What Dylan Is Not

The left has long claimed Bob Dylan as their poet laureate and standard bearer, but little known is the fact that Dylan himself has never subscribed to their doctrine.  The current issue of the Weekly Standard has a great article by Sean Curnyn debunking that myth.

What Dylan Is Not Poet Laureate of the left, for one. by Sean Curnyn 10/02/2006, Volume 012, Issue 03 A good deal of hoopla greeted the grizzled rock-musician Neil Young's musical assault on George W. Bush earlier this year. His album Living With War included a hundred-voice choir singing a song entitled "Let's Impeach the President." For those survivors of anti-Vietnam war protests, and their younger would-be imitators, it was a moment for a sharp intake of breath and the tantalizing hope that maybe now, after all, music really could change the world. I mean, everyone has to sit up and take notice of Neil Young, right? Young's crusading album included another song called "Flags of Free dom," in which he gave a name-check to Bob Dylan, and adapted the melody of Dylan's own somewhat more lyrically complex song "Chimes of Freedom." He really should have known better. In an interview several months later with Edna Gundersen in USA Today, Dylan was asked about the absence of any song about the current war on his own latest album, Modern Times. "Didn't Neil Young do that?" he jokes . . . "What's funny about the Neil record, when I heard 'Let's Impeach the President,' I thought it was something old that had been lying around. I said, 'That's crazy, he's doing a song about Clinton?'" With his sly and somewhat wicked response, Dylan had (1) desperately frustrated the considerable number of more obvious Dylan fans who have been waiting on the edge of a cliff for him to say or sing something--anything!--against President Bush and the Iraq war and (2) told Neil Young none-too-subtly that he found his recent ultrapolitical songwriting essentially pointless. Somehow, after over 40 years of evidence to the contrary, much of the world seems to continue to expect the man who is arguably America's greatest songwriter to sign on to left/liberal causes at the first opportunity. If nothing else, it is proof that in attempting to kidnap Dylan's songs (in Dylan's own words, his songs were "subverted into polemics" in the 1960s), the left succeeded in convincing the average person that both the work and the man did, indeed, belong to them. In the summer run-up to the 2004 presidential campaign, a concert tour of anti-Bush musicians was being organized, led by Bruce Springsteen. They would perform in swing states in support of John Kerry. The advance press regarding the tour always prominently mentioned Bob Dylan as one of the musicians being talked about for the lineup. There was no surprise about this expressed in the stories; after all, campaigning against Republican presidents is what Bob Dylan has always done, isn't it? But when dates and lineups were finally announced for the "Vote for Change" tour, one name was prominently missing: that of Bob Dylan. And indeed, any scrutiny of the record would show that he has never endorsed a political candidate (although some political candidates have endorsed him). The closest he has ever come would be the statement in his memoir, Chronicles, that his "favorite politician" circa 1961 was Barry Goldwater. As tempted as he might have been two years ago to give the MoveOn.org crew what they wanted (probably not at all), the true nature of Dylan's independence was tested in the crazy crucible of the 1960s, and proven by the degree to which he resisted being crowned king by those who begged for only a word from him. It always comes back to that time, and to the Vietnam war, for Bob Dylan, especially when the media are doing one of their thumbnails of his career. He didn't ask for it to be that way; it just is. As he said to Rolling Stone in his most recent interview: Did I ever want to acquire the Sixties? No. But I own the Sixties I'll give 'em to you if you want 'em. You can have 'em. It's an interesting paradox. Looking at the record, Vietnam should have been the wedge that forced the left to reject Dylan as a matter of dogma, because he failed to give them anything that they demanded from him, and actually gave them the opposite of what they wanted. Instead, the Vietnam war is the seemingly unbreakable link that ties Dylan to the left in the popular consciousness. Consider: Dylan wrote no songs about the Vietnam war during the 1960s. Zero. The songs Dylan wrote that antiwar protesters later seized upon (from Blowin' in the Wind on down) were written when the Vietnam war was little more than a twinkle in John F. Kennedy's eye. A close study of those songs would also reveal, as Dylan himself has stated in so many words, that they are not "antiwar" songs, as such. Just as with all his best work, they are based upon an almost unerring sense of human nature and a remarkable ability to ask questions that provoke revealing answers in the listener. "How many times must the cannonballs fly?" An honest listener must admit: Cannonballs will always fly, in this world--and the song does not deny that. Less philosophical listeners demanded other, more specific, answers from the songs and from their singer. Consider also: Dylan never spoke out against the Vietnam war in the 1960s. Not once. It was not for want of being asked. At a 1965 press conference in San Francisco he was asked if he would be participating in an anti-war protest later that day. He replied, "No, I'll be busy tonight." The tape shows that he was all but laughing while he said it. He wasn't laughing some years later when people rifled through his garbage, and protested outside the home he shared with his wife and children, because they were unhappy with the records their "leader" was making. With America's name at a low-water mark in the world and in the minds of the protesters at home, Dylan recorded Nashville Skyline, an album of sweet country music that can also be heard as love songs to a simpler America, and one that was certainly very far from Dylan's front door. Despite the heat he took, he backed down not one bit. In an interview in Sing Out! magazine in 1968, Dylan was pressed on how any artist could be silent in the face of the war. Dylan talked about a painter friend of his who was in favor of the war, and said that he "could comprehend him." Pressed further on how he could possibly share any values with such a person, Dylan responded: I've known him a long time, he's a gentleman and I admire him . . . Anyway, how do you know that I'm not, as you say, for the war? The topic was dropped there. While most left-wing Dylan fans have always quickly moved to forgive or forget Dylan's sins, there are always those who continue to upbraid him. Mike Marqusee, in The Politics of Bob Dylan's Art (2003), says, "If public life is an ongoing test for the artist, then when it came to Vietnam, Dylan failed." He also bemoans the "fatalism of the later Dylan"--as if songs that place their hope primarily in the next world's justice are somehow more "fatalistic" than 1963's "The Ballad of Hollis Brown." Earlier this year, in The Nation, Richard Goldstein took Dylan to task for his "sexism" and told us that "the rod of ages he clings to . . . is a phallus." On the other hand, there is also a largely unheralded brand of listener who is perceiving a funny thing in Dylan's latter-day work: Many of his apparently secular songs of romantic love seem to resonate most strongly, and are arguably best understood, as songs of devotion to God. Is Dylan in some sense masking his (always controversial) faith in this (almost blasphemously) sly manner, where "you" often really means "You"? It does appear clear that our view of Bob Dylan has been constricted by the "a-changin'" times during which he's worked. And while the music of peers like Young and Springsteen is probably destined for artifact status as the decades pass by, Dylan's seems likely to continue provoking consideration well into the future. It is also likely that that future belongs to those Dylan listeners who are not so much flummoxed by the enigma of an ever-shifting man of many faces--who supposedly swings back and forth between leftism, conservatism, faith, and nihilism--but instead to those who see a continuum in the precocious 22-year-old who wrote, "How many years can a mountain exist / before it is washed to the sea?" and the at-peace-in-his-own-skin 65-year-old who now sings: In this earthly domain Full of disappointment and pain You'll never see me frown I owe my heart to you And that's sayin' it true And I'll be with you when the deal goes down. Posterity is likely to understand that the politics of Dylan's art has always been on another level entirely. Sean Curnyn is writing a book on political and moral themes in the work of Bob Dylan.

Comments

[conductor]

Excellent piece. The left tries to do the same with Jack Keruoac. Dylan is very smart man. Even if he were leftist in thought what would be the point, as an entertainer, in alienating half of your potential audience? That's what the Dixie Chicks and jackasses like Bill Maher don't get.

[conductor]

I've discovered Dylan's radio show "Theme time radio hour" on XM Satellite radio. It's awesome. He picks a theme and plays songs for an hour about that theme. He introduces each song with anecdotes and the songs are all genres going back as far as recorded music goes right up to the present. Like he says in the promo, it's an hour of "dreams, schemes and themes." I bet you can just hear him say that in his very distinctive voice!

[GE Mantel]

"Right Wing Bob" is a total crock. He states that Bob Dylan does not belong The Left but rather, to ALL of us ... and then proceeds thru his monologues in a manner which winds up claiming that "Bob Dylan belongs to ALL of us, minus The Left." (????)

He says "I don't speak for Bob Dylan," but look at the title of his website (as well as himself) --"Right Wing Bob."

He says Dylan never, NOT ONCE, spoke out against the Vietnam War ... that's entirely false as Dylan did exactly that via his lyrics ("Tombstone Blues") and at least on one occasion when personally interviewed (in Australia, 1966 when he responded to a question about Vietnam with a short and pointed "It's ridiculous.")

[Ziva]

You affirm Bobs article but having no argument other than referring to Dylan lyrics which he's said many times aren't political, and taking out of context a quote from Australia. I recommend Bob Dylan: The Essential Interviews edited by Jonathan Cott Wenner.

Dylan has always kept his politics to himself and hated being co-opted by any movement, right or left. It's public knowledge that he and Joan Baez fought over his refusal to attend anti-war protests, we don't know who he's voted for-- what we do know is that he's a deeply religious man who spends a lot of time with the Bible, not something very compatible with leftist ideology.

[Cigar Mike]

Great article. I've said the same thing for a while now. I rediscovered Dylan after seeing the No Direction Home movie by Scorcese. Fantastic. I then picked up all the CD's he made in the 60's up to Like a Rolling Stone and then Blood on the Tracks, and then the new one. (Plus the greatest hits too). I read his Chronicles auto-bio.

Dylan is truly a genius and intellectual who never took himself seriously. He refused to be labled the voice of his generation. He spoke for himself. He sang about the civil rights movement and about the issues being faced by folks during the cold war (A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall). But as Ziva aptly said, he refused to join the anti-war hippies and pissed off Baez, a self proclaimed pinko, and even John Lennon. John Lennon was furious that Dylan did not get involved in the anti-war movement, going so far as saying in his song "God", "I don't believe in Zimmerman."

Also, Tombstone Blues is not about Vietnam. It's simply poetry with classical and literary images. As is the classic Desolation Row which has tons of references, my favorite of course being to TS Eliot and Ezra pound.

His earlier works that mentioned war, again dealt with the Cold War in general. See e.g., Masters of War, written in 1963.

He wrote about the irony of war and God, in the work, "With God on Our Side." I suggest y'all read these lyrics. They are intense. http://bobdylan.com/songs/withgod.html

The amazing thing about Dylan's genius, is that folks who think they understand his work, have not a clue.

[Gerry Mantel]

As I went out one morning
To breathe the air around Tom Paine's,
I spied the fairest damsel
Who said “We gotta kill Hussein.”
I offer'd her my hand,
She took me by the arm.
I knew that very instant,
She meant to do me harm.

"Depart from me this moment,"
I told her with my voice.
Said she, "But I don't wish to,"
Said I, "But you have no choice."
"I beg you, sir," she pleaded
From the corners of her mouth,
"I will secretly accept you
And together we'll fly south."

Just then Tom Paine, himself,
Came running from across the field,
Shouting at this lovely girl
And commanding her to yield.
And as she was letting go her grip,
Up Tom Paine did run,
"I'm sorry, sir," he said to me,
"I'm sorry for what she's done."

[Gerry Mantel]

"He sang about the civil rights movement and about the issues being faced by folks during the cold war."

You bet.

Oh, and "Tombstone Blues" doesn't reference the Vietnam War ...

Then tell me, exactly WHAT does it reference?

"The amazing thing about Dylan's genius, is that folks who think they understand his work, have not a clue."

That'd be you, dude.

[Cigar Mike]

Gerry you're obviously a putz. It's about living in the city; hard times. Vietnam was not an issue in 1965 when the song came out you shmendrick. Troops were just beginning to be shipped into Vietnam in 1965. The anti-war movement did not begin until 1967 and did not pick up any steam until Eugene McCarthy entered the race for President against LBJ. In fact in 1965, most Americans were in favor of the Vietnam war. The protests against the draft started piecemeal in 1966 such as when Ali refused to go. But no mass demonstrations and no involvement by the druggie hippie left crowd such as Baez.

So you are obviously a moron with no clue about history or you are a common troll or agent provaceteur wanna be.

[Gerry Mantel]

And since when did Dylan have anything to do with the "mass demonstrations," the "druggie hippie left crowd," the "anti-war movement," or "most Americans"?

What he did say is that he personally had a problem with the "military-industrial" mentality that Eisenhower warned about.

Not to forget, of course, that Vietnam was just that, i.e., a military-industrial thing.

[Gerry Mantel]

What I'm ultimately trying to say is that just because Bob Dylan isn't a card-carrying member of the radical Left ... doesn't by default leave him as "Right Wing" Bob, either.

If you can't make any sense out of that then I'd say you're the one with the problem and if you as such wish to label anyone/everyone else as a "common troll" or "agent provaceteur" then more "power" to ya.

[Gerry Mantel]

"In fact in 1965, most Americans were in favor of the Vietnam war."

And what, exactly, what is was that changed their minds?

[Gerry Mantel]

"The king of the Philistines his soldiers to save
Puts jawbones on their tombstones and flatters their graves
Puts the pied pipers in prison and fattens the slaves
Then sends them out to the jungle."

So this reference "to the jungle" is about living in the city?

If this doesn't reference Vietnam then it's certainly the weirdest coincidence in the history of lyricism that I could ever imagine.

[Cigar Mike]

Oy Vay Gerry. A lot of messages. I'll try to respond to them.

What changed people's minds? How about the reporting of the Tet offensive; that began to change people's minds about the war. The increase of troops in 1967 also added to the anti-war movement.

Vietnam was not a military industrial complex action. I bet you're not even 30 years old. Have you ever heard of SEATO? We were obligated under the SEATO treaty to assist the South Vietnam govt. against the communists (since the French obviously had no clue).

Dylan had nothing to do with the anti-war crowd. He did not want to be a spokesperson for the youth or that nonsence. He was a poet and a musician; that's all. His topical material was more in tune to civil rights and the cold war. In his own auto-biography, he cites Goldwater as his favorite politician. He's very pro-Israel and is not a fringe man. I could not tell you where he votes, but I can tell you that he did not toe the line of the Woodstock hippies. Similarly, Hendrix was against the anti-war crowd since those were his buddies in the service (He was a paratrooper until he got injured).

Actually the reference you're making is to Biblical times. Unless Dylan was clarvoyant and knew what was going to happen in the future 2 years later, your premise makes no sense.

Please read your history from reliable sources. If you want to learn about Dylan, read Chronicles, see the documentary: No Direction Home for a start.

but your reference to "Hussain" in the Dylan lyrics and your obvious youth says much of where you stand.

[Gerry Mantel]

"His topical material was more in tune to civil rights and the cold war."

No kidding ....

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/press20051201.htm

http://www.nsa.gov/vietnam/index.cfm

... and Vietnam wasn't a military-industrial thing -- right.

"He's very pro-Israel."

Wrong, dude.

"He was a poet and a musician, that's all."

That's all? Bob Dylan?

Wow.

[Ziva]

Yeah Gerry that's all, he's said so himself. What ever else you think about him-is just that,what YOU think. Not what is true. End of thread.