O grupo no qual você está postando é um grupo da Usenet. As mensagens postadas neste grupo farão com que o seu e-mail fique visível para qualquer pessoa na internet.
Clinton Heylin writes in "Behind the Shades Revisited" that the initial recording of "Jokerman" (before Dylan rewrote some of the lyrics) was much better than what ended up on the album. Has this or the electric versions of "Blind Willie McTell" or "Foot of Pride" ever been available? The Bootleg Series Vols. 1-3 has other versions of "Blind Willie" and "Foot of Pride."
It also sounds from Heylin's perspective that the original takes and selection of songs for "Infidels" would have made for a much stronger album. Is this so?
> It also sounds from Heylin's perspective that the original takes and > selection of songs for "Infidels" would have made for a much stronger > album. Is this so?
jy wrote: > It also sounds from Heylin's perspective that the original takes and > selection of songs for "Infidels" would have made for a much stronger > album. Is this so?
Yes, definitely. Those takes are available on bootlegs, but not officially (apart from Foot Of Pride, which I think I've only heard one version of - the official bootleg version).
On 7 Oct 2006 17:31:48 -0700, "Martin" <mar...@gayfords.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>jy wrote:
>> It also sounds from Heylin's perspective that the original takes and >> selection of songs for "Infidels" would have made for a much stronger >> album. Is this so?
>Yes, definitely. Those takes are available on bootlegs, but not >officially >(apart from Foot Of Pride, which I think I've only heard one version of >- >the official bootleg version).
Heylin always says that. Never once has he said Dylan chose the correct take for an album, or even that the correct take is on the Bootleg Series. I think he's just natural born contrary.
Bob Hughes
"I am perpetually awaiting a rebirth of wonder." Lawrence Ferlinghetti
Jokerman's fine. Electric Blind Willie features a headbutt to the microphone, but the acoustic version, plus Foot Of Pride, plus Someone's Got A Hold Of My Heart are all pretty hard to comprehend why they're missing.
> Clinton Heylin writes in "Behind the Shades Revisited" that the initial > recording of "Jokerman" (before Dylan rewrote some of the lyrics) was > much better than what ended up on the album. Has this or the electric > versions of "Blind Willie McTell" or "Foot of Pride" ever been > available? The Bootleg Series Vols. 1-3 has other versions of "Blind > Willie" and "Foot of Pride."
> It also sounds from Heylin's perspective that the original takes and > selection of songs for "Infidels" would have made for a much stronger > album. Is this so?
David O'Brien wrote: > Jokerman's fine. Electric Blind Willie features a headbutt to the > microphone, but the acoustic version, plus Foot Of Pride, plus Someone's Got > A Hold Of My Heart are all pretty hard to comprehend why they're missing.
I love that headbutt, it's a great way to start the song. But what's Heylin's take on it? Is it the correct headbutt?
> Heylin always says that. Never once has he said Dylan chose the > correct take for an album, or even that the correct take is on the > Bootleg Series. I think he's just natural born contrary.
:)
Heylin is the most foolish of all the published commentators. He complains about the WGW liner wrotes because they don't do what liner notes SHOULD do!!!
I think he comes on here under a variety of names.
> David O'Brien wrote: >> Jokerman's fine. Electric Blind Willie features a headbutt to the >> microphone, but the acoustic version, plus Foot Of Pride, plus Someone's >> Got >> A Hold Of My Heart are all pretty hard to comprehend why they're missing.
> I love that headbutt, it's a great way to start the song. But what's > Heylin's take on it? > Is it the correct headbutt?
David O'Brien wrote: > "Martin" <mar...@gayfords.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > I love that headbutt, it's a great way to start the song. But what's > > Heylin's take on it? > > Is it the correct headbutt?
> Definitely an inferior headbutt.
The thing is Dylan had done the headbutt by accident on an even earlier take and he was trying to reproduce it on the take we have. As Heylin says:
"The original was spontaneous and therefore better, the one we hear on the outtakes bootleg is rubbish cos it's pre-planned and he should never have released it, not that he did release it, but he should never have even recorded it so it could be bootlegged, he should have worn protective headgear like a knopfler head-band to prevent another headbutt even happening accidentally, then the bootleg would have been better, though not ok, never ok." (Behind the Shades Take 3; forthcoming).
>"Martin" <mar...@gayfords.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message >news:1160299583.866573.77500@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >> David O'Brien wrote: >>> Jokerman's fine. Electric Blind Willie features a headbutt to the >>> microphone, but the acoustic version, plus Foot Of Pride, plus Someone's >>> Got >>> A Hold Of My Heart are all pretty hard to comprehend why they're missing.
>> I love that headbutt, it's a great way to start the song. But what's >> Heylin's take on it? >> Is it the correct headbutt?
>Definitely an inferior headbutt.
>Dave
Not properly mixed. It should be louder and crisper.
