A controversial opinion on Springsteen

If someone asks you to name five American songwriters greater than Springsteen, I think it's a given that some pretty coarse comparisons are being made. The people who seem to want Springsteen at the top seem to have a lot of reasons why you can't compare him with, for example, Porter, Gershwin, Kern etc. etc. but it's seeming more and more that you can't compare him on any criterion at all that would push him below fifth. You place anyone in a class all of their own if that's what you're trying to achieve but it won't make them the greatest American songwriter.

And, again, I speak as someone who has a lot of time for Springsteen.

You may be right, but I didn't select that cover to knock it down. One man's well-known cover is another's obscurity.

 

It's on the bizarre side due to the multitrack vocals, but absent the S&G version I think it would sound pretty good. It's a given that not every moderately successful cover version is going to measure up to the original, especially when the original is a stone cold classic. "Yesterday" is much sinned against, but I think you'd always think "that's a great great song sung badly" ... you would never think "yeah, it's a pretty bad song ... must just have been Paul's vocal making it sound good".

 

You say the word "hate" a lot in your posts.

 

Omaha, Omaha .........

 

I hadn't noticed that. I'll keep an eye out for it.

I hate you, btw.

 

I fundamentally disagree you can't screw up a song-they are not bomb proof-music is not bomb proof. Great recorded and live versions may be bomb proof but that's it.

 

He's certainly one of the great American songwriters of the rock era, along with the likes of Bob Dylan and John Fogerty. I don't know about best of "all time". I think it's a bit futile to try to "rank" songwriters from different eras and genres. There really isn't any criteria on which you could "rank" Wolfgang Mozart, Stephen Foster, Robert Johnson, George Gershwin, Ennio Morricone and Holland-Dozier-Holland. Which is "better" - "Swanee River" or "Dancing in the Streets"?

 

This thread is the first that I have heard of any Springsteen fans (or indeed anyone) "hating" or "ridiculing" these albums. Tom Joad is tough sledding for more straightforward rock fans, but as far as I know, Born in the USA is loved by fans, critics and the general public. His best selling album (by far), great singles ("My Hometown" and "I'm on Fire" in the Billboard top 10? Amazing), and a huge, massively successful tour (he played virtually the whole album at the show I saw in Tokyo).

Interestingly, for the final rock concert ever at Giants Stadium, he chose to play Born in the USA in its entirety.

 

The points you make here (and in posts following) are more than fair.

What I take from it is that sometimes an outstanding performance and/or recording can lift a song beyond where it would naturally reside.

I think The Who's Won't Get Fooled Again is a fine example of that. Great performance, great recording and several monumental moments captured on tape. One of rock's foundational offerings imo.

But what about the song itself? Are the lyrics, melody, chord structure so great that it belongs on Mount Rushmore? I would say no. I've seen the Who do it unplugged (sans the synth, Moon's avalanche of fills and Daltrey's epochal screams) and it was... okay. Not a bad song, certainly. But not great.

 

The majority of hardcore Springsteen fans do not rate it anywhere near as highly as the general public.....

 

That's been happening since music was recorded, Sinatra , Kind Of Blue whatever are we saying now that a great recording can disguise a duff song?

Similarly Won't Get Fooled Again is a great song...end of.

I'm really struggling to grasp this train of thought....

 

As far as I know, the hardcore fans who dislike it are alone because critics love(d) it just as much as the general public did.

 

I don't hate Springsteen. I don't dislike Springsteen. I just never connected with Springsteen. So I'm ambivalent. I know he's supposed to be one of the great song writers, but all I've heard are The River and Born in the USA. I recall the title track on The River being excellent, but the rest was meh. Born in the USA is.... well, not for me.

However, in truth I just don't know. There are giants of modern music out there that I just have not spent any time with. I could be missing out, or it could be that - rightly - as my musical interests have led me along, I've side-stepped someone who wouldn't hold much interest anyway. You can't like someone's music because of their reputation - at some point you have to find a way of connecting with it.

 

I can understand that. But I cannot recall any fan who "hates" or "ridicules" the album, or the Live album that followed it. I am a first generation fan, and it seemed to me that most fans love everything up through Tunnel of Love. It was when he broke up the E Street Band and released Human Touch/Lucky Town that fans splintered.

 

That was the tour where he played entire albums during his set. I got to hear The River at MSG and one of the first 2 albums the other time I saw him.

 

Again, I think this is a red herring. I don't think any hardcore fans hate or ridicule or even dislike the album. It may not be their favorite, but these days when he plays even some of the weaker songs ("No Surrender" "Bobby Jean" "Darlington County") the place goes crazy.

 

Well, I can tell you I knew a few back in the day. Maybe they've mellowed since then, but they didn't like it in the '80s.

 

That's right. The River must have been epic. Maybe it was just luck that his last show at Giants Stadium was BITUSA.

Anyway, I only saw one show, but it was fantastic, seeing him play Sandy and Jersey Girl as the sun went down over the crowd in Vienna. It was a special moment.

 

I'm not trying to paint every fan with the same brush, but check out any of the Bruce Springsteen forums and you'll get a feel for the average opinion. The majority of the online presence, which I'm aware doesn't represent all hardcore fans, does not like Joad, BITUSA, or Live. I think w/BITUSA, it's the same syndrome you see with most artists when an album or song becomes massively popular--for whatever reason, that song/album tends to be disliked--although most also express reasons outside of that which could be considered valid (too poppy, too much synth, production too thin, etc) even though I would disagree.

The Live 75-85 set is, on average, disliked due to liberal use of overdubs and edits, as well as production (drums are often called out as too loud). However, I have no problem with either of these things and think the set is perfect as is.

 

Or perhaps they didn't like some of the songs until they saw the tour.

Actually, I'm not a huge fan of the sound of those albums, but it was the 80's - what can you do?

 

Here's a better question...when exactly did Bruce Springsteen "Jump the Shark"?
Choices:
Born In The USA album
All the Born In The USA hype
When he married that model/actress
When he married the red head, aka: 'Yoko Mach II' to most Springsteen fans

discuss...

 

No, I would not put it as starkly as "a great recording can disguise a duff song." I would say that a great performance/recording can elevate a song to a higher perch than it would otherwise reside. We are most likely on the precipice of a semantic rabbit hole here (that we would be wise not to travel too far down) regarding what actually defines a song and does not the recording/performance make up that definition.

 

I dunno. I think a lot of hardcores really do hate "BITUSA" - or they still resent how it made Bruce so popular he wasn't "theirs" anymore.

I don't think they can separate their feelings toward the whole super-success of the era from their "objective" thoughts toward the album.

I definitely think there are plenty of diehards who maintain serious ill-will toward "BITUSA"...

 

Try this way of thinking about the problem: we know that Schubert was a great songwriter, because his songs have endured for centuries, being regarded as masterpieces of their form, and we don't get at all distracted by an original performance, because we simply don't have a recording of how the songs were first performed. If we had the luxury of being able to consider all songs in abstract, as written music, some would be evaluated as better and some worse, but once you get into the recorded era the opinions are going to be affected by recording.

Now, you can say (as you seem minded to) "Won't Get Fooled Again" is a great song end of. But for me - because it gives one a greater ability to discriminate between the virtues of music we like - I'd say that it's one of the great tracks in rock and its greatness lies more on the side of performance than the side of composition. You could come back and say the opposite ("I give it 10/10 for composition and 10/10 for performance") and then we can agree to disagree on that, but it will be clear where we stand.

Incidentally, the greatness of rock songs will often fall on the side of performance and the greatness of pop songs will often fall on the side of composition ... and that's why people worry about it: because Pop fans sneer that Hendrix could never write a song like "Waterloo" and Rock fans sneer that "Abba could never get the blood pumping". Around here, though, most people are fans of both Rock and Pop, so maybe less sneering is needed on either side.

If you want to make the case for Springsteen as top five live performer in Rock, I'll sign up to that. But his songs just don't stand up that well when he's not singing them, and if a song can't stand on its own merits that does say something about it when you're playing at the "Best Ever" level.

 

I get the drift, but still - any pop fans who sneer at Hendrix for not writing "Waterloo" make themselves targets of a good and proper sneer or two.