Jesus of Cool: Boomers See “The Stranger” in Themselves

These days baby boomers, especially women, are in something of a panic. Demographically, professionally, financially and sociologically, they’ve been dominating American culture for nearly half a century now, while succeeding generations have waited, often impatiently, for them to get the hell out of the way. This summer, however, boomers confront the reality that whether they look to the left or the right, neither candidate for the highest office in our land represents their generation. One guy is old enough to be their dad’s little brother; the other guy wasn’t even out of kindergarten when Martin and Bobby were killed. Should Obama win the presidency and hold it until Generation X is fully ascendant in the political realm, the boomers’ entire presidential legacy will likely rest on the shoulders of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

I note this fact not (merely) to rub the boomers’ presidential mediocrity in their faces, but because I’m so sick to death of celebrating political and entertainment milestones that perpetuate the boomers’ vision of themselves as the most culturally significant batch of malcontents ever to walk the planet. The most recent of these is among the most egregious: last week’s release of a “30th-Anniversary Edition” of Billy Joel’s breakthrough album The Stranger. The release is timed, no doubt, to coincide with Joel’s pair of sold-out shows this week at the soon-to-be-torn-down Shea Stadium, a facility that (like Joel himself) has been sitting fat and happy on Long Island for far too long. This coalescence of events resulted in a lengthy, at-times humorous profile of Joel in the New York Times yesterday – an article whose accompanying photograph by Damon Winter revealed the full measure of Joel’s advancing age, in a manner similar to Richard Avedon’s iconic image of a dying Humphrey Bogart.

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t really have anything against The Stranger, or Joel in general, and a fresh digital remastering is almost always nice. But if The Stranger is going to be offered up as the latest boomer nostalgia trip, then let’s really think about its significance.

Jason Hare will be the first to tell you that “Just the Way You Are,” the album’s leadoff and biggest hit, is one of the touchstones of ’70s Mellow Gold; in retrospect, it stands in the memory with certain other artifacts of middle-class pop culture in 1978 – The Goodbye Girl, say, or perhaps Barry Manilow’s Even Now album – as anecdotal evidence of a generation starting to go soft. Meanwhile, “Vienna” reflects the boomers’ ’70s-era shift from changing the world to an “I’m OK, You’re OK” self-help mentality, and “The Stranger” (apart from sounding like a perfect theme song for Eyes of Laura Mars or Looking for Mr. Goodbar) seems to warn against the very emotional openness engendered by boomer trends from Flower Power to disco.

Then there’s “Scenes from an Italian Restaurant,” which, while one of my favorite Joel songs, betrays (only 10 years after the generation’s heyday) a boomer tendency toward mythmaking about one’s brilliant, lost youth – a tendency that inevitably results in things like…30th-anniversary editions of The Stranger, perhaps. One could easily argue that the still-wonderful “Only the Good Die Young” reflects that same tendency, as its protagonist cajoles a Catholic schoolgirl to surrender her virginity and give in to free love; though the song seems very much of its time, its sentiments really are more reflective of shifts in attitudes toward sexuality that peaked a decade before it was written.

The ethnic specificity of those two songs (as well as the excellent “Movin’ Out”) reminds us that the boomers were not a homogeneous gaggle of long-hairs dancing around naked in Golden Gate Park, as some documentaries would like us to think. Indeed, the suburbanites who populate those tracks – along with earlier Joel songs like “Captain Jack” and later ones like the doo-wop homages that dominated An Innocent Man – seem to set Joel’s personal nostalgia on a more mundane level than the standard mythologizing of the Haight, and levitating the Pentagon, and Chicago and all that. (This, above all else, may explain why boomer rock critics held Joel in disdain for years.)

Over the last two decades, as the boomers have aged and the cultural schism that they fomented has continued to permeate our society, a single question has become key to evaluating a politician, an artist, or (really) any other member of that generation: Which side were you on? In 1992, it was the Clintons vs. Marilyn Quayle (and her Republican Convention quote, “Not everyone demonstrated, dropped out, took drugs, joined in the sexual revolution or dodged the draft”). After 1994, it was pretty much down to Gump vs. Jenny (that’s Jenn-ay to you). Did you play football, go to war, become an entrepreneur and jog cross-country a couple times, or did you turn on, hang out with Black Panthers, striptease, do a bunch of coke, nearly fall off a balcony, and then die from AIDS complications?

Damon Winter's photo of Billy Joel, from the New York TimesBilly Joel, it seems clear, was more of a Gump than a Jenn-ay in the way he lived his life, if not his politics. The Stranger is the nostalgic manifesto of a guy who hung out in the ’hood, not someone who marched in the streets, and its massive success reflects middle-class boomers’ desire in the ’70s to leave the previous decade’s cultural sturm und drang behind – to escape into themselves and to celebrate a type of pedestrian adolescence that could have happened in the ’40s or ’50s as well as the ’60s. (That’s OK – Elton and Bruce and even Johnny Cougar were all about escape during the ’70s; hell, Bruce was Born to Run.) The difference is that during the ’80s, when much of the rest of the culture – including Bruce and John-not-Cougar – became more comfortable revisiting the issues of the ’60s and taking on the squabbles of the Reagan era, Billy remained largely apolitical. Apart from “Goodnight Saigon,” he stayed focused on the internal and left the sloganeering to others.

Sure, he has remained relevant, in the way that anyone who can still sell out Shea Stadium 15 years after his last hit is probably making a relevant grab for cash. Of course, those are hometown loyalists who’ll be flooding off the #7 train and the Long Island Railroad this week; they’re Billy’s constituency, and they’re perpetually in a New York state of mind. But this is a guy whose commitment is so tenuous that he can’t be bothered to record a new album — not since he floated down the frickin’ River of Dreams, anyway. Do the rest of us, we who don’t need our New-Yawkness celebrated at every turn, really need a hyped-up reissue of The Stranger to remind us of the moment when boomers stopped being so damned interesting?

I’m actually a fan of The Stranger, and of Joel in general, but as cultural touchstones go I think I’ll just bide my time. The inevitable 35th-anniversary, 10-disc set of Born to Run is right around the corner.

Tags: , , ,

  • Dan

    I don't think that Joel's goal was ever to mythmake or be relevant to the political turbulence of the time. What he did was make great (both musically and lyrically) story songs, reflecting the people and circumstances that he knew from the neighborhood. I knew people like Brenda and Eddie and the Catholic schoolgirls and the guys that pleaded with them in the back seats of their father's Oldsmobiles.
    I strongly disagree that this 30th-Anniversary Edition is “celebrating … [an] entertainment milestone[s] that perpetuate the boomers’ vision of themselves as the most culturally significant batch of malcontents ever to walk the planet.” It is simply a way to reconnect with some music that was great at the time and stands up today. And the extras are gifts for real fans.
    Song for song, The Stranger can almost hold its own against Born to Run. The ballads are sweeter and it doesn't rock as hard, but it stands in pretty good company.
    If you wanted to write an article about the effect of the baby-boom generation on today's political landscape, fine. But why bring Billy Joel into it? He's a top-notch songwriter, and excellent piano player and he has a pretty decent voice. So, he grew up in the 60s and made hits in the 70s. What does that have to do with anything.
    As a Long Islander, may I speak for Billy Joel when I say, I got your political relevance right here.

  • http://www.grayflannelsuit.net/ GrayFlannelSuit

    Yeah, I don't really see what makes this particular reissue any more egregious than the countless ones that have preceded it from artists of that generation. And this coming from someone who despises Boomer navel-gazing as much as the next guy.

  • http://popdose.com MatthewBolin

    Um. Yeah…..FYI, Dan: You canceled out any legitimacy your points might have had with that last sentence there.

  • http://www.deselbybowen.com/parlando/ Scraps

    Joel was ahead of the curve on disclaiming social responsibility. A year before “Vienna,” he sneered at activism in the affectedly world-weary “Angry Young Man”: “I once believed in causes too/I had my pointless point of view/And life went on no matter who was wrong or right.”

