FYI

The audience for 60 Minutes skews older than for any other program on television in the United States. I'm not sure what that says about Bruce, but it's probably not good.

tatters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The audience for 60 Minutes skews older than for
> any other program on television in the United
> States. I'm not sure what that says about Bruce,
> but it's probably not good.

Tatters, what are you, 15 or something? Do you listen to Public Radio? Do you have any clue about Mr. Springsteen's political leanings? It's a shame that Ed Bradley is not around anymore. Scott Pelley will be conducting the interview.

Tatter, I would like to hear from another R&R favorite. If you don't want to watch then that is your choice.

tatters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The audience for 60 Minutes skews older than for
> any other program on television in the United
> States. I'm not sure what that says about Bruce,
> but it's probably not good.

Probably says the same thing that it said about the Stones in '94 and '02!

its true that older viewers watch network news, but 60 minutes still is very reputatble. Its a very high profile place to be interviewed.

Let's watch it first, and then comment

I'm always looking to see what's on 60 Minutes.
Sometimes I'm interested in what will be on, sometimes not.
I'm watching this week.

BTW, my TV schedule has 60 Minutes running 90 minutes this week! Go figure!

bassplayer617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tatters Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The audience for 60 Minutes skews older than
> for
> > any other program on television in the United
> > States. I'm not sure what that says about
> Bruce,
> > but it's probably not good.
>
> Tatters, what are you, 15 or something? Do you
> listen to Public Radio? Do you have any clue
> about Mr. Springsteen's political leanings? It's a
> shame that Ed Bradley is not around anymore.
> Scott Pelley will be conducting the interview.


I couldn't care less what Bruce's political leanings are and neither should you. Bruce is on the show because he's what VERY old people think the "kids" are listening to. In other words, his career is almost dead.

sorry bruce but you have to wait for football to end, lol

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sorry bruce but you have to wait for football to
> end, lol

I don't mind the football, but I do mind watching those obnoxious, bad-suit-wearing morons after the game.

tatters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bassplayer617 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > tatters Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>

>
>
> I couldn't care less what Bruce's political
> leanings are and neither should you. Bruce is on
> the show because he's what VERY old people think
> the "kids" are listening to. In other words, his
> career is almost dead.


And your's is very much alive?..........Exactly how many records have you sold THIS WEEK?

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

Quote of the interview:

"Whatever the ticket price, we're there to deliver something that can't be paid for."

Edith Grove Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quote of the interview:
>
> "Whatever the ticket price, we're there to deliver
> something that can't be paid for."


At least Bruce's top face value ticket price, at least in Los Angeles, was less than $100.

Have a look at a recent setlist from Springsteen.

October 5 2007
Philadelphia, PA
Wachovia Center

Radio Nowhere
No Surrender
Lonesome Day
Gypsy Biker
Magic
Reason To Believe
Candy's Room
She's The One
Livin' In The Future
The Promised Land
Brilliant Disguise
My Hometown
Darlington County
Devil's Arcade
The Rising
Last To Die
Long Walk Home
Badlands

Girls In Their Summer Clothes
Thundercrack
Born To Run
Waitin' On A Sunny Day
American Land

A total of 23 tunes and 8 of them are from "Magic". Bruce is doing EIGHT new tunes at this gig and he doesn't have to do shows packed with warhorses in order to get people to attend his gigs. If Springsteen can do it, why can't the best rockers ever seem to get the picture and make some proper changes.

They may still pull out a decent rock show but The Stones are not the best rockers musically anymore for quite some time. Just listen to the great sounding Rattlesnake releases from the first shows and all the Spain shows who recently came out too.
It maybe pure lazy ness, I can just guess. I don't understand why they keep on playing the same songs tour after tour. Does not seem like a challenge to me at all. And I don't believe they do it for the money.

Edith Grove Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quote of the interview:
>
> "Whatever the ticket price, we're there to deliver
> something that can't be paid for."


That was a great quote. Love it. Good interview. Can't believe he is 58 and Born To Run is 32. I'm 36. Can't believe that song came out when I was 4. That can't be right.

tatters Wrote:
> I couldn't care less what Bruce's political
> leanings are and neither should you. Bruce is on
> the show because he's what VERY old people think
> the "kids" are listening to. In other words, his
> career is almost dead.


Yep....that album topping the charts worldwide and all those shows selling out in about two minutes just screams "call the undertaker!"

Watched the interview last night on 60 minutes and the one thing that annoyed me was that geeky laugh of his after he says something. I become suspect of anyone who laughs at their own jokes.

I think he's always been that way, laughing at himself.
He does a lot of that in his interview on Hail, Hail.

Scott Pelley is the worst interviewer on earth. I cannot believe he gets any plum assignments from CBS. I avoided this segment like I do almost all of his segments....also find Bruce hard to watch....there's an insincereness and self-absorption about him that is grating....

