Bruce and the Pentacostals....

I've seen him a grand total of seven times going back to 1984. It could've been eight times, but I left for Korea a couple of days before the Portland Joad show.

It seems odd to me to deny that Springsteen connects to something more than our need for entertainment. He may choose an entertaining form for his shows, but I think that he taps into more than just that with the most of us. I wouldn?t say that Tom Jones fans are following false prophets but I do feel that Springsteen?s work offers more dimensions and satisfaction. Those multiple dimensions are what I?m looking for in the live experience of Bruce Springsteen. I think his preacher shtick offers just that, especially during Light of Day. Undeniably entertaining if you?re into the templates he uses, but a little bit more than just that. It is the affirmation of Springsteen promise that R&R can uplift your spirits and in some occasions save your life even. Every single time I left a Springsteen show I felt exhausted and on top of the world at the same time. Not every entertainer I enjoy seeing does that for me.

There?s a reason why Springsteen has a large core of hard line fans who rabidly collect his albums and bootlegs, follow tours across continents and spend way too much time on message boards. It isn?t just entertainment. Springsteen?s got more to offer than the trite shows of the Gary Glitters in this world.

I didn't say he didn't offer something more than just entertainment for some, I just wanted you to elaborate. Obviously, he's got more depth as an artist than a Tom Jones. In a forty year career, though, there's a lot to see and hear, and not everything is going to resonate with people in the same way, and I don't really think it has anything to do with how much time a person spends listening or how many times you have or haven't seen the show. I hear the preacher routine as affected and clumsy and clownish; you get something spiritual out of it.

Jomuam asked, does the Springsteen stage act indicate that Springsteen is a religious guy? And i interpret the deeper question of his as, is Springsteen more like jumuam?

I'll again say, no. Bruce had a stern religious upbringing, and liberated himself from that with rock and roll. So, he has knowledge of religion, and, he's expressed that knowledge in his lyrics and shows forever. But is he a devout, practicing Catholic? Only if he sucks on the cross tattoos of the groupies he nails.

Since he's spent 40 years holding a microphone in front of an audience, he's acted out the influences he enjoyed that mixed preaching with music.

And then the aside comes in that Springsteen is more than a loved act to his fans, that there's a spiritual element. Sure, that's true, but the spirituality element is personal to each fan, and has no connection to formal theological organized brainwashing religion.

From Bruce, I'll latch onto his raw, honest, autobiographical lyrics in Freehold. The dude's always been a sex-obsessive who rebelled against religious tenets, and as a rock star, once can only imagine the number of Marys, Jennys, and Terrys he's done. The gospel schtick in the reunion tour was about the reunion of the band, and the metaphorical ministry of rock of roll to bring the band, the shows, and the fans back together.

SoulBoogieAlex strikes me as one of this growing cohort of second-generation Srpingsteen fans. He writes with the pain of not being able to turn back the clock to 1978, and get answers to larger questions about Springsteen, at the time Bruce was in his rock-and-roll prime. That's fine, but until SoulBoogieAlex comes to grips and lands on a genuine context, he'll continue to overwrite.

Actually I did not ask this at all if you will read my post that started this off.

Once one's raised Catholic, it's very hard to shake its psychological baggage and worldview (as all us lapsed Catholics know), whether you "believe" in the dogmatic stuff or not.

Bruce definitely uses his religious upbringing as a way to funnel information, especially when you look at albums where he's trying to "sort" out confusion his life: Darkness, Tunnel, the Rising.

It's his starting point and it guides his gut reactions, but he doesn't look to it for solutions, I don't think.

I thought that's what you were asking - is he a religious guy? All you're wondering is if he has seen or incorporated anything from Pentacostal services?

Well I know he's a religious guy....we're all religious about something to some extent. But I doubt that he's "born again" or anything like that. I just was wondering what was the deal with the jump from catholic friendly imagery to tent revival stylings. If it's just a simple act like has been stated well that's fine.

Okay, I undertand now - I would have to say that the revival edge has been there all along, or at least since A Love So Fine in 74 used the Shout thing. I don't think he witnessed a service anytime in the recent past and decided to use it, but who knows.

Most of the Black artists named in this thread, use that gospel thing onstage because thats where they came from for the most part...that being the church. Bruce on the other hand comes to music from a completely secular angle. It's just an interesting thing to me. And yes....sometimes it works on an entertainment level and sometimes it can be embarassing to watch. Almost like watching him rehearse the dancing for "Dancing in the Dark", in that apartment.

Because of the magic of Bootlegging I won't have to be in pain

I may overwrite, I'll give you that. But than again Springsteen has been know to use his superlatives as well.

I don't think Springsteen's spirituality taps into any form of organized religion, you are right to state that's one of the very things he rebelled against. Or at least against being confined. Bruce instead replaced all of that with the more loose religion of R&R. seeing how serious Springsteen has taken his R&R artistry over the years I feel that R&R has the importance that religion has in other peoples lives. His church is the church of R&R. I agree, the spirituality we take out of that differs from one individual fan to the other.

I think if you want overtly spiritual music you just need to put U2 on.

Overtly? Describe what that means to you. Lots af artist are more "spiritual" than U2. They just happen to be working a different side of the street.....or were anyways. Some of my favorite songwriters happen to be deceased.

Overtly speaking...and still alive....Buddy and Julie Miller are supreme. As is T-Bone Burnett.

Regarding this....


I sent my son this link. His thoughts on this article are as follows with his permission of course....

"aha. I saw that referenced on SPL.

For me, I'm not quite sure how to approach Springsteen. I think that the interesting thing you're getting at, is that he is HONEST (sorry, no italics in facebook). This is, of course, the one true virtue of modern Christian art-- honest intent. Hence, Dylan's. or Springsteen's (at a slighter stretch, I think) reception. Although, for me, I would pick Mark Heard, e.g., Look over My Shoulder, Strong Hand of Love, or Nod Over Coffee. The best Christian songs have nothing to do with Christianity, explicitly, but only implicitly, with the "spirit".

Now, as for Springsteen's "shtick": the very best quote from the article: "but Springsteen has turned [rock and roll] to moral account in a way which forces its Dionysian passion to face the disasters that often follow in its wake." Very good article, BTW. BUT remember, words such as "Dionysian" call to mind only two things: Nietzsche (who is quoted in the last paragraph), or Greek paganism. The former is absolutely dangerous for those who don't know it. The latter, despite its label, is much less so.

And, as such, I often feel the modern protestant "feeling": well intended at best, but dangerous, as it is SO (not MISdirected) undirected. A performer like Bruce can promote religious feeling, but so can Metallica (especially), or any voice with persuasion-- or anyone with (and I stress) what was originally called "daemonic" in greek. A daemon was never a movie-quality special-effect, but a power of intelligence, an understanding to bend words and reality this way or that, to convince the audience of one thing or another. Springsteen's "shtick" is very much daemonic. As are all convincing, good things.

The thing is, just like Dylan's, or Mark Heard's music, Springsteen's music is very tragic. So-called "Christian" songs are only very rarely tragic. Hymns were much more tragic than are modern worship songs. Most modern Christians these days, I think, are convinced of the winning side before they're ever convinced of the need thereof. Springsteen is nothing but the latter. Badlands, Backstreets, Thunder Road (not to mention the viciousness of "I'm on Fire" or the catchy "Hungry Heart"): all thwarted love and small-time damnation and desperation. Springsteen, in this light, proves the truth of "paganism" that Augustine, or Plato saw: a conscious desperation that called out for salvation. If we as Christians can't prove the desperation, salvation is a non-issue.

BTW, I think "Nod Over Coffee" proves this perfectly: desire in spite of the desperation that persists; it is a Christian TRAGEDY: inevitable death (the dam of time cannot hold back/ the dust that will surely come of these bones". Heard is not all "Jesus makes everything alright right here right now just give it up, kids!" He's tragic, in the same way that TRUE rock and roll is tragic. God is tragic, but overcomes the tragic. Heard doesn't say "well, I'm going to heaven because I believed!".... no, the next lyrics are "Well, I'm sure I will have not loved enough/ will not have loved enough"... "If we could see with wiser eyes..."

Modern Protestantism makes too much of believing leading to perfection (best seen in the "God wants you to be rich" shit a few years back.) REAL ("Christian") art, I think, seen in those like Springsteen or Heard (but maybe not Dylan anymore, although "Time Out of Mind" was pretty good in that sense), is tragic, because, even in salvation, life is sucky and boring and still painful. If you're doing it right, its still that way. Hence, Heard: we "do whatever needs to be done again today". And he has that art down to its essence: wise (art) is to see "what is good and what is sad and what is true..."

And that art, seen through the eyes of Mark Heard, is exactly what Springsteen does: he reminds us of the tragedies of life and love, and the truths that are brought about, naturally, in our lives out of rejections and affirmations of love and truth. What he did best, was describe those tragedies that exist (nostalgically, now) in the lives of 70's New Jersey kids, who live it all too realistically, struggling against their restraints, etc. This is my stereotypical view of 70's kids, BTW, whether NJ, or Douglas kids with pick-ups.

However, all this is, in the same way, to explain how I reject modern Christian art/worship/polemics, etc. My preference for Mark Heard over Larry Norman is, in a way, an expression of that. Unless you can prove universal tragedy, you'll never ever promote salvation.

Article concludes:
"Springsteen's "ministry" preaches strength, love and faith before suffering and radical ambiguity. He borrows a Christian idiom, ironizes and then recovers it. It's a humanism produced by a community observing the laws of its covenant, finally, but a humanism juiced by whatever it is about rock's power that makes us feel that desire, dreams, and life itself are sacred."

I'm actually not sure what is said here. "Humanism", I would argue, is a tragedy desirable to be argued to, before it might be ministered to. Springsteen cannot, in "Rock", minister to the tragedy, but only prove it-- rockandroll is the articulate of tragedy, it can only describe itself, but never solve its problems. Neither can salvation, I think, ever administer itself in the same very same language-- as transcendent, it must transcend, somehow, the medium.
And precisely why I don't agree with Norman's "Why Does the Devil Have All the Good Music"....... it's the point of rock and roll, in my view, to prove itself as desperate and unhappy.
And that, precisely, is Springsteen's virtue, but very much, at the same time, his limitation.

PS: apparently, Mark Heard has lawyers at work, post mortem; you can't find any of his lyrics online now...

That's a really thought-provoking piece. Thanks for posting it (and to your son for his thoughts).