Spiringsteen

[harper11]

Radiohead are just better than Bruce because they are a real band...E street set up gives me a weird vibe

like elton johns band or neil diamonds

but they probably equally divide opinion

if they played a set list anything they played at victoria park in london last year theyd be widely slated for doing a hit free show

[TrevK]

Wow - this thread (as with the other Springsteen threads) has really started some pretty unfriendly and unneccessary banter !!

I think a few people need to take a deep breath and leave all this alone.

So before I start I'll say this - I am a big Springsteen and thought he was excellent (again) - but here are a few observations:

1 - this thread has a lot of people saying they've either been converted or enjoyed his performance. That my friends is exactly why Springsteen is playing festivals this year and is a theme for this tour - he wants to show people what he is about and if he grabs some new fans along the way then great.

2 - he will be 60 in September and the E Street Band are clearly not going on forever. He gave his 2 and a half hours absolutely everything - how many of the younger bands put as much effort in.

3 - how many other artists/bands have name checked Bruce either in the run up to Glasto or during the festival (Madness and Kasabian for example). To say he has influenced others is putting it mildly.

4 - The Gaslight Anthem - the JP tent was packed with people whose average age was considerably younger than the average age of a Springsteen fan - but that place went mad when he walked on stage. Clearly some appeal to 'the kids' then.

5 - the legend that is Michael Eavis finally got two of his heroes to play in his back garden so we should stop this petty arguing and be pleased for him !

6 - I saw some bands that were crap over the weekend and some that were disappointing but I'm not going to get involved in slagging them and their fans off.

7 - Marmite - exactly right - Springsteen has always had that effect on people (in the UK and the US)

8 - Music (like football) arouses all sorts of emotions. Different music for different people - if you like what you saw and heard then great but if you didn't then that's great too. We all have choices but all this personal abuse leaves a bitter taste at the end of a brilliant festival.

Here endeth the lesson !!!

[alframsey]

if that's good, I'd very much hate tro hear what you think to be great.

Oh, I did on Saturday, so left and went and saw something much more enjoyable.

Oh dear, someone didn't like your hero. Never mind, I'm sure you'll live.

No, 100 hundred people is not a huge number. Care to tellk me where I claimed to have carried out a scientific survey?

However, 100 random people thinking Bruce very bland, against just one (in my little survey) thinking him excellent. That says to me that a huge number thought him crap, via that proportionality.

As for the 80,000 .... that was 80,000 at the start. Were there still 80,000 watching at the end? Nope. Why did they leave if they all thought it the most fantastic act ever at Glastonbury?

Perhaps they were all at the bar? Perhaps they were all having a slash?

says the man on his high horse, demanding that no one dare say anything Bruce-negative.

[KatiePC]

I saw Springsteen and it was true genius. All the people that are moaning expected Born In The USA and are being ridiculous in moaning it was crap. He is musically amazing, enhanced by the E Street Band presence. I only know a few songs, but he showed why he is reknowned for his live shows. I must say if you got behind the sound tower on any Pyramid performance over the weekend the atmosphere was dead. People sat in their chairs being very middle class and tapping toes. When will these people actually try to appreciate and show a bit of enthusiasm towards anything?

[alframsey]

Has anyone used those words? Nope.

Have some suggested that it would be impossible for anyone not to like it? Yes.

And so for some, Bruce farts perfume. If someone is so stupid to think that it's impossible for lots not to like it (which someone has posted) - yet this thread proves that many didn't - then those types would have been cheering if Bruce's set had followed a dinner of baked beans for him and the performance had been only of him with a microphone taped to his arse.

[Cheesey]

I went to see BS with about five mates, and we stuck with it for an hour and a half before leaving to catch the end of Franz Ferdinand. While it was clear that BS was putting a huge amount of effort in, the end result was just boring. I didn't hate it or anything - I was just bored.

After reading the Q quote ("best live act in the world" or something) the last thing I expected was to be bored.

Within about thirty seconds of watching Franz Ferdinand we realised we would have been much better off watching them instead, but alas, we only saw the last three songs of their set.

[Laura_Babs]

Personally I didn't enjoy it but we had two huge Springsteen fans in our group who headed to the front for it and absoutely loved it. I was so, so pleased for them as they had an awesome time but for me it literally sent me to sleep I'm afraid!

[alframsey]

I'm saying that's how I find it. That dopesn't make me ignorant, that just means I have an opinion, just as you have.

The ignorant one is you. You essentially called me a liar here:-

To defend your hero, you're resorting to calling me a liar. How very sad.

[daveinafield]

The 3 and half minutes that I could stand of the most bland drivel I heard at Glastonbury was very dire - I've definitely been converted, converted to now being sure that Bruce is hugely over-rated crap.

[Dark Star]

Man, there's a lot of bitching going on here, no need for it! If you didn't like it, fair play for giving it a go and then going to see something you did like. For those that were "converted" or whatever you want to call it, excellent. That's the reason any band goes out on stage to perform surely?

I'm a big Springsteen fan, and thoroughly enjoyed his performance on Saturday night, and on Sunday at Hyde Park. Neither were the best performance I've seen from him though, that's a close run thing between Wembley in 2002 and the o2 in 2007. Personally, Gaslight Anthem stole the Saturday for me and 3 Daft Monkeys were the best act I saw on the Friday.

I thought Kasabian had a bigger crowd at the end of their set than Bruce did at any point, saw about half of their set after largely ignoring them since hearing and not liking their first album, didn't really enjoy it very much but can see why people do like them.

[ericlered]

I really wish i had stuck to my plan to see 2 many dj's

don't get me wrong, they may be extremely good at what they do but the results were 90% bar room boogie - very very boring indeed.

[sandyfeet]

I loved Bruce's set. I can understand why he didn't want to do Born in the USA - he obviously felt it was out of date and it was time to move on. That's the case with political songs. I thought the people in the audience who where booing him for not doing it were out of order.

[DeanoL]

see, every random I asked that had seen both thought Neil Young far better, tho few rated that particularly highly .... but at least he was putting his whole self into every note. Bruce was simply spending another day at the office from what I saw.

[indiesfa]

i invested time to get into springsteen before the festival and i enjoyed the set ...i thought it was overlong but i do think 2.40 is too long for anyone, im a radiohead fan and would say the same if they played a simmilar set length

i would say that people saying he didnt play a greatest hits are being unfair...apart from born in the usa, what other really..and i mean really...big hits didnt he play. the truth is springsteen doesnt actually have that many hits

what we got was an all out performance you either liked it...i did...or you were bored and didnt... fair enough you can say that. i would say i saw a genuinely respected musical legend throw every thing into the performance (the steam rising off his back was iconic) and im glad i saw it and i would only have had the opportunity (im not a big enough fan to pay for his own gigs) at glastonbury ...awesome

ive seen stereophonics, rod stewart, killers, moby, arctic monkeys, and oasis deliver worse headlining sets in recent years. so he isnt the greatest headliner ever... it was always a big mantle to live up to

p.s blur were awesome

[luckyman]

I have to say i thought Bruce(im not calling him the boss anymore) was very dull and boring, im not a big fan but i really wanted to see him, have his hits album and thought he would be great Have just watched Franz's set on the other stage and REALLY wish i had of been watching them instead.

There was 3 of us and we all thought the same.

Spoke to a couple of people and they thought the same

I think you had to be a die hard fan to enjoy his set, which i think is not what a festival performance should be about ! He should have given us a few more hits and entertained the masses more, he didnt

Oh well, wont see him again. Overrated.

[GlastoRulz]

It doesn't surprise me in the least that many people found him boring though this doesn't automatically make him crap. The first gig of his I saw him, I barely knew anything that he played, but was close enough that his energy and passion easily won me over. From talking to friends, this seems to be the case with them. All six of them that were fairly close up found him pretty incredible and while only two said he was their best set, they all admitted that they at least now don't think I'm mental for thinking he is great. My friends who said they were towards the back said they got bored and left about half way through. Strangely enough, the people I got the best "reviews" from were my two friends who couldn't make it and I insisted they catch it on TV.

Also, the fact that people got impatient b/c they didn't know anything he played (which is of course something you expect from a headliner whether you admit it or not) doesn't surprise me. He has really only had 1 album out of 16 or so that contained radio hits and since I am 23 and was born after that album was released, I know that besides the very obvious (Dancing, Glory) many people aren't even going to know the lesser hits, though still hits at the time, off of Born in the USA (No Surrender is a song I'm thinking about since it was played). Truthfully as a whole, Springsteen's work takes quite a bit of effort to get to know and considering some songs he plays with relative frequency are unreleased tracks (Seeds) or songs which he never recorded (Because the Night) or sometimes obscure covers (Raise Your Hand, Hard Times). I think unlike many artists of his popularity/stature or whatever you want to call it, those that get the most out of a show are those that are pretty dedicated fans b/c somebody such as U2 where once you've seen one show of a tour, there isn't all that much that's going to change, there is always the possibility of seeing something new each time. I've only seen him six times now, but at Glasto I heard 7 songs that I had never heard played live before (obviously the new ones made this total higher than normal). There are quite a few people in this world that follow Springsteen around hoping to hear that one song he wrote before he even released his first album (not thinking of a specific song, just saying there are quite a large number of fans that do this kind of thing). As I'm sure most of you can see, Springsteen elicits incredible feelings of devotion from many which then leads to those who aren't into it getting annoyed with all the hype. Since he pretty much plays straight forward rock and roll, I can see how it can be boring.

From what I said above, I think that Springsteen himself it just out of touch about what the very casual fan is going to know. For example, prior to this tour when he is now using it as an opener, I would guess that Badlands would get just as large if not a bigger response out of a crowd than Born to Run, Dancing in the Dark, or Glory Days. I am just speculating here, but I bet he would be shocked that maybe only 5% of the crowd had heard that song before and even less could scream every lyric along with him. The part in Thunder Road "show a little faith there's magic in the night" when he tried to get the crowd to sing along is just as loud a sing-along at one of his shows as Let it Be is for Macca. If I had to guess, I would assume that out of the six songs played he would have presumed that a majority of the audience would know Badlands, Prove It All Night, and Out in the Street. These are all songs that have been staples on every tour he has done for 30 years and songs that die-hard fans would much rather him drop. I guess what I am trying to say is that he doesn't have all that many hits to begin with and probably really isn't in tuned to what the general public considers hits.

My opinion on the show... I thought he was great, but I've seen better shows from him. He will always be labeled the "greatest live act" because he arguably was at one point and I'm not sure that there is anybody who has kept his shows at such a high standard for such a long period of time. He may not win people's vote as greatest songwriter, or performer, and definitely not musician, but when you add longevity to the mix and sustaining such a high standard for so long his "greatness" or whatever you want to call it is pretty hard to argue with. I have never seen a bad Springsteen show, b/c he gives it his all night after night, tour after tour and so even on an off night you really never feel cheated. Today, he is 60 years old, 30 years past his prime, and still puts on a fantastic show.

Ok, so that was a book, but just my MANY thoughts if anybody cares.

[elias]

It doesn't surprise me in the least that many people found him boring though this doesn't automatically make him crap. The first gig of his I saw him, I barely knew anything that he played, but was close enough that his energy and passion easily won me over. From talking to friends, this seems to be the case with them. All six of them that were fairly close up found him pretty incredible and while only two said he was their best set, they all admitted that they at least now don't think I'm mental for thinking he is great. My friends who said they were towards the back said they got bored and left about half way through. Strangely enough, the people I got the best "reviews" from were my two friends who couldn't make it and I insisted they catch it on TV.

Also, the fact that people got impatient b/c they didn't know anything he played (which is of course something you expect from a headliner whether you admit it or not) doesn't surprise me. He has really only had 1 album out of 16 or so that contained radio hits and since I am 23 and was born after that album was released, I know that besides the very obvious (Dancing, Glory) many people aren't even going to know the lesser hits, though still hits at the time, off of Born in the USA (No Surrender is a song I'm thinking about since it was played). Truthfully as a whole, Springsteen's work takes quite a bit of effort to get to know and considering some songs he plays with relative frequency are unreleased tracks (Seeds) or songs which he never recorded (Because the Night) or sometimes obscure covers (Raise Your Hand, Hard Times). I think unlike many artists of his popularity/stature or whatever you want to call it, those that get the most out of a show are those that are pretty dedicated fans b/c somebody such as U2 where once you've seen one show of a tour, there isn't all that much that's going to change, there is always the possibility of seeing something new each time. I've only seen him six times now, but at Glasto I heard 7 songs that I had never heard played live before (obviously the new ones made this total higher than normal). There are quite a few people in this world that follow Springsteen around hoping to hear that one song he wrote before he even released his first album (not thinking of a specific song, just saying there are quite a large number of fans that do this kind of thing). As I'm sure most of you can see, Springsteen elicits incredible feelings of devotion from many which then leads to those who aren't into it getting annoyed with all the hype. Since he pretty much plays straight forward rock and roll, I can see how it can be boring.

From what I said above, I think that Springsteen himself it just out of touch about what the very casual fan is going to know. For example, prior to this tour when he is now using it as an opener, I would guess that Badlands would get just as large if not a bigger response out of a crowd than Born to Run, Dancing in the Dark, or Glory Days. I am just speculating here, but I bet he would be shocked that maybe only 5% of the crowd had heard that song before and even less could scream every lyric along with him. The part in Thunder Road "show a little faith there's magic in the night" when he tried to get the crowd to sing along is just as loud a sing-along at one of his shows as Let it Be is for Macca. If I had to guess, I would assume that out of the six songs played he would have presumed that a majority of the audience would know Badlands, Prove It All Night, and Out in the Street. These are all songs that have been staples on every tour he has done for 30 years and songs that die-hard fans would much rather him drop. I guess what I am trying to say is that he doesn't have all that many hits to begin with and probably really isn't in tuned to what the general public considers hits.

My opinion on the show... I thought he was great, but I've seen better shows from him. He will always be labeled the "greatest live act" because he arguably was at one point and I'm not sure that there is anybody who has kept his shows at such a high standard for such a long period of time. He may not win people's vote as greatest songwriter, or performer, and definitely not musician, but when you add longevity to the mix and sustaining such a high standard for so long his "greatness" or whatever you want to call it is pretty hard to argue with. I have never seen a bad Springsteen show, b/c he gives it his all night after night, tour after tour and so even on an off night you really never feel cheated. Today, he is 60 years old, 30 years past his prime, and still puts on a fantastic show.

Ok, so that was a book, but just my MANY thoughts if anybody cares.

[eFestivals]

jesus, it was f**king set by a popular artist that a lot of people enjoyed, and some didn't. Why do you care so much?

- that's what I said in the first place to kick this off!!!!

If the Bruce nutters hadn't tried insisting that there was no one that didn't enjoy it when I said that huge numbers didn't then we wouldn't be here.

[eFestivals]

and i thought you liked music .......?

I do .... which is why I hated Bruce.

[daveinafield]

I do .... which is why I hated Bruce.

[eFestivals]

is that simply pointing out that some people didn't like him?

I said that I didn't like him, and that huge numbers of people I randomly asked didn't like him.

Then the Bruce nutters tried claiming that only a handful of people couldn't have liked him, which I've argued against. The posts made in this thread since indicate that I said it right.

If the poll someone started is representative, and if there were 80,000 people watching at the start, then it's well over 10,000 people that thought him dire - which is as I said, that a huge number of people thought him dire.

A huge number of people thought Bruce was dire. Accept it. It happened.

Bruce is not the best live act in the world, he wasn't even the best live act at Glastonbury last Saturday.

[eFestivals]

Neil, as a music fan hate is a very strong word. I think you use very emotive language too much. Can you explain to me then why the opening song was my best ever Glasto moment through 16 yrs of going (so not a Bruce nutter) and because you refuse to divulge your own musical tastes you seem to take delight in cutting down other peoples. Bruce is as socialist as American popular singers get, he has been politically active He is a very important cultural icon and making sweeping statements is just stupid - even if you dont like his music thats ok, but he is a decent guys with decent ideals, hate is just anti- glasto and as Mr Strummer once said you dont like Springsteen, you dont like music - viva Rock and Roll

Strummer got it wrong then. He was like that; he wasn't god.

If I don't like Springsteen, that means I don't like bland crap, that's all. It was bland crap, and huge numbers of people thought so as well as me. Get used to it.

None of the other stuff you say is of any relevance to him playing extremely bland music.

I'm allowed my opinion no less than you.

[daveinafield]

I said that I didn't like him, and that huge numbers of people I randomly asked didn't like him.

Then the Bruce nutters tried claiming that only a handful of people couldn't have liked him, which I've argued against. The posts made in this thread since indicate that I said it right.

If the poll someone started is representative, and if there were 80,000 people watching at the start, then it's well over 10,000 people that thought him dire - which is as I said, that a huge number of people thought him dire.

A huge number of people thought Bruce was dire. Accept it. It happened.

Bruce is not the best live act in the world, he wasn't even the best live act at Glastonbury last Saturday.

[daveinafield]

Strummer got it wrong then. He was like that; he wasn't god.

If I don't like Springsteen, that means I don't like bland crap, that's all. It was bland crap, and huge numbers of people thought so as well as me. Get used to it.

None of the other stuff you say is of any relevance to him playing extremely bland music.

I'm allowed my opinion no less than you.

[eFestivals]

can you at least see why people like him? i dont really like Lady Ga GA but i can see why people like her and she is good at what she does and would not attack people for loving her. many important music writers over the years have noted his importance 'the new Dylan etc' its not just nutters but music fan like me who likes him as well as Joy Division, Faithless, Gene Vincent, Levellers, etc, im juust gutted i missed Gong this year.

Actually, I really can't.

With most acts I dislike I can see the appeal for those that do like them. I went to see Bruce on Saturday thinking that maybe I'd get that understanding by seeing him live - because after all he has a reputation as a fantastic live performer - but he did absolutely nothing for me. It was the same bland MOR american soft-cock rock that he is on record .... I get why america likes him, I don't get why people in a society that doesn't have 'bland' as its over-riding cultural dimension* like him.

(* I'm not suggesting american culture is only bland. But its mainstream culture goes much more for the lowest common denominator route than the UK does).