All Hyped Up

Spent part of this morning listening to my recently acquired 2 CD set of Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, Hammersmith Odeon, London 1975. Following yesterday's Procol Harum party it was fascinating to listen to another band employing a two keyboard sound with piano and organ. The difference in texture is astonishing. The chunky Procol sound doesn't give a lot of room for much else, hence the need for a guitarist of Geoff Whitehorn's ability to find a space to wail in occasionally, but more often to embroider the essential texture on which everything rests. I suppose it all comes down to Gary Brooker's chordal, full, bluesy approach to the piano. In contrast, Roy Bittan of the E Street Band is all pianistic filigree, with the late, sorely-missed Danny Federici sliding in and out. These guys, if anything, create space. I remember someone commenting to this effect on the Blood Brothers video of a few years back - one of the many strengths of the E Street Band was that everyone involved knew what, when and when not to play. The sound is always lean and sharp, never cluttered, even at its most frenetic.

I've been listening a fair amount to early Springsteen lately, having picked up The Wild, The Innocent and the E Street Shuffle last month and reminding myself of what an impossibly romantic record it was. The E Street sound is not fully worked out on it, of course, and it was a surprise to be reminded of just how different the band were with David Sancious on board. It's my understanding that he didn't get on too well with Danny Federici and certainly there's not enough Federici to satisfy. In contrast, The Hammersmith Odeon is recognisably the whole machine fitting effortfully, effortlessly into place.

So why did the original London shows (I think there were two nights in total) get such tepid reviews? The recording confirms that the band were so hot they were on fire (though I don't care much for the electric piano sound - presumably Bittan was not playing his usual instrument?) But I vividly remember reading that Springsteen had been a bit of a let-down in the British music press of the period. By that time I was a major fan, though it wasn't until 1988 that I actually got to see him, and the band, live, and I found it difficult to believe what I was reading.

The reason, undoubtedly, lay in the huge hype that surrounded the event, rather well described by Springsteen in the liner notes for the CD. The press went to pour cold water on the future of rock and roll, not to listen. It's clear from the recording that the audience were listening and rightly going ga ga over the treat they were being served. Which leads me to what I think would be an excellent TOK presentation topic for anyone who's heavily into music: How can we know when something is being hyped that it's worthy of the attention that the PR people are telling you to give it?