…than Bruce Springsteen playing a solo acoustic show?
Maybe I need to clarify this question. There are the acoustic albums: Nebraska and The Ghost of Tom Joad, the latter exposing how boring the former really was. That’s all right, though, if you’re not comfortable liking one of the decent, somewhat rocking Bruce Springsteen album that the sweaty masses love. I’m pretty sure I know which of you dig Nebraska, and for today’s discussion, I’ll grant you a pass.
Today, I’m interested in knowing if anything in rock is less interesting than a solo Bruce Springsteen show. We get some high-def music channel that shows the same four programs: a Green Day concert, some “Honors” concert for Heart, a concert with Bon Jovi jamming with country artists, and Springsteen playing a solo and acoustc. The concert reeks of that Tom Joad period. The Boss is dressed in black. His muscular stubby arms are awkwardly wrapped around his acoustic guitar. (Discussion for another day: Can muscles and guitars coexist?) He mumbles unintelligibly through every damn song! Can Springsteen ever perform one of his songs in an acoustic, solo setting as if he’s not praying in hoarse, hushed tones at 2:00 am, so as not to wake his cellmate? Is it not enough that he’s already The Boss, does he really need to be E.F. Hutton?
So this is why I ask if it can get less interesting than Bruce Springsteen playing a solo acoustic show. Surely there are worse shows and artists to see, but what the hell does one focus on when seeing Bruce solo? I would imagine it would be so boring I couldn’t even cut up on him.
I look forward to your comments.
Maybe I’m getting you wrong, but is there anything about Springsteen that you like? If not, what could Springsteen do that you might like?
I like a good deal of the Darkness on the Edge of Town album, or at least the 5 songs they used to play on the radio. I own that and the first 3 albums, and each album has some good stuff. I also own The River, which I think pretty much sucks, and that 3-album collection of live stuff. What do you know? I bought his standard-issue Greatest Hits album on CD so I could spin “Dancing in the Dark” once in a while. I think that song’s his best, despite the ’80s production. I won’t change the dial for “Born in the USA”, “Glory Days”, and “Streets of Philadelphia”. I saw Springsteen live on The River Tour and although he and the leaden E-Street Band mostly bored me to death for the first 2 1/2 hours, the last 30 minutes of “Devil with a Blue Dress”/”Rosalita” was outstanding.
Sorry if I’ve misrepresented myself. I like my share of The Boss. How about you? Have you ever seen The Boss play solo acoustic? Could it have been less interesting, or did you find things to concentrate on other than his muscle-bound right arm wrapping almost underneath his guitar?
I like Springsteen a lot, always have. But I have to admit I find the accent he adopts when he sings acoustic very dubious. Actually he’s pretty much changed where he came from geovocally even on the band albums.
First off, now I understand the rationale for the question. That the sort of “understatement” of Springsteen solo acoustic goes against his image (and the strengths thereof) as The Boss.
No, I haven’t seen him solo acoustic. But I agree with your comments. I’m guessing few would disagree.
I’m aware, Dr. John, that the one thing that might get less interesting than solo, acoustic Springsteen is a discussion thereof. But I’m willing to take the risk!
Darkness on the Edge of Town was always the one I could deal with best too.
But I disagree with the most recent implication here: I’m pretty sure that a discussion of solo acoustic Springsteen will interest me more than giving it a listen. But hey, maybe some brilliant commentary will lead me to change my mind.
BigSteve does a good job of summarizing my main beef with solo, acoustic Boss. If need be, we can examine the situation by comparing his acoustic performances with those of other artists. Neil Young rocks hard and is well known for playing acoustic. You know what I like about his acoustic playing? He still sounds like himself, sings like himself. The materials benefits from the acoustic setting, but he’s not posing as an Acoustic Artist.
Surely someone in these Halls of Rock has seen The Acoustic Boss and can fill us in on what he or she focuses on (other than the weird way he cradles his acoustic guitar, that is).
I happened to listen to Darkness on the Edge of Town the other day. Damn, that song Candy’s Room is a gem. I wish he’d taken a few more detours down that path toward concise art-rock in his career.
I will say this (being uncharacteristically competitive for a moment) — Bruce wrote a better track called Human Touch than Elvis Costello did.
I only saw Brooce back when all good Clevelanders were supposed to see Brooce, around 79 and 80, I think. He played for a long, long time. That’s all I remember, too. I saw a lot of bands back then and I can remember way more than that they played for a long, long time.
I always felt that once Brooce made it big, he wanted to get rid of the E Street Band and keep all the money for himself. So that’s the feeling I get from his acoustic side.
I still think The Wild, the Innocent and the E Street Shuffle is a pretty darned good record.
Big Steve, I totally agree with you about “Candy’s Room” and was always wondering why he didn’t write more of those kind of songs.