In The Dock: Bob Dylan

(If you're wondering what this is all about, click here.)

This week's subject: Bob Dylan

The case for the prosecution (Swiss Toni)

Robert Allen Zimmerman. Bob Dylan. Singer-songwriter, author, musician, poet. His lyrics incorporate politics, literature, social commentary and philosophy. In the course of his 40+ year career he has dabbled in many styles including folk, country, blues, rock, jazz and gospel. He has recorded some of the most famous albums of all time: The Times They Are A’Changing, Highway 61 Revisited, Blonde On Blonde, Blood On The Tracks... blah, blah, blah. Only a fool or a madman would look to prosecute Dylan wouldn’t they? Isn’t he one of the untouchables?

No. I don’t think he is. I’m not going to try to deny that he has been incredibly successful and influential, but I put it to you, the honourable members of The Art Of Noise jury, that Bob Dylan should be sent down.

My case is threefold:

1. He is overrated.

Yes, he has produced some of the greatest and most influential albums of all time. But let’s not beat about the bush: he’s also produced some absolute shit. In fact, I would hazard a guess that he has produced more out-and-out rubbish than many artists have produced records. Out of 31 studio albums and God alone knows how many live albums and bootlegs, how many can you name? Maybe five? There’s precious little evidence of any quality control in there. It’s got worse over time too.

Here’s a man who had a purple patch like few other people in history, but that purple patch was more or less spent by the end of the 1960s. Yes, I know that Blood On The Tracks was produced in 1975, but these gems are now the exception and not the rule. Every album he releases is seized upon by reviewers for evidence that he’s still got it, and once in a while, he proves them right with a diamond like Time Out Of Mind or Modern Times. More often though, he just reminds everyone how brilliant he was, not how brilliant he is now.

2. He’s a relic and a sellout.

Here’s a quiz for you: who said this?

"I don't know anybody who's made a record that sounds decent in the past 20 years, really. You listen to these modern records, they're atrocious, they have sound all over them. There's no definition of nothing, no vocal, no nothing, just like ... static ... CDs are small. There's no stature to it."

That’s right. Bob Dylan. Everything was better in the 1960s, right Bob? You do realise that includes you, right? Have you heard yourself singing recently? This is the same Bob Dylan, incidentally, who has licensed Starbucks to sell his CDs. Way to stick it to the Man, Bob. He once exclusively licensed a compilation album to Victoria’s Secret. He also appeared in an advert of theirs, but I suppose you can’t blame the old goat for that, can you?

3. The Never Ending Tour.

Dylan is famed for his hard touring, and he’s been playing more than 100 dates per year for the last twenty years. That’s a pretty amazing achievement for a man old enough for a bus pass ... but have you heard him performing recently? His voice is absolutely shot and he seems hell-bent on either refusing to play his most famous songs, or in reworking them until they are unrecognisable. Why exactly does he think that people go to see him? Why does he book out the biggest arenas and set the ticket prices at well over £50?

I saw him at the Docklands Arena when he was touring Time Out Of Mind - a good album. I was looking forward to the gig and put aside the ridiculous ticket prices and the godawful venue for a chance to see a real genius. He was fucking awful. Every single song he played was unrecognisable and set to a funereal dirge. I actually found myself hoping he didn’t play any of the really good stuff because he was sure to ruin it. He was so bad that I actually fell asleep. I’ve been to hundreds of concerts, and some of them have been dreadful, but I’ve never actually fallen asleep before. The great man clearly did not give a rat’s arse about the ten thousand people who had come to see him and had paid through the nose to do so. It was unforgiveable. He was a brilliant, brilliant artist, but for that gig alone he wanted hanging, drawing and quartering.

Remember him as he was. Vote guilty.

The case for the defence (James)

Let me get this out of the way: I am surprised to find myself in this position. Defending Dylan is a little like defending like defending God, but easier – after all, I have seen Dylan. Not in the flesh, but on TV... and that is more than can be said for God. But looking at the body of work that Dylan has produced seems to me to put him way beyond prosecution. Just looking at his output between ’63 and ’66 is like looking at the apple that inspired Newton. Nothing was ever the same again, and while it would be rash to say that nothing has ever come along since which is comparable in importance, those LPs are clearly remarkable, if only for the impact that they had.

Even if we take the imaginary step of ignoring his mid ‘60s output; he is still a behemoth of staggering proportion. Blood On The Tracks and Desire validate his entire output single-handedly. The same can be said for the single track, ‘Not Dark Yet’ from 1997’s Time Out Of Mind which confirmed Dylan’s renewed importance and has continued until last year’s Modern Times.

In the spirit of the proverb, the best defence is offence, then, I am going to try to address possible reasons for wanting to prosecute Dylan.

1. "I just don’t like Dylan".

Fine. No-one is telling you that you have to like him, but this is not a reason to prosecute. The impact that he has had on musical history is more than enough – changing the face of the folk movement on both sides of the Atlantic, his contributions to new genres (folk-rock, country-rock), his impact on lyricism, his impact on numerous other bands – including The Beatles, who subsequently influenced others.

2. "His lyrics are meaningless and obscure".

Maybe some of them are, but so what? His lyrical style has shifted according to his purposes at that given moment. ‘The Times They Are a Changin’’ is not obscure and neither is ‘Hurricane’, along with countless other songs. I do not personally agree that his lyrics are so meaningless. They are sometimes difficult, even impenetrable, but they are not necessarily intended to be straightforward and accessible – and this is not the same as meaningless.

3. "He is just sooo over-rated".

Again, so what? I think it quite hard to over-rate someone so influential, but let’s play ball... Where does it say that you have to match the rating that you are given by critics? I don’t think Dylan has performed for the adulation of the critics for an awfully long time. It seems fair to say that Dylan has released some very good LPs over the years (if you disagree, see point one). Now, assuming that they were rated higher by the critics than they deserve – whose fault is that? Dylan’s? Is it fair to prosecute an artist because the critics are over-exuberant in their praise?

4. "He has proved inconsistent, having some serious lulls in quality".

So did Johnny Cash, but no-one was putting up a gallows for him. Having a lull is no crime in itself. Most artists that have been performing for nigh on fifty years will have a lull at some point. The fact that he has come back from them is far more important.

5. "He has a whiny voice".

Have we all become voice fascists now? Who are you? Simon Cowell...?

Besides, see point one again...

6. "He is a big phoney".

So was Salvador Dali; but he painted pretty pictures, so what do I care? Al Pacino never carries a gun when he walks around his house at home, or snorts mountains of cocaine while speaking in a Cuban accent. I hear that Kylie hardly ever sunbathes surrounded by beautiful people who move in unison. Nick Cave laughs himself stupid at Peanuts strips. He is an artist, and if he wants to project a persona in his music or on stage, who am I to complain? And if he is evasive when interviewed or difficult, fair play to him. I would be a little awkward if someone tried to psycho-analyse my every move too. Besides, where is the rule that says that you have to be sincere if you are a musician? And anyway, I am reliably informed that is his terribly sincere in his autobiography.

7. "I am a crazy person with an axe. I want to prosecute Bob Dylan".

Fair enough. You win.

* * * * *

Thanks to Swiss Toni and James. Now it's over to you. Guilty or innocent - YOU decide. The comments box is open and awaiting your comments - you've got until Friday to make up your mind...

Update: over on Troubled Diva, Mike has offered his advice to someone whose partner is suffering from "a rather nasty outbreak of Dylan Worship". I think his vote would definitely be for the prosecution, but it hasn't yet been cast - hurry up Mike, if you want to make tomorrow's deadline!