Note: This was previously posted at the end of October on michaellikestowrite.com but I wanted to get something up here ASAP, so I borrowed it from there. New content soon!
Michael, my all time favorites from Springsteen were the early epics, such as Rosalita and Jungleland, songs which so well capture the flavor of growing up along the North Jersey Shore. Poetry. Has he produced anything with comparable epic poetry in the intervening years? Or are works of this sort something that only a twenty-something could write?
Dave, I would say that it's not that he couldn't write stuff like that. But he'd already done it. I'd say that he has been exploring other musical interests in the intervening years, particularly splitting with the E Street Band for a while and stripping down his sound. "The River" was the last album he had in that most magical run of his career. He went more sparse for "Nebraska" and then more mainstream for "Born in the U.S.A." Since then, he's connected with his love of American folk music and the country-tinged California pop sound, often using a bit of a southern twang phrasing in his singing. What I like about some of the songs on "Letter to You" is that he's revisited his old "big" sound with the E Street Band. There's nothing with the scale of a "Jungleland" or a "Rosalita" here but the same musical DNA is in much of the new album that has been missing.
Agreed that he has been off exploring other musical terrain. But note that the point that "he'd already done it" doesn't carry much water, when a major feature of "Letter to You" is also a return, as you point out, to his old "big" sound with the E Street Band. If he could return to one old thing, he could justifiably return to the other old thing as well.
But not to argue, really. A new album with lots of the old "big" sound is certainly attractive to me. But the poetic epics were especially magical, and should he see fit to sprinkle a few of them through his future albums, I would certainly celebrate it!
Yeah, I wasn't defending his decision either way. Just by playing with those guys again, that old sound is going to return, but it's a songwriting decision not to write those sprawling epics. He could do it if he wanted to, but he seems to have left those in his past. Maybe it's complacency or maybe he felt like those were too self-indulgent. I haven't heard him address the subject but I'd be interested in his answer.
I certainly can understand that sentiment, but Bruce has always told stories in his songs from points of view that weren't necessarily his own. I'm quite sure he's never been the mother of a black child ("American Skin (41 Shots))" I figure he's capable of still writing from that point of view, though it might not hold any interest for him to speak to that age group anymore.
Also...this is an extremely well-known artist, but much of the content here will be about more obscure artists on smaller labels or who self-publish.
Note: This was previously posted at the end of October on michaellikestowrite.com but I wanted to get something up here ASAP, so I borrowed it from there. New content soon!
Michael, my all time favorites from Springsteen were the early epics, such as Rosalita and Jungleland, songs which so well capture the flavor of growing up along the North Jersey Shore. Poetry. Has he produced anything with comparable epic poetry in the intervening years? Or are works of this sort something that only a twenty-something could write?
Dave, I would say that it's not that he couldn't write stuff like that. But he'd already done it. I'd say that he has been exploring other musical interests in the intervening years, particularly splitting with the E Street Band for a while and stripping down his sound. "The River" was the last album he had in that most magical run of his career. He went more sparse for "Nebraska" and then more mainstream for "Born in the U.S.A." Since then, he's connected with his love of American folk music and the country-tinged California pop sound, often using a bit of a southern twang phrasing in his singing. What I like about some of the songs on "Letter to You" is that he's revisited his old "big" sound with the E Street Band. There's nothing with the scale of a "Jungleland" or a "Rosalita" here but the same musical DNA is in much of the new album that has been missing.
Agreed that he has been off exploring other musical terrain. But note that the point that "he'd already done it" doesn't carry much water, when a major feature of "Letter to You" is also a return, as you point out, to his old "big" sound with the E Street Band. If he could return to one old thing, he could justifiably return to the other old thing as well.
But not to argue, really. A new album with lots of the old "big" sound is certainly attractive to me. But the poetic epics were especially magical, and should he see fit to sprinkle a few of them through his future albums, I would certainly celebrate it!
Yeah, I wasn't defending his decision either way. Just by playing with those guys again, that old sound is going to return, but it's a songwriting decision not to write those sprawling epics. He could do it if he wanted to, but he seems to have left those in his past. Maybe it's complacency or maybe he felt like those were too self-indulgent. I haven't heard him address the subject but I'd be interested in his answer.
Or maybe a 70 year old guy has no business writing about hot summer nights with teenage kids sitting on the hoods of Chevrolets.
I'll be there soon enough (64 now). My generation's poets aren't writing my generation's anthems anymore. Not even Pete Townshend.
I certainly can understand that sentiment, but Bruce has always told stories in his songs from points of view that weren't necessarily his own. I'm quite sure he's never been the mother of a black child ("American Skin (41 Shots))" I figure he's capable of still writing from that point of view, though it might not hold any interest for him to speak to that age group anymore.