Musically, too, this set can be a surprisingly tough egg to crack. The charm of Dylan's work on a purely musical level is often its spontaneity, which at its best (think of Blonde on Blonde, The Basement Tapes or the Rolling Thunder Revue) can give off the air of a particularly loose hootenany. The music in Modern Times is certainly spontaneous, and I'd be lying if I called it dull - "Rollin' and Tumblin'" in particular is great, and probably even better live. But there's a flatness about the record that I can't quite pin down, except to say (somewhat ironically, in light of that Rolling Stone interview) that something must have been lost in translation between performance and mixing. It just doesn't "pop." The piano which ought to drive "Workingman's Blues #2," an otherwise fantastic liberal point-counterpoint to the original by Dylan's former tourmate Merle Haggard, is mixed way to the back, virtually buried by the rest of the band. And, I'm embarrassed to admit, it actually took that iPod commercial for me to notice the rollicking "Someday Baby," which just sounds too similar to the other songs when placed into context.
But what if it wasn't just about production? What if Modern Times simply was that difficult to get into - another prestige-filled but inscrutable product from the great Bob Dylan, easy to respect but tough to love? It might sound strange to dig up those same old pronouncements about Dylan's sense of mystery, his alienating remove from the mindset and understanding of his audience, in the midst of a renaissance that has seen him release an autobiography, authorize a documentary and a biopic, and even host an XM Radio show, all in the space of two years. How can we complain of such things when our hero has never been as forthcoming about his life and work as he is today? As laudable as these recent projects are, however, it's worth mentioning that in the long run, they bring us no closer to understanding the man behind the music; Chronicles, Vol. 1 was a beautifully written snapshot of the Greenwich Village of the early '60s, certainly, but it revealed little of the author aside from his youthful ambitions and reading lists. No, the Dylan of 2006 is not any more comprehensible than the Dylan of 1966, 1976 or 1986; even his face these days seems like a mask, its long, craggy lines and ever-present mustache making him look like he's been sculpted out of wax.
Article comments
1 - the real mighty quinn
"... He can't keep up with the musical or even cultural trends of the last 30 years - the guy hasn't even acknowledged punk, after all"
obviously you can't even keep up with the facts. when dylan played brixton last november, he did the clash's "london calling" - two nights in a row.
"... One major highlight is the interview with A.J. Weberman himself, including his story about the end of their relationship"
RELATIONSHIP?!?! Weberman was a STALKER. these days he would have been arrested and put in a mental health facility for observation.
"... I'm embarrassed to admit, it actually took that iPod commercial for me to notice the rollicking "Someday Baby""
me too - i'm embarrassed to admit i read this all the way through. what a sad little article about a masterpiece record. too bad you can't hear it.
2 - Zach
Wait, wait, wait. I LIKED the freaking album. Am I understanding correctly that I have to write a total sycophantic BJ of a review in order to be credible? Modern Times is good, but come on, on a Dylan curve? From the guy who gave us Blonde on Fucking Blonde? Not a five-star album or a "masterpiece," by any stretch of the imagination.
As for your taking issue with the Weberman "relationship" remark, that's just semantics. Dylan and Weberman had a much more personal "relationship" than most celebrities and their stalkers; they talked on the phone, remember? And yes, I'm aware that Weberman would have been prosecuted these days. I CALLED him a nutcase. Or were you just skimming for anything you could remotely call me out on? About the only thing I'll concede to you is that, fine, Dylan played a Clash cover. In Brixton. Last November. On two nights. Guess I've got better things to do than scour the dude's setlists.
Is it just me, or did my disparaging comments about "Dylanology" strike a nerve? Eh, "Mighty Quinn?"
3 - jkerouac
dude, i really enjoyed reading yr article. it was well written,insightful, and honest. i wish more reviews were as fair, not sycophantic and not totally critical either. you just laid it out like ya saw it, after all it's just one persons perception. well done
4 - jkerouac
dude, i really enjoyed reading yr article. it was well written,insightful, and honest. i wish more reviews were as fair, not sycophantic and not totally critical either. you just laid it out like ya saw it, after all it's just one persons perception. well done
5 - Dude Skoodle
It was a good article, as a long time Dylan-freak- thats what we were called in the 60s and 70s- that's a compliment.But Dylan does know that times are still a-changing. He just does not think they are changin' for the better. Older people rarely do. He has acknowledged punk though.Have a listen to the 1984 TV SHOWS- I think it was David Lieberman Show. He plays punk style and he loves the Ramones.Also he likes Rap music as he says in Chronicles. By the way when is rap going out of date- can't see myself how it can still come on like the latest thing.The biggest problem with today's music is they don't really talent scout around anymore. The first thing they look at is the physical attractiveness of the artist.The good thing about Bob is that he is an oldman and like Van the man is putting out music- not modelling. When will music executives realise the audience is not looking for a sexual partner- they are looking for music? Dylan is proving that people want good music- not just the latest plastic diva. This is an important contibution that this very nice man- something not generally noted- is making. He is a great man and a kind manand a quality that he has that is not noticed is his exceptional modesty. Thanks for not pumping out the commonly stated nonsense that he is plagiarising Timrod. Do we want a poet laureate of rock music who does not r=bother to read other poets? All great poets are influenced by other poets and adopt and rearrange images and ideas. None of Shakespeare's stories are original and nobody accuses him of plagiarism. Borrowing a few of Timrod's ideas and phrases will promote Timrod and inspire his rediscovery. Nobody has noticed the phrases lifted from Robert Johnson and Walt Whitman in Modern Times. Thank God that Dylan isn't writing in a void like most pop writers these days- the last book those people have read was a raffle book! Overall a thought ful article and you did avoid being a sycophant. You were right not to suspend your right to be critical. In these days of sacred celebrity we need to look at others who may write good songs- no not Sprinsteen or other low quality Dylan imitators!
In our admiration of Bob Dylan we have given up looking for other good writers, instead they manufacture stars out of good-looking people without regard to musical ability.
6 - Debbie Stevens
Crikey, I was given a copy of his new album just recently from a Dylan fan in Tampa Bay-it was the nicest cd I'd listened to in ages and I may not be a real BD follower, but you have to respect and appreciate the man's natural ability to stay true to himself!
I will always treasure his song, 'Lay lady Lay'
Cheers from the land down under!