Bob Dylan just won the Nobel Prize for literature

[Les_Espaces_Du_Sommeil]

@wolfpup

Dylan is certainly worthy and I’m happy to see this. His music helped define an era in which many of us grew up and profound changes reshaped our society. Yet I can’t help but think that another poet and songwriter might have been even more deserving, because he comes from a place of much deeper introspection, one around which he has shaped his whole life, and that’s Leonard Cohen. Coincidentally, both artists’ careers were launched into the big leagues by the venerable record producer John Hammond, who is also credited with discovering at least half a dozen other icons of the music industry. Dylan came to his attention in 1961, Cohen five years later.

The New Yorker makes the following comparison that I think is both accurate and non-judgmental:
Cohen’s links to Dylan were obvious – Jewish, literary, a penchant for Biblical imagery, Hammond’s tutelage – but the work was divergent. Dylan, even on his earliest records, was moving toward more surrealist, free-associative language and the furious abandon of rock and roll. Cohen’s lyrics were no less imaginative or charged, no less ironic or self-investigating, but he was clearer, more economical and formal, more liturgical.
There’s also Cohen’s perfectionism, both in his performing and his writing. Not that the time and effort you put into something is by itself reflective of quality, but I thought it was interesting that the New Yorker cites Dylan asking Cohen how long it took him to write “Hallelujah”, a song that Dylan admired. Cohen told him two years, but it was really closer to five. “Anthem” took him ten years to refine to his satisfaction.
Cohen told Dylan, "I really like ‘I and I,’ " a song that appeared on Dylan’s album “Infidels.” “How long did it take you to write that?”

“About fifteen minutes,” Dylan said.

I agree with you on Cohen.

His lyrics are much, much closer to what I consider good poetry. They convey great, original visions in a way that’s never trite or laboured. Whenever I hear Cohen’s songs, I feel immersed in the world that he creates. The poetic devices he uses disappear and I’m only aware of the vision. Clear, polished and compelling.

[EinsteinsHund]

@aceplace57

Yes, people have joked about Dylan’s phrasing for decades. It certainly sets him apart. It can be hard to understand in some of his songs.

smack I didn’t think of that aspect of his voice. Yeah, he’s sometimes hard to parse, but that’s especially true for the older Dylan, mostly for his speaking voice. His singing voice in his younger years could be perfectly clear at times.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Exapno_Mapcase

Or start with “Positively Fourth Street” which is simpler but retains all the invective.

Like WordMan I enthusiastically suggest reading Chronicles, Volume 1. It’s nowhere near a complete, cohesive memoir but it’s the standout rock autobiography. Unfortunately, I have a sinking feeling that becoming a Nobel laureate removes any chance of his writing another book. Perversity to the end.

Village Days, from Chronicles, Volume 1:

It was getting late and me and Delores were about to leave when I suddenly spotted Mike Seeger in the room. I hadn’t noticed him before and I watched him walk from the wall to the table. When I saw him my brain became wide awake and I was instantly in a good mood. I’d seen Mike play previously with The New Lost City Ramblers at a schoolhouse on East 10th Street. He was extraordinary, gave me an eerie feeling. Mike was unprecedented. He was like a duke, the knight errant. As for being a folk musician, he was the supreme archetype. He could push a stake through Dracula’s black heart . He was the romantic , egalitarian and revolutionary type all at once— had chivalry in his blood. Like some figure from a restored monarchy, he had come to purify the church……

He played all the instruments, whatever the song called for— the banjo , the fiddle, mandolin, autoharp, and the guitar, even harmonica in the rack. Mike was skin-stinging. He was tense, poker-faced and radiated telepathy, wore a snowy white shirt and silver sleeve bands. He played on all the various planes, the full index of the old-time styles, played in all the genres and had the idioms mastered—Delta blues, ragtime, minstrel songs, buck-and-wing, dance reels, play party, hymns and gospel —being there and seeing him up close, something hit me. It’s not as if he just played everything well, he played these songs as good as it was possible to play them. I was so absorbed in listening to him that I wasn’t even aware of myself. What I had to work at, Mike already had in his genes, in his genetic makeup. Before he was even born, this music had to be in his blood. Nobody could just learn this stuff, and it dawned on me that I might have to change my inner thought patterns…

So Dylan decided to start writing his own stuff. When I was reading that book, I had to stop occasionally & think–hey, this guy can really write!

