Bruce Springsteen - Classic or Dud ?

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

"i got debts that no honest man can pay"--that's one of the best lines in the song!

xpost you people must have the Sucka MC version of the song.

-- frankE (frankeeeeeeee...) (webmail), August 12th, 2004 12:56 AM. (frankE) (later) (link)

see dude that's the key that unlocks the door that opens onto the hallway of clarity which leads to the cafeteria of total enlightenment.

Dissect Glory Days, also.

glory days is about greg maddux i think.

carrying on from my conversation w/mr. diamond on the gbv thread abt elder michaux.... and mr. diamond's angry comments about understanding (rock) music as well.

lyrics aren't just about words. hell, speech isn't just about words. speech is cadence, intonation, emphasis. sometimes--most of the time--those cadences, intonations, emphases, etc. carry meaning...
the line between spoken speech and singing isn't a hard and fast one... so it seems absurd to me to divorce the two, to imply that lyrics can be divorced from music and discounted as a part of the whole package. actually i think studying the musical qualities of the spoken word would go a long ways to getting anyone to appreciate the significance of singing in song. so, yeah, if you "don't listen to lyrics" you're gonna miss a lot of springsteen. a lot of nearly everything. i guess that's what frustrates me a lot, ned, since your obstinance-in-tastes seems to resemble willful ignorance a lot of the time. sorry to be so harsh about it. again, there's no reason you need to like springsteen, there's no reason you even need to appreciate the multifarious functions of words in song, but it's a damn shame if you don't.

My favorite line is "put on your stockings 'cause the night's gettin' cold," which collapses all the song's betrayal (his, hers, the world's) and sense of inevitability, not just the words but how he sings them, it's the darkest moment in the song.

that's an interesting take on it, spittle. (i feel weird addressing anyone as "spittle," even over the interweb.)

I agree about the first half of the bridge, it's weak melodically and it has that wack "with you forever I'll stay" construction.

It's interesting because we approach this specific element -- ie, *how* something is sung -- from different viewpoints while prioritizing its importance. In my case, it's less one of how that influences the vocabulary as to how it adds to the music -- there's the quality (however defined) of the voice but also how said voice reacts with/reacts against the backing -- or even how well it sounds on its own, a capella.

i guess that's what frustrates me a lot, ned, since your obstinance-in-tastes seems to resemble willful ignorance a lot of the time. sorry to be so harsh about it. again, there's no reason you need to like springsteen, there's no reason you even need to appreciate the multifarious functions of words in song, but it's a damn shame if you don't.

You may call it what you like and that's fine, but I will still argue that there is no one way to listen to a song -- which we do seem to be agreeing on -- and that there no monopoly in how you get what works (or what doesn't) out of a song as a result. I note you weren't entirely happy with it yourself, but your parody of the Pumpkins thread above is inaccurate because in that exchange if someone said that to me regarding the lyrics, I wouldn't then be trying to argue against that stance in such a fashion. Tons of people have noted to me in turn that they just really don't like Corgan's voice and that's also fine, and so forth. I just don't think it's a 'damn shame,' or any sort of shame, to approach one's likes or dislikes musically in those fashions. It's not willful ignorance in my mind if you focus in on or completely not concentrate on something that I feel in an opposite manner about, it's *how you hear the song* -- and that differs.

I suspect we'll be going in circles if we continue any further, though -- if we're not already!

my take is he's agreed to go down in a prizefight. what dies and may come back is his self-respect.

incidentally the line that per springsteen's website is "sometimes it's like someone took a knife baby edgy and dull and cut a six-inch valley through the middle of my soul" i always heard as "sometimes it's like someone took a knife baby edgy and dull and cut a six-inch valley through the middle of my skull"--i like my mishearing better, because the image is so grotesque and powerful and i've always been distrustful of springsteen when he uses concepts like "soul."

now i really want to hear tara jane o'neil's version.

I think Ally's sarcastic comment about Born in the USA as an "overlooked classic" is actually true. I've been listening to a lot of Springsteen lately (inspired by Kerry) and to me it sounds like BY FAR his best record. But I know plenty of Springsteen fanatics (of which I'm not one) and none of them seem to agree. Nebraska and Darkness and Born to Run (which I think is both overstated and overrated, though I LUV "Thunder Road") seem to be more popular picks.

I'd try to say something pithy in support of Born in the USA, but it's easier just to cut-and-paste one of the most on-point Consumer Guide entries Christgau ever wrote:

Born in the USA [Columbia, 1984]
Imperceptible though the movement has been to many sensitive young people, Springsteen has evolved. In fact, this apparent retrenchment is his most rhythmically propulsive, vocally incisive, lyrically balanced, and commercially undeniable album. Even his compulsive studio habits work for him: the aural vibrancy of the thing reminds me like nothing in years that what teenagers loved about rock and roll wasn't that it was catchy or even vibrant but that it just plain sounded good. And while Nebraska's one-note vision may be more left-correct, my instincts (not to mention my leftism) tell me that this uptempo worldview is truer. Hardly ride-off-into-the-sunset stuff, at the same time it's low on nostalgia and beautiful losers. Not counting the title powerhouse, the best songs slip by at first because their tone is so lifelike: the fast-stepping "Working on the Highway," which turns out to be about a country road gang: "Darlington County," which pins down the futility of a macho spree without undercutting its exuberance; and "Glory Days," which finally acknowledges that among other things, getting old is a good joke. A+