View Full Version : Band Face Off - Round 12
trackaghost
10-02-2005, 01:33 PM
The pudding-pop of No Doubt won against the techno-grunge of Garbage and the raw emotion of Hole, garnering 23 votes to Garbage's 10 and Hole's 8.
Next up, two amazing, hugely influential singer-songwriters who have been inspiring fans and fellow musicians for decades. Who will you vote for?
The results so far:
Round 1: Petty defeats Springsteen - 35 to 17
Round 2: Led Zeppelin defeat The Who - 22 to 18
Round 3: Madonna defeats Sheryl Crow/Kate Bush - 24 to 12/10
Round 4: The Beatles defeat Rolling Stones/U2 - 22 to 15/13
Round 5: Guns N Roses defeat Bon Jovi/Metallica - 17 to 13/12
Round 6: Heart defeat Blondie/The Pretenders - 23 to 14/6
Round 7: The Beach Boys defeat The Kinks/The Byrds - 22 to 10/9
Round 8: Elvis Presley defeats Johnny Cash/Roy Orbison - 18 to 17/6
Round 9: Abba defeats The Carpenters - 24 to 14
Round 10: Prince defeats Jimi Hendrix/Lenny Kravitz - 23 to 13/2
Round 11: No Doubt defeat Garbage/Hole - 23 to 10/8
The polls are still open, vote now!
ryan8472
10-02-2005, 02:14 PM
Neil Young
markolas
10-02-2005, 02:38 PM
Bob Dylan. I can't stand most of Neil Young's stuff...I only like his country-ish albums...can't tolerate all that loud guitar crap. And his voice is too high and whiny a lot of the time :D
Karlie
10-02-2005, 02:40 PM
I don't really like either of them, but I had to go with Neil.
markolas
10-02-2005, 02:42 PM
What and Dylan's voice isn't? :laugh:
Dylan doesn't have a high voice. :shrug:
dissention
10-02-2005, 02:45 PM
Dylan doesn't have a high voice. :shrug:
Ever listened to "One More Cup of Coffee"? Great song, but christ. :laugh:
GypsySorcerer
10-02-2005, 02:48 PM
Bob Dylan. No reason needed. ;)
dissention
10-02-2005, 02:50 PM
Are you kidding me? Have you heard him lately? It's whiny, nasal and often high!! When I saw him live a few years back I thought he sounded like a cartoon character!
Personally, I think he looks like one, too. He's what Gargamel might look like after many years of hard living.
Still love him, though.
markolas
10-02-2005, 02:53 PM
:shrug:
I guess I just don't see it. I keep thinking of Neil Young's After the Gold Rush album and remembering how unlistenable it was...like he recorded it while giving himself a vasectomy or something. I think I threw it away. :laugh:
GypsySorcerer
10-02-2005, 02:54 PM
Personally, I think he looks like one, too. He's what Gargamel might look like after many years of hard living.
Still love him, though.
Remember his appearance via satellite at the Oscars a few years back? :lol: :lol:
dissention
10-02-2005, 03:03 PM
Remember his appearance via satellite at the Oscars a few years back? :lol: :lol:
That was memorable just for seeing Frances McDormand rock out in her seat. I was expecting her to leap out of her seat at any moment, light a joint, and spin wildly. :laugh:
I love that song he won the Oscar for, though, it's fab.
ontheEdgeof17
10-02-2005, 03:13 PM
Dylan...
...due to all the Stevie connections.
Neil Young. Because of this one:
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000002KD9.01._PE8_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg
And this one:
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000002KD1.01._PE8_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg
and plenty of other great albums, but I played those two to the death.
Neil.
It could possibly be the fact that he's my dad's favorite artist and he (and the Beatles/Velvet Underground) was played more than anyone else during the formative years of my life. But, really, he is so awesome and I love all his new material.
Bob...I love him. I think I have nearly everything by him attainable- in some form or the other. Very tough one, but I'll go with Young.
Miss Vicky
10-02-2005, 03:32 PM
Dylan, hands down. He is the ultimate songwriter and, like Roy Orbison, his involvement in the Traveling Wilburys doesn't hurt.
skcin
10-02-2005, 03:39 PM
I don't relly love either very much :sorry: , but I'm going with Bob cuz I love Rainy Day Women #whateger and Like a Rolling Stone alot.
dissention
10-02-2005, 03:50 PM
God, I want Neil to win this one sooooo bad!!!
Where's Gaius and Gerald?
Face it, babe, our favorites will always lose. :lol:
Thank you trackaghost. I will vote for the other artists as well, even if it is a little late.
Yes, I think Neil is brilliant and would love him to win. Especially for my dad, but who knows? lol!
