Although I have many questions as much of the vocabulary in these essays rings a bell with our philosophy readings ("decadence," etc. ("Self Portrait" 9)), I wish to bring up two general points which I think direct us more to the art. Of course this particular art is Self Portrait, by Bob Dylan, but it is also the realm of art, which is where music lies and thus where we must go to begin our philosophy of music.
1) Your rhetoric in the 1970 review seems to be doing comparative, narrativizing discourse about Dylan's music. Why is this approach, perhaps central to music and cultural criticism, not itself an imperative that arrives before the art? What keeps this imperative from speaking over, as if louder than or even prior to, the art? Can we listen to music this way without consuming the art altogether?
2) In the liner notes, Dylan immediately begins describing fame as a position of curious sovereignty. Is this a cultural sovereignty? An identitarian one? The language associated with Dylan is always, as both he and you point out, "the voice of a generation..." What do you think we can see in this connection between sovereignty and vocalization? Why is there a need for verbal expression if one is to have power, and therefore responsibility? Is it appropriate or not that Dylan, recognizing this responsibility, makes a retreat from power in Self Portrait? Or does he even?
I understand these are not simple questions, but they are ones I thought of most clearly while listening to the record and while reading the 1970 review and the notes. Looking forward to class!
No comments:
Post a Comment