Expecting Rain

I find this discussion tedious and boring.

Don't mention it.

thats almost like saying you have to unauthentic can vito genovese play himself in the movies better than marlon brando? is marlon more authentic vito that vito?

if the board formally endorses this i can go with it and cut down on the anti bob stuff.

It's in every aspect of the performance. It may be one that draws from real life and real emotion, but it is all a performance. It's there in the way they look and sing and their understanding of the musical genre in the melody and arrangement.

I used to run music nights in London and liked to book folk based acts. I was approached by countless guys who basically played pop music on an acoustic guitar and described themselves as folk singers. The ridiculously huge chasm between those guys and Bob Dylan was the full range from inauthentic to authentic. They didn't even understand what they were trying to perform so had no hope of being authentic.

No, you're still not separating the two. Obviously Marlon Brando was capable of giving a more authentic performance of a mobster in a film, and obviously Vito Genovese was a more authentic mobster in real life.

thats what ive been saying since the get go, what makes bob such a powerful authentic force despite what his fu manchu blogging detractors say.
im with you 100 percent on this.

Thanks for taking the time to give your thoughtful response.

In your comparison of the performance of some guy at a Music Night or Open Mic to a Bob Dylan performance, I am still not sure if I am quite seeing this as demonstrating the "range of inauthentic to authentic". Rather, all I am seeing is a comparison of a good performance vs. a poor performance. I have to say that I have been to lots of Music Nights and Open Mics and I too have seen a countless range of performances from the good, to the bad, to the ugly.

I don't like everything that Dylan has ever done, but with respect to the performances I do like (usually the early 60's folk music stuff), what I like are things like his vocal phrasings, his intensity, focus & charisma, the catchiness of the melodies, his acoustic guitar & harmonica work, his ability to work within the folk music canon (and the various folk music antecedents you can hear in his work) but still bring something new, etc. I am not sure that any of this has to do with Dylan's performances being "real" or "true" or "authentic". Rather, what I think I like about Dylan is his mastery of the craft of being a folk performer, singer & musician. Similarly, while I have heard some great Open Mic performances by some guy and a guitar playing a pop song (whatever that means in this day and age), I've heard lots that fall short due to this lack of masterery of the craft.

Finally, I am not sure if we are arguing different things or rather arguing semantics or simply looking at the same thing from slightly different perspectives.

Everybody does it to some degree. What's the difference between Sinatra and his hundreds of imitators? What's the difference between real blues and fakey blues? You can smell the fakes a mile away; the song doesn't seem lived in. "Authentic" is a big bad bugaboo word but it's difficult to think of an apt replacement.

Tons of bona fide authentic shit in this thread.

Well yes, a good performance and an authentic one overlap so a lot of what we're saying is similar.

My main point about authenticity, though, is that someone doesn't necessarily need to have experienced something in real life to give an authentic performance about it. There's often confusion about who a person really is and what bearing this has on their authenticity, but all of that is irrelevant as it's what goes on inside the performance that counts.

On those early records you've mentioned, the authenticity is there in his mastery of the craft and the understanding of the folk canon. The intensity and the phrasing may be unique to Dylan and is more about what makes him great, but they are still true to the genre and therefore authentic.

My reason for bringing up the local guys at the music nights isn't that they weren't good. They could have been brilliant musicians but they didn't have an understanding of the musical genre they were proclaiming to be part of and therefore had no way of giving an authentic folk performance.

if you folks hurry fast enough, you can catch the what's wrong with modern times bus...post, post, post!

Finally! A bonafide-authentic-shit thread! Eureka!

I've looked far and wide, but have been unable to find any Fu Manchu blogging detractors. To try and have a discussion about late period Dylan songwriting and ignore or underplay the use of the material of others in those songs is to do a great disservice to the material. Much of what Dylan is doing via this method has yet to be uncovered. When it comes to the notion of authenticity and what Dylan is doing via the borrowed lines I've suggested that authenticity is overrated. Back in 2010 on my blog, where I do mention Fu Manchu from time to time (but in the context of Chronicles: Volume One, as I've yet to see any Sax Rohmer show up in song lyrics), I quoted from a 1939 Billboard article that points out, "synthetic hillbillies are as a rule more desirable in a night club than the real ones." The article begins with ,"Real hillbillies rarely have good night club acts, says Meyer Horowitz, who ought to know. Jewish and Italian hillbillies usually outshine all others on showmanship, he says." http://swarmuth.blogspot.com/2010/04/st ... chell.html

If the synthetic cowboy band has a good nightclub act I'm there. I'm not interested in the phantom of authenticity.

Consider for a moment that perhaps the breadth of Dylan's use of the material of others remains hidden, and what people are aware of is just the tip of the iceberg. Your defensive stance, which seems to include endless antagonism, does little to further the discussion. Indeed it seems to be based around shutting down discussion about Dylan's writing methods. This is poor form. If you've already made up your mind before you've even begun to consider the possibilities of what remains hidden in this work you will be missing out.

so there is a fu manchu blog. i dont recall specifying in my commentary anything about lyrics. im more universal in approach.

i aint going to no synthetic cowboy band show much less in a nightclub. what did those folks in billboard have to say about black music in 39?
besides, i dont really care what a blog says in 2012 why would i care what rolling stone mag said in 1939?

you got me all wrong, i aint about shutting down any discussion. im for long threads. i aint joining the dogging bob outfit. i came in as an ousider and dont have the inclination to become an insider.

I'm missing the whole 'why goombay sucks' thing. Are you people that don't like him just irritable or is it a cultural or generational thing? Seriously, what is the big deal?

You are dealing in the sub text. I don't follow the "borrowed lines" crowd, so I have no opinion on them. I know how I feel. I thank the hard workers who uncover them, and then say, "Wow, how did he have the time and insight to find that AND use it with his style etc. It only adds another dimension to his greatness. I think think those who attack him for lifting words forget or are blind to the steady supply of his own words carrying everything else, and remain the one constant throughout this most authentic and historic saga. That he integrates all this other material seamlessly into his music only further solidifies his uniqueness and almost incomprehensible giftedness.

Yeah, like a sedimentary rock, he is.

I think the best comments I've ever seen on his writing style were by Larry Charles, who worked with him on the script for M&A.
It's on here somewhere.

You did facetiously suggest this:

What I don't see are rubbernecking criticizers. I don't see anyone who takes the time to closely look at the writing methods taking an overtly critical stance. Usually it is quite the opposite.



Long threads do not equal discussion, and your unwillingness to consider some possibilities is dissapointing, especially since you are one of the few here who looks at Little Richard and thinks about Esquerita. The Sturm und Drang act is tired, and you can do better.

Scott, i have a mancrush on you, can i say that? you the man. good luck in your quest.


Somebody said something about generational gap - i think that would be an optimistic view. there's something different about the generation, the universe, the irreverence to coherence, and the grammatical laziness that really gets to me about what Goombay says - having said that i think he's funny and I often agree with his interests! and yet the difficulty remains!

i just read a brilliant review of JWH that was written upon its release. relates to authenticity and maturity. if i get around to it, i will post it here. but i'm going out for a beer right now....

Here it is chrome horse. Great interview and Larry really gets it!
http://trevgibbfilmmusic.blogspot.com/2 ... arles.html

Also you nailed it right here:

You are dealing in the sub text. I don't follow the "borrowed lines" crowd, so I have no opinion on them. I know how I feel. I thank the hard workers who uncover them, and then say, "Wow, how did he have the time and insight to find that AND use it with his style etc. It only adds another dimension to his greatness. I think think those who attack him for lifting words forget or are blind to the steady supply of his own words carrying everything else, and remain the one constant throughout this most authentic and historic saga. That he integrates all this other material seamlessly into his music only further solidifies his uniqueness and almost incomprehensible giftedness.

It really seems to me that he is able to recall almost everything he has read and every song he has heard and pull these bits together at will.

long threads dont equal discussion? what am i missing.

were you a sunday school teacher in a prior life? they used to dog me something fierce waking me up and sniffing around making sure i hadnt been smoking some weed.

i do like those krautrock records ill give you that. big Neu fan.

as for my grammar, well, im working on it, im pretty awful at it, main reason i aint opened up my own blog. a pro bob blog.

Plus remember most of the words to his own songs!

Not me; he could sing covers if the songs were better. I've attempted to spot thoughts underneath the phrases but this stuff doesn't resolve probably for the simple reason that there's no there there. I concede that people could enjoy the torrent of nonsense and that it's postmodern clever a la Waits if that's your thing. I don't have the patience for it.

He's probably past caring about what he can no longer affect. If I must listen to stuff that's entirely craftmanlike I'll hear somebody else. Billy Joel can write that kind of stuff.

He's probably past caring about what he can no longer affect. If I must listen to stuff that's entirely craftmanlike I'll hear somebody else. Billy Joel can write that kind of stuff.[/quote]


i listen to capt beefheart one of the great post moderns of all times (i hope he is im not too clear on the postmodern stuff) theres no need to listen to waits after old 55( that was pretty good.)

there are thoughts aplenty in bobs later material, bob cant help himself. you just got to listen and not analyze so much)

I rode on that bus a while ago. I ended up sat next to a guy called Goombay who said the strangest things while staring out the window and puffing on a giant spliff. Nice enough view though