There is something in between dull and schtick. I thought the preacher stuff was uninspiring in 1992 and it hasn't aged well. While "Sunny Day" isn't much of a song, I find more genuine connection with the crowd there. Hearing a whole stadium belting out the opening verse of Hungry Heart never gets dull. That being said, other than a big compilation, I'm only really interested in 74-88.
I think the shtick complaints are overblown - it's not like Bruce rants in that style constantly during shows. He has a few moments he picks and that's it - it's a pretty minor part of the show. And I say this as someone who suffered through the insanely long and shtick-laden "Mary's Place" 30 times in 2002-03!
I'll pick The Eagles because there has been a comparison. Any night on an Eagles tour would have been the same as any other night on an Eagles tour. Excellent musicianship and presentation but a tad sterile for my liking. The last time I saw Bruce it was an incredibly hot day and us folk in the pit had been out in the sun for the best part of 10 hours. He opened with Waiting On A Sunny Day, and took a song I would have been happy if he had left it out of the set and made it the perfect song to start the show. I was singing as loudly as anyone in the stadium. That's what can happen with Bruce, he's 68 years old and there is a chance that you can walk away from a bit saying ' He's never done that before'
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think it's time to give the E Street Band a rest. They're still one of the best live bands of all time, but yes, the act is getting a little old now. I thought the full-River show would shake it up a little, but honestly it was a little boring and I LOVE that album. The live archive releases of late just hammer that home for me. I'm hopeful for the new "solo" album and maybe tour, whatever form that takes; then I can come back to this thread with a big fat "never mind!"
Springsteen fans never cease to amaze me. For all these years all they wanted was E Street. When he went through phases in 92-93, Joad, whatever it was where is the band? He's toured the band to death and on each tour everyone is like retire the band do something else. Now that there's no tour, people want a tour. As soon as he goes out solo again, people will beg for the band. It's a never ending cycle of unhappiness. After reading the book and meeting and talking with him a ton of times, I am beginning to realize that Springsteen fans are about as depressed and psychotic as he is.
I also wasn't wild about the full "River" shows, but the late summer US shows last year were really, really good - best from Bruce in years!
wow. Glad to have someone here who is so close to Bruce. Do you have any inside dope on the 1977 release?
Not sure about depressed/psychotic, but I agree that Bruce diehards can be annoying. They veer between grand declarations of Bruce's current supremacy with whining about how he's sucked since 1981. And they constantly one-up each other. "You saw Bruce in 1978? I saw him in 1977!" "You've been to 202 shows? I've been to 203!" I've seen fans argue about who's a "bigger fan" after Bruce has started to play! God forbid they end their bickering to actually listen to the music! Me? I'd be fine if Bruce played with another band ala 1992. I'm fine if he sticks with E Street - and I suspect he always will in terms of "rock concerts" - but I'd welcome the change of pace...
I have been saying this for years. I would love to see Bruce play with different musicians. But I think that time has passed. This is the reality or at least my reality. I have seen Bruce well over 100 times with most of them being from 1978 to 2000. I still go to two to three shows a tour. But nothing, and I mean nothing compares to the 1978 tour. Best tour I have ever seen and I still attend an average of going to 50 shows a year with all different bands. When you talk about that tour it compares with The Who of 1969-1973 or the Stones from 1969-1972. There is a reason why it is legendary. Anyone who thinks the Bruce tours of 2009 to the current time compares has no point of reference or is delusional. And yes, I would love to see a 1976 show be part of the Archives and one that has a version of "It's My Life".
Sure. But with a few exceptions, like, say Brian Wilson doing Smile or seeing Elton play his early 70's stuff with a live orchestra, it's not that exciting, especially seeing the same band do it more than once.
I am sincerely curious about how you believe Springsteen still creates a connection with the audience better than anyone. I don't hear or see it. I get that he has a faction of his audience that believes he is the greatest artist and live performer of all time, and that the moment he hits the stage, they are in the palm of his hand. But that connection exists with all artists and their faithful; from Depeche Mode fans being owned by Dave Gahan as he hits the stage to Lady Gaga as she grabs the emotional attention of her core audience with her presence and presentation. I don't think Springsteen's tired pre-song stories, preacher's shtick, righteousness rhetoric, etc. creates an overall connection better than other artists. His core fan base who buys into it, but that is to be expected. As for the audience as a whole, I highly doubt he is presently creating an all-time great connection that no other artist can match. I don't buy it.
That Mary's Place debacle was enough to make me question whether or not I wanted to attend another Springsteen show.
I've been going to Bruce shows since 1985, so I clearly can't view him through the eyes of a "rookie", but based on comments from others, I think he still makes that connection. I've had friends who went to shows I thought were subpar and they raved about how great Bruce was! To be fair, the 2002-03 "Mary's Place" wasn't much worse than the 95-minute version of "10th Avenue" he did in 1999-00. Thank God he finally stopped doing those super-extended band intros! One of my friends didn't get into Bruce until 2007 and she counts "Mary's Place" as a favorite song. I tell her that's because she didn't see him in 2002-03!
I guess it depends what you want out of the live concert experience. I tend to go for great musical execution versus a big wild show like a Super Bowl halftime. That does not connect with me as much as a great musical execution. I love The Eagles' songbook, and to hear it performed meticulously and close to perfection creates a real connection to the music for me. Others, clearly find it boring and would rather have Henley calling out for crowd participation from the top of a piano. The bottom line is that we all enjoy what we enjoy from the concert setting. I think it is great that my fellow Springsteen enthusiasts still get a lot out of his contemporary era concerts; they just don't work for me. That said, I strongly disagree that Springsteen is doing it better than any of his contemporaries or that he is reaching audiences better than anyone else.
Those were hard to get through. I only sat through it once (the opening night at Staples in L.A.). The subsequent shows that I saw from that tour, I used the "10th Avenue" extravaganza as a restroom break and a chance to check my voice mails in the arena concourse.
Hey, time changes everything. Nobody was ready to say goodbye to the E Street Band in 93. But that's almost 25 years ago, more time than there was an E Street Band before the "break."
If Bruce cut his shows in half and just bullet-trained through 90 or so minutes, trimmed the fat - as a purely listening experience that show might rival the 73-88 era. Not suggesting he do that, or I'd even want it, just saying.
He did something like this during the early part of the Magic tour and it was extremely powerful. One song into the next without comments. Those were great shows.
