Bob Dylan awarded Nobel prize for Literature

[Damien Evans]

If they have to pick a song writer. Paul Simon and Garfunkle were better.

I'd even throw in David Bowie

Garfunkel is an awful songwriter. Paul Simon wrote literally all of their good stuff, bar the occasional cover.

 

[Pixel42]

Garfunkel is an awful not a songwriter. Paul Simon wrote literally all of their good stuff, bar the occasional cover.

FTFY.

Actually according to wiki Garfunkel has written a few of the songs on his more recent albums, but he wrote none of the Simon & Garfunkel ones.

 

[sackett]

Sinclair Lewis won it too. So the bar hit bottom long ago.

Lewis? Dillon? Oh god, lay me down!

 

[SashatheMagnificent]

I would suggest for Nobel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-u5WLJ9Yk4

 

[Oystein]

Those who throw in other songwriters, ask thyselves: Where would they be if Dylan had never existed? There would have been folk music, and Paul Simon would have written much of the same. Perhaps with the same success and impact.
Cohen? I doubt that already. I think his success came in the wake of Dylan's. Dylans showed the way that poetry can be successful in the music business, Cohen profited from that. I think his writings work well as poems, without music, better perhap's that Dylan's. This is precisely because Cohen is a poet first, while Dylan wrote lyrics more with music (rythm, sound, verbal expression) in mind from the get-go - and that is a large part of the reasons why he is the true pioneer in his field, Cohen the copy.

I really like Paul Simon, like him more than Dylan. But then again, I really like Alice Walker, but would not argue she is more worthy of the Nobel than Toni Morrison, whom I didn't read with as much pleasure. I accept Morrison's seniority, more voluminous oevre, higher impact. Same as I accept Dylan's pre-eminence over Simon, who hasn't been quite as productive, innovative, influential, covered.

 

[LSSBB]

She's written some good songs, but this example rises to 'Christmas Shoes' levels of schmaltz.
I get it, you prefer your poetry prosaic, but that's not really an argument against awarding a prize to Dylan. That's like saying a particular French restaurant doesn't deserve a Michelin star because you'd rather have Thai food.

Those who throw in other songwriters, ask thyselves: Where would they be if Dylan had never existed? There would have been folk music, and Paul Simon would have written much of the same. Perhaps with the same success and impact.
Cohen? I doubt that already. I think his success came in the wake of Dylan's. Dylans showed the way that poetry can be successful in the music business, Cohen profited from that. I think his writings work well as poems, without music, better perhap's that Dylan's. This is precisely because Cohen is a poet first, while Dylan wrote lyrics more with music (rythm, sound, verbal expression) in mind from the get-go - and that is a large part of the reasons why he is the true pioneer in his field, Cohen the copy.

I really like Paul Simon, like him more than Dylan. But then again, I really like Alice Walker, but would not argue she is more worthy of the Nobel than Toni Morrison, whom I didn't read with as much pleasure. I accept Morrison's seniority, more voluminous oevre, higher impact. Same as I accept Dylan's pre-eminence over Simon, who hasn't been quite as productive, innovative, influential, covered.

Both of these points hit the mark. Dylan has been all over the map, like many writers and lyricists. And when he hits the mark, he can really hit the mark, and it is reflected all through the music of many other artists who owe a debt to him.

You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

 

[cullennz]

Those who throw in other songwriters, ask thyselves: Where would they be if Dylan had never existed? There would have been folk music, and Paul Simon would have written much of the same. Perhaps with the same success and impact.
Cohen? I doubt that already. I think his success came in the wake of Dylan's. Dylans showed the way that poetry can be successful in the music business, Cohen profited from that. I think his writings work well as poems, without music, better perhap's that Dylan's. This is precisely because Cohen is a poet first, while Dylan wrote lyrics more with music (rythm, sound, verbal expression) in mind from the get-go - and that is a large part of the reasons why he is the true pioneer in his field, Cohen the copy.

I really like Paul Simon, like him more than Dylan. But then again, I really like Alice Walker, but would not argue she is more worthy of the Nobel than Toni Morrison, whom I didn't read with as much pleasure. I accept Morrison's seniority, more voluminous oevre, higher impact. Same as I accept Dylan's pre-eminence over Simon, who hasn't been quite as productive, innovative, influential, covered.

I think Woody Guthrie just rolled over in his grave

 

[arthwollipot]

There have been other great songwriters. Giving Dylan this one particular award in no way suggests that there are no other great songwriters.

Dylan's strength is that he has been working consistently for decades, churning out great lyric after great lyric after great lyric. Does that make him more worthy on a Nobel than others? Clearly in the Committee's opinion, yes. But this can hardly have been an off-the-cuff decision, or a whim.

 

[cullennz]

I just figured all the books were crap this year. Either that, or the committee selecting Literature found a great way to upstage the peace prize winner....

Putin?

 

[Oystein]

I think Woody Guthrie just rolled over in his grave

He is ineligible.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Cohen? I doubt that already. I think his success came in the wake of Dylan's. Dylans showed the way that poetry can be successful in the music business, Cohen profited from that. I think his writings work well as poems, without music, better perhap's that Dylan's. This is precisely because Cohen is a poet first, while Dylan wrote lyrics more with music (rythm, sound, verbal expression) in mind from the get-go - and that is a large part of the reasons why he is the true pioneer in his field, Cohen the copy.

Yes, Cohen's early style of songwriting owes much to Dylan. His poetry/lyrics? No. Cohen's writing style of sharply mixing sexuality, religion, depression and bleak visions of the future owes zilch to anything Dylan ever wrote. His first album was just poems of his set to melodies. Last time I checked it's not the Nobel Prize in Songwriting.

Cohen has influences for sure, though - Lorca is the most obvious.

 

[cullennz]

Cough

He began visiting his idol*Woody Guthrie*in the hospital where he was suffering from Huntington's disease. "I was pretty fanatical about what I wanted to do, so after learning about two hundred of Woody's songs, I went to see him and I waited for the right moment to visit him in a hospital in Morristown, New Jersey. I took a bus from New York, sat with him and sang his songs." (New York, 1984) Guthrie and his songs became an important model for much of Dylan's early early songwriting. "The [Guthrie] influence has all been on the first, second, third and fourth album. When I say influence, I mean total influence. I mean either writing or singing, y’know. I mean his influence in his manner of speaking. His influence in his topics that he writes about. His influence lies in his phrasing and stuff like that.” (New York, 1965)

 

[angrysoba]

Cough

Try some cough syrup.

Nobody is saying Bob Dylan invented folk music, if that's what your mention of Woody Guthrie is about. Dylan's main influences are in the post-folk music he began performing in the mid-sixties, starting with Bringing It All Back Home. That was his fifth album, so it is outside the era that your Wikipedia quote refers to as influenced by Woody Guthrie.

I am assuming that this is the beginning of the era for which he won the Nobel Prize.

Although some people have said his words are gibberish, and although I have already said the awarding of the Nobel Prize for Literature is ridiculous, I think the point is that his words are abstract or impressionistic. If you like "realism" in your literature then Dylan is probably not going to float your boat (particularly in this era - although it should be noted that he definitely could write coherent lyrics when he wanted to as shown in particular on his religious albums and on songs like Neighbourhood Bully where he ironically sings about how Israel is the bully for being picked on by every other country in the region), but I tend to think that writing in an abstract way is as legitimate as abstract painting, which painters such as Kandinsky pointed out was just as legitimate as music which itself is almost by necessity an abstract form of expression.

Why shouldn't poetry be abstract or impressionistic?

 

[cullennz]

Try some cough syrup.

Nobody is saying Bob Dylan invented folk music, if that's what your mention of Woody Guthrie is about. Dylan's main influences are in the post-folk music he began performing in the mid-sixties, starting with Bringing It All Back Home. That was his fifth album, so it is outside the era that your Wikipedia quote refers to as influenced by Woody Guthrie.

I am assuming that this is the beginning of the era for which he won the Nobel Prize.

Although some people have said his words are gibberish, and although I have already said the awarding of the Nobel Prize for Literature is ridiculous, I think the point is that his words are abstract or impressionistic. If you like "realism" in your literature then Dylan is probably not going to float your boat (particularly in this era - although it should be noted that he definitely could write coherent lyrics when he wanted to as shown in particular on his religious albums and on songs like Neighbourhood Bully where he ironically sings about how Israel is the bully for being picked on by every other country in the region), but I tend to think that writing in an abstract way is as legitimate as abstract painting, which painters such as Kandinsky pointed out was just as legitimate as music which itself is almost by necessity an abstract form of expression.

Why shouldn't poetry be abstract or impressionistic?

I'm just pointing out his influence to others was extremely infuenced

 

[angrysoba]

I'm just pointing out his influence to others was extremely infuenced

Well, sure. If his parents hadn't conceived him he would never have been born, and he not busy being born is busy dying.

 

[cullennz]

Well, sure. If his parents hadn't conceived him he would never have been born, and he not busy being born is busy dying.

Even that is a stupid line

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Why shouldn't poetry be abstract or impressionistic?

