Springsteen Debate

[wildwildwild]

i thought he was excellent, so much energy.

he had me at coma girl...

[dtox]

I quite enjoyed it. I like a lot of his stuff, and I expected a good, energetic show, which I got. It wasn't one of the best live performances I've seen, but then, I wasn't expecting anything magical.

I find the whole "debate" on this a lot more interesting than the actual show. Haha.

[eFestivals]

so far then - with those that saw him - it's around 2:1 in favour of him being more than an average act, and around 15% thinking him worse than an average act.

I seem to remember someone posting that lots of people didn't think him great, I wonder where I read that.

[daveinafield]

so far then - with those that saw him - it's around 2:1 in favour of him being more than an average act, and around 15% thinking him worse than an average act.

I seem to remember someone posting that lots of people didn't think him great, I wonder where I read that.

[daveinafield]

actually 55 per cent think good or better

[eFestivals]

actually 55 per cent think good or better

I can do maths thanks.

What I said was right (tho approximations).

[gizmoman]

actually 55 per cent think good or better

[The Nal]

Does any of this really matter?

[redmosquito]

I thought he was brilliant, no more than that purely because I was so blown away by Neil Young the night before that nothing else could ever surpass that set for me.

A lot of people seem to be complaining about him not playing enough hits and too many album tracks, I'm not a massive Bruce fan and I would have liked to have heard more songs that I know but thinking about it the only one I know that he didn't play is Born in the USA so I can't really complain. Plus in a 2 1/2 hour set for someone like me that only knows 5-6 of his songs there is always going to be a lot I don't know. Putting aside the building a house crap I thought his performance was supurb, so much energy and you could tell he was enjoying it.

[RedLemon]

i was a big fan and i've seen him twice before in the 80's. he worked harder at glasto than when i've seen him before, but i didn't think it was quite as good. still bang on in "excellent" though.

i feel, bruce is just a bit less relevant today. his heyday was 25 years ago. still a fan, but not so big perhaps.

couple of points:

i'm baffled how can anyone be a "massive fan" and not recognise much of what he played? mostly well known album tracks and rather a lot of singles as someone pointed out on the other springsteen thread.

he's an album artist who's not really troubled the uk chart much beyond Dancing in the Dark. what could he have played that would have constituted a greatest hits set?

hungry heart? tougher than the rest? yes, i guess so. more off BITUSA which is one of his weaker albums?

set too long? simple answer, leave before the end. seems obvious to me. surely most people must have known that he's renowned for playing long 3hr+ sets?

i thought neil young was just a touch better myself, but he played mostly album stuff and yet avoided similar, bizarre (to me) criticism.

i didn't see blur, as i made the mistake of watching them last time they played glasto. well, for ten minutes anyway. each to his own.

Edited July 1, 2009 by RedMissed

[pehaw]

I have a couple of Bruce albums but wouldn't say i'm a huge fan, but thought the performance and setlist was excellent. Great mix of well-known songs and slightly less familiar stuff.

It was a real stand-out event for me. Heard lots of people saying how they were very surprised at how good it was.

[daveinafield]

use your democratic vote!!

[pedmills]

I'll do polls for blur and ny so we can compare...