((phil, i miss you and cannot wait to call you when i get to minnesota!!))

two years ago today.... almost:

While Phil is off in Greece there I thought I'd finally take up the opportunity to talk about him without him having the ability to disagree. We have been having this off and on discussion regarding the relative value of two songs. Both of them are entitled "Everybody Must Get Stoned." One version is performed by Bob Dylan, the other by Cypress Hill. As some of you may be unfamiliar with one or both of these songs, I'll give you the basic idea. Bob Dylan, writing and performing in the 1960's and '70's created his song such that the references to smoking marijuana were all double entendres in a witty and cute way. At no point did Dylan explicitly refer to marijuana, thereby evading the wrath of the censors. Cypress Hill, writing and performing in the 1990's and through the present took a different tack where the entire song was explicitly making reference to smoking marijuana. Working from these basic facts, Phil and I have come to divergent opinions regarding these songs. I'll lay out my position, which I may or may not have stated in full to Phil, and attempt to recreate Phil's position as I understand it. When he returns from the great beyond he can go ahead and clarify any points I have muddled or otherwise misconstrued. But I am curious to get some input on this question from others. So, here goes.



Push comes to shove over this question, my vote comes down with Cypress Hill elevating the game that was initiated by Dylan. Before I get too far, I want to acknowledge that neither Cypress Hill nor Bob Dylan were/are the only artists pressing the limits of art, expression, etc. through their music. This debate could just as well expand to include NWA versus The Rolling Stones or Elvis. Dylan and Cypress Hill happen to have songs with identical titles and similar themes which creates a set of like terms that make for easier comparison.



Getting back on point, the context that these songs grew out of cannot be ignored in this discussion. Dylan wrote his version, as I said earlier, in order to thumb his nose at what the national censors would and would not allow to be played on the radio. At that point in time, Dylan's lyrics making such bold references to marijuana were cutting edge, risque, and gave him considerable notoriety as an anti-establishment figure. This was not his only work to do that of course, but it is a notable piece of social commentary in that respect.



Cypress Hill cannot be examined in the same context as Dylan because they were responding not just to Dylan but also to society as a whole in the same way that Dylan was. So while Dylan had to be cutsie with his phrasing to get his song played, which simultaneously hammered home his point that censorship was dumb, Cypress Hill was working with a different set of social norms. When they took on the task of writing and performing a song on the subject of marijuana, the times they had changed a bit. Like the rest of Cypress Hill's work, there is a strong anti-establishment to this song. When this song came out it was a bold statement of free expression in that, rather than being cutsie about taboo subjects this was a group that was going to be in your face and telling you all about their illegal activities. Everybody knew that Dylan was talking about marijuana but he could point to an alternate meaning to satisfy the prudes of the world. The modern version, though, removes that layer of cover for the artists and dares anyone to complain or try to censor it. While Cypress Hill was not the only group pushing the limits of acceptable public speech when they wrote this song, neither was Dylan. The reason I find that the Cypress Hill version to take pop culture to the next level is that it represents the removal of the veneer of acceptability and conformance that marks the music of Dylan's time. The veil has been lifted from the references to the same activities that artists have been engaged in since long before either Cypress Hill or Dylan. Cutsie is alright, and can be witty and all of that, but cutsie takes a backseat to raw truth in my opinion. ((however, long live Dylan))



Phil's position is that Dylan's song is superior and that Phil himself could have written (and implicitly performed) the Cypress Hill song, "with [his] butt." Now, I have yet to get much more than that out of him on the subject, so I will attempt to extrapolate where I think he is coming from. First off, the thing that I am referring to as "cutsie" is actually an amazingly intricate batch of lyrics that rhymes, flows, whatever you want to call it, makes sense, and makes about a bajillion marijuana references without any of them being explicit. I agree with this wholeheartedly. But the lyrics of the Cypress Hill song also rhyme, flow, and make sense. While the references to marijuana are explicit rather than implicit, that in itself is insufficient to dismiss the song as something one could write with their butt. For the reasons outlined above, much of the point of the newer song was to take the older one and modernize it by making explicit the "quiet part." As far as flipping the bird to the establishment, there are some strong similarities here. And as far as the lyrical skill employed by the artists in crafting their message, Cypress Hill throws out flows that would leave Dylan a stuttering mess if he tried to imitate their style. Cypress Hill may be operating with a more limited vocabulary than Dylan, they convey their message just as artfully as Dylan. It might be worthwhile to note that English is a second language for Cypress Hill, a slight disadvantage in a lyrical contest. But in either Spanish or English, there are very few artists that can match the oral skill that these rappers can put down, which is impressive.



Now, for all of you that are itching to write about how Dylan is a more skilled musician than Cypress Hill could dream of, I agree. He's nice on the guitar, and can write with the most powerful of imagery. That's not the point that I'm trying to make, so save your fingers. Many also believe has one of the worst voices in human history, that is also not the point. Heck, some people even like him for the voice, it's like his thing. Hell, I do. My biggest hangup here is that I feel pretty confident that the knee-jerk reaction of everyone reading this blog upon considering the question of Cypress Hill versus Bob Dylan snorted, huffed, and said "Dylan, of course." The lack of respect given to rap music as a forum for valuable art as well as political commentary is as unfair to the genre as someone dismissing all music performed by female artists after listening to Brittaney Spears. Of course there is no way to come to a definitive conclusion over who is a "better" artist or who made a "better" song, Dylan or Cypress Hill, that is also not the point. The final determination comes down to individual preferences and tastes and neither Phil nor I will ever convince the other to change which song we like better. By the same token it is unreasonable and unfair to dismiss one song or the other because you respect one genre of music more than the other. I leave it to all of you to draw some connections between knee-jerk reactions to different types of music, be they country, rap, classical, techno, polka, whatever, and to different groups and ideas in society as a whole. I think that the same phenomena is at work when Phil rejects Cypress Hill offhand when Apollodorus rides to the defense of capitalism at a moment's notice. Take a look at the things you are so quick to defend or condemn and question yourself a bit. I am curious to hear what you find.

((turns up Dylan))



But now I am afraid to leave my house, because there are ten billion children roaming my 'hood with bags, and I have nothing but razor blades and bleach to give them. Maybe they like 40's and oldstyle porno playing cards?