u/CulturalWind357

On this subreddit and similar discussion forums, I've seen the opinions on disco varying and evolving, especially with regards to the reasons for its backlash.

In the past, Disco used to be considered one of the stock examples of an outdated and uncool genre to the point where there used to be a phrase and even a TV Tropes name called "Deader Than Disco". Disco Dan is a similar trope about a character that tries to live in the past and hold onto past fads.

Over time, Disco started to receive more appreciation for its impact and influence on various forms of electronic, dance music, Hip-Hop and more. House music has been referred to as "Disco's revenge". Plus, it has had major impact on the UK and Europe's music scenes and how it meshed with a variety of other musical influences like punk and new wave. People started to point out the potential racist and queerphobic backlash that led to Disco falling out of favor.

But then, more discussions started pointing that "Racism and queerphobia aren't the only explanations, it was the oversaturation of the music", pointing out that Black funk artists disliked disco as well. There'd be counterposing of disco and funk music, usually with funk music seen as better while Disco was considered watered-down. There were many disco novelty records and many artists jumping on the disco bandwagon.

The retort is that Disco falling out of fashion in of itself wasn't bad, it was the record-burning reaction of Disco Demolition Night and many of the artists caught in the crossfire that was the problem.

There are probably other discussion points that I haven't covered. But in general, I would notice a consistent back-and-forth about how disco has been viewed historically and how it's viewed now. So it can get a little confusing.

In some more recent discussions, I've encountered music fans who will talk about how they can't get into Bruce because of a certain dissonance, or they've discussed this particular quality.

That because Bruce has a gritty voice, it makes people think that he should have heavier and more guitar-centric music. But instead, it's more polished and poppy by comparison without as much distortion or grit in the music.

Then from the other side: because he has comparatively more polished music, his voice feels out of place. Basically, there's an inability to reconcile these two sides of Bruce. They can't enjoy Bruce as this cool gritty artist and they can't enjoy him as this pop/melody/hook master.

But for me, I find this quality of Bruce's music to be unique. First, it's Bruce evoking an earlier era of rock n' roll with saxophone and piano at the forefront, plus a little the sweetness of glockenspiel. It's rock n' roll and pop music as a big tent of influences. It helps with the duality of Bruce's music where it's both optimistic and pessimistic.

There's influences and similar peers but it's not quite like Bob Dylan, Tom Petty, or Billy Joel.

But what are your thoughts on this description of Bruce? Do you find it inaccurate? Accurate but a positive point?

Even though Bruce is known for the strong thematic focus of his career and of his albums, I don't think any of his albums have been described as concept albums. He even shied away from such a label, referring it as being "cursed" or "damned" by that name. He liked albums that had a thread he could follow like What's Going On but weren't necessarily single-minded.

“I wouldn’t suggest this approach for everyone. Needless to say, it has its pretensions, but I was still defining myself and was inspired by artists who created self-aware, self-contained worlds on their albums, and then invited their fans to discover them. Van Morrison, Bob Dylan, the Band, Marvin Gaye, Hank Williams, Frank Sinatra—all made records that had collective power. I wanted a record thematically coherent enough to hold together as a body of work while not so single-minded as to be damned by the term “concept album." “I wanted something that could come only from my voice, that was informed by the internal and external geography of my own experience. The single album of The River I’d just turned in didn’t quite get us there, so, back into the studio we went.”

Everyone seems to have a different definition of concept album. Some say it's about some sort of consistent mood or it's just about a group of tracks having more collective power than by themselves. Others feel that you need a continuous story and theme to qualify.

But in any case, what Bruce album would benefit if he leaned further into the concept album approach? Or even a rock opera approach?

To start off: Born To Run seems like an obvious candidate. Bruce has stated that the album was like a series of vignettes scattered around New Jersey and New York on a summer's day. "Thunder Road "was designed as an invitation both musically and lyrically with the sound of a screen door being evoked by a harmonica. Supposedly there were plans to have the song recur at the end of the album too. And "Jungleland" depicts the epic climax of rock n' roll and tragedy that concludes the album.

But what about others? Which ones would be most suitable?

So I've had this sneaking suspicion that The Beatles might mean more to Americans than to British people.

At first, it sounded absurd to me since they're obviously British icons. If they're such a massive and influential band, it would stand to reason that they'd be appreciated in their home country a lot. But after seeing a comment from a British commenter saying something similar (even claiming that The Beatles fixation might be from older Americans), I figured I'd open the discussion.

So many American artists point to "The Beatles On The Ed Sullivan Show" as their big catalyst moment. For some, it even introduced the concept of "the band" itself: a group of friends who play instruments, sing together, and write their own songs. For many of those artists, the British Invasion really ramped up this sense of accessibility for future artists to pick up their guitars and start bands.

Whereas my assumption is that for the UK, there are so many other important bands and artists that it's not like The Beatles necessarily have a monopoly. There are artists ranging from The Rolling Stones, The Kinks, David Bowie, Queen, Kate Bush, to The Clash, The Smiths, The Stone Roses, Oasis, Radiohead, and so on etc.

Is there merit to this assumption or am I completely unfounded?

If you're British, how do the Beatles fit in exactly?

I'm also open to hearing about how people in other countries other than the US and UK view the Beatles' impact. And the impact of the other British artists I listed as well.

I initially intended on using the word "populist" but the last time I used it, it generated a lot of mixed reactions.

But basically: In a lot of music discussions, it seems like we keep circling similar archetypes: the individualistic, artistic, boundary-pushing figure who doesn't care about the audience, who does whatever they want.

And it naturally made me think: are there are artists who are precisely able to build with their audience while still being experimental and innovative? What about artists who are able to make critically acclaimed work while still being very in touch with audiences? Is there a possibility where the audience doesn't have to be seen as a compromise but an artistic goal?

My first instinct is thinking of various forms of electronic dance music. I've been thankful to learn a lot about dance music from various commenters. One of the things I find unique about it is that DJs were really trying to test out their material with different crowds to see what vibes with their audience the best. See one of our older discussions about "Music To Dance To" vs "Music To Listen To"

But what are some other examples where audience engagement is so essential and part of artistry rather than at odds? Certainly, I would assume that live music and live settings are very much conducive to this type of template.

And to quickly acknowledge: Yes, I know that older forms of rock n' roll, jazz, and pop music hit certain critical and commercial sweet spots. But I'm also taking note of discussion trends and how things are ranked in hierarchies.

From what I understand about the history of R&B as a label, it started out as an alternative to "Race Music". Essentially, it started out as a term for music marketed towards Black Americans.

Over time, the term and musical influences evolved. R&B developed a lineage that extended to various genres from rock n' roll, soul, and funk to disco, hip-hop, contemporary R&B, Neo Soul, and so on. Sometimes it's even used synonymously with a given genre.

I know that various artists have complained about the usage of R&B. That a certain artist may make music with different influences but the minute that race comes into play, they're boxed into R&B.

And even outside of R&B, there's been complaints about how Black artists have been placed into "Urban" or basically any term that pigeonholes them as a Black artist.

So that made me curious: On the one hand, it can be frustrating to be pigeonholed into a particular genre just because of your racial background. But on the other hand, there's a level of importance in acknowledging the lineages and origins of various genres from Black American traditions across the decades. It seems like there are times when people want to use certain umbrella terms to tie traditions together.

I've been periodically reflecting back on the topic of "Artists we name-drop over and over." I don't want to mention them all the time, but they embody concepts too well to completely ignore them.

And I realized that there are certain artists that became practically synonymous with particular concepts. Maybe they were the first, maybe they were more the popularizers. But in any case, if you mention a certain concept or idea in music, this artist will likely come up first.

I also want to be clear that these initial examples are not the sum total of important artists or necessarily the "greatest" examples either as that tends to be more subjective. I'm sure there's an aspect of marketing that goes into why we identify certain artists over others.

Some examples:

• Elvis Presley: Represents the Rock Star.
• The Beatles: Represents "the band": a group of friends who play together, sing, and write their own songs. Could also throw in "getting rock music to be taken seriously".
• Bob Dylan: Represents songwriting and serious themes in pop music.
• Jimi Hendrix: Represents electric guitar and its sonic possibilities
• David Bowie: Represents change and evolution. Madonna could be seen as a successor to this as well.
• Velvet Underground: Represents the alternative band, the idea of influence building over time outside of commercial success.

Who are other artists who you feel have become synonymous with a certain concept? What is the criteria that usually makes an artist reach this status?

In a number of descriptions introducing Bruce, it's emphasized that "Bruce isn't an innovator". 

On the one hand, I don't necessarily disagree. Even Bruce himself has said that he isn't a revolutionary like Dylan or Elvis. Instead, he was more interested in building a career over many years and having an arc that evolved and changed.

On the other hand, I think this phrase gets stated over and over that it leads me to questioning what exactly the boundary between is being a sum of influences and being something new. Is Nirvana considered an innovator? What about Queen? The other Heartland rockers? (Tom Petty, John Mellencamp, Bob Seger, influences like Creedence Clearwater Revival). Who are other artists would you'd consider great but not necessarily an innovator?

I think part of the reason for this description is that Bruce is associated with more retro tastes even compared to his peers at the time. He focused on influences that predated The Beatles arriving in America like Motown, Roy Orbison, Girl Groups, Chuck Berry, and so on. As his career went on, he continued his journey into the past with an interest in country and folk music. So a backwards looking mindset seems antithetical to any description of innovation.

At the same time, there are different terms people have for important artists ranging from originator, innovator, codifier, popularizer, maybe more. I personally think they all have their place. Some artists are first, some artists become the template, some artists are more about bringing ideas to the mainstream.

What do you think is an appropriate adjective for Bruce?

I'm wondering if my OP sounds contradictory: Can you be iconic if you're not easily recognized in a distinctive way?"

Nevertheless, I'm curious. So many of our most beloved artists are associated with some kind of iconic look, outfit, appearance or visage. Whether it be The Beatles, Elvis, David Bowie, Prince, Freddie Mercury, Elton John, Jimi Hendrix, Björk, Madonna, etc. When you think of a certain artist, you think of a particular image.

Even artists with a more down-to-earth aesthetic seem to conjure up some kind of visual identity: Kurt Cobain with the chin length blond hair in flannel or striped shirt, Bruce Springsteen in a white shirt and blue jeans, Neil Young with the fedora, etc.

And if the band/artist themselves isn't distinctive looking, they might put more effort into having visually memorable album covers.

Basically: My initial assumption is that a lot of our most widely beloved artists have some kind of visual identity (looks, outfits, album covers, visual display, logos etc.) that helps them reach wider prominence.

And if an artist is beloved enough, the fans will find some way to remember them or use a trademark to remember them even if they're not visually memorable at first glance. So even if you were a completely anonymous artist who released music online, fans would find little visual trademarks to distinguish you.

To be clear: I think you can become a beloved and acclaimed artist without a strong visual identity. But my assumption is that many of the artists we name-drop over and over have some type of visual identity or visual trademark. Or, fans will find one.

But my question is: Are there artists who defy my assumption entirely?

ETA: I appreciate a lot of the responses so far, but I feel like I should clarify some things that keep getting brought up:

• I'm aware of Nebraska and gave it a try; the songwriting and vocals still really didn't work for me.
• I've also heard "You need to see him live to get it" many times, and I have in fact watched some recordings of his concerts on YouTube to try and get a sense of it. They were good and looked like a lot of fun, but they didn't really change my feelings on the actual music.
• I know that I "am entitled to my opinion, don't need to like what everyone else likes", etc. etc., that's nice but not what I'm looking for. I'm here because I like analyzing music and talking about with other people, getting a better understanding of why I dislike some things most other people love and vice versa. The fact that millions of people love this man's music and I strongly don't is, I think, interesting to explore and dissect. "Like what you like" just doesn't lead to any interesting conversations.
• Oh also, if you're one of those cranky conservatives who calls Springsteen "overrated" bc you don't like his politics, we are not on the same side and I'm not affiliated with you.

Beyond that, thanks for all the constructive feedback, really appreciate it 💖 /edit

I promise this is not meant as ragebait - Bruce is beloved enough that I'm sure this is a me problem, I don't think I'm smarter than all the critics and fans who love him. And it's weird bc when it comes to similar artists, I have no problem enjoying Tom Petty or Billy Joel (yes, even the songs people hate from him). And as a person, Bruce seems like a totally chill guy with good politics and I have no notes there.

But having sampled pretty much all his big singles plus some album cuts people recommended to me, something about his music just bounces off me hard, like I'm just irrationally angry listening to them. At first I thought it was just how cheesy and dated a lot of his production sounds ("Hungry Heart" sounds like the lamest '80s sitcom theme to me), but then I tried out Nebraska to hear the darker, more stripped-down version of him I'd heard about, and I think I also don't like his voice or lyricism either? His vocals just sound so cartoonishly overwrought to me, and his lyrics... I've heard people talk about how beautiful and moving they are, but to me most of them just read like either the corniest hackiest love songs imaginable, or a college freshman who just found out the world is bad and is writing hacky poetry about stuff he read in the paper. "Born in the USA" I can tolerate for some reason (I think just bc it's a little more visceral and bitingly sarcastic than his other work), but so much of his stuff just feels excruciatingly amateurish and dorky for a guy I've always heard listed as an avatar of cool and one of the great modern artists. (And ftr, I've tried watching recordings of his live shows on YouTube bc everyone says he's better live - they were fine but sadly didn't really turn me around on the actual music.)

Again, I'm not trying to piss anyone off, clearly there's some great transcendent quality everyone else gets out of his music but me. And it sucks because I sure don't want to be on the same side as all the dumb people who hate him for stupid political reasons! But I've tried a few different times and my ears just keep instantly rejecting his music, and I do feel a little insane. I just can't get myself to hear the brilliance everyone else apparently hears in his songs, and on some level I do kinda feel like a bad music nerd because of it. Does anyone else feel this way about Springsteen's music, or at least are my reasons understandable?

I've been thinking about it and after reading through various articles, I started to understand that "Heartland Rock" could be seen as arguably one of the closest genres to a "Big-Tent Mainstream Rock".

By mainstream rock, I don't necessarily mean the most popular or commercially successful rock genre or artist. But a type of rock that can't be slotted in easily into specific subgenres, that could appeal to wide parts of the population . Creedence Clearwater Revival set a template for this style of rock n' roll. When Bruce inducted the band, here was one of his observations:

The crowd was eclectic; rough kids just out of high school who hadn't been snatched up by the draft yet; Truck drivers heading home south to the Jersey pines who weren't gonna make it (not that night at least), and a mixture of college andable to be working girls, women with bouffant hair-dos, and a small, but steady hippy contingent. Tough crowd to please all at once! We played behind a U-shaped bar that was just three feet and spitting distance from many of the patrons who came to just drink and stare and hassle the band. Into New Jersey came the music of John and Tom Fogerty, Doug Clifford and Stu Cook - Creedence Clearwater Revival; and for three minutes and seven seconds of Proud Mary a very strained brotherhood would actually fill the room. It was simply a great song that everybody liked and it literally saved our asses on many occasions!

Steven Hyden (author of There Was Nothing You Could Do about the legacy of Born In The USA) described a similar archetype as "Manly Populist Rockers". It included the aforementioned Heartland rockers in the title as well as Counting Crows, Hootie And The Blowfish, and The Wallflowers.

What are your thoughts on this genre-labeling and its legacy?

Bit of a serious thread. If you don't like this topic, maybe you should sit this one out.

This is something I've been reflecting on for quite a while. It's maybe been in the back of my head ever since I became a Bruce fan. And after seeing a few comments here and there expressing similar concerns, I figured it'd be worth making a longer thread about it collecting my thoughts. Especially after seeing Bruce being more politically outspoken in these past years.

In terms of my own perspectives, I'd describe them as broadly Left. Some inspiration from anarchism (no, not chaos) but also recognizing the political systems that we live in.

Over the most recent years, it has felt like Bruce has been doubling down on the American exceptionalism: the Super Bowl Commercial, the podcast with Obama, some of his speeches and endorsements, the language he's used.

I suppose we could say it's always been there. But it has really ramped up in....the 21st century?

Some brief examples:

• "America's the most powerful nation on earth, not just because of her overwhelming military strength or economic power, but because of what she stands for."
• The usage of "un-American" as a criticism: Does a thing have to be American to be good? Bruce has used this adjective a lot but it doesn't really carry much weight to me. And he's used this across the decades.

When Bruce talks about America as "a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years", my mind immediately turns to Indigenous peoples and enslaved people certainly did not see it that way. People who suffered from American Imperialism don't see it that way. (Hawaii, The Philippines, The Middle East/West Asia, East and Southeast Asia, Central and South America, etc).

Every time he says "Despite its many faults" about America, it feels like Bruce is just brushing past all these criticisms to only validate the viewpoints that fundamentally love America. I'm not denying that there are still people who admire America, but one still has to take into account the opinions of those who have suffered from America's impact.

Yes, I know that Bruce has been associated with a sense of "critical patriotism": Criticizing his country because he sees it as failing to live up to ideals. But at a certain point, one has to question the very ideals themselves and what they have meant. We can always say "The ideal has never been accomplished, therefore it is untainted". Nevertheless, ideals carry biases no matter how much we may see them as unblemished.

