Bob Dylan and genius

[DHodges]

Although I consider Zappa to be a greater artistic genius than Dylan, he too suffers from the problem of trying to mix philosophy and music together. The end result is that both he and Dylan come across as transvestites. The way they drape hard-hitting, satirical observation with the feminine frillyness of music is very off-putting - at least to me.

I think what you are saying - and I agree - is that music is by its nature feminine. It's a way of taking an idea and tarting it up, decorating it, adding ornaments like a Christmas tree. In the end, music is pretty much the same as doodling on a piece of paper with a pencil.

In performing music, it is a given that you are dressed as a clown. People come to see you. They yell, "Dance, monkey boy, dance!" And you do.

Is there such a thing as "serious" music? I think there is music you like and music you don't like, and that's it. If it's music, then it's already frivolous, isn't it?

Still - it is enjoyable.

Imagine a fireman bursting through your door and singing that your house is on fire ....

The Singing Firemen would have plenty of songs to choose from....

Burning Down the House - Talking Heads
Fire Water Burn - Bloodhound Gang
House of Fire - Alice Cooper
This House is on Fire - AC-DC

[Matt Gregory]

I think what you are saying - and I agree - is that music is by its nature feminine. It's a way of taking an idea and tarting it up, decorating it, adding ornaments like a Christmas tree. In the end, music is pretty much the same as doodling on a piece of paper with a pencil.

I think listening to music and playing it is feminine, but I think composing it is kind of masculine. There's a certain struggle involved with it that you have to overcome in order to develop an idea.

In performing music, it is a given that you are dressed as a clown. People come to see you. They yell, "Dance, monkey boy, dance!" And you do.

That's how I've always felt about it, that's why I've always hated performing music.

[Leyla Shen]

Caught a glimpse of Jon Bon Jovi on Oprah a couple of nights back.

Interesting to watch him.

Seemed completely uncomfortable with the manner in which his fans yelled and screamed over him. Wasn't that willing to talk much about it: you know, get into the hype. Tried to keep it "real." A certain shame and humility to him after such success.

The band donated US$1mil to Oprah's Angel Network.

[David Quinn]

Diebert wrote:

Of course now there's the flip side of the coin, a less experienced fireman might get so absorbed by his own act that he forgets about the reality of the fire. Or people in the crowd might start to act like 'fireman' too, since apes like to copycat so much, and before you know it everybody starts to show off....

Yes, the main problem with Dylan and Zappa (and indeed with artists in general) is that their intention is simply to distact people from the television set and have the focus directed towards themselves instead. They have no awareness of the existence of the fire, or if they have, they don't really care. They just want to be the ones entertaining everyone before they all go up in flames.

This is the tragic history of sacred art.

There is a contradiction inherent in even the most sublime art, isn't there. Even if an artist devotes himself solely to awakening people's minds to a higher understanding of Reality through his art, he is still setting himself up as an object of adoration and causing people to strengthen their emotional attachment to the world. No matter how high his intentions are to begin with, it will always degenerate into a situation where people will continue to "mistake the finger for the moon". The artist will be lavished with praise, and Reality will be forgotten.

That people do this with gurus and spiritual texts is bad enough, but to do it with an artist is a sign that one has completely lost the plot.

-

[David Quinn]

Dave Hodges wrote:

DQ: Although I consider Zappa to be a greater artistic genius than Dylan, he too suffers from the problem of trying to mix philosophy and music together. The end result is that both he and Dylan come across as transvestites. The way they drape hard-hitting, satirical observation with the feminine frillyness of music is very off-putting - at least to me.

DH: I think what you are saying - and I agree - is that music is by its nature feminine. It's a way of taking an idea and tarting it up, decorating it, adding ornaments like a Christmas tree. In the end, music is pretty much the same as doodling on a piece of paper with a pencil.

It's not so much of a problem if what you are decorating isn't an idea in the first place - that is, if you don't insert any philosophic substance into the music. It then becomes purely feminine inside and out. It's possible for me to enjoy it at that level. In effect, it becomes a woman in my life.