Essentially the difficulty of communication. You're relying on the mental images people form when reading the words to form a moving picture. But that could turn out any way whatsoever, meaning there is really no communication from writer to reader - it all happens in the reader's head. At least Impressionistic paintings look the same even if they are interpreted differently by different people. But the words and semtences Dylan used frequently could mean ANYTHING, thus communicating nothing.

 

[SashatheMagnificent]

A couple of these maybe.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18382_the-6-most-baffling-nobel-prizes-ever-awarded.html

This article is stupid
Criticizing Arafat and not Kissinger

The usual right wing trash

 

[angrysoba]

Essentially the difficulty of communication. You're relying on the mental images people form when reading the words to form a moving picture. But that could turn out any way whatsoever, meaning there is really no communication from writer to reader - it all happens in the reader's head. At least Impressionistic paintings look the same even if they are interpreted differently by different people. But the words and semtences Dylan used frequently could mean ANYTHING, thus communicating nothing.

Dylan's songs use the same words even if they are interpreted differently by different people.

I don't see the meaningful distinction you are trying to make here, or even why the supposed difficulty of communication is supposed to matter. There are plenty of works of literature written in styles which eschew explicit objective descriptions such as Kafka, Joyce, beat poetry and Henry Miller. The words will be the same no matter who reads them but it will be difficult for any two readers to reliably agree on what they have read. And I think the same is true of two different people looking at the same brushstrokes on a canvas.

People used to paint in a realistic style, but there are styles which are not realistic. In an art gallery, you might say "Look, this one is a king. This one is a painting of Jesus! This one is a horse. Oh, now look at this one. Just some squiggles. It could be ANYTHING, thus it is nothing. It fails to communicate anything therefore it fails as a piece of art."

It seems to me that you may as well argue that Visions of Johanna could be about the Battle of Hastings, or string theory. Yet to me a more sensible conclusion is to say the writer is trying to paint impressions and that this is what he succeeds in doing.

Ain't it just like the night to play tricks when you're tryin' to be so quiet ?
We sit here stranded, though we're all doing our best to deny it
And Louise holds a handful of rain, tempting you to defy it
Lights flicker from the opposite loft
In this room the heat pipes just cough
The country music station plays soft
But there's nothing really nothing to turn off
Just Louise and her lover so entwined
And these visions of Johanna that conquer my mind.

In the empty lot where the ladies play blindman's bluff with the key chain
And the all-night girls they whisper of escapades out on the D-train
We can hear the night watchman click his flashlight
Ask himself if it's him or them that's really insane
Louise she's all right she's just near
She's delicate and seems like the mirror
But she just makes it all too concise and too clear
That Johanna's not here
The ghost of electricity howls in the bones of her face
Where these visions of Johanna have now taken my place.

Now, little boy lost, he takes himself so seriously
He brags of his misery, he likes to live dangerously
And when bringing her name up
He speaks of a farewell kiss to me
He's sure got a lotta gall to be so useless and all
Muttering small talk at the wall while I'm in the hall
Oh, how can I explain ?
It's so hard to get on
And these visions of Johanna they kept me up past the dawn.

Inside the museums, Infinity goes up on trial
Voices echo this is what salvation must be like after a while
But Mona Lisa musta had the highway blues
You can tell by the way she smiles
See the primitive wallflower frieze
When the jelly-faced women all sneeze
Hear the one with the mustache say, "Jeeze
I can't find my knees."
Oh, jewels and binoculars hang from the head of the mule
But these visions of Johanna, they make it all seem so cruel.

The peddler now speaks to the countess who's pretending to care for him
Saying, "Name me someone that's not a parasite and I'll go out and say a prayer for him."
But like Louise always says
"Ya can't look at much, can ya man."

As she, herself prepares for him
And Madonna, she still has not showed
We see this empty cage now corrode
Where her cape of the stage once had flowed
The fiddler, he now steps to the road
He writes everything's been returned which was owed
On the back of the fish truck that loads
While my conscience explodes
The harmonicas play the skeleton keys and the rain
And these visions of Johanna are now all that remain.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm just pointing out his influence to others was extremely infuenced

As is everyone's.

Essentially the difficulty of communication. You're relying on the mental images people form when reading the words to form a moving picture. But that could turn out any way whatsoever, meaning there is really no communication from writer to reader - it all happens in the reader's head. At least Impressionistic paintings look the same even if they are interpreted differently by different people. But the words and semtences Dylan used frequently could mean ANYTHING, thus communicating nothing.

Alternatively, you could choose to view this fact as indicating that it could be communicating ANYTHING, and that the message varies depending on the listener. Which if you think about it is true for all art.

If you don't get anything useful from it, that's fine. But just because it doesn't mean anything to you doesn't mean it doesn't mean anything to anybody.