Rating: 
Summary: An effective devolution of the demolition man
Review: The most widely accepted version of Bruce Springsteen has it that abstract objects are distinguished by their causal inefficacy, is he? Concrete objects (whether mental or physical) have causal powers; numbers and functions and the rest make nothing happen. There is no such thing as Bruce not being Bruce. Or maybe causal commerce with the game of chess. And even if impure songs do in some sense exist in space, it is easy enough to believe that they make no distinctive causal contribution to what transpires, the only bruce matters theory of music. Peter and Paul may have effects individually; and they may have effects together which neither has on his own. But these joint effects are naturally construed as effects of two concrete objects acting jointly, or perhaps as effects of their mereological aggregate (itself a paradigm concretum), rather than as effects of some set-theoretic construction. (Suppose Bruce's band tip a balance. If we entertain the possibility that this event is caused by a gig, we shall have to ask which set caused it: the set containing just Peter and Paul? Some more elaborate construction based on them? Or perhaps the set containing the molecules that compose Peter and Paul? This proliferation of possible answers suggests that it was a mistake to credit causal powers to sets in the first place.)
Rating:
Summary: An effective devolution of the demolition man
Review: The most widely accepted version of Bruce Springsteen has it that abstract objects are distinguished by their causal inefficacy, is he? Concrete objects (whether mental or physical) have causal powers; numbers and functions and the rest make nothing happen. There is no such thing as Bruce not being Bruce. Or maybe causal commerce with the game of chess. And even if impure songs do in some sense exist in space, it is easy enough to believe that they make no distinctive causal contribution to what transpires, the only bruce matters theory of music. Peter and Paul may have effects individually; and they may have effects together which neither has on his own. But these joint effects are naturally construed as effects of two concrete objects acting jointly, or perhaps as effects of their mereological aggregate (itself a paradigm concretum), rather than as effects of some set-theoretic construction. (Suppose Bruce's band tip a balance. If we entertain the possibility that this event is caused by a gig, we shall have to ask which set caused it: the set containing just Peter and Paul? Some more elaborate construction based on them? Or perhaps the set containing the molecules that compose Peter and Paul? This proliferation of possible answers suggests that it was a mistake to credit causal powers to sets in the first place.)
Rating: 
Summary: Biographical gibberish
Review: This biography attempts to document Springsteen's meteoric rise to fame, placing emphasis on his music, concerts, politics and personal life. The author's assessment of Springsteen's albums mirrors my own, but he downplays or fails to recognise the extent to which Springsteen so radically changed the nature of rock performance. The intensity, pure exhilaration and uplifting nature of Springsteen's concerts are only hinted at. Sandford's account of Springsteen's political development is expressed in a rather patronising manner, and at times irritatingly mixed in with the author's own seemingly reactionary views. The story of Springsteen's personal life, in particular that concerning his parents and various relationships and friendships, despite much analysis and many words, offers little that Springsteen hasn't expressed more eloquently himself in interviews, especially in recent years. This is a flawed biography, but worst of all Sandford simply can not write. His style is long-winded, repetitive and turgid, and his syntax awful. The book rambles on for over 400 pages in a pseudo-academic manner. The first few chapters, in particular, are poorly structured and at times sentences are incomprehensible and meaningless. Here are just a few examples (I gave up marking the margins after the first three chapters): "No longer would the Boss be the hard-eyed capo who flouted his moll". "Whatever his shin-guard flaws, they were more than matched by his academic scrapes". "Their few talks, hissed through carious teeth, soon left the foreshore of debate for the choppy seas of 'screw you'". "More than once he communicated in a semi-colon". Who does Sandford think he's writing for, never mind impress, with this gibberish? One of Springsteen's great talents is his ability to communicate. It's a pity that Sandford didn't try and follow his example.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant study of the Boss
Review: This book is a fabulous read -- not only do you get a great insight into the life and songs of Springsteen -- but the writing itself "sings". I highly recommend to fans or to anyone with an interest in American rock culture over the past several decades. As an added bonus -- the color photographs are terrific.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant study of the Boss
Review: This book is a fabulous read -- not only do you get a great insight into the life and songs of Springsteen -- but the writing itself "sings". I highly recommend to fans or to anyone with an interest in American rock culture over the past several decades. As an added bonus -- the color photographs are terrific.
Rating: 
Summary: An Awful Read: Don't Waste Your Time
Review: This book is simply painful. The author is downright offensive with his failed use of big words. For gods sake, he's writing about the Boss here! He should really think about his audience before writing. What a waste of time....ugh.
Rating:
Summary: An Awful Read: Don't Waste Your Time
Review: This book is simply painful. The author is downright offensive with his failed use of big words. For gods sake, he's writing about the Boss here! He should really think about his audience before writing. What a waste of time....ugh.
Rating: 
Summary: Point Blank
Review: This is a well-written, if over-analyzed, portrait of Springsteen. Sandford, who's clearly a fan, writes about Springsteen's childhood and his rise as a rock star that turns into rock icon -- but he tries to do so with the objective of portraying Springsteen in more human terms instead of just feeding the myth-making machine as so many other authors have done. This means that at times Springsteen does not come off as squeaky-clean or saintly as some of the more hard-core fanatics want so desperately to believe. Sandford balances the musical (reviewing and analyzing Springsteen's albums and songs, Springsteen's coping with the problems and pressures and eventually coming to terms with being a star, etc.) with the personal (his relationships with women, his marriage with Phillips, his sometimes contradictory nature, his selfless giving to various charities and so on). Sandford also shows how Springsteen evolved from somebody who never read a book and didn't know anything about politics to somebody who now reads the classics and is much more politically aware. Sandford is also not afraid to criticize, or at least point out certain contradictions concerning Springsteen's behavior -- one example being that early in his career, Sprinsteen vowed to never play stadiums and had imposed a ban on T-shirt or merchandising in his name. By the time of the Born in the U.S.A. tour, however, he was playing huge stadiums and selling plenty of merchandise, courtesy of Jon Landau. However, this book is no sordid tell-all, nor is it a hatchet job to try to bring Springsteen down -- Sandford usually goes on to defend Springsteen, or at least to explain the reasons for why Springsteen did what he did. One thing should be pointed out: Sandford is British, not American, and British sentence structure and grammar is a little different in style than American writing. He also has a dry sense of humor that is sprinkled throughout the book and he writes about Springsteen from an English perspective, not an American one. This book does have it's flaws though, with the major flaw being that he uses too many anonymous sources for his quotes, causing a dip in the credibility department. He also tends to be a bit long-winded, which causes him to repeat himself quite a bit. In the end, though this book shows Springsteen as more than a one-dimensional "Rambo with a guitar". Sandford succeeds in portraying Springsteen as a human being, with human flaws, and not as some guitar-toting cartoon character. If you're looking for a more objective look at Springsteen, then this is the book.
Rating:
Summary: I liked it
Review: This is one of those books that people seem to either like or dislike...I have been a huge Springsteen fan since 1974, and I enjoyed every page. This books does a great job of taking you closer to Springsteen than any other book out there. Is Springsteen an narcissist? Probably...A few years ago I wrote down 10 things I wanted to do before I died and one of those ten things was to meet Bruce Springsteen...After reading Point Blank...I don't want to meet him anymore...But I will always carry his music in my soul for the rest of my life.
|
