I was kicked out of an online Todd Rundgren group for this innocuous statement:
"Good exists because bad exists."
The conversation was about his 2013 release "State," which I didn't like then and still don't, after many attempts with various sets of ears. There wasn't a single person who agreed with me. As a matter of fact, every single Rundgren disciple stood their ground that the man has never recorded a single unworthy note.I understand loyalty. But this is ridiculous.
I always think of the classic Honeymooners line from the episode where Ralph asks Alice for money to pay his dues at the Raccoon Lodge.
Ralph: Alice, they'll throw me out if I don't pay my dues. Do you know how embarrassing it is to be thrown out of the Raccoons?
Alice: Yeah. Almost as embarrassing as being in it.
The statement "We like what we like" is often tossed about in comments. It's a true statement. We do like what we like. But I don't think it should end there, just as I don't believe you cannot write about music. I also don't believe loving something makes it great, or disliking something makes it terrible.
I do believe that pop music should be recognized and respected.
Is "Born To Run" a better record than "The Seeger Sessions?" Is "Greetings From Asbury Park" a better record than "Western Stars?" To my ears, they are four very different and very wonderful records. I guess it doesn't need to make sense that some Bruce fans could love "Western Stars" while others hate it. Right? We like what we like. I don't like "High Hopes." As a matter of fact, I think "Harry's Place" is possibly the worst song Bruce has ever written. Even worse than "Outlaw Pete." But I cannot step back as a Bruce fan and simply dismiss records that don't sound like The E Street Band, circa 1978. As a music lover, a pop music lover, a lover of melody, a lover of record making, a lover of groove and production and percussion and strings, I can't take a big chunk of an artist's work and just toss it aside because the songs aren't about cars, and the Jersey Shore and guys doing straight time.
14 comments:
'As a matter of fact, I think "Harry's Place" is possibly the worst song Bruce has ever written. Even worse than "Outlaw Pete." '
Aw man, I was with you till that. Nothing's worse than Outlaw Pete. That's one of the eternal verities. Apart from any live version of Sunny Day after 2002... and Let's Be Friends.
Please don't ban me...
Well I do hate Outlaw Pete...and Let's Be Friends. I just really hate "Harry's PLace."
I had to go back and listen to Harry's Place a few times before responding. No need to re-listen to Outlaw Pete (burned into my memory). They are both awful. Harry's Place sounds like a mediocre Don Henley tune from the 80s.
The notion that we can't be critical of our favorite musicians is absurd. The fact that you were "cancelled" for saying as much on the Todd site is scary. It is also unrealistic to think that Springsteen releases should all sound like the E Street Band music from the 70s. I think he has tried to write in that voice, the results are mixed (thinking Mary's Place).
During high school, many of my classmates believed the "Todd is God" statement was true. I didn't, not just to be rebellious, but because his songs to me had a show-off attitude instead of being good songs. My feeling on TR music hasn't changed. I do enjoy many albums he has produced for others, though. I have read your posts on TR in the hopes I might find something I will enjoy, but it hasn't happened yet.
As for Harry's Place, yes it's a stinker like Someday We'll Be Together from The Promise, but Outlaw Pete is still worse to me. None of these missteps stop me from enjoying new BS material with whatever backing band he chooses.
- Paul in DK
I SO SO SO wanted to love "Outlaw Pete". I really did. Because before that song, it was my opinion that Springsteen had not officially released an actual BAD song. "Mary Queen of Arkansas" came closest. "Let's Be Friends" might have been unnecessary, but it was't flat out BAD (in my opinion). And the idea of kicking off an album with an 8 minute epic sounded so brave an adventurous- especially almost 40 years into his career (as he was back then). But it was bad. Just bad. No two ways about it. And (in my opinion) "Queen of the Supermarket" was even worse. But that's ok. Bruce hadn't forgotten how to write great songs. "Hello Sunshine" and "Tucson Train" should be standards, for chrissakes! Those are both amazing songs!
I don't know what point I'm trying to make here. But it's ok to be critical of your favorite artists. I just hate cynicism
I think Outlaw Pete is great if you think of it as a silly kid's song. I think the nine year old me would have loved it along with Charlie Brown by The Coasters.
Could Bruce have written it for his kids or grand kids? I seem to remember reading the Dylan had written "Under the Red Sky" for one of his daughters. That made that album make much more sense to me.
And yes I'm one of those listeners who started losing interest in Todd when he released the "Todd" album.
Captain Al
Blind adherence and refusal to criticize, when warranted, is not good. The last 6 years have proved that.
do you know how embarrassing it would be to be thrown out of a Todd Rungren discussion group?
Yes, almost as embarrassing to be in one
sorry couldn't resist....
Love the rants!!!!
Anon,
Isn't that what I said in the post? I guess you really couldn't resist!
When I heard Bruce made an album singing soul covers, it sounded like a pretty good idea.
Too bad "Nightshift" is so lame. It's artistically bankrupt. I thought he was better than that.
I'm not one of those who dismisses his latest stuff. I liked LTY a lot (loved Ghosts but other than that one I think the old songs are the best on the album), I also love WS.
But I'm struggling a little with what I've heard of the soul album. Nothing wrong with the two tracks, perfectly serviceable covers. But they're a bit meh for me. They're too reverential for my taste, bordering on karaoke. When I heard he was doing the Commodores Nightshift, my first thought was it's either going to be amazing or awful, and it's neither. Nothing wrong with it but nothing particularly right either. It's just there.
His best covers - Trapped, Quarter To Three, Santa Claus, I Want You, How Can A Poor Man, Because The Night (kidding) etc, either find something we've never heard in the song or recast it, stamping his personality all over it. I'm not hearing that with these songs so far. I want to love them but I''m not feeling it. These aren't standards I'm setting for Bruce, theres are standards he set for himself.
I've been listening a lot this last week to Sturgill Simpson's cover of The Promise. I love that he listened to a middling English synth band 80's minor hit and heard a country epic in there, and absolutely nailed it, a track that'd sit very easily on Western Stars.
I don't disagree with the comments regarding "Night Shift." I wasn't a fan of the song in the 80s and I was very surprised to see it included in the track list. Bruce does nothing to it. I'm leaning more towards Honest Ed's assessment. There's nothing wrong with it other than it just is. The first single "Do I Love You" was fantastic to my ears. Nothing too drastically different, but just tweaked enough with the small gospel choir to raise the bar.
In terms of what a cover version should be, I don't always want a radical rearrangement. Most of the time, those ironic acoustic covers of hard rock or metal songs are just offensive to me. But again, this isn't really about the new covers album. How can it be? We've only heard two songs. It's about being guilty until proven innocent.
I'm not as familiar with latter-day Springsteen, so not familiar with Harry's Place or Outlaw Pete. I dialed them up yesterday. Harry's Place didn't bother me that much--it felt like an inferior version of Tweeter and the Monkey Man. I got about two and a half minutes into Outlaw Pete, saw I had another 37 minutes of the song left, and bailed. That one was, indeed, a stinker.
Bill
Guess I'm gonna be in trouble.
I loved the original 'Night Shift'. Loved the production, arrangement, everything, and was surprised because I'd largely given up on soul/r&b by then.
Not being overly familiar with latter-day Bruce, or actually much before BTR and after BITUSA (tho I have and love Seeger Sessions and Ghost Of Tom Joad), I too listened to 'Harry's Place' and 'Outlaw Pete' to see what the fuss was about and....found them to be just fine -- in fact, I liked the epic treatment of 'OP'. I'm guessing this is a Springsteen superfan thing that I, a more casual listener, ain't getting.
Of the two Springsteen soul covers I've thus far heard, they seem pretty anonymous. But I couldn't imagine slagging the guy for following his interests. Because I'm not a superfan, I'm not as invested in 'my' Bruce Springsteen, so I wouldn't dream of telling him he's doing wrong. He's earned a right to do what he wants -- indeed, all artists have that right, as far as I'm concerned -- and it's a bonus if an audience finds it.
C in California
Post a Comment