Springsteen Live Archive Releases

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Chris S., Aug 24, 2015.

  1. bobcat

    bobcat Forum Resident

    Location:
    London, UK
    They hardly hid the fact they were control freaks - and particularly unpleasant ones (though that begs the question can you be a 'nice' control freak) - in the documentary about the band.

    I suppose, to their credit, they didn't soft soap anything in that documentary.
     
    PacificOceanBlue likes this.
  2. JoeF.

    JoeF. Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    So basically they were like the Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley of the laid-back, L.A. soft-rock scene?
     
  3. bobcat

    bobcat Forum Resident

    Location:
    London, UK
    Can't comment.

    The Kiss experience completely passed me by.
     
  4. JoeF.

    JoeF. Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    I was kidding. I think The Eagles were much more talented.
    Now I'm gonna hear it from the other side....
     
    bobcat likes this.
  5. this is from https://brucebase.wikispaces.com/1977x:x

    "Audience tape available on CDR 'The Promise In Boston', CD 'Promise Into The Darkness' (Mainstream Records) and in superior quality from Steve Hopkins' master via JEMS. This transfer can also be found on CD 'Are You Ready For The King Of The World?' (Godfather) and as part of the six-CDR set 'Legends From The Music Hall' (unknown label), which also includes Bruce's sets from March 23 and 24."

    It says this about all 4 Music Hall shows(and others). Has anyone heard these shows of Hopkins' masters? I'd really like to knows what kind of "masters" he's got. Anyone?
     
  6. dugan99

    dugan99 Active Member

    Location:
    Long Island
    Steve Hopkin's audience master recordings (Taping Gear: Sony ECM-99A > Sony TC-158SD (recorded on Maxell UD 90-minute tapes, Dolby B encode) , transferred in 2012 by JEMS. Represented material upgrade over previously circulating sources. 3/23 sticks out in my mind as the best recording. But at the end of the day, still audience recordings (albeit very good ones).
     
    dee and marmil like this.
  7. walrus

    walrus Forum Resident

    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Yeah. I don't know...I love when they play weird stuff, though, even if it's not perfect. If they had a perfect 18-20 song set, they'd play it every night and I think it'd get old really fast for both the band and the fans. I really don't think there's another successful hard rock band on the planet who does the kind of shows they do, as far as giving 110% onstage and playing big venues while still appeasing hardcore fans who want to hear "Breath" or "Long Road" or whatever. We're lucky they're still with us.
     
  8. redsock

    redsock Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    The March 25, 1977 Boston show is amazing and it sounds very good (the Godfather Records release). Bruce's and the band's energy on the encore "You Can't Sit Down" (with the Miami Horns) is unreal. I recently played both the March 24 and 25 shows and the sound is punchier and a bit clearer on the 25th. What I wouldn't give for a crisp, clear video!

    BruceBase says: "Final night of the tour, and a contender for one of the best ever with Bruce in inspired form."
     
    babyblue and marmil like this.
  9. PacificOceanBlue

    PacificOceanBlue Forum Resident

    Location:
    The Southwest
    There was only one tour billed as the "Farewell Tour 1," and it was named that as sort of joke, the joke being that there will be more tours to come. The Eagles put it all out there on the table, exposed of the dirty laundry as part of their acclaimed documentary and owned it. That said, the core remaining four members of Frey, Henley, Walsh, and Schmit did not have any documented animosity between each other during their 2000-2014 reign. Also, I don't think The Eagles could have performed as well as they did during that period if it was only for the money; clearly there had to have been some passion behind such first-rate touring work.

    I know it must drive some Springsteen enthusiasts nuts that I am drawing a comparison between him and The Eagles because for some, Springsteen is viewed as genuine, authentic, a champion for the working man, and above big money deals, while The Eagles are all about greed. But upon closer examination, there is a lot more in common than some would like to admit. And as far as live performance quality is concerned, The Eagles could hold their own with anyone during the Glenn Frey era (how they go about their business moving forward is still to be determined).
     
  10. PacificOceanBlue

    PacificOceanBlue Forum Resident

    Location:
    The Southwest
    To be clear, both Meisner and Leadon left on their own. Felder was the only band member fired. Meisner was abusing substances and becoming paranoid about performing Take It To The Limit; Glenn insisted that he continue to perform the song because it was a huge hit and the audience expected it to be performed (not exactly an unreasonable point of view on Frey's part). They allegedly came to blows, but it isn't if at that moment, Meisner was fired or quit. He left at the end of the tour. Leadon and Frey had an altercation, but again, he did not quit at that moment (the notorious beer incident). Leadon did not like the musical direction the band was going in and parted ways amicably.

    Interestingly enough, when you read Springsteen's autobiography, he states some of his own personal issues that he had with his own band, with Lopez being fired prior to Born To Run and ongoing issues with Federici going back 40 years. Then there is the report from Peter Ames Carlin in the well-researched "Bruce" biography where he states Springsteen significantly low-balled the E Street Band members with their tour offers for the 1999/2000 reunion (IIRC, figures similar to what they made in the early 1980's), and Gary Tallent essentially had to threaten not to join the tour unless it was raised. Speaking of scenarios where there is more than meets the eye, Landau and Springsteen promote a myth and keep things close to the vest and well protected from scrutiny, but one suspects that there is a lot more going on behind the scenes than some fans would like to know about.
     
  11. SoundAdvice

    SoundAdvice Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vancouver
    Some BTX posts imply that Landau reduced his fee. Explains why he managed Shania and Escavedo for while.

    I can't see Landau getting $500,000 just phoning a promoter in Italy he's worked with since 1985 and asking "it's been 2 years, how does the 1st week of July 2018 sound?"

    Landau doesn't have dirt fans haven't or talked about. Not even if Bruce looked like Scarface backstage on the 1978 tour or the infidelity rumors from 5-8 years ago were true.
     
  12. SoundAdvice

    SoundAdvice Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vancouver
    I think half of those names are better performers in recent memory that tours from decades ago where they didn't know how to handle crowds, drugs got the better of them or they developed a sophisticated touring crew that had close relationship with fans. Some lose some high notes, move onstage a little slower, lose band members or avoid fan favorite songs for decades but that is frequently over stated.
     
  13. Chris Schoen

    Chris Schoen Forum Resident

    Location:
    Germantown, Md.
    Yeah, the Eagles didn't know how to wear cool costumes, and REALLY ROCK!! :laugh::sigh:
     
  14. PacificOceanBlue

    PacificOceanBlue Forum Resident

    Location:
    The Southwest
    I don't know. Unless Bruce asked him to, I don't know why Landau would give up commission points. One would think he expanded his management roster during the late-1990's because he was trying build up his management company as a business. If he was earning 10-15% from all Springsteen revenues between 1976-1998 (plus producer's royalties), he would have conceivably been very wealthy by the 1990's, wealthy to a point where he did not need to expand his management roster to make up for lost Springsteen revenues.

    Managing an artist and overseeing touring operations is not as easy as simply placing a phone call for a booking. I have no idea how hands-on Landau still is, for example, did he negotiate Springsteen's bloated $100 million dollar deal with Sony, or did Springsteen's attorneys handle it? But regardless, managing a major act like Springsteen is a full-time job, and for many managers, it would not worth taking a commission reduction just because the revenues are conceivably high.
     
  15. bcaulf

    bcaulf Forum Resident

    I listened to the shows from '75 from '88 and I enjoy them. I was gonna stick with Live 75-85 but when I learned they used overdubs I decided to pass and go for Bruce live in the real. I enjoy them, and don't have many problems with the sound overall, but sometimes I get a little tired towards the end because they're so long. That's not their fault though, I like having the entire shows! Nassau is a complete rave up and has my favorite versions of Fire, Because The Night, Spirit In The Night, 4th Of July and Racing In The Street (which is simply beautiful). My second favorite is probably California '88. He skipped over the songs that dominated his last live releases (I love Jungleland but it's nice hearing a live release without it for a change) and having the horns allowed him to rework most of them, which is cool.
     
  16. SoundAdvice

    SoundAdvice Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vancouver
    U2 with Oseary would be a smaller cut.

    Sting got ride of Miles Copeland in 2003.

    Madonna/Bowie/Macca/Jagger have done huge tours without handing over huge money to their manager.
     
  17. SoundAdvice

    SoundAdvice Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vancouver
    Bruce might have pushed for it in 1999 when ESB started up again.
     
  18. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits and Abbie: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    I think the Eagles had a reputation as a polished live band but not a superb one. Seems like many criticized how they usually replicated the original recordings in a "to the letter" way without much spark or creativity.

    I like the Eagles - saw 'em 7 or 8 times and enjoyed the shows, but they did lack a stage presence and charisma and creative spark as a live band.

    More than competent live band? Sure. Superb? Nope!
     
  19. RichC

    RichC Forum Resident

    I saw The Who do Quadrophenia in the 90s, back when The Ox was still alive, and it was a great show... But nowhere close to Live At Leeds. (Which is the Springsteen comparison we're making, right? That current Bruce can't compare to those amazing soundboards from '78.) And unless Roger's voice has GAINED range over the last 20 years, and the current replacement bassist plays circles around Entwistle, I suspect The Who show I caught was as good or better than the one you saw recently. So... Good considering the years, but nowhere as good as The Who in their late 60s/early 70s prime.
    I've seen Springsteen since, and I enjoyed many of his shows more than The Who one. YMMV, as always.

    As for Queen.... We're REALLY gonna hold up Adam Lambert (along with May and Taylor) as a "contemporary" of Bruce whose show is superior?? I mean, if we're going that route, let's just have the guy from the Gaslight Anthem front a band with Little Stevie, Max, and some studio musicians, and call that "Bruce Springsteen and The E Street Band." Maybe they can replicate the entire 1978 setlist too....

    No opinion on Winwood/Clapton, never saw them, and I've heard the Eagles were still bringing it live before Glenn passed. (As well they should, their tickets were 3X the cost of Bruce tickets last I checked.)
     
    budwhite likes this.
  20. PacificOceanBlue

    PacificOceanBlue Forum Resident

    Location:
    The Southwest
    In no way does The Who come close to its early 1970's era brilliance; it is unfathomable that anyone would argue otherwise. And that is sort of the point, frankly I have found their contemporary period shows superior to that of Springsteen's, so what does that say about Springsteen's contemporary live work? To these ears, it is way beneath the standard he set decades ago. I do not buy that he is "better than ever," or at the very least, "way better than his contemporaries." He works hard and puts on a relatively good show (albeit an inconsistent one), but I do not think he is doing something his contemporaries are not. He has declined like all the others.

    The recent Queen/Lambert concert I saw blew away any 1999-2017 Springsteen show I have captured and/or heard. I never thought in a million years I would take that position, but I have no problem saying it. I can't imagine any E Street Band member playing at the level of Brian May. The production was outstanding and the musicianship was first-rate. I would go to a contemporary Queen concert over a contemporary Springsteen concert 10/10 times without hesitation, and I tend to like Springsteen's body of work more than Queen's.
     
  21. PacificOceanBlue

    PacificOceanBlue Forum Resident

    Location:
    The Southwest
    I still say superb. Being able to play and replicate the intricacies of the original recordings "to the letter" takes a lot of skill and talent. To me, that is a feat few acts can pull off. Having Springsteen call out for crowd participation, standing on pianos, doing his preacher schtick, doing his Motown covers, etc. does not seem very creative in 2017.
     
    budwhite likes this.
  22. laf848

    laf848 Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Sewell, NJ USA
    I went to the U2 & Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers shows in the past month & thought they were great shows. Saw the Moody Blues the other day & it was a good show not great. I saw Bruce in the & 70's & The 80's and loved his shows. I also saw Bruce in the middle 90's & early 2000's, thought they were good but was not crazy about either show. Going to see the Who Saturday night in Atlantic City. I'm hoping they put on a real good show.
     
  23. Mfj55

    Mfj55 Active Member

    Now your pulling my leg. Queen with Lambert better then Springsteen. To each his own, but I can't imagine a more annoying singer then Lambert. Pompous and overblown schlock. Again, my opinion.
     
    dberthia and FourWalledWorld like this.
  24. Mfj55

    Mfj55 Active Member

    You see, it's all about creating a connection with the audience. This is something that Springsteen "Still" does better then anyone. Certainly better then the Eagles who represent the worst of American corporate rock. But at the end of the day, it's all about how you enjoy the songs. I prefer Springsteens catalog to all of the above citations. If they are executed at a level somewhat below that of 1978 so be it. I don't think the crowds at MetLife stadium last summer had a problem with that. Simply amazing shows that lived up to the legend.
     
    dugan99 likes this.
  25. INSW

    INSW Forum Resident

    Springsteen shows were always shtick laden, but the past 18 years of shtick have been cliche driven. Raise your hands, is anybody alive, righteousness, building a house of love, etc. It's hackneyed and has a waterdowned effect on his live show.
     

Share This Page