Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
It's not just a deadhead point of view at all. Audrey points out that Bob
did an interview where he specifcally says GD had a great impact on him.
Obviously, the impact that Bob had on the Dead was tremendous. I seem to
recall that Phil Lesh got turned on to rock and roll after listening to
Dylan one afternoon on a portable radio in his mail route truck (and the
rest is history, as they say).

Yes, nice to see your name again Jon!

Petty/Dylan was before the Dead/Dylan tour. About a year or so.
  

    
As Jon said, the influences cut both ways, and I imagine Dylan must've
rededicated himself many times over the past 40 years. 

My point is we all color our understanding with shades of our own
perception.
  

    

When people criticize a hero, that's what the fans always say,
"It's a reflection on *you,* if you don't like that person"
The hero can never be questioned.

For me, Bob Dylan points to the fact that great artists are
not necessarily nice or good people.

The real disillusionment with Bob Dylan for me was that
he wasn't just an obvious play for the money and fame.
Many big pop acts don't bother me. It's like, "Yea, they're
after money, they are corrupted by fame but hey, they don't
pretend to be more." So it doesn't really disappoint me
anymore or rub me the wrong way.

For me the real disgust I feel for B. Dylan is the kind that one
would feel for a preacher or one who gets on a high-horse
in a moral sense, and who you *then* find out is corrupt. 
It's just more of a scam in that case. IMO.

I went to High School in Beverly Hills and found out
that a mutual friend of me and my best friend (who
became a junky), was a supplier of heroin to Bob and his wife
at the time. And I learned other stories about him - - some 
that did reflect well on him. But most that did not.

I couldn't stomach his music afterward. It just didn't jibe
with the man. Part of what I liked about his music was 
his idealism and honesty. When I found out those qualities 
were fake or were not deep but were actually phoney, i guess 
you could say I was disillusioned to the point that i couldn't
enjoy his music to the degree that i had before. 

For me it was just a complete letdown that the writer
of "Masters of War" , "Hurricaine" (later, of course
and other great politcal tunes) was just as big a sell-out 
as anyone else. It made it worse for me because of his 
pretense to caring about higher political ideals and to
his pretense of complete honesty.

In some of the stories above he reminds me of nothing so
much as a cowardly puffed-up Guru, who surrounds himself
with sycophants; Who preaches judgemental high-falutn' philosophy
and wisdom to entrance his audience, but who actually is very 
fucked-up personally.

The idea that his manager and not himself was behind the
order for the road crew to hide reminds me so much
of the scene around some Guru-s. The "fans" blame the handlers.
But *of course* the boss has nothing to do with the incident. The
boss only hired the handler in question. The boss only gives the
orders. But people really have a *need* to see their idols
*as* idols.

It sounds to me that he looked like Michael Jackson.

<seabrook> quotes Geffen in _Nobrow_:

"Geffen was bored by my attempts to discuss money and art in
rock. When I asked him if he thought there ever was any
social or political meaning to rock - - whether the artists
were ever motivated by ideals, rather than by money - - he
said, "That was all a lot of bullshit then, and it is now.
It isn't that different. Most of the artist were trying to
make a living, tring to get laid, trying to figure out who
they were. They weren't trying to change the world. That's
what other people put on them. I knew all those people. I knew
them all intimately and well. Bob Dylan. I would say that
Bob Dylan is as interested in money as any person I've known
in my life. That's just the truth."
  

    
 I want to ask VASUDA a few questions as the blurb while interesting
is a bit confusing.  What do you know about Gurus?

And if all these "POP" musicians are the same as concerns money and
fame and getting a chance to grow up while getting laid then why are
there sometimes words and lyrics and melodies that we carry around with
us, and that have inspired us at least in our past?  SO even if these
type of hyped musicians seem the same it is obvious they are not. 
Vasuda seems to be venting some personal and moralistic disappointments
cloaked in the discovery that BOb Dylan is the same ass any other
commercial artist.

     Hey, my first electric band was called "THE SELLOUTS" and it was
named after me.  Just because I liked many types of music during the
heydey of the Folk Revival, and still followed my friend John Sebastian
into having a Rock 'n Roll Group when I lived in Greenwich Village I
do not feel that I am a commercial and unvaluable person.  ANd Mr. Bob
is certainly not without value.
And neither is Mr. John Lennon, who also had both bad habits and a
girlfriend/wife that were perhaps not acceptable...but his work remains
full of meaning to me, and still popular all these years after. his
death.

SO I say enjoy the fruits of what Dylan has produced, and if you do
not enjoy it then simply so not bother with it.  And to be disappointed
with the living habits of an Artist is kind of shallow to my way of
thiniking for even when I tried this same method it just failed.  I
liked things anyhow that I was trying not to like, and I now I hope to
not interrupt my own enjoyments by prejudging things.

"Words keep falling endless like some rain into a paper cup...."

PEACE,   BIG BOY ONCE, the MUSICAL DUNCE.
  

    
Bob Dylan IS HUMAN. I know of no one in this world is not a hypocrite to
some degree or another. The key is not to focus on the man, but on the
music. The music is what brought you to him in the first place and they
lyrics behind it all are what rings true for you. The lyrics still hold
truth, no matter if Bob were to sing them or Saddam Hussein (although the
accent might be a bit hard on our ears..:-)).

Alot of us deadheads had to come to that very same realization when we all
found out that Jerry was A) a junkie and B) a multi-millionaire partly
from selling TIES. After all was said and done and his ashes were
scattered over the Golden Gate, he was still a human being, full of
imperfections and faults. As human as the rest of us, including Bob Dylan.

And I still like Bobs music despite his very bad Michael Jackson
impression (he forgot the glove!).
  

    
If we based our musical likes on the "goodness" of the musician.....I'm
afraid most of our heroes would not qualify.

Dylan
Lennon
Garcia
Springsteen


etc., etc., etc.
  

    
'Zactly!

Unfortunately, I think Geffen was speaking the blunt truth about peoples
motivations for becoming musicians. While it may not have been forefront
to be rich and famous, no one denied the money (but a few of them
struggled with the fame).

I love Bobs music, as I stated. When I was forced to stand
shouldertoshoulder with my peers on the back of that truck, I laughed
heartily. Then, on my break, went out and enjoyed one hell of a Bob show.
If I had thought about what Bob or his manager made us do, I laughed again
and continued to enjoy the music. I think I would have robbed myself of
pleasure had I held onto the vision of that bad Michael Jackson
impression.

It's interesting to note, however, the similarities in that moment on the
loading ramp and Michael Jackson but only from the perspective of how a
"superstar" handles fame. I think, like MJ, Bob has had to deal with an
enormous amount of attention not only to his music but his words, from a
very early age (although MJ got his start as a tot). That must've had a
huge impact on Bob and how he dealt with the general public to the point
where even stagehands had to "avert thine eyes". While the money was nice,
the fame was excruciating and difficult to deal with. Huge expectations
are placed on you and your words are often taken completely out of
context. Sometimes, hiding behind a hooded sweatshirt is the only way to
deal.
  

    
LJ:  In 1981, I had the good fortune to security for a well-known
actor during the filming of a movie here in Atlanta.  One of the most
poignant moments I remember during this 120 days was the night he
picked me to accompany him  to a closed set in an office building
downtown.  He instructed me that I was to sit in the hall in front of
the locked door to the set and NO ONE was to disturb him for one hour.
All this man wanted was to be alone.  He just had to get away from the
dozen or so folks that were with him constantly everywhere, all the
time.  I found myself feeling sorry for this man who had money, fame
and anything he wanted except privacy.  We had deceptive plans to move
him around town (using his stunt double and a limo to distract people
while we traveled in a cargo van).  We always worried that a "fan"
would attack him in some way, and when he did walk through crowds and
breached his security wall, we grimaced and worried.  Yet, personally,
he was a caring, funny and personable guy. It just seemed everyone
wanted a piece of him all the time!  Not a great way to live!  Perhaps
this might explain why famous people are somewhat skeptical of others
wanting their moment.  I recall hearing Bob Dylan quoted as saying
"appreciate your obscurity".
     As for musician's motives, I have been playing since 1962. 
During this time I have spent thousands of dollars on equipment,
rehearsed thousands of hours, been stiffed by club owners and
promoters, received bad checks, been booed by patrons at clubs where
our agent booked us in the wrong type of venue, but I still do it.  I
doubt I will ever get the money back I have invested nor be famous, but
it is the drive to perform, react with fellow musicians, and get that
occasional appreciative remark that motivates us to continue.  The
critics usually can't play, sing or dance, so they get their jollies
dumping on those that try.  Agents and promoters are looking for a cash
cow they can exploit.  It's enough to make anyone cynical, and the
first thought from your mind is "what do YOU want?"  You do something
nice, you are faking it;  you lose your temper and say something nasty,
you are a "conceited asshole".
     Fantasty is always better than reality, so perhaps people should
keep their fantasies.  As Pete Townshend says, "they are your f***ing
icons, they are my friends!" 
     Jenny and I have encountered a number of artists, and we are
happy to share our Bob story.  Like Tim, we would rather be in this
book than one that attempts to "analyze, categorize, finalize and
advertise" Bob Dylan. 
  

    
a nice interview with the author in the current issue of ISIS (number 90)
  

    
I always wonder how *any* really famous person manages to remain
gracious and patient with the kinds of demands and expectations put on
them by their fans. Dylan is no less a prisoner of his fame then Elvis
was, but at least Bob has survived and thrived as an artist. 

Re: Dan's note in #59: Derek Barker at ISIS has been very kind to the
book. I think he understands that its potential readers are the kind of
fans that read his magazine. 

We also got a review in this morning's Examiner Magazine on page 6.
It's actually part a group review along with--the DVD reissue of "Don't
Look Back." and the 994-page "Song and Dance Man III--The Art of Bob
Dylan" by Michael Gray, which the reviewer calls "a staggering work of
amateur scholarship." He goes on to introduce his comments on
"Encounters" with "On a (blessedly) lower plane is "Encounters with Bob
Dylan," and concludes with the sentence, "Not great literature, but
amusingly unpretentious." I can live with that assessment.
  

    
Well said, Lee. It has got to be pretty wearing to be in the limelight all
the time, and the brighter that light, the more crazy-making for the
individual.
  

    
(Jon slipped)
  

    
People's comments over the past couple of days have made me think
about the relationships between artists and their audience, particularly
in those situations in which "fame" comes into play.

Two things seem apparent to me:

1. More generally: we, as fans, are in trouble whenever we let our
    assumptions about artists interfere with what those artists
    are actually doing in terms of their art.  One of the things
    this means is that we have to be on the lookout for any
    form whatsoever of idealization.  Everybody, even Dylan,
    can be an asshole sometimes, and can fail to live up to
    our expectations.  Although that can have a significant
    impact on our perception of their art, it really has little
    (if anything) to do with the art itself.

2. More Specifically:  Dylan is human.  And, given the situation
    under which he must do what he does, it's utterly amazing that
    he continues to be able to interact with his fans (as the
    book demonstrates) *and* that he continues to be able to
    produce *amazing* work.  The recordings of recent shows that
    I've heard just take my breathe away with their sheer
    beauty & artistry.  As I type, I'm listening to a recording
    of "Highlands," & can't even imagine anything more
    focused & beautiful.
  

    
there is nothing amateur about Song and Dance Man.....I have it.......I just
don't know if I can be *that* serious about Bob Dylan!
  

    

Lee Parham said:

>You do something nice, you are faking it;  you lose your temper and say
>something nasty, you are a "conceited asshole".

Yup.  Just yesterday, after my set at a muddy outdoor festival in Pennsyl-
vania, I was talking to a fan and another guy walked up and interrupted to
ask if he could ask me a question.  I said, "Do you mind waiting until we are
finished with our conversation here?"  The guy said, "Never mind," and walked
away.

A few moments later, I went back to this guy and said, "What can I do for
you?"

"I forgot what I wanted to ask you," he muttered, and it was clear from his
demeanor that he was angry.

I just know this guy is going to carry the image of me as a "conceited
asshole" away from this encounter which he initiated by being rude both to me
and to the guy I was talking with.  My experience is a microscopic version of
those real stars' stories.


By the way, I wrote back to the guy whose email I mentioned the other day,
asking why he chose to tell me his story about nasty ol' Bob.  He replied,
"The reason I shared it now was I had just discovered your site.... I just
wanted to give you some personal insight, that the man is not the GOD you
portray him to be."

I'm not sure where on my web site (www.trufun.com) this guy found anything
about Bob Dylan, let alone anything portraying him as a GOD.  I wrote back,
asking, "do you really think that because he wasn't nice to you on one occa-
sion, he is a terrible person?  Did you really get rid of all his records
because of that?"

My correspondent replied, "No, it was his whole attitude, guess you had to be
there. He was rude to myboss also, sure everyone has a bad day, but we had
driven 3 hours to his house and he acted like he was doing us a favor letting
us clean his pool." The writer went on to describe a much more pleasant inci-
dent working for another famous musician.  "He was a real person and Dylan
was trying to project this super star image. Sure his songs were and still
are great, but not sung by him! His voice reminds me of my garbage disposal!"

I have no trouble imagining how Bob got tthe way he is.  He has been deified
so hugely, had his every utterance analyzed, his character projected upon --
he has been USED by so many people that I can easily see how the person he
really is can get lost inside the gigantic thing that is BOB DYLAN.

It is a prison of his own devise, to a certain extent, but it is also the
nature of fame in the mass-media era.  And it is also the inevitable fallout
of the immense power of his work.




Jon said:

>Dylan is no less a prisoner of his fame then Elvis was, but at least Bob has
>survived and thrived as an artist.

A very good point.  Jerry Garcia, too, seemed to have a hard time being JERRY
GARCIA.
  

    
I've been reading this discussion for a while now, and I must say that
I find it interesting how people react when an artist does not live up
to their expectations of how that artist 'should' have acted in
particular circumstances.  Artists are just people, and like any other
people, they have good days and bad days, good moments and bad moments.
 Not to mention, as David so aptly pointed out in his example from his
recent PA gig (how was the mudfest, anyway?), that some people just
expect too much, period.  Never mind that they interrupted another
conversation, or a train of thought, or whatever.  Who exactly is being
rude?

Anyway, artists are artists.  Does it come as a surprise that some
artists are tempermental?  It is, after all, a commonplace or at least
a cliche.  Though I've never met Bob Dylan, I do know people who have
and, no surprise, some have said nice things about him and some thought
he was a complete jerk.  Robert Frost was as obnoxious and dislikeable
as they come, but wherever you go in Vermont or New Hampshire, they
revere him.  Why?  He was one of the country's greatest poets.  I had
the good fortune to meet Jerry a couple times, and saw a couple
different sides of his multi-faceted personality, but he was generally
a personable, likeable guy, if a bit wierd.  So what?  I know people
who saw him at his worst, but they still came back every time to hear
him play.

If you enjoy or appreciate an artist, it is almost certainly because
you enjoy or appreciate her or his art.  Leave it at that and
everything will be copacetic.  But to throw out all that artist's work
because you got a cold shoulder or glance?  Now who's being wierd? 
It's all about the art; always has, always will.  Some artists are just
really great people; some are quite tempermental; and some are
absolutely dislikeable.  I don't think many of them really care if you
like them as people.  They just want you to appreciate their art.
  

    
I get the impression when people say that someone famous is "a nice
guy" they mean, "I was able to speak to him, he didn't blow me off so I
have some worth." That seems pretty sad to me. What are the odds that
the fan had anything to say much more than, "I like your music, man."?

Imagine that 70%+ of the people who came within earshot of you had to
make a little contact, perhaps ask a favor or two, a photo, an
autograph. Wouldn't that pretty much drive you crazy?
  

    
Looks like interest in this forum has been pretty well spent but I'd
like to invite all of you to a signing/reading at Borders in San
Francisco on Wednesday, May 31, at 6:30pm.

Present will be editor Tracy Johnson and five authors, who will read,
sign books, and answer questions about their experience with Bob. The
five authors are:

Bill Amatneek, the bass player on the first David Grisman Quintet
album. Bill met Bob in 1963 at his first appearance in Philadelphia.

Larry Cragg, who was Bob's guitar tech for five years in the late
'70s. He has some very interesting tales to tell. Larry was an original
founder of Prune Music in Mill Valley. For the past 25 years, his
primary allegence has been to Neil Young, with whom he tours as a
guitar technician, utility musician, and all-around assistent.

Michelle McFee, who had her encounter with Bob at his famous 1965
press conference televised on KQED.

Marc Silber, who met Bob in the early '60s, jammed with him, and sold
him several guitars, including the Gibson Nick Lucas acoustic seen in
"Don't Look Back." He was also responsible for getting the then largely
unknown singer on the bill for the 1962 University of Michigan Folk
Festival.

Olivia Weinstein, who first met Bob on the 1975 Rolling Thunder Revue.
She has since had face-to-face encounters with him on a number
occasions.

Please come see us. Borders is located on Post Street, across from
Union Square.
  

    
Well, I was just about to come in & try to stir things up a bit
with a couple of questions, since it's been so quite here the
last couple of days ...

I'd be real interested in having Marc (if he's still reading
this) say something about a couple of issues that I think would
be of interest to a lot of folks:

1.  Dylan and guitars, since he's sold several to him (and
     says in the book that Dylan had little sense of what they
     were worth).  I'd be particularly interested in what,
     if anything, Dylan was looking for in the guitars he bought.

2.  The Greenwich Village scene in the early 60s out of which
     Dylan emerged.  The bits in the book just whet my appitite
     for more!
  

