Am I wrong, or did he play four hours and include only one song (Dancing in the Dark) from Born in the USA?

Did he do this?

[www.youtube.com]

Four hours is pretty good at his age.

I saw him play close to 5-1/2 hours in 1978. I think it was 5 hours 20 minutes.

And I saw him play just under 5 hours in 1981.

I really loved Bruce in those days. He was giving the Stones a run for their money on "Greatest Rock and Roll Band In The World" in that time period.

I would be bored to tears with 4 hours of Bruce. But that's just my taste; he never tripped my trigger. I wouldn't mind seeing him live maybe once but two hours would be sufficient. Yes, and he does sound a bit forced and over the top from what I've heard of his live act.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
Send It To me
Am I wrong, or did he play four hours and include only one song (Dancing in the Dark) from Born in the USA?

m

he played "no surrender" too.

i don't see anymore

Quote
shattered
Did he do this?

[www.youtube.com]

He did not unfortunately. Probably for the best. I love the song, but it'd be lost on a stadium.

And yeah, only two Born In The USA songs, Dancing and Surrender.

As for the longer shows, he never even got close in the 70s and 80s. He had intermissions, and with those they reached about 4 hours. Only a handful of times did he actually reach close to 4, one of which being a New Years Eve one which is understandable. Nowadays when he does it, its no intermission and its almost constant music. Way different from the old days. It is impressive.

This is not still his "River tour" or was this just a special show for NJ?
Whatever the current tour is, his shows are always pretty spectacular!

Quote
swimtothemoon
This is not still his "River tour" or was this just a special show for NJ?
Whatever the current tour is, his shows are always pretty spectacular!

It IS still his "River tour" although as with all tours when they get to US stadiums, thats barely accurate. It becomes a free for all, which is fine with me although amongst hardcore fans has become the first real time he's touring for absolutely no reason. Usually he does have an album he's pushing and they cling to that reasoning by his stadium run, even though they are largely as free for all as this. It is what it is and you can't please everyone. I'm far from apologizing for him, but all I can say is I know I had already seen the River, so I skipped all the shows earlier this year and was waiting for these more freeform stadium shows.

Springsteen plays 4 hour set in NJ.

Make that : "Springsteen plays [A TEPID] 4 hour set in NJ"

That's the problem with him: he thinks it's still 1978 and he can still play exciting AND long shows. Well he can't.

Brooce should realize it's either "exciting" or "long" shows.

last time in vienna, he played 4 hours i think, the last hour they turned on the Stadium light because he should stop but didnt

When I saw him in Dallas a few months ago, the house lights were up for at least the last two hours (that was a 3 1/2 hour show), but not because he was supposed to stop, he asks for them to be turned on.

It seems pointless to argue about whether his long shows are exciting or not--it obviously depends on factors like how much you like Bruce and *ahem* whether you were there or not. As far as I was concerned, Dallas was a long and exciting show, and as none of the audience was leaving, I'm guessing I wasn't alone in that.

Call me nut, but I prefer concerts that are no longer than 2 hours or 2,5 hours maximum. My ears get tired after a while...

I couldn't stand Springsteen for more than two hours.
Quote from the article in ultimateclassicrock: "including appearances from guitarist Tom Morello, guest vocals from a three-year-old fan, a marriage proposal, and the presence of Springsteen’s mother Adele in the audience"
that's embarrassing, isn't it?

Nice...kind of 2 Concerts in one...

2 1 2 0

Quote
dcba
Springsteen plays 4 hour set in NJ.

Make that : "Springsteen plays [A TEPID] 4 hour set in NJ"

That's the problem with him: he thinks it's still 1978 and he can still play exciting AND long shows. Well he can't.

Bruoce should realize it's either "exciting" or "long" shows.

Well, I guess you know best

Quote
Aquamarine

It seems pointless to argue about whether his long shows are exciting or not--it obviously depends on factors like how much you like Bruce and *ahem* whether you were there or not.

I've said it before but if I have to choose between someone telling me how great a gig was and having the opportunity to listen to a tape of the show in question I'll pick the tape.
People lie, willingly or not. Tapes don't lie. I listened to the bunch of 2013 Brooce shows Crystal Cat released : quality is stellar but they document accurately what happened at these shows. I'm sorry but the music was tedious, absolutemy tedious.

You have to be like a cop : witnesses' accounts are worthless, only physical evidence counts!

Quote
dcba

Quote
Aquamarine

It seems pointless to argue about whether his long shows are exciting or not--it obviously depends on factors like how much you like Bruce and *ahem* whether you were there or not.

I've said it before but if I have to choose between someone telling me how great a gig was and having the opportunity to listen to a tape of the show in question I'll pick the tape.
People lie, willingly or not. Tapes don't lie. I listened to the bunch of 2013 Brooce shows Crystal Cat released : quality is stellar but they document accurately what happened at these shows. I'm sorry but the music was tedious, absolutemy tedious.

You have to be like a cop : witnesses' accounts are worthless, only physical evidence counts!

Hmmmm. Sort of disagree. True, a tape can tell you a lot about the technical excellence of the performance - or lack of it - but it may not catch the overall vibe and feel of being there. Case in point would be the Stones in Philly 1981. A tape could tell you it was a bad performance but from where I was right in front of the stage it was exciting and lots of fun!

