Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 8,967
I wonder who's next? Suzanne Vega? Neil Young?
I wonder who's next? Suzanne Vega? Neil Young?
As is everyone's.
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.
Pardon me for saying this, but that's... weird.But the communication is one-way. Because the words can mean anything, even if they move me, they tell me nothing about Dylan or why he wrote them. I cannot relate back to him or his context. The two-way relationship between artist and audience is to me the fundamental goal of creative processes. The artistic expression tells the audience something about themselves; in contextualizing it they learn about the artist and their vision.
I'm lot saying this is a universally held view as a requirement on good art, but it is mine.
There must be some way out of here
Said the joker to the thief
There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief
Businessmen, they drink my wine
Plowmen dig my earth
None of them along the line know what any of it is worth
No reason to get excited, the thief, he kindly spoke
There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl
Yes.Pardon me for saying this, but that's... weird.
Do you have the same two-way relationship with the artist when you view a painting or a stained-glass window?
I promise this won't be my best effort.
You have an embattled minority -- the privileged few inside the watchtower. Are they the bastions of civilization, or an elite that deserves to perish?
We hear not from the princes and the pundits in the castle, but overhear a joker talking to a thief -- and they're ironically having the most lordly conversation.
The princes may be "keeping the view" -- guarding the ramparts -- but we see things not from their perspective, but first from the underlings, the local parasites. And then, the scope broadens, and we're made aware of the wider world encroaching.
Outside there's only implacable feriocious nature, the cold wind and hard rain,
and some apocalyptic riders approaching. "The hour is getting late."
All of a piece with other 60's imagery.
This is pretty good. Personal symbols in literature, especially poetry, are as common as signature licks in popular music, though then latter are far easier to recognize. I do not find the pseudo-biblical, slightly ambiguous peripeteia particularly unsatisfying, as much literature is often open ended, leaving some responsibility with the audience. "The hour is getting late" should be compass enough.I promise this won't be my best effort.
You have an embattled minority -- the privileged few inside the watchtower. Are they the bastions of civilization, or an elite that deserves to perish?
We hear not from the princes and the pundits in the castle, but overhear a joker talking to a thief -- and they're ironically having the most lordly conversation.
The princes may be "keeping the view" -- guarding the ramparts -- but we see things not from their perspective, but first from the underlings, the local parasites. And then, the scope broadens, and we're made aware of the wider world encroaching.
Outside there's only implacable feriocious nature, the cold wind and hard rain,
and some apocalyptic riders approaching. "The hour is getting late."
All of a piece with other 60's imagery.
Yes.
I was referring to a specific line: a watchtower is not a road or a path, and you don't really do things along it.
I think the bit about princes in the watchtower is some biblical imagery or something.
The most well-known feature of the piece is its feeling of unfinishedness - it's just a setup; there just isn't enough material there to really justify an interpretation. Many Dylan fans take this as brilliance - I take it as Dylan not even trying anymore, knowing the fans would take it on faith.
I decided to investigate further. This is as far as I have got:

Boob Dylan![]()
I decided to investigate further. This is as far as I have got:
Heh. She's actually pretty good, except she's playing the original Hendrix leads note-for-note, but too quickly and rote, because she's at that point not hearing the backing structure, or something. But she actually plays workable rhythm, and is solid (but again rote) with some fills -- again rushes others a bit as if just trying to get through them. Can she lock in with a band? She sings in tune.
Her left-right coordination is good.
Also, her breasts are large, which I don't care about. I like 'em pretty, with hairy legs.
I used to play two subliterary games with Salman Rushdie. The first, not that you asked, was to re-title Shakespeare plays as if they had been written by Robert Ludlum. (Rushdie, who invented the game, came up with The Elsinore Vacillation, The Dunsinane Reforestation, The Kerchief Implication, and The Rialto Sanction.) The second was to recite Bob Dylan songs in a deadpan voice as though they were blank verse. In addition to the risk of the ridiculous, it can become quite hypnotic. Try it yourself with "Mr. Tambourine Man": It works so well, you hardly care that a tambourine man can't really be playing a song. "Lily, Rosemary and The Jack of Hearts," "Chimes of Freedom," and "Desolation Row" all have the same feeling.
Yeah, certainly the thing I noticed most of all was the fact she was playing it Hendrix.
I agree, she sings well, but she has a few awkward transitions in the playing.
Anyway, back to Dylan. Some of his songs can be hard to parse, but not impossible. And yes, you can get multiple interpretations. But this is true of most literature that doesn't beat you over the head with its message. Good literature is generally not so clear. It requires the audience to fill in the gaps. If you are too direct, it becomes less interesting as the reader/audience doesn't have to think about it.
Whatever one may say of Dylan, Leonard Cohen is a greater poet by any measure.