There is a great online debate raging about the harsh review our pop music critic, Ed Bumgardner, gave of Bob Dylan’s concert at Ernie Shore Field.
There are a couple of pages of back and forth on our Web site, and Ed’s gotten 60 or so emails that run the gamut from praise to ridicule. To summarize: Many folks said that Ed missed the point and the boat, that Dylan has never been better, and that his husky voice is the voice of reason in a world that has sold out to flash and the insubstantial. Others said Ed was spot on, that Dylan has become a hologram of himself, that his contempt for his audience is palpable, and that the diminution of his musical skills are being masked by his “reinterpretation” of his songs.
One of the old adages of newspapers is “If everybody’s mad, we must be doing something right.” Maybe. Maybe not.
Criticism and journalism aren’t the same things. We expect our critics to play from the same set of ethics and conduct as a news reporter, but we look for informed commentary, the ability to use their experience and judgment to interpret a set of facts. Will everybody agree with them? Of course not. That would be dull.
I was at the show. True to my nature, I come down somewhere in the middle. Dylan wasn’t awful. but he wasn’t great. And by the end, many of my expectations had been lowered sufficiently so that what would have in another context been viewed as so-so now seemed pretty exceptional. But that’s just me.
As a final thought, here’s what the critic in the Washington Post wrote two days later ...
Your host is Ken Otterbourg, the managing editor at the Winston-Salem Journal. It's a forum to discuss the media, from
It seems to me that the people complaining about the content of the criticism miss the point. It’s Ed’s opinion—it’s what he’s paid to offer, and he gave his honest evaluation. Is Dylan supposed to be judged on a sliding scale? If you’re not getting what you once paid for, shouldn’t the tickets at least be cheaper? If Ed didn’t like the show, is he supposed to pretend that he did? It’s his informed opinion that Dylan stunk. So be it.
It’s nearly impossible to admit it when your heroes start to slip, even temporarily. I remember buying tickets years ago to an R.E.M. show, getting all excited, going to the show and they were AWFUL. (Not always the case, by the way—I’ve seen them be quite good both before and after.) A few months later I somehow ended up talking to some college students about the show. It was bad, I said—they were off-key, out-of-tune, etc. One of the guys said, “Yeah, I heard they did that on purpose—it was great!” Interesting take. My thinking was, I spent a fair amount of money on two tickets. I’d like to at least see a good show. No accounting for taste....
I agree completely with Bill on this. The Journal is lucky to have a musician covering this stuff, someone who defines the meaning of “informed commentary.” That’s worth pointing out to readers who suggest Ed wasn’t there or doesn’t “get it.” He’s a critic who actually knows what it takes to have a career as a performer, someone who can tell when a singer’s incapable of holding pitch or just being arty. So yeah, maybe his standards are higher than the average concert-goer’s. But I’d much rather have someone like that giving me his/her opinion than someone who trails artists like a puppy.
People can disagree all they want, but this is *opinion* writing. It’s one person’s point of view. Happily for Journal readers, it’s the point of view of someone who brings much more to the table than the average critic. They got his honest read on Dylan that night. Those who want their feelings reaffirmed by everything they read don’t want honesty, they want cheerleading. And that’s easy enough to find on the Web.
I have no idea how Dylan was that night. But unless the show was free, I don’t think he should be given a pass just because of his songwriting prowess or his age. There are plenty of artists who’ve continued to shine in their AARP years—Etta James, Ray Charles, Ray Davies, Paul Simon, etc. Dylan can and should adapt his work to his new limits, but that doesn’t answer the question whether today’s version is any good. That’s what critics are paid to answer.
It’s kind of funny to me that a critique of Dylan got more reader response than anything else I’ve seen on your site. Did it set a record in terms of comments on the Journal site?
Now if you really want some action do a comparative piece of Dylan’s and Bush’s performances!
Dylan: Partied too hard in the ‘60s. Jumbles and mumbles incoherent, non-sensical phrases while standing in front of large crowds.
Bush: Partied too hard in the ‘60s. Jumbles and mumbles incoherent, non-sensical phrases while standing in front of large crowds.
Did I miss anything John?
It’s up there, in terms of reader response. I know we’ve gotten a lot of response on some immigration issues and restaurant reviews. Like everything else, things that people are passionate about tend to get people typing and talking.
I’m fairly certain the article about Virginia Foxx’s trip to Iraq-as-done-by-Walt-Disney and the subsequent opinion piece on her statements created quite a mailbag maelstrom. At least if one goes by the published Letters To The Editor, it did.
I’d love to see the Dylan to Foxx comparison.
We are very fortunate to have someone like Ed in a town like this. He isn’t blinded by an artist’s aura or history. He calls it like he sees it (or hears it).
With respect to other news, I think a lot of people are just trying to “tune out” or decompress from the world. That’s not such a bad thing. Dylan coming to Winston was kind of a big deal for this sleepy town.
Ultimately, any response is better than none.
I think one aspect of the like/dislike passion associated with music and art that is often overlooked is exactly WHY people are passionate about a performance or piece. Case in point was the Bob Dylan show. I attended not because I particularly like Boby or his music--I don’t--but because the guy is Bob Frickin’ Dylan: counterculture icon, modern age troubadour, and poet.
Is he old? Desperately. Past his prime? Inarguably. Sentient? Unlikely. In fact, the debate in my house currently pits my opinion that he’s a mummy brought back to life like those goofy Brendan Frasier movies versus my wife who thinks he’s more along the lines of the Living Dead zombies. Either way, he’s old and decrepit.
But the heart of the matter lies in why I went to see him and how my particular frame of reference determined if it was a good show or not for ME. Musically, from my point of view, it stunk. In terms of showmanship and connectivity with the audience, I think a cardboard cutout of Bob would’ve emoted as well as the flesh-and-blood version. But did I get to see Bob Frickin’ Dylan? Did I see, live, a man my parents revered [disclosure: I’m twenty-five years old]? A guy whom the FBI purportedly monitored as he was considered a “threat?” A famous poet? A revolutionary? Darn skippy, I did. And it was a great show.
Good points. My son, who is 15, would probably agree with your position. Still don’t think it was a great show, but sometimes a two-ring circus is better than no circus at all.
http://www.forumage.com/?mforum=alltelringtones alltel ringtones alltel ringtones
http://www.forumage.com/?mforum=hobohandbags hobo handbags hobo handbags
Post a comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.