The multiple shots in such a short period of time on this blu-ray disc may annoy some, but really make the concert more exciting to watch. The high definition filming, as well as the lifelike sound, really bring the concert experience alive. It was probably more exciting watching the concert on a blue-ray disc than sitting with a nearly vacant audience. However, the particular audience where this concert was filmed, in Dublin, was anything but vacant. Bruce Springsteen, like many other American acts, is probably appreciated a lot more in Europe than his own country these days.
While Bruce Springsteen with the Sessions Band: Live in Dublin certainly won’t bring back some of the fans he’s lost over the years, it will remind them why they became fans in the first place: Bruce Springsteen is a passionate performer who not only enjoys what he’s doing, but enjoys his audience as well.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - john
Wow. Couldn't disagree with you more regarding "Saints." This is far and away the finest version I have heard.
2 - dmoz
Yes, a remarkably dumb comment about "When the Saints..." This is the same version he performed at the firt post-Katrina jazzfest; it was widely reported that the crowd was brought to tears. Another esteemed entertainer in the crowd admitted that he "sobbed like a little baby" so powerful was this version. And also a stupid comment about "Bobby and Mary." Listen to the songwriting of Highway Patrolman (on this video): Joe Roberts, his brother Frankie, and his wife Maria are the actors in a little vignette that Seeger could never possibly create.
3 - daryl d
You guys have to give me a little credit. I'm not a Bruce Springsteen fan, but had the guts to at least watch something with an open mind and give it an, overall, good review. How many other critics can get themselves to do that?...not many. It's just that the "Saints" is a song I grew up with, so to be honest, any other singer singing this would be hard for me to accept.
4 - John
I remember when people used to think (like Prefab Sprout did) that all "Brucie" cared about was "cars and girls". I remember when they said he was "commercial" or that he had "sold out". All these years later, though.. he seems (with this CD, definitely) to be one of the most eclectic artists around and .. he's turned down millions to do commercials. Where's Prefab Sprout? Working at Burger King, no doubt. Turn on the TV and Sting is doing car commercials.
And Bruce? He's continuing to evolve and stretch and nobody has any idea. To them, he'll still be "Born in the USA". They have no idea who Bruce Springsteen really is or what he means to pop culture today. Most new bands reference him as "the" influence - from The Killers to Arcade Fire, The National to the Hold Steady. Food for thought.
5 - joel beers
if you'd done a little "research" as oppposed to filtering this DVD through your obviously limited prism, you would have realized that this performance (three actually, edited into the final DVD) came at the end of a five-month tour with Springsteen and friends.
I was fortunate enough to see the first wide-scale performance of the Seeger Sessions Band, at the 2006 New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival, and an La gig a few weeks later.
The shows were amazing and I'm a lifelong Springsteen fan who had no problem listening to him mythologize pete seeger and blind alfred reed instead of roads of thunder and glory days.
It was a passionate, committed performance that both paid homage to many, if not most, of all the diverse strains of american music--country, swing, blues, spirituals, etcetcetc, while putting the boss' own sheen on it.
It was sloppy, raucous, under-rehearsed, ambitious and a lot of fun.
After the la show, i didn't catch another gig. Didn't see anything of the Seeger Sessions band until thisDVD. And what i see from it is a completely differne entity than what began. This is far more of a Springsteen show with a kick-ass backing band than what I saw, which was a sincere, if pockmarked, gesture toward amalgamating diverse strains of American folk music to comment (even if that comment was just the sheer fact of doing it) on contemporary America.
This is an incredibly electric show on DVD; the one I saw was electrified acoustic. It had it charms, but this one is far more theatrical and orchestrated. Whether that's becuase I'm seeing it through multiple camera angles and an editor's vision as opposed to my own senses, I'm not sure.
But I am sure that horns play a much bigger role on the Live in Duble performance than the earlier ones I saw. Springsteen is also more springsteen. Less band leader happy to be playing with a bunch of great musicians and more a consumate professional using the many weapons (i.e., artists) at his disposal to get him to where he wants to go.
There's a reason this guy is caled the boss, his lame rendtion of We shall overcome (the worst thing on the studio recorded version of the seeger sessions) notwithstanding.
He's the most theatrical rock'n' roll guy alive. andby theatrical, I'm not talking face-paint, lights and F/X. I'm talking drama, tension-release and working the crowd.
Buy this dvd people: just put it in its proper context. One of a genuine American treasure exploring, discovering and constantly working. That is what makes Springsteen "The Boss" and not "The Foreman" or "The Owner" or "The Stockholder." mother fucker comes ready to work each and every night and, after 20 years of seeing him live, I'm still amazed by how much he works each and every night.
