"Dylan" (1973): Track-By-Track Discussion

"Saro Jane" is one of the tracks from this album that I really like--it's significantly better to me than either of the others we've talked about so far, and that's mainly because there's a great Dylan vocal buried in there amid all the arrangement clutter. I suspect that a version without the overdubs would be pretty spectacular--even a remix could be great if it made a little more room for the lead vocal. A sparer approach like the one used on "The Man in Me" would have done this track wonders (the "la, la's" and backing vocals connect the tracks for me). Just a little subtraction, a little more space. That's the little I would ask.

L.

 

It is nice to hear two positive comments. Personally, I like every single second of 'Sarah Jane' just fine the way it is. For me, the female backing vocals on this and across the whole album are a vast improvement on stripped down takes (if they exist)

 

Louis, you and RayS are much smarter men than I, and I certainly don't have access to any private information that would make it advisable for me to disagree with you. I'm not convinced that Dylan (1973) was a "revenge" album either -- I just think that it hasn't yet been convincingly ruled out as a possibility. But since this isn't a hill I'm particularly interested in dying on, I will tip my cap to both of you, and leave you with two final thoughts:

1. Two years before the Dylan LP was released, Columbia had enough of a grasp of Bob's vault to access and use the live take of "Tomorrow Is A Long Time" (from nearly a decade earlier) on Greatest Hits 2. So at the very least, CBS knew that they had the unreleased In Concert album on the shelf, and where to find it.

2. If those same people still thought that a Self Portrait-lite LP was the best they could do, then they should have been fired and maybe Bob was right to flee to another label. In the end, of course, it all worked out for the best, because when Bob came back home he made damn sure that he would have veto power over all future releases of his music. So there's that.

3. Bonus thought! Which occurred to me as I was typing this ... to stoke the "revenge" theory a little more ... not only did CBS release a BAD Bob Dylan album, they released an album of all covers, no originals -- thereby denying Bob of any publishing royalties. Coincidence?

 

100% agreed, though I dont put it past them to have released this pastiche of a record thinking that anything “Dylan” would at least go gold and make money from nothing...thereby exhibiting more contempt for the record buying public than for Bob himself.

 

On #1, you're right about them knowing they had some older material they could have released, but I'm not sure they'd have thought that that stuff would have sold much at that point (not that they would have been right about that). Adding a track like that to a GH collection is not the same as releasing an old concert. I don't recall who put GHII together--did Dylan himself have a say? It's certainly not the usual cash-in by a label sort of a collection. I'd guess that whoever put that together was not the same person (or persons) who put together Dylan. Which brings me to #2:

On that you're absolutely right, and in effect they were fired by Dylan, even if he left some stuff behind for them to release without his permission. And I'm very glad he came back with that clout. Things were very different after '74.

On #3, you're on to something about the royalties. I'm not convinced that the record was revenge, but I'm sure your right that depriving Dylan of royalties must of sweetened the deal given the no doubt very bruised feelings at the label....

L.

 

From The Soundtrack of My Life by Clive Davis and Anthony DeCurtis...

In a move that was loudly trumpeted in the music business press, Dylan signed with David Geffen’s label, Elektra/Asylum. It was a triumph for Geffen, and he played it for all it was worth. In those same stories in the press, Columbia desperately tried to spin its loss of Dylan, defensively claiming that the label refused to make a “no profit” deal to keep him. The waters were poisoned. Then Dylan dramatically announced that not only had he signed with a new label, but he would be going on tour again, backed by the Band, for the first time since 1966. The tour was a major media event that, again, made Columbia look bad. In response, Columbia rush-released a shoddy album of outtakes, titled Dylan, to capitalize on the tour and blunt the impact of Planet Waves, Dylan’s first album for Geffen, which came out a couple of months later. It was an ugly situation that could easily have been avoided by honoring the deal we had struck.
-
While Clive Davis wasn't president of Columbia when Dylan defected, he was involved behind-the-scenes during the period. The autobiography has worthwhile passages about Dylan and his unhappiness with Geffen, which label should release Before the Flood and how it should be distributed (Dylan talked about a TV mail-order system).