WildInTheWind
10-02-2005, 05:41 PM
This is probably the hardest one of these for me yet! I went with Neil. I love them both, but I've seen both of them in concert several times. Bob Dylan wasn't so great. Neil Young with CSNY was freakin amazing. So there recent years was my deciding factor.
:laugh: I ADORE Dylan but he has become something of a parody of himself.
Zuh? Dylan is constantly going out of his way to reinvent himself and his music, year in and year out. How has become anything approaching a parody? A band like Fleetwood Mac is far closer to a parody of itself than Dylan will ever be.
My friend was saying to me the other day that Dylan now sounds like someone doing a bad impression of him, you know, very nasal and the voice going high at the end of every line. I listened to a recent recording and by god he was right! That said, Dylan will always be amazing to me. :)
Dylan has his on-nights and his off-nights these days - the off-nights usually being the ones where he resorts to the horrible up-singing at the end of every lyric - but find a recording of a better show or give him another shot next time he's in your area. If it's an on-night, it'll be one of the best concerts you've ever been to.
How to choose between Bob and Neil, though? I don't think I possibly could.
Dylan...
...due to all the Stevie connections.
I can think of one... What are the others?
It's all a matter of opinion my friend.
Oh, really? Guess I'll put away my encyclopedias, then.
I haven't really like anything Dylan has done since the 70s. Although I know others disagree. I still think he often seems like a parody of himself IMO.
How do you mean this, though? There's a difference between simply not liking someone's stuff and thinking they've become a parody of themselves. What is it about Dylan today that you find parodic?
And just for the record I was talking about HIS SINGING, which is why I went on to comment about him singing live.
Uh, yeah. I got that, which is why I also went on to comment about him singing live.
Serrart
10-02-2005, 05:58 PM
Bob Dylan: his songwriting makes of him an enlighting society critic, even in his most obnoxious and greedy phases.
Romy
SortaSavageLike
10-02-2005, 06:09 PM
Neil Young. At least I can understand 90% of his lyrics. :lol:
Miss Vicky
10-02-2005, 06:17 PM
Neil Young. At least I can understand 90% of his lyrics. :lol:
I can't think of Neil Young without laughing anymore. Everytime I hear him mentioned, I think of the "sizzling" soundtrack he did for the movie "Dead Man." What godawful stuff that was! (Liked the movie, though.)
dissention
10-02-2005, 06:32 PM
Are you people fed up with these Face Offs yet?
Jyqm's hostile reaction just then makes me maybe you all are.
I only meant this all as a bit of fun really, I hate it when things turn nasty.
I'm not tired of them; they're fun. It gives us the opportunity to discuss other artists on a larger scale than just one or two fans gushing about certain artists in those silly "What are you listening to now" threads.
Beachwood Mac
10-02-2005, 06:50 PM
Are you people fed up with these Face Offs yet?
Jyqm's hostile reaction just then makes me maybe you all are.
I only meant this all as a bit of fun really, I hate it when things turn nasty.
Keep them going! It's fun seeing who else shares your taste and those who have none :D
Seriously, I learn so much about other artists on this board and it has helped me expand my collection with some artists I may have never considered.
Terry
77Rumours77
10-02-2005, 07:23 PM
Bob!
You should do like Boston VS Van Halen :D
Miss Vicky
10-02-2005, 07:29 PM
I'm not tired of them; they're fun. It gives us the opportunity to discuss other artists on a larger scale than just one or two fans gushing about certain artists in those silly "What are you listening to now" threads.
So silly that you post there about as often as anybody else does. :D
Anyway, I like the band face offs. Keep them coming.
markolas
10-02-2005, 07:37 PM
Bob!
You should do like Boston VS Van Halen :D
Or Sarah Vaughan vs. Dinah Washington. :laugh:
dissention
10-02-2005, 07:43 PM
So silly that you post there about as often as anybody else does. :D
Of course. A lot of things in life are silly, but that doesn't mean I abstain from partaking in them. :D
gldstwmn
10-02-2005, 07:59 PM
I love Neil Young. But I chose Dylan, of course. :) His work is in a class all by itself.
I was watching the Scorsese documentary last night and judging by the responses on here, he's just as much a cause of controversy as he ever was.
Also his lyrics are in my sig line (as they often are). ;)
Richard B
10-02-2005, 08:02 PM
Neil Young got my vote...I still just love his album 'Harvest Moon.'
WildInTheWind
10-02-2005, 08:33 PM
Are you people fed up with these Face Offs yet?
Jyqm's hostile reaction just then makes me maybe you all are.
I only meant this all as a bit of fun really, I hate it when things turn nasty.
