Curious Hair wrote:
w/r/t Springsteen being overrated: In total, yes. It's really tragic the way Bruce had to get that lobotomy in 1976. There are more lyrics in "For You" and more notes being played in "Rosalita" than there were in like five albums' worth of '80s crap. I think he used up all his ideas by the end of Born to Run, which is fine, because he got three all-timers out of it (and the simply phenomenal Hammersmith live set), but if you're going to do that, have the decency to go away when you're done. Don't reinvent yourself as The Singing Mechanic who just bleats on and on about Working Hard to mid-tempo 4/4 shit.
I agree with this to a point. There are many great rock songs with two or three chords and few words other than "oh" or "baby". But Springsteen was one of many "new Dylans". He set people up to expect a certain level of literacy. There's no doubt that
Born to Run is the place where all of the Springsteen hallmarks, intelligent lyrics, rock and roll bombast, Phil Spector production, etc. came together to best effect. It's been downhill since then save for some shining moments on
Nebraska, a record that was probably off-putting to many Boss fans.
My criticism of Springsteen wouldn't be so much that he has dumbed his work down, though he has. It's that his songs just don't ring true. He's a guy who has fucked supermodels and has more money than God. As much as he may want to be Everyman, he just isn't. He'd be much better off if he sang about what he knows, maybe sing about the struggles of a guy who has achieved what seems to be a dream life attempting to remain grounded in the real world. That would be far more interesting than second-hand Woody Guthrie.