Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Marxen
Maybe cause there are lots of alikes in their career (i.e. musicians, success, a recent AFL-performance). But Bruce is always credited as the second coming whereas Meat, Jim (and us fans) for whatever reason often have to fight for credibility.
MM
|
Recent football appearances aside (Bruce played the American Superbowl halftime show, not the AFL, btw), their careers are only alike in that they both make rock records and became famous around the same time period. Springsteen is a well-respected songwriter who plays his own instruments (plural), and has released several solo albums in addition to the ones he made with various bands; Meat is "an actor who sings", by his own description. In fact, depending who you listen to, whether it's an homage or a parody, Bat I sounds the way it does because of
Born to Run. They even "borrowed" two key members of Springsteen's band to make the album.
Bruce may be
Rolling Stone's darling, I'll give you that, but he's more than earned every bit of "credibility" that he has.
And, I've never seen Bruce put down another artist's work in interviews or online, subtly or otherwise. Just saying.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wario
Rolling Stone has bashed meat's album and its superior sequel, and other magazines have praised it.
|
The reviews weren't exactly glowing, but I wouldn't say either album was "bashed", either. I'm not exactly a fan of Dave Marsh, who wrote the review for Bat I anyway; he's something of a Springsteen "insider", and I wouldn't have expected him to say anything different.
Bat I review:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/al...-hell-19771215
Bat II review:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/al...-hell-19931028