`Untold Dylan' Facebook Group: Blocking Posts That Tell How Dylan Obtained His Individual Wealth?

If you're a 21st-century music fan who checks out the "Untold Dylan" discussion group on Facebook, you might notice that most of the daily posts there don't tell readers very much about how Bob Dylan historically obtained more individual wealth than the individual wealth possessed by Welsh poet Dylan Thomas, historically, or by the over 90 percent of U.S. and UK music fans who--unlike Bob Dylan in the 21st-century--are, currently, neither billionaires, multi-millionaires or millionaires. 

One reason might be because the "Untold Dylan" blog Brit editor-writer, Tony Attwood (who determines which individuals are allowed to tell what's generally untold--by most Brit and U.S. Establishment media rock music critics in the 21st-century--on the "Untold Dylan" Facebook discussion group page), apparently doesn't want too allow too many posts that tell how Dylan historically obtained his individual wealth to appear on this "Untold Dylan" discussion group page.

Asked by email to indicate for Protest Folk Magazine blog readers whether or not pre-1965 Dylan music fans from U.S. working-class backgrounds are currently being blocked from posting links or text excerpts of historical articles that are critical of Dylan's post-1964 artistic/political/philosophical shift, Mr. Attwood stated the following in a February 22, 2020 email:

"Thank you for your email. I''m very happy to answer.

"The simple answer is that there is no general policy to block any group of people or any individual because of political or social views at all except the need to abide by UK law (the Untold Dylan Facebook group being run from the UK).

"The number of people blocked is quite small--probably around quarter of one percent of those who join are eventually blocked. The vast majority of those are blocked because of offensive or insulting language towards other members of the group or for placing advertisements for their own produces or services. In the latter case when a member writes to me first and asks permission and when I think the item is one that some members are likely to be interested, I have given permission for one advert to be posted but only one. 

"In relation to the issue that you mention, we did have a case recently where a member had posted a series of posts each of which was (and I am generalizing here from a number of posts) putting forward the view that Dylan or Dylan's company acting in his name had stolen or abused or otherwise misused other people's copyright for his own financial gain. (You will appreciate that I am summarizing what were often quite long and complex pieces).

"I did allow these to go through at first, but had a fair number of complaints from other readers to me suggesting that these were repetitive in their general approach, and would be better off posted on the website as an article. In that way the correspondent could lay out his/her case, and comments in support or against could be channeled into that one part of the website. (That is why we have both the website and the Facebook page, to separate out different types of discussion).

"I took the view that having posted a number of the articles all of which were dealing with the allegations of Dylan having stolen copyright and with (as far as I recall) no one or very few people showing any interest in the articles (except in terms of abuse) that moving the theme to the blog away from the Facebook site would benefit everyone. Those who wanted to follow the debate had one place to do it, and those who felt the allegations were false or of no interest did not have to keep reading variants on the same theme on the Facebook page. 

"I wrote twice to the individual concerned once explaining my concerns and once proposing the move to the website, but received no reply, and so when the individual posted again I removed him and the posts from the group. The offer to have an article on the subject on the blog would of course still be there. To be clear there has been only one person involved in this as far as I know, it is not that more than one person has been removed.

"I would add that a guiding point in my running the Facebook and website pages is the name Untold Dylan--the point of "untold" is that we try to look at Dylan from different points of view that have not been covered before. The original posts which challenged Dylan's copyright approach was just that, and so were posted, but subsequent items merely re-iterated generally the same point, and thus were no longer Untold. I don't use that as an absolute measure of what is posted but it does seem to me to be an interesting guiding point when the issue is contentious. 

"Having had no reply from the individual, I did cancel his account. 

"I hope that answers the question--please do come back to me if you have any further thoughts about the Facebook page. I would add I am in the UK and as a result there can be different understandings of what might be a serious accusation of a crime for which the owner of the site could be challenged legally in one country from another--which is of course always a consideration.

"Tony Attwood."