I like them, too. Don't stop! I think some people are just generally hostile. :rolleyes: Don't let one person get to you. These face offs are fun and interesting.
Richard B
10-02-2005, 08:51 PM
Are you people fed up with these Face Offs yet?
Jyqm's hostile reaction just then makes me maybe you all are.
I only meant this all as a bit of fun really, I hate it when things turn nasty.
Not at all fed up with Face Offs. Keep them coming.
I will add though that people do take their music very seriously and apparently will fight their opinions to the death. Nothing wrong with that...it's kinda sweet. Some peeps here should be working in PR for some of these artists.
Hawkeye
10-02-2005, 09:08 PM
NEIL YOUNG. I love him, he needs to win. Cowgirl in the Sand is in my top 5 favorite songs of all time.
CreepingDeath
10-02-2005, 09:47 PM
Are you people fed up with these Face Offs yet?
Jyqm's hostile reaction just then makes me maybe you all are.
I only meant this all as a bit of fun really, I hate it when things turn nasty.
I'm not tired of these band face offs at all. It's a nice change of pace from all the political posts.
Glittermoondust
10-02-2005, 11:33 PM
Ugh! I hate them both....... but went with Neil Young--at least his songs are listenable!
I can't think of Neil Young without laughing anymore. Everytime I hear him mentioned, I think of the "sizzling" soundtrack he did for the movie "Dead Man." What godawful stuff that was! (Liked the movie, though.)
I've seen that movie. IMO, nothing to complain about Neil's music. :shrug:
Are you people fed up with these Face Offs yet?
Jyqm's hostile reaction just then makes me maybe you all are.
I only meant this all as a bit of fun really, I hate it when things turn nasty.
Not fed up at all!! I'm the addict, you know that.
Don't let it bring you down, it's only castles burning ;)
Yeah, not everything Neil has done is good. I can totally understand why people hate his voice, but to me it always sounds lovely.
The interesting thing about this match-up, though, is that you could substitute "Bob" for "Neil" in that sentence and it would still make perfect sense. They both are (or have been, in Bob's case) incredibly prolific songwriters who have churned out twice as many brilliant songs and records as most musicians ever even dream of, but they're also released far more than their share of crap. They both have less-than-mellifluous singing voices. And they've both put out great discs in the past month...
Are you people fed up with these Face Offs yet?
Jyqm's hostile reaction just then makes me maybe you all are.
I only meant this all as a bit of fun really, I hate it when things turn nasty.
Actually, I think they're a great idea, though it could take forever and a day to go through even half of the remotely mainstream artists most folks around here might like. My choices for future rounds: Elvis Costello vs. Tom Waits, David Bowie vs. David Byrne, and The Cure vs. The Smiths.
Neil Young got my vote...I still just love his album 'Harvest Moon.'
I adore Harvest Moon as well, but I find it's an album that I can rarely listen to all the way through in one sitting. Neil does a wonderful job of creating a consistent mood for the whole album (with the welcome exception of "Old King," of course), but it just gets so oppressive and sad to me. I usually end up just skipping around and listening to only five or six songs at a time, if that.
face of glass
10-03-2005, 08:06 AM
Without Dylan there is no Young, without Dylan there is no Springsteen. Dylan is the master, the other two are just apprentices, even though highly skilled ones at that.
Dylan's voice has gone through more changes than Stevie Nicks', listening to his back catalogue gives the impression of listening to different lives passing through your eardrums. Even though there are several great Dylan covers out there, only Dylan can do his originals to full impact. His voice has been and still is one of the most moving instruments there is. Even though he has had a patchy career, I daresay that Time Out Of Mind and Love And Theft are no hair worse than the often-praised late-period Springsteen/Young output (and hell, those other two have their share of clunkers too, would you like to listen to Young's '80s albums and claim that those are the best things he's ever done? Or praise things like Tunnel Of Love or Human Touch?).
Dylan at his peak, from 1963-1976 was absolutely untouchable in his various genres. There is nothing that approaches the mystique of Blonde On Blonde or John Wesley Harding in the catalogues of Springsteen and Young.
Bob never exactly delivered what his audiences wanted from him either, whereas Young and Springsteen have their share of sell-outs (Harvest, Freedom, Born To Run, Born In The USA).
So Dylan it is and always will be, even though there's several Young albums (and a few Springsteen albums) that I love.
(Yes, I'm aware that Springsteen is not in this poll but in my mind these three gentlemen should have been pitted against each other in the first place.)
Without Dylan there is no Young, without Dylan there is no Springsteen. Dylan is the master, the other two are just apprentices, even though highly skilled ones at that.
You're absolutely right, and this is probably why I will eventually end up voting for Dylan in this. Although I think it's a bit reductionist to call Young and Springsteen merely "apprentices," especially as both have released a lot of work that amounts to much more than mere Dylan influence, it's completely true that neither would be what the other had Dylan not come before tham and paved the way.
Dylan's voice has gone through more changes than Stevie Nicks', listening to his back catalogue gives the impression of listening to different lives passing through your eardrums. Even though there are several great Dylan covers out there, only Dylan can do his originals to full impact. His voice has been and still is one of the most moving instruments there is. Even though he has had a patchy career, I daresay that Time Out Of Mind and Love And Theft are no hair worse than the often-praised late-period Springsteen/Young output (and hell, those other two have their share of clunkers too, would you like to listen to Young's '80s albums and claim that those are the best things he's ever done? Or praise things like Tunnel Of Love or Human Touch?).
Well, I agree with you that in general only Dylan does his own songs true justice, and I agree that especially "Love & Theft" is right up there with much of Bob's earlier output, and I'm with you on most of Neil's 80's output, and yes, Human Touch is a pretty subpar album. But ****, Tunnel Of Love should indeed be praised. It's a beautifully subtle "concept" album and should really be required listening for anybody who thinks they don't like Springsteen, dislikes his more socially self-aware output, or simply doesn't care for the bombast of the E Street Band. Songs like "Valentine's Day," "One Step Up," and the title track stand among Bruce's best compositions, and there aren't many better adult relationship albums out there.
Dylan at his peak, from 1963-1976 was absolutely untouchable in his various genres. There is nothing that approaches the mystique of Blonde On Blonde or John Wesley Harding in the catalogues of Springsteen and Young.
Not even Nebraska or On The Beach?
trackaghost
10-03-2005, 08:47 AM
Bob never exactly delivered what his audiences wanted from him either, whereas Young and Springsteen have their share of sell-outs (Harvest, Freedom, Born To Run, Born In The USA).
You really think Born To Run is a sell out? I find it strange that you think these albums are sell outs, when really, while they are certainly commercial, they are still artisically successful too. I thought to sell out, an artist is compromising their art in order to get record sales, am I wrong? I just don't see that about the albums you mentioned.
You really think Born To Run is a sell out? I find it strange that you think these albums are sell outs, when really, while they are certainly commercial, they are still artisically successful too. I thought to sell out, an artist is compromising their art in order to get record sales, am I wrong? I just don't see that about the albums you mentioned.
I'm with you on this one. While I understand the argument of Born In The USA being a sellout (even though I disagree), I just don't see how this argument works for Born To Run. Springsteen was indeed trying to make a rock album that would be wildly successful, but he was doing it on his own terms, and he had no idea it would be as commercially successful as it was. His main goal was to make the best album he could, not simply to sell millions of records by giving his fans what he thought they wanted.
He will be giving his fans what they want when the BTR 30th anniversary reissue comes out in November though: the album finally fully remastered and a DVD of a concert from the BTR tour. Oh my.
DavidMn
10-03-2005, 09:57 AM
I just CANT STAND Bob Dylan's nasaly voice. That being said, brilliant songwriter.
shackin'up
10-03-2005, 10:19 AM
The most brilliant individual artist in the world, seen in retrospect of an entire oeuvre.
DavidMn
10-03-2005, 10:31 AM
Incidentally, my favorite Neil Young song is Harvest Moon. :nod:
face of glass
10-03-2005, 11:01 AM
As for the argument that there wouldn't be Young without Dylan, true, but then I didn't vote for The Beatles either, and many of my favourite bands wouldn't be here without them.
I don't care overtly for the revolutionary factor either, it's always about who moves me the most. :nod:
I even have a soft spot for Trans, the weirdo that I am.
Oh, I like it too. The vocoderized stuff is pretty funny and entertaining.
face of glass
10-03-2005, 11:02 AM
But ****, Tunnel Of Love should indeed be praised. It's a beautifully subtle "concept" album and should really be required listening for anybody who thinks they don't like Springsteen, dislikes his more socially self-aware output, or simply doesn't care for the bombast of the E Street Band. Songs like "Valentine's Day," "One Step Up," and the title track stand among Bruce's best compositions, and there aren't many better adult relationship albums out there.
I don't give a damn about how fine his lyrics on that particular album are, he should've put out a poetry book instead if he wanted to put the emphasis on those. However, most of the music on Tunnel Of Love (or Vagina, as George Starostin comfortably calls it) is totally inoffensive adult contemporary with nothing memorable about the songs at all. Hell, I'd rather go and put on a prime '80s Phil Collins album and I've never liked any PC solo album in the first place.
face of glass
10-03-2005, 11:04 AM
You really think Born To Run is a sell out? I find it strange that you think these albums are sell outs, when really, while they are certainly commercial, they are still artisically successful too. I thought to sell out, an artist is compromising their art in order to get record sales, am I wrong? I just don't see that about the albums you mentioned.
