The Never Ending Pool

all of you really are missing the point, which has nothing to do with composition but the object

Your question, countree bill, was:

"in assessing bob do we often confuse the inspiration with the art[?]"


Seeing as you have now allowed that you know the point, what then was your motivation for asking the question?

Warren wrote:

QUOTE:
Your question, countree bill, was:

"in assessing bob do we often confuse the inspiration with the art[?]"


Seeing as you have now allowed that you know the point, what then was your motivation for asking the question?

well the question still remains to be answered doesn't it? explaining the question is not the same as answering it.

country bill wrote:

QUOTE:
well the question still remains to be answered doesn't it? explaining the question is not the same as answering it.

So, based upon what you are saying, here, the initial question remains. You avoided answering my question about motivation, but nevermind.

Now, do take a stab at answering the question, yourself, bill. I know that I, for one, would be interested in what you have to say.

apres vous

After me, you say.

So, we're back to the matter of your motivation. I let you off the hook once, countree bill. Twice? Never.

no we are still on the track of answering the question. my knowledge has been tested and not found lacking. yours remains in some doubt hence, the apres vous. my motivation is irrelevant.

let those who question the questioner speak

Your knowledge has not been tested within the confines of this thread.

I disagree with you about your motivation being irrelevant.


I'm leaving it at that, at least, for now.

Warren wrote:

QUOTE:
Your knowledge has not been tested within the confines of this thread.

I disagree with you about your motivation being irrelevant.


I'm leaving it at that, at least, for now.

now that we're through with that interlude let's get back to the matter at hand — our discussion of whether we confuse bob's inspiration with his art

continue

i think i understand what you are getting at now. i didnt take that interview seriously and felt his statement was a glorified rehash of something he said a long time ago. it is the word magical that doesnt fit the picture. he was mkore honest when he called the first draft of like a rolling stone a long stream of vomit, or something to that effect. vomit is more tangible than magic, and if we see the vomit as the inspiration and the finished song as the art, we can begin to address the issue at hand.
i think rolling stone is a better song to examine than its altight ma, as the latter seems to have undergone (at least from the writing to the studio recording) less artistry.
instead of me droning on, listen to the recordings of the LARS sessions to hear how the song, almost accidentally, evolved from an unwieldly mess into a masterpiece of rock and roll literature. Without the art, it would have remained a mess, on the order of "She's Your Lover Now",,,,,,,but it should be remembered that much of the art is also inspiration.. simple craftsmanship would never have made LARS what it became.

so, in answer to your question, i will venture to say:

the raw material needs to come from someplace outside of the artist's painting kit (this is the problem with dylan's current work. we are bored with the predictability of his material, despite the magic he makes with it)
then the artistry that gives it form and life must come from outside the professional experience of his backing musicians (another problem with his new stuff: the players work within a confined tradition)

examples: charlie mccoy's guiitar on desolation row, al kooper's organ on LARS, everybody's inspired contribution on sad eyed lady of the lowlands, which is a one of a kind recording that has no precedent in nashville or anywhere..who would have thought that the opening strain, based on percy sledge's when a man loves a woman, would have led to something like this?.........

anyway, to sum up. i believe that without inspiration in every step there can be no art. the work cannot come from simple artistry, but from all involved being connected to something that is outside of their professional experience.

i give up

i know somebody said this before me but i can't remember who,

Creativity is 1% inspiration and 99% transpiration.

I think bill means that the transpiration part is the art and i agree that a lot of dylan songs are only 20% transpiration and 80% inspiration.
A lot of his songs never reached full maturity and remained sketches instead of paintings.

According to Thomas Alva Edison "Genius is ninety nine percent perspiration and one percent inspiration"

I'll take a go at explaining the question - Are we more interested in what or who the song is about or the composition and music itself?

If this is the case, I think you have a 50/50 split out there, but at times I'd lean higher on the 'what it's about.'

I also think it was Dylan who said, 'Never fall in love with your muse.'

but isn't the "what it's about" part, just part of the art?

the way he can make you feel like looking into the family photo album (eg Sara) or the way he makes you listen to a song over and over, wondering what it's about (eg desolation row)?
that's art to me