Leon Wieseltier raises a cry of protest against the adulation of Bruce Springsteen that has recently engulfed the commentariat:
Springsteen worship is a cry against the clock. But rock n roll has played also another role in American life, which is to prove that Herbert Marcuse was right. There will be no revolution in America. This society will contain its contradictions without resolving them; it will absorb opposition and reward it; it will transform dissent into culture and commerce. Marcuse’s mistake was in believing that this is bad news. It is good news, because we will be spared the agonies of political purifications. But it is also comic, as protest songs become entertainment for the rich, and Bruce Springsteen the idol of the elite. The New Yorker clinches it: he is the least dangerous man in America. “With all the unrest in the world,” as Tony Curtis once said to Marilyn Monroe, “I don’t think anyone should have a yacht that sleeps more than twelve.”
Those Springsteen worshipping writers, by the way, are the Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg, the Times’ David Brooks, and, most verbosely, the New Yorker‘s David Remnick.
August 3rd, 2012 | 11:14 am
I read the New Yorker article very intently. And came away feeling a little sad. The Bruce/Boss that I still hold in such high esteem (not worship) is the talented common man I saw in 1975 at the “mythical Milwaukee bomb scare show.” Yeah, I was there. That’s not the same Bruce in the New Yorker. But I’m not the same girl myself. He got richer. I got (monetarily) poorer. In many ways I think I got the better deal.
August 3rd, 2012 | 11:55 am
Devastating! I love it!
August 3rd, 2012 | 12:54 pm
As a huge Springsteen fan and (reader of First Things), I feel the need to jump in and defend Springsteen, the artist. While I agree with the writer that Springsteen’s political schtick is tiring and that protest music coming from an extraordinarily wealthy man is ironic, very little of his music (prior to the two most recent albums) is protest music per se.
The genius of Springsteen has always been that (at least since Darkness on the Edge of Town and until those two most recent albums) his cues as a songwriter have very self-consciously come from Flannery O’Connor. He sings intimate stories with beautiful touches of concrete details. His commitment to the “common man” on those albums was never run-of-the-mill protest as much as it was a commitment to trying to tell their stories honestly and, like any good short story writer, letting the stories speak. If the songs are good (and they are) who cares about the lifestyle of the artist behind them? Who cares if all or part of it is an affect? Art should be judged as art.
My one major area of disagreement with the author is about the album The Rising. It really is a stunningly good album, and to lump it in with some of the more recent “protest” music is just silly. Yes, it is a post-9/11 album, but because Springsteen tells stories, rather than making Bono-esque grand statements, it works. Ironically, it is because of the particularity of the stories that the album is good years later and in any context; they are just good stories set to great tunes.
I’m not about to defend Springsteen’s politicking or his most recent two albums. But to get upset about his affect while ignoring the quality of the music is a mistake.
August 3rd, 2012 | 1:04 pm
You got me there, Chris. You are so right. And if his music brings any listeners to Flannery’s work, all the better!!
August 3rd, 2012 | 1:46 pm
Chris makes some good points. I, too, think Springsteen is a great artist. Yes, his best music is behind him (I think his songs from the 70s are pretty unrivaled in today’s pop music) and some of his portrayals of people in his song are caricature, but unless you’re telling a true story they all are to some degree.
The Rising is an excellent album. I don’t know how anyone could describe it as “protest music.”
Like Chris, I won’t defend his politicking and the music he’s written over the last 6-8 years, but, in my opinion, he’s one of the greatest popular song writers and performers of the past 30 years.
I think Springsteen’s popularity among certain liberal elites today says more about them then Springsteen. In that, Wieseltier’s excerpt above makes a good point. In America, we make statements by our consumption, not actually doing anything to solve a problem.
August 3rd, 2012 | 3:37 pm
So many cues from Dylan, but Springsteen missed the most important one: stay above the fray. Support a cause here or there, but never come out and say, “Yeah, Barrack!”
But my criticism of Springsteen does not begin and end with his overt political commentary: it extends to the songs themselves.
In doing so, I like to use Dylan as my benchmark. Dylan escaped this kind of labeling (even though his music has been coopted for all sorts of political reasons), and he did so for a reason: though the songs have been coopted, the man himself has not. That’s why I don’t completely buy Erik K’s analysis.
Springsteen’s early stuff is enduring and fantastic precisely because he was focused more on the human condition than specific societal ills; one can’t help but listen to the recent song “Death to My Hometown” and see what I mean; there’s a fine lyrical line between portraying the struggles of the “common man” and inciting a kind of class-warfare fueled rage.
