Customer Reviews

Hard Rain: A Dylan Commentary

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Tim Riley's commentary on Dylan focuses on the music rather than the man. This focus starts fairly well, aside from Riley trying to impress us with his vocabulary. Dylan's early work (from his debut until about Highway 61 Revisited) receives a fairly thorough treatment as Riley tries to "get inside" the mind of Dylan (which is probably not a very wise thing to do in the first place). Even if you don't agree with Riley, his ideas are interesting...at least for awhile. After reading the book, it seems that Riley believes that Dylan hasn't written anything worth listening to since "Blood on the Tracks." Unfortunately the author all but ignores some of Dylan's most significant contributions past 1975. (Riley spends nearly 250 pages on the period from Dylan's debut until 1975. From 1975 on only gets 50 pages.) This book was a super disappointment by an author who seems to have an axe to grind. The work is saved by giving a good bibliography and an even better discography.

I found Mr. Riley's "Tell Me Why" a very entertinaing romp through the Beatle song catalog. Big an equally big Dylan fan, I expected the same joi de vivre to inhabit "Hard Rain," but throughout the book I got the sense that Riley didn't have the same passion for or understanding of Dylan's music and muse as he did with the Beatles. I suspect that he wrote it because it seemed like a natural thematic sequel to the Beatle book. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

I am glad to see other reviewers found this book as dissatisfying as I did.

Dylan is an enigmatic figure whose appeal lies in lyrical ambiguity, lack of polish, unorthodox phrasing of his vocals, and his constant reinventions of himself. His output has been prodigious. Riley captures this well, at least for the first half of the book.

I have two major problems with this book:
1) Riley makes statements about authorial intent which simply can't be justified. When I listen to Blood on the Tracks, I don't contemplate it as a commentary on the end of the sixties. Riley makes these obtuse statements about what Dylan is 'really saying' with such fervour that you'd think he knew Dylan personally (and if he did, so what?). That other review about Visions of Johanna is right on on this point.

2) With only a few exceptions, Riley hates anything Dylan has done since Desire. Now this is not an uncommon opinion. Dylan's voice does go through a serious decline. Many of his albums since Desire have been uneven and lyrically weak. Riley, however, kicks poor Bob when he's down and is downright huffy about some of Dylan's better efforts. He pans Oh Mercy in favour of Under the Red Sky and the Traveling Wilburies recordings (has he actually listened to Red Sky? It's flimsy at best, especially in comparison to Oh Mercy). In his updated chapter, he chides Dylan for playing for John Paul II, for not being Sinead O'Connor, and for being 'grumpy' on Time Out of Mind (which despite Riley's objections, is a solid album full of humour and great vocal phrasing). Riley's sermonizing gets progressively weak and unrestrained...

I just get the impression that Mr. Riley loved the sixties so much he lives in paranoid denial that they're over. The Republicans may be in office, and Dylan may not be the trend-setting anti-hero that he once was, but please don't blame Dylan for the loss of your adolescent dreams, Mr. Riley.

There are so many things wrong with this book that it is not worth my time listing them all. I could rant on and on about the inaccuracies in information, especially in the second half of this piece of rubbish that just falls apart when it comes to covering Dylans eighties and nineties work. Notable albums like Infidels are boiled down to a few sentances (whereas albums like Planet Waves recieve whole chapters). Riley uses a large portion of this increadibly opinionated commentary to discuss "notable" non-Dylan albums that are examples of Dylans influence (ranging from albums by Neil Young to albums by Prince) with a "why couldn't Dylan do this in the eighties" attitude. It is very difficult connecting with Riley's understanding of Dylan because it seems as though he is simply talking to himself, pointing out "good songs" and "bad songs" and offering up cute little explanations and analyses, making this a very boring read. Does Dylan really have to be dissected in such a way? In a nutshell, the "commentary" in this book, like that of a similar waste of paper called "Behind the Shades" by Clinton Heylin, is that Dylan was once a genious and is now a hasbeen with little to offer. Why do all these very dated books end the same? Because,they were premature and, as a result very pointless, considering how much has been added to the Dylan legacy in the seven years since this book was puplished. Wait till he'd dead and then make assesments of his career.

Tim Riley's book on Dylan starts fresh. He provides one of the best appreciations of Dylan's voice I have read. OK so the guy has a fresh point of view. Then he weighs into Dylan's early work with gusto. Riley appreciates Dylan's socio political protest in the image of Woodie Gutherie and also gets into what he imagines is drug fueled creativity up to 1966. He finds a drug behind every bush though which is possible but misses the multiple layering of Dylan's work. Then like the folkies who dis Dylan at Newport he starts to turn sour on Dylan during the post-66 period and gets nastier as the book moves on. Until finally in the Epilogue Riley becomes the master of mean invective against Dylan and everyone, except Wilco? Oh yeah, they are singing Woodie Gutherie songs to new tunes - right. There's the connection.

My advice - borrow the book, read until Blood on the Tracks and quit. The rest will spoil your day.

This book is a waste of paper. You will find dylanoligy at it worst, hidden behind a small amount of credibility. "Tell Me Why" is a fine book (Riley's effort about the Beatles). Riley's commentary here is trite, Vision's of Johanna is not about Heroin, it's about the time I got loaded at my friends house and was thinking about my ex-girlfriend while making out with somebody else. Of course I'm not as old as the song but you should get the point. Dylan just writes 'em. You can not possible dissect Dylan's songs and pick only songs you like calling every thing after "Blood" trash ( that's not his words that's paraphrasing the last half on the book). Some things can not be defended "Knocked and Loaded" but if anybody else put out "Oh Mercy", Riley would have been singing their praises like he sings punk rocks in the last fifty pages of his book about Dylan.

I've read at leat 15 Dylan biographies (out of print and in print). and this one stands out by far as a huge joke, stay clear of this garbage!

ouch! i can't believe the other reviews of this brilliant book. riley is right on target with most of what he says here, and he even manages to make a few old favorites sound new again due to his bold insights. (did you know that "visions of johanna" was about heroin? you do now!) if you're a serious dylan buff, you really need give this book a chance -- it's truly excellent.