Jump to content
Greasy Lake Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

About NoneButTheBrave

  • Rank
  • Birthday 09/24/1985

Profile Information

  • Location
    Albany, NY
  • Springsteen fan since?
  • Does Mary's dress wave or sway?
    I don't think anybody cares...
  • Interests
    Friends, guitars, singing, books, movies...and oh yeah, music and Bruce
  • Sex?

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

1,941 profile views
  1. Yep. I never listened to the original record again after this. It is brilliant from start to finish and blows the old recording completely out of the water. Actually, pretty much every Bruce recording. Makes you wonder why didn't/don't record like that all the time.
  2. Don't get me wrong - the songs are great (well, mostly), but sound flat and dull for the most part. Conversely, the studio records of the modern era grab me a lot more, though the live versions are still almost always better to my ears.
  3. I would phrase the question the other way around. Pretty much all of 'em gain a lot when played live. There are few studio records (particularly the classics) that grab me. BTR, Darkness, The River, even Born in the USA, all sound like the band is on a leash and Bruce sings a lot of times like's he's constipated - esp. on Darkness and River. I got hooked on Bruce listening to Live 75/85 in my best friend's room about a good 20 years ago. When we dug up his dad's studio records, we were pretty much disappointed.
  4. Maybe it's just me, but I always thought these long, slow Ramrod versions were terrible. Roy's playing is great, but it always is. Plain and simple. Ramrod is not a good song in the first place and to stretch a song with no dynamic whatsoever to 10 Minutes+ was a terrible choice IMO. Slowing it down didn't help either. Ramrod, if necessary at all, works best in its short, poignant and fast-paced incarnation.
  5. Mönchengladbach 2013. If that was my last one, I'm completely fine with it. Consciously skipped The River 16 - boring setlists (until the last US leg), River is far from being my favorite album (his most overrated record in my book) and the shows just felt noticeably different, also because Bruce had virtually stopped moving.
  6. Hamburg 2008 - he kicked out Downbound Train for Hungry friggin' Heart. Granted, it turned out to be a nice rendition, but yikes...
  7. What I'd really love is the guitar album that Bruce has talked about repeatedly. Then take that on the road with only Bruce, Max, Steve, Garry and Roy....never gonna happen, but one can dream...
  8. Yup, what you call "tone" is a player's style - that goes for just about every guitar player out there, and especially the really good ones - they should be instantly recognizable, and typically are. And yes, Bruce doesn't fool around too much with effects/effect boards (unlike, for instance, Nils, who seems to be stepping on pedals more than actually playing). He uses a three-step foot switch. In his own words, "I've got one button to make it loud, one to make it even louder and one to make it really f*cking loud". The effect in use would be an overdrive, I guess. Any other effects
  9. I agree, I should have included that. Also on the 92/93 tour - things went downhill ever since 99.
  10. Why chauvinistic? I've been up front a number of times and have NEVER been able to hear her guitar, while being able to clearly identify the other three on stage. She basically strums a couple of very basic chords. Whether you hear that or not doesn't make a difference at all with three other, mostly electric, guitars in the mix. Now, if they actually turned off her mic.. And before I get accused of being a chauvinist: I like her voice and her solo stuff a lot. She just feels totally out of place on E Street.
  11. On recordings, I have a hard time hearing distinct guitars in the first place (obvious exceptions excluded) because the guitars on his records and live albums are often way down in the mix. On stage, telling them apart is no problem. Pretty much all the guitar you will often hear is Bruce because his telecaster friggin' dominates. I never conceived of Bruce/ESB as a guitar band. Until I saw them live. The guitar-heaviness blew me away, and whenever Bruce would stop playing, even if only for a second, the whole band lost its driving force.
  12. At 35, I'm not sure if my fandom wavers, but I simply don't feel the urge to do this anymore...I've seen him and the band up close more than enough times. It's been an amazing ride, but it's not a priority for me anymore. I'm not even sure I'd go see a show on the next tour at all. I already skipped the last one, even though I could have easily attended a few shows.
  13. I think they should consider stopping touring. Don't get me wrong, I love the ESB, but the last tour (five!! years ago) already showed a very considerable slow-down on part of the band and, specifically, Bruce. Springsteen/ESB concerts are high-octane, balls-to the-wall events. Physicality is such a large part of the show that it really does take away from the performance when missing. Standing still behind the mic doesn't matter for, say, Mark Knopfler, but it sure does for Bruce. Bottom line: Better to remember a great thing as it was (and 2016 was already borderline...) than cling
  14. It used to be Barcelona, but there's something about Hyde Park that makes it just epic, despite Bruce's voice being a bit strained... Tempe is a great film, but there are just too many forgettable songs on that one. If it was the complete show, it would be pretty close to the top. I love Western Stars and Dublin is also great. Not much of a fan of Hammersmith and Houston, but that's because I'm not particularly fond of the BTR/Darkness tours. The films themselves are really good, though.
  15. The version from East Berlin '88 comes to mind. That intro speech in that place at that time, and 250,000 East Germans singing that chorus...quite the thing, I guess
  • Create New...