I guess I'm in the looking for something 'familiar' side of this one. I never really thought of Bruce as being an 'innovator'. To me he's a rock and roller....that does some side projects on occasion. I never thought of the solo albums or the Seeger thing as breaking new ground or being innovative. Of course that doesn't make him any less great in my eyes.
He tackles each project head first and does what he does....and will hopefully keep doing it as long as he can. But when I think of a Rock and Roll innovator I think of someone like Les Paul....but that's just me.
I will answer this by saying I go for "That Feel.." as Tom Waits would describe it or maybe Keith Richards, Bob Dylan, or our buddies Bruce and Steve. That tidal wave of understanding that underwrites the best songs and in those shows, we took in over the last 40 years. Innovation is for new-fangled things. I go for the comfort of recognition. Those songs that find me at 4am. All those songs that inspire me and make me feel connected again.
Now don't you grow on empty legends, or lonely cradle songs
'Cause Billy the Kid was just a bowery boy who made a living twirlin' his guns
And the night she's long and lanky, and she speaks in a mother tongue
She lullabies the refugees with an amplifier's hum
So break me now big Mama as Old Faithful breaks the day
Believe me my sweet Linda, the help is on the way
The confederacy's in my name now, the hounds are held at bay
The axis needs a stronger arm, do you feel your muscles play
The confederacy's in my name now, the hounds are held at bay
The axis needs a stronger arm, do you feel your muscles play
Like
Unknown member
Sep 11, 2020
In general, I don't go to Bruce Springsteen for the kind of melodic invention that I look to a Paul McCartney or a Stevie Wonder for, and I don't go for the kind of musical ground-breaking that I look to a Miles Davis or Jimi Hendrix or vintage Brian Wilson or even early prog-rock for.
Broadly speaking, I look for a lyrical complexity matched to a musical accessibility. I don't really look for him to do something innovative, and I definitely don't want him to do something familiar. I think his best work comes when he more or less works within well-established territory and very simply does it better than almost anyone else ever has.
But if I had to pick, I guess I'd go for innovation, since (as I've said before) I think what he's done this century is almost unprecedented, in releasing material well after his 50th birthday that is very nearly as great as the masterpieces he released as a young (and/or youngish) man. I know others will have candidates, but for my money, only Bob Dylan has done that same thing as well.
(Johnny Cash is another obvious artist, and while I do think his last series of LPs was brilliant, I also think a vital difference is that on most of those albums, he only wrote about a third of the songs; that might not make a difference to anyone else, but it matters to me. Not enough that I don't love those albums, but enough that I do slot them slightly lower for the sake of this discussion.)
I’m a realist - I don’t, and nobody should, expect the new album to challenge the likes of Darkness, Tunnel or BITUSA. (Although, I didn’t expect to like Western Stars much, either, and I now think it’s up there with his best work.)
I’m just happy he’s still making music with the band - if its a solid album of E Street songs then I’ll be happy. I was so pleased to read yesterday about how great the recording experience was, so I’m already delighted - so long as they’re happy, healthy and playing music I’m easy!!
Like
Unknown member
Sep 11, 2020
Replying to
I’m a realist - I don’t, and nobody should, expect the new album to challenge the likes of Darkness, Tunnel or BITUSA. (Although, I didn’t expect to like Western Stars much, either, and I now think it’s up there with his best work.)
I think Magic, Wrecking Ball and Western Stars do all belong up there. So I feel like I'm being a realist by not so much expecting but at least hoping for another collection that can stand shoulder-to-shoulder with those earlier works. :)
I don’t like nostalgia. I didn’t see Bruce in the 70’s or 80’s and I’m ok with it. I have seen Bruce with the E Street Band a few times and I’d be ok with not seeing them again. I also have plenty of albums recorded with them and I can listen to them whenever I can.
Bruce took some risks in his career. He released a full band debut album after he’d been signed as a solo folk act, he took his time recording Born to Run to sound exactly the way he wanted, he released Nebraska after the world success of The River, ToL after BitUSA, he dismantled the E Street Band, he released a quiet folk album in the 90’s about immigrants, he took the stage alone playing multiple instruments and wildly different arrangements of old songs in 2005, he released an album and toured it playing old folk standards with a band, he released Western Stars. In the middle, he even had a hip hop influenced album in the 90s that never saw the light of day and I personally think would have been great.
Looking at that list, in my opinion, only 1 of those things produced a bad artistic outcome.
I love it when Bruce challenges me. I love it when Bruce doesn’t sound like Bruce and I love it when he produces something for its artistic value. No one can sound like 70’s Bruce (not even non-70’s Bruce) and that’s a good thing. I don’t want nostalgia and comfort, I want to be challenged and surprised.
A bit of both. I'm constantly listening to his songs that I've been playing over and over for years, and it feels nice to have that musician whose music you enjoy more than any other, and it's also nice to have not grown tired of these songs yet. Hopefully that feeling persists over the years.
That said, what I enjoy most about my fandom is listening to the ever-alternating live songs. Whether they're different vocally (e.g. "Born to Run" from 18/10/75 and 27/09/85) or different musically (e.g. "Atlantic City" from 20/08/84 and "Atlantic City" from 16/11/90). It's great to hear different takes on these songs, and while it might take a minute to get accustomed to new songs like "There Goes My Miracle" or "Letter To You" - some, like the former, take longer than others such as the latter - the process of listening and deciding what you like and don't like is, simply, fun.
I think this relates to more than the music too. I'd say things like The Book, From My Home to Yours and even the concept, and spoken interludes, of Springsteen on Broadway are quite innovative, but because it's Bruce Springsteen I'll happily read, listen and watch. They might feel odd diversions compared to the comfort of playing "Thunder Road", but you know Bruce Springsteen is going to be involved, so I can take comfort in these innovations.
I saw a RT today on Twitter of someone talking about how they decide whether they like/dislike a song. "I try to think would I like this if it wasn't Springsteen", and I'll admit I thought that myself during a listen on "Letter" yesterday. Honestly I can't say, for "Letter", "Miracle", "We Are Alive" or something like "Highway 29", but, again, because it's Bruce Springsteen I'm happy to take a chance on something new.
Like
Unknown member
Sep 11, 2020
Replying to
I saw a RT today on Twitter of someone talking about how they decide whether they like/dislike a song. "I try to think would I like this if it wasn't Springsteen", and I'll admit I thought that myself during a listen on "Letter" yesterday. Honestly I can't say, for "Letter", "Miracle", "We Are Alive" or something like "Highway 29", but, again, because it's Bruce Springsteen I'm happy to take a chance on something new.
That's a fantastic point. For some of his songs—"Hungry Heart," "One Step Up"—I'm quite confident I would still love them at least 99% as much.
But context is a huge thing for me, and it matters more as I get older (and older and older). So I'm more than okay with taking the fact that it's Bruce Springsteen into context. I mean, without that context, a song I absolutely love (even if it doesn't make my Top 100, probably) is "We Take Care of Our Own." But without context you'd probably assume it was just jingoistic piece of bullshit--and there's a good chance it would be. Context takes this straightforward banger into seething and defiant territory.
So the context of the guy who wrote "Blinded by the Light" and composed — or to my mind "composed" — "Galveston Bay" is also the guy that created the melodically opulent "There Goes My Miracle"? That extra context takes the song from a hey, I like this to a fuck yeah! in my head.
Completely agree with both of you on this - I like bob Dylan, but I can’t say I’m a super fan at all, so I just didn’t get that excited about his latest album that many are hailing as a classic.
I guess that’s it, though - we like Bruce’s music because we are fans. If I played a friend Letter then I have no doubt that they’d call it ordinary, but then they don’t understand the subtleties of the song (For example how unreal it is to hear that E Street sound we thought we may never hear again)
Interesting question. I think it's probably comfort. He's been my comfort blanket for 40 years and I expect that will continue until my time is up. Doesn't mean I can't appreciate new or different but I would more likely look elsewhere for innovation.
Songs. Songs that tell a story that will make me think, or feel, or both. Songs that will fill times when I am bored. Songs that will change my mood when my mood needs changing. Songs that will match my mood, when I need to explore that mood. Songs that can appeal to my intellect and songs that comfort my soul. Songs to dance to when I want to dance. Songs that will be of solace when the world feels wrong. But, most all I get hope from Bruce. Hope that I may not get from any other source at a particular time or in a particular place.
@Tom Joad I can get in some pretty dark moods and music is my medication. And comfort is the right word because I am comforted that a someone like Bruce is in this world when this world so desperately needs people like Bruce. As I see Trump on TV and the anger wells up in me I know with Bruce that America produces good men as well as bad ones.
I want a new concert on Donosti :)
I want Bruce, to quote Oasis, to Live Forever.
I need comfort and familiarity but i also benefit from something to think about - to keep me awake at 2am
I've been pondering this question a bit.
I guess I'm in the looking for something 'familiar' side of this one. I never really thought of Bruce as being an 'innovator'. To me he's a rock and roller....that does some side projects on occasion. I never thought of the solo albums or the Seeger thing as breaking new ground or being innovative. Of course that doesn't make him any less great in my eyes.
He tackles each project head first and does what he does....and will hopefully keep doing it as long as he can. But when I think of a Rock and Roll innovator I think of someone like Les Paul....but that's just me.
To quote the man himself - “to laugh a little, cry a little and dance a little”.
I will answer this by saying I go for "That Feel.." as Tom Waits would describe it or maybe Keith Richards, Bob Dylan, or our buddies Bruce and Steve. That tidal wave of understanding that underwrites the best songs and in those shows, we took in over the last 40 years. Innovation is for new-fangled things. I go for the comfort of recognition. Those songs that find me at 4am. All those songs that inspire me and make me feel connected again.
Now don't you grow on empty legends, or lonely cradle songs 'Cause Billy the Kid was just a bowery boy who made a living twirlin' his guns And the night she's long and lanky, and she speaks in a mother tongue She lullabies the refugees with an amplifier's hum So break me now big Mama as Old Faithful breaks the day Believe me my sweet Linda, the help is on the way The confederacy's in my name now, the hounds are held at bay The axis needs a stronger arm, do you feel your muscles play The confederacy's in my name now, the hounds are held at bay The axis needs a stronger arm, do you feel your muscles play
In general, I don't go to Bruce Springsteen for the kind of melodic invention that I look to a Paul McCartney or a Stevie Wonder for, and I don't go for the kind of musical ground-breaking that I look to a Miles Davis or Jimi Hendrix or vintage Brian Wilson or even early prog-rock for.
Broadly speaking, I look for a lyrical complexity matched to a musical accessibility. I don't really look for him to do something innovative, and I definitely don't want him to do something familiar. I think his best work comes when he more or less works within well-established territory and very simply does it better than almost anyone else ever has.
But if I had to pick, I guess I'd go for innovation, since (as I've said before) I think what he's done this century is almost unprecedented, in releasing material well after his 50th birthday that is very nearly as great as the masterpieces he released as a young (and/or youngish) man. I know others will have candidates, but for my money, only Bob Dylan has done that same thing as well.
(Johnny Cash is another obvious artist, and while I do think his last series of LPs was brilliant, I also think a vital difference is that on most of those albums, he only wrote about a third of the songs; that might not make a difference to anyone else, but it matters to me. Not enough that I don't love those albums, but enough that I do slot them slightly lower for the sake of this discussion.)