Shut up and Sing period

Floorbird Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Watched the interview last night on 60 minutes and
> the one thing that annoyed me was that geeky laugh
> of his after he says something. I become suspect
> of anyone who laughs at their own jokes.

Yeah I thought that was strange too but one thing I like about him (although I'm only a casual Springsteen fan) is that he comes off as an average guy. He has that likeable "working class shmoe" personality- and I mean that as a compliment not an insult.

As far as the post about his setlists I can't help but think maybe eight new songs are too much for a setlist? I'm the first one to admit The Stones should play more new songs than they do but Springsteen goes to the other extreme imo. The diehards must love it but if I went to a Springsteen concert as a casual fan I want to hear Jungleland, Hungry Heart etc. instead of some new stuff which probably pales in comparison.

.....anybody else feel like he has lost something with his singing voice???????
................ I admire his convictions. His aim is noble.

Rip This Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .....anybody else feel like he has lost something
> with his singing voice???????
> ................ I admire his convictions. His aim
> is noble.

Never seen him live but judging from the clips I saw last night yes- but he is 57 and you can say that about most veteran singers (Daltrey, Plant, Dylan etc.). Imo Jagger seems to be the exception since his voice is still great.

The Stones have their share of problems but in the guitarists area not the singer.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-08 18:37 by FrankM.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rip This Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > .....anybody else feel like he has lost
> something
> > with his singing voice???????
> > ................ I admire his convictions. His
> aim
> > is noble.
>
> Never seen him live but judging from the clips I
> saw last night yes-

Jesus...the tour's what - 3 shows in and you judge a performance based on a tiny news clip taken from a 140 minute performance?

but he is 57 and you can say
> that about most veteran singers (Daltrey, Plant,
> Dylan etc.). Imo Jagger seems to be the exception
> since his voice is still great.
>
> The Stones have their share of problems but in the
> guitarists area not the singer.


Uh...youve kinda overlooked the fact that since 2003 he's under medical orders not to sing for two nights in a row because his vocal cords are so sensitive, performs for about 100 minutes per show and had significant throat problems at the end of the Licks tour (which may have required medical treatment on his throat depending on who you believe). Mick's still singing REALLY well, but thats more to do with the fact that he's taken medical advice and has also learned to pace himself better as a vocalist down the years. For him to go full throttle like he did 20-30 years ago would leave him with a pretty limited future career. Mick never missed a show due to voice problems prior to 1997. Now count how many he's had to pull from 2003 to 2006.


I think Bruce did have significant voice problems around 1995 (certainly with his 'rock' voice anyway) but on recent tours its still holding up pretty well.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-08 20:03 by Gazza.

FrankM Wrote:
> As far as the post about his setlists I can't help
> but think maybe eight new songs are too much for a
> setlist? I'm the first one to admit The Stones
> should play more new songs than they do but
> Springsteen goes to the other extreme imo. The
> diehards must love it but if I went to a
> Springsteen concert as a casual fan I want to hear
> Jungleland, Hungry Heart etc. instead of some new
> stuff which probably pales in comparison.


I think its a question of self-perception, Frank. Springsteen still (rightly) sees himself as a 'current' artist and his fanbase largely sees it likewise. Whereas the Stones (and a larger % of their audience) have resigned themselves to being more of a nostalgia act.

Apples and oranges.

kees Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> It maybe pure lazy ness, I can just guess. I
> don't understand why they keep on playing the same
> songs tour after tour. . ..And I don't believe they
> do it for the money.


It is about the money!

Sure they love playing live, but if they're going to tour, the Stones want Maximum Money. At all times. Every tour has to make more, more, more money.
Therefore, price must go up, up, up. Always. Ticket price jump $100. US form one tour to the nest? No problem.
Because of that, meaning the amount of money the Stones charge, they must deliver the Warhorses always, otherwise the casual fans are not going to pay Stones-Prices for an obscure setlist.
It's a shame. I wish would could get more variety from the boys.

With the Stones it is always about the %&*#!!! Money!!!!!!

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Scott Pelley is the worst interviewer on earth. I
> cannot believe he gets any plum assignments from
> CBS. I avoided this segment like I do almost all
> of his segments....also find Bruce hard to
> watch....there's an insincereness and
> self-absorption about him that is grating....

You don't believe that Bruce spends his free time driving down lonely dirt roads at 4:00 AM, thinking about the darkness in our souls and the plight of the working man who lost his factory job, his family and his John Kerry bumper sticker? O ye of little faith!

"I couldn't care less what Bruce's political leanings are and neither should you. Bruce is on the show because he's what VERY old people think the "kids" are listening to. In other words, his career is almost dead."

maybe it is and maybe it aint, but if it is, then the stones career must not only be dead but the stink has even gone leaving nothing but bones, strolling bones but bones none the less.

feck sake !!!!