Andrew Ferguson of The Weekly Standard takes a run at Bob Dylan and his fans here, on the occasion of the singer’s recently-released Christmas album. He calls us fans, “the battered wives of the music industry,” and, in an even more vivid image, compares us to “Baby Huey dolls, those inflatable figures with the big red nose and the rounded bottom, weighted so that when you punch them — punch hard, punch with all your might — they bounce right back, grinning the same frozen, unchangeable grin.” This because Dylan allegedly holds his fans in such contempt and will not hesitate to dump the most awful recordings and live performances on them.
Ferguson is a facile writer with a knack for the biting dig. He certainly lands a few solid blows, and the many detesters of Dylan will undoubtedly be heartened by all his invective.
I can do no better in response to this than Sean Curnyn of Right Wing Bob. I would put heavy emphasis on the particularly unfortunate fact that Ferguson chose this album — all the royalties of which, you may recall, Dylan has announced will be given to hunger-related charities — to run the singer down for cupidity. It is also peculiar that he arraigns the man for publishing his songs “under the auspices of the particularly ruthless copyright enforcer BMI,” without ever taking a moment to notice the many Dylan tunes that have been adapted and released very successfully by other musicians. To adduce just a couple examples: Jimi Hendrix, U2 and Dave Matthews Band have all released acclaimed versions of “All Along the Watchtower”; Johnny Cash and June Carter recorded a rendition of “It Ain’t Me Babe” that may well be more famous than Dylan’s original; and the Grateful Dead frequently played covers of Dylan tunes, often hilariously botching the complicated lyrics. A friend of mine who has seen countless Grateful Dead shows says there were times when the listener could be forgiven for thinking he mistakenly wandered into the wrong concert.
One thing we can be sure of: people will continue to love and hate Bob Dylan.
Comments (11)
Trying to lure Frank over for the weekend, I see. :-)
Posted by Beth Impson | November 21, 2009 12:31 PM
Andrew Ferguson is a thin man.
Posted by Francis Beckwith | November 21, 2009 2:12 PM
I had considered pointing this article out to you (I read it a couple weeks ago in print), but didn't want to tarnish your illusions - or ruin your Christmas.
When you say, "It is also peculiar that he arraigns the man for publishing his songs 'under the auspices of the particularly ruthless copyright enforcer BMI...'", then go on to point out "the many Dylan tunes that have been adapted and released very successfully by other musicians," you lose Ferguson's point, which is much more serious:
Multiple instances of plagiarism, for example, have been hinted at, then proved, then waved away with lit-crit clichés...without apology he cashes the royalty checks from songs that depend on lyrics that aren't his and melodies he didn't write...To cite the most lucrative instance, Dylan copied the tune of "Blowin' in the Wind" from an old spiritual called "No More Auction Block"...But Bob filed ownership rights over the melody, and it has been a favorite of elevator-music programmers for nearly half a century. He has a big house in Malibu to show for it, with ocean views. No telling what the real tunewriter got for thinking it up.
Posted by William Luse | November 21, 2009 5:09 PM
to William L.: You pass on this nasty accusation about a fellow human being - then give one rather lame example - by the way, the example you chose is a legal practice that has been widespread in the music industry since copyrights became law- when a tune is in public domain [because the author is anonymous, dead and/or beyond the seventy five year copyright limitation, usually all three] the modern artist who records a unique version of the tune then copyrights it under his/her name otherwise the artist would get no remuneration for it...
but bearing false witness seems to be A-okay on the web and in our sound bite culture - thanks for illustrating so perfectly "What's Wrong with the World" - I'll be washing out the taste of that one for a while...lol....Merry Christmas...
Posted by Melinda | November 22, 2009 4:37 AM
Yes, it is a nasty accusation. It may even be a false accusation. I pointed it out because Paul didn't. You can take your false witness and shove it where your Merry Christmas don't shine. I will agree that Dylan is "a fellow human being."
Posted by William Luse | November 22, 2009 5:07 AM
William Luse,
You repeated the accusation, labeled it a serious point, and gave no acknowledgment that the accusation might be false. Repeating such accusations without basis raises the issue of bearing false witness, as Melinda appropriately noted. All your reply to Melinda proves is that you are not only dishonest, but incapable of civilized discourse.
Posted by Fitz | November 22, 2009 9:07 PM
Oh, come, Fitz & co. Perhaps some of what Ferguson said there was one of the "solid blows" Paul had in mind in the main post. I wouldn't know. I'm as ignorant about Bob Dylan as it is possible to be. But all Bill Luse was doing was pointing out that the writer's _accusation_ against Dylan is more serious than the _discussion_ in the main post might be taken to indicate. He merely was indicating an interest in seeing the serious nature of the accusation acknowledged, given that if it is true, it deserves to be known. That's it. I don't see him at all implying that it is true, and if there were any question of his implying that, he clarified it in his last comment. He said it is indeed nasty and might be false.
People have this thing about "bearing false witness." Let's use the phrase more sparingly. If someone is "bearing false witness" here, I assume it would be Ferguson. Bill was merely making a rhetorical and argumentative point that something potentially important had not been noticed.
Chill, Fitz et. al.
Posted by Lydia | November 22, 2009 9:51 PM
These Dylan fans are hardcore. I wonder if Rodak's gnashing his teeth against the cyber fence about now.
Posted by William Luse | November 22, 2009 10:12 PM
Curnyn addresses the plagiarism point quite thoughtfully in his response to Ferguson. Here is a portion of his argument:
I think this is an intelligent dilation on the subject. Curnyn's command of Dylan's full body of work, as well as all the literature surrounding it, exceeds what mine will ever be (I love Dylan, but I ain't gonna spend a lot of time digging through the tomes that aging hippies have written about him); so in a word, I'm probably not qualified to evaluate this. But then again, judging by his brisk and snarky approach, neither is Ferguson.
Posted by Paul J Cella | November 23, 2009 9:33 AM
I can't imagine having a "command of Dylan's full body of work".
neither is Ferguson.
If Ferguson thinks there's anything to the plagiarism charge, he should have offered more evidence than the copyrighting of one tune. It's not the kind of accusation one ought to hurl in passing.
Posted by William Luse | November 23, 2009 1:56 PM
To my ear the tune of Auction Block is hardly identical to that of Blowin in the Wind, though there's definitely a resemblance, in some versions more than others. I don't know that it would suffice to establish copyright infringement in court.
I wrote about Ferguson's Dylan piece a few weeks ago:
http://www.lightondarkwater.com/blog/2009/11/mostly-wrong-but-partly-right-view-of.html
Posted by Maclin Horton | November 23, 2009 3:17 PM