I have never really "gotten" the whole Bruce Springsteen "thing". I get that he resonates with classic Americana culture and is a great songwriter and performer. You can tell he puts it all out there when he performs and I respect him for that, but with that said these are my comments from last night's show.
- Bruce Springsteen is the 2nd worst singer in the world, but is the best raspy growler in the world.
- Steven Van Zandt is the worst singer in the world.
- Funniest halftime moment was when Bruce went for the atomic stage slide and went crashing into the TV camera. Classic!
- Second funniest moment of the halftime show was watching ole' Bruce climb on top of the piano. Let's just say he isn't quite as nimble as he used to be. I was seriously worried he was going to throw out his back. It just looked painful. Give him credit though, he was going for it!
Now that I have offended over half my readers, you can tell me why you love The Boss. I just don't get it.
It probably has something to do with what a producer in Nashville told me one time about how people view music. He said there are only two kinds of people in the world: those who think the Rolling Stones are the greatest rock band ever and those who think they are the worst rock band ever. Which camp they fall in tells you volumes about how they view music.
I would be in the latter camp.
16 comments:
I agree with your reflections on "the boss" as well.
Growling isn't singing and throwing yourself across the stage can only cover some of that lack of vocal talent.
I will give him credit for leaving it all out there on the stage. That slide was classic!
I can't really comment on his performance last night or how he resonates in Americana culture (I wouldn't have thought New Jersey particularly resonates Americana?) not being an American and so not being particularly interested in those specifics. From what I've seen he is incredibly inconsistent vocally live (and maybe the better examples are a result of post-production). But I've not heard anyone who can write lyrics that come across so amazingly conversational, like natural speech rather than something forced to fit to a rhythm or melody (although he does succeed at making them fit - in the studio at least!) I think he has also successfully found a niche in his music being thoughtful folk-rock, whilst say, fellow NJers Bon Jovi can make very similar music and somehow end up sounding like cheesy soft-rock-pop. I don't know how he does it, but he does. On the other hand I find the likes of 'Born in the USA' and 'Glory Days' grate unlike some of his less anthemic stuff.
I've been reading your blog for a while but haven't found an occasion to post a comment till today. Now I realize why I like your blog so much. I happen to share your opinion on the Boss and on the Stones!
You can't throw Bruce and the Stones into the same heap.
The Stones rest on half-a-decade old "success" and squeeze a ridiculous amount of income out of it.
Springsteen is an active artist willing to take risks whose vision is still strong.
I've never been a big fan but the last three albums have had some appeal.
Michael Krahn
www.michaelkrahn.com/blog
I have to admit that I have never owned a Bruce record, but I do know that he is a very gifted songwriter. I will certainly give him credit for this and also the amazing energy that he puts forth live.
I just don't get all the hype. Some of my former bandmates were rabid fans and I never understood it. The musicianship is really bad (but that is true of many bands) and the vocals are horrible.
Just trying to understand the cultural phenom that is Bruce.
z
Though I was born and raised a Jersey Boy, I haven't followed The Boss in years.
Nonetheless, I highly recommend that you listen to some songs from the Tunnel of Love or Nebraska albums. Tunnel of Love as a whole is a profound musing on the responsibilities and struggles of entering manhood; the whole record is bound by this theme. "Cautious Man" is one of my favourite songs by any artist.
And on the Tunnel of Love album the song "Highway Patrolman" (and to a lesser degree "Atlantic City") are haunting and dark, with flickerings of light against dark like a master of oil and canvas.
- James Gregory
You can diss Bruce all you want, but Rolling Stones is REALLY pushing it.... :P
I grew up in MA but spent most of the last 28 years in NJ. I don't understand the popularity, but I respect him as an artist and performer. For the Super Bowl he and the E Street Band were a safe choice. I would have rather seen John Mayer paired with Alicia Keys.
As Dave Grohl once put it, "If Bruce Springsteen is the Boss, then I quit."
I agree that he really performs his heart out. No doubt. And he has managed a great song or two, and I do mean "or two." "Born to Run" comes to mine, and "Born in the U.S.A.," but otherwise, he's put out some good songs, and a bunch of self-important dreck that, for some reason, rock cognoscenti treat as if they were holy writ. He's way, way, WAY overrated.
And I'm just going to forget that you said something bad about the Stones. It never happened, okay? That way, I don't have to hurt nobody. (Later Stones stuff is horrible. Up until the early 80s, however, the Stones ruled.)
hahahahaha...the piano climbing thing was worth the whole superbow.
"superbowl"
I don't go to Bruce Springsteen for sheer vocal or technical musical prowess. I love his best work (Born To Run, Darkness On The Edge of Town, the new album) because it combines the musical "forms" of classic rock with the passion, and sometimes, anger, of punk rock.
Yes, he isn't a technically "great" singer. This is true of many of my favorite musicians. One example would be the late Joe Strummer of the Clash. In the 70s, some people called The Clash "the only band that matters"-- but Joe Strummer was not a technically great, or even good, singer. However, his voice did what it needed to do for their fiery songs, as Springsteen's does for his music.
The E Street band may be better on some nights than others, but for my money, they are (along with a new band, Delta Spirit) the best basic rock band out there, night after night. They're not virtuosos, but virtuosity is not the point of rock n' roll. I wouldn't say that Springsteen is "the only rock artist who matters" today-- but he is definitely one of the only rockers from the 70s who *still* matters today.
Can you tell that I once wanted to be a music critic? :-)
About the Stones-- if we're talking about their music from 1963 to 1978, I would be in the former camp. :-) After that, it becomes *very* hit-and-miss.
As a Christian though, I do have to say that lyrically, I hate many of even their "greatest" songs, because they basically were the poster band for hedonism and sexual "liberation" in the '60s and '70s. This is one of the tensions of being a Christian who loves at least some "secular" music.
Some thoughts from someone who has been listening to Springsteen for quite awhile...
1. I cannot take seriously those who default to complaining about voice. Dylan, Waits, etc.
2. Springsteen's songs have "place." He takes you to places with his music and lyrics.
3. "Hype" is a terrible way to describe his popularity. We are talking about a steady career that has begun to rival his own heroes, Dylan and Van Morrison.
Bruce is a pagan commie. His music is catchy, yes, but in my view his worldview overshadows his music.
Favorite part of the show: He actually did the 'windmill' guitar strum.
Post a Comment