Bruce Springsteen - Classic or Dud ?

Agreed that the new one sounds good and ain't up to much. Fun to see the band goofing around in the video, tho.

I think his lyrics have gotten kind of ... pat? Generic? Not terrible, per se, but missing some sort of spark and poetry. It kind of worked with "Western Stars" (which I was not generally a fan of), but, like, even the titles - "Western Stars," "Letter to You" - they're kind of placeholder-y. Which is weird, because the prose of the book and Broadway show were so inspired. I just glanced at what I posted and briefly thought "Tracklist" was the name of the first song and thought, well, *that* sounds interesting.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 10 September 2020 15:48

Generic is the word, I think. The sort of thing where you hear the word "rain" and you patiently wait for "pain" to come trotting along to rhyme with it. It's hard to believe this is the guy who used to write lines like "Early north Jersey industrial skyline, I'm an all-set cobra-jet creepin' through the nighttime."

My impression is that he more or less lost his lyric-writing chops in the late nineties, there was a brief semi-resurgence in 2012 or whenever it was that he wrote Wrecking Ball and Western Stars, and now it's all gone.

― Lily Dale, Thursday, 10 September 2020 16:05

A pretty spot-on assessment. I didn't listen to Springsteen until the late '90s, and at the time, I remember thinking his lyrics to his newer work were stunning, even beautiful where appropriate, but musically underwhelming. (His singing was also growing more affected with that Dust Bowl accent, but in the wake of The Ghost of Tom Joad, it seemed like an acceptable and temporary conceit.)

The Rising (and maybe 1999's "Land of Hope and Dreams") pretty much set the template of how he would write going forward, where his sense of detail became less incisive and the sentiments more generic. I still think he's made very good music - and I think half of The Rising adds up to a pretty good album on its own - but compared to his 1973-1987 run of classics, you can see what's lyrically missing.

I agree with Josh's take on the Broadway show, and his speeches, eulogies and press statements over the past decade and a half have been consistently strong too - more than any other rock star I can think of, he's become a true statesman. The oratorical ability that come with that work beautifully in any given speech or piece of non-fiction, but it doesn't necessarily translate into better art, and that may be the direction he's been heading for a while now whenever he puts words of any kind to paper. (The more I think about it, I'd say his best and most recent songs are essentially eulogies - "The Last Carnival," "We Are Alive," "The Wall," "Moonlight Motel"...)

Nothing against the E Street Band, but Nebraska is still the apex of his work (and my personal favorite) partly because his singing, lyrics and music had all reached a stunning peak while enriching the other elements immeasurably. Again, he's made plenty of good music since then (the next two studio LP's are rightfully considered classics), but not with that same sense of balance.

If he could go back to the E Street band sound of his second album, that would be something. Bring back Sancious, and the guest horn & conga player from that one too.

he shoulda brought 'em back just for the three songs on this album that actually date from that era!

birdistheword, this is very well put:

his sense of detail became less incisive and the sentiments more generic. I still think he's made very good music - and I think half of The Rising adds up to a pretty good album on its own - but compared to his 1973-1987 run of classics, you can see what's lyrically missing

Yes.

Compare: "screen door slams, Mary's dress waves" vs. "I see Mary in the garden, the garden of a thousand sighs." One is vivid and rooted; the other symbolic and abstract.

Viewed in the most charitable light, he might say that the sentiments are more universal. He tends to front like he's in tune with some mystical shit and the spirits of the primordial ether. So of course he's no longer constrained to the role of specific exits of the New Jersey Turnpike in the mid-1970s.

But through a more cynical lens one might say that the lyrics are informed by comfortable late-middle age, global fame, and vast wealth. His lack of connection to a specific place and time bespeaks a bubble of privilege, in this view.

big thing for me is he lost a lot of that playfulness, the humor he had....was just listening to Darlington County

Driving out of Darlington County
My eyes seen the glory of the coming of the Lord
Driving out of Darlington County
Seen Wayne handcuffed to the bumper of a state trooper's Ford

just little stuff like that "or the RE-CORD COMPANY ROSIE JUST GAVE ME A BIIIG ADVANCE" little asides like that I miss

Agree with this: But through a more cynical lens one might say that the lyrics are informed by comfortable late-middle age, global fame, and vast wealth.

and this: big thing for me is he lost a lot of that playfulness, the humor he had

And Darlington County is a good example because it also has a kind of subtle dramatic irony that he's pretty much lost the knack of; the way these guys think they're on a super-cool road trip and have no idea they're actually starring in an existentialist shaggy-dog story, and the song grounds us so fully in their POV that it takes us a while to figure that out as well.

I've been lucky enough to see all of his post-reunion tours multiple times, and I want to say "Working on the Dream" (which sounds like a euphemism for taking a dump or something) is the only one where even live performance couldn't really save the songs. "Wrecking Ball," though, was pretty inspired throughout, and something like the title track in particular, despite hinging on the titular cliche, is full of funny stuff even as a rousing anthem.

Yeah, I like the title track of Wrecking Ball. It's one of the few post-Joad songs I do like.

lol Working on a Dream. No difference, I don't remember much about that album (or High Hopes) at all.

Wrecking Ball was better than expected, it may be my favorite studio album post-Tunnel of Love. (There's only two or three others that I like, not counting archival releases.)

Between "Queen of the Supermarket" and "Outlaw Pete," Working on a Dream was virtually self-parody. It may be his worst album, but I like the final track "The Last Carnival" and the hidden bonus "The Wrestler." High Hopes feels like mishmash, and even a great song like "41 Shots" is pretty inferior to the live version they released in 1999. But I do like "Hunter of Invisible Game" and "The Wall."

He's operating in an entirely different gear than when he made those classic albums. Back then the music was EVERYTHING. Once he allowed himself to be a human with a family, everything changed. I think the massive success kind of fucked with him too. He stopped giving 100% and that's okay.

Wrecking Ball and the Seeger sessions are the ones that I've enjoyed the most after TOL. Tom Joad is probably better than those but I really wish it had a little more variety in its sound.

Tunnel had a really nice cover too. His covers have gone straight to hell. Ugly fonts, blergh.

Still, I love him deeply. When my mom and dad split up she developed a big Bruce crush. I remember being 9 or 10 years old, laying on the floor of her studio while she painted, reading the lyric sheet to BITUSA. She took me to the TOL show which was my first concert. I stopped keeping up with his new stuff after Working on a Dream, but I adore that classic run.

He's operating in an entirely different gear than when he made those classic albums. Back then the music was EVERYTHING. Once he allowed himself to be a human with a family, everything changed.

Same with Paul McCartney. Moral of the story: if you want to be a great artist, never get married, never have children.

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/74/7c/bc/747cbc2ad5d3da2063e6415a9dca424d.jpg

Joking aside, for literal "dad" rock, I actually think that was part of Springsteen's appeal for a short while. Before he slipped into domestic life, I didn't get the feeling that there was huge untapped wells that could only be explored as a bachelor dedicated to his craft. Tunnel of Love is not only a great album but it has much of his best writing, and it's all about taking that first huge step into family life - maybe it was a reflection of a failing marriage, but if your marriage is crumbling, that alone is probably absorbing most of your day-to-day focus. Lucky Town is no masterpiece, but it's not a bad album and everything good about it taps into his new life of settling down and raising a family. I think his autobiography mentions that he wrote more songs in that mold but ultimately shelved them because he didn't want to put out a fourth album exploring the same themes.

FWIW these comments, though made with expertise, are very harsh on Bruce.

I think his late LPs, like MAGIC, WORKING ON A DREAM, WRECKING BALL, WESTERN STARS, are all good in some way or other - sometimes terrific. They may not have what BORN TO RUN or NEBRASKA have, but those are around 40 years ago. The fact that he can still keep delivering at the standard he does, is the truly remarkable thing.

I don't believe that any other major pop artist has kept up to the same standard - let's say, even, minimal or average standard - over such a long time (about 50 years!) - that Bruce Springsteen has.

People who are more talented and important - McCartney, Dylan, Townshend - still haven't kept their standard up so consistently over such a period.

I can probably accept some of the criticism of WESTERN STARS above, but then I also find much of that LP inspiring - 'hitchhikin', 'road runner', 'sundown' - wonderful.

Basically I think once you think how long he's been around, how he's kept at it, he's a living miracle.

'Janey Needs a Shooter'

'House of a Thousand Guitars'

sound good titles to me (even if they might be from the 1970s).

Is it the same Janey as in the other song?

Lol at the photo, birdistheword, it took me a nanosecond.

I don't believe that any other major pop artist has kept up to the same standard - let's say, even, minimal or average standard - over such a long time (about 50 years!) - that Bruce Springsteen has.

Well, this is another thread, but there are a few. Neil Young comes to mind. And like Neil, though not to the same extent, Bruce is always (in his own way) trying new things. I suppose there is a question of why. Out of creative curiosity? Passion? A strategy to deal with writer's block/depression? The effect of medication? Probably a bit of all of those. One big different between old Bruce and post-reunion Bruce is an acknowledgment of his own mythology, which I imagine is both a blessing and a curse, as is being able to talk about it. But one thing that seems to remain the same about old Bruce and new Bruce is a tendency to overthink things, which of course benefits you when you're, say, writing a memoir or pontificating about the state of the world - his recent radio show output was galvanizing stuff - but perhaps hurts you when trying to write songs, which is how one ends up with files of lyrics and no place to use them. I do think a less conservative choice of producer could be of benefit, but at the other extreme I think this band-in-a-room approach was a good choice as well. We'll see, we've only heard the one new song!

I dunno, it is interesting to me that even in his '70s Bruce sometimes seems like he still hasn't figured it all out. And maybe he hasn't.

Looking at the cover, I can only hear Bruce's voice saying, "Are you over 65? If so, you may want to consider a reverse mortgage. It's a simple way to turn your home's equity into cash."

https://media.pitchfork.com/photos/5f5a2be84f1199ca1e9814f5/1:1/w_500/Bruce-Springsteen-Letter-to-You.jpg

Dude's run of teerrrrrrrrrrible album covers is legendary.

"this is another thread, but there are a few. Neil Young comes to mind"

Are there a few?

I agree that Neil Young is a good candidate. But has even he maintained a standard as Bruce has? And apart from him, is there anyone?

The one person I would put alongside Bruce here is Lloyd Cole - whose last two LPs are as good, in a way, as his first. But LC has only been releasing records since c.1984 -- Bruce has over a decade on him, so they're not directly comparable.

(If it's for another thread then sure point to that thread)

I just assumed this stuff is covered in other threads, no idea. Like, "old but still making good albums" or something? Anyway, Bruce is definitely unusual in that he can still fill arenas and but is also focused on making and releasing new music that he tours behind.

I think Dylan's latest album is a masterpiece. John Prine's last album was uneven but brilliant in places, which is what most of his classic albums were like too. I wouldn't call either of them pop artists, exactly, but they're artists it makes sense to compare Springsteen to.

I guess I don't so much look for artists to maintain a standard as I look for them to occasionally reach creative peaks. The problem, for me, isn't that Springsteen is uneven, it's that his post-Joad albums have been kind of predictably mediocre and uninspired.

Agree about Dylan and Prine, also I've gotten more consistently into Young's albums this century than any run since since the late 70s. (Well, incl. the 20th Century revelations finally surfacing.)
If he could go back to the E Street band sound of his second album, that would be something. Ha ha, yeah curm, that was always a peak. Sad and operatic and yet fun. Tell it:"The Man-Beast lies in his cage sniffing popcorn." The one that plays itself in my head most often, though, is still "Meeting Across The River." Such a breath of fresh dirty urban night air, with the unforced singing and the writing and the acoustic guitar and the upright bass and I think that's it, that's all we need, sounding the way they do.
Unique in his canon maybe, at least in emotional effect.

xpost Except for the Seeger Sessions, imo. And like I said, just above everything goes over well on stage.

the unforced singing and the writing and the acoustic guitar and the upright bass and *the trumpet*, I meant to write!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oops, Roy's on there too, somehow he blends in almost too well, at least in my head (ain't played the record in so long):
Bruce Springsteen – vocals
Roy Bittan – piano
Richard Davis – double bass
Randy Brecker – trumpet No acoustic guitar? Maybe that's Roy, but think there is acoustic guitar, at least the vibe of it.

Cohen managed to be consistently solid with regular hits of brilliance right up until his literal deathbed recordings

(ok maybe not literal but as close as you'd want to get)

Yeah, and I read that he was still working on three other albums when he left the building. I like that You Want It Darker is like he just stepped out for a minute--it doesn't sound in need of any more work, but he's still in the midst of his ongoing interests, concerns, takes on things---no Grand Sunset Summation---also no last leap, but he ain't Bowie, never was, despite his own taste for dramatic turns.

Bob Dylan, Neil Young, John Prine and Leonard Cohen are all good examples of other artists with long careers, more or less regular recording or touring activity (they've all had dry spells), and roughly consistent quality. You can nitpick at the differences, but they're close enough. I really wouldn't question the inclusion of Neil Young at all - his late '80s to mid '90s resurgence with Freedom/El Dorado, Ragged Glory, Weld and Sleeps with Angels is simply stunning with work that rivals his very best, and Le Noise and Prairie Wind (especially Jonathan Demme's accompanying film, Heart of Gold) were both excellent - those are just the highlights, even his lesser albums continued to have gems. Robert Christgau put Americana on his decade's best list - I don't like it as much, but there's at least four of five cuts on there that are amazing. The main criticism I have against him is that his current and still-prolific output would be stronger if he became more selective about what he released. (I'm referring to his new music, not the archival releases.)

I underestimated John Prine and sadly I didn't realize that until I explored his catalog after he passed. His albums are often uneven, but he put out a LOT of albums. Like Van Morrison and a few others, he's someone who had more than enough material for a stunning box set but never had one put together. Virtually all of his albums had gems, and he even made a great duets album as well as a good follow-up - how many artists make duets albums that are more than curious anomalies in their catalog? Maybe Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong, George Jones and Melba Montgomery or Tammy Wynette, but not many and not even Sinatra.

(And Marvin Gaye and his various duet partners - how can I forget them?)

Bob Dylan, Neil Young, John Prine and Leonard Cohen

I'd say one difference is that the late (or later) career bests of these guys are about as good as or at least stand up to their early peaks, but Bruce's later stuff by and large is not, even the stuff I like a lot. Just bein' real, love Bruce.

Very true. I put Love and Theft and Times Square (or Freedom and El Dorado) up there with their greatest work. Live in London is the definitive Leonard Cohen album for me - his studio albums weren't really produced that well and I'd rather hear his classics in that context with his gloriously aged voice. And The Missing Years, In Spite of Ourselves and The Tree of Forgiveness absolutely rank with Prine's best - there's maybe two or three earlier Prine albums that would compete with them in my top five favorite Prine albums.

i know i’m the person itt who goes on and on about how good magic is but i’m listening to it right now and the first six or seven tracks in a row are all top tier bruce imo. good lyrics too

for my money the best springsteen post-joad is this and some songs from devils & dust (“long time comin,” my favorite springsteen song). but maybe i should listen to wrecking ball again

Those are all good! Just not up to the standards of everything up through Tunnel of Love, imo.

I may have posted this already, but in terms of whole albums, I like and still have Lucky Town, Devils & Dust, Magic, The Promise (if that counts - an archival release, but some new recording was done to finish a substantial part of it), Wrecking Ball and Springsteen on Broadway. In the case of The Rising, I just burned an LP-length version that tosses out seven of the tracks and substitutes "My City of Ruin" for the live-in-the-studio version. In Brendan O'Brien's defense, I think he tried to pare that one down, but Springsteen pushed back and said he wanted it to be a long one.

I don't really agree with the position of Bob Dylan in all this as 'consistently great' - because most people think he went off in some way after, say, BLOOD ON THE TRACKS (or indeed JWH), and has made a comeback since, say, TIME OUT OF MIND.

In truth, most of us here probably love Dylan and we love it when we hear the Dylan in between those periods too. I even enjoy EMPIRE BURLESQUE and play it often! But I think Dylan realistically is a fair example of someone who dipped or lost his way, to a degree, then found it again, or found a new way.

I do accept that 'consistently good' isn't a very rock & roll aspiration, and might be less artistically important than 'occasional unpredictable peaks'. But I think it's what Bruce has done. And I don't find him mediocre at all; often thrilling and soaring.

