Spiringsteen

[eFestivals]

He did. My partner, who only went because I insisted said that it was her favourite song* that he did.

It's also one of the five songs that the BBC are showing in their on-demand highlights section. So although you and many others don't like it, it suggest that lots of people do. I like it. He's certainly done better songs but he's done worse as well.

And with your constant whinging about the stolen melody, were you up on your high-horse when The Verve played Bittersweet Symphony last year?

*Feel free to make some tedious comment about how it must compare to the rest of the set...

Look, my first hearing of Bruce's latest was hearing "Pete" on the radio - which prompted much laughter in the car at just how mind numbingly awful it was. Yet I still went out and bought the album, thinking it couldn't all be that bad. But it was.

As for the Verve, I laugh every time I hear that song, knowing that the poor f**kers are only reformed and playing again cos Loog has all their money via them ripping him off. And so they go round again, making Loog's Bogata retirement all the more comfortable, and them working their nuts of for little reward.

But did I comment about it last year? Nope. I had absolutely no interest in seeing them, so didn't - been there, done that, knew I was missing nothing. Checked out Bruce for 3 and half minutes and left, also knowing I'm missing nothing.

[eFestivals]

That's partly what it's about. It's also about the millions of under-priveledged and poor who get shat on from the moment they're born

but only the American "under-priveledged and poor".

Does he indicate that he gives a f**k about the Americans shitting on the rest of the world like that? Nope.

[eFestivals]

but you think the Scissor Sisters are good (live)....

They can certainly hold a mixed festival crowd of fans and non-fans far better than Bruce managed.

[DeanoL]

Well the point we're missing is that this is Glastonbury, which has a great tradition of booking bland acts as headliners, who generally go down quite well: Oasis, Radiohead, Coldplay, Arctic Monkeys, etc.

[sifi]

are we now equating Springsteen fans to Hitler youth? show some respect for 6 million dead and not on throwaway comments

[eFestivals]

jeez Neil. You're pretty specific about your political requirements from an act, aren't you. What do you make of his decision to do the Amnesty tour whenever it was, which he (pretty much) single handedly turned a run of the mill political-awareness-promoting tour into an event which must have done more for Amnesty than anything before or since. He was at the height of his popularity then. He was told about Amnesty, was asked to help out, and they were gobsmacked when he said he'd do anything he could, and joined the tour.

I'm simply stating that if Bruce wanted to have a pop at the good ole USA about Vietnam, then there's massively greater issues than the returning soldiers not being hailed as heroes, which was what he chose to write about. If someone had concerns about the whole thing, the bit he chose to write about would be the lowest thing on the list - after all, there wouldn't be that problem at all if they'd not started an imperialist war in the first place.

Yes, it's great that he gave his support to Amnesty (I wish more would do).

[eFestivals]

So could Kylie (probably) and Rolf Harris and umpteen other novelty acts... good for them

and plenty of non-novelty acts too.

You see, even now, you're attempting to elevate Bruce's performance on Saturday to somewhere it doesn't deserve to be.

Plenty of other headliners (as well as those lower down the bill) succeeded in holding the crowd far better than Bruce managed - yet those others don't have their fans walking around claiming that act to be the greatest act in the world.

[ml1dch]

I'm simply stating that if Bruce wanted to have a pop at the good ole USA about Vietnam, then there's massively greater issues than the returning soldiers not being hailed as heroes, which was what he chose to write about. If someone had concerns about the whole thing, the bit he chose to write about would be the lowest thing on the list - after all, there wouldn't be that problem at all if they'd not started an imperialist war in the first place.

Edited July 1, 2009 by ml1dch

[sifi]

I prefer Khe Sahn by Cold Chisel anyhow.

Edited July 1, 2009 by sifimaster

[sifi]

I think ml1dch has got it right. His songs do seem to focus on factory workers who are heroes and waitresses who all have a heart of f**king gold.

That's part of why it's too cheesy for me, I guess. That and the bombastic noise, and the rock n' roll shapes which were done better a long time ago by far more accomplished artists.

[albietrue2]

Why on earth are people pandering to the ignorance and/or winding up of this guy?

The prevailing high quality of Springsteen's body of work including his untold thousands of live performances speaks for itself.

That same body of work may well reveal a limited innovative spark in the sense of music's broader creative vein. I doubt the man's most avid fan would claim Springsteen has pushed back musical boundaries. It may also at times have descended into the territory of blandness. The proof of those particular puddings are there for all to see in the weaknesses of Human Touch and the more mundane chunks of some of his more recent albums.

That said, the overriding excellence of Springsteen's musical contributions is unquestionable. It may not appeal to all and sundry but to deny the basic fact is to betray ignorance of popular music's wider spectrum.

The man's greatness now spans four decades. So we witness the scintillating supernova spark of Blinded by the Light and the unbearably resigned bleakness of The Wrestler. Amazing songs penned and performed 40 years apart. Forty years. Bookend testmonies to the enduring greatness of a major major talent still capable of enriching the art base of the finest popular music.

E-Festvals may have instigated a popular website. Judging by his pathological delusions regarding the alleged blandness of a truly magnificent artist I'd say he's far from fit nor worthy of posting in it.

E-Fest, you may honestly think you're cool. The fact is you're a complete and utter tit. Your drivel within this thread bears witness.

[eFestivals]

the point is (as I've said) no-one will ever get as many curious fans as Bruce did. It was inevitable that many would leave after they'd seen some of him.

sorry, but I don't think that's true. Jay-Z must have had many more "curious" attendees than Bruce did, yet seemed to hold onto the crowd far better, and IMO turned off far less with his performance than Bruce managed.

[eFestivals]

E-Festvals may have instigated a popular website. Judging by his pathological delusions regarding the alleged blandness of a truly magnificent artist I'd say he's far from fit nor worthy of posting in it.

You Bruce nutters are priceless.

You yourself admit he's bland in the bits I haven't bothered to quote. Yet apparently, I have a pathological delusion for saying the same as you.

E-Fest, you may honestly think you're cool. The fact is you're a complete and utter tit. Your drivel within this thread bears witness.

I don't think I'm cool, I just think I'm me.

The complete and utter tit is you, thinking I don't have the same rights to my own opinion as you give yourself.

Any more of you nutters out there? This is all comedy genuis.

[ml1dch]

sorry, but I don't think that's true. Jay-Z must have had many more "curious" attendees than Bruce did, yet seemed to hold onto the crowd far better, and IMO turned off far less with his performance than Bruce managed.

Edited July 1, 2009 by ml1dch

[albietrue2]

You Bruce nutters are priceless.

You yourself admit he's bland in the bits I haven't bothered to quote. Yet apparently, I have a pathological delusion for saying the same as you.

I don't think I'm cool, I just think I'm me.

The complete and utter tit is you, thinking I don't have the same rights to my own opinion as you give yourself.

Any more of you nutters out there? This is all comedy genuis.

[eFestivals]

yep, that's possible...

the bits that the punters liked most whne he was on was when he started playing a U2 tune (or something similar)... not just playing the tune, but pretty much playing the record...

You mean when he opened with the Oasis sing-a-long? Yep, it was a class pisstake of the plonker Noel.

The fact remains he out-performed Bruce.

[eFestivals]

Can you honestly - honestly, mind - read back through your own inane drivel [particularly your ludicrous deranged opening gambits] and say the same?

My opening gambits "deranged"?

I said he was bland because he was.

I said that around a hundred random people I asked said they also thought him bland &/or crap, with only one (a huge fan anyway) saying they loved him. Cos that's what happened when I asked people what they'd thought.

How the f**k is any of that deranged? It's simply the truth.

Now, as this thread has shown, you Bruce nutters don't like the truth, but that's a problem for you and not me.

[ml1dch]

The fact remains he out-performed Bruce.

[eFestivals]

You seem to be confusing facts and opinions again.

The success of a performance can surely be measured by the response to that performance, particularly when a significant number of those exposed to the performance are neutrals &/or the curious (as opposed to hard-core fans). This is the reason for the popularity of festivals; an act that wins over a crowd that are not their fans has put in a far better performance than an act that can't, and such a winning-over performance are the ones that go down in legend for an act that does it.

I'd certainly say that Bruce had a far greater number of hard core fans present than Jay-Z did. Which means that Jay-Z had a greater number of neutrals &/or the curious (cos the crowd sizes for both were about the same at the start of each).

And don't forget, those neutrals &/or curious won't have gone along hoping for it to be shit - people rarely make efforts to take in something they know they won't like.

If Bruce can't impress a crowd of neutrals &/or the curious into them thinking he's done a great performance yet Jay-Z can (at least, to a greater extent) then it's fair comment - and not opinion - to say Bruce has been out performed by Jay-Z.

Edited July 1, 2009 by eFestivals

[chrisdebag]

You seem to be confusing facts and opinions again.

[albietrue2]

My opening gambits "deranged"?

I said he was bland because he was.

I said that around a hundred random people I asked said they also thought him bland &/or crap, with only one (a huge fan anyway) saying they loved him. Cos that's what happened when I asked people what they'd thought.

How the f**k is any of that deranged? It's simply the truth.

Now, as this thread has shown, you Bruce nutters don't like the truth, but that's a problem for you and not me.

[ml1dch]

...people rarely make efforts to take in something they know they won't like.

[eFestivals]

So we see from the evidence of your pathological obsession to convince fans of the man that he's bland.

no, all I'm trying to convince "fans of the man" ( - up yourselves or what?) is that I found him to be bland as did a huge number of others.

It's the nutters like you inventing fantasies about what I'm trying to do, or saying I'm lying when I say nearly everyone I spoke to found him bland, or even that I couldn't have possibly found him bland () who have had me keep posting to stand behind my opinion and experiences, nowt more.

If you want a balanced perspective of whether or not the man is bland then read what I posted earlier. By read I mean all of the blessed thing not solely the odd word that suits your bigoted agenda. Freak.

As you admit, he's bland at times.

As I admit, he's bland all the time.

Care to show me what on earth is bigoted about that? I've heard more than enough of his stuff on record for over 30 years to know what his recorded output is about (bland) .... but even so, I still went and spent my money on his latest album to give him a further chance (tho fail: bland).

And further still, I went and checked him out live - as a result of the nutters like you who'd spent months telling me I couldn't fail to be impressed when seeing him live - and found him to be the exact same bland that he is on record, and not the great performer that's been claimed for him.

Bigoted? There's nowt bigoted there matey. It's informed opinion.

The freaks and bigots are you and your kind, with your determination to fantasise things which I have not said or even remotely implied, I guess because you want to try and give an impression of his performance that is simply not the reality.

This thread - even when ignoring my posts - demonstrates VERY clearly that an awful lot of people who went to see him found him to be dreadful, bland, and one of the worst headliners ever to grace the Glastonbury stage.

I'd wanted him to do it; I'd hoped he would do it. He didn't.

[oafc0000]

I didnt watch him but my friends that did said he was bland / boring...

Glad I didnt bother

[pinback]

...one of the worst headliners ever to grace the Glastonbury stage.