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

Showing 21 responses by bdp24

He's a performer better seen live and in a small club, which hasn't been possible for years now. The energy he creates in an intimate setting is dissipated in a stadium, and he isn't a great recording artist, I don't feel. The people who got to see him before B2R are lucky indeed!
If "the situation of the working class, veterans, and the needy has been on a steady decline since the 70's", does that not make him (and others like him) of all the more importance? Since he doesn't overdo his "dogoodiness" like some others do (Jackson Browne, for one), he hasn't become a bore about it.
Mapman and Geoffkait, I'm right with ya. I played the Love and Theft album for some old friends who had lost interest in Bob after that trio of covers albums he did in the 90's, and they were stunned. For a good sounding Dylan album, I'm still waiting on Mobile Fidelity's upcoming SACD and LP of his album with The Band, Planet Waves. It's very "unproduced"---no studio manipulations, just what sounds like he and them playing live in a room. I really disliked the way he was produced by Daniel Lanois, preferring his own under the pseudonym Jack Frost. By the way, Bob Johnson, the producer of his Highway 61 Revisited and Blonde on Blonde albums, passed away a couple of weeks ago.
I like what Cyril Jordan (The Flamin' Groovies) said about the Pistols album: Every song is in the same key---now THAT'S simplicity!
That "I've just seen the Rock and Roll future" (NOT "the future of Rock and Roll" as is often misquoted) was written by Jon Landau, then a reviewer at Rolling Stone. He parlayed that highly-influential review into a management gig with Bruce. My favorite review of a Springsteen album (Born To Run) was in Creem Magazine (I don't recall who wrote it), the heading of which read something like "Consumer warning---contains no actual Rock and Roll. An amazing simulation!". I like the review because I, too, do not consider what Bruce does to be Rock n' Roll.

Some may find my definition too narrow and specific, but to be R & R the music must contain, I feel, elements of both it's sources---Hillbilly and Blues, both Rural musics. It's true that Blues also has an urban strain, but it was not yet in much evidence at the birth of R & R. Urban Blues developed when the Southern Blacks left the South for Chicago (and to a less extent Los Angeles), to work in the automotive plants during the day and play music in the bars at night. To rise above the ambient noise level of the big city (and the noisy patrons of the bars!) they switched from the acoustic guitars they had brought with them from the South to electric ones plugged into small amplifiers, and assembled a rhythm section---a drummer and bassist, and often a pianist.

What Elvis and the other white Sun Records artists (Jerry Lee Lewis, Carl Perkins, Johnny Cash, Roy Orbison) heard locally in Tennessee when they would sneak into the "colored" bars in the black part of town (it's tempting to say "on the other side of the tracks", but that would be incorrect; Elvis LIVED on the other side of the tracks, in Public Housing) was very rural (Howlin' Wolf, etc.). What they and the Rockabillies who followed did was combine that Rural Blues with the Hillbilly (itself inherently Rural) they had heard all their lives growing up (The Carter Family, Bill Monroe, etc.), creating a hybrid Pop music---Rock n' Roll. The people who say that Elvis and the other early white Rock n' Rollers stole the music from Blacks who had already created and were playing it, are not acknowledging the white Hillbilly element in early Rock n' Roll. Without it, it's Jump Blues. I love Jump Blues (I've played a lot of Louis Jordan and Big Joe Turner songs in Bands!), but it's not R & R, sorry. Listen to Elvis' version of Bill Monroe's "Blue Moon of Kentucky". With that recording, Elvis CREATED Rock n' Roll! Chuck Berry wasn't recording yet, but he came along shortly thereafter with his signature style of guitar playing (by FAR the most important and influential guitar player in Rock n' Roll's history), and there you have it---THE Rock n' Roll recipe!

I hear neither Blues nor Hillbilly in Springsteen's music. His roots are Folk (Woody Guthrie is obviously his biggest influence) and the sounds found in Urban recordings, especially those on Atlantic Records. Ben E. King, The Drifters, Doo Wop, etc. I'm not a big fan of Folk (finding it too "earnest", serious, academic, self-conscious, and just plain boring. Except for Dylan, who elevated it above all those failings.), and though I love the music of Atlantic Records as much as anyone, Springsteen's mix of it with Folk just doesn't push my musical buttons, so to speak. I respect him to death, though!
It's a major coincidence that just as Springsteen was being touted as Rock and Roll's future, it's actual future was making it's debut---The Ramones with their first album! Far more influential to Rock n' Roll than Springsteen, or anyone else since The Beatles, in my opinion. No? Name one! That doesn't necessarily mean one will like them, however. I sure do, though there ARE less influential artists I like even more.
Here's another thought for ya'll (I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm boring you ;-):

Around the same time that Springsteen was being anointed, and The Ramones were heading to England to play (the effect of which was to ignite the whole punk movement over there. Everybody who ended up being in a Punk Band saw The Ramones on that tour. Joe Strummer quit the Pub Band he was in---The 101er's---and started The Clash.), an album came out which was immediately recognized by the more discerning fans of Rock n' Roll as an instant classic. The album also had an enormous influence amongst aspiring musician's of a particular stripe, most notably Tom Petty.....

"I'm On Fire", by The Dwight Twilley Band. It (along with "Music From Big Pink" by The Band, though they are very different from one another), is the most astonishing debut album I've ever heard. It remains in my Top 10 Albums of All Time list, and it's a debut! Hearing it in 1975 gave Petty hope that his brand of Rock n' Roll (which showed musical influences and taste similar to Petty's own) would find a home at one of the Los Angeles record labels. So Tom and the rest of Mudcrunch (their name before coming to their senses) loaded up the van and headed for L.A., stopping in Tulsa Oklahoma to ask Dwight for career advice and people to contact in L.A.

Greg Shaw predicted major stardom for Dwight, his singing/drumming partner Phil Seymour, and their amazing guitarist Bill Pitcock IV (the Group name had been Oyster, but when Shelter Records President Denny Cordell heard Dwight's name, he thought it too good to waste) in the great L.A. music publication of the 70's, Phonograph Record Magazine. Alas, it was not to be. At least, not to the degree it should have. Minor success, I guess you'd call it. Petty played bass in one of TDTB's first videos (wearing a choker around his neck!). Phil Seymour, not content playing second banana to Dwight, left after the second DTB album ("Twilley Don't Mind", a good though disappointing follow-up to "IOF") to start his own solo career on Planet Records. He has some success, even a hit single, before ended up playing drums for Carla Olsen in The Textones. Dwight slugged it out in L.A. into the 80's, but all three of them---Dwight, Phil, and Bill---ended up back in Tulsa.

Dwight lives in Tulsa, putting out an occasional album, with little success. Phil and Bill have both passed away of Cancer (Phil's Lymphoma, Bill's Lung---he smoked like a chimney). And Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers, who sounded like nothing more than slightly above average Pop/Rockers to me (especially in comparison to the far more talented Dwight Twilley Band) is a major star. I never claimed my taste was or should be universal!
Courant---Okay, you got me! I had a momentary loss of reasoning, not noticing that my nomination of The Ramones as the number one influence since The Beatles applies only to my taste, not to R & R history. I have long thought that Led Zeppelin has had the deepest and longest lasting effect upon the music of anyone since Elvis, including even, yes, The Beatles. Seriously. Whether that's for better or worse is a separate question. I've always found them to sound just as Sonny Boy Williamson described all the white boys that were provided him as backing bands when he toured England in the Summer of '66, telling The Band guitarist Robbie Robertson later that year (The Band had met up with Williamson in Arkansas, and he and they were planning to work together): "They want to play the Blues so bad. Unfortunately, that's how they play it---bad". I think that's the greatest put-down I've ever heard, and one with which I am in general agreement. There are exceptions, however; B.B. King has said that Peter Green was so good he made B.B. sweat.

The Velvets influence stayed mostly amongst similar-minded musicians and music lovers, a very small circle of friends. Van Halen you are certainly correct about---hugely influential, maybe second only to LZ. What was I thinking?! Aerosmith? Eh, I don't know. Doesn't seem like it to me, but I could easily be wrong. Blondie? PU, they're so lame I don't even want to think about that! And it's not just because when I was playing around L.A. with John Wicks (of The Records) he gave his higher-paying gigs to Clem Burke and the crap ones to me ;-(.
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?!
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!
I was away for a few days, and missed all the excitement!

Marty, I have the live ABBA CD, but haven't listened to it yet (it's only been, what, ten years? I have about 6,000 of them left from my days as the Indi CD buyer at a Tower Records store, most of them still sealed! I just sold 1200 of them to Amoeba records to fund my new Pickup Arm). And you're right Marty, ABBA's Bjorn & Benny were absolute masters of "the hook". Better at melodies than McCartney, and maybe even than Brian Wilson! If you like Pop, you must know of The Wondermints, Brian's touring Band. The original bassist Brian Kassan (he left right before they hooked up with Brian---doooh! They weren't doing enough of his songs) started a Group after he left that he named Chewy Marble. I play on about half of the second album, "Bowl of Surreal". He's a real good Pop songwriter and, like all members of the L.A. Pop scene, an absolute Brian Wilson worshipper.

I have to hand it to you Marty---you're the first person I've read say what I've long felt, that The Beatles were a Pop Group, not a Rock n' Roll Band. I love your brand of Pop/Rock (the term Power Pop has lost all meaning from overuse, hasn't it?). Don Dixon is a great producer as well as artist. I'll bet you like Marshall Crenshaw too. One of the best Bands I ever saw live was his 5-piece, in '82 at one of the New York clubs (The Peppermint Lounge, I think). He had Graham Maby (Joe Jackson's original bass player) on 6-string Fender Bass (the one from the 60's, with light-gauge strings, tuned an octave below a guitar), as well as standard 4-string electric bass, his Brother Robert on drums, and another guitarist (beside himself), and all of them sang. Fantastic!

The Fleetwood Mac I love is the line-up that did the Kiln House album. It was unusual (and welcome) to hear a pretty popular Group (especially British) doing music with such unashamedly American 50's R & R as it's source and inspiration. And in 1971, in the middle of a not-very-R&R era (the hippie bands saw to that). The Danny Kirwan/Jeremy Spencer guitar team was great I thought. I also like Lindsey Buckingham, and thought FM's huge success with him taking over was well deserved. I has seen he and Stevie live locally in '68, in their Group Fritz (San Jose had a LOT of Groups/Bands, being probably the Garage Band capitol of the country in the 60's. When The Doobie Brothers got their deal with Warner Brothers in '71, my Band auditioned for their former gig as the house band at the infamous Chateau, a biker bar up in the Santa Cruz mountains. We didn't get it).

