Okay, I'm giving this another shot.
For today, I'm publishing a copy of an e-mail I wrote to David Fricke today regarding the Rolling Stone review of Bruce Springsteen's stellar new album Magic released Tuesday. My issue, as you'll see below is not with Fricke's insights, but rather the instant leap which he makes to read anti-Bush and anti-war sentiment into every line of Springsteen. It's not his place to tell us Springsteen's meaning behind metaphors. So, here it is:
David,
I, like you, have been enjoying the heck out of
Springsteen's new album Magic. From the opening bars of "Radio Nowhere" and
Bruce's reverb vocals, I was in my glory getting echoes of albums going all the
way back to the very first. Hallelujah! I read your review and marvelled at your
wordcraft and insight into how this album stacks up against the Springsteen
canon. But I had to take issue with one component of your review.
You
rail against "bent truths, partisan reporting and general bullshit that passes
for life-and-death debate in the new wired order," but unfortunately, it seems
to me that you are guilty of the very "partisan ... bullshit" you condemn. Now,
I'll be the first to read into metaphors and symbolism - as a freelance music
critic I've read things into albums that had no business being there - but I
think in giving us a review of an album you imposed your own partisan politics
in places where only speculation should exist. To say that Bruce was the most
outspoken "Bush basher" out there wouldn't be erroneous; but to read anti-Bush
diatribe into every line of this new album might be taking it to places that it
doesn't need to go. Or, at the very least, to dictate to the reader/listener
that this is the only interpretation to exist was a bit much for my taste.
Obviously, "Gypsy Biker" is the parallel to "Born in the USA" which you said it
was. The comparison of boots clicking like a pistol chamber immediately struck
me as an obvious - and effective - line about you-know-who. But if we're talking
about levels of analysis, perhaps we should wait to chew deeper on the album
before we start compartmentalizing Sprinsteen's work. There's simply more here
than a one-note album.
The masters - Bono, Dylan, Springsteen - all have
the gift to allow their work room to breathe. These gaps allow us to bring our
own experiences and interpretation. So a song like "Magic," for example, which
is very obtuse lyrically, can be what you make of it. The choice you made was to
bring the dissatisfaction with the war to it. But I would argue that's only one
reading of it. The song is cleverly phrased for sure. What about other uses for
the magic metaphor? Are we to assume that's the only thing Bruce wanted us to
see in this? One beauty of great writing is it can be more than one thing at
once. While we can read it as a war metaphor, we can also read it as something
else at the same time. As a critic, we have to make our own interpretation. But
is a function of a review to dictate to us the interpretation, or instead to
place an album in an artist's canon and talk about the effectiveness of the art
he or she has made?
I found the album to be a slightly different animal
than you did. It was refreshingly, well, fun. While Devils and Dust was murky,
bitter, and buried under the dust of war and consequences, there's a general
vibe to this one that's more universal, that appeals to all of a person, and in
turn, seems to come from more of Springsteen. There's themes of loss of
community, loss of youth but the hunger for vitality that remains, and a
committment to be a member of the global community despite all the injustice in
it. There's also a sense of enjoyment.
Thank you for taking the time to
read this. I appreciate your depth of insight, and as usual with Rolling Stone,
the committment to take music seriously, to not just gloss over it as so many
other music publications do these days. There are many of us out here who take
our music seriously too.
Thanks again,
-glenn
I, like you, have been enjoying the heck out of
Springsteen's new album Magic. From the opening bars of "Radio Nowhere" and
Bruce's reverb vocals, I was in my glory getting echoes of albums going all the
way back to the very first. Hallelujah! I read your review and marvelled at your
wordcraft and insight into how this album stacks up against the Springsteen
canon. But I had to take issue with one component of your review.
You
rail against "bent truths, partisan reporting and general bullshit that passes
for life-and-death debate in the new wired order," but unfortunately, it seems
to me that you are guilty of the very "partisan ... bullshit" you condemn. Now,
I'll be the first to read into metaphors and symbolism - as a freelance music
critic I've read things into albums that had no business being there - but I
think in giving us a review of an album you imposed your own partisan politics
in places where only speculation should exist. To say that Bruce was the most
outspoken "Bush basher" out there wouldn't be erroneous; but to read anti-Bush
diatribe into every line of this new album might be taking it to places that it
doesn't need to go. Or, at the very least, to dictate to the reader/listener
that this is the only interpretation to exist was a bit much for my taste.
Obviously, "Gypsy Biker" is the parallel to "Born in the USA" which you said it
was. The comparison of boots clicking like a pistol chamber immediately struck
me as an obvious - and effective - line about you-know-who. But if we're talking
about levels of analysis, perhaps we should wait to chew deeper on the album
before we start compartmentalizing Sprinsteen's work. There's simply more here
than a one-note album.
The masters - Bono, Dylan, Springsteen - all have
the gift to allow their work room to breathe. These gaps allow us to bring our
own experiences and interpretation. So a song like "Magic," for example, which
is very obtuse lyrically, can be what you make of it. The choice you made was to
bring the dissatisfaction with the war to it. But I would argue that's only one
reading of it. The song is cleverly phrased for sure. What about other uses for
the magic metaphor? Are we to assume that's the only thing Bruce wanted us to
see in this? One beauty of great writing is it can be more than one thing at
once. While we can read it as a war metaphor, we can also read it as something
else at the same time. As a critic, we have to make our own interpretation. But
is a function of a review to dictate to us the interpretation, or instead to
place an album in an artist's canon and talk about the effectiveness of the art
he or she has made?
I found the album to be a slightly different animal
than you did. It was refreshingly, well, fun. While Devils and Dust was murky,
bitter, and buried under the dust of war and consequences, there's a general
vibe to this one that's more universal, that appeals to all of a person, and in
turn, seems to come from more of Springsteen. There's themes of loss of
community, loss of youth but the hunger for vitality that remains, and a
committment to be a member of the global community despite all the injustice in
it. There's also a sense of enjoyment.
Thank you for taking the time to
read this. I appreciate your depth of insight, and as usual with Rolling Stone,
the committment to take music seriously, to not just gloss over it as so many
other music publications do these days. There are many of us out here who take
our music seriously too.
Thanks again,
-glenn
Contrast Fricke's review with Stephen Thomas Erlewine's review for All Music here, which is in my opinion, a fairer treatment.