I share the same criticism of Born To Run as George Starostin does, even though I know you won't agree with him on this issue I will quote him once again:
I would be the last person to admit that the grandiose scope of 'Born To Run' (the song) doesn't really suck in the listener, big or small. It's Bruce at his most anthemic and at the same time, Bruce at his most humble: it is Bruce who says 'Humble man, rise up and shine in all your glory and magnificence!' That kind of Bruce. So is it any wonder that this song has long since become one of the Boss's most proverbial moments? 'Tramps like us, baby we were born to run'. And 'Thunder Road' is basically the same thing, just not as proverbially obvious. Face it, the two songs are pretty much interchangeable.
But I hate, hate, hate this vibe with a passion. This is where Dylan and Springsteen finally part ways, once and forever: I could never imagine Mr Zimmerman assuming this image. Where Dylan takes pity on the humble man and seeks out his inner glory, Springsteen is a provocator - he cries out for the humble man to get on the street and have some action (innocent action, mind you), be proud of his humbleness and expand his humbleness on others.
That's the issue Starostin has with Springsteen, that on his most popular albums Bruce has been pandering down to the working class masses by trying to convince them that their life is beautiful and that there's nothing that needs to be changed in it. Some may like that attitude, I personally don't. So to me it is a sell-out in a way, hardly the message of "rebellion" or "desperation" that rock and roll usually contains.
And about one of the points you wrote in the first Face Off thread, George Starostin has his say about that too.
I think plenty of Springsteen's lyrics are about "rebellion and desperation".
Another myth in desperate need of rebuttal is that Bruce is actually a 'pessimistic' artist. Sure, a lot of his stuff is grim and infused with a sense of darkness, etc. But this pessimism is only superficial, and it hardly digs deeper than the traditional bluesy pessimism (which gets fully explored by the Boss on such an album as Nebraska). The 'pessimism' present within Bruce's work isn't really his own; it's taken from elsewhere, borrowed from the bluesmen and stolen from the folkies. But the song begins to belong to Bruce only after he'd stuffed its pessimistic cover with his optimistic content. Take a song like 'Meeting Across The River', for instance, with its supposedly grim matter. Is it a grim, hard-biting song indeed? Not at all. I gotta give it to him, Bruce masterfully acts as a 'salvaging guy' in all these cases, transforming potentially depressing material into a song of gentleness and epicness. But whether he means it or not, it is a phony move, a doze of musical opium for the working class.
So the question is; is Springsteen really a sincere artist since he keeps on alternating between the public-pleasing mode and the pessimistic mode (and furthermore, does he really feel any pessimism of his own or does he just imitate other artists when he gets into that mode?) or is he just trying to please both the public and the critics? Who makes these career-changing decisions anyway, himself or Jon Landau?
Neil Young.
Only cuz he has my name (kinda). I actually have a strong dislike for both of them. :)
DavidMn
10-03-2005, 11:20 AM
Neil Young.
Only cuz he has my name (kinda). I actually have a strong dislike for both of them. :)
Hey, that's as good a reason as any as far as I'm concerned. :nod: :lol:
I share the same criticism of Born To Run as George Starostin does
I've got say, I have a very difficult time taking your opinion seriously when all you do is quote the same critic over and over again. It's nice that you've found somebody who shares your views on the topic at hand, but can't we discuss Springsteen with you and not your buddy George?
That said, two issues I've got with the Starostin stuff you posted this time:
1) He's reading far too much of a social agenda into areas of Bruce's work where it just doesn't exist. in 1975, Springsteen was still the scruffy Jersey street kid who wanted to get out Asbury Park and become the world's biggest rock and roll star. Songs like "Thunder Road" and "Born To Run" aren't anthems directed at "the workin' man," delivered from on high by Bruce the millionaire hero (in 1975 Bruce was far from rich, anyway) - they're anthems directed at himself, and at any other on-the-cusp 20-something looking to get out of their stagnant hometown and make it big somewhere, somehow.
2) He talks about the "darker" aspects of some of Bruce's music, giving just a passing mention to the Nebraska album, and then refutes the idea that any of Bruce's music is truly dark or despairing by making an example of "Meeting Across The River," a really not-so-dark song from Born To Run, an album that is not known by anybody for having dark themes.
So he's got two potentially legitimate criticisms here, but in both instances he completely ignores the instances in Bruce's catalogue where his criticsms might actually apply. And I think that reaslly undermines his argument, because it makes him seem afraid to analyze the songs that would be relevant to his case, lest they not actually hold up under his scrutiny. If he were to make those two arguments using "The River" and "Highway Patrolman," respectively, then I think I could read him a little more seriously.
At any rate, he's right that there is very little in Bruce's catalogue that is wholly pessimistic. It's not really Springsteen if there's not some glimmer of hope in there somewhere. I don't see why that's a bad thing, though.
So the question is; is Springsteen really a sincere artist since he keeps on alternating between the public-pleasing mode and the pessimistic mode (and furthermore, does he really feel any pessimism of his own or does he just imitate other artists when he gets into that mode?) or is he just trying to please both the public and the critics? Who makes these career-changing decisions anyway, himself or Jon Landau?
There are plenty of popular musicians out there who alternate between different modes because they simply have different musical interests. Of course it would be naive to suggest that Springsteen's "flip-flopping," as it were, is not a business decision on some level. But is it really so difficult to believe that the man likes making both loud punchy rock music as well as quieter acoustic material?
I think Springsteen is rarely trying to please the critics. I don't know that he's ever felt that need. With his rock albums, and especially with his rock tours, pleasing the fans certainly plays a large part in what Springsteen is trying to do. But is it a bad thing to do this? He's not pandering, and he's not releasing totally cynical crap.
seeker007nmss
10-03-2005, 03:02 PM
Never could stand Dylan. Voted Neil.
shackin'up
10-03-2005, 04:42 PM
Got mashed potatoes. Ain't got no T-Bone. From Re-ac-tor (1981).
9.14 minutes long without any real build-up or songstructure.
I really fell in love with that utter dumb song. Repetative and droning. But TOTALLY addictive.
Does anybody know it? Or even adore it like I do? :laugh:
here are the lyrics:
"T-Bone"
Got mashed potatoes
Got mashed potatoes
Got mashed potatoes
Ain't got no T-Bone
Ain't got no T-Bone
Got mashed potatoes
Got mashed potatoes
Got mashed potatoes
Got mashed potatoes
Ain't got no T-Bone
Got mashed potatoes
Got mashed potatoes
Got mashed potatoes
Ain't got no T-Bone
Ain't got no T-Bone
Got mashed potatoes
Got mashed potatoes
Got mashed potatoes
Ain't got no T-Bone
Ain't got no T-Bone
T-Bone
Got mashed potatoes
Got mashed potatoes
Got mashed potatoes
Ain't got no T-Bone
Ain't got no T-Bone
Ain't got no T-Bone
Ain't got no T-Bone
No T-Bone
Got mashed potatoes
Got mashed potatoes
Got mashed potatoes
Ain't got no T-Bone
Ain't got no T-Bone
Ain't got no T-Bone
Ain't got no T-Bone
Ain't got no T-Bone
Ain't got no T-Bone
Got mashed potatoes
Got mashed potatoes
Got mashed potatoes
Ain't got no T-Bone
Got mashed potatoes
Got mashed potatoes
Got mashed potatoes
Ain't got no T-Bone
Ain't got no T-Bone
Ain't got no T-Bone
Ain't got no T-Bone
Ain't got no T-Bone
:cool:
face of glass
10-04-2005, 05:41 AM
I've got say, I have a very difficult time taking your opinion seriously when all you do is quote the same critic over and over again. It's nice that you've found somebody who shares your views on the topic at hand, but can't we discuss Springsteen with you and not your buddy George?
Starostin is the only critic I've seen to make valid points against Springsteen, I haven't found any others (at least in America the traditional school of rock criticism [the Creem/Rolling Stone wing of it] has done nothing but praised Bruce) but of course that is due to my lack of research. If you have other examples of this, I would like you to give me some links.
There are plenty of popular musicians out there who alternate between different modes because they simply have different musical interests. Of course it would be naive to suggest that Springsteen's "flip-flopping," as it were, is not a business decision on some level. But is it really so difficult to believe that the man likes making both loud punchy rock music as well as quieter acoustic material?
The interesting thing is that he RARELY dares to combine them on the same album and therefore doesn't want to give an impression of true diversity, instead he prefers to split these distinct sides of his to half in order to not alienate certain parts of his audience. This isn't to say an album like The River doesn't have parts of both but hell, it's a double album anyway.
Finally, none of this is to say that I don't respect Bruce (or for that matter, George Starostin doesn't respect Bruce; he also gives several high ratings to certain Bruce albums) as an artist. After all, very few people would dare to cover material like "Frankie Teardrop" or "Dream Baby Dream". That for me is reason enough to recognize his artistry.
eclipse
10-04-2005, 05:49 AM
Wow just voted..this is a close one 24-25
Love Dylan for the political upside...Blowing in the wind-
Neither can sing-
It's all about the writing IMO,
Neil has the special "something" about his lyrics, some are political and most are just thought provoking..to me anyway
Hey hey, My my...Needle and the damage done..OHIO, What's it's worth, Down by the river... I could go on and on
:xoxo: SO,
He's my pick!
Starostin is the only critic I've seen to make valid points against Springsteen, I haven't found any others (at least in America the traditional school of rock criticism [the Creem/Rolling Stone wing of it] has done nothing but praised Bruce) but of course that is due to my lack of research. If you have other examples of this, I would like you to give me some links.
No! I think you missed my point. I was saying I wish you would just post your own thoughts on Springsteen, whether or not they mirror Starostin's. It's a bit more engaging to have this discussion with each other rather than me discussing Starostin's quotes with you acting merely as a middleman.
The interesting thing is that he RARELY dares to combine them on the same album and therefore doesn't want to give an impression of true diversity, instead he prefers to split these distinct sides of his to half in order to not alienate certain parts of his audience. This isn't to say an album like The River doesn't have parts of both but hell, it's a double album anyway.
I think you're drawing the wrong conclusions here. I don't think Springsteen's bipolar album releases reflect a lack of willingness on his part to demonstrate his own diversity, nor do I think he's intentionally trying to split his fanbase. (On tour, that's another issue; his current tour is very clearly meant for die-hard appreciative fans, and not the casual E Street folks who just want to hear the hits.) The reason he splits these distinct sides of his music is precisely because he sees them as distinct sides. Springsteen is someone who has always been very conscious of making his albums cohesive pieces of work (Human Touch being really the only exception). An album that interspersed E Street party rockers (or even more "serious" and "dark" E Street rockers) with bleak acoustic material would probably sound totally incoherent to Bruce's ears (probably to mine as well). I don't see how splitting up material that is so musically different somehows fails to demonstrate diversity. After all, would you claim that Elvis Costello is failing to present his true musical diversity because he didn't release his Delivery Man songs on one album with his Il Sogno ballet?
In addition, there's also the issue of the institution of the E Street Band to contend with. Especially at this point in Bruce's career, this is a big group of people who all have their own lives going on. They're not at Bruce's beck and call every day of the year. So when he recruits them for a project, I think he feels that it should be a project totally dedicated to that band aesthetic. He can get the most of the band that he possibly can, and then he can focus on a solo project and let them all get back to their other lives of smooth jazz albums and late night talk shows and mob killings.
I think I've got a lot of other scrambled thoughts about this, and I could probably go on for paragraphs, but I think my point is simply that it's far too reductive simply to say, "Well, Springsteen splits his albums into rockers and folkers because he doesn't want to be seen as diverse and doesn't want to alienate certain parts of his fanbase." (And to me neither of those claims makes a lick of sense. The fact that he releases such startlingly different albums DOES demonstrate his diversity quite plainly, and the fact that he releases albums made up entirely of dark acoustic material DOES alienate a large part of his fan base.) (And anyway, after the Vote for Change tour last year, I think it's a bit silly to claim that Bruce is afraid of alienating certain parts of his fanbase.)
face of glass
10-06-2005, 12:37 PM
No! I think you missed my point. I was saying I wish you would just post your own thoughts on Springsteen, whether or not they mirror Starostin's. It's a bit more engaging to have this discussion with each other rather than me discussing Starostin's quotes with you acting merely as a middleman.
Well, you got me there. I have no real opinion on Springsteen, there are times when I feel totally indifferent to the man. I have completely ripped off my opinion and my arguments from George Starostin and have shamelessly done that for years. In fact, everything I've posted at the Ledge has been ripped off from someone else. Do look at my posting history for further proof. :nod:
If you so much care for this discussion, I suggest that you contact George Starostin himself on this matter. After all, his site does allow reader comments as well. Should you have interesting points to raise (which I'm sure you do because you did that in this thread as well), I'm sure he will post them on his site and probably even answer some of them. And if you do decide to post something, I will follow the discussion with great interest.
The reason he splits these distinct sides of his music is precisely because he sees them as distinct sides. Springsteen is someone who has always been very conscious of making his albums cohesive pieces of work (Human Touch being really the only exception).
Ah yes, this is the traditional explanation for an artist not being diverse in his/her albums. That he/she is doing "mood pieces" and prefers not to dilute the concept by going into different directions emotionally. Not that there's anything really wrong with the approach, when done with skill and the right amount of integrity it can be as moving as any other approach. It's just that I will always find it far less braver than true diversity.
