Blogroll

Dylan treats fans equally, even those named Obama

Anyone who’s attended a Bob Dylan concert knows he is far from a gregarious stage presence. After attending several of his concerts, my wife and I remarked to each other at a show in Minneapolis that he’d actually spoken to the audience other than announcing a song title or saying “Thanks.”

But if you think you’ve just happened to catch Dylan on a day he’s out of sorts, an appearance at the White House shows he doesn’t change much, regardless of the audience. Here’s what President Obama said about Dylan’s performance in a lengthy interview with Rolling Stone:

Here’s what I love about Dylan: He was exactly as you’d expect he would be. He wouldn’t come to the rehearsal; usually, all these guys are practicing before the set in the evening. He didn’t want to take a picture with me; usually all the talent is dying to take a picture with me and Michelle before the show, but he didn’t show up to that. He came in and played “The Times They Are A-Changin’.” A beautiful rendition. The guy is so steeped in this stuff that he can just come up with some new arrangement, and the song sounds completely different. Finishes the song, steps off the stage — I’m sitting right in the front row — comes up, shakes my hand, sort of tips his head, gives me just a little grin, and then leaves. And that was it — then he left. That was our only interaction with him. And I thought: That’s how you want Bob Dylan, right? You don’t want him to be all cheesin’ and grinnin’ with you. You want him to be a little skeptical about the whole enterprise. So that was a real treat.

Hey, at least he shook Obama’s hand.


But even the president of the United States
Sometimes must have to stand naked

“It’s Alright, Ma (I’m Only Bleeding),” Bob Dylan, Bringing It All Back Home

Banned Books Week: But you can go to the movie

We are frequently surprised at some of the books that are subject to challenge in libraries and schools, such as Huckleberry Finn or Harry Potter. Yet banned books are frequently a source of highly acclaimed films.

In connection with Banned Books Week, there’s a list circulating of 15 of “the most iconic, popular, and/or celebrated movies of all time — all of which are based on books that have been banned, formally challenged, or burned.” So what’s on the list?

  • A Clockwork Orange (which was itself condemned by the Catholic Church and was withdrawn from general circulation in the U.K. despite earning four Oscar and three Golden Globe nominations)
  • Brokeback Mountain (five Academy Award nominations and winner of the Golden Globe for Best Picture)
  • Forrest Gump (won six Academy Awards, including Best Picture, and three Golden Globes, including Best Drama)
  • Gone With the Wind (not only did the book win the Pulitzer Prize, the movie won the Best Picture Oscar)
  • Harry Potter films (only the highest grossing film franchise of all time)
  • Lord of the Rings films (combined for 30 Academy Award nominations and 17 Oscars, including Best Picture for The Return of the King)
  • Precious (six Oscar nominations, including winning the Oscar for Best Writing, and three Golden Globe nominations)
  • Sophie’s Choice (earned Meryl Streep the Best Actress Oscar and Golden Globe)
  • The Color Purple (11 Oscar and five Golden Globe nominations)
  • The Godfather (need I say anything?)
  • The Shining (despite Jack Nicholson, the only one of director Stanley Kubrick’s last nine films to get no Academy Award or Golden Globe nominations)
  • There Will Be Blood (eight Oscar and two Golden Globe nominations)
  • To Kill A Mockingbird (Gregory Peck, Best Actor awards — ring a bell?)
  • Twilight series (for those who think movies can’t lead kids to books)
  • Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (okay, Gene Wilder’s Willy is awfully irritating creepy)

A censor is a man who knows more than he thinks you ought to.

Laurence Peter

Reflections on the Festival of Books

This is coming a day or so later than planned but that’s not bad compared to what I’m going to confess. Despite my book addiction, this year was the first time I ever attended the South Dakota Festival of Books. So a couple days late is far better than years late.

I have no good reason for not attending before, particularly those here in Sioux Falls. This year I saw what I missed and my experience was enhanced because I volunteered for the festival. While all the attendees had an opportunity meet and greet a wide variety of authors, my role as a moderator gave me the opportunity to have personal discussions with Peter Orner, Hampton Sides and Deborah Amos, among others. Interestingly, though, given the swing in my reading toward fiction and foreign fiction, ever panel I moderated or attended, with the exception of the one below, dealt with nonfiction.

