Beer count: 90
Dear Boss:
You know I'm one of your biggest fans. I have most of your CDS - even the Ghost of Tom Joad. I plunked down $40 this year for a digitally remastered copy of Born to Run (don't tell anyone, but I sounds exactly the same) and I've seen in you in concert several times, dating back to my first show in June of 1984.
I'm proud to call myself a New Jerseyan mostly because of you (and Rutgers University) and even own High Fidelity on DVD just because of your 45-second cameo in that fine film.
Yes, I've supported you your entire career. That is, until now.
After taking a quick listen on the web to your latest project (We Shall Overcome: The Pete Seeger Sessions), I have one question? WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU THINKING?
First of all, what is this "We" shit. What exactly do you have to overcome? Is is the guilt of charging your fans $100 to see you practice this crap live, or is it just the realization that since Tunnel of Love, you've pretty much been a non-factor when it comes to popular music?
Second of all, if I want to hear some dude singing Cumbaya with a jug band behind him, I'll go to the backwoods of Kentucky and do it, or go see The Country Bear Jamboree at Disneyworld, not buy one of your albums.
Listen, I understand your need to let the rest of the E Street Band know who's Boss every once in a while by freezing them out, but this is enough. You made your point with that Lucky Town/Human Touch crap and reinforced it with Tom Joad. They get the point. They need you, you don't need them. But you know what, your fans need them.
Now I'm not talking about your disciples. You know the ones who will see you in concert every night of their lives and would buy a 25-disc set of you taking a shit.
No, I'm talking about the fans who will go see you once or twice during a tour and purchase most of your albums. It's almost as if you are testing their faith and loyalty with crap like this.
Or is it something else? Is is because you know even your E Street Band stuff isn't up to par with the music from the good old days, so you put out these crap albums, leave your fans starved for good some old rock and roll, and when you finally release it, they love it?
I mean let's face it, one it's own "The Rising" is a cliched bore, but when you put it up with the albums that preceeded it, it's a rock classic.
Now I do appreciate you trying to spread the good works of Pete Seeger to the masses, but just promise me this is it. Promise me next summer, you'll release another E Street Band album and play 8 nights at Giants Stadium. You see, I don't get many excuses to get loaded in a huge parking lot anymore, so please do me this one favor.
I hope you don't take offense to this letter, rather I hope you read it and do the right thing and give me more songs about cars and chicks and living at the beach. It's what your fans want, it's what the E Street Band wants, and deep down, it's what you want. Bruce, maybe We Shall Overcome.
Love,
Joe Pendleton
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
P.S.
Bruce, please forward this letter to Jon Bon Jovi regarding the box set, "100,000,000 Bon Jovi Fans Can't Be Wrong," the album of rearrangements, "This Left Feels Right," and his second solo album, "Midnight in Chelsea"
By the way, Joe, I think I spoted a limited edition live CD of Springsteen taking a shit on EBay. It was listed right next to the director's cut DVD of Steven Van Zandt giving James Gandolfini a reach-around, as Max Weinberg tossed Conan O'Brien's salad.
I'm preparing a rebuttal to this blashphemy.
Fire away, Pete. The truth hurts. By the way, I saw $278 round trip today at Continental.
And sandman, Bon Jovi has always sucked.
Bon Jovi sucks? Are you trying to upset me?
I seem to remember a certain inebriated South Plainfield resident singing "Edge of a Broken Heart" at the top of his lungs while walking on the boardwalk in Point Pleasant a few years back.
As mentioned in my earlier e-mail to you, Bon Jovi is exactly the example I offered in terms of an artist putting out the same album year after year. I applaud Bruce not only for trying something new, but, in my humble opinion, knocking it out of the park. It doesn't particularly bother me if you don't appreciate it.
I suppose you were one of those who mocked Nebraska when it first came out because it didn't sound like his typical rock album?
There's a reason Springsteen has remained one of music's most compelling voices for more than three decades: he has ignored pleas like yours, Joe Pendleton.
Nothing would be more disingenuous than a 57-year-old man still trotting out new albums filled with youthful anthems.
It would be phony, and it would suck.
Your philosophy would turn Springsteen into a latter-day Peter Frampton. And I'd rather eat a dead dog's penis than listen to that.
You may not like the direction, but Bruce remains fresh and original. If anyone has earned the right to play whatever they want -- and make an album that plays tribute to the lineage of his music, no less -- it's Mr. Springsteen.
Not saying you have to like it. If it's not your bag, baby, that's fine. But I'd rather have him produce material that pushes his boundaries rather than something that rehashes the same tired old themes.
P.S. You'll be pleased to learn he told the N.Y. Times he's already completed work on a few new rollicking tunes meant for an E Street Band release.
Sandman, Jersey Girl, Pete: I'll address each point one by one.
Sandman: Yes, Bon Jovi sucks and yes, when I get totally loaded I love his stuff. I would say the best thing that could've happened to him is a death by OD after Slippery When Wet was released. Since that album, it's been mostly crap. New Jersey might be the biggest waste of vinyl on the planet. However, that doesn't mean I don't like it. Damn, Culture Club is pure stench, but give me a few tastes and throw Karma Kameleon on the juke box and I'm pretty much in heaven. And by the way, Edge of a Broken Heart kicks total ass.
Jersey Girl: I think comparing Bon Jovi and Bruce is absurd. While Bon Jovi has grown as musically as he possibly can, Bruce can still grow as a rock artist without having to bore me with tunes from the Bayou. Just look at Pearl Jam and the Red Hot Chili Peppers. They have tried to grow musically over there last few albums and the results have been pure stench. Bruce, however, can grow without having to go into a totally worthless genre.
Pete: I knew you would bring up Nebraska. Great album, I'm not arguing that Nebraska is a great album, but once if friggin enough. As for paying tribute to his lineage, why not just do a Dylan album, since he's been ripping off that dude since Day 1.
Nebraska plays right into my other argument on the post. What was the album right after Nebraska? His most commercially successful album ever, and if you listen to Born in The USA now, you'll realized what a steaming pile of shit it really is.
I can't wait for further rebuttal from all of you.
I'm by no means comparing Bon Jovi to Springsteen. I was simply trying to point out that what you are asking of Springsteen is to do what Bon Jovi has done - evolve 0% musically over the years. You say you think Bruce can still grow as an artist, but how many ways are there to sing about cars and chicks and living at the beach?
And why is the genre totally worthless? Because you don't like it? How open-minded.
I am by no means a die-hard Springsteen fan. I think I own one greatest hits album from the early 90's. I just never got into him, but I totally appreciate his music and I never change the station when they come on the radio. I am, however, a huge fan of Bon Jovi, in fact, I just shelled out $110 for tickets to see them at Giants Stadium this summer.
That said, comparing Springsteen as an artist and song writer to Jon Bon Jovi and his pals would be like comparing Babe Ruth to Ray Ordonez.
Springsteen is a fantastic song writer, especially lyrically. Jon Bon Jovi's head would explode if he managed to write more than five songs without the "I'd die for you, I'd cry for you, I'd lie for you" lyrical pattern showing up. And if he ever composed a song with more than a three or four chord progression, my brain would shut down in disbelief.
But as a Bon Jovi fan I love them for what they are. Simple, pop rock, good old fashion 80's rock. And I love them for it. When I want to listen to something more evolved and advanced, I listen to Rush, Queensryche, Dream Theater and countless other artists that would make Bon Jovi -- and even Springsteen -- look like monkeys pounding on a piano.
To say Bon Jovi "sucks" is a misuse of the insult. Would you say a great high school or college athlete "sucks" because he couldn't cut it in the Majors?
Bon Jovi kicks ass for their genre. They meets their expectations and that's it. Are they great musical artist? No. But they satisfy my expectations of them and they slay most other bands of their genre.
One other thing, Mr. Pendleton; "Slippery When Wet" was a great album, yes. But assuming we can agree about Bon Jovi's limits and expectations, "New Jersey" kicked its ass, and "Keep the Faith" came close. In fact, I might argue, that Bon Jovi's best album was "These Days," even though it barely had a mainstream "hit." I highly recommend "Something to Believe In" off that offering, as well as "Blood on Blood" off "New Jersey." Somehow, JBJ managed to actually write thoughtful and insightful lyrics for both those tunes, and I consider them to be big-league caliber, as far as lyrics go.
Sandman: Reading your post, I was with you all the way until I claim New Jersey kicked Slippery When Wet's arse.
C'mon dude, let's get real. Born to Be My Baby could be the biggest piece of crap he's ever written (oh, wait, I forgot about Bad Medicine).
When I say JBJ sucks, I mean it compared to actual rock acts. Again, up until New Jersey, I was totally into them, but they lost me there and have never gotten me back. As for you dropping $110 beans to see them this summer, I must say a: you are hard-core and b: have way too much disposable income on your hands.
JERSEY GIRL: YOu can evolve musically without totally going out of your comfortable genre.
Look at The Beatles, no group evolved musically than they did (and by the way, they did it in a 7-year span, not a 30-year span) and their music just got better and better without going way off the beaten path.
As for the worthless comment, I actually like that type of music, am a huge fan of a New Orleans band called Beausolei, but I don't want to hear it from Bruce.
The Beatles stopped after seven years because they had nothing left.
Springsteen, on the other hand, continues to dig deep and give you sounds you never imagined would come from him or his band.
I think you kind of shot your own argument in its foot with the comparisons to Pearl Jam and RHCP. Yeah, they produced stench because they kept trying the same formula.
So you rip Bruce for trying something different, and you rip them for staying within their genre box.
Which is it?
One other point to quibble with: I contest your statement that he's been ripping off Dylan since Day 1.
True, a lot of his early work has a heavy Dylan influence. But it was also markedly different.
When Columbia signed him, the executives wanted the next Dylan. Yet they were horrified when Bruce walked into the studio with the full band, the horns, Clarence, et. all, and gave birth to new genre of rock.
OK, first of all, don't ever, ever, EVER compare Bruce and the Beatles ever again. It's like comparing the Yankees and the Devil Rays.
The Beatles produced more albums and groundbreaking material in than 7 years than Bruce has in 35 years. And they banged out a few films, too.
Plus, you could argue Lennon and McCartney's post-Beatles careers were more significant than Bruce's career.
As for Pearl Jam and the RHCP, they didn't just do the same formula, they tried to grow and the results were awful and boring.
Ok, the Dylan line was a cheap shot, and I do give Bruce credit for trying something new, but I think the results are sub-par.
In a way, you're giving him credit for trying something new, no matter what the results are.
What's next, a spoken word album, a rap album?
In a sense, yes, I am giving him credit for doing something out of the ordinary.
But moreso, because it's damned good.
Incidentally, have you even listened to The Seeger Sessions?
I think it's probably the best album he's put out in ages, not counting the '00 live album.
I've heard bits and pieces, it's OK. Certainly not worthy of my $12.99
All I'm saying is that if Bruce told me he'd call me back tomorrow, I don't think I'd still be waiting for him two weeks later.
Oh, and the new CD rocks.
Sometimes doing the same thing over and over and over again works just fine (like Todd's Harry impression, Belock's bitterness, etc.) other times you have to try something new.
I think you're obviously not drinking enough beer.
Rico
JIM: As Joe Belock would say, "I'm very busy over here."
I'll call you dude, don't worry.
I actually had the Bruce CD in my hand today at Best Buy, but put it back and wisely picked up Ed Vedder's new effort instead.
So, Joe, what are your impressions of "These Days?"
Post a Comment