Speaking of Chuck Berry Marty, for anyone unaware of the following guy, you absolutely must acquaint yourself with Dave Edmunds. Imagine a guitarist who perfected Chuck Berry's guitar style, sings as well as just about anyone (plus arranging harmony parts as well as anyone this side of Brian Wilson), and is a superb record producer (for The Flamin' Groovies---the great "Shake Some Action" album, the Fabulous Thunderbirds, The Stray Cats---don't hold that against him!, Rockpile---he and Nick Lowe's supergroup, and many, many more. One of Rock n' Roll's all-time greats!
I forgot one thing. I agree with you Marty, my description of the ingredients necessary for a recipe to be Rock n' Roll IS too narrow, and was said mostly as a means of explaining why I don't consider what Springsteen does to being R & R. While the definition fits R & R's original incarnation (the Sun Records artists), R & R, being a hybrid Pop music, is free to evolve, incorporating new elements and influences, and discarding old ones. There remains, however, a minimum requirement of those original ingredients needing to be present in a music to fit any definition of it, and I don't think Bruce's music meets that minimum. That alone doesn't make it "good" or "bad", it was just a topic of intellectual discussion!
Going back to the sources (something I'm prone to do, as an amateur musicologist---aren't we all?!), I've always preferred both Albert (whom I saw live in '68---fantastic!) and Freddie to B.B. The defining characteristic of B.B.'s playing is that fast finger vibrato he uses a lot on a single, long-held note, which I don't care for. I hear a lot of that influence in the San Francisco guitarists (in Big Brother, The Airplane, Country Joe & The Fish, Quicksilver). It seems to be used by guitarists with, shall we say, less than well-developed technique. I don't hear it in any of Mayall's guitarists, or in British players in general.

I don't think it was directed at me, but just in case.....it was not I who referred to Buckingham/Nicks as a "bubblegum team". But if I had, it would not have been done to denigrate them---I much prefer bubblegum music to some others. I would rather listen to, say, The Rubinoos that The Grateful Dead, for instance. That didn't keep me from getting some gigs with hippie type bands, but it didn't help!
You're right Onhwy61; it's not just on long held notes, but on short ones as well ;-). I'm also not crazy about B.B.'s tone. There's not enough tube saturation for me (B.B., try a lower-powered amp cranked up to 11), but that, of course, is a matter of taste. What isn't?!

Speaking of amp power, guitars, and tone, a Telecaster isn't known as a Blues guitar (Country is a completely different story), yet in the hands of the right player can be excellent. Danny Gatton sure made one sound good, didn't he? That was with the stock Fender pickups replaced with Joe Barden's, his favorite. When I recorded with Telecaster player Evan Johns (a Gatton bandmate at times) he plugged his Tele into a blackface Super Reverb and turned it up full. It sounded great, but was LOUDER THAN HELL!
My opinion about the Tele and Blues is just as I stated: "A Telecaster isn't known as a Blues guitar"..."yet in the hands of the right player can be excellent". For playing Blues, a Telecaster is certainly not the first, or second, or even third guitar anyone thinks of, is it? The fact that Albert Collins and Muddy Waters play/ed one does not change that fact. Sheesh, so touchy. For Country, the Telecaster is of course number one. The Tele is actually my favorite guitar, but then I love Country more than Blues, generally, and Bluegrass even more, which is all acoustic. And I love the Dobro even more. Forget Eric Clapton.....Jerry Douglas is God!
The guitar that has taken me a long time to come to like is the Strat. I was too young to catch Buddy Holly, but a lot of the early-60's Surf guitarists played a Strat, and I had all The Ventures and Astronauts albums. Then it kind of disappeared until Hendrix appeared (hope I'm not forgetting anyone in between. Wouldn't want to make any more ridiculous statements ;-). I don't really care for Jimi's tone (that's being polite---I actually really dislike it. His playing as well, but I won't go there), finding it too "barbed-wirey", if you know what I mean (it sounds to me the way chewing on tin foil feels).

The Strat sound seemed to be kind of in between the thin, no sustain single-coil sound of the Tele, and the thicker, lots of sustain Humbucker sound of Gibson's, etc., having neither the charm nor character of either (I did however appreciate it's versatility). But so many of my favorite guitarists (Ry Cooder, Richard Thompson, even Robbie Robertson after being a Tele player for so long, to name a few) played a Strat that I just accepted it.

It has taken until fairly recently for me to be won over by the Strat's own subtle personality, but I finally get it. It's still a Fender, not providing much help to it's player or obscuring his lack of technique, style, or ideas. But, in the hands of the right player, is a very expressive guitar. I just love that chimey, harmonics-overtone sound that can be coaxed out of it's upper register!
Damn Marty, the more you talk, the more I recognize in you a kindred spirit! You have simply and concisely (how appropriate---read on) differentiated between the two main camps of musician's: Those who play for the song, and those to whom a song's value is merely in providing a platform on which a musician may play. That's an over-simplification, of course, but I'm trying to make a point! Whatever reservations I or anyone else have about Bruce Springsteen, he is definitely of the former; his guitar playing, his arranging of The E-Street Band's parts, and the production of his albums, are all done with the consideration of how they affect the overall presentation and perception of his songs foremost in his mind.

There is a video on You Tube (or at least there used to be. I just looked and couldn't find it) with both George Harrison and Eric Clapton talking about The Band (aw geez, here he goes again ;-). George says he heard in Robbie's playing a musician with the same priority as he, that of contributing to the song itself, and to the Group as a whole. Eric talks about music having been heading in the wrong direction for a long time (not acknowledging his role in that being so!), and when he heard The Band, he said to himself "Someone has finally gone and done it". Meaning nothing less than reminding everyone of what music is supposed to be all about! I had the full quote written down it was so astounding, but inadvertently threw away the sheet of paper it was on. Gotta find that You Tube clip!

Now, there ARE some musics in which the playing abilities of the musicians is a main point of the music itself, Jazz and Blues being two of the main one's (some Jazz "songs" containing but a single chord!). The whole "Blues Revival" coming from England in the mid-60's (The Yardbirds being a major player, with first Eric, then Jeff Beck, and finally Jimmie Page on guitar) really changed the focus of guitar playing from a player's musical contributions to the song and overall sound of the Group/Band, to his guitar solo. In America, the same was happening, with Mike Bloomfield becoming a guitar star in The Paul Butterfield Blues Band. (Two quick asides: Both Bloomfield and Robbie Robertson---The Hawks/Band guitarist---were hired by Dylan for his "Highway 61" album recordings. Upon hearing Robbie play, Bloomfield demurred, moving over to piano! And Butterfield himself became a very good friend of The Band's Levon Helm, playing in Levon's band after The Band ended. He had already played with Levon in The Last Waltz).

Robertson has said that by the time The Band went in to record Music From Big Pink, he had already done the now (in 1967-8) in vogue "flash" guitar playing, and was now thinking of guitar playing in more musical terms, citing Steve Cropper's and Pops Staples' playing as his new model. Speaking as a drummer, the same was happening amongst a certain segment of the drumming fraternity. Jazz type chops had become the yardstick by which a drummer's abilities were being judged, to the point where Keith Moon, in an attempt to humiliate him, was asked if he could play in The Buddy Rich Band. Keith taught the questioner a lesson by replying "No, and Buddy Rich couldn't play in The Who".

Just as Robbie had progressed to being a musical guitarist, Levon Helm was showing drummers how to be a musical drummer (an almost oxymoron!). But he wasn't alone---Dylan had already used the great Muscle Shoals drummer Roger Hawkins (who had played on all the Jerry Wexler-produced Atlantic Records albums---Aretha Franklin, Wilson Pickett, etc. Roger was later in Traffic.) on his albums, and George Harrison would soon use the indescribably great Jim Gordon (L.A. studio session drummer, later in Derek & The Dominoes) on his "All Things Must Pass" album. This musical style of drumming was in stark contrast to the Jazz-influenced playing rampant in '68; Ginger Baker in Cream of course, Mitch Mitchell of The Hendrix Experience, Bobby Columby of Blood, Sweat, & Tears, and the ultra-vulgar Carmine Appice, who proved a player could have ridiculous chops and zero taste.

This change in drumming style was over my head at first (some guitarists never do grasp the concept of taste and restraint), and I couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. In my High School clique, there were some non-musicians who loved Music From Big Pink, and I just could not see why. I didn't dismiss their opinion of it, however, as they were amongst the smartest people I knew. It wasn't until my "Teen Combo" (as I like to call it) opened for The New Buffalo (yeah, the Buffalo Springfield, or what remained of it; only drummer Dewey Martin, though Randy Fuller, Bobby's brother, was on bass) that the light bulb went on over my head. As I watched and listened to Dewey play my drumset (a gig pre-requisite!), I had an epiphany. Oh, NOW I get it! It was just like that---the mystery had been revealed to me. I was now a convert, everything was different. Taste, economy, musicality, ensemble playing---how good musician's play!

Taste, economy, musicality---the operative words in being an ensemble player. When technical virtuosity became valued more than musicality in "Pop" music, everything changed. The ripples of that change have grown into a tital wave, the majority of players falling into the chops camp. There are some players respected in both camps---Ry Cooder and Danny Gatton come to mind. But for most players, it's like the line in The Bible: "You can't serve two masters". A player puts either the song first (or, in the complete picture, the band or group), or himself.
That's a different story Onhwy61---both happened. Look on the album credits for the Blonde on Blonde album also---"Jaime" Robertson (the 1st Band album has him as J.R. Robertson). Robertson had already been on the Bringing It All Back Home album (as had Levon Helm and Garth Hudson. Dylan hired them away from John Hammond Jr., whose last album they had been the band on. In fact, it was precisely because they were working with Hammond that Dylan knew of The Hawks. It was John who "discovered" them---actually, a lady friend who told John about them, not Bob).

I love Al's telling of his story---the reason he plays the chord changes right behind the rest of the band on "Like a Rolling Stone" is that he hadn't heard the song before, and didn't have the chord sheets in front of him (Dylan likes to record---and play live---under-rehearsed). Al had to wait to see what the next chord was, THEN play it on organ!
Not on "Like a Rolling Stone", you're correct. Two different stories, two different sessions---both happened. Robertson had already been on the Bringing It All Back Home album (the "electric" side, of course), and would be on Blonde on Blonde the following year (credited as Jaime. He is listed as J.R. Robertson on Music From Big Pink), along with fellow Hawks Levon Helm and Garth Hudson.

And it wasn't just Robbie and Levon who were hired for the '66 tour, it was the full Hawks, including bassist Rick Danko, pianist Richard Manuel, and organist Garth Hudson. Levon didn't care for getting booed by Dylan's diehard Folk fans, and left the tour (he ended up working on an oil rig in the Gulf, until he got a call from Danko in Woodstock, telling him to come on up. The rest is history!), replaced by Johnny River's drummer Mickey Jones.

Dylan is credited as "discovering" The Hawks/Band, but it was actually Albert Grossman's secretary, who had seen them on the Jersey Shore playing in a bar. Albert was John Hammond Jr's manager, and knowing Hammond was looking for a band, put he and The Hawks together. They are his band on the So Many Roads album, and were his touring band in'65. Dylan heard them, and hired them away from John.

Kooper's telling of how he ended up being on "Like A Rolling Stone" is great story telling. It started as Onhwy61 says---hearing Bloomfield warming up, Kooper realized he was severely outclassed, and mosied over to the studio's Hammond organ. He started following along, playing along with the others. The reason he waits half a beat on every chord change in "Like A Rolling Stone" to play the chord is that he hadn't heard the song before, and didn't have the chord chart. He had to wait until everyone else played the changes, to hear the next chord!
Oops, neglected to point out that on the tracks on which both Robertson and Bloomfield play, you'll notice Robbie is on guitar and Mike is on piano. The info about Mike moving to piano after hearing Robbie start playing guitar came from Mike himself, and is remarkably similar to Kooper's story!
Speaking of Bloomfield, another great Band I'm so thankful to have seen live was The Electric Flag, with Bloomfield and the great Buddy Miles in '68. The Flag had four saxes that day---two tenor, a baritone, and a bass. HUGE sound!