What I really want to know is the significance of his whiteface during the Rolling Thunder Review having been inspired by Gene Simmons. There is MUCH more to it than just simply having been inspired by Gene Simmons. Most likely it has something to do with Judaism, but I haven't been able to decipher exactly how.
I'm not going to pick anyone out personally unless I reply to them, but since you asked it's the Bob believes in JFK CTs thing that will now be debated by people until forever...
I posted this Kesey quote elsewhere the other day. Not sure why I’m compelled to post it here but i am anyway... The answer is never the answer. What's really interesting is the mystery. If you seek the mystery instead of the answer, you'll always be seeking. I've never seen anybody really find the answer. They think they have, so they stop thinking. But the job is to seek mystery, evoke mystery, plant a garden in which strange plants grow and mysteries bloom. The need for mystery is greater than the need for an answer."
If one wants to know if Bob is a JKF conspiracy-theory believer, one ought to ask Bob, "are you a JKF-CT believer?" and then see if he answers the question, or wait until Mr. Dylan offers a statement explaining what he personally believes in regard to the matter. Otherwise, all is mere speculation.
The strategy of the song needs this , gradually the amount of popular culture references outnumbers the allusions to the assassination as if burying them in the collective consciouness ..
When it feels like it's gettin' near the end, Have the DJ play you some music... R&B, Folk, Jazz, Gospel, Soul, Country, Rock, Pop... 'doesn't matter. Oh, and at the very last, have him play Murder Most Foul.
At times it's that, but not as distant from what the voice narrates as is usual, not as objective. And something changes in the long fourth verse. All those imperatives don't fit so well with a distanced, omniscient narrating voice. He seems too in the midst of it to me. I used "mind" because of the associative, inward feel of the whole thing, but there is a public face in there, too. I'm not sure what to make of that doubleness. L.
But it´s an ancient voice( or presents itself as such) , does not need to justify its objectivity , its truthfulness... I think
FWIW, Drad thinks JUST like most con theorists I know, who think that if they can get you to admit "conspiricies exist or have existed!" that that is sufficient proof that "this thing I'm talking about is a conspiracy!" Similarly, he thinks the fact that Dylan being a put on artist IS a reality at times (tho, of course, outnumbered about 100 to 1 by Dylan being a sincere serious artist) is sufficient proof that THIS is a puton (when combined with his not WANTING Bob to be a CT re JFK). FWIW also, one needn't believe Dylan the Man is a CT believer; but the SONG is deeply, deeply embedded in it, and the SONG is a CT believer, or can't be made sense of without being embedded in JFK CT mentality and knowledge.
As Mark Lane was a personal friend of Bob Dylan's he would be very likely to have read the book and be familiar with the ideas. Bob Dylan (rear corner wearing shades) and Mark Lane (also wearing shades) at the wedding of Lori and Gil Turner, 1962. Photograph courtesy of Joe Alper.
So, I’ve only had one complete listening of the whole song, having “stumbled upon” this three days after everyone else here! Oh, it’s a work of genius, all right! Just the assembling of all the references is, well, a work of a titanic artist! Hard to say anything coherent about it now, I’m completely overwhelmed. As the Rolling Stone mag said, we’ll be picking this apart for years! David
Can you explain what you mean? I do think it's a put on. But why is a put on brilliant? Because it's so unexpected? If the song is to be considered brilliant in it's madness because it's a string of cliches, I'm taking leave of the CW. Also how would such a song be described as both a put on string of cliches and a consideration of serious aspects of the killing or US culture?
Great album. I'd say in the top 5 of 1964. Rock fans should not overlook this one: Just imagine what a serious Dylan devotee could do with Supercalifragilistic Etc.
Oh, I think Bob Dylan takes himself eminently seriously as a writer, and a musical artist. He’s been a serious person since, well way before 1962. Anyone who fails to understand this had best just go back to the drawing board. Bob’s won the freaking Nobel Prize, for literature, for cryin’ out loud. He’s coming up on a 60 year career at this. It’s no joke, pally. Now of course, Bob has a great sense of humor, and he enjoys Masks! — A. Pismo Clam
That’s akin to arguing that we avoid talking about the civil rights movement while discussing Blowing In The Wind, that we avoid talking about Suze Rotolo while discussing Ballad In Plain D, or that we avoid talking about Rubin Carter while discussing Hurricane. When a song is so clearly about something, it’s difficult to avoid discussing that thing. If Dylan explicitly namechecks Dealey Plaza, the Zapruder film, and Oswald and Ruby, listeners are going to talk about those topics.
What makes you say this particular narrating voice is "ancient?" I get that the idea of such a voice is an ancient one, and that there are such voices in some very ancient texts (often in the form of an inspired bard or storyteller), but this one seems contemporary with the decades of popular history he refers to (although I suppose you could say that he sounds like someone who is heavily aware that he has has outlived all its past moments). L.
I've already posted this in the conversation, you missed it. I don't suggest a "conspiracy theory," I cite a conspiracy FACT, delivered by the U.S. Congress in 1979. Other the other hand, you are (perhaps unwittingly) perpetuating the lie. Any question of conspiracy was settled as an official truth by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) on January 2, 1979: The scientific evidence available to the committee indicated that it is probable that more than one person was involved in the President's murder. That fact compels acceptance. And it demands a re-examination of all that was thought to be true in the past. Further, the committee's investigation of Oswald and Ruby showed a variety of relationships that may have matured into an assassination conspiracy. Neither Oswald nor Ruby turned out to be "loners," as they had been painted in the 1964 investigation. Nevertheless, the committee frankly acknowledged that it was unable firmly to identify the other gunman or the nature and extent of the conspiracy. - HSCA Report, p. 180 showDoc.html Read more.
