MUS
Active topics
  1. yeah i think - as gutted as i am to say it - that bruce needs to break up the E street band; without clarence it just won't be the same. he should just return to his acoustic folky stuff or do another tunnel of love-type record, with parts of the band but without labelling it as such.
  2. Originally posted by wangmaster:yeah i think - as gutted as i am to say it - that bruce needs to break up the E street band; without clarence it just won't be the same. he should just return to his acoustic folky stuff or do another tunnel of love-type record, with parts of the band but without labelling it as such.

    I sadly think the same.


  4. It's a completely different animal. E-Street is a backing band. The member with the most influence on Bruce has always been Steven Van Zandt, and when he left the band in 1984, Bruce toured without him. When Dany Federici died, they toured without him. The E-Street band is not one member, as iconic as he might be, and Clarence said himself he wanted them to carry on until they're all gone.

    Don't misunderstand what I'm saying here, the loss of Clarence is a huge blow for me, but I don't see them stopping, nor do I want them too. It will evolve, as it has in the past. On another note, very classy tribute from Eddie Vedder on Letterman :



  5. not meaning that much but it's a fact that remains only Garry Tallent from the first line-up of the band; Van Zandt joined the band in born to run era, even if he was already in Bruce "circle" since before.
    maybe it's just the emotivity of the moment but i'd like one last tour as E Street band and then of course Bruce and them should go on together, especially live, but not with that name.
    but i repeat maybe it's freshnes of what happened that makes me think in this way.
    anyway i agree about the comparison with U2 .. totally different things.

    ps: wonderful Eddie
  6. Eddie Vedder. Respect
  8. That was moving.

    But, besides the spiritual connotations of the loss, there is a purely practical problem: Clarence, apart of being the 2nd heart of the E Street Band, etc. was a FUNDAMENTAL piece of its sound and its strength. I have assumed that they want to somehow go ahead without him, but... will they be able to? Most of the E Street's repertory include a saxophone solo and/or constant saxophone backing, so... Will they find a substitute for him (difficult and probably not satisfactory for the band and the audience), or just ignore the sax parts (even less satisfactory, and would make the songs sound empty)?
  9. nice tribute, but a bad call.

    anyone else playing saxaphone will sound like a cheap imitation, and stick out like a sore thumb. but as sergio said, no saxaphone at all would kill the life and soul in half the band's catalogue; it's a lose-lose situation.

    if i was them, i'd have called it quits, out of respect for danny and clarence, but also because of the practical implications.
  10. Originally posted by wangmaster:nice tribute, but a bad call.

    anyone else playing saxaphone will sound like a cheap imitation, and stick out like a sore thumb. but as sergio said, no saxaphone at all would kill the life and soul in half the band's catalogue; it's a lose-lose situation.

    if i was them, i'd have called it quits, out of respect for danny and clarence, but also because of the practical implications.

    Me too. I understand they want to keep on it, not only as a tribute to the deceased members of the band (which is perfectly alright as any other tribute, and is probably what that now-gone members would want the band to do) but also as it's their way of living... But I think it's not possible. It simply won't be the same. A keyboard is a keyboard, and while we all loved Danny, his loss was not as drastical (in terms of sound and feeling) as the legendary second-frontman of the band.

    Just to put it on a familiar example: as much as there are great imitators of The Edge, I don't think any of us think that U2 could keep on without him... It's similar.
  11. true words.

    it's like if the Rolling Stones carried on after losing Keith Richards, to pick another iconic 'sideman'. i get why they want to carry on, but can anyone imagine The Promised Land without the triumphant saxaphone solo? or Jungeland - christ, imagine a Clarence-less Jungleland!

    as i've said before, another Tunnel of Love situation would be the best way to continue now, in my opinion.
  12. maybe the "best" thing would be going on without the sax and this could be for the next songs but what about Bruce' s concerts ... should he avoid all the songs with sax in them?
    how possible it can be?
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.