Springsteen's Letter To You thread (second try)

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by FingerPickin'Triumph, Oct 13, 2020.

  1. Mike M

    Mike M Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maplewood
    Petty was much more prevalent on MTV, especially with concept videos, and played that game in a way Bruce never did, although Bruce did have some big videos with BITUSA.

    But Petty never had the cross cultural movement Bruce had for BTR (Time and Newsweek Covers) and even more with BITUSA and the live box set, where the story jumped from the music press into the cultural mainstream. There was no "Pettymania" the way "Brucemania" was prevalent in the mid -80's

    Petty's biggest seller is his greatest hits at about 8 million copies. BITUSA has sold over 15 million copies.
     
    Dr. Zoom likes this.
  2. Dr. Zoom

    Dr. Zoom Forum Resident

    Location:
    Monmouth County NJ
    No question. There was “Bruce mania” in the mid 80s for a bit...Petty never had that. But it faded quick.

    I was talking long term artistic recognition and influence.
     
    budwhite, PacificOceanBlue and Mike M like this.
  3. Mike M

    Mike M Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maplewood
    Yeah definitely seen as equals there.

    Most bands might have a 5 year career, but you are talking about two major artists who have/had careers for decades, that is extremely rare.

    Bruce is really in almost uncharted territory, going on almost 50 years. Only maybe McCartney, and Dylan, Stones, The Who are in that league. I mean Bing Crosby and Louis Armstrong only had like 40 year careers. These guys are way past that.
     
    Rockford & Roll likes this.
  4. PacificOceanBlue

    PacificOceanBlue Senior Member

    Location:
    The Southwest
    Exactly. People are way too focused on the 1984-1986 period, as if defines Springsteen’s ongoing popularity in the U.S. The BITUSA period is not a representation of the entirety of his career, not even close. I suppose it is easy for some to forget that he became a punchline in 1992 (whereas Petty was very relevant, and remained so even through the Grunge era). Petty didn’t need to have a parallel BITUSA moment, he remained consistently viable.
     
    laf848, GMfan87', budwhite and 3 others like this.
  5. Mike M

    Mike M Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maplewood
    I was off the Bruce train by that era, but man you are talking about a moment that less than a handful of musical artists have had in the 20th century.

    Something that only perhaps, Sinatra, Elvis, The Beatles, Michael Jackson, and maybe Madonna have felt.
     
    Rockford & Roll and Tom Campbell like this.
  6. adm62

    adm62 Senior Member

    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    Petty's huge breakthrough internationally was Full Moon Fever in the late 80s. His only really big selling album. I am guessing they were pretty much equally popular in the US from the early 90s onwards outside Bruce's heartland areas. Doubt Petty could play 8 successive stadium dates in his home state at any time in his career. Bruce was doing that in the 2000s. Bruce was also much bigger in Europe throughout and has continued to play stadiums there until this day (almost).

    Anyway, not sure what this has to do with Letter To You
     
    Rockford & Roll and Mike M like this.
  7. JoeF.

    JoeF. Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    The "Brucemania" period of 84/85 was more of a function of "MTV mania" than anything else. MTV made stars out of artists that wouldn't have gotten a second look a few years earlier ( Hello, Madonna!) and made superstars of people like Bruce--and Tom Petty. MTV ( with a nod to the Motown 30th TV Special) boosted Michael Jackson into the stratosphere.

    Remember, during the period of his greatest fame and success, Springsteen was still sharing the spotlight with Prince, Michael Jackson and Madonna.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2021
  8. PacificOceanBlue

    PacificOceanBlue Senior Member

    Location:
    The Southwest
    I don’t disagree, it was an enormous period of success. But that doesn’t mean Springsteen is still an artist of that magnitude. Most of his 2010 period albums didn’t even go platinum in the U.S. BITUSA is a distant memory.

    And to be fair, it isn’t just Bruce; as one of the biggest bands in the world and of all-time, The Who played stadiums in ‘82 and ‘89, now they mostly play arenas. The fact that The Who are no longer a stadium act doesn’t mean their past accomplishments are forgotten, but they also are not representative of who the band is today.

    I am not implying that Bruce is no longer capable of playing stadiums, because certainly he does in Europe and a few select markets in the US, I am simply pointing out that many artists go through various periods of major success and then become less relevant. As such, Bruce’s BITUSA accomplishment is not representative of how popular he is in 2021.
     
    budwhite, JoeF. and Mike M like this.
  9. Dr. Zoom

    Dr. Zoom Forum Resident

    Location:
    Monmouth County NJ
    A few years after the BITUSA mania, I was able to buy a ticket for the other band show for $10.
    In Philadelphia.

    That kind of fame usually fizzles, often quickly.
    Ask Peter Frampton.
     
  10. BeatleBruceMayer

    BeatleBruceMayer Forum Resident

    Location:
    Florida
    I keep going back to my story of being in college starting in 1993. My friends were into Petty and Aerosmith and calling Bruce "old" despite being from the same time frame. Petty's music didn't really change all that much and it certainly wouldn't be confused with any grunge/alternative/Seattle act. Bruce went into Richard Marx sounding territory with Human Touch in terms of his sound.

    When Wildflowers came out, there was controversy on MTV because of the lyrics in "You Don't Know How It Feels" and the topic probably endeared him to college-aged kids. Bruce come some credibility back among that generation months earlier with "Streets of Philadelphia" with its sound. And then Greatest Hits came out in 1995 and those kids who thought he was old were suddenly into him.
     
    budwhite, Rockford & Roll and Mike M like this.
  11. Mike M

    Mike M Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maplewood
    Or the Starland Vocal Band, hell they even had their own TV Show :)
     
  12. twicks

    twicks Forum Resident

    Location:
    Detroit
    I was in college in the Midwest from '92-'96 and nobody at any point was into Springsteen.
     
    PacificOceanBlue likes this.
  13. rontoon

    rontoon Animaniac

    Location:
    Highland Park, USA
    This thread has jumped the shark. Thanks for all opinions on the new album.
     
    tms766, Martin Byrne and madsurfer like this.
  14. Paul J

    Paul J Forum Resident

    Location:
    Baltimore
    Bruce was also the darling of East Coast Media.

    60 Minutes, Brian Williams, Today Show, etc., seemed to all have been in college on the East Coast during Bruce’s heyday.

    East Coast bias is still alive and well.
     
    JoeF. and Mike M like this.
  15. Mike M

    Mike M Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maplewood
    Yeah the 90's , and the debut of his new band, was definitely Springsteen's nadir.
    I think it was the greatest hits CD released in the mid 90's that started the comeback in motion that would come with The Rising.
     
    Paul J likes this.
  16. Dr. Zoom

    Dr. Zoom Forum Resident

    Location:
    Monmouth County NJ
    I think Letter to You is great
     
  17. But he needed money and so he sold it?
     
  18. PacificOceanBlue

    PacificOceanBlue Senior Member

    Location:
    The Southwest
    I was in my 20’s during the 90’s and having lived through that period as a music enthusiast with a pulse on the musical trends and pop culture of the day, I can tell you from my perspective and experience, Bruce was an irrelevant punchline. He was a joke after the commercial and artistic debacle of 92/93. He had a bit of a rehabilitation with the Streets of Philadelphia single, but no one cared about Springsteen. I did not see a resurgence with his Greatest Hits album either; at the time I didn’t see it as impactful in any way (personally I enjoyed it). The music press gave him praise for the artistic merits of Tom Joad, but again, it wasn’t a far-reaching project that many people outside of his base cared about. The E Street Band reunion of 1999 ushered in a new period of acceptance, largely because legacy artist touring had become such an appealing proposition, but he never again came close to his mid-80’s relevancy.
     
    budwhite, RSteven and twicks like this.
  19. PacificOceanBlue

    PacificOceanBlue Senior Member

    Location:
    The Southwest
    Frampton’s Frampton Comes Alive period is a great parallel.
     
  20. JoeF.

    JoeF. Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    It's finally growing on me.
    I now like every track except "Land of 1,ooo,ooo Guitars."
    And "Rainmaker" just doesn't fit.
     
    Mike M likes this.
  21. Mike M

    Mike M Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maplewood
    Respectfully disagree.

    Even thought the 90's were bad, Bruce had both critical and popular appeal both before and after BITUSA.

    Even though Frampton had been known with Humble Pie, the Live album was a total weird one off. I think it had to do partly with the format of the cassette, that was becoming popular at that time as well
     
    JoeF. likes this.
  22. PacificOceanBlue

    PacificOceanBlue Senior Member

    Location:
    The Southwest
    I didn’t say there was an overall career parallel. Obviously there isn’t. The point is, both artists had a massively successful album that catapulted them to the very top for a short period of time. That level of fame and mass-appeal fizzled out for both artists, and neither ever followed it up with projects of the same magnitude.
     
    Mike M likes this.
  23. JoeF.

    JoeF. Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    Someday someone will write a very good book on Springsteen's appeal to critics, writers and journalists. Maybe it started when he was on the cover of Time and Newsweek. Or when he was "discovered" by a prominent-and highly influential- rock critic for Rolling Stone. But movers and shakers and media-worshippers have always held Bruce close to their hearts and there's hardly an award or honor he hasn't won. If the baseball writers could award him, the Cy Young award, they would.

    But among music consumers, the relationship is more complicated. His popularity steadily grew throughout the '70's and he came by his first #1 album, The River, as a natural consequence. By 1984, he was ripe for superstardom and he , Landau and CBS/Sony pulled out every stop to make it happen. And it did.
    But as I pointed out earlier, there was a lot of competition with other artists--Prince and Jackson especially--and Bruce never had the spotlight completely to himself. And he seemed comfortable with that.

    But you're right, by 1990, he seemed to be a nonfactor as far as record sales go. The "kids' moved on to new things.
     
    PacificOceanBlue and Mike M like this.
  24. JoeF.

    JoeF. Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    Good point.
    That album just took off.
     
    Mike M likes this.
  25. Mike M

    Mike M Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maplewood
    Good points, but I would argue his popularity was won at the grass roots level through the word of mouth of his live show, and not solely manufactured by critics.
     
    GMfan87', graveyardboots and JoeF. like this.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine