Spiringsteen

[chevychase]

Oh look, a Bruce fan making things up yet again. :angry:

The majority of those posts are not slagging off Bruce. They're either cvallimng pe4ople morons fopr making stuff up that I've not said or they're taking the piss out of morons like you who refuse to accept my right to my opinion because I've dared to have an opinion of Bruce that isn't full of praise for him.

But you can call it comprehensive journalism if you like. I'd be far more accurate calling your sorts of antics comprehensive trolling tho. :angry:

[eFestivals]

Ever since the Springsteen announcement was made you've gone out of your way to inject digs whenever Bruce's name was mentioned

not true. It was months after I knew Bruce was playing that I made the first negative comment, after hearing on the radio the first track I heard from 'Working On A Dream'. (Feel free to try and prove this wrong - I know for certain that you won't be able to).

Yet even then I still went out and bought the album, believing that it couldn't really all be that bad. Sadly, it is.

Do those actions sound like the actions of someone determined to hate Bruce from the first moment his name came up?

No-one's ever denied you (or any Bruce-haters) the right to your opinion

except they have, which you know if you'd read the thread and read them saying their opinions have more value than mine.

, though that's your (surprisingly infantile, I think) response: "I'm entitled to my opinion and I'm going to say it regardless if the Bruce brigade like it or not". Thing is matey, if you're going to whine (as you have, wearyingly, on numerous occassions) about those who beat you over the head with theirs, then you're hardly covering yourself in glory by doing exactly the same thing are you? Everyone on here KNOWS you're not a fan, they got the message about 200 posts (smiley faces n all) ago...

If someone says "I disagree with your opinion because of X, Y & Z" then I'm just as allowed to respond to that as they are to have responded to me in the first place. And by me having to keep re-stating the obvious, the prompter gets a smiley. :angry:

End of the day, a lot of people saw Springsteen last Saturday. A lot of people loved the performance, lot of people were mildly impressed and there were doubtless a lot for whom it simply wasn't their cup of tea. Why can't we leave it at that?

I'd have been very happy to have left things with my first post in this thread. All of my further posts are responses to others.

If you read the Kasabian thread in the run up to last weekend their fans were every bit as evangelical as Bruce's. I watched them and -frankly- I'd rather drink window cleaner than repeat the experience. But there were a hell of a lot of people there, the band went over really well and the people who enjoyed it don't need me bringing them down, insulting their personal taste, and generally coming across like a smug, condescending tw*t.

You are free to chose to post your opinion if you want to, just as I'm free to post mine. So I did. Everything else came from responses to my post; I'm allowed to stand behind my opinion.

All of which is a long winded way of saying, Mr Efestivals or not....

Change the f***ing record...

I'm happy with changing records. But some people want Bruce on constant repeat at volume 11, and it's hurting my ears. :angry:

[eFestivals]

apparently, people have been saying he's not entitled to his opinion (have they?)

yes. Read the thread. :angry:

... which gives him the right to call people liars without backing it up..... :angry:

says the man who made an accusation he was asked to back up yet knows he can't. And so got called a liar.

FFS tony. You saw the post where I asked you to prove your claim, because you responded to it - but not with the proof you were asked to provide. Because you can't provide that proof because your accusation was false.

[Monkismo]

In 29 pages this has probably been said already but Bruce had most of us in his pocket. The people who complained they didn't know any songs should have just gone to see something else as they obviously had no desire to even try and just wanted to say "I've seen Springsteen and he was crap". How do these people even get into new music as it seems they only want to sing along to enjoy it! I didn't know 2/3 of the set but his energy, interaction with the crowd, the tightness of the band and emotion during songs like the River and Outlaw Pete were second to nothing I've ever seen. Absolutely captivating set for me with Badlands, Because the Night, American Land and Glory Days highlights.

I do agree that it was too long for a festival set though but that just gave me the chance to go the bar or toilet and have a bit of a sit down for spells without really missing much. And, come on, we all knew he wouldn't play Born in the USA didn't we?

[Wooderson]

Yeah, imagine if he had’ve dropped Promised Land, Working on a Dream, Outlaw Pete, Prove it All Night, Hard Times, Land of Hope and Dreams, My Lucky Day and Raise your Hand and instead played Tenth Avenue/Jungleland/Spirit in the Night/Growin Up/Rosalita/Ramrod/Atlantic City/Racing in the Street/Im on Fire/Murder Incorporated.

Is that gig then literally ten times better? I think so.

Edited July 3, 2009 by Wooderson

[benissright]

yes. Read the thread. :angry:

says the man who made an accusation he was asked to back up yet knows he can't. And so got called a liar. :angry:

FFS tony. You saw the post where I asked you to prove your claim, because you responded to it - but not with the proof you were asked to provide. Because you can't provide that proof because your accusation was false.

[eFestivals]

On a side note here Neil you are acting like a complete lunatic in this thread. You don't like Bruce Springsteen and left after 5 minutes then spent X amount of time asking 100 people whether they enjoyed it or not? Fu'ck off.

:angry:

In case it's passed you by, I have a job were finding out such things is a part of it. I don't simply rely on my own opinion but actively seek out the opinions of others. And the opinions of others I got were overwhelming negative about Bruce, which surprised even me. It happened. Live with it.

=======

I wasn't going to post this (to avoid more of the stupid 'trolling' comments), but I will. Here's the (so far unpublished*) opinion of a major Pyramid stage act from this year who went and saw Bruce.....

Like, I love Bruce Springsteen... well, I don’t love him, but he’s alright... but I do love his hits. So I took the kids to see him, like “Come on, it’s The Boss!” But no hits for 1 hour 40 minutes. My nephew was there, and he said: “I’ve got just one question. If he’s The Boss, where are the secretaries? And the fax machine, and his desk?” That threw me ever so slightly.

(* this will very probably appear in a major national newspaper in the next few weeks ['probably' only because this part might get edited out]. As it's something that's been passed to me on the sly I won't say who the act is).

[Wooderson]

:angry:

In case it's passed you by, I have a job were finding out such things is a part of it. I don't simply rely on my own opinion but actively seek out the opinions of others. And the opinions of others I got were overwhelming negative about Bruce, which surprised even me. It happened. Live with it.

[sifi]

I'm sure I've read - or heard - this already.

[eFestivals]

I cant believe that you bought the latest album released by an artist nearly been around 40 years to make your opinion.

why's that so strange? :angry: :angry:

I could have bought a 'greatest hits' or an album I'd already heard years and years ago, but those would have taught me nothing about him that I didn't already know.

And seeing that most acts tend to play an amount of their latest release, it seemed like a good idea to get that latest release to familarise myself with what he might play.

Im also sure that you made a comment about seeing Bruce a while ago.

your memory is playing tricks on you then. I've not posted anything like that cos I've not seen him before.

To be honest though, i dont care what you think. You also never spammed the "warm up" thread with anti-bruce comments. For that we are all grateful.

Actually, I did post a few comments about his blandness there - after hearing the gawd awful 'Outlaw Pete' on the radio when I first heard it, and after getting 'Working on...' and hearing that for the first time. Even then I got told that my opinion was wrong.

[Wooderson]

I'm sure I've read - or heard - this already.

[The Nal]

Actually, I did post a few comments about his blandness there - after hearing the gawd awful 'Outlaw Pete' on the radio when I first heard it, and after getting 'Working on...' and hearing that for the first time. Even then I got told that my opinion was wrong. :angry:

[eFestivals]

Ah Neil less of the rolling eyes chief. I thought Bruce was a disappointment aswell, no question. But Im not having your smug gloating over the results of your straw poll. We could have a "is Neil being a c'unt?" poll on here too and im confident that smirk would be wiped off your face.

:angry:

You're get the rolling eyes because you're making me roll my eyes.

I'm not doing any gloating - smug or otherwise - over the results of my straw poll. I took that straw poll and got those results. So I said what the results were. Why wouldn't I? :angry:

As for your threatened poll - go ahead if you like. My expression will remain static over it, that I know for sure.

But will it make the Bruce lovers look rather pathetic for them needing to try and shoot the messenger cos they don't like the message? I suspect it might.

[The Nal]

But will it make the Bruce lovers look rather pathetic for them needing to try and shoot the messenger cos they don't like the message? I suspect it might.

[eFestivals]

Think it was on Radio 1.

it wasn't. What I've quoted isn't published yet; it's a part of an interview for a national paper.

It's quite possible that the person has said similar elsewhere.

[eFestivals]

Maybe that 5 minutes was bland, but you cant comment on the rest of the gig as you werent there.

I haven't commented on the rest of the gig - because I wasn't there.

The fact that I wasn't there was a part of what drove me to take my straw poll, to see if others who'd very likely seen more than me thought the same. To a very large extent they did, which *surprised me*.

I wouldn't have expected to have got negative results at the proportion I did do, but I did.

[Wooderson]

You're get the rolling eyes because you're making me roll my eyes.

I'm not doing any gloating - smug or otherwise - over the results of my straw poll. I took that straw poll and got those results. So I said what the results were. Why wouldn't I?

As for your threatened poll - go ahead if you like. My expression will remain static over it, that I know for sure.

But will it make the Bruce lovers look rather pathetic for them needing to try and shoot the messenger cos they don't like the message? I suspect it might.

[eFestivals]

"Bruce morons" Neil please.....

The Bruce morons are a subset of the Bruce lovers.

[eFestivals]

Youre calling people moron's for seeking to defend someone they care about Neil. Youre being a smug git here lad.

they can defend it all they like. What they can't do is rightfully tell me (as some did) that my opinion is worth less than their own.

[eFestivals]

now, care to show me where I lied. If not retract the acusation.

what you quoted wasn't it.

You've seen where you lied; you posted a response to it. But not the response you were asked for - proof of your claim - because there is no proof.

[Messi30]

nothing worthwhile to add other than I hate Bruce Spingsteen.

[LRW]

Shit me!

We still arguing about how rubbish/bland/irrelevant/waste-of-a-healdine-slot springsteen is?

[sifi]

Shit me!

We still arguing about how rubbish/bland/irrelevant/waste-of-a-healdine-slot springsteen is?

[ml1dch]

they can defend it all they like. What they can't do is rightfully tell me (as some did) that my opinion is worth less than their own.

[eFestivals]

I've tried, quite persistently to find the quote you're reffering to. Simply repeating "you've seen it, you know what I mean" (or similar) obvioulsy isn't helping.

I'll ask, again, why don't you point me to the specific post you're talking about. Which claim is the one you're talking about. I make many claims

/index.php?showtopic=126281&view=findpost&p=2885571">http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/index.p...t&p=2885571