[Annie-Xmas]

America produced one of the best poets in history and it only took the world over 50 years to recognized the fact!

On the other hand, Dylan’s lucky he started in the 1960’s. No other decade would have allowed him to sing on stage.

He deserves it. The man is a poet, and absolutely nobody does it better.

Way to go, Bobby!

[CairoCarol]

@Voyager

And gasp he played electric at Newport!

It’s not that - it’s just that he exudes a smarmy willingness to reinvent himself at any time, not to explore new artistic horizons but to suss out what will get him the most worshipful accolades.

I know this is a view that very few people hold (though I have read a critique occasionally from others who agree and who have the musical/socio-historical knowledge to explain their point of view), and I grudgingly concede that there is much in his oeuvre that appeals to a lot of people.

I probably shouldn’t have posted, and I thoroughly apologize if it seems like thread-shitting. I was just hoping against hope there might be a few Dopers who agree with me about Mr. Zimmerman. (Who is no Dylan Thomas, that’s for sure.)

[Annie-Xmas]

And just for the record: I was drinking my morning tea and listening to the radio news when “This just in from Stockholm: The Nobel Prize for Literature has been announced…” and the first thought in my head was “I wonder if I’ve ever heard of the guy”

[Princhester]

@Bridget_Burke

So Dylan decided to start writing his own stuff. When I was reading that book, I had to stop occasionally & think–hey, this guy can really write!

I’ve never read any prose by him before this excerpt thanks. He writes prose like he writes lyrics; somewhat over the top but highly effective somehow.

[RealityChuck]

I’m amused at the reactions to the choice. My own feeling is “Wow! Never expected that.”

Dylan is a brilliant lyricist and songwriter, but I’m surprised the Nobel committee thought so far outside the box. (And I find many of those who criticize the choice all too often are pissed that they didn’t make the box with stronger walls.)

Still, all writing is equally hard, and Dylan’s use of language is second to none. Many of his lyrics are completely surprising even if you hear them again and again. He goes for turns of phrase and you can’t even begin to guess how he got to them – but which make perfect sense even if they make no sense.

[Amateur_Barbarian]

Does this mean we now have to include Bobby in the heavy medal category?

[pulykamell]

@pulykamell

Thanks! Purchased Highway 61 Revisited and have Blood on the Tracks in my mental queue if I find myself enjoying Dylan more this time around.

FWIW, I just said “screw it” and purchased Blood on the Tracks, as well. Figure I might as well culture myself. I need to sit down with the lyrics and listen to these two albums together when I get a couple free hours to myself. Thanks for the suggestions, all! (From a quick listen, I’m actually enjoying Blood on the Track more immediately.)

[mhendo]

@Annie-Xmas

America produced one of the best poets in history and it only took the world over 50 years to recognized the fact!

This is silly.

Nobel prizes are, in many cases, given years after the fact in order to recognize a life’s body of work, or to acknowledge the long-term significance of a particular discovery or piece of research. This applies not only to the Literature prize, but to the others like physics and economics. Doris Lessing won for literature in 2007, but she had been producing since the 1950s.

And the Nobel Prize committee is not “the world.” Many people the world over recognized Dylan’s talents years before the awarding of this prize.

[carnivorousplant]

@CairoCarol

I utterly loathe Bob Dylan - and yes, I know I’m in a tiny minority. The man is pretentious and inauthentic, and always has been. You want to hear REAL folk music? Listen to Woody or Arlo Guthrie.

