Bruce Springsteen and Neil Young: The Difference in Greatness
Bruce Springsteen and Neil Young
"You know, the difference between the greatness of Bruce Springsteen and that of Neil Young as someone once explained to me back in college: Bruce makes you think you, too, can be as great as he is; Neil makes you think he is really no better than you are to begin with. Remember that."
Dr. Eric Alterman - Altercation
Over the years, Neil Young has intersected with a wide variety of artists like Bob Dylan and Pearl Jam. Another interesting musical intersection is that of Bruce Springsteen and Neil Young.
So how does the Canadian Young become labeled an American treasure? From On Milwaukee by Bill Zaferos on Neil Young's place in American music:
"Other than, say, Bruce Springsteen, who else has better expressed the late 20th and early 21st century American experience? Whether it was "Ohio" or "Rockin' in the Free World," or "Southern Man" or "Unknown Legend" or even "Old King," Young has always given voice to the meaning of life among the amber waves of grain, the crack-laden neighborhoods or the romantic longing of an American heart."
For many, Springsteen brings a rare combination of complex singer-songwriting and entertaining showman together in ways that Bob Dylan or Neil Young failed to achieve. From the U.K.'s Telegraph
by Neil McCormick on arguably the greatest solo performer of all time:
"Springsteen is both the most populist and (in terms of sales and live audience) the most popular. His songs spring out of the American maverick tradition with echoes of Steinbeck, Kerouac, Ginsberg and (in his new collection) Cormac McCarthy. His music has the blood of tradition in its veins and high art in its sights.
Yet unlike many of his singer-songwriting peers, Springsteen does not neglect his role as an entertainer. With the E Street Band, he comes from the American school of road-tested rock and roll that has, in lesser hands, given us so many efficient but essentially soulless showbands.
Springsteen combines the best of two very different worlds, the highly personal songwriter and the crowd-pleasing entertainer. He is, in effect, Bob Dylan and Elton John rolled into one. It is an unusual but compelling combination that makes him arguably the greatest solo performer of all time."
photo by Buzz Person
From The History of Rock Music - The Sixties by Piero Scaruffi:
"Neil Young constitutes with Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen the great triad of 'moral' voices of American popular music.
As is the case with the other two, Young's art is, first and foremost, a fusion of music and words that identifies with his era's zeitgeist. Unlike the others, though, Young is unique in targeting the inner chaos of the individual that followed the outer chaos of society. While Dylan 'transfers' his era's events into a metaphysical universe, and Springsteen relates the epic sense of ordinary life, Young carries out a more complex psychological operation that, basically, bridges the idealism of the hippy communes and the neuroses of the urban population. His voice, his lyrics, his melodies and his guitar style compose a message of suffering and redemption that, at its best, transcends in hallucination, mystical vision, philosophical enlightenment, while still grounded in a context that is fundamentally a hell on earth."
Bruce and Neil fans tend to agree over their hero's merits, although there are occasional flare-ups. As Glen blogs regarding Springsteen's upcoming Seeger Sessions:
"I actually found one comment interesting...and that was the one about comparing Bruce fans who miss the E Street Band to the way Neil fans miss Crazy Horse.
Not the same at all.
Neil has carved out a very effective "duality" in my view.
The quiet, accoustic Neil resonates every bit as effectively as the cranked up to eleven Neil does.
When Neil is doing his full on, cranked up to eleven electric thing, it's more about Neil's guitar playing than it is about the band (Crazy Horse)."
And the always brilliantly vivid Caryn on the Jukebox Graduate blog responds to the Bruce versus Neil debate:
"Bruce, regrettably, cares a little too much about letting his fans down. He needs to take more chances, not less. Neil doesn't care whether or not the fans get cranky, as evidenced on the Greendale tour and what happened with the audience reaction there. Neil just GOES. They are wildly divergent personality types and you might as well compare Springsteen to Sinatra."
So with the setup of compare, contrast and discuss provided by Dr. Eric Alterman's "greatness" quote above, The Jukebox Graduate and blogger Glen's response to Thrasher's strawman argument, here's a look at the fascinating intersections of Bruce Springsteen and Neil Young.
"Even Bruce dropped in..."
Bruce Springsteen & Neil Young - Sydney, Australia
March 22, 1985
Photo from Thrasher's Archives
On March 22, 1985 in Sydney, Australia, Bruce Springsteen joined Neil onstage for an encore performance of "Down By The River". Bruce had performed the night before at Sydney's Entertainment Centre (3/21) and performed again the next night (3/23). In between Bruce's two concerts, Neil Young was scheduled to headline the Benefit for the Australian Cerebral Palsy Association concert. As noted in poster above, Neil's entire 1985 Australia tour was "ALL SOLD OUT".
Nils Lofgren, touring with Springsteen, joined Young onstage for several songs, including "Comes A Time" and "Helpless". At the conclusion of the 28 song setlist, Young invited Springsteen on stage. Bruce sang vocals on an amazing 20 minute version of "Down By The River".
Neil & Bruce
Bridge School Benefit Concert - October 13, 1986
"Helpless" - Neil Young with Bruce Springsteen
Neil Young invited Bruce Springsteen at the first annual Bridge School Benefit Concert in California in 1986. They performed Young's "Helpless" together. (Thanks Mike for reminder!)
Bruce & Neil
Jones Beach, New York on June 14, 1989
Springsteen joined Neil for an encore of "Down By The River" at Jones Beach, New York on June 14, 1989. Bruce is virtually inaudible on the tapes of the show. If Thrasher had not seen the video of the performance, it would have been hard to believe both Neil and Bruce sang at the mic.
Bruce Springsteen and Neil Young's music and careers have as many similarities as dissimilarities. Neil Young's "Rockin' in the Free World", has been compared with Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the USA," due to "the anthemic use of this song was based on largely ignoring the verses, which evoke social problems and implicitly criticize American government policies." (1) Neither artist has sold their songs for use as commercials, leaving them among a small handful not to do so.
Another Bruce and Neil connection occurred at the Academy Awards on March 21, 1994. Coincidentally, both Springsteen and Young were both nominated for Best Song in a Movie -- and in the same film -- Jonathan Demme's "Philadelphia". Bruce's nominated song was the film opening "Streets of Philadelphia" and Neil's was the closing title track "Philadelphia".
Bruce Springsteen won the Oscar award for his song "Streets of Philadelphia". In his acceptance speech, Springsteen acknowledged Young and said that the award really deserved to be shared by the other nominee's song.
In 1994, Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan and Neil Young joined on stage at the Roseland in New York City to perform 'Rainy Day Woman' and 'Highway 61 Revisited'.
At the 1995 Bridge School Benefit Concert, Springsteen joined Young for an encore of 'Down by the River'. Young remarked: "Bruce says he doesn't have any more songs, so we'll do one of mine".
St. Paul, MN - October 5, 2004
photo by Muriël Kleisterlee and Jos Westenberg
At the 2004 Vote For Change concert in St. Paul, MN, Neil and Bruce jammed together on "All Along the Watchtower" and "Souls of the Departed".
But not all are totally impressed with this juncture in Springsteen's and Young's careers. From Nude as the News: review of both Springsteen's Devils and Dust and Young's Prairie Wind by Ben French:
"Bruce Springsteen and Neil Young have both been playing this sort of acoustic, singer/songwriter-type music for more than 30 years, so it’s not a crime if they repeat themselves from time to time. On the other hand, it surprises me when other writers blatantly ignore the fact that none of this is worth listening to more than a couple times – especially if you already own the artists’ older albums. UK writers always have a flare for the dramatic, but I think Guardian pushes the limits by calling Prairie Wind, “one of Shakey’s best.” Outrageous. Rolling Stone gave Devils & Dust 4 ½ stars, which seems incredibly polite."
As for reviewer Ben French's comments above, we're looking forward to Springsteen's upcoming Seeger Sessions and the crimes of artists repeating themselves from time to time.
In a review of the book Mansion on the Hill:Dylan, Young, Geffen, Springsteen, and the Head-On Collision of Rock and Commerce by Fred Goodman the reviewer feels that author Goodman has it backwards that Neil Young is the great musical hero and not Bruce:
- "Springsteen, because he has maintained a consistently high level of commercial success over the years, is a sell-out, and a manufactured creation of his manager. Whereas someone like Neil Young, because he hasn't been ashamed to release some real crap, is an artist of integrity, who won't give in to crass commercialism, by always giving his fans music that they will actually enjoy."
More Bruce and Neil mashups from the land of wheat fields and blog-ville [search].
Also, read more on other Neil Young collaborations, influences and mashups.
Also, see Bruce Springsteen Compared to Neil Young discussed on Greasy Lake Community.
Add your comments below.
Labels: bruce springsteen, neil young
29 Comments:
Interesting piece Thrasher.
One thing I would disagree with for sure is Caryn's observation that Springsteen worries too much about what his fans think and doesn't take enough chances.
