it, and for what ends. Whether we think the technique is a legitimate
one, or to what extent we find him to have succeeded, are open for individual
judgement, but they are in any case isolated from questions about ethics, or
about Dylan’s personal intentions. De gustibus disputandum est, which does
not simply mean that there is room for dispute over taste, but that one should
dispute over it – it is healthy.
Some of the points that I’ve tried to develop in this article have matured in the (surprisingly)
friendly interaction with some of the people at the dylanpool (pool.dylantree.com). My
sincere gratitude goes to Frank, angry crow puking, Frankeee Leee, kasper, toilandblood,
Poor_Howard, RR, Zed,  or so, mac, and – despite his unfaltering efforts to lead
the discussion to usual levels of pooldom – nick manho.
Chapter 
Did Dylan steal ‘Dignity’?
T
    that Dylan had stolen the song ‘Dignity’, his only
hit from the early s. The story goes as follows: Singer/songwriter
James Damiano claims to have brought a number of songs of his to
Dylan’s organization, among them ‘Steel Guitars’. Shortly after that, Dylan
releases the song ‘Dignity’, which Damiano recognized as his own ‘Steel Guitars’.
I first thought there was something to the story, and I was about to write a
note about it, in Damiano’s favour, when Damiano himself started his ‘spamming’ campaign (fall ), where he distributed documents from his case
to just about every newsgroup on the Usenet. Among the items distributed
was the following graph, which was supposed to demonstrate the similarities
between the two melodies:
F . Exhibit A: Reduction of Steel Bars and Dignity (from Damiano’s court docu-
ments.)
The graph is a strong reduction of the songs, to a relatively small number
of structural pitches, without regard for rhythm, meter, phrasing etc. ‘Dignity’
is reduced to the tones b g | d’ e’ g’ e’ d’ b d’ | g a b g – only vaguely recognizable
as the end of the first line (b g) and the rest of the verse. The following figure
The campaign is reopened at regular intervals, with longer and longer and more and
more incoherent files, in bad html at that – I know, I’ve read through it all.



IV M T  P
shows the Damiano/Green graph together with a transcription of the first
verse of Dylan’s ‘Dignity’.
F . Exhibit A illustrated: The actual tones of ‘Dignity’, and the Damiano graph
These tones are then related to a similar reduced graph of the tune ‘Steel
Guitars’. The graph was accompanied by the following comment:
Doctor Green who graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard University explains
in his analysis that ‘The melodic arc found in both Bob Dylan’s ‘Dignity’ and
James Damiano’s ‘Steel Guitars’ is more than a collection of shared pitches. It seems
to embody the melodic shape or character of both songs. When played on it’s
own it is reminiscent of both compositions’ Yet Judge Simandle writes ‘To the ear
of this court, there is no substantial similarity in the melody of the two songs.’
The record reflects that Judge Simandle has no formal musical education. The
record also reflects that James Damiano’s first copyright filing for ‘Steel Guitars’
was filed in , nine years before Bob Dylan’s filing for a copyright registration
with the Library of Congress. Bob Dylan’s copyright filing for ‘Dignity’ was filed
in  James Damiano’s  copyright registration included the melody line of
Bob Dylan’s ‘Dignity’ and also the lyrical hook of , ‘Dignity’ Bob Dylan’s copyright
filing for ‘Dignity’ was filed in .
To this I replied:
Nice to finally get to see the analysis itself – which doesn’t give much support to
the infringement case, I’m afraid: A reduced diagram of a melody, stripped of both
harmony and rhythm, doesn’t prove anything, because it doesn’t say very much
about the music (not even about the original melody, in fact), especially not in a
musical language that is based on a formulaic melodic style, such as rock/blues.
The statement that ‘() and () can be considered the same note when they precede
D D  ‘D’?

()’ is pure nonsense (and misspelt too). There is no such general law or principle
in harmonic analysis – the wider context will be more decisive.
As for the similarity of the melodies (judging from the reduced graph, that
is) – they are not as similar as the mathematician has it. The most distinctive
features of this little snippet of Dylan’s song (which is the one I know) is the high
g’, the descending fifth towards the end of the selection, and the descending third
(coupled with the lack of a dominant chord where it would have been expected) at
the very end. None of these elements are present in the Damiano song.
This is not to say that Dylan may not have been influenced by Damiano’s song –
I haven’t heard it – only that that this piece of evidence in isolation is hardly worth
the bytes that the jpg-file occupy.
Damiano countered:
To those people who have seen the above newsgroup post may I say that Mr. Eyolf
Ostrem claims to be a musicologist however he left no e-mail address or contact
information. One can conclude from that fact that Mr. Ostream does not even
exist.
I was of course relieved:
Nice to finally get an authoritative opinion concerning my existence. In fact, I
had serious suspicions yesterday when I woke up and looked in the mirror and I
couldn’t see anybody there. (then I realized: that wasn’t me, that was John Lennon,
and besides, it wasn’t a mirror after all, it was a window (but not the one that leads
to the future)). As for ‘Mr Ostream’, I don’t know. He may not exist.
But Damiano continued:
Bob Dylan spent  million dollars on this litigation and produced one so called
‘musicologist’ in which this experts credentials were never discolsed. Through
investigation I was told that Dylan?s music expert did not even have a degree and
was only a musician.
Mr. Ostrem also is incorrect when he stated ‘especially not in a musical language
that is based on a formulaic melodic style, such as rock/blues.’ What Mr. Ostem
does not know is that a study was done on the very melody line and Doctor
Green stated in his analysis that ‘the melody line is not common in the corpus of
popular music’. Mr Ostrem also did not cite his credentials. Nor did he define
musicologist. We only know that he is a memeber of the Bob Dylan web ring
‘Edlis’ and his name apperas on an Edlis Bob Dylan page at the following address:
http://hem.passagen.se/obrecht/backpages/
I think it is only fair to ask Mr. Østrem to kindly list his credentials concerning
music theory.
Well, either Dylan (or his office; I seriously doubt that Dylan himself has
ever concerned himself with this case) is stupid or he has more contacts in
the music business than among musicologists. Which is fair enough – that’s
where he’s supposed to be anyway.

IV M T  P
As for Damiano’s counter-arguments, I could only reply:
The analysis quoted in the attached jpg file, is based on a reduction of the melody
to what the analyst considers the essential scale steps of the melody. This method
of analysis, at least as utilized in this case, draws on what is called Schenker analysis,
which is taught ad nauseam at every american musicological department. One
of the main problems with Schenker analysis is that it favors pitch content, and
that it tends to conceal details of the music belonging to other parameters, such
as rhythm, phrasing etc. The late Bo Alphonse, former professor in musicology at
the McGill University in Montreal, has lucidly demonstrated the consequences of
this bias, by showing that two pieces that sound completely different (a Chopin
prelude and a Beetoven movement, I think it was), are virtually identical already
on the first level of reduction (i.e. the level that corresponds most closely to Dr
Green’s line).
The lesson learned from this, is that all reductive analysis runs the risk of
concealing important elements by considering them as surface ornament. The
‘surface’ is, after all, the only place where the music is actually sounding; the rest is
analysis.
As for the melody, in its reduced form it is basically broken g major triad with a
sixth added for pentationic spice. If this isn’t formulaic and common in popular
music, I don’t know what is. The broken triad is old as the rocks, and the figure
-- [g-a-d’] is, I would say, one of the more common cliche’s. Then again, that
particular figure is not found in Damiano’s song, judging from the graph. One can
hardly say that it is incorrect that the melody at this point is highly formulaic.
I welcome comments on my other points, concerning the alleged similarity of
the melody, which still disregards some of the most distinct features of Dylan’s
melody, and the analytical methods used to monkey-wrench the two melodies into
the same mold. I also welcome a serious discussion concerning the content of all
this, which I consider more important than titles (which I haven’t acquired yet) and
credentials (I am a doctoral student, soon-to-be doctor, in musicology at Uppsala
University, Sweden).
BTW, I’ve been looking for this Doctor Green in periodicals of musicology, but
I haven’t been able to find him anywhere. What is his full name? Does he even
exist . . . ?
For a discussion of what a musicologist is, I refer to my article‘Music and the
Wor(l)d – Musicology and Mankind: How we Got Out of Analysis, and How to
Get Back In’, co-written with Lars Berglund and published in the Swedish Journal
of Musicology, .
***
As a final note, I’d like to say that – despite the tone of my replies, which was a
result of the weird experience of suddenly not existing – I have nothing against
Damiano, and if Dylan actually has stolen his song, I think Damiano should
In the meantime I have aquired some credentials – I’m now a doctor in Musicology –
and some titles – assistant professor at the Danish National Research Foundation: Centre
for the Study of the Cultural Heritage of Medieval Rituals.

