The May 22, 19741 issue of Boston's The Real Paper carried an article by Jon Landau (soon to be Springsteen's manager) who famously wrote: "I saw rock and roll future, and its name is Bruce Springsteen. And on a night when I needed to feel young, he made me feel like I was hearing music for the very first time."
Now don't get me wrong, Bruce Springsteen is cool. He seems like a great guy and his songs are neat. But I don't understand what it is about the E-Street band's sound that ever could have made anyone write those sentences. Perhaps in 1974 as mainstream rock ballooned into an arena-sized monstrosity, Springsteen's intimate and simple classicism and his romantic throwback style really meant something (And to be fair, I've seen footage of the guy from his Born to Run days. The Boss has nearly unrivaled stage presence and the dude could, can, rock). He was a breath of fresh, North Jersey air. But Landau's words are those of a man in love.
Outside of the The Stone Pony in Asbury Park, Springsteen's music does not sound like the future, and it's hard to believe it ever did. Springsteen's thing has always been amped-up traditional roots rock teamed with sprawling, blue collar poetry, the delivery of which always seemed to me to be cribbed from Bob Dylan (who cribbed it from Woody Guthrie). He told neat stories, but he wasn't writing literature. The man didn't do anything to (to borrow a basketball cliche) change the game of rock. Instead he was a perfect blend of all that had come before him. He was the end result of conventional American rock (soon to be made obsolete by the birth of the New York punk rock scene in 1976).
Since that time Springsteen's music career was kick started by a rock critic, other bands have come along that have dabbled in Boss-isms -- Big guitar rock with wordy, rambling lyrical paeans to blue collar life -- often to wide critical acclaim. The Replacements brought the style to punk rock in the '80s (though Paul Westerberg never seemed as literal or cliched as Springsteen). In the last few years bands like Brooklyn's The Hold Steady and The Gaslight Anthem of New Jersey.
Like Landau's original words of hosanna for Springsteen, the heaps of critical praise for The Gaslight Anthem puzzles me. There's nothing terrible about the young, tattooed band, led by singer/songwriter Brian Fallon. But there's nothing memorable. Like Springsteen, the band is a pastiche of conventional rock tropes. Fallon's blue collar lyrics owe much to Springsteen, but his performance and sound are a lot more like the Replacements. The Gaslight Anthem don't have a particularly "big" sound. The Hold Steady's guitars punch you in the ear. TGA sound fine, but they have the kind of sound you might find on a Cars album. All in all, TGA is a decent band, but unremarkable in almost every way.
So why the universal love? The thing TGA and the Boss have in common is something I think they share with a lot of average rock critics: a belief that the road to salvation for a young man is often a good rock record, or maybe a Fender Telecaster. Both the Boss and TGA enjoy drama. There's a lot at stake for the protagonists of these songs. It's not enough for Springsteen or Fallon to be in love, bored, angry or just emotionally conflicted -- these guys sing cinematic scenes. Their songs have plots, character development, etc. While cool as lyrics, they don't hold their own. Like I said, they don't compare to literature. Rock really shouldn't be about lyrics. It's an emotional art to begin with. Good rock is all about the whole performance.
But these are the kind of stories that rock critics fall in love with and for which they often overlook the actual music. So enraptured are critics with the prose, and the supposed smarts of the guy delivering it, they don't realize that the words are papering over pretty standard, throw-back guitar rock. These guys aren't artists, they're romantics. And most critics are romantics as well. They love their own kind. When they, the critics that is, imagine themselves in another life, they see leather jackets and guitars. They want to be Springsteen, Hold Steady's Craig Finn or Fallon.
The result is a perpetual over inflation by rock critics of "artists" who are literally a couple years of guitar lessons ahead of them -- they're guitar-worshiping geeks promoting themselves. They're not great musicians and they're not great poets.The Boss and TGA are not bad at all. In fact they are just fine. But they are not geniuses or voices of our, or any other, generation. They're above average bands who deserved to get out of the bar to a bigger audience, but they are not the Beatles, or R.E.M., Radiohead or even Modest Mouse, though critics will continue to swoon over their wordy words and blue-collar rock guy posturing. They're just romantic rock acts that have managed to make rock critics fall in love like teenage girls.
Not, I guess, that there's anything wrong with that...
