I saw the Dylan movie - it's actually outstanding. Better than the mixed reviews suggest. Chalamet apparently had five years to prepare and absolutely nailed it. Doesn't try to over-explain or make him into a saint or devil...just a flawed young man with a giant gift and matching ambition trying to find a way through a quickly changing world when he is being pulled in multiple directions.
Lots of legendary anecdotes made it into the movie, incl my favorite, when Al Kooper sneaked into the studio and invented that amazing organ sound in Like a Rolling Stone.
Those interested in rock history might want to read up beforehand to sort out who is who and what is exaggerated. Helps a lot. The many characters can get confusing.
In the end, a view into a heroic period of rock history and a wonderful picture of youth confronting growing up. It might bring some tears to those who care a lot about that music.
Good to know. I'm in, will be checking it out.
I thought it must be interesting to have this come out while Dylan is still with us so I checked out his impressions. He can be rather ornery, esp. with the press and the like. It turns out he likes it, and got to review the script in advance and annotate it.
AI has me believing that he said he probably won't see it, according to what he told the director, though.
I gather that a pivotal moment in the film is when he electried his sound (as opposed to strictly accoustic) back in 1965 at the Newport Fold Festival. I distinctly remember when that happened and what an uproar it caused. It was quite the shock and got very mixed reaction from his fanbase.
Thanks for the tip. This will be a great thing to do while the family is looking for something to do during the Holidays.
yeah there's a lot of mythology around that incident. Many have denied it happened like in the popular version and how it took place in the movie.
pete seeger says he had no problem with the electric guitars but was shouting about the poor audio mix.
Bob himself says he just wanted to have the fun of playing in a group rather than standing by himself and doing everything alone. That he wasn't trying to shake up anything. but Bob makes up a lot of things.
the anger and shouting from the crowd may or may not have happened at newport...but it certainly happened later, when he was touring behind the Highway 61 album. Things got ugly on that tour...and the movie uses moments from that and pretends they happened at Newport.
great stories from that tour, which had members of The Band backing up Dylan. They were instructed to keep playing through whatever happened. They considered quitting it was so rough.
The best moment is when someone shouts 'Judas!' at Bob...he turns around to his band and says 'play it loud!.' That happened in the UK later, but they show it in the movie as if it happened at Newport.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
I thought it must be interesting to have this come out while Dylan is still with us so I checked out his impressions. He can be rather ornery, esp. with the press and the like. It turns out he likes it, and got to review the script in advance and annotate it.
AI has me believing that he said he probably won't see it, according to what he told the director, though.
I gather that a pivotal moment in the film is when he electried his sound (as opposed to strictly accoustic) back in 1965 at the Newport Fold Festival. I distinctly remember when that happened and what an uproar it caused. It was quite the shock and got very mixed reaction from his fanbase.
Thanks for the tip. This will be a great thing to do while the family is looking for something to do during the Holidays.
yeah there's a lot of mythology around that incident. Many have denied it happened like in the popular version and how it took place in the movie.
pete seeger says he had no problem with the electric guitars but was shouting about the poor audio mix.
Bob himself says he just wanted to have the fun of playing in a group rather than standing by himself and doing everything alone. That he wasn't trying to shake up anything. but Bob makes up a lot of things.
the anger and shouting from the crowd may or may not have happened at newport...but it certainly happened later, when he was touring behind the Highway 61 album. Things got ugly on that tour...and the movie uses moments from that and pretends they happened at Newport.
great stories from that tour, which had members of The Band backing up Dylan. They were instructed to keep playing through whatever happened. They considered quitting it was so rough.
The best moment is when someone shouts 'Judas!' at Bob...he turns around to his band and says 'play it loud!.' That happened in the UK later, but they show it in the movie as if it happened at Newport.
I could go on for a long time about this, and i've seen this unfold from several different angles and perspectives, like the reaction on FM radio and pop culture when it happened, a documentary or re-enactment I saw somewhere along the line (can't recall which one), and several different friends I know who braved Dylan concerts over the years.
He was guy who was constantly re-inventing himself, and it came down to a cycle wherein he would seldom play a song the same way twice.
But surely we can agree, he got the last laugh, stayed "relevant" throughout, and made a lasting impression and profound contribution.
That whole accoustic/electric thing - a classic exploration between purist roots and a rauccous eclecticism that emobodied - and embodies - rock.
Dylan got swept up in the latter, as did a generation - a generation he helped shape and form, for that matter.