Given this, I'd rather listen to Yes singing about sunrises and oceans, or Opeth about ghosts and Shakespearian tragedies, than Dylan or Zappa trying to mix their satirical observations in music. There is too much of a clash otherwise. It's like trying to mix tuna with ice-cream. It just doesn't work.

Is there such a thing as "serious" music? I think there is music you like and music you don't like, and that's it. If it's music, then it's already frivolous, isn't it?

Still - it is enjoyable.

Yes, I still enjoy it, although it's starting to lose its shine for me.

-

[David Quinn]

Diebert wrote:

DQ: This business of singing your message is extremely weird. Imagine a fireman bursting through your door and singing that your house is on fire ....

DvR: This is the crux of the problem, isn't it? But lets examine this comparison a bit further to see if it holds up in philosophical sense. The problem of a humanity being asleep in a 'burning house' might not be solvable by simply dragging them out by force or shouting 'fire!' and 'get out!'. If it was so simple enlightened teachers would have gotten their message through ages ago with hardly a sheep getting lost anymore. The majority of people are indeed so focused on whatever it is they're doing the 'fireman' cannot get through. Lets imagine someone is glued to her television and the fireman tries to attract attention. The TV cannot be disabled since there's no off-button. Blocking the view only results in the fireman being pushed away. He starts clapping one hand before the eyes of the living dead, tapping on the shoulder, trying to divert attention away from the tube. The fireman however discovers that making funny faces captures the attention and putting on this show even lets the trapped person come out of her chair and make a few steps.

So yeah, okay, it's a drag, and the fireman might decide this is not worth the time. But if such trick works to get a whole crowd to start moving a bit, might it be worth the act?

I understand your point and agree with it to some extent. Good art can serve a spiritual function in that it can trigger mystical states and other kinds of altered states of consciousness, thus expanding people's mental horizons. This, in turn, can lead them to develop a serious interest in philosophy and enlightenment.

Given the current state of the human race, we need to exert every possible method of stimulating people in this way. So I don't want to come down on art too heavily. But I suppose what disappoints me about Dylan and Zappa is that they chose to stay within music, even though they had the potential to leave it behind and become fully-fledged philosophers. In my opinion, they let the public down by not doing this.

The fact that Richard Dawkins, the hard-nosed evolutionary biologist, chose to stay within science, even though he clearly had the character and intellect to understand the concept of cause and effect, disappoints me in the same way.

-

[MKFaizi]

Yes, I realize that mysteriousness is a feminine trait and Bob Dylan played that to the hilt. Egnimatic.

That is why I prefer Tupac Shakur as small genius. No mystery there at all.

Faizi

[DHodges]

In performing music, it is a given that you are dressed as a clown. People come to see you. They yell, "Dance, monkey boy, dance!" And you do.

That's how I've always felt about it, that's why I've always hated performing music.

Having recognized all that, it's kind of embarrassing that I still enjoy performing.

Or, really, I enjoy playing with other people. I haven't been actually out playing in clubs since leaving Texas, but I've been playing with some local guys, just jamming on some "classic rock" tunes.

But when playing out, I would usually dress up in some ridiculous outfit.

[MKFaizi]

But why? Why did you feel compelled to dress in a ridiculous outfit?

I have not been out to listen to live music in a coon's age but I definitely never expected to see the musicians dressed in ridiculous outfits and it never crossed my mind to demand anything of them in the way of performance -- dance, monkey boy, dance.

Stupid me. I just wanted to listen to the music.

The last time I listened to live music was to a blues band in Charlotte, North Carolina. They came on the stage and they played their music and were quite good. They were dressed in regular clothing. I did not see it as a performance. It was music. They did not perform. They played their guitars and keyboards and brass and sang. Nothing outlandishly clownish. No gimmicks.

So, why? Why did you feel compelled to dress in a ridiculous outfit?

Faizi

[DHodges]

But why? Why did you feel compelled to dress in a ridiculous outfit?

Well, I had to think about it a bit. It's been a while.

One reason is that it's fun to do. Okay, it's fun in a way that's probably more appropriate for an eight year old girl playing dress up, but still. We are talking rock here, which is self-indulgent by nature.

Also, playing in a rock band is kind of like acting. You are acting out a role, an attitude. You are performing.

