Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Spiringsteen


Guest Iain333

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 912
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We joined Sprinsteen half way through his set and I was also sceptical. But I thought he was fantastic. He (and his band) never stopped at all, I have also been converted.

That said, I did hear of other people who'd watched him from the start and left halfway through as he was too "dull and preachy". Maybe we were lucky to catch the second half? The end of his set was awesome however

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This year was my first Glastonbury, but for what my opinion is worth I can see that gig being talked about for years to come. It was truly stunning. Looking at the section of the crowd I was in, very few really knew much of Bruce's music but were still having an awesome time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest...most of the people who are saying he was crap, generally weren't at the gig (they just "heard" he was crap, or they wandered by for a minute and then wandered off again)...He didn't play Born in the USA, big deal (personally I think the ghost of Tom Joad was the highlight, closely followed by no surrender with Brian Fallon)...but the crowd was huge and everybody anywhere near me was having a great time...I though he was phenomenal, as did everybody in our group and I'd say there really only 1 springsteen fan amonst us (and no, it's not me!)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching the gig on the telly, I can't begin to describe how much I'd have liked to have been there. I do find the "he didn't get the festival thing" "not enough hits" typed comments weird. How many of his songs did they know in the first place? He's been making albums for 40 years so has the most enormous back catalogue to pick from. Most of the songs he played were from multi-million selling albums. The fact that most younger festival attendees don't listen to his albums (more fool them IMO) isn't his fault. He was booked to play, did what he does, and I thought he was brilliant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am probably biased as a long-time Sprinsteen fan, but didn`t get the festival spirit? Like when he was throwing himself into the crowd constantly, like playing a final hour that had the crowd bouncing along to Born to Run, Glory Days, Dancing in the Dark and American Land? Or when he had the crowd chanting `one more song` at the end? Without going into the politics of it, he rarely plays `Born in the USA` now, and usually as an acoustic blues as its original anthemic value detracted from its message (ask Ronald Reagan!). I am as big a Glastonbury fan as I am a Bruce fan, and I thought he did just fine!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The setlist from Saturday (singles highlighted in bold)

Coma Girl (by Joe Strummer)

Badlands

Prove It All Night

My Lucky Day

Outlaw Pete

Out In The Street

Working On A Dream

Seeds

Johnny 99

The Ghost Of Tom Joad

Raise Your Hand

Because The Night

No Surrender (with The Gaslight Anthem)

Waitin' On A Sunny Day

The Promised Land

The River

Radio Nowhere

Lonesome Day

The Rising

Born To Run

Hard Times

Thunder Road

Land Of Hope And Dreams

American Land

Glory Days

Dancing In The Dark

So out of the 26 songs he played, 14 were released as singles. Of the rest, Because The Night was a hit for Patti Smith, and Thunder Road is one of his absolute most famous songs, one which invariably gets included on his Greatests Hits albums. Three songs were cover versions or traditional songs, including the Joe Strummer tribute.

Hardly the self-indulgent album track fest that some people are on about is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was brilliant - my voice was hoarse as the next morning!

A lot of my friends didn't know his stuff but just fed off the energy they were bringing. Everyone was having a great time round me.

All the headliners this year were all monumental - total Glastonbury events. I loved every minute of all three of them, they all brought different things to the table, it was a great mix

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crap ????

What would it take to impress you them - in terms of energy, committment, enthusiasm, album sales or whatever other "scorecard" you wish to use...

For what its worth, 2009 was my 14th year - I have seen and enjoyed hundreds of sets.

Whilst it was not my own highlight ( 3 Daft Monkeys/Steve Knightley/Neil Young get joint top for that, it was not crap.

Consider recent Pyramid headliners, who are (literally) half Springsteens age - or less.

Stereophonics, Artic Monkeys, Oasis, Manics, Verve, Razorlite etc etc - ( all of which I like - except the Stereophonics, obviously - and enjoyed ) .............BUT....... Neil Young and Springsteen gave these bands, and dozens of others like them, a slapping.

Songs that these pensioners will have played hundreds of times were given 110% - played like it was the last time. Not plodded through like it was all a bit beneath them - or just rooted to the spot trying hard not to mess it up

Springesteen was up for it - and so were 99% of the punters.

Crap it was not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Is anything said we need to be aware of?
    • Just listened to the new Madonna album, it would be a catastrophe if that isn't played on the pyramid!
    • Restore getting more than Lib Dems is not good.
    • https://x.com/amirtibon/status/2083054470871535853   Some thoughts on the Gaza agreement announced overnight, which despite my reservations and concerns, I hope will be implemented. 1. Donald Trump is trying to collect "wins" and "achievements" ahead of the midterm elections. His party is entering that election at a disadvantage, but because Democrats may choose weak and unpopular candidates in specific states, much like Republicans did in 2022, there's a reason for Trump to at least try achieving a surprising result like the one Biden secured four years ago.   2. The will to provide Trump such a "win" was an important motivation for all sides involved in this agreement: Hamas, Netanyahu, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Turkey. All of them hope, each for their own reasons, that the transactional president will remember their role in the agreement and the positive media coverage it has generated and will continue to generate. You can like it or not, but that's the nature of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, under Trump.   3. Netanyahu and his band of liars in the Israeli media (and the last few suckers in the American media still buying his spin) are already trying to oversell the agreement and present it in terms that contradict the Board of Peace statements and briefings. Of course, the October 7 Prime Minister can't just say the truth on this one, which goes something like: "I'm trying to stay on good terms with Trump ahead of an election here in Israel that will determine my personal fate and whether or not I go to jail in 2027."   4. For Hamas, the agreement is a way to buy time and survive, which is basically the organization's overarching goal since October 7. They lost most of their leadership and thousands of their fighters; they will also, I believe, give up some of their weapons to the new Gaza-based Palestinian government, which is a good thing. But at the bottom of all their decisions is a simple calculation: being able to say, "we committed the most deadly and humiliating attack against Israel since the start of the conflict, and survived as a movement and an organization to tell about it."   5. Hamas was able to say that yesterday, before the agreement was signed, and it can also say that today, after the conclusion of the negotiations. So in that regard, the agreement is preferable to the murky post-war reality that preceded it, in which Hamas was recruiting again thousands of young fighters, holding on to all its weapons, and controlling 99% of Gaza's population, making money off people buying fuel and cigarettes. Changing even a part of that terrible reality, by collecting some of the weapons and allowing progress on reconstruction under a non-Hamas government, is better. It means coming to terms with the fact that Israel under this government failed to dismantle Hamas and allowed its survival even before this agreement was signed.   6. Do I think the agreement will be fully implemented over the next 300 days, as I understand the timeline? I'm highly skeptical. But I'm also asking: what are the alternatives? Netanyahu, in his quest for political survival at all costs, ignored David Ben-Gurion's national security strategy of seeking short and decisive wars, which was based on Israel's unique internal and external challenges that make it dangerous for this country to have long wars of attrition. The result is an Israel that is hated, isolated and denounced around the world like never before, and is totally reliant on the support of one man (TRUMP) to avoid crushing international sanctions. Going to war in Gaza once again based on the same promise of "finishing Hamas," which this government failed to achieve after three long years, would have been suicidal unless Trump promised his full backing. And Trump, for good reasons, can't give such a commitment after his bitter experience with Netanyahu in Iran and Lebanon.   7. For me and my family, these are all very personal, not only political, questions. My six-year-old daughter will start school on the Gaza border in exactly one month, as we rebuild our life in the same home where Hamas tried to murder us on October 7. We've learned over the years to be highly skeptical of premature victory announcements and diplomatic celebrations. When these things collapse under the cynical realities of the conflict, most of those announcing them are not around to face the consequences. Still, I don't see a better alternative to the 20-Point Plan that Trump presented last year, at least not with Israel's current position of isolation and exhaustion under this government. So I have some hope that the agreement will succeed, even partially, and deliver a period of quiet. For us on the border, that would be significant after three years of war and trauma. And maybe in the long run, with different Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will become a first step in a broader positive change for the region.
    • Until they're through the first round of votes there's no point believing any reports about who'll win.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...