you're right, thats the correct source

Patti and Bruce werent actually an item at that time (he would have only recently married Julianne Phillips) but I think Keith put two and two together and made five when he saw Bruce show up!

I think his exact phrase when asked what he thought of Bruce was something like "I've worked with @#$%& Solomon Burke - DONT give me Bruce Springsteen"

Keith is notoriously dismissive of the talents of anyone who sells more records than he does. A couple of years later in "Q" he dismissed Prince as "a talentless midget".

Sprinsteen was great up until 1981 downhill ever since with some exceptions from decent albums such as Born in the USA Human Touch and Brilliant Disquise, but only with the E Street Band.

without trying to upset any of the Boss lovers here (hey, to each his own) - hairball does raise a pretty good point. I personally know many, many Stones fans in America. I know of not a single one who doesn't:

1) love Bob Dylan

and

2) hate Springsteen (& hate U2 for that matter).

...so there.

Shawnriffhard nearly says it all for me.

The only thing I would add, is that Bruce Springsteen, alone, or with the e-street band, performs and delivers a song far better than anyone I have ever heard, regardless of whether it is a rocker or a serious ballad. It is very rare indeed to hear a Springsteen number being tossed of like he dosen't care. He prefers instead, to perform every song as if his entire life depended upon it.

A perfectionist who has no equals as such, and a true great in his own right.

Do not make comparisons!

Johang,

The album with Brilliant Disguise was named Tunnel Of Love.

I wasn't trying to ruffle any feathers of Springsteen fans here. I think T&A simplified my whole arguement for me in the above post. Thanks.

And when I was a teenager, when "Born To Run" came out, I actually liked the single when it was initially released, but it saturated the airwaves and the vocals became grating on the ears. Then every new release began to sound similar and fell into the adult-contemporary soft-rock category...a bit too conservative for some of us more rebellious teenagers. As it happens, in my neck of the woods during high school, you were either a Stones fan or a Springsteen fan. When Stones tickets and Springsteen tickets became available on the same day for the Stones '81 tour, there was a huge division between the Stones fans and the geeky Springsteen fans who were clogging up the line at the Ticket outlet. Needless to say, fists were nearly flying and punches were almost thrown. I suppose the bad blood resulting from that experience still lives with me to this day, and when I hear the name Springsteen, I get mad.

Max Wienberg is a bulldozer on drums. Listen to Cadillac Ranch, Born to run, Born in the USA and m.o.

Bruce said in the Chuck Berry's Hail Hail Rock n Roll: "I learned my first guitar chords through the Rolling Stones by listening to Carol.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-04-09 09:34 by bartman.

bartman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Bruce said in the Chuck Berry's Hail Hail Rock n
> Roll: "I learned my my first guitar cords through
> the Rolling Stones by listinging to Carol.
>
>

I don't think there's much doubt that the Stones and Bruce share a musical heritage.

One point that hasn't been raised on this thread but I think is true - Springsteen's "macho" image/persona puts alot of us off. It seems phoney, calculated and pretentious (the same can be said of Bono, I think) to me and many other Stones fans. I think it's one reason he grates on some of us.

Bruce has alwasy been to many of the American citizens "the working class hero". I don't know if the created that kind of image or he's just like that.

But, IMO he changed a lot if you take a look at his musical career.

Ok, he paticipated in projects like Human Rights Now, Amnesty International, No nukes etc..But besides that he still the man who know how to make a great rock n roll show.

Maybe he inspired Bono....

I think Bruce made 4 or 5 real good albums out of the chute, but since Born in the USA he's found it tough to match his previous high standards. This has happened to the Stones, David Bowie, Van Morrison, Lou Reed and a lot of people. All of these performers still put out very credible and entertaining music, it's just that there will never again be that great blast of creativity and "new" expression.

I don't care much for Bruce's stuff anymore, and I often find his political messaging unattractive. But I have a lot of respect for him in that he respects his audience, puts on great shows, and works all the time (unlike my favorite 60s band, huh-huh). I also always liked that he dropped his Hollywood wife for a good-old working class Jersey girl.

The comparison with Bob Seger is pretty apt. Good blue-collar rock n roll. Check out some early Seger like Seven. He did become a little easy-listening by the 1980s.

It's been my experience though that a lot of Bruce's audience is people who don't otherwise listen to much music. In the mid-1980s Bruce albums were like fashion accessories for a lot of the preppy-yuppie crowd. These are the same people who made Peter Frampton, Stevie Nicks and Boston big.

Bruce can play some nasty guitar. But, I think his E Street mate Nils Lofgren is far superior. Speaking of whom, find Nils' first solo album (self-titled), or some of his work with Grin. The Nils Lofgren album contains the great ode "Keith Don't Go" , which was written when it looked like Keith might go to jail in Canada for H possession. A really excellent disc.

Karl