Bob Dylan - deal with the devil?

[BHelmet]

There are plenty of musical artists who have come right out and said they made a deal with the devil. Whether this 'devil' is, in their minds, some actual devil, THE 'devil' or just an alignment with the STS media controlling power structure perhaps does not matter.

You said you'd never compromise
.....
As you stare into the vacuum of his eyes
And say do you want to make a deal?

As outsiders, we don't really absolutely know the answer. In Dylan's case, if I had to make a guess, I'd say it is not the creative Absolute I or II that he is talking about or he wouldn't seem so guarded in his answer. How else does a young teenager get thrust into the public awareness and consciousness so quickly and readily if not through making a deal; some agreement or acquiescence to an agenda of those at the top of the entertainment pyramid?

 

[BHelmet]

Hi folks, If your really interested in an alternative view of Bob and the biz, check this article:

http://mileswmathis.com/dylan.pdf

..take your big "grain of salt" with you if your not familiar with Miles ( the guy has NO fear of going "down the rabbit hole" though his writing style does come off as a bit self important ) or fully aware of the artistic-cultural psy-op that has been fed to us for the past 80+ years. Personally, as a half-assed folk singer/writer myself, I never liked Bob much and never understood why so many critics put him on a pedestal, but i gave him props on some of his lyrics...in the above link the author asserts that he did not pen most of his "good stuff"....and much more. The article gave me more than a few ah-ha! moments FWIW.

This link was also in the above article:

http://www.americansongwriter.com/2013/06/joni-mitchell-returns-clarifies-dylan-comments/

...Joni is a true artist, I think the interview is well worth watching, though the interviewer is kind of annoying..( bias alert!...I LOVE Joni, especially the jazz stuff...Shadows and Light, IMO, is one of the best live albums EVER!)

I have found that one of the first metrics to use as to weather a musical artist is creative/original or copycat/coat-tail rider is this; do they rest on their laurels and stay locked in the style they got famous for, or do they constantly try new things/directions?....the latter usually alienates their "fans" , the former coddles them and needs their approval. The true artist, like Joni, answers to a higher calling, IMO.

Also, on a more current note, this article is quite thought provoking too IMO.

http://mileswmathis.com/swift.pdf

it addresses more of the psy-op of what pop music is designed to do, which alines with what the C's say. ( as i don't have the time right now to root up the relevant C's comments...the most recent session comes to mind...maybe our wonderfully perspicacious poster and transcript wiz Goyobocol, or another, could help out here?)

Thanks, Dave

Hey that Miles Mathis is quite a character! VERY interesting reads - esp. re the Kennedy's and his view of sCamelot! WOW - thanks for pointing him out.

 

[beherenow]

Quote from BHelmet:

Hey that Miles Mathis is quite a character! VERY interesting reads - esp. re the Kennedy's and his view of sCamelot! WOW - thanks for pointing him out.

Your welcome. I've read just about everything in the "updates" section and a few things on his science page,( most of which is way over my head), in the last few months. His observations have actually opened my eyes further on how to really LOOK at things, especially his "artists eye" with photographic analysis. After 6 years of trying to wrap my head around all the mind blowing stuff in Laura's work, the recommended reading, and this forum, I was starting to think nothing could shock me anymore..but some of his stuff has shown me that I still have some foundational beliefs about how the world is, that I have not yet challenged.

(Off topic...so many things here still shock me too...like the sott radio show on Sunday with Jim and JoAnne Moriarty...I read sott every day, I know the utter evil of our so-called leaders, and yet after listening to their story I walked around all of Sunday evening felling like someone hit me on the head with a 2x4!)

Miles has a lot to say about the co-opting of art and artists and IMO he's almost 100% correct. I wonder about the veracity of his scientific ideas, but I don't even understand the ideas that he refutes so I can't really form an opinion on that... the curious ( and lazy) part of me would like to see a real physicist, like Ark, review his work, but I have a strong feeling that he has WAY bigger and much more important things on his plate .....I don't know if its a program I'm running, but I don't feel its proper to ask him to waste his time on something like that....maybe a quick question for the C's, the percent of correctness thing?..

