My Review of Springsteen On Broadway

ah, the useless 'I'm a bigger fan than you!' tact. predictable, but still pathetic.

 

Yeah, it's possible to love your country and express that, and examine the plight of this Vietnam vet who was beat up so many ways by his country and express that too at the same time. That's the actual reality of what it was like to live through the experience, and certainly for many of the returning vets. Calling BITUSA a "protest song" never made it an "anti-America" song...anything but. Like "We Take Care of Our Own," and much of Springsteen's more political work, it's about America as it is and as we dream it should be. And that is a quintessential aspect of Americanness, living with the simultaneous realities of our actions and our ideals. Pumped up on weights, I don't know what that has to do with anything. I know I saw Springsteen first in '78, and he was amazing -- to me, 14 at the time and a young musician, it was an incredible artistic idea of what a rock show and a rock artist should be. When I saw him in '84 (I had also seen him in '80), it was like he had transcended. He was buff, he was riding the crest of the zeitgeist, the crowds at the shows were insane. Before he was approachable, and being like him as a musician seemed in some vague way attainable. Now he was at a different, completely unobtainable level in every regard. It's like Bruce and Steve used to say about the Stones and the Beatles when they were kids, the Beatles were like this golden ideal that they couldn't even begin to aspire to, the Stones, that they could aspire to. I don't know what people expect -- some kind of binary art that says one thing or another. But that's not life, and that's not art that reflects life.

 

I hear you. When all is said and done, the Broadway show is a triumph. It’s a critical and commercial success. It’s also moving, touching and funny. Some here go nuts as he puts another feather in his cap. I wonder why.

 

I'm gonna assume you've never been to Philly,

 

Therein lies the problem...the title of this thread is “My Review...” which implies two things: that the OP is sufficiently objective to be able to write an unbiased review and that readers are invited to comment accordingly and post their own opinions.

A “fan,” by definition, is not capable of an unbiased opinion. If the OP was not interested in inviting opposing views, he might have titled his thread “An Appreciation of....” and subsequent posters would have been justified in getting their panties all tight over negative viewpoints. Otherwise, just have enough confidence in your own opinions to ignore or courteously rebut opposing ones, but enough with all the whining about those who don’t venerate St. Bruce as highly as he venerates himself.

 

its called marketing.
we are talking 1983 not 2008 or whenever that we take care of our own came out.

 

most of the born in the usa fans are still around, they are just confused.

 

Sadly not, but Madison Square Garden in NYC twice. That was very cool, and very different to Göteborg or Barcelona for example.

 

The problem here isn't that there are opposing views being offered that Springsteen fans can't handle. Intelligent, informed comments are the foundation of this forum and is what makes this community great. It is the passive-aggressive, uniformed Springsteen bashing that goes on in just about every Springsteen thread. I am a huge Springsteen fan and it doesn't bother me in the least if someone doesn't like a particular album, period, or the Broadway show or if they find his live shtick cheesy. Or even if they don't like his music at all. Not every criticism is hate and not every fan is a blind follower unable to hear the difference between "Darkness on the Edge of Town" and "Working On A Dream."

If you have seen Springsteen on Broadway on Netflix by all means offer your review, good or bad, but please watch it first before spouting off strong opinions about it. So many have said they were surprised by it and that it wasn't at all what they were expecting it to be.

 

This is simply one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. I was a dumb Cure/Smiths listening high school kid in 1984, who knew nothing about the plight of Vietnam veterans, and picked up the meaning the very first time i heard it. The video did nothing to change that except to show his passion for the message in the lyrics. If anyone took that as some rah-rah, pro USA chant back in 1984, they clearly wanted to hear it that way, That is on them, not Bruce!

 

ok pretend i watched it.

 

No one is capable of an unbiased opinion. An opinion is a product of a person's values and expression of a judgment based on those values. Those values are going to make the person inclined towards some sorts of things and disinclined towards other sorts of things, and that bias will entirely shape their opinion.

 

By that matter then neither is someone who has some sort of issue with an artist.

 

i disagree without a degree of objectivity we wouldnt be able to even communicate.

 

Europe seems to appreciate great artists and music more than America does in general. One of the many reasons I wish the United States was a lot more like Europe.

 

As far as Born In The USA goes, two days after Reagan used Springsteen’s name in a speech, Bruce said this on stage in Pittsburgh: “Well, the president was mentioning my name in his speech the other day, and I kind of got to wondering what his favorite album of mine must’ve been, you know? I don’t think it was the Nebraska album. I don’t think he’s been listening to this one.”

The “Born In The USA” single was released in 1984 and the B-side was called “Shut Out The Light.” There is very little in either song’s lyrics (see below) that can be interpreted as being rah-rah, flag-waving blind patrioticism. They both are, however, very patriotic and pro-American because they were shining a light at our own mistreatment of the Vietnam veterans after they came home.

From a distance, as was with Reagan, one could see the American flag and hear the cry of “ Born In The USA” and blindly misinterpret them to be blindly patriotic. But they weren’t and never were intended to be. It amazes me that in 2018 people still have this wrong.

Born In The USA (Bruce Springsteen)

[Verse 1]
Born down in a dead man's town
The first kick I took was when I hit the ground
You end up like a dog that's been beat too much
'Til you spend half your life just coverin' up

[Chorus]
Born in the U.S.A
I was born in the U.S.A
I was born in the U.S.A
Born in the U.S.A

[Verse 2]
Got in a little hometown jam
So they put a rifle in my hand
Sent me off to a foreign land
To go and kill the yellow man

[Chorus]
Born in the U.S.A
I was born in the U.S.A
I was born in the U.S.A
I was born in the U.S.A
Born in the U.S.A

[Verse 3]
Come back home to the refinery
Hiring man says "Son if it was up to me"
Went down to see my V.A. man
He said "Son, don't you understand"

[Verse 4]
I had a brother at Khe Sanh fighting off the Viet Cong
They're still there, he's all gone
He had a woman he loved in Saigon
I got a picture of him in her arms now

[Verse 5]
Down in the shadow of the penitentiary
Out by the gas fires of the refinery
I'm ten years burning down the road
Nowhere to run ain't got nowhere to go

[Chorus]
Born in the U.S.A
I was born in the U.S.A
Born in the U.S.A
I'm a long gone Daddy in the U.S.A
Born in the U.S.A
Born in the U.S.A
Born in the U.S.A
I'm a cool rocking Daddy in the U.S.A

————-
The B-side of the single:
Shut Out The Light (Bruce Springsteen)

The runway rushed up at him as he felt the wheels touch down
He stood out on the blacktop and took a taxi into town
He got out down on Main Street and went into a local bar
He bought a drink and found a seat in a corner in the dark

Well she called up her mama to make sure the kids were out of the house
She checked herself out in the dining room mirror
And undid an extra button on her blouse
He felt her lying next to him, the clock said 4:00 am
He was staring at the ceiling, he couldn't move his hands

[chorus]
Oh mama mama mama come quick
I've got the shakes and I'm gonna be sick
Throw your arms around me in the cold dark night
Hey now mama don't shut out the light
Don't you shut out the light
Don't you shut out the light
Don't you shut out the light
Don't you shut out the light

Well on his porch they stretched a banner that said "Johnny Welcome Home"
Bobby pulled his Ford out of the garage and they polished up the chrome
His mama said "Johnny oh Johnny, I'm so glad to have you back with me"
His pa said he was sure they'd give him his job back down at the factory

[chorus]
Oh mama mama mama come quick
I've got the shakes and I'm gonna be sick
Throw your arms around me in the cold dark night
Hey now mama don't shut out the light
Don't you shut out the light
Don't you shut out the light
Don't you shut out the light
Don't you shut out the light

Well deep in a dark forest, a forest filled with rain
Beyond a stretch of Maryland pines there's a river without a name
In the cold black water Johnson Lineir stands
He stares across the lights of the city and dreams of where he's been

[chorus]
Oh mama mama mama come quick
I've got the shakes and I'm gonna be sick
Throw your arms around me in the cold dark night
Hey now mama don't shut out the light
Don't you shut out the light
Don't you shut out the light
Don't you shut out the light
Don't you shut out the light

 

A lot of people aren’t very smart. Most of those same people don’t seem to have an ability to understand nuance or appreciate subtlety.

Also, the pairing of “Born in The U.S.A.” and “Shut Out the Light” is one of the most powerful and perfectly constructed singles ever. The latter is in my top 20 Springsteen tracks.

 

Rambo wasn't a muscular icon until 1985. The character in 1982's "First Blood" was certainly in good shape but that "Rambo look" wasn't around until a year after "BITUSA" came out, so it's clear Bruce wasn't attempting to emulate Stallone.

People radically overstate how muscular Bruce became anyway. He was always muscular but he was thin - he bulked up some but he wasn't exactly packed with muscles even at his peak.

Compare Bruce 1984 vs. Rambo 1984 - not really close, is it?

 

Thank you. It was my opinion. It, I think, is an informed one, albeit from my perspective. I am sort of a fan of Springsteen. I say "sort of" partly because I became a fan of his somewhat late in the game with The River album. It was the song, "The River", itself that riveted me. Secondly, I think that his later albums, on the whole, aren't as solid as some of his early and mid-career albums, although he has never wavered in quality as a riveting performer. His concerts (not this show) are almost like revival meetings. They're very much a matter of reaching out to the back row sort of show with as much high energy and charisma as he can muster. For 3-4 hours at a time. Springsteen On Broadway, on the other hand, is introspective. He is inviting the viewer inside a bit. My perspective, as I have mentioned, is one that includes a partial career as an actor (both onstage, as well as TV, film). I have written and performed a one-person autobiographical show. As an actor, I can control how much I allow the audience in, how vulnerable I'll be. But if I don't let them in at all, they're not going to be interested. So I'm looking at this show and critiquing it from a variety as aspects.

I could see that a solely music fan might have a perspective that would scrunch his or her face at his Broadway show. There's not enough music to call it a concert. It would be like seeing Al Pacino in person talk about his movie career and wanting him to shut up and let us watch the movie. It's just a different expectation.

But simply a Springsteen basher who wants to cut him down because he is Springsteen doesn't engage me. It doesn't come across as thoughtful. I mentioned in a previous post that I love watching documentaries because I want to find out about people and things I don't know much, if at all, about. It deepens me as a human being. It expands my appreciation.

As discomforting and raw as it is (Does she allow herself to be vulnerable!), and even sometimes brutally honest, Hannah Gadsby's one-woman show, Nanette, is both hilarious and a gut-wrenching experience. You need to be willing to be both entertained and figuratively punched in the gut. You need to be a human being willing to experience someone's ups and downs. You need to be someone who is willing to spend a couple of hours with someone who may not be familiar to you, who may not be like you on the surface, but may have a lot of things that pertain to you. You need to be someone who is willing to have their soul shook up a bit.

And whether you watch Gadsby's show, or Springteen's show, you need to be mature and thoughtful enough to actually watch it. These are mature events for mature audiences (and I don't mean to be condescending when I "mature"). I'd take a child to a Springsteen concert. I'm not sure I'd take them to a Broadway show like this.

So if after watching it thoughtfully, absorbing it, considering it, some could then post an intelligent and well-thought out critique saying why it failed, I'd be all eyes to consider that. We could have a discussion of its merits based on the concept and execution.

And believe me, there have been well-thought of films that left me scratching my head, even after watching them 2 or 3 times. Sometimes I have had to watch a film a second time to really appreciate it. Christopher Nolan's Inception is an example. After a first viewing, I thought it was overly complex and clever to the point of being forced. But I appreciated that Nolan tried for something challenging for the audience rather than a film put on a silver platter, the way many Hollywood films are. But I was intrigued with the film. And I went back to see it again. On second viewing, I found it to be fascinating as to how it was structured. I still didn't think it was a totally successful as a film, but I appreciated that he was really attempting something far outside the box, so to speak.

But back to the Springsteen On Broadway show, the "I'm not interested in hearing someone I have nothing in common with talk about his life" is a closed-minded and closed-soul way of going through life. Having no empathy for others keeps you from knowing and appreciating other people from other walks of life. It keeps you thinking that your world is superior to their's. It keeps you ignorant. It keeps you from feeling guilt, and responsibility for others. You're welcome to go through life enclosed in your insular bubble (as long as you don't hurt other people). But that way of going through life doesn't enrich or engage others to consider your opinions seriously either. And you're welcome not to see the show.

But my purpose of writing the review was to give my thoughts as someone who understands what Springsteen was trying to do, has done it himself, and is a fan of that form of theater. The question should be here, in this particular thread, was he successful at it. Whether you were or were not engaged by it after seeing it all the way through, why did you come away from it with that opinion? Perhaps parts of it worked, and parts of it didn't. Talk about that. It's a much more interesting read than a mere bashing because you're predisposed to a certain, already formed viewpoint.

 

I've never seen Rambo with a Telecaster!

 

That's sort of true. It's more of a question of having an informed opinion or not, and what is informing your opinion. We all see things through a particular prism. It is a skill or ability to be able to be empathetic, however. To be able to try on someone else's opinion to see what it's like. Have you ever had the experience of having an opinion that you just don't like a particular kind of food, but later try it and discover that you liked it? Or think that you didn't like a particular artist or musician, only to hear or see something that had you see that person's work in a totally new way?

In some ways, being aware of your pre-disposition can free you to experience something new. "I don't like heights, but I'll try doing the zipline anyway" (rather than "I don't like heights therefore I won't do the zipline"), or "I normally don't like classical music, but I'll take a listen to this piece." If you can put aside your dislike while you're listening, particular if you do it with someone who does have an appreciation for it, you might find something new about it that you do like. Your friend who does like classical music might be able to pick out something about the music that you find to be really cool.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I wasn't a fan of Bruce Springsteen's music prior to hearing the song, "The River." In fact, I made fun of him. It was watching the No Nukes concert film performance where it/he clicked for me. I said to myself after his film performance, "NOW, I get it." And then I started checking out his music.

So our filters are our filters. We all have them.

Being aware of them as filters that color our perception is the first step in being able to sort of set them aside. And then, there are people who study a particular art form, who are students of music. The more you reach out to learn about music, theater, or other types of art you haven't previously been exposed to, the more capable you are, like developing a muscle, to be able to thoughtfully and critically listen/watch a performance with fewer filters. Peter Wolf, for example, is an encyclopedia of rock and roll as well as blues. And it infuses his performances. I'm lucky that he lives in Cambridge and plays a LOT of shows around the area. He played The Cabot in Beverly, MA on New Year's Eve last year, and he's doing it again this year. (It might turn out to be an annual NYE fixture.) He has this particular rock and roll persona on stage. But offstage, he is so engaged, thoughtful, and curious about music.

 

Of course we can communicate without objectivity. You can communicate your opinion to me, I can communicate my opinion to you, we can question each other back and for to come to better clearer understandings of one another's points of view, and none of that has to involve anything objective. Sure, if we start disputing things like the duration of "Born to Run" on the original LP is credited as four minutes and 31 -- empirical, observable things like that -- communication can be difficult (witness our current social climate where every observable fact is contested). But humans have been sharing their feelings and beliefs and opinions and all kinds of other subjective things with one another for millennia, sure, sometimes there's confusion, but generally it works.

 

1st half of the 80's...vhs drove an
emerging and huge work out industry from Jane Fonda to Aerobics. It was nuts! I had a rowing machine in my apt. Worked wonders and the chicks...dug it.
The headband was due to Jimi Hendrix and a seance I attended back in 1970 but that story is for another day.

 

I saw that tour, among other times, on 3 consecutive nights and I can say that statement, that Born In The USA, is jingoistic, is incorrect.
Just listen to the lyrics, man! I did.

 

i thought opinions were not objective. the words we use to communicate need objective meaning otherwise we would have opinions inside opinions inside opinions. infinite regress.