tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6531553.post8654633181784774334..comments2023-06-27T01:34:35.359-07:00Comments on Ted Burke LIKE IT OR NOT: Our punk, our geniusTED BURKEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16610296721891201100noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6531553.post-52012241926824130432011-05-04T06:13:44.414-07:002011-05-04T06:13:44.414-07:00...and don't forget midnight's broken toe!......and don't forget midnight's broken toe!T-Bone Franknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6531553.post-44799252919073684082011-04-24T20:52:26.817-07:002011-04-24T20:52:26.817-07:00The unprofitable dignity and intregity that Dylan...The unprofitable dignity and intregity that Dylan refused to be marginalized by--ie, made quaint and neutered as a revolutionary force of any definition--were those notions codified by the lefty Folk Revival he eventually abandoned. Their idea of those qualities had little to do with Polonius's greatest platitude--"...to thine own self be true..." --and everything to do with conformity to a vaguely held consensus. I don't disagree with what you've said here in Dylan's defense; I would only insist that the means of Dylan following his muse amounts to deftly selected instances of opportunism. Had Dylan been less inspired in his mashing together of his unlike influences, we likely would have regarded him as a pretentious fool trying to beserk himself into genius. Dylan, though, was a genius, and his careerism is mitigated in the music and lyrics that resulted from it. The work is everything.TED BURKEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16610296721891201100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6531553.post-91402825989254045062011-04-24T15:44:08.836-07:002011-04-24T15:44:08.836-07:00Regarding your assertion that Dylan is/was "a...Regarding your assertion that Dylan is/was "a contradiction that refused to be marginalized by unprofitable consolations such as dignity or integrity" -- This demands some clarification. I would assert that Dylan became a commercial success BECAUSE of his dignity and integrity as an artist, at least prior to, say, 1973 or so. Whatever he was doing during his glory days from Another Side of Bob Dylan through John Wesley Harding, it wasn't selling out or prostituting himself for the bucks, as the hard-core Leftist folkies accused him of doing. He became a pop star because he was following his own muse, his special genius, which happened to coincide with what a good slice of the young record buying public wanted to hear. The surrealist dandy blues that he spewed out from '65-'67 do not sound like they were drawn up by a marketing strategy or manufactured to please the public. In fact, much of Dylan's output during this time was inscrutable, even insulting - if he wanted to play it safe and keep the cash register ringing, he would have toned down the vitriol and the obscurity. Sure, Dylan wanted to be a rich pop star. But he did it on his own terms and did not debase himself in the process.Tiny Montgomerynoreply@blogger.com