Can somebody explain to me the Springsteen popularity?

It wasn't Rolling Stone.
It was Jon Landau writing a review of Bruce's May 9, 1974 show (forget if it was the early show or the late show) at Harvard Square Theater (Massachusetts) in Boston's Real Paper that first used the line "I have seen rock 'n' roll future and it's name is Bruce Springsteen". The Columbia Records marketing machine jumped all over that. But had to hold itself in check for a year while Bruce recorded the Born to Run album.

 

Be honest - don't you find a bit of a contradiction between the beat and the dark words to some of his work.

Born In The USA is the consummate example.

 

Springsteen is a lot like the Stones in that they have a large amount of people who will find a way in their hearts to love everything new he does, whether it is really good or not. I'm in the camp that really hasn't been into anything after Born in the USA, but his early stuff merits much of the hype, I would say.

 

He came along at the right time with the right sound and just enough thought-provoking imagery in his lyrics.

He was an American alternative to the punk (then new wave) sound that rescued the world from the mid- to late-1970s disco days.

And his concert performances put him over the top, winning over a lot of people who were borderline fans but willing to take a chance on attending a show back in the days when $20 was a very expensive ticket.

I can name five friends who were kind of on the fence about him when they attended one of his shows in my podunk in 1980 or '81 as a blizzard blew through town. He played three hours, told cool stories in between tunes and won most of them over as fans.

 

In some cases yes. For instance Cadillac Ranch, the music and lyrics appear to be party (even the live performances are that way), but the song's underlying meaning is really dark.
Born in the USA - the song - if anyone pays attention to the verses and not just the chorus - they'll see how dark that song is.

 

OK, let's leave the price of the concert tickets aside for the moment. That's what people pay to see shows these days. (Want to see the old poster I have that says, "The Jimi Hendrix Experience -- $3.50 in advance, $5 at the door"? It is to weep.)
I was completely unmoved by his first two records; I think the first one is overwritten fake Dylan and the second one seems to have been produced by lemurs. However, I saw the show for the first time during the post-Wild, Innocent tours and the simple fact is that the songs from those two albums, which are still a little better than mediocre IMHO, were completely transformed by the energy of the performance. "Spirit In The Night" was/is a completely different kettle of fish than the cut on the studio album. It was that show that sold me, even though I haven't listened to either of those albums in years.
To put it in a different context -- listen to the studio recording of "Tommy" and then listen to the live performance of it on The Who's "Isle Of Wight" set. Completely different animals entirely. You like the original or not, but you;d have to be deaf or crazy not to have wanted to be at that live show.
Same with Bruce.
As for casty, I'm more along with zeke. You get it or you don't at this point.

 

A fair point, I suppose, Fenian. But I am barely willing to spend money to see shows for people I KNOW I like, especially in these times. Having the first defense to "I don't get the big deal about Springsteen" to be "drop some cash to go see him in concert" seems ridiculous.

That's all I'm saying, not slagging his live show at all (though what I've seen in clips sounds like muddled hell.)

 

You can pretty much say that about almost every song in Born In The USA. As much as I like the the sound it always cracks me up to see people rockin out to it.

 

Isn't that sort of the point of rock 'n roll?

Disaffected youth in rebellion, and all that?

 

A godless amount of money is 20 grand on a wedding.

 

No, because weddings are enjoyable.

 

The Beach Boys have never bummed me out.