The lights are on, but you're not home:
According to Joan Walsh at Salon:
[Bill Clinton] left the stage to U2's "Beautiful Day," which then strangely segued into Robert Palmer's "Addicted to Love" — although the band cut off the refrain but the crowd shouted out the line they dropped: "You might as well face that you're addicted to love."
This calls for the 12" remix:
Let the healing begin.
(HT: Jim Chen)
UPDATE: CSPAN captures the precise moment of addictus interruptus:
Apparently, somebody at the convention noticed the problem and abruptly pulled the plug on the sound, but couldn't stop the audience from continuing the song.
Addicted to *something*, surely, but can we call it "love"?
Bush and co. used the song at rallies somewhat effectively: They played "Don't Stop" for a time, then broke in with "Won't Get Fooled Again." Clever. But the final line of the song is, of course, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Which isn't quite the message they were seeking to put out.
That said, Robert Plamer is not the guy to play for Bill Clinton. Just a bad, bad call. Though "Flower" by Liz Phair would have been worse.
But it puts me at risk of losing my second bet, that Obama's speech will be followed by a U2 song.
This may be right up there with the Reagan campaign's misguided attempt to use Springsteen's "Born in the USA" as an uplifting anthem in the '84 re-election campaign...
Heh. Indeed.
Sadly, most of the American public thinks it is an uplifting anthem. Mostly that's attribtable to Sprinsteen's refusal to actually use consonants when he sings, so nobody can understand the lyrics.
Maybe a rendition of some old Johnny Cash: I shot an atheist immigrant free-trader in Reno, who didn't look like me...
Crunchy Frog: Sadly, most of the American public thinks it is an uplifting anthem. Mostly that's attribtable to Sprinsteen's refusal to actually use consonants when he sings, so nobody can understand the lyrics.
Springsteen's closing line from that song ("I'm a cool rockin' daddy in the USA", not something you'd expect to hear in a song critical of America) and the placement of a huge American flag in the background of the album cover probably had a lot to do with it too.
Fire that clown, or at least get him the liner notes for anything he/she/it proposes to play!
How 'bout
Country Joe and the Fish? ["1-2-3 what are we fighting for; don't ask me I don't give a damn..."]
Weird Al Yankovich [Ayatollah and McCain's favorite dittie, Bomb Iran]
Springsteen had a great cover of Edwin Starr's War on his Live 1975-1985 album. Too bad he's a Dem and won't let the RNC play his stuff.
I'm actually betting on In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida. But posting that isn't a wittily sarcastic attack on the GOP. So let's just keep this between us old friends. 'K?
PS--LOVED the Requiem Mass! Nice work.
This article does a nice job of explaining why the use of that song was appropriate. But I can't explain why he seemingly overlooks the Robert Palmer issue.
Using depressing lyrics from a peppy-sounding 25 year old song about a 35 year old societal failure is appropriate as an uplifting campaign anthem? Not. By that measure for domestic issues events they ought to be inspiring the campaign by playing Springsteen's Johnny 99 about a guy on death row because he got laid off from the auto plant and happened to shoot a store clerk in a robbery meant to feed his family. Not.
And add Billy Joel's Allentown . And the rest of Springsteen's album Nebraska, and his song My Home Town too. Some Johnny Cash would be good too, especially when campaigning in the south. Not.
And use Stephen Sills' Love the One You're With whenever Hillary takes the trail for Obama to convince her supporters to back the nominee. Just not when Bill's in the room.
Not.
"Born in the USA" is like a lot of his other songs: it tells a sad story while also carrying a message of hope and redemption. In this particular song, that hopeful message is revealed in the lyrics only once: "I'm a cool rocking Daddy in the U.S.A." The line only appears once, and it's the line that ends the song. In a Springsteen song, there are no accidents.
Rolling Stone said it this way:
You realize the song is "peppy-sounding." This means that hopefully you can see what this writer means about interpreting the lyrics in the context of what "the music says." The "peppy-sounding" music supports the idea conveyed in the closing line: that the protagonist hasn't "given up," and has an "indomitable spirit" that let's him be "a cool rocking daddy in the USA." Despite what the war and the economy have done to him.
That song (lyrics) is from Nebraska, which is one of Bruce's darkest albums, and arguably his best. What makes that album different is that he mostly leaves out the message of hope and redemption, and just gives us the mercilessly unmitigated depression.
As the concluding line of lyrics devoted to decrying one's mistreatment by one's country as a Vietnam draftee and vet, the most likely interpretation is that it's SARCASM. Like the rest of the tune it's PEPPY sarcasm, but sarcasm nonetheless.
And the Rolling Stone review you selectively quote was of the ALBUM -- sounds like a perfectly adequate overall thematic description, particularly in light of songs like No Retreatt, No Surrender and Darlington County (probably another ditty best not to play around Bill?).
Rolling Stone's description of the SONG Born in the USA: "ironic fervor for the Vietnam vet's yelping about the dead ends of being Born in the U.S.A."
A dumb, dumb, dumb campaign theme song, unless you intend to depress those few who are actually paying attention. Almost as brilliant a choice as playing Addicted to Love for Bill Clinton right after he unconditionally and enthusiastically endorsed the nominee as the heir to the best of his administration's legacy.
Bruce doesn't do sarcasm. On the contrary, he's painfully earnest and direct. I say that as someone who's been studying his work for thirty-five years. And "studying" is not an exaggeration.
True, but the title song, unsurprisingly, is very congruent with the message of the album. So what I quoted described the title song as well as the album.
Obviously most people are barely paying attention, and they just feel uplifted because it's "peppy-sounding." In other words, most people interpret the song the way Reagan did. A handful of people actually pay attention to the verses, and not just the chorus, and that small group will interpret it either the way I do or the way you do. But either way that's a small group, as you acknowledge.
After the Reagan incident, Bruce created a different version of the song, one that intentionally makes it much harder to do what Reagan did: overlook the depressing core story. In the new version, the musical arrangement is anything but "peppy-sounding" (instead, it's a slow blues played solo on slide guitar). But the lyrics are unchanged, with the exception of removing that critical ending line. I think this supports my interpretation of that line.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.