The Camelot article is definitely a mind blower. He really makes a quantum leap past ALL of the Kennedy stuff. For me, the jury is still out on that one...the underground monarchy makes a LOT of sense, but if that's true it leaves NO room for JFK actually being a mostly good guy. It gives me that awful and unsettling feeling you get when you watch one of your sacred cows being efficiently slaughtered right before your eyes, like Laura's and others work here has done so often. ( Please understand, I am deeply grateful for all the cow killers ...like most everyone here, I have that desire for truth, no matter how horrifying and heartbreaking, over any kind of lie)
...sorry, I'm rambling off topic a bit

Thanks you Mr.Premise for the post on The Changing Role of the Artist in Society...nicely condensed overview.

Thanks, Dave

 

[SummerLite]

Good to see some feedback on the Miles Mathis material here today. I read some of his studies last night as well, fascinating. Yes, thanks for bringing him to our attention beherenow. I read the faked Sharon Tate murder story. He points out a lot of details, background story and it makes a lot of sense. Totally agree with you Dave in shooting more sacred cows and recognizing my blind acceptances of some "stories" presented to us, even though I have a pretty suspicious mind and can see/suspect the con going on in many areas. I also want to know the truth.

Also read his take on Bob Dylan, didn't finish that one yet. But, I've heard of this before more involving Joan Baez as a agent for the other side, diverting the opposition. I never comprehended really, how the anti-war, civil rights movements of the 1960's was seen as such a threat to the ptb and all they did to stamp it out.. Miles tells many details of that which are new to me. I played Dylans album "Blood on the Tracks" yesterday morning after posting here and its SO GOOD! Then read Miles take on it all ...

I also have read about the Beatles being created in this same way and the claim they never wrote the music. At some point in my mind, I just dismissed that whole story. Is it true? Not The Beatles! lol!

After reading the Tate story I skimmed a few others but didn't read further being it was late and I was tired.. Some things seemed to outrageous to me like the OJ murders where faked also. Elvis, Jim Morrison, John Lennon (maybe J. Kennedy) are still alive. Looked at the supposed picture of the aged John Lennon, still living, and I don't think it was him.

I'm also interested to read what he has to say about the co-opting of artists. So will continue on.

Thanks Dave,

 

[Seaniebawn]

There's a couple of article's probably more than a couple posted on sott about modern art, i'll post below

Eradicating beauty: The destruction of art
http://www.sott.net/article/279037-Eradicating-beauty-The-destruction-of-art

The Plot Against Art
http://www.sott.net/article/212933-The-Plot-Against-Art

Corruption of Art: I am sick of pretending - I don't "get" art!
http://www.sott.net/article/273530-Corruption-of-Art-I-am-sick-of-pretending-I-dont-get-art

I'm woefully ignorant on some subject's this being one of them, but thought i'd post these because this is a really interesting thread.
Mr. Premise thanks for the link to the lecture notes,

it addresses more of the psy-op of what pop music is designed to do, which alines with what the C's say. ( as i don't have the time right now to root up the relevant C's comments...the most recent session comes to mind...maybe our wonderfully perspicacious poster and transcript wiz Goyacocol, or another, could help out here?)

Coyacobol if you're out their save us ;D, he/she is a really cool person

 

[Mr. Premise]

I looked at the Miles Mathis stuff and I don't buy it. It doesn't require putting your pattern-sensing mechanism into overdrive to see that pop culture is corrupting. I think he, and the people who allege that the Beatles were created in a Tavistock lab, miss the way things work. It is easier, and they always go for the path of least effort, to wait until someone like Dylan or the Beatles appear and become famous for the PTB to then co-opt it than it is to try to create something like that in advance. They are not that creative.