Well, for sure Neil Young has had his own erratic stretches, too. But he and Dylan, for example, are still capable of consistent stretches of greatness on par with their best. Yet Bruce himself is so thrilling and soaring that he can make even his mediocre stuff great. That's his magic trick, iirc. Look up that video of him covering Bryan Adams for proof.

Out of curiosity, pinefox, which of Bruce's recent work do you find thrilling and soaring? I'm not asking this to disagree, I love Bruce and I'm glad people are still getting a lot out of his current music even if it doesn't appeal to me.

I don't really agree with the position of Bob Dylan in all this as 'consistently great' - because most people think he went off in some way after, say, BLOOD ON THE TRACKS (or indeed JWH), and has made a comeback since, say, TIME OUT OF MIND.
The more unforgiving critics behind that assessment would probably argue that Springsteen lost his way after Tunnel of Love. I don't really agree with either assessment, but I don't think I'd give more weight to one less forgiving take over the other either.

I don't want to put down Springsteen because I think he's done quite a bit of good work since 1987, but I can't say it was nearly consistent as his run of albums from The Wild, The Innocent... through Tunnel of Love. I could see an argument being made that the best moments did reach those heights, but Human Touch, Working on a Dream and High Hope are some pretty low valleys by any standard. ("Human Touch," "The Last Carnival," "The Wrestler," "The Wall" and "Hunter of Invisible Game" are all good tracks though.)

"Hopes" (typo)

I'm not putting the guy down. I think every album he has released has at least a few good songs on it, because he's a very good songwriter! He just doesn't put out particularly good albums anymore. The really good songs are often now balanced out by not just mediocre songs but the presence of a few outright bad songs, a relatively recent phenomenon that began around Human Touch (whose title track I should note absolutely kills when he does it these days.)

I don't agree that he releases 'a few outright bad songs' per LP. I don't think he even releases one.

Lily Dale: soaring or thrilling Bruce? Say in the 21st century? Let's see:

Lonesome Day. Further On. You're Missing. The Rising.
Devils & Dust. All The Way Home.
Radio Nowhere. Magic. Girls in their Summer Clothes. Last To Die.
Working on a Dream. Queen of the Supermarket. Surprise, Surprise.
Save My Love [allowing that one rerecorded song on THE PROMISE]
We Take Care Of Our Own. Jack of all Trades. Wrecking Ball. We Are Alive.
Hitch Hikin. The Wayfarer. Tucson Train. Sundown. Stones. There Goes My Miracle.

That's more than I could put together for most other artists this century.

Because he is a great songwriter!

His first outright bad song he released imo was 57 channels and Nothin' On.

"57 Channels" is kind of funny, but "The Angel" and "Mary Queen of Arkansas" are pretty bad. (I wish he re-recorded most of that first album.)

57 Channels wasn't bad the way he did it at Christic. If he'd recorded it that way and released it as a b-side, I don't think anyone would have complained.

Yeah, "The Angel" and "Mary Queen of Arkansas" are pretty terrible, and I find "For You" kind of embarrassing as well, though I know people like it. And "Drive All Night" is pretty bad as well imo. The much-maligned "Crush on You," otoh, is a goddamn delight that I will defend with my heart's blood.

Drive All Night is a thing of beauty, my fists clench upon hearing a dissenting opinion.

I think Drive All Night is kind of boring, but I don't mind it. I love For You.

In terms of Bad Bruce, "Waitin' on a Sunny Day" is kind of a useful case study. When "The Rising" came out I honestly kind of liked the song for its almost childlike simplicity, optimism and innocence, a counter to the darkness of a lot of the rest of that album, right down to its corny title. (Even though I also have to admit I at least at first thought of the title in the context of the totally clear and beautiful weather of 9/11). But then the way the song has developed as a set centerpiece, and the way that Bruce has used it to embrace his cheesiest instincts, by turning it into a singalong with little kids, I dunno ... it kind of introduced nu-Bruce to the world. Admittedly, it's so shamelessly square and uncool I do sometimes even enjoy the kiddie singalong live, but it definitely marked a new stage for him as a performer and, in retrospect, maybe as a writer, since he's written plenty of songs sort of loosely like that one since.