Springsteen Vinyl - Post "The Rising"

I am revisiting "Magic" today and am reminded of two things

1) I think the material is quite good
2) The sound of the CD is terrible

If memory serves me well, the really crushed sound has become a norm on every release since

Anyways, I did get the vinyl of WB when it came out, and while not great, I think it beats the CD and is worth having

Are the other albums worth getting on vinyl from a pure sound perspective or am I wasting my $$$

 

Agreed on both points re Magic. What a waste of some of Brooce's best songs this century.

IIRC, the forum consensus was that the vinyl version was offered little or no improvement, but I'm sure someone here will correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Interesting. I see DR database losts Magic vinyl at DR11 while the CD shows DR7. That seems like a positive, although listening to this, it is hard to believe the CD is even 7

 

The Magic vinyl is very cheap and not very good.
It's not a big investment if you want to see how it sounds on your system.

I'd wait on The Rising given current prices.

 

Particularly in light of the horrible sound quality of Bruce's recent CDs, I regularly buy the vinyl, searching for that million dollar sound.
Haven't found it yet.

 

I can't speak from expertise, but I can say from experience that the problem must be with Bruce and who he listens / doesn't listen to. I'm friends with a very good (and professionally crucial) friend of Garry Tallent, Bruce's bassist since the 60s. You'd know my friend's name if I told you. Garry told my friend stories about how E Street had to overcome Bruce's musical weaknesses in the studio. According to Garry, Bruce's poor musicianship made it difficult for him to communicate with other musicians. Bruce would come up with tons of ideas, and E Street would have to use their advanced musical education to understand what he wanted. Bottom line: Bruce didn't understand music theory and didn't know how to read / write music very well, so E Street members such as Garry, Roy, and Danny spent a lot of time teaching him and dealing with what they thought were poor records.

In regards to Magic, based on what my friend has told me, and having been a huge fan for decades, I think Bruce made the bad decision of trusting Brendan O'Brien, who made Magic sound the way he wanted. Bruce trusted him and, given Bruce's stubbornness over the years, likely told off those who disagreed (you really think Steve Van Zandt approved Magic's sound?). I also think there's something wrong with Bruce's ears, because honestly I don't understand how he thought Magic sounded good. It's sad because it's my favorite E Street record from beginning to end, but it's also not a surprise when you consider the sonic disasters he's created since 1973.

I actually think Wrecking Ball is sonically superior to his previous records, although it also feels like the way it was created: very digital and lacking emotion. It's almost as if every musician recorded their parts separately. Oh wait...

 

Bruce said he used to listen on BEATS headphones until Ron Aniello told him to stop due to the poor sound representation. This was during the "High Hopes" period.

 

The Beatles (and many others) couldn't read/write music. Not a big deal in rock.

 

Magic; great songs....putrid production...a real poster child for horrible digital recordings.

 

For sure. So, is the vinyl better than the CD?

 

Can't polish a festering fermenting post binge turd.

 

I didn't get the sense that his issue was primarily the inability to read / write music; rather, the inability to read / write was but one of the many reasons why he struggled. In isolation, the inability to read/ write music might not be significant enough to explain why or why not a record sounds good. However, given that neither the Beatles nor Bruce could write / read music, other factors must have played into one sounding great and the other not sounding so great. And I don't mean songwriting quality. I'm talking strictly about production.

Bruce is capable of making good sounding records - the original 1 disc River (The Ties That Bind) sounds awesome. Many tracks from Born in the USA sound great, too. And Tunnel of Love might have the best overall production. For whatever reason, he rarely achieves this level of quality (based on my own personal preferences of what sounds good / bad).

Huh, do you recall where you saw Aniello telling him to stop? I knew about the BEATS and figured he was still using them. I think Aniello has helped Bruce sound better. Both WB and High Hopes sound like clearer, higher DR albums to my ears than Magic and The Rising. However, the song quality is inferior. Then, factor in the weird production Aniello adds with digital instruments, sound effects, loops... he's turned off a lot of long-time Bruce fans who wish he would let Steve produce E Street in studio.

 

You could argue that Bruce has never worked with a good producer. Would love him to get together with Nigel Godrich or Rick Rubin. However despite his sonic limitations he has made many great albums and I am sure Tallent is very grateful he has been part of his band for more than 40 yrs off and on.

 

If you take out Born To Run and The River, I think everything up through TOL sounds pretty darn good. Heck, Wild Innocent is one of my favorite sounding records and I also love the sound on Darkness, particularly the bass. If that story is true, I don't get how his band thought the early records were poor sounding. It is the sound that made the band.

They should make records again that sound as good production wise as those did

 

Springsteen Producer Breaks Down 'High Hopes'

 

Through 1983, Born to Run and WIESS are the only ones that sound good to my ears, however I'm factoring in both performance and sound quality. My issue is partly with Bruce's engineers, but it's mainly the production. Born to Run and WIESS sound good partly because of the sound quality - although it's not great - but also because the performances are strong. Greetings has mediocre sound quality and weak performances (Saint in the City, for example). Darkness has horrible, just terrible performances. It's not really fair to criticize Prove It All Night for not having the awesome guitar solos he discovered during the Darkness tour. In fact, I actually think Prove It sounds fair on the record in comparison to Badlands, with those ridiculous backing vocals from Bruce himself. Where's Steve, Garry, and Clarence? Why is Bruce seemingly doing all of the vocals? Oh, that's right, because he was a selfish egomaniac. I can go on and on with Darkness, but I'd rather just forget that studio record exists.

The River is mostly a joke, and it's sad because The Ties That Bind sounded so good. Case in point: Compare The Ties That Bind from the Single River disc with the version on the "original" album (in quotes because the true original is the 1 disc that I recall Bruce throwing into a pool as a way of showing his approval). It sounds warmer and fuller with a stronger lower-end. The original sounds tinny and lacks low punch. Another example is The Price You Pay, which suffers from the same problems.

For the most part, the River outtakes sound good since most of them were released on Tracks, which has great mixing and mastering.

We'll skip Nebraska since Bruce was trying to sound cheap.

Born in the USA and Tunnel of Love have excellent production, but of course, they hardly represent his guitar abilities and basically make him sound like a political crybaby showcasing demos for Dianna Ross or Jackson Browne.

Human Touch and Lucky Town have the same ridiculous production as Darkness, except the songs suck and now include digital loops and effects.

Tom Joad sounds excellent and should be mentioned alongside Tunnel of Love as far as production and engineering. Song quality is another matter.

The Rising has some excellent production, notably on Nothing Man and My City of Ruins. Most other tracks suffer from the same tinny, irritating sound of The River, except the band didn't play together, and the songs aren't really E Street. It's basically Lucky Town version 2 with better songs and his band once again not getting any recognition on the album cover.

Devils and Dust sounds OK

Magic sounds bad, but E Street's back, Bruce is angry, and the songs are good. A competent producer who's capable of telling Bruce that succumbing to the loudness wars isn't the answer would've made it the best rock album ever by anyone over the age of 55.

Working on a Dream has excellent melodies and decent singing. The production isn't terrible considering it's the same team as Magic (as far as I recall).

Wrecking Ball and High Hopes sound richer and fuller than anything else he's released on an official album. I'm actually quite surprised at how much flack these albums get in regards to sound quality. Yeah, the songs are inferior, but my ears enjoy these more than any other studio Springsteen album. Unfortunately, I can't count River Single Disc or Tracks because they're not official.

As an aside, in my opinion, the best sounding recording Bruce ever made was None But the Brave, which of course was only released as an extra on Essential.

 

Devils & Dust is horrific. Pure trash sound wise. When I hit that sentence, it basically made your post meaningless to me.

 

I stopped reading when horrible and terrible was used to describe Darkness.

 

I appreciate you succinctly informing me that I should put you on ignore rather than dragging it out over months end.

No offense, but I have no time for trolls who say "hurr durr im not readding yrer posts because i disgree"

If you have a legitimate counter-point, then engage me. If you don't, then leave it alone or merely say you disagree.

God, this is starting to sound like the Springsteen forums that, for some reason, are filled with so many hateful people who almost always take the argument away from Bruce and turn it into a dick-size contest. Remember that kid who committed suicide last year because of bullying on Backstreets.com? It's pathetic.

To my ears, the Darkness record sounds like a heaping mess. I don't know how you can sincerely listen to Badlands and say it sounds anywhere near as good as it does live, but then again, I've given up trying to reason with Bruce fans. It's why I moved to this forum. At least you get a more reasonable response - usually.

Regarding Devils, I don't know how you can say the definitive versions of those songs aren't on the record (Long Time Comin', Leah, Jesus Was an Only Son sound decent to me), but whatever. It's not a record worth discussing very often.

 

Alternate universe there I think....

 

Party on. If you think D&D is good sounding. Darkness is a mess, and The River is a "joke" then have fun on your planet.

 

I can't read the latest reply since I put that member on ignore, but I'll paraphrase Alan Parsons, who is by far the best engineer my ears have heard:

Regarding production, there's 2 things to consider:

1. The monitor sound
2. The performance

Whether it's Bruce or someone he's paying to make decisions for him, whoever is deciding the final album sound is either not listening through a proper monitor system or has broken ears.

Regarding performance, I'm sorry, but you've had Nils Lofgren in your band since 1984, and he doesn't have ONE signature guitar solo on any track (don't tell me Tunnel of Love)? That's enough evidence for me to move on to another artist for quality studio work.

So, to answer the OP, I recommend Devils and Dust, Working on a Dream, and Wrecking Ball. You might like the sound even if you don't care much for the songs. Then again, why listen to mediocre music when you can put in something great like, oh, I don't know, the rare live Bruce video that captures what he's all about.

 

No, it really isn't.
I bought the vinyl full of hope, but moved it on pronto. It sounds flat as a pancake. Just like the cd. Awful.
I do think the sound quality of his albums plumbed the depths with "Magic" and have actually improved substantially since then. I have vinyl versions of his most recent albums and they don't sound bad.

 

Great Article. Thank you for sharing.

 

This should be good. I'm no Bruce fanatic. Stopped buying his records after "Tunnel of Love". Seen him live a slew of times though in the '70s and '80's.

"Born to Run" is a great album made to sound like a 1960's Phil Spector record. It sounds thrashy and muddy because it's supposed to sound thrashy and muddy. It was made to be played through car speakers not audiophile equipment.

In contrast, "Darkness" is a good album that - to my ears - sounds great.

Maybe I'm nuts . . .