Online Editorial: "It's Time to Fire the Boss" (Springsteen)

The problem I have with the piece is the title. That, and that it states the obvious in many ways.

Fire The Boss?

In a way, he's already been "fired" as the most significant artist of his generation. Look, I love Springsteen, but I do agree with the notion that something changed the moment he dismissed the E Street Band and moved to L.A. And that's not to say that he hasn't released work that I enjoy since (in fact, Magic was one of my favorite albums in 2007). But, a new Bruce release is no longer a media event. But how could it be compared to Bruce's cultural capital in 1984. For me it's ok that he's no longer a magazine cover boy. Who cares? I'm just glad he releases new music, even if that buzz is gone. I'll buy the new album in a couple of weeks. And I know it won't change my world, but that's not fair to expect from any artist.

So why try to write an article knocking down some kind of rock idol. I think Bruce already knocked himself down. Willingly.

 

I agree on Neil Young as well,even though i'm a huge fan i think he's been given a pass too many times,i think half his catalog is unlistenable,but the other half more than makes up for it,but unlike Bruce he's not winning any awards.

 

What a piece o' cr@p!

I don't buy Bruce's music or go to his shows, but I still have a lot of respect for him. So he's not the same guy he was 20 or 30 years ago. What should he do--retire? His shows still give people a lot more pleasure and inspiration than the guy who wrote that article!

 

Where was he in 2002? Had he not heard of The Rising.

Seriously that album is from this decade and is consumed by the critical moment of this decade and is an excellent album.

I can't really take an article seriously when it is so fundamentally flawed.

 

Exactly. I could hardly read that mess.....

 

I have to agree with the writer though...

And he has his right to an opinion...

My opinion...Bruce hasn't spoken anything to me since certain songs on "Born In The USA"...everybody talks about how "Tunnel of Love" is a great record...but all I hear is slickness...

Sorry Johnny...he did put out great music at one time...
If this was The Who or Yes we were talking about...you wouldn't be getting so offended...but we were lucky with what we got from Bruce...many records of unparalleled greatness...
You can't possibly call "The Rising" for example in the same league...it sounded like he was doing an E-Street band record...writing one...referencing certain moves that they once made...it sounded false...to me...

Believe me...I want to believe in him too...but I can't....because he isn't the same anymore...not to me...

Ok...fire away at will...but I haven't found his stuff at all resonating with me for 25 years.

 

I disagree. All that happens now is the thread goes round in circles with everyone offering their personal opinion as the only true facts.

 

Yes. I'm waiting for someone to call this thread "another train wreck".

I'm far from the biggest Springsteen fan but he's had an incredible career and continues to do so. He can't please everyone with every release.

I do have a serious question: when did Springsteen become the voice of the working class? Isn't it obvious that he's an entertainer first for an formost?

 

it is not his best, but it remains a masterpiece to me - easily in his top 5, which says a lot considering what had preceded - and incidentally a huge seller. The fact that it was intentionally radio-friendly does not diminish its greatness IMO.

 

That's what I always thought he looked like....or unsuccessfully trying to pass a stone!

 

This is the only true fact in the entire thread. Well, this and Dave D.'s posts.

 

It's not really about the music or the artist. It's about the fans. If the fans and media had not hung "The Boss" around Springsteen's neck and raved about his music over and over and over, ad infinitum, the commentary would never have been written. I myself have made disparaging comments about the Rolling Stones in the past, having listened to decades of "The Best Rock & Roll Band In the World" for decades, but I regretted making them.

Ramsey would be interested in a couple of things here, though. One--- mention an unknown and you get 18 views, but mention Springsteen (along with other perennial in any context and you get hundreds and thousands. In a way, that speaks to an underlying theme in Ramsey's piece, which is that there is a tendency to give more credit than is due to certain established artists. And two--- the majority of people are more prepared to defend an institution than to broaden horizons. The assumption is that there is only so much time during the day and if some of that time is used listening to an album heard possibly hundreds of times previously, it takes time away from another artist who is, and this is the point, not being given his or her due.

I would love to see a survey of the people responding to this thread which covers how many posts they've read whose subjects (artists and musicians) were really unknown to them.

Frank G

 

when he stopped being the voice of Van Morrison...
circa Darkness On The Edge Of Town, and culminating in
a. The River
b. Born In The USA
(select your pick)

of course, he never claimed to be that voice, I don't think he is, that was not the goal, but comes (came) close, as far as the world of US entertainment is concerned.
All artistic merits aside, I still think he's a socially conscious "father's son"

 

That's a low blow, eh? Patriotism doesn't mean not questioning what is going on in your country or the holding of a particular political stance.

 

I was only expressing MY opinion. Who peed in your coffee today Dave?

Evan

 

And it's also a view probably fueled solely by misinformation from various sources. My site's webmaster is "on the other side of the aisle", as it were, and he doesn't follow Bruce. He was convinced that Bruce spent half his concerts spouting anti-Republican rhetoric and attacks on Bush. Why? Because that's what certain sources claimed.

They were radically wrong - Bruce did only a little political commentary during the last tour, and only referred to the president in an indirect manner. Nonetheless, many are convinced that Bruce is some kind of left-wing radical who burns the flag on stage...

 

Your Canadian heritage is showing through 'dere, eh.

...which is a good thing.

 

I find doing just that is one of the main reasons I visit this forum; reading about music and artists I might otherwise have little interest in or know nothing about, but, then again, I hadn't responded to this thread before now.

So many preconceived notions masquerading as insight and hyperbolic suppositions reaching for gospel truths, all in five modest paragrahs, in an article that reads more like a student-written psyche eval of a once healthy patient gone bad; it just sounds like nutty talk to me, but the upside for me, is I find some of it genuinely hysterical.

 

What the guy says about Bruce could be applied to a whole slew of aging rockers who peaked some years ago. I'm more inclined to pull out "Ram" or "Synchronicity" than I am "Memory Almost Full" or "Songs From The Labyrinth". But the article was just mean-spirited and pointless.

 

Name me a big time band/artist who's been around for awhile that the above doesn't apply to?

 

Well, that shows the writer's perspective. Another band-wagon jumper who longs for the BITUSA days of twenty odd years ago. This whole "spokesman for the working class" argument is so tired and ridiculous. The Springsteen boards are full of shock and awe that he's selling a greatest hits at Wal-Mart, that he's sold out the working class. Of course, you could have bought his albums there at any time during the last decade.

Like any great artist, he evolves and changes. You may not be along for the whole ride, but that's the cost. And frankly, The Boss thing was corny from the beginning.

Uh . . The Rising. Devil's Arcade. Missing. I Wish I Were Blind. My City's In Ruin.

 

Oh yes i realise that , but work has been done on it , quite a bit too, if rumours are correct but obviously no sign of a release .
I just hope it doesn't get canned, that would be a real shame .

 

BS is a good guitar player, a decent songwriter, and a great performer. That guy gives his all on stage.

But... his arrangements are uninspired, cheesy, and really boring.

I can't listen to his music, because his songs remind me so much of post-Beatles Paul McCartney: Decent songs killed by the layout, instrumentation, and feel.

I felt this way long before I paid attention to his politics, and I don't like that about him either.

 

I challenge anyone to name a single 55+ year old artist who has maintained the fire that he/she had when he/she was 25.

Dylan? He lost it after his born again period (1980)
McCartney? (1969)
The Stones? (Altamont or '72)

Just because an artist may be coasting (for lack of a better discriptive) doesn't make him boring or irrelevant. The entertainment factor is certainly tantamount in the music industry. With artists like Madonna, Michael Jackson et al whose sole raison d'etre is to entertain, there's no need to slag an artist for sliding from "relevancy" to "entertainer". People don't go see the Stones expecting a call to arms when Mick sings "Street Fighting Man".

Anyways.....Bruce has blessed us with MANY important records since his early days. Let him enjoy his pension years. If you go to his concerts, you will have a great time. If you buy his CD and don't like it, give it away.

R

 

How do you know that these artists lost the "fire" after 25? This post of yours isn't that far different than the original article. Again, it's all about your personal experience of the artist. That's all you have.