    Gotta give him credit, though; they're great songs even when he's full of shit.

  • Dan

    Really? Everything I wrote is immediately cast into the realm of nonsense because I closed with a joke? So I made points, then I suddenly made no points. So someone could read what I wrote and say, yeah that makes sense, then see that last line and say, wait, all those points are now not legitimate!
    Because of a silly take-off on what a New Yorker would say. No profanity. Something you could get away with on prime time TV. And not even a insult directed at the author of the post.
    You are very sensitive.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    An aside of sorts: I often say something to the Boomers I know that gets me in a lot of hot water. They hate when I say it. They probably hate ME when I say it too, but hang it all 'cause it's the truth…

    Your war protests in the '60s? Bubkus. Zero sum. No effect. Bullcrap. The Vietnam War ended because America couldn't afford to wage it anymore. Yes, lads and lasses, Vietnam ended because we were near broke, not because a bunch of idealists shouted chants and carried poster boards with supposedly catchy slogans. Your greatest myth is a lie.

    You can see how a self-righteous Boomer-type might think ill of my opinion, but it is true. Countries that wage war are prepared to sacrifice life, be it nobly or less so, and therefore aren't going in with a preconception of the sanctity of life. Yet you start tossing dollars around, or worse find there are no dollars left to toss around, then that's something to get up in arms (or down and out of arms) about.

    So the next time your Uncle Ross goes on about his dangerous protest and his version of “Hey hey, ho ho” in front of the Draft Board, casually suggest that his delusions bear no imprint on reality and he'd have spent his time more effectively getting drunk or laid somewhere.

  • steve

    D.W., well said. But some good music came out of it, right :)

  • Dan

    It's 1969. You're 17. What would you do?

  • steve

    Dan – he's not saying he wouldn't have done it too, or that they shouldn't have done it, he's just saying that it didn't matter. Big difference.

  • Ken Shane

    I'll leave the question of whether we did, or did not, have any effect on the conduct of the Vietnam War. If you don't think that it was the anti-war movement that caused Lyndon Johnson not to seek re-election, you are clearly uninformed regarding the history of that era. If we weren't having any effect, why bother turning the might of the Chicago police force, and the Ohio National Guard on us?

    I fear you're just parroting something you heard, and if a member of my generation doesn't agree with you, you just say that we're all navel-gazers, etc. There's no way to win against such a specious argument. I can tell you that I'm proud of what I did in terms of the politics of the '60s, and it's particularly galling to hear this criticism from a generation that has basically done zero to oppose the current war and the stripping of our constitutional rights by the current administration. Perhaps you should look within before criticizing others.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    It's not about the action of the past, it's the misrepresentation of the present. Many of these folks are smart, with-it people now, so why can't they accept the truth of the matter now? Why must they continue to masturbate?

  • Dan

    So what, then? They shouldn't have done it? They should be embarrassed for having done it? Ashamed?

    Clearly, Dw was not around during the war. He is making assumptions and I don't know what they are based on, but I detect quite a bit of anti-baby boomer indignation.
    I was in my early teens in the early, mid-70s. I am almost (almost) too young to be considered a bb'er. I can tell you, protesters were not responsible for ending the war. But they were a significant factor. So was watching the body bags on the news every night. And the lying was catching up with the Nixon administration (Gulf of Tonkin, Cambodia, etc.).
    War is a money maker, especially for those that make the wars. Economics played no part in the ending of that war.
    Sure, there is a lot of film, like Woodstock and Abby Hoffman that today makes the hippies look stupid and funny. Ha ha. But I'd bet that anyh film of any large gatherings of kids in their late teens and early twenties at any point in history will look pretty freaking hysterical. See Woodstock 1999 or the US Festival

  • Dan

    Wow, you have some issues with baby boomers. Masturbate? Really? You get that? Who do you claim is misrepresenting what?

  • Dan

    Since a lot of this is OT, let me now declare that Billy Joel is a very good singer-songwriter, The Stranger is a very good album, and I am sure that this 30th-Anniversary Edition is a nice addition to any collection of modern popular music.

