Discussion:
8-1 SETLIST - 10:51 update
(too old to reply)
Patrick1765
2003-08-02 02:57:15 UTC
Permalink
Date: 01/08/03 10:53 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time
19. Ramrod
20. Born to Run
21. Seven Nights to Rock
22. My City of Ruins
This is starting to look like sitting around waiting for the setlist of a
normal band. I'll bet LOHAD Rosie and DITD come next !
Tom Ucko
2003-08-02 03:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick1765
Date: 01/08/03 10:53 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time
19. Ramrod
20. Born to Run
21. Seven Nights to Rock
22. My City of Ruins
This is starting to look like sitting around waiting for the setlist of a
normal band. I'll bet LOHAD Rosie and DITD come next !
A "normal band" plays almost identical sets every night. Bruce has been
doing nothing even close to that.
Adam Dietz
2003-08-02 03:02:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Ucko
Post by Patrick1765
Date: 01/08/03 10:53 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time
19. Ramrod
20. Born to Run
21. Seven Nights to Rock
22. My City of Ruins
This is starting to look like sitting around waiting for the setlist of a
normal band. I'll bet LOHAD Rosie and DITD come next !
A "normal band" plays almost identical sets every night. Bruce has been
doing nothing even close to that.
a normal band would be home already...
Dj4eagle2
2003-08-02 03:00:27 UTC
Permalink
<<I'll bet LOHAD Rosie and DITD come next !>>

Betting no Rosie.
BENNO94
2003-08-02 03:07:02 UTC
Permalink
I'm with Patrick on this.....whatever happened to spur of the moment Bruce.
There is NOTHING different about this setlist, from the start of the stadium
shows 'til now.

I long for the days of The River tour or even the reunion shows. Lets get
creative again Boss....
Hal S 007
2003-08-02 03:09:55 UTC
Permalink
Comment: I long for the days of The River tour or even the reunion shows. Lets
get
creative again Boss....>>

The River tour had a lot less variation than this tour, esp since much of the
tour was barnstorming. Compare the 6 nights at CAA in '81, not that many
changes, to last week's 7 shows. There is no comparison. 2003 has MUCH more
variation.
River50938
2003-08-02 03:15:48 UTC
Permalink
the biggest problem is that now we have the ability to watch the show unfold
thru the internet...didn't have that in 80-81. We had to wait for a review or
a tape for a set list. So half of us gripe about the shows not totally
changing daily. They never really did....5 or 6 shows a night....and something
real special on occassion.
MaxLawman
2003-08-02 03:18:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hal S 007
he River tour had a lot less variation than this tour, esp since much of the
tour was barnstorming. Compare the 6 nights at CAA in '81, not that many
changes, to last week's 7 shows. There is no comparison. 2003 has MUCH more
variation.
You are correct but it is tough to compare since Bruce had a grand total of 44
officially released songs when he was on the River tour. Probably has upwards
of 150 right now. Kinda hard to have alot varation when there are so few songs
to choose from.

Paul
Hal S 007
2003-08-02 03:20:58 UTC
Permalink
Comment: You are correct but it is tough to compare since Bruce had a grand
total of 44 officially released songs when he was on the River tour. Probably
has upwards of 150 right now. Kinda hard to have alot varation when there are
so few songs to choose from. >>

That's true. And he did not play a lot of those released songs then. He plays
more of the 70s catalog now than he did then.
Patrick1765
2003-08-02 03:22:45 UTC
Permalink
Date: 01/08/03 11:18 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time
You are correct but it is tough to compare since Bruce had a grand total of 44
officially released songs when he was on the River tour. Probably has upwards
of 150 right now. Kinda hard to have alot varation when there are so few songs
to choose from.
Paul
No, back then he did unreleased songs, as he did on the reunion tour, and
people knew them from bootlegs.
Hal S 007
2003-08-02 03:30:44 UTC
Permalink
Comment: No, back then he did unreleased songs, as he did on the reunion tour,
and people knew them from bootlegs.>>

That was the Darkness tour mainly. On The River tour, he didn't debut any new
songs (unless you want to count the partial Open All Night during Ramrod at the
Garden) and Because The Night and Fire were both well known by the fan base
after being played regularly in 78.
Dj4eagle2
2003-08-02 03:35:24 UTC
Permalink
<<n The River tour, he didn't debut any new
songs (unless you want to count the partial Open All Night during Ramrod at the
Garden) and Because The Night and Fire were both well known by the fan base
after being played regularly in 78.>>

Couldn't one count Follow That Dream?
Of course there was Rendezvous and the B-sides.
Dj4eagle2
2003-08-02 03:23:12 UTC
Permalink
<<he River tour had a lot less variation than this tour, esp since much of the
tour was barnstorming. Compare the 6 nights at CAA in '81, not that many
changes, to last week's 7 shows. There is no comparison. 2003 has MUCH more
variation.>>

Agree with this but my biggest problem with say tonights setlist is that if you
take out the Rising stuff it looks remarkably like a standard reunion setlist:
Promised Land
Prove It
My Love
Darlington
Badlands
Out In the Street
Backstreets
10th
Ramrod
Born To Run
LOHAD
Mark Provenzano
2003-08-02 03:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hal S 007
Comment: I long for the days of The River tour or even the reunion shows. Lets
get creative again Boss....>>
The River tour had a lot less variation than this tour, esp since much of the
tour was barnstorming. Compare the 6 nights at CAA in '81, not that many
changes, to last week's 7 shows. There is no comparison. 2003 has MUCH more
variation.
Hmmm....the last three River shows I saw, which was the last three-night
stand of the tour:

ROCKIN' ALL OVER THE WORLD / PROVE IT ALL NIGHT / 10TH AVENUE FREEZE OUT /
DARKNESS ON THE EDGE OF TOWN / INDEPENDENCE DAY / WHO'LL STOP THE RAIN /
TRAPPED / TWO HEARTS / OUT IN THE STREET / THE PROMISED LAND / THE RIVER /
THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND / BADLANDS / THUNDER ROAD / HUNGRY HEART / YOU CAN
LOOK... / CADILLAC RANCH / SHERRY DARLING / JOLE BLON / JOHNNY BYE BYE /
POINT BLANK / CANDYS ROOM / RAMROD / ROSALITA / JUNGLELAND / BORN TO RUN /
DETROIT MEDLEY - YOU CAN'T SIT DOWN - SWEET SOUL MUSIC - SHAKE (end cut)

Audience tape - it is reported that 4th July Asbury Park (Sandy) was also
played at this show.

unique to the next night...

