Subject: Marcus's contention in Invisible Republic
From: BREAZEAL@ukcc.uky.edu
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 97 15:11:44 EDT

Peter K. Anagnostos (peterka@en.com) writes:

Is Griel Marcus correct in contending in the Invisible Republic that Dylan's being booed in Newport, England and elsewhere in 1965 was related to his selling out the folk/civil rights movement by turning the attention on himself versus the collective good?

I have not read "Invisible Republic" and am familiar with the "thesis" cited only from the post itself.

As a very interested bystander of the events of that time (I was born in 1945 and was very seriously into Dylan -- and into both "traditional" and commercial folk music of that period -- prior to the "events at Newport" '65). I was not there. My memory of it is thus really a memory of the reaction to news of it on the part of the larger "folk community."

In order to understand the reaction of that community to Dylan's Surprise, it might help to remember that one of the ways members of the "folk community" of that period (-- most of them anyway; there were always exceptions --) DEFINED themselves was by what they rejected. (This, of course, has no application to current admirers of BD and contributers to and readers of r.m.d. ;-).)

Anyway, one of the things they -- we -- rejected was popular/commerical music in general and a.m. radio rock (the only kind of rock there was in the late 50s and early 60s). This rejection was both aesthetic, policial, and (counter-) cultural. And it was widespread in the community we are talking about, the "folk community" of the late 50's and early 60's, a community that had its own "crossovers" such as the Kingston Trio, Limelighters, etc., its own hard-care exponents of "authentic" songs and performance style (New Lost City Ramblers, Ewan Macoll [sp?] -- there were even some authentically authentic stars in this little firmament: Doc Watson, Jean Ritchie, Mance Lipscomb, John Lee Hooker, Elizabeth Cotten, etc. It also had its political/songwriter wing, which included figures such as Woody Guthrie, Malvania Reynolds, Ledbelly, as well as the first commercially successful "folk group" of the post-war period: The Weavers. This committed wing was well and widely respected within the entire folk community and served to set the political tone of the latter. Even the most non-militant "folkies" of that period, even if their favorite groups were such pure-pop ensembles as The New Christy Minstrels or The Brothers Four, were likely to profess a vagely "leftist" politics.

But to get back to rock and roll: It was definitely not cool to continue one's interest in Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry when one started learning how to pick "Greensleeves" and memorizing all the verses to the "The Great Historical Bum." I know, I know. There are lots of exceptions. But when I stopped listening to all those beloved '45s I was certainly not alone. One index of the antipathy between the folk music audience and the pop/rock one is the popularity among the folkies of various ways of putting down pop music and flauting one's own superior taste and Values. (Again, another relic the '50's which would surely have no contemporary parallel ;-).)

A good example of this was Peter Paul and Mary's hugely popular parody of early 50's rock and roll and doo woop songs. I can't think of the name of the songs at the moment, but this was a regular and very warmly received feature of their arena-filling live shows for years. (Check out the version of it on their "In Concert" lp.)

It was thus expected that if you were really into folk music you were both a leftist and, with respect to most forms of pop music, a snob. And even within the larger folk community, there were further divisions along these same lines: between those willing to "sell out" or "go commercial" and thus who insisted upon the virtues of purity and (for the most part) poverty.

(You can hear an echo of this in the sneer in young Bobby Dylan's voice when he says "That's where all the folk songs are written these days, up in tin pan alley." -- Just as you can also hear on that same song evidence of how far this same guy was ahead of his own curve, when he skewers the club manager who complains "you sound like a hillbilly, we want folk singers here." An early prototype for Mr. Jones.)

You need to know all of this to appreciate the response on the part of those of us who identified ourselves with "folk music" (and it, of course, with us) to understand the generally hostile response of that group to the News from Newport. (I am not, please note, making any claims about how the actual audience may have responded to Bob and the Butterfield Blues Band.) Turning his back on socially engaged songs (i.e., becoming less "left") and making rock and roll records (i.e., going over to the devil) was certainly a double shot, and one which few of us welcomed. And he did it, moreover, on "our" home ground, on our most sacred turf: the hallowed Newport Folk Festival!

Fortunately, of course, this "folk communinity" was hardly representative, and there were plenty of "them" -- and eventually, I think, most of "us" -- who were properly blown-away and enraptured by the new sound. And soon!

So, yes, Peter, I think the thesis you ascribe to Marcus is correct.

Now, kiddies, let me tell you about the time that Dylan was "born again"....

Just kidding,

Thanks for your patience,

DanB

Subject: Marcus's contention in Invisible Republic
From: nates@ll.mit.edu (nate)
Date: 10 Jun 1997 20:52:37 GMT

i too was amongst the snobby purists. heh, learned greensleeves. indeed i would have booed. somehow i saw the year before and the year after but not the event in 65. by 66 the lovin spoonful took the folk festival by storm and were heartily cheered by the multitudes standing on their folding chairs to see "summer in the city".

in 64 it was sitting around in a circle in front of pete telling folk stories.....

even before the Festival there was already grumbling about Bob. it seemed that the, uh, folk movement was disenchanted already. he was portrayed as a snotty little kid who was rude. It Aint Me, Babe was a case in point - the purists were quick to dislike it. All I Really Want To Do? no, they didnt want to be friends. a very definite sense of betrayal. what ever did they expect him to do for them?

all in all, a time of naivete. including me.

- nate

Subject: Marcus's contention in Invisible Republic
From: Peter Stone Brown (peterb@erols.com)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 05:01:16 -0400

Dan B's above account on what it was like to be into and involved in folk music during this period is entirely accurate. (Luckily, the Beatles came along and with several other people helped to open things up.) But Dylan was already under critical attack from the folk community, most notably Irwin Silber (then editor of Sing Out! Magazine) for changing what he wrote about from political to personal. This was months before he went electric or anyone knew he was going to go electric, though the rock to come was certainly hinted at several times in Another Side of Bob Dylan.

--
"I was just too stubborn to ever be governed
by enforced insanity." --Bob Dylan

Peter Stone Brown

Subject: Marcus's contention in Invisible Republic
From: "Marty Traynor" (mtraynor@execpc.com)
Date: 11 Jun 1997 02:46:50 GMT

DanB wrote a very eloquent analysis of the feelings among folk purists at the time Dylan went electric. I agree 100% with his conclusion. At the time I was laboring at college in the other city of 7 hills, Syracuse, NY. There was a definite "us vs. them (and we're better than they are)" feeling among the insiders, and Dylan was regarded as a misguided genius by some and as an opportunist by others. His popularity was a negative. I remember hearing about Newport from an upperclassman who said Dylan was through as a relevant singer. By and by I bought a copy of Highway 61 and played Ballad of a Thin Man real loud whenever he walked past.

Been playing it too loudly ever since. Never one regret.

Marty

Subject: Marcus's contention in Invisible Republic
From: sadiejane@nospam.folly.org (sadiejane)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 00:10:54 -0500

wow. what a great thread.

In '94 I saw a show up at Umass Amherst with some friends whose last show had been at the Harvard Square theater during the Rolling Thunder Tour. They didn't really enjoy the show - their principal comment being that they liked it just fine when he played acoustically but really couldn't stand the electric sets (soooo loud!).

I find it a constant source of amusement that Dylan is still so strongly associated with the folk movement - that so many fans still complain of his going electric...and wrinkle their noses in distaste when they see the fender strat....when in fact....when you look at his career's span - he was strictly acoustic for just a brief time.

I think his early career is very much like that of Jimmie Rodgers (from what I've read)- in that he jumped on the bandwagon of a genre of music that was on the rise (trad/folk revival) and rode it until he could position himself to be able to do what he really wanted to do - original material which synthesized many styles of music. I'm not implying that he did this conciously (though maybe he did) but that by instinct he knew when to move and where. That he came back in the '90's to do two acoustic folk/blues albums does speak to the strength of his early connections to that music. That he never left it entirely.

xx
sadie

Subject: Marcus's contention in Invisible Republic
From: Matthew Zuckerman (zook@globalnet.co.uk)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 10:05:49 +0000

In his excellent posting, DanB (BREAZEAL@UKCC.UKY.EDU) says:

there were even some authentically authentic stars in this little firmament: Doc Watson, Jean Ritchie, Mance Lipscomb, John Lee Hooker, Elizabeth Cotten, etc.

The irony here is that John Lee Hooker had been playing electric guitar for years, and while he quite often played alone, he was happy to play with a full band, and rocking the house down was certainly one of his main imperatives. When he was adopted by the folk community, he quickly put the electric guitar away and fostered a more down-home approach. (Lightnin' Hopkins and Muddy Waters did the same.) I spoke with James Cotton (no relation to Elizabeth Cotten) a few years ago, and he recalled how surprised he was to see John Lee walking through the crowds at Newport with an acoustic guitar slung over his shoulder. "I'd never seen him with one of those before," he chuckled. "He was having a gas."

