Hardrock92

"The great artist is not necessarily the one who invents something, but the one who brings it to life in the best way." I agree, the point is that I find Springsteen hasn't even brought to life what already existed, except, indeed, in Nebraska and The Ghost of Tom Joad. I haven't read all the lyrics either (obviously :-)), but even there, I find many of the things Dylan was already saying, albeit with a more epic vein that, as I mentioned, doesn't really excite me. I don't know, I just can’t be convinced by Bruce; my feeling isn't "I don't like it," I just can't comprehend how he could have the same depth as the other mentioned artists. But maybe I'm wrong.

I’d like to add that anyway, in person it’s a whole other thing, that’s his true dimension in my opinion. I’m not inclined to love stadium concerts and in fact, I’m not crazy about them, but when I saw him at the Olimpico, I was truly amazed by his energy. I’m sorry, though, that I don’t like most of the albums.

Mmm, for me it’s not so much a matter of musical genres; Bruce is ultimately my genre, it’s my genre but I don’t like it. Then yes, obviously everything ultimately comes down to tastes. However, I was making a more objective point, namely: are we 100% sure that he can be placed among the great singer-songwriters, alongside names like Bob Dylan, Neil Young, Tom Waits, Leonard Cohen, Nick Drake, and why not Van Zandt (who, by the way, has been really catching my attention lately)? I believe not. I can understand why he appeals to some people—generational or sentimental reasons, of course (they’ll roast me: Bob Dylan, for instance, I’m not always in the mood to listen to because he’s challenging and I would even say "anti-musical", just to say that I don't judge too much based on my preferences)—but both musically and lyrically, he hasn’t said anything new at all, he took from Dylan, added some edgier guitars (but not too much), and that’s it; except for the albums I mentioned earlier, those are truly beautiful...

Genoo, usually around this time I feel very, very folk-oriented. I've listened to Springsteen a lot, especially to understand where all his greatness lies, since apart from Nebraska and The Ghost of Tom Joad (maybe also The River, though I’ve never tried it), I don't find anything particularly special. The first two are considered masterpieces, but honestly, they seem to me like pretty straightforward songs, with an underlying epic quality that I frankly don't appreciate. I repeat, maybe I'm just not getting it or maybe I belong to the wrong generation. But really, compared to Neil Young, Bob Dylan, and all the names mentioned by J&R, I find the Boss significantly inferior.

"From what I’ve heard, he’s another excellent storyteller of many generations who has earned his place on Olympus despite objectively having a terrible voice; that must mean something. Bob Dylan, in addition to his terrible voice, had lyrics that were unlike any others, which he put out in the only way he probably could. Sometimes his continuous chant is even annoying, perhaps for this very reason it 'gets under your skin' and keeps you glued to listening to him. Bruce, on the other hand, might have a decent voice, but in the lyrics, although not bad (and of course they shouldn’t be), I often find a rhetoric that personally irritates me. Moreover, he doesn’t even have that much melodic and compositional talent, really."

Well, I saw the boss live and it was a really great show (more than a concert), but I have to say that on record (aside from Nebraska and The Ghost of Tom Joad) he has never convinced me, in fact, I find it rather subpar. Born to Run and Darkness on the Edge of Town in particular I find to be quite mediocre. Maybe it's just me not grasping the "greatness," but they seem like little songs that aren't even that nice, with a really ugly and dull sound, a hybrid between folk and "rock" that is not very appealing. Perhaps it doesn't matter, but compared to Dylan and Young (to mention two singer-songwriters of the same "background" as Springsteen), I think he is far inferior.

Ah, but it's not like I'm so up-to-date on the new releases either, though every now and then I take a "stroll" through the present to see if anything catches my interest. And the Women impressed me, if you have the time (and the desire), give Public Strain a listen :D

The first one I've heard is recorded really poorly, but I've never listened to it. Let’s just say I misspoke; "badly recorded" was meant as "not commercial" (what an ugly term, but it's for understanding purposes). That said, I actually quite like the sound; it’s just the songs themselves that don’t do anything for me. It might be that it’s not the right season, as you said, it’s summer stuff and we’re now at the gates of winter :-) Among the latest releases, have you listened to the Women? I'm really enjoying them a lot...

I listened to this album (more than once, of course) after reading the other review and it didn’t say anything to me; they seem like really shitty little songs that sound cool because they’re poorly recorded. Maybe the spirit at the end is precisely that, I don’t know the character well, but I was expecting something definitely more interesting, especially given the names that come up when talking about Wavves.

I hope you didn't take it personally :-(