Talk:Born to Run

Origin from The Kentuckian?
There is an interesting, prominent line in The Kentuckian, approximately 58 minutes into the film, in which a woman says that "there are some meant to stand still and there are some people who are born to run". No proof, but I'm suspicious this might be the origin of the song... Wnt (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Time signature
what's the Time signature for this song? 5/8? 81.129.135.62 (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Rolling Stone
"Ranked number #18 on Rolling Stone Magazine's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time list, Springsteen's highest position, it is thus widely regarded as his magnum opus." This sentence has been removed from the lede on the grounds that it is allegedly "redundant" and contains "weasel wording" (I always find that latter phrase pretty unhelpful). This "redundant" sentence has been here since 2009, so it seems remarkable that it is suddenly removed by the most active editor of the article. Since the reception section discusses rankings, it hardly seems redundant to do so in the lede which is supposed to summarise the content of the article as a whole. Indeed the reception section should make it clear that this album is generally listed "top" among the BS albums that make it into such charts, so the phrase magnum opus (or something maybe less pompous but meaning the same thing) seems apposite. Paul B (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem with that sentence is the claim that it is "widely regarded as his magnum opus." The term "magnum opus" typically doesn't apply to pop music and it certainly is pompous, i.e., a weasel word. Also, basing that claim on a Rolling Stone list is somewhat of a stretch. Besides, based on the definition given in the magnum opus article, one could easily make a case for The River, Live 1975/85 or Born in the USA as Springsteen's magnum opus. Mentioning the Rolling Stone list in the lead isn't a problem in itself, but making a broader claim based on it is a tricky area. Maybe it should simply elaborate what the list is—a poll of artists, producers, industry executives and journalists—rather than trying to draw conclusions beyond that. Piriczki (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no problem whatever using Latin phrases to refer to popular music, but that's really a trivial issue. Pomposity, if that's what you think it is, is quite distinct from "weasel wording". It just means "greatest work". The fact that you or I may think other albums are as good or better is not really relevant. What matters are rankings made by rock critics in what are considered RS in this area. If it appears higher than his other albums, then it is considered to be better than them by the rel;eval "artists, producers, industry executives and journalists" taken as a whole, though I don't supposes there's real consensus on that, just a vote. Paul B (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I mis-spoke, without attribution "widely regarded" is weasel wording, "magnum opus" is more of a peacock term. As far as the Rolling Stone list goes, about all that can be said is something like "Born to Run is Springsteen's highest ranked album in Rolling Stone's '500 Greatest Albums of All Time', a list compiled from a poll of artists, producers, industry executives and journalists." To say anything more is going beyond what the source actually says and assumes this list somehow represents a definitive consensus of what the greatest albums are and their ranking relative to each other. Piriczki (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Reviews
Recently a number of reviews have been added and deleted with little or no explanation. I have restored all of the reviews listed at WP:ALBUM/SOURCES and moved reviews of the 30th Anniversary edition to that section since some of those reviews are primarily about the DVDs. The reasons for removal, when one was given, weren't clear but appears to have something to do with the fact that Rolling Stone did not use a star rating prior to 1981. By that logic, the Rolling Stone reviews for all albums released during that era (1967–80) would be removed from Wikipedia. The purpose of the album ratings template is to provide a summary of notable professional reviews and omitting Rolling Stone, a leading U.S. music magazines whose reviews carry considerable weight, from the summary would be a glaring omission affecting both historical accuracy and neutrality by its absence. Also, Rolling Stone magazine and The Rolling Stone Album Guide are different publications and contain different reviews. If anyone has a valid reason based on Wikipedia guidelines for removing any of these reviews, please discuss it here before removing content. Piriczki (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Rock and roll?
The infobox indicates this album's genre is rock and roll but if one follows that link it goes to an article "about the 1950s style of music" and there is no mention of Bruce Springsteen anywhere in the article which is odd considering his stature. Also, none of the articles on the songs which make up this album indicate their genre as rock and roll. Can anyone explain this apparent incongruity? Piriczki (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * a) "about the 1950s style of music" is the article's hatnote, which isn't accurate because the first line of the article then says the '40s and '50s were when the style of music developed, but when the style of music existed. b) I don't see the relevance of the article rock and roll and Springsteen's name, or the song articles, since other articles do not hold any "precedential value" for this one. c) I can explain the "incongruity": none of the genres in the song articles are cited, and neither was this article's genre, until I researched the album's reception and noticed that at least two critics--Greil Marcus and John Rockwell--explicitly called it "rock and roll", so I added (which summarizes Marcus and Rockwell) and changed the infobox's genre; oddly enough, Rockwell addresses your concern about the songs and album as a whole in his review--"The range is as wide as either of the earlier albums ... but all of it (except 'Meeting Across the River,' which works superbly on its own terms) is solidly rock 'n' roll." d) Why the concern about the album's genre now, when "heartland rock" was unsourced all this time before? Dan56 (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that Wikipedia has unique and rather peculiar definitions of "rock and roll" and "rock," terms which are for the most part synonymous in common usage outside of Wikipedia. It is presumptuous, if not impossible, to say that the authors of reviews written in 1975 were adhering to Wikipedia's definitions. The concern over this issue is nothing new as can be seen in past discussions at Talk:Heartland rock and I have removed "heartland rock" from this article numerous times over several years. Unfortunately, the last change went unnoticed as it is far too easy for genre warriors to quietly change a single word here or there without ever contributing anything of substance to the body of an article, let alone actually compose a complete sentence. Piriczki (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there something indicated in the reviews that leads us to believe they weren't thinking of the "rock and roll" that's described by the Wikipedia article of the same name? Dan56 (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Time travel? Piriczki (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * How is "time travel" indicated in the reviews? Dan56 (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Born to Run. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/25556603/the_band_on_bruce_their_springsteen?
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611152231/http://www.eonline.com:80/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=32521e2b-a367-4e2e-a196-c9caf59a59d3 to http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=32521e2b-a367-4e2e-a196-c9caf59a59d3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120510093511/http://stylusmagazine.com/reviews/bruce-springsteen/born-to-run-30th-anniversary-edition.htm to http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/bruce-springsteen/born-to-run-30th-anniversary-edition.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.radio3net.ro/dbartists/supersearch/Qm9ybiBUbyBSdW4gKENvbHVtYmlhKQ==/Born%20To%20Run%20%28Columbia%29
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040204191424/http://www.brucespringsteen.net:80/albums/borntorun.html to http://www.brucespringsteen.net/albums/borntorun.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Heartland rock?
This album pre-dates the notion of heartland rock by several years and the question of whether it has anything to do with heartland rock came up before on that article's talk page so I am copying some of my comments here.

A comprehensive essay on heartland rock can be found in the 1987 New York Times article by Jon Pareles "Heartland Rock: Bruce's Children". In that article, it states: "Mr. Springsteen got the heartland-rock bandwagon rolling with The River, in 1980, and its bleak 1982 successor, Nebraska. With those albums, he started to write stripped-down songs about people who had lost their jobs or simply lost hope—victims of hard times."

I think that's a pretty accurate statement and the idea that heartland rock began with Born to Run is somewhat revisionist. For some perspective, here's a passage from a 1980 review of The River: "The album—combined with Springsteen's dynamic performance in the No Nukes film—should give Springsteen that final push beyond the boundries of regional superstardom. As difficult as it may be for Springsteen's loyal fans to believe, there is a vast section of this country that has yet to accept him as the boss. Springsteen's stock themes may have been taken to heart by big-city kids in the East—souped-up cars, self styled tramps in the street and general alienation—but they offered little that could be related to out in the Heartland of the West, Midwest and South."

The notion that Born to Run had much, if anything, to do with heartland rock seems like a stretch. Musically, lyrically, everything about that album was urban, East Coast, and it was part of the Jersey Shore sound. Whether that album would even have any appeal in the Midwest was in question as mentioned above that the album "offered little that could be related to out in the Heartland" and a New York Times review that asked "The only nagging question is how this new record is going to sound out in the heartland, where people may think of him as some over-hyped Easterner." Piriczki (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Steve Van Zandt and Danny Federici's involvement
I have a trilogy of queries regarding the involvement of Steve Van Zandt, Roy Bittan and Danny Federici: 61.69.217.3 (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Danny was credited with playing organ on the title track and likely the keyboard glockenspiel, but other sources indicate that he contributed organ to more songs than reflected in the credits. What was the reason why Danny was absent for much of the recording sessions as far as what the credits say - was it a conscious decision to have Roy overdub the organ parts or was Danny unavailable?
 * Roy is credited with playing organ on "She's the One", "Jungleland" and "Backstreets" in addition to piano and according to this source,, he did in fact overdub organ parts, but again why do other sources indicate that Danny did in fact contribute organ parts to songs that are credited to Roy?
 * Steve Van Zandt only contributed backing vocals to "Thunder Road" and arranged the horns on "Tenth Avenue Freeze-Out", but the article on "Jungleland" credits him with playing lead guitar, but nobody else does and neither do the album credits.

INFORMATION STRUCTURE
small idea

Hi my name is Dave, I am the one who hogged half the page writing in detail on the BTR recording sessions

I left out a lot of stuff, stories about each song, that the more hardcore people would like

There are other stories that will entertain everybody like who Bruce was in love with and what happened

this is just good idea

Since all 8 songs have their own pages hyperlinked

I will put semi-technical on the song pages

and leave this page for more general topics

I already fixed She's the One page, all kinds of bad info

all pages should be consistent! this is neglected issue here

Dave

ps After I deleted horrible section on She's the one and replaced I noticed person below wrote some great stuff so I referred to it, and our sections go together Not always that way but nice when we are.....all on the same page! ohhh bad bad jokeTillywilly17 (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Personnel section
The Personnel sections lists the personnel from the liner notes, identifying their participation by track, from 1 though 8. The track listing, however, identifies the tracks as 1-4 for each side. The 1-8 listing might be from the CD issue, but this is just a guess; an editor with access to the sources should reconcile the disparate track listings between the two sections. MayerG (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Personnel updates
Hi @Tkbrett and others,

I just saw your notification about my edit in the personnel section. Sorry that I forgot to check for the full citation. I don't own the book myself, so I was going off the cited personnel list over on the Wikipedia page for the song itself.

Thanks!! EPBeatles (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * No sweat, . I removed the mentions of the piano, synthesizer and Fender Rhodes because I figured they were all swallowed up by "keyboards".  Tkbrett  (✉) 20:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)