6 - Bossman
Truth is Daryl your bias shows thru even in your so called "good review".
This site has some good writers like Mark Saleski, El Bicho, Glen Boyd, and Pico. I trust them because they seem to know their stuff. Those guys tell it legitimately by caling it like they see it and by basing their call on their knowledge of the subject.
You on the other hand bring whatever is pissing you off at the moment to your articles. I dont give a shit about your poltics bro. Just tell me about the music. Like those other guys do.
7 - daryl d
You are basing me, as a writer, by my articles on Bruce Springsteen. Why don't you read some of my other articles? You may have a point, but I think it takes guts to give a good review to somebody I don't care for at the moment.
8 - daryl d
Gosh..my spelling (or typing) has become terrible. I meant "bashing." By the way, when somebody shills for a certain artist (which I see a lot of on Blogcritics as well as other media outlets), it doesn't necessarily make he or she a good writer. In fact, I think people who shill for an artist (Bruce Springsteen, Christina Aguilera)no matter what they do are as bad as those who criticize work by an artist no matter what they do. A good writer will get people to think about a certain topic, which is, in my opinion, what I've done a lot of on Blogcritics. I refuse to completely shill for any artist, which is what I think differentiates me from other critics.
9 - Mark Saleski
you know daryl, you toss around the word "shill" as if you know the intent of the writer. you absolutely do not. it says a lot about about you that you can so easily accuse people of such actions.
and yes, a good writer does make people think. but there's a fine line between intellectual provocation and attention-whoring.
10 - Pico
It takes "guts" to watch a concert video or say something positive about an artist you don't care for (which you remind your readers of at every possible opportunity)? Mind boggling. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.
I don't know about being a "shill" for artists, but you certainly seem to be shilling a lot for yourself.
11 - Ray Ellis
One thing you no way are is a critic.In order to be a critic, you have to be capable of analysis and a fundamental knowledge of your subject. Once you've done that, you can back up your opinion. You do not attack your colleagues without basis in order to defend your ill advised position. That's just bad form. Unfortunately, it's your stock in trade, Daryl.
12 - daryl d
Um, thanks for your opinion. Liking Bruce Springsteen=good critic, not liking Bruce Springsteen=bad critic. Perhaps if you stopped whoring for a has-been that almost nobody cares for anymore (besides the same people who try to stop others from having negative opinions about), you wouldn't be so critical. On Billboard's charts, Bruce's latest album did a flippity flop from number 23 to number 47. It's more proof that he has lost a lot of fans. On Forbes most powerful players, he isn't even on the list. Perhaps you should stop criticizing me and help Bruce Springsteen's career get back on track. Judging from concert ticket sales and album sales, he sure could use your help.
13 - sandra
Although I don't agree with everything Daryl writes, he seems to have more backup knowledge than a lot of people on this site and makes a good point: there seems to be a "favoritism" towards certain artists on this site. Don't get me wrong - I really love this site. But how come I can't come here every day without reading the latest hype about Bruce Springsteen. It almost seems like blind fandom. Judging from this site, you would think Bruce Springsteen is still a popular artist and (I hate to tell you this), he isn't. He may be liked in New Jersey still, but almost everybody I know who used to like him doesn't. He's become the Tom Cruise of the music industry. Whether they are right or wrong is debatable, but editors of this site (Musically, at least) have become like the editors of Rolling Stone, who still think Bruce Springsteen is relevant.
14 - daryl d
Thanks, Sandra. You are still mad about my Katie Couric article, I guess (which was unprofessional looking back...but I thought it was funny). I cannot even count the number of letters I have received from people (claiming to be in the music industry or working for magazines) agreeing with my stance on people like Springsteen or U2. One writer (who works for a very popular magazine) was NOT ALLOWED TO WRITE ABOUT Bruce's poor ticket sales last summer. That makes me absolutely sick. It's just such a double standard because of Michael Jackson, Madonna, Bon Jovi, Whitney Houston, or any other superstar that originated in the 80s played to more than half empty houses, their names would be plastered all over the Drudge Report and other media outlets. Bruce somehow gets a free pass. I just don't think it's right.
15 - sandra
Your article on Katie Couric was pathetic! Your article about Dan Rather was nasty -but funny. But your articles and reviews about Bruce Springsteen and U2 are spot on, even if repetitive. I also like your reviews on technology. But you too often review things that most people don't have money for. I'm surprised you don't have a review of the iphone yet.