Mathis is reasoning backwards. Dylan is already a legend and has been for 50 years, so to go back to his early days before he became famous to say how unlikely it is that he became famous is misleading. There were probably millions of kids then who wanted to become famous but didn't. As for the stars not writing their songs they're credited for, it's like saying Shakespeare didn't write the plays because how could someone not from the upper class know all that stuff. Plus the "facts" that he is basing this on, (Dylan meeting Bobby Vee, for example) are suspect to begin with because Dylan constantly lied about his background.

I think that being aware of hyperdimensional manipulation makes such convoluted, pretzel-like arguments unnecessary.

 

[Seaniebawn]

I looked at the Miles Mathis stuff and I don't buy it. It doesn't require putting your pattern-sensing mechanism into overdrive to see that pop culture is corrupting. I think he, and the people who allege that the Beatles were created in a Tavistock lab, miss the way things work. It is easier, and they always go for the path of least effort, to wait until someone like Dylan or the Beatles appear and become famous for the PTB to then co-opt it than it is to try to create something like that in advance. They are not that creative.

Mathis is reasoning backwards. Dylan is already a legend and has been for 50 years, so to go back to his early days before he became famous to say how unlikely it is that he became famous is misleading. There were probably millions of kids then who wanted to become famous but didn't. As for the stars not writing their songs they're credited for, it's like saying Shakespeare didn't write the plays because how could someone not from the upper class know all that stuff. Plus the "facts" that he is basing this on, (Dylan meeting Bobby Vee, for example) are suspect to begin with because Dylan constantly lied about his background.

I think that being aware of hyperdimensional manipulation makes such convoluted, pretzel-like arguments unnecessary.

Yeah, that's the way I see it, I think it's a number's game, they take advantage of what's out there and pick what ever is closest to their own nature, like a psychopath, we can probably say that most of humanity is mechanical, and most of their behavior can fairly well predicted, baring lack of work, but if you wanted a sure bet you'd go for the most pathological type, I agree that western pop culture is complete crap, and since western culture is for the most part generated by Hollywood, which I would think most people would agree is ponerized, it's not worth saving, it's like lowest common denominator, a friend I used to go to college with, used to say "most people wanted to be famous, and his reply was famous for what". I think that speaks to the extreme narcissism of western society, and how far we've strayed from the path.

 

[beherenow]

Hi all,
Your welcome , summerLite.

Quote from me;
"..take your big "grain of salt" with you if your not familiar with Miles"

Mr. Premise on Yesterday at 11:57:11 PM
I looked at the Miles Mathis stuff and I don't buy it.

Mr. Premise,I hope you understand that I was not asking anyone to "buy it". I too have many reservations about his conclusions and most of his stuff goes in my file marked "the jury's out". In spite of his conclusions i think there is useful information in his speculations, and for myself, the way he sees things that are obvious but easily overlooked has helped me look at things a bit differently.

Quote from: Mr. Premise on Yesterday at 11:57:11 PM
It is easier, and they always go for the path of least effort, to wait until someone like Dylan or the Beatles appear and become famous for the PTB to then co-opt it than it is to try to create something like that in advance. They are not that creative.

Your right, they are not that creative..which is why they co-opt talented ambitious people to write songs for guys like Dylan, if they can.

I think your correct about the Beatles. They got some attention before being co-opted, but to get to the world wide fame thing, doors HAD to be opened. Those doors were already controlled, so I do feel some kind of "agreement" was made before they became a phenomenon...ditto for the Stones, IMO.

As for Dylan, I think the situation was different, and to the gate keepers, more serious. The folk movement was well established and still gaining traction long BEFORE the media was locked down around 1960. It had survived the McCarthy years and was a threat in the eyes of the war hogs. They needed an outsider, a worm that would do what they wanted in exchange for fame. If you read the whole pdf on Dylan, his family's connections in the entertainment biz really does look pretty damning..dismissing it by saying he "constantly lied about his background" seems a bit flippant to me...and your partly right; he DID lie about his background, but the lie was he was a drifter (like Woody) and a man of the people, not a rich Jewish wannabe folk singer from Minnesota.

I think doors were opened for him BEFORE he got famous. Here's my reasons, ( please feel free to refute them, since they are partly speculative FWIW) first, he wasn't a good musician, and his early vocal style was lamely impersonating Woody G., his hero. There were plenty of better players/singers that could have done the same thing...the only problem for the "gatekeepers" was that most all of the already slightly famous folk singers and wannabes were passionate and politically motivated. The people who got into that movement weren't in it for the money, they actually had something to say...there were other genres of music for the mindlessly ambitious.

There was a kind of "unity in the ranks". It would have been pretty hard to find someone who would stab their peers in the back. The folk movement was different, it wasn't just entertainment or artistic ambition. They wrote and sung to keep people awake about atrocities of the past committed by psycho-oligarchs and were totally pro-union and pro-people. I have very few doubts about the PTB having a VERY strong desire to just get rid of them all....,look what happened to Phil Ochs, one of the most passionate, intelligent, articulate writers in the movement...IMO he was targeted with MK Ultra stuff.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm ranting, but i thought Dylan derailed the folk movement long before I ever got here or read Miles little tome.
I've read a good bit about the movement and was influenced by guys like Pete Seager, Phil, Doc Watson and many others, and if you do some digging you'll will find some pretty harsh opinions from people who were there, FWIW.

I think my point here is not that pop-culture is corrupting...it has always been corrupting, it set was up to keep you constantly in a state of flux, always chasing after the latest tune, band, gadget, fashion etc. for which you hand over your hard earned bread to a psycho-oligarch. What you need your pattern-sensing mechanism for, overdrive or not, is realizing the level of manipulation these sick f***s will go to to take away your personal power....but I think I'm preachin' to the choir on that point so I'll sign off now.

Thank for the reply's....and watch that Joni interview if you got the time, its an interesting glimpse into the mind of a real artist, IMO.
Thanks, Dave

 

[Mr. Premise]

I really don't think anyone else wrote Dylan's songs. No one else could write like that. And he speaks like that and writes prose in the same way, if you've read Chronicles. Very idiosyncratic. Who could they hire that could write like that. It was light years beyond what any of the other folk singers like Seeger and Ochs could come up with. He was aiming at something completely different, marrying the European symbolist and surrealist poetic modernist tradition with American folk and rock and roll. This was way more creative, it changed the way popular songs lyrics could be written, than anything the older folkies ever came up with. That's one reason they weren't happy with him after 1965.

 

[Cleo]

Have been following this thread and watched the rest of the interview that the clip is from. Definitely puzzling what Dylan had to say in that clip. Anyway, in light of what has been discussed here in this thread about Dylan's songs, I thought this part of the same interview was especially interesting:

Q: You ever look at music you’ve written and look back at it and say, ‘Whoa, that surprised me'?
Dylan: I use to. I don’t do that anymore. I don’t know how I got to write those songs.
Q: What do you mean you don’t know how?
Dylan: Those early songs were almost magically written. Darkness at the break of noon. Shadows even the silver spoon. The Hand made blade, the child’s balloon. Try to sit down and write something like that. There’s a magic to that, and it’s not Siegfried and Roy kind of magic, you know? It’s a different kind of a penetrating magic. And, you know, I did it. I did it at one time.
Question: You don’t think you can do it today?
Dylan: Un-hunh.
Question: Does that disappoint you?
Dylan: Well you can’t do something forever and I did it once and I can do other things now, but I can’t do that.

Here is a link to the entire interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6p9cBA7B9o

Heard quite a bit of Dylan's earlier music growing up (my parents were both fans of his earlier music, my mother especially). Saw him live in the mid 90's with my family when I was a teenager. Seems like he had a cowboy hat on, remember him playing "Mr. Tambourine Man." I appreciate his earlier music a lot more now than I did growing up.

I've only skimmed some of the article about Dylan by Miles Mathis but the bit I've read, although interesting, seems exaggerated.

 

[Tigersoap]

Have been following this thread and watched the rest of the interview that the clip is from. Definitely puzzling what Dylan had to say in that clip. Anyway, in light of what has been discussed here in this thread about Dylan's songs, I thought this part of the same interview was especially interesting:

Q: You ever look at music you’ve written and look back at it and say, ‘Whoa, that surprised me'?
Dylan: I use to. I don’t do that anymore. I don’t know how I got to write those songs.
Q: What do you mean you don’t know how?
Dylan: Those early songs were almost magically written. Darkness at the break of noon. Shadows even the silver spoon. The Hand made blade, the child’s balloon. Try to sit down and write something like that. There’s a magic to that, and it’s not Siegfried and Roy kind of magic, you know? It’s a different kind of a penetrating magic. And, you know, I did it. I did it at one time.
Question: You don’t think you can do it today?
Dylan: Un-hunh.
Question: Does that disappoint you?
Dylan: Well you can’t do something forever and I did it once and I can do other things now, but I can’t do that.

I don't know exactly what Dylan is thinking when he talks about magic but perhaps it's just his mysterious way of talking about how, as an artist, you sometimes do things at a certain period of your life that you would not be able to do again when you're older, because you have changed, life has changed you & the external circumstances have changed and so on.

As all musicians, I suppose that sometimes things just click in a certain way but you would not be able to summon it at will.
Maybe he is not aware that he probably worked months or years before it all came together at the back of his mind, waiting for the right connections between ideas and then put everything on paper, because usually that's how it goes.

I remember that a lot of artists said the same things in different ways that you can't create or play the same song twenty years after with the same intention or mood for example.

Thus said, I checked Miles Mathis papers and I am a bit dubious about his conclusions in general.
Everything is faked, no victims at sandy hook, no planes hit the twin towers etc...okaaaay...
His grandiose sense of self is off-putting but that's just me.

 

[luc]

I looked at the Miles Mathis stuff and I don't buy it. It doesn't require putting your pattern-sensing mechanism into overdrive to see that pop culture is corrupting. I think he, and the people who allege that the Beatles were created in a Tavistock lab, miss the way things work. It is easier, and they always go for the path of least effort, to wait until someone like Dylan or the Beatles appear and become famous for the PTB to then co-opt it than it is to try to create something like that in advance. They are not that creative.

I really don't think anyone else wrote Dylan's songs. No one else could write like that.
...

Yes, I think these claims are pretty far-fetched too. It's an extremely difficult and complex explanation for something that can be explained better using common sense and psychology.

I don't know exactly what Dylan is thinking when he talks about magic but perhaps it's just his mysterious way of talking about how, as an artist, you sometimes do things at a certain period of your life that you would not be able to do again when you're older, because you have changed, life has changed you & the external circumstances have changed and so on.

I agree, this is what I thought as well. I'm not saying that there are not "connections to higher levels/centers" sometimes involved in art, but we shouldn't think about it in terms of literal "magic". But it IS interesting that Dylan puts it that way. It could also have something to do with the "air"/general energies at that time, which was a major "reality crossroad" I think.

I think that being aware of hyperdimensional manipulation makes such convoluted, pretzel-like arguments unnecessary.

I looked at the Miles Mathis stuff and I don't buy it. It doesn't require putting your pattern-sensing mechanism into overdrive to see that pop culture is corrupting. I think he, and the people who allege that the Beatles were created in a Tavistock lab, miss the way things work. It is easier, and they always go for the path of least effort, to wait until someone like Dylan or the Beatles appear and become famous for the PTB to then co-opt it than it is to try to create something like that in advance. They are not that creative.

