Awesome brother! Awesome, brother!

Tickets still aren't for sale here yet, or even any info about when they will be on sale.

Sigh, that wasn't very grammatical was it?

I haven't heard what the set list is going to be, but there's a bunch of songs I'm hoping to hear: "Candy's Room" "Thunder Road" "Darkness On The Edge Of Town.."

Plus it's the E Street Band, with both Steve and Nils, so it'll be old-school.

I'd like to have seen the dates he did in Ireland. I prefer his stripped-down, rootsy, trad stuff more than the E Street stuff.

Wooo woo! That'll be fun, jonmc.

I like his acoustic stuff, but I don't think his heart is in that as much as the straight up band sound. He was a rocker, not some fucking folkie. John Hammond and Mike Appel tried to make him into some sob-sister singer/songwriter on the first two albums (and listen to the live versions of songs from them and you'll see that they transform into far superior rock and roll versions) and it wasn't until "Rosalita" and Born To Run that he finally fully realized his potential. His affinity for some country and blues material notwithstanding (I hate the term 'folk music.' it's misleading and patronizing, IMO) his roots are in Elvis, electric Dylan, the Phil Spector canon and Gary US Bonds, not strummy stuff.

He's certainly been doing a LOT of strummy stuff recently.

I didn't say he never did acoustic oriented stuff (and trust me, I'm way more familiar with the country, blues and gospel canons than most), but he generally selects songs that could be called paleo-rock and roll. And by all reports, the new album is a return to the Jersey Shore sound.

I ain't tryin' to put words in your mouth... just sayin' he's been on a pretty 'folky' kick since 2006.

When I saw him I think he played for like 20 hours straight until my butt was numb. Crazy. I agree with what Chuck Darwin said, he seems more strummy lately.

Have a great time, jonmc. :)

just sayin' he's been on a pretty 'folky' kick since 2006.

'Folky' in the Hank Williams sense, maybe. But even in his performances of traditional material, it's filtered through a rock perspective.His earliest inspiration was Elvis, not Woody Guthrie.

I agree with what Chuck Darwin said, he seems more strummy lately.

Like I said, by all reports, the new album and tour is a return to the old-school Jersey Shore rock sound.

I'd love to see Springsteen live but I just can't afford it at the moment. Hopefully the new album will be cool.

It'd be fab if he did Growin' Up. And Backstreets is just awesome. I saw him on the Tunnel of Love tour, but the acoustics were horrendous, which they tried to correct for by turning up the volume. Probably the only concert I've ever been to where the horns were so loud I couldn't even tell what note they were playing. I really liked that album, too.

Have fun, jon!

He better damn well do this one. (watch that and tell me the Boss is anything other than a rock and roller at heart).

(I also hope that the Uptown Horns join him for the NYC shows)

I hope he does a cover of "Hand in Glove" or "Boys Don't Cry" just for you, jonmc.

Heh, heh; I'm gonna Muttley-laugh all day long over that one.

I really, really want to see The Boss in London on 19 December but it's sold out, it's been a horribly expensive month so I couldn't buy a ticket when they went on sale and the cheapest tickets I can find at the online scalpers start at £165.

Waaaahhh!!!

as a musician, he lost me with Brilliant Disguise. and I've never really bought the man of the people persona anyway. but the old stuff is seriously badass, and he looked cool before he went to live in L.A.

jan, save that cash, you'd regret it. go to Wigmore Hall, and catch Kozena in Cerentola instead -- in two nights, you'll spend a fifth than what it'd cost you to see Springsteen

Cenerentola, obviously

I was lucky enough to see him at the Roxy on the Strip, just after Born to Run came out. I had very little familiarity with his stuff but I enjoyed it a lot, I think (I was on quaaludes at the time).

matteo: he moved back to Jersey, actually. and 'Brilliant Disguise' grows on you.

I've never really bought the man of the people persona anyway

I don't really believe it's a persona. I think he's sincere. Think about it: lives in New Jersey, avoids the celebrity scene, does tons of benefit shows. I believe he's for real. If nothing else, his music has gotten me through some dark periods.

(although some of the 'Saint Bruce' hype that surrounds him can get out of hand, and FWIW, he seems a little skittish about it, too, as the story in this article illustrates.)

and 'Brilliant Disguise' grows on you.

I don't know, it's been 20 years already, that's a pretty slow growth.

HAVE AN E STREET BALL , BIG GUY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Heh. Joe, I still think someone should photoshop the two of us into this:

≡ Click to see image ≡

matteo: well, not every song is for everybody. and he's done good stuff since: "Spare Parts," "Streets Of Philadelphia," "It's Been A Long Time." and quite frankly, I'm just glad he exists.

Radio Nowhere isn't so much "strummy" as it is "867-5309 (Jenny)"-licious. Which may or may not be a good thing. Me, I liked it a lot the first time I played it, but my enjoyment has dropped off with each subsequent play. No idea what the rest of the album is like.

Aw, really, jonmc, you like "Streets of Philadelphia?" I feel like he's asleep at the wheel. His songs rise and fall nicely, like the chest of someone in a deep sleep. But he misplaced his inventiveness, and now doesn't even imitate his old self; all I can say is that he used to write great music.

It's like Bruce was a spaz in his youth and has learned to sublimate that spazziness in order to find an audience, or maybe he's just mellowed with age, but I agree with matteo on the newer stuff, it's anodyne.

It's great if you dig lyrics, but as far as I'm concerned, he might as well have put out books of poetry instead, because the music just isn't there.

Then again, I'm the sort who likes Mad Dog on drums, so take my tastes with a grain of salt.

"Streets oF Philadelphia" is a good song musically, but I like it even more for the message it sent about Bruce, rock and roll and America's attempts to come to terms with the gay community and AIDS, and that was a courageous thing.

"Mad Dog" Lopez can be a gas to listen to, but he's also all over the place, post-Wild & Innocent, the E Street Band needed somebody tighter and Max Weinberg fit the bill.

I'm having a moment here (no, not an "in my pants" moment, you pervs) where I'm once again rediscovering the truth to the idea that not only do folks like all sorts of different music, but they have different criteria for liking all sorts of different music, and different reasons for those criteria, and so on. I'd never in a million years describe "Streets" as a good song musically, but I think it's awesome that someone whose tastes I love and whose opinion I value actually likes the most boring song in the Springsteen catalog; not only that, but he likes it for the message! I'm saying this with real fondness and I doubt you'll take it the wrong way; it's just like when I sell short Billy Joel or when you sell short Steve Stevens.

I'd say Mad Dog's a gas because he's all over the place, and that history shows that they got someone tighter, whether they needed him or not. Of course, the proof's in the pudding and Born to Run is his best ever, but I still dig Bruce from when he and the band had jive oozing from their sneakers.

No doubt, Johnny Mac!

I like "Streets" for the classic Hip Hop-ish beat AND the lyrics.

And somebody PLEASE photoshop that pic!

Wuddup, Big Sam?!

have fun anyway giovanni

'Zzup, Brother Joe? I've got another EP for you. How ya getting around?

Just to be on-topic, I should reiterate that I'm jealous of jonmc's tix and that I miss hanging on the roof with him and the incomparable Pips. Sure, I should take this type of thing to email, but when have I ever?

Love,

Big Sam

I just PANICKED. Did I miss the ticket sale? Ohgod ohgod ohgod.

OK. Whew. Not on sale for Boston until 9/22. I'm also hoping to get rehearsal show tickets for Convention Hall in Asbury, if my mom remembers.

About anodyne - Bruce has modes. He is very specific about the structure of his projects - he does meditative solo things (always has; Nebraska, Tom Joad, Devils & Dust) and loud band explosions (all the classic records, The Rising) and then special projects, like the Seeger Sessions. I think of him in the same way I might think of a writer who sometimes writes personal essays, sometimes writes novels, and sometimes writes poetry - like a John Irving, for instance. He's so far beyond the bounds of your basic rock musician that I no longer expect his new album to sound like his last album - it's a question of what idiom this next album will fall into. I'm excited that this one sounds like a classic, brassy E-Street scamper.

