A little background (the historically factual details): For those of you living under a rock, one of the premier cornerstones in American music history happened on July 25 1965 in Newport, Rhode Island. Up until that date, Bob Dylan had been a prominent folk singer who was heavily influenced by Woody Guthrie and other early folk singers. Dylan's fame grew as he was often regarded, in the folk music world, as the voice of the young generation in the turbulent 1960's atmosphere. Every summer these folk fans and artists gathered in Newport, Rhode Island to celebrate their music.These artists, like Dylan, performed with little more than an acoustic guitar, and that is how they liked it. They did not want to be burdened with the "noise" of rock music. They liked their genre, and that was what they intended to hear exclusively at the folk festival. Dylan was among these. He was a solo artist who's performances involved only himself, an acoustic guitar, and a harmonica singing the songs that had become anthems for a generation of thinkers. That all changed on that fateful night in 1965. (Does this sound like an elementary school book report to anyone else? I have never been good at using facts to back up arguments. Just ask my ex-girlfriends)
When Dylan plugged in, he instantly changed the face of music in two significant ways: 1) he combined the poetry and protest of folk music with the raw power and energy of rock and roll thus spreading his popularity and influence to a whole new group of fans while raising the bar of rock and roll lyrics, and 2) he alienated everyone who was a fan of Dylan as a folk musician. The former point wasn't realized until much later, but the incessant booing and jeers during Dylan's Newport 1965 opener "Maggie's Farm" proved the latter point almost immediately. This alienation and rejection is something that would soon prove a reoccurring theme throughout the next few years of Dylan's stage life and would lead to the darker and more cynical Dylan made famous in DA Penebaker's classic documentary "Don't Look Back."
So what does any of this have to do with this clip of a manic live version of "Like A Rolling Stone" in Manchester, England in 1966? And how could this be something that would represent everything I love about music? The answer is quite simple to figure out. Let us explore...
There is a difference between going to see a live music show and going to a concert. Symantics? Yes. It may not sound like it, but there is a difference. Let us compare and contrast: Miley Cyrus vs. Phish. Keep in mind, no one in the history of the world has even considered comparing the two, but someone had to be the first to mix vinegar and baking soda, and just think how many elementary school science projects would have never existed had they not. I will say now that comparing Cyrus and Phish is truly unfair. I have never so much as heard a single song by Miley Cyrus (at least not knowingly), nor have I ever seen a single episode or even part of an episode of "Hannah Montana." Yet I have been listening to Phish consistently for about 15 years, own hundreds of live recordings, have seen them live several times, and applied to the college where they met (totally by coincidence... For the record I was accepted but didn't go). None-the-less, I will make the comparison anyway for my theatrical knowledge and background is all I really need for it.
Let's start with that which these two musical groups have in common...They both play music.
And now for the differences. Cyrus is a young, talented girl whose rise to fame started only a few years ago with the success of her Disney television show "Hannah Montana." She has since become a hugely popular singer for kids who still require their parent's to drive them to concerts. Phish is a group of four middle-aged musicians who have been together since the early 80's, and though they never achieved commercial success, they gained a huge nomadic following through their live performances that allowed them to tour constantly and not play to an empty seat in the later 10 or so years of their careers. Cyrus is young enough to still live at home, Phish has been playing together since before Cyrus was born. Cyrus is today's pop princess, Phish was arguably the best jam band since the Grateful Dead.
For our purposes, though, the biggest difference is that the Miley Cyrus concerts are high budget theatrical experiences with set playlists, costume changes, multimedia, and choreography that never changes though out the tour. From the day the tour begins to the day it ends, the show doesn't change, or at least not without official proposals, meetings, rehearsals, and various other stages of planning and execution. The concerts are more live theatre than they are concerts.
Phish, on the other hand, were known for performing with no setlist at all, no costume changes, no choreography (aside from trampoline choreography from time to time). They were known for never playing any songs two days in a row. Audiences knew every show would be a new experience with not only different songs, but songs that were performed differently depending on how the show evolves. There were no rules. A song that is normally 3 minutes could be 24 minutes or more and evolve in a way no one had ever considered. A setlist could be 20 songs long or it could be one continuous jam. The point is, nothing is sacred at a Phish concert. Anything can happen, and it is one of the reasons people would tour with them. Fans would travel around with them for entire tours because they knew that every show would be completely different than any other show. Phish shows were 4 guys who came on stage not knowing what would happen and just play whatever they were inspired to play for three hours each night. Often times the audience response would have a huge impact on what they played or how they played it (See the "cheesecake vocal jam" from 01-01-00, or "Harry Hood" from the Great Went including the first "glowstick war" for examples of this)
So the real difference between these two experiences is this: A Miley Cyrus show is completely pre-determined and is in no way contingent on the audience, and a Phish show is almost entirely contingent on the audience and the atmosphere. Miley Cyrus fans see Miley Cyrus perform, and Phish plays for their fans. Put another way: Phish plays to an audience, and Cyrus plays in front of an audience. Clearly I am somewhat biased, but I will in no way suggest that one is better than the other. They are just two different styles. Considering both groups put together hugely profitable tours, I think it is safe to say that both styles appeal to their target audiences.
And then there is Dylan. From what I can gather, Bob Dylan's 1966 tour of England was a hybrid of these two types of performances. He went on stage with a band that had rehearsed a setlist that was the same, or close to the same each night. There was little or no production value, just he and his band somewhat playing to an audience and somewhat playing in front of the audience. Watching the videos. I get the sense that Dylan was going to play his setlist regardless of how the audience responded, but the tone of the songs were almost entirely dependant on the audience. It was almost as if he was saying "you payed for a ticket to see me, and this is me being me. If you don't like it, no one is asking you to stay." Since the audience didn't respond well to the "plugged in Dylan," his tone grew more and more spiteful as the night went on eventually erupting into a passionate "I don't give a shit what you think" version of "Like a Rolling Stone" that just bleeds energy. It is his refusal to be booed off stage or change his sound that makes this a great clip. The disapproving audience only further fueled the passion behind his performance.
As the story goes, when Dylan was booed off stage in Newport, it deeply affected him. If you watch Scorsese's excellent documentary "No Direction Home," someone (I can't recall who offhand) tells the story of how at the end of the night at an after party Dylan was quietly sitting by himself. She approached him and asked him to dance, and his response was something along the lines of "I'd like to, but I feel like my hands are on fire." Nothing can keep Dylan down though. Clearly he wasn't going to let the initial shock affect him as he spent 1966 touring with his newly minted rock band and was booed everywhere they went. Watching the footage, he almost seemed to enjoy it. It was like he alone was picking a fight with thousands of people each night knowing that he had already won. He seemed to learn how to say "I am not doing this for you, I am doing this because it is me, and no one cares if you don't like it." It is a true reflection of that fact that Dylan rejected the idea of him being the "voice of a generation" as he had been dubbed since 1964. He just wanted to be him and not speak for anyone else. He isn't a performer or an entertainer, he is a poet to be either listened to or rejected. Either way, it doesn't affect him or his music. Nothing gained, nothing lost.
This is the reason that the clip of "Like a Rolling Stone" represents everything I love about music. It is music in it's purest form. The song exists as it's own entity. It is not written or performed for any one's particular enjoyment aside from maybe Dylan's own enjoyment. Dylan looks to be saying "This song is mine, not yours. And fuck you if you don't like it" It is not up to the performer to make a song mean something to his or her audience, it is entirely up to one's self to decide if the song speaks to them. It is also not up the the musician to do as the audience asks. The musician doesn't belong to the people, he is only made popular by the people. He is not a politician to be elected or a lump of clay to be molded. Before reaching worldwide fame, Dylan was an independent artist who made the music as it suited him, and as he grew and matured, so did his sound and his musical style. Of course his new sound wasn't going to appeal to his entire base audience, but the idea of the audience feeling betrayed by a musician is completely ridiculous. Artists can't betray anyone because they don't belong to anyone. They have no loyalty to anyone. Their only loyalty is to their own work and vision... And maybe their landlords around the first of every month.
Betrayal has no place in art. Art is merely a reflection that changes with the time. No artist should ever say "I am doing this because I think people will like it." This is what made Dylan great. Throughout his entire career, he never made music with any intention. He made music for the sake of making music and speaking his own mind, and if you don't like it, tough. Here is the great irony: Dylan became a worldwide sensation for speaking his mind in 1964, yet his audience hated him for speaking his mind in 1966. There is no doubt that when Bob Dylan plugged in, it was revolutionary, and there is also no doubt that Bob Dylan plugging in was a rejection of what he had always done. You can join the ride, or you can take off, either way he's gonna "Play it fucking loud."
***Side note: I know this blog is kind of all over the place. It has a tendency to not make any real points yet still be redundant at times. This is on purpose. I, like Dylan, make no apologies for this blog. You can take it or reject, either way it is mine, not yours. On the other hand, any writing that makes no clear point and rambles on unintelligibly constitutes as poor writing. There is no art found here, only scattered thoughts already stated by much smarter people than I. Either way, if you didn't enjoy this piece, I don't blame you.***
.jpg){kind=link}