I’m a realist - I don’t, and nobody should, expect the new album to challenge the likes of Darkness, Tunnel or BITUSA. (Although, I didn’t expect to like Western Stars much, either, and I now think it’s up there with his best work.)
I’m just happy he’s still making music with the band - if its a solid album of E Street songs then I’ll be happy. I was so pleased to read yesterday about how great the recording experience was, so I’m already delighted - so long as they’re happy, healthy and playing music I’m easy!!
It's the never properly answered question of familiarity vs. novelty. With no option offered in between, I go for innovation.
It's the never properly answered question of familiarity vs. novelty. With no option offered between, I go for innovation.
I don’t like nostalgia. I didn’t see Bruce in the 70’s or 80’s and I’m ok with it. I have seen Bruce with the E Street Band a few times and I’d be ok with not seeing them again. I also have plenty of albums recorded with them and I can listen to them whenever I can.
Bruce took some risks in his career. He released a full band debut album after he’d been signed as a solo folk act, he took his time recording Born to Run to sound exactly the way he wanted, he released Nebraska after the world success of The River, ToL after BitUSA, he dismantled the E Street Band, he released a quiet folk album in the 90’s about immigrants, he took the stage alone playing multiple instruments and wildly different arrangements of old songs in 2005, he released an album and toured it playing old folk standards with a band, he released Western Stars. In the middle, he even had a hip hop influenced album in the 90s that never saw the light of day and I personally think would have been great.
Looking at that list, in my opinion, only 1 of those things produced a bad artistic outcome.
I love it when Bruce challenges me. I love it when Bruce doesn’t sound like Bruce and I love it when he produces something for its artistic value. No one can sound like 70’s Bruce (not even non-70’s Bruce) and that’s a good thing. I don’t want nostalgia and comfort, I want to be challenged and surprised.
A bit of both. I'm constantly listening to his songs that I've been playing over and over for years, and it feels nice to have that musician whose music you enjoy more than any other, and it's also nice to have not grown tired of these songs yet. Hopefully that feeling persists over the years.
That said, what I enjoy most about my fandom is listening to the ever-alternating live songs. Whether they're different vocally (e.g. "Born to Run" from 18/10/75 and 27/09/85) or different musically (e.g. "Atlantic City" from 20/08/84 and "Atlantic City" from 16/11/90). It's great to hear different takes on these songs, and while it might take a minute to get accustomed to new songs like "There Goes My Miracle" or "Letter To You" - some, like the former, take longer than others such as the latter - the process of listening and deciding what you like and don't like is, simply, fun.
I think this relates to more than the music too. I'd say things like The Book, From My Home to Yours and even the concept, and spoken interludes, of Springsteen on Broadway are quite innovative, but because it's Bruce Springsteen I'll happily read, listen and watch. They might feel odd diversions compared to the comfort of playing "Thunder Road", but you know Bruce Springsteen is going to be involved, so I can take comfort in these innovations.
I saw a RT today on Twitter of someone talking about how they decide whether they like/dislike a song. "I try to think would I like this if it wasn't Springsteen", and I'll admit I thought that myself during a listen on "Letter" yesterday. Honestly I can't say, for "Letter", "Miracle", "We Are Alive" or something like "Highway 29", but, again, because it's Bruce Springsteen I'm happy to take a chance on something new.
Interesting question. I think it's probably comfort. He's been my comfort blanket for 40 years and I expect that will continue until my time is up. Doesn't mean I can't appreciate new or different but I would more likely look elsewhere for innovation.
Songs. Songs that tell a story that will make me think, or feel, or both. Songs that will fill times when I am bored. Songs that will change my mood when my mood needs changing. Songs that will match my mood, when I need to explore that mood. Songs that can appeal to my intellect and songs that comfort my soul. Songs to dance to when I want to dance. Songs that will be of solace when the world feels wrong. But, most all I get hope from Bruce. Hope that I may not get from any other source at a particular time or in a particular place.