16 - daryl d
I'm camping out for the Iphone on Thursday night: wanna go with me? I'll do a review of it next week. Even though I am excited about it, I think it's a lot of hype. Catch my review of the new HTC Mogol on Sprint this weekend. One more thing: are we getting a little off topic here?
17 - Ray Ellis
I didn't realize you have comprehension issues, too. I made no mention of Springsteen in my comments. That being said, why would I not be critical of you? You have no street cred, since you mistakenly state that Springsteen "originated" in the 80's. one thing about being a critic--or a writer in general-- you have to have skin of steel. Here's some advice for you--don't whine when you're taken to task. It's not that people are out to get you. It's just that they see through you.
18 - Pico
Let's see, since I earlier suggested that it's obvious you're deluded in self-glory, you've posted this little nugget:
"I cannot even count the number of letters I have received from people (claiming to be in the music industry or working for magazines) agreeing with my stance on people like Springsteen or U2."
Care to bolster my point even further? Keep going, I know you will. You're pretty predictable.
"are we getting a little off topic here?"
The topic is about your martyrdom for courageously taking on The Boss from behind your keyboard, right? That's been your agenda here from day one; you didn't inform, you incited. Take another bow, you've succeeded in your mission. Your ego got messaged. Yay!
Only thing is, like with Ray, it has nothing to do with Springsteen where I'm concerned. I stayed out of all the Bruce flame wars you instigated until you on this thread dragged in your fellow blogcritics, many of whom have made this site highly respectable long before you came along and pissed all over the decorum they've worked hard to establish.
Go ahead and knock yourself out building yourself up and bashing Springsteen as you please, I don't really care and I can ignore that as I have in the past. But when you do so by putting down those here who take the time to write carefully researched, substantive reviews and not manufacture hatchet jobs, I've got a problem with that. Before you start to backpedal again like you're apt to do and say you were just joking, well, I'm not finding this funny.
Seriously, man, grow up.
19 - El Bicho
Bossman, thanks for the name-drop.
"he seems to have more backup knowledge than a lot of people on this site"
Sandra, you should have started your comment with "Satire:" because I am not sure who you read if you actually think Daryl knows what he's talking about.
In his United 93/WTC comparison, he called WTC a flop. That's fine if he didn't like it, although worst movie of the year shows how few movies he must see, but at the time it was more successful financially, meaning it was no way a flop in comparison.
He wrote about South Park making The Simpsons irrelevant, seven years late for those actually paying attention, then two months go by and he thinks the show jumped the shark, then a week goes by and he thinks the show is brilliant again. Do you like his consistency as well?
Or how about his questioning of the "sudden disappearance" of coverage after 2 1/2 years about O"Reilly's sex scandal. Amazing that Woodward and Bernstein weren't still on the case although those pesky non-disclosure agreements might have had something to do with it.
He is absolutely entitled to like and dislike anything his heart desires, but he has little more to offer beyond that. Some people may enjoy his immature rants, but no one is more impressed than he is by his belief he is tackling the powerful elites like Springsteen, U2, and Dan Rather. I'm sure his next target is quaking in their boots in fear of Daryl's turning his rapier wit their way.
20 - daryl d
I don't think I ever directly stated that Bruce originated in the 80s. I started hearing about him in the 80s but I never said that's when he originated: nice way to spin things.
I'm not hear to attack other Blogcritics like they have immaturely done to me, especially El Bicho, who completely spins what I wrote to try to make a point. (By the way, El Bicho, WTC, compared to United 93, was a complete flop. It made more money but cost a lot more to make.) I've only said that there was shilling going on - I don't consider that a complete attack on anyone.
The issue is that I don't like Bruce Springsteen. I think he is an overrated socialist who will attack police officers, exploit 911 families, and do anything it takes to make a $$$$$$$$. That's fine: what really gets me is how there are certain sections in the media that shill for him. You may disagree. But aren't the personal attacks against each other a little immature?
21 - sandra
El Bicho:
I hate to say this because I like your articles. But your recent comments are highly immature. I looked over all those articles you used to try and slam Daryl, and you indeed spin things:
He admitted that he jumped on the South Park bandwagon late. So, what's wrong with that? And a couple MONTHS later, he admitted that he didn't like the last couple episodes. I agree with him because some of the episodes this past season have been pretty lame. But I can't find an article where he wrote afterwards, unless something is wrong with my browser.
I loved World Trade Center and completely disagree with his review. However -because it was so hyped up and received such excellent reviews, I would have to consider it a flop. Although I would consider United 93 a flop as well.
About O'Reilly: there may be a disclosure agreement on the parties involved, but that doesn't answer why the media doesn't keep going after him on this. This should have ruined his career, but it didn't because the general media are too afraid to question him. El Bicho: reread the article because he is 100 percent correct on this.
I think Daryl is a fantastic writer and judging from the response he gets and the traffic he brings to his site, he should be complimented by Blogcritics, not bashed. Does his ego get in the way with his writing too much? Yes! But nobody is perfect.
In any case, it just saddens me that all of you are acting like kids about all this. I would expect this at another site, but not Blogcritics. Daryl does have some growing up to do, but so do the rest of you.
22 - Ray Ellis
You never state anything directly, Daryl--makes it easier for you to, as you put it, put a spin on things.
Here's what you said:
It's just such a double standard because of Michael Jackson, Madonna, Bon Jovi, Whitney Houston, or any other superstar that originated in the 80s played to more than half empty houses, their names would be plastered all over the Drudge Report and other media outlets. Bruce somehow gets a free pass. I just don't think it's right.
What you did, if nothing else, was demonstrate that you don't even have a fundamental grasp of your subject matter with that statement. And that, my friend, is unforgivable for one who calls himself a journalist.
Here's what it is, Daryl. You're not a journalist. You say you're camping out for the iPhone, but you've decided already, sight unseen, it's all hype. That's not how one approache a review. But in the Daryl universe, it's best to start with a preconception and backtrack from there to make a point.
You say you worked in the music industry-- in what capacity? At one time or another, we all worked in record stores. You have scores of nameless friends you claim will back up your claims, but you offer no proof these people even exist. If the issue is you "don't like Bruce Springsteen", why did you jump on this to review? I mean, if you knew you were going to hate it, why did you want to waste your time? Was it to go off on another one of your pointless rants, or was it because you wanted to be the first kid on your block with a BlueRay disc? You certainly didn't say anything substantive as to why the BlueRay format was worth the investment.
I don't think anybody here is shilling for Springsteen or anybody else, for that matter. By the same token, I don't think any of us see you as a critic. You can't dismiss a musician, writer, filmmaker or anybody else because you have an issue with them. That's apples and oranges.
We have a saying here: Don't bullshit a bullshitter.
23 - daryl d
Whatever, Ray: I meant "became a superstar" in the 80s. Simple typo and I'm sorry to offend your sensibilities. Certainly, Michael Jackson didn't originate in the 80s either, but he defined the word "superstar" that decade. Springsteen's first record came out in 1973, but admit it: he didn't become a major superstar until 1984/1985.
I'm so glad that you were able to read my review of the Iphone, even though I haven't written it yet. I do think it's a lot of hype, but also admit I've fallen into it. But I'm glad you are able to see in the future.
I worked in the industry as an Assistant Music Director. What have you done, worked for the Bruce Springsteen fan club?
"You can't dismiss a musician, writer, filmmaker or anybody else because you have an issue with them. That's apples and oranges."
I can't think of ONE critic who doesn't bring in bias to what he/she writes. It's there no matter what. I dismissed Springsteen's work, of late, because I don't think it's good. If I have bias against him, it's because of what he does with his art. I don't know him personally. But I do think he has had some high points this past decade and I've pointed them out.
24 - Tom Johnson
Daryl, as a fellow Blogcritics writer, you know as well as I do that the most "shilling" anyone does on this site is sometimes receiving review copies of materials, but more often than not we simply review things we buy ourselves. Get it? Let me spell it out to you: We write about what we love and that's why you see so much praise for Springsteen. Unlike you, the rest of us don't waste our money on things we aren't going to like, therefore, you won't see as many negative reviews - and that's a good thing. We'll leave that to the childishly pissy Pitchforkmedias of the internet to play that game, thank you very much.
There is no "favoritism," as someone else points out, it's just a coincidence of people coming together who happen to love Springsteen. "Favoritism" and "shilling" - it's amazing what thoughts some overactive imaginations and paranoia can produce, isn't it?
25 - sandra
Ray Ellis - you wrote:
You can't dismiss a musician, writer, filmmaker or anybody else because you have an issue with them. That's apples and oranges.
Ray (and other Springsteen fanatics here)- you can't blindly cheer and shill for everything a musician, writer, or filmmaker does just because you are a fan. That's apples and oranges too.
I do agree that this site seems to be used as a shill headquarters for Bruce Springsteen. It's as if his record company is paying this site to shill for Springsteens products because, in general, they are not selling.