Bruce Springsteen - Classic or Dud ?

This thread went from "Bruce is an alcoholic who betrayed an auto corporation" to "Bruce took a shot with fans and Ranger Dick pulled him over."

biggest surprise twist itt this week is: i'm not sure anymore who does my favorite version of 'born in the usa'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzbl6n7Mqjo

The Jeep ad is back, fwiw

― stuck in the version layer (morrisp), Friday, February 26, 2021 10:00 AM (two hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

I'm hearing "the ad is back" to the tune of this ad (which Bruce was offered millions to do, and turned it down):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXrnDrGRNkk

sorry I'm still stuck on bruce springsteen and president barack obama hosting a podcast called "renegades"

its been a wild & rocky ride this last couple of weeks but i guess fair is fair and i am now heading out to lease a well equipped 2021 Jeep Cherokee 80th anniversary edition starting at only $199 a month no money down

xp Equally absurd that the first episode is called "Outsiders: an unlikely friendship." They are not outsiders, nor is their friendship unlikely.

I haven't listened to it, but the episode description references "growing up as outsiders." Is that not accurate in Bruce's case? Seems accurate for Obama.

Yeah, it is very much about growing up as outsiders, and in that sense it's accurate for both of them.

But they're both very much insiders now, so as much as it's meaningful to them to reflect on having been outsiders growing up, as a title I think it's a bit off. The "unlikely friendship" part of it also seems forced to me. They're two rich, famous, liberal Boomers who met on the campaign trail; it feels a bit manipulative to have them pitched to us like they're a horse and a puppy in a Budweiser ad.

I agree their friendship doesn't seem so unlikely on its face.

Eh, assuming they are actually friends and not just friendly, I'm not sure how many presidents are friends with huge rock stars. Besides besties Elvis and Nixon, of course.

i enjoyed the conversation so far

but i mean, this is cliched i know but it really is what it us” if it sounds like something you’d enjoy, you prob will. if it sounds like something you’d hate, likewise. it’s not going to convert anyone.

ugh - i meant - it really “is what it is”

Has anyone advanced the theory that is was all an elaborate ruse timed to coincide with the launch of the Spotify podcast (the way they do when pop stars get engaged or something right before an album drops)?

― stuck in the version layer (morrisp), Friday, February 26, 2021 9:36 AM (two hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

Lol at the idea of a podcast with Obama and Springsteen being lacking in promotion or awareness

^it's the same with a release by a major pop star! and yet ppl sometimes insist anything/everything in their private lives is some constructed event for PR purposes. (to be clear, that's what i'm clowning on, not the podcast)

ah sorry gotcha

waiting for the Trump/Marilyn Manson podcast

I'm enjoying the podcast tbh, I think I just feel the need to be snarky about the messaging because it works so well on me. Behind all my criticism beats a heart that reacts to all this blatant emotional manipulation with "Aww, Frog and Toad Are Friends!"

I think it would be much better received without the stupid & annoying promo language accompanying it

Like, PLEASE stop calling my hamburger “a bridge to a brighter tomorrow” and stop playing ‘Ebony and Ivory’ while i’m trying to eat it

Listening to the second ep of the podcast, where they start out by talking about Clarence. It’s interesting because I still think the whole thing feels much too comfortable and practiced, but there are these occasional moments where humanity breaks through.

Bruce has told the same stories about Clarence so many times, often in the exact same words you get here, and at times it seems like Obama is pushing for more from Bruce than he gets. He points out that Clarence couldn’t have a successful music career without allying himself to a younger, less experienced white man, and that’s an interesting perspective that Bruce doesn’t really respond to; he just goes into the same reflection we’ve heard before, about how lonely it was for Clarence as the only Black person in the band. But then there’s a moment when Obama just says, “You miss him,” and Bruce finally breaks from the script and starts searching for the right words, as if this is a question that deserves a real, unrehearsed answer. And what he comes up with is very simple, and sort of incoherent, and I find it very moving.

It was 45 years of your life you don’t… you know, you don’t… It’s never something that comes again.

I've been listening to concert recordings from '77/'78 for really the first time. For some reason I've been gravitating toward the later ones, I guess because of the setlists, even though y'all told me to go earlier.

They're great, obviously; I was listening to Albany 77 and every song was so crazy intense the audience must have felt shell-shocked by the end of it. "It's My Life" is a suck-in-your-breath, holy shit! moment, you wonder how the show can possibly move on from this, and then those moments just keep coming.

And of course it's startling to hear just how feral his stage persona was at that point. I'm used to the Growin' Up story being very innocent and goofy, but there's a version of it here that starts with him and Clarence and Steve deliberately driving some girls down a dark back road and shutting off all the lights in the car to scare them as punishment for not putting out, and while that's obviously just as apocryphal as any other Growin' Up story, I'm glad the version of Bruce that thought that was funny didn't stick around.

And it's really fun to see how much code-switching he's already doing at that point w/his accent and word choice and just the way he presents himself. I was listening to his intro to Racing in the Street from '78, where he makes fun of himself for writing songs about cars but not knowing anything about how to fix them - essentially the same thing he does thirty-odd years later on Broadway. He does the whole intro in his most mumbly working-class Jersey accent, says, "Yeah, I dunno nuttin' about dis stuff," waits for the crowd to laugh, and then says, "But I think I understand the spiritual and religious significance of the 396." And for just that moment he sounds exactly like seventy-year-old Bruce Springsteen, giving an interview about his craft.

I appreciate this thread; I’m not a huge Bruce fan, but what are you and Josh (and others) have to say here is really interesting and informative.

I loooove that era of live Bruce, it’s so electric & because the venues are a bit smaller you can really hear how they are just WITH him from the moment he hits the stage, rowdy & joyful, it really puts you in the moment

and that kinda husky very youthful speaking voice just makes me swoon like nothin else my god

Thanks, morrisp!

and that kinda husky very youthful speaking voice just makes me swoon like nothin else my god

Oh god yeah, me too. There's something so disarming about the kind of hesitant way he talks, like he's really having a conversation with the audience. And a lot of the time he really is having a conversation with them - compared to the later concerts there's so much "Okay, okay, we'll play that one." "Oh yeah, we're gonna play that one." "We NEVER play THAT one."

Yeah totally. I think that transition maybe from
being like a longtime bar band guy meant that he had built such a rapport that he was never intimidated by his audiences once they started going into bigger venues

i know this is a weird analogy but reminds me of Twisted Sister, playing every tiny club like it was an arena every night for fucking years so that when they get their moment & do finally play the big venues they don’t shrink back from connecting with them, theyve been through it all together & they just innately know their audience is riding or dying with them ... whereas a lot of bands dont get that kind of long incremental ramp-up time to build a relationship w the fans & hone their stage presence & instead just kind of shield themselves from the audience with the music

idk

Sure it's a Politico op-ed but Jack Hamilton here on destructive fandom in politics is a hell of a bracing/necessary read

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/07/barack-obama-bruce-springsteen-podcast-democrats-pop-culture-473383

― Ned Raggett, Sunday, March 7, 2021 4:58 PM (one hour ago)

That essay reads kind of half-assed to me. When Obama says he and Bruce don't have a lot in common, I assume he means the vast majority of their shared lifespans before Obama became president. So sure, they might have some superficial stuff in common *now* - rich, famous, etc. - but neither of them are exactly traditional exemplars of the rich and famous. To the contrary, what they do have in common is a background that *didn't* set them up to be rich and famous. Both embody the mirthful line in Rosalita: "Someday we'll look back on this and it will all seem funny."

And as for Bruce's politics, he famously, even infamously, avoided politics for most of his career. Like, this bit:

Springsteen has endorsed every Democratic presidential candidate since 2004 and has been affiliated with liberal politics for far longer, going at least as far back as his storied repudiations of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

This seems to miss the point. Yes, Springsteen has endorsed every Democrat since 2004, but he didn't endorse *anyone* in the 30 years before that. And that "storied" repudiation of Reagan has been fortified by Bruce himself *since* he became more political, but tales of Bruce v. Reagan from the time are mostly storied in the minds of the storytellers. As that article the essay links to describes, for the hundredth time, Springsteen's repudiation of Reagan was pretty mild and general, and even the supposedly "liberal" charities he supports were (and have remained) pretty neutral; food banks and helping the poor have been part and parcel of that that great liberal beacon the Catholic church since forever. So yeah, Springsteen has become more reliably political and more vocally liberal, but his fame stems from those first 30 years, not the past 20, when his songs were appealing to folks of both political parties for the same reasons, his fame peaking in 1984, coinciding with Reagan's historic landslide win. If anything, in that context it's kind of curious that Bruce spent the next decade making the most personal and *least* political music of his career.

honestly, focusing on disputing those rather small points in the essay seems way more missing the point

You mean me missing the point? Maybe. Probably. That stuff just kind of irks me. Regardless, I'm not exactly sure how key Springsteen is to the Democratic party or what role he plays. It's kind of a weird ad hominem pegged to an innocuous podcast from two famous talkers frequently top billed on "In Conversation With" programs.