Bob Hughes
"I am perpetually awaiting a rebirth of wonder." Lawrence Ferlinghetti
> >> It also sounds from Heylin's perspective that the original takes and > >> selection of songs for "Infidels" would have made for a much stronger > >> album. Is this so?
> Heylin always says that. Never once has he said Dylan chose the > correct take for an album, or even that the correct take is on the > Bootleg Series. I think he's just natural born contrary.
I almost wrote the same thing. To be fair, I don't think Heylin suggests that the alternate versions are better before Blood on the Tracks, but from then on it seems he always thinks Dylan released the inferior versions. I do agree with him in some cases (You're a Big Girl Now, for instance), and I think Behind the Shades is a fine book, but I think you have to take his pronouncements about the relative merits of all those outtakes with at least a grain of salt.
Jumbo wrote: > David O'Brien wrote: > > "Martin" <mar...@gayfords.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > I love that headbutt, it's a great way to start the song. But what's > > > Heylin's take on it? > > > Is it the correct headbutt?
> > Definitely an inferior headbutt.
> The thing is Dylan had done the headbutt by accident on an even earlier > take and he was trying to reproduce it on the take we have. As Heylin > says:
> "The original was spontaneous and therefore better, the one we hear on > the outtakes bootleg is rubbish cos it's pre-planned and he should > never have released it, not that he did release it, but he should never > have even recorded it so it could be bootlegged, he should have worn > protective headgear like a knopfler head-band to prevent another > headbutt even happening accidentally, then the bootleg would have been > better, though not ok, never ok." > (Behind the Shades Take 3; > forthcoming).
> Heylin is the most foolish of all the published commentators. He > complains about the WGW liner wrotes because they don't do what liner > notes SHOULD do!!!
> I think he comes on here under a variety of names.
I think that's a bit over the top ("most foolish"). Heylin can certainly enrage the reader - he expresses himself clearly and strongly. But "most foolish" - I think not.
Rather - one of the most interesting. Idiosyncratic, if you must.
>> Heylin is the most foolish of all the published commentators. He >> complains about the WGW liner wrotes because they don't do what liner >> notes SHOULD do!!!
>> I think he comes on here under a variety of names.
>I think that's a bit over the top ("most foolish"). Heylin can certainly >enrage the reader - he expresses himself clearly and strongly. But "most >foolish" - I think not.
>Rather - one of the most interesting. Idiosyncratic, if you must.
>Bill Parr
I'd vote for Ricks as most foolish (not to say his book isn't worth reading, i hope to finish it one day) and Gray for least (although on more than a few occasions he stretches the literary angle to a foolish degree). actually, i think i'd vote bowden as least not that i think about it.
oh wait - i just remembered Marcus. we have a winnner....
> > I'd vote for Ricks as most foolish (not to say his book isn't worth > > reading, i hope to finish it one day)
> I wouldn't call Ricks "foolish" ; more, "befogged, but (sometimes) > entertaining".
> > oh wait - i just remembered Marcus. we have a winnner....
> That last book LARS, yes, most pretentious and pointless.
> I actually like sections of Inv. Rep. He's good on Dock Boggs.
Heylin is a twat.
Marcus is a twat with a degree in American Studies
Ricks .... is greatly undervalued and misunderstood, I think. He came at the subject in a playful way (most befitting) and he offered hundreds of insights into the lyrics that I have not seen before. Much of his book was tongue-in-cheek and he does not say what he finds is the 'only' meaning to be found. Ultimately what he was saying was: This Dylan stuff is filled with ideas, have your own fun and find your own connections with it as I am doing. I thought this was a liberating approach rather than tediously trying to track down every reference like Gray.
The best of the lotm though, is Paul Williams. His books are just a pure delight. They make me want to rush to the live shows and find the myriad delights and treasure buried therein. His enthusiasm is boundless and he clearly cares about Dylan's art at a very deep and personal level. Who needs objectivity and dry academic study when you are dealing with someone as out there and mindbending as Dylan? Sometimes the only sensible approach is incoherence!
> The best of the lotm though, is Paul Williams. His books are just a > pure delight. They make me want to rush to the live shows and find the > myriad delights and treasure buried therein. His enthusiasm is > boundless and he clearly cares about Dylan's art at a very deep and > personal level. Who needs objectivity and dry academic study when you > are dealing with someone as out there and mindbending as Dylan? > Sometimes the only sensible approach is incoherence!
I liked performing artist vol.1, but after that his gee gosh / gush style really got on my nerves... The incoherence is just shoddy writing most of the time.
There's no such thing as objectivity, and "academic study" is only dry to people not interested in the angle. I don't like reading any books about Dylan any more. Only Chronicles and, like I say, the odd few pages of Marcus on basement tape tracks and old stuff like dock boggs, when he's not trying to be philip roth or someone like that.
There's a strange anti-educational thing in the air these days... I suppose people feel insecure when they don't "get" something, just like bob used to unsettle those journalists in 65. Like bob said then, if you don't get it, it's not for you.
This is NOT a defense of Marcus, btw. He IS a twat with a degree.
|
