Bob Dylan’s 115th Dream. Copyright © 1965 by Warner Bros. Inc.; renewed 1993 by Special Rider Music.

Boots of Spanish Leather. Copyright © 1963, 1964 by Warner Bros. Inc.; renewed 1991, 1992 by Special Rider Music.

Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right. Copyright © 1963 by Warner Bros. Inc.; renewed 1991 by Special Rider Music.

Goodbye Jimmy Reed. Copyright © 2020 by Special Rider Music.

I Dreamed I Saw St Augustine. Copyright © 1968 by Dwarf Music; renewed 1996 by Dwarf Music.

Idiot Wind. Copyright © 1974 by Ram’s Horn Music; renewed 2002 by Ram’s Horn Music.

It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue. Copyright © 1965 by Warner Bros. Inc.; renewed 1993 by Special Rider Music.

Like a Rolling Stone. Copyright © 1965 by Warner Bros. Inc.; renewed 1993 by Special Rider Music.

Love is Just a Four Letter Word. Copyright © 1967 by Warner Bros. Inc.; renewed 1995 by Special Rider Music.

Masters of War. Copyright © 1963 by Warner Bros. Inc.; renewed 1991 by Special Rider Music.

One of Us Must Know (Sooner or Later). Copyright © 1966 by Dwarf Music; renewed 1994 by Dwarf Music.

Positively 4th Street. Copyright © 1965 by Warner Bros. Inc.; renewed 1993 by Special Rider Music.

Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands. Copyright © 1966 by Dwarf Music; renewed 1994 by Dwarf Music.

Talkin’ World War III Blues. Copyright © 1963, 1966 by Warner Bros. Inc.; renewed 1991, 1994 by Special Rider Music

Tangled Up in Blue. Copyright © 1974 by Ram’s Horn Music; renewed 2002 by Ram’s Horn Music.

What Was It You Wanted. Copyright © 1989 by Special Rider Music.

When the Ship Comes In. Copyright © 1963, 1964 by Warner Bros. Inc.; renewed 1991, 1992 by Special Rider Music. All songs written by Bob Dylan.

Kevin Kane. Bob Dylan: Seeking Mirth & Beauty: Musings on How Things Come to Be. Genius Music Books, 2026.

Scott Peeples. How Many Roads: A Life of Bob Dylan. Reaktion Books, 2026.

Andrew Beck is the author of best-selling and frequently cited works such as Cultural Work (2003). He retired from Coventry University in 2017 but continues to teach, advise, research, and publish. In the last the years he has contributed to and edited eleven books, mainly on UK media politics, and occasional features for China Eye.

Anne Margaret Daniel teaches at the New School University in New York City and at Bard College in Annandale-on-Hudson. Her essays on literature, music, books, baseball, and culture have appeared in The New York Times, Hot Press, The Spectator, and The Times Literary Supplement.

Timothy Hampton is Professor of Comparative Literature at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of Bob Dylan, How the Songs Work (Zone Books, 2019) and Cheerfulness: A Literary and Cultural History (Zone Books, 2022). His newest book, Trespasser: A Story of Class, Poverty and Education in the American Desert, will be published in early 2027 by High Road Books.

Christine Hand Jones is an Assistant Teaching Professor of Writing and Reasoning at Southern Methodist University, an active singer-songwriter, and a composer-lyricist-book writer for musical theatre. She has a PhD in literary studies from the University of Texas at Dallas, earned largely by writing about Bob Dylan.

Jon Lasser is a University Distinguished and Regents’ professor in the School Psychology Program at Texas State University. He teaches the Art of Bob Dylan in the Honors College and has presented and published on Dylan’s work, utilizing primary source material at the Bob Dylan Archive.

Marc A. Mamigonian is the Director of Academic Affairs of the National Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR). He co-authored Annotations to James Joyce’s Ulysses (Oxford University Press, 2022; with John N. Turner and Sam Slote) and annotated editions of Joyce’s A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (Alma Classics, 2014; with John N. Turner) and Ulysses (Alma Classics, 2015; with John N. Turner and Sam Slote).

Olivia Carter Mather is a scholar of American popular music at Chapman University. Her recent works spans race in country music scholarship (“Race and Country Music,” The Oxford Handbook of Country Music), Eagles and American regionalism (for American Music), and an interview U2 producer Daniel Lanois (in Echo: A Music-Centered Journal).

Mason Moreno is an undergraduate student at Texas State University, expected to graduate in May 2027, and majoring in history with an emphasis on studies in popular culture. He presented at World of Bob Dylan 2025 and is currently an archival assistant at The Wittliff Collections. He has also hosted three Dylan tribute shows in Central Texas.

Celia Rabinovitch was Director of the School of Art, University of Manitoba. She has taught at the University of Colorado at Denver, Syracuse University, Emily Carr University of Art + Design, Vancouver, California College of the Arts, and the San Francisco Art Institute. She also served as Program Director for Graphic Design, Fine Arts, Music, and Art History at UC Berkeley Extension.

Robert Reginio teaches modern literature at Alfred University. His book Bob Dylan Outside the Law: The Poetics of John Wesley Harding was published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2025. He contributed to and co-edited (with David Polanski) a forthcoming collection of essays and interviews New Perspectives on Bob Dylan and the Blues (Intellect Books, 2027).

Mike Schneider has won awards for his poetry and writing. His collection Spring Mills (2023) was followed by his fourth chapbook “Many Hats” and second full-length collection Friday’s Dance (2025). In 2017, for Carnegie Mellon University’s Lifelong Learning program, he taught what he believes was Pittsburgh’s first course on Bob Dylan, repeated in 2018 and 2023.

Erica Zeitman has just finished her first year at the University of Texas at Austin, where she studies Government on a pre-law track focusing on energy and constitutional law. Her poetic influences range from Pope and Dryden to Whitman, Auden and Bob Dylan. She is drawn to Anne Carson and to the women who shaped American song — Billie Holiday, Nina Simone.

Eric Lott, author of Love and Theft: Blackface Minstrelsy and the American Working Class, talked to Dylan Review editor Paul Haney in July 2026, via video call. Eric Lott is an American cultural historian and Distinguished Professor of English at The Graduate Center, CUNY in New York City. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

 

Dylan Review: Bob Dylan famously borrowed the title of your book, Love and Theft: Blackface Minstrelsy in the American Working Class1 for his 2001 album, “Love and Theft”, as Larry “Ratso” Sloman later confirmed in the liner notes to Tell Tale Signs, Bootleg Series Vol. 8. What do you think drew Dylan to your work?

Eric Lott: I think the resonance of those terms, the “love” and the “theft,” captures something of the bittersweet, melancholy vibe of the romantic or love relations evoked on the record. And it’s catchy. In that Rome 2001 press conference, the interviewer asks Dylan if love and theft are opposites or the same, and everybody laughs; they have a repartee back and forth, and they conclude, basically, that love and theft are pretty much the same. So the way one is shot through with the other is key to some of the narrative material and the love relationships invoked on that record.

Robert Polito’s right in After the Flood2 that there’s also a theory of culture on the record, which I have also argued, a theory of cultural relations behind those terms. And I think Dylan might have appreciated my account of blackface performance as being this mixed-up scene of cross-racial love and desire and interest, as well as exploitation, social dominance, and racism. And all across the record, as many have pointed out, are any number of multitudinous references to texts, titles, and cultural items invoked, borrowed from, and addressed.

So he’s really thinking about “love” and “theft” as larger terms for the culture he’s coming out of. There’s a mixed-bag appropriation of the cultural materials that are around him, the blues in particular, that grounds most of those songs, twelve-bar forms, but also the unavoidably exploitative relations that structure those interests and those borrowings.

 

DR: In your chapter “Love and Theft,” from your book Love and Theft, you talk about the love part being “twitchy” and anxious, and the theft being more economic and cultural, like an identitarian kind of theft. Do you think Dylan was playing on that too, that he’s a little bit twitchy about what he loves and then steals?

EL: I don’t know about “twitchy.” I think he’s kind of brusque about people [calling him] a thief, certainly a borrower, a plagiarist, and he ascribes it all to folk process: “That’s just the tradition I come out of; that’s simply the way it works.” And he’s got some harsh words for people who get too heavy with him in that vein. So that’s a “maybe” on the “twitchy,” on the affective embodiment of those usages. It’s just what he does, all the way back to the masks in those interviews in the early 60s. “You know I was on the road with the circus for six years” and stuff like that. There’s a kind of shifty-eyed, circumspect, watch-your-back element that I don’t think is only a consequence of the borrowing, I think that’s just kind of the M.O. that he operates by.

 

DR: What first piqued your interest in blackface minstrelsy? How did you choose that as a topic of focus?

EL: I was, from my teenage years, really interested in jazz. Growing up and semi-maturing in the 1970s, Richard Pryor was another big influence. I felt drawn to those arts and worldviews. I wanted to write about them in graduate school. Ralph Ellison was another, Amiri Baraka, jazz-adjacent writers, Jayne Cortez. And then I began to get twitchy, if you will, about simply sitting down to write about those figures, wondering what sort of right or authority I had to do so as a white guy. I began, therefore, to wonder about the pre-history of interests like mine across the color line in Black arts, which takes you straight to Tambo and Bones, the first public stage presentation of white interest in Black stuff. And I got very interested in white appropriation, white cross-racial interest, that kind of borrowing, theft, its roots in the actual enslavement of human beings and the stealing of Black labor. It seemed to me that blackface performance, particularly at a moment when it was at its peak of popularity in the 1840s and 1850s, when so much is going on and when it congealed so many social and cultural factors of its time, ultimately leading to the revolutionary 1860s and war between the states, was a subject that could hold all that. It was a place where you could account for all those factors at once through an art form.

DR: It’s interesting that an art form, or an aesthetic mode, could have an impact on something like the Civil War, which is a topic Bob Dylan showed fascination with from his earliest days in Greenwich Village.

EL: Absolutely. And it explodes across the album “Love and Theft”, and then into the picture Masked and Anonymous, which is apparently about some kind of, quote unquote, “third world hassles” in a post-Cold War period, but is everywhere invoking Civil War stuff from Abraham Lincoln to Lee and Sherman. Civil strife of that kind has a hold on his imagination for sure.

DR: It seems to me that the film Masked and Anonymous is also in conversation with your book Love and Theft, engaging this idea that music and art are running through the conflict between two warring halves that are tearing the country apart.

EL: I’m always struck by Dylan’s choice of the song “Dixie” in Masked and Anonymous. He’s read a ton. He knows a lot. He’s thought deeply about what he knows. And I wouldn’t put it past him to know that “Dixie,” despite being a celebration of the Confederacy, was a favorite of Lincoln’s. And that Lincoln used it at campaign rallies and to celebrate the surrender at Appomattox. That there’s controversy—a whole book was written by Howard and Judith Sacks3—over the authorship of that song. Did Dan Emmett steal it from a Black musician in Ohio, though it’s credited to blackface performer Dan Emmett of the Virginia Minstrels? So the warring halves are all over that song, even in that one instance. He sings the heck out of it in Masked and Anonymous.

DR: Such a great performance. But it’s unsettling. Maybe even “twitchy” comes to mind again to watch him perform that.

EL: Absolutely. That’s exactly right. And Polito [in After the Flood] has this funny and apt description of Dylan’s performance of that song. All the other stuff [in Masked and Anonymous] kind of makes sense. There’s a lot of talk about protest songs. At this supposed benefit concert, “Why don’t you do some of your protest stuff?” “What about these other songs?” And then: “Dixie.” That’s the one that Polito describes as “a jab in your eye.” And Dylan does sing it in that kind of twitchy way. It’s very uncomfortable. I think it’s intentionally so.

 

DR: You mentioned that Dylan has harsh words for people who accuse him of plagiarism, and in that Rolling Stone “Unleashed” interview in 2012, he calls them “wussies,” “pussies,” and “evil motherfuckers.” But he also speaks [in that interview] about industrialization and the conflict between the North and the South. One line is “this country is just too fucked up about color” and he goes on to say that,

It’s doubtful that America’s ever going to get rid of that stigmatization. It’s a country founded on the backs of slaves. You know what I mean? Because it goes way back. It’s the root cause. If slavery had been given up in a more peaceful way, America would be far ahead today. Whoever invented the idea “lost cause.…” There’s nothing heroic about any lost cause. No such thing, though there are people who still believe it.

And so it seems like he’s clearly not sympathetic to the Southern cause, even though he’s performing “Dixie” in a film that he wrote. It feels of a piece to me with his quotations in Modern Times and elsewhere of Henry Timrod, who was the poet laureate of the Confederacy. So I wonder, what does it do for the history of America and American art for an artist like Bob Dylan to be performing renditions of these separatist works?

EL: Nothing’s off limits, and Dylan’s perfectly happy to embrace the contradictions and think them through. “I Contain Multitudes” on Rough and Rowdy Ways is rooted in Whitman’s line, “Do I contradict myself? / Very well then I contradict myself, / I contain multitudes.” So he’s hip to all that and is willing to take it on, even some persistent myth like the Lost Cause—which is more than a persistent myth. Constituencies have organized around it and done very damaging, socially damaging, personally damaging things to people in this country.

Dylan won’t cancel anybody, is another way to put it. Timrod won’t get canceled. He’s interested in how you could embrace such a thing, even as he thinks the thing itself, the Lost Cause ideology, is bankrupt. Because he doesn’t often speak his mind about that except in more general terms, it’s fascinating to hear him [in Rolling Stone] come out and slam the Lost Cause. I mean, it’s not super controversial, but to hear him wax historiographical about the Lost Cause and say that and smack it down is fascinating.

 

DR: It must be amazing for you as a scholar to have your work cited by Bob Dylan, even put into quotation marks, which he’s done for virtually no other person. So what is that like? What effect does that have on you on a scholar, on how you perceive yourself and your work?

EL: I was thrilled by it, but I try not to let it go to my head, which is to say that it’s great to be in this shadow relationship to Dylan, but it hasn’t affected how I think or what I do. I didn’t become a Dylanologist; quite the contrary. I just remain interested, and I saw it as an occasion to write about that fact [with] the chapter in Black Mirror4 that addresses “Love and Theft”, the album. I remain interested in Dylan’s second act work, like Masked and Anonymous, but most recently, Rough and Rowdy Ways and “Murder Most Foul,” which is what I spoke about in Tulsa last year. But Dylan will always be an enduring influence for me in thinking about the relation of culture and historical processes.

Beyond that, not much of an effect. The one really gratifying effect it’s had is to produce a community of interlocutors, relations with people who are interested in Dylan, but not only Dylan, who are wonderful to talk to and have been great to have as another community of thinkers and writers to engage with. That’s been a really great thing, but it hasn’t really changed what I do or how I do it.

DR: It strikes me now that in doing so, Dylan has also brought his own fervent fan base into the world of American cultural studies, and introduced them to your own work on blackface minstrelsy. He knows that whatever he does is going to be picked apart and that Dylan scholars or Dylanologists are going to explore every avenue. So by making a reference to your book, perhaps he was sending a horde of people to that title so that they could learn more about blackface minstrelsy themselves.

EL: That’s interesting. I suppose so. I’ve thought a little bit about that factor, and I just don’t know. First of all, [in 2001] the internet hadn’t developed to the degree that it has now. Whether people were throwing up the set lists every night, maybe they were. I certainly wasn’t following them. But even he says in interviews, like when Time Out of Mind came out, he was off the media radar. People just weren’t paying as much attention to him. And when Greil Marcus called me in the summer of 2001—I first heard from Greil that Dylan had a new record coming out. This is four years after Time Out of Mind, and Greil left me a voice message that said, “It’s got an interesting title. It’s called “Love and Theft.”

I thought, “Well, that’s interesting.” But I wasn’t like, “Holy cow.” In 2001, I don’t think people thought, “Oh my God, I’m going to rush out and buy this book now.” Or, “I’m going to do what Bob tells me to do.” Maybe I’m wrong about that, but it wasn’t true for me.

 

DR: I’ve got another quote from the 2001 Rome press conference. Your book Love and Theft contains a vast set of references to various cultural theories. And so when promoting his album, “Love and Theft”, Dylan was asked, do you worry about how people will analyze the songs? And he answered, “No, I’ve got no idea what other people might discover in the things I produce. Or do you mean analysis like Freudian or idealist or Marxist? I really have no idea.” So how familiar do you think he really is with this field of critical studies, with these theories that come up? What’s his relationship to critical theory, do you think?

EL: I think he certainly knows it exists. He’s got a kind of bemused and jocular sense in the way he laughs when he says, “Freudian, German, you mean like German idealism?” And then he goes, “You mean, like, Freudian Marxist?” Which is super funny. And then it all breaks down. On the other hand, with his invocations of Fitzgerald and Eliot over the years, I think he doesn’t mind being taken as seriously as those people. I think he was shocked by the Nobel, but he fully knows what he’s worth.

And books like Christopher Ricks’s Dylan’s Visions of Sin, I think are important to him. Ricks takes him seriously and does intelligent and accessible readings of the work on its own terms. And I know he likes Greil’s stuff also. He’ll pooh-pooh it because he has to.

 

DR: Greil Marcus seems to be a friend, a colleague, maybe even a mentor of yours, but you’ve written about “wishful fantasies of musical racelessness that sometimes mar Greil Marcus’s invocations of the old, weird America.” What might a deeper attention to blackface minstrelsy add to Marcus’s The Old, Weird America? And how might that attention help open up work like The Basement Tapes?

EL: Greil has been a foundational influence for me forever. He’s one of the few people who made it possible for me to do what I do. The Old, Weird America was originally called Invisible Republic—and there’s a lot of talk around the change of title, the “old, weird” borrowing from Kenneth Rexroth, the Invisible Republic title the one the publisher apparently preferred. Invisible Republic actually better captures what Greil talks about as Smithville. In Smithville, you can’t tell who’s singing what. It’s all mixed up. It’s a freer place, this older, weirder thing, Greil wants to say. And it strikes me as a willed America without the ugly social dominance that the songs are in fact full of. And you can’t wish those relations away by embracing the songs. Greil is very smart about a lot of that stuff, and I don’t think that it’s a fatal flaw, but he doesn’t account for it as much as he might.

