Spiringsteen

[albietrue2]

Back when I was 16, someone introduced me to The Band. I'm pretty bloody glad about that.

I'd like to see Levon play Glasto, that'd be pretty amazing. He's doing some great stuff at the moment.

[GlastoRulz]

I also don't really understand what the fascination of Springsteen fans is to have people converted to their idol.I thought he was brilliant and thats all that should matter.Dont care if anyone else loved it or hated it but as mentioned above i'd be surprised if anyone who saw the river wasnt impressed.

[IUBOSSFAN]

But it wasn't the likes of Q which were hyping him up - at least not to me. It was people posting on these very forums.

It was their nutty endless raving about him that had me decide that I really should go and see him after all, and give him the chance to prove himself as not the bland middle of the road drivel that he is on record. I even went and bought an album too - his latest (seemed like a good idea) - to try and get myself familiar with some of what he might play so that I'd have the chance to enjoy it more by knowing it.

But none of that works if the act is the same bland middle of the road drivel when playing live as he is on record. And so all I simply said was that it was .... and then all hell breaks out from the Bruce nutters.

[ferraristu]

I am a huge Bruce fan, seen him 15 times - Saturday night was incredible. However, I do think his setlist was a little wrong for a festival, should deffo have thrown a few more crowd pleasers in !!!

[Swindlebiscuit]

This is what I find striking about this thread,and the acrimony it has spawned.The OP basically started a thread saying that he had been skeptical of Bruce as a headliner,but after seeing him on tv had in fact been "converted".There was no question mark,as if he was taking a poll,but rather it was a statement based on his personal experience.

A number of non-Bruce fans chimed in with similar opinions,and by my count the tally on the first page was 13-3 in favor of Bruce's performance.I'm not including chrisdebag who I recognize as an obvious Bruce fan,but I did include 2 posters on the negative end that both said they "heard" folks didn't like it...

On subsequent pages Neil and a few others felt the need to jump in and make their displeasure known,

which I don't have a problem with per se.But I question the need to hijack this particular thread,which as I pointed out was seemingly started by a new convert to express his new found excitement over discovering the magic of Bruce live.If I had to guess,I imagine he wanted to share that excitement with other fans,and wasn't particularly interested in having his opinion of the show belittled by someone who saw all of 4 mins of the show and decided it was "bland".

I'm wondering if the folks who fell all over themselves to throw negative opinions into this thread were as eager to do so in all the other threads celebrating other acts that they might not have had a positive opinion of? I'm not really familiar with Blur,or the Ting Tings or the Yeah Yeah Yeahs-heard a few you tubes that left me underwhelmed,but I don't feel the need to go to threads about those acts and slam them with my less than enthused opinion.

Yet for some reason numerous posters felt the need to do exactly that in what was intended to be a pro-Bruce thread.Rather than just allow the folks who enjoyed the show to share their excitement,we had to learn the results of a meaningless poll of 100 folks who probably left before the show was over,like Neil himself.Not exactly an impartial sample,if you accept the premise that folks who left early did so because they weren't enjoying themselves.

To the claims that Bruce is "overrated",I'm not even sure what that means.Whether Bruce deserves his reputation as one of the best live acts is subjective,but it is a reputation that he has earned and is based on the millions of fans that have seen him perform thruout the years.

People (first timers) don't go to shows because critics rave,they go because friends/family etc who have been to shows before regale them with their own experiences,and convince them to check it out for themselves.If folks have the same experience as Neil and others,then they never go again,and I imagine that happens fairly often.

But if they have an experience like numerous other folks who posted in this thread,then they spread the word and probably urge their family and friends to check it out for themselves.No doubt some folks who saw Bruce live at Glasto for the first time will make their way to another show during the tour.I know there are folks I met at Bonnaroo that were blown away and already have plans to see a show during the 2nd American leg.

Some of those folks likely came away convinced the Bruce is the Best live act out there,a sentiment I agree with for a variety of reasons.Obviously others will disagree,and some will find it necessary to voice that disagreement in forums or threads that are pro-Bruce in nature.But clearly Bruce's reputation as a live performer is not overrated,because that is subjective and folks have the oppty to vote with their pocketbooks.In these troubled economic times people are not going to fork over $100 (US) to sit in the top of a soccer stadium for an act they feel is overrated.

[albietrue2]

This is what I find striking about this thread,and the acrimony it has spawned.The OP basically started a thread saying that he had been skeptical of Bruce as a headliner,but after seeing him on tv had in fact been "converted".There was no question mark,as if he was taking a poll,but rather it was a statement based on his personal experience.

A number of non-Bruce fans chimed in with similar opinions,and by my count the tally on the first page was 13-3 in favor of Bruce's performance.I'm not including chrisdebag who I recognize as an obvious Bruce fan,but I did include 2 posters on the negative end that both said they "heard" folks didn't like it...

