On this day in 1975, Bruce Springsteen released Born to Run. The greatest rock and roll album ever produced by an American artist? Maybe not. But it certainly makes my top ten (though I like Nebraska even more). Anyway, let’s not fight about such things. The rendition above is from 1975, when Bruce was still a kid.
You’ll find a couple of more recent performances below the fold.
And because I can’t resist, here’s one more, from Nebraska this time.
The Edge of the American West 
48 comments
August 25, 2009 at 5:54 am
kid bitzer
now some say that screaming “1 plus 1!” all night means we’re thoughtless, cruel and bad…
and we scream into that bitter night, “hey! 3 plus 1 is 4!”
too good.
i saw him on an earlier tour, when his biggest hit was ‘rosalita’. he seemed like a nice boy; earnest and well-meaning.
August 25, 2009 at 6:12 am
Jonathan Rees
Ari:
If you’re about my age (and based on your preferences I think you are), this will kind of freak you out:
August 25, 2009 at 6:37 am
Spike
Sorry, no. Born to Run is better than Nebraska. Jungleland puts it over the top.
August 25, 2009 at 6:44 am
Ahistoricality
How odd. I can see this post if I follow the comments links, but it’s not on the main page.
August 25, 2009 at 6:50 am
Anderson
Glad to see some love for Nebraska, a spooky little album if ever there was one.
August 25, 2009 at 7:50 am
shadowcook
1975? I heard him and the band perform Born to Run at Max’s Kansas City in either the fall of ’73 or winter of ’74. What a great show that was. Even then, his music was almost too big for club-sized venues.
August 25, 2009 at 7:52 am
Russell60
Columbia Records must have been in a rush to get the album out. August 25, 1975 was a Monday, and major labels almost always release (released?) albums on Tuesdays. Nothing on the Web leads one to believe that 8-25 isn’t the correct date, though. I guess the record company, Rosie, gave it a one-day advance.
August 25, 2009 at 8:27 am
SEK
Jonathan Rees, you’ll be happy to learn that the feeling was mutual.
August 25, 2009 at 8:33 am
Charlieford
Growing up about half-way between Philly (which had the Main Point, a place he seemed to play constantly) and the Jersey Shore, it was Springsteen-land in the early ’70s. But by ’75 I was living in Arizona, and had gotten out of touch. One day a fellow came up and told us there was a new Springsteen record, “Born to Run,” and invited us over to listen. It was an odd experience–it was good, but at the time it definitely felt as if he’d turned a corner, and not for the better. Now, looking back, it’s not so easy to see why we felt that way.
August 25, 2009 at 8:47 am
kid bitzer
no, charlie, i know what you mean (or meant on first listening).
the production-values had lost a lot of the garage and grit; there was definitely the looming specter of a wall-of-sound sound, and that did not feel true to his roots.
i mean–has anyone ever listened to “btr” and thought, “this is good, but it needs more glockenspiel”?
August 25, 2009 at 9:00 am
Russell60
I remember thinking at the time, as a regular Rolling Stone reader, that this was Dave Marsh and Jon Landau’s idea of the perfect rock n’ roller (at least to judge by their frequent where-the-heck-is-the-next-Beatles-or-Dylan-going-to-come-from musings in the magazine’s pages since 1973 or so).
August 25, 2009 at 9:02 am
Charlieford
I know kid, that’s it, but weren’t we just replaying the “oh-no-he’s gone-electric-and-now-he’s-less-authentic” thing, and wasn’t it inevitable that he do so (he was heralded as the “new Dylan” after all–ok so were dozens of others, but still), and shouldn’t we have known better?
August 25, 2009 at 9:03 am
Charlieford
Btw, “looming specter”–don’t think that wasn’t noticed! ;-)
August 25, 2009 at 9:04 am
URK
Wow. Jonathon Rees & SEK, thanks. Oh & Ari too, for the muppets. I’ll vote for Nebraska & maybe even Darkness on the Edge of Town over BTR. Oh, and The Wild, the Innocent & the E-Street Shuffle too.
August 25, 2009 at 9:27 am
TheWrathOfOliverKhan
Nebraska by a mile. Never understood what the big freaking deal was about Born to Run, but maybe it’s because it was released when I was but a wee one and I wasn’t introduced to it until years later, when the entire landscape of popular music was much different.
