Jump to content
Greasy Lake Community

Jertucky

Members
  • Posts

    1,496
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jertucky

  1. 1 hour ago, el sergio said:

    The reason why I included this song in the Rising topic was trying to give an update about 9-11 in the words of Bruce Springsteen with the lesser known Hey Blue Eyes song. The facts contemplated in this song are undenieable (Abu Graib, US contractors greed, the responsibility of former presidents (all of them for my money!). But you are right about partisan politics especially since Springsteen has taken a political side. And I prefer not to go deeper in American party politcs here, that is not my aim. That battle has been fought as it seems over and over on the Lake forum. In matter of fact, my next post about the  9/11 20 Years Later documentary does offer the alternative for party politics ...

    And yes tastes may differ, and I won't be surprised if this song might be exist in a more rocking arrangement. But we should keep and open mind and respect here the artists view point wondering why Springsteen did execute the song like this. Bruce's genius is to get across the perversion of torture through disguising the lyric within a melody and chorus that suggest a love song. When you realise what you're listening to , you're revulsed. And I think Springsteen makes particularly good use of Patti Scialfa’s backing vocals. We’re used to them being warm and comforting, of course, but in this context — listen to them, for instance, at 1:16 and 2:10 — their serenity makes them absolutely chilling.

    Well, I don’t think Springsteen is a genius. I think he’s just a guy who is a hell of a storyteller. When he tells stories he does well. When he talks politics he generally sounds foolish to me. I think he does much, much better letting his songs speak for themselves than he does detailing how his songs are about how bad the Republicans are.

    As for good use of Patti Scialfa’s vocals, I’ll just kindly disagree.

  2. 2 hours ago, Flagofpiracy said:

    It's mostly an indictment of the Bush era, it's a stellar song! 

    In the liner notes to American Beauty that were posted on his official website, Bruce Springsteen wrote: "'Hey Blue Eyes' rounds out the EP with one of my darkest political songs. Written during the Bush years, it's a metaphor for the house of horrors our government's actions created in the years following the invasion of Iraq. At its center is the repressed sexuality and abuse of power that characterized Abu Ghraib prison. I feel this is a shadow we as a country have yet to emerge from."

    In a December 2013 interview for Rolling Stone, Ron Aniello told Andy Greene that at least 20 tracks were recorded for the High Hopes album. Among the tracks that didn't make the album cut were COLD SPOT, HEY BLUE EYES, AMERICAN BEAUTY, and MARY MARY.

    The studio version of HEY BLUE EYES was produced by Brendan O'Brien. The presence of Patrick Warren in the musicians line-up suggests that this recording, or at least part of it, emanates from the Magic recording sessions. 

     

    Thanks for the info, I appreciate it. Still didn’t enjoy any bit of that song, but tastes differ.

    I do hate when Bruce talks partisan politics as I think he comes off sounding poorly when doing so. I think partisan politics is embarrassing for whoever takes part in it to be honest, regardless of which side you’re on. The inability of people to call out “their side” completely discredits their point of view in my eyes.

    • Like 1
  3. 4 hours ago, el sergio said:

    “Hey Blue Eyes” is absolutely devastating in its withering criticism of American hypocrisy, but that’s not the impressive part. What makes “Hey Blue Eyes” such an astonishingly powerful song is the way it works on three completely different levels all at once–all while set against a deceptively lilting melody that seems ignorant of the lyrical content

    In the final verse, Bruce ties a brutally effective bow around all three readings of the song:

    She says, “In this house it’s so easy to set a world on fire
    All you need is a name, the money, and a soul full of reckless desire
    Upstairs the landlord is dining here with his criminal friends
    Don’t worry, they’ll have the bags packed and be long gone before the real fucking begins”

    Bruce intentionally uses the word “fucking” here, because he knows the effect it will have on us, his listeners. It jolts us, because we’re used to more artful euphemisms in his work. This is Bruce setting an alarm clock, telling us that it’s time to wake up from the spell of the song, time to go back and re-listen to the song through a coarser, uglier lens. And in doing so, we’re even more unsure:

    Are we listening to an S&M prostitute reassuring her john that their session will be undisturbed?

    Are we hearing condemnations of the U.S. president, who will leave office before the consequences of his actions, manipulations, and orders are fully felt–or the soldiers who receive empty promises and reassurance that their actions are legal and their return home imminent?

    Maybe Bruce is calling out the defense contractors and oil companies who profit from Blue Eyes’ particular predilections?

    The answer is yes. Yes to all of it.

    And as the song trails the final chorus, we’re deeply unsettled by the realization that the chorus is our inner national dialogue: What are we doing? And yeah, it has to be alright. Because if it’s not, what does that make us?

    Hey blue eyes, yeah, what you doing tonight
    Hey blue eyes, hey it’s alright
    Hey blue eyes, what you doing tonight
    Hey blue eyes, yeah it’s alright

    by Ken Posted on June 30, 2019
    https://estreetshuffle.com

    Not sure I ever really listened to this song before. Just did and don’t think I will again. More stream of consciousness/spoken word than a song. What era was this recorded during? Joad?

  4. On 8/2/2021 at 1:23 PM, el sergio said:

    Despite the fact that he wrote some of the most iconic rock anthems of the Eighties and his bluejean-clad butt is one of the more beloved images of the decade, Springsteen didn’t make his way to Saturday Night Live until 1992, nearly twenty years after the release of Greetings From Asbury Park, N.J. and eight since Born in the U.S.A. became an American radio staple. His 1992 SNL performance would serve as Springsteen’s network television debut, but he didn’t break out the old hits for the occasion; instead, he opted for the title track and “Living Proof” from Lucky Town, as well as Human Touch‘s “57 Channels,”. In short: Everything about Springsteen’s SNL episode was weirdly anticlimactic, especially for a star of his stature. He looked like he was back at the Upstage leading a band he'd never worked with before through a few numbers. 952036170_57ChannelsSNL1992.JPG.f2123ce41d1d77d74ec100cbd6e40151.JPG

    https://es-es.facebook.com/springsteenandrockmusic/videos/1078289225881724/

    It were the guitar breaks that really brought the “57 Channels” song to life or, to borrow an overused sports cliche, took it to another level. Bruce attacked his Tele like it had just insulted his mother, wrenching horrifically atonal, dissonant screeches of pain from the guitar. It was absolutely unlike anything he'd done before (even taking into account his experimental, guitar-heavy pre-"Greetings from Asbury Park" work). It seemed as though Bruce had been listening to Nirvana or Sonic Youth or his old friend Neil Young.

    That SNL 57 Channels was confusing and bad. It was so bad I thought he was purposely sabotaging himself because he didn’t really want to be in TV.

     

  5. 12 hours ago, Daisey Jeep said:

    Darkness is like the bible

    You dont disrespect the good book or you risk the apocalypse 

     

    Wait a minute ...

    Who's been dissing Darkness...

    Gary ........???

    200701_coronavirus_hero_0.jpg

    I’m not dissing it necessarily, I just don’t find it nearly as enjoyable as I used to. The moaning and wailing on a couple of the songs doesn’t help.

  6. 11 hours ago, badlands78 said:

    After almost a year, I hear the "Letter To You" album as roughly three disjoint components, and here is my breakdown:

    The Good: The songs "Letter To You", "Last Man Standing", "Ghosts", and "I'll See You In My Dreams" would have made a great standalone EP.  I think those four songs would have concisely captured the theme of the new writing while still offering some new rock and roll.

    The Bad: Then there are hodge podge of filler songs ("Burnin' Train", "The Power Of Prayer", "House Of A Thousand Guitars") and songs that sound like leftovers from "Wrecking Ball" ("Rainmaker") or "Western Stars" ("One Minute You're Here").  Not terrible songs, but definitely not proof that Bruce broke through his supposed recent writer's block.

    The Ugly: "Janey Needs A Shooter", "If I Was The Priest", and "Song For Orphans" did not need to be dusted off after nearly 50 years just to fill out 12 songs on the album.  The songwriting on these was not great when they were new (if they were good, Bruce would have already officially recorded them), and today they really sound very out of place next to the other themes on the album.

    However, I do really enjoy the sound of the album; namely, the live band in the studio with classic E Street instrumentation and minimal studio trickery.  His voice and the band's playing are in excellent form, and if Bruce only had enough better new material, he could have checked all the boxes for me and hit it out of the park with this one.

    This is interesting. I’ve kind developed the same feeling about Darkness, though I wouldn’t describe them as good, bad, and ugly. I find it a bit disjointed and find I skip more songs on there than I ever thought I would when I listen to it these days. 
    One thing the three older songs have highlighted for me was how much more I enjoyed his old writing style. The songs are more about sharing a story than a point of view.

    • Like 1
  7. 41 minutes ago, BruceWho said:

    I haven't heard (or read) that interview or comment

    After a very quick search, this is the best I could find:

    Bruce has stated that he originally wrote “Rainmaker” about former U.S. President George W. Bush, but of course the obvious comparison is to Donald Trump, who famously came to power as a populist by validating fears that were already present, instilling ones that weren’t, and promising in true rainmaker fashion that he alone could fix it.
     

    from this article:

    https://estreetshuffle.com/index.php/2021/02/12/roll-of-the-dice-rainmaker/

     

    • Like 1
  8. On 7/10/2021 at 5:27 PM, Frank Atapuma said:

    I was sitting on my balcony, some of his tunes in the background, when I started thinking:

    Yeah, so what if I would get an evening 1-on-1 with the man, over a couple of beers, on a barstool, in a nice old wooden pub...

    What would I do? What would I ask? What would he want to talk about? 

     

    I wonder what would you guys ask him/say to him? 

    Probably the same thing I would say to any guy I sat next to in a bar. “Hey man, how’s it going? Is this seat taken?” Then I would order a beer and look at the TV.

    • Haha 1
  9. 28 minutes ago, janeymarywendy said:

    You can ride a motorbike through a neighbourhood of mansions, can you not? ^_^ That's the way I've always pictured it in my mind.

    Certainly sounds like 'to' though.  I don't like it.

    Hmmmmm…….. I guess I really only thought of it figuratively anyway so the actual application never mattered to me. But your interpretation makes sense.

×
×
  • Create New...