Since I mentioned Dylan: contrast what Springsteen has become to Dylan’s 2006 “Workingman’s Blues #2,” where the “buying power of the proletariat’s gone down,” where a man deals with “low wages” as a “reality if you want to compete abroad”: you see the narrator’s hardship, where he sees beauty and finds love, how he views life and death.
That’s genius songwriting, and it’s songwriting which compels us toward both contemplation and the Divine through the hardship of another through which we can identify.
The problem with Springsteen is that he has become too uni-dimensional. Certainly, I do not expect him to be capable of crafting a song like Dylan, his great influence; but the reason I find no value in his recent writing is because he sees not to try.
August 3rd, 2012 | 4:40 pm
I think these criticisms of Bruce and his fans are pretty thoroughly misplaced. Calling his work “protest songs” is meaningless, unless it’s another way of saying some of it has a political dimension. But in that case why in the world shouldn’t the well off listen to it? Are they supposed to be apolitical on account of their wealth? Why?
In any case, Springsteen doesn’t really write personal music, or songs about his own life. The reference to O’Conner is apt in terms of influence, but also I’d argue in that Springsteen’s writing has always been more like short story telling then confessional. He creates characters and tells stories, and the measure of success there is not the extent to which his own life resembles his characters. From the beginning he has used these stories to get at themes that go well beyond the details of their working class or veteran or immigrant lives. A long time ago I had an English teacher in highs school who told me that Springsteen uses the concrete to get at the transcendent, and that has always seem exactly right to me. I would add that there’s something very Catholic in that as well.
August 4th, 2012 | 2:57 am
Erik K., I haven’t seen any evidence that “liberal elites” are the ones who are “worshipping” Springsteen. In fact, the whole point of the Jeffrey Goldberg article linked above is that Republican Governor Chris Christie is the real die-hard fan. David Brooks describes himself as a conservative.
August 4th, 2012 | 4:11 am
Thanks for the tip on this Wieseltier piece. He’s a big liberal but he is a very good writer.
I agree with him about Springsteen, his first few albums are pure genius and will stand the test of all time. I love them as much now as I did back in the day, maybe more. But he’s been hackneyed for a long time now.
Wieseltier is 100% correct about Lucinda Williams too. Very much so.
I want to also say that Leon Wieseltier wrote the single best article in the first days after 9/11 of all the ones I read (and I think I read them all). I don’t know if there is anyway to find it on TNR’s website, someday I’d like to read it again.
August 4th, 2012 | 1:29 pm
I’ve always thought of him as the Jersey Windbag. I’ll take my rock neat, without sanctimony.
August 4th, 2012 | 6:53 pm
There are millions of people who like Bruce Springsteen. Most of them are not members of the elite.
And when BS came out against Bush I would see comments by many of his fans who disagreed with him. They think he’s great but they don’t worship him in all ways.
If a few rich people like hockey does that make it the game of the elite? No. And I know the ticket prices for hockey seats in Toronto are kind of high — but you can still see it on TV.
August 4th, 2012 | 7:21 pm
Can’t stand the guy.
August 6th, 2012 | 1:41 pm
Mark – I didn’t say liberal elites are the only ones who like Springsteen. I said Wieseltier makes a good point about American consumerism, and that I believe it explains the uptick in appreciation for Springsteen among liberal elites over the past 12 years. Certainly, liberal elites aren’t the only ones who like Springsteen or use consumption as their mode of approval of a political stance (see Chick-fil-a).
August 6th, 2012 | 6:03 pm
What’s inherently wrong, or should I say flawed, in evaluating Bruce’s songwriting is the current pigeonholing of him as a “political” or “activist” writer of songs that only liberals care to listen to. NOT TRUE! EACH of his albums when carefully analyzed are completely unique thematically and, in all cases, musically. Hell, he followed his breakthrough album (Born to Run) with the starkest and most emotionally brutal material of his life (Nebraska). The E Street Band arrangements favor an ensemble sound with less emphasis on soloing and “riffing”. It was always about the “song” with Bruce and carefully constructing a unique world true to his vision and how he saw it. His music evolved lockstep with his personal growth and development. Only in the last decade has the political/activist side of Bruce emerged. Bottom line, his vision reflects the country’s: good, bad and ugly. Taking a stand in elections, I concede, has cost him dearly with conservative fans. Many of whom have abandoned him just for this. For shame, if you’re skipping the concerts. You’re missing the greatest live entertainment experience of a lifetime! He and the band have never sounded better. This is coming from a veteran of over 80 shows.
August 8th, 2012 | 9:31 pm
Never understood the Springsteen phenomenon. A couple of good songs (e.g. “Dancing in the Dark”), the rest pretentious drivel and manufactured excitement. And one of the worst, most irritating songs in the history of rock music — “Born in the USA”.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact