Jump to content
Greasy Lake Community

What are your unpopular Springsteen opinions?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jertucky said:

I thoroughly enjoyed the book. Some good stories in there that were fun to read. That said, it didn’t really provide much information on his first marriage which is a pretty major omission. And after I was done with it I didn’t have any particular urge to go back and re-read any part of it. I actually the biography that came out shortly before the autobiography (can’t remember the author. Carlson or something like that?) to be a better read.

Peter Ames Carlin. I enjoyed his book, Bruce. I knew I would because I’m a hardcore Beach Boys/Brian Wilson fanatic, I know a lot about them, and his book on Brian Wilson was illuminating even to me. But I still loved Bruce’s book more than Carlin’s. Bruce is one of our greatest storytellers and telling his own story, I mean, I was glued to just about every page. As for talking about his marriage with Julianne Phillips, maybe there wasn’t much to tell about it, maybe he felt that some of the songs on Tunnel of Love summed it up neatly, or maybe it was too brief in his life (keep in mind that he was often on the road) to really dwell upon. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Beautiful Loser said:

Peter Ames Carlin. I enjoyed his book, Bruce. I knew I would because I’m a hardcore Beach Boys/Brian Wilson fanatic, I know a lot about them, and his book on Brian Wilson was illuminating even to me. But I still loved Bruce’s book more than Carlin’s. Bruce is one of our greatest storytellers and telling his own story, I mean, I was glued to just about every page. As for talking about his marriage with Julianne Phillips, maybe there wasn’t much to tell about it, maybe he felt that some of the songs on Tunnel of Love summed it up neatly, or maybe it was too brief in his life (keep in mind that he was often on the road) to really dwell upon. 

I’m guessing there is quite a bit to talk about. I’ve known some people who were married less than a year and they definitely have stories to tell. More likely that he couldn’t because of his settlement with Julianne. Otherwise it is a pretty major omission from his story. Regardless, I thought it was good to read his vision but I found the other to be more illuminating. Both were enjoyable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most enjoyable book ive read on Bruce was by Marc Dolan, Bruce Springsteen and the promise of rock & roll 

I thought the Bruce book by Cartlin was lacking especially  more and more toward the end /as it approached the then current day and just petered out into the 21st century 

I did enjoy Born to run very much but surprisingly ive only read it twice 

I found it a book that required a lot of concentration 

I thought it was extremely well written and his mother and father and that one nun who was nice to him at school would have been very proud

Perhaps- and im sure it did - him talking about his mental health has helped other men to talk about their own struggles -( the whole world does not flock to a psychiatrists couch like American tv would have us beleave )

I would have called it Darkness on the edge ot town though

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that disappointed me about the book was that he skimmed over the recordings and the thoughts behind most of the albums from 2000 onwards, with the exception of the Rising.

Devils and Dust got a paragraph, Magic and Working on a Dream were not mentioned at all, and the only thing he said about Wrecking Ball was that he was surprised it wasn't better received.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL   There are so many! Namely, that Springsteen hit his artistic peak on 'The River" tour, flirted with self-parody on the 'Born in the USA' tour and that modern shows can't hold a candle to the ones he played when he was young.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 1234 said:

LOL   There are so many! Namely, that Springsteen hit his artistic peak on 'The River" tour, flirted with self-parody on the 'Born in the USA' tour

In other words you say EVERYTHING was not better in 1978 but in 1980-1981? Now that is indeed an unpopular opinion!:lol:

A really serious question: how do you judge the Tunnel Tour in this?

  • Hug 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Daisey Jeep said:

The most enjoyable book ive read on Bruce was by Marc Dolan, Bruce Springsteen and the promise of rock & roll 

I thought the Bruce book by Cartlin was lacking especially  more and more toward the end /as it approached the then current day and just petered out into the 21st century 

I did enjoy Born to run very much but surprisingly ive only read it twice 

I found it a book that required a lot of concentration 

I thought it was extremely well written and his mother and father and that one nun who was nice to him at school would have been very proud

Perhaps- and im sure it did - him talking about his mental health has helped other men to talk about their own struggles -( the whole world does not flock to a psychiatrists couch like American tv would have us beleave )

I would have called it Darkness on the edge ot town though

I’ve somehow only read Born To Run once. I want to read it again very soon, but this time the audiobook. I’m not usually an audiobook guy, I but I like the idea of the Boss telling his story into my ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Beautiful Loser said:

I’ve somehow only read Born To Run once. I want to read it again very soon, but this time the audiobook. I’m not usually an audiobook guy, I but I like the idea of the Boss telling his story into my ears.