  • JonCummings

    C'mon, Dan, nothing's OT…I mean, I may have written a column mashing up my mixed feelings about the boomers with my mixed feelings about Billy Joel–and you might have given me the written equivalent of a crotch-grab-and-spit in response–but we didn't start…the…fire…

  • JonCummings

    I'm with you 100 percent on the LBJ thing, Ken–the anti-war movement definitely should take a great deal of credit for getting rid of him, and the movement has the added stature of having been right about the war's lack of merit.

    I think that Dw has a point, in his assertion that the war carried on for several years after the movement peaked, and that the antiwar movement didn't elect an antiwar government in either '68 or '72. It's also hard to deny the bitter sense of defeat many boomers felt after the '72 election. But it's also essential to recognize that the movement turned public opinion against the war to such an extent that Nixon couldn't prosecute it to the degree he would have liked. In such a position, it would have taken forever and bankrupted the country to win the war (if such a thing was possible at all), and withdrawal became inevitable.

    We find ourselves in exactly the same position in Iraq today, which many (but not enough) of us were arguing would happen as far back as 2002. However, while there hasn't been nearly enough marching in the streets for my taste over the last five years, I think it's a mistake to discount the role of Gen-Xers like Kos, the heads of MoveOn, and, yes, Barack Obama in turning public opinion against this war.

    It's happening in a different way this time–and it certainly doesn't qualify as a “movement” in the sense that the generation of potential draftees created a movement–but a steady drumbeat of antiwar sentiment has again had a significant effect on the ability of the government to do as it might have liked in wartime. Hopefully this time the guy who actually wants to end the war will win the presidential election.

    I have no disagreement about the civil-liberties end of your belittling of the post-boomers (though the boomers haven't exactly led a charge themselves in these matters). I'm disgusted, as well, about Americans' general inability/refusal to process what's being done to them, and in their name. However, I get a sense that even if 98 percent of Americans opposed warrantless wiretapping, the stripping of habeus corpus rights, and torture, Cheney probably would just tell us to go fuck ourselves and he'd order it anyway.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    Well, I was born in 1969, whatever that means, but I have come to the realization that the will and opinion of “the people” has no pull in our society. It's the money and only the money. And I can say that a lot of the protesters back then probably had the best intentions at heart, but I am far too cynical to think that their opinion had anything to do with moving the cold hearts of the war machine and the political machine.

    Look at our current situation. Sure, without the draft in place the outcry isn't quite the same. Nonetheless, the Republican candidate hasn't suffered from his base on whit, and placards and chants haven't changed anyone there.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    I don't want to start fights here. I'll just lay out things I've come to believe over the years, be they informed or ill informed.

    Vietnam ended because we couldn't afford it. LBJ did not seek re-election because his high powered backers knew he was a losing horse and wasn't about to sink money into supporting his campaign. There was plenty of corporate cash in politics back then too, it simply wasn't as transparent as it is now. Many of the protesters of the Sixties went on to legal and financial careers believing that they might have more influence on public policy that way.

    They were right. Sadly, it is money that dictates the ways of the world. Today's war protesters know that, I believe. They are passionate and their hearts are in the right place, but what will storming the gates, or the convention center, get you beside a place in history? Will it get us out of Iraq? No way. Even Iraq's President wants us to start getting out and the Republican power is trying to dig in and hold on even still.

    My indignation is not with the protesters of the '60s fervently wanting to end war then. It is those who believe they ended war then and swell with pride about it. Then as now, there are two Americas: the ones that can afford deferment and the cannon fodder. If you could ask some of my friends who have died in Iraq, or some who were mangled in Vietnam, I think they'd agree. Cash flow trumps blood flow.

  • Dan

    I would guess that quite a few of them could not care less if a single Vietnamese was killed and that a lot of protesters were there purely out of self-interest or knew that was the place to get the good pot. I'll stipulate to that. But you will agree that the majority of them (especially the returning vets that protested) just wanted to end the war.

    And I will stipulate that it is difficult to fight the moneyed interests in this country. Difficult, but not impossible. Often what is described as cynicism is an excuse not to do anything (hey, it won’t matter; don’t bother).

    But your first comment (and a follow-up) was not a lament that money rules the land. It was a mocking smackdown of baby boomers in general and protesters in particular. You stated that their efforts had no effect and then seemed to find great glee in rubbing that in their faces. “Bubkus. Zero sum. No effect.” “[D]elusions bear no imprint on reality.” “Why must they continue to masturbate?” That is just a flat-out attack.

  • Dan

    THAT is almost word for word what I intended to post this morning. Right up to, and including, the Cheney comment.

    I got your civil rights right here.

  • Dan

    Hey, no disrespect intended.

  • JonCummings

    None taken! I'm always happy to start a free-for-all.

  • Dan

    fuhgeddaboudit.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    There are people from the era I know who were actual protesters and they readily say, “I wasn't there to get the government to listen to me. I wasn't a fifty year old white man with money to burn. Of course they weren't going to listen. I just didn't want to sympathize, in spirit, with something I knew to be wrong.” I have respect for them because they are not framing themselves as being triumphal. They said their piece.

    Then I know other former protesters who are arrogant, to the day, and have totally drunk the Kool-Aid. “The government came to their senses because of us. we changed the world.” No. A thousand times, no. They bask in the glow of a fallacy, this two-dimensional idea of what they thought they accomplished that is just not true. To me, that reads as masturbatory, that they continue on with this illusion of control long after economists, historians and even former protesters themselves have roundly discredited their effect.

    It's like being exultant over the big test you think you passed but actually didn't. Someone else passed the test, you just slapped your name on it and hailed yourself the hero. How is that not arrogant? Hell, there was a three night PBS documentary about the Boomers that was so self-congratulatory that it could have been a parody. That's where my angst comes into play: there are responsible people who tell it like it was and then there are those who tell it like they want it to be. Which is real?

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    P.S. I'm not looking to piss you off at all, Ken. We're fellow Popdosers after all and you know (approximately) where I live.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    Badaboom.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    A more fleshed-out response is above.

  • http://yahoo.com eric

    Which side am I on? The side of good music, of course. The Stranger may be a classic album, but I've already bought it twice, and frankly the sound was not very good on vinyl, nor on the original CD release, and barely any better on the remaster. If this is a re-remaster, I still hold little hope for much improvement. So I am also on the side of not contributing further to the upkeep of Joel's many mansions. And I'm becoming very suspicious of re-releases. Sometimes (the Frank Sinatra Capitol remasters) the new versions sound worse than the originals. Caveat emptor.

  • http://yahoo.com eric

    Which side am I on? The side of good music, of course. The Stranger may be a classic album, but I've already bought it twice, and frankly the sound was not very good on vinyl, nor on the original CD release, and barely any better on the remaster. If this is a re-remaster, I still hold little hope for much improvement. So I am also on the side of not contributing further to the upkeep of Joel's many mansions. And I'm becoming very suspicious of re-releases. Sometimes (the Frank Sinatra Capitol remasters) the new versions sound worse than the originals. Caveat emptor.

  • http://yahoo.com eric

    Which side am I on? The side of good music, of course. The Stranger may be a classic album, but I've already bought it twice, and frankly the sound was not very good on vinyl, nor on the original CD release, and barely any better on the remaster. If this is a re-remaster, I still hold little hope for much improvement. So I am also on the side of not contributing further to the upkeep of Joel's many mansions. And I'm becoming very suspicious of re-releases. Sometimes (the Frank Sinatra Capitol remasters) the new versions sound worse than the originals. Caveat emptor.

  • http://jabartlett.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/top-5-complications-and-hazards/ Top 5: Complications and Hazards « The Hits Just Keep On Comin’

    [...] the arrival of the deluxe 30th-anniversary CD/DVD edition of Billy Joel’s The Stranger with something less than open arms. Jon claims the album is an artifact of the moment in 1978 when the baby boomers went soft, giving [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus