Bob Dylan at Budokan

it would be a good thing. taste is tyranny. it's what prevents us from judging idiosyncratic works of art by the terms they set for themselves because we try instead to think about whether or not they conform to this already existing set of criteria. part of the reason this album, specifically, is one of my favorites is because it is totally, shamelessly tasteless.

but that is its own set of (extrinsic) criteria, no?

i think there are two reasons to dislike something. 1.) it fails at what it seems to be trying to do. 2.) what it is trying to do is stupid. neither of these things has anything to do with "taste," per se, which implies a more rigid standard for what is and isn't a valid artistic aim than "not stupid." this album isn't stupid, i don't think. in terms of the albums where dylan is trying to make people wonder wth he is thinking and suspect he is fucking with them, this is the best because it is so polished and well-executed.

well its criteria, but it's more open ended than the concept of taste implies because it accepts that something can be good because it violates our conventional sense of what "goodness" entails re a live album (restraint, fidelity to the original recordings, etc)

maybe this is just a discussion of semantics. the word taste seems restrictive.

If you're going to allow yourself to dislike something you deem stupid, why not go further and allow yourself to dislike things that you merely find to be uninteresting?

that's fine

i was more talking about how letting go of critical standards, or a sense that you might now in advance how and why something would succeed or fail, would be a good thing.

i'm lost

sorry i am going to drop this because i think it would entail a post that is longer than anyone is willing to read. basically i am arguing for an orientation of openness toward artworks, wherein one lets go of expectations about goodness or badness, at least provisionally, in order to let the work disclose whatever it is it has to disclose. i'm not saying anyone was not doing that or anything, but "taste" implies -- to me -- a "discerning eye/ear" that "knows what to look/listen for"

I think the point here is that if you are a Dylan fanatic the actual quality of the music becomes secondary. What matters is the narrative and Budokan is pretty key in that big ol' story of bob losing his way before finding himself and baby Jesus in a motel room

"actual quality of music"

Maybe it's just my copy, but I hear a strange, high-frequency hiss throughout this LP that's always prevented me from giving it a chance. And I'm very sympathetic to Dylan revisionism: "Self Portrait" is one of my favs.

Try a digital version. My mp3s sound fine. I disagree with baaderonix bc i think this album is pleasurable as a thing to listen to. I also dont think it represents an artist who is lost: dylan has always celebrated the plasticity of his songs and tgis album is just an interesting, well executed instance of this.

I think "cheerful irreverence" is a good description of this record, and the most useful of many possible ways to hear it. Otoh it's not an album I have much interest in listening to again.

I like the thought experiment of playing it for someone who has never heard or heard of Bob Dylan. How would it sound removed from the context of his career?

Treeship - I wasn't really saying that there's no way to enjoy the actual music on this, but rather than if this was a random album by a random souped up 70 rocker I don't think anyone would pay attention. This album is special cuz of the narrative that accompanies it it. Anyway I quite like All I Really Want on this but can't remember anything else

If it was a random album by a random 70s person I would be pretty intrigued about who this dude is who writes complex, evocative lyrics but performs them in this strange lounge style.

that argument has bothered me ever since douglas wolk used it -

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/12979-together-through-life/

The ultimate test of a Dylan album, though, is to try to consider it outside the imposing context of his career--to imagine that the bramble-voiced old dude who co-wrote and sang these songs isn't the man who wrote Highway 61 Revisited and Blood on the Tracks and Love and Theft, but Random Blues Journeyman #843.

like, i don't know how that is even like metaphysically possible, to think of anything bob dylan related as not bob dylan related.

listening for the first time to budokan today i was really struck by the time scale.

you can hear the rolling thunder band on 'live 1975' before 'desire' came out, and they're so great.

then on 'hard rain', 1976, without having looked it up i wouldn't even have imagined they were the same rhythm section (rob stoner on bass and howard wyeth on drums). but it's the same band.

then 'budokan' in 1978, different band, and obviously, difft arrangements. from a different planet.

like, that's music - that you could have that much continuity, and the same singer, and lots of the same songs, in such a short span of time, and have the performances be SO different. how could you leave the performer out of that?

it's a sunny day, and maybe my brains fried from lockdown, but i'm enjoying this a bunch today. the enemy of enjoying Bob has always been people telling you what he is, what his music means, what it should sound like etc. so yeah, Bob trying his best to do Elvis In Vegas is a lot of fun!

A lot of Dylan for me is about the humor (intentional and not) and it doesn't get much funnier than Budokan.

there's a lot of joy in this record, and journos can often hate joy. Bob is meant to be serioues! women have hurt his feelings! he did protest songs! stop having fun bob please!!!

*serious