Example: One of Bruce's favorite songs and covers is Woody Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land". It's often seen as an inclusive anthem where people of all backgrounds can come to the United States and appreciate its gifts. But praise of the song often neglects how that land was obtained through Indigenous displacement. (To be fair, even Pete Seeger acknowledged this and once sung a rendition that accounted for it.) See: The Blindspot in the Great American Protest Song. A separate post could be made discussing the Founding Fathers and their contradictory and flawed legacy.

So when Bruce talks about America as this nation of immigrants that everyone can travel to regardless of background, there is history missing. It's not even that he's completely unaware considering his albums like Inyo and appearing on the Little Steven song "Native American". But he doesn't seem to acknowledge this part of America's history enough. Some peoples (Native Hawaiians and Native Americans alike) had no choice but to be annexed under America and American identity. Inclusiveness can be good but people also want the option for independence and carving out their own path.

For much of his career in the 20th century, Bruce seemed generally critical of American foreign policy. There are discarded "Born In The USA"/"Vietnam" lyrics where he rails against Nixon for bombing Cambodians. It showed that his empathy wasn't just towards American veterans but towards peoples harmed by American bombings.

Prior to Bruce endorsing political candidates, the politics in his music were on a more human level that pointed to larger social forces. But in the 21st century, things shifted towards directly endorsing political candidates starting with John Kerry in 2004. Then Barack Obama in 2008, where he endorsed him even at the primary stage.

When endorsing Obama in 2012, he talked about how Obama was "vigorously pursuing our real foreign enemies, especially the killing of Osama Bin Laden." I'm reminded of the commenters who have brought up Obama's record of drone strikes. One has to discern the underlying context of what it means to pursue foreign enemies and the ideology behind that.

In some early 2000s interviews, Bruce has talked about supporting the invasion of Afghanistan but not Iraq. From what I understand, entering Afghanistan had majority support but that doesn't necessarily make it right.

This is not me criticizing Bruce after the fact. There are actually articles from the time which have criticized Bruce's words:

• To Bruce Springsteen About The War On Terrrorism
• What's Missing From Springsteen's The Rising? Politics

Intervention has to be handled very carefully otherwise it becomes an exertion of power over countries and yes, imperialism.

To be clear: I don't have any issue with Bruce being political. That's been a part of his music for a long time whether implicitly or explicitly. But the actual content of his politics leaves something to be desired.

Not even getting into socialist artists yet, there are liberals who have been more critical of politicians like Bruce's friend Jackson Browne. And I've wondered why Bruce has not only endorsed candidates but praised them more than he needs to.

There is a part of me that has empathy. Many Americans and even some non-Americans are taught some form of American exceptionalism. The Pledge of Allegiance, the ideal of America as a nation of immigrants, one of the world's first democracies. Bruce has talked about how doing the pledge of allegiance as a child made him feel pride. But to an increasing number of Americans and non-Americans, it can feel cult-like.

There are ideas that initially seemed well-intentioned but are now recognized to be outdated. The "melting pot" used to be used as a metaphor for immigrants coming to America and assimilating into a single culture. Now, the cultural traditions of immigrants are becoming more respected.

I've often felt that Bruce can express larger ideals regarding community, individuality, creativity, and the complexity of life without strictly tying it to America.

On the flipside: There's a type of exceptionalism that treats America as "the worst country in the world" which I don't agree with either.

I just want America (or, maybe the land itself) to be a country. Not some mythology to appeal to. Not something that crushes all other narratives.

Or, maybe America itself needs to be completely reformed. Who knows.

Sidenote:

Bruce fans around the world were the ones who got me into Bruce, showing that his resonance was not restricted to America or New Jersey. It sounds strange that a person from Jersey needed to have this explained to them but there it is.

The choices shouldn't be Trump supporters and not. I think it's indeed important to hold your side accountable. That goes for liberals, social democrats, socialists, anarchists, whoever.

When I see Regular Show clips or discussions in my feed nowadays, it's constantly about these two takes.

Realistically, yes, Mordecai and Rigby are bad employees with Rigby being a particular cause of trouble. But that's part of what drives the plot. Tons of fictional and cartoon protagonists cause trouble and that's what sparks the conflict of the episode.

In some episodes, they even exaggerate the flaws of the characters depending on who has the sympathetic POV (e.g. Mordecai and Rigby watering plants with soda). Or they acknowledge in-universe that they're bad employees. Sometimes the focus is on Benson having a terrible temper, other times it's about Benson being a caring boss who just wants the main characters to be better.