An album that interspersed E Street party rockers (or even more "serious" and "dark" E Street rockers) with bleak acoustic material would probably sound totally incoherent to Bruce's ears (probably to mine as well). I don't see how splitting up material that is so musically different somehows fails to demonstrate diversity. After all, would you claim that Elvis Costello is failing to present his true musical diversity because he didn't release his Delivery Man songs on one album with his Il Sogno ballet?
With Costello there you're speaking of musical styles that have completely different aesthetic values and ways of enjoyment.
However, to say that the types of rockers you are talking about are incompatible with "bleak acoustic material" is pretty much a false notion to me. Hell, that's what Neil Young did with Rust Never Sleeps and the two sides certainly do not sound incompatible to me. Granted, it's not exactly the bleakness of On The Beach or Tonight's The Night but still dark enough.
Furthermore, from the mid-'60s to early '70s it was actually acceptable to be truly diverse in rock and roll. That is what albums like The Beatles' White Album were after, they were to represent different sides of various personalities, a grand palette of various emotions, a schizophrenic musical diversity. On something like The White Album you will find party-rockers ("Back In The USSR", "Birthday"), bleak rockers ("Yer Blues", "Helter Skelter"), quiet acoustic numbers ("Long Long Long", "Blackbird"), string-laden ballads ("Martha My Dear", "Good Night"), country-influenced numbers ("Rocky Raccoon", "Don't Pass Me By"), depressed songs ("I'm So Tired", "Sexy Sadie"), a ska experiment ("Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da") and even a sonic collage to top things off ("Revolution 9"). All sitting comfortable next to each other. And this was possible because in this era there was a belief that a new musical style was on the cusp of its emergence, it would be something that would combine elements of every possible style in existence and create something new out of that. Of course, such a style never occurred in the first place, it was a doomed idea because the hippie culture got fragmented into several different subcultures that all began to listen to different styles of music instead of digging all those same bands that had existed in the '60s.
This is just to tell you that it IS possible to combine several different styles on the same album without coming off as too fragmented or too desperate in trying to give "something for everybody" (="nothing for anyone").
...I think my point is simply that it's far too reductive simply to say, "Well, Springsteen splits his albums into rockers and folkers because he doesn't want to be seen as diverse and doesn't want to alienate certain parts of his fanbase." (And to me neither of those claims makes a lick of sense. The fact that he releases such startlingly different albums DOES demonstrate his diversity quite plainly, and the fact that he releases albums made up entirely of dark acoustic material DOES alienate a large part of his fan base.)
After the hippie culture dissolved into a fragmented mess, so did the target group ideology in a proper and very obvious way enter the record industry. So there were several subcultures (which exist with plenty of additional ones today) that the record industry began to market things to. Anyone who is in the music business and actually releases something, whether through minor or major labels, has a target group. It's just that some have bigger target groups than others. And all of these target groups respond to very different emotions and more often than not they will shut off other emotions and expressions from their musical maps.
(This is why Lindsey Buckingham NEVER had a chance of making it big, especially in the post-hippie musical climate. On Buckingham's albums [and also on the Fleetwood Mac albums he appears on] his playfulness and hyperactivity, his spiritual uplift, his naivete his happiness and smoothness, but also his violence, paranoia, depression and possessiveness are fully audible to our ears. And this is also why I will always respect Lindsey more than I respect David Bowie [even though I love him too], the supposed "chameleon of rock". To me Bowie is a genre-hopper, a guy who appears on the surface to be diverse but who has been afraid to be diverse within albums.)
To me Bruce is playing the game just like the rest of them. He releases a loud brawling rock album, establishes a target group for himself, then releases a quiet acoustic album and works within another target group. And I can't see why it would alienate audiences just like that; one would think that at this point people would have gotten used to the usual pattern that Bruce has in the release of his albums. Surely they can already tell the difference and why they need to stay away from whatever side of Bruce they don't like. Not to mention that it's not too different in terms of genres in the first place.
At least Dylan and Young had the nerve to release VERY atypical albums at some points in their careers, there is nothing like the self-deflation of Self-Portrait or Re-Ac-Tor or Trans (just go and look at the lyrics to "T-Bone" that Gerald posted) in Springsteen's catalogue. And that is because he's WAY too busy being the deep poet all the time.
The point is, I will always have more respect for the pop eccentric who demonstrates several sides of his/her personality on one album than I have for those who work within target groups by releasing non-diverse albums. People will always buy more of the albums that are non-diverse (because they want more of the same after having heard one song from a particular album) than of the truly diverse expressions of the human mind. Even though these ways of expression can be equally moving when both are done well.
But then resurrecting this already-old thread isn't anything but yet another of my desperate attempts to write a meandering post and get the last word on everything. In other words, the usual Gaius tactics. :nod:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.