On subsequent pages Neil and a few others felt the need to jump in and make their displeasure known,

which I don't have a problem with per se.But I question the need to hijack this particular thread,which as I pointed out was seemingly started by a new convert to express his new found excitement over discovering the magic of Bruce live.If I had to guess,I imagine he wanted to share that excitement with other fans,and wasn't particularly interested in having his opinion of the show belittled by someone who saw all of 4 mins of the show and decided it was "bland".

I'm wondering if the folks who fell all over themselves to throw negative opinions into this thread were as eager to do so in all the other threads celebrating other acts that they might not have had a positive opinion of? I'm not really familiar with Blur,or the Ting Tings or the Yeah Yeah Yeahs-heard a few you tubes that left me underwhelmed,but I don't feel the need to go to threads about those acts and slam them with my less than enthused opinion.

Yet for some reason numerous posters felt the need to do exactly that in what was intended to be a pro-Bruce thread.Rather than just allow the folks who enjoyed the show to share their excitement,we had to learn the results of a meaningless poll of 100 folks who probably left before the show was over,like Neil himself.Not exactly an impartial sample,if you accept the premise that folks who left early did so because they weren't enjoying themselves.

To the claims that Bruce is "overrated",I'm not even sure what that means.Whether Bruce deserves his reputation as one of the best live acts is subjective,but it is a reputation that he has earned and is based on the millions of fans that have seen him perform thruout the years.

People (first timers) don't go to shows because critics rave,they go because friends/family etc who have been to shows before regale them with their own experiences,and convince them to check it out for themselves.If folks have the same experience as Neil and others,then they never go again,and I imagine that happens fairly often.

But if they have an experience like numerous other folks who posted in this thread,then they spread the word and probably urge their family and friends to check it out for themselves.No doubt some folks who saw Bruce live at Glasto for the first time will make their way to another show during the tour.I know there are folks I met at Bonnaroo that were blown away and already have plans to see a show during the 2nd American leg.

Some of those folks likely came away convinced the Bruce is the Best live act out there,a sentiment I agree with for a variety of reasons.Obviously others will disagree,and some will find it necessary to voice that disagreement in forums or threads that are pro-Bruce in nature.But clearly Bruce's reputation as a live performer is not overrated,because that is subjective and folks have the oppty to vote with their pocketbooks.In these troubled economic times people are not going to fork over $100 (US) to sit in the top of a soccer stadium for an act they feel is overrated.

[ferraristu]

But come on Hard Core Bruce fans - of which I am one. Dont you accept the fact the setlist could of been better for a festival, I sure do. I mean I loved it but for the more casual / non fan it was hard work !!

[sifi]

Oh you mean the Oasis cut 'She's Electric' written some 20 odd years later and which actually rather sullies the notion of assisted masturbation. Quite distinct from Bruce turning it into an art form. Incidentally, dear Noel [fine songsmith as he is] is one of those I'm talking of who'd flog his granny to write just one line of Springsteen's nuggets.

[sifi]

When you've been a fan of The Band since the time of Big Pink you learn quite early on in your music following life never to make any attempt to convert anybody to your own taste.

Edited July 2, 2009 by sifimaster

[Swindlebiscuit]

But come on Hard Core Bruce fans - of which I am one. Dont you accept the fact the setlist could of been better for a festival, I sure do. I mean I loved it but for the more casual / non fan it was hard work !!

[ml1dch]

But come on Hard Core Bruce fans - of which I am one. Dont you accept the fact the setlist could of been better for a festival, I sure do. I mean I loved it but for the more casual / non fan it was hard work !!

[albietrue2]

Now there's an album. Consider "The Weight". Brilliant narrative, interesting imagery, excellent lyrics.

Edited July 2, 2009 by albietrue2

[albietrue2]

The questioning of Springsteen's set is puzzling to Springsteen followers as he simply doesn't do the sort of set lists that have been mentioned.

He never plays the same set but the core of the set always follows similar patterns. It evolves very slowly throughout any given tour. His theme for this tour is to acknowledge the hard times incumbent with the current recession against the hope and optimism that better times lie not to far ahead. Hence the diatribe which most non-Bruce fans cringe at yet most Bruce lovers lap up as typical Bruce. As far as Glastonbury is concerned his bow to its enormity was his Strummer tribute, a song about the festival.

Edited July 2, 2009 by albietrue2

[eFestivals]

You're saying that you haven't called people morons and idiots then? If you have, then surely you have done exactly the same in reverse.

the people who've been called that have been called that in response to them calling me a liar, or that my opinion is not valid, etc.

And although I wouldn't dream of accusing you of lying, I'm sure you'd be the first to admit that your 99-people-that-you-asked-out-of-100 survey is looking like extremely unreliable data when compared to an anonymous poll in an open forum?

It was the results I got.

There's all sorts of reasons why I might have got those results, including the fact that the vast majority of the people I asked were in the sorts of places where they'd be people likely to have less of a liking for rock than other genres - that's simply the consequence of where I was too. I've already stated that had I asked people on the rockier side of the site I'm pretty sure I'd have got a very different proportion of likes/dislikes in the responses I got.

I never claimed my results would be replicated across all people at Glastonbury; I only stated that because I got the results I did that there were huge numbers who didn't like Bruce. This thread as well as the polls others started indicate that I got it right with that statement.

[eFestivals]

We said he was the best live act in the world. Just because you dont like him Neil, doesnt make that not true.

similarly, just because you say it it doesn't make it true.

[glastovirginuncorked09]

HE WAS FREAKIN AMAZING!!!!!! He looks really fit as well... i call his arms his ' bruce ceps"

[eFestivals]

As for The Smurfs. Yeah it all starts to become clearer now though I'm sure David Byrne views them as a just teeny bit bland. Then again he would wouldn't he?

As for The Smurfs .... they get to prove that dragging out a snippet of lyric as proof of an act's deep and meaningful side is a laughable idea which proves absolutely f**k all as to whether an act is bland or not.

Why did I pick The Smurfs? They were the crappest act I could think of. How much googling did I have to do to find that The Smurfs also have NOT BLAND deep and meaningful lyrics on a par with the Bruce examples you gave me? Very little - those lyrics were from page the first google result took me too.

My opinion that Bruce is bland stands, and is no less valid than your own view that he's fantastic. But next up, I guess you'll be saying God exists cos the words in the bible prove it.

[russycarps]

The Flaming Lips are the best live band in the world anyway.

Anyone that disagrees with that is a moron, an idiot, and any other insult that has been thrown around in this thread!

[eFestivals]

Can only speak for myself.

When you've been a fan of The Band since the time of Big Pink you learn quite early on in your music following life never to make any attempt to convert anybody to your own taste.

That said, what's happened on this thread is a determined effort by the numbskull who runs the site and who for whatever reason manifestly has a pathological contempt for Springsteen together with his arse licking oppo Sifimaster to diss Springsteen and his music.

Mounting some sort of reasoned defence against the shite they're peddling amounts in no way, shape nor form to an attempt to convert. It is merely instinctive rejection by reasonable people when they read complete and utter bollocks being levelled against an artist of such unquestionable pedigree.

I'd hope similar stances would be mounted by true music followers against corresponding drivel peddled about any artist of undoubted quality.

The only thing I'm determined about is that my opinion that he's shit is accepted as valid as your own that he's not, and nowt else. We have both gained our views via our experiences of him so there's f**k all extra to your view to elevate it above mine as you want it to be.

Yet again, you show that some Springsteen fans believe any negative views of him invalid. It's pathetic, and as far as it's possible to get from anything reasonable.

Care to tell me what a "true music follower" is? It wouldn't be arse-licking Springsteen fans like you by any chance would it?

[eFestivals]

Rather than just allow the folks who enjoyed the show to share their excitement,we had to learn the results of a meaningless poll of 100 folks who probably left before the show was over,like Neil himself.Not exactly an impartial sample,if you accept the premise that folks who left early did so because they weren't enjoying themselves.

I have no ideas at all if the people I asked had seen the whole show or not; none were asked on the day Bruce played, so it certainly wasn't the case that I happened to ask people who had left and while Bruce was still playing.

The sample was impartial - they were simply random people. However, my survey was not scientific for all sorts of reasons, and which I've been happy to acknowledge.

[MEGABOWL]

Does seem like some people on this thread are arguing with the voices in their head rather than what's actually being posted....

[StevieF]

are you saying you think those songs are bland/boring anyway (not just as a festival 'set')? I mean that's what he does.... I thought Prove It was fantastic, it usually is. I like his guitar playing, and it's one of his chances to shine

Nobody who's said he should have done a more festival friendly set has given any indication of what songs he could have done. Apart from Hungry Heart and BITUSA, almost anything else would have been just as unfamiliar

[Mardy]

are you saying you think those songs are bland/boring anyway (not just as a festival 'set')? I mean that's what he does.... I thought Prove It was fantastic, it usually is. I like his guitar playing, and it's one of his chances to shine

Nobody who's said he should have done a more festival friendly set has given any indication of what songs he could have done. Apart from Hungry Heart and BITUSA, almost anything else would have been just as unfamiliar

[StevieF]

I think this is very true, I didn't know much of his stuff and was pretty unimpressed with what I saw, Sure, he's good at what he does, but I've accepted it ain't for me. Could he have played a different set to win me over, probably not, it wouldn't have made any difference, I just don't really like his stuff. Shame, but there you go.

[pinback]

I know he was with the E-Street band, but I thought he missed an encore opportunity:

I reckon it would have been ace if he came on as an encore on his own and they had Streets of Philadelphia on a backing track and he sung it, just a spotlight on him and the rest of the stage in darkness. That's probably his biggest track in the UK after the one with Courtney Cox in the video, and that could've been an awesome singalong moment.

But instead they chose to come back on and do another several tunes in the same style they had for a few hours already. Sigh.

Edited July 2, 2009 by pinback