There’s a less well-known, more recent text by Allen Lowe, “Turn Me Loose, White Man,”5 that covers the same material. Greil likes Allen Lowe, and there’s no disagreement, really. But Allen Lowe, it seems to me, is more aware of—in both musical inheritance and rhetorical address—the issue of race, is more alive to it than Greil can be. On the other hand, there’s no evoking a cultural landscape as Greil does so well, so ravishingly.

In terms of mentorship, not so much personally, but certainly distantly. In terms of study, I studied Greil Marcus hard. And then I’m lucky to have met up and become friends later.

I know my perspective may rankle Sean Wilentz. It rankles Greil sometimes to thrust race up in the middle of it so much. But I can’t not do it. As to The Basement Tapes, I’d have to think about it more. It’s interesting that that bootleg was billed as the Great White Wonder.

DR: That would be an interesting critical reading, to put a racial consciousness back into Greil Marcus’s reading of The Basement Tapes through The Old, Weird America.

EL: If The Basement Tapes lies in the background of Music From Big Pink the following year, and Greil’s chapter in Mystery Train on Big Pink has these Canadians and Levon summoning an Old South, thinking very consciously about American history, then there’s something there. But that’s the Timrod question, “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down,” basically a song from the standpoint of Timrod.

 

DR: Going several years past that, do you ever think about the Rolling Thunder Revue and what Dylan was doing in whiteface on that tour?

EL: Michael Denning is good on this, in his piece that was in the Cambridge Companion to Bob Dylan.6 And it’s fleeting, but it’s certainly a sign of race consciousness at a moment when he’s stumping for Rubin Carter and calling attention, I think, to his own whiteness. It’s not unlike self-consciousness about minstrelsy later, only in reverse, and it’s quite striking.

DR: It strikes me that Rolling Thunder Revue is the tour where Dylan is singing the N-word from the stage. And it’s also the tour where he’s wearing whiteface. So you have that contrast happening once again.

EL: Yeah, yeah, yeah. It’s a performative gesture, a racial address. I’m not sure how it lands, but he’s not letting himself off the hook. And there are moments, like the famous picture with “Hurricane” in jail. Dylan’s looking around for bars: “Can we get some bars in? Can we bring these bars down and make these bars more apparent?” He’s doing benefits for Carter in whiteface and making the jail bars plain. He’s all there. Certainly we can write it off as performative, but that’s what he is, a performer. And they’re political gestures that matter.

DR: And it’s almost of a piece, too, with his visit to [the Tuscarora Reservation in New York] on that tour, where he plays the “Ballad of Ira Hayes” for the Native Americans there, who seem grateful to have him.

EL: It’s so interesting that you say that. One of the signature moves of this big second act, the last thirty years, is his faith in the songs, that truths are in the songs—all the way out to the book The Philosophy of Modern Song—and he’s committed to the songs, playing them night after night. Evidenced again recently by when he’d be in whatever town and he’d play a song that spoke specifically to that location. And people were shocked. For him not to do the same set list every night, but to insert a song that will speak to that town, it was cool.

 

DR: In your second book, The Disappearing Liberal Intellectual, you start by quoting Dylan’s “Highlands” in that, “I think what I need might be a full length leather coat / Somebody just asked me if I’m registered to vote.” In the book you take on the so-called Boomer Liberals whose supposed 60s progressivism shrank into a feeble 90s Clintonian liberalism. So how does Dylan and his work fit into this dynamic of the disappearing liberal intellectual?

EL: Dylan might, if he was pushed, come out and say things similar to what the boomers I was critiquing would say. He might align himself more or less with those positions. He appears to be a fan of Douglas Brinkley. But the corrosive political gestures in the songs quite outstrip the kind of liberal nationalism that I found rather disappointing in any number of thinkers and was trying to criticize from the left.

What underlies that book is that they wouldn’t just be their left-liberal, centrist selves, but they would also try to police the left. They would try to police people like me and talk about the futility of identity politics, or the secondary or tertiary importance of sexuality, or [say that] what really matters is class. And they don’t even think about class very interestingly. It’s basically rich and poor [to them], and poor people should have more money. There’s no real class analysis or dialectical address of any serious kind. So it got tiresome to be criticized by the likes of these people.

I really thought of the book as a response to centrist liberal Paul Berman’s Tale of Two Utopias,7 his book about 1968 and the student left. His account of Stonewall, for instance, is shockingly bad, and it got a lot of play. You know, [this idea that] the student left of ‘68 are spoiled middle class kids. It’s astounding. There’s no real analysis or serious consideration of the way sexuality is a vector of social dominance and subordination that needs to be analyzed seriously in its own right, as opposed to secondary to class and the welfare state.

 

DR: Because you write about this too, that race and sexuality and even gender are all part of the formation of class itself.

EL: Totally.

DR: And so while one could argue class is the most important thing to focus on, you can’t focus on class without these intersections, all these identity factors that go into it. And Dylan, at the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee speech in 1963, said, “There’s no black and white, left and right to me anymore. There’s only up and down, and down is very close to the ground. And I’m trying to go up without thinking about anything trivial, such as politics.” It almost sounds like he’s voicing a similar notion there, that you either have it or you don’t. It’s the haves and the have-nots.

EL: It’s interesting, because I hear the aspirations to something higher that would result in Dylan’s late-70s conversion to some higher power than mere politics. Whether you consider that the Democratic Party, or civil liberties, I mean, there he is sitting next to Jimmy Baldwin, or playing at the March on Washington. He clearly believes in that kind of intervention, but somehow party politics, even old left Marxist stuff leaves him cold—though he seems as invested as his friend Allen Ginsberg was in that stuff. It doesn’t register for him as much as the ultimate, the soul, and God, these invocations, or the conversion in the late-70s, or ultimate judges. He’s impatient with this more trivial stuff.

DR: Dave Van Ronk talked about that too, where Van Ronk was into a materialist Marxist thing, that these are the conditions we’re living under now. And how Dylan was learning that stuff, especially from Suze Rotolo, but he moved on from it quite quickly.

EL: Dylan’s imagination about politics is to think in more mythic terms, as opposed to party political terms. This would make sense given that he wanted to become, and still is, this mythic figure. It’s an engagement with politics at the level of JFK, and mythography, and national figuration, like he himself figures into, as opposed to positions, politicians, party politics, and ideology.

And Suze Rotolo, even though she’s a red diaper baby, she’s got a moment [in A Freewheelin’ Time8] when they’re all sitting watching Lee Harvey Oswald being arraigned on TV, and he gets shot. And as Suze says, there’s no videotape replay then. They just had to absorb it in real time, and she has this nice depiction of them sitting on the couch on West 4th Street watching this, and she says Bobby was riveted. They couldn’t believe it, as who could? It’s totally shocking, but it’s an evocation of real-time engagement with politics.

 

DR: I need to go back to Masked and Anonymous to ask you about the appearance of the “blackface muse,” as you call him. And he appears only to Jack Fate up in the rafters about two-thirds of the way through the film. So what is that about? What is he doing there? What effect does that have on the film?

EL: Ed Harris’s Oscar Vogel: “Hello, Jack. Do you know me?” And Jack Fate says, “I think so, yeah.” Immediately, it’s Love and Theft territory, the relationship to the minstrel tradition—and Al Jolson, who Dylan cares about. And there’s a story that Polito conveys about [producer Daniel] Lanois. Dylan’s talking to Lanois again for Time Out of Mind, having done Oh Mercy in 1989. And Lanois gets a tape in the mail and it’s all Al Jolson songs, which is a hilarious joke. Dylan’s taking the piss out of Lanois time and again is pretty funny, but I was tickled by that. So it’s acknowledging how this [film] can’t not be, at some level, a conversation with the minstrel tradition. And then, I haven’t seen the film again lately, but I think Ed Harris dissolves and is replaced by a Black man, not in blackface. I still think about how to read that moment. Another layer of it is Oscar Vogel talking to [Jack Fate] about having been involved in his father’s, the President’s, death in Masked and Anonymous, like he is somehow key to the death of his father.

And apparently—again, this is from Polito—the script has a parenthesis that says, “think JFK and John John.” Jack Fate and his president father, right? “Think JFK and John John.” That makes Jack Fate as John John, JFK Jr. And it makes his father… that takes you straight to “Murder Most Foul.” And that’s what I was talking about in Tulsa.

DR: Let’s go there. What was your paper about at the World of Bob Dylan conference, and what are you doing with “Murder Most Foul”?

EL: It was an attempt to move on from the love and theft, appropriation and exploitation dialectic to something more in terms of surrogation, as Joseph Roach, the performance studies scholar, refers to it as in his book, Cities of the Dead.9 Surrogation being the way all culture is made. Occupy a place and you recreate out of borrowed materials, you create this new thing. You step into a place and you become the new thing, a surrogate for the old, which is the warp and weave of cultural creation. Roach has this complicated and elegant and fascinating account of this surrogation. And it seemed to me that in “Murder Most Foul,” Dylan is meditating on these issues so that the creation of the new thing out of the death of the old becomes the way culture is made, the way politics continually gets made, and the way, with the death of JFK as it is presented in “Murder Most Foul,” Trump gets made.

That was my claim about politics, that “Murder Most Foul”—if you’re going to take the title seriously, and I do—takes us to Hamlet’s Claudius killing his brother and usurping the throne. That’s the “murder most foul,” because it’s Hamlet’s father’s ghost who comes back and says, “I was killed in my sleep by Claudius pouring poison into the porches of mine ear.” That’s how Hamlet Senior gets killed. Claudius takes his place. I see Claudius pretty transparently as Trump. It’s not a lament for Kennedy’s killing. It’s that story as a template or a device to think about usurpers taking the place of forebearers. So Trump is very much a clownish Claudius figure stealing the throne. But the twist is, it’s about the king being killed and replaced by a usurper, Trump or Claudius. And then the king of the radio is part two of the song. Wolfman Jack is the other area of cultural thought behind the song.

So I was trying to think, what’s that list of song titles, by way of Wolfman Jack, and one request after another, ending with the song you’re listening to, “Play ‘Murder Most Foul’”? And that is a dimension of surrogation. If the political one is JFK down to Trump, the next level of surrogation has to do with Dylan thinking about himself subsumed into the radio, if you will, and being replaced by whoever comes next. If it’s a Theme Time Radio Hour episode: 1963, Kennedy goes. Dylan goes, “Who comes after?” It’s thinking about himself in the grand flow of radio time, taking his place in the roll call of the radio. It’s an elegant way to think of yourself in time.

DR: Fascinating. I think some of us are often looking for the Trump analysis in Dylan’s work, because he’s not going to talk about it directly, or about politics as they stand today. So we’re looking for inferences. And you delivered this paper at the 2025 World of Bob Dylan, on a panel with Scott Warmuth and Brian Roberts. What was that experience like? What did you think of the conference in Tulsa and that whole scene?

EL: It was great to be in a context in which everybody is thinking very seriously about this artist. It was exhilarating, the level of discussion. And whether it was the papers or the keynotes, Greil Marcus talking about Little Sandy Review, or Terri Thal, or Elijah Wald, or Adam Bradley. All those keynotes were really interesting. I learned a ton from the scholarly devotion of the assembled into all different parts of Dylan’s career.

Tulsa is a great place to be. I hadn’t visited the archive yet, and that is really incredible. I haven’t worked in the archive, but to go to the museum and to see the stuff… Now, back to where I’m sitting here, in Springfield, Illinois, there’s an Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum and Library. The comparison is not without interest, because as I see it, what they did with the Lincoln Museum is the way not to do it. It’s a Disney spectacle. And Tulsa is the opposite. It’s a fascinating, endless procession of great archival material. Even that letter that George Harrison writes to Dylan that he sends along with the rough tracks for the first Traveling Wilburys record: “Don’t worry, Bob. They fucked up the mix. We’re going to fix it.” It’s totally interesting and great.

Scott [Warmuth] kicked ass. Brian [Roberts] kicked ass on Huck Finn. Scott’s always talking about where the bodies are buried in these fascinating ways. I mean, I’m thunderstruck by Dylan’s collage, assemblage constructions of his second act, the aughts to the present. Scott is wonderful on the way Dylan builds Chronicles, Masked and Anonymous. It would be so much quicker and easier for Dylan simply to write something. The collage constructions that Dylan has made, not unlike the iron work, the welding stuff, is mind boggling. What he’s processing and melding and trying to get us to follow him thinking through. And then to have the Dylan Review being so thoughtful and careful. I met someone there who had done the piece you all did on “Brownsville Girl.”

DR: Bill Latanzi.10

EL: Yes. Thinking through those constructions, redactions, reconstructions, “New Danville Girl” to “Brownsville Girl” and all that is just so great. So I’ll be back.

[Tulsa] has been valuable for so many people, like Brian Roberts. He was working on something completely different, at a really high level, on African American writers who had been ambassadors of African American writing. Now he’s got all this new stuff on the archipelagic imagination in American quote-unquote “literatures,” and he’s found all these connections between U.S. writing from Mark Twain to Dylan. And you always think, well, this is going to be a stretch. But then it’s like, bingo! He’s right every time. So it’s not just a hobby horse. As impressive as Dylan is, the figure gets bigger and bigger. And to have this quality of intellectual work happening around that development is just really unprecedented.

DR: Absolutely. In terms of the future of Dylan studies, what kinds of questions would you like people to ask going forward?

EL: You know, all the usual ones. The way he gravitates to key moments for his work, to the late 20s and early 30s, the roots. To the Harry Smith stuff—and he tends to dismiss the Harry Smith anthology, because [he says] “I knew those people, I had heard those people,” and indeed he did. But what that moment did for him, and the next big moment for him, the mid-50s, when he’s a kid coming up, starting bands. Little Richard and Buddy Holly, the Minnesota vibe, always and everywhere, his engagement with the song form as a way of engaging with history.

And it’s never not interesting to set down at a particular point in U.S. history, either before him, in the Civil War, or during his life. Name a historical period and his engagement with it—that’s always interesting. And all the aspects of intersectionality that come up when that happens, whether it’s queer sexuality, as you’ve demonstrated, to gospel music and racial politics, as Gayle Wald has talked about, or as Adam Bradley was talking about at the Tulsa conference last year. There’s so much stuff!

 


1 Lott, Eric. Love and Theft: Blackface Minstrelsy in the American Working Class. Oxford UP, 1993.

2 Polito, Robert. After the Flood: Inside Bob Dylan’s Memory Palace. Liveright, 2026.

3 Sacks, Howard L. and Judith Rose Sacks. Way Up North in Dixie: A Black Family’s Claim to the Confederate Anthem. U of Illinois Press, 2003.

4 Lott, Eric. “Just Like Jack Frost’s Blues.” Black Mirror: The Cultural Contradictions of American Racism. Harvard UP, 2017, pp. 195-208.

5 Lowe, Allen. Turn Me Loose White Man Or: Appropriating Culture: How to Listen to American Music 1900-1960. Constant Sorrow Press, 2020.

6 Dettmar, Kevin J. H., editor. The Cambridge Companion to Bob Dylan. Cambridge UP, 2009.

7 Berman, Paul. A Tale of Two Utopias: The Political Journey of the Generation of 1968. Norton, 1997.

8 Rotolo, Suze. A Freewheelin’ Time: A Memoir of Greenwich Village in the Sixties. Crown, 2009.

9 Roach, Joseph. Cities of the Dead. Columbia University Press: 2006.

10 Lattanzi, Bill. “The Drafts of ‘Brownsville Girl,’ Lost and Found. Dylan Review 7.1: Spring/Summer 2025.

By some accounts, the mid-to-late-eighties were not kind to Bob Dylan, containing some of his less appreciated and undervalued creative output.1 In fact, when Dylan reflects on his newfound inability to compose and perform around this time in Chronicles: Volume One, he writes: “I felt done for, an empty burned-out wreck . . . I’m in the bottomless pit of cultural oblivion.”2 While his music from this period may not hold a candle to his greatest work, Dylan would produce material in the eighties that is still highly regarded by fans and critics alike. The track “Brownsville Girl” is often cited as one of Dylan’s major triumphs in this period, gaining significant attention as a “masterpiece” in the greater context of his catalogue.3 Notably, Dylan did not write this well-regarded effort alone, as he enlisted the efforts of Sam Shepard to guide him into producing substantial revisions to his original composition, dating back to 1984. Collaboration helped Dylan find success in a period where, in his words, he “had no connection to any kind of inspiration.”4 This particular partnership between Dylan and Shepard reveals much about Dylan as a creative and his desire to work artistically with others and challenges the popular image of Dylan as the solitary singer-songwriter composing in isolation.

For many years, Sam Shepard and Bob Dylan were creative forces who found their paths intersecting. Though creatively expressive in distinct media (Shepard primarily as a playwright and Dylan primarily as a musician), both pursued other expressive outlets beyond their core professional identities. In her 1980 essay on Dylan and Shepard, Irene Oppenheim observes that “an assessment of their current permutations of style and spirit seems worth the while in that, as artists, they both augur and reflect whatever it is that’s going on.”5 Six years after the publication of Oppenheim’s piece, Shepard and Dylan would meet up and engage in that reflection, but before we delve into that conversation, we provide some context.

Though Shepard and Dylan both launched their careers in New York in the 60s, they didn’t formally meet until 1975, when Dylan asked Shepard to join the Rolling Thunder Revue as a writer for a film project that would coincide with the tour. By Shepard’s account, Dylan was planning on making a film in which, “we don’t have to make any connections… None of this has to connect. In fact, it’s better if it doesn’t connect.”6 The result of their efforts was the film Renaldo and Clara (1978), in which Shepard barely received a writing credit (Written by Bob Dylan; Additional Dialogue by Sam Shepard).7 Shepard published his experience of the tour in his Rolling Thunder Logbook (1977).

According to Clinton Heylin, Dylan took note of Lou Reed’s 1984 song, “Doin’ the Things That We Want To” (a song that starts “the other night we went to Sam’s play” and contains the line, “it reminds me of the movies Marty made about New York”). 8 Reed’s song, with clear inspiration from Shepard and Scorsese, apparently gave Dylan the genesis of his own song that would also serve as a reaction to another work of art, Gregory Peck’s 1950 film, The Gunfighter. Dylan enlisted Shepard in the fall of 1984 to co-author “New Danville Girl” (elements of Woody Guthrie’s “Danville Girl” would appear in the lyrics) which Dylan attempted for 1985’s Empire Burlesque album and later resurrected as “Brownsville Girl” for 1986’s Knocked Out Loaded.9 Given that an overwhelming majority of his songs were written without collaborators, Dylan’s co-write on “Brownsville Girl” has generated significant interest, probably even more than his work with Jacques Levy or Robert Hunter.

Not long after the 1986 release of Knocked Out Loaded, Shepard and Dylan would meet again. On August 7, 1986, they sat down for an informal interview at Dylan’s Malibu home, with this conversation serving as the basis for Shepard’s highly fictionalized one-act play, True Dylan, in Esquire magazine in 1987. Shepard titled his play “Side to Side (Why Try to Fight it?),” referring to a conversation on the tape about Dylan’s movement on stage. Without consulting Shepard, however, Esquire published the piece with a changed title, True Dylan, perhaps as a nod to Shepard’s play, True West. The Shepard Archives contain correspondence between Shepard and Esquire about the title change, including understandable signs of Shepard’s frustration with the magazine’s decision. A typed draft of the play has written at the top in Shepard’s hand, “Side to Side (Why Try to Fight it?)”10

While the recorded interview and published play are similar, with moments of overlap regarding conversation topics, the original tapes from this interview reveal certain unique, unprecedented exchanges. Though not comprehensive, Table 1 below illustrates some of the similarities and differences between the interview and one-act play:

 

The Dylan-Shepard Tapes True Dylan (Esquire Magazine)
Discussion of planned 1986 record with Gary Stewart and T-Bone Burnett Not found in the Esquire one act play
Not present in the original interview Discussion about the 1966 motorcycle crash
Retelling of experiences surrounding artists like Woody Guthrie, Ricky Nelson, and Bob Marley Also included in the fictionalized one-act play
Conversations about Minnesota towns and the influence of Polka Music Found in the Esquire piece as well
Dylan stating that Christianity “still fits” with his worldview, well after his public conversion Dylan and Shepard’s musings on religion, angels, and purgatory
Brief interjections from persons on the phone, an unknown woman, and crying sounds from a child (likely Carolyn Dennis and Desiree Dylan) Individuals calling Dylan on the phone have fictionalized names, but no woman or child appears

 

Thanks to the Wittliff Collections at Texas State University, we were given access to this never-before-transcribed audio from this unshared interview. In over three hours captured on tape, Dylan comes off as particularly genuine and engaged in the dialogue, unlike the combative persona seen in many press conferences. In this interview, Shepard functions not as a typical journalist, but rather as a creative equal and trusted collaborator. Interspersed between their discourse are intriguing moments in which Dylan plays guitar. While Dylan is often just fiddling around, he does play two tracks, “We Shall Overcome” and “St. James Infirmary,” in a more coherent manner. Both tracks hold significance in the broader context of his musical career, with the former relating to Dylan’s brief involvement with the American Civil Rights Movement, and the latter with the track “Blind Willie McTell.” From these details we can infer that Dylan is generally relaxed, and his often-directionless strumming indicates that he is in an easygoing mood while conversing with Shepard. Another important detail to note is that Dylan and Shepard are both chatting inside Dylan’s Malibu home, a place in which he would naturally feel more comfortable. Dylan can also be heard interacting with his two large bullmastiffs (Brutus and Jumbo) and talking to others both on the phone and in person. Their exchanges are fascinatingly informative yet casual, with many references to Dylan’s previous musical output and precedents for what he was yet to create years later.

The recorded conversation between Shepard and Dylan may, at first listen, sound disjointed, rambling, and unsubstantial. However, dismissing the interview as insignificant would be a mistake. The exchanges captured in these recordings serve as a time capsule that reveals much about Dylan, Shepard, and their artistic visions. Through the inspection of this exclusive material, we were able to make salient connections to Dylan’s own words and perspectives related to his visual art, acting methodologies, and ultimately his personal struggles as they pertain to songwriting at this turbulent time in his career. The interview coincidentally took place just a day after the live debut (and only performance to date) of “Brownsville Girl” on the final night of the True Confessions Tour with Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers in Paso Robles, CA. Within this examination of the interview material, we will include transcribed segments from the previously unreleased tape, as we are unable to share the full interview.11

Of course, Dylan and Shepard had already collaborated on Dylan’s ill-fated film project Renaldo and Clara during the Rolling Thunder Revue, and co-written “Brownsville Girl,” as well as some unreleased songs, such as “The Girl I Left Behind,” only a few years earlier, in 1984.12 While one may assume Dylan and Shepard first met around 1975, in the interview both men reminisce about their time in Greenwich Village in the mid-60s.

 

SHEPARD. I saw you one time on the street on the corner of Sixth Avenue and Houston Street.

DYLAN. What year?

SHEPARD. Sixty uh—must have been ‘67 or—

DYLAN. Was that when I was with The Band, at that time?

SHEPARD. Yeah. You were wearing a blue navy pea jacket.13

DYLAN. Yeah, that’s me.

SHEPARD. And tennis shoes.14

 

Shepard shows clear knowledge of Dylan’s musical accomplishments and demonstrates familiarity with much of his discography.15 In fact, Shepard’s first verbal exchange on the tape recorder contains the line “Is it rolling, Bob?,” Of course, this sentence parodies Bob’s studio chatter to Bob Johnston on “To Be Alone With You” from 1969’s Nashville Skyline.

Similarly, Shepard demonstrates an awareness of Dylan’s affinity for visual art, calling attention to an often-overlooked aspect of Dylan’s unending creative endeavors. This exchange details their conversation on the matter.

 

SHEPARD. This is either gonna be the lamest interview in history or… (laughs) Are you still painting, drawing?

DYLAN. Uh, yeah, I do, I would like to do that. I would like to spend a lot of time doing that.

SHEPARD. What’s your fascination with that? Like—

DYLAN. Fascination with that?

SHEPARD. I mean, is it related to music?

DYLAN. Yeah.

SHEPARD: In color?

DYLAN: No, in putting down what you see. Uh.

SHEPARD: Story? In like story?

DYLAN. Well, you know it’s like—how can you put it? Painting. Oh yeah, you know, the essence of a person.

SHEPARD. Right.16

 

The way Dylan describes his ability to manifest reality into his art is reminiscent of essential thematic elements he had learned by the instruction of Norman Raeben in 1974. Dylan has since described the creatively invigorating nature of these meetings with Raeben, claiming that “He put my mind and my hand and my eye together in a way that allowed me to do consciously what I unconsciously felt.”17 In his Shadow Chasing newsletter, Graley Herren emphasizes how Dylan’s songwriting was impacted by learning new ways of seeing from Raeben’s painting lessons.18 It seems this practice of “attentive seeing” and “engaged vision” persisted nearly 12 years later when Shepard interviewed Dylan.

Out of the multitudes of musicians who are directly named in this conversation, certain figures hold significance, either in their closeness to Dylan’s work and biography or their collaborations with him.19 Dylan mentions numerous band members and affiliated artists present on the Rolling Thunder Revue, with Shepard and Dylan reflecting on where they are now. Patti Smith, Howie Wyeth, and Rob Stoner show up in their conversations. In a similar breath, Dylan briefly reminisces about members of his 1966 tour, discussing circumstances surrounding Mickey Jones replacing Levon Helm on drums, as well as the recent passing of Richard Manuel earlier in 1986, saying it really upset him. Soon after this exchange, both men reflect on a gathering that included Phil Ochs and discuss his turbulent mental state.

 

SHEPARD: Remember in New York, when we were there, that guy, he came around to that one party, and we had down on Eighth Street? Big, crazy guy. He used to be a singer.

20

DYLAN: Don’t make me say it.

SHEPARD: Oh, come on, what was it?

DYLAN: Oh, shit. That was a sad scene.

SHEPARD: He was there at this party, remember? And there was that blonde girl who wanted to marry him.

DYLAN: Lizette.

SHEPARD: He was a well-known singer. A folk singer around the same time you were. And he was crazy. I mean, totally nuts. Wiped out of his head and he was standing at the top of the stairs yelling and screaming at you about boxing, or a boxing movie, or—

DYLAN: Oh, Phil!

SHEPARD: Phil Ochs.

DYLAN: He was real nuts, but he got crazed. He got crazed. But, you know, he was sick.

SHEPARD: Yeah.

DYLAN: And nobody realized. I mean…

SHEPARD: Physically sick?

DYLAN: Physically sick. He couldn’t shit for a year.

SHEPARD: What?

DYLAN: Yeah. He took up a bug, some kind of amoeba, in the Middle East.

SHEPARD: Jeez.

DYLAN: I know, man, but that was his problem. His problem was—you know.

SHEPARD: Couldn’t shit for a year. Oh, boy. Where did he get that?

DYLAN: He had to sweat it out.

SHEPARD: Where did he get that?

DYLAN: In Africa.

SHEPARD: Oh, man.21

 

Interestingly, Dylan seems somewhat reluctant to bring up Phil’s name, perhaps an indication of their complex and often competitive relationship. Phil Ochs was bipolar, and he did struggle with alcoholism. Toward the end of his short life, he unaccountably demanded others address him as “John Train,” which Dylan soon mentions to Shepard. This perhaps final conversation between Ochs and Dylan likely occurred around their performances at the Friends of Chile Benefit concert in 1974, with Shepard noting that this exchange happened “before we hit the road,”22 in reference to Rolling Thunder. Strangely, there is no account of Ochs catching an amoeba in Africa or the Middle East. He did suffer physical injuries after being attacked and nearly strangled in Tanzania in 1973, but was not known to have contracted any illness from this event.23

T-Bone Burnett comes into conversation while Shepard and Dylan reflect on other Rolling Thunder members, but his mention holds more significance for Dylan’s upcoming projects in 1986.

 

DYLAN. T-Bone is doing great. I saw T-Bone in Texas recently. In fact, we wanted to make a record. We want to… I hope we do it. I hope we do it. The record with Gary Stewart.

SHEPARD. Gary Stewart, love it. Gary Stewart is a great singer.

DYLAN. Great performer. He’s a great singer.

SHEPARD. He’s still… T-Bone’s still producing?

DYLAN. T-Bone? Yeah, he’s playing in for these things.

SHEPARD. I really love that, uh “Diamonds are a Girl’s Best Friend” thing, you know that Lou Reed thing?

DYLAN. Yeah. T-Bone’s been working with Elvis Costello for a long time.

SHEPARD. Really?

DYLAN. I hope we make this record. I hope we do this thing with Gary Stewart. Gary Stewart did his one song called “Ten Years of This.” It’s a classic song. Classic song, classic performance. I’ve always liked Gary Stewart and I ran into him in Houston or Dallas and uh, it was the most amazing circumstances for equipment, because you know, we were talking and I was asking now to have a record out or something and T-Bone was there at the same show, so we kind of got together and said we’d make a record.

SHEPARD. So, when are you going to do this? DYLAN. Well, maybe by Christmas.24

 

While this ambitious crossover never saw an official release, or even studio sessions, it is fascinating to imagine what could have been. The trio of artists’ decision to make a record likely happened on June 22nd, 1986, when Dylan played the (aptly titled) Reunion Arena in Dallas, as part of his True Confessions Tour. In fact, just before playing “I and I,” Dylan says to the audience: “I want to say hello to Gary Stewart, who is here tonight. I want to say one of my favorite records was ‘Ten Years of This.’ Really one of my favorite records.” Dylan clearly loves this track and admires Stewart enough to consider a rare collaboration record with him and Burnett. Many details about this speculative record are unknown, but it likely never came to fruition due to Dylan’s obligations with Hearts of Fire, complicating these plans to produce an album by the end of the year.

With this film project on Dylan’s horizon, Shepard predictably inquires about Dylan’s involvement in the movie and his role as Billy Parker.

 

SHEPARD: Where you headed from here? DYLAN: London.

SHEPARD: London! With Petty?

DYLAN: No. I’m going to do this, this um, film. SHEPARD: Oh, right. Now, what part are you playing? DYLAN: Uh, Billy Parker.

SHEPARD: Billy Parker in… what, what is that?

DYLAN: If they keep that name. SHEPARD: What—what does he do?

DYLAN: He’s an over-the-hill rock and roll singer that does 80s shows.

SHEPARD: Who’s directing?

DYLAN: Richard Marquand.25

 

It seems that at this point in the writing of Hearts of Fire, some minor details (like Dylan’s character name) are still up in the air, as the filming would start on August 26th in London.26 Another exchange on the subject of Hearts of Fire shows the informal nature of Dylan’s role in the film, and the following conversation details his acting methods:

 

SHEPARD. What about acting? You’re gonna be acting, right? Tell me about your latest, uh—what is your latest—playing a character?

DYLAN. Well, I don’t play a character, but the character is not really that far away from me or people I know.

SHEPARD. So, you already have a handle on it.

DYLAN. Sort of, that’s all there is to it.

SHEPARD. I mean, are you gonna have an approach to the character, or are you gonna dive in? Bite it in the ear.

DYLAN. Approach?27

 

While this reads quite humorously, Dylan was clearly cast in a role that must have felt familiar and therefore required little acting on his part.

Dylan and Shepard continue on with their meandering conversation, moving from topic to topic with this same playful, often comical tone, before settling into a more direct discussion related to creativity itself and songwriting. It seems that their collaborations contained a certain invigorating element, especially when considering Dylan’s broader career and writing. In this exchange below, both men discuss such inspirational guidance and how it fits into Dylan’s creative process.

 

SHEPARD. Alright, well, what about like the search for a path or a way? You’ve tried a lot of different stuff, do you feel like you still have a need to find something that belongs to an ancient tradition, or do you feel like you can guide yourself? Do you feel like you need a teacher?

DYLAN. A teacher? Oh yeah, all the time.

SHEPARD. I mean, do you actively search for a teacher?

DYLAN. Well, uh, me I listen to music for my thing, so like uh I’ll have to constantly be involved in some kind of way in that.

SHEPARD. Your music.

DYLAN. Yeah.

SHEPARD. So, music, in a way, is a teacher?

DYLAN. Yeah, well, y’know, you were talking about seeing Lightnin’ Hopkins. You know you just have to keep doing that. If you wanna keep doing it, ‘cause those are your sources.28

 

While Dylan has enlisted guidance from various sources and persons throughout his entire career, it seems at this time that these collaborations proved most crucial to produce substantive work. It is of particular note that Knocked Out Loaded and Down In The Groove contain a total of only four sole-authored, non-cover tracks by Dylan, which may be indicative of this reliance on other artist’s direct input to inform his own work during this time. Seemingly in a “mid-career slump” with dwindling critical successes and a need for “original thoughts,” many of these connections serve as Dylan’s lifeline for inventive efforts, and would be utilized later to sustain his songwriting, production, and especially his live performances.29 It may be suggested that this specific period of Dylan’s career, ranging from 1985 to 1989, can be seen as his most collaborative era. The interview between Shepard and Dylan provides insight into this phenomenon, as it relates to the impetus of such collaborations. When recounting the writing process of “Brownsville Girl,” “Miss Arizona,” and possibly other unheard (or unrecorded) tracks with Shepard, Dylan explains his need for outside assistance when experiencing creative or emotional turmoil.

 

SHEPARD. You’re in a better emotional state than the last time I saw you.

DYLAN. Ah, when was that? When we did those songs? SHEPARD. Yeah. You were going through a lot.

DYLAN. Let’s see what was happening then.

SHEPARD. Do you feel alright?

DYLAN. Yeah, I’m trying to picture.

SHEPARD. You know, we were up in that cabin up there?

DYLAN. Oh yeah, that was a—oh shit man, oh no. That’s why I asked you to come help me write these songs! (laughs)

SHEPARD. (laughs) Couldn’t write a lick! Now, how much do you think the mind has to do with that, your mental attitude?

DYLAN. Probably a lot.

SHEPARD. I mean if you paint bad, you’re gonna feel bad, right?

DYLAN. It seems that way.

SHEPARD. So, what do you do when—can you straighten your mind out when you’re going down a downhill slide?

DYLAN. Nah, I can’t. I usually have to have someone else do it for me.30

 

Not only is this exchange fascinating in its original context, but it may also shed light on Dylan’s motives in these collaborative partnerships. Though the location Dylan refers to as “the cabin” is unknown, it is likely referring to a separate facility near Dylan’s Malibu home. Regarding Dylan’s “mental attitude,” it is particularly noteworthy that the highly lauded co-write with Shepard came from a seemingly intense bout of turmoil. With the added context here, the line in “Brownsville Girl,” “I could feel a whole lot better, if you were just here by my side to show me how”31 seems self-referential and applies to how Dylan required Shepard’s assistance in remedying his lack of inspiration. When Dylan struggled to find “an original thought,” having Shepard by his side may have restored his creative capabilities, and might have operated similarly in other collaborative efforts around this time.

Almost forty years after Shepard sat down with Dylan for a long and rambling conversational interview, we’ve had the opportunity to listen to this time capsule and learn more about Dylan and his creative processes at a pivotal time in his career. Until now, the only publicly available material related to the tapes was Shepard’s fictionalized account of the interview as published in Esquire in the form of a one-act play. Unlike Dylan’s interviews with journalists and critics, the dialogue reported here reveals a side of Dylan that’s generally unguarded and nearly free of pretension.

Dylan showed in these tapes a fondness for reminiscing with Shepard about experiences from their shared past, opinions about other musicians and artists, and thoughts about the creative process. Most noteworthy, Dylan revealed an awareness of his limitations, his need for teachers, and his creative challenges. While some have speculated that Dylan’s approach to writer’s block has been a method of appropriation, details from the Shepard-Dylan tapes suggest that collaboration has been one of Dylan’s primary approaches to advancing when the creative juices aren’t flowing as freely. Access to this interview has given us a chance to peer into a conversation that’s both convivial and illuminating, with Dylan and Shepard metaphorically standing “side to side” in their collaborative and individual artistic efforts.

 


1 Callahan, Erin, et al. “‘I’m Still Pushin’ Myself Along the Road’: Reassessing Bob Dylan in the 1980s” World of Bob Dylan, 2025.

2 Dylan, Bob. Chronicles: Volume One. Simon & Schuster, 2004, 147.

3 Gray, Michael. Brownsville Girl. The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia. Continuum Press, 2006.

4 Dylan, Bob. Chronicles: Volume One. Simon & Schuster, 2004, 148.

5 Oppenheim, Irene. Changing Trains: Sam Shepard and Bob Dylan. Three Penny Review, 1980, 18-20.

6 Shepard, Sam. Rolling Thunder Logbook. Penguin, 1977.

7 Renaldo and Clara. Internet Movie Database. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078151/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_cst_sm

8 Heylin, Clinton. Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades Revisited. William Morrow, 2001.

9 See Bill Lattanzi, The Drafts of “Brownsville Girl, “Found and Lost, The Dylan Review, 8 Aug. 2025, for an exceptional account of the evolving drafts of the song.

10 Side to Side (Why Try to Fight it?) (draft). Sam Shepard Archive, The Harry Ransom Center, The University of Texas at Austin.

11 Full public distribution was not cleared by the Wittliff Collections, due to copyright laws surrounding these materials. The tapes themselves, as well as Moreno’s transcript, can be requested by in-person appointment only.

12 Lattanzi, Bill. “The Drafts of Brownsville Girl, Found and Lost.”

13 For those familiar with Dylan’s wardrobe at this time, this jacket made many appearances, perhaps most infamously in Tony Gale’s photographs from 1966.

14 The Dylan-Shepard Tapes (1986). Sam Shepard Archive, Wittliff Collections, Texas State University. Transcribed by Mason Moreno.

15 This trend of awareness with Dylan’s discography can be linked to the title of Shepard’s 1971 play, Cowboy Mouth, which likely originated from Dylan’s “Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands.” This specific phrase gets distinct attention in the interview as well, when the pair discuss the inherent power of certain words.

16 The Dylan-Shepard Tapes (1986). Sam Shepard Archive, Wittliff Collections, Texas State University. Transcribed by Mason Moreno.

17 Cott, Jonathan. “Bob Dylan as Filmmaker: ‘I’m Sure of My Dream Self. I Live in My Dreams.” Rolling Stone (26 January 1978)

18 Herren, Graley. (2025). Dylan + Art: Norman Raeben. Retrieved from https://shadowchasing.substack.com/p/dylan-art-norman-raeben

19 One of these musicians, Richard “Rabbit” Brown, wrote the track “James Alley Blues,” which is echoed in Dylan’s own “Crash on the Levee,” when he sings: “Well it’s sugar for sugar, and salt for salt.” It is no surprise that in this interview, Dylan immediately names this recording when Brown’s name is brought up by Shepard, given its relevance to Dylan’s own music.

20 Ellipses signify a break in the included interview material.

21 The Dylan-Shepard Tapes (1986). Sam Shepard Archive, Wittliff Collections, Texas State University. Transcribed by Mason Moreno.

22 Ibid.

23 George, Myers, Jr., “Phil Ochs in Africa.” Life of a Rebel. Retrieved from https://phil-ochs.blogspot.com/2008/04/phil-ochs-in-africa.html.

24 The Dylan-Shepard Tapes (1986). Sam Shepard Archive, Wittliff Collections, Texas State University. Transcribed by Mason Moreno.

25 The Dylan-Shepard Tapes (1986). Sam Shepard Archive, Wittliff Collections, Texas State University. Transcribed by Mason Moreno.

26 Hearts of Fire. Internet Movie Database. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093163/locations/

27 The Dylan-Shepard Tapes (1986). Sam Shepard Archive, Wittliff Collections, Texas State University. Transcribed by Mason Moreno.

28 Ibid.

29 Note that around this time, Dylan had co-written “Jammin’ Me” and “Got My Mind Made Up” with Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, while on the True Confessions Tour. In a similar vein, Dylan would team-up with the Grateful Dead in the summer of 1987 for live performances. The following year presented yet another instance of high-profile collaboration with the super-group, the Traveling Wilburys.

30 The Dylan-Shepard Tapes (1986). Sam Shepard Archive, Wittliff Collections, Texas State University. Transcribed by Mason Moreno.

31 Dylan, Bob. “Brownsville Girl.” Track 6 on Knocked Out Loaded. Columbia Records, 1986.


Works Cited

 

Callahan, Erin, Court Carney, Graley Herren, Rebecca Slaman, and Robert Reginio. “‘I’m Still Pushin’ Myself Along the Road’: Reassessing Bob Dylan in the 1980s.” Panel presentation at the World of Bob Dylan Conference, The University of Tulsa, July 26, 2025.

Cott, Jonathan. “Bob Dylan as Filmmaker: ‘I’m Sure of My Dream Self. I Live in My Dreams.’” Rolling Stone, January 26, 1978.

Dylan, Bob. “Brownsville Girl.” Track 6 on Knocked Out Loaded. Columbia Records, 1986, compact disc / LP.

Dylan, Bob. Chronicles: Volume One. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004.

George, Myers, Jr. “Phil Ochs in Africa.” Life of a Rebel (blog), April 2008. https://phil-ochs.blogspot.com/2008/04/phil-ochs-in-africa.html.

Gray, Michael. “Brownsville Girl.” In The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia, 103–5. London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006.

Hearts of Fire. Internet Movie Database (IMDb). Directed by Richard Marquand.

Lorimar Motion Pictures, 1987. Accessed July 22, 2026. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093163/.

Herren, Graley. “Dylan + Art: Norman Raeben.” Shadow Chasing (Substack), February 2, 2025. https://shadowchasing.substack.com/p/dylan-art-norman-raeben.

Heylin, Clinton. Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades Revisited. New York: William Morrow, 2001.

Lattanzi, Bill. “The Drafts of ‘Brownsville Girl,’ Found and Lost.” The Dylan Review 6, no. 1 (August 8, 2025). https://thedylanreview.org/2025/08/08/the-drafts-of-brownsville-girl-found-and-lost/.

Oppenheim, Irene. “Changing Trains: Sam Shepard and Bob Dylan.” The Threepenny Review, no. 3 (Autumn 1980): 18–20.

Reed, Lou. “Doin’ the Things That We Want To.” Lou Reed Archive. Accessed July 22, 2026. http://www.alwaysontherun.net/lou.htm#n6.

Renaldo and Clara. Internet Movie Database (IMDb). Directed by Bob Dylan. Circuit Films, 1978. Accessed July 22, 2026. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078151/.

Shepard, Sam. Rolling Thunder Logbook. New York: Penguin Books, 1977.

Shepard, Sam. “Side to Side (Why Try to Fight It?)” (draft). Sam Shepard Archive.

Harry Ransom Center, The University of Texas at Austin.

The Dylan-Shepard Tapes. 1986. Transcribed by Mason Moreno. Sam Shepard Archive. The Wittliff Collections, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX.

“‘Preoccupied with his vengeance’: Bob Dylan, Phil Ochs, ‘Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?,’ and the Crafting of a Biographical Episode”

By Marc A. Mamigonian

 

“when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”1

 

Of all the twice-told tales of Bob Dylan’s anni mirabiles of 1965 and 1966, few are more memorable than that of the breach between Dylan and folksinger and sometime friend and admirer Phil Ochs.

In its most basic form, the story is: Dylan played Ochs his new single, “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?,” and Ochs was somewhat dismissive, incurring Dylan’s wrath and resulting in Dylan’s ordering Ochs out of his limousine and, effectively, out of his life.

Biographers have presented the Dylan-Ochs incident as emblematic of the cost in human terms of Dylan’s ascent to stardom: there was no longer a place for the kind of friendships that existed in the “freewheelin’ days” when everybody was on more or less equal footing. As such, no account of Dylan’s supposed transition from the community of folk music to the big business of rock is complete without some version of the incident; thus, it has been told and retold, albeit with limited efforts to verify the known facts and seemingly capricious authorial embellishments.

The story appears in every major Dylan and Ochs biography as well as in other more narrowly focused works. In this article I will take a synoptic view; and, although ultimately it is not possible to state definitively what really happened, it is possible to point out aspects of the accounts that simply cannot have happened or did not happen in the way presented. One would like such an approach to lead to a kind of epistemology of Dylan’s biographical works: how do we know what we think we know as facts are indeed facts (or are even likely to be facts)? Peter Doggett is on the mark in his observation that the incident “has been mythologized beyond the reach of accurate recall.”2 Yet it continues to be treated by biographers as a settled fact—or as “settled” as something with entirely fluid details can be.

By the early 1970s the story was already established as symbolic of the dissolution of the Dylan-Ochs relationship and of Dylan’s evolution from approachable Village folkie to remote rock god. For example, in 1974 Ben Fong-Torres wrote that “Ochs used to hang out with Dylan … and served as a target for Dylan’s celebrated personal attacks on Village friends. The most popular of the incidents had Ochs getting thrown out of Dylan’s limousine one day, for not thinking ‘Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window’ [sic] would be a smash.”3 As such, the story has become inseparable from discussions of the song itself, and some version features in most accounts of the recording and its release, such as in Philippe Margotin and Jean-Michel Guesdon’s Bob Dylan: All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Track.4

The Dylan-Ochs contretemps has subtle and not-so-subtle variations across the various biographical accounts—so many, in fact, that it should give serious readers (as well as serious biographers) pause. For anyone seeking to distinguish fact from fiction or exaggeration it is a challenge to determine how (or if) the authors know what they are writing is factual and from where the specific details that give character to the various versions derive. Serious challenges exist for readers seeking to separate fact from fiction and to ascertain from where authors derived information presented as factual.

Phil Ochs himself seems ultimately to be the source for the story—or stories, since he offered versions somewhat at odds with each other in a 1968 interview later released on Folkways Records, to Anthony Scaduto sometime later, and to his biographer Marc Eliot in 1972.5 Ochs might not have been the most reliable source, and may be engaging in the human tendency to make himself look more perceptive by employing the gift of hindsight; but at least he was initially interviewed at a time when the incident in question was not a long-ago occurrence. The only other person who may have been present who has been interviewed, photographer Jerry Schatzberg, spoke to Daryl Sanders in 2016, more than half a century after the alleged incident and long after it had passed into myth. Dylan has never referred to the story. The other person who figures in most versions of the story, singer, songwriter, and actor David Cohen (aka David Blue), appears never to have commented on it. He died in 1982.6

Before examining the theme and variations of the Phil Ochs incident, it is instructive to look at what is known about the recording and release of “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?,” which in most of the accounts is the apple of discord. For decades, confusion about the facts of the recording, release, and (alleged) performance of the song contributed to the inconsistent or factually incorrect accounts of the Dylan-Ochs incident. However, much more specific and reliable information is available today than was accessible to most of the biographers. Prior to the release of The Bootleg Series, vol. 12: The Cutting Edge 1965-1966 in its multiple forms in 2015, but most pertinently for this discussion, in its most expansive version, the “Collector’s Edition” which compiles each take of every Dylan studio recording from 1965 and 1966, the recording history of “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?” was a muddle.7 Various outtakes from both the Highway 61 Revisited sessions and the fall 1965 revisitation of the song which resulted in the version released as a single in late 1965, were in circulation on bootlegs since the early 1970s but without accurate documentation.

The multiple takes of “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?” recorded during the Highway 61 Revisited sessions all date from July 30, 1965. The song was, of course, not included on the LP that was released at the end of August. One of the five complete takes was inadvertently released in limited quantities in September as the A-side of a single under the title of “Positively 4th Street.”8 No satisfactory explanation has ever been offered for this error.

In light of Bob Dylan’s very long history of leaving important songs off albums, it is risky to speculate why “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?” was left unreleased. Perhaps Dylan was unsatisfied with the results; perhaps he had temporarily lost faith in the song; perhaps he was already rethinking what he would like it to sound like. Certainly, the re­recorded and released version to be discussed below is strikingly different from the July 30 one; or perhaps there simply was no room for it on the album and, unlike “Positively 4th Street,” it was not seen as a viable stand-alone single at that time.

After the final Highway 61 Revisited session on August 4, Dylan did not go into the studio again until October 5, when he returned to Columbia’s Studio A in New York City for a session that concentrated on recording the new song “I Wanna Be Your Lover,” presumably for use as a single; but it would not be released until it surfaced on the 1985 Biograph box set.9 The session would be the first of a series through January 1966 that produced little material deemed releasable at the time. The other musicians on the October 5 session are The Hawks—Robbie Robertson, Rick Danko, Richard Manuel, Garth Hudson, and Levon Helm—who had begun backing Dylan in the “electric” half of his concerts in late September. The session also included recordings of the fragments “Jet Pilot” (released in slightly truncated form on Biograph where it was misidentified as coming from the Highway 61 Revisited sessions), “Medicine Sunday” (containing lyrics later recycled for use in “Temporary Like Achilles” on Blonde on Blonde), a fine instrumental that came to be known as “Number One” on bootlegs, and two run-throughs of “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?,” one very slow, one a little faster, and both lasting only for a single verse.10

A rumor that seems to originate (in print, at least) with Dylan sessionographer Michael Krogsgaard has it that Dylan rehearsed “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?” with The Hawks in Woodstock in September and performed the song live with them on October 1 during his concert at Carnegie Hall.11 There is no circulating recording of that show, though rumors have long existed that such a recording exists somewhere; it did not surface in the live 50th Anniversary Collection: 1965 archival release that functioned as a supplement to The Cutting Edge: 1965–1966. Nevertheless, the official bobdylan.com site presents a setlist for the show that includes “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?”12 A healthy skepticism about this is suggested until and unless further evidence emerges.13

After the none-too-fruitful October 5 session, Dylan was busy performing concerts with The Hawks nearly through Christmas but was able to fit in a couple of recording sessions. Levon Helm left the group just before the next attempt to record, on November 30 at Studio A in New York, and was replaced by Bobby Gregg, who had played on much of Highway 61 Revisited.14 After a number of frantic, ultimately unsuccessful, but nevertheless riveting attempts to record a rock version of “Visions of Johanna,” with Dylan’s exasperation at not getting what he wants audible, then recording an equally riveting, but also rejected, slower version, Dylan turned back to “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?”

Ten takes, three of them complete, culminated in an acceptable version—the final take—which was subjected to a little editing during the outro and rush released as a single by Columbia.15 The new arrangement of “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?” worked up for the November 30 session, with its stops and starts, heavy cowbell, and Robertson’s stabbing guitar, is striking and sounds like hardly anything else out at the time (and bears little resemblance to the July 30 recording even though the lyrics are largely unchanged). However, it failed to rise above #58 on the American charts and would never be played live. Years later, Dylan would dismiss the song, saying “I was pressured to do another single. That’s why that one came out, I think.”16 This account of a song that Dylan made two serious attempts to record separated by several months strains credibility, but one can believe that that is how Dylan remembers it. Dylan’s struggles in the studio continued as 1966 began. On January 21 Dylan and the band futilely wrestled with the brilliant “She’s Your Lover Now” and failed to pin it down. On January 25, rejected versions of “Leopard-Skin Pillbox Hat” were recorded along with “One of Us Must Know (Sooner or Later),” which would be Dylan’s next single in February (and part of the Blonde on Blonde LP released later that year). One more New York session took place on January 27, producing no recordings deemed releasable.

In the folk tale that has emerged featuring Dylan, Phil Ochs, and (usually) “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?” it is the less successful Ochs who tells emperor Dylan that he has no clothes, or at least that his new single is a dud, and is cast out of the kingdom as a result: a classic case of blaming the messenger. It is worth noting that Ochs was in general an ardent defender of Dylan’s move in 1964-66 from topical/protest songs to visionary rock and roll, praising Highway 61 Revisited as basically impossible to top. If he was critical of “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?,” it was not because he thought it was too commercial; if anything, he seemed to be arguing that it was not commercial enough:

 

My first reaction when “Positively 4th Street” came out was total disappointment. I said, “Oh no, that’s not a single at all! What are you trying to do? You’re trying to blow it.” It was a hit anyway, but I thought it was a disastrous thing to do and then they put out “Please Crawl Out Your Window” [sic] and stuff like that and they literally took him off the air. He went from having achieved total air play and that possible Elvis niche—he just completely—he threw it all away.17

 

In its earliest published telling, in Anthony Scaduto’s 1971 Bob Dylan: An Intimate Biography, we are informed that:

One night Dylan played his new single, Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window, for Ochs and [David] Cohen [aka David Blue]. Before he put it on he told them: “This is the one I’ve been trying to do for years, this is the record that’s really got it.” He played it and asked: “What do ya think?” Cohen said he thought it was simply great … Ochs said: “It’s okay.” Dylan reacted as if he’d been knifed. … He played it once more and again asked: “Well, what do ya think?” And Ochs replied, “It’s okay, but it’s not going to be a hit.” Dylan’s anger turned to cold fury. “What do ya mean, it’s not going to be a hit? You’re crazy, man. It’s a great song. Ya only know protest, that’s all.”

 

A little later, a limo arrived to take them out to a club, but after riding for a few blocks Dylan “turned to Ochs and said: ‘Get out of here, Ochs. … You’re not a folksinger. You’re just a journalist.’”18 (Ochs was, in fact, also a journalist.) No date is given for the incident. However, in the full-length version of Scaduto’s interview with Ochs, only published in its entirety in 2021, Ochs actually stated that the new single in question was not “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?” but rather “One of Us Must Know (Sooner or Later),” which was recorded in late January 1966 and released as a single in February, also to no chart success. Moreover, the anecdote lacks the memorable send-off, “You’re not a folksinger. You’re just a journalist.” 19

Ochs had told another version of the story in a 1968 Folkways interview, released posthumously on LP in 1976 as Broadside Ballads Vol. 11: Interviews With Phil Ochs. In this recounting, “one day [Dylan] was being photographed by Jerry Schatzberg and he was playing one of his new singles. And he was asking everybody what they thought. And he asked me what I thought, and I said I didn’t like it    I said, ‘Well, it’s not as good as your old stuff, and speaking commercially, I don’t think it’ll sell.’ We were all in a limousine, David Blue [i.e., David Cohen] was there  He [Dylan] said ‘Get out of the car.’” Notably, Ochs never specifies what the new single was. He does, though, go on to say that he did not see Dylan again after this incident for some two years; this is noteworthy because Scaduto writes about another incident that occurred in March 1966 when Ochs and journalist Jules Siegel had an unpleasant run-in with Dylan in the Hollywood Hills.20

According to Robert Shelton, the incident triggered by Ochs’s insufficient enthusiasm for “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?” took place two months before a different incident with Ochs that Shelton witnessed just before Christmas 1965, thus in October.21 This is problematic inasmuch as “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?” was not recorded until November 30. Shelton seems not to have been present for the earlier incident and perhaps is deriving his account from Scaduto’s.

 

Dylan had played his single “Crawl out Your Window” [sic] for [David] Cohen and Ochs. Dave loved it, but Phil said he didn’t think it would be a hit. That night, Dylan stopped his limousine and made Ochs crawl out the door, saying: “You’re not a folk singer, you’re just a journalist.”22

 

It is worth noting that it’s theoretically possible that earlier in the fall Dylan could have played Ochs the Highway 61 Revisited outtake version of the song and that is what he reacted to negatively, thus prompting Dylan to rerecord the song. This would itself be a remarkable story, but it is not a story that anyone has told.

 

Bob Spitz’s Dylan: A Biography gives the story another spin, presenting what have since come to be known as “alternative facts.”

It had been in 1966, after one of Bob’s appearances at Carnegie Hall. Backstage, he played Phil the final mix of his new single, “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window [sic],” and was told it wasn’t up to snuff. Enraged, Bob invited Phil to a post-concert party and offered him a ride so that he could order his limo driver to pull over and throw Phil out of the car.23

 

Spitz’s cited source for his account is Shelton’s No Direction Home, from which it nevertheless differs in several fundamental ways. Shelton placed the event in 1965, not 1966, and made no mention of Carnegie Hall. Certainly, if the event took place in 1966 it did not take place after a Dylan concert at Carnegie Hall, since Dylan did not play there in 1966. He did play there on October 1, 1965, as we have seen, which would jibe with Shelton’s statement that it occurred “a couple of months before” Christmas. But he couldn’t very well have played Ochs the final mix of the “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?” single, since the single hadn’t been recorded yet. Still, one appreciates Spitz’s added touch, almost certainly fictional, of Dylan’s offering Ochs a ride just to have an opportunity to have him thrown out of the limo.

 

Howard Sounes adds his own interpretation in Down the Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan, writing,

That winter Bob went back into the studio with The Hawks (with Bobby Gregg temporarily replacing Levon Helm on drums). They rerecorded “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?” as a swaggering single. The lyric was slight, utilizing the opening phrase from “Positively 4th Street,” but the band swung like a wrecking ball. Bob proudly played the song to Phil Ochs as they were riding together in a limousine. When Ochs’s reaction was less than enthusiastic, Bob told the driver to stop. “Get out, Ochs,” he said. “You’re not a folksinger.” Going for the jugular, he added: “You’re just a journalist.”24

 

It wasn’t yet winter when Dylan went back into the studio, and the playing of the single now somewhat implausibly (though not impossibly) takes place in the limousine itself, thereby somewhat streamlining the story: but what is new here is not likely to be true, and what is true is not new. Sounes also adds that “the two men continued an uneasy friendship,” which is hard to figure since by most accounts Dylan and Ochs did not see each other after 1966 for many years.

Clinton Heylin’s presentations of this incident deserve special attention, if only because he has written more Dylan books than anyone else. In accounts from Behind the Shades and Behind the Shades Revisited, he places the incident nebulously in late fall 1965 and is content to quote from the Ochs Folkways interview, but states that the song in question was “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?” although Ochs did not specify the song in that interview.25

 

In Bob Dylan: A Life in Stolen Moments, Heylin notes that in late December 1965:

After spending the day at a photo session with Jerry Schatzberg (probably the outdoor shots used on the Blonde on Blonde inner sleeve); the evening sees Dylan launch into one of his so-called truth-attacks on Phil Ochs, who has unwisely expressed disappointment with Dylan’s’ new single “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?” while sitting in Dylan’s limousine. After the verbal onslaught Dylan orders Ochs out of the car.26

 

Heylin likely could not have known at the time that the outdoor photos used on the Blonde on Blonde cover and inner sleeve (i.e., the two “scarf photos”) were actually done by Schatzberg in February 1966 and that Ochs was not present.27 Moreover, Heylin’s 1996 Stolen Moments account differs from his 1991, 2001, and 2011 Behind the Shades versions, each of which imply an earlier date based on the erroneous belief that “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?” had been recorded at the beginning of October, and with Levon Helm on drums.

In The Double Life of Bob Dylan: A Restless, Hungry Feeling, 1941-1966, Heylin offers a slightly different account. Jettisoning his own previous Ochs-derived presentations of the incident, he fashions a revised version mostly based on that of Daryl Sanders.28 He places the event sometime in February 1966, three weeks after Dylan was on Bob Fass’s WBAI radio show on January 26. Coming in the context of a discussion of the commercial failure of both “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?” and “One of Us Must Know (Sooner or Later),” the latter of which was released as a single on February 14, Heylin takes Ochs’s critique (“I don’t think it’ll sell”) to refer to the former.29 Following the lead of Sanders, he sets the scene at Jerry Schatzberg’s studio and quotes Schatzberg as saying “Dylan didn’t take too kindly to” Ochs’ criticism. Heylin differs from Sanders, however, in placing the incident in February 1966 rather than on December 28, 1965. According to this iteration:

 

[Dylan] sat there quietly seething until it was time to go clubbing, at which point he offered Ochs a lift and then ordered him out of the limo, having come up with the perfect rebuttal: “Phil, you’re not a songwriter, you’re just a journalist.”30

 

One notes the subtle variation: Dylan no longer demeans Ochs by saying he is not a folksinger, as in the other accounts, but instead he is not a songwriter.31 Yet, in the second volume of his Double Life of Bob Dylan, Heylin states that the last time Dylan and Ochs had spoken was not February 1966 but December 1965, “when he had tossed him out of his limo.”32 Perhaps having a double life allows both accounts to be true.

Daniel Mark Epstein’s The Ballad of Bob Dylan: A Portrait, is not a biography per se but nevertheless includes a sketch of the incident within a larger discussion of Dylan’s “sadistic” treatment of Ochs (and others). Although his cursory endnotes disappear entirely for this section, Epstein’s account is clearly derived from Scaduto’s biography as well as from Ochs’ 1968 Broadside interview, but features a new setting. Now occurring in Dylan’s apartment, to which Ochs and David Cohen are invited to hear the new single, “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?,” Cohen again approves and Ochs dissents, resulting in, later, his expulsion from Dylan’s limousine with the rejoinder, “You’re not a folksinger. You’re just a journalist.”33

Ian Bell’s account in Once Upon a Time: The Lives of Bob Dylan, the sources for which are entirely opaque, more or less follows the template. Placing the event in December 1965, and arguably with a nod to the ambiguity around the incident, he writes: “[a]s the story goes, his offence was to fail to appreciate the new single, ‘Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?’ Or rather, he failed to praise the track as lavishly as, it seems, Dylan had come to expect.”34 Exit Phil Ochs from the limousine.

In That Thin, Wild Mercury Sound: Dylan, Nashville, and the Making of Blonde on Blonde, Daryl Sanders presents a somewhat more coherent narrative. He specifically dates the incident to December 28, 1965, one week after the “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?” single was released, at the studio of Jerry Schatzberg. Present were Schatzberg, Dylan, Ochs, and David Blue. Dylan plays his new song and the same sequence unfolds: Ochs responds that “It’s okay, but it’s not going to be a hit.” Later, on the way out to a club, Dylan orders Ochs out of the limousine with the line, “Phil, you’re not a writer, you’re just a journalist.”35

Sanders adds to the account the corroboration of Schatzberg, whom he interviewed in 2016, and who recalled that “[i]n front of everybody, Phil was just as honest as he always was, and Dylan didn’t take too kindly to it.”36

Sanders indicates that he is deriving some of the details of the story from Scaduto’s interview with Ochs. We now know, though, that Ochs told Scaduto the new single was “One of Us Must Know (Sooner or Later),” which Scaduto seems to have silently “corrected” to “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?” And he may have been right to do so; certainly if the event did take place on December 28, the new single was “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?” since “One of Us Must Know” had not yet been recorded.

Confused readers will find no comfort in the work of Ochs’s biographers, who are not models of accuracy or consistency on this incident either. Marc Eliot, who wrote the first book-length biography of Ochs, and Michael Schumacher, who wrote the second, provide narratives that simply cannot be squared with either plausibility or possibility. Both set the scene at Carnegie Hall (which perhaps explains Spitz’s otherwise unaccounted for placement of it there), specifically in September 1965 at the Sing-In for Peace. As Eliot tells it, “[e]veryone in the folk world participated, including Dylan,” who performed “Blowin’ in the Wind,” no less, but was more interested in what people thought of “his newest single, ‘Sooner or Later’ [sic]. Backstage he sang it twice for Phil, who wasn’t impressed.”37 “One of Us Must Know (Sooner or Later)” wasn’t released, recorded, or written in September, nor even in 1965 at all.38 What follows can be predicted based on other versions of the story.

Schumacher’s account offers some different details: it was “one evening after [Ochs], Dylan, and a host of others performed at a ‘Sing-In for Peace’ at Carnegie Hall. Dylan had a new song—‘Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window [sic]’—that he wanted to play for Phil and David Blue.” Blue apparently “knew better than to offer anything but an unqualified endorsement,” but not fearless Phil Ochs. Inevitably, the limousine arrives “to take Dylan, Phil, and others to an uptown club,” and “[i]t had only gone a few blocks up Sixth Avenue” when Dylan expelled Ochs from the vehicle with the by now familiar denunciation: “You’re not a folksinger . . . You’re a journalist.”

Schumacher credits Ochs with “being on the mark with his assessment of the song’s commercial potential” but “Dylan, not surprisingly, had the final say, not only to Phil, but to all the people who he felt were putting him down or holding him back, when he issued ‘Positively Fourth [sic] Street.’”39 Of course, “Positively 4th Street” had been released in early September, which means Dylan had already had the final say even before the incident occurred; but perhaps that is what visionaries do.

Even more problematic is the utter implausibility of Bob Dylan in fall 1965 performing at the Sing-In for Peace, much less singing “Blowin’ in the Wind.”40 This landmark event on September 24, 1965, was organized by Barbara Dane and Irwin Silber, the latter of whom had been among the most vocal of the folk music old guard in lamenting the demise of Bob Dylan, Protest Singer, as exemplified by his “Open Letter to Bob Dylan” in the November 1964 issue of Sing Out! The Sing-In for Peace featured dozens of performers, from Pete Seeger to The Fugs, but Bob Dylan was not among them, since he was in Austin, Texas, performing for the first time with The Hawks. However, as noted above, Dylan would perform a concert at Carnegie Hall a week later, on October 1.

The vagueness and errors inevitably have seeped into more general works that draw on the biographies.

Mark Brend’s American Troubadors: Groundbreaking Singer-Songwriters of the ‘60s is circumspect in its treatment of the alleged incident or incidents, noting aptly that it “has since passed into legend”—and, thus, beyond the realm of the mere fact. He places the scene in autumn 1965, and it “may have been in September after the two singers participated in a Sing­in for Peace at Carnegie Hall” (although, as stated above, it in fact could not have been), or else “[i]t may have been during a Dylan photoshoot at about the same time.” Similarly, the song in question “may have been ‘Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window [sic],’ or ‘One of Us Must Know (Sooner or Later).’ … It’s possible that Ochs criticised both songs at different times, and the incidents have been fused into a single event.” Fair enough, and he does not belabor the inconsistencies and downright oddities of the various versions of the incident. “Reports differ,” he offers: an understatement.41

Peter Doggett’s There’s a Riot Going On: Revolutionaries, Rock Stars and the Rise and Fall of ‘60’s Counter-Culture is similarly muddled on this incident. Like Brend, Doggett recognizes the shortcomings of the received narratives, writing that in September 1965 “Ochs and Dylan clashed ideologies in a meeting that has been mythologised beyond the reach of accurate recall.” Nevertheless, he provides the “essentials” of the event (which may contain the elements of several incidents as well as entirely fictional elements): “Ochs lectured Dylan about his social responsibilities; Dylan demurred, and played Ochs a new song (either ‘Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window [sic]’ or ‘One of Us Must Know’, accounts differ),” and Dylan “dismissed Ochs . . . with a damning phrase that haunted him into the grave: ‘You’re nothing [or perhaps ‘You’re not a songwriter’] but a journalist.” Doggett tacks on the ending: “At some point, there was a car journey, from which Ochs was expelled after goading Dylan once too often.”42

Since none of these biographers provides much in the way of documentation, it is hard to know how much of this entire incident is real, or made up, or distorted. Even the most recent publication referred to here, Heylin’s The Double Life of Bob Dylan (both volumes), written with the benefit of access to the official Bob Dylan Archive and thus presenting considerable new and valuable information for the first time, lacks proper endnotes, settling for a list of sources, published and unpublished, primary and secondary, for each chapter; which is better than nothing, to be sure, but only just.

As for Phil Ochs himself, who seems to be the ultimate source for most versions of this narrative, there are good reasons to take his accounts—which, as we have seen, are not entirely consistent with each other—with a grain of salt. By the time he spoke of it on the record it was well-established that Dylan’s two singles (“Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?” and “One of Us Must Know”) had been major commercial disappointments. However, these setbacks were temporary. Even allowing for the up-and-down nature of the reception of his post-Blonde on Blonde work, Dylan remained undisputedly a major figure.

In contrast, things did not go well for Ochs in the years after 1966. Perhaps he was within his rights to stake out a piece of high ground and point out that he had been right and Dylan had been wrong. After all, Ochs was neither the first nor the last person to second-guess Dylan’s career moves. Ochs said that he did not see Dylan again until the Woody Guthrie memorial concert on January 20, 1968. He describes himself seething at the concert—over who was included and who, namely himself, was excluded—but “I went there only because Dylan was there. Psychologically I had to look at Dylan. I had to see him, because I hadn’t seen him since I had the fight and I had to look at him, just to see what he looked like. So I went there and I saw Dylan.”43

It is beyond the scope of this article to engage in an in-depth psychological study of Phil Ochs. He was a talented and troubled man, and his love/hate relationship with Dylan seemed to occupy an especially large place in his psyche. Suze Rotolo, in her memoir A Freewheelin’ Time, observes that “their friendship was complicated. Phil Ochs came to know his limitations as a songwriter in the context of his admiration for what he believed were the unlimited abilities of Bob Dylan.”44 Another contemporary, Tom Paxton, recalled, “Phil was very envious of Bob. All of us were envious of Bob’s success. What the hell! We all started out with the same equipment—guitars and voices—and one of us was suddenly a comet. It’s unsettling, and nobody’s going to handle it perfectly.”45 Paxton, however, was able to go on with his life and his career; Ochs less so. It would be unfair and a gross simplification to suggest that all that went wrong with Ochs up to and including his tragic suicide in 1976 should be attributed to Ochs’s obsession with Dylan; and yet some have. Liam Clancy rather callously declared that “Phil Ochs couldn’t take Dylan’s success and committed suicide,” while Clinton Heylin writes, that Dylan “doubtless blamed himself, as others did, for writing Phil’s last rejection slip.” Robert Shelton even less ambiguously asserts that “some said his exclusion from the RTR was the last in a long line of crushing events that gave him no way out.”46

In The Silent Woman: Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes, Janet Malcolm, in a now widely quoted passage, writes that “[i]n a work of nonfiction we almost never know the truth of what happened. The ideal of unmediated reporting is regularly achieved only in fiction . . . In imaginative literature we are constrained from considering alternative scenarios—there are none. This is the way it is. Only in nonfiction does the question of what happened and how people thought and felt remain open.”47 Setting aside Malcolm’s comments on imaginative literature, her observations on the uncertainties that lie at the heart of biographies must give us pause: what is truth? But the lesson to be drawn from this is not that biographers are at liberty to invent and embroider as they see fit; rather, they have a heavy responsibility to be transparent and readers have a responsibility to read critically. Biographers can expedite this transparency by being clear about their sources and why they privilege some over others; readers must do the hard work of delving into footnotes and comparing accounts that do not necessarily agree. As Malcolm also writes, “The world likes to hold on to its fantasy, rumor, politics, and ghoulish gossip, not dispel them…………………………………………… The pleasure of hearing ill of the dead is not a negligible one, but it pales before the pleasure of hearing ill of the living.”48 In the final assessment, the problem with the various accounts of the Dylan-Ochs spat is not that biographers have seized on a juicy story—that is what biographers do. Just as the story of Dylan “going electric” at the Newport Folk Festival in 1965 has been told and retold with endless variations, pet theories, and revelations crowding the frame, the Dylan-Ochs incident is not going to go away.49

Nor, for that matter, is it of paramount importance whether the Ochs incident took place in December 1965 or February 1966 or in some other proximate timeframe, whether it took place in a car or in a club or somewhere else, or whether the disputed song was “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?” or “One of Us Must Know (Sooner or Later),” to mention but three of the variations in the accounts. It is clear enough that there was a fundamental rupture between Dylan and Ochs around this time.

The problem lies in the shoddy attention to detail, the cumulative novelization of the alleged incident, the cherry-picking of this detail from one account and that detail from another account even though the accounts as a whole may actually contradict each other, and the utter opacity about sources. The ambiguity around the alleged incident should not grant biographers a license to retell it with unsupported (and in some cases unsupportable) details. One quarter of the way into the 21st century, what is the function of Dylan biographies? To retell the same familiar stories with variations seemingly based on little more than the whims of the biographers? To what end? Some readers of Dylan (or Ochs) biographies may still be looking merely for a fan-level celebrity bio; there will always be an audience for such books. But with the proliferation of academic events and publications focusing on Dylan’s work, surely it is time to expect higher standards of research.

 


1 Arthur Conan Doyle, “The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier,” in The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 169.

2 Peter Doggett, There’s a Riot Going On: Revolutionaries, Rock Stars and the Rise and Fall of the ‘60s Counter-Culture (Edinburgh: Canongate Books, 2007), p. 63.

3 Ben Fong-Torres, Knockin’ on Dylan’s Door: On the Road in ’74 (New York: Pocket Books, 1974), 25.

4 Philippe Margotin and Jean-Michel Guesdon, Bob Dylan: All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Track (New York: Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers, 2015), pp. 208-209.

5 In Bob Dylan: An Intimate Biography (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1971), Scaduto mentions that he interviewed Dylan in January 1971; I infer that he interviewed Ochs in 1969 or 1970, since the interview with Dylan was done later. Unfortunately, no dates are given for Scaduto’s interviews as published in Stephanie Trudeau, ed., The Dylan Tapes: Friends, Players, and Lovers Talkin’ Early Bob Dylan (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2022). See also Interviews with Phil Ochs: Broadside Vol. 11 (Folkways Records-FW05321, 1976); Marc Eliot, Phil Ochs: Death of a Rebel: A Biography of Phil Ochs (London: Omnibus Press, 1990), p. 97; also in Eliot, Death of a Rebel: A Biography of Phil Ochs (New York: Carol Publishing Group, 1995), p. 108.

6 David Blue, born Stuart David Cohen, was a notable fixture on the Greenwich Village scene at the time. He released several records, including his eponymous 1966 album issued on Elektra and which vies with the LP Dick Campbell Sings Where It’s At and Mouse’s single “A Public Execution” for the most entertaining products of the first wave of Dylan imitators. His monologue while playing pinball is among the highlights of Dylan’s 1978 film Renaldo & Clara, and he also appeared in Neil Young’s Human Highway (released in 1982). See also David Browne, “Man Out of Time: The Music and Mystery of David Blue,” Rolling Stone, June 20, 2020, accessed at https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/david-blue-singer-songwriter-mystery-bob-dylan-joni-mitchell-1005073/.

7 Even the exact title remains somewhat debatable: on the original single release the title is printed emphatically as “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?”

8 According to Paul Cable’s early guide Bob Dylan: His Unreleased Recordings (New York: Schirmer Books, 1980), the erroneous pressings occurred at the Los Angeles pressing plant and consequently were available only in that area (p. 69).

9 “I always thought it was a good song,” Dylan is quoted as saying in the Biograph notes, “but it just never made it onto an album.”

10 In Revolution in the Air, Clinton Heylin confidently assigns the recording of the version of “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?” released as a single in December to this date: “A November 30 studio date, assigned by others, is decidedly unlikely” (p. 254). Nonetheless, it was so.

11 Glen Dundas, Tangled: A Recording History of Bob Dylan (Thunder Bay, Ont.: SMA Services, 2004), 32. (This is the 5th edition of Dundas’s work earlier published as Tangled Up in Tapes and Tangled Up in Tapes Revisited.) Dundas notes that the Woodstock rehearsals and the Carnegie Hall concert tapes were reported in the draft copy of Krogsgaard’s book Master of the Tracks, but that no evidence of the existence of these tapes has emerged. Krogsgaard does not list either in his later Positively Bob Dylan: A Thirty-Year Discography, Concert & Recording Guide, 1961-1991 (Ann Arbor, MI: Popular Culture, Ink., 1991). I thank Clyde Allen for helping to track down these references.

12 See https://www.bobdylan.com/date/1965-10-01-carnegie-hall/. The site does not provide sources for this information. Oddly, the site omits the setlist for the October 29 or 31 Boston performance that is included (in poor audio quality) on the 50th Anniversary Collection: 1965.

13 The likelihood seems very small. “No recording exists in the Bob Dylan Archive in Tulsa, and no recording is known to exist” (private communication). I thank them for their efforts in looking for this probably non-existent needle in a haystack.

14 For many years, the October 5 and November 30 sessions—or the selection of songs from them that circulated on bootleg—came to be known as the “Los Angeles Tape,” even though (or perhaps, following the logic of bootlegs, because) none of the recordings were done in LA. For decades, precisely what was recorded when was obscure. But it was not easy to gather such information in “the old days.”

15 Dylan’s exclamation, “Oh my God!” is snipped down to “Oh my.”

16 Biograph notes.

17 The Dylan Tapes, p. 146. Ochs sort of has a point—“Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?” and “One of Us Must Know (Sooner or Later)” were commercial failures; but a few months later, three songs from Blonde on Blonde—“Rainy Day Women #12 & 35,” “I Want You,” and “Just Like a Woman”—would make the top 40. It is also the case that “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?” and “One of Us Must Know (Sooner or Later)” were less ostentatious failures in the UK, reaching 17 and 33, respectively. Furthermore, while reasonable people can disagree over the merits of “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?,” the commercial failure of “One of Us Must Know” may be an indictment of the public or the label, but not of the artist who created it.

18 Anthony Scaduto, Bob Dylan: An Intimate Biography (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1971), p. 229.

19 The Dylan Tapes, p. 147. This is not the only difference between the original interview and the account in Scaduto’s biography; the latter is rather more dramatized, presumably for effect.

20 Scaduto, pp. 229, 234. It is likely that Scaduto did not have access to the Folkways interview, which had not been released when he wrote his book.

21 Shelton, p. 331. One sometimes gets the impression that Dylan did very little in late 1965 and early 1966 other than find opportunities to abuse Phil Ochs.

22 Ibid.

23 Bob Spitz, Dylan: A Biography (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1989), pp. 434-35.

24 Howard Sounes, Down the Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan (New York: Grove Press, 2001), p. 193.

25 Clinton Heylin, Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades: A Biography (New York: Summit Books, 1991), p. 152; Heylin, Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades Revisited (New York: William Morrow, 2001), p. 234, as well as Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades: 20th Anniversary Edition (London: Faber & Faber, 2011), p. 234.

26 Clinton Heylin, Bob Dylan: A Life in Stolen Moments (London: Omnibus Press, 1996), p. 88.

27 See Daryl Sanders, That Thin, Wild Mercury Sound: Dylan, Nashville, and the Making of Blonde on Blonde (Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 2019), p. 173; also Bob Egan’s valuable Pop Spots website for a thorough discussion of the photo shoot and its location: https://popspotsnyc.com/blonde_on_blonde/.

28 Sanders’ book is listed as one of many secondary sources Heylin lists for the chapter, but the absence of specific citations means that determining the origin of any given quote or fact requires familiarity with each and every listed source.

29 Clinton Heylin, The Double Life of Bob Dylan: A Restless, Hungry Feeling, 1941-1966 (New York: Little, Brown and Co., 2021), p. 385-86.

30 Ibid.

31 I thank Clyde Allen for noticing this and bringing it to my attention. What rationale was there for altering the account? Is it an echo of Sanders’ version? (For which, see below.)

32 Clinton Heylin, The Double Life of Bob Dylan: Vol. 2: 1966-2021: Far Away from Myself (London: Jonathan Cape, 2023), p. 207.

33 Daniel Mark Epstein, The Ballad of Bob Dylan: A Portrait (New York: Harper Collins, 2011), p. 137.

34 Ian Bell, Once Upon a Time: The Lives of Bob Dylan (New York: Pegasus Books, 2012), p. 437.

35 Again, note the change from “you’re not a folk singer” to “you’re not a writer.”

36 Sanders, pp. 49-50.

37 Marc Eliot, Death of a Rebel: A Biography of Phil Ochs (Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1979), p. 104.

38 However poorly it fits with his altogether muddled account, Eliot is nevertheless insistent on the song in question, adding a footnote to in the revised edition of Death of a Rebel stating that “Although it has always been reported the song in question was ‘Won’t You Please Crawl Out My Window [sic],’ Phil, in an interview with the author, April 18, 1972, insisted the song in question was ‘Sooner or Later’” (Eliot [1990], p. 97).

39 Michael Schumacher, There But for Fortune: The Life of Phil Ochs (New York: Hyperion, 1996), p. 106.

40 It is unclear exactly when he had last performed the song, since setlists are far from complete for 1963, 1964, and parts of 1965. The last definitely documented performance was at Carnegie Hall on October 26, 1963. In the interest of full disclosure, it is alleged that Dylan also played the song on February 11, 1966, in Richmond, VA (see The Wicked Messenger [a supplement to Isis magazine], May 3, 1999), which is also almost certainly incorrect.

41 Mark Brend, American Troubadours: Groundbreaking Singer-Songwriters of the ‘60s (United Kingdom: Backbeat Books, 2001), p. 103.

42 Doggett, p. 63. No specific source is provided, but Doggett mentions Scaduto.

43 Broadside Ballads Vol. 11: Interviews With Phil Ochs (Folkways Records, 1976).

44 Suze Rotolo, A Freewheelin’ Time: A Memoir of Greenwich Village in the Sixties (New York: Broadway Books, 2008), p. 246.

45 Quoted in Heylin, Behind the Shades Revisited, p. 233.

46 Clancy is quoted in Kathleen Mackay, Bob Dylan: Intimate Insights from Friends and Fellow Musicians (London: Omnibus Press, 2007), p. 23; Heylin, Behind the Shades: 20th Anniversary Edition (London: Faber & Faber, 2011), pp. 434-35; Shelton, p. 452.

47 Janet Malcolm, The Silent Woman: Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994), 155.

48 Ibid., p. 24.

49 The variations, pet theories, and revelations literally crowd the frame in the culmination of the Dylan biopic A Complete Unknown (2025). Since the film ends with Newport 1965, viewers are denied (or spared) a cinematic treatment of the Dylan-Ochs battle royale.

 


Works Cited

 

Bell, Ian. Once Upon a Time: The Lives of Bob Dylan. New York: Pegasus Books, 2012.

Cable, Paul. Bob Dylan: His Unreleased Recordings. New York: Schirmer Books, 1980.

Brend, Mark. American Troubadors: Groundbreaking Singer-Songwriters of the ’60s. United Kingdom: Backbeat Books, 2001.

Doggett, Peter. There’s a Riot Going On: Revolutionaries, Rock Stars and the Rise and Fall of ’60’s Counter-Culture. Edinburgh: Canongate Books, 2007.

Doyle, Arthur Conan. The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Dundas, Glen. Tangled: A Recording History of Bob Dylan. Thunder Bay, Ont.: SMA Services, 2004.

Dylan, Bob. The Bootleg Series, Vol. 12, The Cutting Edge 1965-66 (Complete Edition). Columbia, 2015.

Dylan, Bob. “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?” Columbia 4-43477, 1965. Single.

Eliot, Marc. Death of a Rebel: A Biography of Phil Ochs. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1979.

Eliot, Marc. Phil Ochs: Death of a Rebel: A Biography of Phil Ochs. London: Omnibus Press, 1990.

Epstein, Daniel Mark. The Ballad of Bob Dylan: A Portrait. New York: Harper Collins, 2011.

Fong-Torres, Ben. Knockin’ on Dylan’s Door: On the Road in ’74. New York: Pocket Books, 1974.

Heylin, Clinton. Bob Dylan: A Life in Stolen Moments. London: Omnibus Press, 1996.

Heylin, Clinton. Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades: A Biography. New York: Summit Books, 1991.

Heylin, Clinton. Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades Revisited. New York: William Morrow, 2001.

Heylin, Clinton. Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades: 20th Anniversary Edition. London: Faber & Faber, 2011.

Heylin, Clinton. The Double Life of Bob Dylan: A Restless, Hungry Feeling, 1941-1966. New York: Little, Brown and Co., 2021.

Heylin, Clinton. The Double Life of Bob Dylan: Vol. 2: 1966-2021: Far Away from Myself. London: Jonathan Cape, 2023.

Heylin, Clinton. Revolution in the Air: The Songs of Bob Dylan, 1957–1973. Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 2009.

Irwin, Colin. Legendary Sessions: Bob Dylan: Highway 61 Revisited. New York: Billboard Books, 2008.

Malcolm, Janet. The Silent Woman: Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994.

Margotin, Philippe and Guesdon, Jean-Michel. Bob Dylan: All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Track. New York: Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers, 2015.

Ochs, Phil. Interviews with Phil Ochs: Broadside Vol. 11. Folkways Records FW05321, 1976. LP.

Rotolo, Suze. A Freewheelin’ Time: A Memoir of Greenwich Village in the Sixties. New York: Broadway Books, 2008.

Sanders, Daryl. That Thin, Wild Mercury Sound: Dylan, Nashville, and the Making of Blonde on Blonde. Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 2019.

Scaduto, Anthony. Bob Dylan: An Intimate Biography. New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1971.

Scaduto, Anthony; Stephanie Trudeau, ed. The Dylan Tapes: Friends, Players, and Lovers Talkin’ Early Bob Dylan. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2022.

Schumacher, Michael. There But for Fortune: The Life of Phil Ochs. New York: Hyperion, 1996.

Shelton, Robert. No Direction Home: The Life and Music of Bob Dylan. New York: Beech Tree Books, 1986.

Sloman, Larry. On the Road with Bob Dylan. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2002.

Sounes, Howard. Down the Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan. New York: Grove Press, 2001.

Spitz, Bob. Dylan: A Biography. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1989.

“Bob Dylan’s Dream Songs: Four Notes”

By Timothy Hampton, University of California, Berkeley

 

I cannot quite say how I entered there,

Being so full of sleep that I wandered off

The true path …

Dante Alighieri, Inferno I

 

Bob Dylan doesn’t often write about fantastic visions, as did John Lennon in songs like “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,” or Jimi Hendrix in “The Wind Cries Mary.” Nor does he trade in nostalgia, as do James Taylor, telling us about the good old days on the farm, or Taylor Swift, replaying the dramas of high school. Even when he laces his lyrics with unusual images, or takes his listeners on strange journeys (“Mr. Tambourine Man,” “Isis”) he grounds his stories in everyday contexts. However, in the early years of his career he wrote a set of songs about dreams. Those songs use the dream experience as an alternate reality, set against our everyday world. And they ask us to think about the relationship between the language of popular song and the grammar of dreaming. We know, from the time of Ancient Greek philosophy and the Hebrew Bible, that dreams have their own logic, in which objects and words seem to mean one thing but actually mean something else. And one of the great discoveries of Freud was that the logic of the dream is often linguistic. It operates through distortions of words, ungrammaticalities, confusions of sense.1

I mention these psychoanalytic precedents not because I want to write about Dylan and Freud—still less to try to “apply” these concepts to Dylan or “analyze him” —but simply to point out that if we want to think about dreams, we need to pay attention to the most basic uses of language. We need to look at how the logic of the dream is shaped by linguistic style and usage, and we need to consider how these songs get us in and out of the dream world. Dylan has often spoken of his own compositional process as trancelike or irrational. Indeed, songwriters often say that songs simply “come to them” as if from some place beyond the phenomenal world. In what follows, I want to take a few steps toward an analysis of song and dream by looking at how Dylan uses the language of the dreamscape—and at how that use changes as he develops his songwriting skills.2

 

I: Hang Up Your Hat

Listeners to Dylan’s 1962 breakthrough album The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan were treated, among the many wonders of that collection, to a beautiful, nostalgic song called “Bob Dylan’s Dream.” It’s one of several songs on the album that strikes an intimate, less anthemic tone than star-making compositions like “Blowin’ in the Wind” and “A Hard Rain’s A-Gonna Fall.” Because of the impact of the songs around it, “Bob Dylan’s Dream” often gets overlooked. And it feels unusual—private, in a sense—because of the curious branding gesture in the title: not “Last Night I Had the Strangest Dream,” or “Dream a little Dream of Me,” but “Bob Dylan’s Dream.” It is not a shared dream, like the dream of Martin Luther King, Jr. It belongs to Dylan. It is marked with Dylan’s name, such that when his friends Peter, Paul and Mary did their own cover version of the song five years later, they faced the awkward dilemma of having to plaster a rival singer’s name as the title of one of their recordings. This naming impulse was a characteristic of many of Dylan’s early recordings. There is even a “Bob Dylan’s Blues” pasted on a traditional blues-flavored composition of no great distinction. And the branding may be one of the reasons that, despite its beauty, the song has not been more frequently covered.

Except that, as anyone familiar with folk music knew, “Bob Dylan’s Dream” wasn’t Bob Dylan’s dream. It was based on an English folk song from the nineteenth century called “Lord Franklin.” Dylan had recently been in England and had presumably learned the song there, possibly from Martin Carthy. “Lord Franklin,” sometimes called “Lady Franklin’s Lament,” tells the story of Sir John Franklin’s 1845 expedition to find the non-existent Northwest Passage through the waters of Canada. His ships were caught in ice and everyone perished. Franklin’s widow financed attempts to find the lost sailors—or at least their remains—but to no avail. The song recounts a dream which the narrator, a sailor, spends one night on ship: “It was homeward bound, one night upon the deep / Swinging in my hammock I fell asleep” begins the lyric. He dreams of Franklin and his “gallant crew” and concludes that somewhere in Baffin Bay, they must still be alive: “Lord Franklin, along with his sailors do dwell.” The song ends with a wish that may be the wish of the sailor, or the widow (hence the confusion about the actual title of the song): “Ten thousand pounds would I freely give / To say on earth, that my Franklin do live.”

It’s an affecting song, blending English history with heroism, emotional torment with exotic touches about life in the frozen North. English folk musicians, from Carthy to Pentangle, have made it a standard of the genre.

Dylan’s rewriting of the song unfolds over a gently strummed acoustic guitar. “While riding on a train going west,” he begins, “I fell asleep for to take my rest.” The dream unfolds inside this railroad frame, as the narrator thinks back to his youth, and to the friends he left to lead a life of trains and dreams. In the old days, he points out, he and his friends lived in a kind of innocence, heedless of the ambiguities and choices that make adulthood so difficult. They sat by the stove in a warm room and took great pleasure in their own company, as adolescents will do before they face the cold world. “We longed for nothing and were satisfied,” he sings, “Talkin’ and jokin’ about the world outside.”3

What is striking about the song, I want to suggest, is Dylan’s strategic manipulation of the American language. We can see it already in the opening lines, cited above: “I fell asleep for to take my rest.” The model text says, “Swinging in my hammock, I fell asleep,” a much more compact bit of lyric. It is difficult to know whether Dylan’s redundant formulation is the awkward gesture of a still fledgling songwriter, or a deliberate attempt at the kind of archaism one finds in many early Dylan songs. Usually I lie down to “take my rest.” I don’t “fall asleep” on a train in order to rest. Moreover, if I am asleep, I am by definition resting and I don’t need to point out that I am sleeping. Furthermore, this sleep appears to be a nap, not a full-out night in the Pullman car. If this is the case, the intention behind the expression “for to” as a way of saying “in order to” is misplaced. When you doze off to the rhythm of the train wheels you simply doze off. People rarely doze off with the goal of getting their required eight hours’ worth of shuteye. However we read this opening, the lyric seems to be saying too much. The technique is continued throughout, as we get several more phrases that revel in linguistic excess: “we never much thought we could get very old” (instead of “we never”), and “the thought never hit” (instead of “it never came to us,” or “it never occurred”). The song calls attention to its own language, to the way Dylan is inventing his own version of American usage.

And there is much to note. For no sooner has our protagonist shut his eyes than, inside his dream, he gazes into the past with “half damp eyes.” And this teary vision (while his eyes are closed, somehow) seems to put the narrator into a particular linguistic space. For he forgets the rules of normative English grammar. He confuses singular and plural: “by the old wooden stove our hats was hung / our words was told and our songs was sung”; “our choices, they was few,” and so on. 4

We can also note the symbolic function of the “old wooden stove.” It is presumably a stove that burns wood, a “wood stove,” not a stove made of wood, which is what “wooden stove” denotes. This detail cements the notion that this is a dream of self-construction, a fantasy designed to paint the narrator, someone called “Bob Dylan,” as a former hobo country boy. If we want to think biographically for an instant (after all, he names the song after himself), we can observe that upper middle-class houses in Dylan’s hometown of Hibbing, Minnesota certainly had some type of central heating that did not leave families dependent on “old wooden stoves.” These details of décor signal that “Bob Dylan’s Dream” is fantasy, or even aspiration. If Bob Zimmerman had been Bob Dylan, instead of Bob Zimmerman when he was a kid, he would have lived in a house with a wood stove (though not a wooden stove) and a hook to hang your hat.

Obviously, Dylan is using these unusual formulations to create an effect of rusticity. As the tough-edged rambler, in his jeans and suede jacket, he projects himself as someone from the country, a hobo or farmer who, like his well-read idol Woody Guthrie, does not use standard English. This is a feature of many of Dylan’s early songs. The college boy pretends to be a peasant.

And yet, as the song ends, the narrator turns away from the dream and back to the present. He breaks both the illusion of the dreamscape and the conceit of the sleeping traveler. This follows the template of “Lord Franklin,” where the narrator turns to his or her own longing: “And now my burden it gives me pain,” s/he sings, “For my long lost Franklin I would cross the main.” Dylan’s narrator longs for the lost world of the dream while echoing the very rhyme words of the model: “I wish, I wish, I wish in vain/The we could sit simply in that room again.” The prototype expresses longing for the lost object, the dead Franklin. Dylan recasts that expression as the longing for a past innocence. But to articulate this longing he changes linguistic registers. After having talked like an unschooled hobo for five verses, he dedicates the last two verses to his present situation: “Many a year has passed and gone.” And he expresses his desire in long, articulate, and grammatically correct lines: “I wish, I wish, I wish in vain / That we could sit simply in that room again / Ten thousand dollars at the drop of a hat / I’d give it all gladly if our lives could be like that.” With the Anglicized, high-literary rhyme of “vain” and “again,” the song ends.

Freud reminds us that dreams have their own grammar, that they depict opposites that are not opposites, and events that blend into one another. Dylan builds this logic into the dramatic form of the song. In the dream the narrator speaks non-normal American English, confusing subject and verb in a way that only an untutored rural person would do in 1962, then, returning to the present, he shows himself to be supremely eloquent in the fluid lines that end the song. The contrast between the world of the dream and the world of the remembering narrator is a contrast between two kinds of grammar. If the singer is conjugating his verbs incorrectly, you know you’re inside the dream space. And the shift out of the dream world tells us something about the protagonist: he is now no longer the person he was. He’s become eloquent. He takes trains. He speaks good English.

 

II.  Hang Up the Phone!

A year after “Bob Dylan’s Dream,” Dylan turned again to the conceit of the dreamscape for a talking blues called “Talking World War III Blues.” The song builds on any number of talking blues songs, reaching back beyond Woody Guthrie, in which we are treated to the humorous adventures of a hard-luck narrator trying to negotiate his way through a world of menace and injustice. In this case, the backdrop is the early 1960s worry about nuclear conflict. Dylan wrote repeatedly about this question in such serious songs as “With God on Our Side” and “Let Me Die in My Footsteps.” Here, he seems to grasp that well-intentioned denunciations of the military-industrial complex only go so far. One of the features of the talking blues, as a genre, is that it locates the action in the small misadventures of the hero, while pointing toward larger social and economic injustices. Here, our hero opens by showcasing the most “personal” of all crises, a bad dream that takes him to see a psychiatrist. The shrink plops him on a couch and asks him to tell what happened. Dylan’s narrator runs through a series of misadventures of the kind we might expect from the genre of the talking blues, now updated from the Dust Bowl to the early 1960s. Our hero tries to find food, steals a car, and listens to the radio—basic teenage preoccupations for what the song calls “a normal day.”

Yet as is often the case with Bob Dylan’s songs, a composition that seems to be about one thing turns out to be about something else. Here, Dylan turns the fear of nuclear annihilation of humanity into a meditation on solitude. Everywhere our hero goes, he’s looking for companionship. He wants to make love to a woman he meets (“let’s go play Adam and Eve”) and she rejects him; he calls time on the telephone and listens desperately to the repetition of a woman’s voice—and to the passage of time itself: “she said that for over an hour and I hung up.”

Here we get the modern individual lost in a heartless world—a big theme of social science writing during the 1950s and early 1960s—unfolding within a frame of civilizational crisis. However, the solution to this crisis, for Dylan, at least, resides in the language of seduction. Dylan ends the song by noting that everyone seems to be having the same dream. We are all terrified—and we are all alone, despite the fact that we are all having the same experience. We are living through the inversion of the scene of Pentecost, in the Book of Acts, where distinct individuals are joined into community, yet they all hear what is spoken in their own language. The song is about solitude inside of common experience. To console himself—and us—Dylan turns to the wisdom of the ages.

 

Well, now time passed and now it seems

Everybody’s having them dreams

Everybody sees himself,

Walking around with nobody else.

Half of the people can be part right all of the time

Some of the people can be all right part of the time

But all of the people can’t be all right all of the time

I think Abraham Lincoln said that.

 

Dylan’s quotation of Abraham Lincoln, the great leader at a time of national crisis, breaks the momentum of the narrative and seems to be a commentary on the rest of the song. It offers a formulaic account of the problem of the part and the whole. The dream is, by definition, a private experience. However, the dream of World War III seems to be general. And yet, because the dream is private, we all have different visions. We cannot all be right. This conundrum links the two themes of the song—nuclear fear and personal loneliness—without resolving them. And Dylan then responds to Lincoln’s inconclusive conclusion with own formulaic gloss in the final lines: “‘I’ll let you be in my dream if I can be in yours,’ I said that.” The response to the drama of the isolated hero is a pair of proverbs, witty sayings, by the two great American thinkers, Lincoln and Dylan. Yet the final lines, which rhyme with nothing else in the song, respond to Lincoln’s paradox with a kind of transactional model of seduction. Dylan’s hero doesn’t want agreement; he wants love. The final lines suggest a high school courtship ritual, a transaction: “I’ll show mine if …”

Most striking is that Dylan’s gloss on Lincoln changes the terms of the situation. A sexy come-on to the listener counterbalances the song’s sense of isolation. But the come-on only works because the terms of the equation rely—here as in “Bob Dylan’s Dream”—on the resources of language in the construction of dream fictions. The “dream” presented to the listener in the final lines is not the same kind of “dream” as the one that sent the perplexed hero to the doctor, or even the fantasy of generous acceptance of difference articulated by Lincoln. It’s a fantasy of love and sex, something like the Everly Brothers’ “All I Have to do is Dream,” now turned into a proposal. The answer to the anguish of nuclear war, it would seem, is love. Or, as Rosemary Clooney put it in 1951, “Come on a-My House.” But for Dylan to take us from the nightmare of World War III to love and the conclusion of the story requires a redefinition of the word “dream.” We replace the nightmare of the psychotic dream with a fantasy of affection, a curious bargain in which we find companionship inside of our fantasies. If, as Freud suggests, dreams often work through linguistic slippages and jokes work like dreams, Dylan here is turning the very idea of the dream into a joke: “I’ll let you be in my dream if I can be in yours.”

 

III.  Flip a Coin

Two years after “Talking World War III Blues,” on his transitional album Bringing It All Back Home, from 1965, Dylan recorded another dream song, called “Bob Dylan’s 115th Dream.” The album is “transitional” because it blends the new electric sounds that Dylan had been exploring with a few “acoustic” or “folky” numbers. “Bob Dylan’s 115th Dream” is the perfect emblem of this transitional moment since it famously begins with Dylan strumming his guitar unaccompanied, like a folk singer or a busker, and beginning to sing as the rest of the band fails to join him. Everyone cracks up in laughter, and they try it again, with the full band coming in right on cue. As we listen, a folk song becomes rock and roll.

The botched beginning says more than it knows, since the song itself is about botched beginnings. The narrator is riding on the Mayflower, as a crewmember under a certain Captain A-rab. “‘I think I’ll call it America,’ I said as we hit land,” announces our hero, thereby blending the story of the pilgrims with Melville’s Moby Dick and the voyage of Americo Vespucci. Later, in the final lines, we find him crossing paths with Columbus, thereby looping together a whole series of American origin stories. If “Bob Dylan’s Dream” unfolds inside of a nap, “Bob Dylan’s 115th Dream” offers a kind of social nightmare framed as a visit to New York. Indeed, the song might remind us of a tune from Dylan’s album Another Side of Bob Dylan of the year before, titled “Motorpsycho Nightmare,” except the later song is focused on the founding of the nation.5 And the fiction is powerful. We do not stand outside the dream space looking in, as we did on Freewheelin’; we are caught in the middle of it. For no sooner has our hero touched land than he and his friends find themselves in trouble. The captain and his men are thrown in jail and the narrator wanders around New York looking for ways to set them free. I say “wanders” advisedly. “Bob Dylan’s 115th Dream” is not a talking blues in its structure, but it draws on the literary conceit of the down-trodden protagonist, bouncing from misadventure to misadventure, and commenting ironically on everything that happens to him. We see our narrator move through a landscape in which, dreamlike, Dylan distorts everything for humorous effect. He sees protesters on the Bowery, New York’s skid row, carrying signs that say, not “Ban the Bomb” (the cliché phrase of the time), but “Ban the Bums”—a distortion that turns the message of the sign into its opposite. A foot comes through the receiver of the telephone, as if in a television cartoon. Conventional language is turned against itself: our hero asks for Crêpe Suzettes but reverses the order of the words (“please make that crepe”). At every moment in the lyric the world is turned upside down for the purposes of making fun of the overly materialistic, corrupt world of twentieth-century America. The brilliance of the song comes in part from the way it moves between absurd details and the grand frame of the exploration and naming of a continent.

Dylan’s use of exaggeration and linguistic confusion here enable the kinds of attacks on normal or “straight” society that would characterize much of his work over the following couple of years. He is no longer casting a parodic eye on therapy or on war, but on the fabric of everyday life. In contrast to the careful frame structure of “Bob Dylan’s Dream,” Dylan now plunges into a fun-house atmosphere in which the founding of the nation emerges from a series of misadventures, while dream and non-dream overlap. The authoritarian world eventually absorbs the hero himself, for before the story ends, we see him “looking for a cop” to have an aggressor arrested.

And yet, as in the earlier songs, the return to “normal” reality depends on linguistic distortion. Our hero is unable to rescue his friends in jail and must decide what to do. The question of personal responsibility, highlighted in “Bob Dylan’s Dream” around the themes of innocence and experience, comes center stage. Should he try to help his friends? Or should he simply leave town and save himself? He leaves it up to chance.

 

I decided to flip a coin

Like either heads or tails

Would let me know if I should go

Back to ship or back to jail

So I hocked my sailor suit

And I got a coin to flip

It came up tails

It rhymed with sails

So I made it back to the ship.

 

The joke, of course, is that our hero has changed his criteria for decision. The coin comes up tails, which in fact rhymes with “jail,” and suggests that he should go help his friends. However, it also rhymes with “sails” (not with “ship,” the initial term used—“back to ship or back to jail”) a substitution for “ship”—the part taken for the whole. The sound of the rhyme word enables the coward to justify abandoning his friends. He ends the dream experience and escapes through an act of misreading.

The hero’s misinterpretation of the coin toss takes us to the center of “Bob Dylan’s 115th Dream.” The song is about power and violence, and it creates a hero who struggles in a strange land to make sense of an absurd situation. It reminds us of any number of modern parables about confusion and powerlessness, from Franz Kafka to Albert Camus. It plugs into the disorientation of Dylan’s own record-buying public of largely white, college educated young people struggling with the confusions of adulthood. However, in contrast to “Bob Dylan’s Dream” in which Dylan carefully separates the dream from the frame of the story, here we live the chaos of memory and disorientation with the protagonist. The first song is nostalgic, using language as a marker that carefully separates a morally happy past from a linguistically sophisticated present. In the latter song, the hero is not riding on a train going west, he’s caught in a chaotic situation and tries, like an existentialist hero from Dostoyevsky or Gide, to resolve his dilemma with some kind of arbitrary gesture. He flips a coin to decide his destiny. But he then exercises his will to misinterpret the message sent him from the Fates, turning the moment into a reflection of his own cowardice. Everything the protagonist tries in the song fails, except his act of misreading.

 

IV.  Through the Looking Glass

These linguistic distortions are expanded in dramatic fashion in the fourth song I want to discuss here, “I Dreamed I Saw St. Augustine.” The song comes from the 1967 album, John Wesley Harding, recorded after a motorcycle accident that took Dylan out of circulation for several years. John Wesley Harding is noteworthy for its stripped down, “country” sound, and for the concision of the lyrics, which unfold as little parables, eschewing the traditional folk-song techniques of the chorus or the refrain.

“I Dreamed I Saw St. Augustine” stands out on John Wesley Harding for the fact that, like “Bob Dylan’s Dream,” it is built on another song. This song is an old labor song called “I Dreamed I Saw Joe Hill Last Night,” featuring a lyric by Alfred Hayes and set to music in 1936 by Earl Robinson. Dylan uses Robinson’s melody and the conceit of a dead person appearing in a dream. In the original, it is the labor activist Joe Hill, who, though killed in Utah by the “copper bosses,” is still alive and returns from the dead to inspire working men who organize and struggle for their rights. It’s a song about how ideals can empower communities through time, with the dead hero delivering his message clearly: “It takes more than guns to kill a man … I didn’t die.”

Saint Augustine was a fourth-century Catholic bishop who lived in Italy and then in North Africa. Augustine’s autobiography, the Confessions, is one of the foundational texts in Western European literature. It details how he lived a life of sin and lust in the fleshpots of the late Roman Empire before undergoing a powerful conversion experience when he picks up the Bible one day, opens it at random, and begins to read. Augustine stresses the contrast between the old self of his sinful ways and the new self, following the conversion. Thus the book is about the relationship of present and past. (We can note in passing that Augustine was not martyred or “put out to death” as Dylan suggests in his song; like any self-respecting bishop, he seems to have died of a fever in bed).

In keeping with Augustine’s experience of a present that is divorced from a sinful past, Dylan’s song is structured on a break, a separation between dream and waking that is also a separation between a then and a now. Along the way, it overturns the optimistic idealism of “Joe Hill.” Everything in the prototype is turned upside down. The song is not about collective labor action, but about an intensely personal vision that leaves the singer in tears. Where Joe Hill is happy in his transcendence of time, Saint Augustine is “in the upmost misery.” Where Joe Hill encourages, Augustine scolds. Where Joe Hill is about life, Dylan’s Augustine is about death. “Joe Hill” offers a simple lyric. Dylan’s song is streaked with awkward, archaic-sounding phrases: “tearing through these quarters”; “alive with fiery breath”; and so on.

Dylan begins simply enough, with a harmonica solo, as he hits the treble strings of his guitar on off-beats, as if to stress the disorientation of the singer. Later, when the saint appears, he turns to a more regular 4/4 strumming pattern. The harmonica solos, one at the beginning and one at the end, are marvelous and constitute some of Dylan’s most elegant work on that instrument.

Especially important is Augustine’s relationship to his followers. They are described as “the very souls, whom [sic] already have been sold.” Augustine speaks the language of the past, addressing his listeners as “ye gifted kings and queens.” These are, presumably, metaphorical kings and queens, self-crowned royalty, since, normally, one only has one king or queen at a time. In Saint Augustine’s time, they had emperors. Yet these archaic effects are unlike the fake hoboism of Dylan’s early songs. They create a figure who is dreamlike because he inhabits another world from us listeners. Augustine goes on to tell the kings and queens that, quite simply, they own no martyr and most go on their way. They are not alone, but they are responsible for themselves. This rejection of martyrdom is, in effect, a rejection of heroism. Augustine is dead, but he’s not dead, since he’s still prowling around in dreams and songs. He cannot be fixed or taken for granted, because he still appears.

