Bob Dylan Wins Nobel Prize for Literature!

[Karl Henning]

Without wishing to seem to denigrate the musical part of the equation, Dylan has always seemed to me a prima le parole kind of dude;  so partly for that reason, the prize does not seem to me any kind of malfeasance.

[North Star]

Good point.  Maybe the Swedish definition of "literature" would include lyrics.  Any Swedes out there who can enlighten us?

Lyric poetry is literature in any reasonable definition of the words.

[James]

I know I'm fighting a lost battle here, but this prize for me represents yet more proof of the irruption of the "Podemos" way of thinking into the cultural establishment, the equation of "popular" (and let us not fool ourselves, "mass") products with "high art".

Les Miz is now the equal of Wozzeck, Prince stands on an equal footing with Elliott Carter, and Bob Dylan is as much a poet as John Ashbery. And I am not referring to the intrinsic values (or lack thereof) of Mr. Dylan's output.

O tempora, o mores...

That's been happening for awhile now. The committee's choice seems like a political move more than all else, especially considering the current US political situation. I mean this is all they could come up with within the world of literature? An American 1960s counterculture figure who's been irrelevant for about 35-40 years now. He still performs too, but it's a parody of himself, totally unintelligible.

[Ken B]

I know I'm fighting a lost battle here, but this prize for me represents yet more proof of the irruption of the "Podemos" way of thinking into the cultural establishment, the equation of "popular" (and let us not fool ourselves, "mass") products with "high art".

Les Miz is now the equal of Wozzeck, Prince stands on an equal footing with Elliott Carter, and Bob Dylan is as much a poet as John Ashbery. And I am not referring to the intrinsic values (or lack thereof) of Mr. Dylan's output.

O tempora, o mores...

There are worse things than being on the right side of a losing battle.

[zamyrabyrd]

My take on it is he never really grew out of counter-culture.
That to me is a weakness.

[San Antone]

Oddly enough, I can´t remember the last time when one of the Dylan enthusiasts here posted about it in the "What are you currently reading?" thread, here or on the old GMG.

That's not odd.  I have the earlier edition (up to 1985) and read from it just today.  It may be hard to believe but I and I am sure most do not post every book they read.

[San Antone]

I know I'm fighting a lost battle here, but this prize for me represents yet more proof of the irruption of the "Podemos" way of thinking into the cultural establishment, the equation of "popular" (and let us not fool ourselves, "mass") products with "high art".

Les Miz is now the equal of Wozzeck, Prince stands on an equal footing with Elliott Carter, and Bob Dylan is as much a poet as John Ashbery. And I am not referring to the intrinsic values (or lack thereof) of Mr. Dylan's output.

O tempora, o mores...

You are fighting a losing battle with me, since Bob Dylan's work is more important to me than anything written by John Ashbery (not to pick on him since I could substitute the names of many other living poets - and lest you think I don't know the work of many living poets, ask my wife about the bookcase full of books she wants wonders why I have).   

However, I would not equate just any popular artist, e.g. Prince, with someone of the talent of Bob Dylan, or Stephen King with William Faulkner (another winner).  For me, Bob Dylan is unique among popular musicians.  He has been very successful and has written songs, mainly because of the lyrics at a very high artistic level. And I would go on to say that his has been an important and meaningful voice for generations of people, throughout the world. 

Take heart: It is this year's prize, next year's selection will be different author, one you may like and, chances are, someone I've never heard of.

[Karl Henning]

My take on it is he never really grew out of counter-culture.
That to me is a weakness.

May well be.

Of course, some world-class artists do possess weaknesses. Wagner and Boulez spring to mind.

[Karl Henning]

He still performs too, but it's a parody of himself, totally unintelligible.

Exquisite irony.

[San Antone]

My take on it is he never really grew out of counter-culture.
That to me is a weakness.

Bob Dylan's late career has been nothing short of remarkable.  I wrote an article about it earlier this year - he has done much more than continue touring and releasing albums.  Growth is exactly what he has done.

bob-dylans-amazing-multimedia-late-career-work

[SimonNZ]

^That's a really good overview of his later career. Thanks for sharing it.

He still performs too, but it's a parody of himself, totally unintelligible.

fwiw: I saw him live here two years ago and it was a superb show, a carefully chosen standard setlist he'd been polishing with his band over the last year or so, heavy on the later material, especially from the recent Tempest. Even the people who hadn't purchased one of his albums since the seventies and wanted just an oldies greatest hits show ended up being knocked out - especially, I noted at the time, by "Forgetful Heart", and also by a pounding "Early Roman Kings" and the perfect concert closer "Long And Wasted Years". Admittedly it helped that he was in much better voice than he was when he recorded Tempest, which was a bit of a shock even for someone who knows his work well.