I would actually compare the Springsteen of the nineties to the neil Young of the eighties in many ways.
Think about it. Neil confounded his fans in the eighties by making a string of wildly experimental genre-bending albums...from the electro synth of Trans to the rockabilly of Everybodys Rockin to the country of Old Ways.
Bruce meanwhile confounded his fans in the nineties by firing the beloved E Street Band; releasing two albums simultaneously with a group of non-descript studio musicians and then touring with the same; and then pretty much disapearing off the radar altogether for the rest of the decade save for a decidedly dour and non-commercial record based on a Steinbeck novel (Tom Joad).
Right now, Neil is basically back on track doing one of the two things his fans love (there's that duality again) with the Prairie Wind/Heart of Gold accoustic thing. From what I read of his speech at SXSW, his next move is going to be a "loud one", which should please those other fans who dig the cranked to eleven thing.
Meanwhile, Bruce is doing an album of cover tunes by a folk music icon...complete with the fiddles and banjos...less than a year after a solo accoustic tour. Personally, I'd be lying if I said "The Seeger Sessions" has me exactly quivering with anticipation. To be honest, the song snippets I have heard from that record thus far haven't thrilled me much either.
And much as diehard fans like myself will tell you they liked Nebraska and Devils and Dust (both of which I did very much), I would also maintain that the quiet accoustic sound just sounds a lot more natural (at least to me) when Neil Young does it.
So you tell me who is the artist most pleasing his fans right now?
The E Street Band aren't getting any younger and with every minute Bruce spends exploring his "inner folkie", the clock ticks down on the possibility of one last E Street album and tour.
Quite the contrary. Bruce seems to have no problem exploring his muse and basically saying "Folk You" to those of us fans who don't like it right now.
Interesting comparison, Thrasher. Hey, I think you missed mentioning one of the important Neil/Bruce path-crossings. Springsteen was one of the artists at the very first Bridge School Benefit concerts on Oct 13, 1986 (hey now, I was there too.) Bruce and Nils joined Neil on Helpless; Bruce later performed a good solo acoustic set of his own.
Glen,
Thanks for the comment. Good points.
I guess of the many interesting observations about Bruce & Neil, artisitic integrity is always paramount. I think fans of both are always hyper-sensitive to charges of sell-out.
I do not find either Praire Wind/Heart of Gold film or Springsteen's Seeger Sessions to guilty of either. Both seem to be genuine artistic expressions rather than calculated marketing moves. But suppose both are totally calculating artists? Would we love them the same if we knew?
Thrasher
Nice article. Although I must admit that as a Bruce fan, I really don't see the comparison.
Bruce is one of the few - or only - concerts where everyone in a 50,000 crowd will be TOTALLY into every move and word. I don't think Neil Young has the same power. But that's just me.
You know, I have tremendous respect for Bruce & his fans. But I also fail to see the comparison to Neil?
Neil is truly original. Bruce, I agree, gives a fantastic concert. But he really hasn't been breaking new ground every 3-4 years like neil.
Just another opinion.
tc
Thanks e2f for the catch! Not sure how I missed that one??? I'll update shortly.
I know this isnt really the right place to ask but does anyone know when in the future I can see Neil in concert? Are there any tours planned or anything?
Bruce & Neil are fans of each other's music. That's where the comparison begins and ends, as far as I'm concerned. Bruce doesn't belong in the same league as Neil, IMHO. Bruce Springsteen's biggest contribution to popular culture was "discovering" Courteney Cox in one of his '80s music videos.
Oh, OK, I'll admit that was a cheap shot. Sorry. I just haven't ever been a big fan of "The Boss".
And, to "anonymous" above, the latest rumors were a CSNY tour this summer, but nothing confirmed, as far as I'm aware.
I can enjoy but there is a significant difference between the two.
(imho) Bruce is always trying--to be a legitimate 'folkie' because it's 'artistic'... his rocker side has always been popular in the mainstream, not that that's good or bad, it just is. And I agree w/Caryn-- it's important for Bruce to be 'liked'.
Neil is an a true artist. Exasperating at times, to be sure. Popularity doesn't enter into his decision making. Making an 'artistic statement' doesn't either. He just is. Period.
An interesting take on this (and with Dylan) is in the book 'The Mansion On The Hill'--highly recommended.
-HMO
Bruce & Neil?
Maybe some folks think putting the 2 on the same plane is questionable?
blue collar & flannel comes to mind.
kinda liked the Bob & Neil thing, tho, must say.
Great quote on Bruce & neil at top. of course, I can't really remember anything quotable from my college years....
When "borntorock" wrote:
"Bruce is one of the few - or only - concerts where everyone in a 50,000 crowd will be TOTALLY into every move and word. I don't think Neil Young has the same power. But that's just me."
It became immediately clear he's never seen the Horse live.
Thrasher, this is not unlike the Neil v. Bob debate. Those who say Springsteen has never challenged himself or doesn't have "duality" have not listened to the haunting Nebraska. If Bruce lacked transformative power, he wouldn't do solo acoustic tours where he comes on stage and completely reworks "Born In The USA" through a bullet mike so it sounds nothing like its original--not unlike what Neil did to Mr. Soul on Trans. In sum, both Neil and Bruce seek to reinvent themselves and their works.
My brother once described Bruce as the "McDonald's of rock and roll"--everybody likes him, yet he's not wholly satisfying. But should we fault Bruce for being accessible to the masses? I think not. I have a deep passion for the music of both artists and believe that both will continue to surprise us in the years to come.
When I start trying to figure if an artist is great, I always ask "Did the artist inspire other artists or somehow move music to a new place?" Chuck Berry, Miles, Jimi, Dylan, The Beatles & Nirvana are real obvious bands that lead to other music.
I think Neil has strong creditials in this regard too. At a minimum Springfield is a pre-cursor to country rock, the acoustic Neil leads to a zillions of lonely singer songwriters and there are dozens of bands with Neil's raw electric guitar sound.
On the other hand, I've never quite figured what Bruce's music leads to. Although his music is really well done, he seems like the end of the road in many cases, Inspired by many, but not leading to much. I'm not really trying to slag Bruce. I like him a lot. But this aspect of him has always puzzled me.
have to agree with caryn. She knows her Bruce and is right about Bruce's tentativeness about committing to the unknown.
Although I thought the recent Devils & Dust did present a lot of new material which was well received by the audience. Probaly not unlike Neil's Prairie Wind concerts.
One thing your article doen't address -- at least not directly -- are the similarities of composing protest music. I think Bruce's "Ghost of Tom Joad" is sometimes mis-read. The song definitely speaks to the plight of the common man.
Interesting contrast of "Rockin'" & "Born in the USA". I recall that some politicians used Bruce's song at campaign rallies not realizing it's true meaning. Wonder if that ever happened with Neil's RITFW?
Regarding use/misuse of RITFW, you might recall that song being played repeatedly with news footage of the Berlin Wall being demolished. Also, I believe it was used rather extensively in coverage of the Tiannemen (sp?) Square protests in China.
The chorus sounds like a patriotic anthem to the casual listener. However, the verses address some very real concerns about the state of being of the average U.S. citizen in the late-'80s.
I'm not sure if any politicians ever used it, although it certainly wouldn't surprise me. However, Michael Moore used it while the closing credits rolled in "Fahrenheit 9/11". Most people call this film a documentary, but many others have called it propaganda. Regardless of your views, it was certainly a "political" film.
Bottom line: I think RITFW is a truly patriotic song, because I think it is patriotic to fight for what you believe, and to fight against bullshit, especially if that bullshit is being perpetrated by the government and its agents. Never confuse love of country with unswerving devotion to the assholes running it!
I love both artists, but am a much bigger Springsteen fan. The biggest difference between the two artists as I see it is that Bruce's music (and especially live shows) come more from an orientation in soul music. It's that orientation one sees when Bruce is working an arena or a stadium, getting everyone's hands in the air and demanding the whole room's attention. Springsteen is shameless (and I say that in a good way, although he can be hokey at times) in trying to entertain and inspire his audience. Neil is a much "cooler" artist than Bruce - he doesn't literally reach out to his audience the way Bruce does - which gives him a tremendous amount of credit with those who are skeptical of those that actually try to meet the needs of an audience. That partly accounts for the fact that it's been much cooler to dig Neil than Bruce amongst the alt/punk/indie set. Neil definitely comes more from the folk tradition that is incredibly suspect of commercial culture, which informs that great quote of Neil's where he said that "the middle of the road was a bore, so I headed for the ditch." Punk rockers and their descendents (today's folkies) eat that shit up.
I've seen Neil many times and I've enjoyed his shows, but never, NEVER have I come away as inspired, enervated and plainly rocked as I have coming out of the best Springsteen shows. No contest, imo. As record makers, I can see the other side - I'm not sure there's a Springsteen record that feels as natural as "After The Goldrush," "Tonight's The Night" or "Rust Never Sleeps" with perhaps the exceptions of "The Wild, The Innocent & The E Street Shuffle," "Nebraska" and "Tunnel Of Love."
One thing Neil does much better than Bruce does though is creating and preserving his own myth. "Decade" is an incredible collection which presents an argument for Neil Young as artiste than Springsteen's collections simply can't compare to. I think Neil is every bit as self conscious as Bruce - Neil just hides it MUCH better - and that goes to Neil's credit.
As a Canadian and huge Neil Young fan I agree with his feelings towards George Bush. The United States is a great country but the situation in Iraq has to end Enough lives have been lost.
Who's greatest Bruce or Neil? Who cares? Time will tell. I have always prefered Bruce's music. To me Neil is somewhat a flip-flopper. Now he's doing the impeach Bush rap, a couple of years ago he did that horrible "Let's Roll" song with a video of planes dropping bombs. That gives him very little credibility in my eyes. He's a great guitarplayer, good song writer with a horrible voice. I respect his music but find very little enjoyment is listening to it.
a lot of posters on this page need o get over themselves. By all means judge the music, but who are we to judge the motives?
Comparing to Neil, Bruce is nothing.
Thrasher comparing Bruce and Neil is an interesting read. Having people comment is an exercize in futility. People will naturally take sides. Others will feel insulted that someone is being compared to their Grand Poobah. Consider some of the juvenile comments.
The thing that I see is a parallel in their respective careers is the
recurring theme of each others music is about escaping as a solution to the everyday problems of life.
I wish that a collection of Bruce and Neil colloborations were compiled and placed on Dime.
Dudes and Dudettes who are hung up on "how can a Canadian be an american treasure..."
Last I knew, the "Americas (north and south" were continents.... Canada and the UNITED STATES of America... countries.
Canadians _are_ 'americans' in that sense... although they are not citizens of the "United States of America".
In any case, I don't mind claiming a few great Canadians as 'American Treasures'. They've got more oil and timber than we do - we need them as friends.
Honestly...I've never cared for Bruce Springsteen. I suppose I have to put myself in that: "I just don't fucking get it group". From his work with the E-Street Band to his solo work, Bruce is pretty much better kept amused as he will most likely come up with some amusing, but very personal lyrics that only a fan of his can understand...
I will say this for him though: The Wrestler is a fucking heart breaking, heart wrenching, soul tightening picture of Immortality...that a lyricist such as Bruce or Neil, Bob, etc...could write. You get the honor here Jackson...don't dissapoint.
I'm 1000 times a bigger Neil fan and not so familiar with Springsteen's music but it strikes me that Bruce's loyal fan base and longevity are proof that he's the real stuff ... comparing who is better is probabaly basd on people's opinion and rather than tear the other down we ought to appreciate them both, their simiarities and differences ... each is great in their own way ... when all is said and done I have to admit its hard to imagine someone holding a candle to Neil, particulary today when Neil in some ways is as good as he's ever been but I'm not really qualified to make that judgement ... I will say I thoroughly enjoyed the content Thrasher put together on this subject.
Dan
Springsteen and Young are actually my two favourite rock singers of all time, both above Dylan, whom I also like but not as much.
Who is the best? I really prefer Springsteen when we consider his artistic heights (to me Born to run, Darkness, The River). I love the incredible songs in them over Neil´s best.
But when we come to compare their careers in the whole, Neil wins. He has so many great records and through so many years, Bruce can´t compete with, as his 90´s and 00´s albums are far from his earlier work.
JHer
Neil n Bruce atleast we are talking about the best. I think no one can command a crowd with wooden music like Neil. He played solo to the largest crowd ever in MSG in NY on the trans tour in '83 just stunning what he can do with a lrge house and himself. Then you move on to a small venue and it's pure magic solo. Bruce has no peers live with the band including the SSB it was great. I've seen BS 18 times and NY 11. As far as long term meaning and influence this is where Neil will pull ahead over time, Bruce is sneeky good with people who want to pawn him off as mainstream, but Neil has the imagination of the younger rockers who follow. Neil music to his fans is a soundtrack for their lives for many many years, Bruce's music brings back memories.Overall edge Mr.Young from a guy from NJ
Wow...I agree with anonymous who said it really boils down to opinions....and that Neil is better. That's his opinion and his option. I actually much prefer Bruce myself (and I'm Canadian!) Theat's my opinion and my option...life is good! Enjoy!
The Helpless video was taken down, but I found it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IkltavMBHDs#!
Post a Comment
<< Home