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.

It could also be a manifestation of him being shy or nervous.

Springsteen has always been super shy and nervous in interviews, he seems to be getting more out of his shell these days. Does anybody know if he ever plays 2 of my Bruce Favorites live anymore ? COVER ME and POINT BLANK ??? Never see them on any set lists.....

A bit early to say, but I wouldnt hold your breath on Cover me making an appearance.

Point Blank - maybe an occasional one, ya never know.

Helter Skelter wrote:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

>Does anybody know if he ever plays 2 of my Bruce Favorites live anymore ? COVER ME and POINT BLANK ??? Never see them on any set lists.....

Point Blank.. great song, my favorite track from the river.

Point Blank was semi-regular on the 1999-2000 ESB reunion tour. Since then he played it just omce on the 'Rising' tour (Copenhagen 2003) and then just five times on the 2005 'Devils & Dust' solo tour.

'Cover Me' has been played just twice since 1992. The first one was at the Rising tour warm up show in Asbury Park in July 2002 and then again at a benefit gig in April this year at the stone Pony..

[www.greasylake.org]

A lot of his most well known songs havent been in the set since the last proper ESB tour (2003), not really surprising when you consider that the last 3 full tours have been so musically diverse (E Street Band, solo, Seeger Sessions)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-09 00:20 by Gazza.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.


Well I wasn't really bashing Springsteen- it was more like lumping him in with other veteran performers. They all struggle from time to time with their voices. You hear similar complaints about Plant and Daltrey.

Jagger seems to be the most consistent but you are right that he has to nurse his voice a lot in order to achieve that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-09 03:58 by FrankM.

T&A Wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------


also find Bruce hard to
> watch....there's an insincereness and
> self-absorption about him that is grating

I would have thought that would be an appealing factor for someone like you...........Although I will agree with you about Scott Pelley.I don't know why he found it necessary to ask the obligatory, why do you still do this question. Also asking Roy Bittan and Steve Van Zandt if they hate playing BTR. Another stupid question. Although he did seem to get pretty good access overall. The most interesting part of the interview was when he said Bruce sits down about 45 mins. before the show and rights out the setlist........... Himself. Not his keyboardist.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

Well if you are talking about self perception maybe you are right but as far as public perception I honestly don't see any difference between The Stones, Macca, Springsteen etc. as far as being current or relevant.

As far as their new material is concerned all of them are only relevant to the people that buy the album which is probably about the same number of people for Stones/Springsteen and maybe a little less for Macca.

In other words none of the new stuff by Macca. Springsteen, Stones gets any airplay nor does it make a major splash on the charts or among the general public. Born To Run, Satisfaction, and Band On The Run are ingrained into pop culture. Conversely Radio Nowhere, Streets Of Love and Jenny Wren will soon be forgotten.

If your argument is that Bruce plays eight new songs in order to keep his new music relevant among his fan base I can buy that argument but I just think it is a little too much. The Stones and Springsteen have huge catalogs of great songs. Imo a perfect mix would be maybe four or five new songs per setlist then some rarities and enough warhorses to keep the casual fans happy.

Bruce "self-absorbed"? Maybe. But so what? Name me one famous artist who isn't?

"Insincere"?. Absolutely no way. Bruce says it like he sees it, always has. That one of the things we love about him - the willingness to speak his mind on important issues, no matter what affect it has on sales. He doesn't cater to his audience either by just playing warhorses, but challenges them with new material too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-09 04:42 by Angus MacBagpipe.

Terrible interviewer, I agree, that Scott guy.
That said, it was still fun to hear Bruce talk. He really has come out of his shyness somewhat in the last few years to do a few tv shows.

Angus MacBagpipe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bruce "self-absorbed"? Maybe. But so what? Name me
> one famous artist who isn't?
>
> "Insincere"?. Absolutely no way. Bruce says it
> like he sees it, always has. That one of the
> things we love about him - the willingness to
> speak his mind on important issues, no matter what
> affect it has on sales. He doesn't cater to his
> audience either by just playing warhorses, but
> challenges them with new material too.


ok. not insincere. can we all just agree the guy is a total geek, then? thanks.

