What do people think of the new track? I quite like it. Hard to judge if this is completely new (in the sense that it was written recently) or an older song he has dusted off.
The weakest part for me is actually the title, along with the line in the song using it. The song sounds like it's going somewhere quite interesting before falling into something of a cliche on the pay-off.
I've only listened to it once though ... everything written above has a giant asterix against it for now LOL.
It got its world premiere last night.
Also here's a blog about Bruce's appearance: https://cantfindtickets.wordpress.com/2023/11/07/e-street-review-bruce-springsteen-stands-up-for-heroes-in-new-york-citys-lincoln-center-november-6th-2023/
I like the ending the most.... And the song sounds like Moonlight Motel's ugly sibling...
The hopeless romantic in me likes it, though.
I've listened once so far and I think it's ok, not brilliant, but ok. I do like it when Patti harmonises with Bruce. Agree about the title though!
I'm guessing in the context of the film it works OK. Do I feel the need to listen to it as a standalone record? Errrrr.......
I've had three listens and I like it quite a bit. It does sound like a Western Stars composition and I would have been happy to help Bruce with a better title line.
Infact, it was something of a Christmas morning new song wise for me... three of my all time favourites in Bruce, the Stones and U2 dropped new songs today. So far I've listened to each twice... at this point, Sweet Sounds Of Heaven by the Stones is my favourite present of the three this Christmas. It could almost be an Exile escapee. Addicted To Romance I like more on the second listen. I'm starting to think it might be a Western Stars era piece. But I still think the addicted to romance title is lame and seems almost forced into the song itself. As for Atomic City.... well, for mine, completely rote Songs Of... era U2. Although it does threaten to get interesting both with the guitar solo and the bridge that introduces some sax/horns into the equation.
Hey, that's a first... I've derailed my own thread.