Nobel prize in litterature to Bob Dylan

[DrZoidberg]

So what do you guys think about Bob Dylan getting the Nobel prize for litterature?

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-37643621

Even though I hate Bob Dylan. Really not my cup of tea. I think it's great. I hate that the image of fine art usually is art as we did it "in the olden days". Great that the Nobel committee is looking a bit wider, than just print media.

And to those who don't know, the Nobel literature prize isn't a popularity contest. It's not even who is the best. The prize is awarded for innovation. It's coming up with a new useful use of language in prose or poetry.

 

[Rhea]

I was so surprised and delighted to hear this on the radio this morning. Well deserved. As you say, his poetry was indeed an innovation and remarkable in a long-lasting way.


I have gone through stages of whether I enjoy his voice or not. But there are so many covers that one can enjoy the songs/poetry in a thousand ways.

Delightful news.

 

[Jayjay]

He should also win the Nobel prize for the best hat:

 

[iolo]

So what do you guys think about Bob Dylan getting the Nobel prize for litterature?

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-37643621

Even though I hate Bob Dylan. Really not my cup of tea. I think it's great. I hate that the image of fine art usually is art as we did it "in the olden days". Great that the Nobel committee is looking a bit wider, than just print media.

And to those who don't know, the Nobel literature prize isn't a popularity contest. It's not even who is the best. The prize is awarded for innovation. It's coming up with a new useful use of language in prose or poetry.

Grotesque. I could forgive his stealing the name of the famous Irish rhetorician Dillon Thomas, but nobody, surely, has ever heard a word of the bugger's high-whine songs?

 

[DrZoidberg]

So what do you guys think about Bob Dylan getting the Nobel prize for litterature?

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-37643621

Even though I hate Bob Dylan. Really not my cup of tea. I think it's great. I hate that the image of fine art usually is art as we did it "in the olden days". Great that the Nobel committee is looking a bit wider, than just print media.

And to those who don't know, the Nobel literature prize isn't a popularity contest. It's not even who is the best. The prize is awarded for innovation. It's coming up with a new useful use of language in prose or poetry.

Grotesque. I could forgive his stealing the name of the famous Irish rhetorician Dillon Thomas, but nobody, surely, has ever heard a word of the bugger's high-whine songs?

Well, that's irrelevant for a litterature prize. It's the texts themselves he got a prize for. Not the way he performed them.

I personally don't get it. I don't think it's good poetry. But then again I've grown to understand the past Nobel prize winners genius over time. That committee knows what they're doing, imho.

 

[iolo]

Grotesque. I could forgive his stealing the name of the famous Irish rhetorician Dillon Thomas, but nobody, surely, has ever heard a word of the bugger's high-whine songs?

Well, that's irrelevant for a litterature prize. It's the texts themselves he got a prize for. Not the way he performed them.

I personally don't get it. I don't think it's good poetry. But then again I've grown to understand the past Nobel prize winners genius over time. That committee knows what they're doing, imho.

I can't honestly pretend, I admit, that I ever felt the faintest urge to read the words, so they may be brilliant - though I doubt it. I know, however, that there are a great number of real poets whom nobody thinks of for a Nobel, and reckon this kerfuffle is probably more to do with the needs of the Award itself than with verse.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Well, that's irrelevant for a litterature prize. It's the texts themselves he got a prize for. Not the way he performed them.

I personally don't get it. I don't think it's good poetry. But then again I've grown to understand the past Nobel prize winners genius over time. That committee knows what they're doing, imho.

I can't honestly pretend, I admit, that I ever felt the faintest urge to read the words, so they may be brilliant - though I doubt it. I know, however, that there are a great number of real poets about whom nobody thinks of for a Nobel, and reckon this kerfuffle is probably more to do with the needs of the Award itself than with verse.

I think the list of people who deserve a Nobel is long. Nobody is arguing that. Winners have typically been nominated more than ten consecutive years prior to getting the prize. And if you know about the nominating procedure, it's incredibly rigorous. Getting nominated is hard. The people who nominate for the prize in literature are the professors[1] of literature around the world. So it's not the opinion of a bunch of dudes in a Swedish room. It's the collected opinion of everybody important in the academic world of literature.


[1]That's real professors, as in heads of departments, of the most prestigious universities in the world. Americans have a bad habit of referring to "lecturers" as "professors", which confuses everybody else in the world, who uses the word properly. No, it's not even the proper word in American English.

 

[Thomas II]

So what do you guys think about Bob Dylan getting the Nobel prize for litterature?

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-37643621

Even though I hate Bob Dylan. Really not my cup of tea. I think it's great. I hate that the image of fine art usually is art as we did it "in the olden days". Great that the Nobel committee is looking a bit wider, than just print media.

And to those who don't know, the Nobel literature prize isn't a popularity contest. It's not even who is the best. The prize is awarded for innovation. It's coming up with a new useful use of language in prose or poetry.

Hey, don't think twice, it's alright...

 

[Jayjay]

 

[Underseer]

I think they are straining the definition of literature.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

I can't honestly pretend, I admit, that I ever felt the faintest urge to read the words, so they may be brilliant - though I doubt it. I know, however, that there are a great number of real poets whom nobody thinks of for a Nobel, and reckon this kerfuffle is probably more to do with the needs of the Award itself than with verse.

So instead of expending a few precious minutes to read some of his lyrics, you'd rather just "reckon" that he's undeserving? Do you typically reach conclusions this way?

And what are the "needs of the Award" as you see them? Do you think they're trying to go "mainstream" to become "more relevant"?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I can't honestly pretend, I admit, that I ever felt the faintest urge to read the words, so they may be brilliant - though I doubt it. I know, however, that there are a great number of real poets whom nobody thinks of for a Nobel, and reckon this kerfuffle is probably more to do with the needs of the Award itself than with verse.

So instead of expending a few precious minutes to read some of his lyrics, you'd rather just "reckon" that he's undeserving? Do you typically reach conclusions this way?

And what are the "needs of the Award" as you see them? Do you think they're trying to go "mainstream" to become "more relevant"?

It's also the first lyricist ever to get a Nobel award in literature. If one agrees that lyricism is also a form of literature (which it undoubtedly is) then a ratio of 1 to 113 (the total number of prize winners) is a pretty hefty slant toward prose. I find it hard to argue that lyricism don't deserve any prizes. Even though I wouldn't. As far as I'm concerned lyrics are just weak poems that need music to make work. But hey... opinions are like assholes. I'm cool with Dylan getting the only lyricist prize.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I'm ok with it too, though I can only go so far with Dylan.

Joni Mitchell sez it well:

...Dylan comes up at at 2:00, she gets to the nub of it at 4:00...

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

So instead of expending a few precious minutes to read some of his lyrics, you'd rather just "reckon" that he's undeserving? Do you typically reach conclusions this way?

And what are the "needs of the Award" as you see them? Do you think they're trying to go "mainstream" to become "more relevant"?

It's also the first lyricist ever to get a Nobel award in literature. If one agrees that lyricism is also a form of literature (which it undoubtedly is) then a ratio of 1 to 113 (the total number of prize winners) is a pretty hefty slant toward prose. I find it hard to argue that lyricism don't deserve any prizes. Even though I wouldn't. As far as I'm concerned lyrics are just weak poems that need music to make work. But hey... opinions are like assholes. I'm cool with Dylan getting the only lyricist prize.

I didn't need music for this:

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/bobdylan/itsalrightmaimonlybleeding.html

 

[Shadowy Man]

I didn't need music for this:

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/bobdylan/itsalrightmaimonlybleeding.html

Or this:

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/bobdylan/mastersofwar.html

though I really do like the Pearl Jam version of this.

 

[rousseau]

Dylan is one of the most influential writers of the 20th century. He single-handedly changed popular music in the early days of his career. He had the world reeling over the meaning of his lyrics. He played concert halls where, unlike the Beatles, the entire audience sat in silence listening to his poetry. He's likely been performed by tens of thousands of artists and amateur musicians, if not more. His music has universal, lasting appeal and staying power.

You can talk all you want about how the prize should have gone to some high-brow author whose work has more academic depth, but Dylan, probably more than almost any other person in the 20th century, has had a massive impact with his writing. If that's not an indication of it's strength, I don't know what is.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Dylan is one of the most influential writers of the 20th century. He single-handedly changed popular music in the early days of his career. He had the world reeling over the meaning of his lyrics. He played concert halls where, unlike the Beatles, the entire audience sat in silence listening to his poetry. He's likely been performed by tens of thousands of artists and amateur musicians, if not more. His music has universal, lasting appeal and staying power.

You can talk all you want about how the prize should have gone to some high-brow author whose work has more academic depth, but Dylan, probably more than almost any other person in the 20th century, has had a massive impact with his writing. If that's not an indication of it's strength, I don't know what is.

And that is what the prize is awarded for.

 

[iolo]

I can't honestly pretend, I admit, that I ever felt the faintest urge to read the words, so they may be brilliant - though I doubt it. I know, however, that there are a great number of real poets about whom nobody thinks of for a Nobel, and reckon this kerfuffle is probably more to do with the needs of the Award itself than with verse.

I think the list of people who deserve a Nobel is long. Nobody is arguing that. Winners have typically been nominated more than ten consecutive years prior to getting the prize. And if you know about the nominating procedure, it's incredibly rigorous. Getting nominated is hard. The people who nominate for the prize in literature are the professors[1] of literature around the world. So it's not the opinion of a bunch of dudes in a Swedish room. It's the collected opinion of everybody important in the academic world of literature.


[1]That's real professors, as in heads of departments, of the most prestigious universities in the world. Americans have a bad habit of referring to "lecturers" as "professors", which confuses everybody else in the world, who uses the word properly. No, it's not even the proper word in American English.

Well, if that were true of Dillon, it would bear out my worst notions of the degeneration of 'English' as a subject as a result of post-modernism and other anti-critical blights. At least they never nominated his namesake.

- - - Updated - - -

I can't honestly pretend, I admit, that I ever felt the faintest urge to read the words, so they may be brilliant - though I doubt it. I know, however, that there are a great number of real poets whom nobody thinks of for a Nobel, and reckon this kerfuffle is probably more to do with the needs of the Award itself than with verse.

So instead of expending a few precious minutes to read some of his lyrics, you'd rather just "reckon" that he's undeserving? Do you typically reach conclusions this way?

And what are the "needs of the Award" as you see them? Do you think they're trying to go "mainstream" to become "more relevant"?

To make mass-murder acceptable to the mugs, I suppose, so you may well be right.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Well, if that were true of Dillon, it would bear out my worst notions of the degeneration of 'English' as a subject as a result of post-modernism and other anti-critical blights. At least they never nominated his namesake.

Shakespeare invented lots of words he thought English needed. That hardly "degenerated" English. Rather the opposite.

 

[Tinker Grey]

According to WaPo, Dylan didn't take his name from Dylan Thomas: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...2a45d109e03_story.html?utm_term=.7e022243f7ff