This has always confused me as a huge bruce fan, i adore this record & hell i think from 1973-1987 he made nothing but classic records.

But what is it that made Born so big? i mean 7 top 10 hit singles from the album..... and he is of course tied with Janet & Michael in the ''records'' department.

But Bruce was an independent artists for years & had a huge cult following.... and finally got a top 10 with Hungry heart... and 3 years later with the Born singles.

The album is not as dark as The River or Nebraska.. or as Powerhouse Born To Run.

But the title track is very critical of America(Yet went right over peeps heads) And it had a lot of social issues and stuff Bruce talked abotu for years.

So what was it that made the album so huge? it's a great album but 7 top 10 hits & over 30 million records sold worldwide is crazy.

Also Bruce was in his 30's when the record came out to & not relatively young like when Prince came out with Purple rain the same year

[Edited 10/10/12 16:05pm]

I'm not a huge fan myself and I don't think he ever was nearly as popular in Europe, but my guess is just the "stadium rock" sound that was popular at the time and the title itself. I don't think it really mattered to a lot of people that he wasn't trying to convey a patriotic message with the title track, because all it takes is a phrase like that getting chanted in a passionate manner and people will buy it. They'll ignore the rest of the lyrics.

For most people that never bother to listen to the lyrics of the title track, Born In The USA was taken as 100% pure patriotism.

I remember the video to "dancing in the dark" played alot of MTV .

Most people remember it cus it had that gal who was later on "friends" ...

I think it was a perfect lead in - and again ... at that time when videos to songs really mattered ... I cant say that I remember too many other videos off that album ... I am sure they all had some .

[Edited 10/8/12 12:37pm]

Part of it is the songs, for whatever reason he was really writing more accessible material at that time. It IS less dark than The River, and that made it accessible to a wider audience. In the order that I rememgber hearing them: Born In The USA, Dancing In The Dark, Glory Days, I'm On Fire... those are all real strong singles.

I think too, there was kind of a rock and roll void in 1984. Many of the superstars of the 70s had broken up or died off and what was coming up was hair metal and poofy rock like Loverboy. In that kind of atmosphere it was pretty easy to say "yeah, Springsteen, he's a good guy, he's paid his dues." He was the kind of rock star it was easy to get behind. Known for being sincere and hardworking. No surprise it's the same period that U2 become superstars doing real sincere, earnest heart on their sleeve type stuff.

The Reagan era patriotism helped him too. Doesn't matter that he was misunderstood, perception is reality when it comes to music.

And finally once you have had 3 hit singles off an album and there are still more "single-worthy" songs on it, you can get a steamroller effect going.

I guess that makes sense.... but i mean i am still baffled that it had 7 top 10 hits

The most suprising is I'm Going Down! good song but i would never ever imagine it even becoming a top 40 hit let alone top 10.

And the fact the album sold 15 million in the U.S alone & is still selling is crazy.

Also, Bruce was having top albums since born To Run in 1975.. yet at the time none of those songs where hit songs(Years later though)

I have always wondered how Bruce got such a huge following throughout his 70's to early 80's day's without any hit singles until 1980 Hungry Heart.

TonyVanDam said:

For most people that never bother to listen to the lyrics of the title track, Born In The USA was taken as 100% pure patriotism.

I think that's true. I think Glory Days was also totally misunderstood (I know it was by me!)

I hated Bruce back then. I did not get him. I saw him as the patriotic aw, shucks guy--which is actually what I believe made him such a star. He appealed to people who misunderstood him, and he appealed to people who were more sophisticated and actually got what he was about.

Plus it was his time. He was a major player for ten years, and a huge talent. I did not like the album at the time, but it is full of really strong songs. Add to that his skills as a performer, a bit of sex appeal, and you have a hit!

It did have some great videos though!, and many don't have the dated or 80's cheese quality either

NDRU said:

I hated Bruce back then. I did not get him. I saw him as the patriotic aw, shucks guy--which is actually what I believe made him such a star. He appealed to people who misunderstood him, and he appealed to people who were more sophisticated and actually got what he was about.

Plus it was his time. He was a major player for ten years, and a huge talent. I did not like the album at the time, but it is full of really strong songs. Add to that his skills as a performer, a bit of sex appeal, and you have a hit!

Hmm,..... you know i guess this summons up a lot of NDRU

I also kind of felt the same for Prince in his PR day's.... that a lot of people who misunderstood him.. at the time liked him. And he had also been around for awhile.

Also Bruce like Prince never experienced a sales high after his big album!

And... also like Mr. P Bruce did a total 360 after his big album. I don't think after the political/social & free spirit songs on Born. That 3 years later Bruce would write an entire concept album based on divorce, falling in love again & marriage

Gunsnhalen said:

It did have some great videos though!, and many don't have the dated or 80's cheese quality either

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not...

But I do think Bruce was an alternative to what was going on in the 80's--Michael, Prince, Madonna, new wave, pop, etc. Bruce was doing straight rock with no hairspray, no makeup, no glittery outfits. Okay he DID wear a headband!

NDRU said:

Gunsnhalen said:

It did have some great videos though!, and many don't have the dated or 80's cheese quality either

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not...

But I do think Bruce was an alternative to what was going on in the 80's--Michael, Prince, Madonna, new wave, pop, etc. Bruce was doing straight rock with no hairspray, no makeup, no glittery outfits. Okay he DID wear a headband!

haha

Well basically what i mean is... his videos went with the song.

I love when videos do really artistic & creative thing's.. but many 80's videos also have nothing to do with the song

It seem's with his videos it was more like straight to the point, let's have a story that goes with the song or a live performance and weare done

But HEY! the headband was cool:P

Looking back, I think Dancing in the Dark had a lot to do with the success. The hits kept coming, but Dancing is one of Bruce's finest songs and got the ball rolling.

It has that very 80's quality, so it sounded great on the radio. And it has a lot of style, unlike his more "plain" songs like Born in the USA.

NDRU said:

Looking back, I think Dancing in the Dark had a lot to do with the success. The hits kept coming, but Dancing is one of Bruce's finest songs and got the ball rolling.

It has that very 80's quality, so it sounded great on the radio. And it has a lot of style, unlike his more "plain" songs like Born in the USA.

Dacing & Born To Run where the 2 songs that introduced me to the boss.. so that makes sense

Another reason i am asking all this... is cause i was not alive in 1984 So i was seeing what people of the time perioid where thinking

Btw you mentioned Glory Days earlier... i guess that is a bit of a misunderstood song. It's very upbeat but also a little tragic......

Like Born it is seen as an upbeat & uplifting song

Gunsnhalen said:

NDRU said:

Looking back, I think Dancing in the Dark had a lot to do with the success. The hits kept coming, but Dancing is one of Bruce's finest songs and got the ball rolling.

It has that very 80's quality, so it sounded great on the radio. And it has a lot of style, unlike his more "plain" songs like Born in the USA.

Dacing & Born To Run where the 2 songs that introduced me to the boss.. so that makes sense

Another reason i am asking all this... is cause i was not alive in 1984 So i was seeing what people of the time perioid where thinking

Btw you mentioned Glory Days earlier... i guess that is a bit of a misunderstood song. It's very upbeat but also a little tragic......

Like Born it is seen as an upbeat & uplifting song

Yeah, I completely misunderstood Glory Days as a 12 years old. I thought he was singing about them, but he was singing about the loser who couldn't stop talking about them

Once I got that, I started seeing Bruce in a different light. But even now, I watched the Dancing in the Dark video, and I see why I thought he was such a dork!

NDRU said:

Gunsnhalen said:

Dacing & Born To Run where the 2 songs that introduced me to the boss.. so that makes sense

Another reason i am asking all this... is cause i was not alive in 1984 So i was seeing what people of the time perioid where thinking

Btw you mentioned Glory Days earlier... i guess that is a bit of a misunderstood song. It's very upbeat but also a little tragic......

Like Born it is seen as an upbeat & uplifting song

Yeah, I completely misunderstood Glory Days as a 12 years old. I thought he was singing about them, but he was singing about the loser who couldn't stop talking about them

Once I got that, I started seeing Bruce in a different light. But even now, I watched the Dancing in the Dark video, and I see why I thought he was such a dork!

Well let's just say his ''dance'' moves from the video where not making prince or MJ worried

The preceived theme...................

Gunsnhalen said:

NDRU said:

Yeah, I completely misunderstood Glory Days as a 12 years old. I thought he was singing about them, but he was singing about the loser who couldn't stop talking about them

Once I got that, I started seeing Bruce in a different light. But even now, I watched the Dancing in the Dark video, and I see why I thought he was such a dork!

Well let's just say his ''dance'' moves from the video where not making prince or MJ worried

Yes, and that is why I was so surprised to see what a great performer he actually was, despite the dancing.

I'd say the poppy and commercial feel of Dancing In The Dark caused a lot of people to hear Bruce (some maybe for the first time) and the people liked the song so much that they eventually became fans or semi-fans and bought what followed

This is the question that boggles me....why did Lionel Richie win the Grammy for Album of the Year in '85, when his competitors such as Bruce, Tina Turner, and Prince had greater milestones? No doubt, Lionel was huge, but it is one of the weirdest wins in Grammy history. Not too many were expecting him to win, according to my family and friends who tuned in to the Grammy hysteria back in the day.

Graycap23 said:

The preceived theme...................

I think so too. It makes me wonder, do you think he intended to pull one over on America?

Wasn't this album (or Bruce in general) the inspiration for Prince's "Raspberry Beret"?

Gunsnhalen said:

This has always confused me as a huge bruce fan, i adore this record & hell i think from 1973-1987 he made nothing btu classic records.

But what is it that made Born so big? i mean 7 top 10 hit singles from the album..... and he is of course tied with Janet & Michael in the ''records'' department.

But Bruce was an independent artists for years & had a huge cult following.... and finally got a top 10 with Hungry heart... and 3 years later with the Born singles.

The album is not as dark as The River or Nebraska.. or as Powerhouse Born To Run.

But the title track is very critical of America(Yet went right over peeps heads) And it had a lot of social issues and stuff Bruce talked abotu for years.

So what was it that made the album so huge? it's a great album but 7 top 10 hits & over 30 million records sold worldwide is crazy.

Also Bruce was in his 30's when the record came out to & not relatively young like when Prince came out with Purple rain the same year

Alot of big questions there and there are alot of different answers, first i think the age thing really didnt matter cause it was the 80's that would matter now not then, AGE-ISM wasnt born yet.

As for why, well when the album hit, mainly "Dancing In The Dark" it was billed as the first BRUCE video ever, though there was a few concert ones, those were just taken from shows not really Made videos. You had Friday Night Videos then that played it all, this was before the cosby kids and fresh prince cast hosted every other week and the show played about 8 videos instead of the 20-30 it would play normally when it first started. VIDEO pushed this record, Bruce was a rock radio guy but this got him on POP radio too, though Born was critical of america, YOU WERE FREE to do that then, now you get Dixie Chicked for speaking up, funny how times havent gone forward but BACK. This album had some classic videos, GLory Days, shit who couldnt identify with that one, Im On Fire, shoot having a crush on this woman you always see, BRUCE hit on every possible vibe on this record, but also crossed over like he didnt before.

AND it also came from an era of BIG ALBUMS with BIG SINGLES, that dont happen anymore, now you can have Katy Perry launch 7 top 10's and barely sell a million, and most of the public not even own the album, to me, nothing against Katy or any of these other big singles artists, they do not translate to great albums or even come close.

novabrkr said:

I'm not a huge fan myself and I don't think he ever was nearly as popular in Europe, but my guess is just the "stadium rock" sound that was popular at the time and the title itself. I don't think it really mattered to a lot of people that he wasn't trying to convey a patriotic message with the title track, because all it takes is a phrase like that getting chanted in a passionate manner and people will buy it. They'll ignore the rest of the lyrics.

Bruce has a HUGE fanbase with many political people in Europe, he's one of the most popular artists in northern Europe & Germany. They love his enthuiasm for people and his concern of the working class. He always brings in over 50.000 people to his concerts in Sweden.

[Edited 10/8/12 15:39pm]

silverchild said:

This is the question that boggles me....why did Lionel Richie win the Grammy for Album of the Year in '85, when his competitors such as Bruce, Tina Turner, and Prince had greater milestones? No doubt, Lionel was huge, but it is one of the weirdest wins in Grammy history. Not too many were expecting him to win, according to my family and friends who tuned in to the Grammy hysteria back in the day.

i agree! i mean i really like Can't Slow Down... but it is the lease of all those albums nominated.

For me Born In The U.S.A as 2nd place after Purple Rain for winning..... Lionel sorry to say would be at bottom

lastdecember said:

Gunsnhalen said:

This has always confused me as a huge bruce fan, i adore this record & hell i think from 1973-1987 he made nothing btu classic records.

But what is it that made Born so big? i mean 7 top 10 hit singles from the album..... and he is of course tied with Janet & Michael in the ''records'' department.

But Bruce was an independent artists for years & had a huge cult following.... and finally got a top 10 with Hungry heart... and 3 years later with the Born singles.

The album is not as dark as The River or Nebraska.. or as Powerhouse Born To Run.

But the title track is very critical of America(Yet went right over peeps heads) And it had a lot of social issues and stuff Bruce talked abotu for years.

So what was it that made the album so huge? it's a great album but 7 top 10 hits & over 30 million records sold worldwide is crazy.

Also Bruce was in his 30's when the record came out to & not relatively young like when Prince came out with Purple rain the same year

Alot of big questions there and there are alot of different answers, first i think the age thing really didnt matter cause it was the 80's that would matter now not then, AGE-ISM wasnt born yet.

As for why, well when the album hit, mainly "Dancing In The Dark" it was billed as the first BRUCE video ever, though there was a few concert ones, those were just taken from shows not really Made videos. You had Friday Night Videos then that played it all, this was before the cosby kids and fresh prince cast hosted every other week and the show played about 8 videos instead of the 20-30 it would play normally when it first started. VIDEO pushed this record, Bruce was a rock radio guy but this got him on POP radio too, though Born was critical of america, YOU WERE FREE to do that then, now you get Dixie Chicked for speaking up, funny how times havent gone forward but BACK. This album had some classic videos, GLory Days, shit who couldnt identify with that one, Im On Fire, shoot having a crush on this woman you always see, BRUCE hit on every possible vibe on this record, but also crossed over like he didnt before.

AND it also came from an era of BIG ALBUMS with BIG SINGLES, that dont happen anymore, now you can have Katy Perry launch 7 top 10's and barely sell a million, and most of the public not even own the album, to me, nothing against Katy or any of these other big singles artists, they do not translate to great albums or even come close.

True, Adele is the only one that has done the big albums with big singles thing as of recent.

Bruce did hit a lot of chords & the songs dealt with many different thing's people from all walks of life could identify with!

But i still find it strange that singles like I'm On Fire & Going Down become so big!, i could for sure never seeing songs like those going big today at all.

I would say the REAL reason why it was so big, but I won't. I'm not even going to go there

Gunsnhalen said:

lastdecember said:

Alot of big questions there and there are alot of different answers, first i think the age thing really didnt matter cause it was the 80's that would matter now not then, AGE-ISM wasnt born yet.

As for why, well when the album hit, mainly "Dancing In The Dark" it was billed as the first BRUCE video ever, though there was a few concert ones, those were just taken from shows not really Made videos. You had Friday Night Videos then that played it all, this was before the cosby kids and fresh prince cast hosted every other week and the show played about 8 videos instead of the 20-30 it would play normally when it first started. VIDEO pushed this record, Bruce was a rock radio guy but this got him on POP radio too, though Born was critical of america, YOU WERE FREE to do that then, now you get Dixie Chicked for speaking up, funny how times havent gone forward but BACK. This album had some classic videos, GLory Days, shit who couldnt identify with that one, Im On Fire, shoot having a crush on this woman you always see, BRUCE hit on every possible vibe on this record, but also crossed over like he didnt before.

AND it also came from an era of BIG ALBUMS with BIG SINGLES, that dont happen anymore, now you can have Katy Perry launch 7 top 10's and barely sell a million, and most of the public not even own the album, to me, nothing against Katy or any of these other big singles artists, they do not translate to great albums or even come close.

True, Adele is the only one that has done the big albums with big singles thing as of recent.

Bruce did hit a lot of chords & the songs dealt with many different thing's people from all walks of life could identify with!

But i still find it strange that singles like I'm On Fire & Going Down become so big!, i could for sure never seeing songs like those going big today at all.

Even with Adele, and Norah Jones, big big albums and sellers but ironically the singles here and there, with Norah it really only had 1 single. But i agree these were big albums, but i cant compare them to what albums like FAITH and BORN IN THE USA KICK by INXS i mean they outsold them too for the most part but i think the impact of those records cant compare to those back tthen, Bon Jovi Slippery When Wet, etc...these are iconic albums that launched artists careers really, not that Adele or Norah dont have that, its just not comparable

Tittypants said:

I would say the REAL reason why it was so big, but I won't. I'm not even going to go there

............and that as well.

Tittypants said:

I would say the REAL reason why it was so big, but I won't. I'm not even going to go there

?