I can see a few similarities, both very driven artists, and both very much for the working man. And yes, the telecasters. And they both had respect for each other. It would have been a very easy thing for them to have performed together. I can see Bruce sitting in at a Mescalaros gig, or Bruce bringing Joe out at one of his shows. That woulda been cool...
Actually Joe sent me the fax for a Mojo magazine feature about Bruce...I did make Secret History though Bruce has the original fax now, and when we first spent any significant time together he pumped me for stories about seeing The Clash live, which I did quite a lot, including the infamous Dunstable, Glasgow & Crawley shows in 1978, 3 of the 4 most violent gigs they ever played according to The Baker... Don’t forget this too
I don’t disagree with you in terms of the idea that they are/were both fiery, charismatic impassioned performers with barn burning live shows. Both have/had less than precise vocals. Generally, both championed the underdog but so do many other writers. But, as much as I love the Clash and am a long time Strummer fan boy, Springsteen is a far more focused writer than Joe ever was. Focus wasn’t his thing. Zeitgeist of the moment and striking while the iron is hot..... that’s Joe’s big asset as far as I’m concerned - the guttural moan in the break in the middle of. Complete Control - that is one of my favorite all time Strummer moments. I don’t know for a fact, but I doubt he wrote that moan. Or the way he spits, barks, grunts out certain words, phrases.... Yalla Yalla is a great example.... “SPITtin’ BACK again...” I suspect Bruce was better suited and more disciplined for fame than Joe was as well.
Fun thread, in line with what this forum is about nowdays. I like neither I think I will keep my style from here. This thread makes no sense, and so does not my reply. Don't quote.
Not to be Switzerland here, but I love them both. I don't think they're similar (other than politics) in terms of sound or aesthetic or anything else - Clash or E Street - but I can turn either of them up loud and think, "fubble wubble yes!"
I don't think you are on your own - I have heard others make that connection and to an extent I agree. Moreover, I think both men felt that common ground as well, a spiritual brotherhood. Just like others here I could rattle off the millions of ways in which they were different as artists. But yet there is something that has always tied the two together. I think a lot of it comes down to the embodiment of passion each artist represented for social justice and the healing power of rock and roll. They both presented themselves as flawed outlaws on the side of good. Both were (and are) larger than life - in a way almost cartoon characters. They were performers who knew themselves too well to believe that they could live up to the myth they represented and struggled (and overcame) debilitating bouts of depression likely fueled at least in part by this disparity.
Maybe they have some superficial similarities, but these two are very different artists. I like Bruce. I love Joe. Bruce fit into a format, a place where he excelled and didn't stray too far from. And, honestly he peaked early and never got nearly back to those heights again. Joe, on the other hand, was always a musical searcher. He thought punk meant being honest, and he made music that was always honest to where he was at the moment. His career also peaked early. He stopped doing it for years when he realized he couldn't be excellent at it. Enter then The Mesceleros, and a set of albums that, for the most part, are radical departures from the sounds he made with The Clash. And, to me and many others, a step forward musically and lyrically. These are my favorite albums of his music. Who else on earth did this? Peak right at the end? Bowie comes closest maybe, but as dramatically?? So, no - He is not the English Bruce. Apples and Oranges.
Oh, OK then. That makes a sense. Both the Clash and Bruce always put on a good show and gave fans their money's worth. You should say that to your wife.
i don't think this is an apt comparison. bruce is more of a singer/songwriter than joe was , not if joe has not passed prematurely he may have developed into one but i see him as more of part of a band ,maybe the leader of said band. their politics were on the same side of the ledger it would seem. i like the clash but think they are a bit "overvalued" with the most important band stuff. bruce is probably a "greater" talent and joe i think came from a more privileged background than bruce did. both seemingly good guys who did what they did from the heart and with only the best intentions.
I have always said that The Boss is the American Joe Strummer. Does anyone else share this opinion or am I on my own? I don't...Joe is light years over Springsteen. : )
Nope. Strummer was no saint established at the git go. Bruce was not but was against the wrong doings of the government. But more sanitized than Strummer.. totally different except for gravely voices...
Joe was in a pub rock band the 101ers who were closer to Bruce's first two albums, and Mick Jones was a big Stoneground (hippie commune band ala Delaney & Bonnie) fan such that he is pictured on the back of their third album. All three of them would have been Rascals fans first, then maybe the Stooges. The Stooges ground zero myth really didn't start coming on hard and fast until the mid to late 90s as Iggy's stature clarified and rose.