Bruce Springsteen - Classic or Dud ?

oh man these lines (as sung) are devastating. heh i wonder why they didn't play this on at the democratic national convention.

i agree w/ally that "dancing in the dark" is the grtst thing ever.

will write more in a bit. can't do everyone's posts justice at the moment.

xpost

Best version of "Dancing in the Dark" I ever heard was the 12" extended remix. More beats please.

Oh, give it time.

that's the arthur baker remix, right? that does smoke.

Recently I acquired an original program from the Born in the USA tour of the UK. Bruce had no one but himself to blame for the jingoist bandwagon. Every other photo inside is a huge spread of him with a flag. He's pumping his fist while waiving a flag, striking a rocker pose in front of the flag, & then there's an "arty" shot of a huge flag draped across a green prairie like an AIDS quilt. It ain't some Yank spin on the cover of The Kids are Alright; those shots celebrate America, pure and simple. Honestly there is no other way to see them.

anyway i didn't articulate myself very well up above and i'm working on a better way to explain my thoughts.

I think a lot of the dislike for "Born In The U.S.A." (the song) was misplaced backlash against the whole "I'm an American" wave of songs that came out in the mid-80s - Bob Seger, Jackson Browne, etc. all had at least one and while they might have been lyrically satirical it didn't stop suburban meatheads from blaring the stereos in their Camaros while on their way to see All The Right Moves.

As for Born in the USA, as a kid (under 10?) I was turned off by the images of him with a huge flag behind him, and smiling. I saw that stuff more than I heard the song, and it's not like I listened to anything but the choruses when I did hear it. Even though I wasn't political, it annoyed me, and I never got over that prejudice. xpost!

Writing last week in the New York Times, political rocker Bruce Springsteen delivered familiar left-wing phrases. The war in Iraq was "unnecessary," he wrote. The circumstances of the war "are now discredited." We have run "record deficits, while simultaneously cutting and squeezing services like afterschool programs." Tax cuts have gone "to the richest 1 percent."

This is the new stage on which Springsteen is to be judged. Like his bandmates in Vote for Change, he has exited rock-and-roll proper. He is a political rocker now; the songs he plays at his rallies are political tools. Springsteen's words "no retreat, no surrender," once part of a passionate song of rebellion, hope, and fraternity, are now weighted with a specific message: No retreat from the fight against George W. Bush; no surrender until Bush is back in Texas.

Politics and rock make decision-makers of us all. That's America, and what makes it great. Sad that so many of us now have no choice but to vote against Bruce and Eddie and Dave and all the rest. Should they return to good ol' rock we'll be there waiting, and with somewhat open arms. In the meantime we'll listen to the bands we like that still play rock and (for the most part) shut-up about politics. We already know how we're going to vote.

It works on two levels: 1) the flagwaving, hooray-here-comes-the-chorus-so-we-can-sing-along level, and 2) the listen to the lyrics, "live the song" level. (or at least follow the trajectory of the song's narrator, which is what all fans of springsteen do when they listen to one of his story songs. They operate on as much of a cinematic level as a musical one.)

What Bruce intended with the song doesn't really matter, but i DO know that it was originally a one-chord blues dirge, and was reworked to become the uber-anthem/title track with all the synths. In reworking the musical aspect but not the lyrical one, he ended up with a schizoid statement. Too bad for him that it happened to be the first song, title track on the biggest alb of his career.

as for it being long, bitusa's only about four minutes, at least on the studio version. that's fuckin short compared to anything on born to run!

re: the flag stuff, I agree with the position above, it was a somewhat misguided patriotism-but-not-unquestioning thing going on ("Yes I am an American and yes I love Americans and America but that doesn't mean I'm going to sit around meatheading it" etc). And yes, his stylists went over the top with it. Still, I forgive them, it was worth it for the cover.

I think this sorta ties in with my argument that I don't listen for the lyrics much in the first place at all.

if you don't listen to the lyrics, you haven't 'heard' this album

[that was the meanest thing I've ever said here I think, except to Orbit maybe]

and if you agree with the premise, the better the lyrics, the more important it is to listen. it doesn't get better than these.

So, then, why do you give a shit, Ned? Why are the rest of us not having a reasonable conversation about the merits of Bruce Springsteen's lyrics without the constant input of someone who ACTIVELY DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT LYRICS?

I mean, dude, I'm all for all opinoins but I really fail to see what you are trying to accomplish here.

Lyrics are written for two reasons:
1) to get a point across
2) to add texture to a song (I'm basically assuming this is, like, Underworld's purpose with lyrics, or MBV/Cocteau Twins type acts)

MOST artists, I'd dare say, use #1. So to wholly discredit the idea of giving any attention to lyrics, I mean it's a personal choice and all and fair enough and no one is saying you have to listen to them, but you are only getting a partial picture of what the artist is trying to achieve. It's like watching a movie and not caring about the cinematographic effects.

And paying attention to the lyrics doesn't like mean you automatically dismiss bands with bad lyrics, I mean I listen to Interpol.

It just seems disingenuous to enter a conversation on an artist who is STRONGLY tied to lyrical/poetical conceptions and the whole genre of the singer/songwriter (new Dylan accusations and all that) just to point out multiple times that you don't care about lyrics and ergo Springsteen is a sucka mc or something.

again, no one demands that you appreciate springsteen, his lyrics or his music. but it's frustrating for me that you have perhaps denigrated him on certain terms, terms which you deny us when we try to argue his importance/interest to you.

xxxxpost

yikes, i guess ally said something of what am saying. i just thought saying it in a more diplomatic way might be of some use.

it may be that i'm wrong about those comments above. certainly most of your comments about springsteen have said, more or less, that you just can't get into the music. so i don't mean this as some kind of devastating riposte or anything. just a way to partially explain what lay behind my outburst above, and to answer these most recent posts.

I salute you for having more memory and less of a temper than I do.

"Springsteen is a sucka mc" is my new phrase though.

If anything it all derives from my even more driven into the ground deep into the bedrock take on radical subjectivism, or more accurately my own take on same -- then again, I think we're all agreed that when Gabbneb says 'better' he's not arguing an objective stance, for instance.

I suppose where I do draw any particular line is the claim that by not getting 'everything' I'm not having a valid experience in some way -- but in truth, where and how is that full impact supposed to be drawn for anything? Which may seem obvious or stupid or both -- but pick any form of media, of artistic production, poem, story, art, play, movie, and so forth. What individual elements go into each for each example? What attracts you in each case for each example? Is it important for you for *everything* to be in place before you can enjoy it and appreciate it? Can you not react and focus on something in particular when it comes appreciation, at the expense of something else?

Where others value lyrical meaning, if anything I value sound -- how a singer sings something more, much more, than what. Music for me reacts on that level, and music with vocals much, much more so. For others, the interplay of vocals with what is being sung is crucial, a balancing point that allows the two to feed off each other. For others yet, a singer's voice may not be interesting or worthwhile but darned if they don't think the words are so spot on that they override other concerns. And so forth.

I don't think any of these three basic outlines are mutually exclusive or invalid. Neither do I think that it results in a partial picture of what the artist is trying to achieve -- indeed, I believe that what the artist is trying to achieve is something that will not always be of paramount importance to a listener. Their own biases, conclusions and approaches will be of equal importance, and I'd say dominant importance. This is little more than a sketch of a strain of reader-response theory, which is hardly universally accepted, I realize.

I didn't even consider the fact that he was kind of ripping the lyrics of BitUSA only to use the "no don't give a crap about lyrics" argument a few posts down. Ned, what up?

Was I ripping them? I'm not trying to be disengenuous -- looking back at those posts, I talk about noticing two particular moments and not noticing anything else. I wasn't trying to say that they were bad, just that they did not stand out -- that there was no impact, good OR bad. As I said, "The rest was just the rest" -- my intent there was strictly neutral.

This may all be explained very badly at best, completely craptacularly at worst. I don't hold anyone at fault here besides myself, but I am trying to argue for a point of view I think is important -- you're explaining the way you listen to Springsteen very well. Maybe in a very poorly confrontational way, I'm explaining the way I listen to him in turn.

You could apply standards of 'lyrical/poetical conceptions and the whole genre of the singer/songwriter' to MBV in turn if you wanted to -- it may seem inaccurate, but if it is paramount for a listener, why is that approach invalid?

nobody made this claim.

you are only getting a partial picture of what the artist is trying to achieve

And that could be my misinterpretation.

ted: smashing pumpkins are so great. it's all about the layering of the guitar parts and how they interact with the vocal lines.

whambamateurist: i dunno, the lyrics remind me of the spin doctors.

ted: but the guitar parts are really interesting. here, let me give you an example: [long example].

[100 posts discussing the ins and outs of smashing pumpkins guitar parts...]

whambamateurist: i don't really pay attention to guitar parts. the lyrics don't really do it for me.

ted: arrrrrgh