I don’t think there is any evidence that he made a deal with anyone dark. He’s 85 and there is no evidence from his words or deeds over his life-time that he did any such thing, apart from this highly spurious statement. He’s not a saint, no more than I am. But, I don’t think he deserves this kind of assumption of guilt. Anyway, I intend to say no more, because the whole conversation is seriously disillusioning me.
I'm glad DeGaulle gave another side to the story. It makes things a lot more funny if Dylan is just being eccentric.
I had a long chat with Magisterium AI and it says that, given the sparseness and ambiguity of the evidence, and given the counterweight of much of his life’s work, the burden of proof is on those making the accusation, which it classed as very grave. By putting the blame on Dylan for the accusation, you are assuming you have already proved it. I think this is very far from the case. And you did say another word and now I am. The AI quoted the Baltimore Cathechism, and I paraphrase from memory, ‘when a statement can be reasonably interpreted in more than one way, one should not rush to assume the worst meaning’. Therefore, I’m sticking to my guns.
Thank you for this. That is a huge difference from the initial quote I saw. What did you think of the movie a couple of years ago?
I didn’t see it. I tend to think of films about him as having the possibility of being exploitative. I go to see him when he performs in Ireland. He’s not everybody’s cup of tea, but he fills the Point Theatre every time he appears-about 12,000. He played with the Clancy Brothers back in the early sixties-they were from not far from where I live. In 1992, Sony/Columbia laid on a big 30th Anniversary Concert for Dylan, featuring nearly every big music star of the time. The youngest and last surviving Clancy, Liam, performed in it with his former singing partner, Tommy Makem, who owned a pub in New York at the time. At the end of the concert, a lavish party was laid on by Sony/Colombia in the penthouse of the building which hosted it, with all the big executives and hobnobs hoping to mingle with Dylan, their big star. But, Hamlet was without the Prince…Dylan scuttled off with Liam Clancy and quite a lot of the other performers and spent the night in Tommy Makem’s pub!
Actually, he said ‘in this world and the world we cannot see’, which plausibly amounts to the same thing. I also spotted a little more in the transcript. He describes his ‘destiny’ as being where he was in 2004; but where was he? He was in the middle of what came to be known as the Never Ending Tour (NET), which had begun in 1988. It didn’t involve big stadium performances, because he never recovered the ability to attract big enough crowds after the loss of popularity due to three Christian albums in a row, ‘79-‘81’. He played in all sorts of venues, all over the world. He did about 100-120 shows a year and is still doing it. He’s working extremely hard for modest enough money, relatively speaking. Why do this? It’s hardly fame or greed. He doesn’t need the money, he’s sold his royalties. It may be his way of doing a bit of evangelising. I think that’s the deal he made.
This is a very grave accusation. And as I’m defending him, it would make me complicit, consciously or not. This is a public forum and will go on the record. Other people attend reading it and may come to read it. You say you have knowledge or evidence to support what you say. If so, you have a duty to present it. Also, who are these people who you tell us are saying these things and why should we believe them? It’s only hearsay and gossip without evidence. What books have you read-I have hundreds about him and have found nothing to confirm this? Otherwise, it cannot be distinguished from calumny.
That is an evasion of my questions. The accusation you have made here is about as bad a thing as one can say about any person. I have been defending this person and have invested a lot of my spare time in his art for over half a century. If what you claim is true, that whole section of my life would have been based on a terrible falsehood. Fair enough, I’d just have to chuck out all the cd’s and books. I’d get over it. However, such serious claims require a high standard of proof. My cd and book collection isn’t very important, but a man’s good name is. You claim to have the proof, which lends even greater gravity and seriousness to your claim. I reiterate, you have a duty to either demonstrate what you say is true. Or, it is not me that needs to be doing any deleting… [It’s late here and I’m off to bed].
