Bringing it all Back Home is a huge breakup with the listener.
The first half, rollicking, is the demonstration of the new Dylan, the one we wish hadn't come along. The one that really spoiled the whole messiah vibe he had going for him. This was the death of a celebrity with a soul (or what we thought showed a soul). Maybe he we showing us that that image was soulless, and that this was soul, or maybe he was saying it was impossible to ever convey soul through music, and that he wasn't even trying. Or maybe his martyrdom was that he was trying, so we that we wouldn't have to.
And you know what? You can't help but love it. That sharp guitar in Subterranean Homesick Blues, that voice that vibrates to your soul? The harmonica- for what reason, exactly? Coddling? And the didactic lyric, Dylan showing us what he thinks of us, our capability for meaning for existence. "Don't follow leaders, a-watch your parkin' meters." "Twenty years of schoolin' and they put you on the day shift." He's describing an industrial dystopia. And it's awesome.
And now we've got sort of a soundtrack-to-your-mind Dylan song. It's supposed to lead succession of images in the listener's mind (like a lot of his songs), and the music reinforces that mood in an understanding way, a coddling way, that Dylan doesn't often bring out (Just Like a Woman, Like a Rolling Stone). A way that makes us feel good for listening to it, because the universe it creates is sympathetic for the song's existence. Desolation Row was a cab ride. Come on. This is heartbreak! This is transcendence!
So now we get a protest song, and it becomes clear: Dylan is parading out his former selves. We got a "funny-cool-deep" song (Talking World War Three Blues, Motorpsycho Nightmare), an "emotional song with resonance" (Don't think Twice, It's Alright, It ain't Me, Babe), and an "anti-establishment in a biting and funny way" song (I Shall be Free & I Shall be Free no. 10, John Birch Society Paranoid Blues).This is horrible. He knows what we're thinking. The lack of a real "Blowin' in the Wind" type song speaks to Dylan's ability to take the distilled essense of that distinctive quality about the song and dilute it into all his songs, making us get closer to them to feel the same way. Sucking us in.
And here's a horror of a song. For two minutes, this is the most adorable, heartwarming song. Yet it still totally insults the listener: we're the ones "drawing conclusions on the walls" and "talking of situations." We're the pawns holding grudges. He's doting on someone on his level, someone who understands what he says. They're laughing at this song. But then the last verse, he trows that under the bus. It's like he's undercutting everyone under them in order to make her seem great, and then we at least see soul in that, but then he undercuts even her! Is he a solipsist? or what?!
Now here comes the real new Dylan. He shows us that ^ is what he's been doing. "Ain't it hard to stumble and fall into some lagoon." And he "won't hang no picture," or even a frame. He might look like the assassin of soul, of humanity, he says no, I am the Hero of this story. He then goes on to aspouse his virtues.
On the Road Again is Dylan telling us why he has to move on from our town, our reality. We're the ones asking why he doesn't want to live here, with us. Here's what he says: he's in the bed with our women, and our fathers don't like it and wear "Napoleon Bonaparte" masks. He goes on to aspouse the banality of our lives. Can you believe what he put to tape for millions of people to hear? I mean, do you really think his thinking only gets as far as broadcasting to a mass? He's selling music to an atomized crowd. And he knows it.
Bob Dylan's 115th Dream is one of the artist's finest works, in my opinion. It begins with a false take, Dylan solo with guitar, only he can't do it and cracks up. How hilarious, that Dylan should want to do an acoustic song? What the fuck do those people think I am? Dylan doesn't think of the folk genre as something he's expanding; he's exploding it, transcending it. And goodbye to anyone who thinks he telling you anything different that what you are. In this song Dylan brings up the major parts of industrial life: the police, money, etiquette, funeral homes, banks, collateral, Columbus, France, homeless protests, trucks, poverty, hunger, the American Flag, Jesus (a great line about him), irony and humour, absurdity, Moby Dick, cabs, "fab", "advertising Brotherhood," Bowling balls, pay phones, etc. And all the verses are the same! Set up sitiuation, introduce quirk, then in the last four lines blow it all to hell and proffer commentary. The music shows this too, with that "twilight zone" tone toward the end of each verse. He's travelling through our universe, where he used to live, and showing us its riduculousness. He's returning to the cave to show the shadows of our shadow world, what is possible when you realize it's all only a dream.
Mr. Tamborine man is the biggest coddle job on the whole disc. It's the idyllic Dylan, here again. He is arisen! It only took the picking up and flipping of the record. That side was the other, this is the familar, the true. Any number of daulistic metaphors could be made here. But all this is only the background of the songs text. It is the context for his message. Dylan speaks through our voice for the last time here, and our song is directed at him. He is the Tamborine Man. The song is our plea to go with him, to take him with us as he travels on some other mystical plane, and suddenly Dylan is implying that what we just left behind was ourselves, our level. What we can understand. Suddenly it's no longer about anything between Dylan and me. He's saying I can't understand it. I feel he then drops the heavy shit on us.
Gates of Eden is one of the richest songs I've heard. Fuck, man. rich? Class struggle, class struggle. I guess it's got what you'd call soul, but maybe that's just a structure of Class power, too. Whom does not lying serve, anyway? The authorities. Anyway, the plurality of possible derivations of meaning from this song is amazing, a true masterpiece of structuralism, almost a Gordian knot of a song- you know the key is Eden, but what next? And in between, it's all like "this is you. no, this is you. or is this them? or is that them? or those other ones, with the bread crumb sins? huh? me? you? soup?"
Then It's Alright Ma, (I'm only bleeding) is kind of ridiculous. How much more explicit could he be in downright manipulation? Like, it's a fuckin' bandsaw of a song, if you let it be. It's resonated with me to the core. But then you see what it is, image rap. Bam, Bam, Bam. Short story after short story, until it all sort of runs together as a sort of lecture. A slam poetry-rollickin'-beat-masterpiece-transmission of the human soul lecture. Maybe he's saying "these are the basic emotions. learn these, and then we can talk." Except not even really, because he's not going to meet millions of us. We're not all going to be able to make this guy a part of our lives. It's folly, it's idolatry. And this, somehow, is part of the lecture. And it's so in character! But think: where, in the real world, would you see a song like this performed? Nowhere? Someone we'd think was depressed and weird? It's the imposition of an other, or, if the listener's already on his level, or thinks he is, he sees the song as a great list of things to think about. This is how I thought about it for a long time.
Let him spell it out for you: It's All Over Now. That "Baby Blue" kind of softens that blow, doesn't it? This is him saying, alright, I've gotta go now, you only get this from me. Affirmation isn't on this record.
My interpretation is very theoretical, and I wish more music reviews were. Think about it: it's the discourse on the most beloved media transmissions of all time. It can build our consciousness of them, unless we let the media themselves do it. But then, reviews are media, yadayada. But anyway, more personal reviews yeah!!!
I am inspired by the idea that music artists know their music will be heard by the itemized and alienated masses, and write music for each individual listener to relate to in a totally different way. Maybe we show our love the same way (the same dance move, the same quotation and incorporation into our lives), but its origins can be vary multiduniously in each person who views these media. This excites me because I think reaction to media can become an art form in its own right, the next logical step in the semblence of truth in media.
guy debord kicks my complit class's ASS.
we learned about "structuralism" in class today, and how the europeans call what we call structuralism AND what we call post-structuralism structuralism. anyway, here's what guy has to say:
"In order to understand "structuralist" categories, one must keep in mind, as with every historical social science, that the categories express forms as well as conditions of existence. ust as one cannot appraise the value of a man in terms of the conception he has of himself, on cannot appraise- and admire- this particular society by taking as indisputably true the language it speaks to itself; "...we cannot judge such epochs of transformation by their own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must rather be explained in the light of the contradictions of material life..." Structure is the daughter of the present power. Structuralism is the thought guaranteeed by the state which regards the present conditions of spectacular "communication" as an absolute. Its method of studying the code of messages is itself nothing but the product, and the acknowledgement, of a society where communication exists in the form of a casecade of hierarchic signals. Consequently it is not structuralism which serves to prove the transhistorical validity of the society of the spectacle; it is on the contrary the society of the spectacle which serves to prove the cold dream of structuralism."
Snap!
we learned about "structuralism" in class today, and how the europeans call what we call structuralism AND what we call post-structuralism structuralism. anyway, here's what guy has to say:
"In order to understand "structuralist" categories, one must keep in mind, as with every historical social science, that the categories express forms as well as conditions of existence. ust as one cannot appraise the value of a man in terms of the conception he has of himself, on cannot appraise- and admire- this particular society by taking as indisputably true the language it speaks to itself; "...we cannot judge such epochs of transformation by their own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must rather be explained in the light of the contradictions of material life..." Structure is the daughter of the present power. Structuralism is the thought guaranteeed by the state which regards the present conditions of spectacular "communication" as an absolute. Its method of studying the code of messages is itself nothing but the product, and the acknowledgement, of a society where communication exists in the form of a casecade of hierarchic signals. Consequently it is not structuralism which serves to prove the transhistorical validity of the society of the spectacle; it is on the contrary the society of the spectacle which serves to prove the cold dream of structuralism."
Snap!
my biggest problem right now is this:
if:
1) the universe operates dialectically, and
2) everything is meaningless and equivalent,
how does the dialectic proceed? it's all about keeping the good parts of the thesis and antithesis and getting rid of the bad parts, leading to a stronger hypothesis. like in evolution.
eureka!
what i advocate is the circumstantial dialectic. the process of dialectics itself operates dialectically, as does this process, and on and on and on... :D this is great! all is fluid, the structures are fluid, the mechanisms are fluid, to the point that one could almost say there's no dialectic at all. but what of it?
if:
1) the universe operates dialectically, and
2) everything is meaningless and equivalent,
how does the dialectic proceed? it's all about keeping the good parts of the thesis and antithesis and getting rid of the bad parts, leading to a stronger hypothesis. like in evolution.
eureka!
what i advocate is the circumstantial dialectic. the process of dialectics itself operates dialectically, as does this process, and on and on and on... :D this is great! all is fluid, the structures are fluid, the mechanisms are fluid, to the point that one could almost say there's no dialectic at all. but what of it?
a person holds an ice cube, and doesn't want it to melt, though it must.
he blows on it to cool it down, but even his breath is too warm. the process of evaporation, and his knowledge of this interaction, slows the melting some, but all the while he holds it, and his nature destroys the ice cube's.
it starts to hurt. his hand gets cold, his peripheral being is wounded. but how can he let go?
in a while the ice cube is gone, forgotten. its puddle evaporates and can no longer even be consumed.
he blows on it to cool it down, but even his breath is too warm. the process of evaporation, and his knowledge of this interaction, slows the melting some, but all the while he holds it, and his nature destroys the ice cube's.
it starts to hurt. his hand gets cold, his peripheral being is wounded. but how can he let go?
in a while the ice cube is gone, forgotten. its puddle evaporates and can no longer even be consumed.
i think i'm more conscious than my peers and even my professors. when they try to teach me i feel like they're pleading with me not to move beyond them, so they can stay the same and not feel left behind. sentimental nonsense.
today people were talking about there being no biological basis for race. that's idiotic. variations in physical characteristics are indicative of separate evolution and adaptation to different environments. also, physical attributes don't necessarily point to internal characteristics, but who is to say that the "psychology," or inner organic machinery of people from different sects has not also evolved separately?
it's just foolhardy to deny that when people are apart, they evolve differently. this is not to say that what we have in common is not more important; as long as we can breed with other animals, i feel that cannot be the case. we're sort of like the twins, separated at birth, except that all of humanity is just a branch off the same tree that contains all other things. we exist because the dialectical process of the universe has made us this way.
people think: appearances are everything. no facts, only interpretation. anything, though, is in conflict between it's existing and the inevitability of its nonexistence. "truth" does not apply to "there are no facts, only interpretations" because that statement itself is only an interpretation. when we think of expressions of people as just the transmission of what is inside their head to ours, or that as the "ideal" method of interpretation, with the end result being love, the unification of two individuals, whose charm lies in its inexplicability, its inability to be proven.
consciousness of alienation = freedom? maybe. people feel like just because they're talking about ideology, they must be doing it critically. that just saying certain words proves your credibility because "the man" doesn't want you to talk about your dick, or what racism is, or how the superbowl is stupid. but that's just the thing: this mindset makes one's identity a matter of simple social interaction, which is how we want to see everything because that's what gets us through our days. just as bad as talking about mainstream concepts, though, is developing a mainstream alternality, that doesn't want to listen. such subsets of society only serve to recreate the ideological movements of society (the world, the universe, all possible universes) in a transformed and distilled way, a process which is the essence of what domination is all about. people think they can approach "truth," or at least gain knowledge that is "more true" by sitting in a college classroom, when the whole point is to realize and feel that no knowledge is more true than any other knowledge.
heisenberg:
you can know
1) where something is, or
2) what its change is like.
"truth" is the attempt to define #1, and asserts that #2 is part of #1. it privileges the present, in that it defines something's change as the modification of its characteristics. in other words, it says "the dialectic is true" in that it is acknowledged by perceivers as such, and can only be one thing at one time. "truth" serves to define the present through the past, and considers the future to be a distant past.
the dialectic is the attempt to define #2, and asserts that #1 is part of #2. it labels the present meaningless, since what exists at any moment does not exist the next, and something's present characteristics is only a point, dimensionless, on the curve of its history. thus it says "the truth is dialectic" in that what is true changes, etc. "dialectic" serves to define the present through the future, and considers the past to be a traveled past future.
both perspectives deny a contradiction despite the either/or nature of the supposition. realizing their unity in this aspect, however, is a dialectical act. realizing that can then be labeled "truth."
there is no difference between where something is and how it is changing. dialectic truth and the true dialectic, as concepts, are united. they imply a telescopic infinite pro- and regression like the infinite reflections of a mirror, and are equivalent because our idea of the progression of time is arbitrary- why could we not be going back in time? this is the aspect of my thought which i believe transcends humanism, because i assert that the world is not the sum of its appearances.
"the simulacrum is the truth which hides the fact that there is none."
today people were talking about there being no biological basis for race. that's idiotic. variations in physical characteristics are indicative of separate evolution and adaptation to different environments. also, physical attributes don't necessarily point to internal characteristics, but who is to say that the "psychology," or inner organic machinery of people from different sects has not also evolved separately?
it's just foolhardy to deny that when people are apart, they evolve differently. this is not to say that what we have in common is not more important; as long as we can breed with other animals, i feel that cannot be the case. we're sort of like the twins, separated at birth, except that all of humanity is just a branch off the same tree that contains all other things. we exist because the dialectical process of the universe has made us this way.
people think: appearances are everything. no facts, only interpretation. anything, though, is in conflict between it's existing and the inevitability of its nonexistence. "truth" does not apply to "there are no facts, only interpretations" because that statement itself is only an interpretation. when we think of expressions of people as just the transmission of what is inside their head to ours, or that as the "ideal" method of interpretation, with the end result being love, the unification of two individuals, whose charm lies in its inexplicability, its inability to be proven.
consciousness of alienation = freedom? maybe. people feel like just because they're talking about ideology, they must be doing it critically. that just saying certain words proves your credibility because "the man" doesn't want you to talk about your dick, or what racism is, or how the superbowl is stupid. but that's just the thing: this mindset makes one's identity a matter of simple social interaction, which is how we want to see everything because that's what gets us through our days. just as bad as talking about mainstream concepts, though, is developing a mainstream alternality, that doesn't want to listen. such subsets of society only serve to recreate the ideological movements of society (the world, the universe, all possible universes) in a transformed and distilled way, a process which is the essence of what domination is all about. people think they can approach "truth," or at least gain knowledge that is "more true" by sitting in a college classroom, when the whole point is to realize and feel that no knowledge is more true than any other knowledge.
heisenberg:
you can know
1) where something is, or
2) what its change is like.
"truth" is the attempt to define #1, and asserts that #2 is part of #1. it privileges the present, in that it defines something's change as the modification of its characteristics. in other words, it says "the dialectic is true" in that it is acknowledged by perceivers as such, and can only be one thing at one time. "truth" serves to define the present through the past, and considers the future to be a distant past.
the dialectic is the attempt to define #2, and asserts that #1 is part of #2. it labels the present meaningless, since what exists at any moment does not exist the next, and something's present characteristics is only a point, dimensionless, on the curve of its history. thus it says "the truth is dialectic" in that what is true changes, etc. "dialectic" serves to define the present through the future, and considers the past to be a traveled past future.
both perspectives deny a contradiction despite the either/or nature of the supposition. realizing their unity in this aspect, however, is a dialectical act. realizing that can then be labeled "truth."
there is no difference between where something is and how it is changing. dialectic truth and the true dialectic, as concepts, are united. they imply a telescopic infinite pro- and regression like the infinite reflections of a mirror, and are equivalent because our idea of the progression of time is arbitrary- why could we not be going back in time? this is the aspect of my thought which i believe transcends humanism, because i assert that the world is not the sum of its appearances.
"the simulacrum is the truth which hides the fact that there is none."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)