Talk:Bob Dylan/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Made up words

In the biography bit near the top, origins and musical beginnings, it says:

"His grandparents were Jewish emigrants from present-day Turkey and Russia...His paternal grandparents sailed from Trabzon to the Black Sea port of Odessa in Ukraine from where they took off to immigrate to America."

In the first sentence it should say immigrants, not emigrants, and it should say emigrate, not immigrate in the second.

I can't alter this because the article is locked.

Fixed. Adam McMaster 08:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The Harp?

Bob Dylan plays the harp? What's he use that on then? Er...no don't tell me...got it! Knocking On Heavens Door! Vera, Chuck & Dave 02:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I think he did play the Harp in live concerts for a few years there. SECProto 13:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
(nice one, vera) If you can find a harp ref, I'll be deeply impressed. I was about to query "accordion" when I finally figured it out, it's Born In Time from under the red sky Mick gold 08:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
When I think about it, I don't think dylan himself ever played the harp. But I have this memory of watching a video of him live - in Japan I believe - and there is someone playing harp in the song. I can't remember what song it is though, it's a good song though - jokerman or series of dreams or something. Even though it wouldnt be listed under his instruments im still trying to find the video out of personal interest. SECProto 12:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You've got me there Mick! But I can think of SOMEONE whom I sincerely hope is playing one! Cheers Pal, Vera, Chuck & Dave 22:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
SECProto I think I remember that performance - Dylan performing A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall, backed by the Tokyo New Philharmonic Orchestra, conducted by Michael Kamen, 20 May 1994. I thought the orchestral backing (harp & all) worked well, you can see it on [[1]] Mick gold 16:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
User:CrowleyHead No no, when they say harp, they mean Harmonica AKA Blues Harp. It's like the battle between John Lennon and some DJ on the Beatles BBC sessions. "Johnny, accompaning on the... Harmonica.""Harp.""What?""It's a harp.""I... Look you want to be the announcer be my guest! *storms off*""Hello everyone... Love these goon shows!" User:CrowleyHead 13:00, 27 May 2007 (EST)
This discussion was inspired by the dubious fact that, at one point, this article listed both 'harmonica' and 'harp' as instruments Dylan played. Mick gold 17:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Mick - thats exactly the performance I was thinking of. I missed the original point, I took it literally - flew over my head. But thanks for findind that video! SECProto 22:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bootleg1-3.jpg

Image:Bootleg1-3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know what this is about? The bot is tagging album cover after album cover for deletion, when they are being used to illustrate the album's article. That's fair use. What is going on? Carlo 04:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe the key phrase here is "consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale". When you upload an album cover to Wikipedia, you have to make sure you check the right boxes and stuff on the upload page. My theory is that the users who uploaded the pictures that this bot is targetting overlooked the proper procedure, and so the bot believes the images have no rationale, or insufficient rationale. And let's be fair, it's not the responsibility of the bot owners to double-check all improperly uploaded images to make sure the bot isn't in error, it's the responsibility of the uploaders to make sure they do it correctly. It may seem like beaurocratic nonsense on the surface, but the upload form really isn't that hard to use. - Ugliness Man 04:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes. An overly aggressive bot program is tagging all album covers in Wikipedia that do not have a unique fair use rationale. The problem is particularly harsh for older uploads when the {{album}} template was sufficient. I see that Rhobite has added one for this image. --Knulclunk 04:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationales added.

There is a bot going around that is tagging every fair use image for deletion, i went around and added fair use rationales for all dylan's album covers, book covers, etc in the proper format so that they shouldn't get deleted. If anyone sees any i missed please add rationales! (i think this is retarded, but thats not going to stop them from getting deleted.) SECProto 16:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work. That damn bot is starting to annoy me :) Adam McMaster 18:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Specific phrasing to be used to indicate Dylan's return to Judaism

I don't think that there is any real objection to indicating that Dylan is now again apparently a practicing Jew. I think the only problem is that the language be as accurate and unchallengable as possible. Any ideas how to phrase it? John Carter 18:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you know he has gone back to Judaism? He has never said, therefore, everything else is speculation. Every group wants to claim Dylan as an adherent to, but in the end, that is between Dylan and God. Everyone should take their agendas and drop them. And Judaism and Christianity are not necessarly against one another. At all, in fact. One is still Jewish, one can be a Jewish atheist. Labels mean nothing.

We know he has become (possibly again, I'm not entirely sure about his earlier practices personally) a practicing Jew based on the abundant information given above on this page by User:Metzenberg. Given that he seems to have been bar mitzvahed as a child, we can assume that he was at least officially an adherent of Judaism in some way earlier. It should be noted that the phrasing used, "practicing Jew", does not specifically rule out other beliefs, though. It simply refers to the religious group he is currently actively associated with. John Carter 00:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dylan stated he believed in Jesus as the Messiah. He never retracted that statment, and yet he seems to partipate in Jewish ceremonies, as well as write songs from a Christian context. Perphaps a title like "Messianic Jew" or something of the sort?

The idea has been suggested elsewhere. However, Dylan has recently stated that he is not an adherent to any formal religion, as per elsewhere. On that basis, I think that indicating that he practices Judaism, which he demonstrably does, which does not directly indicate his specific beliefs, which remain unknown, is probably the best way to go. John Carter 14:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but he was stating that because you do not follow an ORGANIZED religion does not mean that you do not follow Christ. Even if you look at Dylan's comments from the 80s, he talks about how Christ did not bring religon, but life. He's said that. Its nothing new, its no turning his back on "relgion." This is from the point of view of a believer, and in line with the thoughts of the apostles in the Bible. I think it would be foolish to minimize the influence Christianity had and has on Dylan's songwriting. HE seems fixated on Christ and the Judgement Day.

So for phrasing, he's still a Jew even by Jewish and Christian standards because that's what he IS. He was born Jewish. But like I said, his Christian viewpoints in his work cannot be overlooked.

And they aren't being overlooked. However, there is no clear evidence that I have seen that he does currently, in any discernible way, "follow Christ", or see himself as being in any way a Christian. Without that evidence, and with the evidence supplied above, it can reasonably be stated that he is now a "practicing Jew", as that statement is itself neutral regarding his beliefs, whatever they may be. John Carter 19:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. SECProto 00:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I’ve added Sue Fishkoff’s book as a reference, as per Metzenberg’s very useful information. At present, the article states:

On the level of religious practice however, he has since supported many Jewish causes and participated in many Jewish rituals, despite his never having explicitly disavowed any Christian beliefs. In a September 28, 1997, interview appearing in The New York Times, journalist Jon Pareles reported that "Dylan says he now subscribes to no organized religion."

I think Fishkoff’s book validates the first sentence. And Dylan’s quote speaks for itself. Do we need to go any further than this, and say more about Dylan as a practising Jew? Surely the Fishkoff book tells us what is known about Dylan’s Jewish practice, and it would be wrong to over-state this, particularly in the light of the Pareles quote. Mick gold 08:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Dylan's never renounced Christian beliefs. That alone should be enough. He has never said "yeah I was wrong, or "this is BS." He has said from the beginning he doesn't follow a religion, so saying he doesn't follow an organized religion doesn't mean he doesn't have faith. Someone who didn't believe still some of his gospel stuff would not sing it anymore, but he does and it doesn't appear to be a parody. There is no rule that says you can't be both "Christian" and Jewish, and I don't see it as a problem. "Practicing Jew" would be wrong, because he said he didn't follow an organized religion. As would "Christian" because it implies following a dogmatic religion.... So something else should be used to word his faith. Or we could just put "His beliefs are unknown" and leave it at that.

Or perhaps we could say "he follows no organized religion" as it does right now? since it means the same as what you're saying. SECProto 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem I see with the statement "never having explicitly disavowed any Christian beliefs" is the word never. We can't really say that, as there might be some source somewhere out there where he did, even in jest, do so. That source would invaldiate the use of the word "never." One that basis, I think just not addressing the issue directly is probably the best way to go, unless we can either find clear sources which themselves say he "never" renounced Christianity or in which he has been said to have been actively participating in some other religious activity. I acknowledge that his continuing acceptance of the Apocalypse of John would clearly qualify him as Christian in the eyes of many, and don't dispute that. That's why I like limiting it the statement to just addressing his outward behavior. If evidence can be found indicating that he has somewhat regularly participated in Christian worship as well recently, of course, that might qualify for inclusion. John Carter 17:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, but to many people "he follows no religion" that would imply he doesn't believe in anything,at all, so we ought to quote the parts where he stated that religion is detremental to faith (I think it was in Rolling Stone just a while ago) as well as the quotes from the 80s where he talked about how (there was some atheist group against him) and he said something about how religion and faith are different. As for the Jewish part, yes he is still Jewish because Jewish it is an ethnicity as well as religion.

The phrase actually being suggested is "he follows no organized religion", which in general usage is used to say that he has religious beliefs, but that they do not conform to those of any specific recognized group or denomination. John Carter 20:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Why not just say that his religion is Judaism? Would that be too simple and straightforward? Bus stop 20:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it would just be an unqualified blanket statement that is not specifically supported by the subject's own recorded statements or any verifiable data. John Carter 20:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course it is supported. It is supported on multiple fronts. He was born Jewish. He was raised Jewish. There is no indication he has had anything to do with Christianity in 27 years. And there are clear indications of Jewish religious involvement during the past 27 years. Bus stop 20:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
None of that is technically conclusive regarding his religious beliefs, however. Also, his stated belief in the inspired nature of the Apocalypse of John would be seen by many if not most people as being sufficient to state that he is not any sort of "regular" religious Jew, as it is generally seen as being a specifically Christian text. I acknowledge that he was born a Jew ethnically, but that has no bearing on his current religious status, which is the subject of this discussion. And I am aware of no Jewish religious group which recognizes the Apocalypse of John as an inspired text. On that basis, it makes sense to add the qualifying word "practicing". Inclusion of that word is specifically referencing only his practices. If, as is certainly possible, some source were to be found which indicates that his currently unknown beliefs are not in accord with what some editors think of as religious Jewish, the language would not have to be changed, and create yet another argument at that time. The use of the word "practicing" specifically limits the statement to his religious practices, leaving aside the unknown nature of his personal beliefs. Also, the fact that he has said he does not subscribe to any organized religion would seem to make it highly problematic to refer to him as a member of an organized religion. John Carter 20:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
We are not talking about religious beliefs. We are talking about religion. Religion, for Dylan, is Jewish. We don't write for the future. We write for the present. We need not be concerned about the "bother" involved in changing this section of this article if different information should come to light. For the present, his religion is Jewish, for the very obvious reasons stated above. Bus stop 20:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Once again, you feel an argument from ignorance is sufficient reasoning to support your viewpoint. Please note (once again) the incredible standard you demanded for sources claiming his conversion in the first place, and yet you feel that you can string together irrelevant facts and logical fallacies to come to a conclusion about his religious status- don't pretend that it's acceptable to make assumptions based on sparse behaviors when the sources which I have provided (for quite some time) have dismissed these actions as 'cultural', not religious. It is interesting that you claim that the editors who argue against you on List of notable converts to Christianity are merely trying to win "their prize, Bob Dylan", when it seems you are all too eager to claim him as a Jew based on sources which you yourself would not have approved if they were to argue for any other point than your own. --C.Logan 21:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
C.Logan -- His religion is Jewish, based on his birth, his upbringing, and his religious involvement. What do you think the holidays on the Jewish calendar are? What do you think the Jewish Sabbath is? Those happen to be the hallmarks of the Jewish religion. How do you not see all of the above as being Jewish? Bus stop 22:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, that just blew my mind. You have an uncanny talent for completely ignoring statements directed at you. Did you not read the second sentence? You yourself have acknowledged that many Jews are atheists, "in fact". Does this make them cultural Jews? Yes. Does this mean that they follow Judaism? No, no it does not.
Obviously, if one happens to participate in religious rituals (the participation in which has, as I will say again, been explained by the sources offered as being cultural rather than religious), then they must be adherents to a religion, right? Nevermind the fact that many Christians will participate in the Jewish holidays (as I have). Nevermind that Christmas and Easter are widely celebrated for their cultural value (or lack thereof, it seems) rather than their religious significance. Does Judaism possess a magic power which inflames religious belief in anyone who happens to have Jewish DNA or participates in Jewish rituals, as user Nick might put it? Once again, you are arriving at a definite conclusion based on circumstantial evidence. And again, the sources which have been put forth by me have dismissed the involvements you prefer to cite as proof as being largely cultural or "approached from a Christian perspective". Please, work from something a little more blatant and clear- if only for the fact that you seem now to dismiss the impossible standards you'd set for the editors attempting to provide sources for Dylan's conversion when it comes time to provide your own sources. --C.Logan 23:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, the subject has himself stated that he does not follow any organized religion. All jokes aside, Judaism is almost universally credited as being an organized religion. If, as Bus stop says above, religion to Dylan is Judaism, then he cannot be described as being a religious Jew. If one takes the comment "doesn't follow any organized religion" and then states "religion to Dylan = Judaism", the clear and inescapable conclusion is that Dylan "doesn't follow Judaism." That would seem to be almost a direct contradiction to Bus stop's own contention. I also note that that user has yet to provide any substantial definition of the terms he most regularly uses, "Jew" and "Judaism" most notably. John Carter 15:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
C.Logan, John Carter -- As long as Bob Dylan is not actively negating his Jewishness he is Jewish. Bus stop 12:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Not to be too hostile, but that is one of the most bullshit arguments i've ever heard. Show me an external reliable source that says that, please. SECProto 20:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
He was born Jewish, SECProto. Why wouldn't he be Jewish? Bus stop 20:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Because there are external reliable sources stating he was christian. You can't simply assume religion unless there is a source. SECProto 22:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
SECProto -- The source is that he was born Jewish. Bus stop 22:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, of course he was born Jewish. And he has supported Jewish causes since his conversion to Christianity. But unless he, or some reliable source, states that he has again become a fully religious Jew, you cannot simply assume that to be a fact. Reliable sources are the cornerstone of a reliable and accurate article, and therefore of the utmost importance to the wiki. SECProto 22:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The reliable source is that he was born Jewish. We do not assume anything. Was he born Jewish? Then he is Jewish. Bus stop 22:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not debating that he was born and raised jewish, and again appears to be jewish. But as sources say he was christian for a time - You can't say he has always been jewish. You can't concurrently be jewish and christian. Your arguments really are quite illogical. SECProto 23:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
No, my arguments are quite logical. Born Jewish means Jewish. Actively negating Jewishness is what you are referring to, which doesn't apply. Sources for "conversion" (flimsy) from 1979 have lost their applicability by 2007. A source has to be appropriate to the assertion that it is being used to support. His having been born a Jew has applicability throughout his life. Bus stop 02:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You yourself have posed the question: What constitutes 'conversion'? Conversely, I ask, what constitutes 'negation'? And again, such an assumption is entirely unwarranted in the first place. No one is denying his status as someone who hails from a Jewish background. However, any logical progression you may believe your own argument follows is misplaced. There are a multitude of possibilities, and this is not a black-and-white scenario. One can be atheist and not 'actively negate' their Jewishness. Do we consider them Jewish, culturally and ethnically? Yes. But religiously, no. He may not be a Christian, but that doesn't make any guarantee that he is a Jew. Religious preference, especially in such a complex and private individual, is not a simple case of this-or-that. Considering this, you may be using a sound logical argument, but it is in the wrong scenario, and is thus illogical.
Additionally, your argument is as weak as if I tried to assert that, if an individual who had converted to Judaism from Christianity (the religion of their birth) is not actively negating their Christian background (and this conclusion is based on reliable sources, not hearsay), then we should consider that person Christian. Such an assumption is fallacious, and is essentially a form of Original Research. Once again, the ties of an individual to Judaism are thicker than most other religions, but they by no means transcend the standard one might use in determining one's religion. One can not insist that such a standard would apply in your scenario, and not in mine (and again, this is in regards to religion and not cultural ties or ethnicity).
Assuming that the logic you are using in this situation is misplaced and your conclusion is thus unwarranted, I would be curious as to what caliber of sources you might provide to demonstrate Dylan's current belief in the Jewish religion. Considering that the sources at hand are still considered 'flimsy' by your standard, I would thus assume that the Jewish sites which have been brought into the discussion must also be discarded as 'flimsy'. --C.Logan 03:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
He is a Jew because he was born Jewish. Dylan's Jewishness is no different than any other Jew's Jewishness. You need not concern yourself with his complexity or his privacy, and you need not concern yourself with his status as a poet or rock star.
No one said "the ties of an individual to Judaism are thicker than most other religions" except for you. From where did you get that?
My source for Dylan's Jewishness is his birth as a Jew. That is all that is called for. And once again, we are not talking about belief. We are talking about religion. No one is climbing inside of Dylan's head to peer out through his eyes. We are not considering hooking him up to a belief determination machine. His religion is Jewish because he was born Jewish.
The "specific phrasing to be used" should simply be that Dylan is Jewish. That happens to be the whole story. He was born Jewish and he is Jewish. Bus stop 03:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Once again, don't conflate religious and cultural aspects. I'd never mentioned Dylan's status as a 'poet' or 'rock star'. I do consider his privacy in the matter a definite element for consideration. There are religiously vocal individuals and religiously private ones. Dylan, so far as I have seen, is currently very private and extremely ambiguous about the matter. Your continuing suggestion of Birth Jew=Current Jew only makes sense in cultural or ethnic terms. Don't stretch the matter to apply to the religious sense as well. As I've said, it would be ridiculous to pick out an individual on the "list of notable converts to Judaism" page and, determining that there are no sources to prove that he is currently 'actively negating his birth religion', argue that he is not a Jew, but a Christian. It isn't that simple.
I'd never said that anyone else said that "the ties of an individual to Judaism are thicker than most other religions." I said it, because the dual (or perhaps triple) aspect of cultural/ethnic and religious Judaism reinforces the presence of the religion much more than Christianity might to you're average German fellow- there is no "Christian" ethnicity, and no single Christian culture.
I was born a French-Spaniard. If that's to be used as a source for my French-Spanishness, that's acceptable and expected. But it would be fallacious to assert that in the absence of any clear statements, I would naturally be defaulted to Christianity because of my ethnicity or my birth religion. Additionally, as far as this discussion should be concerned, belief = religion. If you choose to separate the two, then it's equally sensible to assert that since he had 'converted' to Christianity, it is still his 'religion' even if he currently 'believes' in Judaism or no religion at all. You can split hairs with the definition, but only at the expense of the coherency of this argument. Try not to conflate the separate aspects of "Jewishness". --C.Logan 04:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is, Wikipedia is based on citation and the lack of original research. These sources say he was once Jewish (in religion), He now appears to be Jewish again (in religion) and that he had converted to Christianity around 1979 or whatever. Quite frankly, If you don't have sources saying he did not convert to Christianity around 1979, then these available sources take precedence. SECProto 05:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
No, Your arguments are illogical. Judaism as a religion has to be treated in the same way as any other religion. And thus, If he (according to several sources, which are not "flimsy" as you called them) was a Christian at one point, you cannot say he has always been Jewish. Quite truly, everyone agrees, he now appears to be Jewish in his religion - you have completely sidetracked this entire discussion. Your arguments are hypocritical and one sided, in that you don't cite a single source, neither for your interpretation of the religion of Judaism nor for Dylan's beliefs - and quite frankly, I think you should be ignored if you don't consent to conduct yourself in the same way during these discussions in the same way as everyone else is. SECProto 05:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
To summarize, before we created another archive's worth of text: I'm simply arguing that we should remain ambiguous about Dylan's current faith. Yes, he was born Jewish, and he was raised in the Jewish culture. But I believe it's fair to assume that you and I both know Jewish individuals who consider themselves "of no religion". The phraseology and multiple meanings complicates things. I doubt any other religion has a comparable multi-leveled bond with the individual as Judaism does. Considering that, you can state that "My friend is Jewish", and he'll pay it no mind; but if he's asked about his religion, it's completely likely that he'll say "I'm an atheist", and this proclamation violates none of the other bonds which Judaism has with him. This is all I'm really arguing about. If there is ambiguity in Bob's own statements concerning his current religious affiliation, then we shouldn't be so quick to jump to one possibility or another without clear sources to support this. Personally? I believe he may be a religious Jew, but with some mixing-in of other faith elements. My belief could actually be factual, but unless sources agree with it, no such thing should be claimed on the page. So in summary, you may be correct in your assumption, but it shouldn't be stated here until it can be verified. --C.Logan 05:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely with the above comment. Part of the problem here is the ambiguity of the words "Jew" and "Jewish", which do not hold for any other religion. The fact that someone is an ethnic Jew does not mean that he can be described as Jewish if the context is dealing with matters of religion. If he clearly is an adherent to the Jewish religion, as well as an ethnic Jew, then the question of which meaning is in use does not arise. If he isn't, problems will arise. The use of the phrase "practicing Jew" (or any equivalent) makes it clear that (1) the word "Jew" is being used in its religious meaning, and (2) leaves unaddressed the matter of the subject's bedrock beliefs, which in this case are not specifically known. The phrase is as clear as it can be without going further to indicate things which are not specifically verified to date. It may not be the solution anyone really wants, but it is the most NPOV and accurate solution available. John Carter 14:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
SECProto, C.Logan, John Carter -- In the case of a Bob Dylan all we have is a person just living his life with his Jewish religion in the background. That is extremely typical of perhaps a majority of Jews. Nothing unusual at all about that. Nothing unusual at all is going on in Dylan's life as concerns his Jewish identity. Or at least there is no indication of any such thing. You have no source indicating anything of the sort. And there is nothing in particular suggesting anything noteworthy in that area. All you have is an average typical American male Jew. He was born Jewish. What is your issue? Bus stop 14:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The fact that for all your repetitions of each of the statements above, there has yet to be a specific source cited by you for any of them, and several reliable and verifiable sources to the contrary? And if you honestly have complaints about the conduct of people regarding this article or related content, I strongly urge you to follow up with a request for comment, mediation, or arbitration. However, simple repetition of unsources statements, as per the above, accomplishes nothing but making talk pages longer than they have to be. John Carter 21:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
John Carter -- Nobody but you is doubting that Dylan was born Jewish. It is clear that he is just an average, ordinary American Jew today, in the year 2007. Are you trying to push a point of view that posits that in Dylan you somehow have a representative of Christianity? This is Wikipedia. Do you have a source saying Dylan is a Christian, or of some identity including a Christian component, in 2007, or any year remotely near 2007? We are not talking about 1979. There has been water under the bridge since then. Sources using the word conversion in 1979 are not necessarily applicable in 2007. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for religious points of view. No, you don't get to broadcast a Christian point of view at the expense of basic, simple, quotidian Jewish identity. You shouldn't be trying to push points of view of any sort on Wikipedia. Bus stop 12:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm unsure how anyone who's been following this discussion can read the comment directly above without getting a slight sensation of exasperation. Ignore-Copy-Paste is the time-honored formula exhibited here. --C.Logan 13:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Since ignore copy paste seems to work so well for Bus Stop: I'm not debating that he was born and raised jewish, and again appears to be jewish. But as sources say he was christian for a time - You can't say he has always been jewish. You can't concurrently be jewish and christian. SECProto 13:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to reopen this can of worms. Igorning the whether Dylan is still Jewish issue, I do see a problem with these statements:

In 1979, with the release of Slow Train Coming, there was no announcement of his conversion other than what was apparent from his music:

I understand it's probably written as-is as a concession of sorts to one side of an argument, however 1) it really sounds like original research. Is there any source that actually states there was "no announcement"? Or are we making this up? 2) at least one WP:RS compliant source does state it was announced, e.g. http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/dylan_bob/artist.jhtml#bio which states:

At the conclusion of the tour in late 1978, Dylan announced that he was a born-again Christian, and he launched a series of Christian albums that following summer with Slow Train Coming.

