Everyone has an opinion about Bruce Springsteen, it seems, except me. In high school I dated a guy who was in love with Bruce -- quoted him often in many of his intricately folded notes -- and lent me some cassettes (little known fact: I went to high school in the 1940s) and I tried to care about Thunder Road, but, man, I really didn't. I've always chalked it up to being a guy thing. Bruce speaks to the soul of man. Not woman. 
Associated Press
That's right, ladies, tear me a new one in the comments. You love Bruce. I know.
I asked some Houston musicians if they think Bruce Springsteen is still a relevant musician. Only men responded, of course.
There's healthy respect:
Tristan Dittman (Elysian): I don't particularly enjoy all of his music, but his message regarding hard work and no guarantees in life is refreshing at a time when most musicians are screaming like Keith Olbermann with their heads cut off. Hopefully, a new generation of musicians will come to understand that he is the quintessential American rock and roller.
Jeff Balke (Orange Is In): A better question would be what artist BESIDES Bruce Springsteen from his era is still relevant. Springsteen really carries the mantle for not just continuing to tour and make records, but influence and even work with young artists. He has performed and/or recorded with artists like Arcade Fire and Jesse Malin. He has significantly influenced a whole host of young rock artists like The Hold Steady and even the snobbiest of indie-music blogs still fawn over him routinely.
I’ve never been a huge Springsteen fan and you could certainly question his music at different times throughout his career, but I don’t think anyone can seriously question his relevance in music today as a performer, writer and mentor.
Allen Hill (Allen Oldies Band): Any artist that continues to make their fans happy is beyond relevant - they are essential. Too often people judge artists only by their greatest works and how long ago those works were created. If Paul McCartney had thrown in the towel after Yesterday, we all would have lost a lot of great music and inspiration. Great artists are always trying to top what they or others consider their best work. Springsteen was a live-music lifer ten years before Born to Run and continues to inspire people every single day. I count anyone that wants to hear a thousand guitars and a thousand drums -- as Bruce sings in Radio Nowhere -- as an essential part of the blessing known as rock and roll.
Kerry Melonson (Satin Hooks): Sure the Boss is relevant! He's got a back-catalog the size of Texas! Let's not forget his heroic album about 9/11. As long as he's responding to current events and sings about timeless subjects, he'll still be hanging on.
There's the old "I don't want my musicians to tell me what to think argument":
Aubrey Lindsey (Texas City Revelators): Not even a little bit. When he became politically loud he lost all musical relevance as do all celebrities who choose that path. The public is interested in talent, not opinions from stars.
There's stream-of-consciousness via Jonny Reeves:
Jonny Reeves (The Wiggins): Look, he sells out stadiums. Yes we still love him, but, yes most likely his 'super star' career has peaked. Artists like to reinvent themselves and that doesn't always lead to more mass appeal. Also didn't he go on hiatus for 5 or 6 years? That should tell you what he thinks about pop fame... Also, what mainstream rock stars (who came out in the last 5 years) would you consider to be relevant? I cant think of any. Thank god for hip hop, right?
And you've got your healthy dose of skepticism:
Bill Curtner (formerly of Black Math Experiment): Fuck no! "The Boss" is everything that is wrong with rock these days. Bloated, aging corporate shills that churn out boring middle class anthems for the "we shop at Wal-mart so it must be good for America" generation. Who the hell wants to see him perform for three to four hours? If I wanted to see sweaty, decrepit men sing shitty old songs I would attend a family reunion. I'm sure my son will feel the same way about The Pixies in ten years.
I'm going to go with Jeff on this one. Arcade Fire, Hold Steady -- these are bands that are beloved by today's taste makers, and they love Bruce. Bruce=relevant.
That still doesn't mean I care about him all that much. The most exciting thing I think he's ever done is slide crotch-first into a TV camera at the Super Bowl.
Tickets are still available at all price ranges ($39-$95) for Wednesday's concert at the Toyota Center.
Having lived on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, I will say this: Springsteen is one of the few musicians who has a very different stature depending on the region of the country you're talking about. If you're from a cold place, you just hear Springsteen differently, I think. (And note that Arcade Fire and the Hold Steady are both from very cold places.)
Ooh. An interesting take.
Is Bruce Springsteen still relevant?...well, as someone who has not only been a huge fan over the years - from seeing him perform with The E Street Band in huge concert halls, and then watching him sit in with local bands in small Jersey Shore bars - to enjoying his music for over 30 years, and also having had the fun of actually performing with him a handful of times back in the day - I can say, without reservation, that he is one of the "most" relevant artists performing today! Bruce, in his writing, has provided a soundtrack for our "American" lives. From his earliest days, Bruce has exhibited an insight into our country, our culture and our individual life experiences, in his writing, which has carried us through good times and bad - holding up a mirror, reflecting back our hopes and dreams, our trials and tragedies, our wars and our peace. With that stance comes the risk that some people may not always like what they see in that reflection. Truth, whether as projected through Bruce's music, or as experienced in our daily lives isn't always easy or convenient to deal with. For folks who have a hard time dealing with truth in art, or in life, there are plenty of artists who can provide them with mindless fluff and diversion. Bruce is not one of them - "The door is open but the ride ain't free" - As a songwriter, he is a story teller "par excellence", telling our stories, our "American" stories, with passion and grace. Unlike many artists who get stuck in time like a fly in amber, Bruce's music has continually lived in the moment as he, and we, have grown together through the decades. Any question of his present relevancy will be quickly dispelled by listening to any of his last 3 albums. (yes, they're still technically albums) "The Rising", I feel, is to this date the most powerful and poignant portrait ever painted regarding the tragic events surrounding the attacks on 9/11, and the personal stories of the lives it touched - which is to say all of us; "Magic" reflects a nation, for years adrift, misguided, scarred by war, and with a crisis of leadership; and his latest, "Working on a Dream", speaks to our lost "American Dreams" and the troubled economic road we travel today, but with the hopefulness and undying optimism we find at the root of all of Bruce's music. When it comes to his live shows, his relevancy comes into fine focus. Yes he is undoubtedly one of the most dynamic and exciting performers on the planet - any planet! But check his current set lists and you'll find that this is not just an artist touring in support of his latest golden egg. This is a man drawing from his vast catalog of music to spin tales and stoke the fires of raw human emotion; laughing and crying with us; sharing a vision; voicing an opinion; taking us on a spiritual journey, not just putting on a show. Bruce's shows are part concert, part circus, part roadhouse bar and part revival meeting and always the greatest show on earth!...and always relevant....and so we'll meet again tonight in that "Land of Hope and Dreams"! - Hank Woji
Win and William Butler from Arcade Fire were both raised in The Woodlands, so I'm not sure they heard Bruce any differently than Sara did.
I've never been a Springsteen fan, not because I dont like him but because I've never taken the time to buy or listen to an album. Wild thing about Bruce is that you can watch him perform at the Super Bowl and whether you have ever owned an album or not, you still knew most of the words to the songs that he sang. Say you didnt?!? He is a part of our culture and just like Michael Jackson he will always be relevant whether we like it or not.
I'm going tonight to see Bruce for the first time. Again, not even being a fan, I'm confident that I'll be entertained (and worn completely out...word is that dude played 3 hours and some 28 songs in Austin). Bang for the buck, I'm not sure that can be topped.
I think Bruce's relevance is in his live performances. He embodies the working man. He's not afraid to go out there and sweat. He pours his heart and soul out onstage for 3 hours at a time. He's doen that from the beginning. I've never been a big fan of his music, but he was and remains one of the best live acts EVER.
Make that "He's DONE that from the beginning." I hate typos.
Just a quick comment on Aubrey's statement above: If political activism = musical irrelevance then here's a partial list of irrelevant artists: Bruce Springsteen, Toby Keith, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Sheryl Crow, Melissa Etheridge, James McMurtry, Paul Simon, Carole King, Tony Bennet, The Dixie Chicks, Sting, Steve Earle, Bruce Cockburn, Dave Matthews, James Taylor, Pearl Jam, Bonnie Raitt, John Mellencamp, Jackson Browne, R.E.M., Black-Eyed Peas, Neil Young, Death Cab For Cutie, John Rich, Ted Nugent, Johnny Ramone, Kid Rock, Ricky Skaggs, Lee Greenwood, Krist Novoselic, Billie Joe Armstrong, Peter Gabriel, Dwight Yoakam, Robbie Fulks, Neil Peart,...and let's not forget John Lennon, Bob Marley & The Wailers, Joe Strummer & The Clash, Phil Ochs, Joan Baez, Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Crosby, Stills & Nash, Willie Nelson, Bob Dylan, ...etc ...etc ...etc...!
I just figure out that Bruce Springsteen is an anagram for "Curbing Pretenses."
That sold me: I love Bruce Springsteen.
I could probably write a page or so on this subject but since my post is so tardy I will keep this short. The better question is why are these young artists becoming infatuated with his music now? I became a Springsteen fan in my early teens during the grunge era and very few of my friends could understand why. At that time (the early 90's), I would have answered that he was no longer relevant. If you look at his albums from the late 70's and early 80's, you can see one man's portrait of life in the onset of the Reagan era. Not every artist reflects the atmosphere surrounding them, nor does every artist strive to do so. The Reagan era was the springboard for his greatest albums. It is no coincidence that he regained his prominence during the Bush era and that bands like the Arcade Fire decided to write songs that dealt with what life in America was like during the Bush era. This is my explanation for how his older music came to be reexamined by younger artists and why his newer albums drew more favorable reviews. That being said, his newest album, coming on the heels of Obama's victory (and more importantly, the end of the Bush era), is his worst in decades. Not that there aren't a few decent love songs on it, but there are also some of the worst songs he's ever written. I suppose he does "disgruntled" better than "content". Sorry about all those quotes in my intricately folded notes Sara.
Nah, I loved those quotes in the notes. No apologies necessary.
Post new comment