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

I thought he was doing The River in its entirety on this tour, that's how it was billed. I'm going to the VA Beach show on Saturday - I'd rather see the whole of the River than 4 hours of covers and obscurities.

It's sad that people pay good money, only to be subjected to 4 hours of that.

Quote
ElGeordie
I thought he was doing The River in its entirety on this tour, that's how it was billed. I'm going to the VA Beach show on Saturday - I'd rather see the whole of the River than 4 hours of covers and obscurities.

Not on this go around. The stadium shows in Europe and now these final stadium US shows are featuring abbreviated River selections and not the whole album. I don't know if the intimacy of the River album (ie all the ballads) work well in a large stadium show.

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
Case in point would be the Stones in Philly 1981. A tape could tell you it was a bad performance but from where I was right in front of the stage it was exciting and lots of fun!

I was there too. And we could hear that the Stones were really playing bad that day !

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
swimtothemoon
This is not still his "River tour" or was this just a special show for NJ?
Whatever the current tour is, his shows are always pretty spectacular!

It IS still his "River tour" although as with all tours when they get to US stadiums, thats barely accurate. It becomes a free for all, which is fine with me although amongst hardcore fans has become the first real time he's touring for absolutely no reason. Usually he does have an album he's pushing and they cling to that reasoning by his stadium run, even though they are largely as free for all as this. It is what it is and you can't please everyone. I'm far from apologizing for him, but all I can say is I know I had already seen the River, so I skipped all the shows earlier this year and was waiting for these more freeform stadium shows.

he does have a companion to his book due to out this year with several pre 1973 unreleased songs on it

WATCH AS COUPLE GETS ENGAGED DURING THE ENCORE "Jersey Girl"...
Bruce notices the commotion in front of the stage, invites them up to the stage.
Great moment... (Skip to 3:30 if you don't want to hear the whole song.)

[www.youtube.com]






Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-27 18:30 by schillid.

Quote
RipThisBone

ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........

Hope everybody had a great time.



Edit:
Bruce's 4 minutes with THE ROLLING STONES playing TUMBLING DICE in 2012 was enough. Everybody should quit at a high!

Agreed. That's like 3 hours too long. So many of his songs sound the same. Wonder how much time he spent pontificating a la bono

Wow...never knew there were so many Bruce haters out there or people that would b*tch about the length of a concert. McCartney does close to three hour shows. Does he play too long and play too many warhorses? Both he and Springsteen believe in entertaining their fans and giving them their money's worth. IMHO, I don't think I could say the same for the Stones in terms of concern for entertaining their fans.

Quote
hopkins
whew, just time to relish and say thank you and "rock it out, rock it out!" as Mick kept saying at the Fonda when they let BS fly and blew every mind in the place.

Brown Sugar has not blown anyone's mind since 1975. It has been in the "run for the bus" rotation for the last few decades. By the time it's played at a show, you are usually thinking about how fast you can exit the arena and leave the parking lot. I know they are.

Quote
dmay
Both he and Springsteen believe in entertaining their fans and giving them their money's worth.

Mmmm... it's like saying "this restaurant is excellent cos portions are enormous! I had 2 kilos of fries in my plate!!!"
Give me quality over quantity in food... or music.

In 1978 when Bruce was at his apex he'd play for a bit more than 2 hrs. Almost 40 years later he plays almost twice as that. Sounds logical? Not to me...

The "everything and the kitchen sink" has no appeal to me. 4 hrs of Brooce in a row? I'd feel like Alex in "A Cloakwork Orange" : "please make it stop!!! i cant stand it no more!!!" ><

Quote
dmay
Wow...never knew there were so many Bruce haters out there or people that would b*tch about the length of a concert. McCartney does close to three hour shows. Does he play too long and play too many warhorses? Both he and Springsteen believe in entertaining their fans and giving them their money's worth. IMHO, I don't think I could say the same for the Stones in terms of concern for entertaining their fans.

He was never on my most coveted list of bands/musicians. I have never seen him live. But I will say that I totally respect and admire his ability to perform a long energetic show. I especially like the full album plays ALONG WITH a selection of other songs. With that being said, I think Stones shows beyond the pomp, have become quite irrelevant due to the set list limitations. Especially in the social media arena. You can't hide anymore.

I have seen Bruce several times and have enjoyed each show. Earlier this year, he played the entire "River" album which was excellant. Speaking for myself,
his songs certainly don't all sound the same and his shows have a varied setlist
which is refreshing. I will see him, once again, tomorrow in Chicago. Probably
not the four hour show here though...

Quote
dcba

Quote
Aquamarine

It seems pointless to argue about whether his long shows are exciting or not--it obviously depends on factors like how much you like Bruce and *ahem* whether you were there or not.

I've said it before but if I have to choose between someone telling me how great a gig was and having the opportunity to listen to a tape of the show in question I'll pick the tape.
People lie, willingly or not. Tapes don't lie. I listened to the bunch of 2013 Brooce shows Crystal Cat released : quality is stellar but they document accurately what happened at these shows. I'm sorry but the music was tedious, absolutemy tedious.

You have to be like a cop : witnesses' accounts are worthless, only physical evidence counts!

People don't lie, they just have different responses from you. Makes the world go round. (And also you can't get the live experience from a tape, as others have been saying. There are intangibles that just aren't recordable.)