TIES THAT BIND / FACTORY / INDEPENDENCE DAY / I FOUGHT THE LAW / FOR YOU /
MONA - SHES THE ONE / WRECK ON THE HIGHWAY / RACING IN THE STREET / MONY
MONY / TWIST AND SHOUT



and the next:



JERSEY GIRL / INDEPENDENCE DAY / SAINT IN THE CITY / I WANNA MARRY YOU /
QUARTER TO THREE

Audience tape - Saint in The City played for first time on the tour and last
ever performance of the Here She Comes/I Wanna Marry You.

And that's in Chicago, not NJ or Philly. I think that compares pretty
favorably with the Reunion or the current tour for variety.
Hal S 007
2003-08-02 03:47:40 UTC
Permalink
Comment: And that's in Chicago, not NJ or Philly. I think that compares pretty
favorably with the Reunion or the current tour for variety.>>

As I noted, Chicago was a bit of an aberration on The River tour because during
that final week there were more changes than the rest of the tour. He played a
bunch of songs that hadn't previously been played. But even so, the amount of
variation was less than an average stand on either of the last two tours. And
we were talking comparisons of the complete tours, not one aberrational stand.
Mark Provenzano
2003-08-02 03:59:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hal S 007
Comment: And that's in Chicago, not NJ or Philly. I think that compares pretty
favorably with the Reunion or the current tour for variety.>>
As I noted, Chicago was a bit of an aberration on The River tour because during
that final week there were more changes than the rest of the tour. He played a
bunch of songs that hadn't previously been played. But even so, the amount of
variation was less than an average stand on either of the last two tours.
And
Post by Hal S 007
we were talking comparisons of the complete tours, not one aberrational stand.
Yeah, but I lived in aberrationville back then....

That tour, more than any other time I can remember, just had a feeling of
wild unpredictability every night. You knew certain things were gonna be
there, but you also knew there were going to be surprises. Like stopping
mid-song and calling out "Midnight Hour" in Milwaukee. Or audibiling
Jungleland at the end of the first set (same show,) because with the curfew
(imposed after a riot at a prior concert there, ) no one was sure if there
would be much of a second set. Or dropping Drive All Night in the middle of
the uptempo encores and watching as the crowd reaction build as the song
climaxed. Or opening with BTR...you get the idea.

I know, looking at the box scores 20+ years later, it might not seem that
way. But when you're 19...that's how it felt. Unpredictable. And I really
didn't get that feeling again until Philly '99.

Anyway, no complaints about setlist variety the past 4 years. I've seen
things I thought I'd never see. Songs I figured had been buried 25-30 years
ago.
revolution
2003-08-02 04:24:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hal S 007
As I noted, Chicago was a bit of an aberration on The River tour because during
that final week there were more changes than the rest of the tour. He played a
bunch of songs that hadn't previously been played. But even so, the amount of
variation was less than an average stand on either of the last two tours.
And
Post by Hal S 007
we were talking comparisons of the complete tours, not one aberrational stand.
In 1980 or 1981 it didn't matter how many or how few "changes" there were
from night to night. The shows - the performances - the moods - the FEEL
was different from night to night. That's just not the case anymore. It
doesn't matter how many song "changes" he does, I feel like I've been
seeing the same show over and over for the last couple of tours.
Jim Mitchell
2003-08-02 06:01:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hal S 007
Post by Hal S 007
As I noted, Chicago was a bit of an aberration on The River tour because
during
Post by Hal S 007
that final week there were more changes than the rest of the tour. He
played a
Post by Hal S 007
bunch of songs that hadn't previously been played. But even so, the
amount of
Post by Hal S 007
variation was less than an average stand on either of the last two tours.
And
Post by Hal S 007
we were talking comparisons of the complete tours, not one aberrational
stand.
In 1980 or 1981 it didn't matter how many or how few "changes" there were
from night to night. The shows - the performances - the moods - the FEEL
was different from night to night. That's just not the case anymore. It
doesn't matter how many song "changes" he does, I feel like I've been
seeing the same show over and over for the last couple of tours.
I'm sure that the relatively short length of time between these two most
recent tours has something to do with it, as well as his focus on material
from the same periods for both tours.

I saw two shows in 1999, and three in 2000- the back to back St. Louis/KC
shows still rank as the best musical moments of my life. This was the first
time I had ever tried going to mutliple shows (naturally I started doing
this when I have less time and more responsibilties, whereas it never even
occurred to me when I didn't have a care in the world), so I was somewhat
skeptical about spending the time and money on seeing "the same" shows.
However, by the time the last two 2000 shows came around, I felt like it was
virtually a different tour. The variations in the St. Louis and KC shows,
both from each other and from the rest of the tour, were just amazing. I
saw songs performed that I thought would never pop up again in my
concert-going lifetime. Those were some amazing nights. I got that feeling
again last year, between the August St. Louis show and the KC show a month
later. St. Louis was pretty routine (meaning Bruce seemed tired and the
setlist didn't vary from what I'd read in other cities) and not disimilar
from the Reunion shows in setlist and feel. The KC show just blew my
brother and me out of the water- again, we'd seen nothing like it with stuff
like "Something in the Night" and "Incident" on solo piano. However,
despite a few astounding setlist changes, the next show I saw on 7/27 again
felt like something I'd seen before. The only major highlight was being in
GA. Other than that, the show really seemed to lack a lot of the energy and
creativity that I know Bruce brings to his concerts most nights. I know
others disagree about this concert, but it just didn't do a whole lot for
me. I don't regret going, but I left feeling neither overwhelmed or a
strong desire to see another show. Part of it was simply me- I've explained
already that this was part of a trip to NYC, and we had the time of our
lives in the city. The concert itself seemed like almost like an obligation
when considering how much time it was taking away from everything else we
wanted to do. Another part of it is too much exposure to other shows
through the internet- reading setlists and opinions on a regular basis
leaves little surprise. Even Kitty's Back was predicted by a lot of people.
Another factor is that I get a slightly bad taste in my mouth from the
stadium shows and the blatant commercialism that goes along with this part
of the tour (I know I'll get flamed for that, but I don't care- I really
feel strongly that this is one of the more obvious commercial moves Bruce
has made, short of the 18 Tracks release). Those things are what I bring to
the shows and what impact my enjoyment/mood. That, combined with what I
believe is less focus on the artistic/creative end of things, makes me agree
that this leg of the tour is just not Bruce's finest moment. Still above
and beyond any other artist, but not quite what I've come to expect from
Bruce in my 11 shows and 17 years as a fan. We'll see how I feel after
Milwaukee...
Adam Dietz
2003-08-02 13:26:40 UTC
Permalink
"Jim Mitchell" <***@n_0_s_p_a_m_swbell.net> wrote in message news:XsIWa.5$u%***@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
(lots of other stuff blatantly snipped)
Post by Jim Mitchell
Another factor is that I get a slightly bad taste in my mouth from the
stadium shows and the blatant commercialism that goes along with this part
of the tour (I know I'll get flamed for that, but I don't care- I really
feel strongly that this is one of the more obvious commercial moves Bruce
has made, short of the 18 Tracks release). Those things are what I bring to
the shows and what impact my enjoyment/mood. That, combined with what I
believe is less focus on the artistic/creative end of things, makes me agree
that this leg of the tour is just not Bruce's finest moment. Still above
and beyond any other artist, but not quite what I've come to expect from
Bruce in my 11 shows and 17 years as a fan. We'll see how I feel after
Milwaukee...
Jim,

about the commercialism (and I do not disagree) - but how would you feel
under this scenario:

It has been reported here (not as fact, just as an "I have heard" rumor)
that at the end of the 1992-93 tour, Bruce gave each member of that band one
night's gross receipts as a bonus. What if the long Jersey stand
(coincidentally, 10 shows, 10 band members including the Springsteen family)
was a way to do the same - to give each member of the band a SERIOUSLY large
bonus at the end of the tour. Clarence has had financial issues in the past,
others have studios and other artistic endeavors that they may want to fund.
What if this was Bruce's way of saying "I'm not sure what the future may
hold, but each of you is going to have a nice nest egg no matter what."
Essentially, Bruce would then be free to do whatever he wanted next - rest,
acoustic, different or smaller band, or another fullband E Street album -
and he could make the decision without thinking about the financial
repercussions to his friends/employees. (Good Bosses DO think about these
things. Then they still lay you off. But with a nice severance package.)

That previous paragraph is a WHOLE lot of speculating. But if that were the
case, that this was done to take care of the Band (as well as the
Springsteen family, who really don't have to worry about money, I would
guess), would that take off a bit of the sting of the commercialism?

Of course, maybe he's just doing it because he wanted to make a whole lot of
$$$ in a short time...
Jim Mitchell
2003-08-02 15:51:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Dietz
(lots of other stuff blatantly snipped)
Post by Jim Mitchell
Another factor is that I get a slightly bad taste in my mouth from the
stadium shows and the blatant commercialism that goes along with this part
of the tour (I know I'll get flamed for that, but I don't care- I really
feel strongly that this is one of the more obvious commercial moves Bruce
has made, short of the 18 Tracks release). Those things are what I
bring
Post by Adam Dietz
to
Post by Jim Mitchell
the shows and what impact my enjoyment/mood. That, combined with what I
believe is less focus on the artistic/creative end of things, makes me
agree
Post by Jim Mitchell
that this leg of the tour is just not Bruce's finest moment. Still above
and beyond any other artist, but not quite what I've come to expect from
Bruce in my 11 shows and 17 years as a fan. We'll see how I feel after
Milwaukee...
Jim,
about the commercialism (and I do not disagree) - but how would you feel
It has been reported here (not as fact, just as an "I have heard" rumor)
that at the end of the 1992-93 tour, Bruce gave each member of that band one
night's gross receipts as a bonus. What if the long Jersey stand
(coincidentally, 10 shows, 10 band members including the Springsteen family)
was a way to do the same - to give each member of the band a SERIOUSLY large
bonus at the end of the tour. Clarence has had financial issues in the past,
others have studios and other artistic endeavors that they may want to fund.
What if this was Bruce's way of saying "I'm not sure what the future may
hold, but each of you is going to have a nice nest egg no matter what."
Essentially, Bruce would then be free to do whatever he wanted next - rest,
acoustic, different or smaller band, or another fullband E Street album -
and he could make the decision without thinking about the financial
repercussions to his friends/employees. (Good Bosses DO think about these
things. Then they still lay you off. But with a nice severance package.)
That previous paragraph is a WHOLE lot of speculating. But if that were the
case, that this was done to take care of the Band (as well as the
Springsteen family, who really don't have to worry about money, I would
guess), would that take off a bit of the sting of the commercialism?
Of course, maybe he's just doing it because he wanted to make a whole lot of
$$$ in a short time...
That would put it in a slightly different perspective, I guess. But when it
boils down to it that's still about making as much money as possible in as
short a period of time as possible. It's not as if he wouldn't still make
money hand over fist in better-suited venues. And to put it bluntly, the
financial well-being of a rock and roll band, even the E Street Band, is not
something that's really going to move me one way or the other.

While I'm not saying that Springsteen is simply going through the motions
for the sole purpose of making money, I do feel that the way this leg of the
tour is being planned and carried out appears (from my layperson's POV) to
be one of the more calculated, manipulative and profitable moves he's ever
made. As people have pointed out, there is actually much rhyme and reason
to how this touris being done: to maximize profit in the guaranteed
markets. The GS shows, when first announced, had the appearance of being
something reasonably special, even though they were in stadiums. They
looked (and were advertised) to be the last shows for the area, and likely
for the tour. Now they're just a scattered group of dates among a seemingly
endless schedule concentrated in the northeast. These shows are being
announced in such a way to take advantage of the hardcore fans in that part
of the country (I'm not saying they're being exploited, since they're
clearly willing to go and capable of making informed decisions about
spending the $$$)- no one is sure when are where the last dates will be,
dates are announced VERY selectively and slowly. And they're all being done
in stadiums, where only a fraction of the audience has a remote chance at
good seats. And they're being done with shows that are performed with the
usual energy and often remarkable setlist changes, but without anything
radically creative or groundbreaking- 7 shows in the GS and the shows
actually seem to be getting shorter, not longer. None of these things make
Springsteen an evil being. And I'm not so naive as to think that money is
never a determining factor. This just appears to be a more blatant attempt
at making lots and lots of money with slighlty less work- that's certainly
not something that many of us are used to from Bruce. That being said, he
still got my money and continues to hold my interest and devotion as a fan.
Adam Dietz
2003-08-02 16:00:22 UTC
Permalink
Oh, I agree with you 100%, I'm just wondering what the underlying motivation
is for the money grab - is it simply to make more money, faster? Is it to
make money for the band, a thank you for (in some cases) 30 years of
loyalty? Was there an element of "we're tired, let's do as many people in as
short a time as possible"?

