Quote
dimrstone
Got my Rome tickets today and as a bonus got Neil Young

Nice it's a great venue the circus Maximus in Rome I saw the stones there 2 years ago and I might have to go see Bruce there as well.

Nate

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
JTHanis

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
JTHanis
I attended the show last night in Philadelphia. Unbelievable.

Oh damn, they played JUNGLELAND?? I missed it by one night!

That's the only drawback of a band that varies their setlists night to night so frequently...sometimes you miss the songs you'd kill to hear.

First time I ever heard it; the same for Atlantic City. I've never heard Darkness. I wish I had devoted more resources to following Bruce around. Mick has always come first.

I saw The E Street band 3 times between 2002 and 2008, but sadly they never played Jungleland.

The first and only time I got to see it was in 2012 at Foxboro Stadium...it was the first time playing the song in America since Clarence had died. Jake did a great job on the solo but I wish I'd seen it just once with Clarence.

It was really good in the 3000 seat theater in 1978. Ahhh, high school...

Joining the ranks of such rock luminaries as Keith Richards, Pete Townshend and Sting, Bruce Springsteen will be publishing his autobiography in September, 2016.


Chatter about a memoir from the Boss began in 2009, when the New York Post reported, "Bruce Springsteen is said to be quietly working on his autobiography. Publishing insiders are already panting for the book — even though there is no manuscript yet."

A few years later, Bruce was asked about it directly at a Paris press conference for Wrecking Ball, and he seemed to feel the idea had lost its luster: "I wrote a little bit, and then I stopped for a couple of years. I haven't looked at it in quite a while. It’s one of those things... I wrote a little bit at one time, but then I see in the newspaper that everybody else is writing them, and so you don’t want to be just another goldfish in a bowl."

But clearly Springsteen kept at it, and seven years later, his autobiography will be published this fall, the week of his 67th birthday. While Bruce joked about a few potential titles in 2012 — The Handsomest Man in Show Business!... My Story!... I Believe... According to Me — the far sturdier Born to Run is due September 27 from Simon & Schuster. On the cover, Frank Stefanko's classic "Corvette Winter" shot from 1978.

In Born to Run, Springsteen describes growing up in Freehold, New Jersey amid the "poetry, danger, and darkness" that fueled his imagination. He vividly recounts his relentless drive to become a musician, his early days as a bar band king in Asbury Park, and the rise of the E Street Band. With disarming candor, he also tells for the first time the story of the personal struggles that inspired his best work, and shows us why the song “Born to Run” reveals more than we previously realized.

“Writing about yourself is a funny business,” Bruce notes in his book. “But in a project like this, the writer has made one promise, to show the reader his mind. In these pages, I’ve tried to do this.”

Also as noted in a press release this morning, Bruce's writing began "after performing with the E Street Band at the Super Bowl’s halftime show," a reference to Springsteen's diary from the big 2009 event that Thom Zimny turned into a short film: Bruce Springsteen: A Superbowl Journey.

Born to Run will be published in hardcover, ebook, and audio editions by Simon & Schuster in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and India, and rights have already been sold to publishers in nine countries.

Seems as though quite a few of the old guard are currently working on their memoirs:
ROBBIE ROBERTSON
PAUL SIMON
ART GARFUNKEL
STEPHEN STILLS
.....and no doubt, many others.
Sadly, no news of Dylan's second Chronicles however.

A book from Bruce doesn't interest me that much, but then I'm not a big fan anyhow. But I bet Stephen Stills has some good stories to tell....

Quote
jlowe
Seems as though quite a few of the old guard are currently working on their memoirs:
ROBBIE ROBERTSON
PAUL SIMON
ART GARFUNKEL
STEPHEN STILLS
.....and no doubt, many others.
Sadly, no news of Dylan's second Chronicles however.

I truly hope David Bowie wrote his memoirs down for someone to publish after he died.

Quote
TornAndFried

Quote
jlowe
Seems as though quite a few of the old guard are currently working on their memoirs:
ROBBIE ROBERTSON
PAUL SIMON
ART GARFUNKEL
STEPHEN STILLS
.....and no doubt, many others.
Sadly, no news of Dylan's second Chronicles however.

I truly hope David Bowie wrote his memoirs down for someone to publish after he died.

I wish... Just a little concerned on how many 'out-of-this-world' references or tales will be in it...

