but justifiably... for the reasons you made so clearly in your post just nowWatching the McCartney comments on here last night was like following a match thread on here where we're 2 nil up and everyone's still moaning!
Thats ironic I gave up at midnight, obviously I was not hooked at that point, though i might have been had he played some better songs up to that point.Last half hour was what Paul should of been doing from the start! No one wanted to listen to all his garbage in the last 30 years!
Thats ironic I gave up at midnight, obviously I was not hooked at that point, though i might have been had he played some better songs up to that point.
That’s a ridiculous post, he still does 3 hour plus sets, hardly disappears from the stage, he’s 72, fucking musical phenomenon, you may not like him but don’t fabricate your criticism.
Each to his own but I just can’t agree with you there, saw him at Bramhall Lane in 88 (I think), 4 hours plus, now down to 3, it’s all part of the theatre. No artist really go full pelt on a set, usually kick off with well known songs, tone it down then rock it at the end. Saw ELO at the MEN, Jeff Lynne a bit older but did just over a 75 minute set the came back on and did Roll Over Beethoven as an encore for 10 minutes, live the band but felt a bit cheated. Seen Bruce a few times, he’s a brilliant entertainer and yes you are right the E Street band are a fantastic bunch of Musicians in their own right, cheers.I do like Springsteen and have seen him quite a few times since the late 70s. He's a great performer but anyone who says he doesn't pad out his shows with band members' solos / jams etc, is kidding themselves.
The E Street Band is the phenomenon, and what makes Springsteen shows great occasions.