Last week, I picked up the new Springsteen album, "Magic." Well, "picked up" is not quite accurate. I got up Tuesday morning, went to the iTunes Music Store and downloaded it. Somehow it was not quite the same experience as walking into a record store and seeing the album cover and song list for the first time. That makes me sound old. But then again, I am.
It is a good album and gets really good a few songs in. As to where it fits in the spectrum of previous Bruce masterpieces, I am not quite sure. It is too soon to judge. The reaction to "Magic" in the media, however, highlights some basic divisions in our culture.
Bill O'Reilly has labeled Springsteen a "pinhead" for making remarks critical of the US in a "60 Minutes" interview. His main criticism is that Bruce won't appear on his show to explain himself. Fair enough. I would like to see him in that setting as well. But O'Reilly's real criticism of Springsteen is that he is an entertainer making political statements that influence the minds of 18-35 year olds.
A few things, Bill. First, I think the last 18 year-old to buy a Springsteen album was me - in 1980. Second, O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham et al seem to be bewildered at the idea of artists trying influence the culture through their work. For the "Shut Up and Sing" crowd, singers are merely entertainment and political ideas must be discussed in a dialectical linear Q&A format. Politics to them is all about "taking positions" and defending them in arguments. These positions are usually reduced to just two, neatly defined within boxes containing talking heads.
Certainly, debate and argument are valid forums for discourse. I am not claiming that they are not. But they are not the only game in town. Art does not lend itself to dissection and argument. That makes things like songs difficult to categorize and control. Things that are difficult to pigeonhole do not make good cable news filler and in turn irritate the gurus of that medium.
In fact, competent critiques of popular music are difficult to come by in the mainstream media. The most naive review I have ever read of any album has to be Stuart Levine’s review of “Magic” for MSNBC . Absolutely clueless to anything other than a literal interpretation of Springsteen’s lyrics he writes:
“The mesmerizing title track is where Springsteen’s aforementioned dark side comes to fruition. Whether he was emotionally scarred by a magician as a young boy, or he just has it out for them, Springsteen sees these tricksters as deceitful and reprehensible, their entertainment value be damned.
With lyrics such as “I got a shiny saw blade / All I need’s a volunteer / I’ll cut you in half / While you’re smilin’ ear to ear” makes it very clear what Springsteen thinks of these slight-of-hand artists. Of course, he could be a big fan of magicians and is just toying with us.”
Yes, you really just read that.
“Magic” is about a magician. And George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” was about animals on a farm. And Robert Frost’s “The Road Not Taken” is a hiking guidebook.
Perhaps, I am overreaching here but O’Reilly and Levine’s cluelessness about artistic expression and metaphors are emblematic of a deeper rift in our culture. In church culture, it traces its roots to the fundamentalist vs. liberal debates of the 20th century. Currently we see this clash of viewpoints in the increasingly heated dialogue about the emerging church.
Although I hesitate to define the emerging church, one key trait I have noted is its openness to more artistic forms of expression and theological thought. Much of this exploration is coming from those emerging from faith traditions where such open-ended expression of faith was devalued, if not denounced. I include myself in this description.
As I read Levine’s review or listened to O’Reilly’s demand that artists entertain, I realized that the frustration and bewilderment I felt was something I had experienced somewhere before. That somewhere was the church - a church that clings to literal-only interpretations of the Bible. A church that sees metaphor and myth as somehow “lesser” than “facts.” A church that demands faith and doctrine be debated, argued and proved like a court case (“The Case for Christ” and “Evidence that Demands a Verdict"), not expressed like a song.
Ironic that a group of people who essentially believe in magic can be so blind to it when they encounter it.
Recent Comments