D D  ‘D’?

get his due credits. My point was mainly a musicological one, concerning
reductive analysis, and that in my view, based on the arguments above, the
analysis does not support his claims. I have never heard his song, though, nor
seen the sheet music; that would give a much better basis for a comparison.

In the footage which is available in Damiano’s new assault on the net, there is still no
chance to hear ‘Steel Bars’. What we get, is Dr. Green playing the melody line of ‘Steel
Bars’ on top of the accompaniement of ‘Dignity’. This does – of course – make them
sound strikingly similar; not, however because of the melody.
V
I’ll See Him In Anything
Chapter 
About Guitars and Kissing
N       , 
Stockholm and Karlstad
I
’    thinking (and talking) badly about Larry lately. Before the current tour, and especially after the Stockholm show. I heard
about this great version of ‘Boots of Spanish Leather’ from Helsinki, and
had some expectations, which were all thrashed after hearing it in Stockholm.
Usually, I welcome a new arrangement, but this? A dull run of parallel thirds
and sixths, with some dubious part writing (yeah, well, music analysis is what
I do for a living, so what can you expect?), and my guess is it comes from
Larry – he’s the one playing it, and it fits well in with what I consider to be his
style: very professional, very stylized, pretty, pretty, but, hey, there’s something
missing in there, isn’t there? He probably has a bag of tricks ’n’ licks bigger
than most guitar players alive, and he is capable of piecing them together in a
way that both works musically in their own right and holds the back-bone of
the song. But still – his playing is a musical reflection of his clothes style: impeccable, elegant, in style, but where is the deep involvement with the world,
with experience, blood, guts, love, dirt under finger nails? Larry has no dirt
under his finger nails.
Cue to the other guy, the scruffy little bum standing on the left, the slightly
old, slightly bald punk who looks like he slept in his suit. His playing is unpredictable. Not that he doesn’t repeat himself – he has his bag of tricks as well,
and it wouldn’t surprise me if Dylan will get bored by them after a while: the
asymmetrical rhythms, the quick pull-off ornaments, the odd sustained notes.
But still, they are subversive rather than conservative. Here’s a transcript from
the brainwave recorder placed on Koella’s skull:
Wonder what happens if I put my finger somewhere around here on the fretboard
and strike the string now?


IV I’ S H I A
Hm. Interesting sound.
What if I just move the finger up and down a little? Yeah, I’ll do that.
Wow! That was cool! I’ll do it some more.
Hey, there’s a thick string way up here on my guitar, wonder what kind of
sound that produces.
Fascinating! It’s really dark! Once more!
Etc. Something like that. Sometimes it doesn’t work and falls flat. But surprisingly often, one is left with a wide grin on one’s face, and a bewildered feeling
of what-on-earth-just-happened?
Cue back to the tall guy with the fancy beard again. Transcript again:
C
Dm
C
C#o
Dm
G
F G
: .
. .
: .
. .
: . .
.
:
. .
.
|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
|-5---3---1-------|-1---------------|-3---3-----------|-3---3---1---3---|
|-5---4---2---2---|-0-----------0---|-2---0-----------|-4---4---2---4---|
|-------------3---|-2---3---2---2---|-3---2---3---2---|-5---5---3---5---|
|-----------------|-----5---4-------|---------5---3---|-----------------|
|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
[Looks to the right:] Why is he moving his finger up and down like that? Odd.
Bob seems to like it, though. Well, it sounds just like Bob too – jeez, I thought we
would be spared that ploink ploink when he decided to buy this toy piano (how
long will we have to tour before he can afford a music stand too? I want my steel
guitar back), and then he brings in a guitarist who plays in the same way. [Sigh . . . ]
OK, my turn again, I have to play some notes. Don’t I have just the perfect lick
for this particular situation? Let’s see: key of A, going to Bm, square time, tempo
 bpm – OK, got it, lick A-b-J-().
I cannot reveal my source for these brain transcripts, but they are accurate.
An important point is that they were made in Stockholm. Karlstad was a
completely different thing, for several reasons. Strangely enough (given my
assessment above), the show was superior to Stockholm on all or most songs,
but Koella could hardly be heard, owing to a bad mix and him taking only a
few solos. I can’t judge quite how bad the mix was, because I was standing up
front, right in front of Larry – and Larry’s monitors, which was all I heard during the second half of the show. This of course made the musical experience
(as opposed to the concert experience) slightly odd, but I must admit that
it was fascinating to hear exactly what Larry did all the time. Tweedly Dum,
for example – he’s really at work throughout the whole song, and the way he
keeps the riff going, while at the same time playing solos – impressive. It was
also interesting to hear how many different things he does during Watchtower,
not in his solos, but in his rhythm playing.
A G  K

O
OK. So Larry was the star of the Karlstad show, guitarwise (even though the
greatness of the show did not lie in the guitar playing). Oslo was something
else again. Significantly enough, the three string-players wore identical suits,
and it’s hard to tell which of the two guitarists ‘won’. Not that that was an
issue. The word ‘concert’ has often been mistranslated as a concourse, a competition, while the real meaning is more in the direction of concord, playing
togehter, and that’s what they did in Oslo. (I sadly had to skip Gothenburg,
but according to reports, the interplay between Freddie and Larry was the
special thing about that show.)
The special occasion in Oslo was that during the darkness before the encore, somehow a third guitar player had materialized on stage – a long, blond,
slightly nervous-looking character, who turned out to be Mason Ruffner who
plays on some tracks on Oh Mercy. I wouldn’t say that his playing made whole
lot of a difference, but his presence did. Whether it was, as has been suggested,
that Koella’s ego made him step forth just a little bit more frequently (and just
happened to be stopping right in front of Ruffner, not taking the extra step towards centre stage that he usually does), or that the presence of another music
maker on stage sharpened everyone’s attention and concentration, or simply
that the extra sound source called for a different approach (I personally like
the idea that the reason Tony changed from upright to electric bass during
Summer Days, was musical – because the way the music developed called for
a more forceful bass sound – and not something as trivial as a broken string).
Be that as it may, it was the best encore set I’ve witnessed, for these reasons.
C
I should perhaps say something about tonight’s show too. I must admit it
is slightly difficult, since I’ve been having Desolation Row from Karlstad on
auto-repeat, so that my face occasionally contracts into what feels like what I
used to do when I was four and ran barefoot through grass that was greener
(and warmer – this was in the summertime) than anything I’ve seen ever since;
or my stomach feels like a stone that reminds me of a cat that has curled up
like a stone, just as weightless and deprieved (liberated) of meaning as a stone.
That kind of a stone.
Copenhagen, as I was about to say, was for me the best show so far. Thereby,
I intend to say that there was not a single low point, all the way through it was
IV I’ S H I A

