I just saw the bit in Woody Allen's Annie Hall, where Allen's character rolls his eyes as a rock critic quotes Dylan's Just Like A Woman (followed by the amusing exchange of "Did you catch Dylan?" / "Me? No, my raccoon had hepatitis"). Seeing as how I'm no expert on Allen's works (heck, it's the first time I've seen him actually act), I've no idea whether this is reflective of his real view on Dylan. But that's irrelevant when compared to the idea of finding him (Dylan) trite, which is, I must admit, a view I've rarely heard anyone famous express (but like I said before, I don't know if Allen was serious or not). This view got me thinking.

(Everything that follows has an implicit "in my opinion" tagged at the start, by the way)

We can neglect the fact that Just Like A Woman is far from Dylan's highlight as a lyricist; the song itself is not bad, but the man has done much better things with his words than this. Why focus on the lyrics? Well, Dylan's influence was always, I think, primarily with his lyrics. My music-listening experience has confirmed the widely-held view Dylan revolutionized the concept of the song lyric as he incorporated beat poetry (yes, I do consider some of his stuff poetry) and opened up the door to stream of consciousness style composition. Along with The Beatles, Dylan pretty much shaped the face of most of rock music that followed in some way or the other.

Ok, so Dylan was influential. But that doesn't necessarily mean that he was good, does it? Of course not! The important thing then is whether or not his work was of a sufficient standard to be taken seriously. Lines like

She takes just like a woman, yes, she does
She makes love just like a woman, yes, she does
And she aches just like a woman
But she breaks just like a little girl

'Just Like A Woman' - Dylan

certainly don't sound too good when read out loud (which is the case in Annie Hall). But then again, what about

The palace of mirrors
Where dog soldiers are reflected,
The endless road and the wailing of chimes,
The empty rooms where her memory is protected,
Where the angels' voices whisper to the souls of previous times

'Changing Of The Guards' - Dylan

That sounds a bit more "poetic". One can deconstruct and analyse the lyrics as one would a poem, if only to gain an idea of how "complex" it is. I doubt it would be possible to use this to show how "good" a poem is, but still, it's something. So we have a way of establishing that yes, Dylan's work was indeed complex. You can't dismiss all his stuff as easily as you could Just Like A Woman (from a lyrical point of view, I reiterate) as somewhat trivial and, arguably, banal.

But do these "poetic" lyrics actually mean anything? If they don't, does it really matter? These are tricky questions. For the first one, I think in a lot of cases, the lyrics mean whatever you want them to mean. That may sound rather cheap, but I wonder the fact that the composer's attached meaning to a lyric alters the power of one's personal meaning. Does it matter if Dylan didn't intend Desolation Row to be semi-autobiographical (which I think it is)? I don't think so.

A good essay on this by Robert Hunter (lyricist for the Grateful Dead) is found here. He analyses one of his songs to counter the claim put up that his lyrics make no sense. Before doing so, he notes that "I may know where they (the lyrics) come from, but I don't know where they've been".

This doesn't mean that you can pass off any old nonsense as "good poetry" just because someone can attach any meaning they want to it. I could write

The wailing catfish scratches on my glass
While the open mouth is silent with sounds
Of tears falling down my cheeks

off the top of my head, but that doesn't necessarily make it brilliant because you can interpret it as being an epic postmodernist view of romance in a crazy world. I think it's the way in which the lyric is presented that determines this - allusion, imagery, etc.

The argument then of songs not having any readily identifiable meaning is perhaps not as simple as one would think.

So there are times when as of themselves, the lyrics can't possibly mean anything. We attach meaning to them, but I think it's wrong to associate the composers meaning with the meaning of the lyric itself. Of course, there are the lyrics where the meaning is (seemingly) straightforward:

I've heard you say many times
That you're better 'n no one
And no one is better 'n you.
If you really believe that,
You know you got
Nothing to win and nothing to lose

'To Ramona' - Dylan

Here the meaning can't be hidden under allegory or the like - it's just a statement made by Dylan. So here again it's the way in which the statement is made that's important. Does it boil down to personal taste? I wonder.

I don't think I've quite made my point, partly because I'm not quite sure what it was supposed to be. That Dylan was a good lyricist, not some pretentious twit who strung a few words together? Ehhh possibly. I also fear I've treaded on the subjectivity/objectivity debacle, and the question of intrinsic/extrinsic value. Time to get out Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance.

And just to reiterate one final time, I really like Just Like A Woman, especially the version on the Concert For Bangladesh. I just share Allen's character's view that those particular lines are nothing special. They're not bad, but they're not genius (as a lot of his other work was).