‘A Complete Unknown’ no more: A new generation discovers Bob Dylan

Bob Dylan is having a moment — of sorts.

Thanks to “A Complete Unknown,” the Oscar-nominated biopic starring Timothée Chalamet, Dylan’s music is reaching new, younger audiences. David Browne, in a recent article in Rolling Stone, called it “the Chalamet Effect on Dylan’s catalog.”

Before the film’s Christmas release, Dylan’s songs were streamed about 1 million times a day on Spotify, according to Rolling Stone. That number is since surged to around 4 million, with some of the biggest spikes coming from songs featured in the film, like “Song to Woody.” One of only two original compositions on Dylan’s self-titled 1962 debut album, daily streams of “Song to Woody” jumped from 4,000 to 55,000. Digital and physical sales of Dylan’s music also increased, Rolling Stone reported.

How many enduring Dylan fans — much less budding Dylanologists — the film has created is unknown. My own deep journey into Dylan’s catalog began in 1985 with the release of “Biograph,” a sprawling collection of 53 hits, deep cuts, rarities and unreleased tracks that pioneered the career retrospective box set.1 Before that, the only Dylan album I owned was “Bob Dylan’s Greatest Hits,” a 1967 compilation of 10 essential Dylan songs recorded from 1963 to 1966.

Bob Dylan in April 1966, nine months after he ‘went electric’ at the 1965 Newport Folk Festival. The Newport performance is central to the new Dylan biopic, ‘A Complete Unknown.’

“A Complete Unknown” has grossed about $120 million at the box office and earned eight Academy Award nominations, including best picture. I liked “A Complete Unknown” well enough2 (“I’m Not There,” Todd Haynes’ 2007 take on Dylan’s career is far more interesting). By focusing on a specific period in Dylan’s career, it avoids some of the pitfalls of most biopics — my least-favorite film genre — though it still falls into the trap of rotely checking off major career milestones. And while I’m no actor, I’ve never understood the Academy Awards’ infatuation with performances in biopics (Chalamet is nominated for best actor), especially when a subject’s voice and mannerisms are extensively documented on tape and film. Too many of these lauded performances feel more like impersonations than fully realized character work. They’re acting karaoke.

All of this brings me to “Bob Dylan in America,” a 2010 book by Princeton history professor Sean Wilentz. Dylan’s profound knowledge of American music and the “new poetic expressions” he gives its various strands are the subjects of Wilentz’s insightful exploration of Dylan’s influences and how he redefined them.

I reviewed “Bob Dylan in America” for the Austin American-Statesman when I was the paper’s book critic. Wilentz’s book also presaged the Swedish Academy’s reasoning for awarding Dylan the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2016.

Given the renewed interest in Dylan, I republish my (slightly revised) review here:

The allusive Bob Dylan

Sean Wilentz’s engaging new book, “Bob Dylan in America,” is as much a history of American culture as it is a history and analysis of Dylan’s music.

A history professor at Princeton University and the author of “The Rise of American Democracy” and “The Age of Reagan,” Wilentz is a refreshing and authoritative music critic — Greil Marcus with tenure. He’s also a lifelong Dylan fan and the humorously self-appointed historian-in-residence for Dylan’s official website, BobDylan.com.

Wilentz’s appreciation for Dylan’s music goes back to his childhood. His father, Eli, and uncle, Ted, co-owned the 8th Street Bookshop in Greenwich Village, a Beat hangout. In December 1963, Dylan met Allen Ginsberg in Ted’s apartment above the store. It was a pivotal encounter that reconnected Dylan with Beat literary sensibilities and helped push him beyond the confines of the fold revival. Ginsberg, in turn, found “artistic enlightenment from Dylan.”

On Halloween 1964, Eli took his 13-year-old son to see Dylan at Lincoln Center’s Philharmonic Hall. Forty years later, Sean Wilentz revisited this concert when he wrote the liner notes for “The Bootleg Series, Vol. 6: Bob Dylan Live 1964, Concert at Philharmonic Hall,” a writing gig that earned Wilentz a Grammy nomination in 2005.

“Bob Dylan in America” joins Peter Doggett’s “You Never Give Me Your Money,” a history of the long, litigious breakup of the Beatles, as one of two excellent books about 1960s icons to appear in the past few months. Like the Beatles, Dylan’s primary gift is alchemy — melding folk, blues, vaudeville, country, rock ‘n’ roll and gospel into something entirely new.

From the cryptic liner notes on his eponymous 1962 debut forward, it’s been clear that Dylan draws from an extensive, affectionate knowledge of American music. But as Wilentz demonstrates, Dylan’s influences extend far beyond music, pulling from American history, literature and folklore. How many songwriters can work a line from an 1842 speech by Abraham Lincoln into a song the way Dylan does on “Summer Days” from his 2001 album “Love and Theft”?

Woody Guthrie is the early, obvious influence on Dylan — the point of origin even casual fans can name — and the poetry of Ginsberg and the Beats is the tie that binds Dylan’s churning, densely packed lyrics to Walt Whitman. But it takes a longtime and astute student of American music like Wilentz to connect — or try, anyway — Dylan to Aaron Copland, a composer initially of experimental music who mixed “folk music and orchestral form, informed by his leftist political sensibilities” into thoroughly American compositions.

Copland and Dylan are kindred artists, Wilentz says, practitioners of an “amalgamating art.” Sharing a talent for making something new out of something old, however, along with the fact that some of Copland’s old Popular Front friends would later meet Dylan, marks a pretty indirect path to Dylan. The Copland chapter, which opens “Bob Dylan in America,” is interesting not because Wilentz convincingly argues that Copland anticipates Dylan but because Copland is interesting in his own right.

The book hits its peak with a three-chapter stretch that begins with Dylan’s mid-career masterpiece, “Blind Willie McTell.” McTell was a “songster” who worked in styles — the blues, country, folk — deeply familiar to Dylan. He was not an early influence on Dylan, but a later one, pointing toward a path Dylan began following in the early 1990s to revive his career.

The next two chapters explore the origins of “Delia,” one of the earliest examples of the blues, and the shape-note hymnal “The Sacred Harp.” As he does throughout his book, Wilentz doesn’t confine himself to each chapter’s primary subject but takes us down numerous side streets and alleys before circling back to Dylan.

“Music not busy being born is busy dying,” Wilentz writes, riffing on Dylan’s famous line from “It’s Alright, Ma (I’m Only Bleeding).” (Wilentz promiscuously sprinkles references to Dylan’s lyrics throughout his book. A few underscore a point; others induce groans.) Since covering “Delia” and “Lone Pilgrim,” a song found in “The Sacred Harp,” on “World Gone Wrong,” his 1993 collection of traditional music, Dylan has increasingly grounded his work even more deeply in the past. He has acted almost out of a preservationist instinct to keep alive music he fears is at risk of disappearing, Wilentz says, bringing bits from here and there into the present to “reclaim and reassemble the American musical past.”

Such recycling has left Dylan vulnerable to accusations of plagiarism, but such charges, Wilentz argues, misunderstand the tradition in which Dylan works. Throughout his career, Wilentz writes, Dylan “has been a minstrel, or has worked in the same tradition as the minstrels … copying other people’s mannerisms and melodies and lyrics and utterly transforming them and making them his own, a form of larceny that is as American as apple pie.”

As Wilentz convincingly illustrates, without such reinvention, popular music (and art in general) would be merely derivative, and repetitive. Dylan not only is in America; America is in him.

______________________________________

1 Last year was a down year for film, certainly when compared to 2023. I’ve seen eight of the 10 best picture nominees (the exceptions: “I’m Still Here” and “Wicked”). Of those eight, my favorite is “Anora.”

2 One could argue that the true blueprint for retrospective box sets was established by Neil Young’s “Decade,” released in 1977. Over the past 20-30 years, both Young and Dylan have set the gold standard for archival releases.

Khruangbin formed in Houston in 2010. They’re a Grammy ‘new artist’ nominee

I have never watched the Grammys and don’t plan to start tonight. But I just learned that the Texas trio Khruangbin is nominated for best new artist.

This is bizarre in any world outside the Grammys and its baroque rules. Khruangbin (pronounced KRUNG-bin) released their first album 10 years ago; their fourth album came out last April. Their work includes two EPs with Leon Bridges and a collaboration four years ago with Paul McCartney. I first became a fan after watching their 2018 Tiny Desk Concert.

(I’m not familiar with Sabrina Carpenter’s music, but she, too, is up for best new artist despite having released six albums since 2015.)

Given that it feels both vintage and timeless, writers struggle to describe Khruangbin’s mostly instrumental music. Ryan Bradley, in a New York Times Magazine profile last year, called their sound “extremely slippery, genrewise. (Is it psychedelic lounge dub? Desert surf rock? The sound you hear inside a lava lamp?)” A succinct summary might be “laid-back, dreamy funk with global influences.”

Khruangbin consists of Mark Speer on guitar, Laura Lee Ochoa on bass and DJ Johnson on drums. Or, as one commenter perfectly put it on the video I share below, “Khruangbin: a man on guitar. A woman on bass. And Father Time.”

Johnson is a human metronome, anchoring the music as it sways hypnotically on Ochoa’s melodic basslines. Speer’s fluid guitar playing is soulful and mesmerizing.

Johnson also plays keyboards. Speer and Ochoa wear matching wigs.

They are a successful band, with a solid, longtime fan base. Their success has scattered them across the country. Johnson remains in Houston, where the band formed in 2010, but Ochoa now lives in Brooklyn and Speer is in Northern California, according to Bradley’s profile. They get together to record and tour but otherwise lead separate lives. They reportedly still like each other and have no problems putting their egos aside for the sake of the band.

Maybe distance will secure their longevity. It would be a shame if these “new artists” found themselves at the end of their run just as they’re getting started.

When the world feels like it’s falling apart

William Butler Yeats’ “The Second Coming” has popped into my head more than once during this past upside-down week. Well, mainly the haunting and well-known line, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

I’m determined not to be drawn in by the outrage of the moment. The “ever-present subject” of this blog isn’t politics and it certainly isn’t Donald Trump, despite my first few posts. My aim is to write about all topics that interest me – not only politics, but also history, culture, science, etc. I remind myself that not everything deserves a reaction.

William Butler Yeats

And yet … Trump and his pseudo-conservative cheerleaders (see my previous post) are living up to their expected awfulness – exceeding it, if that’s possible. It’s easy to feel like everything’s spinning off its axis.

Hence, thoughts of a century-old poem. Yeats wrote “The Second Coming” with the horrors of the First World War still raw and amid the Irish War of Independence and the 1918-19 flu pandemic that almost killed his pregnant wife, Georgie. In the poem, Yeats surveys a world unravelling and anticipates with dread the arrival of something even more unsettling.

“Literature is news that stays news,” Yeats’ contemporary, Ezra Pound, wrote in “ABC of Reading.” Since its publication, “The Second Coming” has remained profoundly resonant. Joan Didion notably quoted the poem in her essay, “Slouching Towards Bethlehem,” when she chronicled the disorder of 1967 Haight-Ashbury in San Francisco. The piece helped Didion regain her footing as a writer.

Perhaps that’s the lesson, then. Conviction may falter in the swirling chaos, but it doesn’t vanish. It remains to be rediscovered, reinvigorated, reinforced – an anchor to steady us.

The Second Coming
William Butler Yeats

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

After everything, here we go again

The second Trump administration is officially a reality. It is deeply disheartening that a plurality of voters would overlook the chaos and corruption of Donald Trump’s first term, his 34 felony convictions, his liability for sexual assault and, most troubling for our democracy, his violent attempt to overturn the 2020 election to return him to the office for which he is manifestly unfit.

Throughout American history, a percentage of our fellow citizens have been dissatisfied with, or even hostile toward, our ideals and institutions. Sometimes, this discontent simmers on the margins. At other times, like now, it swells into a more significant force.

Even so, this faction rarely represents more than about a third of the population, and the number of true believers is smaller. Yet it’s cold comfort to say that Trump failed to win a majority of the 2024 vote (49.8%) or that only 31.6% of eligible voters actively supported him. Because here we are.

Here we are because some portion of that 31.6% voted for Trump because of what they know about him, not despite it. And because another 34% of eligible voters couldn’t bother to vote at all.

And so, after everything we already know about Donald Trump, here we are.

Since the New Deal ushered in a decadeslong series of economic, social and cultural reforms, reactionary discontent in our politics has often been expressed by a particular brand of conservatism that historian Richard Hofstadter, in a 1954 essay, called “pseudo-conservative.” Unlike classical conservativism, which values stability and the measured stewardship of institutions, pseudo-conservatism is rooted in anxiety about declining social status. It thrives on grievance and nostalgia for an idealized past.

Pseudo-conservatives see themselves as morally true conservatives. They echo conservative language, drape themselves in the flag, invoke the Constitution and call themselves patriots. Yet these self-proclaimed “real Americans” paradoxically embrace authoritarian tendencies and a willingness to dismantle democratic norms. They reject diversity and pluralism, offer few coherent policy solutions (in fact, political incoherence is a defining trait) and channel their energy into retribution. A more accurate term for them might be “revanchists,” a fancy political term derived from the French word “revanche,” meaning “revenge.”

The lineage from pseudo-conservatives to movement conservatives to the tea party and MAGA is unmistakable. To dismiss them as cranks or extremists, however much they might actually be, is to underestimate their enduring influence and diminish the need to effectively counter them. When their interests happen to align with the general disinterest of apolitical swing voters — whose own vague, perpetual disgruntlement with whoever is in power at any given moment has repeatedly shifted congressional control between Republicans and Democrats since 1980 — the nation’s trajectory can change dramatically.

With most newly inaugurated presidents, we have no way of knowing whether they will rise to greatness, falter into failure or settle into mediocrity, trapped by the gravitational pull of William Taft and so many others. With Trump, there is no such uncertainty. We know exactly what we’re getting.

Spite. Disruption. Political nihilism.

Brace yourselves.

Sorry, Grover Cleveland, but company is on its way

Four years ago, I wrote about an odd little historical parallel: Presidential elections from 1980 to 2020 mirrored those from 1788 to 1828. Both periods began with two-term heavyweights (George Washington, Ronald Reagan), moved on to a one-and-done president (John Adams, George H.W. Bush) and gave us three consecutive two-termers (Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe; Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama). In 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump paralleled John Quincy Adams, a president who won the White House in 1824 despite losing the popular vote and who failed to secure a second term in 1828.

For this pattern to have continued, Joe Biden needed to serve two terms, like Andrew Jackson, who succeeded J.Q. Adams. By dropping out of the race this summer, Biden brought this parallel to a dead end.

The 76-year period following Jackson, from 1836 to 1912, was a wild ride in presidential history. Only three presidents managed to get reelected, and only Ulysses Grant finished a second term. Abraham Lincoln and William McKinley were both assassinated early in their second terms. A third president, James Garfield, was assassinated before he really even got started, and two others, William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor, couldn’t stay alive long enough to leave much of a mark.

Grover Cleveland, the 22nd
and 24th U.S. president

The Whigs came and went, the Know-Nothings had a MAGA-like moment and the Republican Party was born, looking nothing like today’s GOP. The era packed in everything. The Civil War. The failure of Reconstruction (a failure that still haunts this country; “with malice toward none,” my ass, Abe). Genocide. Land grabs. The Gilded Age. Political corruption. Robber barons. Anarchists. Riots. Bombings. Banking panics. And we think we’re living in tumultuous times!

Oh, and tariffs. At least in one respect, Trump’s win propels us from a parallel with the early 19th century straight into a parallel with the late 1800s, when tariffs were a hot-button issue. They were contentious then, they’ll be contentious now. And for the first time since Grover Cleveland, we have a president who was elected to serve nonconsecutive terms.

One more thing: This chaotic era in American history also saw the beginnings of bureaucratic and progressive reforms, starting with Chester Arthur and the Pendleton Act of 1883 and Cleveland, then gaining momentum with Teddy Roosevelt. These reforms would lay the groundwork for FDR, the New Deal, the so-called liberal consensus of the mid-20th century, and the policies and programs over a roughly 40-year period that actually made America greater than it had ever been before – policies conservatives have been longing to dismantle for decades. And now? They’ve never been closer to their goal.