August 25, 2009 at 9:28 am
kid bitzer
not sure how we should have known better, cf.
after all, the accusation of selling out has been true more often than false. the fact that dylan and springsteen and joni and a few others did *not* sell out makes them the exceptions.
given what we knew about bruce based on a few albums and a few tours, he was more likely to be the next bon jovi than the next dylan. (or substitute your favorite sell-out).
hell, i remember tumbleweed junction, when elton sounded like he was aiming to be the next gordon lightfoot. and then their career paths diverged, presumably because lightfoot sold out.
August 25, 2009 at 9:52 am
Charlieford
kid, I’m not sure I’m invoking the “sell-out” charge. Or maybe I am. That was the word in that apartment that night, certainly.
I was just talking about the change in style, and what that seemed to import back in the day. But, we’ve learned a lot since then–thanks to Greil Marcus and Elijah Wald and others–about how dubious the distinction between “authentic” and “commercial” is.
Maybe the sell-out comes when someone decides to exchange their bedroom for a stage?
Have you read this– http://www.amazon.com/Mansion-Hill-Springsteen-Head-Collision/dp/0679743774 –by any chance? He talks in there about Landau refusing to release “Born in the USA” until Springsteen had written a mega-hit for it. Springsteen holed up in some crappy motel and told himself he wouldn’t leave till he’d written it, and he came up with “Dancing in the Dark.” Supposedly he said he’d never been so sick with himself for doing that, and that he’s never been more grateful to Landau for making him do it.
August 25, 2009 at 9:58 am
kid bitzer
yeah, i used to read greil marcus. before he sold out.
now i only listen to authentic young voices from the street, like ari and eric.
August 25, 2009 at 9:59 am
ben
Which one has the muppets?
August 25, 2009 at 10:01 am
ari
My lawn, ben, off!
August 25, 2009 at 10:19 am
Charlieford
Well, pre-sell-out, post-sell-out, whatever, at least we’re talking about Springsteen and not Arcade Fire, like some blogs I won’t mention. Here’s hoping it’s a fancy that passes fast.
August 25, 2009 at 12:22 pm
kid bitzer
i’d just like to point out that muppets are totally street.
August 25, 2009 at 2:12 pm
TFT
I’m going with The Wild, the …..Shuffle. Love BTR, but it a bit smoooooth, though rockin!
August 25, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Michael Elliott
Springsteen, btw, invited Arcade Fire on stage with him during this recent tour.
I keep hoping that Columbia goes the Dylan route with Springsteen’s archive and releasing the live recordings in cleaner shape than the bootlegs out there. Nebraska is frigging great, but what’s even more spectacular was the way that he incorporated into live shows in the years that followed.
(I’m really glad to have a thread for this.)
August 25, 2009 at 4:37 pm
ari
A Springsteen fanboy thread, you mean? Well, we aim to please.
August 25, 2009 at 4:50 pm
JPool
Observations on Jonathan Rees’s video:
Springsteen can play with some muscle when he wants to.
Steven Van Zandt doesn’t appear to understand how a microphone works.
It appears to be physically painful to impossible for Springsteen to sing above a certain tempo.
August 25, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Michael Bartley
We were kids still searching, reaching for a beat, a sound. A discovery we could call our own. I got Sinatra and Cash from my Mom. CSN&Y from my older brother and sister. Great music. But, not our own. A friend copped a DJ pre-release of Born to Run from his brother. We stood in his upstairs bedroom. Hot sun burning hard thru the window. None of us and no one we knew had ever heard of Springsteen. The needle dropped with the old scratch and pop. Then the harp and piano of Thunder Road began and all the air left the room and none of us took a breath, or so it seemed, till the last howl and note. Our hearts were on fire and they’ve been burning ever since.
August 25, 2009 at 6:14 pm
TF Smith
Back in the day, my particular socio-economic pool’s choices were the last of the supergroups or (gawd) disco; Springsteen and his peers were playing music that was worth listening to. Maybe they were and are playing to our “tribe” but still – amazing.
The one and only and I saw them at the dump that jumps the last time around; perfection.
August 25, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Michael Elliott
Springsteen, btw, understands the aesthetics of history. Worth pointing out that he hangs out with literary scholars, too. Rumor is that Sean Wilentz is doing an expose for TNR next month.
August 25, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Charlieford
And then there’s his last two cds . . .
August 25, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Jason B.
Am I the only person who can’t even force himself to care about Springsteen? I’ve been trying for thirty years, and he still leaves me cold. I’d like to like his work, because then my Boss-loving friends would leave me alone (for one thing), but I can’t.
Boring. Boring. Boring. Instrumentally, lyrically, and especially vocally.
Someone, please tell this philistine why Springsteen rises above mediocrity.
