Bruce Springsteen - Classic or Dud ?

Yeah, new album is weak. Basically just an excuse for the live shows, though, which according to what I've heard remain wonderful.

Found this at the near start of the thread, dunno if Ned can be bothered to talk about it now:

La Bruce just collectively calls to my mind a stunted bastard vision of music that presumes he was the sole carrier of the 'spirit of rock and roll truth' that the Beatles and Stones 'started' in the sixties.

Odd, because Springsteen's own views are the exact opposite- he was always far less interested in The Beatles and The Rolling Stones than he was in Phil Spector and James Brown.

Though he always does look really tense and "real rock" when he performs.

It used to be such that every time I got drunk, the evening would end with me and a gentleman companion in the group deciding to put on Dancing in the Dark and imitating the Boss & Courteney Cox dance. This has thankfully not occured in a long time now.

Ah, to explain my sense further -- there I wasn't referring to exact sound (I hope) so much as the role he seems to be in. I don't like universal idolatry, but personal, and so much around Bruce is "my god, the genius is among us all again! DO YOU SEE!" insistence that just makes me hate him even more. Like I said above in that quote, I don't get the sense that he believes that garbage (if he takes Dave Marsh at all seriously, though, that's a pisser).

And as for the music itself, a lot of people love Phil Spector and James Brown. In my mind, that doesn't give them a free pass for their own efforts. ;-)

My only realization about Bruce recently has been when I finally heard Bat Out of Hell and realized I loved that a hell of a lot more than any Springsteen I've heard.

Yeah, Nebraska is a pretty OK album, but I recall at the time that it was more noteworthy as an advertisement for Tascam's portastudio than as any kind of artistic breakthrough.

Even so, I'll give him a "Get Out Of Dud Free" card for this, which I think is pretty goddamn cool.

He could have quite after Born to Run and still be classic classic classic. That album is one of the great moments in pop music history, and a cultural icon (in the States at least).

Even if you don't like his music, he's still classic.

And it is about time people start liking "Born In The USA" again. Just because the album sold zillions doesn't make it a bad album.

Of course the adulation is typically overboard. But what do you expect for someone who has had, at least at moments, near-Madonna-level pop smarts and still gets content, even poetry, into his lyrics?

One of the differences between him and "heartland rock" - r&b. A greater proportion of it, at least. Who else (besides the aforementioned Californians) has had such a sound during the same period at remotely similar levels of popularity?

but he loses that card for this, the final page of the aforementioned document, in which mr. springsteen proves he can't spell "asbury park."

i otherwise kinda like springsteen, so perhaps i'm not the best to answer this, but i'd say his career mathematically boils down to this:

1. great singer
2. damn good songwriter (despite a huge drop-off in the '90s)
3. fair-to-average, overrated bar-band backing (playing mostly hackneyed arrangements)
4. poor production (i like "born to run" just fine, but after that it's just so completely lacking in punch and warmth i can't believe he's ever been lauded for it)

"nebraska" discards with (3) and (4), leaving him playing entirely to his strengths. and as it happens his songwriting hit a peak at the same time. i'd say it's far and away his best.

i'd have to guess anyone owns the record knew, what with him screaming those lyrics out for the entire length of the song, not to mention the fact that he included a lyric sheet. that'd be 15 or 20 million people right there.

Wonderful and glorious. No, no need to thank me.

the 2nd verse of "41 shots" is heartbreaking, astonishing. the rest of the song doesn't quite live up to it.

also the man can sing. i don't like the way he pronounces "somewhere" (mumbled: "some-wahr") BUT: "lit-tle-world-fal-lin-apart"!!!

My mom loved his music, and I think it has something of a sentimental value for me for that reason. But I think it's deserved. Perhaps this is a cheap shot (bcuz I know there are poor ppl who don't like him) but I think most people who have ever been on the underside of reaganomix will agree that he spoke for people who needed someone like him. I don't care how un-hip it is to say that I like his music because it speaks to me from a place that few kinds of music do - certainly moreso than Frankie Goes to Hollywood.

Favorite work of his: side two of Tunnel of Love. A perfect piece.

That embarrasment aside, I do still like Bruce, though. For one thing, I like that (apart from Nebraska), his most depressing songs are also his most clappy-singalong songs. "Hungry Heart," "Born in the USA," "Cadillac Ranch", etc.

The "heartleand" thing" is more complicated than people who live there are willing to admit -- that's the problem. They ought to be populist (if not leftist), but they're not. They have a habit of ignoring their own reality in favor of something that someone told them was "simple." They buy "simple" like it was bread, and swallow it whole, and don't even realize they're choking on it.

But anyway... you're right, Springsteen does not fit into that mold, not by a mile.

"Ought to be?" Nothing more amusing than someone who isn't part of a group dictating to them what their preferences and priorities should be, as if they're too stupid to figure it out for themselves.

Anyway, "Downbound Train" > "Dancing In The Dark" > "Born in the USA", as far as that album goes.

Yeah, I like that one.