Good to see Thundercrack in the set, it may JUST MAY be a mainstay as it coming in the encore. As fun as they were I wont mis the covers section.

I get the point re "vetern" act bein relevant but how relveant are the charts and radio play these days ? not much in my opinion and if they were I hear tha tBruce came in at number 1 in the UK charts.

FrankM Wrote:
> In other words none of the new stuff by Macca.
> Springsteen, Stones gets any airplay nor does it
> make a major splash on the charts or among the
> general public.

How is reaching #1 in both the US and UK in your week of release not a 'major splash on the charts or among the general public"?

As for airplay - depends where you live I guess. Your radio 'culture' isnt necessarily the same as those elsewhere.


Born To Run, Satisfaction, and
> Band On The Run are ingrained into pop culture.

That only happens through time. 'Band on the run' and 'born to run' were only minor hits on first release.


> Conversely Radio Nowhere, Streets Of Love and
> Jenny Wren will soon be forgotten.


selective and pointless examples. In the case of the last two, its because theyre both crap, even in the eyes of the artist's fanbase.


>
> If your argument is that Bruce plays eight new
> songs in order to keep his new music relevant
> among his fan base I can buy that argument but I
> just think it is a little too much.

I think its more a case that he believes in the new music and so do his fans.


The Stones and
> Springsteen have huge catalogs of great songs. Imo
> a perfect mix would be maybe four or five new
> songs per setlist then some rarities and enough
> warhorses to keep the casual fans happy.

Depends if you view both acts - and their fanbases - the same way. Personally, I dont think there's much comparison, so what may be a perfect mix for one isnt necessarily the case for the other. Springsteen's fanbase has tended to support his newer music (especially when recorded with the E Street Band). The Stones fanbase - or the fanbase theyre targetting - doesnt.

tatters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

"Career is almost dead"?!!! Lemme see - number 1 album in the US (360,000 copies sold in the first week of release), and the UK. Plus it's a high Top 10 around the world. Sold out tour.

If that's your idea of "almost dead", then Shakespeare's still writing plays.

Gazza Wrote
===========

In the case of the last two, its because theyre both crap, even in the eyes of the artist's fanbase.

"Jenny Wren" crap in the eyes of McCartney's fanbase I don't think so. That song is good enough to appear on any beatles album and you know it! One of the standout tracks on "chaos & creation in the backyard".

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A bit early to say, but I wouldnt hold your breath
> on Cover me making an appearance.
>
> Point Blank - maybe an occasional one, ya never
> know.

Agree, mostly, but I wouldn't count anything out. Who would have thought Thundercrack would become an encore staple? Cadillac Ranch and Dancin in the Dark emerged Saturday in Philly. Like you said, ya never know.

Yes, there is an air of self-asorbtion about him, but to be fair he ain't the only one.

I'm not the greatest BROOOCE fan but I thought this was quite an honest interview and that he made some good, sincere points. He really turned me off a while back when he and Bono were on some crappy MTV or VH1 awards show, each trying to outdo the other in "I'm great but ain't I humble" routines.

Springsteen has written some great songs and I'm sure he will continue to do so.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-10 00:11 by stonesrule.

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

It'll be out of the Top 50 within a month and not every date is the US is doing well. His slowest ticket sales ever for the ESB - since the '70s. Hell, you can get 3/4 back n the lowers for Continetal Airlines Arena in NEW JERSEY for TONIGHT at 4:15pm in the afternoon - FOUR HOURS BEFORE HE HITS THE STAGE!

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FrankM Wrote:
> > In other words none of the new stuff by Macca.
> > Springsteen, Stones gets any airplay nor does
> it
> > make a major splash on the charts or among the
> > general public.
>
> How is reaching #1 in both the US and UK in your
> week of release not a 'major splash on the charts
> or among the general public"?


Well it will sink quickly just like The Stones did on the world charts where they were also number one. I'm not taking anything away from either The Stones,The Boss or Macca. To me they are all relevant in the sense that they still put out good music, still have giant tours that draw a lot of people and still top the charts even if only for a little while. I was making the point that as far as releasing new songs that will be remembered five years from now they are all equally irrelevant. To think The Boss is more relevant is nuts imo.
No one gives a crap about Radio Nowhere except the people that buy the album.

When was the last time he hit the charts with a top forty hit? Ten years ago. If you don't trust the charts then when was the last time he released a memorable song? The Rising? It was a joke compared to his classics.


> As for airplay - depends where you live I guess.
> Your radio 'culture' isnt necessarily the same as
> those elsewhere.


The new stuff by older artists gets very little airplay except maybe a few times when it is first released. This isn't a shortcoming of Springsteen or The Stones it's just the way it works.



> Born To Run, Satisfaction, and
> > Band On The Run are ingrained into pop culture.
>
> That only happens through time. 'Band on the run'
> and 'born to run' were only minor hits on first
> release.


Maybe some songs take time to grow but trust me nothing on Magic will be remembered five years from now or twenty years from now for that matter.


> > Conversely Radio Nowhere, Streets Of Love and
> > Jenny Wren will soon be forgotten.
>
>
> selective and pointless examples. In the case of
> the last two, its because theyre both crap, even
> in the eyes of the artist's fanbase.


Crap in your opinion but imo Bruce hasn't released anything worthwhile in eons- of course this is just my opinion.


> > If your argument is that Bruce plays eight new
> > songs in order to keep his new music relevant
> > among his fan base I can buy that argument but
> I
> > just think it is a little too much.
>
> I think its more a case that he believes in the
> new music and so do his fans.


Well on average his new stuff sells about the same as the new Stones stuff- maybe his E street band stuff sells more and his solo stuff maybe a little less so I don't see how his fan base believes in his new stuff more than the Stones fanbase.


> The Stones and
> > Springsteen have huge catalogs of great songs.
> Imo
> > a perfect mix would be maybe four or five new
> > songs per setlist then some rarities and enough
> > warhorses to keep the casual fans happy.
>
> Depends if you view both acts - and their fanbases
> - the same way. Personally, I dont think there's
> much comparison, so what may be a perfect mix for
> one isnt necessarily the case for the other.
> Springsteen's fanbase has tended to support his
> newer music (especially when recorded with the E
> Street Band). The Stones fanbase - or the fanbase
> theyre targetting - doesnt.


Fair point but everyone in the audience isn't a huge fan. Maybe some casual fans want to hear the classics. But hey I haven't seen him so it's no skin off my apple.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-10 00:24 by FrankM.

R Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza 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.
> >
> >
> > Yep....that album topping the charts worldwide
> and
> > all those shows selling out in about two
> minutes
> > just screams "call the undertaker!"
>
> It'll be out of the Top 50 within a month and not
> every date is the US is doing well. His slowest
> ticket sales ever for the ESB - since the '70s.
> Hell, you can get 3/4 back n the lowers for
> Continetal Airlines Arena in NEW JERSEY for
> TONIGHT at 4:15pm in the afternoon - FOUR HOURS
> BEFORE HE HITS THE STAGE!

Are you sure? The Meadowlands should be his area of strength as far as ticket sales go. I would think he would struggle more the further he gets away from the NJ/NY area.

R Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza 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.
> >
> >
> > Yep....that album topping the charts worldwide
> and
> > all those shows selling out in about two
> minutes
> > just screams "call the undertaker!"
>
> It'll be out of the Top 50 within a month and not
> every date is the US is doing well. His slowest
> ticket sales ever for the ESB - since the '70s.
> Hell, you can get 3/4 back n the lowers for
> Continetal Airlines Arena in NEW JERSEY for
> TONIGHT at 4:15pm in the afternoon - FOUR HOURS
> BEFORE HE HITS THE STAGE!