    
Yeah, that must have been quite the scene.
  

    
>>I want to ask VASUDA a few questions as the 
>>blurb while interesting is a bit confusing. 
What do you know about Gurus?

I followed one for many years and watched 
the scene up close. Still do.

>> And if all these "POP" musicians are the same 
as concerns money and fame and getting a chance to 
grow up while getting laid then why are there 
sometimes words and lyrics and melodies that we 
carry around with us, and that have inspired us 
at least in our past? 

I don't think i said they were all the same. 

I think what i said or at least what i meant to say is
that the fact they are after money and squander
their fame (in my opinion) doesn't bother me
about *most* musicians. It only bothers me
about Mr. Dylan because he seemed to *almost*
make it into another direction - - i.e. speaking
very honestly through his songs and speaking
politically. When I found out he was an asshole
in many situations, surrounded by sycophants
and basically a bullshit artist as far as politics
goes, it just hurt. Simply because my expectation
was higher. Most musicians have a kind of integrity.
For instance you - - you *called yourself* a sell-out. 
You weren't pretending to be Jesus Christ. To me
that has integrity. You were being honest about
yourself and sort of self-mocking. The whole picture makes sense.
One knows what one is getting. No bait and switch.
Dylan has never been self-mocking in that way.
He is always deadly serious about himself.

The heroin part didn't bother me.

I can't really blaim Mr. Dylan personally. I don't know
him. I don't know his story. I am just talking
about my reaction to his work. It's very difficult
for me to separate a person from their art.
For me it's not that the artist *has* to exist upon
a higher plane and be subjected to a higher judgement
than anyone else. But if the art itself calls to
a higher motive and that calling or pointing is
merely a ruse, is merely an artistic elaboration
without substance, well i feel burned. 


>>SO even if these type of hyped musicians seem the 
same it is obvious they are not. Vasuda seems to be 
venting some personal and moralistic disappointments 
cloaked in the discovery that BOb Dylan is the same 
ass any other commercial artist.

I thought you were going to say, "The same ass as any other
pop star idol", but i see it was a typo.:)

I didn't say he was the same. He is different.
He is worse, in my opinion. Like i said I consider
him worse because he makes a show or made a show
in his lyrics of being above the usual.
In my opinion.

 >>Hey, my first electric 
band was called "THE SELLOUTS" and it was named after me.

This is very cool, in my opinion.
 
>>Just because I liked many types of music during the heydey 
of the Folk Revival, and still followed my friend John 
Sebastian into having a Rock 'n Roll Group when I lived 
in Greenwich Village I do not feel that I am a commercial 
and unvaluable person.

I never thought the movement to electric was a mistake.

>> ANd Mr. Bob is certainly not 
without value. 

I don't think he is without value. I just can't
take him seriously.

>>And neither is Mr. John Lennon, who 
also had both bad habits and a girlfriend/wife that 
were perhaps not acceptable...but his work remains 
full of meaning to me, and still popular all these 
years after. his death. 

I remember Lennon conmmenting in a interview to the 
effect that he didn't want to end up like Dylan, surrounded
by sycophants. And he made certain changes in his life to 
avoid that. I think the scene around Dylan affected
his mind. And he implied such a situation would
not be good for his art. Sure, Lennon was a junkie.
But you know what, he practiced what he preached as
far as the political part of his art. He staged
a love-in for peace with Yoko. He was also an asshole
in certain and many situations but for some reason 
it doesn't interrupt my enjoyment of his work.

I think Dylan is just in some ways smarter, so for
me the greater disappointment. Dylan just wrote
better political songs. Lennons were just jingles
for peace and love (in my opinion). Nothing wrong with
that. Just that, again, there was no thwarting of my 
expectations involved. No bait and switches. No lack 
of irony as to one's self-importance. Sure he said
"we are more popular than Jesus Christ," *BUT HE
WAS JOKING!* That was his sense of humor.
  

    
re Dylan and guitars, I remember talking with him at 
Shelton's place on Waverly after a SingOut Hootenany
at Carnegie Hall, must have been summer of '63, when
he claimed to not be a musician.  He said he was a
poet, not a musician.  He kept his guitar off in a
corner, and if something he wrote happened to sound
like it could be a song, he might pick up the 
guitar and put some music to it, but he was really
a poet, writing poetry.
  

    
(big slippage)
  

    
Simultaneous posting is a slippery matter.
  

    

esoft, even though you aren't in the bog, I would still love to hear about
your encounters with Bob Dylan!  You said you'd spent a total of a few
hours with him?