August 25, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Vance
Jason B, I’m with you up to the last line — a challenge you know is impossible to meet even with the music you like.
August 25, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Jason B.
You’re probably right. I might as well give it up.
August 25, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Vance
I didn’t mean to seem harsh — I’m frustrated at my own inability to make the case. Even early Springsteen seems to me synthetic in the bad sense, but of course all my favorite music is synthetic in a good sense.
August 25, 2009 at 9:45 pm
The Brucolac
The crowd in the London Calling video clearly has no idea what to make of it. Neither do I. He could do Garageland, and I’ve always thought that Death or Glory was the Clash’s Springsteen song. And certainly Spanish Bombs is right up the Boss’s alley. But London Calling? That’s just weird.
Alternately, what Springsteen song could the Clash play? Darlington County? Adam Raised a Cain?
August 25, 2009 at 10:18 pm
eric
Someone, please tell this philistine why Springsteen rises above mediocrity.
I think Alterman’s attempt to do this resulted in one of his better books.
I bet there’s a big overlap between Springsteen-lovers and people who think The Wire‘s second season is its best.
August 26, 2009 at 4:15 am
Jason B.
Vance: That didn’t seem harsh. I really did see the wisdom in what you said–after ten years I still can’t persuade my wife that Tom Waits is a genius.
She just thinks he’s a psychopath who needs a lozenge.
August 26, 2009 at 6:36 am
kid bitzer
jason, i’m somewhere btw you and michael bartley, but probably closer to you than to him.
thing is, no one is going to strike you as a generational hero unless you are of the right generation. i wasn’t, you aren’t. i liked and still like some of his music, but he just never struck me as a savior.
i was thinking about this when i read yglesias last year going on about nirvana’s “teen spirit”. somehow i managed to get through the last fifteen years without ever hearing that–though i had read many references to it–but his paean to its brilliance, how it had gripped him on first hearing, the same things that michael bartley is saying about springsteen–all made me think i should give it a listen.
it was amazingly bad. not an original note or thought in the whole piece.
so, clearly, you had to be there. you had to be the right age, in the right hormonal state, when that tune hit the airwaves, and then it struck you with the force of revelation. if not, not.
and i’d say the same for a lot of springsteen worship.
it’s all a matter of zeitgeist. none of them are permanently, objectively brilliant.
unlike the great bands of my late teen-age years, which were.
August 26, 2009 at 7:56 am
Michael Bartley
Kid you make a great point. As for the rest, I remember a writer friend, a novelist, with one of those big brains, so absent from our country, but of course not this site, these days. Anywhoo, he told me he couldn’t stand Irish music. To simple, to primitive. Couldn’t find anything in there for his brain. I told ’em to leave his brain out of it. It was music of the gut, the heart. Well, Bruce isn’t my hero. RFK was one and that’s appropriate on this sad day. He isn’t my savior, I have myself, my family, friends and the good earth for that. No, folks, it’s only rock and roll and that’s enough for me.
By the way, as I’ve aged I’ve had a tendency to favor his solo work. Nebraska is brilliant and I love Devils and Dust and, even, The Ghost of Tom Joad, in spite of its monotony of sound, has moments of searing poetry, insight, and heartbreak.
August 26, 2009 at 9:43 am
Russell60
I was 31 when Nirvana hit it big. Up until then, anything “alternative” and criticallly noticed seemed like something I found enjoyable or at least interesting. But, along comes this horrible band that everybody is praising and taking very seriously(yeah, the Sex Pistols were horrible, but at least they had a sense of humor about it). I just didn’t get it, and haven’t pretty much ever since. True, it probably wasn’t just that Nirvana sucked, but that at some point in our lives, many of us tire of paying attention, and tire of looking for things to amaze us. Now, old fart that I am, all new music falls into one of two categories: good or bad stuff that sounds like so-and-so back in the day, and stuff that I don’t understand and can’t take the effort to understand. When I’m not telling them kids to get off my lawn.
August 26, 2009 at 9:56 am
kid bitzer
agreed about the two categories, russell. “i’ve heard that done better” and “that’s not music, that’s noise!”
August 26, 2009 at 12:38 pm
JPool
I’m with you Jason. I’m not a Springsteen hater — I genuinely love “The River” — but in general he does nothing for me. His E Street Band stuff, where he seems happiest, are where I think, “Man, what the hell are you doing?”
I’m not entirely ready to sign on to kb’s zeitgeist theory, though. For one thing, SEK’s about five years younger than me, and he’s a Springsteen fanboy. For another, it’s hard work and not everything clicks, but some of us do choose to keep engaging with new music and find it really exciting. Otherwise, yes, everything devolves into the familiar/noise dichotomy.
