Talk about being in the right place, at the right time. Just because you write pop music, doesn't mean you're good. And, just because you're successful, does not mean you're good. Call me a class warrior, but I need to verbalize it. Bruce Springsteen is horrible.
First of all, he writes out of pure nostalgia. I say this because he had a choice after his very first record, one that I enjoy, "Thunder Road." His choice was this: make touching, heartfelt, honest songs about suburban life in New Jersey, about love, early adulthood, and a longing to rise above the mediocrity around him. It was sincere, rough, and beautiful.
But then, the 80s happened. And this is a hot point - did the 80s make Bruce the way he is, or did Bruce make Bruce the way he is? Our culture had an indelible shift once the 80s arrived, and people like Bruce were at the helm of hip and cool. Suburbia was finally reached out to as a target market, and as an accepted facet of American life, and so culture, sex, TV, and consumerism (most importantly) poured in in a most uncensored, blatant way. So Bruce Springsteen, with his headbands, ripped jeans, and baggy, torn-off dress shirts, became a sex symbol. He sang songs like "Dancing in the Dark," and if you compare the synthesizers and beats to his first record, the contrast is stark. He brought Courtney Cox on stage, and made himself appear desired by gorgeous woman. In point-of-fact, gorgeous woman indeed desired him, but that's beside the point.
So, Bruce wrote "Born in the USA." Tell me, reader, what is it about? It's not a patriotic song. It tricks you. Look up the lyrics. It laments the Vietnam War, and puts in to question what it means to be American. I don't have a problem with this, but I feel this is one of music's biggest misunderstandings. Bruce never bothered to mention this though, he just pounds his foot on the ground and looks at the crowd like "Yeah! Sing it OUT!" He let Ronald Regan use it as a campaign song until someone realized what it really meant. Some call that cool, some admire Bruce for it. I think he owed us all the respect to stand up for what he meant.
Everything from that point on, from "Dancing in the Dark," is crap. Crap, crap, crap. Tacky, gaudy, cliche, and generic. I think of his songs "Devils and Dust," "The Rising," and so on, and I think of how it's all the same. He tells the story of a young girl, young man, or someone, who is hard on his luck, and can't seem to find his way. Or, he tries to market 9/11 in a way that's neatly packaged and seemingly innocent. It's probably sincere on his part, and I don't think he's a bad person or maybe even a bad guitar player, but enough is enough.
This blog will sting many people around me who love Bruce, but I cannot find that something special in what he does.
For example, he recently has decided to become Bob Dylan. Singing poorly, stripped down, harmonica, tattered clothing, songs about Americana or those forgotten, showing people what a "naked" Bruce sounds like. But please. He is no Dylan. He can't hold a candle to Dylan. This guy is sitting up there, singing and playing, and people immediately think there's something magic going on. Bruce says he's sitting up there singing about the ones society does not reach out to, that he is their champion. Devils and dust? Devils and Dust? Here's the thing about that one little line:
A little trick songwriters do when writing. If you hear a line, something like devils and dust, in passing conversation, you hang onto it. A hook, it is called. Aliteration helps. Now, take that one line, and construct an entire song and meaning around it, so it sounds legit and deep and meaningful. But is it really? Of course not. It's writing from the outside in, instead of the inside out. Hooks arrive in songs, at least for me and those I respect, from the songs themselves. Verses and choruses meld together from a life experience, or from a learned idea, emotion, or concept. Devils and dust, while it sounds deeper, was probably the very first thing Mr. Springsteen had when writing that song. He then had to find a way to (this is a BIG thing here) "APPLY" the meaning to that phrase through the rest of his song. Do you see what I mean? It's fake, it's meant to apply meaning to something that sounds appealing to masses; its not his life or someone else's life or experiences. I could sit here and write songs literally all day if someone kept sending me hooks.
That last bit may be hard to understand if you aren't directly associated to music, but it's crucial to my point. I think this notion makes him phony, the way pop-punk bands are, the way The Eagles are. Think about it, what is "Hotel California" really about? There is no deep meaning. I assure you, the hook, like the proverbial cart, was placed ahead of the meaning, the proverbial horse. Look at a song like "Don't Think Twice, it's Alright" by Bob Dylan. The depth, the real and raw emotion, it's all there, and everyone knows it. No one questions what Dylan writes, because he lives it. The way Johnny Cash does. The way new-folkies like M. Ward, Damien Rice, or Jewel (pre-hip hop, "Pieces of You" phase) - these are the cohorts Springsteen would like to be held in regards with (except probably Jewel, just making a non-gendered case). He cannot hold a candle to Johnny Cash. Couldn't tie his shoes. It's so clear once you listen closely.
Listen to your pop records again, and tell me you don't agree. REMEMBER: Just because you write pop music, doesn't mean you're good. And, just because you're successful, does not mean you're good.
P.S. The Boss? Of who? Not me. And hopefully, not you.
No comments:
Post a Comment