In any event, the effect is still the same - stadium shows, which many of us
said would be lesser - and then, even with that realization, we STILL bought
tickets.
Post by Jim Mitchell
While I'm not saying that Springsteen is simply going through the motions
for the sole purpose of making money, I do feel that the way this leg of the
tour is being planned and carried out appears (from my layperson's POV) to
be one of the more calculated, manipulative and profitable moves he's ever
made. As people have pointed out, there is actually much rhyme and reason
to how this touris being done: to maximize profit in the guaranteed
markets. The GS shows, when first announced, had the appearance of being
something reasonably special, even though they were in stadiums. They
looked (and were advertised) to be the last shows for the area, and likely
for the tour. Now they're just a scattered group of dates among a seemingly
endless schedule concentrated in the northeast. These shows are being
announced in such a way to take advantage of the hardcore fans in that part
of the country (I'm not saying they're being exploited, since they're
clearly willing to go and capable of making informed decisions about
spending the $$$)- no one is sure when are where the last dates will be,
dates are announced VERY selectively and slowly. And they're all being done
in stadiums, where only a fraction of the audience has a remote chance at
good seats. And they're being done with shows that are performed with the
usual energy and often remarkable setlist changes, but without anything
radically creative or groundbreaking- 7 shows in the GS and the shows
actually seem to be getting shorter, not longer. None of these things make
Springsteen an evil being. And I'm not so naive as to think that money is
never a determining factor. This just appears to be a more blatant attempt
at making lots and lots of money with slighlty less work- that's certainly
not something that many of us are used to from Bruce. That being said, he
still got my money and continues to hold my interest and devotion as a fan.
lmmr
2003-08-02 16:03:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Dietz
Oh, I agree with you 100%, I'm just wondering what the underlying motivation
is for the money grab - is it simply to make more money, faster? Is it to
make money for the band, a thank you for (in some cases) 30 years of
loyalty? \
I agree with both of you, and I think that Adam you nailed it earlier, with
the "big payday" for the band members and then everyone goes separate
directions. Not necessarily ending the band, but not necessarily keeping it
together either.
clr
2003-08-02 22:19:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Mitchell
That would put it in a slightly different perspective, I guess. But when it
boils down to it that's still about making as much money as possible in as
short a period of time as possible. It's not as if he wouldn't still make
money hand over fist in better-suited venues.
but he doesn't want to raise ticket prices (clearly, or he would
have), and the shows are exhausting for them.
Post by Jim Mitchell
And to put it bluntly, the
financial well-being of a rock and roll band, even the E Street Band, is not
something that's really going to move me one way or the other.
but it's their job... that's how they make money. that's what they
do.
Post by Jim Mitchell
And they're being done with shows that are performed with the
usual energy and often remarkable setlist changes, but without anything
radically creative or groundbreaking- 7 shows in the GS and the shows
actually seem to be getting shorter, not longer. None of these things make
Springsteen an evil being. And I'm not so naive as to think that money is
never a determining factor. This just appears to be a more blatant attempt
at making lots and lots of money with slighlty less work- that's certainly
not something that many of us are used to from Bruce. That being said, he
still got my money and continues to hold my interest and devotion as a fan.
the problem is that he set this bar for himself many many years ago,
and we'll never let him live it down, won't we? even if he plays an
industry average show, or above industry average, even if the ticket
prices aren't anywhere near what he could charge, with all the things
he COULD do, and *doesn't* do...

i don't know what my invisible border is for bruce to cross before i
get fed up. for me with the who, it was the $192.50 per ticket price
on the last tour. i saw that - combined with "overture" being in the
fucking clarinex commercial and "WGFA" in the nissan commercial
(overture i could live with, but WGFA??? *that* song? and
"bargain"????? i guess if it bothers me it should bother me but those
two songs in particular bothered me given what they were).

if john hadn't left this earth (and can i ask for some kindness here,
you may think he's a fuckwit and i do too, but it's like criticizing a
family member for me), i would not have gone, and i would have been
fine with that. and i didn't go to any more shows on that tour. the
line was crossed. i still love that band immensely, they are part of
me and a huge part of who i am, but it's kind of like - as a friend
put it - i finally broke up with pete.

i don't know what it would take for me to feel that way about bruce.
i guess it's one of those "i'll know it when i see it" things. and as
i get older, i find myself feeling less extreme about some things (and
more extreme about others), and perhaps a tad more benevolent. i
still think bruce's heart is in the right place. if i EVER felt that
was no longer the case, i would probably be waving goodbye.

maybe i'm stupid. maybe i'm foolish. i don't know. i just don't see
the stadium shows in the same evil light as most of the rest of yas.
yes, it is about making money, but this is their job and this is what
they do. make some money.

not making sense any more.

--c.

