Page 2 of 2
Posted: August 18, 2006 5:16 pm
by Parrotthed
Rather than comparing "Rosalita" to "Margaritaville," I would compare "Born to Run." "B2R" and "Mville" could be considered both artist's signature songs.
Posted: August 18, 2006 6:29 pm
by sonofabeach
Parrotthed wrote:Rather than comparing "Rosalita" to "Margaritaville," I would compare "Born to Run." "B2R" and "Mville" could be considered both artist's signature songs.
or maybe Dancing In The Dark or Born in The USA imo.
Weren't they bigger than Born To Run?
Posted: August 18, 2006 8:12 pm
by ragtopW
Posted: August 18, 2006 8:18 pm
by RinglingRingling
:D:D
Posted: August 18, 2006 8:23 pm
by parrotpartygod
Posted: August 19, 2006 3:00 am
by 1 CP
The article by Mr. Mulshine of the Star Ledger was a thoughtful and interesting one, but i cant say I agree with much of it.
In my humble opinion, Mr. Springstein's Seeger Session album, and i assume his tour, are sensational. Perhaps being a Pete Seeger fan helps, but they are such raucous, joyous presentations of those familiar songs that they just shine!!
I had noticed the same thing about the relative absence of reviews of Mr. Buffett's shows compared to those of other rock groups, and, I must say, i think at least part of the reason is that, to reviewers who are not parrotheads, a concert every years with a virtually unchanging set list is not exactly news---and I've noticed that in the review's I've read, they focus more on the parrothead ambiance than on the music.
The glacial pace of change in the set lists apparently pleases many fans, who love to sing along to numbers they know. However, a growing number of fans familiar with Mr. Buffett's incredible catalog, desparately wish he would pension off some of the old favorites and replace them with more of his long neglected gems.
An Apples to Mangoes Comparison
Posted: August 19, 2006 9:20 am
by Ukulele Jack
As a long standing fan of both the Boss and Bubba, I can only say that article misses the mark. They are both consumate entertainers and know how to put on a great show. Between the two of them, they have put on some of the best concerts I've ever been to. I have seen both of them grow from coffee house acts at the Main Point outside of Philly to the huge tours they now do.
One is quite predictable and one is usually full of surprises. Both are very prolific although Jimmy is fairly linear in his artistic career while Bruce constantly reinvents himself with new bands, acoustic solo tours (pay attention Jimmy) and continuously rearranging old songs to keep them fresh.
As for the puritanical label, both are decidedly liberal in their politics and choices of causes and candidates they support although I suspect there are a lot more right wingers at a Buffett concert (closet Parrotheads).
Although I haven't seen Bruce in a "shed" concert, I must say his arena concerts are amazing in the sense of audience decorum - Bruce holds their attention from beginning to end and you can hear a pin drop during the slow tunes (he was still doing Jungleland prior to the Seeger tour). The audience also knows when to sing along and does so with gusto. Compare this to a Buffett show where there is a stampede to the bathrooms during the ballads - there was even a thread on this message board a while back discussing which songs to go to the bathroom to!
The other thing is you can have a cheap seat at a Springsteen concert and have a totally enjoyable experience because the vast majority are there to hear the music. If you don't have a good seat at a Buffett concert, you are will have to deal with the majority of fans who are there for the party first and music second. I abandoned the lawn years ago after a particularly annoying night of vomiting, fornication and drunken high schoolers shouting for "Cheeseburger" all night.
I know, it's not always like that and I've heard there is some rowdy behavior from fans at the Seeger tour because the Boss is not playing his hits, but any artist who keeps growing will always get some backlash from those who can't deal with change.
So I don't think you have to compare these two amazing musicians, just enjoy them for what and who they are.
Posted: August 19, 2006 10:26 am
by Quiet and Shy
Nice posts, UJack and 1CP...
I boil it down to Jimmy choosing to do more of what the broad fan base wants him to do (populist) whereas Bruce (especially with the Seeger sessions) is doing more of what he wants to do (individualist).
As long as they're both still having fun, that's great....
Posted: August 19, 2006 11:50 am
by backstreets77
I couldnt agree with you more Ukulele Jack. As being a long time Springsteen fan (since the age of 6 now almost 30) hence the screen name.You summed up very eloquently what ive been thinking of writing all week to this topic, but just didnt know how to put it down in writing. I may have only discovered Jimmy when I was 15, but that doesnt mean i enjoy him anyless. These are two men I admire the most as artists. Both deserve there sucsess and proper recognition that they get.
To me both are prolififc song writers in their own rights and I choose to listen to each for different reasons. Jimmy for escapism Bruce for insight i guess. Nobody has ever captured the way I grew up in a bluecollar world the way Bruce has. And nobody has ever transported me away from that world the way Jimmy does in his songs and shows.
I guess thats all. Maybe im a little crazy for posting this. But hey If we werent all crazy... well you know the rest!
Fins Up cause Baby I was born to run!!!!
Re: Puritans & Parrotheads
Posted: August 19, 2006 9:38 pm
by SchoonerWharf
parrotpartygod wrote:Puritans and Parrotheads
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Jimmy Buffett played Jersey last week. I'll bet you saw the glowing reviews. All of the critics praised the show as an example of the unsurpassed talent of a true American original, a man whose stories of American archetypes reveal him as the second coming of Mark Twain.
Just kidding. I couldn't find any reviews at all in the major newspapers. But when Bruce Springsteen was in town a few months ago singing some stale folk songs, all the critics of Christendom united in showering praise on him.
The same phenomenon occurred earlier in the year, when both Buffett and Springsteen played the New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival. Springsteen's appearance made national news. Buffett's performance, meanwhile, was barely mentioned.
I wasn't there, but if history is any indication Buffett's audience at that festival was louder, more enthusiastic and more appreciative than Springsteen's. And I'm equally sure that his performance was more original in every respect, since he comes from the Gulf area and his songs are populated with realistic local characters and stories. Yet that counts for nothing to the critics compared to Springsteen's rehash of a handful of songs popular among a small circle of Greenwich Village illuminati in the early 1960s.
How does one account for this discrepancy? I for one chalk it up to the lingering puritanism that lurks in the heart of what passes for an intelligentsia in America. This has changed little since 1919, when H.L. Mencken observed that the critics of that era judged the artist "not by his originality and artistic courage, but simply and solely by his orthodoxy. If he is what is called a 'right thinker,' if he devotes himself to advocating the transient platitudes in a sonorous manner, then he is worthy of respect."
That insight certainly describes the critical reaction to that CD and concert tour of Springsteen's based on the work of Pete Seeger, the New England-educated social realist who is perhaps the single most puritanical presence in American popular music. A New Yorker cartoon captured this perfectly. A middle-aged man is shown strum ming a guitar in bed. Next to him is a woman with a frustrated look on her face. "How many verses of 'Froggie Went A-Courting' are there, Jay, before your pill kicks in?" she asks.
Many a truth is said in jest, and that particular jest by cartoonist Michael Crawford captures the puritanical nature of Springsteen's recent oeuvre perfectly. Like that unfortunate woman, his fans must suffer through such songs as "Froggie" in hopes of some fun afterward.
I was shown that cartoon by such a fan who employed it to warn me against attending the Springsteen shows at the PNC Arts Center a few months ago. I was glad I took the warning. A few days later, the same fan urged me to check out backstreets.com. This is a Web site for Springsteen fans.
Unlike the critics, they weren't happy about what they saw at the arts center. One chastised two female fans. "The problem was they were not going to be content unless Bruce played 'Froggie' for them. They kept screaming this over and over and over." Another complained about "a couple next to me that needed a room." A third termed it "the most annoying show I have ever attended" and said "people around me were beyond rude. Talking, yelling at each other, cell phones on constantly, drinking to the point of falling down."
And then there was this question: "Why would you pay good money to see a show, and then drink that much, so that you won't remember a thing the next morning?"
Hmmm, I thought to myself: That last one sounds like a typical Buffett concert. The audience starts gathering in the parking lot around noon. By the time the great man comes onstage, many have attained that presence in the moment -- achievable only through either alcohol or Zen -- that permits one to instantly forget what has gone before.
The difference is, at Buffett concerts no one complains. During the fast songs, the entire crowd is so loud that no one voice could possibly have an effect. And during the slow songs, the whole crowd quiets down, even the raging drunks.
Why is everyone so content at a Buffett concert? Perhaps because he plays songs they actually want to hear. Buffett is both a more original and a more prolific songwriter than Bruce, but he somehow manages to get through a concert without trying to impress the audience with his insights. He is certainly as tired of playing "Margaritaville" as Springsteen is of playing "Rosalita," but he plays what the fans want to hear.
Perhaps this is because Buffett, raised in the French Catholic culture of the Gulf, lacks the puritanical impulse that infects the rest of America. He's even been known to get publicly drunk on occasion, a character trait not shared by Springsteen, who is noted for an abstemious approach to alcohol.
So here's my advice for Springsteen: Have a margarita and sing "Rosalita." The fans will love it, even if the critics don't.
Paul Mulshine is a Star-Ledger columnist.
Actually its a moronic read.
They are two different audiences and this whole thing just smacked of pathetic jealousy...bizarre...thats the best argument that can be made.
Not to mention the fact that the fact Jimmy still plays so many "old stale" songs is the cheif complaint of many.
Bruce Springsteen is brilliant and always has been. Jimmy is brilliant in a different type of way. Room for both and fans of both.
Just a stupid commentary in my humble opinion.
Posted: August 19, 2006 10:40 pm
by jonesbeach10
I think part of Jimmy's genius is how he keeps writing songs that pertain to his genre. Even after almost 40 years (
) he still keeps expanding on his beach bum image. An non-parrothead friend once asked me, "How many songs can he write about sleeping in a hammock in the tropics?" Yet he still does it.
And really, it is a genre all to its own. It's not 100% country, not 100% rock, not 100% pop, but a mixture, which IMO is very hard to do. We've seen Kenny Chesney try to imitate it, yet you can still tell it is primarily country.
Okay, now I'm going off on a random tangent and have to stop.