The panel discussion “Are Books Obsolete?: Reading in the Digital Age” with book critic Michael Dirda, Project Gutenberg’s Michael Hart, and author Marilyn Johnson was intriguing, particularly given the audience’s interest and involvement, but, as others have noted, perhaps a bit of posturing. (Dirda also expressed his disdain for blogs, which he once called “opportunities for shallow grandstanding and overblown ranting, all too often by kids hoping to be noticed for their sass and vulgarity.”)

That panel, though, revealed one problem the Festival has. Many who attend a session by an author or a panel want them to last longer. The “Are Books Obsolete?” discussion could have gone on for an afternoon or a day. Most of those attending the presentation of Deborah Amos would have stayed another hour, I’m sure. The Festival, though, is not responsible for the fact there’s only so much time in a day.

As far as I’m concerned, the festival was a success and I’m kicking myself for not having attended before. A tip of the hat not only to the South Dakota Humanities Council and the South Dakota Center for the Book for their hard work but also to all the authors, booksellers, volunteers and others who made it possible. It is now on my “do not miss” list.


Literary imagination is an aesthetic object offered by a writer to a lover of books.

Gaston Bachelard, Fragments of a Poetics of Fire

Banned Books Week: Should some books be banned?

Although not written in connection with our Banned Books Week, the books columnists for The Independent raised an interesting question earlier this month in connection with something London libraries were doing: are there some books that public libraries shouldn’t carry?

Boyd Tonkin came up with a list of 10 books that could conceivably raise that question. They include Messages to the World, a collection of statements by Osama bin Laden; Did Six Million Really Die?, a Holocaust denial pamphlet; the Marquis de Sade’s The 120 Days of Sodom; Milestones, a book Tonkin calls a “core text for jihadis”; and Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. In a typical lawyer-like response, I say whether they show up in a public library depends.

For example, there is no reason a university library should reject any of these books. That may or may not be true for a middle school. While it’s hard to see the value or role of The 120 Days of Sodom in a middle school or high school library, there certainly are legitimate arguments that the bin Laden collection or Mein Kampf are worthy of study or analysis.

For public libraries in general, I don’t think it’s a question of whether libraries should own them at all but the nature of any restrictions placed on their circulation. You certainly aren’t going to let pre-teens check out the Marquis de Sade’s work but what if he or she is researching a paper on the jihadists? While some view restricting access as a form of banning, I don’t necessarily agree. As long as a library has — and follows — recognized policies and procedures for what books go into general circulation and alternative means of access for those which do not, as well as appeal and parental opt-out or opt-in procedures, I see no reason why we would otherwise restrict the content of our libraries.

Even the Bible suggests that forbidden fruit is more tempting.


If man is to discover truth, he must have access to all information and ideas, not just those fed to him.

The Mass Media and Modern Society

Music Review: Santana, Guitar Heaven: The Greatest Guitar Classics of All Time

Sometime in the summer of 1999, I popped Santana’s Supernatural into the CD player in one of our vehicles. From the back seat, I heard one of my kids (aged 8 to 13) ask in the combination disdainful/incredulous tone only kids can achieve, “Since when did you start listening to Santana?” They were just a little taken aback when I informed them that, as a matter of fact, I’d been listening to Santana for about 30 years.

Perhaps because I’m that old, I view the albums Santana released from 1970 through 1974 as among the best of the band’s and Carlos Santana’s own lengthy career. In fact, some of the lesser known albums from that period, particularly Caravanserai and Borboletta are among my favorites. Yet when you look at career fluctuations, Santana seems to have cycles of 10-12 years. The band’s latest release, Guitar Heaven: The Greatest Guitar Classics of All Time, may be marking the end of one of those cycles, one it appears he may have used up as the latest vehicle to success.

Santana landed seven albums in the top 10 between 1969 and 1981. In the rest of the 1980s and 1990s, though, the band and the guitarist gradually disappeared from the charts with an accompanying decline in sales. Fans like me would pick up occasional LPs that tended to reflect his Latin-influenced version of jazz-rock fusion. That changed dramatically in 1999, when Santana hooked up again with Clive Davis, who originally signed the band to Columbia Records, and released Supernatural. The album featured contemporary vocalists performing with Santana on a variety of songs written by him and the artists. The album not only reached number one, it was the first to win a Grammy. In fact, not only did Supernatural win Record of the Year, it received a record-tying eight Grammy Awards. Santana used a similar formula on his ensuing two releases by again inviting contemporary vocalists as guest artists.

He and Davis invoke that formula again with Guitar Heaven but while the vocalists are largely contemporary, the songs are not. These are classics to many older listeners. Eight of the 12 cuts come from the period in which Santana had great popular success, 1967 to 1972. The oldest is Willie Dixon’s 1961 “I Ain’t Superstitious” (with Jonny Lang on lead vocals but, interestingly, apparently not playing guitar on the track). The other songs come from 1979 (Van Halen’s “Dance The Night Away”), 1980 (AC/DC’s “Back In Black”) and 1983 (Def Leppard’s “Photograph”).

While the songs are familiar to listeners, Guitar Heaven opens in a somewhat interesting fashion. If a listener were blindfolded, it is unlikely they would identify the band as Santana on the first cut, Led Zeppelin’s “Whole Lotta Love.” With Chris Cornell on vocals, only a slightly more musical yet esoteric approach to the song’s break distinguishes it from the original or another cover version. In fact, it is not until about halfway through the second cut, the Rolling Stones’ “Can’t Your Hear Me Knocking,” that a listener would really catch the percussive rhythm that marks Santana bands and the signature Carlos Santana guitar licks. While Scott Weiland’s vocals are well done and the tune is largely true to form, it is only it is bathed in the distinctive Santana sound that it really grabs a person’s attention.

The percussion, the Latinesque feel and Santana’s guitar runs are present on much of the rest of the album and, for example, give “Sunshine Of Your Love” a different style. “Sunshine” also features Rob Thomas, the vocalist on the Grammy Award-winning single, “Smooth,” from Supernatural. “Sunshine” and, more particularly, “While My Guitar Gently Weeps” are the tunes that most seem to differ feel from the originals. “While My Guitar Gently Weeps” opens with Yo-Yo Ma on cello and a harpsichord-sounding keyboard. The first part of the song leans more toward acoustic and India.Arie’s vocals imbue it with a more with a more serious and soulful tone than most other versions.

An effort is made to transform “Back In Black” but laying Nas’ rap vocals on top of a heavy rock guitar style. Yet with both it and “Photograph” (with American Idol‘s Chris Daughtry on vocals), the band never seems to generate any ownership interest. In fact, that may be the ultimate failing of Guitar Heaven. These are songs guitarists, particularly great ones, can invest themselves in. While Santana’s guitar work is top-notch, too much of the album sounds like he is indulging in having guest vocalists join him on classics that are distinguished from the originals, if at all, by the band’s Latin intonations and the guitarist’s stylings. Thus, by the time we get to Papa Roach’s lead vocalist doing “Bang A Gong” or Joe Cocker singing “Little Wing” the allure has worn thin. It is really only wanting to hear the guitar solos, few of which are extended ones, that maintains much interest. (Although it is a wonderful touch to have Ray Manzarek play organ on “Riders On The Storm,” something which gives it greater undertones of the original.)

For those who like to hear contemporary singers with Santana, Guitar Heaven may provide them with some classic rock guitar “standards.” Longtime Santana fans like myself certainly are comfortably familiar with the songs and appreciate Santana’s inimitable guitar style. We, though, don’t need a different singer on each cut to make us appreciate that style or the band’s overall sound. More important, fans in either camp may prefer to hear the Santana style in original music rather than a collection of covers.


Forget the hearse ’cause I’ll never die
I got nine lives

“Back In Black”