There's certainly plenty of precident: KISS, the New York Dolls, Motley Crue, ICP, Alice Cooper, WASP. In the '80's, everybody was dressing up. It made it an Event.

And I'd also have to cite the influence of these guys:
The Filthy Skanks
I ended up hanging out with them a lot, although I only played on stage with them one time. They put on a great show, even though, musically, they are pretty weak. (Sorry, John.)

Dressing up, hopefully, makes the experience more memorable (and more fun) for the audience. The idea is to have something unusual enough that people will be talking about it the next day. "Did you see that bass player? Dressed all in orange and with a balloon animal on his head? What the hell was that all about?" A band has to be an advertisement for itself.

I think, in a way, it also made me more comfortable on stage. To some extent, I was hiding behind a mask. When you have a bunch of people staring at you, it helps to kind of be able to distance yourself from it some - they are not looking at me, they are looking at the character I am playing, who is this Bootsy Collins wannabe or whatever.

The last time I listened to live music was to a blues band in Charlotte, North Carolina. They came on the stage and they played their music and were quite good. They were dressed in regular clothing.

For straight blues or jazz it would probably be inappropriate.

Hopefully, how I was dressing made some sense in the context of the music we were playing, and complemented it in some way.

So, why? Why did you feel compelled to dress in a ridiculous outfit?

Like Frank Zappa said, "Everybody in this room is wearing a uniform, don't kid yourself." You gotta wear something.

[MKFaizi]

Yes, I thought about Alice Cooper and David Bowie and Michael Jackson and Kiss and others. Yes, they were into the performance and garrishness of the performance.

Yes, of course, Elvis was a snappy dresser in gold lame and those damn jump suits. Too bad. He should not have felt that he needed to dress up like a clown. The voice should have been enough.

Still, it is hard for me to fully understand the need for the gimmick. Could be because I am not a young adult or teen. But, then, old ladies expect to see Tom Jones looking the way Tom Jones looks.

Liberace, I reckon, was the granddaddy of dressing up. Would not have been a show without the rhinestones and junk.

Still hard for me to understand. The only thing I ever performed was poetry at a bar when I was much younger. I never thought of wearing a chicken on my head or anything. The show was about words. That's all. Just words.

I do think it is possible to connect with people with something other than a gimmick -- even with rock and roll.

Jim Morrison -- who was pretty feminine -- managed that. I reckon he was a pretty boy but he was a relatively serious pretty boy. He was interested in the idea of sex-birth -death. I edited a book about him once -- a fairly interesting small book called Song of the Woodbine or something like that. Guy should have had it published. Morrison had some appreciation of Nietzsche -- on a very young man level.

Anyway, thanks for 'splaining why you would dress up in queer outfits to play music. I have not been to a rock concert in many years so I must have forgotten that the show is a big part of it. I saw Chicago in the late Sixties and they just played music. So did Grand Funk Railroad, even if they did rather suck. I saw Iron Butterfly and they just played music.

That's about it.

Faizi

[Matt Gregory]

Playing music for people is always about performing. I've always hated playing live and I've always hated live music. There's something I just hate about it, but I don't really know what it is. I like listening to records, though, even records of live performances because I can listen to them over and over. I can't really enjoy a piece of music until I've heard it a lot and it becomes stamped into my memory. I've spent a lot of time listening to the same record over and over again. I once listened to Amon Duul II's Live In Concert on autorepeat for a month straight, never turning it off. You go through a period where you're sick to death of it, but you have to go past that point, where the music becomes so familiar that it sounds like silence. There's just something about sitting around one day and suddenly a record will start playing in your head spontaneously because it's become so deeply imprinted in your mind. There's no musical experience that's as intense as that, I don't think. Listening to music with your ears just doesn't compare, no matter how loud it is.

[David Quinn]

That's the complete opposite approach to the one favoured by John Cage. He claims to never own any recordings and never wants to listen to a piece of music more than once - not even his own compositions. He doesn't believe in having repetitive experiences, it seems.

Playing music for people is always about performing. I've always hated playing live and I've always hated live music. There's something I just hate about it, but I don't really know what it is.

