Bob's behaviour towards MK

[twm]

"Pat Garrett and Billy The Kid"  is the film in which Dylan plays a character called "Alias".  There's a scene, just after the shooting of Billy (played by Kris Kristofferson), when Garrett (James Coburn) shouts this to another character: "What you want and what you get are two different things".

 

[vgonis]

"Pat Garrett and Billy The Kid"  is the film in which Dylan plays a character called "Alias".  There's a scene, just after the shooting of Billy (played by Kris Kristofferson), when Garrett (James Coburn) shouts this to another character: "What you want and what you get are two different things".

 /quote]

twm, I haven't seen the film, (though i've got it somewhere-moving 3 times in 5 years is really disorganizing) so i don't know the context it is told, but man this must be one of the most common phrases and feelings when you reach adulthood. And that is why it is so powerful, despite of or because of it is so damn true. 

[twm]

Yes, indeed. "Want don't get" is a phrase sometimes said to fractious children. And I seem to recall the voice of Jagger intoning "You can't always get what you want". I just thought it might be fitting in a Dylan-related context.

[vgonis]

Of course if you analyze the Stones song, it is quite revolutionary and establishment at the same time.You can't ALWAYS get what you WANT, but if you try SOMETIMES you get what you NEED. It is not right somehow, if you catch my drift.  They don't make sense when put together. But I guess they were looking for things to sound big, monumental and at the same time rhyme...

[twm]

Musically, the Stones are followers, not innovators, and, lyrically, not the most interesting of songwriters. I can recall Jagger on one of those "My Top Twelve"! radio programmes (I probably have it on cassette somewhere) and one of the songs he chose was Don Covay's "It's Better to Have and Don't Need (Than to Need and Don't Have)". I don't know if that song predates or postdates the Stones song that I mentioned but it is clearly a theme that attracts Jagger. [And the Stones were not revolutionary, just following a fashionable trend, IMHO]

And, a parting shot on the main topic here (well, perhaps a parting shot): it was Dylan who invited Mark to play on SLOW TRAIN COMING, it was Dylan who invited Mark to co-produce and play on INFIDELS and it was Dylan who first invited Mark to join him on-stage (in Australia in 1986). And it was Dylan who invited Mark to tour with him last year and Dylan who invited Mark to join him on-stage on that last tour.  That's pretty much one-way traffic, as I see it.

[dmg]

And, a parting shot on the main topic here (well, perhaps a parting shot): it was Dylan who invited Mark to play on SLOW TRAIN COMING, it was Dylan who invited Mark to co-produce and play on INFIDELS and it was Dylan who first invited Mark to join him on-stage (in Australia in 1986). And it was Dylan who invited Mark to tour with him last year and Dylan who invited Mark to join him on-stage on that last tour.  That's pretty much one-way traffic, as I see it.

So what you're saying is that Dylan wouldn't be good enough for Mark to invite on any of his projects?  I know exactly what you're saying but you can look at it from both sides.

I guess if Krusty was British we could say he was an eccentric and all would be explained, but the truth is we'll never know...

[herlock]

And, a parting shot on the main topic here (well, perhaps a parting shot): it was Dylan who invited Mark to play on SLOW TRAIN COMING, it was Dylan who invited Mark to co-produce and play on INFIDELS and it was Dylan who first invited Mark to join him on-stage (in Australia in 1986). And it was Dylan who invited Mark to tour with him last year and Dylan who invited Mark to join him on-stage on that last tour.  That's pretty much one-way traffic, as I see it.

So what you're saying is that Dylan wouldn't be good enough for Mark to invite on any of his projects?  I know exactly what you're saying but you can look at it from both sides.

I guess if Krusty was British we could say he was an eccentric and all would be explained, but the truth is we'll never know...

Re all these issues, we don't know the exact truth, but one thing is for sure: it might not be arrogance from Bob, but it does look like it to outside persons like us. And since you're always as good as your reputation... at the very least, there is a big communication mistake.

I, too, think Mark is too modest and too nice. It is touching that he is considerate towards elder artists he admires...I really enjoyed him playing with (for ?) Paul McCartney in 1997; but there are limits. I remember an old 1988 interview where an (outspoken) friend of Mark's was teasing him because Mark refused to make fun of Bono the way his friend was (in the lines of "Oh, thanks to Bono we discovered that there is hunger on earth). This friend said "Mark would not even want to say anything bad about Hitler"; this is a tease obviously, but there is some truth in it.

I really hate this "support act" thing where I find it obvious that the so-called supporting act is the real show.

My own personal experience with this: Last year I attended Paris concert. I knew little about Bob, but I knew he was a legendary artist, who nearly got a nobel prize of litterature for his texts. I therefore came with a real open mind, no prejudice whatsoever. I had paid for this ticket anyway, I had good seats, I was just happy to be there and I prepared myself for a great show. Well, still, as opened as I was, Bob managed to kick me out of the venue. Yes, I left before the end, I just could not take it anymore. Loud sound to the point that I feared my ears would be permanently damaged. Unrecognizable words, with the best of attention. No interaction whatsoever with the audience. I started to look at my watch and think about train schedule to go home - something I had never done in a concert before.

Given that experience I find this "support act" thing all the more disgusting. Either there is synergy between both artists and you tour together on stage, like the nice Emmylou/MK 2006 tour; or you don't. But you don't say your tour together to ignore each other and steal a full length concert from the fans.

Sorry to be harsh, but this is how I feel.

[JF]

"Pat Garrett and Billy The Kid"  is the film in which Dylan plays a character called "Alias".  There's a scene, just after the shooting of Billy (played by Kris Kristofferson), when Garrett (James Coburn) shouts this to another character: "What you want and what you get are two different things".

great film
great music

[twm]

Actually, the title of this topic is "Bob's behaviour towards MK"  and what you guys have been talking about is "respect"  and "manners" (or, rather, bad manners and a lack of respect shown by Bob to Mark, as you perceive things). What I suggested was that it might be seen as the other way round.  Anyone can say they respect someone else. Bob has shown his respect for Mark by his deeds - and quite a few times over the years at that.

Herlock, you're not being harsh. You're being honest.You gave your opinion and described what you did. However, the arguement that you didn't like Bob's performance last year is irrevelant to this topic. I might even agree with some of your comments but it is nothing whatsoever to do with Bob's behaviour towards Mark, real or imagined.

Similarly, the comparison with MK's tour with Emmylou is specious. Mark and Emmylou had made an album togther and, as is Mark's wont, they toured together in support of that album and they did interviews together, to promote its sales. There's nothing wrong with that but MK's tours with Dylan are a different matter entirely.

Not good enough for one of Mark's projects? Maybe but many artists would disagree. Do you really want me to list all such contribtutions?  To other artists' albums? To "Various Artists" albums? To other artists' concerts that have become albums? I can assure you that the list is long and substantial. [And Dylan has helped both older and younger performers, both major stars and minor figures, up-and-coming artists ("relative unknowns") and those with long careers in the business]. Dylan has turned his hand to all sorts of different, widely varying and unusual projects with other people.

Dylan has also made kind comments about Bono. I happen to disagree with him but, then, I can only judge Bono by his public persona and I don't like what I see.

 I know Ed Bicknell found Dylan strange to deal with (because he told me so) and maybe Dylan would be called an eccentric in Britain but I sense that his reputation is pretty good, on the whole.

[superval99]

From Guy's forum today:

 Q:   I am sure Mark holds Bob in very high esteem. It would be nice if Bob would show some outward appreciation, you've mentioned that you were bothered by that a year ago when touring Europe. As you've said--that's Bob.

  Guy:  Mark does indeed regard Bob at the highest level but alas outward appreciation doesn't seem to be on the agenda for BD.

[herlock]

However, the arguement that you didn't like Bob's performance last year is irrevelant to this topic. I might even agree with some of your comments but it is nothing whatsoever to do with Bob's behaviour towards Mark, real or imagined.

Similarly, the comparison with MK's tour with Emmylou is specious. Mark and Emmylou had made an album togther and, as is Mark's wont, they toured together in support of that album and they did interviews together, to promote its sales. There's nothing wrong with that but MK's tours with Dylan are a different matter entirely.

I believe my argument is relevant to the topic in the sense that I feel that there is no musical rationale as to why Mark would be the "supporting act". I could be advocated, if Bob's shows were obviously superior to Mark's ones. But many people, not only me, feel that it is in fact the exact opposite: Mark has aged well and his shows are great, whereas Bob... well, I said what I felt about Bob's shows. Anyway, whatever it is, there is no way there will be a consensus on the idea that Mark is way below bob and should be a little supporting act. That's all I meant.

Yes, MK/Dylan tour is totally different from Emmylou/MK one, and this is exactly my point - if there is nothing in common, if there is no album, no promo together, no sharing, no acknowledgement, no playing together, no even a thank you.... then why the hell this tour is for ? sharing costs of venues ??

[Banjo99uk]

From Guy's forum today:

 Q:   I am sure Mark holds Bob in very high esteem. It would be nice if Bob would show some outward appreciation, you've mentioned that you were bothered by that a year ago when touring Europe. As you've said--that's Bob.

  Guy:  Mark does indeed regard Bob at the highest level but alas outward appreciation doesn't seem to be on the agenda for BD.

Guess that confirms alot of what we were assuming about BD. Not that it makes him a bad man, just odd.

[vgonis]

Maybe Bob has asked and MK refused, so that we have something to talk about here on AMIT. 
Maybe Bob asked Mark on his albums because he (correctly) thought, MK was what he needed.
Maybe Bob, well, who cares. It is all about the music.

twm, did you get the email I sent yesterday?

[twm]

vgonis, the last e-mail I got from you was dated 22 October. Is that the one?

I am quite disturbed, herlock, by your penultimate question.  The idea underlying that question is that a performer should only tour when he or she has a product to sell. Well, I disagree profoundly.  Selling an album or whatever may be a bi-product of playing concerts but it should not be the main purpose.

Your principal complaint seems to be that Mark is the support act. I think I've really answered this before. It is Bob's tour and it is highly likely that he would be touring now whether Mark was involved or not.  That does not mean that I wish Mark was not touring with Bob. It does mean that, had the two of them not been touring together now, mrs twm and I would have planned a different trip to the States. If Mark had turned Dylan's touring offer down, I'm sure someone else would have been happy to take that support role.

As to splitting the cost of venues, I simply do not know. If it were a joint, double-header, tour, then I would imagine that would be the case. I don't know the position with a supporting arrangement. I suppose it is possible that the nominated headliner bears the whole cost and financial risk but takes all the profit, paying the opening act a set fee, but I doubt it somehow.  This is all speculation, though.

Why tour together? I guess Dylan wanted an opening act, approached Knopfler and the latter accepted. End of story (in terms of the question). Beginning of the story in other ways (and for Dylan and Knopfler watchers across the world).

[Love Expresso]

I don't care  that much about Bob Dylan's behaviour towards MK and haven't posted much on this thread. Also I won't barge in - although I follow your "dispute", herlock and twm. Only thing I like to add: I would indeed think that a tour only makes sense if the artist has something to promote. I also guess there is much money involved in touring, and all those who participate need some kind of guarantee. Bob Dylan with his "Never Ending Tour" is obviously the exception of this from my point of view. Of course one could argue that sometimes, an album release is not much more than an alibi for another tour, as touring is much more profitable than album sales in general it seems.

LE