Red Mosquito

Hopefully they go on tour this year so I can use my membership, because it will be my last year of it. That 40 bucks for a dog collar was it, I can't support that crap any more.

The No Code one is kind of cool, but not for 40 bucks.

liebzz wrote:

Lament wrote:This "longer shows" thread over there is like a work of art. I particularly enjoyed the response about how when Springsteen plays he just sits on a stool for three and a half hours.

Imagine that. I am not sure Springsteen knows how to keep still at all, even at 64.

I'll admit, I can't stand Bruce Springsteen, but every single time the topic of Bruce Springsteen live arises, the breathless recommendation is that you need to see him because "he has so much energy!" - as if, somehow, that's a thing. Who cares how energetic a musician is?

"Oh, dude, the songs are okay, but you should see him run! And don't get me started on the jumping. This guy is the best!"

remember the days when eddie was less animated and, in turn, less out of breath?

the shows back then didn't have energy?

Birds in Hell wrote:

liebzz wrote:

Lament wrote:This "longer shows" thread over there is like a work of art. I particularly enjoyed the response about how when Springsteen plays he just sits on a stool for three and a half hours.

Imagine that. I am not sure Springsteen knows how to keep still at all, even at 64.

I'll admit, I can't stand Bruce Springsteen, but every single time the topic of Bruce Springsteen live arises, the breathless recommendation is that you need to see him because "he has so much energy!" - as if, somehow, that's a thing. Who cares how energetic a musician is?

"Oh, dude, the songs are okay, but you should see him run! And don't get me started on the jumping. This guy is the best!"

Eh. I think you are missing it. Its the passion and intensity he brings to the performances that as is special. That is the energy spoken of. Its not about "running around". That is quite a simplification. But you probably should have just said "I just hate bruce springsteen"

Birds in Hell wrote:

liebzz wrote:

Lament wrote:This "longer shows" thread over there is like a work of art. I particularly enjoyed the response about how when Springsteen plays he just sits on a stool for three and a half hours.

Imagine that. I am not sure Springsteen knows how to keep still at all, even at 64.

I'll admit, I can't stand Bruce Springsteen, but every single time the topic of Bruce Springsteen live arises, the breathless recommendation is that you need to see him because "he has so much energy!" - as if, somehow, that's a thing. Who cares how energetic a musician is?

"Oh, dude, the songs are okay, but you should see him run! And don't get me started on the jumping. This guy is the best!"

I'm not a Springsteen fan, but by all accounts he's an incredibly passionate and zestful performer. I don't think he just runs around onstage.

Basically, what Strat said.

Where is that picture of Spenno holding the cat?

I like Bruce Springsteen songs and enjoy the music, and all that. Among my favorites big time, and it was mostly due to seeing him live.

It's not the jumping around, as noted here already. Really, the guy believes in the power of his own music, and has taken great pains to present that music in the live setting to display not just his passion for the words, and not just a mere display of energy, but putting every piece of his being into the performance of that song such that you can walk away saying "I don't like that song" but could never say "that sucked because not only don't I like that song, but it's clear he just mailed that in". And live, he's much more of a risk taker. The songs are rarely by the numbers but the band is incredibly tight. The arrangements of songs change and evolve and its always a work in progress yet always masterfully delivered. What a lot of people around here complain Pearl Jam don't do in their performances is almost precisely something Bruce and the E Street Band accomplish nightly (playing nearly flawless while throwing in occasional rarities expertly played while sticking to the very music that got him to where he is today).

Birds in Hell wrote:"Oh, dude, the songs are okay, but you should see him run! And don't get me started on the jumping. This guy is the best!"

Birds in Hell wrote:

liebzz wrote:

Lament wrote:This "longer shows" thread over there is like a work of art. I particularly enjoyed the response about how when Springsteen plays he just sits on a stool for three and a half hours.

Imagine that. I am not sure Springsteen knows how to keep still at all, even at 64.

I'll admit, I can't stand Bruce Springsteen, but every single time the topic of Bruce Springsteen live arises, the breathless recommendation is that you need to see him because "he has so much energy!" - as if, somehow, that's a thing. Who cares how energetic a musician is?

"Oh, dude, the songs are okay, but you should see him run! And don't get me started on the jumping. This guy is the best!"

I'm as unapologetically superfan with PJ goggles on at all times - about the albums, the live shows, etc. - as it gets and even I will say that Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band at the height of their powers from at least 1975-1982 were a better live rock band than Pearl Jam ever was.

If you can get your hands on it, check out the full Houston '78 DVD bootleg from the Darkness box set. That's a pretty damn good case for best live performer of all time. And that was back when he was playing much more lead guitar.

Listen to him sing his balls off here and play the shit out of the solos. Dude's gonna explode, and he keeps that level up throughout the entire show/tour. NOTE: not much "jumping around."

evenslow, that whole DVD is basically Exhibit A of my prior point. There's also a show from Passaic in '78 that is also unreal and was in my mind as I was writing that.

A lot of us here have the Hammersmith Odeon '75 live album. What strikes me more about that show is that in the Peter Carlin biography, there's this whole point about Bruce perceiving the show as a disaster. I mean, if that show is a disaster for him...

I remain unapologetic about the fact that live performance stands at a distant third to songwriting and album creation, for me.

The songs you've written, and the albums you gave them to, live a hell of a lot longer than your ability to play live. An artist whose live experience is above and beyond the album experience is cool, yeah...for a while. Then they're just a part of history. An artist who writes great songs and builds great albums can continue to impact new fans long after they've lost their abilities or passed on.

Bruce is a talented songwriter. I wish to high heaven he wasn't so locked into maintaining the persona. Those times that he does step outside of being E-Street or folk hero guy, he does some cool stuff...but it's so damn rare, and the rest of the time he just sounds like he's on repeat. Add to that the fact that a lot of his albums suffer in terms of either production (The River) or performance (Darkness), and he's a very frustrating guy to get into.

The River is, however, one of my favorite albums of all time. It's got the fire and hope of Born to Run, the grim confusion of Darkness, the playfulness of his earlier records, and the world-weary ache that would show up in future songs like Downbound Train and My Best Was Never Good Enough. It feels young, it feels old. It feels like it's working hard, thinking hard, and playing as much out of defiance as out of actual joy. In short, it feels like a life.

Sorry to derail (I feel like a thread dedicated to complaining about Pearl Jam is as good a thread as there is to derail), but I think when the performances are that transcendent, then it does take a step above the albums themselves. I also think Pearl Jam does this as well...that they are good enough live that it can overpower what they've recorded on album....they've just released so much live material that it's been over-disected, taken for granted, chewed up and spit out by the hardcore fans that ultimately leaves a poor clinical aftertaste...unless that is you've taken that step back that I am slowly learning is key for a superfan of anything.

Plus,when you release live material on CD/DVD/etc., you essentially do make the performances timeless.

On the side, while I do quite enjoy The River, I've never been as able to power through that record ad nausem the way I can Darkness - which I find to be his equivalent of a well worn shoe that's been through many miles and experiences, but still fits perfectly. It's just an incredible reaction to the hope and promise of Born to Run.

liebzz wrote:Sorry to derail (I feel like a thread dedicated to complaining about Pearl Jam is as good a thread as there is to derail), but I think when the performances are that transcendent, then it does take a step above the albums themselves. I also think Pearl Jam does this as well...that they are good enough live that it can overpower what they've recorded on album....they've just released so much live material that it's been over-disected, taken for granted, chewed up and spit out by the hardcore fans that ultimately leaves a poor clinical aftertaste...unless that is you've taken that step back that I am slowly learning is key for a superfan of anything.

Plus,when you release live material on CD/DVD/etc., you essentially do make the performances timeless.

On the side, while I do quite enjoy The River, I've never been as able to power through that record ad nausem the way I can Darkness - which I find to be his equivalent of a well worn shoe that's been through many miles and experiences, but still fits perfectly. It's just an incredible reaction to the hope and promise of Born to Run.

I see Bruce's albums and live performance as a marriage that demonstrates the commitment and earnestness of his songs. It's hard to separate one from the other. I agree. Darkness is his best.

More records, less shows. Especially since Ten Club membership means sh@@ these days.

After reading this thread for days and wanting to contribute (sadly through lack of time and eloquence), here's my $0.02.

Basically, for energy, read intensity. Bruce is an intense performer. The energy statement (and assumption) of a Bruce show is often misunderstood. I see it this way. There are 3 ways you can interpret energy in a performance.

1. Running jumping sliding etc. Madonna, Axl, Mick Jagger, Beyonce. They all are energetic performers and I don't know how they do it. Sure Bruce moves around alot but that is not what I take/mean as him giving an energetic performance.

2. Putting all his energy into the performance and knowing (without a doubt) that he has given his all to the show. I've seen Bruce 4 times and each one he was left spent. His commitment to the show was something to behold. as an example of the opposite I saw STP who just played a regular set and almost mailed it in. There was nothing there to show me any real commitment to the job. Hell they may as well as been answering phones.

3. Energy felt by the audience. We go to gigs to feel, to experience a connection with the artist through the music that is being made right there in front of us. To feel this energy makes that connection and makes it a collaborative event (think sports grounds and home support lifting a team, it's give and give). Dave A is drummer who creates energy whilst expelling energy. In every song you can feel his energy. It's like he's a fucking Prius.

Lucky for us we have a band who do 2 and 3 admirably without resorting to too much of 1 (Mike aside). Bruce does the same.

Excellent post. Basically everything I wanted to say in many more words.