=================
DW #001
Jim Mitchell
2003-08-02 23:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by clr
Post by Jim Mitchell
That would put it in a slightly different perspective, I guess. But when it
boils down to it that's still about making as much money as possible in as
short a period of time as possible. It's not as if he wouldn't still make
money hand over fist in better-suited venues.
but he doesn't want to raise ticket prices (clearly, or he would
have), and the shows are exhausting for them.
Post by Jim Mitchell
And to put it bluntly, the
financial well-being of a rock and roll band, even the E Street Band, is not
something that's really going to move me one way or the other.
but it's their job... that's how they make money. that's what they
do.
They've done that job for years, and made at least Bruce a very wealthy
person. They've always managed to do that without something as blatantly
manipulative as this leg of the tour. Bruce's job, from the perspective of
his fans, is to perform his heart out with the integrity, passion and
creativity we've come to expect from him. I'm not saying he's stopped doing
that by any stretch, but stadium shows, announced in a crafty manner to
maximize sales, don't seem to me to be Bruce at his highest artistic form.
It's all relative, though- arena shows, which by comparison seem like
acoustically perfect symphonies, aren't as good as smaller theaters.
Smaller theaters aren't as good as jazz clubs. Jazz clubs aren't as good as
my backyard. But I still feel that there's something better than stadiums.
Post by clr
the problem is that he set this bar for himself many many years ago,
and we'll never let him live it down, won't we? even if he plays an
industry average show, or above industry average, even if the ticket
prices aren't anywhere near what he could charge, with all the things
he COULD do, and *doesn't* do...
This is a good point. Is it fair to judge Bruce by higher standards than
you would other artists? Is he forever doomed to strive for that high bar,
even when it becomes literally physically impossible? Well, to a degree,
yes. I expect consistency from my favorite restaurants, TV shows, novelists
and sports teams. While a live performer is obviously allowed much more
flexibility depending on their physical ability and the context of their
music, Bruce's a significant reputation is based on his flawless live
performances. My disappointment with the stadium show isn't such that I'd
say this has been completely compromised. But it's still not heading in a
direction that I like...
Post by clr
i don't know what my invisible border is for bruce to cross before i
get fed up. for me with the who, it was the $192.50 per ticket price
on the last tour. i saw that - combined with "overture" being in the
fucking clarinex commercial and "WGFA" in the nissan commercial
(overture i could live with, but WGFA??? *that* song? and
"bargain"????? i guess if it bothers me it should bother me but those
two songs in particular bothered me given what they were).
if john hadn't left this earth (and can i ask for some kindness here,
you may think he's a fuckwit and i do too, but it's like criticizing a
family member for me), i would not have gone, and i would have been
fine with that. and i didn't go to any more shows on that tour. the
line was crossed. i still love that band immensely, they are part of
me and a huge part of who i am, but it's kind of like - as a friend
put it - i finally broke up with pete.
Cancelling their St. Louis and Cleveland shows put them on my shit list.
Sales weren't that bad, and they only allowed a few weeks.
Post by clr
i don't know what it would take for me to feel that way about bruce.
i guess it's one of those "i'll know it when i see it" things. and as
i get older, i find myself feeling less extreme about some things (and
more extreme about others), and perhaps a tad more benevolent. i
still think bruce's heart is in the right place. if i EVER felt that
was no longer the case, i would probably be waving goodbye.
maybe i'm stupid. maybe i'm foolish. i don't know. i just don't see
the stadium shows in the same evil light as most of the rest of yas.
yes, it is about making money, but this is their job and this is what
they do. make some money.
not making sense any more.
Or maybe you're just not as prone to bitching and moaning as me and some of
us. That's not stupid or foolish. I don't see the stadiums as an artistic
evil, but I do see them as a step down from Bruce's usual standards. Maybe
announcing a bulk of the tour at once would redeem them somewhat for me-
wouldn't feel like they're stringing the audience out as much, especially
for the northeast shows. I know I'll get plenty of lectures that what
they're doing makes perfect business sense. But lots of stuff done in the
name of "good business" rubs people the wrong way.
Post by clr
--c.
=================
DW #001
Steve Leibowitz
2003-08-03 00:04:48 UTC
Permalink
One thing that sticks in my craw is Steven's interview where he stated that
they would be back and camping out in some cities for shows. Somewhere along
the line, that changed and like others, I'm not entirely comfortable with a
lot of things related to this leg of the tour.
Post by Jim Mitchell
Post by clr
Post by Jim Mitchell
That would put it in a slightly different perspective, I guess. But
when
Post by Jim Mitchell
it
Post by clr
Post by Jim Mitchell
boils down to it that's still about making as much money as possible in
as
Post by clr
Post by Jim Mitchell
short a period of time as possible. It's not as if he wouldn't still
make
Post by clr
Post by Jim Mitchell
money hand over fist in better-suited venues.
but he doesn't want to raise ticket prices (clearly, or he would
have), and the shows are exhausting for them.
Post by Jim Mitchell
And to put it bluntly, the
financial well-being of a rock and roll band, even the E Street Band,
is
Post by Jim Mitchell
not
Post by clr
Post by Jim Mitchell
something that's really going to move me one way or the other.
but it's their job... that's how they make money. that's what they
do.
They've done that job for years, and made at least Bruce a very wealthy
person. They've always managed to do that without something as blatantly
manipulative as this leg of the tour. Bruce's job, from the perspective of
his fans, is to perform his heart out with the integrity, passion and
creativity we've come to expect from him. I'm not saying he's stopped doing
that by any stretch, but stadium shows, announced in a crafty manner to
maximize sales, don't seem to me to be Bruce at his highest artistic form.
It's all relative, though- arena shows, which by comparison seem like
acoustically perfect symphonies, aren't as good as smaller theaters.
Smaller theaters aren't as good as jazz clubs. Jazz clubs aren't as good as
my backyard. But I still feel that there's something better than stadiums.
Post by clr
the problem is that he set this bar for himself many many years ago,
and we'll never let him live it down, won't we? even if he plays an
industry average show, or above industry average, even if the ticket
prices aren't anywhere near what he could charge, with all the things
he COULD do, and *doesn't* do...
This is a good point. Is it fair to judge Bruce by higher standards than
you would other artists? Is he forever doomed to strive for that high bar,
even when it becomes literally physically impossible? Well, to a degree,
yes. I expect consistency from my favorite restaurants, TV shows, novelists
and sports teams. While a live performer is obviously allowed much more
flexibility depending on their physical ability and the context of their
music, Bruce's a significant reputation is based on his flawless live
performances. My disappointment with the stadium show isn't such that I'd
say this has been completely compromised. But it's still not heading in a
direction that I like...
Post by clr
i don't know what my invisible border is for bruce to cross before i
get fed up. for me with the who, it was the $192.50 per ticket price
on the last tour. i saw that - combined with "overture" being in the
fucking clarinex commercial and "WGFA" in the nissan commercial
(overture i could live with, but WGFA??? *that* song? and
"bargain"????? i guess if it bothers me it should bother me but those
two songs in particular bothered me given what they were).
if john hadn't left this earth (and can i ask for some kindness here,
you may think he's a fuckwit and i do too, but it's like criticizing a
family member for me), i would not have gone, and i would have been
fine with that. and i didn't go to any more shows on that tour. the
line was crossed. i still love that band immensely, they are part of
me and a huge part of who i am, but it's kind of like - as a friend
put it - i finally broke up with pete.
Cancelling their St. Louis and Cleveland shows put them on my shit list.
Sales weren't that bad, and they only allowed a few weeks.
Post by clr
i don't know what it would take for me to feel that way about bruce.
i guess it's one of those "i'll know it when i see it" things. and as
i get older, i find myself feeling less extreme about some things (and
more extreme about others), and perhaps a tad more benevolent. i
still think bruce's heart is in the right place. if i EVER felt that
was no longer the case, i would probably be waving goodbye.
maybe i'm stupid. maybe i'm foolish. i don't know. i just don't see
the stadium shows in the same evil light as most of the rest of yas.
yes, it is about making money, but this is their job and this is what
they do. make some money.
not making sense any more.
Or maybe you're just not as prone to bitching and moaning as me and some of
us. That's not stupid or foolish. I don't see the stadiums as an artistic
evil, but I do see them as a step down from Bruce's usual standards.
Maybe
Post by Jim Mitchell
announcing a bulk of the tour at once would redeem them somewhat for me-
wouldn't feel like they're stringing the audience out as much, especially
for the northeast shows. I know I'll get plenty of lectures that what
they're doing makes perfect business sense. But lots of stuff done in the
name of "good business" rubs people the wrong way.
Post by clr
--c.
=================
DW #001
clr
2003-08-03 00:39:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 00:04:48 GMT, "Steve Leibowitz"
Post by Steve Leibowitz
One thing that sticks in my craw is Steven's interview where he stated that
they would be back and camping out in some cities for shows. Somewhere along
the line, that changed and like others, I'm not entirely comfortable with a
lot of things related to this leg of the tour.
and anyone who takes a musician's word in an interview as the gospel,
unchangeable truth is, i'm sorry steve, a fool. i mean, it's like
people who ask a band where they are playing next and are met with a
blank stare - we always used to joke, don't ask the band, leave that
job to the trained professionals. <g>

they changed their minds! i don't know why, no one except bruce and
the band do, we can guess and pontificate but we don't know. steve
probably wasn't lying or being deceitful, he was probably telling the
truth as he knew it at the time, and then, things changed. i'm just
not seeing what's so wrong with that. maybe people didn't go see the
band on the barnstorming tour b/c they thought they'd be back. that
is always a foolish assumption to make. the last time i made that
assumption, a band i love decided to call it quits. things happen in
life and things constantly change in life and in rock and roll. there
are no guarantees here.

and i mean this kindly, ya know?
=================
DW #001
Steve Leibowitz
2003-08-03 01:42:39 UTC
Permalink
Yes ma'am, that was my point, but in fewer words ;). I knew I had to adjust
how much room I left between the lines. I have no doubt that when Steven
spoke, that was what he knew. I'm just taking a less than altruistic
assumption behind how that changed. And piggy back that with Top Dog's
earlier complaints about ticket distribution. Somehow, I've had Bruce at a
different level than the Stones, who are about as financially oriented as
any band. Perhaps it's my own naivete getting me in trouble, but it does
take a lot to shake me out of believing something.
Post by clr
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 00:04:48 GMT, "Steve Leibowitz"
Post by Steve Leibowitz
One thing that sticks in my craw is Steven's interview where he stated that
they would be back and camping out in some cities for shows. Somewhere along
the line, that changed and like others, I'm not entirely comfortable with a
lot of things related to this leg of the tour.
and anyone who takes a musician's word in an interview as the gospel,
unchangeable truth is, i'm sorry steve, a fool. i mean, it's like
people who ask a band where they are playing next and are met with a
blank stare - we always used to joke, don't ask the band, leave that
job to the trained professionals. <g>
they changed their minds! i don't know why, no one except bruce and
the band do, we can guess and pontificate but we don't know. steve
probably wasn't lying or being deceitful, he was probably telling the
truth as he knew it at the time, and then, things changed. i'm just
not seeing what's so wrong with that. maybe people didn't go see the
band on the barnstorming tour b/c they thought they'd be back. that
is always a foolish assumption to make. the last time i made that
assumption, a band i love decided to call it quits. things happen in
life and things constantly change in life and in rock and roll. there
are no guarantees here.
and i mean this kindly, ya know?
=================
DW #001
Jim Mitchell
2003-08-02 06:03:14 UTC
Permalink
Date: 02/08/03 12:24 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time
In 1980 or 1981 it didn't matter how many or how few "changes" there were
from night to night. The shows - the performances - the moods - the FEEL
was different from night to night. That's just not the case anymore. It
doesn't matter how many song "changes" he does, I feel like I've been
seeing the same show over and over for the last couple of tours.
I think a big difference too, is back then he told stories to the crowd,
sometimes you would hear the same story twice, but if you only went to 2
you
most likely wouldn't. Now, he says the exact same things, every single
night.

Well, I think that the stories were probably pretty similar from night to
night back then. But I agree that the lack of raps between songs really
makes a difference in the audience's connection with Bruce. The
introduction to The River on 75-85 is just one of the most powerful things
I've ever heard. I've heard nothing like that on the last 2 tours.
Patrick1765
2003-08-02 03:10:29 UTC
Permalink
Date: 01/08/03 11:07 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time
I'm with Patrick on this.....whatever happened to spur of the moment Bruce.
There is NOTHING different about this setlist, from the start of the stadium
shows 'til now.
I long for the days of The River tour or even the reunion shows. Lets get
creative again Boss....
Well, I don't know about that... I was at the friday and monday GS shows
when it rained, and they were very creative and full of surprises. But I was
also at thursday saturday and sunday at GS and this setlist is just a
continuation of that. Nothing surprising at all. I had a great time at all 3
shows, don't get me wrong, but reading the setlist instead of hearing it .. it
seems so boring.
gpaws
2003-08-02 03:22:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick1765
but reading the setlist instead of hearing it .. it
seems so boring.
It is boring compared to being there. I'd rather be there than here
trying to figure out the Sam Phillips song.

Bruce has NEVER been the Grateful Dead when it comes to setlist
changes. There's a flow to the show with a variety of tempos and
there are a few spots where he interchanges the songs to meet the
various tempo points.

Unless I'm missing something (which is completely possible), he's
never been one to change a lot unless he's in the same city for 2
nights in a row.
Adam Dietz
2003-08-02 03:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by BENNO94
I long for the days of The River tour or even the reunion shows. Lets get
creative again Boss....
The Rising tour sports 100+ diff songs played over 97 shows...
The Rising - 98 shows (inluding tonight)
108 so far, plus whatever "Train" song he played tonight (unless it's
downbound train)

20 songs that have been played in at least half the shows, another 9 that
have been played in at a quarter of the shows.

And 51 songs that have been played at 5 or fewer shows

The River - 143 shows
as Mike said, 107 songs

25 songs were played at least half time, another 10 played at least a
quarter of the time.

46 songs played 5 or fewer times.

so the Rising tour has a better ratio of different songs to shows, fewer
songs that were "regulars", and more one-offs...
gpaws
2003-08-02 03:40:39 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 23:36:36 -0400, "Adam Dietz"
Post by Adam Dietz
plus whatever "Train" song he played tonight (unless it's
downbound train
ahhhh... I'm a bottleneck in Bruce Statistical Analysis... the
shame... the shame...

anyways... it definitely wasn't downbound train.
the q is silent
2003-08-02 04:18:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Dietz
The Rising - 98 shows (inluding tonight)
108 so far, plus whatever "Train" song he played tonight (unless it's
downbound train)
106, plus the train song. :)
--
Jyqm

"'The way I see it,' he said,
'You just can't win it...
Everybody's in it for their own gain
You can't please 'em all
There's always somebody calling you down..."
Adam Dietz
2003-08-02 12:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Are you saying that I made a mistake counting songs on a scrolling web page
at an hour past my web time. Are you? Are you?

OK, I can live with that.
Post by the q is silent
Post by Adam Dietz
The Rising - 98 shows (inluding tonight)
108 so far, plus whatever "Train" song he played tonight (unless it's
downbound train)
106, plus the train song. :)
--
Jyqm
"'The way I see it,' he said,
'You just can't win it...
Everybody's in it for their own gain
You can't please 'em all
There's always somebody calling you down..."
Chris
2003-08-02 03:07:12 UTC
Permalink
I think Rosie will come out every night the rest of the way. IMHO.
Pat Glennon
2003-08-02 03:10:52 UTC
Permalink
I hope you are right!

at least through tomorrow night!
Post by Chris
I think Rosie will come out every night the rest of the way. IMHO.
gpaws
2003-08-02 03:28:22 UTC
Permalink
The River shows were ALWAYS different, as were
most of the other tours.
huh?
Tom Ucko
2003-08-02 03:31:25 UTC
Permalink
I'm NOT saying the shows aren't good, they have been very good, but they
DO
lack creativity and spontainity. The River shows were ALWAYS different, as
were
most of the other tours.You cannot ever question the effort and the will,
but
the catalog and vastness of his work being what it is, the changes to the
setlist should come early and often besides the songs from the new album
since
that's the reason to tour, to SELL RECORDS
There has been more night-to-night variety on the Reunion and Rising tours
than on any previous tour.
cwb
2003-08-03 02:49:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dj4eagle2
<<I'll bet LOHAD Rosie and DITD come next !>>
Betting no Rosie.
DJ, you're slipping. <g>


I'm pulling for you on the "no 4 out of 5 nights" thing.

cwb

Hal S 007
2003-08-02 03:26:13 UTC
Permalink
Comment: The River shows were ALWAYS different>>

The final two nights of the Meadowlands stand in 1981 were basically identical
with just a few songs moved around in the set. There were ten changes from
7/26 to 7/27 of last weeks stand. And that was not even the high number of
changes within the stand. I can't believe I'm in the place of having to defend
the stadium shows but if we're just talking set lists, you're way off the mark.

July 8, 1981 - Brendan Byrne Arena

BADLANDS / OUT IN THE STREET / TIES THAT BIND / DARKNESS ON THE EDGE OF TOWN /
FOLLOW THAT DREAM / INDEPENDENCE DAY / TRAPPED / TWO HEARTS / THE PROMISED LAND
/ THE RIVER / THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND / WHO'LL STOP THE RAIN / PROVE IT ALL
NIGHT / THUNDER ROAD / HUNGRY HEART / YOU CAN LOOK / CADILLAC RANCH / SHERRY
DARLING / JOLE BLON / JOHNNY BYE BYE / POINT BLANK / CANDYS ROOM / RAMROD /
ROSALITA / JUNGLELAND / BORN TO RUN / DETROIT MEDLEY - SOCK IT TO ME BABY -
SWEET SOUL MUSIC - SHAKE


July 9, 1981 - Brendan Byrne Arena

THUNDER ROAD / PROVE IT ALL NIGHT / THE TIES THAT BIND / DARKNESS ON THE EDGE
OF TOWN / FOLLOW THAT DREAM / INDEPENDENCE DAY / WHO’LL STOP THE RAIN / TWO
HEARTS / THE PROMISED LAND / THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND / THE RIVER / TRAPPED / OUT
IN THE STREET / BADLANDS / YOU CAN LOOK… / CADILLAC RANCH / SHERRY DARLIN’
/ HUNGRY HEART / JOLE BLON / THIS LITTLE GIRL / JOHNNY BYE BYE / RACING IN THE
STREET / RAMROD / ROSALITA / JERSEY GIRL / JUNGLELAND / BORN TO RUN / DETROIT
MEDLEY - SOCK IT TO ME BABY - SWEET SOUL MUSIC - SHAKE
BENNO94
2003-08-02 03:34:03 UTC
Permalink
We could debate this all nite, but if you want my take on it, look at the
setlists for the 3 Chicago dated in 1981. TOTALLY different show on all 3
nites.

I'm sure we can all find evidence to support our feelings on the matter. All
I'm saying is given the vastness of his work, we can hope and in a smaller way
expect more changes each nite out.
Saying that, I'm still very excited about the shows I'm attending. He's still
the standard to which ALL artistsw are held
Hal S 007
2003-08-02 03:43:13 UTC
Permalink
Comment: look at the setlists for the 3 Chicago dated in 1981. TOTALLY
different show on all 3 nites.>>

Not true. While there was more change than in the NJ stand, there were not more
changes than you've been getting the past 5 years for multi-night stands. Take
a look at 7/17/03 and 7/18/03, there were 12 changes. They were totally
different. And also the Chicago stand was a bit of an aberration because it
was the final week of the tour and they started breaking out some songs they
hadn't done all tour like She's The One. It is just factually wrong to suggest
the River tour had more variation than the Rising tour.

Anyway, the proof is easy to provide. The set lists from the 3 night stand at
Rosemont did not have anywhere near the amount of change that the 3+ stands
have been having the past two tours...

8/9/81 - HORIZON, ROSEMONT, IL

ROCKIN' ALL OVER THE WORLD / PROVE IT ALL NIGHT / 10TH AVENUE FREEZE OUT /
DARKNESS ON THE EDGE OF TOWN / INDEPENDENCE DAY / WHO'LL STOP THE RAIN /
TRAPPED / TWO HEARTS / OUT IN THE STREET / THE PROMISED LAND / THE RIVER / THIS
LAND IS YOUR LAND / BADLANDS / THUNDER ROAD / HUNGRY HEART / YOU CAN LOOK... /
CADILLAC RANCH / SHERRY DARLING / JOLE BLON / JOHNNY BYE BYE / POINT BLANK /
CANDYS ROOM / RAMROD / ROSALITA / JUNGLELAND / BORN TO RUN / DETROIT MEDLEY -
YOU CAN'T SIT DOWN - SWEET SOUL MUSIC - SHAKE (end cut)




10/9/81 - HORIZON, ROSEMONT, ILL

OUT IN THE STREET / TIES THAT BIND / PROVE IT ALL NIGHT / DARKNESS ON THE EDGE
OF TOWN / FACTORY / INDEPENDENCE DAY / I FOUGHT THE LAW / TWO HEARTS / WHO'LL
STOP THE RAIN / THE PROMISED LAND / THE RIVER / THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND /
BADLANDS / THUNDER ROAD / FOR YOU / HUNGRY HEART / MONA - SHES THE ONE /
CADILLAC RANCH / SHERRY DARLING / WRECK ON THE HIGHWAY / RACING IN THE STREET /
RAMROD / ROSALITA / JUNGLELAND / BORN TO RUN / DETROIT MEDLEY - MONY MONY /
TWIST AND SHOUT




11/9/81 - HORIZON, ROSEMONT, ILL

THUNDER ROAD / PROVE IT ALL NIGHT / 10TH AVENUE FREEZE OUT / DARKNESS ON THE
EDGE OF TOWN / JERSEY GIRL / INDEPENDENCE DAY / TRAPPED / TWO HEARTS / OUT IN
THE STREET / THE PROMISED LAND / THE RIVER / THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND / WHO'LL
STOP THE RAIN / BADLANDS / HUNGRY HEART / SAINT IN THE CITY / FOR YOU /
CADILLAC RANCH / SHERRY DARLING / I WANNA MARRY YOU / BACKSTREETS / RAMROD /
ROSALITA / JUNGLELAND / BORN TO RUN / DETROIT MEDLEY - MONY MONY / QUARTER TO
THREE
BENNO94
2003-08-02 03:39:05 UTC
Permalink
Maybe then it a feel thing or a pacing issue. Those shows seemed to be differnt
each nite. He constantly changed the order of the songs he played each nite and
it felt fresh. Maybe that's the way to do it. There is no hard rule saying the
Rising and Lonesome Day need to be back to back, and don;t use the "THEMATIC"
argument.
Mike Voss
2003-08-02 02:58:41 UTC
Permalink
Those shows *seemed* to be differnt each nite. (Emphasis MV)
He *constantly changed the order of the songs he played each nite* and
it felt fresh. (Emphasis MV again)
Look at the River tour setlists and note how often the same songs were
played
back to back, whole 4-5 song sets the SAME night after night or a great
majority
of the time. I'll grant that a number of fans remember the same as you,
that it *felt* fresh one night to another - but not for the reasons you keep
citing. Either Bruce did something *other* than re-arranging sets to make
it feel fresh, or nostalgia weighs heavily upon some fans and the old days
seem better than the new just because the whole phenomenon was newer
and fresher then...but the sets were NOT *constantly* changed despite
the few times he did a completely different set 3 shows in a row. (He did
something similar the 4 nights at Staples in 99, but even that was a
relative
fluke compared to the rest of the tour except for a stand here and there).

Mike
Magic rat 10001
2003-08-02 04:01:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick1765
This is starting to look like sitting around waiting for the setlist of a
normal band. I'll bet LOHAD Rosie and DITD come next !
Here's an idea...GET OFF THE COMPUTER AND GO LIVE YOUR LIFE! Sitting here
staring at the screen waiting for the setlists is NOT why they have concerts!
Jeezus, what a loser.
Patrick1765
2003-08-02 04:12:22 UTC
Permalink
Date: 02/08/03 12:01 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time
Here's an idea...GET OFF THE COMPUTER AND GO LIVE YOUR LIFE! Sitting here
staring at the screen waiting for the setlists is NOT why they have concerts!
Jeezus, what a loser.
I suppose that was directed at the 100 other people who did that tonight as
well as me, but knowing you.. it was just directed at me.
ChrisWBarber
2003-08-02 07:22:32 UTC
Permalink
<< Subject: Re: 8-1 SETLIST - 10:51 update
From: ***@aol.com (EBarsamian)
Date: Fri, Aug 1, 2003 10:56 PM
Message-id: <***@mb-m20.aol.com>

I think Rosie won't come out tonight. >>

every night. (granted, that's a lot easier to say after it was played tonight.)
Hal S 007
2003-08-02 07:33:07 UTC
Permalink
Comment: Bruce throws a few bones to the multiple-show attendees, but for the
most part plays to the average fan who is seeing him one or a few times. >>

It's actually the exact opposite during long multiple night stands,
particularly in arenas. Which is how you had two straight shows in LA in '99
that had no BIUSA songs at all. He knows people are going every night. The 4
night stand at Staples in '99 was astonishing in it's variety and certainly the
last two nights, there was no doubt the shows were more suitable for die hards
than casual fans. That last show had as many rarities as any show on the tour
and I personally heard casual fans complaining during the encores about the
lack of hits and familar songs.

And the shows at GS had a lot of variation. Obviously in a stadium there's a
limit to how far he can go because a) die hards are a smaller percentage of the
audience and b) you have to play material suitable to the size of the venue.
BENNO94
2003-08-02 15:16:56 UTC
Permalink
You need to explain to me, Why can he only go "SO FAR" in changing it up in a
stadium?

I don't understand that at all....
Hal S 007
2003-08-02 07:36:40 UTC
Permalink
Comment: he did unreleased songs on the
river tour, like janey don't you lose heart, >>

Wrong again. Janey was released in 1985 and not performed live until the LA
Coliseum on 9/28/85. That was the only performance of the song until the
acoustic version to close the incredible Ct. Basie rehearsal show on 3/23/93.
The song was then performed a few times on the Reunion tour.
Mike Voss
2003-08-02 09:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hal S 007
Comment: he did unreleased songs on the
river tour, like janey don't you lose heart, >>
Wrong again. Janey was released in 1985 and not performed live until the LA
Coliseum on 9/28/85.
Close :-) 9/27/85.

Mike
Loading...