I would suggest that it makes sense, in a slightly different register, to include in this rejection of martyrdom, a rejection of pop-star idolatry. It is difficult not to read the song as a reflection on Dylan’s own recent martyrdom as a rock star who was attacked by his fans and practically killed by the pressures of work and celebrity.6 Saint Augustine, who knows quite a bit about desire, power, lust, and celebrity, now returns to tell the “gifted kings and queens” of Dylan’s privileged mid-1960s record-buying public that they’ll have to make it on their own, without an icon they can worship and destroy.

Within this parable of rejection of the past, the final verse, like the conclusion of “Bob Dylan’s Dream,” includes the protagonist. Saint Augustine is the voice of wisdom, the voice from the past. Still, the singer feels guilt over the sacrifice: “I dreamed I was amongst the ones / Who put him out to death.” Whether Dylan is talking about some death of a friend or a hero, or of his own earlier self, the frizzy-haired Bob Dylan of the 1966 tour with The Band, now broken and living in seclusion in Woodstock, is not clear. The abstraction of the story makes it applicable to any number of contexts—the exploding 1960s after the death of JFK, Dylan after the accident, the music scene after Woody Guthrie (who had died a few weeks before the recording session). Either way, the song is about a bit of hard-won wisdom. Something has died. You are now responsible for yourself—and you may be responsible for the death. Time to grow up. The combination of loss and responsibility generates anguish.

 

I dreamed I saw Saint Augustine, alive with fiery breath

And I dreamed I was amongst the ones who put him out to death

Oh, I awoke in anger, so alone and terrified

I put my fingers against the glass, and bowed my head and cried.

 

We have come a good way from the nostalgic reverie in “Bob Dylan’s Dream.” Here the dream experience is so overwhelming and disturbing that it spills out of the dreamscape and leaves the protagonist in tears. And how we read that last moment of misery is contingent, yet again, on a trick of language. It depends on how we understand the word “glass.” In “Bob Dylan’s Dream” our hero rides a train and dozes off. Here we could imagine a similar scene; he is asleep and wakes up in terror, reaches out and touches the window next to him to steady himself. However the word “glass” clearly connotes a mirror, too—a “looking glass”—in which case the hero is facing his own image. Like some distressed killer or fugitive in a Hollywood film noir, he confronts himself, reaches out to touch his own image—to try, in effect, to connect with himself—and falls short. Indeed, the glass becomes an emblem of the need to reintegrate the self—and the impossibility of realizing that same goal. If “Bob Dylan’s Dream” leaves the protagonist caught in the present, unable to stop time and return to an idealized past, so does the later song depict a self caught in some moment of terror and abjection, unable to pass through the window or the looking glass to reach a state of well-being.

In other words, how we read the common word “glass” determines whether we read the song as a parable of self-exploration, or as a story about a man who goes out to look at the world, watching it go by through the window of a train or a bus. Just as “Talking World War III Blues” ends with a repurposing of the signifier “dream,” turning it from nightmare to erotic fantasy, here Dylan plays on the multiple meanings of “glass.” The difference is that in this later, more intense song, he leaves the meaning of the key word open, challenging us to make our own sense of it.7

I have been arguing that as Dylan’s songwriting develops over the early years of the 1960s, he turns repeatedly to the conceit of the dream vision—current since Antiquity—as a way of exploring the experience of time and phenomenal reality. He takes us in and out of dreamscapes, using the dream to depict social situations that make no sense by the terms of normal logic. In some instances, these non-logical situations have a socio-critical dimension, as in the sarcastic depiction of the discovery of America. In other instances, they seem to go to the heart of selfhood, exploring themes of growth and responsibility. Certainly, the depiction of the non-normative state of mind is not limited to these songs. We could think, most immediately and prominently, of a song like “Mr. Tambourine Man,” from 1965, which takes place in a kind of liminal trance setting, between sleeping and waking. However, when Dylan depicts full-on dream situations, as he does in these songs, he must negotiate the contrast between dream and waking and, even more important, the shift between the dream world and the “normal” world that he shares with his listeners. This negotiation lies in contrast, say, to the Beatles, who were happy to evoke dream or trance experiences through studio effects and leave their listeners there (in “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,” for example, or “I’m Only Sleeping”). Dylan himself would return to the scenario of the dream in a peculiarly expansive way in a much later song, 1991’s “Series of Dreams.” There, however, the dreamer is removed from the experience, only “thinking” about dreams, offering no attempt to link them to our world. In these earlier songs, he evokes the dream experience and then, like a master hypnotist, brings his listeners back to the “real world.” And at each turn—this is my major point—that transition happens through effects of language, either non-grammatical and grammatical phrasing, errant rhymes (“sails” instead of “jail”), or conflicting meanings (“dream as nightmare” vs. “dream as sexual fantasy,” “glass as window” vs. “glass as mirror”).

Of course, these dream songs are not the only place where Dylan exploits the “antithetical meaning of primal words,” to recall the title of Freud’s 1910 essay. Another instance is 1966’s “Rainy Day Woman #12 & 35,” where the phrase “to get stoned” signifies both persecution and intoxication. What is striking about these dream songs, however, is the way in which particular resources of language are privileged, not as ideological content, but as formal features, as literary or songwriting techniques for shaping stories and marking shifts between reality and dream.8

 


1 From the time of Freud’s 1900 book The Interpretation of Dreams, the link between dreams and language has been part of our vocabulary for discussing the unconscious. Five years later, in Jokes and their Relationship to the Unconscious, Freud argued that slips of the tongue, made up words, and puns give us access to the workings of the unconscious. A bit later still, in his 1910 essay, “The Antithetical Meanings of Primal Words,” Freud studied the ways in which ancient languages such as Egyptian used the same word for “strong” and “weak.” He notes that strength could only be signified by its difference from weakness; you can’t have one without the other. So early inscriptions use the same word for both ideas but mark one of them with a “determinative sign” to set it apart. From this he concludes that dream logic is thus deeply archaic, touching on the very origins of human understanding.

2 The most articulate and insightful psychologically oriented student of Dylan’s songs is Jonathan Cott. However Cott draws principally on Jungian ideas and wants to see Dylan’s songs as symbolic territories. My focus will be on the language of the songs. See his book, Dylan (New York: Doubleday, 1984).

3 In reprinting the lyrics I have consulted, in addition to Dylan’s recordings, the Christopher Ricks edition of The Lyrics (New York: Simon and Shuster, 2014).

4 I’ve written at greater length about Dylan’s deliberate distortions of conventional grammar in the second chapter of my book, Bob Dylan, How the Songs Work (New York: Zone Books, 2019).

5 The parallels between the two songs have been noted by, among others, Michael Gray, who for some reason finds “Motorpsycho Nightmare” to be more energetic and “rock and roll”-like. See his discussion in Song and Dance Man III. (London: Continuum, 2000). 116.

6 This self-allegorizing is bolstered by the presence, on the same album, of the song “Dear Landlord,” which has often been read as, among other things, a song about Dylan’s relationship to his former manager, Albert Grossman.

7 Gray offers a good discussion of the song that links it to the poetry of William Blake, with its blend of apocalyptic imagery and narrative objectivity. See Song and Dance Man III, 58.

8 I would like to thank my friends in the “Themes and Schemes” discussion group, in particular the late Mitch Meyer and Cameron Artigue, for their insights into these songs.

“Play a Song for Me”

By Celia Rabinovitch

 

I was born on the Canadian Prairies in the small town of Morden, Manitoba, not far from the American border and Hibbing, Minnesota, Dylan’s hometown. My father owned a dry goods store in an old establishment from 1910; the business my grandfather founded in the 1890s. He was a dedicated horticulturalist, volunteering at the Experimental Farm in the town. It wasn’t important then that we were the only Jewish family in town; we were part of the town and its personal mythologies. In 1929, at the beginning of the Great Depression, my father ran the store; living through the dirty thirties and the dust bowl. When hoboes came to town, he invited them to tell tales at the family table. This background placed me squarely inside Bob Dylan’s early world and the forthright way that he sang. Later I found out that Woody Guthrie and Sonny Terry and Leadbelly sang of these lonesome landscapes that I knew so well.

I heard Dylan’s “Mr. Tambourine Man,” when I was fourteen. It expressed a desire for transcendence and called forth a mystical experience of the world. I memorized all of Blonde on Blonde; I wanted to reflect the mystery woman of “Visions of Johanna”; and searingly, “Stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again” expressed the desolation of our witty and troubled family. Like Dylan, I wanted out—thinking it was the Midwest, but it was more of being trapped by convention.

Hearing Dylan’s songs in the 1970’s drew me to American poetry, blues, and folk music. I traced a line from Ezra Pound’s Imagist poetry. That an image can crystallize an entire experience, a poetic epiphany in which time and space enfold upon one another—this moment became the visual epiphany that I seek in my art. You can find it in Edward Hopper, in Vermeer, in della Francesa, and in Eduard Munch. The Abstract Expressionists frame its impulses. It exists. The simplicity of the image spoke to me. Its multifarious associations seem prismatic. I drew the thread through Pound and Eliot to the French Symbolists like Nerval and Baudelaire, who influenced the luxurious poetry of Wallace Stevens, offset by the plainspoken images of William Carlos Williams. All of them relied on the image to provide meaning. From these bohemian aristocrats to the Beat Poets Jack Kerouac, Alan Ginsberg, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, and Bob Dylan, a stream of poets inspired my art from the beginning.

I select my images in themes, like writing a book or entering the folds of a cubist universe. I like to roll them in the mind to steep their different elements and moods. In my art I use color as mood, composition as energy, and sensual surfaces.

In the images here, I focused in these examples on images of the boat and water, the form against formlessness. The water is fluid and ever changing, like a state of mind. The boat also an image of passage, solitude, and of the soul transported over a crossing. Such images express a spiritual essence. Dylan’s songs have offered me a sense of visual poetry, magic, and of gritty realness that continues to fire my imagination.

 

“Strange Fruit: No Shelter From The Storm”

By Erica Zeitman

 

I wrote “Strange Fruit: No Shelter From the Storm” for my class UGS 302 Bob Dylan History and Imagination with Prof. Tom Palaima at UT Austin. His final writing assignment asked us to think, feel and write about how the songs and events of American history we covered affected us personally. Growing up, whenever I encountered historical accounts of atrocities like the Holocaust, I felt a familiar pit in my stomach, one made deeper by my own family history and the sense that I could trace a direct line to that pain. But when I learned about Reconstruction and the violence that followed it in the American South (and north) over the last 160 years, that same pit felt different, larger somehow, because I had no tangible thread connecting me to it. Listening to protest songs written during the Civil Rights Movement from the outside, I noticed something always felt slightly missing, emotionally and spiritually. This poem grew out of my attempt to understand that ever-present gap, to sit with the discomfort of bearing witness to a history that is not mine by blood but is undeniably mine by inheritance as an American.

 

In sixty three a man was shot and fell

Before his door, his children heard him well,

Rifle crack, silence, driveway—

They heard him from the floor:

Medgar Evers breathed, and breathed no more.

 

He’d crossed the sea to fight for liberty,

Stormed Normandy for men who would not see

That he, come home, could neither vote nor rest

Without a scope and crosshair on his chest.

His killer walked from court. Then walked again.

 

Thirty years would pass before the pen

Of justice scratched a verdict worthy of its name,

And Mississippi carried on the same.

 

These facts are not mere backdrop, frame, or scene:

They are the measure of what true songs mean.

When Ochs and Dylan took up pen and string

To mourn this man, what truth could either bring?

Two songs, two theories, two competing creeds

Of what protest music does and what it needs.

 

One lights a candle at the victim’s shrine.

One asks who handed De La Beckwith his design.

Both right. Both wrong. Both worthy of our care.

The gap between them is the truth laid bare.

 

Before we judge these men and the songs they wrote,

We ought to hear a prior, harder note.

In thirty nine, when Strange Fruit hung in the air,

Billie Holiday put something there

That neither Ochs nor Dylan could achieve:

The voice of one who could not but choose to grieve,

Who sang not from the outside looking in

But from the very marrow of the sin.

No argument, no narrative, no frame,

Just trees, and fruit, and bodies, and a name

Withheld, because the name was everyone,

And then the silence after it was done.

 

Then Simone in sixty four, enraged,

Sat down and in one hour she had staged

Mississippi Goddam, white hot and true,

The fury of a woman living through

The thing that Ochs and Dylan sang about

From safer ground, where neither had to bleed.

And context matters when we read what white

And earnest folksingers attempted here:

The sharpest songs were sung from fury or from fear

 

That was not borrowed, secondhand, or read,

But lived, and breathed, and waiting to be dead,

By brave souls.

 

Now Ochs. Good Ochs. Well meaning, plainly sung.

He was, like Whitman, bardic, open, young

In spirit if not years, and like that Walt

He found in one man’s death the nation’s fault.

When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom’d, we know,

Made Lincoln into grief’s most public show,

And Ochs did this, too: Evers named, and placed

At center stage, his sacrifice embraced

By listeners who needed, in that hour,

To feel the loss and feel their own small power

To mourn alongside those who loved him most.

Ochs sings his song lest

Evers become a ghost

Or abstraction: he is here, he mattered, he

Was real and brave and killed, and we can see

His face if we allow the song to show it.

 

That is no trivial thing. Do not forgo it.

And yet. The martyr frame has its own tax.

To die for something is a kind of wax

That seals a man inside his final act,

And lets the years before recede, in fact.

The fieldwork, voter drives, the daily threat,

The courage of the living, we forget

When death becomes the point and not the man.

Grief resolves too cleanly in this plan:

The listener weeps, feels solidarity,

And rises, somewhat lighter, feeling free

Of further obligation. Mourning ends.

The song, in being kind, the conscience bends

Toward comfort rather than the long hard road.

Ochs lifts the spirit. Dylan drops the load.

 

Now Dylan, twenty two, already strange,

Already stepping outside Seeger’s range,

Already reading Auden, one suspects,

Or someone in that lineage who selects

Analysis where others choose a tear.

The Musee des Beaux Arts taught him clear:

That suffering occurs while others eat,

While someone scratches something, taps their feet,

And systems do not need a villain’s face,

They only need a pawn in the right place.

 

So Dylan turns his camera from the slain

And points it at De La Beckwith. His refrain,

Repeated like a gavel on a bench,

Cuts off the feeling every time the stench

Of righteous anger rises in the chest:

He’s only a pawn. The system did the rest.

 

And this is true. Lord knows the facts agree.

Two hung juries are no mystery,

It is the Mississippi apparatus

Performing its intended function,

Protecting those who serve its broader aim,

De La Beckwith served it well, and bore no blame

For thirty years, because the men above

Required his kind of hate, required his love

Of hierarchy, required him to feel

That he was better, so he would not steal

A glance upward at those who held the strings.

Dylan saw this. Dylan, bless him, brings

The structural critique before the crowd

On the mall in DC, sixty three, he sings aloud

 

What most preferred to leave politely dim.

That we owe him and yet must fault him.

 

For in the argument, the man grows faint.

Evers, who was more than martyr, more than saint,

More than a case study in white class rage,

Who crossed an ocean at a tender age

To fight for freedoms not yet his to claim,

Who came back home and kept on in the same

Direction, organized, and held the line,

Who was shot in the back by design,

In his own driveway, ten steps from his door,

While his children huddled on the floor:

This man deserves to stay inside the song.

But Dylan’s argument, however strong,

Requires Evers mostly as a cause,

A body that reveals the system’s claws,

And not a person with a name and face

Who loved his children, knew his time and place,

And chose each day to stay and fight and be

The thing that cost him everything. You see,

The pawn is named. The system is explained.

But Medgar Evers, somewhere, is unchained

From his own elegy, and floats away

Into the argument. And there I’d say

Is where the song, for all its brilliant cold,

Leaves something true and human, full untold.

 

So what is protest music finally for?

If Ochs resolves too soon, and Dylan’s score

abstracts the very man he means to mourn,

If Holiday and Simone, who were born

Inside the terror, came the closest to

The truth of it, then what are we to do

With songs by men who tried and nearly made it?

We take them both. We hear them. And we trade it,

The feeling Ochs provides, the thought of Dylan,

Back and forth, until the space between them

Opens up and shows us what no song

Can hold alone: that Evers was too strong,

Too full, too real, too much a living man

To fit in any single artist’s plan.

The gap between what Ochs feels and Dylan thinks

Is where the actual weight of all this sinks.

No couplet closes it. No rhyme resolves.

On June the twelfth, a man died, and it involves

More than any song can say, however true,

However well intentioned, me or you.

The music points. The man remains beyond.

Of all the things to say, I am most fond

Of this: the limit of the art we love

Is also how we know what stays above it.

 

“Shadow Kingdom”

By Mike Schneider

 

At the Bon-Bon Club

in old Marseilles,

the band is crammed on two forklift

pallets—two guitars, plug-in

acoustic & here-come-old-flat-top

electric & a ten-buttoned melodeon in

& out breathing carnivalesque squeals

each player masked, covid-style, black,

hooked at the ears. Shadowed

in cocktail-table candlelight,

a blonde woman holds tempo

with two-fingered plunks on steel

strings stretched up & down the neck

of a grizzly-bear sized standup bass.

Upfront, a cornstalk of skinny old man

growls bare-faced into the grill

of a microphone, the kind that stares

at you blankly like a robot from 1930s

Berlin. It hears him, but with no

clue or care whether he’s espousing love,

contempt, indifference or all of the above.

He seems harmless, the old guy, not

an Elvis-like smasher of decorum, but

vaguely dangerous, flashing occasionally

a wolfish sneer, as if to dust the words

with flecks of rust from his tired heart.

Something signals a past-his-prime matador

waving & trying to provoke with his cape

a bull named Puzzle of Existence. He’s

a wizard of song, the old guy, songs so old

no one wrote them. They just walked in

from somewhere & might soon head out

to some other nowhere-in-particular. With

his mouth-harp, he blasts windy swirls

of sound that echo down the coast to Rome,

an ancient pile of rubble. Just then one

of the ladies lays her cheek on the shoulder

of a dark-skinned sailor she pulled from his

chair, slow dragging her heels through a layer

of sand & who-knows-what on the floor. No

dogs are barking in the neighborhood. If anyone

screams, no one hears it as any kind of warning.