wonderful, in the same way as in Beethoven’s first string quartet (I’m sorry, I
don’t have anything better to compare with, and this is a compliment both
to Dylan and Mr. Beety), where the tension that is generated from the first
motif, keeps one floating/airborne right through the half (or two) hour(s) the
quartet (or the show) lasts.
I don’t know how the rest of you feel, but me myself, I have to confess to
often thinking, when the intro to Forever Young or LARS is intoned, that,
shit, I could do without this – if I exchange the $ that these minutes have
cost me, I might afford one of those fast-forward buttons.
Not tonight.
Every minute mattered. Even during LARS (or, as a matter of fact, especially during LARS, which was treated by Koella just like a -years-old
antique should be treated: hard and lovingly), I had no other thought than
that this could go on forever.
And yet, lo and behold, never have I welcom’d more / the cut of one encore.
(neat shakespearian internal rhyme, eh?) than when I heard the Highlanderintro to AATW, where Forever Young would have ruined everything, but
where Watchtower was perfect as a Beethovenian final theme. Sometimes it’s
right to descend into the quiet compound right before the end – sometimes
it’s not. Tonight it was not, and Dylan did the right thing. So it goes.
I haven’t mentioned any highlights yet. I could do that, of course. HWY.
AATW. Love- was wonderfully slow. Summer Days was as good as I ever
heard it. Even Memphis Blues, which I otherwise can hardly stand, was extremely enjoyable, almost incredibly good.
I could go on, but that would just ruin my point (which I’ve already indicated): that it was a brilliant concert. Fair enough, we didn’t get any D-Row, and
I can’t really point to places where Dylan proved himself to be the demi-god,
the descendant of Orpheus and Terpsichore, of Jubal and Erato, of Zeus and
some cow in Gallup, New Mexico, that he certainly is, and where he, by way
of a phrase or a plonk from his divine piano, turned it into an unforgettable
evening; that it still turned out that way, was a happy coincidence involving
a highly human icon (who had one too many harmonicas to keep track of );
two guitar players who just keep on exciting with their differences; a rhythm
section who somehow uphold both tact and tone; a magnificent sound on the
th row; and great company.
* * *
A G  K

My conclusion, whether it conforms with what I’ve written or not, is that
I enjoy Koella tremendously – in Stockholm he was the only thing I really
enjoyed – and the moral of this story is that there’s got to be some spit in a
kiss, in order for the beauty of it to work.
Postscript: This is probably not a concert review; I haven’t listed all the song
and the solos and the lyric variations, or the instruments (heck, there were
instruments there that I don’t even know the name of; there was a huge pile
of things that looked like kettles and pots, with a guy with a funny hat beating on them like they were a beast, CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT?!? – and
another huge wooden construction with some kind of metal cords attached
to it, which this other strange guy kept PLUCKING in a strange way; – hey,
it was a genuine wax cabinet, man) – so it can’t be a concert review. Take it
for what it is, whatever that is.
Chapter 
Genius, Guitars, and Goodbyes
I MISS FREDDY!
S
, I   promise-to-self, to let Dylan tour on his own, without
my help. I decided, after the last Scandinavian tour, that this was it;
the shows were decent enough, but nothing more. I hyped myself up
to enjoying them, liking them even, perhaps loving them, and moments like
Desolation Row in Karlstad (best Desolation Row ever? Best Desolation Row
ever!) made it a whole lot easier, but I also knew that I wouldn’t follow another
tour again. Enough singsong, enough mumbles, no more days at the office for
me. NeverEndingTour-Dylan never got better than .
But things have changed, and for reasons more related to Wedding Song
than to Desolation Row I had to give him another chance. Since he decided
not to play Copenhagen this time, it had to be Gothenburg, and I was on the
road again.
For the first time in a very long time, I was quite unprepared too. I haven’t
heard a new show in two years, and I was looking forward to the closest thing
to a virginal experience that I would ever get again. I knew there were some
new band members, but I didn’t even know their names, let alone their faces.
I was ready. C’mon, Bob, surprise me.
And man, was I surprised.
It was a time-stopping experience. Two years just vanished, everything was
just as I had left it. Given that that was two years ago, and that the man has
been out there doing it all that time, that was not a good experience. One
would expect that something had happened, but if it had, I don’t know what
it was.
Call me Mr. Jones, call me Judas, but honestly, I had hoped for some
development.
And the band. . . The band. . . Some years ago, even though I couldn’t
always say the shows were great, inspired, etc., at least one could stand proud
and claim that Dylan was backed by the best and tightest rock combo in the
world, who played Brown Sugar better than the Stones themselves did.


IV I’ S H I A
Not anymore.
Tight? Nah.
Exciting? Nope.
Hard? Hardly.
I don’t want to sound negative; the steel guitar player was quite good –
at times he made his instrument sound like something Bucky Baxter might
have handled. The guitarist behind Dylan – I think it was Stu Kimball –
had his moments too. I guess someone likes the new guy’s solos (that must
be Denny Freeman, then) but don’t count me among them. Melodic in the
bland, cover-band style that you might hear in light entertainment TV shows;
and a repertoire of licks so vast that they reappeared every other song.
After a couple of songs, every taste bud in my aesthetic body yelled: ‘We
miss Freddy!’ Initially, I just had to agree, and joined the choir. After all, I
summed up my last concert experience (at least I believed it would be my
last), writing ‘About Guitars and Kissing’, my eulogy to Freddy Koella, the
guy who plays in Dylan’s style, but actually knows how to play.
But being the rational academic I am paid to be, I had to pass beyond
that kind of populist clamour from the lowly senses – I had to think about
it. Why has Dylan let Freddy go (or kicked him out?!) and replaced him with
this? Images flash by: Michael Bloomfield – savage (and dead, of course). Robbie Robertson – there is a second-and-a-half scene in Eat the Document, just
a soundcheck, where Robbie plays a few tones in E major and proves what
a tremendous guitarist he was. Fred Tackett – he may wear glasses (so do I),
but don’t let that fool you; he could be mean too. G. E. Smith – not my favorite guitarist, but there certainly was a bite there, some rough edges which
we haven’t heard again before the days of Koella, paired with a certain dexterity which could become quite furious. J. J. Jackson – probably my favorite
NeverEndingTour guitarist before Koella.
And now . . . ! Where in this lineage does the current band belong? Why is
it that I suddenly came to think of Hearts of Fire in the middle of the show?
Again: Why does he do it? He used to say, about the mid-eigthies, that he
didn’t know what his songs meant any longer. Well, he doesn’t seem to now
either. ‘Leledi-laaay’, ‘painting the passports brown’, ‘justlikea woman’ – all
sung to the same melody, with the same emotional character. He might as
well have sung ‘two litres of milk’, or ‘upmg kfadl ksdfie ewok’ – it wouldn’t
have mattered more, or less.
I’m not going to analyse him or his motives – is he just doing it for the
money? is it just this pact with the Commander-in-Chief? Is it, perhaps, just
another day at the office? – but my impression is that he is no longer hungry,
G, G,  G

he is no longer nervous, he is tired and content. It may be a very long time
since he last went to the beach and danced with one hand waving free, but
up until recently he has sounded like he wanted to. Not anymore. He’d be
afraid of getting dirt on his boots, he’d be repulsed by the fish, he’d be too
tired to walk through the dunes. He was so much younger then. That bothers
me, much more than the lack of melodic variety.
That Dylan never sings the same way twice is the most persistent myth
about Dylan, but that doesn’t make it more true. Of course, there is a reason
why I have all those boxes of concert tapes: because of a nuance here (which
wasn’t there the day before, and which adds a whole dimension to the word
or the song), and a rearrangement here (which transforms the songs in whays
which makes the phrase ‘for better or for worse’ meaningless). But my experience this time – and, with few but honourable exceptions, for the past few
years – was that not only does he sing exactly the same way as two years ago, he
also sings every single song exactly the same way. (Take ‘exactly’ with a pinch
of salt, or take it to mean ‘with exactly the same emotional investment’).
I’m not talking about age here, but about guts and hunger, interest and
desire. (Prague, March , : Dylan was sick and exhausted, and produced
one of my favorite shows.) If he doesn’t know what it’s like on the beach
any more and by the way doesn’t want to either, then why on earth does he
have to sing about it? Why doesn’t he give us something he’s interested in?
He obviously loves old music, the kind of songs he rips off and records with
new lyric collages, the kind of stuff he sings when he’s all by himself. That’s
what he does amazingly well, so why not do it more? How about ditching the
war-horses – they’re as tired as him – and playing a show once in a while, with
Doc Boggs, Gene Austin, Johnny and Jack, Charles Aznavour, stuff we know
he loves?
Why not? Well, because if he did, he probably wouldn’t fill the halls he
plays in now. The popular response, which he finally seems to embrace and
enjoy after years of resisting it and trying to destroy it, has become too pleasant, it seems.
I don’t have the time for that: I have boxes upon boxes of old tapes full of
flame and nervous energy that I have to listen through again.

It seems that my wish has been granted – albeit not in concert form. His weekly radio
show in XM Radio, Theme Time, is exactly that: a selection of songs he likes, interspersed
with hilarious, deadpan comments, interesting insights, floating in and out of quotation
and commentary, the way he does it on the sleeve notes to World Gone Wrong and, in a
different way, all through ‘Love and Theft’. Way to go, Bobby!
IV I’ S H I A

If this is it, then: Bye, Bob.
* * *
Those were my initial reactions. After some more time to think, I found
there was more to say, because the issue has wider implications, encompassing
culture, communication, and art.
There are some things I’m not intending to do:
• To disrespect Dylan’s artistic integrity. I’m not attacking it – on the
contrary: I’m craving it.
• To claim that Dylan is too old to be good.
• To profit economically from his work.
• To say that all Dylan does now is to go through the motions and profit
economically from his past work.
• To take away the enjoyment of anyone who goes to a show and enjoys
it, or to say that whoever like what they hear are stupid and ignorant.
What I did intend was to urge people to think about what they do, and
what that does to the performance situation.
OK, Dylan’s an icon, OK, he has a charisma which pours off the stage in
gallons, even today, but still?
It is amazing that he can still do it. And I can understand that people want
it to be good – because it’s Dylan, because there’s a legend up there, because
they’ve waited for this for twenty years, because they’ve paid (un-)fairly large
amounts of money for those two hours. But how can he ever get anything
like a clear perception of when what he’s doing is good – how can he possibly
develop criteria for judging this – when the feedback he gets is uncritical
adoration? When stepping over the amp next to his piano and moving slightly
closer to the centre-stage and blowing some ‘tut-tut-tut’ thing on the same
note in his harp, will harvest the same ovations every night, and when saying
‘thank you’ – once, at best – brings down the house?
Part of Dylan’s greatness lies in his integrity, his unwavering confidence
that what he’s doing is right. Take the ’/ tour: night after night with catcalls, Judas!, the English leftists’ organized clapping (‘If you only wouldn’t clap
so hard’), the boos, the reviews – enough to break anyone’s back, but Dylan
sucked energy out of it and produced classic performance art. Or the gospel tours. Again: boos, ridicule, and audiences numbering , rather than
And some discussions on the message board of the blog, the importance of which I
hereby acknowledge.

G, G,  G

, or , – and again: brilliant shows filled with fire and brimstone,
and not only coming from the texts. Even the self-inflicted nadir around 
could be seen in this light: perhaps the ultimate act of artistic integrity: to
self-destruct in order to rebuild.
But when was the last time Dylan was booed? Even when he put out a
bad performance? When was he last given that opportunity for a reality check
which an honest audience reaction is?
If an artist puts out a performance which is sub-par, he should be greeted
with boos, regardless of what he has done in the past, or will do the following
night. He should not be deprieved of the chance of a reaction which is based
on what he does, now, and not to what he has done or has been, which is in
effect the same thing as treating him as a has-been.
It’s not necessarily the booing I’m after (although that would probably
bring out some long-lost fire and brimstone in mr. D), but a nuanced response
from the audience, where the audience is able to see beyond the god-like
iconicity of the man up there, and hear what they hear, instead of first passing
it through the ‘he’s a genius, so this must be good’-filter.
I think this would do us, the audience, good, but it is also our responsibility
towards the artist: if what he is doing is to engage in an act of communication
(and not just sound production), and if the response is the same no matter
what he communicates, what good does that response do him – what kind of
respect towards him is that?
One of the most puzzling – perhaps saddest, but I’m not really sure about
this – moments in my Dylan carreer was the first time I was up front and
was able to see him at ten feet’s distance. The show was great, but the look
on his face . . . It seemed to lie somewhere between complete unemotionality

