Sic Semper Tyrannis

Three American Clasics

Hello again, faithful readers. I am still very slowly working through the supposed Top Albums of All Time, along with some other artists and composers I have shamefully missed over the years. And once agin, there seems to be a rational universe, (or an anal writer), at work behind the scenes as the timing for these artistic experiences is suspiciously appropriate.

First of all-Dylan. In the last two or three weeks I have heard two really good albums by Bob Dylan for the first time: Bringing It All Back Home and Highway 61 Revisited. Both of these albums came about during one of Dylan's most famous periods-i.e. when he pissed off his folk music-loving base. It's similar to when Eddie Van Halen had the gall to take up playing the synthesizer.

When Mr. Dylan started using drums and electric guitars and a full band sound, it was seen, (or heard), as a major betrayal by some folks who liked their music stripped-bare and earnest. People loved Dylan, the political prophet. And I'll grant you, the "weary traveller" accompanying himself on rustic acoustic guitar is pretty powerful. I guess people wanted him to be the reincarnation of Woody Guthrie, one of his musical heroes.

These two albums show Dylan backing away from expectations. While Bringing It All Back Home still has some of the simple folkie songs that made him famous, interspersed with some electric blues-rock, by the end of Highway 61 Revisited, all bets are off: this guy wanted to front a rock n' roll band.

And that's one of the things I love about these two albums. I hear them in comparison to their forebears: Freewheelin' and The Times They Are A- Changin'. I like the idea of an artist sailing personally uncharted waters. Much is made of Dylan's influence on the music of the Beatles and on John Lennon in particular around this time. I wonder if it's safe to posit the converse idea- that The Beatles' music was also an influence on Dylan? Food for thought.

Anyway, the electric sneer, the humor and word-play-for-word-play's sake captured on these albums are all parts of the sound of an individualist creating what he wants to--not what the sensitive politicos wanted him to. He refused to be anyone's tool, (made apparent in No Direction Home, the fantastic Scorsese documentary that covers Dylan's life up to and including this point.) Anyway, I respect Dylan's determination and courage to do his own thing. As a musician, that's very inspiring.

As for the sounds--(first of all, just for grins, compare the first three or four seconds of "Subterranean Homesick Blues" to Ryan Adams' "To Be Young." I think they are interchangeable in their production: acoustic rhythm guitar, the high bends on tele or strat with slap-back delay.) Maybe there is something "magical" about these two discs, as I hoped to find in listening to Rolling Stone's list of "classics."

Something about these songs makes me want to listen again and again-to figure out what they're all about. Not to mention Mike Bloomfield's lead guitar-very much underrated. Forty-two years of music created since this album has pretty much solidified these blues licks as "standard." Any average barband guitarist probably knows half of the patterns from which he plays, but that couldn't have been the case way back when.

And the imagery of his lyrics is so bizarre, constantly walking the edge between surrealism and a kind of profound truth. All of which is delivered with one of the most notoriously unskilled singing voices in music history. Yet I still love the sound of it all.

The other "American Classic" I experienced for the first time a couple days ago-the movie Rocky. I'd seen the comparative circus that is Rocky IV many times. But this original movie? There's quite a bit of depth to these characters and their relationships. There really is no conceivable rational reason that Rocky and Adrian should be together, romantically. So it must be love. An interesting kind of timid, reticent love between two people who couldn't be more different.

And I was also interested in the contrast between how Apollo Creed and Rocky go about life. Creed is portrayed as a shrewd businessman as much as a boxer- always in meetings, working deals.

Rocky-well, he's just a loser.

And I wondered about his character during the training. Is he an uberman or is he an Everyman? It's hard to tell. I think that's why I liked the movie-this idea that greatness and failure dance on a very thin ledge. Is Rocky the uberman because he extraordinarily trains himself to overcome? Or is it his struggle to overcome his obstacles, (no love, not much money, not a lot of intellect, or even boxing talent), that is indicative of every person's struggles?

I want to believe option B, because of the possibility of hope that it allows.

posted by Mike @ 8:50 PM