NPR played some excerpts by Dylan yesterday, and I was struck by how similar he sounds to Arlo Guthrie.

[Dewey_Finn]

What is the argument being made with regard to Woody Guthrie? That he’s a better musician? That he should have won a Nobel Prize before Bob Dylan did? Because you can tie yourself in knots thinking about who won a Nobel Prize (or really any other prize or award) while someone else did not.

[Amateur_Barbarian]

@Dewey_Finn

What is the argument being made with regard to Woody Guthrie? That he’s a better musician? That he should have won a Nobel Prize before Bob Dylan did?

Nobels are not awarded posthumously. (I think a few recipients have died after being named but before the formal ceremony.) And Woody simply wasn’t considered on that level before his death.

In the end, maybe the Nobels aren’t a whole lot more meaningful than the Oscars.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@carnivorousplant

NPR played some excerpts by Dylan yesterday, and I was struck by how similar he sounds to Arlo Guthrie.

Here’s the NPR story, interviewing Sean Wilentz, a biographer: Nobel Laureate Bob Dylan Is A Literary 'Alchemist' : NPR

[Dewey_Finn]

@Amateur_Barbarian

@Dewey_Finn

What is the argument being made with regard to Woody Guthrie? That he’s a better musician? That he should have won a Nobel Prize before Bob Dylan did?

Nobels are not awarded posthumously. (I think a few recipients have died after being named but before the formal ceremony.) And Woody simply wasn’t considered on that level before his death.

In the end, maybe the Nobels aren’t a whole lot more meaningful than the Oscars.

Based on the Wikipedia biography, Woody Guthrie’s productive time was prior to the early 1950s. Was folk music recognized by the mainstream prior to that?

And I’m well aware that Nobel Prizes are not awarded posthumously. If they were, they would have avoided perhaps their greatest embarrassment. (That is, not having given a Nobel Peace Prize to Mohandas Gandhi.)

[Amateur_Barbarian]

@Dewey_Finn

Based on the Wikipedia biography, Woody Guthrie’s productive time was prior to the early 1950s. Was folk music recognized by the mainstream prior to that?

I don’t think “recognized by the mainstream” is quite the question; I don’t think folk music was taken entirely seriously, though - not as a form of literature.

I could see Woody being the recipient of a quirkily-chosen Pulitzer long before a Nobel.

We’re just now far enough along the track to realize that poetry written to be sung is just as valid “literature” as that meant to be read soberly in a wing chair.

[Catamount]

@AK84

Yes, you just know that Katy Perry is going to win one in 2046 now. :eek:

As it is, I think they saved o bunch on band for the Nobel Dinner this year.

I fully expect Marshall Mathers to be up for consideration in forty years. At least one Nobel Laureate agreed with me:

In 2003, when asked if there was any figure in popular culture who aroused interest in poetry and lyrics, Heaney praised rap artist Eminem, saying, “He has created a sense of what is possible. He has sent a voltage around a generation. He has done this not just through his subversive attitude but also his verbal energy.”

Source of the quote.
Source of the source.

[Dewey_Finn]

@Amateur_Barbarian

@Dewey_Finn

Based on the Wikipedia biography, Woody Guthrie’s productive time was prior to the early 1950s. Was folk music recognized by the mainstream prior to that?

I don’t think “recognized by the mainstream” is quite the question; I don’t think folk music was taken entirely seriously, though - not as a form of literature.

I could see Woody being the recipient of a quirkily-chosen Pulitzer long before a Nobel.

We’re just now far enough along the track to realize that poetry written to be sung is just as valid “literature” as that meant to be read soberly in a wing chair.

That’s basically my point; that Woody Guthrie lived and died before his art was considered literature.

[carnivorousplant]

@Amateur_Barbarian

I could see Woody being the recipient of a quirkily-chosen Pulitzer long before a Nobel.

“This machine kills fascists.”