I thought it must be interesting to have this come out while Dylan is still with us so I checked out his impressions. He can be rather ornery, esp. with the press and the like. It turns out he likes it, and got to review the script in advance and annotate it.
AI has me believing that he said he probably won't see it, according to what he told the director, though.
I gather that a pivotal moment in the film is when he electried his sound (as opposed to strictly accoustic) back in 1965 at the Newport Fold Festival. I distinctly remember when that happened and what an uproar it caused. It was quite the shock and got very mixed reaction from his fanbase.
Thanks for the tip. This will be a great thing to do while the family is looking for something to do during the Holidays.
yeah there's a lot of mythology around that incident. Many have denied it happened like in the popular version and how it took place in the movie.
pete seeger says he had no problem with the electric guitars but was shouting about the poor audio mix.
Bob himself says he just wanted to have the fun of playing in a group rather than standing by himself and doing everything alone. That he wasn't trying to shake up anything. but Bob makes up a lot of things.
the anger and shouting from the crowd may or may not have happened at newport...but it certainly happened later, when he was touring behind the Highway 61 album. Things got ugly on that tour...and the movie uses moments from that and pretends they happened at Newport.
great stories from that tour, which had members of The Band backing up Dylan. They were instructed to keep playing through whatever happened. They considered quitting it was so rough.
The best moment is when someone shouts 'Judas!' at Bob...he turns around to his band and says 'play it loud!.' That happened in the UK later, but they show it in the movie as if it happened at Newport.
...and I see you added (via Edit while i was writing my post) the comment about telling his band to "Play it Loud". I saw that scene somewhere in the stuff I saw about him, and that was exactly what I was refering to. It's a great moment, epitomizing a new, fresh attitude in the change of culture and art and music of that time. Yes, a defining moment, and nothing less.
This post was edited 37 seconds after it was posted.
yeah there's a lot of mythology around that incident. Many have denied it happened like in the popular version and how it took place in the movie.
pete seeger says he had no problem with the electric guitars but was shouting about the poor audio mix.
Bob himself says he just wanted to have the fun of playing in a group rather than standing by himself and doing everything alone. That he wasn't trying to shake up anything. but Bob makes up a lot of things.
the anger and shouting from the crowd may or may not have happened at newport...but it certainly happened later, when he was touring behind the Highway 61 album. Things got ugly on that tour...and the movie uses moments from that and pretends they happened at Newport.
great stories from that tour, which had members of The Band backing up Dylan. They were instructed to keep playing through whatever happened. They considered quitting it was so rough.
The best moment is when someone shouts 'Judas!' at Bob...he turns around to his band and says 'play it loud!.' That happened in the UK later, but they show it in the movie as if it happened at Newport.
I could go on for a long time about this, and i've seen this unfold from several different angles and perspectives, like the reaction on FM radio and pop culture when it happened, a documentary or re-enactment I saw somewhere along the line (can't recall which one), and several different friends I know who braved Dylan concerts over the years.
He was guy who was constantly re-inventing himself, and it came down to a cycle wherein he would seldom play a song the same way twice.
But surely we can agree, he got the last laugh, stayed "relevant" throughout, and made a lasting impression and profound contribution.
That whole accoustic/electric thing - a classic exploration between purist roots and a rauccous eclecticism that emobodied - and embodies - rock.
Dylan got swept up in the latter, as did a generation - a generation he helped shape and form, for that matter.
"That whole accoustic/electric thing - a classic exploration between purist roots and a rauccous eclecticism that emobodied - and embodies - rock."
agreed
part of the very interesting part - and it's not just semantics - is that 'rock music' did not exist in 1965. There was folk and there was pop. Not much else. For white people anyway. There was no classification of 'rock music' and of course no 'classic rock.' the Stones were pop, the beatles were pop.
There was 'folk' and there was 'pop music.'
I think the sense of betrayal was that dylan had gone pop, in the sense we might have of U2 or Bruce Springsteen deciding to sound like taylor swift or a boy band. Fake and copycat and way too light.
'rock music' has since created an aura of importance, elevated above what we now call 'pop music'...but it didn't have that yet in 1965. Dylan moving into backstreet boys territory must have been shocking.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
I could go on for a long time about this, and i've seen this unfold from several different angles and perspectives, like the reaction on FM radio and pop culture when it happened, a documentary or re-enactment I saw somewhere along the line (can't recall which one), and several different friends I know who braved Dylan concerts over the years.
He was guy who was constantly re-inventing himself, and it came down to a cycle wherein he would seldom play a song the same way twice.
But surely we can agree, he got the last laugh, stayed "relevant" throughout, and made a lasting impression and profound contribution.
That whole accoustic/electric thing - a classic exploration between purist roots and a rauccous eclecticism that emobodied - and embodies - rock.
Dylan got swept up in the latter, as did a generation - a generation he helped shape and form, for that matter.
"That whole accoustic/electric thing - a classic exploration between purist roots and a rauccous eclecticism that emobodied - and embodies - rock."
agreed
part of the very interesting part - and it's not just semantics - is that 'rock music' did not exist in 1965. There was folk and there was pop. Not much else. For white people anyway. There was no segregated 'rock music' and of course no 'classic rock.' the Stones were pop, the beatles were pop.
There was 'authentic folk' and there was 'pop music.'
I think the sense of betrayal was that dylan had gone pop, in the sense we might have of U2 or Bruce Springsteen deciding to sound like taylor swift or a boy band. Fake and copycat and way too light.
'rock music' has since created an aura of importance, elevated above what we now call 'pop'...but it didn't have that yet in 1965.
Ok, but it's almost like Dylan could foresee where the music was evolving, and was choosing to be a part of it. I think of Van Morrison in his band of the time - The Them - and they were starting to rough up the pop stuff. And maybe the Kinks. Beatles, too, as their music unfolded and evolved.
"That whole accoustic/electric thing - a classic exploration between purist roots and a rauccous eclecticism that emobodied - and embodies - rock."
agreed
part of the very interesting part - and it's not just semantics - is that 'rock music' did not exist in 1965. There was folk and there was pop. Not much else. For white people anyway. There was no segregated 'rock music' and of course no 'classic rock.' the Stones were pop, the beatles were pop.
There was 'authentic folk' and there was 'pop music.'
I think the sense of betrayal was that dylan had gone pop, in the sense we might have of U2 or Bruce Springsteen deciding to sound like taylor swift or a boy band. Fake and copycat and way too light.
'rock music' has since created an aura of importance, elevated above what we now call 'pop'...but it didn't have that yet in 1965.
Ok, but it's almost like Dylan could foresee where the music was evolving, and was choosing to be a part of it. I think of Van Morrison in his band of the time - The Them - and they were starting to rough up the pop stuff. And maybe the Kinks. Beatles, too, as their music unfolded and evolved.
the kinks' music makes an appearance...the kinks and the beatles are the only other references in the movie to what we call 'classic rock' now
Andy Carter and I discreetly purloined liquor from his parent’s cabinet. Fashioned the concoction as a Mozambique. Andy passed out in his bathroom, I was listening to the Kinks and reading Playboy when his parents returned from the movies. This had to be about 1965. Anyway, yesterday I got a Merry Christmas text from Andy.
I wonder what it felt like when the Stones went disco. I was too young to care much at that point. Maybe that was a similar sense of betrayal? Miss You, maybe Emotional Rescue...that kind of thing.
I wonder what it felt like when the Stones went disco. I was too young to care much at that point. Maybe that was a similar sense of betrayal? Miss You, maybe Emotional Rescue...that kind of thing.
Just about every band got some backlash from their hardcore fans when they ventured into new realms. Like Steely Dan getting progressively more laid back, Psychadelic Furs getting more commercial, SoundGarden getting more commercial/mainstream, etc.
But with Dylan, at least to my recollecting, it was really different. Some of his base felt actually like they had been sold out, that their confidence in their fresh, idyllic, unfiltered genre had been betrayed. It was huge. Some could not understand it, and those were the generous ones. Others got so mad that they lashed out. And I remember how one more moderate critic put it- it was like Dylan had sold out his purist roots for a brash form or rock music, and as they put it, of a very mediocre, unremarkable and "common" form.
I've had a few different friends who went to see him live over the years and some have come away angry. One said that they would be almost through a whole song before that they would even recognize it, and not in a good way.
I could go on for a long time about this, and i've seen this unfold from several different angles and perspectives, like the reaction on FM radio and pop culture when it happened, a documentary or re-enactment I saw somewhere along the line (can't recall which one), and several different friends I know who braved Dylan concerts over the years.
He was guy who was constantly re-inventing himself, and it came down to a cycle wherein he would seldom play a song the same way twice.
But surely we can agree, he got the last laugh, stayed "relevant" throughout, and made a lasting impression and profound contribution.
That whole accoustic/electric thing - a classic exploration between purist roots and a rauccous eclecticism that emobodied - and embodies - rock.
Dylan got swept up in the latter, as did a generation - a generation he helped shape and form, for that matter.
"That whole accoustic/electric thing - a classic exploration between purist roots and a rauccous eclecticism that emobodied - and embodies - rock."
agreed
part of the very interesting part - and it's not just semantics - is that 'rock music' did not exist in 1965. There was folk and there was pop. Not much else. For white people anyway. There was no classification of 'rock music' and of course no 'classic rock.' the Stones were pop, the beatles were pop.
There was 'folk' and there was 'pop music.'
I think the sense of betrayal was that dylan had gone pop, in the sense we might have of U2 or Bruce Springsteen deciding to sound like taylor swift or a boy band. Fake and copycat and way too light.
'rock music' has since created an aura of importance, elevated above what we now call 'pop music'...but it didn't have that yet in 1965. Dylan moving into backstreet boys territory must have been shocking.
I don't see it quite that way. For context I was in 8th grade in 1965. Pop music itself was changing quickly and radically. I can remember after the Beatles Ed Sullivan appearances kids in my class were arguing about if they liked the Beatles or Peter Paul and Mary better.
The British invasion was a very new sound that really only appealed mostly to young people at first. Compare a song like "Satisfaction'' (#1 in 1965) with the pop hits of the early 1960s. It was a completely different sound. The tension wasn't just about folk vs. rock. It was a broader generational tension between the young and the more familiar, established pop sound. Bands like the Stones, Animals, Kinks, etc. completely re-invented what pop music sounded like.
Dylan was swept up in that transition but he also influenced it by helping to create the fusion between the new rock sound and folk music. After that fusion, pure folk music was mostly relegated to obscurity. I don't think the folk community's anger towards Dylan was just because he went pop. It was deeper because they could sense that the entire music landscape shifting and they could see the writing on the wall about their waning influence and popularity.
BTW, I have not seen the movie, but plan to at some point.
"That whole accoustic/electric thing - a classic exploration between purist roots and a rauccous eclecticism that emobodied - and embodies - rock."
agreed
part of the very interesting part - and it's not just semantics - is that 'rock music' did not exist in 1965. There was folk and there was pop. Not much else. For white people anyway. There was no classification of 'rock music' and of course no 'classic rock.' the Stones were pop, the beatles were pop.
There was 'folk' and there was 'pop music.'
I think the sense of betrayal was that dylan had gone pop, in the sense we might have of U2 or Bruce Springsteen deciding to sound like taylor swift or a boy band. Fake and copycat and way too light.
'rock music' has since created an aura of importance, elevated above what we now call 'pop music'...but it didn't have that yet in 1965. Dylan moving into backstreet boys territory must have been shocking.
I don't see it quite that way. For context I was in 8th grade in 1965. Pop music itself was changing quickly and radically. I can remember after the Beatles Ed Sullivan appearances kids in my class were arguing about if they liked the Beatles or Peter Paul and Mary better.
The British invasion was a very new sound that really only appealed mostly to young people at first. Compare a song like "Satisfaction'' (#1 in 1965) with the pop hits of the early 1960s. It was a completely different sound. The tension wasn't just about folk vs. rock. It was a broader generational tension between the young and the more familiar, established pop sound. Bands like the Stones, Animals, Kinks, etc. completely re-invented what pop music sounded like.
Dylan was swept up in that transition but he also influenced it by helping to create the fusion between the new rock sound and folk music. After that fusion, pure folk music was mostly relegated to obscurity. I don't think the folk community's anger towards Dylan was just because he went pop. It was deeper because they could sense that the entire music landscape shifting and they could see the writing on the wall about their waning influence and popularity.
BTW, I have not seen the movie, but plan to at some point.
You should see the movie Inside Llewyn Davis if you haven't already. It deals with exactly this.
I don't see it quite that way. For context I was in 8th grade in 1965. Pop music itself was changing quickly and radically. I can remember after the Beatles Ed Sullivan appearances kids in my class were arguing about if they liked the Beatles or Peter Paul and Mary better.
The British invasion was a very new sound that really only appealed mostly to young people at first. Compare a song like "Satisfaction'' (#1 in 1965) with the pop hits of the early 1960s. It was a completely different sound. The tension wasn't just about folk vs. rock. It was a broader generational tension between the young and the more familiar, established pop sound. Bands like the Stones, Animals, Kinks, etc. completely re-invented what pop music sounded like.
Dylan was swept up in that transition but he also influenced it by helping to create the fusion between the new rock sound and folk music. After that fusion, pure folk music was mostly relegated to obscurity. I don't think the folk community's anger towards Dylan was just because he went pop. It was deeper because they could sense that the entire music landscape shifting and they could see the writing on the wall about their waning influence and popularity.
BTW, I have not seen the movie, but plan to at some point.
You should see the movie Inside Llewyn Davis if you haven't already. It deals with exactly this.
The musical soundtrack in it is really good, too!
I've heard a lot about it but have never watched it. I will it move to the top of my to-watch list.
I thought I was among the oldest in this thread but I was only born the year Dylan went electric. I’ve seen him live maybe eight times and I’ve never heard him play a song the way I knew it from a studio album. That puts off a lot of casual fans, but I enjoy (most of) his reinterpretations. I guess way back in the day it was hit or miss whether he would show up on stage sober enough to perform credibly. I think I first saw him live about 20 years ago, by which time I think he was clean, or mostly so. Most of the concerts I attended were really good. For the serious fan only though, probably.
Good call from when the market tanked in August when the yen carry trade unwound in a disorderly fashion
Post See new posts Conversation Carl Quintanilla @carlquintanilla YARDENI: “.. We don't think the Fed will be that responsive to this pullback unless a global credit crunch results from the yen carry trade unwind. We are sticking with just one cut in September for the rest of this year. No recession. No bear market. This too shall pass.” 🇺🇸 - @yardeni #FOMC
GURGAVIN @gurgavin ESTIMATES ON WHERE THE S&P 500 WILL END 2024 AT $SPX BMO 5100 GOLDMAN SACHS 5100 DEUTSCHE 5100 CITI 5100 BANK OF AMERICA 5000 RBC 5000 UBS 4875 BARCLAYS 4800 WELLS FARGO 4625 SCOTIABANK 4600 MORGAN STANLEY 4500 JP MORGAN 4200 S&P 500 IS CURRENTLY AT 4770 5:02 PM · Dec 30, 2023 · 783.7K Views
Or, stay with me, the nasdaq will hit 20,000. True story.
HZ @MFHoz The NASDAQ 100 will hit a new low next week, but then it will rally powerfully through the end of the year. Another strong sell-off will follow in 2024-2025. I expect NDX to hit a new low of 6600-7000.
Narrator: it was different this time. SP500 up 27% this year. R2k up 12%.
The Leuthold Group @LeutholdGroup The SPX gain looks nothing like the early stages of any past bull mkt we’ve studied (“initial conditions” preceding this action were also in stark contrast). Even the recent small-cap rally leaves the $RUT gain from its lows at a fraction of that of a typical bull.
2:13 PM · Dec 27, 2023 · 193.7K Views
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Upgrading New York City’s sewer system to “deal with regularly-occurring large rain events is estimated to cost around $100 billion,” the law notes. But climate change is merely an excuse to get others to pay for upgrading infrastructure that New York politicians have failed to maintain because they divert so much money to welfare payments and fat public-worker pay and benefits. Ms. Hochul is grasping for revenue now because GOP control of Washington will likely mean less federal largesse for states. Since New Yorkers are taxed out, she’s looking elsewhere for money. “Taxes are high enough in the state of New York and we have to live within our means,” Ms. Hochul said last autumn. So much for that. She also recently resurrected a hefty congestion tax on drivers entering Manhattan’s business districts ($9 per passenger vehicle), which will smack New Jersey and Connecticut commuters. This is expected to raise $15 billion for the city’s declining mass-transit system. The new Democratic climate tax end-runs a Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision in 2021 that dismissed a New York City lawsuit seeking to hold fossil-fuel producers liable for their alleged climate impact. The court held that state tort law could not be used “to hold multinational oil companies liable for the damages caused by global greenhouse gas emissions.” Yet that’s essentially what New York is now doing with legislation rather than litigation. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering whether to hear a case (Sunoco LP v. City & County of Honolulu) about whether federal law pre-empts state and local government claims against companies to redress alleged harms caused by global greenhouse gas emissions.
So many things have become divorced from reality. Enormous problems with leadership in fantasy land of corruption, getting their gimmies. Population drugged out, content to get their entertainment. Fall of Rome seems appropriate analogy. Sorry, but Trump and DOGE cant’t fix a society that has lost their way.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.