So Springsteen's Born to Run (the song)...

[Ilash]

Inspired by the Springsteen discussion that was taking place in the "musical expansion" thread, I noted that I never really got the appeal of the guy so I decided to download one of his most celebrated songs and see if maybe I'd just been listening to the wrong stuff. Well, I've listened to the song Born to Run a number of times over the last day and I've got to say, I'm even more confused than ever. How ON EARTH did this song manage to become regarded as one of the greatest songs of all time. I mean I suppose I could point to the less than amazing production (though maybe I just got a bad-sounding mp3) or that the playing is only decent at best but my main problem with the song is, well, WHERE THE HELL IS THE BLOODY MELODY?!?!? Seriously maybe I'm missing something but musically that song is pathetic! Is it the lyrics that make the song? Well, aside for the fact that I have trouble hearing them, lyrics are NEVER enough to make a song. Yeah, I know that's a strange statement to make considering that I'm a huge Bob Dylan fan but oddly enough Dylan's music doesn't actually rely solely on the lyrics - even when when a song does seem to do that very thing. Besides, I've never really gotten the impression that Springsteen is even in the same league as Dylan even just on a purely lyrical level.

Anyone want to explain to me what I'm missing here (preferably without this degenerating into a flame war)? I'm really curious to know.

[Jonathan Bogart]

I can't speak for any other Springsteen fans, but for me, his big achievement with Born to Run was to take the personalized storytelling of (vaguely countryish) singer-songwriter music, and then throw it into widescreen relief by giving it the passionate urgency of soul music, the big, booming production of Phil Spector-era pop, and the driving energy of early rock 'n' roll.

Since you, as far as I can tell, only like rock -- and later styles of rock than Bruce tends to reference -- I can see why you wouldn't be too enthusiastic about something that gives equal time to soul and pop. But as far as I'm concerned, it's all music. Privileging the guitar-bass-drums-(and-maybe keyboards) setup over any other is ultimately limiting.

"Born to Run" has a perfectly functional melody. But the melody is played, rather than sung. This is common in blues-influenced soul music. (Common in Dylan's work, too.) But if you're looking for a melody in the Beatles sense (which is a melody in the tradional pop sense), you're out of luck: Springsteen uses repeated hooks, like the rock & roll artists he emulates here.

In my estimation, "Born to Run" is not a rock song, but a pop song which uses rock devices. It wears the mantle of the Ronettes, Del Shannon, and the Shangri-Las, rather than the mantle of the Rolling Stones and Jimi Hendrix. I don't know if this will help you like it any better, but it helped me to.

[Alex]

Spike will be here in a few hours to write an essay.

[Ilash]

Spike will be here in a few hours to write an essay.

No doubt, no doubt...

[Ilash]

I can't speak for any other Springsteen fans, but for me, his big achievement with Born to Run was to take the personalized storytelling of (vaguely countryish) singer-songwriter music, and then throw it into widescreen relief by giving it the passionate urgency of soul music, the big, booming production of Phil Spector-era pop, and the driving energy of early rock 'n' roll.

Since you, as far as I can tell, only like rock -- and later styles of rock than Bruce tends to reference -- I can see why you wouldn't be too enthusiastic about something that gives equal time to soul and pop. But as far as I'm concerned, it's all music. Privileging the guitar-bass-drums-(and-maybe keyboards) setup over any other is ultimately limiting.

"Born to Run" has a perfectly functional melody. But the melody is played, rather than sung. This is common in blues-influenced soul music. (Common in Dylan's work, too.) But if you're looking for a melody in the Beatles sense (which is a melody in the tradional pop sense), you're out of luck: Springsteen uses repeated hooks, like the rock & roll artists he emulates here.

In my estimation, "Born to Run" is not a rock song, but a pop song which uses rock devices. It wears the mantle of the Ronettes, Del Shannon, and the Shangri-Las, rather than the mantle of the Rolling Stones and Jimi Hendrix. I don't know if this will help you like it any better, but it helped me to.

Wait a minute, I don't only like rock (unless you mean in the VERY general sense). "Vaguely countyish singer-songwriting": um right now I'm listening to Ronnie Lane and I just admited to being a gigantic Bob Dylan fan (and the more folkish Freewheeling and John Wesley Harding are definite favourites. "Pop": as long as we're talking in the older sense of the term (ie. Peppers-era Beatles not Britney Spears) I love me some good pop music from the mid-sixties era of the Beatles, Kinks, Stones and the Who to Elton John to the Flaming Lips. And he does not use repeated hooks in this song - in fact, I can't hear any hooks at all. That's the problem.

[Jonathan Bogart]

Wait a minute, I don't only like rock (unless you mean in the VERY general sense).
Yes, I do mean in the very general sense. Rock as a catch-all category, a genre of popular music like Jazz, or Country, or Electronic. But also rock as a self-consciously grown-up "not just rock & roll anymore" post-Beatles/Dylan/Woodstock genre. I.e., Rock That Isn't Pop. Also, beginning roughly circa 1969, rock as opposed to soul and r&b, rather than being inspired by such music and looking to further the dialogue.

"Vaguely countyish singer-songwriting": um right now I'm listening to Ronnie Lane and I just admited to being a gigantic Bob Dylan fan (and the more folkish Freewheeling and John Wesley Harding are definite favourites.
That's very much a part of the rock tradition I'm talking about. It might be argued that when country-rock got big, rock as a whole turned its back on black music. Except the blues, for a while.

"Pop": as long as we're talking in the older sense of the term (ie. Peppers-era Beatles not Britney Spears) I love me some good pop music from the mid-sixties era of the Beatles, Kinks, Stones and the Who to Elton John to the Flaming Lips.
By pop, I actually meant pre-Beatles (yes, there was listenable music before the Beatles) pop. I don't get much sense that you've heard, much less enjoyed, any of Phil Spector's production ... which is kind of essential to getting "Born to Run," at least for me.

And he does not use repeated hooks in this song - in fact, I can't hear any hooks at all. That's the problem.
Yes, he does. The very first thing you hear in the song, right after the drums. Sax, keys, guitar, and drums play it together: Dun...da dun dun dun...dun. That's a hook: a brief combination of melody and rhythm that is repeated throughout the song. You may not find it memorable or pleasant to listen to or enjoyable or of any interest at all (on all counts of which I'll cordially disagree), but it's still a hook.

[howyadoin]

I suppose I could point to the less than amazing production (though maybe I just got a bad-sounding mp3)Evidently you did, 'cause the production on that song is damn near flawless.

[Ilash]

Yes, I do mean in the very general sense. Rock as a catch-all category, a genre of popular music like Jazz, or Country, or Electronic. But also rock as a self-consciously grown-up "not just rock & roll anymore" post-Beatles/Dylan/Woodstock genre. I.e., Rock That Isn't Pop. Also, beginning roughly circa 1969, rock as opposed to soul and r&b, rather than being inspired by such music and looking to further the dialogue.

Nah, I do enjoy the earlier rock and roll. I prefer the more grown up stuff more but still. And I do quite enjoy a bit of classic r&b even though as of yet the only album I've got from that genre is a Temptations greatest hits. I do intend to pick up some more in teh future too.

That's very much a part of the rock tradition I'm talking about. It might be argued that when country-rock got big, rock as a whole turned its back on black music. Except the blues, for a while.

It may be but there were still plenty of the old roots all over the place, especially with the roots-rockers, which I'm a huge fan. And I just said I love music that draws from that, did I not, when I mentioned Dylan and Lane.


By pop, I actually meant pre-Beatles (yes, there was listenable music before the Beatles) pop. I don't get much sense that you've heard, much less enjoyed, any of Phil Spector's production ... which is kind of essential to getting "Born to Run," at least for me.


Yes, he does. The very first thing you hear in the song, right after the drums. Sax, keys, guitar, and drums play it together: Dun...da dun dun dun...dun. That's a hook: a brief combination of melody and rhythm that is repeated throughout the song. You may not find it memorable or pleasant to listen to or enjoyable or of any interest at all (on all counts of which I'll cordially disagree), but it's still a hook.

All Things Must Pass is one of my absolute favourite albums and definitely NOT in spite of Spector. And yeah, you're right that is a hook, I'll be damned! Kind of a problem that I didn't even really notice it until you pointed it out so I guess you can say that it's umemorable and uninteresting.

[Jonathan Bogart]

All Things Must Pass is one of my absolute favourite albums and definitely NOT in spite of Spector.
*Sigh*

That doesn't count. Any of the Beatles could have done Spectorish production in their sleep. I meant the stuff that made them want to work with him: the Crystals, the Ronettes, the Righteous Brothers. That's the music "Born to Run" is channeling.

[WSLer]

*Sigh*

That doesn't count. Any of the Beatles could have done Spectorish production in their sleep. I meant the stuff that made them want to work with him: the Crystals, the Ronettes, the Righteous Brothers. That's the music "Born to Run" is channeling.


The Beatles never expressed any desire to work with Phil Spector.

Ever.

The only reason he got to fuck up the Get Back/Let It Be albums in such a colossal way is that no one else was interested.

[WSLer]

Evidently you did, 'cause the production on that song is damn near flawless.


It should be seeing as Springsteen took over 6 months to construct and record the song in the studio. Ranks right up there with Brian Wilson in terms of most time spent working/recording one song.

[WSLer]

It might be argued that when country-rock got big, rock as a whole turned its back on black music. Except the blues, for a while.


It might be argued, but it'd be a stupid arguement.

Or has Motown slipped from the memory that easily?

[WSLer]

It might be argued that when country-rock got big, rock as a whole turned its back on black music. Except the blues, for a while.


It might be argued, but it'd be a stupid arguement.

Or has Motown slipped from the memory that easily?

[Jaye]

God I love Born To Run.
I can't explain why, but I think Jonathan Bogart is doing a damn good job at it.

One of the bootleg copies of it Spike sent me actually gave me goosebumps towards the end.

-13th

[Reptisaurus!]

It might be argued, but it'd be a stupid arguement.

Or has Motown slipped from the memory that easily?

I assume that Jon's not bunching Motown in with "Rock."

And since neither the artists nor the management of Motown ever called their sound "rock," as far as I can tell. (At least not in "Motown: Music, Money, Sex, and Power" or "Standing in the Shadows of Motown," the only books we got here at the library on the topic.)

Edit: Yeah. Born to Run rocks. Maybe it's a pop song, but it feels more honest-t'-God rock 'n roll to me than, well, any piece of post-1960 music I've heard.

[Jonathan Bogart]

The Beatles never expressed any desire to work with Phil Spector.

Ever.
He produced two Harrison albums and four Lennon albums. They didn't exactly hate the man.

Or are you one of those people who thinks all of the Beatles died when the band did?

[Spike-X]

I guess Ilash just doesn't get Springsteen.

Born to Run (the song) perfectly encapsulates what was, to Springsteen, the promise of rock and roll: there's something else out there. Something bigger, better and brighter than you can possibly imagine, just waiting for you to jump in your car, your girl by your side, and seek it out.

This is what Springsteen saw in the rock and roll records that he listened to growing up, the music that played in his mother's kitchen that always made her so happy, the music that allowed him to escape, for three minutes at a time, the bleak existence that seemed to be the only possible future for the kids living in that small New Jersey factory town.

"Baby this town rips the bones from your back
It's a death trap, it's a suicide rap..."

Springsteen saw his father slowly being crushed - whatever dreams Doug Springsteen may have once had had been sucked out of him, leaving him sitting up alone in the kitchen, in the dark, night after night. Bruce was determined not to end up the same way -

"We gotta get out while we're young
`Cause tramps like us, baby we were born to run!"

That's what rock and roll offered Bruce - the chance to escape. To get out*. That's what it promised, and that's what it delivered. And in Born To Run, Bruce offers that same chance to his audience.




*The New Jersey State Legislature actually once considered making Born to Run New Jersey's 'Official Youth Anthem' or something lame like that, until they realised the song was actually about getting the hell out of New Jersey!

[howyadoin]

It should be seeing as Springsteen took over 6 months to construct and record the song in the studio. Ranks right up there with Brian Wilson in terms of most time spent working/recording one song.To put it bluntly...


so what? Does the amount of time spent on a work of art factor into its value? Is there a cap on art?

[Ilash]

To put it bluntly...


so what? Does the amount of time spent on a work of art factor into its value? Is there a cap on art?

Exactly, Paul McCartney came up with Yesterday in his sleep, while Keith Richards came up with Satisfaction did the same - does that make these songs any less than they are. As for production, some of the best albums of all time - the best sounding ones even - were done in a few days. All that working on production for six months does to you is drive you nuts - just ask Brian Wilson, who, as much as I like the guy, took months to do what it took someone like Paul McCartney a few weeks at most.

[Ilash]

I guess Ilash just doesn't get Springsteen.

Born to Run (the song) perfectly encapsulates what was, to Springsteen, the promise of rock and roll: there's something else out there. Something bigger, better and brighter than you can possibly imagine, just waiting for you to jump in your car, your girl by your side, and seek it out.

This is what Springsteen saw in the rock and roll records that he listened to growing up, the music that played in his mother's kitchen that always made her so happy, the music that allowed him to escape, for three minutes at a time, the bleak existence that seemed to be the only possible future for the kids living in that small New Jersey factory town.

"Baby this town rips the bones from your back
It's a death trap, it's a suicide rap..."

Springsteen saw his father slowly being crushed - whatever dreams Doug Springsteen may have once had had been sucked out of him, leaving him sitting up alone in the kitchen, in the dark, night after night. Bruce was determined not to end up the same way -

"We gotta get out while we're young
`Cause tramps like us, baby we were born to run!"

That's what rock and roll offered Bruce - the chance to escape. To get out*. That's what it promised, and that's what it delivered. And in Born To Run, Bruce offers that same chance to his audience.




*The New Jersey State Legislature actually once considered making Born to Run New Jersey's 'Official Youth Anthem' or something lame like that, until they realised the song was actually about getting the hell out of New Jersey!


Okay, but I'm not really arguing his overall philosophy. That he used rock and roll as a way to escape a hopeless, dreamless life is great for him but what I want to know is why should I care? Especially when, in my eyes, Born to Run is such a dull, bland and unmemorable song musically. Good lyrics and good philosophy is all very well but what use is it to me, if the music simply isn't engaging.

[zombie]

Okay, but I'm not really arguing his overall philosophy. That he used rock and roll as a way to escape a hopeless, dreamless life is great for him but what I want to know is why should I care? Especially when, in my eyes, Born to Run is such a dull, bland and unmemorable song musically. Good lyrics and good philosophy is all very well but what use is it to me, if the music simply isn't engaging.

"Dull, bland and unmemorable"? I don't know what song you're listening to. It sure sounds lively enough to me.

[Reptisaurus!]

Okay, but I'm not really arguing his overall philosophy. That he used rock and roll as a way to escape a hopeless, dreamless life is great for him but what I want to know is why should I care? Especially when, in my eyes, Born to Run is such a dull, bland and unmemorable song musically. Good lyrics and good philosophy is all very well but what use is it to me, if the music simply isn't engaging.

You didn't like Chuck Berry either, right?

Seems to me that you just don't get this whole Rock 'n Roll thang.

(Blues Based Rock 'n Roll as "Music based around heavily accentuated beats derived from blues and hillbily music" as seperate from *rock* which places more importance on melody and studio production.)

[Spike-X]

Born to Run is such a dull, bland and unmemorable song musically.

You have no soul.

[Punchy McSplodo]

I've gotta come out and support Ilash, here.

I love a lot of pre-Beatles pop and rock singles, and I think Born to Run is an incredibly garish song.

I think comparing it to the kind of beautiful and majestic music Spector and later Wilson produced is an insult to those two.

The song aims for their kind of overall sound, but comes off sounding, at least to me, the way old timey French hookers are stereotyped as looking: an incredibly ugly, hammy, and overindulgent combination of way too many different kinds of makeup. I'm not sure how much input Bruce himself (as opposed to the rest of the band) had in the songwriting and production, but, overall, he or they lacked Spector and Wilson's ear and judgement to pull off this sort of thing.

I like the lyrics, but the music leaves a lot to be desired for me.

[Punchy]

um right now I'm listening to Ronnie Lane and I just admited to being a gigantic Bob Dylan fan

Waitasec ...

You're a gigantic Dylan fan yet you're complaining that Springsteen has no melody or hooks?

oooooooooookay ....

[Alex]

Waitasec ...

You're a gigantic Dylan fan yet you're complaining that Springsteen has no melody or hooks?

oooooooooookay ....
Dylan has hooks...
....
In the songs that aren't 7 minute long stories with no hooks that is.

[Reptisaurus!]

I've gotta come out and support Ilash, here.

I love a lot of pre-Beatles pop and rock singles, and I think Born to Run is an incredibly garish song.


Well, yeah.

But y'seem to be missing the point of it all.

Spector was writing songs about teenage crushes, but his sound was fairly chaste. It's music written *by* adults *for* teengagers. His songs feel almost crystaline to me, screaming LOOK BUT DON'T TOUCH!

"Born to Run" is teenage music. It's over the top, but when you're a teenager EVERYTHING is THE BEST THING EVER or else THE END OF THE WORLD. "Born to Run" is the voice of a man who can think like a real teenager, and can still write a song bathed in adolescent sweat.

In structure and production, sure, it might borrow from our pals at Motown.

But at it's heart it's a Chuck Berry anthem about bein' young and scared and free.

(And the best lyrical beginning of, like, any song ever.)
Honestly, I can't even imagine comparing

[WSLer]

To put it bluntly...


so what? Does the amount of time spent on a work of art factor into its value? Is there a cap on art?


You want to take someone's comments completely out of context, that's fine. Just don't do it with anything I say.

[WSLer]

Exactly, Paul McCartney came up with Yesterday in his sleep, while Keith Richards came up with Satisfaction did the same - does that make these songs any less than they are. As for production, some of the best albums of all time - the best sounding ones even - were done in a few days. All that working on production for six months does to you is drive you nuts - just ask Brian Wilson, who, as much as I like the guy, took months to do what it took someone like Paul McCartney a few weeks at most.

McCartney came up with the melody for Yesterday, supposedly in a dream. It took him nearly 4 months to come up with the lyrics.

That's a hell of a lot longer then a few weeks at most.

[WSLer]

He produced two Harrison albums and four Lennon albums. They didn't exactly hate the man.

Or are you one of those people who thinks all of the Beatles died when the band did?


Oh look, someone's being snotty.

How cute.

Here's a lollipop, now get sucking.

So Spector produced albums for Harrison and Lennon.

Big fucking deal.

By the time those albums were being worked on The Beatles as a recording entity had long since disbanded.

"...are you one of those people who thinks the Beatles died when the band disbanded?'

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

The Beatles did die when the band disbanded, at least as a recording entity.

The fact that Harrison and Lennon had Spector produce some of their solo albums has fuck all to do with the Beatles.

The Beatles already had a producer by the name of George Martin.

If they had had Spector as a producer their sound would have been the same as all of Spectors famous "Wall of Sound" records as the Let It Be album makes quite clear, and they wouldn't occupy the place they do in rock/pop history, that place being the Best/Most Important/Most Influential Act in Pop/Rock history.

[Spike-X]

(And the best lyrical beginning of, like, any song ever.)


Apart from Thunder Road, of course.

[Ilash]

You didn't like Chuck Berry either, right?

Seems to me that you just don't get this whole Rock 'n Roll thang.

(Blues Based Rock 'n Roll as "Music based around heavily accentuated beats derived from blues and hillbily music" as seperate from *rock* which places more importance on melody and studio production.)

Nope, I like Chuck Berry just fine. Hell, I consider him to be the true king of pre-Beatles rock and roll. What I have said from time to time though is that Keith Richards does a better Chuck Berry than Chuck himself. No, if this was a straight out Berry-esque rocker, I'd be well pleased - not amazed but pleased.

[Ilash]

Waitasec ...

You're a gigantic Dylan fan yet you're complaining that Springsteen has no melody or hooks?

oooooooooookay ....

Ah, I was waiting for that.

The truth is though that if Dylan didn't have great melodies I wouldn't be listening to him, however good his lyrics are. The thing with Bob, I find, is that you've got to throw all conventional understanding about what makes good music out the window because the man plays by his own rules. He's almost brilliant in spite of himself. First off he has a weird, at first annoying voice that doesn't change the fact that he somehow manages to be a brilliant singer (with the exception for some few incredibly annoying tracks), putting all of his emphasis on expression. His lyrics are often meaningless gibberish but they're still some of the most amazing gibberish you will ever hear because even if you don't understand the song in its entirety, the images and turns of phrase he comes up with make conveentional "meaning" completely irrelevant. As for his melodies, sure, they're all very simple and probably taken from old folk songs but they DO exist and somehow manage to completely engage me more than most typically good melody makers. And even in the cases where the melody is lacking he manages to make a song compelling nonetheless for a reason that I can't even begin to understand.

I know it seems like I'm just a Dylan-fanboy but I don't think I'm all that far off about this - especially since it should be noted I'm talking about his many graet songs not something like his 80s songs or an occasional misstep like "Joey".

[Ilash]

"Dull, bland and unmemorable"? I don't know what song you're listening to. It sure sounds lively enough to me.

Sure, lively in the sense of loud, chaotic random noise (not literally, mind you) but not in a musical sense. Plenty of energy but very little musical worth.

[Ilash]

I've gotta come out and support Ilash, here.

I love a lot of pre-Beatles pop and rock singles, and I think Born to Run is an incredibly garish song.

I think comparing it to the kind of beautiful and majestic music Spector and later Wilson produced is an insult to those two.

The song aims for their kind of overall sound, but comes off sounding, at least to me, the way old timey French hookers are stereotyped as looking: an incredibly ugly, hammy, and overindulgent combination of way too many different kinds of makeup. I'm not sure how much input Bruce himself (as opposed to the rest of the band) had in the songwriting and production, but, overall, he or they lacked Spector and Wilson's ear and judgement to pull off this sort of thing.

I like the lyrics, but the music leaves a lot to be desired for me.


Hey, someone that agrees with me! Awesome! I truly thought I was all alone in this. And this is putting it far more ellegantly than I ever did too. The only difference is that I have a hard time telling if the lyrics are any good because he does seem to mumble them.

[Shellhead]

I guess Ilash just doesn't get Springsteen.

Born to Run (the song) perfectly encapsulates what was, to Springsteen, the promise of rock and roll: there's something else out there. Something bigger, better and brighter than you can possibly imagine, just waiting for you to jump in your car, your girl by your side, and seek it out.

This is what Springsteen saw in the rock and roll records that he listened to growing up, the music that played in his mother's kitchen that always made her so happy, the music that allowed him to escape, for three minutes at a time, the bleak existence that seemed to be the only possible future for the kids living in that small New Jersey factory town.

"Baby this town rips the bones from your back
It's a death trap, it's a suicide rap..."

Springsteen saw his father slowly being crushed - whatever dreams Doug Springsteen may have once had had been sucked out of him, leaving him sitting up alone in the kitchen, in the dark, night after night. Bruce was determined not to end up the same way -

"We gotta get out while we're young
`Cause tramps like us, baby we were born to run!"

That's what rock and roll offered Bruce - the chance to escape. To get out*. That's what it promised, and that's what it delivered. And in Born To Run, Bruce offers that same chance to his audience.




*The New Jersey State Legislature actually once considered making Born to Run New Jersey's 'Official Youth Anthem' or something lame like that, until they realised the song was actually about getting the hell out of New Jersey!

I agree that this is an upbeat, optimistic song, with stirring lyrics and a good melody. But then you mentioned that the New Jersey state legislature misunderstood the song. And all those young Republicans in the 80's misunderstood Born in the USA. This reinforces my point that Springsteen is not a good singer. His droning voice has a very limited range and gets lost in the music. He sounds very enthusiastic, but the only easily intelligble parts are the chorus of each song. When Springsteen dials down the volume and slows the tempo down, like on Nebraska, that's when his real talent shines through. If he spent 6 months in the studio reworking Born to Run, it shows, because the song is overproduced-sounding and has got a little too much going on at once.

[howyadoin]

You want to take someone's comments completely out of context, that's fine. Just don't do it with anything I say.I quoted your entire post. How was it out of context in any way?

[ghostrider666]

Just what Spike-X said. Also what kids in a deadend indusrtial town did to escape from the dull-drums. Illeagal street racing on Rt.9 in Old Bridge.
While not a Springsteen fan, I'm from NJ so you got to know all the songs, its a state requirement.

[Punchy]

As for his melodies, sure, they're all very simple and probably taken from old folk songs but they DO exist and somehow manage to completely engage me more than most typically good melody makers. And even in the cases where the melody is lacking he manages to make a song compelling nonetheless for a reason that I can't even begin to understand.


Sounds to me like your making concessions for Dylan but not for Springsteen.

Sure, lively in the sense of loud, chaotic random noise (not literally, mind you) but not in a musical sense. Plenty of energy but very little musical worth.

And what exactly is musical worth? Because as far as arrangement, harmony, and instrumentation "Born To Run" has a lot more than most songs Dylan's come up with.

[Punchy]

You want to take someone's comments completely out of context, that's fine. Just don't do it with anything I say.

Let me help. You said:

It should be seeing as Springsteen took over 6 months to construct and record the song in the studio. Ranks right up there with Brian Wilson in terms of most time spent working/recording one song.

Why? What does that have to do with anything? There are albums that have taken YEARS to produce and they end up sounding like crapola. Saying the song SHOULD have great production just because it took a long time is very curious. So howy was just wondering if you were inferring that the amount of time spent on an artistic project factors into its value.

It's a good questiom, I'm wondering as well. Take a breath and read the question next time before flaming back.

[Spike-X]

I agree that this is an upbeat, optimistic song, with stirring lyrics and a good melody. But then you mentioned that the New Jersey state legislature misunderstood the song. And all those young Republicans in the 80's misunderstood Born in the USA. This reinforces my point that Springsteen is not a good singer. His droning voice has a very limited range and gets lost in the music. He sounds very enthusiastic, but the only easily intelligble parts are the chorus of each song. When Springsteen dials down the volume and slows the tempo down, like on Nebraska, that's when his real talent shines through. If he spent 6 months in the studio reworking Born to Run, it shows, because the song is overproduced-sounding and has got a little too much going on at once.
Not a good singer? Droning voice? Have another listen to Born In The USA, or something like Jungleland, and tell me again about his "limited range".

Born In The USA wasn't misunderstood because it was sung badly, it was misunderstood because sometime people only hear what they want to hear. Maybe if more people had listened to the verses instead of just the chorus...

I will agree that there is a lot going on in Born To Run (12 guitar parts? That's just silly!), but I don't think that detracts from the song's listenability in any way.

[Ilash]

Sounds to me like your making concessions for Dylan but not for Springsteen.
It does doesn't it? But that is because he's Bob Dylan and maybe this is just the talk of a rabid fan but no one else is really like him and no one, least of all Bruce Springsteen, manages to do so much with so little as Bob does.


And what exactly is musical worth? Because as far as arrangement, harmony, and instrumentation "Born To Run" has a lot more than most songs Dylan's come up with.


Sort of see what I just said as far as this goes but nope, I don't agree. You're right that at his peak Dylan sounds nothing like Born to Run because he at least understands that fuller production doesn't mean better production and that there's only so much lack of melody that "wall-of-sound" production can mask. Is the instrumentation better? Probably but again, it's just too much. I would much rather listen to Dylan with his limited skills with an accoustic guitar and harmonica than this cluttered, over the top instrumentation. Again, at his best Bob Dylan uses a combination of music and lyrics - no matter how simple or how complicated - to perfectly express what's in his heart. Born to Run sounds like it's trying so hard to be an anthem that it over shoots its mark.

[Jonathan Bogart]

Sort of see what I just said as far as this goes but nope, I don't agree.
Um, it's not like this is just Punchy's opinion. He was stating a fact. There is, objectively, more going on musically (in arrangement, harmony, and instrumentation: the three foundations of musical performance) in "Born to Run" than in classic Dylan. (Once he started being produced by Daniel Lanois, it's a different story. But I assume you're talking about his classic 60s/70s material.) Even I, without Punchy's musical training and knowlege, can tell that.

You may not like what's going on in "Born to Run," but that doesn't mean it's not there. Hell, I don't like it as much as I like Dylan (I'm especially not a fan of that glossy keyboard sound), but it's still a powerful piece of pop music.


You're right that at his peak Dylan sounds nothing like Born to Run because he at least understands that fuller production doesn't mean better production and that there's only so much lack of melody that "wall-of-sound" production can mask. Is the instrumentation better? Probably but again, it's just too much. I would much rather listen to Dylan with his limited skills with an accoustic guitar and harmonica than this cluttered, over the top instrumentation. Again, at his best Bob Dylan uses a combination of music and lyrics - no matter how simple or how complicated - to perfectly express what's in his heart. Born to Run sounds like it's trying so hard to be an anthem that it over shoots its mark.
First, Bob Dylan has never given any indication that he ever *shudder* tried to express what was in his heart. (I happen to think he did better than that, and expressed what was in the heart of America.) Springsteen, on the other hand, has never expressed anything else.

Second, if you think "Born to Run" is trying too hard to be an anthem, listen to the greatest hits of Journey, Toto, and Foreigner. That's what trying too hard sounds like.

Third, again with the "lack of melody" accusation. A melody is a series of notes. Having played and sung "Born to Run," I can attest that there are indeed many different notes in the song. You can call Springsteen's melodies uninteresting, trite, repetetive, overfamiliar, lazy, or uninspiring (and sometimes they're all of the above), but you can't say they're not there.

I hope this doesn't sound like I'm jumping down your throat. It took me a long time, and a much fuller appreciation of pop music in general (and not just in the "I like pop music because there's some pop music I like" sense), to really enjoy the song. I came from pretty much the same musical background you have (even learned my lessons at Starostin's knee). I had an aversion to widescreen, glossy production, because of the countless Springsteen -- and "Born to Run" -- ripoffs that have followed ever since. But this is the original, and it's the goods.

[Spike-X]

It should be seeing as Springsteen took over 6 months to construct and record the song in the studio. Ranks right up there with Brian Wilson in terms of most time spent working/recording one song.
This is incorrect, by the way.

The album Born To Run took about that long to make for various reasons - problems with the first studio they used, band members leaving and having to be replaced - but the song itself was, I understand, recorded fairly quickly.

[WSLer]

This is incorrect, by the way.

The album Born To Run took about that long to make for various reasons - problems with the first studio they used, band members leaving and having to be replaced - but the song itself was, I understand, recorded fairly quickly.


No, I am correct.

You, on the other hand, are completely wrong.

Springsteen has stated numerous times in interviews that the single "Born To Run" took a couple of months to record and complete.

End of story.

[zombie]

According to Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/6595866/sort/rank?pageid=rs.RS500&pageregion=blob&rnd=1111301033930&has-player=false), "This song's four and a half minutes took three and a half months to cut."

[Alex]

According to Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/6595866/sort/rank?pageid=rs.RS500&pageregion=blob&rnd=1111301033930&has-player=false), "This song's four and a half minutes took three and a half months to cut."
But we can't trust rolling stone, ever.

[Spike-X]

I stand corrected. I did some research, and it turns out that the song Born To Run did indeed take a good couple of months to complete (considerably less that the six months you originally claimed, but still quite a long time to be working on one song).

From BruceBase (http://www.brucebase.shetland.co.uk/): "Born To Run was the first track recorded at 914 studios in May to July 1974..."

I appreciate your graciousness in pointing out my error, by the way.

[howyadoin]

I appreciate your graciousness in pointing out my error, by the way.It was quite touching, wasn't it? I almost cried.

[Ilash]

Um, it's not like this is just Punchy's opinion. He was stating a fact. There is, objectively, more going on musically (in arrangement, harmony, and instrumentation: the three foundations of musical performance) in "Born to Run" than in classic Dylan. (Once he started being produced by Daniel Lanois, it's a different story. But I assume you're talking about his classic 60s/70s material.) Even I, without Punchy's musical training and knowlege, can tell that.

You may not like what's going on in "Born to Run," but that doesn't mean it's not there. Hell, I don't like it as much as I like Dylan (I'm especially not a fan of that glossy keyboard sound), but it's still a powerful piece of pop music.



First, Bob Dylan has never given any indication that he ever *shudder* tried to express what was in his heart. (I happen to think he did better than that, and expressed what was in the heart of America.) Springsteen, on the other hand, has never expressed anything else.

Second, if you think "Born to Run" is trying too hard to be an anthem, listen to the greatest hits of Journey, Toto, and Foreigner. That's what trying too hard sounds like.

Third, again with the "lack of melody" accusation. A melody is a series of notes. Having played and sung "Born to Run," I can attest that there are indeed many different notes in the song. You can call Springsteen's melodies uninteresting, trite, repetetive, overfamiliar, lazy, or uninspiring (and sometimes they're all of the above), but you can't say they're not there.

I hope this doesn't sound like I'm jumping down your throat. It took me a long time, and a much fuller appreciation of pop music in general (and not just in the "I like pop music because there's some pop music I like" sense), to really enjoy the song. I came from pretty much the same musical background you have (even learned my lessons at Starostin's knee). I had an aversion to widescreen, glossy production, because of the countless Springsteen -- and "Born to Run" -- ripoffs that have followed ever since. But this is the original, and it's the goods.


Ah, so you're familiar with George Starostin so this must sound awfully familiar for you. Still, I don't hate Bruce Springsteen simply because I'm not familiar enough with his stuff to do so but if this song is any indiaction I think I'll be staying away from him. And okay, perhaps on a more objective level you're right about the music of the song but yes, I do find it to be most of those descriptions you used. As for Dylan expressing what was in his heart, well, that may have been a cliched way to put it but I don't really think it's true. I should explain a bit more what I mean though. I don't mean that all he wrote were songs dealing exclusively what he was feeling but everything he wrote be it protest songs, stream-of-concious stuff, anti-love songs or simple observations always sounded completely personal - like a man that was just relaying what he was observing or feeling about himself and the general world around him without needing it to appeal to his audience. Springsteen, on the other hand, seems intent on writing songs that would be taken on by his audiences (especially American ones) as anthems of sorts (even if they're obviosuly not as laughable as Journey and company). Maybe I'm wrong about both but that does seem to be the case from my, yes, limited knowledge.

[Punchy]

I would much rather listen to Dylan with his limited skills with an accoustic guitar and harmonica than this cluttered, over the top instrumentation. Again, at his best Bob Dylan uses a combination of music and lyrics - no matter how simple or how complicated - to perfectly express what's in his heart.

That's cool. And I totally understand where you're coming from. But when you say something like "this has more musical worth than that" you really have to back up a claim like that.

[Punchy]

No, I am correct.

You, on the other hand, are completely wrong.

Springsteen has stated numerous times in interviews that the single "Born To Run" took a couple of months to record and complete.

End of story.

Well given the fact that you back-pedaled from "six months" to "a couple of months" I guess you are correct. I mean, if you keep throwing out numbers like that one is bound to stick.

But I'm still wondering if you're correct on your statement that "Born to Run" SHOULD have better production quality because it took longer to complete.

You're pretty selective in the posts you reply to for some reason.

[Shellhead]

Second, if you think "Born to Run" is trying too hard to be an anthem, listen to the greatest hits of Journey, Toto, and Foreigner. That's what trying too hard sounds like.


You made some great points in your post, but this paragraph has caused me to get Steve Perry's voice stuck in my head, endlessly yelping "DON"T-STOP-BE-LIE-VING" Yes, he was definitely trying too hard.

[leonaozaki]

A couple of things:

1) Gasp! Ilash and I mostly agree on Dylan-- although I think I take issue with his description of Dylan's lyrics as "nonsense," or whatever word he actually used.

2) I have a hard time actually hearing "Born to Run," the song, or the album anymore-- my father is/was a big Bruce fan, and it was on all the time in my childhood. So I can't really evaluate it objectively.

3) I will say, though, that I do think "Born to Run" is a great song the same way that the original version of "I think we're alone now" is a great song.

4) That said, BORN TO RUN (the album) isn't my favorite Bruce album anymore. I still like it but DARKNESS ON THE EDGE OF TOWN, NEBRASKA, and TUNNEL OF LOVE are better, to me. Something about the album seems too...calculated...somehow.

rob

[Jonathan Bogart]

3) I will say, though, that I do think "Born to Run" is a great song the same way that the original version of "I think we're alone now" is a great song.
Exactly! Thank you.

Tommy James & the Shondells were the greatest bubblegum pop band ever.

[Spike-X]

The Live 75-85 version is definitely one of the best. They didn't really nail the song live until the Born In The USA tour.

[Ilash]

1) Gasp! Ilash and I mostly agree on Dylan-- although I think I take issue with his description of Dylan's lyrics as "nonsense," or whatever word he actually used.
rob

Ah yes, I just need to clarify that. First off, I only really thought most of them were gibberish when I first started listening. Still, there is a large amount of his lyrics that are just stream-of-conciousness or at least extremely opaque especially on his mid sixties albums (Mr Tambourine Man, anyone?). What I do especially want to clarify is that I don't see this as a problem (at least not anymore) because on even his most lyrically difficult songs, he comes up with some phenomenal images and turns-of-phrase that even if I don't fully understand a lyric on a particular song, I might still massively enjoy them.

Hope that clarrifies my opinion on this a bit.

[Spike-X]

I just found this on a Springsteen fan site -

It was 1976, and I was living in Lynwood, Kansas. I was probably 12 or 13 years old, dreaming of a way out, of what the world outside must be like and what my place in it would be – and this song came on the radio, and it just completely changed my life. That song was Born to Run, and it was by a guy named Bruce Springsteen. I was like, “Holy cow, my life suddenly makes sense.” The next day, the mailman brought my parents’ copy of Time and Bruce Springsteen was on the cover. I read the article and that same afternoon went out and bought the album, Born To Run. I didn’t come out of my room for what felt like a year. I just listened to it over and over and over. That album, that song, it did for me what it does for everybody: it grabs you like a rock ‘n’ roll song – the pounding, the feeling, the fire – and it lifts you up and sets you free. I lived in the Midwest, and this was a song about getting free from the place you’re at. I completely related to that. That’s what rock ‘n’ roll is all about.

[The Mirrorball Man]

The Live 75-85 version is definitely one of the best. They didn't really nail the song live until the Born In The USA tour.
Actually, I challenge anybody, Ilash included, to listen to that version and not end up admitting that "Born to Run" is a great rock'n'roll song. Come on, what are you waiting for? :)

[MacQuarrie]

We played "Born to Run" as the recessional song at our wedding in 1985. The intention was to give my mother a stroke.

"Born to Run" is a song that accomplishes what a great rock song is supposed to: it makes you stomp down hard on the gas pedal and sing along as loud as you can while roaring down the highway.

[Spike-X]

BORN TO RUN (the album) isn't my favorite Bruce album anymore. I still like it but DARKNESS ON THE EDGE OF TOWN, NEBRASKA, and TUNNEL OF LOVE are better, to me. Something about the album seems too...calculated...somehow.

rob

Well, it was calculated. Bruce set out to make the greatest rock'n'roll record ever made.

And he succeeded.

[leonaozaki]

Well, it was calculated. Bruce set out to make the greatest rock'n'roll record ever made.

And he succeeded.

Well, I respect your enthusiasm for Bruce, even if I don't share it (although I used to).

I still like DARKNESS better.

rob

[Spike-X]

Darkness is indeed a mighty fine album, oh yes indeedy.