Matthew

Subject: Marcus's contention in Invisible Republic
From: sadiejane@nospam.folly.org (sadiejane)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 09:29:54 -0500

Seth Rogovoy rogovoy@berkshire.net wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, sadiejane wrote:

> I think his early career is very much like that of Jimmie Rodgers (from
> what I've read)- in that he jumped on the bandwagon of a genre of music
> that was on the rise (trad/folk revival) and rode it until he could
> position himself to be able to do what he really wanted to do - original
> material which synthesized many styles of music.  I'm not implying that he
> did this conciously (though maybe he did) but that by instinct he knew when

While i think you're probably right, one COULD make a case for the opposite, the strong evidence being Mixed UP COnfusion and Jet Pilot. (Meaning that from the outset he planned on a folk-rock synthesis.)

After reading Guralnick's Last Train To Memphis, bout the king, I was struck by how much the industry had changed since the early 50s. When Dylan was a kid - the way to be a big star was not to write songs, but perform songs others had written. And this went on really until Dylan and the Beatles changed it all in the mid 60's (I'm not a rock historian so please feel free to correct me!). I think Dylan always had BIG ambitions - when he stumbled into the very hip folk scene in NY in the early 60's I do think he knew what he was doing. He adopted a number of personas (changing his story as he went along) and morphed into a mini-folk-hero-legend. I've also read how he was taken up and helped along by Joan Baez - who was HUGE at the time. She brought him along to shows and got him in front of her large audiences. And perhaps one could say he returned the favor during the Rolling Thunder Tour....

I tend to think that bob did intend to work in a more rock idiom from the start - but that when he started in the late 50's early 60's the rock scene was very limiting and closed. He couldn't be another Elvis, rising from obscurity to glory in a matter of months - no one could anymore by that point. It was all about formulas and investments and sure things. The folk scene was a much more happening scene - originality was more of a premium there - and so that's where he went. And then busted open the rock genre - as did many others along with him.

Things are sort of closed again now in the biz - I wonder what will come along to change it?

xx
sadie

Delia ain't dead, shes at W of Rmd U.

Subject: Marcus's contention in Invisible Republic
From: catherine yronwode (cat@luckymojo.com)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 13:06:31 -0800

I am enjoying this thread immensely, and as a child of leftists, born in 1947 and raised on Folkways albums, i agree with all that was said about the varied strains of folk music during the late 1950s and early 1960s, and about the interplay between the "authentic" and "commercial" camps. In 1965, i was NOT among those who were disturbed by Dylan's reversion to the rock and roll of his youth, however, because i was collecting rare/obscure rhythm and blues and country ("hillbilly") 45 rpm records at the same time that i was trying to decipher the lyrics to Robert Johnson's songs and taking guitar lessons from Malvina Reynolds. And this brings me to what

sadiejane wrote:

After reading Guralnick's Last Train To Memphis, bout the king, I was struck by how much the industry had changed since the early 50s. When Dylan was a kid - the way to be a big star was not to write songs, but perform songs others had written. And this went on really until Dylan andc the Beatles changed it all in the mid 60's (I'm not a rock historian so please feel free to correct me!).

I know that it is fashionable among current writers to simplify the past by stating that The Beatles and Bob Dylan were the first giants among rock singer-songwriters, but such is not the case. John Lennon and Bob Dylan (and Phil Ochs and Don MacLean too) have all at times mentioned who their Stratocasting inspiration was: Buddy Holly -- or rather the phantasm one could call "Buddy-Holly-had-he-lived-and-become-as-popular-as-Elvis."

Ochs approached this very directly in his Elvis/Buddy tribute album: he WANTED to be like Elvis -- sexually charismatic in a contemporarily masculine way, with a powerful body and a big, full baritone voice -- but he knew that he WAS like Buddy Holly -- sexually charismatic, but only in a bohemian-intellectual way, with a slender body, weak eyesight, and a thin, delicate tenor-baritone voice. Listen to that album and you will understand what i mean.

Holly's tragic death added something deeply instrospective to the work of the young men who deliberately followed in his footsteps, those who consciously (and self-consciously) sought to straddle the line between being nerdy, near-sighted songwriter-poets and lusty, animally-magnetic rock stars. You can hear it in the early works of Lennon, Ochs, MacLean, and Dylan -- and if you go back to the source, you can hear it very clearly, almost presciently, in Holly's quirky, imperfect home-taped practice sessions, made before he got a recording contract, where he alternates between trying to create note-perfect covers of Elvis songs and developing his own nascent talents as a singer-poet.

I am not bringing up Buddy Holly in an attempt to discount the influence that the leftst folk music movement had on Dylan, but rather in an attempt to note that the opposite pole to the folk influence was not Elvis-the-King -- it was Buddy-Holly-as-a-singer-songwriter-attempting-to-become-Elvis-the-King.

catherine yronwode