Ron,

I agree that Bruce's heart was in the right place. However, i don't think it's a milestone recording by a long shot.

Here's my reasoning. I think of the folk music performance as being a subtle interplay between the voice and accompanying instruments and I didn't hear that. Instead, I was reminded of a kind of pub concert that was thrown together. Bruce's voice seemed tired on some cuts and strained.

The musicians were good but not really allowed to say much because there was too much going on. They emphasis was on a kind of "groove" which seemed to me to be at odds with the material they were doing. The performances seemed "samey" to me.

What I like in a folk performance is the subtle interplay of voice and accompaniment as the great trad folk and pro folk interpreters have done. Josh White's guitar supported his seamless vocals perfectly. Bur Ive's um-plunk on the guitar supported his vocals the same way. Pete Seeger's basic strum has never been equaled by any banjo player that I know of. Maybe because he invented it. Buell Kazee's "Wagoner's Lad" or Clarence Ashley's "Cuckoo" not to mention Doc Watson and David Holt's "Legacy" album define milestone recordings.

The real Seeger sessions would have included some of Pete's better material such as "Harry Sims", "The Banks of Marble", the Alamanc songs of the Spanish Civil War, "Bells of Rhyney", "Joe Hill", "Which Side Are You On?" or even my favorite Pete Seeger recording, the 10" Folkways l.p. "Darling Corey" which employ beautiful accompaniments. For that matter, Jean Ritchie and Peggy Seeger offer haunting versions of their songs that defy the need for any "groove".

I'm glad for Pete that Bruce did the album though and I honor his respect for Pete's work. I think it may help introduce a new audience to folk music which is a good thing. I admire Springsteen as a rock artist (and my fave is "Asbury Park New Jersey" with the E-Street Band.

Frank Hamilton