i hate bruce springsteen

biko

So much music has meaningless, nonsensical lyrics along the lines Oh Baby, touch my booty blah blah.
Bruce has lyrics that tell a story, and a great melody as well. Blue collar music.

edit-sounds like I'm fecking ancient

SligoBrewer

biko wrote: »

So much music has meaningless, nonsensical lyrics along the lines Oh Baby, touch my booty blah blah.
Bruce has lyrics that tell a story, and a great melody as well. Blue collar music.

edit-sounds like I'm fecking ancient

its ok..
us young 'uns loge bruce as well

JC 2K3

axer wrote: »

I disagree, its their image that is most important - thats what sells their cds not their musical, writing or vocal talent. Surprisingly I could go into a recording studio and make a record that sounds like I can sing very well! (obviously those who know me wouldn't believe it! )

Well, image and promotion is the main factor that sells CDs for any artist really.

I mean Bruce's "blue collar" image is undoubtably a big factor in selling his music. A bigger factor than his lyrics and apparent songwriting talent? Probably, but I don't know enough on the subject to comment.

(Of course, any artist I like who happens to have sold a lot of records probably did so because of how they were promoted by their record label rather than their talent. Doesn't mean they're not talented, just that CD sales mean nothing.)

dregin

SligoBrewer wrote: »

my advice, start with the greatest hits and them go through the collection in chronological order.

auto-biographical*

BaZmO*

axer wrote: »

I have a huge respect for artists like Bruce Springsteen who write their own songs - well written songs at that (none of that james blunt crap).

Oh the irony!

axer

BaZmO* wrote: »

Oh the irony!

BaZmO*

axer wrote: »

You're saying that you have huge respect for Da' Boss because he writes his own songs but then start criticising another artist that also writes his own by saying that they are crap.

The thing about music is that it's ok to not like certain people or certain styles but not liking it doesn't mean it's crap. Just like selling bucketloads doesn't mean it's good.

lordgoat

Some people are just better at it than others. So within the same genre there are good (bruce) and ****ing disgusting (blunt) surely it's not difficult to understand.

axer

BaZmO* wrote: »

You're saying that you have huge respect for Da' Boss because he writes his own songs but then start criticising another artist that also writes his own by saying that they are crap.

The thing about music is that it's ok to not like certain people or certain styles but not liking it doesn't mean it's crap. Just like selling bucketloads doesn't mean it's good.

Thats why I said - good songs at that (not that james blunt crap) as james blunt's song writing is dire.

Froot

I hate the beatles.

JC 2K3

lordgoat wrote: »

Some people are just better at it than others. So within the same genre there are good (bruce) and ****ing disgusting (blunt) surely it's not difficult to understand.

It's all subjective. Ultimately, someone who thinks James Blunt's songwriting is better than Bruce Springsteen's is neither wrong nor right, they just have an opinion

TelePaul

I have to add my 0.2 cents here. I wont come to the defense of Bruce Springsteen, even though I'm a huge fan; his status as one of the most prolific and respected artists around has been already well-argued in this thread.

What I'm drawing attention to is the way that this thread has reflected the way in which people critique music. And IMO it's a rather poor means of criticising. This is not a criticism of the OP or anyone else here! I wanna stress that, and I understand people have a variety of tastes etc. I really just want to reflect upon the process of criticism and analysis.

Firstly, someone was amazed that Bruce received so much airplay. Why are you amazed that as an artist he receives so much radio play? His records sell. He's more current than he ever was and is producing more albums. That's why he's getting radio play. Think about it, it would be pretty foolish of any radio station to overlook the ratings game; it's what keeps them afloat. If the general concensus is that Bruce Springsteens music is enjoyable - and that's irrefutable given his stints in the Irish charts of late - than it would be unwise for a radio station not to play his music.

Moving on, one of the remarks made about his last live album was that it sounds like Sharon Shannon....that's probably because it was a collection of American folk and 'trad' songs popularised by Pete Seeger. The instrumentation is quite similar, the song structure, the general motif conveyed. If you don't like folk music, and are against it from the offset, why oh why would you give this album the time of day? If you can't understand the widespread appeal of traditional music, well that's one thing. But if you can't understand why you dislike Bruce Springsteens trad album when you don't like trad.....well....I don't think I have to say any more on that.

Radio Nowhere sits on the pile of manure that is The Seeger Sessions. Okay, but why exactly? Overly compressed during the mastering process as some have said? Is the production too similar to the Rising, which was also produced by Brendan O Brien (something I personally dislike about it)? Problems with the lyrics? Performances? Bruce's lead guitar playing a little rocky (again, another belief of mine!). Lyrics bad? Performance bad? Mixed poorly? Song similarity? Point I'm trying to make is that an albums shortcomings are usually quantifiable.

Born in the USA sounds like noise, Bruce can barely hit the notes. Where exactly? I have to flat out disagree with that statement, noise sounds like noise, and to me, that song sounds like a standard rock ballad in the key of B major. I like the composition, the syncopated snare hit and breakdown are particularly successful and maintain interest in the song which revolves around only two chords. (Recorded live if anyone's interested).

Okay I think I've made my point; reading things like "I hate Bruce Springsteen/Joni Mitchell/The Beatles because he/she/they are ****" makes for pretty uninspiring discussion. Can we quanlify some of our comments? Please, it makes for far more interesting and relevant discussion.

Here's what I don't like about Bruce - coming from a huge fan.

The Ghost of Tom Joad is a poor album; It gets boring after the first three songs; Bruce uses the same chord structures again and again and again without variation. The guitar sits way too low in the mix. The lyrics often come across as meandering as there is a lack of supplementary instrumentation to emphasise certain parts/structures - strange considering the amount of instruments Bruce credits to himself in the CD inlay. The overall pitch of Bruce as a storyteller falls flat as he tries to combine said storytelling with overly-simple musical compositions.

The River includes some very good songs and alot of filler. Hungry Heart is short, snappy, to the point. i like the vocal style and the key change mid-way during the organ solo. The refrain is short, repetitive, memorable. All good things in my opinion, and what make this song a crowd pleaser.On the down side, I think a double album was a poor choice. The good songs are few enough to be included on one disc IMO. It's easy toi tell what was left over from Darkness on the Edge of Town - Drive All Night for example - and why it was left off Darkness on the Edge of Town. The production on Jackson Cage is pretty woeful - the vocals are muddy and that synth is way too prominent in the start. I Wanna Marry You is pretty cringe-worthy with its wedding-like instrumentation.

So yeah, that's my 0.2.

TelePaul

ned78 wrote: »

Jazz, Metal, House, Classical, Rock, Rap, Swing, Rock n Roll, anything except the freak show that is Irish Country and Western, and Bruce Springsteen. You see, I'm into Music that has structure, form, melody and counterpoint, and the fact that I'm a musician probably turns me off Springsteen more than anything else - from a musical composition point of view, he's the aural form of diarrohea.

See that's more like it! While I couldn't disagree with you more, I like the way you deconstruct music! That's a pretty good means of criticising IMO.

stooge

TelePaul

I suppose it depends on where youre coming from. Some people, as you say, 'deconstruct' the music and give opinions based on personal knowledge of music. Others dont read too much into it and give an opinion based on whether they liked the song/album/artist/concert at that time. It's fairly simple really.

Fair play to the OP saying he hates Bruce, I for one am a huge fan. As far as I am concerned, someone saying they hate an artist or song or whatever carries as much weight as them saying they hate broccolli or brussel sprouts. Its a similar thing with art and paintings. One person may think a so called masterpeice is worth feck all and that it looks like a blob of paint, others may rave on about it. Everyone is different.

Nailz

When I was a little baba' my father and mother went to see the boss (to say the least my father had good tastes musicly). There was never anything wrong with Springsteens music (though I've never liked his sole stuff), but my father and I had a conversation about concerts and he mentioned Bruce Springsteen after a list of other concerts he went to. I asked him what was that concert like, and he followed up with a blunt term, "shíte". "Why?" I asked knowing he had a good reason for his thaughts as he's a smart man, he replied "There was not a thing wrong with his sound or quality of sound, he was just boring..." Thats all I needed to hear.

TelePaul

Nailz wrote: »

When I was a little baba' my father and mother went to see the boss (to say the least my father had good tastes musicly). There was never anything wrong with Springsteens music (though I've never liked his sole stuff), but my father and I had a conversation about concerts and he mentioned Bruce Springsteen after a list of other concerts he went to. I asked him what was that concert like, and he followed up with a blunt term, "shíte". "Why?" I asked knowing he had a good reason for his thaughts as he's a smart man, he replied "There was not a thing wrong with his sound or quality of sound, he was just boring..." Thats all I needed to hear.

I honestly think you should go for yourself. I've seen some good concerts - Neil Young & Crazy Horse in The Point was my numero uno - and 'boring' is absolutely the last word I'd use to describe it.

TelePaul

stooge wrote: »

TelePaul

I suppose it depends on where youre coming from. Some people, as you say, 'deconstruct' the music and give opinions based on personal knowledge of music. Others dont read too much into it and give an opinion based on whether they liked the song/album/artist/concert at that time. It's fairly simple really.

Fair play to the OP saying he hates Bruce, I for one am a huge fan. As far as I am concerned, someone saying they hate an artist or song or whatever carries as much weight as them saying they hate broccolli or brussel sprouts. Its a similar thing with art and paintings. One person may think a so called masterpeice is worth feck all and that it looks like a blob of paint, others may rave on about it. Everyone is different.

I was thinking about the painting thing too; underlying elements attract or repulse people when it comes to art, but it seems when it comes to the criticism of art we are much quicker to label these; composition, framing, tone, lighting, colour etc. I think the same applies to music, there's no mystical shroud surrounding it.

livelife

Bruce Springsteen is the best & biggest live show on the planet at the moment,belfast 15 dec now that will be a gig!!!!!!!!!!!

Cremated

You can break down his music and you can analyse it all you want, but some people just take it for what it is,

they either like it or they dont,

and one thing the guy is, is a performer, and go to any of his shows, or watch any clips of them on the net and you will see what he can do, and what he is capable of surprising you with each show,

each show is different when it comes to Bruce, from his story telling, his acts with the band on stage, his different songs versions, his crowd interaction,

to me he is a musical genius,

but take from him what you will...

guinnessdrinker

livelife wrote: »

Bruce Springsteen is the best & biggest live show on the planet at the moment,belfast 15 dec now that will be a gig!!!!!!!!!!!

Couldnt get a ticket for this show, sold out in 8 mins or something. I heard the rumor he was coming to Slane next year, that would be great. Only a kid last time he was there, hope the rumor is true!

axer

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Couldnt get a ticket for this show, sold out in 8 mins or something. I heard the rumor he was coming to Slane next year, that would be great. Only a kid last time he was there, hope the rumor is true!

I'd say he will come back and do shows in dublin (or maybe even slane) in the new year.

Nailz

TelePaul wrote: »

I honestly think you should go for yourself. I've seen some good concerts - Neil Young & Crazy Horse in The Point was my numero uno - and 'boring' is absolutely the last word I'd use to describe it.

Neil Young is class, I've seen him twice and my father and mother 6 times. Once good and once bad for me, but 5 good and 1 bad for the parents (same bad one as me) and without a doubt enjoyed the good one very much so. For the bad one he was shooting a DVD a year or 2 ago and explained each and every track played which was manotonice, but the DVD was his problem. So I wouldn't put Springsteen in contrast with Young.