Songwriterdome: Springsteen Vs Waits

Amazotheamazing

CDfm wrote: »

Its not about album covers but Bruce has thread the pop route and Waits has not.

If you like your story sings clean and nostalgic Bruce will be your boy.

I am not saying Bruce is less of a songwriter musician or lyricist but his (Waits) lyrics are seedier which I like and Waits musical template is wider and more dramatic, jazz, r & b, trad, musical theatre & music hall, and his voice more distinctive than Bruce.

Springsteen is always more at home with rock n'roll and thats not a bad thing. Springsteen's first album was more out there and weird lyrically. Waits was more accomplished and having mastered his craft as a balladier became more experimental.

Thats not saying either is better or worse - but Springsteens output could have been covered by a competant showband. Waits on the other hand would fit in there with Agnes Burnell on any night.



Genre - Bruce is rock n'roll maybe not Bryan Adams or Jon Bon Jovi but John Mellencamp. Waits - jazz bars r & b and the Alabama Song.

Waits has to be more "out there" because he's not capable of describing the relationship between a father and a son, for example, as well as Springsteen can. If you look at Springsteen's songs like I'm on fire or Hungry Heart, they are so sparse lyrically but so dense and deep emotionally, it's an incredible economy of words that very few can manage. Waits is incredible at describing particular scenes, but Springsteen is far, far better at describing feelings or emotion.

Waits has never made an album as brutally honest as Tunnel of Love or Darkness on the Edge of Town, in fact, he's possibly not even capable of doing so.

Get away from the labels like Rock and Roll or Jazz or whatever, and listen to what each writer is telling you, Bruce is telling you about what it is to be human, Waits is standing around describing a red light district.

CDfm

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Waits has never made an album as brutally honest as Tunnel of Love or Darkness on the Edge of Town, in fact, he's possibly not even capable of doing so.

Get away from the labels like Rock and Roll or Jazz or whatever, and listen to what each writer is telling you, Bruce is telling you about what it is to be human, Waits is standing around describing a red light district.

I dont get that emotional depth from Springsteen and if its there I cant feel it.

Cicero

I've just set up the new Music Battle Dome on this forum- thanks to the mods for permission and to "thenakedanddead" for the idea.

Very close battle in the end between these two- was surprised how close it was.

Amazotheamazing

CDfm wrote: »

I dont get that emotional depth from Springsteen and if its there I cant feel it.

Really? I think some songs have lost their impact due to being overplayed (say the River and Born in the USA) but songs like Independence Day or Adam Raised a Cain, Factory, The Darkness of the Edge of Town, My Hometown etc still pack a massive punch.

People who dismiss him as simply a pop or rock and roll artist are people who've either only heard him on the radio or only heard the "best of" albums and as such, aren't coming from an educated point of view about his music.

Honestly, very few songwriters has written as well about the relationships between people as Springsteen does. Most songwriters tend to get mawkish or overly sentimental whereas Springsteen can place a line like "you ain't a beauty but hey you're alright" and make it seem not only real but romantic.

Tom Waits is an incredible lyricist too, he can conjure vivid imaginary with tiny detail but can he really explain why a father and son need to fight?

CDfm

I dont know really, I like Waits as much for the rough edge and the tonal quality of his songs. For me -Springsteen is the rustbucket and I associate him with an era.

Shy_Dave!

I don't understand people saying they prefer an artist because they've have not 'done pop' or 'gone mainstream' and the like - is it a dirty thing now? It sounds almost elitist.
What's wrong with the artist who is able to make fantastic, emotive, deep lyrics/music while also popular (and fupping brilliant to sing a long to in most cases I must add ) ?
Not trying to start a fight, I've just never understood it.

Cicero

Shy_Dave! wrote: »

I don't understand people saying they prefer an artist because they've have not 'done pop' or 'gone mainstream' and the like - is it a dirty thing now? It sounds almost elitist.
What's wrong with the artist who is able to make fantastic, emotive, deep lyrics/music while also popular (and fupping brilliant to sing a long to in most cases I must add ) ?
Not trying to start a fight, I've just never understood it.

***starts fight***:D

..dunno, probably stems from being moody teenagers wanting to be into something other than "what every one else listens to"- not sure if that applies as much today, but it certainly did apply in the days of the 70s/80s- regardless of the genre of music you listened to- I had friends into thrash metal- but they frowned on some of those bands when they went (as they percieved it), more mainstream like Iron Maiden- so here's an example of a rather niche group of music lovers, going even more niche within a particular genre or category of music...maybe it's that "more mainstream" means your then associated with people you don't want to be associated with, or maybe it's just that the later years afforts of whatever band, did nothing for them.....for many in the 70s'/80s, the music you listened to was a huge part of defining you as a person...Ska, Punk, Rocker, heavy metal, mod, prog rock, cure head, pop etc- they all had their own style, way of thinking, acting etc-