And in a second February 22, 202 email, Mr. Attwood added:

"Sorry I missed one point - the reference to `pre-1965 Dylan music fans from U.S. working-class backgrounds.'.  I would assure you that as a person born before 1965, and from a working class UK background, I would never dream of judging anyone according to their social class, ethnicity, country of origin or anything else."  

`Sing-Out!' Editor Irwin Silber's 1964 `Open Letter To Bob Dylan' Revisited

In November 1964, the then-editor of Sing-Out! magazine, Irwin Silber, wrote and published `An Open Letter To Bob Dylan," in which the historically developing artistic, political and philosophical  shift in Dylan's songwriting was criticized in the following way:

"Dear Bob:

"It seems as though lots of people are thinking and talking about you these days. I read about you in Life and Newsweek and Time and The Saturday Evening Post and Mademoiselle and Cavalier and all such, and I realize that, all of a sudden, you have become a pheenom, a VIP, a celebrity. A lot has happened to you in these past two years, Bob -- a lot more than most of us thought possible.

"I'm writing this letter now because some of what has happened is troubling me. And not me alone. Many other good friends of yours as well.

"I don't have to tell you how we at SING OUT! feel about you -- about your work as a writer and an artist -- or how we feel about you as a person. SING OUT! was among the first to respond to the new ideas, new images, and new sounds that you were creating. By last count, thirteen of your songs had appeared in these pages. Maybe more of Woody's songs were printed here over the years, but, if so, he's the only one. Not that we were doing you any favors, Bob. Far from it. We believed -- and still believe -- that these have been among some of the best new songs to appear in America in more than a decade. "Blowin' in the Wind," "Don't Think Twice," "Hattie Carroll," "Restless Farewell," "Masters of War" -- these have been inspired contributions which have already had a significant impact on American consciousness and style.

"As with anyone who ventures down uncharted paths, you've aroused a growing number of petty critics. Some don't like the way you wear your hair or your clothes. Some don't like the way you sing. Some don't like the fact that you've chosen your name and recast your past. But all of that, in the long run, is trivial. We both know that may of these criticisms are simply cover-ups for embarrassment at hearing songs that speak directly, personally, and urgently about where it's all really at.

"But -- and this is the reason for this letter, Bob -- I think that the times there are a-changing. You seem to be in a different kind of bag now, Bob -- and I'm worried about it. I saw at Newport how you had somehow lost contact with people. It seemed to me that some of the paraphernalia of fame were getting in your way. You travel with an entourage now -- with good buddies who are going to laugh when you need laughing and drink wine with you and insure your privacy -- and never challenge you to face everyone else's reality again.

"I thought (and so did you) of Jimmy Dean when I saw you last -- and I cried a little inside me for that awful potential for self-destruction which lies hidden in all of us and which can emerge so easily and so uninvited.

"I think it begins to show up in your songs, now, Bob. You said you weren't a writer of `protest' songs -- or any other category, for that matter -- but you just wrote songs. Well, okay, call it anything you want. But any songwriter who tries to deal honestly with reality in this world is bound to write `protest' songs. How can he help himself?

"Your new songs seem to be all inner-directed now, inner-probing, self- conscious -- maybe even a little maudlin or a little cruel on occasion. And it's happening on stage, too. You seem to be relating to a handful of cronies behind the scenes now -- rather than to the rest of us out front.

"Now, that's all okay -- if that's the way you want it, Bob. But then you're a different Bob Dylan from the one we knew. The old one never wasted our precious time.

"Perhaps this letter has been long overdue. I think, in a sense, that we are all responsible for what's been happening to you -- and to many other fine young artists. The American Success Machinery chews up geniuses at a rate of one a day and still hungers for more. Unable to produce real art on its own, the Establishment breeds creativity in protest against and nonconformity to the System. And then, through notoriety, fast money, and status, it makes it almost impossible for the artist to function and grow.

"It is a process that must be constantly guarded against and fought.

"Give it some thought, Bob. Believe me when I say that this letter is written out of love and deep concern. I wouldn't be sticking my neck out like this otherwise.

"Irwin Silber"