As a pop music reviewer put it in the New York Times a few years ago, by way of exculpation, Dylan "dips into a shared cultural heritage" to write songs that "are like magpies' nests, full of shiny fragments from parts unknown." The problem is, we do know where some of those shiny fragments come from; most recently they've included lines and images taken from a modern Japanese novel and the mawkish poems of a 19th-century Southern versifier with the unlikely name of Henry Timrod. More to the point, in the folk tradition, performers didn't copyright their works. Property rights would have complicated beyond recognition that gentle spirit of communal give-and-take.
Dylan not only copyrights his stuff, he publishes it under the auspices of the particularly ruthless copyright enforcer BMI, and then without apology he cashes the royalty checks from songs that depend on lyrics that aren't his and melodies he didn't write. He must reckon that a shared cultural heritage is all well and good, but a man's got to make a living. To cite the most lucrative instance, Dylan copied the tune of "Blowin' in the Wind" from an old spiritual called "No More Auction Block." So far so normal, as far as the folk tradition goes: Just one troubadour tipping his dusty slouch hat to a forgotten forerunner. But Bob filed ownership rights over the melody, and it has been a favorite of elevator-music programmers for nearly half a century. He has a big house in Malibu to show for it, with ocean views. No telling what the real tunewriter got for thinking it up.
I knew there was a reason I didn't like that guy! Of course, my dislike may have more to do with a friend in college who drove me absolutely insane with Bob Dylan, Bob Dylan, Bob Dylan. Odd that she never mentioned this stuff.
Bob Dylan's "borrowing" may not be news to many of you, but it was to me. What I found even more interesting than the snippet of the Andrew Ferguson article quoted above, is a 2006 blog post from Ralph the Sacred River, focusing upon "borrowings" in Dylan's memoir, and the comments serving to justify those borrowings.
Yes, borrowing is a literary tradition. There are passages in Stephen King novels that just wouldn't be as scary without a particular bit of a particular song playing on the car radio. But King doesn't pass those lyrics off as something of his own invention.
I guess the big question for me is this: If borrowing is OK for Dylan, why wasn't it OK for Hootie & the Blowfish?
In the end, I know that no question matters. Those who see Dylan as a genius will justify anything Dylan does just as quickly as others will defend Roman Polanski or condemn an acquitted Michael Jackson or O.J. Simpson. Why? Because we're all elitists, in one form or another, justifying the actions of those we admire or have some sort of affection for, while vilifying the same actions in others.
As for myself, I have a sudden urge to listen to "Talkin' Bear Mountain Picnic Massacre Blues". 'Cause, unlike the contents of this blog post, that shit's just funny.
