Springsteen belongs in a category of superstars who seem to draw vastly different perspectives from people. Springsteen, Neil Young, Bob Dylan: Super prolific, Gods to some people, long careers, oftentimes multimedia, engaged in politics, albeit diffusely, etc. I happen to think all three are great, but when guys are that prolific they also can be hit or miss, and sometimes can miss for a long time. Tom is not alone, certainly, in wondering what the big deal is, though I happen to think they are wrong. When it comes to Springsteen I think he has had some spectacular albums -- Nebraska is one of the absolutely great albums of all time, Tunnel of Love is to my mind an underrated classic, I like Born in the USA more now than I did when it was such a huge hit that it was hard to judge (or to avoid) and I really liked Ghost of Tom Joad. I thought his latest was nowhere near as good as the press, but the thing about Springsteen is that his appeal is not based in him pretending he is a sex god or a party king -- isn't this, honestly, why no one listens to the Stones any more? How can we take them seriously?-- but rather in the fact that he is smart and talented and grownup and, while I hate the word in this context, "relevant." Springsteen matters, just as U2 matters. Even if a person does not like them, it would be hard to take someone seriously who denied that Springsteen or U2 or Neil Young somehow matter more than most who have managed to become members of ASCAP. That said, I don't really hold Simmons' musical views in especially high regard. I may be something of a music snob, but I imaghine he has a big cd collection that wouldn't have a whole lot that isn't fairly obvious.
2 comments:
Springsteen belongs in a category of superstars who seem to draw vastly different perspectives from people. Springsteen, Neil Young, Bob Dylan: Super prolific, Gods to some people, long careers, oftentimes multimedia, engaged in politics, albeit diffusely, etc. I happen to think all three are great, but when guys are that prolific they also can be hit or miss, and sometimes can miss for a long time. Tom is not alone, certainly, in wondering what the big deal is, though I happen to think they are wrong.
When it comes to Springsteen I think he has had some spectacular albums -- Nebraska is one of the absolutely great albums of all time, Tunnel of Love is to my mind an underrated classic, I like Born in the USA more now than I did when it was such a huge hit that it was hard to judge (or to avoid) and I really liked Ghost of Tom Joad. I thought his latest was nowhere near as good as the press, but the thing about Springsteen is that his appeal is not based in him pretending he is a sex god or a party king -- isn't this, honestly, why no one listens to the Stones any more? How can we take them seriously?-- but rather in the fact that he is smart and talented and grownup and, while I hate the word in this context, "relevant." Springsteen matters, just as U2 matters. Even if a person does not like them, it would be hard to take someone seriously who denied that Springsteen or U2 or Neil Young somehow matter more than most who have managed to become members of ASCAP.
That said, I don't really hold Simmons' musical views in especially high regard. I may be something of a music snob, but I imaghine he has a big cd collection that wouldn't have a whole lot that isn't fairly obvious.
dcat
I liked "Streets of Philadelphia."
Post a Comment