posted 06-16-2000 10:43 AM PT (US)
I posted this in another forum a couple of days ago. It got a good response, so I'd like to share it here. Please don't be offended if it's a little too political for your liking:I think it's interesting that an "over the hill oldies act", which is what non-fans have been labelling this tour, could come up with by far the most political moment the music world has seen this year.
I saw Springsteen last November, and it was much more than just a bunch of aging boomers revelling in their past. Most of the music was infused with new meaning, knowledge and wisdom gained with the passing of time, and still concerned itself with the concept of justice in the world. The best of Bruce Springsteen's music has always been concerned with these issues. If some (most?) in attendance didn't get it, well most people don't get most things...
Anyone who ever thought that Bruce Springsteen made happy flag-waving music is an idiot, and if they've heard the solo versions of "Born In The USA" from either "Tracks" or live on this tour, they'd know that.
The real subversive thing about Bruce Springsteen is that, unlike modern political music like hip-hop, he's not preaching to the converted. Let me explain. It's my contention that the average listener of NWA is already down with much of their message, although I'm sure the average frat-boy might pick up a bit of enlightenment.
This is not to fault the hip-hop musicians in any way; it's not their fault that they're preaching to the converted.
A typical Springsteen fan, on the other hand, is one of these aging boomers who think of nothing beyond their stock portfolios and the value of law and order to society. The average Springsteen fan thinks "Born In The USA" IS a flag-waving anthem. The fanatic Springsteen fan loathes these people, but the fact is, they're out there in great numbers.
So for Bruce Springsteen to have the balls to throw songs like "American Skin (41 Shots)" or "Code Of Silence" in their faces is about as subversive as popular music can get these days.
Does this make Bruce Springsteen a hero? Hell no, I don't believe in heroes. But to say, as Howard Stern did, that just because he's rich he must live in an ivory tower is ludicrous. You have to look at actions, not bank accounts. It is possible to be wealthy and still have a social conscience.
Bruce Springsteen founded a charitable organization called The Foundation a few years ago. Every year it spends hundreds of thousands of dollars giving grants to ordinary people in New Jersey and surrounding areas to do things like make repairs to furnaces, roofs, etc. - things that are important to making life liveable, but are too expensive for many people to do. Most of the people receiving these grants don't even know Bruce Springsteen has anything to do with it. Everywhere he plays, he urges people to make donations to local food banks, which he allows to set up at the shows. His own donations to these food banks are substantial.
What we have here is a man who struck it lucky in the business, achieved phenomenal wealth, but has tried to do the right thing with it. Yet he's either ignored or spoken of with contempt by many, who either don't like that he's not a patriotic, flag-waving Ronald Reagan clone, or who dismiss him for the mortal sin of aging, and no longer being relevant to your average 20 year old.
Police representatives who call him a "fucking dirtbag" and a "floating fag" should be fired. These are the kind of people who believe Ronald Reagan was a great American, but Woody Guthrie wasn't. They're beneath contempt.