As that is what the secondary sources say, that's what actually belongs in the article...consensus is important, but not at the expense of WP:V and WP:NOR to placate one party.

I'm also not a big fan of the last paragraph in the section, which starts out with a WP:WEASEL term:

Since the early 1980's Dylan's personal religious beliefs have been the subject of much debate among fans and critics. While it is clear that he backed off from the outspoken evangelism of his Gospel years, it is not clear whether or to what extent his beliefs have changed, as he has typically kept his personal life out of the public eye.

This is littered with weasel terms ("much debate", "while it is clear", "it is not clear"), not to mention what appears to be considerable original research. Ignoring the Christian/Jew Christian/Jew debates...especially with a Dylan movie on the horizon this page will be much scrutinized for information, I think it can use some work to remove as much original research as possible and stick to what's verifiable. Tendancer 01:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC) Tendancer 01:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Flag Icon

Is it just me or do little flag icons on pop/folk singer articles look silly? —Gaff ταλκ 01:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal - Remove Bob Dylan from Category:Converts to Christianity

Please see the sections above, Dylan & His Judaism and I dreamed I saw St. Augustine. I propose that we remove Dylan from this category, and I have made my case in these sections. Dylan's religious views are too uncertain. He has not defined them publicly, and he has clearly sought privacy in such matters. Although he went through a well-publicized period of gospel singing, and that period seems to be when he finally managed to shed much of his following, it is hard to find definite antecedents to the period, and he seems to be associating openly today, though quietly, with groups that practice normative Judaism. He uses much religious imagery, at least since the late 1960s, but he often does so in ways that are syncretic. It is not obvious what his sources are or what he is saying. I don't know if there is any evidence that Dylan was ever baptized, just as there is no information as to whether he has been involved in a "return ceremony" in his association with Chabad Lubavitch. --Metzenberg 20:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Remove. I have stated my reasons for this above. Please take the time to read these sections: Dylan & His Judaism and I dreamed I saw St. Augustine. Also, see Bob Dylan: Tangled up in Jews. --Metzenberg 20:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - reluctantly and provisionally. It is clear that his having been "born-again" was significant for a period in his career, and the category doesn't necessarily refer to permanent conversion, although those would probably be the majority of entries. Having said that, if in the future his current opinions become clearly other-than-Christian, I would have no real objections to removal from the category, or perhaps replacing in the more general Category:Converts. This does raise an issue, though. How would the rest of you think we should classify someone who actively "converts" to more than one religion over the course of his/her life? I don't know how often it happens, but I imagine we have at least a few such people included in wikipedia. John Carter 21:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove, since his erstwhile conversion to Christianity was not pivotal in any part of his notability, nor was his subsequent ... re?version. Converts to any religion should only be included in such categories if their conversion was significant in making them sufficiently notable to warrant an article. Unless, of course, people believe that religious conversion is, in and of itself, a criterion sufficient to establish notability. Tomertalk 22:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The category does not denote a perpetual adherence to the beliefs of Christianity. This is a biographical article. We focus on the life of the subject not merely what the subject achieved to meet the criteria for inclusion in the Wikipedia. The life of Bob Dylan is his life, it's not merely an article on music. I reject Tomer/TShilo12's requirement that it needs to be pivotal. He was a Christian in 1979 and acknowledged it for years. That is significant enough. Clearly, the years he was born again irritate his fans, but that is no reason to whitewash that part of his life here. patsw 00:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I tend to agree with John Carter and patsw. Conversion to Christianity was an important event in Dylan's life and music, and I interpret the category as a record of that period. Dylan has commented on his religious beliefs. In 1997, he told David Gates:
"Here's the thing with me and the religious thing. This is the flat-out truth: I find the religiosity and philosophy in the music. I don't find it anywhere else. Songs like 'Let Me Rest on a Peaceful Mountain' or 'I Saw the Light' - that's my religion. I don't adhere to rabbis, preachers, evangelists, all of that. I've learned more from the songs than I've learned from any of this kind of entity. The songs are my lexicon. I believe the songs." (Newsweek, 6 October 1997)

The fact that Dylan refers enthusiastically to Hank Williams' Christian song 'I Saw The Light' suggests that he can still be excited by that evangelical musical culture. Mick gold 15:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, your "argument" here does nothing to support including him in this category, but rather, in a category of Category:Musicians influenced by Christian songs and songwriters. Tomertalk 08:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove -- There is no evidence that Bob Dylan practices any religion. His "conversion" was a momentary event of no lasting importance. Bus stop 01:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove - as I said (or at least thought) above, the subject of religion in his songs and songwriting really dont tell you anything about his own religion. SECProto 01:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove, as per above and because I feel a category such as this is ridiculously trivial. -- Reaper X 03:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It appears that several oppose !votes are motivated by an effort to bring importance to his temporary conversion, rather than to report on it. This strikes me as in direct violation of Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Nothing about Dylan's conversion, regardless of how sincere, played a crucial rôle in his fame, nor his music. I happen to find a great many hymns to be moving, musically and spiritually; although I would never ascribe to their message, should I, once I become spectacularly famous, be classified in Category:Jewish wikipedians who like hymns? Tomertalk 08:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Remove, -- it has been widely reported that he has come back to his Jewish roots, and no evidence that he underwent any kind of formal or public conversion like, say, Cat Stevens did when he converted to Islam. That Dylan has sung songs with Christian themes is utterly irrelevant and indicative of nothing, any more than singing Bei Mir Bist du Shein made the Andrews Sisters Jewish. Tvoz |talk 09:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'm reminded of Bob Dylan: Tangled up in Jews... Tomertalk 11:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment First of all, items presented above as facts justify a remove vote are in dispute.
  • The category denotes the event in Dylan's life of conversion to Christianity. Not a perpetual adherence to its beliefs. In any event, his public profession of faith has not been retracted by a similar public repudiation of the same.
  • The length of time that Dylan publicly spoke of his belief in Jesus is significantly long and not merely momentary.
  • This is a biographical article, not a music article. For a Jew to become a Christian is a pivotal event in his life.
  • I reject the characterization that this is a SOAPBOX issue, it's an issue of making the article accurately reflect that Dylan converted to Christianity in 1979 -- an immutable, historical fact -- as repugnant to some of his fans that might be. who want to revise history to pretend that his conversion never happened by excluding this category. patsw 17:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, it's an inconsequential nonevent, of no importance. It is blown out of proportion by putting him in a category that is incorrect and misleading in it's basic implications. Dylan is no more a Christian than he is a Martian, because he once gazed upon the red planet in the night sky in 1979.
  • Oppose That he converted formally to Christianity is beyond doubt (Tvov: you need to read an account of the classes he took at The Vineyard in SoCal and the ceremony marking his completion of same). As recently as 2003 he was still writing lyrics such as "Jesus is coming, he's coming back to gather his jewels" (Gonna Change My Way of Thinking-- rewrite for the "Gotta Serve Somebody -- The Gospel Songs of Bob Dylan" release of `03)... Equating his large output of Gospel songs, as composer and recording artist, to the Andrews' Sisters' one-off singing of Bei Mir Bist du Shein is like equating, say, the philosophical reflections of Maimonides and George W. Bush... The thing is, we may also need a category "Backslid Christians". You only need to listen to some of the salacious lyrics from the Wilbury years, obviously penned by him (as none of the others could rhyme nearly that well), to know why. JDG 14:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I think that "grammy award winning" could probably be taken out of the opening sentence; while a single award might be important for a lesser artist, Dylan is of sufficient stature that it doesn't add much to his notability. And isn't "grammy" supposed to be capitalized, anyways? Brianyoumans 17:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, these awards are rather out of place in the first sentence. This would also be the case with respect to other great artists, but especially in Dylans case - he's not precisely the symbol for superficial, short-lived public success. I wonder if he cares at all about those awards. I am positive his fans don't. --Olaf g 12:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This article isn't for his fans, it's for people who may not have heard of him. He's won awards which are generally thought of as important, and the usual place to mention that would be right at the beginning. Adam McMaster 12:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Adam here. The sentence was added to give some immediate recognition of his notability or success for those who know nothing about him. SECProto 22:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Compared to his real achievements, these awards amount to a few handfuls of tinsel (although I'm not opposed to listing them elsewhere in the article... but right after his name? No way). And how many in the Western world (the presumed audience of the English Wikipedia) haven't heard of him? Perhaps a fair proportion of the under-12 set haven't, but even for them, we should not be holding up these popularity awards as his top accomplishments. JDG 13:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't read this closely, i thought we were discussing the last paragraph in the intro, which describes many awards he has received. But JDG, in an article, we have to assume that the reader knows nothing about the subject - that's why they're here looking at it, right? nevertheless, I agree that it makes it flow somewhat poorly, and we should move the mention of those awards to the last paragraph in the introduction, which describes them in more detail. SECProto 14:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks like we have consensus. Removing mention of prizes from first sentence. JDG 13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Lifted?

These sentences: "Many in the folk revival had embraced the idea that life equaled art, that a certain kind of life defined by suffering and social exclusion in fact replaced art.[49] Folksong collectors and singers often presented folk music as an innocent characteristic of lives lived without reflection or the false consciousness of capitalism.[50] This philosophy, both genteel and paternalistic, was ultimately what Dylan had run afoul of by 1965." are dangerously close to sentences in Greil Marcus' "The Old Weird America". Go to the following url and click the "On Page 27" link (you need an Amazon account with which you've purchased something):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0312420439/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop/102-9538556-5600964?v=search-inside&keywords=exclusion&go.x=0&go.y=0&go=Go%21

What do you think? Really in any case they are subjective and POV and OR, whether lifted or not (and, sorry, but the citations are a bit dubious-- how can you have fact-style citations for a poetic insight like "so-and-so felt life replaced art"). So I propose deletion. JDG 14:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

JDG I see what you mean. As you probably noticed, these sentences carry a footnote which points to the same pages of Greil Marcus that you're pointing to: pp 27-28 of The Old Weird America aka Invisble Republic. So I guess the sentences are paraphrasing Marcus and Georgina Boyes - who are footnoted. Would it be valid to attribute the ideas to Marcus explicitly, as in "Critics, including Greil Marcus, have argued that....." Would you leave in second half of para which contains Dylan's splendid insight into folk music, as delivered to Nat Hentoff? Mick gold 22:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I actually didn't notice that the second footnote was to The Old Weird America. Personally, I'd just quote Marcus and leave the Dylan quote to Hentoff there as well... One other thing I've been meaning to do, Mick, is include some decent lyric excerpts. You may recall Monicasdude was standing in the way of that, and with him (presumably) gone, there's no reason not to. You've done such good work on the article, I think you would have the best feel for which lyrics at which points. My votes would be A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall, Subterranean Homesick Blues and Blind Willie McTell, where each is currently mentioned... There's simply no excuse not to have short excerpts from an artist whose stature rests more on lyrics than anything else. JDG 05:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for remarks. Personally, I don't think article needs quotes from lyrics. The significance of the 3 songs you mentioned are described in the article. (Quite well, I think.) Mick gold 10:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, surprised to see you say that. However high an opinion we may have of ourselves, I don't think we can say we're imparting anywhere near the idea of the songs as would lyrics... There's no copyright problem at all with short excerpts and we're lucky our subject works in a medium perfectly reproducible in the article. JDG 14:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Chaque à son goût! (I had nothing to do with comments written on A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall, but I thought they successfully conveyed what was innovatory about that song.) I just don't think it's the job of the article to quote extensively from his songs. Dylan's lyrics are there for all to read via his official website. I think it's the job of the article to put his life & work into an interesting biographical & historical context. best wishes Mick gold 14:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Si tout est une question de goût, le goût est la réponse de totalité. Et il n'est pas! There are also encyclopedic works on Dylan for all to read at the neighborhood bookstore. But here we attempt to give a very incisive, yet detailed, view of his career. The uninitiated would hardly know where to begin among all 500+ songs. We're here to help-- and very limited lyric excerpts are the only primary tool we haven't used yet. Anyway-- a good weekend to you. JDG 15:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Robert Hilburn

I’ve substituted Robert Hilburn’s Los Angeles Times interview for the first New York Times quote in this section, because the NYT extract seemed less clear, and Hilburn contains a direct quote from Dylan. Hilburn’s interview was recently re-printed in Dylan on Dylan: The Essential Interviews, ed. Jonathan Cott, Hodder & Stoughton, 2006, ISBN0340923121. Pages 279-285.

I changed “Dylan’s embrace of mainstream religion” to “Dylan’s embrace of Christianity” because that is consistent with ref cited, which is Sounes, pp 334-336. In those pages, the following express dismay at Dylan’s embrace of Christianity: Harold Leventhal, John Lennon, Leonard Cohen, Keith Richards, Ronnie Hawkins, and Howard Rutman. Leventhal, an old Jewish friend of Dylan, is specifically discomforted by a cross that Dylan wore. Leventhal is quoted as asking Dylan: “What have you got this cross dangling around you for?” (Sounes, 334) Mick gold 05:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ginsberg/Dylan sessions & Duets

I added a short paragraph about the unreleased sessions which Dylan recorded with Allen Ginsberg in 1971. Any comments, or does anyone know any more websites that could be referenced?Warchef 16:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I also added a few smaller details that weren't included in the article, mostly his duets and songs he wrote for other people, such as his song "sign language" that he wrote for clapton, "wallflower" that he wrote for doug sahm, and his vocal on lenny cohen's "death of a ladies' man". anyone know any more such instances?Warchef 18:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

This talk page is huge. I propose using User:MiszaBot I to automatically archive old threads. What does everyone else think? Adam McMaster 23:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. John Carter 16:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you please explain the practical consequences of your proposal? Some of the exchanges on the Talk page about Dylan's religion have been perhaps inordinately wordy, but, apart from that, I've found Talk page easy to follow. Mick gold 13:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, having my own talk page archived, all that happens is that the older comments are placed on a separate page, and that a box with a link to that archive page is included on this one. Then, threads which have not had comments added to them in for a given period are eventually automatically archived. The comments can still be found on that archive page, though. John Carter 14:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
This page already has several pages of archived discussion. Using this bot would simply automate the process. Adam McMaster 15:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If there are no more questions or objections, I'll set this up at the end of this week. Adam McMaster 18:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection

The anonymous user keeps adding the "Background" heading again, should we re-protect the page? Or is there anything else that can be done? Adam McMaster 08:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought semi-protection was a pleasant respite from the interminable ROHA "Background" editing. Mick gold 17:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, what the heck does ROHA mean anyway? Adam McMaster 18:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
ROHA is just jargon. You don't have to know what it means. Bus stop 18:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
No, you are incorrect - it's not jargon. It is purportedly the user's name - see this. He spent some time doing the same kind of thing on Cat Stevens. Semi-protection is the only thing that stops his persistent edits, as he comes in on a variety of IPs. Tvoz |talk 19:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
OK. I stand corrected. Bus stop 20:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
IIRC it stands for Hans Rosenthal. he's been vandalizing this page for upwards of 2 years. SECProto 00:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Vital article?

Bob Dylan is not listed as a vital article, but I think he probably should be. What do you all think?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he should be. If Elvis and the Beatles are there, Bob should be there. Those three are the essential ones if you're going to include 20th century popular artists at all. JDG 22:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Why not? There seems to be lively debate about just how 'vital' the vital article is [[2]]. Mick gold 13:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't think Bob should be there. To earn a place, you'd have to convince people that Bob was more important than Wagner or Elvis, a tough sell. For the same spot there are many other candidates, depending on who you talk to - The Rolling Stones, Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong, Miles Davis, Oasis, Nirvana, U2, Queen, Led Zeppelin, while some don't even include the Beatles at all! Even some rock lists don't include Bob! (Shame on them!) I'd probably put Bob in the top ten pop/rock artists, but he's not one of the top seven musical artists/composers of all human history. Walkerma 04:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, Walkerma. I'm puzzled how you could ever reach a stable consensus on "the top seven musical artists/composers of all human history". This list contains 9 artists, 14 authors, but only 7 Composers & musicians. Are these numbers arbitrary, or is there any logic to them? (The vital article list, as it is currently constituted, suggests that Frederic Chopin is more important than Gustav Mahler in the field of "Composers and Musicians". I know a few music critics who would disagree. This list seems to suggest that Salvador Dali is a more important artist than Goya or Raphael. Whose opinion is driving this bus?) Would you agree that in Rolling Stone Magazine's 100 Greatest Artists of All Time, the top 3 artists are 1) The Beatles 2) Bob Dylan 3) Elvis Presley? Would you agree that in TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of the 20th century, the only 3 artists from the world of rock/pop are The Beatles, Bob Dylan, and Aretha Franklin? Both Time Magazine and Rolling Stone Magazine are assigning greater cultural importance to Dylan than to Elvis Presley. Of course, other lists can be cited but Rolling Stone Magazine and Time Magazine both occupy a very significant place in the arbitration of issues of popular culture. Regards Mick gold 06:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I wish I knew more about what the criteria for nominating/selecting vital articles is, but I don't. I think one of the things that might have happened is that no one might yet have suggested Bob for inclusion in the list, and that without such a nomination he might not have been considered. Also, there are certain means of trying to help establish which are the most "important" articles to wikipedia on as objective a basis as possible. Hopefully, if and when they are finished, they can provide an indication as to which are and aren't the most vital articles. I know that might not be the answer you wanted to hear, but it's the best one I have available. John Carter 14:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
One problem with such lists (like VA) on the wiki is that they are far too arbitrary. If one person wants to spend a lot of time working on the page, they can change the "flavour". It was originally created by David Gerard, and he included all the countries of the world. Then User:Silence came along and removed all but around 40 countries, and made his/her case for doing so. Others since have made their own changes, and all could probably make a case. I tried to introduce some more objective methods based on things like interwiki counts, but these attempts have fallen by the wayside.
In the next month (if the toolserver is fixed) we plan to start testing MartinBotII, and that will give us a much more objective assessment of a topic's importance. It will used a Google-type algorithm based on four factors:
  1. WikiProject importance rating, corrected for project importance
  2. No. of "whatlinkshere", i.e., the no. of pages that link into the article - and we plan to weigh those inlinks based on the importance of each inlink!
  3. No. of interwikis - if 99 other languages have a Bob Dylan article, then clearly he's more important than another artist with only 27.
  4. Hit counts are now available on the toolserver, so if lots of people are reading the Dylan article, it will count as more important.
I think once we have such a system working, we can come to a consensus on how many of each category should be on VA, then we can look at what MartinBotII gives us. More important, if the selections look good (we do plan a WikiProject "reality check" of our selections) then we can use it for all of our future DVD releases. PS: Bob made it onto our first CD release, so he will appear on all of our general offline releases, whatever may happen at VA. Walkerma 19:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Religious conversion information changed?

Can anyone explain to me why the content relating to Dylan's clearly documented conversion to Christianity was altered to the current state? John Carter 14:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read the archives. Tvoz |talk 19:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The changes I am questioning took place on the 17th, as per here. So far, there is no discussion on this page regarding these edits. Considering that the person who first made the change and the person who subsequently restored the change have both recently been described by a mediator elsewhere as being unwilling to accept mediation regarding the issue of this subject's list on a list of converts as per here, I thought it a reasonable question. John Carter 19:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
John Carter, can you please explain to everyone why you are misrepresenting the actions of other editors once again. You obviously have read the archive, so you know that all I did was restore the long standing concensus version of the text, which User JDG abruptly changed without talk page discussion. [3] All User:Bus stop & I have done is revert to the consensus version of the text. But then you know that - as you participated in those discusssions. Again, I ask you to take a look at WP:HARRASS. Perhaps, you'd like to stop building a case against yourself for misconduct. Cleo123 04:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It would seem that Cleo and Bus stop have brought their antics to this page also. I am glad at least one other editor agrees that Dylan was a Christian convert[4], along with the Encyclopedia Britannica[5] and other reputable sources. Drumpler 21:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Drumpler, no one has "brought their antics" anywhere. If you'd take the time to read this page, you'd realize that we both have been participants in the discussions for several months. While others are working towards an amicable resolution to the List of notable converts to Christianity dispute, it is very unfortunate that you have apparently chosen to fan the flames of controversy. I do not understand why you, as a relative new comer to that debate, have repeatedly attempted to insinuate yourself into the middle of the conflict. Are you trying to make things worse? It would certainly seem that way. There is nothing to be gained by taking a combative and negative approach. Cleo123 04:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
What about sources that clearly state, in no unclear words, that Dylan was a Christian? If "antics" was the wrong word, I apologize. As you know, though, I am particularly frustrated with a minority position that I feel is based more on original research and things people don't like more than verifiability. I am pleased, though, that on the other article talk page, you yourself are making moves toward compromise. However, I can't understand what is so offensive about the fact that Dylan used to be a Christian. Is it really anti-semitic to mention this (I direct this more toward a certain editor than you yourself)?
And I apologize if it was premature for me to jump into a debate without reading the archives, however, if you can point me toward which archives to read, I'd be more than happy to. Drumpler 06:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it was because of a note regarding User:Bus stop's edits to this page that I was first made aware of this dispute. So it would probably be more accurate to say that they have to decided to return to adding their input here as well. John Carter 21:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Either way, its pretty ridiculous. Drumpler 23:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Do others think it would be reasonable to restore the content which was changed in the first of the changes linked to above? John Carter 01:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
No, it would not be reasonable. Let's stick to the version that the majority of editors to this article had agreed upon. John, following editors to other articles and instigating conflict on those pages could be considered disruptive. Please, stop. Cleo123 04:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
John Carter -- There is no evidence for formal conversion for Dylan therefore I think the present language is preferable to the prior language. Bus stop 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Then please bring your contentions here. Drumpler 01:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Sources are what is necessary, not evidence. And there are certainly sources aplenty. SECProto 02:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the “Born Again” section of the Bob Dylan article is OK in its current form. It’s all here. The Gulliksen quote, the Hilburn quote (which I added 4 days ago), the “sermon” quote. There is a nuanced account of Dylan’s post “Born Again” religious position, which quotes verifiable sources. Is it necessary to have an edit war over the first sentence? I would hope not. Mick gold 07:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, despite Cleo123's statement that I obviously read the prior history before his/her edits was, once again, both unfounded and fallacious. In this case, I simply read his/her edit summary, once again referring to an unsupported opinion of WP:BLP, and thought it was another edit of that user regarding that user's trying to make wikipedia conform to his/her opinion of BLP. I now recognize that seems to have been in error, and believe that if Mick, who has been a solid contributor to this article over time, finds the content as it exists acceptable, that personally there is no reason to question it. John Carter 15:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I also find the first sentence in that section per se acceptable. The last paragraph meanwhile seems a collection of WP:WEASEL terms ("it is clear", "it is not clear", "many Jewish rituals" [says what source? or it's just OR by WP editors?]) in addition to obvious original research. Tweaks there are in order. Tendancer 16:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
"Dylan's embrace of Christianity was unpopular with some of his fans and fellow musicians" sounds like weasel wording and does not belong. Can someone direct me to when this edit was placed and by whom? Drumpler 22:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Drumpler There is a footnote after that sentence. The footnote refers the reader to Howard Sounes' biography: Down the Highway: the Biography of Bob Dylan (2001) pp. 334-336. In those pages, the following express dismay at Dylan’s embrace of Christianity: Harold Leventhal, John Lennon, Leonard Cohen, Keith Richards, Ronnie Hawkins, and Howard Rutman. Why don't you read the footnotes before you query the text? Mick gold 06:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Your assumption that I haven't isn't in good faith, because I have. I am just unclear what the objective is: is this an attempt to say that Dylan only "experimented" with Christianity? Or is it saying he was a Christian (as the sources attest that he was)? There's a similar debate on another page and a few of the editors from that debate contribute to this article. I am trying to understand the context of when and where this was posted, as I'm not certain of the objective in the phraseology. Drumpler 09:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
And so its clear, I am against said edit war myself. :-) However, an encyclopedia ideally should be accurate in all aspects of its content and I'm just wondering if there was an attempt to "tone down" the wording? Drumpler 10:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for my lack of good faith. The sentence simply says: "Dylan's embrace of Christianity was unpopular with some of his fans and fellow musicians." So this (plus the footnote) tells us Dylan was criticised by John Lennon, Leonard Cohen, Keith Richards, Ronnie Hawkins, Harold Leventhal et al. i.e. it was unpopular within Dylan's musical peer group. I don't interpret this as meaning "that Dylan only 'experimented' with Christianity" (to quote your words). It means that Dylan's embrace of Christianity was unpopular with significant figures in culture of popular music, late 1970s/early 1980s. I don't know if this answers your question. best wishes Mick gold 10:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. It did address my question. Drumpler 21:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'll update the last section to

Since the early 1980's Dylan's personal religious beliefs have been the subject of debate among fans and critics. On the level of religious practice, he has since supported the Chabad Lubavitch movement[97] and participated in Jewish rituals, though he has not explicitly disavowed any Christian beliefs. In a September 28, 1997, interview appearing in The New York Times, journalist Jon Pareles reported that "Dylan says he now subscribes to no organized religion."

Basically, an edit to remove WP:PEACOCK wordings such as "much" and "many" unless secondary sources explicitly state so, and the "it is clear"/"it is not clear" sentences deserve removal as they are WP:WEASEL and WP:NOR-breaking terms. I'll also add a source http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-79354004.html as it would support the first sentence and explicitly used the term "debate" and "religious beliefs", however "much" from "much debate" still should be removed. Tendancer 03:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your re-write sounds good to me. Much simpler & more elegant. I'll try to reply to the query of Drumpler below when I get a few hours off work. Mick gold 06:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't waste your time. Stress on another article misled me into believing that that was a total rewrite for said section and when I went back to it, re-read it and compared the two, I found out that that indeed was not the case. I apologize if it seemed like I was being snappy, as that indeed was not my intent. Although I still think the reference to the "subject of debate among fans and critics" needs to be sourced. ;) Drumpler 10:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm just concerned about what has been the "subject of debate among fans and critics." Is this because of a few Wikipedia editors that this statement is being made (more weasel words) or is it because this statement can be verified by a neutral source? Dylan was a Christian. The best of sources attest to that. Even if he wasn't, secondary sources are what matter (he hasn't said otherwise). So I'm not sure what the deal is here? Drumpler 03:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
This source http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-79354004.html could be used to support that statement, as the source states: "In fact, Bob Dylan's history as a songwriter can perhaps best be interpreted as a constant debate between, on the one hand, mysticism, and, on the other, religious belief, whether represented by Judaism, Dylan's childhood religion, or Christianity, which he openly espoused in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This lifelong debate has its first major and, arguably, most memorable expression in Blonde on Blonde..." So in this case we can avoid the original research concerns. Maybe the ending "among fans of critics" can be omitted then (as that may be a bit of synthesis), to just "Since the early 1980's Dylan's personal religious beliefs have been the subject of debate [insert source here]". Would that address your concerns? Tendancer 15:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Drumpler 21:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Mick and Drumpler for the input. I have made the quick changes, please let me know if anything needs fix (e.g. I accidentally foobar'ed the ref tags the first try). Tendancer 05:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Tendancer. I think it's much clearer. (I confess I am sceptical about the level of symbolism that Michael Karwowski proposes, arguing that Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands is (in his words) "actually 'about' the Roman Catholic church". But Karwowski clearly demonstrates how seriously some critics take Dylan's religious quest.) Mick gold 07:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This user is a fan of Bob Dylan logo?

Just curious is there's a WP logo for being a fan of Bob Dylan? Cheers, --Dylanfly 12:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dylan & His Judaism

Why has my posting that Dylan is Jewish repeatedly been deleted, when my source/reference is a valid one? The one who deleted it has obviously not taken the time to read through my linked article. I was planning on contributing a lot to Wikipedia, and I do accept constructive criticism, but not plain deletion without warning or discussion.

Hi. Do you have a User name? Are you Lespaul? The only thing I deleted was an edit by Lespaul calling Dylan an American Jewish artist in the first sentence of the lead para. I commented “I’d argue American, rather than American Jewish, in first para.” I read the linked article. Larry Yudelson tries to claim Dylan as a Jewish artist. He’s entitled to his opinion but I don’t think his article is totally convincing. He writes: “Sixty-one biblical references have been counted on the next Dylan album, John Wesley Harding. "All Along the Watchtower" transformed Isaiah's images into a rock hit. But what was a nice Jewish boy singing that "I Dreamed I Saw St. Augustine"?”
What indeed? There are several websites that claim Dylan as a Christian artist. This article properly states that Dylan was born to Jewish parents who were part of a close-knit Jewish community in Duluth & Hibbing. Dylan uses Old Testament references. He uses New Testament references. He also references Egyptian & Greek mythology, Shakespeare & romantic poetry in his songs. Above all, he’s steeped in the language & the history of the blues & country music & gospel music. I think it’s false to characterise Dylan as a Jewish artist or a Christian artist. That limits him. That’s my opinion. Mick gold 14:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

My username is indeed Lespaul. I might have posted previous message annonymously, but that was merely a coincidential mistake. I think your argumentations are fair enough and I accept them as trustful and authentic.

I've just added a link to Larry Yudelson's page Bob Dylan: Tangled up in Jews, which has existed since 1995 and is still written in ancient HTML 1.0 code. Yudelson's page is a source of everything that has anything to do with Dylan's evolving Jewish identity. --Metzenberg 08:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Mick Gold writes, But what was a nice Jewish boy singing that "I Dreamed I Saw St. Augustine"?”

Mick, I don't even know where to begin with this one. Are you saying that nice Jewish boys (and girls) can't sing or compose about Christian (and other very non-Jewish themes) and still be Jewish artists. Let me make a short list of artists besides Dylan whose identities as artists seem very Jewish:
Seems to me like Jews have composed and performed more than their share of Christian music from Tin Pan Alley down to the present day. Then, there are some really weird ironies too, like Al Sherman wrote the song Lindbergh about that notorious isolationist. --Metzenberg 08:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
In the same way, a non-Jewish artist can write Jewish music. I think that would be more likely to define dylan. SECProto 18:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
SECProto. I'm not sure what you are saying here? Are you trying to say that Bob Dylan is non-Jewish? He is a very private man, and he never announced that he had returned to Judaism, but he certainly appears to have done so long ago. I'm reluctant to discuss the matter, because I feel he deserves his privacy, but for many years (since the 1980s) he has been sighted at Passover Seders, High Holidays Celebrations, and the like put on by the Lubavitcher movement. The Lubavitichers are openhearted Hasidic Jews who have created a worldwide outreach network. They welcome less observant Jews, and it's a well-known fact that for more than twenty years, Dylan has been seen frequently at the rabbi's tisch (Yiddish, the rabbi's table, figuratively) in Chabad centers. Dylan has also traveled to Israel, where he has been seen davening with tefillin (Anglicized Hebrew, praying with phylacteries) at the kotel (Western Wall). Dylan appears to have returned to Judaism, and it appears to be spiritually an important part of his life. For documentation on this matter, please see Bob Dylan: Tangled up in Jews.
It's possible that Dylan has performed a Jewish "return ceremony" but I feel like that's none of my business. He hasn't made any announcement of such a thing, and I don't feel it's my business to ask. I wouldn't even mention it here, but for the fact that some people seem to be denying Bob Dylan's Jewishness. Such a ceremony does exist for Jews who have left Judaism and seek to return. I'm not interested in knowing whether he has or has not. I prefer to give him privacy on the matter, and hope that his spiritual journey and his music will go on until he reaches the age of 120.
I want to add too, that Dylan never publicly announced that he had left Judaism. Although I am a Dylan fan, I mostly tune out that half-decade period of his life where he was singing gospel music. While it would be a denial of Judaism to believe that Jesus was divine, or the Messiah, there is nothing wrong (from a Jewish perspective) with having respect for him as a great man and teacher. And the same goes for Saint Augustine. --Metzenberg 03:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't trying to say Dylan wasn't Jewish. I also wasn't trying to say that he was Christian. Instead, I was just agreeing that you can't necessarily tell someone's religion from the content of their songs. SECProto 14:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Mick Gold writes, But what was a nice Jewish boy singing that "I Dreamed I Saw St. Augustine"?”

Mick, I just looked at Dylan's lyrics for Augustine and when he wrote them. It's clear that this song was a possible forerunner to his "gospel" period, but there are alternate interpretations as well. I'll comment below in a new section. --Metzenberg 08:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write: But what was a nice Jewish boy singing that "I Dreamed I Saw St. Augustine"?” If you look at my posting, I was quoting from Larry Yudelson. Yudelson wrote (on his website Bob Dylan: Tangled up in Jews): “Sixty-one biblical references have been counted on the next Dylan album, John Wesley Harding. "All Along the Watchtower" transformed Isaiah's images into a rock hit. But what was a nice Jewish boy singing that "I Dreamed I Saw St. Augustine"?” That's Yudelson, not me. Mick gold 15:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. It was hard to tell from context above what was in quotation marks? BTW, I sent a message to Reb Yudel about this. This is a busy weekend for Jews, however, because yesterday was Shabbat and tomorrow is Yom Ha-Shoah (Day of Remembrance of the Holocaust). --Metzenberg 07:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Metzenberg and Lespaul, I think you go a bit far in trying to peg Dylan's current outlook as exclusivist Jewish. After all, it's only been a few years since his re-release of Gonna Change My Way of Thinkin, in which he duets with Mavis Staples on lines like "Jesus is coming, he's coming back to gather his jewels"... Besides, his Hebrew name is so shabby, which can't help matters. JDG 13:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

JDG -- "Peg Dylan's current outlook as exclusivist Jewish?" What is that supposed to mean? We are talking about religion, are we not? Do you think record albums or performances define religion? And furthermore, what do you mean by referring to his Hebrew name as "shabby?" Do you think you could please articulate your thoughts a little? Bus stop 02:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Shabtai=shabby, get it? (sorry, you need a sense of humor as corny as Dylan's to appreciate that one). You ask do I think record albums or performances define religion? I'm not sure what high-falutin concept you're getting at there-- all I can tell you is that when I hear someone sing the newly re-written line "Jesus is coming", I tend to think to myself "This singer sounds Christian", and I sure don't think "This singer sound exclusivist Jewish". You do? JDG 17:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't make fun of peoples' (Jewish) names. Don't assume religion based on songs sung. I'm not required to have a sense of humor. Bus stop 20:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

instead try assuming their religion based on nothing at all like bus stop! SECProto 21:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm lots of arguing :| I don't think it's safe to say that you can tell someone's religion from their songs. Religion is a popular subject that's referenced by many people, and if you're writing lyrics mentioning things about the world around you, it's bound to come up. It's also about something that's not quite "proven", so it adds a bit of mystery to the song, I suppose. Also, he had lyrics mentioning Christian related things in the early 60s, and he told people (not that you can go on anything he says) that he doesn't "see anything to believe in" (quoted in Don't Look Back, which probably isn't smart to find facts from). I've also heard that he's no longer a follower of organized religion, but I'm not sure how true that is. Anyway, my original point before I typed all that was: I just think you're making this into a bigger deal than it needs to be. He is what he is, and just because he's of one religion doesn't mean it's impossible at all to mention things of another religion in songs. You're never gonna know what his religion is if he's as tricky as he always has been about his answers to questions, so there is no sense in trying to find out. That's the hard thing about writing a biography or wikipedia entry about him; there's no straight answers to a lot of things about him. RapMasterK 22:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is my 2 cent, if one has jewish mother you are a jew. Bob Dylan is jewish a least ethnic and he does not seem to pratice any faith with his actions in the past. (Irishmonk 15:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

NMF: Although there is no argument that Bob Dylan was born to Jewish parents, the inclusion of "Jewish" as a descriptive adjective in the opening sentence of his wikipedia article is highly misleading. It suggests that his status as a Jew has permeated his art to such a degree that his art is somehow Jewish, as well. While no doubt his upbringing influenced his work, none of his songs suggest a Jewish voice or narrator. If anything, he seems more interested in a Christian persona.

Irishmonk is correct. People are getting too hung up on the religious aspect of being a Jew, which is also cultural and ethnic. Bob Dylan is a Jew whether he practices Judaism or not, and clearly he still practices to some extent.

Mr. Tambourine/Dylan Interview

My wife has recently told me she saw an interview by Ira Glass with Mr. Dylan. In this said interview, he explained that his hit "Mr. Tambourine Man" was not about drugs. My wife said in this interview he explained that it was about the emerging folk music scene, and how he, in a dream, foresaw it saving the world. Did anyone see this interview, and if so, is this something that can be put into this page, or mentioned in the page for the song?

I've read on the Mr. Tambourine Man entry that it was inspired by an instrument played by Bruce Langhorne. It's also believed that it was written due to Bobby's LSD use. However, he's denied that LSD had anything to do with it, and it's been stated that he never actually used LSD anyway. I'm not sure of any facts regarding this, and I've never seen that interview, but I'm sure it would be of no use, anyway. He tended to mess with interviewers when giving answers. Either way, I don't think it matters much, and I don't think Bob intended anyone knowing how or why he wrote it. RapMasterK 23:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture

It is good to have a recent picture of Bob Dylan, but wouldn't it be better to have a picture of the 'classic' Dylan at the head of the article? The present picture I found completely unrecognizable, not having been a fan in recent years. For most people, I think the 60s or 70s Dylan is the one they recognize. Brianyoumans 17:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

that's the conclusion we came to in a similar discussion months (years?) ago. Those new pictures added, however, are terrific, infinitely better than the other live pictures where he is a blurry figure on a stage. But yeah, they should be put further in, with a 1960s-era dylan at the top. SECProto 02:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

NMF: A picture of the Sixties Era Bob Dylan would more accurately reflect the sound-image a plurality of people register when they hear "Bob Dylan."

Bob Dylan's "Turkish" Roots

This is patently absurd. I'd change it immediately, but since the source is his autobiography, I'd rather have some consensus before doing so. Here's what I think: given Dylan's well-known propensity to mythologize and even fictionalize himself, there's no reason to consider his atobiography to be a legitimate source. But let me back up my claim that it's patently absurd: 1. Both his parents have Ashkenazic last names (Zimmerman and Stone). 2. His Jewish name, as given in the article, is also obviously Ashkenazic. 3. Census records list all of his grandparents as being born in Russia. Any thoughts? Bws2002 18:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I just found the following article, which backs up my research. Bws2002 18:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Would it be valid to include both versions? (They are not incompatible.) Write something like:
Research by Dylan’s biographers has shown that his paternal grandparents, Zigman and Anna Zimmerman, emigrated from Odessa in the Ukraine to the United States after the anti-Semitic pogroms of 1905. His mother’s grandparents, Benjamin and Lybba Edelstein, were Lithuanian Jews who arrived in America in 1902. [Footnote/ref to Sounes, pp 12-13]. (In his 2004 autobiography, Chronicles, Dylan wrote that his paternal grandmother's maiden name was Kirghiz and her family originated from Istanbul, although she grew up in the Kağızman district of Kars in Eastern Turkey. He also wrote that his paternal grandfather was from Trabzon on the Black Sea coast of Turkey.[1]) Mick gold 07:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea, and good copy, too.Bws2002 20:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

At the time that dylan's paternal grandfather lived, Trabzon was almost exclusively inhabited by Greeks. Of course I'd love to claim greek lineage to his Bobness, being greek myself, but I don't see a reason in belabouring the point of his lineage, I mean if one goes a few hundred thousands year backs we are all ultimately descendents of 5000 females, as mitochondrial dna analysis would have it. 84.254.52.209 03:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Dylan also said that he was born in Gallup, New Mexico even though he was actually born in Minnesota. I think he just liked the sound of the words "Gallup, New Mexico." Come to think of it, so do I. He kidded around a lot, presenting imaginary identities and messing with people's heads. I wouldn't put too much stock in his Turkish roots, although the genealogy of eastern Europe, the Middle East, and the Jews are all a mess and anything is possible. -Larry Siegel

Song Interpretations

The Dylan entry is lessened overall by the inclusion of song interpretations. There is no reliable "Dylan to English dictionary".

My discomfort starts where "Blood On the Tracks" is described as a chronicle of Dylan's marriage difficulties. I don't believe this is necessarily true at all. Dylan spoke of "pain" in the album. I believe there is no evidence beyond this, and I have no respect for the sad crowd of writers and interpretators who claim superior knowlege and superior perceptions.

I know Dylan's son has accepted this hogwash. This is most unfortunate. Lowgen 22:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I think the son has a better feel on how to interpret the album than you. I mean the son is the one who was actually raised by him, and if he can see his parents divorce in the words, then who are you to call it "hogwash"? morrrrrrrronnnnnnnnnn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.106.69.186 (talk) 02:40, August 27, 2007 (UTC)



Its Right ? Bob Mother she has Kurdish Root ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.86.23.102 (talk) 13:26, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Any objections ?

I am think of adding a sentence or phrase to section 1.2 pursuant to Dylan being referred to as 'Hammonds Folly" at Columbia Records. Also feel free to go ahead and make the edit yourselves if you like. I don't want to be bold and barge in so I thought I would ask first. Albion moonlight 09:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

-That would be a worthy and humorous addition. I think it was Scaduto who wrote that record sales were not so great and this phrase was used inside the record company.Lowgen 21:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Mick gold 13:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

And a job well done. Albion moonlight 14:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Slight re-write

This “Born Again” section of the Dylan article ended up with 2 quotes from Dylan which were remarkably similar:

"Here's the thing with me and the religious thing. This is the flat-out truth: I find the religiosity and philosophy in the music. I don't find it anywhere else. Songs like "Let Me Rest on a Peaceful Mountain" or "I Saw the Light" – that's my religion. I don't adhere to rabbis, preachers, evangelists, all of that. I've learned more from the songs than I've learned from any of this kind of entity. The songs are my lexicon. I believe the songs".

And:

"Those old songs are my lexicon and my prayer book . . . All my beliefs come out of those old songs, literally, anything from 'Let Me Rest on That Peaceful Mountain' to 'Keep on the Sunny Side.' You can find all my philosophy in those old songs. I believe in a God of time and space, but if people ask me about that, my impulse is to point them back toward those songs. I believe in Hank Williams singing 'I Saw the Light.' I've seen the light, too."

Both these statements tell us that Dylan finds religiosity in music rather than in formal religious practice, and both these statements name ‘Let Me Rest On That Peaceful Mountain’ and ‘I Saw The Light’ as touchstones of his religious feelings. I thought there’s no point in quoting both statements. I marginally preferred the first because the line “I don't adhere to rabbis, preachers, evangelists” has been widely quoted. I’ve also given the source for this interview. (Newsweek, 10/6/97)

In an earlier version of this article, a quote from the Jon Pareles interview in the The New York Times reported that "Dylan says he now subscribes to no organized religion." I’ve restored this line, since it offers a resolution of the question of Dylan’s current religious adherence with a WP:V source. I don’t think the sentence “According to Rabbi Manis Friedman, Dylan did immerse in a mikvah, as required of a former apostate.” should be in a Wikipedia article, unless there is a WP:V source. Mick gold 09:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In which article does his conversion belong?

