Question:
So you think wanting someone to be fair is carrying a grudge? Perhaps you
could kindly explain why it's ok for you to call people names for
criticizing Bob's decisions, but it's carrying a grudge if someone elses
criticizes you for the exact same kind of criticism? Perhaps you have some
kind of Jinx papal dispensation of imunity?
Answer:
We were discussing Unplugged. If you re-read your original reply to
me you will see you were straight in with a comment about something I
said over a year ago about having a lot of shows from 94 onwards and
considering myself knowledgeable about this period. Your tone was
sarcastic. That is why I mentioned the word 'grudge'.
Read Martin's excellent post from earlier in this thread and you might
begin to see why some of us are uneasy about the Unplugged
performance.
Yes, and in your discussion you made a blantantly wrong statement. You said
this was the one and only time Bob was in this kind of situation. I felt a
need to correct such misinformation. Seeing such a wrong statement coming
from you surprised me considering you, yourself said you were an expert on
Bob's post 94 live work. I'm sorry if I can't forget you said that. But it
does really stand out as an amazing claim.
In my earlier post I said you were expressing the feelings of many. How
does that indicate I don't see the reasons for your uneasiness? But both
you and Martin make some unproven, gossip spread statements.
First, the audience: It was not paid, nor was it hand picked by MTV. I
have friends who were at that show. One of them got high fived by Bob. Of
course MTV shuffled good looking young people to the front and signaled
cheering. Standard practice for TV shows and nothing sinister. Actually
this kind of thing has happened at some of Bob's regular shows too, by his
own people.
Second, the shirt: You are presuming you know why he wore a polka dot shirt
and that it was against his will. I think that's a huge presumption. Bob
does lots of things for his own, some would say perverse, reasons. He has a
very quirky sense of humor that's often misunderstood. So he never wore it
again. He never wore the Newport wig again. He never wore those Dr. Martin
boots from one show again. He never wore that jacket from the Martin Luther
King birthday show again. He never wore the Clinton inagural jacket/scarf
again. So what does that prove?
Third, the setlist: Your claim that he wanted to do a fascinating set of
old folk songs but the MTV execs made him play those particular songs makes
the least sense of all. As someone else pointed out, those MTV execs sure
have some odd tastes. So you're saying that Bruce, Eric, and even Kurt
Cobain were allowed to play whatever inspired them but Bob Dylan was not????
Bob would have to be a person of really low character and esteem for this
claim to have merit.
Of course Bob looked uncomfortable on Unplugged. Same was true for the Steve
Allen show, Live Aid, R&R Hall of Fame, Letterman, the Gershwin tribute, the
Juno awards, Bobfest, most of his Grammy appearances and many other times
people could site. It's a long tradition with him. If you know anything
about him, I don't think there's any mystery about the reasons why.
It surprises me that you underestimate his backbone to the extent that you
think he's so easily pressured to do things he doesn't want to do. But if
you want to believe he did Unplugged because "his record company" (which
had nothing to do with it) forced him to, go ahead.
And since you seem so very interested, no it didn't bother me or make me
feel sick that he did the show. If he wants to bump up attendance at his
shows by pulling in MTV viewers, deadheads, Willie fans, or Amazon
customers, more power to him. (and it did work every time) He's the boss of
his own career and I think he should be free to do whatever he wants with
it.