Yay to this -- Landau's comment in the Rolling Stone article:

there are a few more pop, romantic touches that haven’t shown up recently
I'm going to interpret that as the sound from The Wild, The Innocent... that I love so much, what you really hear on Incident on 57th Street and Rosalita. That's what I hope he means, anyway.

I don't really believe it's a persona.

It's definitely not a persona.

[Obviously I'm still digesting the thread, because I skipped to the bottom and started posting while frantically searching in another window to see whether I'd missed the ticket sale date].

A woman I worked with went to that rice diet program at Duke with Clarence Clemmons sometime in the late '90s. She said he invited her out to hear him play at a local club, but she turned him down b/c it was raining. W.T.F??????.

Is it so strange to be a really big fan of someone, to have heard most everything he's recorded, and not like all of it?

On the contrary, I think it'd be strange if it were any other way.

I don't like all of Bruce's stuff, either - nor do I like all the work of all my favorite visual artists, or all the novels of my favorite writers. So, no, it's not strange.

When an artist of any kind is truly great, they usually do two things: they experiment (reach, challenge themselves, explore new directions), and they are prolific (they work hard at what they do, and they produce a large body of work). Given those two elements of a great artistic career, it would be miraculous if everything they produced met their entire audience's highest criteria.

I don't like all of Bruce's stuff, either - nor do I like all the work of all my favorite visual artists, or all the novels of my favorite writers. So, no, it's not strange.

When an artist of any kind is truly great, they usually do two things: they experiment (reach, challenge themselves, explore new directions), and they are prolific (they work hard at what they do, and they produce a large body of work). Given those two elements of a great artistic career, it would be miraculous if everything they produced met their entire audience's highest criteria.

I have this perception of the Boss' career that jibes entirely with what I like, and while as always exceptions abound, it follows a pattern that I see in my appreciation for, among other US American greats, Tom Petty.

I liked Bruce until he started pursuing new idioms -- basically everything up to Nebraska (and I'd love, for the sake of keeping this logic intact, not to include Nebraska in this, because it flies in the face of what I'm saying, but my love of Nebraska has very different roots from my love for Springsteen). I don't feel like these forays into different idioms are something he's always done; on the contrary, Nebraska was his first search for a new idiom in which to express himself (an idiom I had previously identified as "Bruce Springsteen"); I liked the old idiom and, by and large, I haven't liked the new idiom, in which he's tried to grow as an artist by trying on what I see as other people's hats.

I feel the same way about Tom Petty. With the exception of the beautiful Wildflowers (which I think of like Nebraska -- my mind boggles to think that I like something so unlike what I liked about the artist I knew and loved, but it's beautiful, so I like it), everything from Full Moon Fever on (inclusive) is a drag. In Petty's case, it was hooking up with a new producer, but it's telling that I own almost all of his albums and listen only to the pre-freefall ones (Wildflowers excepted).

Anyway, that's how I feel; it's not a lack of knowledge or appreciation that fuels my feelings, but the opposite. I appreciate, like everyone, specific things in music, and even more specific things about certain artists, and when they fall short or go in different directions, and I don't like it, they fail my appreciation.

I wish I could see Bruce, tho.

and I'd love, for the sake of keeping this logic intact, not to include Nebraska in this, because it flies in the face of what I'm saying, but my love of Nebraska has very different roots from my love for Springsteen).

I dunno, man. What separated Bruce from your usual Bob Dylan wannabe on that album is that he wasn't singing about a mythical Woody Guthrie past or spewing stale rhetoric, just singing aboutt the world he saw. "Atlantic City" couldn't have been written by anybody else.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

(Nebraska is the model but not the mold for his later idiomatic forays; where Nebraska succeeds, most of the rest of his latter-day stuff fails, for my buck).

Or, that's not what I'm saying at all.

(The comparison with usual Dylan wannabes isn't mine, nor is the idea that Atlantic City could've been written by anyone else).

In short, even with knowledge and appreciation, tastes differ.

I don't feel like these forays into different idioms are something he's always done;

But there was never anything Bruce has "always done." As jonmc mentioned, his first two albums were distinctly stripped-down and Dylanesque. The jazz/soul influences and large-band sound of Born to Run marked it as a total departure (and a lot of fans don't like what Jon Landau did with the Boss in terms of re-crafting his image after that album, instructing him to leave behind the complex song structures and jazzier sound for more straight-ahead, American rock-and-roll forms.) "Darkness" was considered a new, dark and broody sound for him when it came out. "The River" was more stripped-down than anything he'd done before. "Born in the USA" was considered another departure, and highly pop-influenced.

I think when you think about what Bruce has "always done," there's a flattening that happens because we're looking backward over a long career, and it seems as though everything he did before 1984 was "always there," the same. But each album marked an evolution of sound, and each gained and lost him some fans. His fans still spend an outRAGeous amount of time debating which albums/eras/idioms of Bruce are "best" -- which is one of the reasons he can be so enduring, and such a favorite of so many people. He's varied.

(The comparison with usual Dylan wannabes isn't mine, nor is the idea that Atlantic City could've been written by anyone else).

Well, it's a testament to Bruce's perception and integrity that he realized that the spiritual descendants of the people in Woody Guthrie and Jimmie Rodgers' songs were the people in 'Atlantic City.'

(and a lot of fans don't like what Jon Landau did with the Boss in terms of re-crafting his image after that album, instructing him to leave behind the complex song structures and jazzier sound for more straight-ahead, American rock-and-roll forms.)

Although, it really was a retrun to roots. Even in his early recordings, it's patently obvious that his roots were much more in rock and roll tahn in the James Taylor mould. What makes him special is that he can find the core of inspiration in any idiom.

See, I hear the jazz/soul in the earlier albums much more than in Born to Run, and I think Darkness is his most Dylanesque.

But there was never anything Bruce has "always done."

What about, say, meditative solo things, for example?

I'm just saying, in general, our views by their very nature ought to be different, and the more we like whatever art it is we like, the more likely our views, informed by the same facts and the same recordings, will be different. All this consensus opinion on the Boss has always mystified me.

I don't say which is "best." I say which I like best.

And jonmc, yeah, sure, I see where he's coming from (and where you're coming from), but as far as my ear is concerned, I'm only saying that Nebraska was the first sign that Bruce wanted to go sweet and low on us (at least for a whole record), and though I dislike most of his other stuff in that idiom, I really like Nebraska -- my tastes surprise even me sometimes.

But there was never anything Bruce has "always done."

What about, say, meditative solo things, for example?

It's one of the things he's done, but it seemed that you were suggesting he had always done one sort of thing, and then suddenly veered into stuff you don't like. When in fact he's modulated his whole career by moving around in several musical vocabularies.

All this consensus opinion on the Boss has always mystified me.

In general, it's amazing that there do indeed exist human beings of such undeniable talent that vast numbers of people are capable of agreeing on their mastery of their form and are touched by something in what they've done. He's one of these Shakespeares, and liking his work doesn't make anyone more or less cool.

If consensus doesn't sway you one way, why should it sway you the other? What's good is good, no need to be mystified. I'm not going to pass up a plate of barbecue just because I'm mystified that lot of people like it. Of course a lot of people like it. It's awesome.

Well, yes, he has always modulated his whole career by moving around in musical vocabularies, and yes, as a matter of fact, he suddenly veered into stuff I don't like. I think the main element that went missing was the E Street Band; maybe I like the music Bruce writes to play with old friends better than the stuff he writes to play with himself, or with new friends/session musicians.

Then again, I don't know a single Springsteen fan who has picked the same favorite Bruce song all his life. I guess there's so much there; who knows, maybe I'll start liking late Boss in a few years when I lose my brightness.

I didn't make myself very clear about the consensus opinion part; sometimes, knowing how easy it is to read rancor into my words, I make things vague. In this instance, my sense was lost. What I mean is, among fans who love Bruce Springsteen, it amazes me, with all these opinions and all these ways of listening, not merely that certain records are the best, but that there is agreement on how or why they're the best, or even what they sound like or were aiming for.

What I'm about to expound on isn't cut and dry, nor is it exactly a continuum, just some thoughts on how I hear music and how I think about it. Music lies somewhere between what the performer delivers and what the listener receives. That is to say, a musician has a personal musical history (influences plus stuff they heard today or years ago plus the way they hear non-music sounds minus music they don't like plus a whole heap of other cues) combined with a relationship with a personal muse (for lack of a better word; I mean that which is innate and which the performer pursues, resulting in art), and a listener has a personal musical history and a pair of ears and an innate relationship with sound and music that is unique.

So music is performed, and a musician puts a combination of things into it, and music is heard, and the listener takes a combination of things out of it, and those things are usually different. So if a musician says he's offering a paean to Bob Dylan, plays a song, and a listener hears Fela Kuti, clearly the musician isn't wrong in her intent, nor is the listener wrong in his comprehension. The music lies between intent and reception.

Lots of ink is spilled to tell me what something sounds like, or who a musician's influences are; it all exists to tell me how to listen to the music, and its aim is to expand my personal musical history to a point where I might hear more of what the artist brings to the music. But if that information is meant to dispel my own ears' interpretation of a song and replace it with the artist's (or as is more often the case, the writer's), then I think that does me a disservice: ultimately I am far more important to my own ears than even the Boss. It ultimately boils down to it being art, and to there being a tension between the listener and the creator.

And then there are factors that artists don't consider when figuring out how their songs came about. Bruce Springsteen probably wouldn't admit offhand that "Happy Birthday to You" is one of his favorite songs (and if he has, it has no bearing on this illustration), but it is, and there are elements of "Happy Birthday" in much of his best work. The ringing of a telephone, followed by the honk of a bus horn, followed by two bars from a Smokey Robinson song heard on the radio might be the genesis for "Kitty's Back," but the story the artist tells might be more focused on his own musical history, or what makes him sound cool in a magazine, or on the birth of his son, who's in the room for the interview, playing with crayons.

So what I meant is, with all these different interpretations constantly at work, and with the possibility or probability that many are false trails, purposeful or not, it baffles me when people, all fans, say that this song is considered this, or that song is considered that; sure, we all like it, but isn't there a more useful (or truthful) way of talking about music than about what it's widely considered to be, since even if two people agree on what something sounds like, their interpretations of the chain of circumstances that lead to these like sounds is partially or wholly different?

It's a testament to Bruce Springsteen's skill that, as his listeners' perception of his music changes over time, they still find songs within his catalog that really touch them. It's the music that touches them, somewhere between Bruce's intent and their ears; when I say I'm puzzled, I don't mean I'm confounded that so many people like his music, I mean that I can't figure out who decides how his music is received, and why their interpretation is correct, and, if it's a consensus (as people like it to be) as to what's best, or even what's dark, jazzy/soulful, poppy, stripped down, etc. Because it sounds to me like a cross between Fela Kuti and "Happy Birthday to You."

I guess what I'm saying is, mileage varies, but I find it useful to talk about that variance, and to give my mileage as it is on my odometer. Talking about the mileage numbers in the dealer's guide or Consumer reports is useful for the odd benchmark measure, but it's far more interesting and instructive to hear what's on others' odometers. Then, when we talk about the driving experience, we learn where one another are coming from; that's communication.

Yours is just the latest in a long series of considerations. If you found that many people of similar musical education agreed with you, you'd be forming a broadly accepted opinion. If you found that your opnion was so broadly accepted as to be a majority opinion, we could sloppily say that your opinion was the one 'considered to be,' as I did above. The 'by whom' it's considered is implied - what's implied is that there is broad and perhaps even dominant consensus, but certainly not that that is the only valuable opinion.

Of course I could been more clear, and said "considered by some to be" or "considered by most major rock historians to be" or "considered by the majority of hardcore fans to be" or some other such qualification, and then I'd have to define the class of people I'm including in "hardcore fans" or "major music journalists." You could carry this on until each class was splintered out to individuals. That would be a world of nightmare for musicians, who need to be heard and enjoyed by more than single individuals in order to have musical careers.

While you're correct about some of the dynamic between creation and reception, that doesn't obliterate the fact that large clusters of people are often able to agree on the general goodness of something, particularly when those people share similar backgrounds of musical knowledge and exposure. But even within those clusters, once central points are agreed on ("Bruce Springsteen is good") the debate simply moves to finer points: which of Bruce's albums is the best, which song on the best album is the best song, which live bootleg of the best song is the best, which recording of the best bootleg of the best song is the best, and so forth. De gustibus non disputandum est.

So while taste can be highly individual, I'd still say that human beings are far more predictable and alike than unique and different. There are some works that are appreciated and understood by large numbers of people, whether because of culture and training or because of the material the artist is delivering or, most likely, a happy conjunction of the two, in a balance of familiarity and innovation. And a few people whose opinions are powerful, well articulated, and supported by evidence will often garner the support of the many. So critics, reviewers, parents, respected friends, professors, pop culture writers, and many others all influence our taste and direct our attention. The strongest, most unassailable opinions float, over time. But people will always debate over matters of taste, and the debate can be continually renewed.

When I talk about how Bruce's music was evaluated in the past, I'm generally talking about how it was received and written about by mainstream popular music journalists. But I'm also very aware of the finely honed and somewhat obsessive opinions of these fans. I've been a member of this forum for more than five years, and of course grew up in his backyard, almost literally, where his work is under constant discussion, to the point where I have developed a pretty good grasp of Bruce's critical and fan reception over the course of his career. So I'm really talking about history, and using documentary evidence of critical and fan reception to discuss past responses to his music. I'm not talking about some vague 'considerer,' but an aggregate of written opinion past.

As to "Happy Birthday", the similarity holds only to the extent that "Happy Birthday" is a distilled version of the basic Western pop song. The pitch, meter, intervals, range, and simplicity are as dependent upon and predictive of American musical tradition as Johnny B. Goode. You might as well say it sounds like "Yankee Doodle" -- some of it does, and like other traditional tunes and folk songs. HB isn't a traditional song (in fact, it's under copyright), but it draws on the same musical ideas that a lot of Bruce's major-key tunes do, too. But you could say the same for just about anything in the entire spectrum of American major-key pop.

Talking about the mileage numbers in the dealer's guide or Consumer reports is useful for the odd benchmark measure, but it's far more interesting and instructive to hear what's on others' odometers.

This is where I kind of disagree with you. I don't find much value in a million discrete, individual experiences. I find value in overall patterns. I prefer going right to opinions from the most knowledgeable, epxerienced, and thoughtful sources, because my time is limted in this life.

We can't wade through endless data, and though we like to think we trust our own ears, in fact, the vast, vast majority of music we listen to makes it to our ears only because of the intervention of arbiters of taste - promoters, DJs, friends, club bookers, festival organizers, record labels, other bands setting up a lineup, websites, magazines, and so on and so forth. We hear things because of the filters - so unless you know the music makers personally, someone else chose them from a larger list of options before you did, and brought them to your attention. And thus the considering begins.

GOD dammmit why can't I remember to italicize my quotes? Why why? Sorry.

But you could say the same for just about anything in the entire spectrum of American major-key pop.

Exactly, but most people don't say so, even the cognoscenti, particularly if they're giving an interview or trying to promote a record.

It's like on that show "Power of 10" where the people have to predict what percentage of the surveyed Americans answered a question in a certain way: you won't win if you don't take into account lying and ignorance and vanity, which all affect how someone answers a question. Most musicians refrain from telling us when they rip things off consciously, not to mention unconsciously. We're all unreliable narrators.

I find myself agreeing with everything you say, though, in part because I don't think it really contradicts or corrects what I'm saying here, and in part because you're clearly right. Since music is about taste, and I think taste is informed by so much, I think the whole framework we listen with can be stacked with contradictions without any dissonance. I tend to expand "no accounting for taste" to "no accounting for the germ, the loam, the furrow, and the fruit of taste, plus all the rain and shine and the trip to market, of course, and anything not mentioned, too." There's just no accounting.

Maybe it's because I spend all day clustering and grouping sums of money and I just want to set everything not work-related free, and see an end to all accounting.

It's hard to discuss anything as enormous as music (or art, or dance, or dwellings, or food, and so on...) without imposing some categorical or hierarchical thinking and without referencing some widely agreed-upon standards. I am sure I mainly agree with you too.