Talk:Bob Dylan#Alcohol

Nice article about a very, very loyal long-term fan in (former Eastern) Germany: https://www.spiegel.de/geschichte/bob-dylan-in-oel-wie-das-gemaelde-aufs-konzert-in-ost-berlin-kam-a-52cdc5fa-eef8-4e9f-bced-379d61a1075a — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16b8:2a32:7600:f52c:48b:8ce5:b14b (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

{{u| The One I Left }}: I’ve restored the words "which adapted the tunes and phrasing of older folk songs" to the Lead, referring to "Girl From The North Country" and "A Hard Rain's a-Gonna Fall". I think it’s important that the Lead mentions Dylan first made an impact with these songs (and also "Masters of War", "Blowin’ in the Wind", "With God On Our Side") by marrying new lyrics to traditional melodies and forms. Best, Mick gold (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

::Not sure if that mention is worth of the lead. Seems more appropriate to put in the body of the article.The One I Left (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Since the Lead serves as “a summary of the article’s most important contents”, BD’s talent for writing new lyrics to traditional tunes was surely crucial to the early impact he made with "Girl From The North Country", "A Hard Rain's a-Gonna Fall", "Masters of War", "Blowin’ in the Wind", "With God On Our Side" and more. Mick gold (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

:::: Agree to disagree. I think it's worthy of mention within the article for sure, but mentioning it in the lead seems like puffery.The One I Left (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

:::I agree with The One I Left. His use of traditional tunes in those early songs is noteworthy, but it seems out of place in the lead. Jameson Nightowl (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I think it belongs in the lead. It is not puffery.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Singing new lyrics folk songs is far from unique to Dylan in the folk tradition, and a lot of the songs he did base tunes on were themselves adaptations. Plus of course the point made that not far from all his songs are like this. So these are more reasons why to put it in the lead would seem to over-emphasize it. Meerta (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

"I'm not sure what "phrasing" is supposed to mean in "adapted the tunes and phrasing of older songs". in any case, Dylan didn't merely use tunes he didn't write; he very often used lyrics and arrangements he didn't write as well. He didn't change (or "adapt") music as often as he altered or added to lyrics. It's significant as well that never credited his borrowings (if that's how you charitably care to characterize them). His records always inaccuratedly cited "Bob Dylan" as the sole source of these melodies, harmonies, arrangements, and lyrics. This wasn't ocassional practice either. Virtually every song on his second album "The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan", for example, is an alteration of some previously existing song and all are credited solely to "Bob Dylan". In the Cambridge scene, according to "Baby, Let Me Follow You Down" (the book, not the song), Dylan was known as "that skinny kid who goes around changing the lyrics to songs". Anyway, my position is that a succinct summary of this information does indeed belong in the lead. It's essential to what Dylan did in the first five years or so of his career, the years in which he established himself and rose to prominence. TheScotch (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::A recent edit by {{u|Nikkimaria}} has condensed this phrase to: "adapting older folk songs". Mick gold (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

On March 5, an editor changed "the Band" to "The Band," and another editor reverted. It should be "The Band," as it is at The Band, because "The" is part of the name of the group. In Bob Dylan, most but not all of the 24 mentions of the group do not capitalize "the." I am willing to change them, but I do not want to be reverted, so I'd like to hear from others about this. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia has already come to a consensus on this. See MOS:THEBAND – MW_(t•c) 05:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::I don't see any reference to The Band at MOS:THEBAND. Please quote the reference for me. Thanks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq2|Mid-sentence, per the MoS main page, the word the should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.:

:::*Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues.}}

:::This guideline applies for every band, including the Band. It’s what you’ll see on every page besides this, for example, the page Music from Big Pink begins: {{tq|Music from Big Pink is the debut studio album by the Canadian-American rockband the Band.}} – MW_(t•c) 22:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

You must be referring to "Mid-sentence, per the MoS main page, the word the should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.: Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues." Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah – MW_(t•c) 22:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Second paragraph states he was born in 1961, which is incorrect. 107.138.24.31 (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:No, you're misreading. It says, "Born in Minnesota. In 1961 he moved." --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for the clarification. I stand corrected. 107.138.24.31 (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected|Bob Dylan|answered=yes}}

In the body it says Dylan was born in 1961. He was actually born in 1941. 47.198.42.97 (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done}}: It doesn't say at any point in the article that Dylan was born in 1961. Remsense ‥ 论 00:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

So @Remsense and I are dancing around this section I want to add to his Nobel Prize subsection.

There are two points I wanna make, and which Remsense disagrees on:

1. There was controversy around Bob Dylan's reception of the literature prize.
2. Bob Dylan was accused of plagiarising his speech from SparkNotes.

I've been careful about quoting which parts of each article either repeat or confirm either of these things: That there was controversy and that Slate did accuse him of plagiarising. To take it further, I then went to reputable sources and quoted their phrasing to avoid Remsense's concern about WP:BLP, then highlighted that Slate had listed a graph of similar phrasing. In other words, I was careful to write he was accused. I also added a bunch of sources because I knew they'd be afraid of lawsuits and followed in their example in being objective in my reporting. (For what it's worth, I think the accusations have much merit.)

I think these two points are valid, the changes are completely fair, and Remsense's reversions unwarranted. But since I don't want to get into an editing war with my fellow editors, I thought we could see what the general consensus is. MattressSmith (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:The question is mainly whether the elements actually matter enough to be included. There's controversy with every Nobel Prize. For the plagiarism, a smattering of articles from the time all copying each other (a demerit, not credit) often doesn't amount to due weight for mention in a biography like this. Remsense ‥ 论 15:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think they greatly matter, and not just because Slate made a compelling case that gained traction. I'd additionally argue that removing the backlash is completely unwarranted because giving it to a singer-songwriter was novel, and the "quotes" he cited in his lecture completely fabricated. Slate identified them—and correctly, I'd wager—as coming from SparkNotes.

::As it is, the section reads like a paean. I imagine you're a fan, but this is worthy material. MattressSmith (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Agree with {{u|Remsense}}. Imho this degree of analysis of Dylan’s Nobel Prize lecture is WP:UNDUE. The topic of Dylan and plagiarism is covered in the Legacy section of the Dylan article. Allegations of plagiarism and similarities to SparkNotes in Dylan’s Nobel Prize lecture are described in the WP article 2016 Nobel Prize in Literature, which is the proper place for this material. Mick gold (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::What about a line on controversy? "The win saw some controversy by authors, as well as for being awarded to a singer-songwriter." MattressSmith (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm going to add a line about the controversy if not told otherwise in a couple of days, as I've been waiting for more engagement for four. (cc @Remsense.) MattressSmith (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The line you want to add seems kind of vague and meaningless. Unless we want to go into the details (which as Mick says are in the other article), it seems better to skip it.Brianyoumans (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Surely the NYT quote "Mr. Dylan, 75, is the first musician to win the award, and his selection on Thursday is perhaps the most radical choice in a history stretching back to 1901." explains why it was controversial for a singer-songwriter to be awarded the Nobel Prize in literature. And as {{u|Remsense}} notes, almost every Nobel Prize in Literature is accompanied by controversy. Mick gold (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Most controversy is about tastes. Some controversy, like Haneke's, needs covering. In-context, the NYT line reads like it's marking how amazingly unique this is, not how controversial.

:::::::I think this line would be useful:

:::::::The announcement was met with controversy, in part because Bob Dylan was the first (and, so far, only) singer-songwriter to receive the Nobel Prize in Literature.

:::::::If it were up to me, I'd add the line about plagiarising the SparkNotes speech, but I seem to be alone in this.

:::::::The page in general reads more like a panegyric than a Wikipedia article. Why are there so many photos of performances? MattressSmith (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)