MY REVIEW OF BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN'S WRECKING BALL

By Barry Dutter

The arrival of a new Bruce Springsteen album is always something of an event for longtime fans, even if the Boss’ song-writing prowess is nowhere near what it once was.

“Wrecking Ball” is Bruce’s third album in the past five years. Sadly, it is just as uninspired as the last two. None of the three albums come close to approaching the greatness of his early work. In his last three albums, there has only been one song that stacks up with his stronger work from the past: “Radio Nowhere” from 2007’s  “Magic,” and even that song was accused of stealing the riff from a Tommy Tutone song called “867-5309 (Jenny).”
Having one decent song in three albums is a far cry from the Bruce of old, who could always be counted on half a dozen great songs or more on his albums in the 70s and 80s.
“Wrecking Ball,” has songs that were seemingly written by a guy trying to write like Bruce and sung by a guy trying to sound like Bruce. But ultimately he comes off as a lightweight version of his former self. There are no instant classics to be found here.
Bruce seems to have fallen victim to the same ailment that attacks all rockers as they get older: the songs they write in their 40s and 50s juts aren’t as good as the ones they wrote in their 20s  and 30s. There is something to be said for rock being a  young man’s game.
I commend Bruce for trying, but even he must be aware that his music doesn’t have the same impact that it once did.
My biggest complaint about Bruce’s songwriting these days is his tendency to write a  chorus that is just one word or phrase repeated over and over, as if he can’t even be bothered to come up with other words that rhyme with the tile of the song.
There are Bruce purists out there who insist that he only did three great albums, and those were back in the early 1970s. I actually came late to the Bruce party. Yes, I was one of those late-comers who jumped on the “Born in the USA” bandwagon.
There was a time in 1985 when Bruce was unquestionably the biggest rock star in the world, and it was pretty cool to see it happen. His  “Born in the USA” album spawned a  remarkable seven hit singles, and the only reason it didn’t have more was because Bruce decided not to release any more.
“Born in the USA” had been designed as a very accessible “arena rock” album, with big, bold, power-pop anthems. If Bruce had wanted to, he could have done two or three more albums that sounded just like it, and extended his reign as the King of Rock.
Instead, he went in a completely different direction. He fired his band, and released his first solo album, 1987's TUNNEL OF LOVE. The songs were softer and quieter, the exact opposite of those on “Born in the USA.” The album was a dark, introspective look at the collapse of a marriage. It came as a surprise to no one that Bruce got divorced shortly after its release.
After that came a four-year gap, followed by two more “soft-rock” albums that some disdainfully refer to as Bruce’s “Phil Collins period.”
It would be 15 years after “Born in the USA” that Bruce would finally reunite the E Street Band and release another straight-out rock album. That album, “The Rising,” was Bruce’s response to the Sept. 11th attacks.
The songs were meant as a salve to wounded Americans; intendedt to uplift our spirits and illuminate the mood of the nation.
Despite all the positive reviews from critics and the noble sentiment that went into its creation, The Rising never really caught on in a big way. There aren’t really any songs on there that Bruce fans would list as their favorites.
That pretty much sums up his career ever since.
There have been a handful of albums and singles, but nothing truly memorable. It’s admirable that he keeps trying, but I would say that Bruce currently occupies the same zone as artists like the Eagles, the Rolling Stones, Fleetwood Mac, and The Who: any time they attempt to make new music, it is never as good as the stuff they did in the early days.
It is significant to note that when Bruce played the halftime show of the Super Bowl in 2010, the songs that really resonated with the crowd were his hits from the 70s and 80s. He crammed one mediocre new song in there, “Working on a Dream,” but it felt like filler, taking up space until he got to “Born to Run.”
When Bruce releases a new album these days, it feels like he really is working on a dream -- the dream of still being relevant.
Those days are long gone. Bruce once wrote about a guy who was a great baseball player whose “glory days” were behind him. These days, he could sing a similar song about a  guy who used to be a great rock and roller, back in the 70s and 80s.
So what is the solution? Should Bruce just stop trying to write new material (as other 70s rockers like Billy Joel and Rod Stewart did a few years back)? Well, there are very few rock stars who produced any quality work late in their careers.
I can count on one hand the number of rockers who had second acts that equaled or surpassed the first. Paul Simon had “Graceland.” Steve Winwood had “Back in the High Life.” After that, the pickings get pretty slim.
But Bruce doesn‘t really need to make new music. He knows he can continue to entertain fans at live shows for years to come with the classic songs he wrote in his youth. If audiences have to put up with the occasional new tune mixed in with the classics, well, even Bruce’s new stuff is at least listenable. 

“Wrecking Ball” does not hit with the force that you hope it would. If anything, it makes you want to put on an earlier Bruce album. So I guess it does serve a  purpose, even if I’m sure it’s not the one that Bruce had intended it to.