Two words - "ticket drops"

Well I couldn't get a ticket for the Springsteen show in December - sold out in minutes....and nobody answered my call

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > FrankM Wrote:
> > > In other words none of the new stuff by
> Macca.
> > > Springsteen, Stones gets any airplay nor does
> > it
> > > make a major splash on the charts or among
> the
> > > general public.
> >
> > How is reaching #1 in both the US and UK in
> your
> > week of release not a 'major splash on the
> charts
> > or among the general public"?
>
>
> Well it will sink quickly just like The Stones did
> on the world charts where they were also number
> one.


With respect, youre moving the goalposts here. You said it wasnt making a major splash. It has. And from past experience, its chart longevity should do OK.

I'm not taking anything away from either The
> Stones,The Boss or Macca. To me they are all
> relevant in the sense that they still put out good
> music, still have giant tours that draw a lot of
> people and still top the charts even if only for a
> little while.


agreed

I was making the point that as far
> as releasing new songs that will be remembered
> five years from now they are all equally
> irrelevant.

Remembered by who? The general public ? Why would they 'remember' songs by an artist they dont care about anyway? Thats the same with every artist. By his own fanbase? yes it will - absolutely. Thats pretty much been the case for most of his career.

To think The Boss is more relevant is
> nuts imo.

I think he has a far higher % of his audience who go to his shows being able to appreciate his newer music. Trust me, as someone who sees a lot of shows by BOTH Springsteen and the Stones, there is NO comparison. I was at the 3 Dublin shows last November that were taped and filmed for the live DVD and CD of that tour, and even though it was almost all new material, he played hardly any of his best known songs and the sound was entirely different to anything he'd done before, the crowd were going nuts. Imagine an equivalent at a Stones or McCartney show? I dont think so.


> No one gives a crap about Radio Nowhere except the
> people that buy the album.

Who cares?



>
> When was the last time he hit the charts with a
> top forty hit? Ten years ago.

I dont know how things are in the US, but in the UK the average age of the people who buy singles is about 14. Why would someone in their 50's releasing albums of a folk music for example try and release singles that appeal to people barely old enough to shave?

If you don't trust
> the charts then when was the last time he released
> a memorable song?

last week. Next question.

The Rising? It was a joke
> compared to his classics.

Was it @#$%&. So now the definition of 'memorable' or 'classic' is based on YOUR view - someone who isnt really a fan anyway.


>
>
> > As for airplay - depends where you live I
> guess.
> > Your radio 'culture' isnt necessarily the same
> as
> > those elsewhere.
>
>
> The new stuff by older artists gets very little
> airplay except maybe a few times when it is first
> released. This isn't a shortcoming of Springsteen
> or The Stones it's just the way it works.

Its the same for pretty much everyone.
>
>
>
> > Born To Run, Satisfaction, and
> > > Band On The Run are ingrained into pop
> culture.
> >
> > That only happens through time. 'Band on the
> run'
> > and 'born to run' were only minor hits on first
> > release.
>
>
> Maybe some songs take time to grow but trust me
> nothing on Magic will be remembered five years
> from now or twenty years from now for that
> matter.

Remembered by who? You? Why should he worry about whether someone who isnt really a fan will play his new record in five years time?


>
>
> > > Conversely Radio Nowhere, Streets Of Love and
> > > Jenny Wren will soon be forgotten.
> >
> >
> > selective and pointless examples. In the case
> of
> > the last two, its because theyre both crap,
> even
> > in the eyes of the artist's fanbase.
>
>
> Crap in your opinion but imo Bruce hasn't released
> anything worthwhile in eons- of course this is
> just my opinion.

which makes your claim as redundant in my opinion as mine is in yours.

>
>
> > > If your argument is that Bruce plays eight
> new
> > > songs in order to keep his new music relevant
> > > among his fan base I can buy that argument
> but
> > I
> > > just think it is a little too much.
> >
> > I think its more a case that he believes in the
> > new music and so do his fans.
>
>
> Well on average his new stuff sells about the same
> as the new Stones stuff

More.

- maybe his E street band
> stuff sells more and his solo stuff maybe a little
> less so I don't see how his fan base believes in
> his new stuff more than the Stones fanbase.


The proof that they 'believe' in it is because they know it. Heres a clue, Frank. At the rehearsal shows last week they were singing along with the new songs - and they hadnt even been released yet. The people who are buying his new material are the ones who are also buying his tickets. A higher % of Stones audiences arent buying THEIR new releases (the Stones play to bigger audiences than Bruce does, in general. Compare ticket sales on the last Stones tour versus album sales of ABB.)

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Angus MacBagpipe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Bruce "self-absorbed"? Maybe. But so what? Name
> me
> > one famous artist who isn't?
> >
> > "Insincere"?. Absolutely no way. Bruce says it
> > like he sees it, always has. That one of the
> > things we love about him - the willingness to
> > speak his mind on important issues, no matter
> what
> > affect it has on sales. He doesn't cater to his
> > audience either by just playing warhorses, but
> > challenges them with new material too.
>
>
> ok. not insincere. can we all just agree the guy
> is a total geek, then? thanks.


I think what it is is that hes not so quick to draw a line between his own hype and reality the way Mick Jagger is.

FrankM Wrote:
> > > In other words none of the new stuff by
> Macca.
> > > Springsteen, Stones gets any airplay nor does
> > it
> > > make a major splash on the charts or among
> the
> > > general public.
> >
> > How is reaching #1 in both the US and UK in
> your
> > week of release not a 'major splash on the
> charts
> > or among the general public"?


Three consecutive #1 albums (The Rising, Devils & Dust, Magic) on both UK & US only during the last 5 years, plus We Shall Overcome at #3 on both sides of the Atlantic, all Platinum and Multi-Platinum sellers and even with a Hot 100 charting single each album.

When was the last time the Stones achieved a string like that? Some Girls, Emotional Rescue and Tattoo You, almost 30 years ago!

Magic sold 80k during the first week in UK, the double of ABB in the opening week.


>
> When was the last time he hit the charts with a
> top forty hit? Ten years ago.

He can't hit the Top 40 in U.S with the current format, you need BIG airplay on R&B/Pop radio to get in there. He did an impressive showing with The Rising, the song got to #52 and spent 3 months in the Hot 100. The song Devils & Dust also got some airplay and charted at #72 in 2005, not bad for a complete uncommercial tune. Radio Nowhere will debut in the Hot 100 tomorrow, is currently bubbling under (#108), but it got a big amount of airplay last week.

A much better showing than the Stones singles of the last 10 years, with only 2 Hot 100 hits (Saint Of Me and the remix of SFTD) and only at #94 & #97.
ABB was the first album without a Hot 100 hit, not even bubbling under.

...........that's some sobering numbers georgelicks.

georgelicks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FrankM Wrote:
> > > > In other words none of the new stuff by
> > Macca.
> > > > Springsteen, Stones gets any airplay nor
> does
> > > it
> > > > make a major splash on the charts or among
> > the
> > > > general public.
> > >
> > > How is reaching #1 in both the US and UK in
> > your
> > > week of release not a 'major splash on the
> > charts
> > > or among the general public"?
>
>
> Three consecutive #1 albums (The Rising, Devils &
> Dust, Magic) on both UK & US only during the last
> 5 years, plus We Shall Overcome at #3 on both
> sides of the Atlantic, all Platinum and
> Multi-Platinum sellers and even with a Hot 100
> charting single each album.


Are we going to compare The Stones to Springsteen now. Okay First of all people get way to hung up on chart positions instead of looking at the album sales. An album can peak at number twenty and still sell two million copies and an album can peak at number one and only go gold.

Devils & Dust is only certified gold unless I am mistaken so lets not make it out to be a giant success. The Rising was certified double platinum but you have to understand Bruce is on a different timetable than The Stones. He is basically a decade behind them as far as the beginning of his chart success so as far as equivalent periods in their careers go The Rising and Magic are the rough equivalent of Steel Wheels and Voodoo Lounge. Do you want to compare the worldwide sales numbers of those four albums? Probably pretty close.


> When was the last time the Stones achieved a
> string like that? Some Girls, Emotional Rescue and
> Tattoo You, almost 30 years ago!


Well lets see the three albums mentioned above sold ten million copies just in the U.S. alone and spawned classics like Miss You, Beast Of Burden and Start Me Up so how can you compare these to the last three Bruce albums with a straight face.


> Magic sold 80k during the first week in UK, the
> double of ABB in the opening week.


Again he is on a differnt timeline. We will see if Magic sells better than Voodoo lounge. If it does I'll tip my hat to him, although it doens't mean he is better than The Stones.


> > When was the last time he hit the charts with a
>
> > top forty hit? Ten years ago.
>
> He can't hit the Top 40 in U.S with the current
> format, you need BIG airplay on R&B/Pop radio to
> get in there. He did an impressive showing with
> The Rising, the song got to #52 and spent 3 months


#52 is impressive? If newer rock bands can have top forty hits why can't The Boss. You are making excuses for him imo. The Stones don't hit the top forty in the U.S. either but they had their share of chart hits- far more than Springsteen.


> in the Hot 100. The song Devils & Dust also got
> some airplay and charted at #72 in 2005, not bad
> for a complete uncommercial tune. Radio Nowhere
> will debut in the Hot 100 tomorrow, is currently
> bubbling under (#108), but it got a big amount of
> airplay last week.
>
> A much better showing than the Stones singles of
> the last 10 years, with only 2 Hot 100 hits (Saint
> Of Me and the remix of SFTD) and only at #94 &
> #97.
> ABB was the first album without a Hot 100 hit, not
> even bubbling under.


The Stones have more chart success since 1990 than Springsteen even though Springsteen is a younger artist. The Stones have thirteen top forty hits since 1990 between the U.S. and UK charts. Springsteen has ten I believe between the two charts.

But if you are so hung up on number ones George ask yourself how many number one tours Springsteen has?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-10 16:02 by FrankM.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> R Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gazza 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yep....that album topping the charts
> worldwide
> > and
> > > all those shows selling out in about two
> > minutes
> > > just screams "call the undertaker!"
> >
> > It'll be out of the Top 50 within a month and
> not
> > every date is the US is doing well. His slowest
> > ticket sales ever for the ESB - since the '70s.
> > Hell, you can get 3/4 back n the lowers for
> > Continetal Airlines Arena in NEW JERSEY for
> > TONIGHT at 4:15pm in the afternoon - FOUR HOURS
> > BEFORE HE HITS THE STAGE!
>
>
> Two words - "ticket drops"

Usually his ticket drops are mainfloors, about row 30. Be that as it may, Detroit for example, is still only about 75% sold for ONE SHOW.

the floor is GA, so its somewhat hard to do a drop for a specific row.

Detroit seems to be a dead market. It was the same for the Stones show there two years ago. One of the slowest sellers on the entire tour as I recall. In any region youre always going to have some places that sell like hot cakes and some that are slower. Whens that show anyway? Three weeks? Hardly cause for alarm.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the floor is GA, so its somewhat hard to do a drop
> for a specific row.
>
> Detroit seems to be a dead market. It was the same
> for the Stones show there two years ago. One of
> the slowest sellers on the entire tour as I
> recall. In any region youre always going to have
> some places that sell like hot cakes and some that
> are slower. Whens that show anyway? Three weeks?
> Hardly cause for alarm.

True, I'd forgotten about the floor GA abomination. However Bruce SOLD OUT two nights in the same venue in 1999 and almost two nights w/ the feaux ESB in 1991. Simple fact is he has permanently alienated about a third of his longtime fanbase via his whiney political harangues. Who the hell wants to pay $100 a head to be lectured?