Comic Book Resources

Please tell me that you have Live 1966!

It kicks "I Don't Believe You" up a whole other notch.

I do not. But, I know it's on that album, so I've been meaning to get it for a while.

He even introduces it with the amazingly cool line, "This is called 'I Don't Believe You,' it used to be like that and now it goes like this."

I'm sure you know this, but Ellis himself talks about the three story arcs being part of a whole in the first issue of The Authority. Unless it's not Ellis, but the editor. Anyway, it's in the back of the first issue.

It's interesting, Chad, apparently I'm a bit mistaken - I was confusing the Biograph one with the live versions from 1965.

The 1965 version is a lot different from the original (and better), but the 1966 one blows the 1965 one out of the water.

However, the Biograph one actually IS from 1966, just a week before Live 1966.

So it's basically the same version, just the Live 1966 perhaps has a little more "snarl" to the performance. I still prefer Live 1966, but the difference is not as big as I thought.

But yeah, if you like the Biograph one, you'll definitely like the Live 1966 one, and the other electric songs are quite good, as well (I like the acoustic stuff, too, but the electric stuff is definitely the highlight of the show). The re-arrangment on "One Too Many Mornings" is exquisite.

It's clearly a straight line.

No, looking back it seems like one, but it wasn't.

The second volume of StormWatch starts out heading in a different direction to where it ends up - this time they are the good guys but it's the non-powered people who refuse to change - and apparently it was after Jimenz couldn't keep up and Hitch did a fill in that Ellis starts changing his styles.

If you want to argue that it really is one big book going the way it was meant to, then it's a total failure.
However, if you see it for what it was, Ellis starting with his ideas and then working and refining them as he went, until he got to the point of The Authority, then it works.
But to treat it as one big series really does it a disservice.

While you guys are going on about Dylan, can one of you answer a question?

I recently got the 2nd and 3rd disc of the "Bootleg series" (I've had the 1rst disc for about 15 years).
Anyway, to me the best song on there is "Santa Fe", love it, is it on a regular album?

Part of it's charm is the rough demo production, but I might like to here another version.

My very brief search didn't turn up much. Anyway, just curious.

I like Dylan well enough and I certainly have immense respect for him and his place in music history but he's not a favorite of mine, but that's a great song.

Thx

Chad, to follow-up on your comments; I forgot that Norman was appointed and not elected, but he's still in a position where he's legitimate and beloved by the public, so killing him now would either A.) bring about a Days for Future Past backlash ( since that story had the Sentinels kill/ imprison ALL metahumans, not just mutants ), B.) get someone who might be less ridiculously corrupt than Norman, but still a greedy bastard, or C.) require the Avengers to take over SHIELD by force, thus becoming fascists themselves.

Killing Norman now would backfire. But getting him to go completely off the rocker and get him back in the Goblin getup would put him in a position where you'd be correct and he should be killed.

Chad, your thoughts about murder and capital punishment as expressed in your blog were provocative and glib. Esther's keen, well-thought-out response picks apart the issue with the detail necessary to hold a serious discussion on a serious topic. It's ironic that, in replying to her, you wrote:

"It’s much too simplistic for me when, if we’re to believe that comics are more ’sophisticated’ than they once were, the discourse in this area should be more nuanced and complex."

That sentence was, itself, more nuanced and complex than your original post — which was too simplistic. At least for me. (Of course, if you'd intended to jump-start a renewed debate about this, then well done!)

There are all sorts of shades of gray here. I am reminded of one favorite work of fiction that grapples with this topic: "The Lord of the RIngs" (the film versions, specifically). When King Theoden wants to kill Wormtongue in "The Two Towers," Aragorn stops him because, in that moment, it would be purely a revenge killing, not one necessary for self-defense or one done in the context of battle. And when Frodo wishes, early on, that Bilbo had killed Gollum, Gandalf responds by gently chiding him (I'm paraphrasing here): "Do not be so quick to deal out death and judgment." Indeed, as it turns out, Gollum, even in the depths of his evil, is key to the Fellowship completing its dire quest.

A very similar debate is going on right now in the "Green Lantern" saga (as it was building up to "Blackest Night"). Geoff Johns and Peter Tomasi are challenging us readers to consider how to act heroically in the face of villains who kill wantonly. (I know that might surprise some people here at CSBG, since popular opinion seems to hold that Johns loves strictly gratuitous violence.) In the heat of the Sinestro Corps War, GL rings were suddenly permitted to use lethal force, a capability they'd been denied in the past. Soon after, Laira executed a Sinestro Corps member who'd murdered the family of a fellow GL — but she murdered him after the fact, after he'd surrendered. She made that call in the heat of the moment, and was banished from the GL Corps for it. Later still, the Alpha Lanterns summarily killed dozens of prisoners in the wake of a riot/jailbreak on Oa — premeditated, not spontaneous, executions — yet Kyle and Guy stepped in to try to stop it. So for two or so years now, we've been seeing the Green Lanterns deal with an increasingly violent universe, and they've been roiled in an internal debate about how to respond appropriately (just as we readers are debating the same questions). It's a safe bet that, with the dead rising from the grave now, many of the executions they engaged in are going to have some very unhappy, violent repercussions.

Having said that ... I agree, Chad, with your reply to Esther. And, for what it's worth, I think Wonder Woman was right to kill Maxwell Lord. (I loved the point Greg Rucka made in that storyline: Diana had previously killed Medusa in the heat of battle, a killing that was also televised — but she didn't face negative repercussions that time, because she'd killed a "monster." Was Maxwell Lord any less of a monster than Medusa? Only in outward appearance.)

In the heat of the Sinestro Corps War, GL rings were suddenly permitted to use lethal force, a capability they'd been denied in the past.

And most of the Lanterns didn't even miss a beat before they started killing.

Screw their honour and their code, the second the rings stopped shutting down when you try to kill, they become all about the killing.

Darn space Filth.

I recently got the 2nd and 3rd disc of the "Bootleg series" (I've had the 1rst disc for about 15 years).
Anyway, to me the best song on there is "Santa Fe", love it, is it on a regular album?

"Santa Fe" is a wonderful little tune, isn't it?

I think his vocals lend that particular song a lot of its charm.

In any event, no, that song was never released on a Dylan studio album. It is one of the songs that Dylan recorded with The Band in the basement of Big Pink in Woodstock, NY in 1967.

They recorded over a hundred songs, all demo style.

Columbia put together 24 of the most famous/best quality recordings as The Basement Tapes in 1975.

Over the years, they've released some more songs from those sessions here and there (the original "Quinn the Eskimo," I believe was released on Biograph, and as you mentioned, "Santa Fe" is on the Bootleg Series), but there are dozens and dozens and dozens of songs that have never been released, including some really great songs.

For instance, "I'm Not There," a really good song that inspired a recent movie ABOUT Dylan, was never released until the soundtrack of the film based on it!

"I'm Not There," a really good song that inspired a recent movie ABOUT Dylan

Did it inspire the film or just the title?

I only listened to the start of the commentary, but Haynes said it was a car trip where he was listening to all his Dylan albums for the first time in awhile where he got the idea to do a film about all the different Dylan persona's Dylan had created.

Always preferred the Biograph version to the Live 1966 one. Robbie's guitarwork on the Biograph take is just... wow.

Did it inspire the film or just the title?

Yeah, fair enough, the latter.

That's still impressive for a song that was never officially released until the soundtrack of the film whose title it inspired!

How about that Blowin' in the Wind, huh? Pretty good tune.

I've always thought Scott McDaniels's art sucked - all flash (Hey look, a fisheye lens shot! Hey look,depicting motion by showing the same character in multiple poses!) without underlying solid draftsmanship or strong storytelling. In fact, he's one of the few artists who can tilt me away from buying a book. But obviously, many others disagree.

On a more positive note, I'm very fond of the version of "I Don't Believe You" on Another Side, so I've got to hear the other versions discussed.

On a more positive note, I'm very fond of the version of "I Don't Believe You" on Another Side, so I've got to hear the other versions discussed.

Well, they're extremely different versions.

It's almost like a brand new song.

I like the original, as well.

How about that Blowin' in the Wind, huh? Pretty good tune.

Most definitely!

Now that I think of it, the first time I remember hearing "I Don't Believe You" was the electric version in The Last Waltz. How do the other electric versions compare with that?

"Santa Fe" as recorded initially is on The Genuine Basement Tapes Volume 3. The sound quality is atrocious, but the song is pretty good!

You should release your top ten storylines as a countdown from 10 to 1 as the official CSBG list is released, with a little write-up on each one.

I loved the second issue of GM's Authority, not the first.

I'm still looking for the first issue of Greek Street for a dollar. Maybe I'll actually at some point buy a new Vertigo trade. For as much Vertigo reading as I've done (a lot!), I've still have never done that.

"Now that I think of it, the first time I remember hearing "I Don't Believe You" was the electric version in The Last Waltz. How do the other electric versions compare with that?"

Less laid back. It's probably a bit more 'Planet-Wavesy'.
Have you heard both versions of the song they did at The Last Waltz? There's a reprise on the soundtrack that's not in the film.

Brian, Chad, et al: Have any of you heard any of the Rolling Thunder Revue concerts, from 1976? I downloaded one recently, and it might be the best live Dylan I've heard besides the Live '66 album (the one in which an audience member yells "Judas," right?) Mick Ronson, David Bowie's lead guitarist during the "Ziggy Stardust" years, played some lead, and Dylan's clearly having a great time.

@Dan Felty: I do have the Last Waltz soundtrack, with the reprise. I haven't listened to it for quite a while, so I can't remember how they compare.

@Chad: I completely forgot to comment on Greek Street. I keep buying it because I always like to give the "good" Peter Milligan the benefit of the doubt. It probably helps that I'm not so well-versed in Greek mythology that I see all the parallels. (Oedipus didn't run away with Cassandra, did he?) But I'll probably drop it if it doesn't become more engaging. I also feel very mixed about Gianfelice's art. His drawing is quite beautiful in some ways (very nice rendering of hands, which always catches my attention), reminding me of Duncan Fegredo in places. But unlike Fegredo, his inking isn't very rich, leaving wide open spaces in the drawing that just feel like they need something more.

Why are you guys talking about Dylan!?!?!? This is a comics blog! Leave that low brow shit to the sycophants who watch wrestling.

Also, ironing shirts really does suck.

Brian, Chad, et al: Have any of you heard any of the Rolling Thunder Revue concerts, from 1976? I downloaded one recently, and it might be the best live Dylan I've heard besides the Live '66 album (the one in which an audience member yells "Judas," right?) Mick Ronson, David Bowie's lead guitarist during the "Ziggy Stardust" years, played some lead, and Dylan's clearly having a great time.

If you like those, Mike, you should really look for the earlier Revue concerts.

The idea was still fresh in 1974/1975, and it was a lot more fun than the slightly more bitter 1976 concerts (although the 1976 concerts were good, too).

Also, the official release of the Rolling Thunder Revue is a freakin' COMPILATION! How lame is that??!? Just pick a good concert, for crying out loud!

Less laid back. It's probably a bit more 'Planet-Wavesy'.

I'd say that's quite accurate.

The 1966 ones are, as I mentioned before, more "snarl"-y.

That's still impressive for a song that was never officially released until the soundtrack of the film whose title it inspired!

Oh, I'll pay that - surprised they took a risk like that, not many other artists you'd get away with it.

Ripper of a film as well.
Todd Haynes makes much better films than he seems to get credit for.

On killing: I don't necessarily want Osborn killed since it would lead to certain problems -- my issue was with the idea that NOT killing him is a morally superior standpoint. Also, that initial post was just one of my tossed-off mini-reviews that I wrote very late at night... that it inspired any discussion is a surprise to me. That's why it's glib and quick and cheap... I do plan on returning to the idea for something bigger, but a quick summary of my position: I don't want ALL superheroes to kill, I just want the issue treated with more complexity. Killing doesn't negate a person's heroism given the proper context, while not killing could. I want a struggle and a discussion... and, really, to get rid of the idea that the differing views somehow suggest a superior morality when that's clearly not the case. Nor that killing in one instance will lead to killing in every instance.

Thanks for the info Brian, I knew you'd have an answer. I'll have to seek out the Basement Tapes. I'm in for a treat If the other songs are anywhere near that good. The Rolling Thunder stuff sounds promising too.

FGJ - I've only watched Velvet Goldmine once (and that was at least 10 years ago), but I really hated it.
I felt they really missed the mark with the Eno songs. I was in the depths of a serious Eno obsession though, so I might have been too biased. It might be time for another viewing.

I hear that Far From Heaven and I'm Not There are really good though.

I just now read your blog (and by coincidence I just got New Avengers #58 earlier today). My gut feeling is always to avoid killing. I can accept it when the heroes kill somebody during an intense battle-- such things can not always be avoided-- but a pre-medititated killing of Osborn would just be murder. Or at least, that's how it would feel to me.
Of course, as some people have already pointed out, Osborn is working for the Government now. I've always been against capital punishment, but killing Government officials,-- at least high-ranking ones-- has always been the one exception I'm willing to accept, but only when said officials have commited serious crimes against humanity (instituting a military draft, censoring the press, outlawing drugs, requiring passports-- evil stuff like that). Osborn has commited some serious crimes, so it does seem that killing him may be justified.

However, if they kill him, some stupid writer will just bring him back in a few years, and I always hate it when they do that. In fact, I got really upset when I found out they brought him back in the '90s. (Although I didn't actually find out about it until around 2006. It happened during the time I'd stopped buying comics.)

And it doesn't seem right that Hawkeye would be the one so intent on killing him. This is the guy who drove his own wife out of the Avengers after she killed a man who'd raped her. Surely I'm not the only one who remembers that. If Bendis needed an Avenger to insist on killing Osborn, wouldn't it have made more since to use Wolverine, or Ms Marvel? I know she'd made her own plans to kill Osborn last Winter, (But I haven't read her book since then, so I don't know if she changed her mind or anything.) (Oh, interesting thing... When I first read that issue of Ms Marvel last Winter, I still didn't know Osborn was suddenly in charge of everything. I hadn't been reading Secret Invasion, and I didn't get the New Avengers issues from that time until a few months later. So I was just reading a quiet story about Carol going home to see her family, and then on the last page, the narration calmly states, 'I'm going to kill Norman Osborn'. That just floored me. I had no idea she even had any particular reason to hate him. It just came as a total shock. I know these comic companies try to stun readers several times a month, usually with sudden twists that end up ruining things when they try to justify them within the next few issues. And those shocks rarely have much effect on me. But this one did. I don't know what lesson the writers and editors can take from this. Maybe shocks like this only work on those readers who miss a lot of issues.)

Presumably Hawkeye's quite relaxed about killing Osborn because he's died himself, and expects that Norman will get better soon afterwards.

>>FGJ - I've only watched Velvet Goldmine once (and that was at least 10 years ago), but I really hated it.
I felt they really missed the mark with the Eno songs. I was in the depths of a serious Eno obsession though, so I might have been too biased. It might be time for another viewing.

Good lord. That's probably one of my favorite, I dunno, 20 or so movies ever. Of course, I'm sort of obsessed with glam (growing up in the South means I missed it completely, though when punk followed I immersed myself quite thoroughly), which I suspect helps a lot.

" On killing: I don't necessarily want Osborn killed since it would lead to certain problems -- my issue was with the idea that NOT killing him is a morally superior standpoint. Also, that initial post was just one of my tossed-off mini-reviews that I wrote very late at night... that it inspired any discussion is a surprise to me. That's why it's glib and quick and cheap... I do plan on returning to the idea for something bigger, but a quick summary of my position: I don't want ALL superheroes to kill, I just want the issue treated with more complexity. Killing doesn't negate a person's heroism given the proper context, while not killing could. I want a struggle and a discussion... and, really, to get rid of the idea that the differing views somehow suggest a superior morality when that's clearly not the case. Nor that killing in one instance will lead to killing in every instance. "

Fair enough. In which case, I totally agree. I think that it confirms the idea that Spider-Man's moral code is as nuanced and mature as that of an eight-year-old; he doesn't kill because it's wrong, and it's wrong because the internalized notion of the father figure ( in this case, Uncle Ben ) says so, so he won't even consider it for fear of being spanked by his conscience.

For more on Peter's infantile perspective on right and wrong, see the paparazzi story ( he'd rather have the friends and family that he keeps in the dark about his secret ID approve than make the money he really needs to fight crime ).

Spider-Man is completely representative of the standard simplistic morality of superhero comics, particularly in New Avengers where he freaks out at the sight of guns or the mention of killing with nothing more than a "That's bad!" to back up his views. I can't tell if it's meant to be an honest representation or using the character to mock those ideas... especially since Captain America's guns have helped them out a few times, doing what no one else could.

"Visions of Johanna" off Biograph is crazy good as well.

I hear that Far From Heaven and I'm Not There are really good though.

Both are pretty amazing.

They both walk a tight line as well, with a bit out there concepts, but the story and characters never give way to the style.

Considering that Norman died once fighting Spider-Man and simply came back worse -- so much worse that he got where he is in Dark Reign itself -- I can see a purely pragmatic argument against killing him.

I'd also note that Spider-Man's "standard simplistic morality" is in most regards far more realistic if you rememebr that he's meant to be an ordinary joe. For chrissakes, in real life it's taken decades of changes in military training just to get most troops to shoot people in combat reliably. Studies of World War II, for example, show remarkably low rates of trigger-pulls in battle; and Peter Parker is not only just a middle-class dude from Queens, he's a dude who's gotten through thousands of adventures without killing, which would seem to pragmatically reinforce his knee-jerk response to the matter.

I know a lot of superhero readers like to imagine they'd be twisting the heads off of Dr. Doom and the Red Skull if they had powers and opportunity, but the odds are good that most real people would have a lot of trouble with the idea of deliberately killing someone in person and by hand.

Remember All-Star Superman #12, where Luthor suddenly can't murder now that he sees, and feels, and hears what his violence physically does to people? That's an exaggeration of an instinctual set of responses that most non-sociopaths have in situations of potentially lethal violence.

Killing for the greater good or even for simple justice is a genuinely different ballgame when it's your hands and a flesh-and-blood person than when it's abstracted consideration about paper-cutouts on a comics page or names in a history book. You'd be a lot more likely to react as Peter does, if you consider the matter with any degree of honesty.

Yes!! You're absolutely right! I wish I'd said that.
And there was no super-hypocrisy in that statement as far as I could tell.

I know I've sometimes wanted to kill some of the politicians I've seen on the news, but if I actually imagine doing it, I know there is no way I ever could. I don't know if I could even seriously hurt somebody on purpose.

Perhaps, Omar, but it's one thing to hesitate in the moment, and it's another to hold that opinion when it is an "abstracted consideration". If they said that killing was sometimes acceptable, and then were unable to go through with it, that would be something else. But even when such things are merely being discussed there is no suggestion of killing being acceptable. Yes, I may "react as Peter does" (although, I do have a temper, and I imagine that it wouldn't take that much for me to do something I'd later regret), but unlike Peter I don't think that's necessarily the right thing.

And is Spiderman really just an "ordinary joe"? He's had his life threatened countless times, you'd think he would harden eventually. You use the example of World War II, but most of the soldiers in WWII were either conscripts or recent volunteers, unlike Peter the experienced, willing participant. And even then, I would have to imagine that soldiers reactions were different when a comrade, or especially their own, lives were directly threatened, which doesn't reflect killing Osborn, but would reflect Wonder Woman killing Maxwell Lord. I'm not sure what you mean by "pragmatically reinforce his knee-jerk response", but if your point is that he doesn't kill out of habit, that still doesn't explain his opinions on killing.

I gave the wrong song--Baby, Let Me Follow You Down was the one given a reprise. I got mixed-up confusion, and man, it's killing me.

Dan Bailey, I'm curious about your experiences with Punk.

I'm a Southerner (Birmingham, AL) as well, I was too young to experience either Glam or the original Punk movement. I can only imagine what it might have been like to be a punk in the mid-70's, when Southern Rock ruled the airwaves. Even in the early 90's it wasn't the most accepted of music. Things are much easier for "the kids" these days.

I imagine being into glam down here in the early 70's would have been...risky.