He was aiming at something completely different, marrying the European symbolist and surrealist poetic modernist tradition with American folk and rock and roll. This was way more creative, it changed the way popular songs lyrics could be written, than anything the older folkies ever came up with. That's one reason they weren't happy with him after 1965.

Mr. Premise, so what you are saying is that Dylan is a great artist, but there probably was hyperdimensional manipulation going on (not necessarily in a direct/specific way) that took advantage of Dylan and helped him become famous, probably with strings attached that Dylan may be aware of (think corrupt music/pop/media business), and as a highly creative and famous artist he forever changed the way pop music lyrics could be written - is that it? I'm just curious - you think the PTB (whatever that means) would allow such a paradigm shift if not for their own purposes? Again, I'm really ambivalent regarding the Dylan phenomenon...

 

[beherenow]

Hi all,

Thus said, I checked Miles Mathis papers and I am a bit dubious about his conclusions in general.
Everything is faked, no victims at sandy hook, no planes hit the twin towers etc...okaaaay...
His grandiose sense of self is off-putting but that's just me.

I agree with that, and i don't think its just you, i feel the same way and still enjoy how he provoked me to think...its the standard internet writer cocktail, truth+ speculation...though he does state pretty clearly and often that what he writes is opinion....quite unlike this statement...

I really don't think anyone else wrote Dylan's songs. No one else could write like that. And he speaks like that and writes prose in the same way, if you've read Chronicles. Very idiosyncratic. Who could they hire that could write like that. It was light years beyond what any of the other folk singers like Seeger and Ochs could come up with. He was aiming at something completely different, marrying the European symbolist and surrealist poetic modernist tradition with American folk and rock and roll. This was way more creative, it changed the way popular songs lyrics could be written, than anything the older folkies ever came up with. That's one reason they weren't happy with him after 1965.

"No one else could write like that.", wow, I'm sorry, I didn't realize Bob was so special... " Who could they hire that could write like that." , apparently, not a single one of the 4 or 5 billion people on the planet at the time. I stand corrected, thank you!

"He was aiming at something completely different, marrying the European symbolist and surrealist poetic modernist tradition with American folk and rock and roll. "

Again, your right. Ambiguous and nonsensical phrases that can be interpreted differently by any given listener is certainly "different" than speaking truth to power in a simple and clear way...its called "muddying the waters so one appears deep", and pretty much guts any real message from a song.

As a self educated hick that barely made it through high school i do suffer with a anti-intellectualism program. I've been working to get over that, and still, words like, "European symbolist and surrealist poetic modernist tradition" look like a big steaming pile of equine scat to me.

One last thing that I can personally relate to, and Miles did mention this..What kind of person, who sees the injustices and corruption of a sick and rotten government and is fully aware that its only gotten worse, would accept the accolades from the very same psychos he spent his whole life fighting? It just does NOT make sense. Do you really think an awakened, righteously angry artist would accept ANY kind of approval from a POS like Obama?...if it was me I would publicly tell him to stick that award up his ass sideways AND rotate it! ( Note; I am fully aware that some of the "old folkies" accepted government accolades in their old age, and frankly, it made me sick.)

Take care of that cow Don..and make sure you only feed it grass so if you ever get around to slaughtering it you will have some healthy steaks!

That's my 2 cents...and now I'm broke. :D Thanks, Dave

 

[BHelmet]

It is easier, and they always go for the path of least effort, to wait until someone like Dylan or the Beatles appear and become famous for the PTB to then co-opt it than it is to try to create something like that in advance. They are not that creative.

Ok, this topic seems to have kicked up a major dust storm! Hopefully we all can learn from it. I would be willing to bet there are some sacred cows milling around in the stockyard on all sides.

First, off, one person speaking in generalities and one speaking in specifics is a sure fire recipe for misunderstanding. That is issue number one here, as I see it. Mathis is speaking in ultra-specifics and seems to have done a ton of research. Is he right about Dylan? We don't really know. The reading error of our machines is going to have a large margin of error in this. None of us were there in the back room or the studio. We can look at outward events, but we only really have subjective conjecture. And part of the 'reading error' is going to be our pre-conceived notions.

Next, speaking in absolutes, particularly absolute generalities, is also a slippery slope. 'They ALWAYS go for the path of least effort'. When I think of the PTB I also include the 4D STS overseers since they are calling a lot of the major shots.

Is manipulating timelines by creating alternate universes and bridging realities a path of least effort? OR, does the slow and painstaking take-over of society and government in the US by a secretive pathocracy using elaborate psyops, buy-outs, and rub-outs an effortless proposition?

In the 60's the PTB HAD to feel threatened by the burgeoning political awareness and protests that started to manifest. Flooding the society with drugs and misdirection through music was part of the strategy (I don't think anybody will disagree with that one) - they were scrambling - they needed 'their' boys (and girls) at the top of the charts to guide the conversation and try to restore a sense of normalcy as well as to confuse and obfuscate. This was easy for them to do. The payola in the music business was and is well known.

Now, in defense of Mr Premise' ideas, a good argument could be made that Dylan started off innocently enough and was bought off around Highway 61 Revisited which is where Dylan lyrically goes from folk/protesting injustice/pathos for the human plight and morphs into Major Theater of the Absurd: A perfect cocktail to go with an infusion of mind addling drugs. "Wow, Heavy Man...that slide whistle was farrr outtt" (Cheech and Chong voice)

How does it happen now? Did Taylor Swift or Madonna or Lady Gaga first become famous and then become co-opted? Perhaps what happens is not that they become famous first but that they display talent first and a willingness to compromise any morals they might have and then they get invited into the inner circles. Who determines what gets airplay? I think the landscape in music is a mixed bag that has been evolving over the decades with tighter and tighter control and a narrower focus of what is acceptable for the cultural gatekeepers. Oh, yeah - with a heavy dose of social and psychic manipulation.

As an aside, the Laurel Canyon screed certainly indicates most of the folk/country rock bands of the sixties were thrown together and given a red carpet ride to the top in spite of a lack of talent. (session men doing the recordings and the live act being a slop-fest.) Not to mention their parental backgrounds. Jim Morrison was another one with military intelligence parents, if I am not mistaken.

Mathis is reasoning backwards. Dylan is already a legend and has been for 50 years, so to go back to his early days before he became famous to say how unlikely it is that he became famous is misleading.

How do you start out being a legend from day one? It kind of inverts the definition of legendary. You become a legend after 50 years. I admit, I do have a tendency to believe the worst; to believe in conspiracies, the more outrageous, the better!. So, that is my sacred cow here.

I think that being aware of hyperdimensional manipulation makes such convoluted, pretzel-like arguments unnecessary.

Well, the hyperdimensional manipulation meme is itself convoluted and pretzel-like, from a 'normal' point of view, so, it all fits as far as I can tell.

I guess the question is this: Were Dylan's earlier 'innocent' protest songs just that? An honest protest and raising to general public consciousness the issues of injustice of the day by a talented, if quirky sounding, artist? OR, much like is done with the Disney kid stars of today: Was Dylan intentionally positioned early on as a champion of justice only to be morphed into something else as time wore on with the intent that he would take his following with him down a misdirected path?

 

[BHelmet]

Heh, heh; just to further muddy the waters, if you were not aware, Mark Knopfler played guitar on the Slow Train Coming album and has been a long time Dylan side man. I LOVE Knopfler's style and sound, but, if you are in the "Dylan's a tool of the illuminati" camp... guilt by association? Another one bites the dust? Ouch! How many consciousness raising songs have Dire Straights cranked out? Please! Somebody list them. Roller Girl? A ton of guy/girl messed up love songs? Sultans? (I can play the lead almost note for note) I want my MTV? Somebody help! Et tu, Knopfler? Somebody slap me, please!