Band Face Off - Round 12

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by face of glass

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.