August 26, 2009 at 12:42 pm
kid bitzer
“not entirely ready to sign on to kb’s zeitgeist theory”
that doesn’t surprise me, given your age.
in a few years, it won’t even seem like a theory, just an observable fact.
and a few years after that, all theories will strike you as falling into two categories: platitudinous old news or preposterous and not worth considering.
(that’s not even a theory; that’s just noise!)
August 26, 2009 at 12:53 pm
JPool
The Brucolac, I’m not sure he’s up to “Death or Glory” though I can see lyrically why you went there, but I’d be interested to see him try “Wrong ’em Boyo”. I’m worried that he’d screw up the horns, though.
August 26, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Charlieford
I’d like to sign on to kb’s zeitgeist theory, if I may.
That is, if we’re not just talking about learning to “like” new music, but going seriously bat-guano crazy over it. Having it really matter.
And recognizing there’s all kinds of people out there, some who are incapable of any enthusiasm for anything (except maybe themselves) and some who keep developing sincere and articulated passions till they die, and that the theory applies to that big demographic hump in the middle.
But I’d also venture that even liking gets awfully hard. Let me use myself as an example. I was an inveterate music-lover from a very early age, having older siblings to induxct me into the glories of rock n’ roll when I was about 5. I was a die-hard Dylan fan at 10 (1966) and from there followed the usual paths and digressions of the era.
By the mid-70s, when most of my cohort was jumping off the new-music train, I was still at it, getting ga-ga over punk, listening to Richard Hell and the Pistols and Gang of Four and X and PIL; getting into European synthesizer-meisters such as Klaus Schultze; as well as keeping up best I could on most other rock-related fronts.
I hit a wall with black music when rap took over, unfortunately. But well into the ’90s I was still discovering new groups or artists to enthuse about. My last major enthusiasms (measured by how crazy you make people) were Throwing Muses and Nick Cave (that latter’s still going big time, btw). But somewhere around age 40 or so I couldn’t get it anymore. I turned on the college station and nothing did anything for me. The thrill was gone. I sampled everything I could, but there was just no there there, at least for me.
Older artists still satisfied–I saw some of the greatest concerts of my life after 1995, but new artists? Couldn’t make it happen if I tried. And I did. Arcade Fire. Forced myself to listen. Made it worse.
One exception though: The Roots. Every middle-aged white academic’s favorite hip-hop group. “Game Theory” is a masterpiece.
August 26, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Martin Wisse
You’re all wrong; best Springsteen album, bar none, is Darkness on the Edge of Town (followed closely by, yes Born to Run and Tunnel of Love.)
Hearing the contrast between the first two Springsteen albums and BtR, it’s understandable some fans would be discomforted. A bit of funkiness got lost there.
Springsteen as a generational thing? Not sure. There should be at least two generations then: from the original “new Bob Dylan” days and then eighties kids like me, who got to know him through Born in the USA.
August 27, 2009 at 7:05 am
JPool
So there are two components to Zeitgeist Theory, as developed by Messers bitzer and 60: One is zeitgeist and the other is one’s place in the life cycle. So it’s Karl Mannheim as applied to music fandom — an essay titled “On the Sociology of These Crazy Kids and Their Swing Music.”
On the life cycle component, cf is of course right that for most folks, the big demographic hump, music enthusiasm and particularly enthusiasm for new music is a young person’s game. There are good cultural (the importance of music within both the sociality of leisure and listening subcultures as part of the formation of a sense of self) and nueroscientific (the middle segment of this Radio Lab episode explains why it’s actually both difficult and enjoyable to expose yourself to new music, and an ability that your brain tends to lose over time) reasons for this.
On zeitgeist, yes, but in a Bordieuian, internally differentiated way. I grew up in the 1980s like Martin Wisse, but wasn’t feeling the Bruce Springsteen. The music that I later got deeply into, like Midnight Oil or Fugazi, weren’t so much about a generational voice as they were about a combination of aethetics and politics.
I’m 36 and for now I still enjoy new music. This year’s albums by the Heartless Bastards and Camera Obscura are as precious and exciting to me as anything from my youth. If I later lose interest that’ll be fine too, but I look to people like NPR’s Bob Boilen and am reassured that it’s not inevitable.
August 27, 2009 at 7:11 am
Charlieford
On growing up in the ’80s: As Bob Dylan is reported to have said when he met a fellow who introduced himself as Led Zeppelin’s manager, “I don’t bring you my problems, do I?”