I had a copy of the audio book on my phone that got stolen (after i left it in the ladies loos at the horrible coastlands mall in Paraparaumu)

The first few chapters i got to hear were most enjoyable 

Im sure you'll  enjoy it and I'll buy it again some day ...there is probsbly a free trial out there somewhere for audio books 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im watching SOB

Only my 3rd time

I gotta say i really love acoustic Joad 

And feel pretty much no love for any full band electric version

I know this makes no sence because i love electric Youngstown and i know Joad started out being electric long before comnie Tommy

But i just prefer it acoustic and quiet like the rest of its album 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lampi said:

In other words you say EVERYTHING was not better in 1978 but in 1980-1981? Now that is indeed an unpopular opinion!:lol:

A really serious question: how do you judge the Tunnel Tour in this?

His stage outfits on the Tunnel tour definitely look like self-parody

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, MacBruce said:

The only thing that disappointed me about the book was that he skimmed over the recordings and the thoughts behind most of the albums from 2000 onwards, with the exception of the Rising.

Devils and Dust got a paragraph, Magic and Working on a Dream were not mentioned at all, and the only thing he said about Wrecking Ball was that he was surprised it wasn't better received.

Yes, the book was very front-loaded, just as the Carlin book was, so I ultimately found it disappointing after an excellent start.  Too much repetition, and too much skimmed over or left out entirely.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ha ha Ive got a few. here we go !!
The 1978 Darkness Tour is overrated !!  Its not the best ( Its still great )Its just that i  Prefer other tours
for many of my favourite live versions. For example Badlands (  I Would go with a version  from the River Tour onwards) Born To Run .Ive never heard a version vocally on the Darkness  tour that satisfies me. Its played too dam fast, vocally too rushed (it was better in the early 75 tour versions) Bruce did admit that the Band  didnt really get it together live until 84/85 tour. I could go on I just think from a vocal perspective he became a better more consistent singer from the River Tour onward.
The other gripe I could mention would be No Surrender (band version live) Bruce has got into a habit of not singing right
till the end of verses and the chorus!!!!!.It might not be that noticable at the concert but when listening to the audio in retrospect  I find it disapointing cos i like the live arrangement. There must be someone out there as sad as me who  agrees with me !! ha

 

  • Love Love Love! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, greatmate said:

ha ha Ive got a few. here we go !!
The 1978 Darkness Tour is overrated !!  Its not the best ( Its still great )Its just that i  Prefer other tours
for many of my favourite live versions. For example Badlands (  I Would go with a version  from the River Tour onwards) Born To Run .Ive never heard a version vocally on the Darkness  tour that satisfies me. Its played too dam fast, vocally too rushed (it was better in the early 75 tour versions) Bruce did admit that the Band  didnt really get it together live until 84/85 tour. I could go on I just think from a vocal perspective he became a better more consistent singer from the River Tour onward.
The other gripe I could mention would be No Surrender (band version live) Bruce has got into a habit of not singing right
till the end of verses and the chorus!!!!!.It might not be that noticable at the concert but when listening to the audio in retrospect  I find it disapointing cos i like the live arrangement. There must be someone out there as sad as me who  agrees with me !! ha

 

Can't say I have noticed with the performances of No Surrender but I certainly agree with you about his singing greatly improving from The River tour onwards. The band became tighter as well, and the performances of the songs (in the main) improved over the years as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Bruce should have reunited the E Street Band. I think he should have stuck with his original decision to retire the band, to give himself more freedom to go in new musical directions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Tom74 said:

I don't think Bruce should have reunited the E Street Band. I think he should have stuck with his original decision to retire the band, to give himself more freedom to go in new musical directions.

I understand that this is your opinion, but do you really believe that to be true? Because I've seen the ESB play most all tunes from HT and LT, Death to My Hometown, Shackled and Drawn, Purple Rain, Stayin Alive and so on. And played them proudly! So saying Bruce can't have freedom in his music if the ESB is playing is ridiculous.  

  • Like 1
  • Love Love Love! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lampi said:

I think I posted the most unpopular opinion ever in another topic a few days ago....:ph34r:

Even if 'I really like Sting' (in this topic, not by myself) comes close too.

yes 

but ive tried to block it from my consciousness :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...