New topic
PrintableSupernova said: divo02 said: What's all the drama in here about Supernova? You shouldn't get so worked up...you know that's what IrishEcho wants.
Actually I'm not worked up. I guess I should add more smiley faces and winks to show I'm not, but it didn't seem necessary at the time. The whole beef ORIGINALLY I had with Echo is his hypocrisy toward Rio and CalhounSq. He likes to dish it out but can't take it. That's basically the gist of it. Everything else is ... peripheral stuff, since he doesn't know what he's talking about. {insert smiley here to show Divo I'm not worked up} 
But seriously, I don't have any problems with anybody else in this thread that I've responded to. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
mistermaxxx said: Please springsteen is so Pop it ain't even Funny
 which is why you're comparing him to Madonna, MJ, Prince and Garth Brooks. So who's laughing?
&He knows all the Hits that are out.Springsteen gets so Much Hype why I don't know fully? It's called "critical acclaim". A whole list of folks followed his footsteps like Mellencamp, Dave Alvin, LOS LOBOS and such. LIVING COLOUR did a cover of his "16 Shots" at a Central Park gig on their reunion last spring. If them boys think Bruce is cool, that's all the validation I need.
what has He done that Bobby Womack & Richie Havens haven't?? Not really good examples. Springsteen hasn't professed to be a soul or blues act, nor has he purported to have created a new genre (then again, neither has BW or RH--who are, nonetheless spectacular craftsmen). He revitalized the American hard rock scene. He's really a latter-day rock act in the urban Northeast and Midwestern rock ala BobSeger, The Band, Neil Young or John Fogerty and folk a la Woody Guthrie. I see what you are getting at but it's going nowhere: Springsteen as a "culture bandit" is so damn laughable. Very few black folks really care about that vibe (I'm not even gonna bring up Clarence Clemmons). I really don't get into it at all, but I do acknowledge his influence.
you outta read that Book about Springsteen,the Eagles&I forgot Who else House on the Hill or something like that.Springsteen ain't the Cat Cutting the Grass for tips Selling a Lemonade Stand outside His House&washing Cars.He had some Moments but not the Kind you'd think with His MR.Patriotic stand,His Blue Collar Image,etc... Not sure what this is all about: who cares about what work he does/has done around NJ  ? Does Prince shine his own shoes? MJ feed his pets? Oh yeah, thanks for the reading recommendation, but when I read about music, my area of emphasis is jazz and blues and my reading list is overflowing, as it is. Besides, I can get all I need about rock and pop off MTV.
test | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Supernova said:[quote] PFunkjazz said: No offense, but you're just spouting mediaspeak. "80s icons". "regarded within music circles".
Yes, Springsteen's career begins in '75 and stretches out into the late80s/early 90s to now.
Actually it began a few years before that. LOL SN you are truly taking lessons from WB. Point is Springsteen starts up in mid-70s late into the 80s. Given his recent re-emergence and the clamor it's stirring up, it lends credence to the fact that he has career longevity which gets to the crux of this thread of why he's able to cause such a stir: He had a grassroots following long befoer there ever was an MTV and an internet.
and while you might not agree, I feel Maxx is lessening the significance of Springsteen without having an understanding of his impact. All said, this thread has been a nice discourse, but the diatribe with Irish has discolored everything 
It's Friday and I got some crink$ left after paying bills, so i'll be ... test | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PFunkjazz said:[quote] Supernova said: PFunkjazz said: No offense, but you're just spouting mediaspeak. "80s icons". "regarded within music circles".
Yes, Springsteen's career begins in '75 and stretches out into the late80s/early 90s to now.
Actually it began a few years before that. LOL SN you are truly taking lessons from WB. Point is Springsteen starts up in mid-70s late into the 80s. Given his recent re-emergence and the clamor it's stirring up, it lends credence to the fact that he has career longevity which gets to the crux of this thread of why he's able to cause such a stir: He had a grassroots following long befoer there ever was an MTV and an internet.
and while you might not agree, I feel Maxx is lessening the significance of Springsteen without having an understanding of his impact. All said, this thread has been a nice discourse, but the diatribe with Irish has discolored everything
It's Friday and I got some crink$ left after paying bills, so i'll be ... mistermaxxx | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PFunkjazz said:[quote] Supernova said: PFunkjazz said: No offense, but you're just spouting mediaspeak. "80s icons". "regarded within music circles".
Yes, Springsteen's career begins in '75 and stretches out into the late80s/early 90s to now.
Actually it began a few years before that. LOL SN you are truly taking lessons from WB. Point is Springsteen starts up in mid-70s late into the 80s. Given his recent re-emergence and the clamor it's stirring up, it lends credence to the fact that he has career longevity which gets to the crux of this thread of why he's able to cause such a stir: He had a grassroots following long befoer there ever was an MTV and an internet.
and while you might not agree, I feel Maxx is lessening the significance of Springsteen without having an understanding of his impact. {Excellent! NOW we can talk about Springsteen!} Actually I don't agree with Maxxx when he compares Springsteen to Richie Havens or Bobby Womack. I don't know where you come up with that assumption. See, the more you assume about me, the more you're liable to be deceived. 
Springsteen's acclaim is not new to me at all, nor am I wondering why. I'm not what you'd call a huge fan of his, I guess I'm a casual fan. I've listened to about 6 of his albums (although I only own one at this point), and I like some other songs by him here and there. His live reputation is where he first gained his acclaim, because he and the E Street Band have a rep for playing for sometimes up to 4 hours a gig. It's a play until you can't play no more type of thing. It wasn't until his 3rd album (Born To Run) that he put it all together. His career has never been based on anything MTV-ish, he comes from an AOR niche, where he's been served well by being a staple of Rock radio. Where they play more than just the hit singles. But I definitely understand Maxxx's reasoning for what he said. You brought up culture bandits in a prior post, I don't see that at all with Springsteen (although there are many Blacks who are serious about music, and in turn who are serious about that specific issue), lyrically, musically, or aesthetically. He's never implied that he's something he's not, he's not at the forefront of any early musical genre, etc. And actually, Clarence Clemmons was one of two Black band members in the original E Street Band (David Sancious being the other). Someone had once mentioned to me that Clarence was "a token" in Springsteen's band - not true at all. From the mid 70s on, Springsteen was one of the few who was doing something significant in Rock music when Disco was the pop music of the day. My best advice for anyone who may not understand Springsteen's acclaim is to listen to at least a few of his albums, short of attending one of his gigs. PS, you and someone else said "81 Shots" was the title of the song, it was "41 Shots". Ahem. This post not for the wimp contingent. All whiny wusses avert your eyes. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Supernova said: PS, you and someone else said "81 Shots" was the title of the song, it was "41 Shots". Actually the cops thought Diallo may have been holding a gun in his grave so they pumped 40 more shots into him so Bruce was forced to change the name of the song. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Supernova said:[quote] PFunkjazz said: Supernova said: PFunkjazz said: No offense, but you're just spouting mediaspeak. "80s icons". "regarded within music circles".
Yes, Springsteen's career begins in '75 and stretches out into the late80s/early 90s to now.
Actually it began a few years before that. LOL SN you are truly taking lessons from WB. Point is Springsteen starts up in mid-70s late into the 80s. Given his recent re-emergence and the clamor it's stirring up, it lends credence to the fact that he has career longevity which gets to the crux of this thread of why he's able to cause such a stir: He had a grassroots following long befoer there ever was an MTV and an internet.
and while you might not agree, I feel Maxx is lessening the significance of Springsteen without having an understanding of his impact. {Excellent! NOW we can talk about Springsteen!} Actually I don't agree with Maxxx when he compares Springsteen to Richie Havens or Bobby Womack. I don't know where you come up with that assumption. See, the more you assume about me, the more you're liable to be deceived.
Springsteen's acclaim is not new to me at all, nor am I wondering why. I'm not what you'd call a huge fan of his, I guess I'm a casual fan. I've listened to about 6 of his albums (although I only own one at this point), and I like some other songs by him here and there. His live reputation is where he first gained his acclaim, because he and the E Street Band have a rep for playing for sometimes up to 4 hours a gig. It's a play until you can't play no more type of thing. It wasn't until his 3rd album (Born To Run) that he put it all together. His career has never been based on anything MTV-ish, he comes from an AOR niche, where he's been served well by being a staple of Rock radio. Where they play more than just the hit singles. But I definitely understand Maxxx's reasoning for what he said. You brought up culture bandits in a prior post, I don't see that at all with Springsteen (although there are many Blacks who are serious about music, and in turn who are serious about that specific issue), lyrically, musically, or aesthetically. He's never implied that he's something he's not, he's not at the forefront of any early musical genre, etc. And actually, Clarence Clemmons was one of two Black band members in the original E Street Band (David Sancious being the other). Someone had once mentioned to me that Clarence was "a token" in Springsteen's band - not true at all. From the mid 70s on, Springsteen was one of the few who was doing something significant in Rock music when Disco was the pop music of the day. My best advice for anyone who may not understand Springsteen's acclaim is to listen to at least a few of his albums, short of attending one of his gigs. PS, you and someone else said "81 Shots" was the title of the song, it was "41 Shots". Ahem. Seems in quoting me you're attributing things to me that i didn't say. Nor did i intend to imply them. re: Womack/Havens comparison to Springsteen was purely Maxx's invention. I'm not saying you agree with that at all. re: Springsteen as a "culture bandit" wouldn't be attributed to you either. I picked up a inference to that in Maxx's post with teh WOMACK/HAVENS thing, while NGSPW's post explictly states it: " It's The Elvis comback of 1969. The Rolling Stones have done this sort of thing several times before. Another useless distraction. . This is probably my fault in lumping a response to you in with Maxx. Sorry. I think we're in agreement on Springsteen being something other than disco and also per Mr. Clemmons: he ain't no token. RE: "81 SHOTS". LOL I goofed, but I never said that . I clearly meant "41 Shots", but I said "16 SHOTS" cuz I had one less than "17 Days" a Prince song Living Colour covered.
Re: The assumptions you think I've made about you: There are none. Except you'd probably be pretty cool to hang with.  . All I'm saying in the earlier posts that if you're attributing the prominence of Springsteen to be solely because of mediaspeak and chart sales you're gravely mistaken.
BTW yeah AOR-rock was big on Bruce. I got all my Springsteen from KLOS. test | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SkletonKee said: two points: rio, what happened? your soo above all this...i have never had to skip through your posts...its a sad day, *for me*...
..i apologize to you skeleton key..i guess i just get tired of the whole irish echo agenda... didn't mean to let you down..but sometimes things just hit you wrong, you know? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
 OK, I'm going to try this one more time, hopefully I can explain it with more clarity...
PFunkjazz said: Seems in quoting me you're attributing things to me that i didn't say. Nor did i intend to imply them.
re: Womack/Havens comparison to Springsteen was purely Maxx's invention. I'm not saying you agree with that at all. I know it was Maxxx who said it, but I was responding to your quote when you said: He had a grassroots following long befoer there ever was an MTV and an internet. and while you might not agree, I feel Maxx is lessening the significance of Springsteen without having an understanding of his impact.
All I said was that I didn't agree with Maxxx's comparison of Springsteen with Womack or Havens, nor do I agree with his opinion that Springsteen is "middle of the road", which he later said. Although, a few of his songs may be middle of the road (but when you have a career as long as him, that's going to happen, it seems). re: Springsteen as a "culture bandit" wouldn't be attributed to you either. I picked up a inference to that in Maxx's post with teh WOMACK/HAVENS thing, while NGSPW's post explictly states it:
" It's The Elvis comback of 1969. The Rolling Stones have done this sort of thing several times before. Another useless distraction. . I know it wasn't attributed to me, but you brought up the term (and I do realize it was because someone else alluded to it), I just thought I'd say that I disagree with that too. It would have been more time consuming (but less confusing, I admit) had I replied to that person. Actually, I thought it's something you perceived that Maxxx was saying. This is probably my fault in lumping a response to you in with Maxx. Sorry. I think we're in agreement on Springsteen being something other than disco and also per Mr. Clemmons: he ain't no token.
Well, we both lumped in a lot of responses within the same post where we didn't quote the exact person who said it, so it's accurate to spread the blame to me too for that. Sometimes I just get in a habit of replying to multiple people within one post. This post not for the wimp contingent. All whiny wusses avert your eyes. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Supernova said: Well, we both lumped in a lot of responses within the same post where we didn't quote the exact person who said it, so it's accurate to spread the blame to me too for that. Sometimes I just get in a habit of replying to multiple people within one post. I'm cool with it all you, maxx even NGSPW7200 (I wish he'd "buy a vowel" It's too hard to "spell" ).
BTW: COOKIE's pretty damn good!!! U know I'm lovin' "Dead Nigga Blvd. Pt2"!!! test | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
rio said: ..i apologize to you skeleton key..i guess i just get tired of the whole irish echo agenda... didn't mean to let you down..but sometimes things just hit you wrong, you know? awww...i still love ya...and yes, there some people here who get under my skin...but i tend to ignore them..that way im not giving them anymore power against me... like tangena says in poltergiest, "now clear your minds...it already knows to much..dont give it anymore!!".. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |