Jump to content
Greasy Lake Community


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ulfhpersson

  1. Let us imagine a person, who has his existence in living relations to other people, inside as well as outside his work. His work as such is alienating, but he endure it because of his real, living relations. They are his goal in life because they are the ground for his living existence. Let us now also imagine a person, whos all overriding goal is his work. All his relations are subjected to it. He is not alienated in his work as such, but his work alienates him from all real, living relations. And of course, the more important he finds his work to be, the fewer and more un-real and un-living will his subjected relations be. And the more un-real and un-living these relation tends to be, the more he is fixed and dedicated to his work. Let us name the first person worker, and the other poet. The poet, who more and more concentrates on his work, experiences that he is threatened by his own dissolution. This is so, because what gives a man existence, is his real, living relations to other people. And since for the poet his work gets more and more important, he reduces the ground for his existence. In the end he is an unreal individual who is reduced to have unreal relations inside his work. He himself is a unreal part of his work, and in it and through it he has an unreal relation to unreal others. This un-reality he of course experiences as a threat. He tries to re-connect to real, living relations. He tries to tie the bind that binds. But he tries to do so in his work. But this is of course not possible. In his work his ambition is reduced to simply state: ”Two Hearts are Better than One”, and ”I want to marry You”. But then – in his work he begins to explore the devastating experience of the worker during the hard-hitting economic depression that is ongoing around him. He sees the worker lose his work, and with it also the economy that granted him and his family and community real, living relations. And so he sees workers, their families and whole communities threatened by dissolution, existentially and morally. But in the workers alienation the poet now suddenly recognize his own ditto. There are of course differences. The worker worked to live, the poet lived to work. The worker lost his ground when he lost his work, the poet his when he in his work lost his real relations. But in their respective work they are both alienated from all real, living relations. Both had these real relations outside their relation to work. The worker had his existence in living relations outside work, and the poet realizes, that also he must have his existence in real relations. He now sees the paradoxical position he is in. His work, in which he tried to find his existence, is alienating him from this very existence. But he has to really hit the ground. This he do when he in a far away little town he sees people dance and drink and talk in their real, living relations, and mesmerized of the apparent simplicity and naturalness of their life, the malady of his alienated condition comes tumbling down over him. He must, if he will turn away from the nothingness, that threatens him, search his existence in real, living relations. He must have his goal in this, rather than in his work. He has to get out of his work. Fist makes apparent that he is mastering his work, has it in his firm fists, not vice versa. His work, just like the workers work, must give him the economic ground for the real relations in which he will have his existence, i.e. it must give him a wage. And his poetry as such can no longer be what it once was. His poetry must now be an alienation from the alienation of this his older poetry. It thus has two poles: the alienation as such, and the alienation from this his original alienation. We can call the first the Dark-side and the second the Dance-side of his work. Between the Dance and the Dark is a separation. The Dance hinders the Dark to appear as it is: it is no longer the original alienation. The voice of the Dark is no longer an identification with the Dark, the inflated Dance drives it away towards itself: it is the domineering of the two and distracts the attention from the Dark. Likewise hinders the Dark the Dance from getting jubilant, gives it a tint of loss and sadness. The Dark (a condition of lost friends, lost love, lost glory days, lost society, lost war, no real fire in heart, surrender, life in chains) side is passive, with no way out, the Dance-side is one of machinery. But now something really unexpected happens. He is forced to realize, that his work suddenly reflects a fundamental division in society between the perpetuated dream of this society and the reality of this dream. The ground for this is the above named split in his poetry: his work is not anymore only in the dark, it is - Dancing in the Dark. And so the poets poetry reflects an fundamental opposition in society: between the dream of a un-alienated life that this society propagate, and the very reality of this dream. The Dancing is the false dream and the false self-imagine as a denying of the world in which the poets work was born, the Dark is its reality, the correction of this not come true dream that the rich and powerful propagate to be true. This inner duality of his poetry is now confronting the poet from outside. People, who represent dominant political and economic groups, sees only what they want to see: the Dancing as a propagation of the dream they hold to be true. And that makes the poet infuriated. Now he has to point to the other side of his work. The dark side. But he also has to realize, that it is easier to fall for the only emotive and false interpretation of Dancing, than accepting the more intellectual Dark. And so, in the end, I can not refrain to give my answer to the question: besides the interesting duality of this poetry, what artistic value has it? I find that its alienating Dancing reduces the emotional elaboration and the possibility to identification on the Dark side. The poets work has two sides, but no real unity. The poet realizes, that other versions of his poetry is needed, if he want to correct the dominant and often misleading Dancing-side of his work.
  2. There are three classes of readers; some enjoy without judgment; others judge without enjoyment; and some there are who judge while they enjoy, and enjoy while they judge. The latter class reproduces the work of art on which it is engaged. Its numbers are very small. Goethe
  3. I tried to explain the two faces of Born in the USA as an expression of Mr. Springsteens struggle to escape from himself as an absolute artist (his goal up to and including Nebraska) and to create a civil life outside rock n roll. Now, after I have read Mumfords text, I can wery well imagine, that the songs ambivalence between text and music can be looked upon also as an commentary on how we, not only in the USA, but also in Europe and the rest of the rich world, are enticed not to acknowledge what we deep inside know is true. We want to escape the guilt we feel, will not face, that we are part of an order that let people starve, although there is food for everyone, that wages war and commits crimes against humanity because we feel that our "superior" way of life is threatened and so on. So we are looking for amnesia. And so Mr. Spring-steen song is an apt lesson: we choose to look upon it as an anthem (for what we deep inside know is a lie), and do not bother about the disturbing message of the text. Looked upon Born in the USA in this way, it is an Trojan horse. Without this perspective, I prefer the version given by Floom2, with it I see the merits of the ambivalence of the studio version.
  4. Purpose? Well, "So long as poverty and misery still exist on earth, work such as this may not be in vain." VICTOR HUGO
  5. This is the stuff that I back then, after Nebraska, was expecting to be on the upcoming record Born in the USA.
  6. Sometimes I think like this: Born in the USA is in time close to Nebraska, and still so different. The heroes of the two albums are all alienated, but it seems to me, that the heroes of Born in the USA are double-alienated: they are alienated from the society, but also alienated from the poet who performs them. If that is so, how can we understand the reason for this difference? The poet who created Darkness tried to secure an existence for him selves by pretending he could himself overthrow the badlands and in its place establish the promised land by renunciation of the ties that bind. And he propagate this his renunciation via the heroes of the album. But in the end the poet experienced, that the use of this mean did not give him an existence, instead it threatened to dissolute him into nothingness. He then realized, that what could save him from tumbling down into this nothingness was the ties that bind. Hence in the River the heroes a) propagate the necessity of the ties that bind (The Ties That Bind ), b) despises the idea of his earlier propagation of the one mans fight for a promised land (The Price You Pay), and c) lend his voice to people, who, seemingly unlike him selves, not by an voluntary act, but by socioeconomic circumstances lost the ties that bind (The River). But his new mean is not enough. For he is, as a poet that tries to tie the binds that ties, still a poet. And as a poet he still is forsaking. What, then, is he forsaking? Well, a real life. A non-poet life. He sees, that he in the poet is just as alienated from a real life, as is the heroes of Nebraska. And so he finds that he in that, in which he during his whole life has tried fo find his existence, namely the poet, is prevented from acquiring a real existence. To really exist, he has to escape his narrow existence in the Poet. This contradiction is his existential crisis. He tries to work his way out of this crisis by freeing himself from his prison: the poet. But who is he outside the poet? Outside the poet a life can consists in having a family, friends and income. Is this what he wants? Anyway, he wants to be free from him selves as Poet. Because as a Poet he lives via his heroes, and he wants to live with walking, talking human beings, not to be confined to live with and through his heroes. And so he tries to create a life in which his heroes are no longer necessary for his existence. He openly turns his back to them. They no longer speaks through him, he speaks through them. He is permanent in the center of it all, and his heroes, well they come and go. They are his servants, he not theirs. He performs them with haste, without inanimateness. Not they, but he is dancing in the dark. And so he may for a moment imagine that he is free. It seems to him, as if his own life is the base for his heroes, not as if his heroes still is the base for his life. But of course, in reality he now is his own hero that he as a poet creates. And so he will in the end experience, that he himself as this poet-hero is in contradiction with himself, and with contrasting solemnity he later on has to confess: two faces have I.
  7. Even the soldiers returning from WW2 was treated rough, as Orson Welles tells us here: https://archive.org/details/OrsonWelles_Commentaries
  8. Dear Turkued and SamEJay, to me, Mr Springsteens work, up to Tunnel of Love, is a great piece of art, and yes, one could say, it is a late version of Odysseus, i.e. a return home, that first have to go astray, before it ends at the front porch (by indirection find directions out, as Shakespeare puts it), a return travel, where the ship, of course, is substituted by the automobile. When I tried to find a way to express the quality and complexity of his work, I had to use the work of the German philosophers Hegel and Marx. You can find the first part of ”my” work among the essays. Of course you can feel sorry for a man, who, in many, many years, has tried (in vain, perhaps) to make explicit the immanent odyssey of Mr Springsteens work from Greetings to Tunnel, and you can surely regard such an ambition ”intellectual” and the result ”garbage” filled by a bad use of comma. The easiest way, to not take the burden of understanding up on one selves, is to take Hamlets words: Words, words, words, literally.
