Band Face Off - Round 12

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

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]

I just CANT STAND Bob Dylan's nasaly voice. That being said, brilliant songwriter.

[shackin'up]

The most brilliant individual artist in the world, seen in retrospect of an entire oeuvre.

[DavidMn]

Incidentally, my favorite Neil Young song is Harvest Moon.

[face of glass]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

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.

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]

Originally Posted by jyqm

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]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

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:

Originally Posted by George Starostin

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.

Originally Posted by trackaghost

I think plenty of Springsteen's lyrics are about "rebellion and desperation".

Originally Posted by George Starostin

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?

[Neal]

Neil Young.

Only cuz he has my name (kinda). I actually have a strong dislike for both of them.

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by Neal

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.

[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.

[seeker007nmss]

Never could stand Dylan. Voted Neil.

[shackin'up]

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?

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

[face of glass]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

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]

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
SO,

He's my pick!

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by face of glass

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.)