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 14 responses by martykl

In retrospect, Bruce's recording career arc has been almost straight downhill for me. At a time whe Rock n Roll seemed potentially played out, Bruce's first three records were (in pretty much descending order IMO) inspirational testaments to the ongoing potential of rock n roll as an art form. He stayed "within the box" and still produced exhilarating music when rock n roll was generally straying from its central organizing principle: simplicity.

It may be churlish to diminish Born to Run (relative to Wild, Innocent or Asbury Park), but it's less compelling to me than either of its predecessors. None of his subsequent recordings resonate with me. He gave it a shot with the acoustic material, but that simply doesn't play to his strength (kinetic energy) for me. His live performances are IMO certainly top tier, but there are a host of great live rock performers - I'd never point at one person as "best".

As to artists and political activism, there's little question that Bruce has been a consistent and energetic champion of change and an articulate spokesman for his particular economic causes. No matter what position you're taking, that is almost never an effort that bears fruit immediately. It's easy to be dismissive of anyone who advocates for change, but it's also misguided IMO. He's contributing his efforts to his movement and the value of those efforts won't be clear for a very long time.

Whether I agree with a person's politics (or not), whether they've been effective to date in changing policy (or not), I'll acknowledge the effort and try to remember that long-term political change is a process that plays out over time. My own politics are likely very different from his, but I certainly respect what he's doing.

I only wish that his music of the last 35ish years was of more interest to me.
Courant -

"Actually, he choked on someone else's vomit. It remains kind of a mystery. You can't really dust for vomit"

- This Is Spinal Tap
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.
In my book, Fleetwood Mac has produced some great music in every configuration. The purest straight-up pop (or bubblegum, if you prefer) tends to come from Christine MacVie, rather than Buckingham or Nicks and was present in the band's catalog prior to Buckingham or Nicks joining on. Check out the track "Homeward Bound " on Bare Trees for one good example.

For me, the most aggressive hard rock to come out of the Mac is 100% Buckingham. From the album Tusk, which included several Buckingham tracks that are essentially punk to their latest studio release, "Say You Will" which features the screaming electric guitar workout "Come", Buckingham rocks more ferociously than Peter Green or Danny Kirwan ever did. Even hit songs like "The Chain" and "Go Your Own Way" feature extended rock n roll passages.

I'm a huge Peter Green fan and believe that Danny Kirwan is a criminally underrated guitarist and songwriter. Later Fleetwood Mac guitarists like Bob Welch, Dave Mason, and Rick Vito add up to an over time guitar line-up that I prefer to all others, all due respect to The Allmans, Mothers, etc. Among that lot, Buckingham's my choice, but that's obviously a matter of personal taste.

Catchy pop songs are a big part of the overall Fleetwood Mac experience, but so are the blues rock of Green and Kirwan, the guitar driven pop of Bob Welch, the spacey mid tempo pop and intensely personal singer-songwriter material from Stevie Nicks, and the everything including the kitchen sink from Buckingham.

The notion that Buckingham and Nicks transformed Fleetwood Mac from a blues rock band into a pop band ignores an extended period in between the departure of Green and the arrival of Buckingham and Nicks. It also ignores a ton of great material they've done thereafter. Obviously everyone's entitled to an opinion, but characterizing Buckingham Nicks period Fleetwoood Mac as "bubblegum" says more about the individual doing the characterizing than it does about the music.
Sorry if I offended.

My point was that your characterization of Mac's music as interesting until the "bubblegum team " reflects a rather limited view of both Mac's music prior to Buckingham Nicks and after their arrival (for the specific reasons stated). That's the substance of the subject matter - and I'll stand by the assertion.

You might want to listen thru the Mac catalog a bit more carefully before assigning the broad characterization. There was plenty of pop before BN and there's a ton of material thereafter that's a million miles from bubblegum. You're certainly entitled to prefer the before to the after, but that doesn't change the fact that your brush was simply too broad.
I'm a huge fan of both Dave Edmunds (particularly with Nick Lowe in Rockpile) as well as Marshall Crenshaw whose playing skills matured over time in a very impressive fashion.

As to old Mac vs New Mac, I'm a guitarist and songwriter who has studied the band at each iteration to within an inch of its life. I will stick with my position - you haven't listened to Nicks and/or Buckingham very carefully if you think that they are the "bubblegum team" (your words) that sank the band.
I truly love virtually every version of Fleetwood Mac that's ever seen a stage or tracked a tune. (The "faux" Mac stand-ins who toured in the mid-70s per some contract dispute might be excepted). IMO, Peter Green was arguably the best of the Freddie King guitar lineage (tho those who prefer Clapton, Santana, Knopfler, Mick Taylor, Stan Webb et al all have a case). From the get-go, Fleetwood Mac was special, IMO.

As stated earlier, I'd argue that Danny Kirwan is a sadly overlooked songwriter, player, and (perhaps first of all) arranger of songs for guitar. My first public guitar performance was my own acoustic arrangement of Kirwan's song "Dragonfly" (from BDP's preferred Kiln House line-up). I also believe that Jeremy Spencer is the living spirit of Elmore James.

As Mofi notes, the classic Christine, Lindsey, Stevie line-up can make a strong case as the best of the lot, because they do more things well than any other iteration. They truly are masters of a huge range of styles - from pure pop to blues (on the too rare occasions they go there) to punk to pretty much everything you can think of.

In the end, I listen to what my mood dictates. Songs like Man of the World, Black Magic Woman, Green Manalishi, and Oh, Well are all in regular rotation in my listening room. As are later albums like Tusk, Rumors, Say You Will, Tango, and The White Album. Along with mid period albums like Heroes, Kiln House, and (especially) Mystery to Me.

Lindsey Buckingham is such a bizarre and fascinating guy (not to mention otherworldly guitar player) that his stuff (both Mac and solo) is first among Mac members for me. My intention was never to dis Peter Green, et al, but rather to argue that Buckingham (first and foremost) and Stevie Nicks were not responsible Fleetwood Mac's "pop sell out" per the popular narrative we've seen repeated here. They certainly polished up the erratic blend of pop sounds that Mac had adopted after the departure of Green, Kirwan, and Spencer, but they didn't make Mac a pop band. That happened before they joined.

I envy Andrew in that I never saw the Green, Kirwan, Spencer line-up perform live. I do love the dozen or so live albums of that iteration of the band that I own. I also believe that the Stevie, Lindsey, Christine version is a monster live band. In the end, I don't want to toss apples in favor of oranges. I'll enjoy the whole fruit salad.
BTW, I'm also a big fan of Union Station. I haven't seen them in a while, but Jerry opened the last show I saw with an amazing solo set before settling in to play with the band. I'd agree that he is a singular talent.
Tostado,

Personally, I hear Freddie's influence in all of the above, tho clearly at different levels. I certainly understand the influence that BB had on Green's sound (and, for that matter, the difference that choice of hardware and expanded technique had on Green's sound), but I'm always struck by the commonality as well as the delta in the playing of Clapton and Green. Sort of consistent with my earlier post re: the definition of pure rock n roll. It really comes down to how you parse and where you draw the lines.

When I need my shot of elegant blues playing, Green is usually my first choice. However, I frequently like to wander into other playing sensibilities. At the other end, guys with less blues influence - be that Richard Thompson or Lindsey - are essential to maintaining a well balanced diet of guitar music, for me.

I guess I pick at the fruit salad, too - it's just that I'll go for different fruits at different times.
BB King also had a tendency to play in a pentatonic minor/blues scale hybrid box just below the 12th fret on the B and G strings. Mainly just four notes plus bends, etc. He got a ton of mileage out of that little box and Peter Green would often linger there while improvising, too. To my ear, that often gave his playing a little BB flavor.

As to the "bubblegum team" comment, that came from someone else. I, too, won't always object to the term, but it's so frequently applied (incorrectly) to Buckingham and Nicks that I'll always respond when I see it. Buckingham is so academic about his song structures (and uncomfortable about that fact) that he's kind of funny to listen to when discussing his process. He refuses to learn standard notation because (as he puts it) "That's a left brain process and rock n roll is a right brain art form". FWIW, I actually 100% agree with him, but I learned to read so long ago that I guess I'm a lost cause.

Nevertheless, when you check out a song like "Time Precious Time", you can see that he's failed miserably at stamping out his left brain.

BTW - there's a great Guitar World Magazine on-line interview about the composition of that tune. Worth checking out for anyone who is interested in that sort of thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCGKFY9NBZY
Bdp,

I have Barden's on my Tele for that precise reason. Yet somehow, I still don't sound quite like Danny Gatton.
I don't play a ton of electric guitar anymore, but 80% of that time is spent with a Telecaster. I play almost entirely blues or rock n roll and the Tele does yeoman's work for me. It will twang if you want it to, but won't if you don't. One or another of my 40ish other electric guitars could probably be useful for this or that, but I always seem to grab the same instrument. It's funny, but - at the end of the day, for me - it's a relationship. Maybe less about you picking a guitar for a given style and more about a given guitar picking you.
I own one 'Strat style guitar (a Tokai lawsuit guitar with Lace single coils). It looks great, is very playable, and sounds pretty damn good. I almost never touch it. I just never took to Strats. I do love me my Richard Thompson, tho.

BTW, Bdp, I share your issues with Jimi. I fully understand why he's revered and admire him as much as a player can be admired, but I find him hard to listen to. Even worse (I might get drummed out of the guitarist fan-boy club for this one) I can't get too excited by Eddie V, either. He's an absolute monster, but, to me, his songs seem to exist mostly to accommodate the playing - rather than the playing being there to complete the song. I know that I'm just about alone on this one, so no admonitions from outraged 'Goners are necessary.