Yes. Nice. Again I am reminded of "What Good Am I?" now even more than ever. You really dropped a psychedelic pill right there. So much is linked through this concept. O slings and arrows of outrageous fortune!!
But, of course, in the right context random images and free associations can be beautiful, as the ones in "I am the Walrus" are (at least to me). They're made by accident, but they're not necessarily kept by accident. And their certainly not valued by accident (when they are valued). L.
I hear you, but the canonical example of what I was referring to was his famous evisceration of Horace Judson from Time mag in Don't Look Back
Thanks. And yes, that would describe a lot of his work, much of it much more successful that this song to my ear, some even less so. And then there are the more succinct and carefully crafted songs--many of them also pretty great, although in a different way, and some not so great. L.
I don’t blame the Stones for Altamont. The Grateful Dead were the ones who recommended the Hell’s Angels for security. I’m just saying, I don’t blame the Grateful Dead either. I think it was bad acid and the CIA.
Agreed. 100%. I think you just summed up most of the posts in the second half of this thread - the conflict between the people seeing patterns and the people (like myself) who have tried in some fashion or another to suggest that there's little evidence Dylan actually intended what they perceiving.
Thanks, although the point I was mainly trying to make is that the line between what's there and what's not is pretty fuzzy in this case. And I'll add: the fuzziness might be deliberate or it might not be--we don't know--and it may not really matter. L.
...or that those patterns, intended or not, are of any great significance or are expressed in a comely fashion. Or 'close, but no cigar'.
Play the numbers, play the odds Play “Cry Me A River” for the Lord of the gods Play number 9, play number 6 Play it for Lindsey and Stevie Nicks On a more serious note, I'd suggest that "play number 9, play number 6" relates to the line "play the numbers, play the odds" and it refers to placing a split bet in roulette where the 6 and the 9 are next to each other. Split Bet – This is a bet on two numbers that are next to each other on the roulette table
Yes. There may be secondary meaning behind some of the lyrics, but I believe it's more along the lines of simple, easy associations that quickly popped into his head than groundbreaking, earth-shattering revelations that he's been ruminating upon for the last 60 years and is now laying upon all of mankind. He can say "I'm a patsy like Patsy Cline," but I don't think that makes him an oracle. And I think "expressed in a comely fashion" is important, too. In my opinion, if a clunky text is full of deep symbolism, that doesn't elevate it to the level of great art. It may be better than clunky text with no symbolism, but that doesn't negate the fact that it's not well-written.
Yeah, that's particularly awkard - is it just nonsense or is he suggesting that 'they killed her too'?
Every post like this is a gem. But we can agree that writers do often choose generative language patterns - especially in poetry - right? And the finding of patterns isn't so fruitless an effort if the art form sustains it. That IS part of the fun of good art, right? I encourage you to project yourself into the song! Especially if you can come up withe a great nugget like this roulette board. Sweet!
I suggest an interpretation that the narrator - I say the singer/songwriter/Dylan - is the man with the Telepathic mind, who ought to hear Etta James singing I'd Rather Go Blind. Dylan is fascinated by and following all the characters, evoking their thoughts. It's painful! It's another reason for the cliches. They guard against all the overwhelming emotion!
This kinda works for me, but only if all the voices are characters - then it makes some sense for them to be warding off the overwhelming trauma with cliches and their favorites songs, hmm this is an interesting twist.
I think "But his soul was not there where it was supposed to be at, for the last fifty years they've been searching for that" is perhaps the most poorly written couplet in the song. A professional songwriter once told me that you should always strive to have lyrics phrased in the way that people speak. Who speaks like that? (Or should I say, who there speaks that like it's supposed to be?)
and what the heck is he even trying to say here - is it a Jesus risen from the dead allusion, a we haven't had that spirit here since Nov. '63 thing, or a hint that maybe JFK wasn't all that. And if purposefully incoherent, why?
I thought maybe it was supposed to be a reference to his brain going missing after the autopsy??? Who knows.
Hm. That was 64. If it was in England maybe he was in that retro mode, playing songs a year old or so, because he was moving so fast. And then thinking and talking that way. It's a good example but also of my point too, because he is so anarchic there. When he abandoned protest he became skeptical of everything IMO. That's when he became the (...) of his generation or whatever. After that there wre kerfuffles over Self Portrait, slow train and other stuff, because of the heightened expectations of his excellent work. It seemed like his mind was getting smaller. SAme with this: We dont' want to see Bob stroking stuff in society that we think he is beyond. A lot of us spent a few decades thinking it was a conspriacy, and we came out of it, by looking at evidence. What is Bob doing by invoking all these images without an apparent point, after the US has been through all this?
Actually, if there is a more metaphorical meaning, perhaps he's trying to say that Kennedy's soul (i.e., sense of hope, optimism, change, whatever) was not in his body that they killed. They didn't kill Kennedy's spirit when they murdered his body, and they (whoever "they" is) have spent 50 years trying to kill the sense of hope, whatever, that he brought to the nation. Why, I don't know. Just because they're mean, I guess.
Thanks. The 1972 film Eat the Document documents the 1966 tour of course, and that title alone sounds like a paranoid spy thriller. But I hear you!
But you did cite Don't Look Back right? That was 64 and he was playing older songs. I was watching eat the document with someone once on a grainy bootleg and when Dylan starts to riff on the pet store window revolving and mixing up the words on the signs, this person said to me "See, Bob is a genius! See the way he mixes up those words..." It was genius or it was doggerel I suppose.
Oh yeah, I know what you said about Don't Look Back...I was splitting hairs admittedly by sighting that 1965(?) encounter with the reporter. You had said 1962-63, I believe? Not sure I agree that his Time magazine encounter and what he said is due to him playing older songs, though (but perhaps I got that wrong!) Eat the Document is unwatchable for me. I hate to go against my whole thesis, but wasn't he ingesting a s hit ton of speed in 1965-66? Maybe that's why he was so skeptical and/or paranoid!