Footnote
1. By coincidence, this is the exact date of my birth, meaning I am exactly the same age as the rise of The Boss.
So I'm sure, despite being a busy man, you have likely been waiting for my response since this involves springsteen - a lifelong love of mine.
ReplyDeleteI can't really speak to Gaslight as I haven't listened to much of their music - but in terms of rock critics swooning - that has been a pet peeve of mine for years and part of the reason why I stopped reading Rolling Stone altogether years ago. Rock Critics who give 5 stars to anything they listen to. Are there artists deserving of those 5 stars? of course. But when they no longer give out a single negative review of anything, how can their word be trusted? It can't be. I know I'm sick of seeing a critic being afraid to say something sucks ass.
Now I love Springsteen, I'm not going to pretend like I'm unbiased here. Pete I do agree with a lot of what you have to say. Springsteen is an romantic at heart; I think the thing that you are missing though is he's never claimed to be anything else. It'd be one thing if he was walking around claiming to be the second coming or a hendrix/satriani guitar genius. He's even said in many interviews that he knew he wasn't a great guitar player, so he knew he'd have to be good at something else - writing. I think many of his fans don't care that he's not an amazing player, or that Little Steven does very little on stage, because Bruce is who he is. He has never claimed to be anyone else. and in many ways I think his lyrics can be compared to literature. They are well written stories of real lives. There are border patrol battles, there are people with "bills no honest man can pay" there are many people struggling and still finding "reasons to believe". Granted I realize that much of it can seem over the top and grandiose, but having struggled to make ends meet myself, having music that is relatable can be a sense of comfort. Easing feelings of total hopelessness. To me Bruce has always represented hope - a revivial of the human spirit. and admittedly I'm a romantic at heart myself in love with the ideas and dreams he presents.
Unlike the rock critics, I will tell you that Springsteen has plenty of songs that suck. I won't try and tell you he can do no wrong, like some rock critics would say. I always used to tell musician friends, you can't always have a winner. Bruce is no exception. Neither is Snow Patrol, Modest Mouse, Radiohead, and any other band in which the media outlets have showered with praise.
Music can be a backdrop to a good time, or it can elevate you and drag you in. His songs are relatable. and for many people, hearing a song about how the local plant shut down, you can't pay your bills and all you wanna do is survive one more friday night is a comfort. I know that when going through my divorce, many of his songs were a source of comfort to me in that he was able to verbalize what I was feeling at the time. People want music to be romantic, relatable and sound good. Music to many isn't about the musicianship so much. It should be, but let's be honest - most people can't even point out a wrong note much less who is playing bass and who is playing keys. I can tell when a guitarist is terrible. I can tell when the drummer sucks. I can tell when the singer is off key. But there are many times when I love the lyrics more than I love the music. Words matter. To hear The Who sing "Won't get fooled again" or Snow Patrol sing "Crack the shutters open wide I wanna bathe you in the light of day" - those words mean something and typically take root in your brain and start a story. and as you said yourself, good rock is about the whole performance. It's not one or the other, it's both.
Yeah, Like I said, the Boss is cool. I just think he's overrated, though I cringe at nearly every use of that term. I think Springsteen has what Van Morrison had -- the ability to convince the listener that he believes, really believes, what he's singing. Both men had the ability to absolutely convey to listeners that they had lived the lives of which they sang.
ReplyDeleteBut also, like Van, there's nothing about the Boss that was all that innovative... Neither guy did anything that hadn't been done already, and often better.
That doesn't make Van or Springsteen bad. It doesn't make them mediocre. They're both great performers.
Yes, I would agree with that - breaking new ground is not really either artists forte. Same goes for really for most career artists. I guess when springsteen did "Seeger Sessions" and "Ghost of Tom Joad" that would be the closest thing he had to real musical change or innovation. Some could say in the late 80's early 90"s when he did "Tunnel of Love" that was a complete 360 for him. Many fans were pissed (my mother included) that he didn't "rock" and sounded as if he sold out. However, now that I've decided to give that album a try, I realize it fits perfectly with his whole body of work and isn't as shitty as I once thought.
ReplyDeleteNow if you want to talk innovation, we could discuss David Bowie. There is a career artist way ahead of himself and his peers. I'm not a huge fan of his stuff, but I can appreciate the chances he's taken.