One of my favorite songwriters writes about one of my favorite songwriters.
I am passionate about Bob Dylan. As a songwriter, I find there is nothing like singing “It’s Alright Ma (I’m Only Bleeding).” It is nearly eight minutes of cascading images, rich language and the coolest, most unexpected metaphors. My synapses light up in little fireworks, making connections they don’t get to make in ordinary life. So I read with curiosity about the similarities between some lyrics on his new album and the verses of a forgotten Civil War-era poet. Who is Henry Timrod? Is it true that Dylan has been borrowing from his poetry? I ran out and bought the CD – not downloading it, because I wanted the lyric booklet. I wanted to see the evidence.
And, of course, I discovered that he includes no lyrics in the CD package. No words at all, not even liner notes. Bob isn’t making this easy. It’s modern to use history as a kind of closet in which we can rummage around, pull influences from different eras, and make them into collages or pastiches. People are doing this with music all the time. I hear it in, say, Christina Aguilera’s new album, or in the music of Sufjan Stevens.
So I had an open mind when approaching this Dylan album – which is called “Modern Times,” by the way. Does this method of working extend to a lyric? To a metaphor? To Bob Dylan’s taking an exact phrase from some guy we never heard of from the middle of the 19th century without crediting him? That’s what I needed to satisfy myself about.
That’s where it starts, and it’s just getting good…
Is it part of the “folk process” to lift a few specific metaphors or phrases whole from someone else’s work? I really don’t think it is. – Suzanne Vega
Oh, so naive. That might be the way she’d like it to be, but the history of music, poetry and art tells us otherwise.
Bad artists copy. Great artists steal. – Picasso
That Picasso quote also goes to T.S. Eliot
I’m afraid I have to agree with Suzanne and disagree with Michael. Part of what happens with any work of art is a covenant between the person experiencing the art and the artist. Is essence, it boils down to the art is what is says it it. It may be complex, allusive, ironic and layered, it may even be exaggerated…but we know all that coming in. The work itself gives us hints as to how to interpret it. It’s a different thing entirely when a work claims to be original or factual, and isn’t. We’ve been had and we feel, justifiably, annoyed and even betrayed. In our age, originality and innovation are two of the primary aesthetic virtues. I think S.V. is right when she says this was an accident.
Katherine Heigl? I love her!
Belated Merry Christmas to you both!