The article, "Slow Train Coming" has a lengthy section on Dylan's conversion to Christianity. It's well done, but I think it's out of place there. An in-depth treatment seems more a part of Dylan's biography than a discussion of that record album. The Bob Dylan article links to that one for further infomation about his conversion. It ought to work the other way 'round. That is, the "Slow Train" article should briefly discuss the the conversion as important context for the album, but point elsewhere (either to the Bob Dylan article or another separate one) for the full story. (I've made essentially this same comment on Talk:Slow Train.) Hult041956 16:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dylan's conversion is the dominant theme throughout said album. Thus, it belongs there. 82.176.216.87 11:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... I'm not convinced. No question that Dylan's conversion is the essence of "Slow Train," and thus needed background to any understanding of that album. My concern is that important biographical information about this artist (e.g., he was in a rough patch psychologically in '78; he had his awakening experience; he read and was influenced by various persons; he expressed his new beliefs "on stage"!) is found only in that article, while this one handles the whole topic with two opening sentences ("Dylan became born-again" and "Dylan participated in Bible study") and a half dozen or so quotes. Hult041956 00:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing the section on upsinging

I don't know why this keeps happening. A proper reference has been listed for it. If you don't like the way it is worded, then alter it somewhat. Please stop removing it completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.160.252.22 (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

True enough, a citation has been provided. But the source (a concert review from Nov. 2006) only says Dylan used this technique "sparingly" on this occasion. (The reviewer is pleased by this.) Do you have sources for the claims that a) Dylan began doing this "around 2000 and especially in 2001", b) that he did it in "sizable portions of his live show[s]", c) that the ending high note is the tonic of his ending chord, or d) that this technique is "unprecedented in the world of popular music" ?? Hult041956 20:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the questions raised by Hult041956 are valid, so I have watered down this "upsinging" section. Mick gold 21:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Nicely done, Nick. User 150.160 gets his upsinging reference (and to be fair, this word does Google to a bunch of Dylan web sites), but without making way too much of it. Hult041956 21:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Hult041956, if you're serious about editing this Dylan article & contributing to Wikipedia, why don't you create an account & register your Username? Then you'll have a Talk page on which unbelievably interesting conversations will take place, best wishes Mick gold 07:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I am indeed very interested in helping out on Dylan-related articles. You can see I've made some copy edits to the article and several comments on this talk page in recent weeks. In fact I have recently registered as user and do have a bit of a talk page. I have not created a user page yet, which is perhaps what you mean. I look forward to working with you and hearing from other Dylan editors (either on my talk or on this page). Hult041956 17:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

One more bit on upsinging

I'm on board with the revised section on upsinging, but I don't know why it says that only "a few" fans have bemoaned upsinging. As anyone who follows Dylan's tours can tell you, this is a gross understatement. "A few" should be changed to "many," or at least "some."

There seems to be a tendency to downplay what might be taken as criticism of Mr. Dylan on this page. Doesn't that kinda fly in the face of objectivity? Bill Hazel 18:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Forever Young - rewording needed

The following quote from the article (referring to Forever Young) doesn't really read well to me, and I wondered if anyone would mind of I changed it, or if they had any suggestions for improving it?:

"The phrase may be a reference to John Keats's Ode on a Grecian Urn, ("For ever panting, and for ever young") but Dylan turned it into a strangely (for Dylan) sincere and openly heartfelt work (thought to have been inspired by his newfound family life and his children) which has become one of his most popular concert songs"

There's a lot of 'maybes', and 'though to have been's here - and also the inference that Dylan is nearly never sincere in his songwriting rings particularly false (I'm similarly sceptical of the inference that he is also rarely openly heartfelt). I think the Keats thing is unnecessary, but a reference could keep it there; the thing about the song being for his kids has some minor relevance, but also needs a reference (Heylin mentions it, does anyone have a direct quote or reference?); that it's one of his most popular concert songs is fine (although maybe referring to the fact that it's oft-performed is less subjective than saying popular-but that's a very minor point); and the stuff about it being strange that Dylan should be so heartfelt or sincere (gasp!) has to go.

any suggestions?Warchef 21:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Warchef I agree this wording is dodgy, I never noticed these phrases before, perhaps they’ve been added recently? The idea that ‘sincere and openly heartfelt’ lyrics are strange for Dylan is ludicrously POV, and I would disagree. I like the Keats reference and Christopher Ricks certainly makes that point on p. 453 of his Dylan book. Dylan talks about the inspiration for the song in the Biograph booklet: “Forever Young I wrote in Tuscon, I wrote it thinking about one of my boys and not wanting to be too sentimental”. I’ll try a re-write, please edit it if you don’t like it. (btw, there’s a fascinating 12 page passage in Ricks book where he explores the parallels between Keats’ Ode to a Nightingale and Dylan’s Not Dark Yet. I think I’ll put that into Time Out of Mind with a ref since it’s one of the best things in Ricks book.) Mick gold 12:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

perfect rewrite; as usual great work Mick gold. it's funny though, I think, that Forever Young doesn't have its own page-it's surely noteworthy enough and there must be enough info on it out there to make such a page interesting. Cheers for the info on the Ricks' thoughts on its relation to Keats. Being Irish, I had always thought that it was based on the old Gaelic blessing/song "may the road rise up to meet you" [6], but I've nothing to back me up on that except my own intuition. :)

once more, cheers for the great rewrite.I'll keep an eye on the Time Out Of Mind page for that additionWarchef 17:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks Warchef. I think you're completely right about your Gaelic blessing/song, both the imagery and the rhythm seem close to Dylan's song. A pity we can only put these ideas in place when we find a critic who has has had the same brilliant idea as you have? "May the road rise with you" is the backbone of one of PiL's best tracks, 'Rise', but that sounds nothing like Forever Young! :) Mick gold 21:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Loveandtheftcover.jpg

Image:Loveandtheftcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

1964 Halloween Show

I believe it's the Bootleg Series Vol. 6 that the 1964 "Halloween" show took place. Does anyone know what's going on (I think it's either before or after Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues, somewhere around there) before Dylan says "Who cares?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.167.191.77 (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Not sure, but I'll take a listen when I get home. Clearly he's talking to an audience member, though. Wobblies 16:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Incoherent

The article is incoherent, lacks citations, and is poorly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.207.161.125 (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved above comment (i.e., this section) from top of page to the current bottom. I'm making no comment or judgement... only putting new topic at the bottom of the list per convention and allowing the various informational boxes and notes to appear at the top. Hult041956 13:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed

Hi Boab, you’ve put [citation needed] twice by the references to Dylan’s many musical influences, and you’ve made the valid point that Dylan has not written Broadway songs. Of course, Dylan’s musical evolution is self-evident – from youthful rock’n’roll to folk (Freewheelin’) back to rock music (Highway 61 Revisited) to country (Nashville Skyline) to gospel (Saved) to acoustic blues (World Gone Wrong) & everything else including adaptations of Irish, English & Scottish material. (With God On Our Side cf. The Patriot Game, Bob Dylan’s Dream cf. Lord Franklin’, Highlands cf. Burns). What citation is needed? With “Love and Theft”, many critics remarked Dylan’s musical eclecticism had reached new heights, e.g.:

On Summer Days (which owes a debt to Shake, Rattle & Roll) and Lonesome Day Blues, the musicians (his touring band) spew out serrated roadhouse blues behind lyrics like You're gonna need my help, sweetheart/You can't make love all by yourself that manage to be taunting and jaunty at the same time. With its four-to-the-floor rumble and whistling slide guitar, the ambivalent love song Honest With Me consciously evokes Highway 61 Revisited; the hillbilly love serenade Floater (Too Much to Ask) is set to graceful Western swing. These songs crackle with energy -- kudos to slam-banging drummer David Kemper. High-Water (For Charley Patton) is a doomsday warning set to backwater bluegrass banjo and guitar, with Dylan coming off as a fanatic preacher warning us of the pending flood. (Adding to the roots ambiance is the way he drops in snippets of borrowed folk and blues lyrics.) Entertainment Weekly October 1, 2001

"Love and Theft" presents an assured master working with a cornucopia of tuneful frames, all set out on leisurely, laconic display. There are blues forms and jazz forms here, gypsy-jazz folk forms, Tin Pan Alley and rockabilly, boxcar rounds, campfire sing-alongs and sea chanteys, cowboy songs, madrigals, and various alchemical mixtures as they're needed. Village Voice : October 2, 2001

So I’ve added these comments as a ref., for want of anything better. Mick gold 11:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Bob Dylan tours in the navigation template

I recently discovered three WP articles that cover Bob Dylan tours: Bob Dylan and The Band 1974 Tour, Rolling Thunder Revue, and Never Ending Tour. Anyone mind if I add these links to the navigation template? Seems like they belong. I haven't found any others... it would be great if there were an article about the 1966 tour. Hult041956 23:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Mick gold 12:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Glad you agree. I went ahead and did it. Hult041956 17:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What's a "Later Career"?

The article does a nice job handling Dylan's early life, then the early 60s, then the late 60s, then the 70s. Each has a sort of "theme" to it. Then we have this long mishmash called, "Later Career." Hmmm. 1980 was 27 years ago, and he's still going strong. Seems like the 1980s might be the middle of Dylan's career, not the late part of it! I guess what's happened is that the article was structured this way early on, then lots of contributors have kept adding to "Later Career," making that section longer and longer (and less cogent--some parts read like lists of dates). I suggest the following minor fix to start: I'd like to see each of minor subsections 1980s, 1990s, and recent promoted up one level. That would put entire decades of Dylan's life and work on the same level as earlier periods. Following that, each section could stand a bit of rework around a theme. (By theme I mean something like, e.g., "Grammy award winner," "Never ending tour," etc.) Other thoughts? Hult041956 17:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  • This is perhaps a contentious statement, but I think "Later Career" is probably how all of Dylan's work after the 1970s is going to be viewed, indefinitely; for good or for worse, his most influential work was done by that time, and his fame rests on his work during his early years. That said, organizing the story of his later career in a better way would be a good thing. Brianyoumans 00:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Dylan's fame was established in his early years. Ask a hundred folks (who aren't serious Dylan heads) to name a Bob Dylan song, and you'd probably get "Blowing in the Wind" or "Like a Rolling Stone" from 98 of 'em. However, as the article says, Dylan has never become a nostalgia act. We're not talking about the Beach Boys here: lots of hits in the 60s, oldies stations ever since. We're talking about someone who (during this so called "later career") put out albums like "Oh Mercy," "Time Out of Mind" (Grammy winner), and "Modern Times." Albums that could make a career. My point wasn't really to have this argument though. My point was really only about the article's gross structure. It just seems out of balance to my eyes to have individual sections 1.1 through 1.7, followed by the section 1.8 "Other". BTW, I've held off "being bold" here, because I understand many others before me have contributed to this overall excellent article, and I know changing headers can be a problem. Any other thoughts? Hult041956 23:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, and personally I don't think it's all that big of a deal and can only improve the clarity of the article. I'm gonna go ahead and do it, as I don't see any arguments against it here, and if anyone has a problem with it just let me know and we'll see what we can do to make everyone happy :) (but like i say, I can't imagine anyone having huge problems with the article being more consistent headins-wise) Warchef 16:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The long biography definitely has a better balance now. Thanks. I held off because I was very new, and I realized others had been working hard on this article. (It's a FA afterall, but I guess even FAs can be improved.) Hult041956 18:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of my other suggestion (above in this section): a "theme" for each time period (either with or without the year numerals)? Take a look at the lovely FA on Alison Krauss for one example. I clearly haven't developed this idea; that's why I'm working it out here, rather than in the article. I'll toss out some ideas though:

  • Origins and musical beginnings
  • New York and a record deal
  • The folk music scene
  • Protest and Another Side (itals added)
  • Going electric (quotes removed)
  • At his peak: Highway 61" & "Blonde on Blonde"
  • Crash and the late 60s (perhaps end this section with the Guthrie concert and move the Nashville Skyline paragraph into the next section)
  • The early 70s: searching (or restarting) (hmm.. this one's hard.)
  • The late 70s: another height (not great i know.. I'm thinking Blood though Street Legal for this section)
  • Born again (promoted up to heading 2)
  • (80s are hard, which is why this hasn't been solved yet)
  • A return to his roots (maybe?)
  • The never ending tour
  • At the top again

You think this might be worthwhile? Or not? Hult041956 18:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Warchef's removal of 'Later Career' has improved clarity. I'll try to think about section headings. I'm wary of things like "At his peak: Highway 61 & Blonde on Blonde" cos these seem so subjective. Some think the mid 60's trilogy is Dylan's peak, some think it's Blood on the Tracks, and some think the last 3 albums are a peak. Some major Dylan critics (eg Clinton Heylin) think Dylan's recent work is nowhere near as good as earlier Dylan. I think Heylin argues Dylan produced more masterpieces in the 1980s than in the last 10 years. A couple of thoughts, keep the current headings up to:
  • Crash and the late 1960s ....then
  • 1970s: On the road again
  • "Born Again"
  • 1980s: Trust Yourself
  • 1990s: Not Dark Yet
  • 2000 and beyond: Things Have Changed
..... just some thoughts, Mick gold 09:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


The problem with the current headings system here is that dylan's career doesn't divide up neatly into decades, unfortunately. The 60's are already divided up by significant events and changes, rather than by decade, so wouldn't something like the following be more consistent? (just brainstorming here, for example):

  • 1968-1973: The Woodstock years & reclusion (or something about Dylan removing himself from the spotlight and being more family orientated and living in Woodstock)
  • 1974-1978: Return to the spotlight & live appearances (detailing the band tour of 74 through to the rolling thunder revue, and dylan's return to chart and critical success with tracks, desire, street legal etc.)
  • 1979-1983: Born again (as is, sort of slow train to becoming slightly more secular with infidels - but infidels still belongs here, despite some people who try to exclude it from his religious period - the darn's thing's called "infidels" for christ'sake! :-) )
  • 1984-1988: Career nadir (know that's subjective, but empire- groove definitely forms a unit of dylan's career in itself)
  • 1989-present: the never-ending tour and career resurrection (this is probably a bit too long of a time period, but it gets a bit harder to sub-divide from here on in)

anyway, i'm not suggesting that THESE be the headings, just that i propose that such an approach would be more beneficial than the strict division by decade that currently exists - any thoughts?Warchef 12:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

i would add to the previous poster's list the final categories should be:

1989-1996: Critical resurrection / Never-ending Tour 1997-present: Late Period ? Joe Geshka 22:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Bump! Has anyone had any more thoughts on this issue? I personally think a re-jazzing of the headings-particularly in the article's second half- could result in a great improvement.Warchef 08:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


Bump! Warchef, I’ve been staring at your suggestions but I’m afraid I have some reservations:
  • 1968-1973: The Woodstock years & reclusion [This makes sense. I like the word reclusion which was new to me]
  • 1974-1978: Return to the spotlight & live appearances (detailing the band tour of 74 through to the rolling thunder revue, and Dylan’s return to chart and critical success with tracks, desire, street legal etc.) [This makes sense. I’d call the section “On The Road Again’”]
  • 1979-1983: Born again (as is, sort of slow train to becoming slightly more secular with infidels - but infidels still belongs here, despite some people who try to exclude it from his religious period - the darn's thing's called "infidels" for christ'sake! :-) )

[Don’t agree. The most interesting songs from the Infidels sessions are: Jokerman; I and I; Blind Willie McTell; Foot of Pride; Which of these can be called a work of evangelical Christianity? None of them, in my view. For me, the last song to fall into that category was Property of Jesus on Shot of Love. Of course, Every Grain of Sand, on the same album, sounds like a sacred song, invoking an inherent pantheistic beauty in nature, but I think the same is true of Lay Down Your Weary Tune – which was written in 1964.]

  • 1984-1988: Career nadir (know that's subjective, but empire- groove definitely forms a unit of Dylan’s career in itself)

[I disagree violently with this idea of the career nadir in the 1980s. There’s a critical cliché that sees the 1980s as Dylan’s demise, followed by career resurrection and success in the 90s. Clinton Heylin (author of Behind the Shades, arguably the best Dylan biography) wrote the following to a UK Dylan magazine in 2002. I’m quoting it because I completely agree with him:

”Whence does this bizarre compulsion to champion Dylan’s last 2 albums at the expense of the 1980s come from? In a jotting-down-notes-over-a-latte moment, I scribbled those songs from 80s and the 90s (which here ends on 9/11) that – off the top of my head – I consider genuinely great compositions. My personal list runs thus:
”Eighties – Caribbean Wind; Every Grain of Sand; The Groom’s Still waiting At The Altar; Angelina; Jokerman; I and I; Blind Willie McTell; Foot of Pride; Someone’s Got a Hold of My Heart; When The Night Comes Falling From the Sky; Dark Eyes; New Danville Girl; Ring Them Bells; Man In a Long Black Coat; Shooting Star; Most of the Time; Dignity; Series of Dreams.
”Nineties – Trying to Get to heaven; Not Dark Yet; Mississippi; High Water; Sugar Babe
”Now feel free to argue the toss, but frankly this re-writing history is an insult to the great work Dylan produced in a troubled decade. Time will tell.” – C. Heylin (Judas! magazine, July 2002)

When Dylan appears live these days, his performances are often introduced with this announcement: “Ladies and gentlemen please welcome the poet laureate of rock 'n' roll. The voice of the promise of the 60's counterculture. The guy who forced folk into bed with rock. Who donned makeup in the 70's and disappeared into a haze of substance abuse. Who emerged to find Jesus. Who was written off as a has-been by the end of the 80's, and who suddenly shifted gears releasing some of the strongest music of his career beginning in the late 90's. Ladies and gentlemen - Columbia recording artist Bob Dylan!” In fact, Dylan found these words in a local newspaper in August 2002, and started to reproduce them at the beginning of his shows. I suspect he thinks it’s hilarious the way this piece distils every critical cliché about Dylan, but that doesn’t mean that the Wikipedia article should imitate these clichés.

  • 1989-present: the never-ending tour and career resurrection [For reasons given above, I don’t agree.]

Joe Geshka makes the suggestion: 1989-1996: Critical resurrection / Never-ending Tour 1997-present: Late Period

As argued above, I don’t believe there was a career resurrection between 1989 & 1996. Oh Mercy got very good reviews, Under the Red Sky got bad reviews; the acoustic albums Good As I Been To You and World Gone Wrong did not generate huge critical attention, neither did the MTV Unplugged album. Time Out of Mind in 1997 did generate a big critical response. In part, I suspect, because it coincided with Dylan’s serious illness, but also because it’s (in my view) a great album. I would argue that “Love and Theft” which came next in 2001 was a mediocre follow up. Michael Gray (in his excellent The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia) argues the opposite: that “Love and Theft” is greatly superior to Time Out of Mind. Which side are you on? I would argue we report these views but do not endorse them in section headings.

I think Dylan’s career after the “Born Again” period is so complex and contains so many varying achievements that the decades are valid units for sub-headings. I like the idea of adding phrases from Dylan’s work to these decades to give them a bit more flavor: 1980s “Trust Yourself”, 1990s “Not Dark Yet”, 2000s “Things Have Changed”. But I cannot discern clear-cut themes within the decades, comparable to “Going Electric” or “Post Crash & reclusion”. The last clear-cut thematic period I can discern is “Born Again”, but I would argue that comprises the albums Slow Train Coming and Saved, and the period when Dylan made sermon-like speeches from the stage: November 1978 to May 1980. I’ve answered this at some length because you’ve made lots of constructive edits and your suggestions are worth taking seriously. I wish I could agree with you more.  :) Mick gold 08:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mick Gold, thanks for your well thought-out and lengthy response; however if you look above you'll see I wasn't suggesting those particular headings, they were just templates- i personally don't see the 80's as a career nadir (if we're talking personally, I think oh mercy is hugely over-rated, and that empire burlesque is a bit under-rated, but of course that doesn't matter) or etc. the point is not not suggest those titles, but to open up discussion for what the headings should be. however, i do see different shifts in dylan's career which are not divisible by decade, and maybe if we all discuss it here we can come up with a common consensus on the best way to go about this.

on the more important issue at hand here, i'm most definitely a love and theft man over time out of mind :) peaceWarchef 09:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


ok, i've read over your comment again, and it does seem to me that we're on a somewhat similar page. of course i agree that the headings shouldn't be dictated by critical response. i like your suggestion to use dylan quotes to spice them up - but i also think they should be informative; so while i really like "on the road again", as it performs a dual function, i think, for example, "trust yourself" doesn't really fulfill the second criterium. maybe we can find some agreement on "The Woodstock years & reclusion" for 68-73, "On the Road Again" for 74-78 "Born Again" for 78-80 (although i've different views on infidels to you, i'm happy to let it lie, maybe we can battle that out on the "infidels" talk page some time :) ), and we can try further to reach consensus on the last 3 decades.

some suggestions: as there's already the precedent of including his crash in a heading, i don't see why we couldn't mention his "heart attack" (i know it wasn't a heart attack, but it's arguably as relevant as the crash-arguably. maybe "Heart illness"- sounds pretty clumsy i know, but still informative); as there's a precedent for using album titles as headings maybe the 2000's could simply be "Love and Theft" and "Modern Times"???; is there an argument for referencing the dylan film retrospectives (no direction home & i'm not there) in the 2000 heading? something as simple as "dylan in film"? ("Love and Theft", "Modern times, and Dylan in film?); maybe the 90s heading could refer to the 7 year break between recording original studio albums? *edit* or what about the original poster's suggestion of "Grammy Award Winner"? "Oscar winner"? "Hall of Fame"?*edit*

so, like i say: my first preference would be to have more clearly defined delineation in how we organise the whole article instead of by decade (i also think the decade thing has resulted in a kind of lazy "listing" of events as opposed to a tightly written chronology- especially visible in 2000s section- which is getting a bit messy and sprawling;not exactly encyclopedic); but i'm happy to settle for maybe a subdivision of the 70s and at least some more informative headings on the 80s, 90s, 00's. thoughts?Warchef 10:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I’m happy to settle for a subdivision of the 70s and more interesting headings for the 80s, 90s, 00s. On The Road Again for 1974-1978, followed by Born Again? My suggestions:
1980s Trust Yourself
(I know you don’t like it much Warchef, I’ll just explain why I do & then you can reject it. It conveys the slightly embattled quality Dylan’s work in the 80s had, as he struggled to stay abreast of developments in studio technology and rock culture (MTV, Live Aid), while remaining true to his own integrity. In his BBC Omnibus interview with Christopher Sykes (18 Oct 1986) Dylan names Trust Yourself as his favourite composition and suggests to Sykes that he plays the song over the end credits of his movie.)
1990s Not Dark Yet (One of his greatest songs of the 90s, it conveys both the heartache of Time Out of Mind and the "I thought I’d be seeing Elvis soon" moment of histoplasmosis.)
2000s Things Have Changed (Always sounded to me like Dylan’s wry reflection on the difference between the 1964 culture of The Times They Are a-Changin' and the culture of the new millenium.) Mick gold 13:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I changed the headings as per the above suggestions - it was just really starting to bug me. I still have reservations about "Lose Yourself" - it's a beautiful sentiment and handle on that part of Dylan's career although, rather boringly, I worry if it's encyclopedic and informative enough, and if it's consistent with previous headings (similarly with "things have changed"). Not Dark Yet is sort of a middle ground, I like it, and i think it is somehow indicative in a less abstract way of what was happening in dylan's career at the time, but i still think the heading is missing something by not somehow outlining something of the events of this time. However, I'm very pro being bold, so I went ahead and stuck them up there anyway, despite some of my reservations; they're still lovely titles and a huge improvement on what was there before. Maybe putting them up there will encourage more discussion (which i'm pro) but if nobody cares, i'm happy to let the issue lie. peaceWarchef 21:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
It's definitely better looking, at the very least. I feel somewhat bad about starting this topic but not being able to contribute much to it. I'm a Dylan fan, but Mick and Warchef, you guys' knowledge amazes me. This is a terrific and maybe we can keep making small improvements. Hult041956 22:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hult041956 Thanks for suggesting change of headings. Warchef Thanks for being bold about Dylan's Style & for changing the headings. I think it's looking better. Mick gold 08:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Bob Dylan's 115th Dream

"One particulary memorable moment happens in one of the earlier albums; at the beginning of an especially surreal song called "Bob Dylan's 115th Dream", he breaks abruptly into loud laughter. This bit of giddiness disrupts the whole thing and continues for nearly a minute. Regaining his composure, he tells the band, "Start again". They resume playing, in a different key, and Dylan begins to sing."

This is incorrect. Several sources say that the producer, Tom Wilson, laughs loudly and says "Start again... wait a minute now, man... ok take two." The laughter doesn't last for anything like a minute. The first take is something like 30 seconds, including the laugh. They don't play in a different key because the first time he sings the opening lines, none of the band play at all. Either they missed their cue or did it deliberately to wind up Dylan.

SteveRamone 22:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, SteveRamone, it is Tom Wilson laughing, it doesn't last a minute, and the band don't play in a different key on take two. This section, "Dylan's Style", has suddenly appeared in this article. I think it's written in a very un-encyclopedic style, more like a blog, or a letter to a friend, it doesn't cite references, and as Ramone notes, it's full of mistakes. My first instinct was to delete it, but I thought I better consult other editors: What do you think? Mick gold 08:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC) This is the text...
Dylan's Style
Dylan is probably best known for his rough voice and the distinctive slurred delivery of his songs, although on several albums (perhaps most noticeably his country-western album Nashville Skyline) he sings in a much clearer, easier to understand voice. He has attributed this to giving up cigarettes, although this may have been a tongue-in-cheek remark. Dylan himself has even called his own voice "ugly".
Dylan's music--and his moods--often range from the playful to the caustic, and sometimes even goes into the silly and seemingly undisciplined. In several songs ("All I Really Want to Do" and ("Ballad of a Thin Man") he even laughs right in the middle of a verse. One particulary memorable moment happens in one of the earlier albums; at the beginning of an especially surreal song called "Bob Dylan's 115th Dream", he breaks abruptly into loud laughter. This bit of giddiness disrupts the whole thing and continues for nearly a minute. Regaining his composure, he tells the band, "Start again". They resume playing, in a different key, and Dylan begins to sing.
Dylan is also known for his acerbic wit, and his press statements, especially his earliest interviews, feel like verbal jousting matches between him and reporters, trading jokes and good-natured insults.
meh... it's pretty arbritrary- can dylan's styles really be put into a spectrum which spans from "playful" to "caustic"? i'd proffer that the answer is no-especially as dylan can be so dry as to make impossible any guess at whether he's being serious or not- and would question the value of categorising dylan's styles if it is only on a "serious" to "playful" rationale, which is pretty airy-fairy. Also, his interviewing "style" has no place here, and as Mick Gold points out, it's written in a very unencyclopedic style and has no references. I guess eventually there could be an argument for a 'Dylan's styles' sections, but one that's actually on his styles (the way dylan focuses on variations of different chord patterns - especially on Blood on the Tracks and Love and Theft - is very interesting [or maybe just for us guitar players ;)], i.e. guitar, vocals (lots of differing styles there), harmonica playing, production, arrangements etc. However this is not it. I say delete, incorporate anything relevant, and if anyone has the enthusiasm for it, start a proper dylan's styles section.Warchef 14:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Completely agree with what's been said here so far, however....
Some discussion of Dylan's performance style seems essential to an understanding of him. More than most artists, he divides people into those who dig it and those who don't. By this, I do not mean anything so trivial as, "some people like country music and some people don't." I mean that during his whole career, critics and listeners have both hated and loved his style. Surely we all have friends who "hate the way he sings." I believe there's a way to discuss this in an encyclopedic way. That way is to present the facts about what people have said, and to provide the citations.
Here's what we've got in the article right now:
  • In the paragraphs on the folk movement: "Dylan's singing voice was untrained and had an unusual edge to it, yet it was suited to the interpretation of traditional songs. Robert Shelton described Dylan's vocal style as 'a rusty voice suggesting Guthrie's old performances, etched in gravel like Dave Van Ronk's.' Many of his most famous early songs first reached the public through other performers' versions that were more immediately palatable."
  • Discussing Another Side: "lighter mood", "surreal", and "sense of humor"
  • The B-side of Back Home has "semi-mystical imagery that became another Dylan trademark"
  • John Wesley Harding has "sparse structure and instrumentation" and "marked a departure not only from Dylan's own work but from the escalating psychedelic fervor of the 1960s musical culture."
  • Nashville Skyline "was virtually a mainstream country record featuring ... a mellow-voiced, contented Dylan."
  • And of course, we have the now famous "please don't cut my up-singing comment."
There must be something of importance in all this. What do you think about gathering all these items, plus other remarks from critics, plus the section called "Fan base", and putting all that together in a new section called "Changing critical and popular reaction" (or something like that)? I think it could be done fairly well and remain NPOV. Hult041956 18:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
And David Bowie famously sang that Dylan had a "voice like sand and glue" (Song For Bob Dylan). That would be an essential addition to any new 'style' section.

SteveRamone 18:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Also Dylan himself described his 'thin, wild mercury sound' on Blonde On Blonde as being the closest to the sound he wanted to achieve.

SteveRamone 20:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hult041956, I see what you're saying. The problem is I'd be reluctant to take those quotes away from their current context. I think Shelton's description of Dylan's voice belongs where it is: when Dylan is first signed to CBS; similarly sparse instrumentation & departure from escalating psychedelic fervour tell you what is going on in John Wesley Harding; mellow voiced contented Dylan tells you what was different about Nashville Skyline. Yank those remarks to another section and there's no narrative left of Dylan's development. But maybe a new section could be constructed from quotes about Dylan, inc 'sand and glue' and 'thin wild mercury sound'. Does this long article need a new section like that? Mick gold 22:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
No, the general observances on Dylan's shifting style from album to album belong in the main article - to move them would weaken that, and the main danger of creating this style section would be that it would result in alot of unnecessary repitition. If a "style" section were to be created, i would argue that it would have to be more technically minded (and could also include quotes like the above that don't quite fit into the main article, i like the bowie and dylan quotes and do think there's a place for them).
Here are some websites that address these more technical stylistic issues, maybe we could use them (and other) sources for this proposed section. They're mostly pretty subjective, but maybe they'll lead the way to some quote and general structure:

(edit) Not a hugely reliable source, but does include this Dylan quote: "Most of the time I would blow out of the harmonica because everybody sucks in. The proper way to play is like Little Walter or Sonny Boy Williamson would play - which would be to cross it - and I found myself blowing out more because nobody was doing that in that area. And that's what defined that harmonica and guitar sound which I hadn't heard until that point. I just stumbled on it one day."(edit)

Includes this Eric Clapton quote on Dylan's style: "His way of playing anything is totally hybrid. It doesn't make sense musically to the scholar. [...] At first listening, everything he does is just real hopeless. Then you look back and realise it's exactly right."

I also went ahead and deleted the current "Dylan styles" section, as that seems to be the consensus here. i"m bold like that. :) Warchef 10:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

DILL-an

Sorry, but I couldn't help laughing when I saw that. I don't know how anyone could think it was pronounced DIE-lan. I don't think it really needs to be there but I'll see what other people think. SteveRamone 18:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  • There are a lot of marginal English speakers who use Wikipedia; it probably isn't a terrible idea to give a pronunciation. Brianyoumans 19:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose you're right. It just seemed odd to me. SteveRamone 19:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I laughed as well. Certainly there's no harm in providing the pronounciation, but it's hardly a vital addition either. Oddly, no editor has yet seen it necessary to provide pronounciation help at Alison Moyet, Robert Goulet, or .. get this.. Dylan Thomas. ;-) Hult041956 19:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Influences

I’ve deleted the newly added section on influences, because it seems to me that the list of musicians, writers, artists, and movies that have influenced Dylan is infinitely long. Robert Johnson is included. What about Blind Willie McTell, Muddy Waters, John Lee Hooker and Jimi Hendrix? All of them Dylan has emulated and paid tribute to. Woody Guthrie is mentioned. What about the Carter Family who influenced both Guthrie and Dylan? What about the Stanley Brothers and Johnny Cash whose influence Dylan has acknowledged. Chekhov is mentioned. (!!???) What about The Bible - probably the biggest "influence" on Dylan? What about The Book of Isaiah or the Sermon on the Mount or the Book of Revelations, which clearly resonate in some of Dylan’s lyrics? John Keats is mentioned. What about Byron, William Blake, Tennyson, and T. S. Eliot whose influence on Dylan has been noted by Christopher Ricks? What about movies? As Michael Gray has shown (The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia, pp. 224 –231) Dylan has been borrowing from movie dialogue all the way from Gone With the Wind to The Hustler. Early on, Dylan was asked about influences and he replied “Open your ears and you’re influenced.” He was right. Dylan has been recording for 46 years, and everyone who met him in Greenwich Village in 1962 described his startling ability to soak up influences “like a sponge”. (Liam Clancy’s phrase). Dylan has broadcast more than 50 episodes of Theme Time Radio Hour; every show contains about 14 songs. Dylan talks about every one of them with real affection, and erudition, so that gives you a potential list of 700 “influences” just by listing the artists on his radio shows. He also reads aloud from Edgar Allan Poe, Shakespeare, Emily Dickinson, Charles Dickens and many more. The idea of listing Dylan’s “influences” seems profoundly unencyclopedic to me, because the list potentially stretches to over a thousand “influences”, and even then you’re only just beginning. Please let me know if other editors strongly disagree. Mick gold 10:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

How's your Swedish?

Now look at this: http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=2198&a=699913 - no idea whether this is a hoax or real. But it's a nice read in any case. :) -andy 84.149.65.230 21:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Every grain of info

In the (British) Telegraph (Nov10/07) a review of Nana Mouskouri's Memoirs by A. Miller states:

..in the 1980s Nana "struck up an unlikely and somewhat intense friendship with Bob Dylan. After they were introduced by (who else?) Leonard Cohen, Dylan went to several of Mouskouri's concerts, enjoyed some late-night suppers with her and even wrote her a song: the sublime Every Grain of Sand."

How far fetched is that?91.92.179.156 10:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

2000's section in need of a good pair of scissors

I raised concern earlier (up there somewhere) about the fact that the 2000s section is much to long and sprawling, with too much information and without a clear line running through it, and i do genuinely feel it's impinging quite negatively on its readability. So I'm going to be bold and start editing it down a bit under the following 2 guidelines: 1) use the hyperlinks - much of the info can be achieved through the hyperlinks, so it's unnecessarily messy to include it all here as well - one prime example of this is that of the 2 paragraphs on "I'm not there"; what prizes it won etc is not especially pertinent to dylan and can easily be found through the hyperlink to the film's page 2) footnoting - much of this can be footnoted to improve readability (e.g. the mention of cadillacs in "talking ww3" etc.)

please feel free to undo any of the edits that you feel to have missed a point or cut out necessary info. peace Warchef 14:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Warchef, good work! I think your editing has improved the flow of the info. Mick gold 08:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Cheers Mick gold, I think it looks a little better now too. I was planning on being a little more ruthless, but I decided to go with baby steps in the end. no harm either i suppose. however do you think that internet rumour about an album next year should be there? i'd personally remove it cos i think it's a crock and not encyclopedic or noteworthy, but i thought i'd ask here firstWarchef 18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Warchef I totally agree with you about the worth of the internet rumor of new album. I'm deleting it now! I'm glad you proceeded with baby steps, I think there's a lot of good info in there but it was worth pruning. cheers Mick gold 08:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Pruning cheers ? Good one Mick : Albion moonlight 09:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

hehe, that's hilariousWarchef 11:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

65 Revisited

Another contributor added the film 65 Revisited to the Bob Dylan nav template today. It showed as a red link. I did a bit of reading (found some reviews on the web), and then wrote a short article. It's real rough; please feel free to expand and improve. Hult041956 (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Early electric recordings

The article refers to Subterranean Homesick Blues as being Dylan's first recordings with electric instruments. I understand that Mixed Up Confusion is earlier and dates from November 14th 1962. The documentation with Biograph also refers to it as his first single, which was subsequently withdrawn. It was available in the Netherlands for quite a while, which is where I got my copy from. To be pedantic we should also remember that Bruce Langhorn played electric guitar on Freewheelin.

Delverie 14:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I've added a couple of sentences on 'Mixed Up Confusion' to acknowledge this experiment with a rockabilly sound. In the Biograph notes, Dylan comments: "I didn't arrange this session. It wasn't my idea." I think when Langhorne plays 2nd guitar on 'Corrina Corrina', he's playing acoustic. The sound of 'Mixed Up Confusion' is fast, propelled by drums, bass and piano, I think the guitars here are acoustic but I'm not sure. Neither is Bruce Langhorne, see [[7]] Mick gold 23:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting ... I probably associated 'fast and furious' with 'electric'. I'll have to give 'Mixed Up Confusion' and 'Corrina Corrina' a closer listen. Cheers Mick. Delverie 11:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Mixed Up Confusion" is a hard one to call because of the excessive harmonica work, but on "Corrina, Corrina" there is definitely electric guitar and it's the only guitar, there is no "second guitar" being played. Dylan is just singing and playing harmnonica. Just my opinion. Educated Guest (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Why can't I edit this article?

Just wondering.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big dumb townie (talk • contribs) 17:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The page is semi-protected as per the page linked to here: Wikipedia:Protection policy, meaning among other things accounts less than four days old can't edit it. John Carter (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Fling with Edie Sedgwick?

As you know "Factory Girl" will be released Feb.2 in the U.S.It features a character called "Billy Quinn" who is supposed to portray Bob Dylan.The movie previews makes it look like Bob and Edie Sedgwick(Andy Warhol's Factory Girl)had a relationship.Does anyone know if this is true?(I know it's none of my business bur I want to know anyway.)

Dylan claims she was a nice girl but he didn't know her especially well. Edie's brother Jonathan claims his sister had to abort Dylan's child because she was anorexic and a drug user. Either way, there's no real evidence to support much of anything.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.57.237.183 (talk • contribs) 00:05, June 29, 2007 (UTC)

i was just curious, if the girl "bob dylan" married in factory girl was joan baez? 

     no, in the movie, he married sara lownds.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.165.147 (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me what brand, or type, of sunglasses (not ray-ban wayfarers) bob dylan wore during the 1965 era?

Lennon atheist?

I have always assumed Lennon was an atheist, certainly after Plastic Ono Band (1970) and Imagine (1971). In his interview in Playboy (conducted shortly before his murder, published January 1981) he was asked: Is it distressing to you that Dylan is a born-again Christian? Lennon’s reply: “I don’t like to comment on it. For whatever reason he’s doing it, it is personal for him, and he needs to do it. But the whole religion business suffers from the Onward, Christian Soldiers bit. There’s too much talk about marching and soldiers and conversion. I’m not pushing Buddhism, because I’m no more a Buddhist than I am a Christian but there’s one thing I admire about the religion, there’s no proselytizing.” A little later in the same interview, Lennon said: “With 'Imagine' we’re saying, ‘Can you imagine a world without countries or religions?’ It’s the same message over and over, and it’s positive.”

I’ve always heard his song ‘I Found Out’ as a kind of atheist manifesto:

Now that I showed you just what I've been through
Don't take nobody's word what you can do
There ain't no Jesus gonna come from the sky
Now that I found out I know I can cry
I found out!
Old Hare Krishna ain't got nothing on you
Just keep you crazy with nothing to do
Keep you occupied with pie in the sky
There ain't no guru who can see through your eyes
I found out!
I seen the junkies I've been through it all
I've seen religion from Jesus to Paul
Don't let them fool you with dope and cocaine
Can't do you no harm feel your own pain
I found out!

Also his song God:

God is a concept,
By which we can measure, Our pain,
I'll say it again,
God is a concept,
By which we can measure, Our pain,
I don't believe in magic,
I don't believe in I-ching,
I don't believe in bible,
I don't believe in tarot,
I don't believe in Hitler,
I don't believe in Jesus
I don’t believe in Zimmerman …
…etc …etc
Mick gold 09:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I googled it in the google news as well. He was obviously an atheist. Albion moonlight 13:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

John Lennon did not describe himself as an atheist. In his song lyrics, as well as in numerous interviews, he clearly was questioning the validity of organized religion. Organized religion is not the same thing as spirituality. One can have one's personal, private spiritual beliefs without subscribing to an organized religion. The phrase, "a self-described atheist", is an assumption, as Mick gold states at the start of this heading. It is not verifiable and does not meet Wikipedia standards. Flora b 1 05:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The words God is a concept by which we measure our pain does not suggest anything other than atheism. As for wikipedian standards Flora's interpretation of Lennon's personal beliefs are even more speculative than mine and Mick Gold's are. Albion moonlight 07:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Lennon told us explicitly that he did not believe in Jesus, Buddha, Hare Krishna, etc... He also famously said that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain". His rejection of a belief in God and Jesus is a good definition of atheism, and meets Wikipedia's commitment to verifiability. Mick gold 08:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

God is a concept by which we measure our pain. To what could that refer? To some people it means one thing; to others it could mean that considerable pain and suffering occurs among people in the name of religion, in arguing over differences about established systems of belief, and deities. This is clearly what he was saying about religion in Imagine. The call goes out to the world -- and he includes himself -- to see ourselves as part of the whole of humanity. Imagine is a prayer, which is why so many people around the world are deeply moved by it. I am not saying in one way or another that I know what John Lennon's personal beliefs were. I cannot speak for him, and neither can anyone else. Therefore, to label him an atheist is an opinion. It is not a verifiable fact, and does not meet encyclopedic standards. Flora b 1 17:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The most humorous thing about this discussion is that searching for "John Lennon atheist" on Google turns up consecutively contradictory sites. List of celebrity atheists, followed by John Lennon was not an atheist, followed by John Lennon, famous atheist. I don't think this can be settled anytime soon, but I tend to lean towards the idea that he was, for the most part.--C.Logan 00:06, 21 August 2007 (UT

Flora's latest edit shows that she or he is willing to be reasonable. I have no objection to leaving references to Lennon's beliefs out of this article. Kudo's to Flora.....Albion moonlight 01:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree, in light of the fact that there're conflicting verifiable sources, I would be fine with leaving Lennon's beliefs out of it (or only include those elements which are not in dispute), as we can't take Lennon's quotes to interpret if that was an inference to atheism, as then that becomes WP:OR. The main thing sources seem to agree (or rather not dispute) seems to be that Lennon had some sort of vague spirituality and just did not buy into the Christian dogma...and "Imagine" written years earlier had become some sort of atheist anthem. WP:RS qualifying sources seem to exist for both sides though and neither seems to have predominant coverage...which makes me lean towards just leaving it out. Tendancer 02:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with C.Logan, Albion moonlight and Tendancer. I think Lennon was an atheist, but there is no basis for an edit war. I intend to go on looking for a more unequivocal statement, but until then... let it be. Mick gold 07:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
That one was way too easy.--C.Logan 08:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
We did a good job of listening to each other and building consensus -- and keeping to WP:NPOV regardless of our personal beliefs. Thanks for the kudos, Albion -- I send them back to everyone in the discussion. Also, FYI during this discussion I found WP:HEC -- we can work it out ;) Flora b 1 00:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


WHY THE H3LL ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THIS ON THE BOB DYLAN PAGE?????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.91.69.79 (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


Yeah I would agree with our caps lock-sensitive friend here that this is no place to discuss this. Sure, the first paragraph had to do with it, slightly, but that's it. Anyways, my comment is that Lennon was no athiest, but against organized religion. Whether or not this affected Dylan is uknown. IronCrow (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Point well taken. I removed my comment. -Larry Siegel

After the Crash: re-write

I’ve tried to give a better account of the mystery surrounding the 1966 motorbike accident, and its significance in Dylan's career. In his clearest comment on the significance of the crash, Dylan said: “When I had that motorcycle accident ... I woke up and caught my senses, I realized that I was just workin' for all these leeches. And I didn't want to do that. Plus, I had a family and I just wanted to see my kids." (Rolling Stone, June 21, 1984) So to make it clear that Dylan had a family by 1966, I’ve added an account of Dylan’s marriage to Sara Lownds in the previous section. Mick gold (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Locals in New Paltz, NY claim the crash happened just below the regionally well=known cliffs there...Technically in Gardiner, NY. This would be about a forty minute ride from Woodstock..~~1/3/08 JS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.80.60 (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic?

These section headings, "Trust Yourself", "Not Dark Yet" etc, were instituted after long discussion among several Wikipedia editors, archived above see [[8]]. User: Moisejp has suggested deleting them because "these descriptions are not very encyclopedic". I can see what he/she means, but I would argue for their retention. They in no way compromise the factual quality of an article that is comperehensive and well referenced. And they do give some flavor of the themes of Dylan's later work. In other words, they add a bit of wit, even a bit of fun, and surely it isn't necessary for Wikipedia to be as dry as dust. Obviously, if there's a consensus for their removal, they should go. Mick gold (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mick Gold. In the original (archived) discussion on the titles I also raised the issue of how encyclopedic they are (or are not) and had some reservations about them - but in the end they're a million times better than just 19xy-19xz, or "the 1990s" (god forbid - just because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia doesn't mean it has to have every single bit of life drained out of it), and I have much less to nearly no reservations about them at all now on mature reflection (why I eventually voted for them); I think they're informative within the context of the article and still supply the time period under analysis; and I also agree with Mick Gold that they in no way compromise or impinge upon the quality of the article itself (an article which I would argue is one of the best on the whole website - it's extremely well-researched, well-edited, informative, and interesting [i.e. not boring as in "1973-1978: In 1973 this album was released. in 1974 he went on this tour. In 1975 that album was released, etc."]. Still, of course these things are always open to discussion and good ideas, and I'm happy to go along with any good suggestions, but I'm against reverting back to 1973-78, the 1980s, the 1990s, etc. so my opinion for now is keep. peace Warchef (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not against simple headings like "1980s," but I can understand if some people find these too dry. But I still think titles like "Trust Yourself" are unenyclopedic. They reflect someone's opinion about how one song is somehow a reflection of the time period for Dylan, and thus are inherently subjective and not NPOV. What if, for the sake of argument, someone (not me) thought "90 Miles an Hour Down a Dead End Street" was a better heading for the 1980s? That person's opinion would be equally valid, just as subjective, and I would argue, just as meaningless. By adding titles like "Not Dark Yet" and "Trust Yourself" we are adding a positive spin to something that should be objective and neutral. How is that any different from someone who writes a Wikipedia album article and adds "This is a really great album"? I understand Mick Gold and Water Chief's point that the titles don't compromise the well-referenced content of the article itself, but I still think even titles should abide by Wikipedia's neutral, objective standards. I vote to delete that part of the titles. Moisejp (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Moisejp, do you have any suggestions for good subtitles that could be substituted for the ones that are currently there? perhaps if you give us an idea of an example of what you think would be more appropriate titles we could all discuss them, or the direction they should go. beyond the dryness issue, which i think is germane, if they are reverted back to simple dates, they will not be consistent with the para titles of the first half of the article, which all have titles/ subtitles.peace Warchef (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Warchef and Mick Gold, I must admit I don't have any suggestions. My idea was to leave the earlier headings ("Going electric," etc.) as they are, and then strip down the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s titles to just their years. But I was also hoping other people would join this discussion and throw in some suggestions too. Maybe some people will still yet. Anyway, let's just leave the titles as they are for now, at least until someone comes up with a better idea that everyone is happy with. Take care. Moisejp (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Particularly obscure?

I was just wondering about the description of "I'm Not There" as being "particularly obscure." Before being released on the I'm Not There soundtrack, it appeared on both The Genuine Basement Tapes and Tree With Roots bootlegs, which are in widespread circulation among Dylan fans, and it doesn't seem to me any more obscure then the dozens of other unreleased tracks on those bootlegs. In fact, it got a lot of ink in Greil Marcus' Invisible Republic/Old, Weird America and I can't remember off the top of my head if Clinton Heylin talks about it a lot, but I always thought it was quite famous in its own right as one of the "great, unreleased" Basement tracks. Well, it's possible that is just my perception, but I think if in doubt we should lean towards neutral language and simply refer to it as "a previously unreleased track" or something like that. Or directly quote Marcus or Heylin or someone for a description of the song. Moisejp (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The phrase “particularly obscure” was intended to refer to the mystery that surrounds this track that everyone who has written about it invokes. Marcus, Heylin, Gray, have all written about this song as having lyrics that make almost no literal sense, and yet summon up an almost apocalyptic sense of dread and despair. My footnote to this phrase refers to pp. 198-204 of Marcus’s The Old, Weird America, where he writes:
There is nothing like ‘I’m Not There’ in the rest of the basement recordings, or anywhere else in Bob Dylan’s career…. The song is a trance, a waking dream, a whirlpool, a “closing vortex”… Very quickly the listener is drawn into the sickly embrace of the music, its wash of half-heard, half-formed words and the increasing bitterness and despair behind them… Words are floated together in a dyslexia that is music itself – a dyslexia that seems to prove the claims of music over words, to see just how little words can achieve… Sometimes the music reaches such a pitch of intensity the slightest turn of a word can tell the whole story. “Well,” Dylan sings to start the last verse. You can’t make out what follows – not words, but, as so often here, just slurs, there to fill up a line until the next one opens – but there’s no need. In the darkness Dylan puts into this word well there is foreshadowing and acceptance; in this moment the singer is already looking back on moral disaster.
Heylin writes:
On ‘I’m Not There’, the most inspired example of Dylan’s ability to capture a moment on tape as a vision begins to fragment, he seems to be free-forming the words around the rudest of rudimentary structures.
Because you were puzzled by the phrase, Moisejp, I thought I would re-phrase it as a “particularly mysterious” song and add a couple of sentences from the Greil Marcus extract to the footnote. Do you think that is clearer? Mick gold (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Mick gold. I think the changes you made makes it better. Have a good day. Moisejp (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Jewish name?

The name described as Dylan's Jewish name in the article is actually his Hebrew name. See http://www.jewfaq.org/jnames.htm. -Larry Siegel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.32.158 (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been cited many times that Dylan got his name from the Dylan Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeGuy11112 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Yeah and I was wondering about that. What on earth is the relevance of his jewish name anyways?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.98.21 (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The "Usual"

This article incorrectly identifies the song from hearts of fire "the usual" as being written by Bob Dylan. Its written by John Hiatt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.2.30 (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Yhanks for pointing it out!Warchef (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Basement Tapes

Hello everyone. I'm planning to try to rewrite the article for The Basement Tapes as it is unreferenced and could perhaps be organized better. I'm also hoping to have The Basement Tapes (Sessions) article merged into this article; please see the discussion going on at The Basement Tapes page. In any case, if anyone would be willing to contribute to the rewriting of the article, that would be very appreciated. Thank you! Moisejp (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Mesabi Iron Range

In the origins section is states that the Mesabi Iron Range is Northwest of Lake Superior. This is false, it is located West of Lake Superior. Please fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.59.59 (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, fixed Mick gold (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Train of Love

The 2000-2003 paragraph makes it seem as though "Train of Love" was recorded between "Love and Theft" and Modern Times when it actually comes from a 1999 performance at a Johnny Cash tribute show.24.148.7.199 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, point taken. Mick gold (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Chronicles: Volume One

Several editors have queried why there should be a separate section devoted to Chronicles: Volume One so I've integrated the material into the 2004-2006 section. Mick gold (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Illness

it was my understanding that sometime in the past decade, he suffered a life threatening pericardial effusion.i was going to link to that article, but i see no mention of it. am i wrong?Toyokuni3 (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

See the 4th paragraph of Bob_Dylan#1990s:_Not_Dark_Yet. Adam McMaster (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What Does Al Aronowitz Know (For Sure) About Bob Dylan and "The Crash" on July 29 1966

And re: Anyone That Personally Knew The Late Al Aronowitz

I am conducting an extensive journalistic investigation on Bob Dylan's July 29, 1966 "motorcycle accident" querying if or if it didn't actually occur according to Mr. Dylan's public claim that he (Mr. Dylan) sustained a serious cervicle vertebrae neck injury causing "paralysis" over a given period.

Having filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) inquiry with the Woodstock Police Department Dispatch Unit and Emergency Squad, my purpose is to accurately get to the bottom of this issue and would be grateful for any protracted knowledge of and/or information about motorcycle repairs, i.e.: paint, and/or parts delivery for a Triumph model 500 motorbike, emergency room check in for rider's injuries, hospitalization, and/or treatment/therapy.

Please e-mail at ucpyramidsicm2@aol.com where other contact information can be made available to reliable sources.

Thank you,

--Carlobarlo (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Never Ending Tour

Someone had slipped in a parenthetical about Dylan's "fullness of sound at the bottom" he was seeking on the piano as having to do with "ten fingers" on a keyboards and "six strings" on a guitar. I removed it, because it's not relevant and has nothing to do with the "fullness of sound" in question that is simply a function of the piano having several octaves of range below the guitar's lower limit, giving Dylan a "fuller bottom." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimiraywinter (talk • contribs) 01:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Zushe ben Avraham

In 45 years of being a Dylan fan, I've never heard that he ever was known anywhere, by anyone, by his Jewish, Hebrew or Yiddish name. Always ready to learn .... Sca (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Jews living in Gentile lands took local names to "fit in" until it became so common that Rabbis ruled in the 12th century that Jews must have a Hebrew name. The Hebrew name is vey important as it is the name used in Synagogue on birth certificates, marriage contracts, writs of divorce etc. Dylan's Hebrew name is Zisel and not Zushe. I hope that you find this helpful. 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew name

Dylan's Hebrew name is Shabtai Zisel ben Avraham not Zushe which is Yiddish not Hebrew. 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've linked a source which corresponds with the details on his birth cert. [9] 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"Shabtai" (First Born), "Zisel" (From Hebrew name of dead Paternal Grandfather Zigman Zimmerman) "ben" (of), "Avraham" (Late Father Abraham Zimmerman) Where does "Zushe" come from? Further sources include: Howard Sounes: Down The Highway Page 14 {Birth Cert}, Jeremy Roberts: Bob Dylan: Voice of a Generation Page 10 (Birth Cert). 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, 650 Norton (1951), I've included your ref in a footnote to Dylan's Jewish name. Mick gold (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and your'e most welcome. Best, 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Dylan's name

Since Robert Zimmerman legally changed his name to Bob Dylan in August 1962, at the age of 21, he has released all his recordings under the name Bob Dylan, all his songs are copyrighted to Bob Dylan, Bob Dylan is the name on his passport and on legal documents pertaining to him. It seems ludicrous to begin the lead paragraph of a featured article with the name Robert Allen (not Alan) Zimmerman. Clearly Robert Zimmerman ceased to exist in August 1962. All his artistic and professional achievements have been authored by Bob Dylan. This convention is observed in Wikipedia articles on Elton John, David Bowie, and every other artist I have looked at whose achievements were created using a new name, legally valid, from the inception of their career. Mick gold (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Slight correction: he changed his name to Robert Dylan, and the name on his passport is Robert Dylan. I would still argue that Dylan's significant achievements, his recordings and song writing, have all been under the name of Bob Dylan, which should therefore take priority in this article. Mick gold (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You are correct, is this being disputed? 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm with you now. No, the lead should not be "Robert Allen Zimmerman", it should be as you correctly state: "Bob Dylan" 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a point regarding Elton John and David Bowie. Elton John has released several works under the name "Reginald Dwight" and David Bowie never legally changed his name and his copyrights are legally in the name of "David Jones." So while I take your point, the situations are not exactly comparable. 149.79.35.227 (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
That's very interesting. Which works did Elton John release under the name of Reginald Dwight? Best, 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry

Does Howard Sounes present any detailed information about Bob Dylan's Lithuanian-Jewish ancestry, such as where in Lithuania (in its various historical forms) they were from? This is particularly interesting to me as both an inveterate Dyaln fan and someone who has lived in Lithuania. Sca (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

He gives no details of where, but states that Dylan's Lithuanian-Jewish ancestry emanates from his maternal grandparents Benjamin and Lybba Edelstein, who were Lithuanian Jews who came to America with their children in 1902, and went to Hibbing two years later. Their eldest daughter Florence married Ben Stone (also from Lithuania) They went on to have four children. Their second child Beatrice, born 1915 was Dylan's mother. Hope this is of help. Best, 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Drug use

Is there anything about his drug use in the article? Or about Edie Sedgwick? I hear so many stories about those things and it would be nice to know. RapMasterK (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's all they are: stories and rumours. That's why they don't belong in Wikipedia. WP:BLP explains that biographies of living persons must be subject to the highest standards of verifiability. Please see WP:V for an explanation of this policy. Mick gold (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand, but then it doesn't really make much sense that the Edie Sedgwick page tells a little about her and Dylan.
RapMasterK (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A return to secular music?

I don’t think it’s accurate to summarise Dylan’s work in the 1980s as a ‘Return to secular music’. Shot of Love includes the explicitly Christian ‘Property of Jesus’. On Empire Burlesque, ‘Dark Eyes’ and ‘Something’s Burning Baby’ have been analysed in terms of their religious message and their scriptural allusion by both Scott Marshall (in his book ‘Restless Pilgrim’) and Michael Gray (in his book ‘Song and Dance Man III’). Marshall also considers Christ allusion to be a central theme of ‘Jokerman’ on Infidels. ‘Death Is Not the End’ on Down in the Groove and ‘Ring Them Bells’ on Oh Mercy also have strong Christian imagery. Moreover, I think it’s simplistic to divide Dylan’s work or decades into religious and secular ones. Clearly Slow Train Coming followed by Saved was an explicitly evangelical moment in Dylan’s music, but ‘I Dreamed I Saw St Augustine’ and ‘Father of Night’ addressed religious themes in the 1960s and 1970s.

I like the idea of naming the 1980s after Dylan’s song ‘Trust Yourself’. Partly because he said he considered it to be a key work – in an interview in the 1986 BBC film ‘Getting to Dylan’, and partly because I think it conveys a sense of Dylan trying to hang onto his integrity in a troubled, commercialised decade. If other editors think this is bad, could we agree on something like ‘A diverse decade’? It’s hard to isolate one theme in Dylan’s very varied output in the 1980s. I would certainly argue against the idea that the 1980s can be characterised as a period of ‘artistic decline’ for Dylan. Mick gold (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Referencing

The referencing of the article is no longer good enough for FA standard. Should the article have another FA review (last one in 2006)? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 07:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Origins and musical beginnings section

First paragraph in Origins and musical beginnings section - lots of talk about his family history. Then, out of nowhere, "Bob Dylan was also known as the "King of Chill" by his producers."? --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A Very Convoluted Article

While this article was a featured article it has degenerated hugely since then. It's almost become a live blog of Dylan's recent (and mostly unnotworthy) actions. We don't need to know about every radio session or tour in an encyclopedia article. Also,there's a few offending sections at the end - the 'fan' section reads more like a referenced list of people/things dedicated to him in the middle. He has been influential but what's in it is boardline trivial and Wikipedia is trying to rid itself of such things. Oh. And a section on 'Eastern Europe Fans'? Please.

I propose a fresh revision of the page that makes it more of an article and less a patchwork fanwork. Syferus (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Zimmy

Why Zimmy is redirected to here? This name is not even mentioned in the article. --Zimmy (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that it's because it's mentioned in Gotta Serve Somebody – presumably short for "Zimmerman" Adam McMaster (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Like Gandhi

I’ve removed the following quote from the Bob Dylan article:

Interestingly in the publication Register for March 16, 1983, Dylan was quoted as saying:
"Whoever said I was Christian? Like Gandhi, I’m Christian, I’m Jewish, I’m a Moslem, I’m a Hindu. I am a humanist.”

The source given for this alleged Dylan “quote” is: [[10]]

This source is a Christian evangelical blog, Lighting The Way Worldwide, which is concerned to point out “the influence of false Vineyard theology, which focuses on experiential feelings, visions, voices, personal prophecies, healing, tongues, spirit slayings, and such things.” This is not a WP:RS.

Curious about where this alleged “quote” came from, and why it doesn’t appear in the 2 most substantial books of Dylan interviews, Younger Than That Now (ed. Jim Ellison) and Dylan on Dylan (ed. Jonathan Cott), a google search led to the following quote from The Detroit Free Press which someone has posted online. This can be found at [[11]]

Shirley Eder's column in The Detroit Free Press, Sunday March 13, 1983:
DYLAN GOES ON RECORD ON THE SUBJECT OF RELIGION
Bob Dylan is going into a recording studio late this month or early April to do a new album for Columbia records. When asked by someone at the record company if the new music was going to be another "Born Again" Christian album, and if he were still Christian, Dylan for the very first time (in spite of having been asked so often) answered the latter part of the question. He said, "What are you talking about? What makes you think that? Whoever said I was Christian? Did you see the movie 'Gandhi?' Well, like Gandhi, I'm Christian, I'm Jewish, I'm Moslem, I'm a Hindu. I am a humanist!"
P.S. Don't look for music and lyrics with religious overtones in Dylan's next album. His religious-theme records didn't sell too well, and he's going back to the old Dylan kind of music: some folk pop, a little protest and a few love songs.

The person who posted the quote then adds the following comments (which I agree with):

A few notes on this (my personal opinion, just as this column quoted above is Shirley Eder's personal opinion):
1) The alleged "quote" from Dylan is based on a report that "someone at the record company" asked Dylan a question, to which this was his response.
2) The "someone" is never named. Did they take notes? Was it someone with an axe to grind? Is this their paraphrase, as told to someone else and then repeated to Shirley Eder? We are not told.
3) I do note that the prediction made by Shirley Eder in the P.S. re no religious overtones is certainly a big miss when it comes to Infidels, the album recorded in April and May of 1983. Songs like: Jokerman, Death is Not the End (recorded at those sessions), Man of Peace, License to Kill, Sweetheart Like You, I and I, Tell Me, Lord Protect My Child -- no religious overtones? Hardly an accurate prediction.

The quote on the Bob Dylan page refers to “the publication Register for March 16, 1983”. What publication Register? A further google search unearths the following - [[12]]

An article in the San Luis Obispo (California) Register for March 16, 1983, quoted Dylan as saying:
“Whoever said I was Christian? Like Gandhi, I’m Christian, I’m Jewish, I’m a Moslem, I’m a Hindu. I am a humanist.”

So “the publication Register” is the San Luis Obispo Register. I have searched for such a publication, but have been unable to find it. In any case, the date of this so-called publication is 3 days after The Detroit Free Press, so it would be a secondary rather than a primary source.

This alleged “quote” from Dylan has been re-printed several times, including The Times of London: [[13]]

My conclusion is that this alleged “quote” does not come from a WP:RS and cannot be referenced by any authoritative publication, so it should be deleted. Of course, if someone can produce a credible version of a Dylan interview from which this “quote” was taken, it could be re-instated.

For a similar, though different, misquote from Dylan, see this interesting post on Right Wing Bob: [[14]] which debunks an alleged Dylan “quote” printed in the Christian Science Monitor:

Dylan, who declined to comment for this article, remains, as ever, an enigma. (Three years ago, he called himself “a 62-year-old Jewish atheist.”) But he’s more open than he’s ever been about his past, even opening himself to interviews for Scorsese.

Mick gold (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Like Gandhi?? I doubt it. Is Dylan a vegetarian? Unlikely. If he was he could have changed the US and the world. Anybody know if he's a vegetarian?

Disc Jockey?

I believe "Radio Presenter" would be a significantly more appropriate term for Bob Dylan's job role on BBC 6 Music. While "Disc Jockey" may have been the correct term 20-30 years ago, the role of a disc jockey has changed very much as to express soemthing completely diferent and has been replaced with the title "Radio presenter". 82.6.99.108 (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I kind of agree with that but "Radio presenter" is more ambiguous in that it doesn't seem to indicate he controls the playlist or in fact if there is any music at all on the radio show he presents. I think Disc Jockey will be fine for now, nobody confuses Chris Moyles DJ, with Fatboyslim DJ. Maybe a "Radio DJ" will suffice? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

An appropriate, commonly used term associated with talk and specialty music shows is "radio program host." Plus the tagline "Theme Time Radio Hour with your host (or simply host) Bob Dylan" is everywhere, including XM's website[[15]].Allreet (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bob Dylan Wrote Propaganda Songs

To put this song forward as "vocal support of Dylan's work" is ridiculous. I'm sure Watt and the Minutemen respect(ed) Dylan but seriously...you know what I mean. Jamieli (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

They meant it in a good way, i.e. that he had a message he was trying to communicate. In "History Lesson Part II", they use the line "Mr. Narrator, this is Bob Dylan to me. My stories could be his songs. I'm his soldier child."76.171.74.141 (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they did, but I tend to agree with Jamieli, it hardly consitutes "strong vocal support" of his work. 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

New Pic

I don't know how long the picture of dylan has been up, but its kinda a bad choice. I would suggest a picture from Dylan's prime as a better representation of him for the only reason was thats when he was a) most popular and b) at his best. I don't know if there's a rule that says the picture has to be as recent as possible or something, and I don't mean to make a big deal, I just suggest it. 99.250.147.70 (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

AgreeThe Illusional Ministry (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I just found a supposedly public domain pic of Dylan on Flickr, I suggest we use that since the current one is terrible http://www.flickr.com/photos/pingnews/286476690/ If there are no objections, I'll change it soon. Adam McMaster (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. Adam McMaster (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Some interesting things about this photo: There are very few pictures of Dylan's performances in this period (independent of concerts with Baez or those held in larger venues like Carnegie Hall). Also, the concert took place just four days after JFK's death (Nov. 26), but the show went on anyway. Peripherally, the photo was published with two others in the then-college's yearbook, which was found at a garage sale. (It identifies the singer as "Bobby Dylan.") Also, this is one of the few dates not catalogued by anyone, including Olof Bjorner who caught just about everything else.Allreet (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Compliments

This is one of the best written Wikipedia articles that I have ever seen. A very fine work.

Sean7phil (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


I second that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.92.171 (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Would it not make sense to have a more up to date picture of Dylan on the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnoustie2008 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There don't seem to be any recent good quality, freely-licensed pictures of him, but if you find one feel free to add it. Adam McMaster (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A Very Convoluted Article

While this article was a featured article it has degenerated hugely since then. It's almost become a live blog of Dylan's recent (and mostly un-noteworthy) actions. We don't need to know about every radio session or tour in an encyclopedia article. Also,there's a few offending sections at the end - the 'fan' section reads more like a referenced list of people/things dedicated to him in the middle. He has been influential but what's in it is boardline trivial and Wikipedia is trying to rid itself of such things. Oh. And a section on 'Eastern Europe Fans'? Please.

I propose a fresh revision of the page that makes it more of an article and less a patchwork fanwork. Syferus (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Isis Magazine

This has just been removed from the article: but should this be included in the article? It is the longest running fanzine about Dylan and is quite well known amongst fans. This would need citation certainly but just want to ask opinion on whether it's appropriate or not. Also i'd like see if it's as well known as i believe it is. What do others think? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Isis is the longest-running printed forum of serious Dylan news & criticism, especially since the demise of John Bauldie's Telegraph in 1996. The 'Wicked Messenger' feature has been called the most detailed record of Dylan's many activities. So I've re-instated the info with some footnotes. Mick gold (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I've heard about this fan-zine in several notable biographies. As it's been about a month since this inquiry was first raised, maybe someone should un-do the deletion of the passage about Isis? Shamrox (talk) 06:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Shamrox I wrote (in my posting above yours, 18 June) that I had re-instated the mention of Isis, with some additional references/footnotes. Mick gold (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Details missed in early career

I agree with both the praises and criticisms. The sections covering 1960-2000 are generally well written and the latter part, particularly so. From 2000 on, the article does become something of a patchwork, because of the way detail gets tacked on but without a story to develop. However, to me, the greatest weakness is the omission of events that are central to how an unschooled, untested wannabe became one of the most acclaimed songwriters of the century:

  • Dylan blew into Greenwich Village with little money and no place to live. His singing and guitar skills were unremarkable, and to this point, he had written just a couple, highly derivative songs.
  • On his first night in town, he played harmonica at an open mic at Café Wha'. He soon became a fixture at Wha', Gerde's Folk City and Izzy Young's Folk Center, where he met the scene's major figures, including greats such as Cisco Huston, Pete Seeger, John Lee Hooker, Dave Van Ronk, and among others, Joan Baez. Besides absorbing their music, he also found a couple sofas to sleep on.
  • While staying with Van Ronk and others, he read through his hosts' book collections, gaining exposure to a wide range of classical and contemporary works and ideas.
  • Through Van Ronk, he played regularly at Gerde's hootenannies beginning in February, which eventually led to the performance covered by Robert Shelton in the Times. The article cites April as the start of his performing and is vague about the rest.
  • At his first paid gig, a folk fest at Riverside Church in July (the performance broadcast by WRVR), he met Suze Rotolo, who for a teenager had a strong background in the arts and civil rights. Rotolo was as important an influence on Dylan in those first couple years as Baez was during the next stage of his early career.
  • A few months after signing with Columbia, Dylan finally got his own apartment on W. Fourth Street. He and Rotolo moved in, living together on and off over the next two years or so, the period in which he wrote the songs for Freewheelin', Times They Are a-Changin' and Another Side. Yet Rotolo is only mentioned in relation to No Direction Home at the end of the article.
  • As Jack Elliott's ex-wife points out in the film The Ballad of Ramblin' Jack, Dylan's genius was exceeded only by his drive. He came to NYC to "make it" and didn't let up until he did.

Every biographer, from Scaduto through Scorsese, considers these details critical to the story of Dylan's early development. Without them, he pretty much just shows up in town, does a few local gigs, gets signed by Columbia and then in a six-year period, records seven albums, five of them masterpieces. Given the length of the article, some things should probably be cut, and the details I mentioned woven in. For sources, I'd suggest Sounes, Heylin, No Direction Home, Chronicles, Positively Fourth Street (the Dylan-Baez-Farina bio) and Rotolo's recent autobiography.Allreet (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Allreet Thanks for your copy editing of the article, and your attention to detail. You make some interesting points above. Is there any reason why you're not re-writing the article in the manner you suggest? You seem very competent and have access to the right references/sources. best wishes Mick gold (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I suppose I do have some hesitation making these changes. One is the article's length: adding more means paring other things. That should happen anyway, but it's difficult to cut within a collaborative process, especially when the material conforms with standards (subjectivity raises its head). Along those lines, I also think extensive rewriting is needed, because with all the adds, the style has suffered. Then there's the article's importance, something that ups the ante both for and against change. Based on your feedback, however, I'm much more inclined to exercise WP:Bold and forge ahead. Down the road, I'll post suggestions to see what others think about a wider revision. And thank you for the encouragement. Allreet (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Erratta

  • Dylan began performing hootenannies at Gerde's in Feburary 1961 through folksinger Fred Neil, who was the host. (Source: Bjorner) That same month, he met Van Ronk at a Gerde's hoot and began staying at his apartment. (Source: Dylan Encyclopedia)
  • Dylan met Rotolo at an NYU Folk Society event, his first paid gig, at Loeb Music Center on April 5. (Source: Bjorner) As noted, WRVR's July 29 broadcast was of a hootennany taped at Riverside Church on July 21, but with no connection to Rotolo. (Sources: Bjorner and Dylan Encyclopedia)

Allreet (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

I use yyyy-MMM-dd format. First sentence reads: Bob Dylan (born Robert Allen Zimmerman, Hebrew שבתאי זיסל בן אברהם, 1941 May 24 in Duluth, Minnesota) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimWae (talk • contribs) 04:57, July 27, 2008

Yeah, the Hebrew text does seem to do some odd things. For me, when editing (in Safari) I'm unable to change the character immediately after the text. Is there a way of encoding it with standard ASCII characters? Adam McMaster (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Trim and restructure

Mad Hatter has carried out a massive re-edit and restructure of the post 2000 section of the Dylan article. I think he has done a good job in reducing an article that was becoming too long and unwieldy, but he has lost some valuable information which I would like to restore. Also I disagree with his putting some recent Dylan events into a new section called ‘Tributes and legacy’. For example, it makes no sense to include Dylan’s exhibition of his art in Germany last year, and the accompanying catalogue, in ‘Tributes and legacy’ since clearly this was an important new development in Dylan’s career, in the same way the publication of Vol. One of Dylan’s autobiography was an important development. Mick gold (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I noted the restructure myself. Reduction is clearly needed but cutting important info (not to mention good referencing!) is not the way to do it. I agree regarding the Tributes and legacy titling Mick. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Vegetarianism should be verified.

I saw this and I did not believe it. I searched around on the internet and saw no viable sources to attest to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samparks23 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if Bob Dylan is a vegetarian. I do know that on his Theme Time Radio Hour show, he gave out his recipe for The Perfect Meatball.
He said: "Take 3 minced cloves garlic, a cup vegetable oil (for frying), 1 pound ground meat (equal parts beef, pork, veal), a cup grated Parmesan cheese, 9 Saltine crackers, finely crushed, a teaspoon salt, black pepper, oregano, dried basil, 1 tablespoon chopped fresh parsley, a cup water, 1 egg, 1 teaspoon tomato paste.
“Heat the oil over a low heat in a large Dutch oven. In a big bowl, add the meat, garlic, cheese, crackers, and spices. Mix lightly with your fingers. Don’t be shy—get into it. In a small bowl, whisk the water, the egg, and the tomato paste. Add the egg mixture to the meat mixture. Mix it lightly with your fingers. Form it into drum shapes, or balls. Cook in batches, over medium high heat, until its browned on both sides. That will be about five minutes total. Serve ‘em up with some potatoes, or some spaghetti, or just make a sandwich out of them. You're gonna love 'em."
Which means that if Dylan is a vegetarian, he's a very unusual one. Mick gold (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it's Mister Jones here...I just made a small change to the article, and it said the article was too long and that I should split it up. How do I do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballad of a Thin Man (talk • contribs) 16:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Five Decades

I reworded the phrase, "..has been a major figure in popular music for five decades," to "...has been a major figure in popular music for nearly five decades," but someone changed it back. Saying that Bob has been a major figure in popular music for five decades is incorrect--that would mean that he has been influential since 1958, which isn't the case. There is a difference between one's career spanning five different decades and one's career lasting for five decades. The former could mean he went from '69 to '01, a span of 42 years that happened to include five different calendar decades, but wasn't actually five decades long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballad of a Thin Man (talk • contribs) 00:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is common to use decades as units of time in dicussing pop music and pop culture. For example, "In the decade of the 1960s, The Beatles dominated pop music." This is widely understood, although a pedant could point out that The Beatles' dominance did not last for ten years. Their significance in UK pop began when 'Please Please Me' reached number two in the UK charts in January 1963, and The Beatles had their last number one album when Let It Be was released in May 1970, a figure of seven years and five months. Bob Dylan has been a major figure in pop music and pop culture in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s. So I believe it is correct to say: "Bob Dylan has been a major figure in popular music for five decades." Mick gold (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The statement "In the decade of the 1960s,the Beatles dominated pop music" needs no pedantry, because nowhere does it imply that the Beatles were dominant for the whole decade--just that they were dominant for much of that particular ten-year span. It's like the difference between "I lived in two different centuries" (since I was born in the 1980's, and it's now 2008) and "I lived for two centuries", which would imply that I was actually alive for 200 years. See the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballad of a Thin Man (talk • contribs) 12:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we can both agree that Dylan was a major figure in popular music in the 1960s. For many, Dylan's recordings, from 'Blowin' In The Wind' to 'Like A Rolling Stone', epitomised what is meant by 'The Sixties'. Dylan today is still a major figure, whose recordings, movies, paintings, and radio shows attract much media discussion. Isn't today, then, the fifth decade in which Dylan has been a major figure? Mick gold (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not doubting that. What I'm doubting is whether it's correct to say he's been popular/influential/whatever for five decades, when in fact he's merely been that in five different calendar decades. The former, which is how the article currently reads, implies fifty years (which at this point is incorrect), while the latter simply means what you're talking about. See the difference? Like I said above--no one would say I've been alive for two centuries, but it's quite correct to say I've been alive in two centuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballad of a Thin Man (talk • contribs) 16:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
It's been interesting talking/writing to you, but we are failing to persuade each other about our respective ponts of view. I still think that to say "Bob Dylan has been a major figure in popular music for five decades." means he has been influential in 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s. Would you find "Bob Dylan has been a major figure in popular music during five decades." more acceptable? It sounds awkward to me, but you can change it if you prefer it. If a majority of Wikipedia editors think I'm wrong, and your version is preferable, I would of course abide by the will of the majority. Mick gold (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Certainly; I'm new here and I don't want to cause any trouble, and if there's a custom on Wikipedia towards your way I'm more than happy to abide by that; just from my point of view it seems like non-standard usage. Is there a way we could ask for a third opinion here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballad of a Thin Man (talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Mick Gold. "Bob Dylan has been a major figure in popular music during five decades," is indeed clumsy and awkward - the version as it stands, in my opinion, is preferable. Best, 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

statement "Play it fucking loud!" at manchester 1966 disputed

I know its a minor point, but I believe the quote "Play it fucking loud!" is incorrect. I believe Dylan says "You fucking liar", which makes more sense, in the context of his immediately previous sentences - "I don't believe you, you're a liar".

I am not the only one who holds this view, paul cable in his book "Bob Dylan, His Unreleased Recordings" holds the same view.

I propose adding a small paragraph to the main article, stating the alternative interpretation of what Dylan said.

Ad1mt (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have the the "Electric Set" on reel to reel, vinyl and CD. On all three formats, Dylan quite plainly tells The Hawks: "Play it Fucking Loud." I simply cannot see how this could be heard as anything else. And Dylan at no stage, says to the heckler: "You fucking liar." 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Scorsese's documentary, No Direction Home, includes footage of the 1966 Manchester concert shot by Pennebaker. Dylan's response to his 'fan' is shown in the film with subtitles. In subtitles, Dylan says "Play it fucking loud." And the footnote in the article refers to this subtitled version. - Mick gold, 12 August 2008

Full of peacock language

This article is so full of peacock words, how could it possibly be a featured article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.153.4.250 (talk) 08:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Elston Gunnn or Elston Gunn

According to the following sources it has 3 "n"s.

What is the consensus? Teapotgeorge (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

According to every major Dylan biographer, Echo Helstrom and Bonnie Beecher it's Gunn 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


I'm not sure. I was influenced by the following interview with Bobby Vee which is posted on the website Expecting Rain. [[16]]

Gunnn, Elston, Early alias for Robert Zimmerman / Bob Dylan.

Subject: Elston Gunnn one more time From: fargojump@my-deja.com Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 15:20:59 GMT

An oft-told tale told once more by Bobby Vee, interviewed in the latest issue of Goldmine, on how the mere lack of a piano cost Dylan the life- long security of a job with Vee's backing band, the Shadows.

The Shadows briefly expanded to a quintet when the band added a confident young pianist whose long-term future was even rosier than Vee's.

"He was in the Fargo/Moorhead area. He was working as a busboy at a place called the Red Apple Cafe. We didn't know that at the time. Bill [Velline] was in a record shop in Fargo, Sam's Record Land, and this guy came up to him and introduced himself as Elston Gunnn--with three n's, G-U-N-N-N.

"He said he heard we were looking for a piano player, which we were, and he said that he had just gotten off the road with Conway Twitty. Bill was blown away. 'Man, how good can this be? This was as good as it gets!' And went over to the radio station with him, over to KGFO, and there was this piano in the studio and auditioned him on the piano. He came back and he said, 'He played pretty good in the key of C.' We didn't realize it at the time, but that's all he could play in, was the key of C. I-IV-V in the key of C.

"So we hired him to come out. And he was a neat guy. He was friendly. I remember his dark, curly hair. We bought him a shirt to match ours and paid him 15 bucks a night, which was about what we were making. Went to pick him up for the show, and he didn't have a piano. There weren't a lot of piano players in our area anyway--there were mostly guitar players--but they had the little Wurlitzer pianos, and we just assumed he had a piano. He didn't, of course. We took him to the gig anyway, and there was a piano there. It was terribly out of tune. He sat and he played that, and when he got lost he would come up and do background parts and do Gene Vincent handclaps. It was a trip!

"It was ill-fated. I mean, it wasn't gonna work. He didn't have any money, and we didn't have any money. The story is that I fired him, but that certainly wasn't the case. If we could have put it together somehow, we sure would have. We wished we could have put it together. He left and went on to Minneapolis and enrolled at the University of Minnesota. A couple of years later I was in New York in Greenwich Village. I was walking down the street. There was a record store there, and there was an album in the front window. And it said, 'Bob Dylan.' And I thought to myself, 'Looks a lot like Elston Gunnn!'

Gray's Bob Dylan Encyclopedia quotes the same interview and writes 'Gunnn' [pseudonyms used by Dylan, p.556]. I agree that Sounes and Heylin write 'Gunn'. It's a tough one to call, but I personally am attracted to 'Gunnn' because it's more eccentric and because of Vee's testimony above. Mick gold (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Sounes' source for Gunn are Bobby Vee quotations that appear in Gray's All Across The Telegraph: A Bob Dylan Handbook, so when Gray gets to Bob Dylan Encyclopedia it becomes Gunnn - strange. 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
OK: "Who's Elston Gunn?" she asked. "That's not you is it?" "Ah I said, you'll see." The Elston Gunn name thing was only temporary. What I was going to do as soon as I left home was just call myself Robert Allen." Bob Dylan. Chronicles Volume One p78. I think Dylan himself trumps Bobby Vee or anyone else for that matter, yes? 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
650 Norton (1951) - Good point! I'm happy to settle for 'Gunn', and leave 'Gunnn' as a fascinating footnote (which I have added to article). best Mick gold (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes it's facinating indeed Mick, I have always found it hilarous - it's the sort of name Groucho Marx would have come up with if he had played an arms dealer! Best, 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

FAR

I have notified all relevant parties of this, except the original nominator for FA status, only because I can't figure out how to reach the user. Tealwisp (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Covers

As we have an article listing every known Beatles cover, shouldn't there be one for Dylan? He is probably the most covered artist of the modern era, in a wide range of genres.--MartinUK (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Shortening

Tealwisp has initiated a WP:FAR on the grounds that the Bob Dylan article has become too long. I'll try to do some editing to shorten the article. I'll start by cutting out the sections which stray from the main narrative of Dylan's life & work. Obviously if others disagree with editing, they can holler. Mick gold (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

One place I wold recommend shortening without losing too much important data is the "fan base" section. surely it's redundant and not a little arbitrary to have list of people who are influenced by Dylan considering the breadth of his influence - wouldn't a list of people who are NOT influenced by him be infinitely shorter? i think the section could nearly go completely without losing too much - what do you think mick? also, if there's anything i can do to help in the shortening process let me know, as i believe it is a great article and would hate to see it lose its FA tag. Warchef (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Warchef thanks for your intelligent shortening. I loved the I'm Not There quote but you're right to move it. I'm afraid I reinstated the last sentence of Chronicles, 'cause I think that tells you what's important about the book, the passage about Robert Johnson and Brecht/Weill do explain how his song-writing took such an original turn. I'm gonna pare down Fan base and Never Ending Tour without losing them. I've just inserted all these refs for the musicians and I think they're interesting 'cause they convey the extraordinary breadth of Dylan's influence, Andrew Motion, Barack Obama. I'm gonna make the references as clean as possible. Mick gold (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the latest section needs a little trimming too. It all seems relevant and true but do we really need this much about the last two years? It's not as if these last two were the most important of his career either. Conversely, I expect this article will always be very long anyway given: the length of Dylan's career/fame and the fact that there is considerably more coverage of him than virtually any musician. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Dylan's voice

The article I think should make mention of one of the most interesting aspects of Dylan - how his voice had changed over the years. Would be very interesting analysis as there are some differing views on what caused it. It can't just solely be old age as McCartney still sounds similar to what he did 40 years ago. I noticed during the late 80s and early 90s that it took the hugest hits around then, to the point where it is the sound of someone on their deathbed. Rogerthat Talk 02:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I too think that the article ought to at least mention his infamous mumbling vocal style, which is fairly well parodied. I can't imagine there isn't a source out there on this. TheHYPO (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed on both counts. His voice is undoubtedly an acquired taste (which may be why his work is so frequently covered). It frankly borders on unlistenable on some of his later/live work (compare the MTV Unplugged versions of Love Minus Zero and Tombstone Blues to the glorious studio versions from 30 years earlier, for example). Another aspect to ponder (look for reliable sources, anyway) - could his original vocal style be considered a precursor to rapping?--MartinUK (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
There are 3 descriptions of Dylan's voice in article. In Relocation to New York [[17]] it says:
"Dylan's singing voice was untrained and had an unusual edge to it. Robert Shelton described Dylan's vocal style as "a rusty voice suggesting Guthrie's old performances, etched in gravel like Dave Van Ronk's." ref: Shelton, No Direction Home, 108–110
Account of Modern Times album quotes The Guardian critic who described Dylan's singing as "a catarrhal death-rattle".
In the Never Ending Tour section [[18]] it says of Dylan's recent performances:
"Some fans have complained that, as Dylan's vocal range has diminished, he has resorted to a technique they have labelled "upsinging." One critic described the technique as Dylan's "dismantling melodies by delivering phrases in a monotone and ending them an octave higher." ref: "Dylan and fans ageing gracefully" National Post date 2006-11-08
On rapping, Mike Marqusee called "Subterranean Homesick Blues" a precursor of rap and hip-hop, this is mentioned in article in first para of Going Electric [[19]]. Mick gold (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Three-CD version of Tell Tale Signs

I'm not justifying Sony's $129 price for the three-disc version of Tell Tall Tales, but should it be at least mentioned that the $129 set includes a 150-page deluxe hardcover book? As it reads now, it possibly sounds like all one gets for the extra $110 is the third disc. Again, I'm not saying the book is necessarily worth $110, and for those who don't want the book, it could be argued it's a big ripoff to make them buy it for $110 if they want the third disc, but should the book at least be mentioned? Just a thought. (On the other hand, I could also see the point of view that as it reads now, it doesn't necessarily imply that other things aren't included in the three-disc set, so some might want to leave the text as it is.) Moisejp (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

doneWarchef (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life

Looking at the FAR comments it seems that there are two issues with the content of the article (outside of referencing etc.): 1) that it's too long and 2) that it contains too many digressions and is mired in detail. While I think 1 is unavoidable when you consider the scope and breadth of Dylan's career (he really is an exception), there are probably areas which can be tightened up slightly; however even with such edits, the article will still be "too long", and we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it. However, I would allow the objection that the article contains too many digressions much more creedence - and this is an issue which is much more manageable in my opinion. So, in the spirit of avoiding digression and keeping the red line through the article (and trying to follow chronology as much as possible) I've started moving content which I feel is not directly related to Dylan's career into the Personal Life section - especially his endorsement of Obama and his religious beliefs. I believe it makes for a much more readable and clear article (but if you disagree please state so here and we'll see what the consensus is) - however, it probably means that the personal life section will require more attention as it grows. I've currently just divided it into sub-paragraphs (family, politics, religion) but if anyone has any suggestions as to the best way to organise the section please leave your comments here. Warchef (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Warchef, I can appreciate your motives for re-arranging the material. My worry is that the paras on Obama and the "Born Again" period have just been shifted, and are now his 'Personal Life'. But this feels a bit arbitrary. Is Dylan commenting on Obama in an interview really his 'Personal life'? My concern is that if you're going to have a section on Dylan's 'Political affiliations', there is much more material to add. e.g. the number of political causes that Dylan publicly supported in the 60s and 70s (Civil Rights, Chile); the fact that he referred to Barry Goldwater as "my favourite politician" in Chronicles, Vol. 1 surprised a lot of readers. But if you add more material about his political beliefs, you're making the article longer. Which is the opposite of what we're supposed to be doing. The same holds true for his 'Religious beliefs', there is more to be said about the 60s and 70s, but let's not make the article longer. I think I preferred the old way of organising the article, the first section is called 'Life and Career' after all, but I'm worried I may be displaying symptoms of WP:OWN so I'd like to know what other editors think. Mick gold (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
No worries, I appreciate your point of view too - god knows you've put 20 times more work into this article than anyone else. However a couple of points: if the obama comment is not more relevant than the goldwater comment, or the rest of dylan's political activities, then it probably shouldn't be in the article at all - if it doesn't fit into the "personal life" section without the context of dylan's other political activities, then it probably doesn't fit into "Life and Career" by the same rationale either, and its only criterium for inclusion over the other material is that it is recent/current, which goes against WP:RECENT. The article suffers from recentism anyway, and we're supposed to be shortening, and so it probably should go, even though it's certainly extremely interesting to see him take sides in the election.
On the religious front, my problem was always just that the article takes a huge digression as soon as we hit 1978, which brings us all the way up to 97 and even 2003 in its discussion of Dylan's religion, and then next paragraph jumps back to 1980 and continues the article as before - to me it's clear that most of this material and discussion of dylan's religion didn't belong where it was. My suggestion would be a seperate article about Dylan's coversion (if there's already one about the going electric controversy then why not this?), and then we could shorten, save content, keep the main article here moving forward all the time & avoid digression, and avoid the larger pitfalls that you outline above. now, i'm not going to start such an article this very night, but if you think it's a good idea (if it had some support) i could get started asap.
Finally, your argument seems to be that by titling the main body of the article "Life and career" that it already covers all of the above. But if that's the case why do we need a "Personal Life" section at all? surely Dylan's marriages are part of his "Life" as well? i feel now that you've brought up these excellent points, that the problem might not be what i initially though it was (see above) but just that the borders of the article - what goes where - are fuzzy. "Life and career" is broad enough a concept to include everything, and "everything" in one place is bound to lead to digressions/length issues, and is not conducive to a chronological treatment etc. anyway, not sure where i'm going with this, but i suggest dropping obama (or at the least reducing it to one line, with the references bringig the reader to the quotes if they want) and starting a conversion article so that we can give all the good but digressive material here a home and shorten. thoughts? Warchef (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
You may be onto something. There's already an article on Dylan's conversion to Christianity, it is part of the Slow Train Coming article: [[20]]. I wasn't suggesting adding the Goldwater quote. Just trying to point out that if we add a section on 'Dylan's political affiliations' there's more that should be mentioned, but Chronicles is full of, shall we say, surprising opinions. To add a list of political causes Dylan supported in 1960s & 70s would be opposite of what we want to do, shorten. So since 'Political affiliations' currently consists of only the Obama quote, I'll move that back to where it was. I like the Obama quote, though I didn't add it, several editors have added it to the Dylan article, and it takes the article up to the presidential election. I'll try to add something more general about religion. You're right, the religious material takes us from 1979 to 1997 in slightly confusing way. I think it's worth trying to say something about Dylan's religious beliefs pre 1979 in a couple of sentences. Mick gold (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Cut Further Reading section?

If we're still trying to shorten this article for the FAR, one section we could cut is Further Reading. I know there are some important books in there that aren't covered in the References section but I have a few thoughts on that:

  • If someone is looking for books to read about Dylan, there are already a couple dozen in the References section. If someone needs more than that, they can do an Amazon search.
  • Although I do think some of the books in Further Reading are important titles (I have a couple of favourites myself on the list), from another point of view, if they really were so important they would have been cited somewhere in the article and would be in the References section. The ones in the References section are the ones that are most relevant to this article.
  • I'm sure there are many many other informative Dylan-related books we could put in the Further Reading section, some of which may be as equally "important" as some of the ones on the list. But we have to draw the line somewhere, and I'm proposing cutting the section altogether may be a valid approach.


What does everybody think? Moisejp (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We can't possibly list every book about Dylan and there's quite a few as references, so there's not much reason to give special mention to the handful under Further Reading. Adam McMaster (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The reference section contains the authoritative & indispensable books.Mick gold (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
agree also, but they don't take "further reading" into account when assessing the length of an article for FAR, it's only the length of the main text; and at that it's not only the length of the text, but the article's ability to maintain focus over an extended length, which of course becomes increasingly difficult the more information is involved. my guess is when FAR gets started properly the charges levied won't necessarily be that the word count is too long, but that the article is too digressive, and sorry as I am to say it, I think that means alot of the lovely text on individual songs from albums will have to be moved to the album pages in order to be compliant with Wikipedia:Summary style, particularly the WP principle therein that "The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of detail. Thus giving readers the ability to zoom to the level of detail they need and not exhausting those who need a primer on a whole topic." I'm thinking in particular of the amount of detail Freewheelin' and Times They are A-Changin' receive in the article. And removing further reading won't have any impact on FAR when these other issues will dwarf it. just tryin to say it as i see it unfolding over the next few days, but i'm sure that together, and especially with Mick Gold's encyclopedic knowledge of dylan, we'll keep the article's FA status; but all I'm saying is some more substantial cuts will have to be made (and moved to other dylan articles, mostly the albums, so no great tragedy) than the little bits and pieces we're cutting tentatively at the moment.Warchef (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
You make valid points. There's something I'd like to clarify. At beginning of current FAR, SandyGeorgia says:
"Dylan article has 79KB of readable prose (relative to 50KB recommendation at WP:SIZE), I believe this is second in length only to FA Ketuanan Melayu."
I think 'readable prose' is length without footnotes & ancillary matter (inc Further Reading as Warchef correctly points out). So I'd like to discover what current length of Dylan 'readable prose' is. Because cuts have been made in the past month. My question is: Have we gone far enough? I think a lot of Dylan cruft had built up in article, and it has been stripped out by editors. How much further do we need to go? I only ask this because I'm worried that, motivated by a fear of article being de-listed as WP:FA, we're cutting as much as possible. And my concern is that article will end up as not much more than a banal list of the dates on which Dylan released certain major albums and embarked on certain major tours. For me, one of the strengths of Featured Articles is that they give you authoritative facts, but they also give you a sense of why these facts matter and what their value is. E.g. the comments on "Blowin' In The Wind" and '"A Hard Rain's a-Gonna Fall" do tell you why these early Dylan songs made a big impact, and why these songs are still remembered today. For me, it would be a shame if this FAR led to our losing any sense within the article of why Bob Dylan is an important 20th and 21st century artist. I shall attempt to get guidance from SandyGeorgia Mick gold (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Update: SandyGeorgia has replied at Dylan FARC [[21]] that article is now under 10,000 words so he won't complain about length. He has some other issues with article, which I do not fully understand. He does not think Bjorner is a WP:RS which raises some problems. Perhaps other editors have ideas where we can substitute for Bjorner? I'll ask Michael Gray if he has any suggestions. Mick gold (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Before we delete Bjorner refs, I'll make one more attempt to post on FARC discussion a convincing explanation of why I think Bjorner is WP:RS. It'll take me a couple of days to write. Mick gold (talk) 05:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

External link suggestion: Paul Williams book excerpt about Dylan in 1967

As an editor at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting the link to this 1967 Paul Williams book excerpt (from Outlaw Blues) about Dylan's year of silence between Blonde on Blonde and John Wesley Harding. However, I would like to recommend it on its merits, and hope that an editor will find the time to examine the excerpt and—if he or she sees fit—post it to the external links section. I appreciate your time. Crawdaddy! 2008
Mike harkin (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Bob Dylan has Kyrgyz origins

Dylan himself has written (in his 2004 autobiography, Chronicles) that his paternal grandmother's maiden name was Kyrgyz and her family originated from Istanbul. so dear vandals, pls dont vandalise the origin part.--85.100.174.97 (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, dear anonymous editor, it's cruft: the accumulation of more & more minor details. We've been asked to shorten this article so we cannot include every detail of Dylan's genealogy. In Chronicles, Dylan spells his grandmother's family name as 'Kirghiz'. If you're going to give a reference it should be to Chronicles, not to a Turkofamerica blog about "Turkish Bob" McKay. Your edit destroyed the information about Dylan's family leaving from Odessa for America. Mick gold (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Converting "Fan Base" to "Legacy"

There have been a number of requests on FARC and here that the Fan Base section be modified to be more reflective of Dylan's legacy than of Fanzines and websites, and I think there's legitimacy to the idea, so I've started the process in the spirit of WP:BOLD.

However, of course the main problem is how to shift that emphasis without adding extra length to an article which already has length issues, and in doing so I decided to completely cut the fanzine section, as I feel it's much less relevant than what other musicians and scholars have to say about Dylan's influence and legacy. However, I'm sure some disagree, and more than likely a (hopefully) much shorter entry on dylan's fan base will be re-introduced. In order to help anyone who might wish to do such a thing here's the paragraph I cut, although I feel the section now without it is perfectly fine:

"Bob Dylan's large and vocal fan base generates books, essays, zines, and similar materials at a furious rate. His fans maintain a massive Internet presence with sites that publish daily Dylan news, complete set lists from all of his concerts, the availability of bootleg recordings, and an array of other Dylan-related topics. Within minutes of the end of a concert, the set list and reviews are posted by his loyal following.[2] Just one of the many examples is the Neverending Pool. The Pool, originally started in 2001 as the Dylan Pool, is an online community that runs competitions to predict the songs Dylan will play in his Never Ending Tour performances.[3][4]"

I'll keep trying to tidy up the new legacy section in consultation with FARC (also perhaps adding a little about his lyrics and cover versions). Please feel free to comment and add to, change or revert any of my edits - I really don't mean to step on any toes, but I think it's a good move for FARC and the article itself. peace Warchef (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Good move. Good Joe Strummer quote. Responds to FARC comments & brings other material together. I'll add a bit. I find I don't miss the fan paragraph you deleted at all. Mick gold (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I added Joni Mitchell to the list of people influenced by Dylan with a link to a radio interview from 1974. I don't know how long we want to make the list, there is also an awards speech here [[22]] from 1986 where Gordon Lightfoot calls Dylan his major influence and says Dylan taught him how to write lyrics. Anyway, I know we're trying to make this article shorter, not longer, so I leave it up to others' discretion whether it is worthwhile to add him to list. It doesn't bother me either way. Moisejp (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
No need for Lightfoot, IMHO. cheers Mick gold (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

faulty ref?

sorry to start a new section on something so small, but does anyone know what's with this reference during the blood on the tracks paragrpah?

REF: cite news | title = But one track on Blood on the Tracks , Lily, Rosemary and the Jack of Hearts was almost made a feature film, one, was directed by a major film corporation, and another, directed by Dylan himself. | title = Bob Dylan | publisher = Salon.com | date = May 5, 2001 | url = http://archive.salon.com/people/bc/2001/05/22/dylan/index3.html | accessdate = 2008-09-07

Due to the double title this first part about the lily movie does not appear - should it be in the text, is it a separate ref that got mixed up, etc?Warchef (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm puzzled but it obviously isn't worth including. No film was made of 'Lily, Rosemary, etc' so it's not worth mentioning. I suspect it was redundant fragment from old text, so I deleted it. Mick gold (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

1980s

For our coverage of the 1980s albums, after Shot of Love, there's the interesting summarizing mini-paragraph talking about the Infidels to Down in the Groove period, no real discussion of Infidels itself except for its outtakes, no mention of Real Live, Empire Burlesque or Biograph, then quite a bit about Knocked Out Loaded and Dylan and the Dead (though I noticed Mick gold cut a bit out of it today)—a paragraph that I think is quite interesting—then no mention of Down in the Groove, and then a couple of paragraphs on the Wilburys and Oh Mercy. Just for consistency sake I was wondering if we should say something a sentence or two about each the unmentioned albums. Or if we assume that is all summarized by the opening paragraph, should we mention Knocked and Dead at all? Unless the idea was that the Knocked to Groove period was one of his low points (in the critics' eyes), which'd be a valid reason to mention those albums, but if so we should perhaps make that point more clearly. Moisejp (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, on second thought, I can see that Dylan and the Dead is more noteworthy than Real Live, because it is a teaming up with the Dead, whereas Real Live is just an ordinary live album. And I can see that, although Biograph has several rarities on it, it could be argued that it is mainly a best-of, so it may not need mentioning. But if we are going to give that many lines to Knocked, maybe we should at least give a sentence or two to Empire Burlesque and Down in the Groove as well—again, unless we want to even more clearly single out Knocked as a commercial and critical low point in Dylan's career, in which case it becomes more noteworthy than the other two. Moisejp (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Origins

The information on Zigman Zimmerman's immigration, based on Sounes though not necessarily what he said, is imprecise and perhaps misleading. Apparently, Zigman did leave Odessa after the pogrom of 1905, but Gray (Encyclopedia, p. 729) says he fled in 1906, landed at Ellis Island in 1907, and sent for his family, who arrived by 1910. Here's the article's sentence without the opening: "(Dylan's) paternal grandparents, Zigman and Anna Zimmerman, emigrated from Odessa in the Russian Empire (now Ukraine) to the United States after the antisemitic pogroms of 1905." While that may be technically correct, it gives the impression the Zimmermans immigrated together and in 1905. At the moment, I only have Gray to go on, and another source would be needed to do a re-write with the more precise dates. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

But surely 1905/1906 difference not v significant if we agree anti-Semitic pogrom of 1905 was cause. For now, I've deleted wife Anna, so just Zigman emigrates, which I think conveys reason for post 1905 emigration to USA. Pls revert if not liked. Mick gold (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree the dif is marginal, but I'm a precise freak on facts and language (albeit, a master of neither), so I worry people will either take 1905 as the immigration date or go without. For the long-term, I believe such issues should be resolved as best as possible to make the article a benchmark for accuracy and clarity. Completeness is also important, in terms of addressing notable facts/issues. The exact years and certainly Anna's name fit these criteria, so for now I'll add her name back in. At some point after I recover my box of Dylan books (misplaced in a reconstruction project on the home front), I might attempt a revision. On a related front, I noticed the Guardian's cursory rating of the article was 8/10, not bad from a general observer who could have been more unkind. In my estimation, its actual state is much better: 95%+ on writing, 99%+ on accuracy, and 95%+ on completeness. Allreet (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I respect your precision but... Sounes (pp.12-13) says Bob's paternal grandfather was Zigman Zimmerman from Odessa. His wife Anna brought 3 children to USA, 3 more sons (inc Bob's father Abe) were born after her arrival in USA. Whereas the grandparents of Bob's mother Beatty arrived from Lithuania in 1902. It appears to me that Bob's paternal grandparents came from Odessa; whereas his maternal great grandparents (his mother's grandparents) came from Lithuania. But I've never been a genius at genealogy.... discuss Mick gold (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Looking at Sounes again, he tells us that Bob's paternal grandparents came from Odessa; Bob's father Abe was born in USA in 1911. Grandparents of Bob's mother, Beatrice Stone, came from Lithuania. Beatty's mother, Florence Edelestein, was born in Lithuania & married Ben Stone, also born in Lithuania. So it's the grandparents of Bob's mother who immigrated, and the parents of his father. Gray's Dylan Encyclopedia has a more detailed family tree for the Stone/Edelstein family (pp.641-642) telling the same story. Mick gold (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

sound bites

its time we got some sound bites for this article --Feeling free (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Split into multiple articles?

Tealwisp has suggested the Bob Dylan article should be ‘split into multiple articles’. I’m not sure what ‘multiple articles’ he/she has in mind. I would argue for retaining Dylan as a unified article in its present form for following reasons:

  • Dylan is uniquely important artist: Only musician from world of folk and rock music to be awarded a Pulitzer Prize. Only 20th century song-writer to be nominated for Nobel Prize in Literature.
  • Dylan has had a long career, at the forefront of popular culture during five decades. The article does justice to his extraordinary longevity and sustained creativity.
  • Already there are detailed articles on each of Dylan’s albums, on the films he has appeared in and directed, and on most of Dylan’s major songs. So I cannot understand how this article could be ‘split into multiple articles’.
  • Since Bob Dylan is a Featured Article and has been vetted and assessed several times, presumably it would only be ‘split into multiple articles’ if a clear majority of editors agreed with this proposal. What do others think? Mick gold (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I like Dylan as much as anyone, which is why I think accuracy in an article like this is important since it's likely to be the enduring public record of his life and the place of first resort for plenty of (younger) people looking for basic information. First, anyone can be "nominated" by anyone else for a Nobel peace prize - there is no formal process, and the deliberations of the Nobel committee for it are highly secretive. Plenty of people who neither ever could or should win have had their names bandied about in public as "nominees." We have no way of knowing nor ever will have if anyone on the Nobel committee ever took this suggestion seriously. More to the point - Dylan never won a Pulitzer Prize. There is no category for songwriters, and FWIW few in the American professoriat take him as a poet in the sense of, say, Ezra Pound or Wallace Stevens or ee cummings or Robert Frost. Dylan received what the Pulitzer committee termed a "special citation" for contributions to American music and popular culture - a high honor due to its absolute uniqueness - but in no wise a Pulitzer Prize.Sensei48 (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with every point made. To split this article into multiple articles would be totally ludicrous. 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I also agree that there's no need to split the article, but out of curiosity has Tealwisp given any reasons for splitting it? Adam McMaster (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Adam, No, Tealwisp does not give any reasons. I left message on his/her Talk page, asking Tealwisp to provide reasons. And exactly what 'multiple articles'? But no reply. There's clearly no support for this. It doesn't make any sense, so I'll remove the splitting tag. Mick gold (talk) 05:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I wholly disagree about splitting into multiple articles, but I do think a better structure is needed to this one- I came to this article looking for information on his religious beliefs and found it very hard to find. That's a notable thing about him and instead of being buried ina section about an album it should have its own section. Also there's material that belongs in 'personal life' scattered all through the article. Also his work as an author should have its own section. 86.2.38.112 (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I think information about his religious beliefs is hard to come by anywhere :p Joshua Gross (talk • contribs • signature) 22:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to start this section when I added the tag. I apologise for that, it was very late. And I also apologise for not being involved with the discussion until now, as my school has just started. On to the point: this article is simply too long. Furthermore, the section on his career should be cleaned up. I intended for the article to be split between career and everything else, but noting the disproportionate content amount, it should be split within career, if at all. I would like to propose a particular alternative to a sundering of this page: extreme cleanup. The article has come a long way since May 2004, and it did not follow a good path. It is to large to be useful to someone who wants to look something up about Bob Dylan. The sections need to be separated or (better yet) shortened and cleaned, as they are far too detailed. Additionally, "Life and Career" must be changed to just "Career." It doesn't cover any other parts of his life. So, if the article can be shortened only to important facts, hopefully to the point where it is under 100-120 kilobytes, there should be no need to divide it. I think I mentioned something about this before, but this was a featured article, not is a featured article. It may have been very good before, but it's been four years since then, and it's no longer FA quality. The FA version was on May 17, 2004, if you want to check the old revision, because I don't know how to link straight to the page. Tealwisp (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What? It is currently listed as FA. Maybe it's not FA quality, but it is still FA. Joshua Gross (talk • contribs • signature) 00:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Tealwisp You appear to be confused. Bob Dylan was last assessed as a Featured Article in September 2006. You can read the Featured Article Review here [[23]]. Please read this discussion before you comment again. The article we are discussing today is substantially similar to the one that was assessed two years ago. Bob Dylan is a Featured Article today. It will remain one until such time as it is formally demoted by a Featured Article Review. Mick gold (talk) 05:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I have read the discussion, and the problem still stands that the article is too long, and too detailed, despite what it was two years ago. I am placing the FAR tag on the page. Tealwisp (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Politics

The question of how much to include about his politics was briefly touched on in the Personal Life section above, but I would just like submit my opinion that in the 2000s section, the part about his possible endorsement of Obama, and the accompanying footnote, should be cut. It just doesn't seem that relevant to me. The footnote with the quote from abc News says if it is an endorsement, it is "culturally extraordinary" but, in the 2000s, I just don't think it is of the same relevance for this kind of article as the kinds of albums he's putting out, and the movies he has been involved in and stuff. Or, if we did decide to add a Political Views section, as has been proposed, it would be valid to put it there. But I just don't think it is relevant in the 2000s section. What do other people think? Moisejp (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO Obama is worth including. Dylan's interview with The Times was almost entirely about his art show. The Obama quote was just a few lines at the end, but it attracted enormous attention. It was picked up by news agencies in Europe and USA as "Dylan endorses Obama". So I think people will look at this article, interested in Dylan's comment on the presidential election, and here it's accurately reported. Francescani puts it in context. In 1960s & 70s presidential candidates were avid for Dylan's endorsement and he said nothing.
I don't feel enthusiastic about Dylan's Political Views section because Dylan's political views are often oblique and enigmatic. Take his 2007 interview with Jann Wenner:
Wenner: Do you worry about global warming?
Dylan: Where's the global warming? It's freezing here.
Wenner: That seems a pretty frightening outlook.
Dylan: I think what you're driving at is we expect politicians to solve all our problems. I don't expect politicians to solve anybody's problems.
Is Dylan denying global warming? Is Dylan expressing disinterest in any political activism? Clearly, Dylan played a role in the Civil Rights movement. I don't believe he explicitly criticised American actions in Vietnam. Does that mean he approved? (Provocatively, in an interview with Happy Traum for Sing Out!, Sep 1968, Dylan asked: "Anyway, how do you know that I'm not, as you say, for the war?")
Dylan had moments of activism in the 70s, with Phil Ochs over Chile, on the Hurricane Carter issue. He appeared at Amnesty International benefits, and on Chabad telethons. Which one represents his political view? Does "Neighbourhood Bully" express Dylan's view on the conflict in the Middle East? He appeared at Live Aid, then he pulled the rug out from under the event by questioning why some of the money could not be given to American farmers who were losing their farms. Mike Marqusee's book, Wicked Messenger, is an excellent analysis of Dylan's political outlook, but it can't be summarised in a few sentences. I think Marqusee's conclusion is that Dylan swapped the conventional vocabulary of political engagement for a new style of "existential politics". It's fascinating to discuss Dylan's political views, and to realise how infrequently he has made explicit political pronouncements (which makes his Obama comment notable) but I don't think Dylan's Political Views can be easily or accurately summarised. What do others think? Mick gold (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
If his activism is relevant as a focus of his life/career (Bono, John Lennon, early 60s Dylan and "Hurricaine" Dylan), then it's notable. If he's an artist who happens to have a political opinion, then he's not much different from other voters, except by virtue of his importance and the scarcity of positions he's taken over the years. So to look at it another way, will this bear mentioning a year from now? Five years? Not likely, unless it proves to be the start of a new direction and he starts promoting certain candidates or causes, a la Susan Sarandan or Alec Baldwin. My POV is that we're skating on thin ice in terms of notability and neutrality, for very little gain. Allreet (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it's notable because Dylan had an aura of activism at the start of his career, then an air of elusiveness for the rest of his career. Several songs were written querying why Dylan had failed to show "us" the way (Baez, Bowie). Now he has spoken highly of a presidential candidate for the first time ever, so I agree with Francescani, this is extraordinary. Mick gold (talk) 07:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I accede. Your enthusiasm for this trumps my concerns. Plus the quote is excellent in and of itself. Cheers. Allreet (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Dylan, Bob (2004). "Chronicles, Volume One". Simon & Schuster. pp. 92–93. ISBN 0306812312.
  2. ^ Muir, Razor's Edge, 22–25
  3. ^ "The Never Ending Pool". The Never Ending Pool. 2001-06-08. Retrieved 2008-09-15.
  4. ^ Bauder, David (2002-02-20). "Game Plays on Dylan's Unpredictability". AP. Retrieved 2008-09-15. reproduced online at Bauder, David (2002-02-20). "Game Plays on Dylan's Unpredictability". Google group.rec.music.dylan. Retrieved 2008-09-15.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_Dylan/Archive_7&oldid=1048516395"