So why didn’t I boo? The short answer is: Good question – you got me there. A
slightly longer answer is: because I’m brought up to be polite and not make noises while
other people make noises which other people again want to hear. The full answer is: I
did – I do, by writing about it, by applying a critical perspective (not in the sense of
‘being negative’, but in the wider sense of ‘involving careful evaluation and judgment’) to
Dylan’s production, and communicating this. Granted, this calls for a modification of my
statement above in order to count as ‘booing’, to something like:
‘If an artist consistently puts out sub-par performances, an explicitly critical response –
which for the sake of argument and historical connections might be called “boos” (also in
the cases where no audible sounds are uttered from the members of the audience at the
time, individually or as a collective) – would be a more honest reaction than “it was a great
concert: he smiled twice!!”, and it would in the end also be beneficial for the artist’.
Something like that. If this is cheating, then I admit: I didn’t boo.

IV I’ S H I A
and some kind of bemused superiority. Whatever it was, it looked like a mask.
At the time I thought: He is not taking us, this, himself, seriously. He doesn’t
have to, of course, and again: that he does not succumb to that kind of emotional interaction with the audience which is so commonly seen, is to me the
strongest sign of his integrity. But on the other hand: how can it be otherwise,
when he is greeted with hoorays whatever he’s doing? Mustn’t he be thinking,
either: ‘Why on earth are they cheering – that solo wasn’t really that successful,
was it?’ or ‘Hey, that must really have been a great solo I played there – look
at how they’re cheering!’ In any case, it might be time for another ‘If you just
wouldn’t clap so hard.’
A fundamental premise for what I’m saying is that art does not and cannot
live in a vacuum in the artist’s oh so brilliant head: it is an act of communication, which involves two actors, with a shared responsibility for making it
work: the artist and the audience. If the audience is content with ‘intensity
gone’, ‘not exactly half bad’, and ‘Merle was better’, but still make it sound
like it was the best show ever – every time – that’s not taking that responsibility. And if Dylan is content with playing not half bad, perhaps because that’s
all it takes to fill the venues with enthusiasm – every time – that’s not taking
his.
Being a ‘genius’ is no excuse. Genius is not an inherent quality of an artist,
but something that’s constantly in the making. If an artist produces something of inherent beauty, profound expression, coming from a sharp eye on
the human condition, a gaze which transcends everyday thoughts, then that
expression might be called genius, but to call the artist himself a genius would
be to subscribe to a concept of divine inspiration which Dylan may or may
not embrace, but I don’t. Genius isn’t what you are, but what you do.
I take ‘Art’ to be a label we have put upon a particular kind of communication, and whereas communication, just as any other human activity, as
a matter of course comes from the subject, which thus is the beginning and
end of the act of communication, the tools with which the subject is able to
make sense of this communication, are available to the subject only through
the rules for correct use (and interpretation) that a language community constitutes (or an art-reception community in this case).
Thus, if one sees art as a system for conveying a certain gaze on existence
(whether in its entirety or in the tiniest aspect of it, such as a stone or a car

This is based on Wittgenstein and his notion in the Philosophical Investigations that
‘the meaning of a word is its (correct) use’, and his rejection of the possibility of a private
language.
G, G,  G

passing by on the street while one is on one’s way to work or to meet a lover
whose current partner is blissfully unaware of the liaison, but murderously [in
the literal sense] jealous, and who also happens to be your own best childhood friend at that – small things like that), the gaze itself may (or may not)
be completely subjective, but the communication of it is () meaningless as a
completely subjective exercise, even in the cases where the artist counts himself as his main or only audience, and () inconceivable without the patterns
for generation and organization of meaning which can never be entirely subjective – on the contrary. Even when the artist communicates primarily with
himself, the communication will take place in this channel, as an exchange
between the self and the other.
This is, in the end, why it bothers me so much when the communication
seems to be broken. I know he is capable of it. This book is my attempt to
take my part of the responsibility.

Similar documents

×

Report this document