Timmy84 said:

JoeTyler said:

yeah :s , but hey, I like the fact that someone like the Boss is still releasing new albums, but it bugs me when these "decent, ok" new albums get A+/4,5 stars reviews,

I mean, I'd rate the Rising with a solid A, but the rest of his E Street 00s albums with a B or even a B-

They give any rock legend that. Especially U2. It's like once you reach legend/elder statesman status, anything you put out will be above a B by critics but they undervalued these same legends when their music was still hot lol well I doubt that was a case with Bruce though because in the '70s and '80s he actually delivered but now, nah lol

I think this is the case with most artists that have a 20 + years career tbh.

It's hard to create something fresh and new/amazing/good after all those over and over again, impossible for (almost) everyone..

Most artists their more recent stuff isn't as good as their old/classic material

Some of them try to re-create their classic sound, but mostly it sounds a bit forced...

I like most new albums from my favorite rock or pop legends, of course it isn't as good as their classic material, but I don't expect something as good as that... Because it's not really possible anymore to have an album just as good, still good/great but not as great as the classic albums.

[Edited 1/20/12 11:29am]

xLiberiangirl said:

Timmy84 said:

They give any rock legend that. Especially U2. It's like once you reach legend/elder statesman status, anything you put out will be above a B by critics but they undervalued these same legends when their music was still hot lol well I doubt that was a case with Bruce though because in the '70s and '80s he actually delivered but now, nah lol

I think this is the case with most artists that have a 20 + years career tbh.

It's hard to create something fresh and new/amazing/good after all those over and over again, impossible for (almost) everyone..

Most artists their more recent stuff isn't as good as their old/classic material

Some of them try to re-create their classic sound, but mostly it sounds a bit forced...

I like most new albums from my favorite rock or pop legends, of course it isn't as good as their classic material, but I don't expect something as good as that... Because it's not really possible anymore to have an album just as good, still good/great but not as great as the classic albums.

[Edited 1/20/12 11:29am]

I just hate how it's expected for veteran acts to sound stale after a while. It sucks.

JoeTyler said:

I loved A Time to Love.

I bought that album the first week of its release and seldom touch it now because of the copious filler material. Stevie's creative well is dry.

xLiberiangirl said:

Timmy84 said:

They give any rock legend that. Especially U2. It's like once you reach legend/elder statesman status, anything you put out will be above a B by critics but they undervalued these same legends when their music was still hot lol well I doubt that was a case with Bruce though because in the '70s and '80s he actually delivered but now, nah lol

I think this is the case with most artists that have a 20 + years career tbh.

nah, only ROCK artists, trust me

Identity said:

JoeTyler said:

I loved A Time to Love.

I bought that album the first week of its release and seldom touch it now because of the copious filler material. Stevie's creative well is dry.

Unfortunately, you can't force the muse of inspiration...

Identity said:

JoeTyler said:

I loved A Time to Love.

I bought that album the first week of its release and seldom touch it now because of the copious filler material. Stevie's creative well is dry.

Well damn. But I agree, that well has run dry long time ago.

peedub said:

does anybody know if this is a solo effort or an e street band release?

Some E Streeters here and there, but also cameos from Tom Morello, Matt Chamberlain, etc., apparently.

It's definitely not a proper "E Street" album. Sounds more like a Tunnel of Love-type situation.

JoeTyler said:

then again, the last Springsteen album that I liked was The Rising...

and btw I'M TIRED of the BOSS tryin' to speak for the whole country (world) everytime he releases a new album, he has been doing the same thing since the Ghost of Tom Joad (95), I mean, it's predictable and pointless: Magic (these are dark, nasty times, fuck yo Bush), WOAD (We can do it people, Obama you rock), WB (ahhh the country is still a mess, but pain will make us stronger, and screw the rotten souls who ignited the crisis to begin with).

It sounds forced, really, and it kinda erases the power of the music...the Boss used to find the perfect balance between rock power, fun, personal lyrics, drama, anger and political stuff...NOT ANYMORE

Yeah, the whole voice-of-America thing's kinda played for me, too. I'd much rather hear him focus on the personal.

Timmy84 said:

I think the E Street Band will break up after this.

It's already been announced as an E Street tour and, at this point, they're here to stay. Not on every tour, but there will be no "break-up".

Timmy84 said:

I can't see how they can carry on without Clarence.

Those other gentlemen (and ladies) have mouths to feed, too. And "the E Street Band" is a trademark that's very valuable to Springsteen.

CrabalockerFishwife said:

I thought The Rising was a great, near classic album.

Maybe even "a classic".

Timmy84 said:

his music seemed to have stale after "The Streets of Philadelphia". I'm guessing this is what happens with some of these rock legends once they get to a point that if they were selling shit on a stick, people will blindly buy it.

Bruce tried to head in a new direction at that time ("Streets" was the last of his very brief 'post-E Street' phase), but sales dipped and they hit the panic button.

So, now E Street is here to stay. As the Boss himself put it, he'll continue to take detours (solo tours, probably another Sessions Band round, etc.), but count on the ESB backing him on all of his big, rock tours.

Can ya blame the guy? It's as easy as A-B-C:

A) Put out rock record in election year.

B) Tour with E Street Band.

C) Collect over $150 million.

Why not?

Plus, it feeds his ego to be looked to as a major cultural figure. He's much less likely to garner that kind of attention sans E Street.

I'd like to see him do a rock or pop project with other musicians again, but I seem to be in a very small minority in his audience. They want it to be perpetually 1978.

after reading y'all's thoughts, i'm glad to be a new-ish fan...i don't think i've even fully absorbed born to run yet. i'm glad there's so much more material to go through before i, too, become jaded. by that time, there'll probably be nothing but posthumous releases to bitch about.

Ace said:

Timmy84 said:

his music seemed to have stale after "The Streets of Philadelphia". I'm guessing this is what happens with some of these rock legends once they get to a point that if they were selling shit on a stick, people will blindly buy it.

Bruce tried to head in a new direction at that time ("Streets" was the last of his very brief 'post-E Street' phase), but sales dipped and they hit the panic button.

So, now E Street is here to stay. As the Boss himself put it, he'll continue to take detours (solo tours, probably another Sessions Band round, etc.), but count on the ESB backing him on all of his big, rock tours.

Can ya blame the guy? It's as easy as A-B-C:

A) Put out rock record in election year.

B) Tour with E Street Band.

C) Collect over $150 million.

Why not?

Plus, it feeds his ego to be looked to as a major cultural figure. He's much less likely to garner that kind of attention sans E Street.

I'd like to see him do a rock or pop project with other musicians again, but I seem to be in a very small minority in his audience. They want it to be perpetually 1978.

They gonna need a saxophonist when they get on tour lol

Timmy84 said:

I am going to simultaneously shit twinkies and a gold brick.

I FUCKING LOVE BRUCE>

LOVE

imago said:

I am going to simultaneously shit twinkies and a gold brick.

I FUCKING LOVE BRUCE>

LOVE

I love Bruce, too. I've been a hardcore (and, for a time, obsessive) fan of his since I was a kid. But my favourite era of his work was '82 - '02. There are songs that I love outside of that bracket and I'm sure there'll be some on the new record, but I personally prefer when his writing is less about world politics and more about the politics of navigating this world.

Ace said:

imago said:

I am going to simultaneously shit twinkies and a gold brick.

I FUCKING LOVE BRUCE>

LOVE

I love Bruce, too. I've been a hardcore (and, for a time, obsessive) fan of his since I was a kid. But my favourite era of his work was '82 - '02. There are songs that I love outside of that bracket and I'm sure there'll be some on the new record, but I personally prefer when his writing is less about world politics and more about the politics of navigating this world.

When he's in depth with himself I love it.

Timmy84 said:

Ace said:

I love Bruce, too. I've been a hardcore (and, for a time, obsessive) fan of his since I was a kid. But my favourite era of his work was '82 - '02. There are songs that I love outside of that bracket and I'm sure there'll be some on the new record, but I personally prefer when his writing is less about world politics and more about the politics of navigating this world.

When he's in depth with himself I love it.

No one could have stated it better than Ace!

I could talk Bruce 'til the cows come home. :brucenerd:

Ace said:

I could talk Bruce 'til the cows come home. :brucenerd:

Yeah, I'm a Brucenerd, too! Old Bruce that is. I saw him back in the 80s at an AIDS benefit concert. I was pissed that Sting didn't show up but Bruce was there in fine form with his band--the only beef I had was that he spent too much time on stage making out with his then back-up singer (now, wife!). A lot of people walked out early on his set because of that.

Identity said:

JoeTyler said:

I loved A Time to Love.

I bought that album the first week of its release and seldom touch it now because of the copious filler material. Stevie's creative well is dry.

I feel the same way.There are too many sappy ballads and not enough uptempo jams.I love the first single "So What The Fuss".....the album needed more stuff like that!

SoulAlive said:

Identity said:

I bought that album the first week of its release and seldom touch it now because of the copious filler material. Stevie's creative well is dry.

I feel the same way.There are too many sappy ballads and not enough uptempo jams.I love the first single "So What The Fuss".....the album needed more stuff like that!

Maybe Prince and Stevie need to collaborate more!

purplethunder3121 said:

Ace said:

I could talk Bruce 'til the cows come home. :brucenerd:

Yeah, I'm a Brucenerd, too! Old Bruce that is. I saw him back in the 80s at an AIDS benefit concert. I was pissed that Sting didn't show up but Bruce was there in fine form with his band--the only beef I had was that he spent too much time on stage making out with his then back-up singer (now, wife!). A lot of people walked out early on his set because of that.

And from what I can recall, he's still kissing his wife onstage today.

Timmy84 said:

purplethunder3121 said:

Yeah, I'm a Brucenerd, too! Old Bruce that is. I saw him back in the 80s at an AIDS benefit concert. I was pissed that Sting didn't show up but Bruce was there in fine form with his band--the only beef I had was that he spent too much time on stage making out with his then back-up singer (now, wife!). A lot of people walked out early on his set because of that.

And from what I can recall, he's still kissing his wife onstage today.

Well, I'm glad it lasted because he was certainly taken with her back in '89 or so when I saw him. What people had a problem with was the fact he was still married. Guess they beat the odds!

As far as iconic musical artists trying to create music that stands up to what is considered their greatest works, I think Prince stated it best when he said the only real competition he has is himself from the past...or words to that effect.

purplethunder3121 said:

Timmy84 said:

And from what I can recall, he's still kissing his wife onstage today.

Well, I'm glad it lasted because he was certainly taken with her back in '89 or so when I saw him. What people had a problem with was the fact he was still married. Guess they beat the odds!

Didn't they fuck while he was still married? I read that somewhere.

Timmy84 said:

purplethunder3121 said:

Well, I'm glad it lasted because he was certainly taken with her back in '89 or so when I saw him. What people had a problem with was the fact he was still married. Guess they beat the odds!

Didn't they fuck while he was still married? I read that somewhere.

Oh, definitely! If you could have seen them on stage there was no doubt that they were smitten with each other and had sealed the deal!

Timmy84 said:

xLiberiangirl said:

I think this is the case with most artists that have a 20 + years career tbh.

It's hard to create something fresh and new/amazing/good after all those over and over again, impossible for (almost) everyone..

Most artists their more recent stuff isn't as good as their old/classic material

Some of them try to re-create their classic sound, but mostly it sounds a bit forced...

I like most new albums from my favorite rock or pop legends, of course it isn't as good as their classic material, but I don't expect something as good as that... Because it's not really possible anymore to have an album just as good, still good/great but not as great as the classic albums.

[Edited 1/20/12 11:29am]

I just hate how it's expected for veteran acts to sound stale after a while. It sucks.

Well its the truth NO MATTER what the act as soon as its released, regardless of whether anyone listens or not, its held up to past works. Its an ongoing thing, so although acts like Bruce still get these 5 star reviews, many times it is warranted or at least close, although in the review if you look beyond the rating, the past is always thrown in their face. Look at Prince the man should have jsut quit after SIGN O THE TIMES because 99% of this forum is still wearing that faded SOTT tshirt, let it go. No matter what the act you always will hear oh he can be better than the 70's or his 80's stuff is shit, or this or that and granted some made crap albums and some didnt, but Paul McCartney when he was making shitty albums like PRESS TO PLAY he wasnt getting 5 stars for that mess, he actually got 2, the last time he got a 5 star review was FLAMING PIE and sorry folks that was deserved.

Why should artists be held up to thirty and forty years ago, and WHY cant they have great albums now? I mean actors do, TOM HANKS has movies better now than he did in the 80's when he was doing "the man with one red shoe" i mean really are we going to compare that actor with todays? come on folks let this shit go

purplethunder3121 said:

Timmy84 said:

Didn't they fuck while he was still married? I read that somewhere.

Oh, definitely! If you could have seen them on stage there was no doubt that they were smitten with each other and had sealed the deal!

I saw footage from back then. It always looked from their expressions that they couldn't wait to knock boots.