It's probably the mob/religious mentality underpinning it all. I remember going to a U2 concert once and, naturally enough, Bono was up on stage delivering his political discourses between songs. At one point, he screamed "No more war! We must get rid of all war!", and the crowd went nuts and screamed back in unison, "Yeeaaahh, no more war! No more war!" ......


-

[Matt Gregory]

Or, really, I enjoy playing with other people. I haven't been actually out playing in clubs since leaving Texas, but I've been playing with some local guys, just jamming on some "classic rock" tunes.

Are you a bassist or a guitarist? Or both?

[MKFaizi]

Going back to something posted earlier by David Quinn --

On mixing philosophy and music -- I understand your point. However, neither Frank Zappa nor Dylan nor even Jim Morrison were very conscious philosophically. They each may have had some awareness of some things philosophically but not to the point that it could ever occur to any of them to express that awareness through anything other than poetry or music.

None of them ever reached the point that they could drop the frills of music or poetry for a philosophical life, though all of them could have afforded to do so. Morrison did drop music and went to Paris to become a writer. Had he lived past the age of twenty seven, it is slightly possible that he may have moved past poetry into philosophy. Maybe. But he died in a bathtub -- typical romantic death for a young man.

So, my question is -- would you prefer that people -- in this case, musicians and singers -- make no philosophical advancement whatsoever despite the fact that their advancement -- however far short it may fall from pure philosophy -- might influence an adolescent to embark on a philosophical path that could go beyond the philosophical path of his rock influence?

Kids are not encouraged to think by teachers or by most adults they encounter. So, if a kid likes to listen to Dylan at the age of thirteen, could he not be encouraged by at least that little bit of philosophical bent to go further into a study of thought? If a kid likes Jim Morrison and realizes that Morrison was interested in Nietzsche, could not that influence cause him to go on to read Nietzsche and compell him to read other philosophical works -- Kierkegaard and others -- to the point that he begins to think?

Even if such a happenstance occurs only one out of ten thousand, would not that one be worth the chance?

I first read Nietzsche when I was an older teenager because I was influenced by Zappa and Morrison. I do not claim that I fully understood it when I was that age but I did make a stab at it. That was worth something, I think. Better than just being a Dead Head.

Some people are naturally prone to thinking, for better or worse. I think that any influence that can encourage that natural bent is worthwhile.

Certainly, Frank Zappa and Jim Morrison and Bob Dylan and Tupac Shakur cannot come up to your standards of philosophy and a philosophical life. That would be impossible because you have dedicated your entire life to philosophy. You were influenced and caused to do so, in addition to having a natural inclination for it. You met Kevin Solway. Most young men never meet anyone who influences them in the way of philosophy. My two kids at least have heard of Nietzsche. They listened to Zappa and Morrison and Dylan at a very young age -- three or four years old.

To force my kids to read, I would have had to have put them in straight jackets. Both have superior verbal and reading skills but they hate to read. I recently tricked my son into reading. Bought him a biography of Jim Morrison. He is actually reading it with pleasure. That is a small start toward introspection. A=A. He is a baby -- only fifteen. He has the foundation.

My daughter is more Zappa-esque. More political. Philosophically, that may seem like nothing but in the US, some political awareness is a good thing. She loathes bullshit and she is self educated.

Crediting Zappa somewhat -- despite his lack of philosophical purity -- he testified in Washington against censorship in music and entertainment. He did a swell job. I am sorry that he is not around now. He would have had a field day with George Bush and the whole politics of fear thing.

I am also sorry that Hunter Thompson committed suicide. What a coward. The US and, consequently, the world could use his political truthfulness.

Of course, I am in favor of as many people as possible attaining enlightenment. Short of that, I am in favor of people attaining partial enlightenment or any sort of awareness at all. Something is better than nothing -- especially in the US.

I listened to Bush going on about Iraq this evening. God, that falls so flat now. Hard to believe that he pulled the wool over so many eyes -- out of pure fear and he is still having a go at it. Not many Americans give a shit about Iraq anymore. Most people now see how Bush worked the fear. He is barking up the wrong tree now. Political capital, my ass. He's done.

Unfortunately, we have three more years of his bullshit. Lame duck does not begin to describe it.

Faizi

[DHodges]

Are you a bassist or a guitarist? Or both?

Both. I'm currently concentrating on guitar. In the bands I was in down in Texas, I was on bass.

[zarathustra]

woody: hey there mr dylan, your song sounds a lot like my
dustbowl stuff

dylan: yeah, well woody, at least I changed the lyrics


woody: that you did boy, that you did...



dylan is overrated. he was lucky thats all. listen to early john martyn ( london conversation ) if you want originality + genius...













written for your edification my lightening

[David Quinn]

Now here is a genuine artist - Congo's Masterworks.

He's someone who has no egotistical desire to "make it" in the art world. He doesn't care whether he is stereotyped or not. He is pure. He paints straight from the heart. He doesn't make the mistake of trying to explain what his art means. He doesn't attempt to philosophize through his art.

He's also a chimpanzee.

-

[Kevin Solway]

Imagine a fireman bursting through your door and singing that your house is on fire ....

The difference is, Dylan is merely an entertainer, and not a fireman. He admits as much. When the house is on fire, he is more interested entertaining the burning bodies than trying to save them.

I get the impression that he knows how extremely undignified it is to be a mere entertainer, so he attempts to spice it up a bit with a little thought and contrariness. I suppose it is the same with Zappa.

That is also the case with a good number of comedians. There are a many profound truths to be found in some types of comedy, but in the context of entertainment the "truths" virtually disappear completely. Probably the nearest thing we have to philosophers these days are comedians.

The wit is a person who vainly tries to dignify entertainment.

Oscar Wilde is another one . . . and Peter Cooke, Steven Wright, etc.

Between the wit/entertainer and the philosopher, I know who gets the most worldly rewards.

[Foresta Gump]

Yeah, Kevin I'm certain you'd say the philosopher gets the most worldly rewards and of course this makes absolute sense, however I read somewhere that its the entertainers of the world that are the most brilliant. Philosophers bring out the truth, where as the entertainers laugh about it.

The wit, witicizes what the philosopher says in an entertaining way.

The philosopher tries to witicize but falls short, but he entertains quite well.

The entertainer witicizes, philosophies, and entertains!

[sevens]

Art is your Mind.

A tree has philosophy to share.

Nietszche!

(An artist, who knew his ego - and lived, such a 'good life'!)

[retracts defenses, for truth]

[Ras866]

A musical genius in my opinion would be Freddy Mercury from Queen. That guy had a great talent for all types of music and he blended it all together expertly. He'd mix opera, classical, heavy rock, ballads, disco, all into one song. He was able to blend completely different types of music like hard rock and classical so naturally... Possibly an outcome of his bisexuality. He and his band made some wonderful music.

Ras

[Foresta Gump]

I read some of Nietzche on genius-l - which was a great place for him to be!
Nietzche had a strong voice, confident in speak, strange but believable. When he spoke GOD IS DEAD, it shocked me into reading more. His words are so powerful. Between reading Nietzche and remembering Dan's words on God, I got to thinking and am still wondering whether we evolved from whatever or whether GOD created us, nobody knows!

I like to sate my own idea that there is a God, and the men of the Bible were truly inspired to write it by God himself. What a copout for me to believe my own ignorance.

The Bible states that men of those times saw visions in the sky, those visions sound like alien vehicles - spaceships of sorts.

Natural disasters have wiped out the dinasaurs, and when man came about natural disasters wiped out the human population except for the two or more who survived, beginning over again.

And beginning over again is what the world is coming to again. Man will wipe out man, man will become almost extinct, he will be a rare find.

Still no one knows where we originated from. But we will, everything will be revealed to us in time. It makes sense to me, that we will learn of our time here on earth and its meaning. It stands to reason that it will be revealed to us.
Otherwise what are we doing here? Yes, my ignorance and my knowledge believes in the Bible, it is all that I have as answers.

[Foresta Gump]

Are you married?

Do you wanna be?

