Folk Music

» shoutinthestreet - Bruce Springsteen: Groundbreaker or Hack?

Hi everyone, this is Brett. I received two interesting emails in reply to this review, so I thought I would start a discussion about them.

The first said that Bruce Springsteen was a better and more important songwriter than even Bob Dylan. The second said that he is "not a real folk singer" but rather "a tired pop star pushing the envelope."

What do you think? Why has Springsteen chosen to reinterpret these songs now? How important is someone like Springsteen to the folk music tradition? How should we define folk music?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. More soon.

-- posted by shoutinthestreet

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» TheRentCollector - Bruce Springsteen: Groundbreaker or Hack?

I'll admit to being a folk music cretin, but here's my side of the entire message I sent to Brett privately.

Now can you please explain to me the Bob Dylan allure. He never really did it it for me. And I like him even less after seeing the entire Scorcese biopic. He's always been a poser, a rip-off artist. The beauty of Blowing in the Wind (even though it's largely appropriated from gospel and Irish folk) and the influence (on contemporary rock) of Like a Rolling Stone are undeniable. But his lyrics just don't stand up to scrutiny. Most of them are incomprehensible. And the Scorcese film confirms that most of the time he had no conscious idea what he was writing except that he wanted to be the new incarnation of Woody Guthrie. I have this ongoing debate with a couplke of friends which I am forever losing. I think Springsteen is a better songwriter than Dylan, in the sense that his early work (especially) is better structured, clearer and more authentic than anything Dylan ever wrote. Born to Run is a masterpiece from beginning to end. The Dylan defenders always hammer me on one point: Springsteen's biggest influence was Dylan. True enough. I counter that this is a case of the student exceeding the teacher. With Dylan I still can't get beyond the notion that he's a Jewish boy from Minneapolis who just wanted to be an American, live the American Dream and adapt the American Ideal.

-- posted by TheRentCollector

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» shoutinthestreet - Bruce Springsteen: Groundbreaker or Hack?

In response to Bruce Springsteen: Groundbreaker or Hack? posted by TheRentCollector:

First, just let me say, such blasphemy! You mean not everyone loves Bob Dylan? Just kidding, your points are valid, but I think they need some context. What I disagree most with is Dylan being a poser and a rip-off. Those in the New York City folk circles in the early 1960s would have never even thought about sampling, reusing and reinterpreting the songs and musicians that came before them. So Dylan drew inspiration from various traditional sources. Pete Seeger rewrote lyrics to traditional songs, and created parodies (see his version of Old Time Religion). Johnny Cash, whom I've never heard be accused of posing, wrote very few of his own songs, and some of his most famous, like "Don't Bring Your Guns To Town" lifts its melody from an Irish folk song called "Clancy Lowered the Boom." But I digress, on Bob Dylan's very first album I think he was still finding himself. By The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan, where he set himself apart and became wholly original was in what he had to say. Whether he wanted to or not, his songs gave a voice to a generation. Look at today's anti-war movement with Iraq. What songs are they singing at their rallies? Not Bright Eyes or Death Cab for Cutey. They still sing "Masters of War" and "With God on Our Side". Beyond being musically influential, his lyrics brought a plain-spoken, and yet poetic, introspection that was just not present in his predecessors. He outgrew Woody Guthrie and topical songwriting. He started to express abstract ideas, and broke down the traditional ballad form in the process.

This leads me to your second point, that his lyrics don't stand up to scrutiny. Of course any piece of writing will speak more to some people than others, and for me Mr. Tambourine Man is one of the most beautiful, mournful, world-weary pieces of poetry I've ever read. Some lines or entire songs may be obscure, but what art form doesn't shift some of the onus to the audience? Do people not enjoy Jackson Pollock his pictures don't look like birds and trees? Also, as far as Dylan's comments about his songwriting on the Scorsese go, I find these to be rather specious. If you watch any of those interviews, past or present, you should know that anything Dylan says on record should be taken with a grain of salt. Nobody stands next to Martin Luther King Jr. and sings about segretation, if they have nothing to say. And they definitely don't do it for more forty years if they are just trying to make a quick buck. From "My Back Pages" to "A Simple Twist of Fate" to "Not Dark Yet" on Time Out of Mind, it is obvious that Dylan always has, if not a specific message, a definitive sentiment that he is writing towards. If you have not read Dylan's memoirs, I highly recommend it. My personal theory about his relationship to the public is this: He spent his entire career doing exactly what he wanted musically, continually reinventing himself, and yet the public, even the most perceptive of diehard fans, never stopped seeing him as "the voice of a generation" whatever that meant. Most mythical musicians have to die to gain such status. To me, one of the most interesting parts of Dylan is the persona because it has always felt so utterly disconnected from the music. But maybe that's just me.

I think Springsteen is a fine songwriter, and I much prefer his early work as well. Born to Run and Nebraska are two of my all-time favorite albums. I also love Greetings from Ashbury Park, despite the fact that I have always felt like it is a young, naïve Springsteen doing his best Dylan impression, abstract lyrics and all. It's funny though, my criticism of Springsteen is frequently that he too often does what is expected of him. The Rising is a great album, but who else was going to write such an open letter to post-9/11 America. Where you find Dylan's lyrics incomprehensible, I find them poetic and challenging. Where you see Springsteen as more structured, clearer and more authentic, I see Springsteen--however reluctantly--assuming his burden and doing what is expected of him. One can play the role of the leader, but it is still just a role. And lord help us if music has to be structured and explicit.

-- posted by shoutinthestreet

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» shoutinthestreet - Bruce Springsteen: Groundbreaker or Hack?

In response to Bruce Springsteen: Groundbreaker or Hack? posted by shoutinthestreet:
This is the latest reply from my friend, The Rent Collector. He did not have a chance to post it, so I am doing it for him. Please, everyone, don't let this be just a two-sided conversation...

Here's his rebuttal:

Well argued Brett - I feel like I'm getting over my head here. I frankly just don't have the folk music base to stand toe to toe with you on any of those points. I'm strictly a rock & roll guy. And maybe that's where my preference for Springsteen really comes from. But I do know a little something about writing, and poetry in particular. And one thing that I will always feel strongly about is artistic clarity, unambiguousness and craft. I have problems with a lot of Springsteen's work. I mean how could you not with so much material produced over a thirty five year career. And the same can be said of Dylan. But Springsteen's songwriting was and is always clear, simple, unambiguous and often extremely profound and powerful. Another good example is Tunnel of Love, which to my mind is underrated. What Springsteen does with metaphor on that album, the deftness of wordplay, and his ability to speak from the heart is as good as anything in the genre. You mention Jackson Pollock's painting. Yes, you're right that abstraction does not necessarily mean unstructured. In fact Pollock's paintings are all about the formal qualities of painting. The Line, depth, colour that comprise the craft of painting. And if you've ever been in the room with a Pollock you've experienced their mystical, overwhelming, almost talismanic quality. So in spite of the abstract expressionist monikor Pollock's drips derive their power from deft craft and skill. They are only abstract in the sense that they are not representative. But they encompass all the intergrity, power and uniqueness of the experience of art. All to say Pollock's art was nothing if not deliberate. Every single drip. He was in complete control of his craft at all times and it's apparent and that's what made him the master that he was. Same with Springsteen. Though I think he can be fairly criticized for too often being overly deliberate (just as you suggest interms of doing what was expected of him). But let's not mix abstraction and poetry. Poetry is the very antithesis of abstraction. It must be transparent, the most controlled and precise use of the language. Dylan's lyrics are too often opaque and convoluted. He's seems to be throwing linguistic spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks and what does is often a tangled mess of metaphors and images that don't add up to anything substantial. In the Scorcese film it was not only what Dylan had to say about his writing, it was also Joan Baez and a host of others from his circle who said it was not deliberate. Which I suppose would be fine, after all a lot of great art is produced from a subconscious, gut place. But it must also be balanced by skill, a genuine mastery of the craft.

-- posted by shoutinthestreet

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds