Recently, I've rediscovered Bruce Springsteen's newest album, Working on a Dream. Now my roommate let me rip his copy of the CD (We'll get into Alex's obsession another day) about few months back, but it wasn't until a couple weeks ago that I had a chance (read: "was the first time I was compelled to") to listen to the entire album in one sitting.
One quick tangent...
When it comes to music, I'm a HUGE believer in listening to the entirety of a particular album, in order and uninterrupted (if possible). There are a few reasons for this, but the main reason is that ALBUMS are the work of art, and the songs are simply pieces. I bet if you talk to 10 of the biggest artists/bands these days, seven or eight of them will tell you that there's a method to the order of songs on a album, and that method is typically thematic progression. You wouldn't want to watch a full screen movie (thanks, Marc) or look at only 1/10th of a Picasso painting....what makes an album any differernt? Sure, every album has songs that are better or stronger than others; that's why we have singles. However, allmost NEVER is one of those weaker songs "filler" for the album.
Now back to your irregularly-scheduled blog post...
I'm going to very upfront with my analysis for this album...Bruce has probably let everyone down with this one (except for his most rabid of fans). In fact, if this weren't a Springsteen album and one by some upcoming singer-songwriter, I probably would have stopped listening about four songs into this mess.
It gets off on a really bad foot with "Outlaw Pete."
Now I don't know where good ol' Brucie was goin' with this one, but my best guess is that he was trying to channel his own inner-outlaw performer persona, a la Johnny Cash, Merle Haggard, Bob Dylan, Willie Nelson, et ceterea. However, there just a few missteps in his approach to this epic story-song: First of all, Bruce has never proven this subgenre to be his forte, and I'm not about to get into that vast of an argument. I will say though, that Bruce must have been thinking that in order to construct a Western epic, one must have a backing band, full of synth (yes, it's there) and what seems to be a string orchestra. Apparently he forgot the primary mantra of this type of music: less is more; this song would be INFINITELY better if it was just Springsteen's raspy voice and a 12-string. In fact, it's arguably the only song on the album that needed more simplicity.
Now, I have no idea how to segue into this song, so let's get right to the clip. (Another funny yet sad fan vid)
Maybe it's his age; he's a little too old to be running like a tramp with his baby, so he's resigned himself to the urbane suburban lifestyle and thinks he'll instantly become the stud of the grocery store. There's so many things I could say about the absurdity of this song, but I don't want to be labeled a plagiarist, so just read what these professionals had to say:
"The worst song Bruce Springsteen has ever written."
- Detroit News
"At the 3:00 mark, it accidentally turns into a Meatloaf song."
- Blender
"Single-handedly removes this record from consideration as one of the best releases of his career."
- Chicago Tribune
"Unintentionally ludicrous."
- San Jose Mercury News
"Unbelievably melodramatic ... sounds like someone doing a Springsteen parody."
- Orlando Sentinel
"Might be the worst song Springsteen has ever released."
- Philadelphia Inquirer
"May be the worst thing he's ever written."
- Pitchfork
Maybe this is indicative of the album, but the only bright sp0t is a bonus track, the titular theme song from the fantastic movie, The Wrestler.
This is where I was getting at with simplicity. Just a great guitar part with some raw vocals.
Maybe I'm one of the few who liked this song; this parody is hilarious! (See if you can catch the Def Leppard reference)
One final rant: I think Bruce is getting a little old to be rockin' the soul patch...Agree?
