…than Bruce Springsteen playing a solo acoustic show?
Maybe I need to clarify this question. There are the acoustic albums: Nebraska and The Ghost of Tom Joad, the latter exposing how boring the former really was. That’s all right, though, if you’re not comfortable liking one of the decent, somewhat rocking Bruce Springsteen album that the sweaty masses love. I’m pretty sure I know which of you dig Nebraska, and for today’s discussion, I’ll grant you a pass.
Today, I’m interested in knowing if anything in rock is less interesting than a solo Bruce Springsteen show. We get some high-def music channel that shows the same four programs: a Green Day concert, some “Honors” concert for Heart, a concert with Bon Jovi jamming with country artists, and Springsteen playing a solo and acoustc. The concert reeks of that Tom Joad period. The Boss is dressed in black. His muscular stubby arms are awkwardly wrapped around his acoustic guitar. (Discussion for another day: Can muscles and guitars coexist?) He mumbles unintelligibly through every damn song! Can Springsteen ever perform one of his songs in an acoustic, solo setting as if he’s not praying in hoarse, hushed tones at 2:00 am, so as not to wake his cellmate? Is it not enough that he’s already The Boss, does he really need to be E.F. Hutton?
So this is why I ask if it can get less interesting than Bruce Springsteen playing a solo acoustic show. Surely there are worse shows and artists to see, but what the hell does one focus on when seeing Bruce solo? I would imagine it would be so boring I couldn’t even cut up on him.
I look forward to your comments.


