uTopianTurtleTop

The last couple of days, songs of mine have been going through my head, one from a few years ago, and one from 1990 or '91, from my last year in Chicago. And then I heard "Tangled Up in Blue" in a cafe yesterday, and was put in my place! Not in a bad way -- I may never write a song as good as "Tangled," but few do. Or, rather, lots of songs may be as good in their way, but "Tangled" is unique in its lyrical breadth.

Went home and put on the only Dylan that I have on disc, Self-Portrait, my favorite Dylan album, easily. Maybe no masterpiece songs, like on his mid-60s and mid-70s peaks, but no super-annoying songs either, and great performances, and great covers, and I love the bad-assed-ness of the conceit, that Bob at his most-obviously masked, switching masks from song to song, his two styles duetting with each other on a single song (country crooner Bob duetting with folky raspy Bob on a fantastic cover of "The Boxer") -- that the Self Portrait is a collection of masks that don't fit together. The only album that remotely reminds me of it is The Great Rock-n-Roll Swindle.

Songs. I LOVE SONGS. I want to shout it out. I LOVE SONGS. Like the Psalms say, Make a Joyful Noise.

Dylan's presence looms large in the 40th anniversary issue of Rolling Stone, getting an interview from The Man himself, founder and publisher Jann Wenner. And it's a great interview -- hilarious to see Wenner vainly trying to match wits with Dylan, and being arrogant and famous enough to call bullshit on Dylan when Dylan's being evasive, only he isn't nearly quick enough -- and who would be? -- to trap the master evader.

Bob, come on.

No, you come on.

What can I do to get you to take this seriously?

I'm taking it seriously.

You're not.

Of course I am. You're the one who's here to be celebrated. Forty years . . . forty years with a magazine that obviously now has intellectual recognition. Did you ever think that would happen when you started?

I was taking it seriously.

Look how far you've come. You're the one to be interviewed. I want to know just as much from you as you want to know from me.

What do you think of Neil Young?

Neil is very sincere, if nothing else. He's sincere, and he's got a God-given talent, with that voice of his, and the melodic strain that runs through absolutely everything he does. He could be at his most thrashy, but it's still going to be elevated by some melody. Neil's the only one who does that. There's nobody in his category.

Tell me about George Harrison.

George got stuck with being the Beatle that had to fight to get songs on records because of Lennon and McCartney. Well, who wouldn't get stuck? If George had had his own group and was writing his own songs back then, he'd have been probably just as big as anybody. George had an uncanny ability to just play chords that didn't seem to be connected in any kind of way and come up with a melody and a song. I don't know anybody else who could do that, either. . . .

What was your relationship with John Lennon like? Somewhat competitive?

Yeah. Only to a certain extent, but not really. Him and McCartney both, really, they were fantastic singers. Lennon, to this day, it's hard to find a better singer than Lennon was, or than McCartney was and still is. I'm in awe of McCartney. He's about the only one that I am in awe of. He can do it all. And he's never let up. He's got the gift for melody, he's got the rhythm, he can play any instrument. He can scream and shout as good as anybody, and he can sing a ballad as good as anybody. And his melodies are effortless, that's what you have to be in awe of. . . . [Ellipses in original.] He's just so damn effortless. I just wish he'd quit [laughs]. Everything that comes out of his mouth is just framed in melody.