I think he's a deeply humane person who maybe doesn't really believe anything. This would be alienating, and depressing. A half a billion dollars might be adequate compensation for the trouble. I doubt if an actual billion would make much difference. Perhaps he thought at some point it might. Like with much of this, I've no idea.
In some ways I think the image of Springsteen himself is as much a creation of his fanbase as anything. He wrote about these people and subjects they related to but he wasn't like Dylan, he didn't shroud himself that way. But he does seem a little bit tortured by it.
I mean, as far as archetypes go, the only other people who have done anything remotely similar to what Springsteen's accomplished are Barack and Michele Obama. This might explain something. The last American rock star. The first Black president. This is beyond the realm of wish fufillment. We'll never know how it feels to live that sort of life.
Bit unfair Springsteen plays very long sets and mixes up his setlist pretty much every night. During a tour he generally plays way more different songs than any other acts of his stature. This is also more a feature of post reunion tours than in the past when he often had extremely static setlists.
I don't care about his politics one way or the other. There have been musicians who have produced some very creative, effective and impressive work that is associated with politics. And when it is done effectively, I personally do not care if it subscribes to my own viewpoints. A great piece of work is a great piece of work. I don't think Springsteen's writing has been very effective when he directly expresses his political viewpoints or promotes a specific talking-point, as he has frequently done over the past two decades. At his best, he could weave in and around social/political issues through a creative story or character sketch, and often the reason for why such an environment or situation existed was left to the listener to decide. That was powerful stuff, and it resonated with a wide-range of listeners. I don't credit an artist for simply espousing what they believe in, especially if it is a creative and artistic failure. I also don't think promoting a social/political viewpoint should take priority over producing great work. Some will disagree and assert that the duty to promote a political viewpoint trumps all else, and they are free to take that position, but I disagree with it. Whether Springsteen puts his money where his mouth is, is up for debate. There are times when he pushes it, but he always reigns it back in. He and Landau can be crafty and savvy -- they aren't prepared to completely torpedo his career for the sake of being a musical political hack.
Re Mike M : Welcome , not meaning to say got you, lol , just Sinatra is my all time favorite voice so I've always been amazed at scope of his career. Maybe Tony Bennett has recorded in each decade as well? He had that resurgence with Unplugged in 90's(?) and continued on.
I don't entirely disagree, but I would add that the image wasn't just created organically. Springsteen and Landau played their part. And while Springsteen seems ambivalent about it, and perhaps tortured by it to some degree, he has never completely shied away from it either. I think he recognizes the commercial and artistic value in having that association.
For any Roman Catholics out there, imagine going to the Confessional every day at the same time for over a year and reciting the same sins to the priest. The. Same. Sins. Bruce is a unique individual.
He created it and dressed the part for decades (still does although the clothes got expensive) and continued to write about those subjects and as far as I know never dispelled it. But correct many fans believed it to be completely true and never let go of that.
Yep, the blindly-devoted have bought into every story and every word. It is deep hero-worship; they live vicariously through Springsteen. They want to dress like him, vote like him, act like him, and live like him. They don't really know the man, but the perception is enough.
I had a friend who swore off Springsteen after he hit the stump for John Kerry in 2004, doing that Vote for Change tour and then personally doing a set of songs on Kerry's behalf at some pre-election day event. He was clear that it wasn't about Springsteen's politics that was the problem. He had always known that Springsteen held political ideas that often were at odds with his own, and he was fine with that. It was because he felt a personal connection to those songs in a way that few other artists were even capable of creating for their listeners, and now Springsteen was weaponizing them against him. ("Oh, so 'No Surrender' is about not giving an inch to Republicans like me?") I wonder if Bruce felt a real backlash about finally coming out on behalf of his political party affiliations in this manner? Part of me suspects he did, especially after none of his politicking seemed to make much difference in 2004. A lot of the audience left and was threatening to never come back. I suspect liberalizing his setlists in the way he did shortly thereafter was a way to try to lure people back to the fold. Even my friend who swore off Springsteen was tempted by some of those amazing setlists.
I can think of a few others - Neil Young, Van Morrison, Richard Thompson....I would have included Tom Waits but he has apparently retired from music, or at least has gone very silent for most of the past decade. None of them, however, ever attained Springsteen's broad popularity.
I've said a million times that Bruce's political views don't anger or alarm me. I accept what he is. Like me, Bruce is free . What does bother me--and it also surprises me--is that Bruce allows himself to be associated with specific politicians. To me, that makes whatever that person ( as president or whatever) does ---boomerang on Bruce. If they get us into a war, it's on Bruce. If we go into a Depression or Recession, Bruce owns it too. That's why it surprises me that he would allow himself to be bought by specific campaigns. Because to me, that's also a form of sponsorship. And Bruce was always lauded for not selling out his music or his image.
Oh, I think he believes it. He has thousands of deep fans that appear to be very influenced by what he says (the hero-worship crowd), and as a guy who increasingly has gotten more bold with his public political discourse, he thinks he has some sort of obligation to spread the word of the left. I don't think he is going through the motions. Writing op-eds in the New York Times, campaigning for presidents, riding in Air Force One, pontificating about politics on late-night television, socializing with Obama etc. means something to him. That said, like nearly every other fellow celebrity, it is doubtful if any of his parading around as a campaigner and loud political voice has ever swayed an election. The whole thing is absurd.
I mean, he deliberately took on the role of sort of bard of the white working class with Darkness, but to a substantial degree he moved on from that after Born in the USA. The earlier material maybe spoke to the dreams of freedom or a better or at least a cooler life for a generation of suburban white kids. But he moved on from that too. But you know, in the minds of fans and in the popular imagination, popular performing artists don't really move on (or they get excoriated for moving on). To some part of their audience, and to many people beyond their audiences, Dylan will always be a voice of his generation protest singer, Taylor Swift will always be a teenaged writer of break up and romantic longing songs, no matter what else they've done, or for how long they've done other things. And Bruce Springsteen will always been the bard of the white working class.
I differ with you only in that I don't think he's winning anyone over with his beliefs. What I mean is, if a fan already agrees with Bruce on the issues, his sharing those beliefs might confirm to them that what they believe is "good." Putting his imprimatur on a candidate might make them extra eager to join Bruce in voting for their candidate. But if you don't agree with Bruce--or you no longer do--his endorsement doesn't mean a thing.
I said that the public perception of who he is as a person is largely correct. I said nothing about his viewpoints, beliefs, or politics. My point is that I don't think his so-called "everyman" persona is the act he now claims it has been. I think it has mostly been an accurate assessment of him, aside from the money and fame and the other components of his life that clearly separate him from 99% of the rest. Oh sure, everybody goes through phases in their life and Springsteen is no different. We all want to present the best version of ourselves to others. Springsteen is no different. However, the notion that everything he has done since first entering the public eye has been a sham or fraud designed to mislead and misdirect is pretty laughable on its face and I'm surprised that so many long-time observers have seemingly fallen for it. Now, if we were talking about Bob Dylan, I'd say it might be fairly accurate. With Springsteen though, setting aside things like stage costuming and performance, I think it's mostly been a case of what you see is what he is. Discussions such as this are circular and ineffectual absent specific examples. Since we can't really go there in this venue, I'll just say that there are differences between opinions that are conjured from unfounded beliefs and biases and opinions that are grounded in data, information, and history. Those that fall into the former category may justifiably be deemed "incorrect". Not everything in the world is grey or the output of "narrative".
I'm not sure that's quantitatively true. It's not like the guy has gone back to performing clubs or even 3K seat venues because he can't sell out sports arenas. Album sales are down, but so are everybody's except Adele's, and we'll see what happens with her's if she ever puts another one out. He never had another Born in the USA, but you know, Fleetwood Mac never had another Rumors either, the Bee Gees never had another Saturday Night Fever. I have no doubt some of the audience felt that way, but I'm not so sure it was "a lot," on any kind of percentage basis.
W Yes, but was Bruce ever really the bard of the white working class? Or was he the chattering classes idea of what a bard for the white working class should be? Most of the guys i grew up with who could be described as white working class-or blue collar--listened to heavy metal or hard rock, not Bruce. Dylan--to his credit I believe--got this in 1963. Bruce never did get it--or he's cool with it.
He's not alone in entertainment coming across intentionally or unintentionally that it's his job to educate the masses. However he was more subtle in the past, perhaps he reached a certain level of success and age that reaction simply didn't matter much to him anymore. I'm not sure if it was after Vote for Change tour or what but I seem to recall Steve Van Zandt talking about not alienating the whole other side of his base. There was much talk of a backlash, and the promises by fans of no more shows but how many stuck to it is impossible to gage. We should probably avoid controversy and wait for Zoom to move to WOAD.
It's not an "act" on Bruce's part. He is nothing if not sincere. I just think he's unaware--or doesn't care--how his sincerity plays out with many people.
If sincere, then he must be naive. It's difficult imagining otherwise. Maybe it's his ego. I don't know.