From backstreets.com

'I will say that he thanked me for the nightly passionate energy, which I only want to share because I think it's the moral of this story. I, more than most, have experienced this tour's relatively static setlists night after night, yet I've made a point not to let it diminish my love of these shows. I refuse to lose sight of the reason that made me decide to spend far too great a percentage of my money on all of these shows. You don't have to be Nostradamus to know that Bruce and the band have way more shows behind them than they do ahead of them, and I have reveled in the opportunity to see what may become some of the final concerts in the legendary reign of Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band. I focus on the fact that future generations will kill to be able to experience any of these shows, in the same way that I would kill to be able to experience even the worst show on the Darkness tour.

I have these thoughts in the back of my mind every night. As such, it doesn't matter if I'm in the front row (thanks to the lucky checkered button-down!) or the back of the floor, I dance and sing and rock out like there's no tomorrow, because none of us really know how many tomorrows Bruce and the band — or any of us — have left. That's why I will throw my hands up every single night to come on up for The Rising, because in the future, I know I will give anything to be able to go back and experience just one more of these shows, setlist be damned.

So that's my plea to you: enjoy these shows as fully as humanly possible. I understand there's a lot to nitpick — as there always is with everything in life — but you're going to forget those nitpicks once Bruce and the band hang up their guitars for good. For now, dance until your body feels like it's going to collapse, sing until your vocal cords go hoarse, and rock out like you've never rocked out before. Bruce and the band clearly notice, and they feed off that energy, making all of these already incredible shows that much more special and memorable. You'll enjoy the shows more, Bruce and the band will enjoy the shows more, and we'll all go through this tour singing and dancing and rocking out in beautiful harmony as the increasingly death-defying E Street Nation. And who knows, maybe Bruce will even notice you. As someone I met on Monday night once wrote, "faith will be rewarded."

Speaking for myself, I have enjoyed every Stones show I've ever been to. Do I wish they would ask me to draw up the setlist? Sure, but I value every time I've had the pleasure and good fortune to see them (and Bruce, too).

Quote
Elmo Lewis
Speaking for myself, I have enjoyed every Stones show I've ever been to. Do I wish they would ask me to draw up the setlist? Sure, but I value every time I've had the pleasure and good fortune to see them (and Bruce, too).

Do I wish the Stones would play for 3 1/2 hours like Bruce? Sure I would

I dunno...other than a song here or there or the first few months of the Licks tour the Stones have always played essentially the same core set list during a tour. Springsteen is just a completely different animal but I certainly agree with the author's sentiment.

I'm torn. Not to be a dick, but thats just truly how I feel.

I belong to that other forum. Its very good. Its my primary forum. But here's the thing: as has been mentioned Bruce IS a different animal. I've seen the guy 10 times. Far and away more than any other artist I've seen. I'm not just gonna fork over money and "enjoy it while it lasts" just to say I did. I've seen him 10 times! Thats enough if I never wanted to go back again. Especially when this tour is something I've already seen and tickets are at his most expensive. No thank you. I'll wait, and if he never comes back I don't feel I made the wrong decision. Just cause they may be leaving doesn't mean I'm gonna just put up with every decision they make. I'll applaud and support the good ones and reject the bad. I'd treat any artist the same.

So actually, I completely disagree with this person. In the end, if you see 17 shows on this tour or 1, you're STILL gonna wish you could go back to it in the future. You're literally going to say you went, even though you'll want more shows just as much as I will even though I haven't and won't see one show this tour. Its hero worship and I find that to be stupid. Have your limits. If its fun for you, ok fine do whatever you want. But these are NOT the final E Street Band shows (as classy as Bruce is I still think he'll pull out the farewell card) and there are many reasons TO see these shows as there are NOT to. Everyone likes to rag on those being negative, but an insanely positive post like this IMO looks just as wrongheaded.

Hate to be the party pooper. Really this would apply to any artist in my mind. I always say if you have the opportunity you should always see these people at least once. Don't NOT get the experience. But going back? Measure it, see if its necessary. Don't just go because "this could be the end and I have to support him!" Thats silly. I go see Bruce when it feels right the same way I go see the Stones when it feels right. The 50th felt right. The Zip Code tour did not. Thats life, and I think I'll be happier in my decision to skip that than if I just went to have one more memory.

When the war horse stretch starts I remind myself that my years of seeing the Stones live are limited and a day will come that I will regret I didn't enjoy every nano second when I had the opportunity.

I still reserve the right to complain about the setlist. But I've spent so many years doing that - I'm just as bored with complaining about the setlist as I am with most of the war horses.

The past few years I've considered any day the Stones are playing live to be a celebration, predictable setlist or not. Fortunately, Periscope is making those days more fun to celebrate.

Saw this guy's write up on the Bruce site, Backstreets. Great story!

I dont get the whole Springsteen thing...never have and guess never will...

