Back in 2006, shortly after Bruce Springsteen released We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions, I was trying to convince a friend of mine to go and see the concert tour in support of the album. He was defiant in his negativity. I asked him if he had listened to the album. He responded with a grumpy "yes". A polite and vociferous argument ensued and it ended with my friend turning to me and stating, "Tony, I wouldn't pay money to see Picasso paint the "Mona Lisa" so why should I pay to see Springsteen play Pete Seeger?" Touch�.

We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions was released on the heels of Devils and Dust and had just renegotiated his recording contract with Sony for a nine-figure sum. There was an enormous debate about the amount of this contract and led to the head of Sony Music resigning. After some searching, I'm sure a decision was made to release this as a stand alone album because it was the closest thing Springsteen had to a thematic record that was near complete. This album would still be sitting in a vault somewhere if Springsteen had not signed the contract with Sony as it was only justified by providing them with loads of product. Initially the plans were to raid the vaults and potentially release Tracks 2, but somewhere early in that process, they re-discovered a handful of songs recorded by Springsteen in late 1997. Springsteen was contributing a track to a Pete Seeger tribute album and he amassed a number of musicians, better known as The Gotham Playboys (a brilliant set of musicians), to his farm in New Jersey to record a few Seeger songs. He called up the same group right before the release of Devils and Dust in 2005 and ran through another dozen songs. A final session took place in January 2006 with the fruits of their labor in stores a short three months later.

We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions is a jangly, bursting and festive record. So why do I have such issues with it? I think my main issue is that Springsteen is merely playing a role here versus creating one. It's the equivalent of Clint Eastwood acting in something he doesn't direct. I'm sure he would be more than competent in his role, but it probably wouldn't be as personal if he was directing himself. My issue with the record is that while it's entertaining, I can't quite find Springsteen's distinctive voice�and I am not supposed to, he's covering someone else's songs. Now, Seeger didn't write all the songs, but he made many of them popular and thus the inspiration for this album. The rollicking atmosphere of these songs is more of a testament to the musicians in this band rather than to Bruce Springsteen. To Springsteen's credit he is an immense band leader regardless of the musicians he is working with, but if one loves this record and the songs that embody it, it's the band that needs to be commended. Ultimately, this is a vanity record. Even if it was inspired from one of the greatest folk artists to ever live, I can't help but feel that it's a stretch for Springsteen. How many other artists could do a covers record and not be deemed a "sell-out"? Granted, Springsteen's reasons for doing it were vastly different from most other acts, but it still rings like a futile exercise to me.

"Old Dan Tucker" is competent, "Mrs. McGrath" feels a bit out of his range, "Jacobs Ladder" is enjoyable and the album closer, "Froggie Went a Courtin'", is evocative featuring an incandescent violin solo by Soozie Tyrell. One of my favorite tracks on the record is "Shenandoah" which evokes pure heartache. Its gentle delivery amidst Springsteen's reedy voice is one of the albums reflective moments. "We Shall Overcome" was the song chosen for the Seeger tribute record and is embellished here a bit. The version from the tribute record received a decent amount of airplay post 9/11 and Springsteen's reserved delivery makes it that much more compelling. While the album doesn't house a single bad song, few warrant repeat listens.

The album had a minor controversy behind it when they re-released in later in 2006, less than six-months after its initial release giving everyone a feeling of double dipping. The irony I encounter with the American Land edition of the record is that the songs I revisit the most are on this edition; "Buffalo Girls", "How Can a Poor Man Stand Such Hard Times", "Bring 'Em Home" and "American Land". Some may view it as an ego trip as Springsteen partially received a songwriting credit on a few of them for his own reworking, but this is where I find the music and performances truly come to life.

"Buffalo Girls" exudes pure bliss in a contagious performance, something I felt missing from the main album. "How Can a Poor Man Stand Such Hard Times and Live?" became a concert staple and was invigorating, partially due to Springsteen adding some lyrics to the song. I sense the creativity bubbling to the surface here. "Bring 'Em Home" proved to be poignant and timely as when the album was released, reports from Iraq were worsening and this song struck a nerve. Lastly, "American Land" (originally originating from a Slovakian immigrant poem and later put to music by Pete Seeger) proved to be the album's defining moment. A better version would appear on his Live in Dublin album, but the performance is full of vigor and ferociousness. The band melds into a thunderous, joyous and magical band of thieves on this one. If you have a choice between the regular edition and the American Land edition, go for the latter one, it's far superior without question.

The tour I saw in support of the record was excellent and helped me open my eyes to the record, but the moment was fleeting. Within a week of seeing those shows, the record was no longer on my radar and hasn't been since. I just don't see the reason for this record to exist. Seeger's work is still vital and his classic recordings still sound intensely fresh to this day whereas I felt Springsteen was merely running through the motions. His New Orleans Dixieland jazz arrangements are fun and it makes for an enlivening listen, but it ends there. I find myself reaching for The Ghost of Tom Joad and Human Touch far more despite their flaws because even amidst the lesser songs I find an authentic voice trying to connect. To its credit The Seeger Sessions is solid, competent and features some refreshing and reviving performances, alas I just find its sense of purpose hollow.

Great art isn't made when you have a record company holding a gun to your head to make their share holders happy. I don't need to hear Bruce Springsteen tell me about the past, I want him to live in the future and tell me how to make it through. And if he needs to go back over one-hundred years to encapsulate a longing feeling, then he's in trouble. Hell, if he was going to do a whole album from someone who inspired him, I'd vote for a collection of Elvis Presley tunes or a soul record with Sam Moore. The overwrought sense of intensity that surrounds Springsteen's albums can be at times tough to digest and The Seeger Sessions is no different. At its most pure, rock n' roll is about leaving your issues in another world while the music takes you away. As important as Pete Seeger is to folk music and as enthralling as Springsteen is as an entertainer, I don't feel that this record needed to be made. I think back to the argument I had with my friend; he does have a very valid point. Bruce Springsteen is at his best when he's delivering the music of Bruce Springsteen. Ultimately, The Seeger Sessions is a lot like the Martin Scorsese film The Color of Money. Despite Scorsese's dazzling camera work and the match up of two spectacular actors, it remains his most impersonal work and one that was done in order to get other films made. Neither that film or this album are bad by any stretch of the imagination, but were either necessary for reasons other than money?

Anthony Kuzminski is a Chicago based writer and Special Features Editor for the antiMusic Network and his daily writings can be read at The Screen Door and can be contacted at thescreendoor AT gmail DOT com.