I said on the mothership the other day that I admired Springsteen but am not a fan, as in I find him a tad tedious to listen to for long.I was surprised to find that The Band had covered his Atlantic City, and I think they help me make my point. To be fair, Bruce's is from the deliberately sparse Nebraska, which I like more than many others. But the Band's take stays true to the song and album's organic roots, so its not like it needed a lot of gimmicking up or anything.)
.
17 comments:
Nah, can't agree with you on this one. I'd love to hear a version like this of some of Bruce's more bombastic numbers, but I really can't see how this adds anything to the original - plinky-plonk banjo doesn't compensate for the loss of that harmonica part.
Sorry, tincanman, this doesn't make sense to me...you say Bruce is tedious, and that the Band's having covered AC helps you make your point. So, the Band's version makes Bruce's seem tedious? Then you say Nebraska is sparse, and you like that; and the Band's version is true to the song & album's roots. How then are they making Bruce seem tedious?
Abahachi, Bruce has done several versions of his grand stadium productions (I take it these are the ones you think are 'bombastic'), especially on Tracks and the Seeger Sessions albums.
hmm, back to the drawing BACKSPACE sounding board
TIN: A spot of creative dissent. Hang in, It's not that he SEEMS tedious, he IS tedious! Not only tedious but loud and bombastic with it! I love a lot of what he says but he doesn't connect. In that 'Bruce's version' I was frantically looking for the melody, there isn't one, it's a long noisy drone and he mumbles.
All that's based on one listen of this song but I've long harbored these feelings much as I try to like him.
Fight! Fight!
LMAO
Bring it on you, you, you.... you erudite. Hah!
@gf: you try to like him, yet this is the first time you've heard Atlantic City? So you haven't listened to the Nebraska album at all?
Well to be quite honest I didn't know there was a Nebraska album and when I say I try I mean I'll give a listen to whatever I randomely come across; just the fact that he did a Woody album makes me want to like him. But he aint no Woody.
I'm kinda with tin & gf here. I don't doubt his intelligence, working class credentials or his rightful place in American Music history (and the fact that Silvio plays guitar for him), but I do hate Bruce's voice. Although it would be blatantly inadvisable, that straining sincerity makes me want to punch him. Sorry.
The Band's version of Atlantic City seems to be more of an attempt to get the song across (perhaps not entirely successfully: it's too bland, almost jolly), whereas Bruce seems to be expressing his ego (as usual). And if you don't love his ego, it does become rather tedious listening......
Ah well...it would be boring if we all liked the same stuff! (shrugs)
I should say from the beginning that my feelings about Springsteen are very mixed; undeniably fantastic live act, where there's no problem with the larger-than-life delivery or persona, a bit trickier on record. Actually for me it's almost as if there are two artists, with separate repertoires; there aren't too many songs where I love the recorded and live versions equally, and this divide seemed to get stronger as his career progressed, with Born in the USA the big turning-point. I haven't heard the other versions of the stadium songs to which tfd refers, and I should take a listen just to see whether this addresses my concerns. Currently trying out the acoustic version of Born in the USA on Tracks, and, well, I wish they'd ditched the reverb and I'm still not sure I'd like it, but it's interesting...
Anyway, for me Nebraska is the epitome of recorded, non-stadium Springsteen, and my favourite album of his by miles. I don't feel it's strained sincerity - excessive sincerity, maybe - and I really don't hear ego at all. If anything, there's a deliberate attempt at effacing the artist's personality so as to focus on the characters and situations depicted in the songs, and it's for precisely that reason that I occasionally find myself leaning more towards a 'personal' album' line Tunnel of Love. Yes, the voice is an acquired taste - but compared with Dylan...
What I think I'm trying to say, in a third glass of red wine after a really stressful day sort of way, is that I could entirely see the point of a Band version of a song from Born in the USA or Born to Run, but how on earth do you strip down the Nebraska songs any more, and why would you want to? Unless you removed the melody altogether and turned them into hip-hop, which might actually work...
My understand is Nebraska was recorded at a crossroads for Bruce. Critics and fans wanted another Born To Run because Darkness on the Edge of Town wasn't, and Bruce retired to his garage and did what he wanted. But I could be wrong.
For what it's worth, I've never been a fan of Bruce. This is at least partly (I confess) as a result of Prefab Sprout's anti-Bruce sentiments expressed so eloquently and wittily on Cars And Girls - although Paddy apparently is an admirer of Springsteen - he simply used him as someone whose music was representative of a type of music that he had some issues with.
Some things hurt more, much more than cars and girls
My feelings towards Springsteen are similar to my feelings about Dylan. I fully recognise that they are both significant and influential artists and they are politically and socially 'sound' - I just don't happen to enjoy their music. Bruce's voice doesn't annoy me as much as Bob's...
Pedantically (what else would you expect?), Nebraska followed The River, while Tunnel of Love followed Born in the USA. Yes, there is a clear pattern of non-commercial album following commercial smash, and I doubt if it's coincidence that these are my favourites.
As I think I said on the 'Sprout thread, Cars and Girls is a brilliant song but also entirely unfair; I think it's a case where the problem is Springsteen's deeply inferior imitators, and/or a very superficial idea of what his songs stand for - but he's still the obvious target.
I am way out of my depth here on the Brude debate but I do want to clarify that 'strained sincerity' was supposed to convey that he delivers (true) sincerity through a strained voice.
I am very fussy about voices but have never been able to figure out why I like some and not others.
For what it's worth:
I enjoy Dylan for his backing bands and his lyrics, especially the 60's, the voice is OK but the backings are wonderful, give a listen to Hwy 61 or Blonde on Blonde.
What urks me about Springsteen is his backing, especially that awful drummer, it's noise! It overides him and he's not that good a vocalist to start out and he doesn't write any melodies to compare to Dylan.
And even the solo gtr things are not that wonderful.
To each his/her own.
Will never be a huge Bruce fan, but do prefer his quieter moments - many of which TFD has been good enough to share with us - to the bombast of his rock epics. He's a great storyteller & there are not too many of those.
Post a Comment