But, I do have some concerns, and I think that’s part and parcel of the days here, when rock and roll hits it’s, as well as my, middle age.

I judge this, first, by thinking back to the days when I first saw both the Stones and Bruce in concert (interestingly, I have never seen Stewart, so my reaction to him may be somewhat different). Both were relatively at the same time, the Stones at Boston Garden in ’75 and the Seattle Kingdome in ’81; Bruce at UConn in ’74 and then again in Portland, Oregon ’80 and a couple times later on the "Born in the USA" tours in the mid 80s.

Those were certainly different days, both for me, and probably for them, as well. In the mid-Seventies, I was in college, while in the early 80s, I was in law school. I was on my own, and much of what I saw, observed and felt seemed so "black and white," that is, there seemed to be a "right or wrong" to everything. To say that I was a bit strident about the issues of the day would not be too far off the mark.

So, to that brought the outrageous rock and roll party of the Stones, "only" about 12 years into their history at that point, very vital, very strong, very drug and society influenced, kicking all of us in the ass, making us dance and, in those pre-equality, pre-feminist movement days, drawing a big distinction between men and women, flaunting the very fact of sexism and some sort of bizarre conquest. Very heady for a relatively young, single, pumped up guy.

Bruce, on the other hand, appealed to the other side of me. While his shows were the musical top, with those legendary four hour marathons, he seemed to stand for, and write and sing about, what it was like growing up in a small town, what those first relationships were like, what looking for a job was like. He seemed to be absolutely anthemic about the quest for growth, all the time showing that the power and essence of rock and roll meant everything. Interestingly, he stayed that way through at least the "USA" tour in the mid 80s, a time when dreams began to turn to mush, wrong decisions affected everyone and the bright promise of a new day maybe didn’t rock quite so much.

In a word, we, and they, were getting older.

Fast-forward another 15 years. The Stones are still on the road, in their mid 50s, some 35 years together. They still sell out stadiums, and will be playing two shows in Boston and another two in Hartford this year for their first arena tour in about 20 years. What will happen when I see these poster boys of badness, somewhat creaking about? Will they still sound as strong? Can they still claim the mantle as the "Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World?"

Will it matter?

Bruce is scheduled to tour later this year with the unbelievable E Street Band in full regalia, for the first time together in over 10 years. Bruce is almost 50, too, has three kids and a happy home life for perhaps the first time. Hey, I have a happy home life, too, and I’m, well, if not 50, I can see it on the horizon someplace. Will his show reveal of the vitality, abandonment and vital necessity of those earlier years? Hell, he’s already said publicly that family commitments made this tour very difficult.

Can a bunch of happy, content, middle aged and very rich rockers make a difference anymore? And, can they make a difference to an audience made up of people like me, baby boomers who can afford the ticket price but may not have the emotional need for, or see or feel this music the same way that we once did?

It’s kind of like your high school reunion. To borrow from Bruce, it may be talking all about the "Glory Days," but what’s the point? It’s all from a different perspective now. What, indeed, will be the expectations?

Stay tuned.