I have now seen both and I'd like to know how Rocks Off feels about the difference. Which one you feel now puts on a better show. The difference in the amount of songs played and the overall quality of the performance. Which is more of an event.
I'm not tryin to start  a fight here, just wanted to know some of your opinions. I'm torn, I was thrilled to get a chance to see The Stones, I believe to be  the Greatest Rock N Roll Band Ever.   BUT having just seen the Boss,  as he played like 30 songs and 3 hours, played the audience, with no front act, Interacted with his fans, I got say He Rocked the house.
Let the tar and feathering begin.

Lets see if Bruce plays for 3 hours when he's 65.

Hard to believe that a Rolling Stones message board has a Bruce Springsteen topic post w/ the most views and most replies.

As much as I love The Stones, and they're my favorite band, you just can't deny that Bruce and E Street Band is a better live act.. His '78 and '80/'81 tours are legendary, and he knows like noone else how to work the crowd

Plus let's face it... Mick Jagger, nowadays doesn't even look down at the crowd. Bruce on the other hand is a simple person and interacts with the crowd

This clip exemplyfies this very well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7oIThTv7Qk

"Lets see if Bruce plays for 3 hours when he's 65. 

Hard to believe that a Rolling Stones message board has a Bruce Springsteen topic post w/ the most views and most replies."

Bruce is/was doing a tour has been blowin' people away night after night for the past year.. The Stones realeased a movie and that was it.... Kinda explains why there's been little Stones discussion

Stunning fucking thread. ABSOLUTELY THE STONES ARE BETTER, DAY IN DAY OUT. LET"S NOT EVEN PRETEND THIS IS LEGIT QUESTION. I MEAN, WHAT THE FUC!

Let's not make this one of the worst threads in the History of RO.

It's the Stones for me....anytime, anyday, any age, any weather condition, any venue.....

Bruce and the ESB have been phenomenal. Those that love them should be so proud. I was lucky enough to catch a show and thought it was great!! An excellent dose of much needed  raw Rock n Roll. outstanding setlists and show times. Oh how I wish I could see the "boys" do a 3 hour show and take requests via sign from the crowd. But that ain't happenin'.

Apples and Oranges.

But NO BAND will EVER provide me the 'Tingle" of the Rolling Stones. That's just me. Longtime regular of a great Rolling Stones Board, Rocks Off!!!!

LJ.

LadyJane wrote on Aug 25^th, 2008 at 9:13pm:


I'm sorry....I can be an ass sometimes,ok a lot of times.

End of Story.  Its all political.  By the way....i'm going on out on a limb here, not much of one, but the R S (if able to vote in the US) would vote for BO.

Do you know, what I have been saying SCL, Now?

robpop wrote on Aug 25^th, 2008 at 9:28pm:


a very high percentage of artists would vote for him... no question, no doubt.

I have never seen the Stones live since I got in to them WAY TO LATE... Let's just hope we get at least one more tour, as I say to my friends when I've seen the Stones my life will be complete...
Anyway I'v seen Bruce three time, two of them in Gothenburg, Ullevi, this summer and it was the best 6 hours of my life   I just have to wait and see if the Stones can top that.... I think that I'm gonna have some problems to choose beacuse in my mind they sort of  do different things... I rather see Bruce on a Stadium because it's very powerful at the same time as he's very close to the audience.... and if I got to choose were to see the Stones I would say in a theater because that's when it's just down to the music (Even though I would like to see the stones on all the different venues)....

Since we are talking Bruce and the way he ineracts with the audience.. I have to share my proudest moment from this summer  

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RA_SMTBHxJA

/Linda

Quote:


As opposed to the Stones playing for less than two?

Some of his band are already around that age. Clarence Clemons is older than all of the Stones except Charlie.

Bruce has always played longer shows than the Stones have done at his age. Often around 50% longer. So your answer makes no sense.  He's the same age now that Jagger was on the Licks tour and is performing for over an hour longer.

Its an apples and oranges question anyway, but as someone who likes both acts equally (which gives me a different perspective than someone who only really likes one of them), the gulf unfortunately has never been greater although both put on excellent shows.

Personally, I'm grateful they're both still around and providing great entertainment.

Quote:


Well its only one thread. Feel free to avoid it if it hurts or leave if you dont like it. Then again, I suppose - considering its a music related board - we could always use another tiresome thread on US politics.

The last Stones show was a year ago. Since then their activity has consisted of attending about three film premieres. Bruce has released an album and played something like 105 shows - hence the prolonged interest on the one thread relating to him thats on this board. If he hardly sold any records and few people went to see him would it bother you anywhere near as much? I dont see any complaints when there are threads on Dylan or anyone else.

The way round it might be to post a Stones related thread.

I find Springsteen boring but I'm very much in the minority. I say the more good bands touring the better for everyone This thing about Stones having to be #1 in all things..well I kinda gave that up in high school.Music moods can change and the more variety thebetter.I saw Johnny Winter in Toronto in 1976 for instance and for that one night he was the Greatest Roc in Roll band in the World.So were the Dead and the Who few times for me anyway. Enjoy the Boss..U2..Zep...Who...Vedder..Winehouse...Lucinda etc..its all good!

Nellcote wrote on Aug 26^th, 2008 at 11:22am:



Yes Nelli it  was a dandy although Toronto got Brownsville Station as openers and I stayed in the boys room smokin pot for that snoozefest.JWintz as we called him then could really smoke an arena and Floyd Radford (?) his rhythm player was great too along with the bass player in the huge coonskin hat!...lol....ahhh the good old days

Good! More seats for those that will pay! I saw Brucie once & it was fine but it didn't "get" me like the Stones do. That "tingle" that LJ talks about.

SCL, at my concert at Nassau Co. back in March or April, I endured at least one moderately long speech & then a shorter one about our "loss of civil liberties"'or some such nonsense. All it did was encourage some guys above my seats to start a "USA!! USA!!" chant. Real productive yet oddly, not very rock & roll.

I respect Bruce, but don't like Bruce.

But how DARE you compare him w/ the Stones.

I've seen Springsteen once in 2000, and it was a good show.  But I find the Springsteen plays 3 hours thing so overblown.  He played 23 songs.  There were roughly 5 encores numbers, with a long stage exit and return between each.  There were 20 minutes of introductions.  I did not find the actual musical performance or energy to be any different from a No Security/Babylon show that would of been from that timeframe.

Quote:



Laughable Taliban-esque bollocks. If this was the Stones of 1972-73 when they were at their zenith creative and performance wise, you may have a point, but unfortunately it isnt. Its a nostalgia show now and nothing more - albeit (in most cases) a very good one with a collection of songs that few (if any) artists can match.

And to get back to your earlier post about playing three hour shows in your 60's, I saw the 62 year old Neil Young - a man who almost died from a brain aneurysm just two or three years ago -play back to back nights in March of this year, performing for two and three quarter hours each night - and in the form of his life, playing with an intensity that would have put any perfomer half his age to shame. I'd also rate those shows better than all but possibly two of the 13 Stones concerts I saw on their last tour (namely the first two shows at the 02)

let me put it this way.  bruce came to my neck of the woods probably 4-7 time this tour and i didn't go.  i knew the tickets would have cost a bundle and i have already seen him about 15 times back in the '80's so i have seen him enough already.  
don't get me wrong people, this last tour bruce sounded great and he played great gongs...i love bruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuce but i won't pay to see him anymore.  i watch pdm videos here for free.  i did enjoy him back in the eighties....those 4 hour concerts were the best.
if and when the stones come to giants again for 2 shows.....I'm there


everybody say ow

get down jimmy

Quote:

I skipped the last Stones Giants show. I had committed to something else that night & the travel is over 2 hours for me. I'm hoping they do Nassau Colosseum...

My beef with Bruce started with Dave Marsh comparing their respective shows on the 1978 tour.  Marsh said the Stones’ show was miserable compared to Springsteen’s.  I was 18 and just got back from seeing the Rolling Stones rock 80,000 people away at the Superdome in New Orleans.  To me the Rolling Stones were rock and roll deity – Springsteen, just another in a long line of the next Dylan.  Of course, Bruce has passed the test of time and I was far too hard on him all those 30 years ago.  However – and I’m showing my American bias – he still reminds me of someone down at Jiffy Lube doing an oil change, while Mick, Keith, Charlie, and even Ronnie are exotic creatures from the Mount Olympus of rock and roll.  Mick is ultimate rock icon.  Keith is what every guitar player in the 1970s wanted to look like.  The song catalogue of the Stones is beyond classic.  It is an unfair comparison.  Blue Jeans vs. an Armani suit – and I love jeans, but come on – they are still the Stones!  God, I still love the Rolling Stones.  

Keefj200 wrote on Aug 29^th, 2008 at 2:10pm:


it seems you are still stuck on the song, i'm on fire  or was it the flirty sexy rich bitch that got to you?

everybody say ow

I have to agree with ya Gazza.
With the US economy that way it is now, NO WAY can I afford to shell out 500.00 a ticket, unless I'm in the front row!!!!!!!! At that would be it. One show.

Oh and as for this:

"LJ mentioned Bon Jovi - I think their prices are even cheaper than Springsteen's."
Those poseurs WOULD HAVE TO PAY ME to endure a performance.
Shiver.......

LJ.

The days of any rock group filling stadiums night after night are gone.  The greedy industry has made it impossible for fans to do this.  And it looks like the Stones better pay attention to their remaining fans, if they intend on performing again and making any money!

And come now, lets be honest here.  How many of your friends outside this "circle of lunatics" even attend a concert?  Christ, I am having trouble even with begging my friends to go with me to a little venue to see a band or group that they like for $25!!!

I too shall go to fewer shows next year. This time i mean it!

Quote:



I say that every tour and it always ends up that I go to more instead.

Unfortunately, next time it's an absolute economic necessity.

maybe - in a perverse way - its just as well the Stones have become so expensive.  It makes it an easier choice.

Quote:


For the Stones?

I didn't say they were all $450. I said they had an "upper limit" of $450. The tickets for most of the US shows ranged from about $60 - $450, with a number of tickets in the front ten rows going for $99.  The AVERAGE ticket price was around $167. That figure would have been higher in some cities than others - ie, you would have got a higher % of tickets in the highest price range in cities like New York than would have been the case in Missoula, Montana for example.

Not sure how you figure that I'm suggesting Stones tickets are a "piss in the bucket" as I assume that means they're inexpensive. I think its quite obvious I'm suggesting they're a rip off.