I think Springsteen's liberalism is kind of interesting and perhaps a useful example for his peers (by profession or tax bracket). For starters, one should never assume your message (if you have one) is getting out if you remain silent about exactly what that message is. Second, as a working class dude from a conservative family background who has (more than) made good, Springsteen shows that as important his family, his roots, his working class bona fides may be, he's more than that, and eventually recognized that one of the luxuries of fame and wealth and the success and security he has built for himself is the ability to say what he believes in a way that's now generally louder and clearer and more direct than (for whatever reason) what he felt he could say or do when he was younger.

I'm not exactly sure how key Springsteen is to the Democratic party or what role he plays.

I mean did you see the inauguration?? 

the essay isn't really about Springsteen's politics, it's about the Democratic party's obsession with celebrity

That op-ed is pointless fluff, taking weak swings @ strawmen. (Also, there should be some Godwin's Law type thing for referencing the one Walter Benjamin essay that everyone had to read in college.)

Just because there are more Democrat celebrities doesn't make celebrity the province of Democrats. The presidency made Obama a celebrity. Trump's celebrity made him the president.

it's so self evident I kinda don't know how to respond

TBH celebrities have been a big part of party politics for decades. (Frank Sinatra and others were big JFK boosters.) And it wasn't just one party, it was especially true after Reagan came into office, which is no surprise given his background. James Stewart, James Cagney, Charlton Heston among others were huge Reagan boosters and I guess among GOP film legends Clint Eastwood may be the last man standing. But then you have television celebrities like Trump who is essentially the apotheosis of fusing celebrity obsession and party politics, in the absolute worst way possible. I get why Hamilton wants to single out Springsteen - he's a huge fan so he already pays more attention to him than others, and now you've got this podcast in the news - but it goes far beyond Springsteen.

Just because there are more Democrat celebrities doesn't make celebrity the province of Democrats. The presidency made Obama a celebrity. Trump's celebrity made him the president.

I was essentially posting this, but you beat me to it.

Also in other news:

New Jersey music icon Bruce Springsteen is on his way to securing his own official “holiday” in his home state.

A state Senate committee on Thursday voted unanimously to designate every Sept. 23 — the Boss’s birthday — as “Bruce Springsteen Day” in the Garden State.

State Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle, D-Bergen, who introduced the proposal (AJR65) early last year, said she was inspired after seeing “Springsteen on Broadway,” the rocker’s recent hit solo acoustic show.

“It highlighted his work as a passionate storyteller of the American Dream,” Vainieri Huttle said. “Every song tells a story of the struggles and dreams of the people of New Jersey.”

“I and most people think he’s nothing short of a New Jersey icon,” Vainieri Huttle told NJ Advance Media at the time. “In addition to being a talented musician, he’s a hero of the working class.”

The resolution approved Thursday tells Springsteen’s abridged life story, from his days touring with the Castiles and Steel Mill, the critical acclaim of debut album “Greetings from Asbury Park,” the 1975 release of “Born to Run,” all the way up to his Broadway residency.

https://www.nj.com/politics/2021/03/bruce-springsteen-day-could-soon-be-a-thing-in-nj.htmla

typo:

https://www.nj.com/politics/2021/03/bruce-springsteen-day-could-soon-be-a-thing-in-nj.html

birdistheword at 1:13 7 Mar 21

TBH celebrities have been a big part of party politics for decades. (Frank Sinatra and others were big JFK boosters.) And it wasn't just one party, it was especially true after Reagan came into office, which is no surprise given his background. James Stewart, James Cagney, Charlton Heston among others were huge Reagan boosters and I guess among GOP film legends Clint Eastwood may be the last man standing.


like do you genuinely think I'm not aware of this?

I don’t see a need for any broader meaning or context beyond ‘two old rich dads chatting is lame.’

good thing there are approximately a zillion podcasts featuring moderately wealthy non-dads chatting.

Just because there are more Democrat celebrities doesn't make celebrity the province of Democrats. The presidency made Obama a celebrity. Trump's celebrity made him the president.

I was essentially posting this, but you beat me to it.

― birdistheword, Sunday, March 7, 2021 1:14 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

the article beat both of you to it...?

It absolutely does. And I agree it is not smart to lean on celebrity for political purposes. I just thought the way it focused on Springsteen - and it does focus overwhelmingly on Springsteen, pegged to this podcast - was strange. I mean, the headline is "Democrats, Break Up With Bruce Springsteen," as if he's the first person you think of when you think of celebrity democrats. My argument is that he is actually one of the *better* celebrity political allies to have around.

Anyway, what are celebrities, really, if not politicians that people actually like.

Yes it did beat us to it: "Ironically, in 2008 it was Obama himself whom Republicans attacked as being an empty celebrity as opposed to a serious politician. Then, of course, in 2016, the Republican Party began its still ongoing love affair with Donald Trump, one of the purest embodiments of celebrity culture in American history."

Showering elected officials with the type of adulation normally seen with rock stars is a bigger deal for me - I always liked Obama, but I was always put off by the celebrity worship, especially in 2008 when it seemed like most of the country was swooning over him. People I knew who normally weren't engaged in politics would gush over him, and a lot of the inane reasons they gave were big red flags: "I actually don't know where he stands on the issues, but I just love the vibe that's around him!" And a lot of them got disillusioned, and more than a few went for Trump which in certain cases made no logical sense from a policy standpoint but that wasn't what they were voting for when it should have been. Anyway, the celebrity culture in general around politics is asinine, I'll agree with that.

Thanks to the thread about the Beatles, walking on the moon, and cowboys, I was thinking about what a weird and delightful song "This Hard Land" is. The structure is so bizarre and stream-of-consciousness; it's like "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty," if Walter Mitty daydreamed about running off with a dude to be cowboys together.

So it starts out a lot like the Gerard Manley Hopkins sonnet "Thou art indeed just, Lord, if I contend" - the narrator asking God for an explanation of why nothing he does ever works out. Then the narrator starts to tell you his life story - seems he and his sister come from Germantown and they've had a rough life - but just as you're settling in to hear the rest of the story, he gets distracted by a distant tape deck playing "Home on the Range," which sends him off into a completely unexpected cinematic fantasy about running off to be a cowboy and look for treasure with a guy named Frank who is not even a character in the song yet! We are three minutes into the song! We have no idea who Frank is! It's a glorious last-minute swerve for the song to make, from something kind of like "The Promised Land" into a classic "let's run off together" Bruce song that is a.) directed at a guy, b.) very informed by Western movies and c.) very clearly a fantasy that is never going to happen. (There are even little touches of "Born to Run" and "Thunder Road" in it: "Just one kiss from you, my brother/ and we'll ride until we fall" is not that different from "I wanna die with you Wendy on the street tonight in an everlasting kiss.")

Anyway, it's a cool song and I'm glad he put it on the Greatest Hits album so we got to hear it.

A lot to think about, but in the meantime the line "stay hard, stay hungry, stay alive" ranks among his best quotables.

And the "...if you can" that follows it is one of his best asides, additions, qualifiers, whatever you want to call them.

I really like this essay by Jody Rosen about the podcast: it gets at a lot of what I found disappointing about it. https://slate.com/culture/2021/03/obama-springsteen-podcast-review-renegades-spotify.html

She points out, among other things, that these "difficult conversations" really don't seem all that difficult; that Springsteen and Obama seem to agree with each other about everything, and that their conversations tend to stay on the surface of a lot of very broad issues; they rarely get into the kind of details that could raise any real disagreements.

They have a way of gliding past the tricky stuff. In the series’ second episode, “American Skin: Race in the United States,” Springsteen laments that we live in a country where bankers on Wall Street get bailed out while ordinary citizens struggle and suffer. Left unstated is the fact that, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, President Obama let big banks off the hook, opting not to prosecute executives responsible for the subprime mortgage debacle while prioritizing the preservation of banks’ capital structure over aid to foreclosed homeowners.

I noticed that moment too, but I heard it in a slightly different way; I think that point wasn't unstated so much as it wasn't pushed. Springsteen brings up reparations, Obama explains why he believes in them in theory but not in practice, and Springsteen very briefly pushes back, suggesting that it's unfair to bail out "fat cat bankers on Wall Street" and not help people who have been suffering. Obama gets a little defensive edge in his voice and deflects the question, and Springsteen immediately drops it. A minute later they've found their way back to safe conversational ground and are happily agreeing with each other again.

Um, he, I think.

oh sorry!

She.