Sometimes, the most aggressive Twitter debates
I get into inspire some of the most interesting discussions. This was very much the case last night, when news broke about Bruce Springsteen reportedly getting half a billion dollars
from selling off his masters and catalog, which are obviously some of the most important assets in all of popular music.
My observation was simple
: Bruce got paid more than Dylan did for doing the same thing, meaning that the “New Dylan” outdid the “Old Dylan.” It was silly, but not exactly a groundbreaking phenomenon. (OK, Dylan didn’t sell his masters
, so maybe he could still surprise us, but it was funny to observe.)
I got a reply to the thread that tried attacking the music of Dylan, and indirectly, Springsteen, and I simply said what I was thinking: People have been trying to take these musicians down for decades, to no avail, and nothing we do is going to change that. The user got really upset when I said this, and went a little off the rails, because he thought I was attacking him or telling him he wasn’t allowed to have an opinion, when I was really saying that complaining about this phenomenon was pointless, because clearly the facts—i.e., Dylan, and then Bruce, getting paid massive paychecks for selling their primary creative outputs—show that popular culture clearly has leaned in their favor.
Nothing more, nothing less. Some random person is not going to knock them down a rung, because history has already kind of decided their place. It’s like complaining about Mario. Who gains anything from doing that?