[San Antone]

^That's a really good overview of his later career. Thanks for sharing it.

fwiw: I saw him live here two years ago and it was a superb show, a carefully chosen standard setlist he'd been polishing with his band over the last year or so, heavy on the later material, especially from the recent Tempest. Even the people who hadn't purchased one of his albums since the seventies and wanted a greatest hits show ended up being knocked out - especially, I noted at the time, by "Forgetful Heart".

Thanks.   

[zamyrabyrd]

May well be. Of course, some world-class artists do possess weaknesses. Wagner and Boulez spring to mind.

I didn't mean that. I meant the message. I could be wrong though, as I don't know all his works.

[SimonNZ]

My take on it is he never really grew out of counter-culture.
That to me is a weakness.

What? He hated the "counter-culture", rightly or wrongly,  and actively tried to distance himself from it in all sorts of ways.

Far from "never growing out of it", his post-sixties work shows no evidence of it at all.

All your post tells me is that you're largely unfamiliar with his work.

[Florestan]

Of course, some world-class artists do possess weaknesses. Wagner and Boulez spring to mind.

interestingly enough, Karl, it's two great musicians that sprang to mind, not two great writers. Nobody denied, though, --- not I, at least ---, that Bob Dylan belongs to the former group; it's to placing him in the latter that objections have been raised.

[Florestan]

Bob Dylan's late career has been nothing short of remarkable.  I wrote an article about it earlier this year - he has done much more than continue touring and releasing albums.  Growth is exactly what he has done.

bob-dylans-amazing-multimedia-late-career-work

In your own words:

The original Dylanological sin is to focus too much on the words, and too little on the sound: to treat Dylan like he's a poet, a writer of verse, when of course he's a musician—a songwriter and, supremely, a singer.

Looks like the members of the Nobel literary committee need urgent and sincere repentance for their sins

[Karl Henning]

interestingly enough, Karl, it's two great musicians that sprang to mind, not two great writers.

Well, I am a musician, so musicians sprang to mind.  (That is my guess.)

[San Antone]

In your own words:

Looks like the members of the Nobel literary committee need urgent and sincere repentance for their sins

First of all, thanks for reading the article.   

Secondly, yes, his words have been what most people have considered remarkable, because, well they are.  His skills as a musician and especially his singing have often been denigrated - unfairly in my opinion.  If more people knew the depth and breadth of his knowledge of all kinds of music, but especially roots music, I think they would be surprised.  His over 300 hours of radio programming would be good place a start.  Reading his autobiography was an eye-opening experience.  His prose writing was surprisingly good, but then there were the passages when he described his enjoyment of listening to jazz in the Village; Monk, and others.

But if I had to say why he was chosen as this year's Nobel Laureate for Literature - it would be for the body of work: great lyrics set to well delivered roots music.  Dylan is very unique artist, easy to dismiss from a superficial exposure, but if you were to ever study his work with any kind of commitment you will quickly learn how unique his is, and why this prize makes sense.

[Florestan]

First of all, thanks for reading the article.   

It was my pleasure. As I told you before, I like your reviews more than those of many a professional critics.

[André]

I'm a 'class of 56' boomer and, not being American, have never listened to a Dylan song. For the life of me, I couln't even name one of his songs. Except - I realized this week, "Lay, Lady Lay", which my older brother used to like inordinately. But I remember the tune only, none of the lyrics. At age 12  (1968) I was into classics and never listened to pop or rock music.

Over the decades I have come to understand - through the grapevine almost - that Dylan was a lasting influence on the american folk/ballad genre and a major contributor to modern day popular (as in: "for the people, by the people and of the people") thinking. 3 years ago (that was in 2013), a colleague of mine pointed my attention to the work of Leonard Cohen (his songs of course, by which he meant mostly the lyrics). Cohen is a Canadian and, I learned then, a fellow Montrealer. Never heard his name before. He is considered a major artist and I now understand why.

When it comes to literature, some consider only what can be read. When the Greeks or the Romans wrote their plays or poetry, it was not so. Theatre was meant to be seen (even if in very static acting) and heard. Shakespeare's or Molière's works were meant to be presented in that way too. Reading a play, a comedy, a tragedy, really ?  And yet, poets and playwrights have received the Nobel Prize.

In France and throughout francophony, poetry reading evenings are frequent and well attended. This is literature, but it is not read. It's all about the power of words. Whether they come to the brain through the eyes, the fingers (for Braille readers), the ears or a combination of these means, what is the difference ?

If the words are enhanced by any kind of musical means, so be it. As long as both (words and music) are from the same pen, then I consider the result to be both literature and music. Why should there be a caesure between the two arts ? Come to think of it, had the Nobel Literature Prize been awarded in the 1870s, maybe Richard Wagner would have received it ? So, who do you think has contributed the most to literature : Bob Dylan or Richard Wagner ?

OK, that was just a joke, no need to jump barricades  . The point is that literature is about words. If the written words are meant to be communicated through music, or through scenery and spoken parts (plays), what is the problem ?




Truth to te