But he loved his mama as long as she lived!
Posted on 05/14/2022 9:59:59 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Keith Richards has made a career from speaking out of line in what is an unfiltered approach to saying what is on his mind. Even those who have been kind to him over the years, like Bruce Springsteen, are not immune to criticism.
Springsteen is incredibly thankful for the powerful impact The Rolling Stones had on his life, and he holds the group in demigod status. ‘The Boss’ has even openly spoken about his recurring childhood dream about being plucked from the crowd and joining them on stage.
Years later, Springsteen successfully made that unthinkable childhood ambition become a reality. However, despite performing with Bruce on multiple occasions, Richards believes the only reason his peer is famous is because of a devastating lack of talent in competition.
Writing as part of his 2010 autobiography, Life, Richards savagely critiqued a plethora of his peers, such as Elton John and Prince. Of course, those were unsurprising attacks considering his history with the pair. However, he has a cordial relationship with Bruce but still wrote: “If there was anything better around, he’d still be working the bars of New Jersey.”
Richards’ problem with Springsteen isn’t anything personal, and in a 1988 interview with Rolling Stone, the guitarist explained why he finds the New Jersey singer-songwriter “indulgent”.
He remarked: “I’ve met Bruce two or three times. We’ve had several good chats, usually at some release party or premiere, and we just end up in the corner talking. He’s a sweet guy, a nice guy. Mind you, I think four-hour shows really are way over the top. To me, a great rock & roll act does twenty minutes [laughs]”.
Richards added: “I remember the Paramount, where you got the Impressions, Jackie Wilson, Joe Tex, and everybody does just their absolute supreme best shot! A lot of the shows you get these days are very self-indulgent. I don’t think anybody can be enthralling for four hours on stage playing rock & roll.”
Later in the interview, Richards was asked for his thoughts on Springsteen’s music. Although he did caveat his comments by stating that he likes Bruce as a person, his music is a different subject. The Stones guitarist remarked: “Bruce? That’s a tough one, because I like the guy. But the music…I don’t know. I’m the toughest taskmaster of all time. I’m going to annoy a lot of people. Bruce? To me, it’s pretentious.”
As much as Richards finds Springsteen’s concerts intolerable, the singer-songwriter’s affability compensates for his perceived shortcomings on the musical front.
Either Richards’ scathing comments didn’t get back to Springsteen, or the New Jersey native was simply unfazed by the remarks because below is footage of them performing a thrilling rendition of ‘Tumbling Dice’ in 2012.
Yes, he’s very talented but he’s quite insufferable. Really thinks who he is, as we say in NJ.
“Blinded by the light” I’ve always hated that song. I didn’t know the braindead dork wrote that trash.
reading these antics richards has been through he does deserve the Meme pics we often see posted here.
That fall from the tree story is wild for a man over 60..that alone should have finished him
“Born in the USA” makes my skin crawl. But then, I’m a genuine musician, not a pretentious hoser like Bruce.
Mick Taylor...the best lead guitarist for the Stones.
“If there was anything better around, he’d still be working the bars of New Jersey.”
“Sure, but that’s more or less true of all performers.”
Probably true of boxers as well.
But he loved his mama as long as she lived!
Sorry Keith, but Elton John and Prince are/were both massive talents. Far more talented than Springsteen. Prince is by far the most underrated guitarist in pop/rock and maybe the greatest rock/pop guitarist of all time.
I agree with you about Springsteen, but hasten to add Arlo Guthrie and Sly (& The Family Stone). “Honorable mention” goes to Chuck Berry who is an obnoxious plick but was still interesting to see.
Springsteen’s first 3 LPs before making the big time were very good. After that....crap. Endless hack work.
My opinion on his music is not influenced by the fact that he is ignorant leftist trash. I still enjoy those first 3 albums.
Clearly, you were there.
I don't know about the frat houses but most of the Bruce Springsteen fans I ran into were pasty white guys who weren't into music at all. A lot of jocks and a few of their wannabes, neither of which could tell you the first thing about any other music.
lol — exactly
Same with Woody, imo. I listen to his contemporaries often but get nothing from him.
Here's some ear candy, new to me, a freeper posted a couple weeks ago:
I was a big fan when he was just starting out and playing in high school gyms and tiny beach bars. He was so energetic, enthusiastic and joyful onstage. Went backstage and met him, called him on the phone, etc. Greetings from Asbury Park and The Wild, the Innocent and the E-Street Shuffle were jazz fusion, some were art songs like Joni Mitchell's, and some had real depth, especially due to Clemons and Sancious, both magnificent in live performance.
But when the Born in the USA tour came around, he had hit the large-venue big time, and had six speakers, each the size of a sportscar, stacked three deep on either side of the stage; and the metal-adjacent slamming, repetitious lyrics, hammering pace and bone-crushing volume literally made me sick—I had to leave the concert before it was over. I've never walked out on another event in my life except a really bad early Raquel Welch movie in 1969, and a Methodist sermon on Valentine's Day in 1995 when the pastor went woke and talked about love by telling us about being sexually abused in childhood by a farm hand in his parent's barn. It takes a lot to make me leave.
Even then, I maintained a passing interest until 1997, when Bruce attempted to sing "The Times, They Are A-Changin'" at the Kennedy Center Honors in front of honoree Bob Dylan. Weird and odd and grating and iconoclastic as Dylan's singing might be, that ghastly rendition by Springsteen was even worse than the nervous hash Patti Smith made of "A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall" in front of the Nobel Prize audience when Dylan sent her instead of himself to Stockholm to accept the Nobel.
But I digress.
Hearing Bruce murder a song as demonstrably opposite to bel canto as a Dylan song can be, and not sound half as good? That was the end for me.
And not a moment too soon, in view of his coming out as a whiny little ingrate liberal bitch and chronic depressive in the years to follow. This nation and his adoring fans have made the man celebrated and rich beyond his wildest early dreams. He was too young to go to Vietnam and too old for Desert Storm, and he came onto the scene in one of the most prosperous and upbeat times of the past century. But he's depressssssssed. "Oh, pooooor meeee!" He's probably suffering from Impostor Syndrome, secretly aware that he doesn't really rate all the fuss.
If I had their money, I'd look great, too.
I was fortunate to see Springsteen on tour for this album back in '85, at Mile High Stadium in Denver. Great show!
Is he pretentious? Sure. Do I disagree with pretty much everything that comes out of his mouth other than song lyrics? Yep. The same can be said for many bands I like. "Shut up and sing!"
As far as Keith Richards is concerned, I love Keef! But let's be honest. He hasn't played a Stones song correctly live since 1972. He either forget how to play the songs he wrote or he just doesn't care enough to bother.
FWIW, Springsteen's 1979 "No Nukes" performance has recently been released. His show was the highlight of the festival and is one of the best live recordings I've ever heard. He absolutely owns the concert (and he plays some excellent lead guitar as well).
I thought the same. I'm guessing cocaine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.