Bruce Springsteen: Chapter 4.
Born To Run made Bruce Springsteen a star, yet nearly three years would pass before his next release, Darkness On The Edge Of Town.…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Bruce Springsteen: Chapter 4.
Born To Run made Bruce Springsteen a star, yet nearly three years would pass before his next release, Darkness On The Edge Of Town.…
Article comments
26 - Wild Billy
Banal - oh, well :-) you are pretty funny. Dostoevsky and Ibsen are of course banal as well. I think you would prefer "Is it worth it, let me work it I put my thing down, flip it and reverse it" any day to something that actually would make you take at your own hopes and fairs.
Ost&kjex is to be taken literally, at least their debut "Some, But Not All Cheese Comes From The Moon" was made upon the dogma of only samples from Cheese, biscuit and vocal. I don't think they have moved away from that.
The relevance? just thought it would be nice for you to have something real innovative to listen to while reading these banal words from this main stream conservative rocker.
Put on the track`s from the Passaic, listen how well the music fits the words, how Bruce` pour out his heart into every word, words about things that matters.
The bootleg is a nice couple of notches better than the album in mind, much more passion and intensity. Listen to Prove it, Streets of fire, Kitty's Back and.. yeah pretty much anything on there..
I hope you get it one day. It would be good for you.
27 - Christopher Rose
Dostoevsky and Ibsen are pretty boring too.
I think you'll find that the cheesy ones did that gimmick only on the one song. They are clearly using more conventional sound sources on the track you linked to. Plus which, using non-traditional sound sources to make music has been done many times before, so it isn't particularly innovative.
It's characteristic of BS fans to assume that other people don't get the special nature of his work. NEWSFLASH - we get it, and we're not impressed. Superficial lyrics, predictable music, what's to like?
I hope you get that one day, it will be good for you...
28 - Wild Billy
"Dostoevsky and Ibsen are pretty boring too"
Oh, yeah that’s right. Ibsen and Dostoevsky are still current after ca 150 years because they are boring. sure that must be it.
And yes Springsteen where innovative in the 70`s.
I just think your critic of Springsteen is not hitting the target, that’s all.
And I really don’t understand your need for music to be innovative to be great. That really doesn’t make any sense at all.
Oh well, never mind.."somebody is wrong on the internet, who the bloody hell cares"
God have mercy on the man
Who doubts what he's sure of
29 - Laser
It can be argued that Bruce Springsteen at this point in time is bigger in Europe than he is in the US. By bigger, I mean he draws more Euro fans to his concerts,and those Euro fans are more fervent. As far as a Darkness is concerned I believe it is Bruce's definitive work, and he backed it up with a definitive tour. From 1975-2008 I have listened and watched Springsteen be a relevant artist to the society of the time, and still be true to his own creative,social and political beliefs. But at no time did I ever feel that Bruce was fighting more for his career and his life when he unleashed Badlands and the other songs of darkness on an unsuspecting fan base. I am currently researching this album and tour for my next project, and hope to capture what this work truly meant to me and thousands of his fans.
30 - Rich
Maybe you guys could take this to email.
31 - JC Mosquito
Here we go again - but that's OK - it needs to be said periodically. The problem here is that Springsteen, the Rolling Stones, Zeppelin, etc., and many groups from the 70s based their music on a rock format as opposed to a pop format. Since rock tends to connect itself to prior versions of itself - carry the tradition so to speak - it can sound limited and rehashed to the casual listener. Pop however thrives on the current and unique, which can come across as temporary and gimmicky to the non fan. Of course both genres cross over into each other, but I'm talking broad generalities here. And it seems that since the late 70s there haven't been as many artists that have become hugely successful coming from the rock field as the pop field or the rap/hip hop field - that's why rock fans tend to reference older bands a lot.
So it's OK to not get Springsteen or Madonna - just as long as you realize that it's your own preferences and/or limitations that are affecting your perception, and not the quality of the artist.
Just my two cents' worth.
32 - Wild Billy
"I think you'll find that the cheesy ones did that gimmick only on the one song."
Okay, I know we are going into obscurity here and that it has nothing to do with the Darkness review, but:
"...spent their lifesavings on a big pile of cheese and biscuits, some studio equipment and locked themselves away for about two years. Creating what would become, "Some But Not All Cheese Comes From the Moon". Their debut album based solely on sounds from yes : cheese & biscuits.
Ost & Kjex Biography @ MySpace
---
JC Mosquito - Good comment.
33 - Christopher Rose
Skeeter, that's kind of my point. Carrying on in a generalised way and fully aware that there are some bands that contradict my point, Rock essentially drew on the blues and then kicked it into another dimension. However, that was a long time ago and comparatively not much has happened in the last fifteen or twenty years on that front in terms of new ideas.
That's precisely what is pissing me off frankly. I've always liked both pop and rock (and soul too, but that's another story), but the music I loved the most, ie rock, has changed from a creative and progressive stance to one of conservatism and tradition. What the fuck happened, apart from us all getting older?
Anybody who loves great music, rather than simply being a rock fan, can't fail to have noticed that there is a lot of innovative, creative and exciting music around these days but rock has kind of been left behind.
Personally, as a one time Mod and lifelong science fiction fan, both of which were/are forward looking culturally, I can't betray that progressive stance, even if that means me having to "betray" my once solid commitment to rock. Shit happens.
Billy, you've already shown yourself to be a bit linear but come on, do you really believe that PR bullshit? Unusually for the normally somewhat dour Norwegians, these guys have a sense of humour and you are buying into their joke!
34 - Michael
What I've never understood about the Christopher's of the world is this - for someone who doesn't get it (which is perfectly fine), why spend so much of your time trying to convince others their opinions are wrong (on a page where your view is singular)? Move on. I may not like the Jonas Brothers, but I have zero desire to read a glowing review and then shut everyone down by referencing Stephin Merritt, Amon Tobin or Kayne - just to make myself sound more educated. They like it; I don't. So? Agree to disagree.
I like Springsteen. His Muse burned brightest, obviously, when he was younger - but he's written some great stuff over the years. "Nebraska" was a huge influence on the Indie crowd (loved "Highway Patrolman"). While I wasn't thrilled with "Magic" overall, songs like "Girls in Their Summer Clothes" and "You'll Be Comin' Down" were terrific. When people say Bruce is "still relevant" (my dear, misguided Christopher), they don't mean to say he has changed with the times. He's not Beck. He's not Murs or People Under the Stairs. Yes, he's old. Yes, he's from the 70's. What they mean, though, is that he still continues to write good music and spends a lot of time in concert playing those songs - not just regurgitating the "greatest hits". He's still talked about in the media. His tours are still new and refreshing (example. the solo "Devils and Dust" tour was incredibly creative). I thought the Seeger Sessions tour was HIGHLY inventive - how he took his back catalog and delivered fun, new versions of each of the songs (in different styles - from Dixieland to Ska). He hasn't been "trading in" on his BTR days; he still writes a lot of wonderful stuff, but no ... he's not, nor will he ever be ... a trendsetter. Who is? Dylan? Young? Sorry... no. Teaming with Daniel Lanois or Brian Eno isn't a "new direction".
I said I like Springsteen and I do - but I tend to listen to newer bands and genres that dabble in different sounds. I like hearing something new. Whether a "Paper Planes" that mixes some old Clash music with a newer beat or a band that mines old Joy Division, but then throws in some Dub to shake things up. I like discovering new talent. We can all hear Christopher, here, say "ah HA.. he admits that Springsteen isn't...". Hush. Bruce is Bruce. He writes Bruce songs and dabbles in new styles here and there, but he's never going to shock the establishment as he did with BTR. The only reason he did so back then was because we hadn't HEARD "Bruce" before. As much as I love new music, where is Solvent going to be in 30 years? Andrew Bird? Tiesto? IF they're around, chances are they'll be playing the same STYLE of music that they're known for and .. that's fine. Their relevance will be measured by the quality of those songs, by whether or not people still talk about them and what influence, if any, they have on their peers.
Christopher... go away and haunt Miley fans.
35 - Christopher Rose
What I've never understood about the Michael's of this world is how they can surf into a website and make their first comment without ever considering the notion that Skeeter, Mark and even Al B all know each other, albeit online, and were at least trying to have a conversation. You do know what that is don't you Michael? Or is it your style to turn up, dump your load and then move on again, having contributed nothing and understood less?
I think I'm making a valid observation about a culture I know a fair bit about and have lived the lifestyle of for many years. I don't understand how people who liked music that was progressive in its day but has now been left behind somewhat by new ideas and generations can keep raving on about it in the same kind of terminology as back in the day. It's a bit like insisting that a Model A Ford is a great car...
36 - Al Barger
Christopher, I don't care about you labeling an artist "conservative" or "progressive." That's just overarching ideological bullshit with little relationship to actual music.
The question is, is the music GOOD? That mostly starts with, is there a real song under it? Is it well written, with hooks and dynamics and melodic development? Is there some emotional throw weight? There most assuredly are highly memorable songs under your better (mostly early) Springsteen.
There's very minimal in the way of real songwriting under a lot of gimmicky rap and pop stuff. Who's going to be covering any of those Missy Elliot "songs" now or ever? I've got a couple of Missy Elliot songs that I like well enough, and put them in a couple of mix discs for the car. She's got a couple of decent disposable pop novelties, much like David Seville. I put the "Witch Doctor" in the mix now and again for shits and giggles as well. But I wouldn't mistake either for substantive or meaningful art.
I mock your aging grasp for continued coolness, cause that ain't cool. I'm perfectly willing to listen to new artists and sounds, and dig some of the new as it hits my ear. But I'm not going to talk myself into thinking that some brand new mediocrity is great just to prove that I'm hip and down with the kids. If they want to be hip, kids need to find some of the stuff that I dig and get down with ol' Al.
Great music is timeless. What you think is "progressive" today might look retro to you in a couple of decades. Whatever. But Jimmie Rodgers and Fats Waller and Duke and Mozart and Beethoven are great and classic, and far more worthy of anyone's attention than your supposedly "progressive" flavor of the moment.
Calling Springsteen records from 30 years ago "old" is much more a statement of the boring limitations of your little worldview than any statement about any broader reality. In the bigger picture, anything that's been recorded in my lifetime is quite new. The world didn't begin when me or you came out of Mommy.
Also, the invocation of automobile technology as a comparison to music is utterly bogus. Cars are technology and music is art. Any new car is obviously and objectively far superior to a Model A. That's a question of technology, and the new is better. They drive faster, have better safety features, all kinds of things.
But music is art, and a statement of the human soul - which weren't invented in the last 100 years or so. Missy Elliot surely has vastly superior technology at her disposal, but never in this lifetime will she make anything as good as Billie Holiday did decades before Missy, Christopher or Al was born.
37 - Will Brennan
Sprinsteen's obviously a major artist and isn't mainstream like Bon Jovi is mainstream. I like some of Bon Jovi's stuff. But Springsteen goes deeper, obvously. He's hardly conservative though. Ronnie Reagan tried to usurp "Born in the USA" and Springsteen told him "hands-off." And he just did a huge concert for Obama. What Sprinsteen is is a voice for the working man, which for me, the more he got into that persona, the less authentic he felt. Bruce has been playing in bands since he was 17. He never worked in a factory or went to war or drove a truck. Which isn't to say that an artist can't empathize, it's just that I always thought Bruce was more honest when he was singing about tilt-a-whirls and the boardwalk and trying to score a chick out there. he had this oceanside arcade poetry going on and it rang really true, but when he got into the glory days and more"serious" subjects, it lost it's humor and spring and got kind of ponderous. He's done brilliant stuff - "Streets of Philadelphia" is bone chilling, "I'm on Fire" is classic. "Pink Caddilac." But I just wish he was so serious all the time.
38 - Christopher Rose
Al, your argument is mostly self-serving bollocks that seems mostly designed to show that you still get it. Trust me, you don't.
Your criteria for good music are completely arbitrary and based upon some fairly dubious critics theory of art appreciation. Art forms don't have inherent qualities so music doesn't remain good just because it once was.
BS basically has one song that stands out from the rest of his work and I'm sure you know which one I mean. If you go ask a whole load of people to name a song of his, it will almost certainly be that one. Good song it is too, although it, like you, has lost some of its impact with the passing of time.
I'm not interested in continuing coolness and don't care overly much what "the kids" think. What I am interested in is that music keeps me interested and BS just doesn't do it anymore for me. You might still get off on it, but that's more about you than the music or anything else. Let's face it, you still think country music is interesting; I think it, to use an Americanism, jumped the shark decades ago, and I know my Bluegrass from my Nashville!
Great music isn't timeless, it is inescapably of its time and sometimes that doesn't always play so well in the future. Your argument is anti life and human nature.
You think "Jimmie Rodgers and Fats Waller and Duke and Mozart and Beethoven" are timeless but I think they are of their age and it shows. Listening to them can be of passing enjoyment but, right here right now, I'd rather listen to the Antony & The Johnsons CD I just bought on repeat all day than that lot once.
If I was going to listen to some older music it would be something like the work of Mulatu Astatqe, who is in his 60s at least but still innovating. Contrast that with, say, BB King or the recently late Bo Diddley, with whom I have worked; once great artists who are/were still doing essentially what they have always done. I know which works for me.
I'm a human and 30 years is a fucking long time in my life, so yes, music from that long ago is old by definition. That's not to say that all old culture is bad but, just like some people get fat and/or bald as they age and some don't, some stuff ages better than others.
I'd like to think that if Billie Holiday was around today, she'd be grooving with Missy, not listening to Springsteen. Do you think the opposite?
Your rejection of my technology point is equally wrong. Both cars and music are products of human imagination and creativity. Driving a great car can be just as wonderful an experience as hearing great music.
Of course, listening to great music whilst driving a great car is even better. One of my current favourite driving CDs is the second Arctic Monkeys album which, the slightly ill fitting last track apart, is simply awesome.
In the end it comes down to what kind of person one is and what matters to you. You want "well written, with hooks and dynamics and melodic development"; I want to hear great new music that builds on the past, not relives it, to be surprised and delighted by the creativity of an artist, and not to be bored.
The human "soul", whatever the fuck that is, is certainly not set in stone, but evolves just as we do. Sometimes it is incremental, like shaving a few hundredths of a second off some running or swimming record. Other times it is more like a quantum leap to a new level and not everybody can follow it immediately. Cue mirror, Mr Barger...
39 - Christopher Rose
Bon Jovi is mainstream? Where?
Apart from that, what Will Brennan said.
40 - Michael
Christopher... I've posted on a lot of these forums, but never to bash someone else's view. If I disagree, I move on. You seem to be one of those folks who doesn't enjoy true conversation (sorry); instead, your opinion is the only one that counts. I could be wrong, of course.
You said Al's response was "bollocks" - that he doesn't get it ("trust me, you don't"). Again, we can agree to disagree. You bring up some great points. "Arctic Monkeys" is an excellent band; you're right. I agree that Springsteen isn't "timeless", but then... (like you said about Rodgers and Beethoven) I don't believe anyone truly is "timeless". You either like the artist/band or you don't and they will usually sound the same ... forever. Even guys like Beck that try to re-invent themselves will always have that "edgy", "creative" vibe. You probably won't hear Beck doing "South Pacific" in Latin.
You're absolutely right that "taste" comes down to "what kind of person one is and what matters" to them; to that point, I would never argue that Springsteen is a God. I can say that I like him and that I think he's relevant (keyword .. "I"), but in the end... it's just my opinion. I'm not right. I'm not wrong. No point, though, in my coming across a glowing Jonas Brothers blog and dissing everyone and their posts. They love the artist; I don't. Should we end up at a pub and want to discuss what "true relevance" is over a pint of Guinness, I'm in. I won't force it down their throats, though. I'll bring some Vampire Weekend for them to listen to, as well.
It sounds like you have a deep love of music and that you're open to many different genres. You also seem to be very well-educated. For what it's worth, I have no idea what the human "soul" is, either - though I have trouble tying my shoes on any given day. Anyway... just my opinion.
41 - Michael
One other point, Christopher.. if a blog was meant to be locked down to a small circle of friends, the blog should be locked. I've posted many articles and blogs, responded to numerous others (like this) and you always get someone who's going to stumble across a great post and want to weigh in. Are you saying that their opinion isn't valid and they are not worthy of a reply ... simply because they don't know everyone else who has commented? Really? So I can track down every one of your posts on the Web and you will have known every single of those folks? I'm just trying to say ... relax. As far as I could tell, this was a positive review of an old Bruce CD and most of these fine folks agreed with the review. You're right; for all I know... you guys may show up in the same reviews and may have been in agreement 99% of the time. You might be best friends. If that's the case, I apologize. I certainly don't mean to stick my head in where it doesn't belong. I wasn't "dumping my load". I'm here, replying to my reply, so I'm obviously up for a little conversation. Anyway.. my two cents.
42 - Michael
And, yes... you are entitled to disagree - very much so. I just question the point of a "trust me, you don't" argument. With that very statement, you shut down the other person's viewpoint. You might want to say "I don't THINK you get it" or "we're, obviously, not on the same page" - but it usually ends a conversation when the other person goes on the attack. Ugh. I had a flashback of an ex.
43 - zingzing
oi. chris is right--pringsteen IS musically conservative and mainstream. that doesn't mean those are bad things. in fact, he gives those two things a good name. he's not a musical innovator. but on his best stuff (born to run, nebraska and born in the usa, in my book,) he's a phenomenal writer and as great a pop artist as has walked the earth.
but chris' little assertion about "music doesn't remain good just because it once was" may be true, but i wonder if he's considered the opposite. just because something gets older doesn't mean it's left behind. sure, the sex pistols are as earth-shatteringly new these days, but they are still important and they can still shock with their power. even though they were just trying to sound like the past 15 years (in 1976) hadn't happened.
springsteen was also aping old styles by this point in his career. his songs were generally getting shorter and tighter, his phil spector love affair was in full swing, he was moving more and more towards guitars and synths instead of pianos... the man is a classic rocker, a point of consensus for all american rock. "if it doesn't sound like bruce, it's not rock." sure, he's not the greatest thing under the sun, and he can be a tad too familiar, but he's the best thing a majority of americans can agree on.
he's mainstream and he's a musical conservative, but those things might be his greatest accomplishments.
44 - zingzing
Antony & The Johnsons--talk about classicists! hercules and love affair! at least that sounds like the 70s instead of the 40s. (but i love them both.)
45 - zingzing
"the sex pistols areN'T as earth-shatteringly new..."
46 - Michael
Speaking of aping styles, did anyone catch Bruce's Halloween video (see URL)? I thought it was great. It was kind of a ... Muddy Waters meets Tom Waits dealio with a little Gene Vincent throw in at the end for good measure.
47 - Mark Saleski
did anyone catch Bruce's Halloween video
yes i did michael. cool stuff. the song itself reminded me of what Bruce did with the bluesy version of "Reason To Believe" at the Magic tour shows.
48 - Michael
Yeah, the bullet mic. He used it on the "Devils & Dust" tour, as well - along with a pump organ. The "Reason to Believe" performance was great to see.