 

There is a great Dylan vocal on Sarah Jane..... the rest is a bit of a racket which is fine, and most of it works. I can't quite work out though if it is the girls who are starting to give me a headache, or maybe Bob's own La-La-Las. In fact i think i'd take off Bob's La-las and replace them with harmonica and this could be a classic (and no headache..).

 

This is lifted from the blog piece linked to below. I found it interesting.
"In essence Dylan’s version takes a steamboat song “Rock about my Saro Jane”which was sung by travelling entertainers sometime around the turn of the 19th/20th century and which subsequently exists in many forms. Aside from the one sung on the link above, there is also a Flatt and Scruggs version you might enjoy.

However these versions have a different version of the lyrics from the Dylan version, although the music is similar. These versions are somewhat sanitised…

Now, Ive got a gal whos sweet to me
She lives down in Tennessee, oh Saro Jane
Nothin’ to do but sit around and sing
Rock by, my Saro Jane

However there is an Odetta version using these lyrics on her 1959 album, “My Eyes Have Seen” which has what seems to be something close to the original lyrics and which Dylan uses…

I’ve got a wife and five little children
I’m gonna take a trip on the big McMillan
With Sarah Jane, Sarah Jane
Ain’t nothin’ to do but to set down and sing
And rock about my Sarah Jane

The boiler busted and the whistle squall
Captain gone through the hole in the wall
Oh, Sarah Jane, Sarah Jane
Ain’t nothin’ to do but to set down and sing
And rock about my Sarah Jane

The engine gave a crack and whistle gave a squall
The engineer gone to the hole in the wall
Saroh Jane, Saroh Jane
Ain’t nothin’ to do but to set down and sing
And rock about my Saroh Jane

Yankee built boats to shoot them Rebels
My gun’s steady gonna hold it level
Saroh Jane, Saroh Jane
Ain’t nothin’ to do but to set down and sing
And rock about my Saroh Jane

Inside Bluegrass did a commentary on the song some years ago, and concluded that “Rock” in this context probably has sexual connotations, the “Hole-in-the-wall” probably refers to the cotton plantation near Natchez which Mark Twain refers to in Life on the Mississippi, Saroh Jane might be a girl, or a boat, the boat might have gone aground, and the end of the song relates to the Civil War, in which the warring factions each converted steam boats into gunships while fighting to control the Mississippi. McMillan could be James Winning McMillan a Mexican War veteran.

So what Dylan has done is taken a song with a long, long, history and an ever evolving style and lyrics, tried to take it on further in an experiment which goes back to a very early version of the lyrics but a modern accompaniment and sound.

Now I’m not an expert on bluegrass and certainly as an Englishman not an expert on the American Civil War or its music (although I can hold up my end in most debates on the French Revolution of 1789) but it seems to me Dylan didn’t really add anything new to Saro Jane. But that’s often the way. It was certainly worth a try and probably led him somewhere else.

So Rolling Stone asking “What was Bob Dylan thinking about when he sang this stuff?” is a nonsense. He was taking a very old song that had mutated through the years, and was experimenting to see where it could go."

 

Sarah Jane: the origin of Dylan’s song and why he recorded it. | Untold Dylan

 

I shall have to go back and read all the information around this album. In many ways although Dylan was presumably not consulted regarding the release it adopts the Self Portrait template of mixing Nashville summer 1969 recordings alongside 1970 recordings. So you get that big variation in vocal style.
Paul Cable in his (still) excellent Unreleased Recordings book writes that Columbia were going to follow the Dylan album with a live 1966 release.
My point about the 69 and 70 recordings and on Self Portrait the live Isle of Wight material as well means for me both albums are what you might call a hodge podge. There is great music on them both though and without the Dylan album I doubt any of those tracks would have seen release until the Bootleg Series era.
I agree with you re the Basement Tape stuff but maybe Columbia had no real access to those tapes at that time or maybe they had sound quality concerns. The Dylan recordings are all proper studio recordings.

 

I believe I am right in stating Dylan was involved in compiling the More Greatest Hits album.
On to Sarah Jane which I again enjoy. According to the Still on the Road site this was recorded at the second New Morning session on 1st June 1970 and was subject to later overdubs.

Still On The Road: 1970 Recording session pages

 

What really annoys me about the LP and its title is that on the label, they departed from the house style of naming records. It simply says Dylan on the label instead of Dylan with Bob Dylan running underneath (or indeed above, as they sometimes did).
Ditto the spine resulting in the only Dylan LP I have that doesn't feature the words Bob Dylan on the spine.


No, it doesn’t make the music sound any better -or worse.

 

I believe you are right. I seem to recall contemporary reports which stated that he only agreed to another GH compilation if he could compile it himself.

Thank you for giving it its correct title of More Bob Dylan's Greatest Hits !

 

I was going to bring up the fact that Columbia included no Dylan originals on Dylan. I'm not sure if the album itself was necessarily 'revenge', but maybe they purposely didn't let Bob profit too much from the release in terms of additional songwriting royalties. That said, was Bob even entitled to a performance royalty after having jumped ship?

You mentioned GH2, but Dylan compiled that himself. It was his idea to include the live Tomorrow Is A Long Time (though as you say, that could have brought that concert to Columbia's attention as a potential future release. Maybe it did, I mean how long would Columbia have kept issuing these 'vault' albums?)

Apparently, Bob submitted some of the original Basement Tapes for GH2 but was persuaded to re-record them due to sound quality concerns. But even disregarding that, could Columbia have released the Basement Tapes as an album in 1973? I'm not sure who had the legal rights to those tapes at that time (not recorded at a Columbia studio, and Bob kind of 'between contracts' at the time of recording).

Since 1970, Bob had been an infrequent visitor to Columbia studios. The 1971 sessions for Watching The River Flow and When I Paint My Masterpiece were held at Blue Rock studios instead. Even if some of the outtakes from those sessions were worthy of release, maybe Columbia didn't have those tapes (even if they did legally belong to them)? After that, there's only the George Jackson session (which did have the outtake, Wallflower) and the Pat Garrett sessions.

Of course, this all could have happened much earlier in 1967. If Bob had left Columbia then (and signed with MGM or whoever), then we might have had a 1967 'revenge' album alongside JWH, though there would have been a ton of much better 'recent' recordings to fashion an album from. (Maybe that's an idea for another thread...)

 

I should have added that the UK version is slightly different by one track I think - we got Positively 4th Street instead of She Belong's To Me. I doubt Bob was involved in that and this would appear to have been been because 4th Street was not on the UK Greatest Hits. All the info is on Wikipedia for both albums in the UK and USA.

 

The chronology surrounding this release, although somewhat spotty, helps suggest that Dylan was more a quick attempt to cash-in on the huge hype surrounding the 1974 tour and put product on the shelves before the release of Planet Waves rather than something more sinister.

Most sources list the album's release date as November 16, 1973, just over two weeks before the earliest acceptable postmark on 1974 Tour ticket applications, which was December 2, 1973. Planet Waves, which Asylum were reportedly trying to rush out to coincide with the first dates of the tour, was released on January 17, 1974, with the final recording session having occurred on November 14, the previous year.

By many accounts, the Asylum deal began to seriously take shape in September 1973, which would have given Columbia two months at absolute most to assemble this album. Also, at this time Knockin' on Heaven's Door was on its way to a peak of #12 on the Billboard charts (Oct 27, 1973), making it Dylan's highest charting single since 1969's Lay Lady Lay. Combine this result with a potential 1974 tour and it would appear to be the optimal time to release a new Dylan album.

Given this context, it's easy to see why Columbia may have regarded a release that sounded like 'contemporary Dylan' to be a better short term option than anything from the sixties, regardless of quality. New Morning was Dylan's most recent album of full vocals and there were obviously no new Columbia sessions on the horizon, so naturally the recording sessions for that album are where they turned to assemble this release. And given that they would have had just weeks to put it all together, I agree with the notion that they would not have had time to dive deep into the archives - as was obviously possible for Another Self Portrait.

I do, however, agree with Sean's point regarding there being a conscious decision made to deprive Dylan of any publishing royalties. It seems that as early as January 1974 the music press was pushing the 'revenge album' idea, with Rolling Stone stating that Dylan was, "said to be so unspectacular that Columbia reportedly hoped to woo Dylan back by promising not to release it." I take that to be David Felton spinning a story more than any concrete evidence. Also, interestingly, later in the year, a 'Columbia Source' states in Billboard magazine that Dylan gave the release his "tacit approval", which surely has to be a tongue-in-cheek comment or outright fiction.

Sorry, to digress - I actually came here to express my appreciation for Sarah Jane, which is one of my two favourite tracks on the album. It's a bit sloppy and the sound is notably inferior to the rest of the album but I find it really charming and memorable. There are certain vocals from this period that really stick in my mind for being particularly expressive and this is one of them (Day of the Locusts being another). I love how you can almost hear Dylan smiling through this delivery and both he and the backup singers don't hold back, with their enthusiasm only growing throughout the take. When I think of Dylan the family man of the early seventies, this is one of the first tracks that comes to mind.

Just to cover the two previous tracks quickly, I also really like Lily of the West. As someone stated earlier, it has quite a Tex Mex feel. It's also the most Pat Garrett-like track on the album, which may not be a coincidence...if Columbia were trying to pass the album off as being as close to a contemporary Dylan release as possible, it would make sense to lead off with a track that sounds similar to his most recent output. I'd never really noticed the similarities to Lily, Rosemary and the Jack of Hearts before, but they're definitely there.

Can't Help Falling In Love definitely sounds more like a run-through than a serious take. However, I find it to be a track that rewards repeated listens. Elvis owns this song but after a few spins, I stop making the natural comparison and enjoy Dylan's laidback approach for what it is.

 

I'm late to this, but my opinions on the 3 songs so far...

These first 3 songs have always been my favourites from the album*. After these I find the album gets a bit 'ho-hum'. Sarah Jane is probably my fave.

*Though I do actually quite like the last 2 'out of place' songs on the album more these days, even the 'mariachi nightmare' (it's fun!)

 

Yes, it had to be changed (two tracks, actually) to avoid duplication with the earlier GH. You can see the airbrushing on early copies of the sleeve.

 

The truly great thing about "Dylan" is that is was the first in the "Bootleg Series", released nearly 20 years before we knew such a series would exist, just as "More Bob Dylan Greatest Hits" (as it was named in UK) was a precursor to "Biograph" (itself a little toe-in-the-water of the deep and wonderful pool that is The Bootleg Series).

Moreover, it is very likely that, without Bob's temporary defection from Columbia, we would never have heard these songs. In the alternative world of "what if "Dylan" hadn't been released?", I wonder how many, if any, of the songs (without the overdubs and with better mixing, obviously) might have made it onto BS10. I'd guess not many unless BS10 was expanded to, say, four discs of outtakes.

There were three complete takes of "Sarah Jane" (CO106780) recorded on 01 June; four "short" false starts and one, the first, short false start that Krogsgaard indicates was a "test". "Self Portrait" hadn't yet been released (and vilified). Warm-up or not, I'm sticking with my theory that Bob was working on a second volume of "Self Portrait" and that this song would have been a strong contender for the album.

PS. Mark Spector has not responded to my email yet. I'm not holding my breath...

#

 

Just a flippant observation concerning your Dylan as part of the Bootleg Series idea:
There's an unofficial release called 'Bootleg Series Volume 0 (zero).' So 'Dylan' would have to be a minus number BS release, which seems a bit of an unfair reflection of its quality.

 

Thanks for this - I'd never made the connection before! (though LOTW is minor key, whereas LR&TJOH is major. Still, similar tempo and feel though).

What's with the font they kept using on Dylan albums (mostly from around this time)? Someone at Columbia liked it (as do I):

 

Sarah Jane-well imo this is the least successful track on Dylan and one I personally find almost unlistenable. The la,la,la,la are horrible and the rest not much better but as the wise man said s-t happens.
Don t think the Swedish academy had this opus in mind when they awarded his bobness with the Nobel prize.

 

Why did I not read about this comparison at the time? Good sleuthing.

 

He didn't write it though...

I'd never noticed the drop in fidelity on this track until now. Maybe they had to go with a 1970 rough mix for this song (not sure why that would be though...)

I remember it being credited as 'Unknown' on the album, leading some book(s) to speculate that it might have been a Dylan original. Probably due to this, I misheard the line 'Engineer gone to the hole in the wall' as 'AJ (Weberman) gone to the hole in the wall'

 

Actually I think he had some hands on the lyrics but of that I'm not sure