It mattered to some people in '72 because the '60s were a huge explosion of culture and they didn't want what was perceived to perhaps be a cartoon to take its place. Meltzer once went up to the stage at an Eagles concert and pounded on it with his fist.
― Tim Ellison, Saturday, 24 July 2004 03:13 (twenty years ago) link
Tim, so Meltzer = rockist hippie desperate to save the purity of his decade from the post-modern recontextualization onslaught of The Eagles? Does that make Springsteen the Momus of his time??
― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Saturday, 24 July 2004 10:02 (twenty years ago) link
Dancing to "Born In The USA" outside the wine bar at Glastonbury with nobody I knew: wonderful.
Is Springsteen sentimental?
(I can sympathise with Meltzer but I wasn't there and couldn't have been there so pfft)
― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Saturday, 24 July 2004 10:06 (twenty years ago) link
with his fist? that showed them, i'll bet.
― lauren (laurenp), Saturday, 24 July 2004 11:07 (twenty years ago) link
― cºzen (Cozen), Saturday, 24 July 2004 11:08 (twenty years ago) link
― cºzen (Cozen), Saturday, 24 July 2004 11:10 (twenty years ago) link
I ws wrong, I never posted. phew etc.
― cºzen (Cozen), Saturday, 24 July 2004 11:11 (twenty years ago) link
That's all really, the happy days part of my post was after eddie's bit abt how meltzer (I do love the guy, this thread actually reminded me to order a copy of 'aesthetics or rock' from the library and that has just come through so I'm off to get it) thought of springsteen as the fonz, which to me wz hilarious and I could totally see => even though I've heard that one song used on that movie ('philadelphia' or whatever). oh, and 'born in the usa'.
On the q of 'engagement': yeah you do need to engage with things for a while, I didn't like ppl on the alvin lucier thread just saying its 'bawring' (ENRQ-- who came across as a jaded indie fan). Its the diff between eddie and jack cole's posting on this thread.
(yes I have been very guilty of dismissing things in the past i know i know mea culpa)
― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Saturday, 24 July 2004 11:27 (twenty years ago) link
...for what purpose, though? If you want to argue that it's one of trying to advance a detailed covers-all-bases argument -- and that need not be essay-length or anything -- I see the point. But that's not how we listen to all music all the time, never has been, surely.
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 24 July 2004 11:30 (twenty years ago) link
― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Saturday, 24 July 2004 11:37 (twenty years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 24 July 2004 11:39 (twenty years ago) link
Ned, to put it very bluntly: because people feel strongly about the music they love, and thus (even tho it's all subjective and yadda yadda yadda) hearing their fave artists get flippantly dismissed tends to make them angry...or, well, maybe I shouldn't say "people", it makes me angry, anyway, even tho I know that's silly. So really, if you don't wanna "dig deeper" as it were, why express your opinion at all? No one's forcing Springsteen on ya!
― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Saturday, 24 July 2004 11:42 (twenty years ago) link
― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Saturday, 24 July 2004 11:50 (twenty years ago) link
But saying that because one doesn't want to 'dig deeper' brings into the question of 'why have an opinion to start with?' -- that I'll object to strongly. Opinion and reaction is not quantifiable on a universal scale (yes, an obvious trope, but bear with me) -- it didn't take even a full song for me to start REALLY hating Rage Against the Machine 12 years ago, and I couldn't have been more engaged with it if I tried, I was at a show surrounded by tons of fans, including a slew of friends, and they were all going crazy with excitement. Similarly earlier this year when I saw the Mars Volta open for A Perfect Circle, I thought they were pretty good, then asked my friends about it -- one said, "I hated it from the first minute in and couldn't wait for it to get finished," and the rest agreed. Am I supposed to say, "You're not FEELING it, man!" or something? Heavens no, it was said, it was valid, we talked about it for a bit, talked about other things a lot more, saw A Perfect Circle (who were great) and I lost no sleep. The conversation didn't need to be interesting, however that's meant to be measured, for the opinions to matter.
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 24 July 2004 11:57 (twenty years ago) link
(At his most rock nostalgiac, Springsteen's vision of the fifties and the sixties is really more a wised-up vision of the early sixties: Spector, Pitney, Del Shannon et al with 'poetic' Dylan damage.)
― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Saturday, 24 July 2004 11:58 (twenty years ago) link
Mind you, I'm not saying that engaging or "getting" an artist has to result in liking or even tolerating them: I'm just saying that I think it's kinda necessary to at least *try* to see the other side's point of view and see how that effects your own judgement, otherwise I don't see the point. It's a lot to do with how you go about things, of course: "you're failing to engage with the artist" can just as easily be interpreted as "OMG YOU'RE LISTENING ALL WRONG!!", which I agree is a silly statement, as it can be interpreted as "well, why don't you look at it this way?", which I think is one of the main purposes of discussing music...trying to figure out what someone else hears in it to enrichen your own listening experience, be it positive or negative.
― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Saturday, 24 July 2004 12:17 (twenty years ago) link
Looking at Bruce in the other ways described above are interesting enough, I suppose, but they just don't change the core feeling that I'm exhausted by his music, bored with his singing, unmoved by his subject matter, nonplussed with the combination in toto. The cartoon pop Tico alludes to above is about all I can or would want to stand these days, and even that well runs dry swiftly. The one observation I find quite moving in recent posts is Lauren's take on hearing "Atlantic City" in a silent but packed arena, a striking image. Then again, were I there I would be resisting the urge to shout or scream or just do something to disrupt the hush (because I wouldn't want to be then beaten up).
Now let's use the Pumpkins again as a counter-example -- everything I lurve about them is so specifically keyed in to my own particular set of expectations and ability to be thrilled that something like my 136 list essay on Mellon Collie -- like just about everything else I write, I'd wager -- reads less like a call to engage with something or a response to objections than a simple explanation of why I like something. Does something like what I wrote actually enrichen anyone's negative viewpoint on the band? How?
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 24 July 2004 12:41 (twenty years ago) link
Ok, so none of the explanations given on this thread have managed to make you look at DA Boss in a different light, too bad. But surely you're not suggesting that NO explanation EVER will possibly be able to do that? Because that sounds kinda sad to me (sad as in sad, not sad as in pathetic.)
You might be right about the casual conversation thing; I guess it's just a bit hard to distinguish between who's in Serious Analysis Mode and who's in Casual Banter mode sometimes, which might account for a lot of the conflict on this thread. For what it's worth, I still don't see the attraction of the "hey btw guys, I really hate this" post; it strikes me as childish, flippant and smug...but then, I guess I just hate flippancy in general, especially because I tend to engage in it so much myself despite knowing better, so different strokes for different folks, I guess.
― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Saturday, 24 July 2004 13:23 (twenty years ago) link
I apologize in advance for splitting hairs here -- are you talking about an explanation actually changing my mind about La Bruce's work (which I doubt severely) or simply one which results in a situation where I acknowledge that others see something different in his work? Besides I do already acknowledge that!
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 24 July 2004 13:34 (twenty years ago) link
― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Saturday, 24 July 2004 13:53 (twenty years ago) link
Possibly, but genre is one hell of a slippery subject, and personally I think there would be as much division as there is unity. If you like, consider -- who or what is more 'funky,' the Red Hot Chili Peppers or Timbaland?
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 24 July 2004 13:59 (twenty years ago) link
― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Saturday, 24 July 2004 14:11 (twenty years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 24 July 2004 14:13 (twenty years ago) link
(note to self: learn latin, sign contract with indie label)
― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Saturday, 24 July 2004 14:17 (twenty years ago) link
i don't take meltzer's stuff as gospel--he's not a prophet, obviously. there's a certain kneejerk resentment present in a lot of his work--i think it comes from his determination to, perhaps, love rock for its simultaneous evasion of meaning and bedrock simplicity?
but i do think that his point--it's reprinted in his "whore just like the rest" collection which i can't put my hands on right now--is that bruce is a cartoon of the "rebellion" of the '50s and the "political consciousness" of the '60s. and i got nothing against either one, in fact i think they're both essential, otherwise i wouldn't take the trouble to communicate here on this board, or think about rock and roll at all. and i think it's a point worth thinking about.
for me, i simply don't need bruce springsteen for either "rebellion" or for "political consciousness." in america, and certainly down here in the southern part of the country, folks often could use a lot of more of both. and i think political consciousness often engenders rebellion, and again, i'm for it. i do believe that springsteen is sincere and not tin pan alley like billy joel, for example, but aesthetically i sometimes prefer tin pan alley in its pure form. dumb pop. which is hardly a new idea and can certainly lead one down the road to "incredibly strange music" and all that shit, but it can also lead to something else. which i am often as confused about as meltzer or anyone else who loves rock and roll...what the fuck is it?
aesthetically i just don't connect with bruce's overstatement. it just seems musclebound and obvious to me, and the poignance it's going for doesn't work for me either. does that make me shallow, that i get far more from fred wesley and the jbs than bruce, that i think their dumb party non-tunes contain more real "rebellion" and "political consciousness" than bruce, that their making a joke out of watergate on several mindless instrumental numbers with guitar and trombone solos is kind of what i need (i'll read history or the newspaper to get the rest)?
but as i say, i'm a rock fan and there are times when i think bruce has done some fairly cool stuff. overall, though, i enjoy thinking of him as the fonz far too much to worry about him much more than that. i mean part of the point of rock aesthetics as i see them is that it IS hard and maybe pointless to make distinction between "analysis mode" and "flippancy." and i'm dead serious about that!
― eddie hurt (ddduncan), Sunday, 25 July 2004 02:05 (twenty years ago) link
I also think it's weird to think of him as a political-consciousness or rebellion guy; on those 5 records, anyway, he's much more about desperation and self-doubt -- even the anthems, which is what really trips people up.
― spittle (spittle), Sunday, 25 July 2004 02:46 (twenty years ago) link
― cinniblount (James Blount), Sunday, 25 July 2004 04:35 (twenty years ago) link
Defend the Indefensible 7: Leonard Cohen
one of the more succint OTM posts on ILM, pretty much sums up my feelings about Nedly.
― Monetizing Eyeballs (diamond), Sunday, 25 July 2004 08:58 (twenty years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 25 July 2004 10:09 (twenty years ago) link
― lauren (laurenp), Thursday, 29 July 2004 16:47 (twenty years ago) link
― lauren (laurenp), Thursday, 29 July 2004 16:48 (twenty years ago) link
dave q. has made a version of this observation, and (if i decipher him correctly) so has christgau, but all the same: one thing that i think makes songs like "badlands" powerful is that they don't resort to a simple irony. the character whose voice springsteen sings in believes that his faith and love will allow him, by some magic, to transcend his present condition. rather than undercut this belief with a mournful tune/arrangement, springtseen keys the song/arrangement to the character's sense of hope and anger. thus: first we are asked to wholly empathize with this character, and the critical reflection will come (if it comes) only afterward.... or to make it less linear, there is a constant interplay between empathy and critical distance. thus lending the song something of the power of, well, say ford's fort apache where we see the cavalry march off to their certain deaths for a pointless cause AND understand and even admire their reasons for doing so.
not all springsteen songs work like this. nebraska is straightforwardly dejected, fatalistic much of the time, and when there is a hint of hope or a belief in transcendence, it's meant to seem small, pathetic. the irony is rather more pat.... not to say it's not a powerful record, it is, but i think perhaps this situation accounts for the fact that so many people who otherwise have difficulty appreciating springsteen really like that record.
― |a|m|t|r|s|t| (amateurist), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 04:44 (twenty years ago) link
― |a|m|t|r|s|t| (amateurist), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 04:46 (twenty years ago) link
― |a|m|t|r|s|t| (amateurist), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 04:47 (twenty years ago) link
but i can't think of a better metaphor to explain this. maybe someone can help?
― |a|m|t|r|s|t| (amateurist), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 04:51 (twenty years ago) link
Oh well. You can't start a fire worryin' 'bout your little world fallin' apart.
― Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 04:53 (twenty years ago) link
― |a|m|t|r|s|t| (amateurist), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 04:55 (twenty years ago) link
― |a|m|t|r|s|t| (amateurist), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 04:59 (twenty years ago) link
― |a|m|t|r|s|t| (amateurist), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 05:00 (twenty years ago) link
I was in a really bad relationship at the time.
I still see Born to Run as being a hopeful song but in the context of "Are you going to take this chance or are you going to sit on your ass in your stupid car on the parkway, you loser?" type of kick in the ass way.
― Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 05:08 (twenty years ago) link
I had no patience for Born in the USA for the longest time because I had to take a cross-country roadtrip with my entire family when I was about 12. The only tape my dad felt fit to bring with him, basically, was Born in the USA. 6 days of No Surrender stuck in a car with three screaming young children, a cat, two birds, FOUR dogs and your parents starts to really get to you. Recently I started listening to it again and kind of realized that I think Working on the Highway and Dancing in the Dark and I'm On Fire and I'm Going Down and even No Surrender are some of the greatest moments rock had to offer in the '80s.
― Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 05:11 (twenty years ago) link
But then also there's all those huge unbelieveable hooks, which is what made it sell a zillion copies and made everybody (including Springsteen?) misunderstand what was going on. And it's not like the hooks are bullshit, the hooks are great. There really is joy in the title track, no matter what the words say. I heard Max Weinberg once say that was his favorite song to play, and it shows. That album is really Springsteen grappling head-on with the contradictions between what he wanted to believe and what he actually knew (and what you knew he knew, coming right off Nebraska). It's a great big crisis of faith album, and it resolved nothing at all. "Dancing in the Dark" for damn sure.
― spittle (spittle), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 05:58 (twenty years ago) link
― |a|m|t|r|s|t| (amateurist), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 06:05 (twenty years ago) link
― spittle (spittle), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 06:29 (twenty years ago) link
Maybe we are just all getting old and losing our idealism.
― Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 13:08 (twenty years ago) link
― Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 13:09 (twenty years ago) link
― |a|m|t|r|s|t| (amateurist), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 13:13 (twenty years ago) link
― peter smith (plsmith), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 13:14 (twenty years ago) link
― |a|m|t|r|s|t| (amateurist), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 13:18 (twenty years ago) link
It's an interesting take, at the least. That said, it slightly begs a question to my mind in that you could apply a similar argument to most anything else that is on-the-face-of-it cheery and hopeful -- if reflection and implied irony is strictly in the realm of the reader (or rather auditor), then theoretically I could apply that to every upbeat Britney song, say.
Then again, some of us might at heart just simply not like most of the music and singing...
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 13:30 (twenty years ago) link