It Was 40 Years Ago Today...


Born To Run, released this day:

August 25, 1975

And the world saw the future of Rock & Roll, and his name was Bruce Springsteen.
courant
The numbers also say Bieber is a pop wonder. If he stays in the business and continues to sell will you put him up there with Bruce?
Artistic merit versus success is an argument as old as Art itself. So is taste. Though Dylan can be considered to be perhaps the most influential Pop music figure of just about everyone (he certainly is for Bruce, as he was for Lennon), some don't hear why. No amount of discussion will, or necessarily should, change that.

No matter how popular Springsteen has been, how many records he's sold, etc., some don't hear why. Speaking not just for Tostadosunidos (which I wouldn't presume to do), or Art Dudley (who has stated he find's Springsteen's appeal a mystery), Or myself, it is a rather widespread feeling amongst the hard-core music fans I know. Sorry, some just find Bruce to be boring (his songs are SO pedestrian). And, no, it isn't out of some sort of elitist mentality. It's just that different people look for different things in music---nothing wrong with that.

I completely understand why some find, has always found, Dylan unlistenable. Fine with me, suit yourself. He's not for everyone---no one is. I understand that non-musician's don't "get" why The Band are so very, very revered by their peers (Los Lobos, John Hiatt, Buddy Miller, Richard Thompson, Nick Lowe, Lucinda Williams, Emmylou Harris, Neil Young, Van Morrison, many, many others---many of my favorite currently working pro's all acknowledge the Band's deep influence on them). How does the fact that Springsteen has had a much more successful career than they relate to his versus their artistic worth, or how much everyone should like him versus them? The Stones have had an even longer run than Bruce. Does that mean they automatically deserve to be liked? When people here express their dislike, or mere antipathy, for Bruce's music, why must they be expected to "admit" that he is a "leader" in Pop music, and very popular? If one doesn't like hamburgers, is that person expected to defend not liking the perhaps most popular food in the world?!
Bdp24-Great post. I would like to add and simplify, regarding your comments. Dylan and the Beatles created/influenced the singer songwriter genre. The Kinks/Steppenwolf/Blue Cheer helped create "arena rock". The Who/The Doors/The Animals/Pink Floyd were responsible for the alternative/prog rock movement. Some of the bands especially The Who had an influence in all the mentioned genres. Springsteen had top level songwriting ability, then add the arena rock sound which created a very large fan base.
I loved ABBA (still do!), and no one who knows me could understand why. It was a new experience for me, being part of the audience of a big-selling mainstream entertainment act. Most of my favorites are cult-level artists, but then there's AC/DC too. All depends!
Bdp,

I'm basically a cult band guy, too. Richard Thompson, Los Lobos, Feelies, Bongos, Matthew Sweet, Kid Creole, Rebirth Brass Band, James Booker, Don Dixon/Marti Jones, etc, etc. Some have had their brief moments on the charts, but as a whole, this isn't a big-time record selling crowd.

However, Todd Rundgren has sold a ton of record and he's an A-list guy for me. My absolute favorite band is Fleetwood Mac and they have sold a billion records. So, I'm familiar with the conundrum you mention.

In my book, ABBA is great fun. I just took my wife and 10 year old daughter to see Mama Mia and we all loved the music. These songs may not break a lot of new ground, but they are absolute brain worms. I'd call it pop music within a rock n roll rhythmic scheme rather than straight-up rock n roll, but I'd say the same thing about The Beatles' music.

BTW, that's not some kind of veiled criticism of The Beatles (whom I regard as pop masters of the highest order). It's more a function of how I have heard the art form evolve over time vs how others have heard it's evolution. In a sense, anyone who is inclined to make sub-genre distinctions within the broader range of pop (or rock or country or funk, etc) music of the last 50ish years, does so by listening in inverse chronological order and seeing patterns. However, the significance of those patterns will differ to each of us.

You mentioned your narrow definition of "pure" rock n roll in an earlier post and I have mine, too. It's a bit different than yours, but - in the end - neither matters too much. Pop music genres cross-breed with each other. The results can be parsed in a bunch of different (but still valid) ways. I have a particular love for my brand of "pure" rock n roll (the songs of Chuck Berry would be a good short-hand definition), but I'll consume pretty much any music that works on its own terms.

I continue to enjoy your posts and the interesting take on this subject.

Marty

Note Bene: Have you ever heard the ABBA live album? It's a two record set that includes a rocked-up version of "Gimme, Gimme, Gimme" that's a must hear for rocking' ABBA fans.