Yesterday I attended a seminar-type presentation by Lee Marshall about his upcoming book concerning Bob Dylan and the star persona. Great talk; looking forward to the book being published.
But anywho, at the end he opened up a discussion about meaning, music, and whether the meaning should be placed in the lyrics, or in the singer him/herself. Of course, a great debate started about his use of the word "authority" when he mentioned that he thought the meaning was in the "authority" of the singer's command of the song. The gender card was played - authority is too masculine, we should use "lighter" words such as embodiment, or presence.
I, for one, believe that of course authority is a masculine term, but only because we have created it to be so. We can blame rock for that. For male rock stars, it's all about the authenticity - it's all about being who you are, on-stage and off. Liven' the dream, as such.
I need to get my view off my chest. In the heated debate I didn't manage to make my point. So..
Marshall was taking his view of stardom from Dyer's film theory. In this form of stardom, there is a separation from the star as image and the star as regular person. The more "authentic" the star is, the more the same she is perceived to be in her star persona and her "normal life." And so, instead of using words such as authority, Dylan's singing can be seen more of as a removal of the star. In no ways an I implying that Dylan is not a star - he's one of the biggest - but because you can sense so much of him in his singing (he's got a very strong grain), it is removing the gap between star persona and real persona. He IS Dylan, his songs ARE Dylan. Hence why so many people look to the lyrics to find the man. The man is not in the lyrics, he's in the voice, and the voice is in the man. No catch, no star. It simply IS him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment