I think he started out wanting to cultivate an image of what he knew and where he came from. As his following grew he probably realized the strength in doing this. The look he had, way he spoke , stories he told fit like a glove with the songs he wrote. So while I think it's part of him , and some who he wanted/ wants to be (the cowboy, street poet , etc) there's a calculation to it as well.
As I said earlier upthread, I think Springsteen's "revelation" that he is some sort of fraud is tongue-in-cheek. There is no way he believes that, and frankly I don't think many long-time observers believe it either. Do people think he has promoted a certain persona at times for commercial gain? Sure. I think what many people miss with that statement is that it is not so much that he is saying he is an actual fraud, rather he is acknowledging that he is not the guy he writes about. And that is what a number of us have discussed on this thread and others; Springsteen's work, especially the work from his "classic period" is not largely autobiographical, and I suspect that there are plenty in the hero-worship crowd that do not separate fiction from fact. They want Springsteen to be that guy. They are invested in that guy and are equally, if not more, invested in Springsteen. It has to go hand-in-hand for some of these deep fans, and I would argue Springsteen was acknowledging that he is not that guy. Now, Bob Dylan has certainly mislead and misdirected the public and the press for decades, but I don't think it was designed to build the foundation for a massive commercial enterprise, like Landau largely orchestrated for the BITUSA period. I don't think he was trying to create a public persona for commercial and career purposes. Dylan is an odd guy, and has spent a large part of his career toying with writers and being very evasive, possibly to keep his true identity known only to a very few select people. We could probably go on for hours trying to explore what his motivations are.
The working class character was self-invention. It wasn't thrust upon him like the voice of a generation title was with Dylan. It should be recalled Springsteen was a greaser. It's a term that's probably obscure now, like the origins of the word hipster, to which it was somewhat related. This was more sub-culture than class, but class was certainly a part of it.
Exactly. It's not like Springsteen ever pretended he had worked in a factory or raced cars. To the extent that some people might have actually believed those things, it speaks more to their own limitations than to any sort of false presentation by Springsteen. Then, when he had the temerity to write about other subjects and (gasp) move to Beverly Hills and (shock, horror) become friends with Tom Hanks and Sting, he proved what a fake he was and had always been! He sold us out! I don't think my eyes are capable of rolling as hard as I'd like them to over this whole narrative, which I've essentially seen on various Springsteen fan boards.
Bruce is definitely from the working--or at least lower-middle class. I don't think the "bard of the white working class" was self-invention. The greaser thing was. I think there's a good book to be written about how at each point in his development, Bruce had a "father" figure who projected their beliefs on him---Appel, Hammond, Landau. Each saw in him something that they were looking for to further their agendas. I'm just too distracted right now to map it out myself.
Very well stated. Generally speaking, that crowd was not a Bruce crowd. Bruce wrote about some of those guys in his songs, but he didn't necessarily speak to those guys.
To a degree, and, no, he doesn't play exactly the same sets every night, but there are almost always around half to 2/3 of the songs that will always be played at each show on any given tour. To me, "Born To Run" is the only song he basically has to play every show. He could completely switch out everything else from night to night, the way some other bands do (Pearl Jam is an obvious comparison point) - he has the deep catalog with which to do it. He could also introduce an acoustic set (which was my big complaint about the Magic Tour - it was slam bang one rocker into another with hardly any break and certainly no real quiet segment of slower, more contemplative songs) but I guess he feels like too many would head out for the beer lines, which gets me back to the fact that these late-era ESB tours were when I really began to resent a certain component of the audience.
Anything done in public life in America is self-invention. At least that's the myth which is perpetuated. The greaser epithet, like the hipster described by Norman Mailer, was used to describe white youth who found affinity with Black culture, and with R&B in particular. It conferred outsider status. Springsteen shared this with Steve Van Zandt. It was common to teen society of the time when they were young, and playing in their first bands. It was a style, clearly seen in pix of The Castiles, long hair, snakeskin, Cuban heels, and the like.
Except that most of the "blindly-devoted" you're referring to here are the least likely to ever vote like him.
You don't give people enough credit. Most of the fans knew intuitively that Bruce was not a racer or a mechanic himself. Just as he wasn't really the gangster or street hood we wrote about on his first couple albums. He was a singer/songwriter. But yes, his writing about cars and hanging out with Jimmy the Saint or whoever did appeal to people who liked cars. You have to remember though that it's Bruce himself who is copping to be a "bit of a fraud" (as he says repeatedly in different ways in his autobiography and on Broadway) as though he's finally admitting it and it's a "oh my stars and garters!" shock to his fans.' It's not.
Seriously, why did you resent them? Because they were not as committed to the new material, or willing to listen to it? I remember during the Magic tour hearing someone talk about renting a limo for a bunch of couples, heading to the arena drinking cocktails, and then waiting and waiting until something from BITUSA was performed. Clearly that is a casual fan at best, but that is going to make up a decent portion of an arena audience in this era. Tickets are pricey and Springsteen is a legacy artist no different that The Eagles or Fleetwood Mac in that he attracts, in part, a certain socioeconomic age group that attends such concerts. It isn't like the deep fan-base outside of New Jersey/New York is going to fill out 25,000 arenas every night.
Are you kidding? Huge swaths of Bruce's fan base ( at least in the Northeast where he remains strong) are liberals in good standing. They already vote like him. These are called "Blue' states for a reason. You seem to have a general disdain for people who don't agree with your views or beliefs.
As much as they may try to disguise it or hide it, I can guarantee you that all of the people who criticize Springsteen for being active politically do so primarily because they disagree with his positions and views. It doesn't take much scratching beneath the surface to reveal this. They may couch it in arguments about the quality of his writing (which I might agree with), but the main reason they protest is that they feel betrayed in some way, at least those who were at one point fans of his music. I would argue that this never really represented half of his audience - more like one-third or so - but I would also say that Springsteen probably gained as many fans as he lost by becoming more outspoken.
I don't get that viewpoint. How many politicians have you ever supported where you found yourself agreeing with everything they did or said? I've run across none that I can think of in the 40 or so years I've been politically aware. To me, positions taken on issues count for more than positions taken in favor of a specific candidate or elected representative. It's just strange to me how anybody might think that, simply because Springsteen endorsed a candidate, Springsteen somehow becomes responsible for every bad thing (and it would only be the bad things, right? You'd never give Springsteen credit for the good things...) that that person does forevermore.
Once you have children, I would wager, you become a lot more concerned about the state of the world and more willing to put yourself on the spot by speaking out, especially if you have a megaphone handy.
I've never voted for anyone who I agree with 100% There is always going to be disagreements on key issue--and on general style and substance. As to my point, I won't say that Bruce is responsible for whatever they do. That politician is. I should have been a bit more clear. Bruce is going to be tied to that politician's moves because he endorsed him.
People who don't like sincerity? I guess - I don't really care to associate with people like that, personally.
That goes for anyone, famous or not. Bruce's views are only more valid than the guy down the street's views are -- if you already agree with him
Being the bard of the white working class, as a writer with a particular subject matter, didn't necessarily make him the bard for the white working class. Many of the Springsteen fans I knew back in the day when Springsteen was busy being the bard of the white working class were the college educated kids many of whom were of that first-to-go-to-college, or really the last of the upwardly mobile mid century generation before ERISA and the demise of defined benefit pensions, maybe second to go to college after their parents had gone on the GI bill.
I think it is, at least to those of a certain stripe. My point is more that he actually not the fraud he's now claiming he's been. It's more of an act than anything else.
His children were long ago born by time he was becoming much more vocal. Whatever, it turned a lot of people off whether you agree with him or not . But not much of that has to do with our opinions on his albums .
Sure he was. At first. Rolling into NYC talking about traveling with the hobos, playing tent shows, or whatever other nonsense he was spinning, putting down the Little Richard, and playing folk songs, there was as much career motivation in that -- folk was the hot thing, and "authenticity" was the folk success ticket -- as there was artistic inspiration and adoration and mimicking of one's idols by an impressionable kid.
Because they talked through songs that they weren't yelling along and pumping their fists (god I hate that) to, they weren't interested in the new songs, they didn't seem to have any respect for the quieter material (such as there was - only a couple of songs where I'd have preferred it to be around half the show), and they didn't seem to have any respect for the people around them who were trying to lose themselves in the music. I expect more at a musical performance. It's not a social event. Save that for before and after. I preferred the "shut the f- up" mode of Springsteen's solo tours, frankly.