Quote
scottkeef
I dont get the whole Springsteen thing...never have and guess never will...

Don't worry. Bruce is doing fine without you.

Quote
scottkeef
I dont get the whole Springsteen thing...never have and guess never will...

If you don't like his music there's really nothing to be done there. Some hate his singing, some hate that its "heartland rock". There are a bunch of reasons people don't like him.

I think its generally accepted that he puts on outstanding live shows, that are marathon 3 to 3 and a half hour concerts. He has different setlists so he's always playing different songs. There's one thing to not like his music, but I think his "thing" is that he's very committed to music and he's incredible live which I find it hard to argue with. But he's not everyone's thing which I obviously understand.

Springsteen played in a city near me earlier this week, and my neighbor's note to the school the following day to explain his daughter's tardiness was featured on the regional news. Small town living.

Was it Chet Flippo who said in 1978 or 81 " I would rather see the stones on a bad night than Bruce Springsteen on a good night ". I have to agree . I saw Bruce live in Melbourne early 2,000s . A 3 hour show sure, but dull , 4 guitarists but not one guitar solo all night. And during a singalong Bruce berated the crowd for their lacklustre efforts , and the crowd booed ! Good times

Bruce is excellent, but his band is a bit anonymous. The Stones has a ridiculously distinct sound where we hear what everybody plays - all the time.

The E-street band may change the setlist all the time, but we rarely hear the nuances in what they're playing. It's a solid beat, keyboards and guitars way down in the mix.

I like both bands, but for different reasons. They can't really be compared, though. They're too different.

The article is based around how many more shows will we see before its all over.

Enjoying what we have, while we have them

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Bruce is excellent, but his band is a bit anonymous. The Stones has a ridiculously distinct sound where we hear what everybody plays - all the time.

The E-street band may change the setlist all the time, but we rarely hear the nuances in what they're playing. It's a solid beat, keyboards and guitars way down in the mix.

I like both bands, but for different reasons. They can't really be compared, though. They're too different.

To me, there's still way too much posing and pausing from Keith and Ronnie. It really bothers me to see Keith just let go of his guitar and walk around basking in the crowd adulation while the song goes dead. To me, that's just pure negligence.

I want his right hand playing relentless rhythm. I know those days are LONG gone and it's pointless to complain at this point, but it still irritates me when I watch live vids and see him spend more time being Keith instead of playing like Keith.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Bruce is excellent, but his band is a bit anonymous. The Stones has a ridiculously distinct sound where we hear what everybody plays - all the time.

The E-street band may change the setlist all the time, but we rarely hear the nuances in what they're playing. It's a solid beat, keyboards and guitars way down in the mix.

I like both bands, but for different reasons. They can't really be compared, though. They're too different.

To me, there's still way too much posing and pausing from Keith and Ronnie. It really bothers me to see Keith just let go of his guitar and walk around basking in the crowd adulation while the song goes dead. To me, that's just pure negligence.

I want his right hand playing relentless rhythm. I know those days are LONG gone and it's pointless to complain at this point, but it still irritates me when I watch live vids and see him spend more time being Keith instead of playing like Keith.

Bruce's right arm/hand is 95 percent posing as well, as long as nobody hears that rhythm guitar. It's weird, because his playing is usually quite good.

I guess they both have their reasons for not really playing all the time (Bruce because of the music and the band's sound – Keith because of arthritis).

However, if Keith plays something, you can really hear it

Yeah, that's true. I think Bruce is an incredibly underrated guitarist though. The guy can really jam and no one ever really talks about it.

And both Nils and Little Steven got several solo highlights last night which were fantastic.

I suppose, given the disdain people have Chuck "the plinker" Leavell, I can understand why some Stones fans don't like the heavy emphasis on Roy Bittan's piano and Federici's (now Charles Giordiano) organ. I think it's a wonderful sound, but it's not always balls-out rock'n'roll.

Jake Clemons is a fine young musician, but Clarence is simply irreplaceable. A huge part of the fun and chemistry onstage died with him sadly.

I agree with the sentiments of the Springsteen fan. With the sad passing of many of my favourite musicians over the last few years it's made it all too real that in the really not too distant future none of my favourite acts will be touring. Given that live music is the thing I love most in the world they will bleak days for me indeed. Still, I am 24 so I guess that was inevitable! However, I am very fortunate enough to have seen all my favourite bands/musicians (the ones that are still together/touring anyway) more than once. I also agree that ultimately it will never be enough, we'll always want one more!

