Spiringsteen

[chrisdebag]

i had somebody tape the springsteen set for me and jo whiley and mark radcliffe said they havent seen a crowd as big as that at glastonbury before

[grandadcollective]

i had somebody tape the springsteen set for me and jo whiley and mark radcliffe said they havent seen a crowd as big as that at glastonbury before

[Crouchie]

I was that converted that I am trying to get tickets to watch him in New york this November!

[eFestivals]

i had somebody tape the springsteen set for me and jo whiley and mark radcliffe said they havent seen a crowd as big as that at glastonbury before

then they're f**king stupid. There's been far bigger crowds.

[Kyelo]

I'm not buying Springsteen having the biggest crowd, I stayed for about 30 minutes and then left. I struggled to leave quickly as there were that many people leaving! Even when I was there the crowd seemed a bit thinner than the Kasabian crowd. Maybe it was just from where I was standing!

[chrisdebag]

I was that converted that I am trying to get tickets to watch him in New york this November!

[The Nal]

great to hear that send us all a postcard if you make it

i will be seeing him a week on thursday in benidorm can you believe

[fullfathom5]

Watched him, cuz couldn't be bothered to move at that point, was clearly a good performer, but found it a bit bland and boring!

[Clash City Rocker]

- he should be damned grateful.

3.5 minutes was enough for him to prove himself as bland live as he is on record, and enough for me to know that I'd be putting myself thru torture by staying longer.

[eFestivals]

Without having the whole debate again you clearly do not like Springsteen and 5 minutes was never going to change your mind, especially as most of that was a low key cover of a Strummer song.

I don't like 'bland' music but if you think Springsteen is bland then I can't imagine what you think of some other bands. It is also about more than the music with Bruce, it's about the show and performance and interaction with the crowd.

We are all entitled to have our opinions and all should have equal standing as far as I am concerned. The only issue I take with you is that most of your posts (and I will stand being corrected) are critical of bands and you appear to be reluctant to state who you do like?

While you don't think 5 minutes would have changed my mind, I'm certain that it would have done (as many other bands have succeeded in doing for me) - if they'd have been something more to that part of the performance than he manages on record. There wasn't.

I'm very far from being the only one to think Bruce @ Glastonbury bland (just check this thread) - in fact, even some raving Springsteen fans have said in this thread that they thought him far blander than normal. Perhaps if he'd been up to the standard that some Springsteen fans feel he wasn't on the day then I'd have found him more appealing?

The reasons, I guess, why many of my posts here are critical is because I've seen an awful lot of bands live (I typically see somewhere around 400+ a year) and so very many are extremely average or worse; plus there gets to be an awful lot of posts on here raving about some very awful shite, acts that are (say) the indie/pop equivalent of the likes of the Stock, Aitkin & Waterman back-catalogue. I'm as entitled to express my dislike as they are their like (tho in the main, I don't post to just express my dislike).

As for what I like, when there's an act that I like hugely playing at a fest I'm going to, then I often post about it (and yet I'm often just as critical of them as I am of acts I dislike). However, often I don't post about it, cos they're the sort of act that crops up somewhere all the time and so me seeing them is run of the mill, and not really worth commenting on.

[ferraristu]

Have said before, I am a massive Springsteen fan and loved him at Glastonbury. However, I thought his set was bloody tough for a non fan !!

[zero000]

Have said before, I am a massive Springsteen fan and loved him at Glastonbury. However, I thought his set was bloody tough for a non fan !!

[staggerlee]

Have said before, I am a massive Springsteen fan and loved him at Glastonbury. However, I thought his set was bloody tough for a non fan !!

[Wooderson]

...because I've seen an awful lot of bands live (I typically see somewhere around 400+ a year)

[eFestivals]

+ Ed Byrne whenever he's in town.

more entertaining than Bruce, that's for sure.

Is he hated over there then? From your posts, I guess he is. What's his crime? - leaving for somewhere better?

[The Nal]

more entertaining than Bruce, that's for sure.

Is he hated over there then? From your posts, I guess he is. What's his crime? - leaving for somewhere better?

[eFestivals]

No, hes just not very funny.

as I said, he's more entertaining than Bruce. He didn't make me run away to somewhere else as Bruce did.

[Bradders]

I can't remember if I've posted in this thread or not. But I wasn't a fan at all before his set, only knew 2 or 3 songs and I planned to catch the start before heading off to Bon Iver. After opening with Coma Girl and then Badlands, which were both really good, I stayed and ended up loving it. Great atmosphere, tad long perhaps, we went to the cider bus half way through, but it was still one of the best shows of the weekend.

Also I'm 19, since that apparently matters...

Edited July 22, 2009 by Bradders

[Badlands]

Have said before, I am a massive Springsteen fan and loved him at Glastonbury. However, I thought his set was bloody tough for a non fan !!

[Nickyboy]

That was the problem for Bruce (just as it was the night before for Neil Young), they just haven't had that many hits in this country, even though both very influential artists.

I'm not sure what they could've played that would have persuaded the doubters.

The fact that they are fantastic musicians, had great bands and still have 'fire in their belly' I think probably kept a lot of the audience on their side.

I didn't even see Neil Young myself (watched his set on telly when I got home as I recorded quite a lot).

Trouble is, a lot of people need familiarity of material to keep them interested (regardless of the merits or qualities of the songs themselves) - hence why the consensus is that Blur went down best of the 3 main stage headliners......basically because they have had a lot of well known hits to play - couldn't really fail, even if they went through the motions (which they clearly didn't).

Personally I enjoyed Bruce more than Blur, but then I've had a few of his albums over the years and knew 75% of what he played. Thought the E-Street Band were fantastic as well - tight as the proverbial gnats chuff

[GlastoRulz]

That was the problem for Bruce (just as it was the night before for Neil Young), they just haven't had that many hits in this country, even though both very influential artists.

I'm not sure what they could've played that would have persuaded the doubters.

The fact that they are fantastic musicians, had great bands and still have 'fire in their belly' I think probably kept a lot of the audience on their side.

I didn't even see Neil Young myself (watched his set on telly when I got home as I recorded quite a lot).

Trouble is, a lot of people need familiarity of material to keep them interested (regardless of the merits or qualities of the songs themselves) - hence why the consensus is that Blur went down best of the 3 main stage headliners......basically because they have had a lot of well known hits to play - couldn't really fail, even if they went through the motions (which they clearly didn't).

Personally I enjoyed Bruce more than Blur, but then I've had a few of his albums over the years and knew 75% of what he played. Thought the E-Street Band were fantastic as well - tight as the proverbial gnats chuff

[micawber]

The thread's still going? Brilliant. To paraphrase something someone once wrote, "Don't pay any attention to what people write about you. Just measure it in inches." Springsteen must be laughing at Neil's passion for an act he claims to have such little interest in. There were one or two acts that I didn't enjoy but I certainly wouldn't waste my time writing much about them. And who cares anyway, so long as others enjoyed them.

For the record, I enjoyed it. But I've seen Springsteen 3 times now and I'll probably call it a day. My lad said that he couldn't wait to see him again. "Really?", I asked. "Shit, yes", was his reply.

[elias]

That was the problem for Bruce (just as it was the night before for Neil Young), they just haven't had that many hits in this country, even though both very influential artists.

I'm not sure what they could've played that would have persuaded the doubters.

The fact that they are fantastic musicians, had great bands and still have 'fire in their belly' I think probably kept a lot of the audience on their side.

I didn't even see Neil Young myself (watched his set on telly when I got home as I recorded quite a lot).

Trouble is, a lot of people need familiarity of material to keep them interested (regardless of the merits or qualities of the songs themselves) - hence why the consensus is that Blur went down best of the 3 main stage headliners......basically because they have had a lot of well known hits to play - couldn't really fail, even if they went through the motions (which they clearly didn't).

Personally I enjoyed Bruce more than Blur, but then I've had a few of his albums over the years and knew 75% of what he played. Thought the E-Street Band were fantastic as well - tight as the proverbial gnats chuff

[GlastoRulz]

You guys see the setlist for the last show he played in Italy?

6 tour premieres! I would have much rather preferred that one to what he played for us.

[Wooderson]

You guys see the setlist for the last show he played in Italy?

6 tour premieres! I would have much rather preferred that one to what he played for us.