Just Kidding

Sometimes I like to shock people

Reaction is what I appreciate

Whether it be kind or vile, I can handle both

Its when one is ignored that ones eyes are opened to the harsh realities which life presents, and it seems to present itself in the class which 'thinks' itself superior to the one ignored.
Superior in what way though, there is no superiority, if there were it would not be human, there is only higher intellect. Knowlede is the follower of the intellect, for it is the intellect which take us to higher human ground, which is developed mind. This is not superiority, it is only intelligence put into action to the highest humanity can go. Are there limitations? I doubt it.

Its taking a while for me to write this today as my 7 year old granddaughter makes her appearance into my computor room and decides I am to be her playmate, so I oblige her and we play horse and rider, I'm the horse of course, wearing my knees ragged while she rides upon my back to her destination point.
Finally I free myself and escape to my writing once again, leaving the child to her own devices. Children need to think for themselves, a little time alone developes their thinking.

Getting back to the question - Are you married?

Do you mind answering this question

Why do I want to know you ask

No reason really, just curious

I just wonder how many people besides myself live alone and really enjoy it.

When I read about you on Genius-l you came into my mind as someone I had only dreamed of before. Its as if I were reading De' za vous, shit I spelt that wrong. As a child growing up I always wanted to venture on alone in life and I visualized a man walking through the bush seeking and finding half answers. I wanted so much to follow that man. And when I saw your photos memories came back as you possibly being the man I visualized.

Now ain't that a story! One I've been wanting to tell you right from the beginning.

Yup, I'm an eccentric but an easy - to -get - along - with eccentric. And an autodidact person - Websters 1911-1913 Dictionary.

I'm not trying to sell myself to marriage, I never married nor likely ever to. Had offers but both men died, one accidently killed himself jumping off of scaffoling at work, which was 5 ft high, the way he landed the impact caused his spine to go right up into his head killing him instantly before he slumped to the ground - the most nicest educated man you could ever come to know. The other was Canada's second worst diabetic he died at thirty years of age. So I never married, never loved either of them enough to marry anyway.

Anyway, I'm babbling, just wanted to talk today.

The story above is true

[David Quinn]

Marsha Faizi wrote:

Going back to something posted earlier by David Quinn -

On mixing philosophy and music -- I understand your point. However, neither Frank Zappa nor Dylan nor even Jim Morrison were very conscious philosophically. They each may have had some awareness of some things philosophically but not to the point that it could ever occur to any of them to express that awareness through anything other than poetry or music.

None of them ever reached the point that they could drop the frills of music or poetry for a philosophical life, though all of them could have afforded to do so. Morrison did drop music and went to Paris to become a writer. Had he lived past the age of twenty seven, it is slightly possible that he may have moved past poetry into philosophy. Maybe. But he died in a bathtub -- typical romantic death for a young man.

So, my question is -- would you prefer that people -- in this case, musicians and singers -- make no philosophical advancement whatsoever despite the fact that their advancement -- however far short it may fall from pure philosophy -- might influence an adolescent to embark on a philosophical path that could go beyond the philosophical path of his rock influence?

Ideally, I would like to them to make enough philosophical advancement to leave music behind. Put out two or three albums if you have to, which will give the kids something to listen to, and then move on. Don't keep churning out album after album of increasingly inferior product.

Zappa, as great as he was, basically said all that he had to say through music by the end of the sixties. Everything after that was needless repetition.

Kids are not encouraged to think by teachers or by most adults they encounter. So, if a kid likes to listen to Dylan at the age of thirteen, could he not be encouraged by at least that little bit of philosophical bent to go further into a study of thought? If a kid likes Jim Morrison and realizes that Morrison was interested in Nietzsche, could not that influence cause him to go on to read Nietzsche and compell him to read other philosophical works -- Kierkegaard and others -- to the point that he begins to think?

Yes, that's something at least. But it would be far more powerful if these artists set the example themselves and became more serious about their spirituality. Much as I dislike Islam, I can admire Cat Stevens for doing this in his own way.

I have always wished that a major worldly celebrity, such as a Frank Zappa or a Richard Dawkins or even the Pope, would openly repudiate his career path and make a noisy entry into the philosophic path. That would be really powerful. But as far as I know, no one has yet done it - at least not since Nietzsche, and he was only a minor professor of philology at that.

-