Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Erin C. Callahan's avatar

This is fascinating, Graley! The connections you’ve made are insightful, naturally, and provide a thread of your response to Nina’s question about why this is a major work. Thank you for sharing your thoughts so completely and eloquently.

Nina Goss's avatar

This is remarkable historiography, Graley, and are you not willing to give yourself much of the credit for excavating the materials and constructing the story of Bushes-bones-plutocratic privilege-imperialism-John Trudell and depredation of people and histories. That is a powerful and viable narrative you make, and it helps me think about the philosophy of modern song as exactly the work you do here: that everything about modern American popular song creates the kind of network you illuminate of American culture, American commerce and industry, American ideology, representative or revolutionary individual narratives, the moral and physical violence that America can’t get enough of/away from. Dylan invited you to find this historical network in the songs you discuss, and modern American popular song is uniquely able to generate these networks, and that’s the philosophy? I’m also thinking about your ability to elevate Dylan’s perfectly righteous and informed but also commonplace political critique on “War,” and the fact that reservation road signs like the one in the Trudell photo are not infrequently used as a counterpoint illustration to This Land. By bringing these elements into your narrative, you make them more than the sum of their parts, and I’d say again, give yourself credit for this. (The entry on Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood seemed to point to a shaky and meager version of what you did: He doesn’t read Nina Simone’s version as I always have and other people do, as a particularly existential civil rights anthem, demanding not just visibility and voice, but to be known. The white British Animals did the white British 60s Black music appropriation thing, and enjoyed profit and fame from a pop version of the song miles from Simone’s intimate and challenging reading. Elvis Costello’s record company ignored his wishes and released his version of the song as a single in 1986—his anger at this incident is specifically targeted at the record company’s refusal to see him as something more than a marketable pop-punk crossover. And capping this off is Dylan’s rant against the prison of understanding/misunderstanding that art and artists have to suffer. “Idiot Wind” runs through this cycle of misunderstandings: the song itself, its iterations, and then Dylan’s reading of it. Is this Dylan’s cleverness or my mediocre cleverness?)

Dan Chiasson’s review of the book in NYRB mentions something crucial that needs to be said out loud, and that your celebration of what could be one of Dylan’s aims with the book also speaks to: Chiasson writes that the songs here are “the musical reef that he dynamited, utterly obliterated, using only his voice, his attitude, and his harmonica.” Can we say that the book has a deeply tragic element of genius to it—that the aged Bob Dylan has managed to remove himself from the history he literally ended, single-handedly. He is done, and his book asks us to do all this storytelling work, perhaps putting him in the story too, while he scurries off stage as he always has? Now I’m sad. But I wouldn’t have got here without your essay.

16 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?