[craig r]

But even the anti-corportate stuff was corporate sponsored. I am talking about his image more than his style. He always admitted that he copied guthrie and others. But, it was more like, he was a lefty with political ideas, but his label made sure he performed in the right places, wore the right clothes, said the right things in press conferences/interviews.

But, he did a very good job of fooling everybody. Even Huey Newton and Bobby Seale thought that he was the greatest singer/lyricist of their generation. Which is a pretty big compliment coming from a militant black group to a tiny Jewish boy.

But, you know, I might be being too harsh. Because part of the reason the Beatles became more political/socially conscious is because of conversations with Mr. Zimmerman (just part; Harrison going to India was a big deal as well).

So maybe the "ideal" doesn't matter and it is just the actions that matter. Yes, corporations made a lot off of Bob Dylan by co-opting his ideas, but this in turn got a whole generation taking action. In some ways, he is like Rage Against the Machine (obviously not as influential as Dylan was), but they are on a major label, and are allowed to discuss leftist ideas. And maybe this does more than somebody like Fugazi, who is fairly large, but not enough corporate exposure (by their own choice). So, in the end the label co-opted Dylan's lyrics (which I guess weren't all his own and he took credit for some), but it also created new ideas.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Dylan was totally commercial like the hacks Jefferson Airplane (they were the glam rock of the late 60's and early 70's (and eventually They built a city on rock and roll). So, maybe, I should end this rant. But, I don't want to cause I think you dig what I am saying Blarg.

So, I guess with Dylan, there was the Dylan we saw and "idealized" and then the one that was created. And maybe if somebody does a lot of good, we shouldn't worry about the messenger, but the message. It is just kind of disappointing. But, my guess is that most of these "ideals" we have of "rock stars" are just ideals. I don't know why that bothers me.

One last example, this will sound f'ed up, but take Elliott Smith. He wrote sad songs, lyrics, and offed himself. Now I wish he wouldn't have, of course, I liked him a lot, but we know he wasn't lying about his pain. It was real and not concocted. Like, I said, I was very sad when he killed himself.

Another person that was somewhat full of crap, was Allen Ginsberg. He was very influential on the beats all the way up to Abbie Hoffmann. But, he was full of crap. He made people believe that poetry and writing wasn't hard, "First thought, best thought". But, it turns out this isn't true, including for him.

Another person is Abbie Hoffman, gave all his money from his book to the BPP, fought for black rights, trying to elect a pig (pigasus) to the presidency. Yet, he was a coke head who is manic depressive, who had some racist and sexist tendencies.

So, is the "real" celebrity important or the one that we perceive? Or should I just be inspired and not need an icon or leader. In fact, most "leaders" are nothing. It is always the peoople's names you don't know that make big events happen. Like, MLK was nothing without all the no-names supporting him. Anyways I will end this rant, because I am a smart enough guy that I don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.