Personally I've never understood people that complain about static setlists that go to multiple dates on the same tour. Ultimately, bands do tours to appeal to the people that will go to one show and not for us diehards that analyse every show and I can see the logic in having a really tightly rehearsed static set. If bands do the same show/set for years on end than that's different IMO. However, I suppose there's always that dilemma about playing what the casual fans want (who make up most of the audience) vs playing more deep cuts.

On the subject of Bruce - saw him at the Isle Of Wight Festival in 2012 - one of the best damn shows I've ever seen - definitely up there with the Stones in my top five shows. (O/T but Tom Petty at the same festival was also a highlight). I agree re his guitar playing - he is very underrated but most of his strumming is way down in the mix. (At least it was when I saw him...)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-02-11 16:08 by Seb91.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Bruce is excellent, but his band is a bit anonymous. The Stones has a ridiculously distinct sound where we hear what everybody plays - all the time.

The E-street band may change the setlist all the time, but we rarely hear the nuances in what they're playing. It's a solid beat, keyboards and guitars way down in the mix.

I like both bands, but for different reasons. They can't really be compared, though. They're too different.

To me, there's still way too much posing and pausing from Keith and Ronnie. It really bothers me to see Keith just let go of his guitar and walk around basking in the crowd adulation while the song goes dead. To me, that's just pure negligence.

I want his right hand playing relentless rhythm. I know those days are LONG gone and it's pointless to complain at this point, but it still irritates me when I watch live vids and see him spend more time being Keith instead of playing like Keith.

Bruce's right arm/hand is 95 percent posing as well, as long as nobody hears that rhythm guitar. It's weird, because his playing is usually quite good.

I guess they both have their reasons for not really playing all the time (Bruce because of the music and the band's sound – Keith because of arthritis).

However, if Keith plays something, you can really hear it

About Bruce, the main raison is that he sings all the songs, Keith is in another world, he thinks doing something amazing each time he hits a string. It's the reason why I've stopped to watch them in concert.

Quote
ouroux58

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Bruce is excellent, but his band is a bit anonymous. The Stones has a ridiculously distinct sound where we hear what everybody plays - all the time.

The E-street band may change the setlist all the time, but we rarely hear the nuances in what they're playing. It's a solid beat, keyboards and guitars way down in the mix.

I like both bands, but for different reasons. They can't really be compared, though. They're too different.

To me, there's still way too much posing and pausing from Keith and Ronnie. It really bothers me to see Keith just let go of his guitar and walk around basking in the crowd adulation while the song goes dead. To me, that's just pure negligence.

I want his right hand playing relentless rhythm. I know those days are LONG gone and it's pointless to complain at this point, but it still irritates me when I watch live vids and see him spend more time being Keith instead of playing like Keith.

Bruce's right arm/hand is 95 percent posing as well, as long as nobody hears that rhythm guitar. It's weird, because his playing is usually quite good.

I guess they both have their reasons for not really playing all the time (Bruce because of the music and the band's sound – Keith because of arthritis).

However, if Keith plays something, you can really hear it

About Bruce, the main raison is that he sings all the songs, Keith is in another world, he thinks doing something amazing each time he hits a string. It's the reason why I've stopped to watch them in concert.

That's a PERFECT description of Keith. I felt slightly embarrassed watching him play the Sympathy solo recently...he just plays a few nondescript notes and mugs for the crowd like he's just ripped off the most amazing lead run ever.

Bruce will stop playing while he sings sometimes, but he's got Nils and Stevie backing him up so that the guitars aren't lost. When Keith stops, then you're relying on Ronnie, which isn't exactly a failsafe.

We'll have to differ between the home run-songs (SFTD and Satisfaction), where Keith is greeting the audience just as much as playing, and his focused playing – like on IORR and MR.

And like it or not, there IS something special happening everytime Keith plays (even the simplest stuff), due to his technique, his idiosynchrasy, approach to playing and unique sound. Bruce, Nils or Stevie don't have a lot of that, imo. That doesn't mean that I don't like their playing. It's just something entirely else.

I don't mean to get down on the Stones. I still LOVE them and I try to accept them for what they are at this point, but some of the videos I see online really bum me out.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Bruce is excellent, but his band is a bit anonymous. The Stones has a ridiculously distinct sound where we hear what everybody plays - all the time.

The E-street band may change the setlist all the time, but we rarely hear the nuances in what they're playing. It's a solid beat, keyboards and guitars way down in the mix.

I like both bands, but for different reasons. They can't really be compared, though. They're too different.

Well don't forget, this is not the same 'back-up' band as Bruce had during the 1970s-1980s...that 'E-Street' group had soloist musicians and a lot of personality. And it was an enjoyable three hour performance back then.