Bruce Springsteen - Classic or Dud ?

Where did he say that? Nobody's going to mistake him for Keith Richards, but that sounds a little extreme.

I can believe his claim. The rest of the band, on the other hand, certainly enjoyed life, at least some of them. After Federici died, Springsteen told lots of heartwarming stories of the guy's hellraising.

Springsteen's "Farewell to Danny" is a good read:

http://springsteeninformationcenter.wordpress.com/2008/07/30/farewell-to-danny/

Springsteen always struck me as strictly a beer man.

Now that I think of it, a recent RS interview noted his drinking Patron.

like i kinda felt like we were supposed to come away with this idea of him as the heartland brian wilson or something

this is kind of an interesting thing to say - I mean - the reason that "Brian Wilson" is a brand we can invoke as a comparison is that the craft-ness of what he does draws so much attention to itself, that he makes sure you notice that the sound is sculpted, built - whereas a Springsteen record, no less sculpted/built/layered, aims to disguise that quality, or at least downplay it, like a guy palming a quarter doesn't want you to see him palm the quarter: he wants you to believe in magic, right

I go for the "work really hard and try to make it look like it all just came right from the gut" approach, myself, and enjoy the stories of "that off-handed 'yeah!' right before the guitar solo? that was take no. 110 of the evening just of that 'yeah," nobody talked to Bruce for days after that"

Springsteen puts a heck of a lot more thought into what he does than many give him credit for. He's a real craftsman.

YEP. those who reflexively assume otherwise are not paying nearly enough attention to his interviews, or to the work itself, for that matter.

Who thinks this? And why should it matter?

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs316.snc3/28475_400818639422_663169422_4292945_6804175_n.jpg

Who thinks this? And why should it matter?

I dunno, Maybe ask the folks who to this day continually misconstrue or misread the message and intent of a lot of his songs? If anything, the lazy parsing of his lyrics/interviews/stated intent has allowed him to escape getting branded some sort of pinko subversive by conservatives, who happily appropriate him and his music even if he explicitly does not support their agenda. If he were a novelist, they'd be banning/burning his books and calling him a Communist.

that's the hat i was talking about!!!! aw love that lil' hippie

I doubt any conservative claims Springsteen as one of their own in 2010.

He's more outspoken about his politics now than in 1984.

Also: It doesn't at all detract from the quality of his songs if he pulled a Bowie or Dylan and just threw down some chords before moving on to the party.

i dont think anyone thinks it would?

Well, Josh implies that it's a relief to find out how much thought he puts into his songs. To be honest, as much as I love Bruce, it's his earnestness that's a real grind; he wants you to know how hard he works. I totally get why Ned, for example, can't be bothered.

You don't think Springsteen takes any responsibility for some of those misreadings, Josh? It's an old argument, I know, but I think he was naive to think the sound and imagery of Born in the USA wouldn't cause the message to be misread. When that many people get the meaning of a piece of art wrong then the artist has to take some responsibility.

I think the point about not being widely understood as a craftsman is more interesting, just because before I had any real interest in him I always saw his image as some kind of noble savage embodying the pure spirit of rock'n'roll, blah blah blah, rather than a guy who spent hours upon hours trying to get the right sound. These days I find it quite endearing actually - this sense that he justifies his escape from the smalltown grind by making sure he works incredibly hard - it's a moral principle in a way it wasn't for a perfectionist auteur like Brian Wilson - but I can see why some might find that aspect a drag.

In his essay in the boxset (first published 1999 I think) he says that he could spend hours on a single line of lyrics on Darkness, which did make me wonder whether he couldn't have maybe found some synonyms for "dream" and "darkness" while he was at it.

And even a cursory listen to Born to Run and TOL (my favoritte) shows how meticulously they're assembled.

Kerry was the first time Springsteen formally endorsed anyone, but it's not like there was some mystery about his political leanings. Yet even as hyper-partisan as things are today, conservatives still give him a pass they wouldn't give many others. Do they think he's one of them? Probably some of them still do! Regardless, the guy could take Pete Seeger out to dinner with Bill Ayers for an ACORN fundraiser on May Day and there would still be conservative politicians lined up for a backstage meet and greet.

I don't think Springsteen could have been more clear about the meanings of most of his misunderstood songs. It's not like he's writing metaphorically, and even when he does, how could anyone construe twisters and darkness as good things? It's not like "Born in the USA" (for example) is some ambiguous Swiftian satire. Even "Hungry Heart," his first real hit, starts out with a dude running out on his family. It's the first line! So, yeah, I chalk it up to lazy listeners, though maybe innocently so, akin to the folks who ignore Mick Jagger's "you make a dead man come" line. (And that line is kind of buried at the end; imagine if it started the song and people still missed it!)

By the way, I am often puzzled at Springsteen's use of some words and phrases over and over again, which is something he has in common with Neil Young. Their passions perhaps run deeper than their inspirations.

The only way to misconstrue the meaning of "Born In The USA" is by replacing the word "Ginger" with "Born In The USA" below:

http://homepage.mac.com/lpetrich/Chatters/FullSize/ginger_large.gif

xpost. Don't conservatives disapprove of dudes running out on their families as well? By his own admission Springsteen had no real political understanding until the early 80s so there's nothing inherently left-wing about writing about guys having a hard time working in factories.

I loled at that cartoon but the point is that the bombastic music allows the listener to hear blah blah, especially once you start touring with a stars and stripes. When you hear the Nebraska-era demo version there's no way you could misconstrue the song. The whole incident is so revealing about the power of melody, hook, production and image to make listeners ignore lyrics.

I doubt any conservative claims Springsteen as one of their own in 2010.

here's one who does: new jersey gov. chris christie. granted, he's a new jerseyan. but still:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/nyregion/30springsteen.html?_r=1&hp

christie says he's seen 120 springsteen concerts. he played the boss's music at campaign rallies and incorporated his lyrics into campaign speeches. he's smart enough to know springsteen's politics differ from his own, and smart enough to know springsteen isn't ever going to endorse him. and, still, he has built springsteen's music into the very fabric of not only his personal life, but his political life too. which is maybe a republican 2.0 take on the boss: yes, we know he sings of pinko things, and i know we voted for obama, but he's still a good ol' heartland christian boy who, at heart, wants the same things that we do.

seeing this and hearing the opening of "born in the usa" would be fairly easy to misconstrue as a america fuck yeah moment
http://www.stylecaster.com/files/size/486x/news/73140.jpg

xp to myself: make that "...we know he voted for obama..."

I think it's a fallacy to equate the downtrodden working man with the left. In the 1930s, Okie meant John Steinbeck and Woody Guthrie. Thirty years later it meant a guy in a Merle Haggard song shaking his fist at hippies. There are plenty of Springsteen songs which could resonate with a Republican or a Tea Partier - disgruntled, aspirational.

Dave Marsh's Glory Days was an eye-opener for me in reference to Springsteen's political awakening and the whole Nebraska/Born in the USA period.

Ha, though we are talking about a guy who still references Steinbeck and covers Seeger! Some Tea Partiers I can totally see latching onto Springsteen. Republicans ... I have trouble reconciling the message and this messenger. Of course, we might be veering toward a conversation in which we discuss/debate once again why working class folks often vote Republican.

"liberal" and "conservative" are irrelevant labels here.

springsteen definitely still has tons of republican fans. i was surprised to run into an archconservative super-repub acquaintance at a springsteen concert a few years ago -- initially surprised, that is, til i realized how many others in the audience were coming from a similar political place. they're the ones (i presume) who boo when bruce goes on his between-song tangents about warrantless wiretapping and extraordinary rendition and such, but cheer their lungs out for "badlands." i think it's weird, too, but there it is.

People listen to a host of reasons that have nothing to do with lyrics.

tbh I don't wanna hear Springsteen lectures on warrantless wiretapping – that's what Glenn Greenwald's for.

(xp) what's weird about it? he isn't a politician. he's a rock and roll musician. you can get off the music even if you don't agree with the literary/political/psychological influences behind the words.

in other breaking news, people continue to bang their heads, pump their fists and dance to sad songs.

Every Breath You Take gets played at weddings. No one cares.

first dance at my wedding was to born in the usa, just cuz i like the beat.

I used to do a column asking readers to suggest songs about subject x and only then did I realise how many people frequently misconstrued songs or just ignored the lines they weren't interested in. Born in the USA's the obvious eg. More recently, I think that 90% of listeners don't know (or, let's be frank, care) what Hey Ya! is about.

i don't know what hey ya is about! and i don't really have any interest in knowing what hey ya is about. and i like the song.

fwiw, i don't know what stairway to heaven is about either.

seeing this and hearing the opening of "born in the usa" would be fairly easy to misconstrue as a america fuck yeah moment

Part of it has to do with the last line he sings, "I'm a cool rocking daddy in the USA"...what is that doing there?

Being ironic? I dunno.

Normally I'd say none of this matters, just enjoy the music, etc, but politics has been explicitly part of the package for some time now. I have no idea what "Hey Ya" is about - not sure I've ever really listened to the words - but I also suspects OutKast barely cares itself. But Bruce cares, man. He caaaaaaaaaares.

On a more serious note, I've always wondered how the guy could do so many shows at full vocal force and, to the best of my knowledge, never call in sick. What's up with that?

but if he cares, why should we? I'm not trying to be a dick. I just don't understand why his hard work and politics should mediate my experiences with his albums.

I never said it should? It just shouldn't be ignored or overlooked. It's part of the whole package at this point, mostly at Springsteen's own prompting.

xpost Some people are interested in authorial intent. I know it seems quaint.

I recall reading a number of complaints from Republican listeners to Springsteen grumbling about his between-song political comments on a Washington Post concert review thread within the past few years. Yes, people can have any sort of reason to choose to listen or not to a song and get whatever they want from it, but Springsteen's politics is, as Josh noted, definately part of the whole package at this point.

Does his overt liberalism account for how thoroughly uninteresting his last two records have been? Let's hope not.

"Magic" has some pretty strong moments, but that last one was exceptionally meh. I'd suggest his overt liberalism played a part in each's respective successes and failures.

last one isn't particularly political. i liked it plenty -- "my lucky day" and "what love can do" are very strong tunes, and the album's overall sound has a nice 60s pop feel -- but i know many don't. i would readily agree that it's the least of the trilogy formed by it, the rising, and magic.

Yeah, I was being sarcastic.

Magic might have some strong moments, but I wouldn't know because the loudness on that album makes my ears bleed.

Brendan O'Brien should only produce Pearl Jam.

"magic" still a terrible title

sounds like he's not singin in his comfort zone on magic. kinda too
"shouty", at least for me. yeah, magic isn't a very creative title, izzit