Spiringsteen

[eFestivals]

What on Earth did you expect to see in the first 5 minutes?

I expected charisma, there was none; I expected spark, there was none; I expected a performer to be giving a performance clearly above average given that performer's reputation, rather than a performer who was just going thru the motions of another day in the office.

To me, the best performers - whether I love them or hate them - manage these things (and in the first five minutes too!).

Edited July 30, 2009 by eFestivals

[cejx]

To me, the best performers - whether I love them or hate them - manage these things (and in the first five minutes too!).

[Tugger2k]

Now, if he'd played something like London Calling or whatever, that would not only have got the crowd going more, it would have been a more obvious nod to (some of) the crowd that he "got it".

[Swindlebiscuit]

he saved that for the hyde park gig the following night - inspired!!

[pedmills]

Has anyone got a video of his first 5 minutes? I'm interested to see how bad or good it was.

I saw the last 30 minutes of him. My verdict was: nothing special. The hits sounded pleasant enough, and he probably put a fair amount of energy into it, but nothing outstanding. At Glastonbury Festival you expect something a bit...dramatic.

Plus there didn't seem to be any sort of light show. I know its not the most important thing, and I don't expect to see fireworks or anything like that, but good lights can really add to the atmosphere. Compare Neil Young's last song before the encore (Rockin in the free world) with Bruce's (Born To Run). NY had stunning swirling spotlights and lights which changed red, white, blue in time with the lyrics. Whereas, if I remember correctly, Springsteen just had white lights on a black backdrop.

[GlastoRulz]

Has anyone got a video of his first 5 minutes? I'm interested to see how bad or good it was.

I saw the last 30 minutes of him. My verdict was: nothing special. The hits sounded pleasant enough, and he probably put a fair amount of energy into it, but nothing outstanding. At Glastonbury Festival you expect something a bit...dramatic.

Plus there didn't seem to be any sort of light show. I know its not the most important thing, and I don't expect to see fireworks or anything like that, but good lights can really add to the atmosphere. Compare Neil Young's last song before the encore (Rockin in the free world) with Bruce's (Born To Run). NY had stunning swirling spotlights and lights which changed red, white, blue in time with the lyrics. Whereas, if I remember correctly, Springsteen just had white lights on a black backdrop.

[Poppydog]

Has anyone got a video of his first 5 minutes?

[eFestivals]

depends how you gauge greatness really. Imagine going to see a film like 2001, then giving up before the first five minutes were over, and forming an opinion on it...

what doesn't seem to have registered with you and your ilk is that those five minutes weren't my first and only exposure to Springsteen.

I was perfectly able to gauge after just that five minutes that I could have stood there until the end of eternity and not thought him worth watching.

blimey... you still haven't got over the fact you don't like him

Nope, the only thing I've not got over is just how big an arsehole some Springsteen fans are when someone expresses their opinion that they don't like those Springsteen fan's god.

Some of these fans are succeeding in making the most extreme religious fundamentalists look like reasonable people.

[Wooderson]

what doesn't seem to have registered with you and your ilk is that those five minutes weren't my first and only exposure to Springsteen.

[Wooderson]

you've seen him before?

[eFestivals]

Jesus how smug can you get Neil.

How many other times have you seen him play live in person then?

/knows the answer

The only smugness I'm seeing is your own, with your suggestions that if I'd stood there for the whole set I couldn't have failed to be impressed. Yet there's been plenty of people who've posted in this thread who did just that and weren't.

you've seen him before?

Are you both stupid? You know for certain that I hadn't seen him before, yet you come out with this crap.

On the basis of what you're stupidly suggesting, I'll take your line and say: how do you know that The Nolans are crap? You haven't seen them live.

The simple fact is that both you two and I pretty much know what we each like and what we don't like, and don't need for those likes to be verified one way or another. However, despite me knowing myself to not be a fan of Bruce on record, I gave him a very fair chance to prove himself as something different in a live setting, because of his live reputation.

Why did he fail to change my mind when playing live? Because I saw and heard nothing when seeing him live that gave any different impression to the one I already had.

As I keep saying, but just won't go into your clearly numb brains: not everyone likes Bruce.

Perhaps your brains are so numb due to having been exposed to too much bland music?

Edited August 3, 2009 by eFestivals

[Billy09]

I've formed opinions on bands in less time than 5 minutes, and it generally comes down to do I want to watch more, or go and find something else, I don't think this is unusual.

Walked past Tiny Tea tent tis year (Wed/Thur?) and saw a superb guitar 4 piece playing, opinion formed within about 2minutes, stayed til end and opinion reinforced all the time. The Volt if anyones interested.

Similarly saw 2 minutes of "Rumple Stiltskin Man", which was easily long enough to assess that he was a tool.

[eFestivals]

Do you really think I give a f**k whether you or anyone else like Bruce? I've been laughed at for being a fan of his since '75... big deal.

I've also gone to see acts that I don't 'normally' like, but I've given them more of a chance than 5 minutes worth...... sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised, it happens. Do I think if you'd stayed you would have a different opinion of him?.. not in a squillion years.

... noooo.. it can't be true...

I'm off to buy the razor blades.. I've never been so disillusioned...

do you care?

enough to go on about it for weeks on end..

For someone who claims to not give a f**k what I think of Bruce, you seem to spend an awful lot of time trying to tell me that I'm not allowed to dislike Bruce.

I often give bands I dislike more than 5 minutes too - but when in that five minutes they show themselves as being different to what I was expecting. There was nothing at all different to what I was expecting with Bruce - it was the same blandness I hear on record.

Am I laughing at you or anyone else for liking Bruce? Nope, I'm just giving MY honest opinion, just as you've been given and taken endless opportunities to express yours. All I care about is the same right to my opinion as you want and expect here for yours.

Please start acting your age, grow up, and accept the right of others to what you expect for yourself.

[Wooderson]

The only smugness I'm seeing is your own, with your suggestions that if I'd stood there for the whole set I couldn't have failed to be impressed. Yet there's been plenty of people who've posted in this thread who did just that and weren't.

[eFestivals]

if you want to continue to appear ignorant in the eyes of the readers to your site thats your perogative.

but that's simply your stupid view, from you being a sucked-right-up-your-own-arse Stringsteen fan.

Needless to say it reflects badly on the open-mindedness or otherwise you may have. You cannot make an accurate judgement of something and seek to appear so superior in the eyes of those that have seen it in full without looking like an arse.

Think what you like from your sucked-right-up-your-own-arse Stringsteen fan perspective. I was open-minded enough to give him the chance to prove himself as something different live to on record, and he wasn't.

Now, that might be due to what you admit as Bruce being "underwhelming", I don't know - I only have the one instance to go on. But I was certainly the "underwhelmed" that you mention.

Why do you think it's OK for you to be underwhelmed by the whole set, but not permittable for me to be underwhelmed by the bit I saw enough to not want to see any more of it?

My point pure and simple was that you cannot judge any piece of art by only seeing a fraction of it. Whether youve listened to him for 35 years is irrelevant. That performance at Glasto stands on its own two feet as a piece of art (good or bad) and it is dreadfully ignorant of you to claim knowledge of it beyond your actual experience.

- care to show me where I've made any such claim? If I was trying to do that, surely I'd not have stated how little of the show I saw?

My comments are TOTALLY based on the little I saw, that's why I said how little I saw; the little I saw was more than enough for me to know that I'd be wasting my time seeing more.

People have given you other examples of artistic expression where only a fool would say they could judge after 5 minutes. You have let this site down by showing this bullish smugness. A person cannot review or judge something they havent seen. This is a fact. What you saw was not representative of the show. Someone who doesnt like "She's So High" and left Blur straight after it would have missed one of the gigs of the weekend. It is only pure luck that you left what turned out to be a bland enough affair IMO, not your gut instincts.

Care to show me where I've said I was judging art, and not giving my opinion of what I saw of an act?

You might have a point if I'd been banging on about "anyone who likes Bruce doesn't know good music" or similar, but I've said nothing AT ALL like that. I've simply said I found him as bland as I do on record.

Was that judgement right? Only I'm in the position to know my opinions, thanks.

What I saw mightm not have been representative of the whole show. It was, however - and of this I'm sure - very representative of Bruce Springsteen .... that is, unless he might have suddenly turned into someone with charisma, someone playing with a spark, and someone playing songs not his own and not in his style. Seeing as none of these things have happened in the very many instances of Bruce playing live that I've seen (tho not in the flesh) then I think I'd have been hoping for too much.

You are clearly trying to get me to say "my opinion was wrong", but it simply cannot be, can NEVER be. It's MY opinion, not yours.

A person cannot review or judge something they havent seen.

Wooderson loves The Nolans, Wooderson loves The Nolans, Wooderson loves The Nolans.

Or is it really the case that you do everything the exact same as I do, and that you're talking crap?

Edited August 3, 2009 by eFestivals

[The Nal]

but that's simply your stupid view, from you being a sucked-right-up-your-own-arse Stringsteen fan.

Think what you like from your sucked-right-up-your-own-arse Stringsteen fan perspective. I was open-minded enough to give him the chance to prove himself as something different live to on record, and he wasn't.

Now, that might be due to what you admit as Bruce being "underwhelming", I don't know - I only have the one instance to go on. But I was certainly the "underwhelmed" that you mention.

Why do you think it's OK for you to be underwhelmed by the whole set, but not permittable for me to be underwhelmed by the bit I saw enough to not want to see any more of it?

- care to show me where I've made any such claim? If I was trying to do that, surely I'd not have stated how little of the show I saw?

My comments are TOTALLY based on the little I saw, that's why I said how little I saw; the little I saw was more than enough for me to know that I'd be wasting my time seeing more.

Care to show me where I've said I was judging art, and not giving my opinion of what I saw of an act?

You might have a point if I'd been banging on about "anyone who likes Bruce doesn't know good music" or similar, but I've said nothing AT ALL like that. I've simply said I found him as bland as I do on record.

Was that judgement right? Only I'm in the position to know my opinions, thanks.

What I saw mightm not have been representative of the whole show. It was, however - and of this I'm sure - very representative of Bruce Springsteen .... that is, unless he might have suddenly turned into someone with charisma, someone playing with a spark, and someone playing songs not his own and not in his style. Seeing as none of these things have happened in the very many instances of Bruce playing live that I've seen (tho not in the flesh) then I think I'd have been hoping for too much.

You are clearly trying to get me to say "my opinion was wrong", but it simply cannot be, can NEVER be. It's MY opinion, not yours.

Wooderson loves The Nolans, Wooderson loves The Nolans, Wooderson loves The Nolans.

Or is it really the case that you do everything the exact same as I do, and that you're talking crap?

[eFestivals]

Do you not like Springsteen or something?

it's all his own doing.

[albietrue2]

E-Fest - if I may have the temerity to ask you for roughly 7.5 minutes of your time to watch the ensuing clip and pose the simple question to you - Do you consider this to be a "bland" performance?

If your answer is affirmative can you attempt to define briefly why it is you find it bland

The thing is once I twigged that the earnestness of your relentless postings dissing Springsteen meant you couldn't merely be on a wind up, my "indignation" at your stance has always been your use of the terminology "bland".

I assume many other readers of this thread who are familiar with the scope and quality of Springsteen's work will be similarly bemused by your "bland" denigrations.

I doubt if there exists a solitary fan of any artist who expects remotely universal liking of their particular favourite artist. And certainly not Springsteen's fans.

However, I do find your relentless levelling of the "blandness" tag against the man and his work impossible to comprehend. I fully understand why you may not like him and his music. Even a total contempt I could handle. Fact is many folk I know don't care for the man's music. However, it is your apparently ingrained dogma that he is "the blandest of the bland" that I find incomprehensible.

Perhaps your honest and considered take on this live solo/piano interpretation of one of his early songs may help to clarify why it is you consider him "bland". Perhaps it may also help in bringing to some sort of end this seemingly interminable thread.

Ta - in anticipation

[alframsey]

The only smugness I'm seeing is your own, with your suggestions that if I'd stood there for the whole set I couldn't have failed to be impressed. Yet there's been plenty of people who've posted in this thread who did just that and weren't.

[GlastoRulz]

^^ Great song... love it!! Though I do prefer the full band version with the guitar at the end. As far as songs that there is any chance he might play, this is the holy grail. Not my favorite song overall, but probably my second favorite concert moment when I heard it played on the Magic tour. Hearing Jungleland for the first time is number one.

[When Jokers Attack]

awesome song he played it as a sign request at hampden

[albietrue2]

^^ Great song... love it!! Though I do prefer the full band version with the guitar at the end. As far as songs that there is any chance he might play, this is the holy grail. Not my favorite song overall, but probably my second favorite concert moment when I heard it played on the Magic tour. Hearing Jungleland for the first time is number one.

[albietrue2]

awesome song he played it as a sign request at hampden

[srvman]

hmm...i do like bruce, admittedely it wasnt his best performance at glastonbury, still, i would put it higher than the verve or kings of leon last year...

however...within the first song of Neil Young, everyone was like Shit this is good

within the first song of Blur, everyone was like, shit this is good.

within the first song of Bruce, everyone was like, why didn't he start of with a bang, instead of a song noones ever heard of ( regardless of its relevance to the festival) i still think he should have started with badlands, would have put everyone in the mood....and having the fecking dire kasabian on before him didn't help the crowd

[srvman]

neil young started with hey hey my my....crowd went apeshit around me....

as i said, its all very nice having a relevant song, but i would be happy to have a conservative guestimate that 90percent would havent have had a clue....

if he had slipped it in later on it might have gone down better...

i love the boss as much as the next guy...i just dont think he put that much effort into the set list...he knew or at least should have known, a large majority of the crowd wouldnt be familiar with his songs, should have done a greatest hits set list.....( i know hes got an album to flaunt, but hes had an album to flaunt for the last 25 years) neil youngs set was just about perfect for me...as was blurs