  9. well, is there anything new hiding in this show? do anyone, who enters the audience, find anything that they did not know before they entered the show? I surely support the re-use of material stuff, since if we do not, the world as we know it, will be rained and burned to death, but this do not hold for culture: to re-use the same stories and make money of them once again, is a Mr. Springsteen specialty. To re-use is not to create. The old concerts, once paid by the audience, is now sold once again. The old stories, once told, is now told again. And you have to pay. All ambition is made, to lure us to think, that the real song has to be found in a live-versions, so we have to look into them all, to bye them all, and surely them all, while it is for most of us apparent, that the most mathematical and hence precise expressions of his ideas are to be found in the original albums. NEBRASKA is, in my opinion, the last, great album: now days he is reduced, as an artist, to re-use his material. And I ask, why pay money to hear this rank xerox-ed version of something you already heard to many times before? To be close the hero you worship? Well. I cite Mr. Springsteen him selves: Trust the art, not the artist.
  10. well, i am old enough, to look on this kinds of Mr. Springsteens concerts differently. None of these concerts do show solidarity to those who are the victims, i.e. the Vietnam population. It is very strange, to hear Mr. Springsteen show this kind of solidarity with the US soldiers, that attacked an innocent country, and killed more than 3 milion people. and, I cite: "German historian Bernd Greiner mentions the following war crimes reported and/or investigated by the Peers Commission and the Vietnam War Crimes Working Group, among other sources:[41] Seven massacres officially confirmed by the American side. My Lai (4) and My Khe (4) (collectively the My Lai Massacre) claimed the largest number of victims with 420 and 90 respectively, and in five other places a total of about 100 civilians were executed. Two further massacres were reported by soldiers who had taken part in them, one north of Đức Pho in Quảng Ngãi Province in the summer of 1968 (14 victims), another in Bình Định Province on 20 July 1969 (25 victims).[citation needed] Tiger Force, a special operations force, probably murdered hundreds of civilians during a 6 month period in 1967.[42]" And even if I am aware of, that the poor and black people in USA had to go, well I can see no reason to hail those people and the crimes they committed. And to see and hear Mr. Springsteen, not respecting the "yellow man", but giving their oppressors his regards, is for an old man who lived through all these years, seeing the pictures of the napalmbomed children, as awful as heartbreaking.
  11. True. And art do that by contextualizing. No man or woman is an island. The simple fact is that Johnny got 99, Jud and Nathan (Compulsion) life + 99. But we as audience were well understand, that even if none of them are innocent, it surely was "more and all this that put the gun" or the chisel in the hand of the killer.
  12. If i dare to give my explanation (and i surely dare), it would have been something like this: Mr Springsteen has during the time from his first record to Tunnel of Love explored the relation between on one side the question of who he thinks he is and who he wants to be, and on the other of what the world is and what he wants it to be. His album during this time span is all and everyone stations on this road of his quest for a real, authentic life. Each album of his is expresses an specific form of this relation, and since his ambition is to as stringent as possible make this specific relation as clear and obvious as possible to him self and his audience, he chooses those songs that most clearly expresses his view of his own place in the world. Any other song, written at the same time, would only blur his message, and that is what he so seldom publish any more songs than those chosen for the album. (Later, of course, when he has surpassed the world-view in question, when he was freer, he can publish them, but then as tracks that the audience has to try to follow, i.e a a not so stringent way of his quest for his then asked for authentic life). Not satisfied with the relation in which he live and which he has expressed in an album, he tries to express another relation in the next album; he is in his own life searching fo a new kind of relation, and tries to express this new relation in a new album. The new album has to be analog to his new world-view, and to reach a new world-view, is not just to make a new album, and so he has to evolve, before he can make the next album. Alas, because his albums each and all expresses his existential relation to himself and the world, he can not publish any more album, then the one he publish.
  13. In my opinion, Mr. Springsteen work, from Greetings on wards, is by its own dialectic leading to this insight of the necessity of the ties that bind, and the dark shadow of alienation that erode humanity in the individual, that makes it possible for her to do the most awful things, sometimes as an immanent critique of an alienating society. So Mr. Springsteen, who him selves found himself in the nothingness of Nebraska way out in that little town in the west, an experience he so beautifully tell us about in his autobiography, tell us, what the heroes of his work them selves can not say, only act out. To see them not only as villains and murderers, but also as human beings, well Mr. Springsteen has helped us to do that, he has helped us to se us selves in the other, and in my opinion, that is great, great art.
  14. 1. expresses the quest to escape from an society of oppression. 2. expresses the result of this quest, a rock n roll society, and the new quest: to escape from this newly found society within society 1., that only is a board-walk-pin-ball-childlish society. 3.expresses the result of quest 1. and quest 2.: a society that one according to 2 has left, and that permits a small fantasy Eden, that one has escaped from, but then only to reenter the society of 1., and hence the new quest: to not be a part of this society, to be on the run and never connect with it. 4. expresses the result of quest 3: you can not by being on constant run step out of touch with the society; a promise will be broken, ones running will be put to justice, the society of 1. will not tolerate a free play; and hence, since now there is no way out in this society, one is always in it, all one can do is to tear i down; hence the new quest: one will work for replacing this bad society with a new one: the promised land, and this will be done by in the name of this promised land disconnect with everything and everyone that are connected to this bad society. one must lose ones husband or wife, and also ones money. 5. expresses the result of quest 4. one who disconnect to other people, is on the way to nothingness; it is the ties that binds, that bind one to an existence; and so the new quest: to tie the ties that binds; hence critique of quest 4: the Moses-syndrom, that one could lead the many to the promised land, and had the right to count everyone who from this journey returned to the bad society, the idea, that one alone could change this society; hence the necessity to propagate the insight, that two hearts are not only quantitatively more, but also qualitatively better than one; one could of course make the ties come true by also marrying; and also: to show what loss of ties that binds can result in: the gone astray, that finds themselves hurled into the nothingness of no real relations, and tries to in one way or another reconnect to the ties that bind, even if those ties will be the leather-straps of the electric chair.
  15. true, you have to criticize them for what they are: nothing but subjective and moralistic assertions about a persons reasons and intentions about of which we know nothing.
  16. To impute motivations like the ones in the text above is arrogant.
  17. Yes, poetology different, and also existentially; back in 78 he said that money is the form of recognition (which really is in the tradition of German philosophy) since BITUSA it seems that his creativity has been based on an oscillation between that original view and a new one: money IS recognition (which perhaps is in the tradition of US market economy): hence Born in the USA.
  18. Well, I was pointing finger to the word "change". It is not in this world always a good thing for the majority. Trump changed the taxes for the 1%, and they do now days pay no taxes at all; the majority has experienced the following change: harder and more jobs, but VERY SMALL or no raising income since the 70s. And the Unions? Well, they have been worked against by the industry and government, by propaganda and violence, since they were established. And Mr Springsteen solidarity with the working class and its unions is not something that for him is capricious, external, but something that belongs to the core of his creativity, something i have tried to show in the essay "The River".
  19. Yes, and "Yes, that's the excuse some still roll out to excuse their lack of desire for change" is the excuse some still roll out to excuse the "drive into selfishness and callousness and greed"
  20. sorry for this slow reply! it is Léon Gieco´s Sólo le pido a Dios beautiful, unsentimental song, and even if it is written in a context that is very different from Springsteens own, it has a theme, that I think is also a genuine Springsteen-one.
  21. When I now, after I wrote the text above, read about High Noon, I find a much deeper connection to The Promise. The screenplay was written by Carl Foreman, and he, like many other, was summoned to appear before the House Un-American Activities Committee, but refused to name names, and hence was, as many others, blacklisted. Many of them had to emigrate to Europe: Orson Welles, Charlie Chaplin, Jules Dassin, Joseph Losey, and also Carl Foreman, and many more. All this was of course against the constitution, i.e. against the law, but of course there was the ones who did not stand their ground. I will not here name the names. And of course, there was a few that took the fight and without hesitation told the truth, for example Lionel Strander; Wikipedia wirites: When Stander was himself called before HUAC, he began by pledging his full support in the fight against "subversive" activities: I know of a group of fanatics who are desperately trying to undermine the Constitution of the United States by depriving artists and others of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness without due process of law ... I can tell names and cite instances and I am one of the first victims of it ... [This is] a group of ex-Fascists and America-Firsters and anti-Semites, people who hate everybody, including Negroes, minority groups, and most likely themselves ... [T]hese people are engaged in a conspiracy outside all the legal processes to undermine the very fundamental American concepts upon which our entire system of democracy exists. Of course he was talking about HUAC itself.
  22. well, i thought that the sentence well expressed, that who "his" referred to, was what was in question; but English is not my first language, so...
  • Create New...