Skip to main content

Pure conjecture about Springsteen from 75-80--the guy was afraid...like scared to death...to look in the rearview mirror. I think there were two main reasons. Money and reputation.

Remember, the band didn't start cashing in until '81. Until then, and especially in light of the lawsuit, I think there was an attitude that if the ship wasn't sailing forward, it was bound to sink. Seems silly now, but at the time he was not far removed from being a nobody from the economic desolation of the Jersey shore. Anyone else here grow up in a lower middle class neighborhood? Do you ever feel financially safe?

So why didn't he just cash in with a live album? I think he was still struggling at the time with the reality of becoming a "rock star." Remember during the River tour he couldn't stop talking about Elvis, and of course there was that whole hype backlash from Born To Run. I think he equated the live album concept with getting fat and selling out--in addition to the handful of classics, there were a lot of bullshit live albums in the late 70s too. He was committed to the next moment, the next show, etc, etc. Everything he says in interviews at the time scream it.

Or, Landau's an asshole.
[]Well, given the existence of a 22 disc set of unreleased tracks and outtakes, you probably have an argument at least in terms of unreleased stuff. [/]


Springsteen owns the copyright of all his sound recordings, as well as the musical and lyrical copyright of all his own compositions. This includes the material you've mentioned above.

If anyone would try to claim copyright of his songs or the sound recordings then Springsteen would litigate...and has done so with great gusto.

Now if someone would NOT claim copyright but rather instead merely try to commercially exploit Bruce's recordings....Springsteen may litigate...it depends on the scope of the exploitation attempt. Springsteen is not going to waste time and money chasing petty infingments through the US or foreign courts.

Although Sony Music no longer owns any of Springsteen's sound recordings, Sony Music does have an exclusive right (it's a fixed-time lease deal with Springsteen) to sell and market Springsteen's sound recordings worldwide. So Sony Music also has the capability to litigate (separately or in conjuction with Springsteen) if Sony feels its rights are being infrnged. Again, whether Sony goes after someone very much will depend on the scope of the infringement attempt.
I agree with Tatoo Dad, give it a couple of years and the vaults with all the live recordings video and audio will be available for download, probably after Tracks 2 is released. The point about what Springsteen chooses to release is nonsense, whatever he releases will please some and anger others, personally I don't really care too much about the live recordings because they never completely convey the experience of shared awe in watching Bruce and the band live, I heard Bruce was going to release a live album in 79 but when the Clash released the triple 'Sandanista' he went back in the studio and done the double River which was great.
I read most of the posts...and yeah, before the crash I had a few thousand posts, but no one seems to be able to answer why Bruce cares? He knows he rocks live, he knows it's his bread and butter, why is he so closed up when it comes to paying someone to clean up a soundboard from '78 and putting out there. I just don't understand why he thinks it matters...(sorry, back on the boards after a very long absence)
Cuz' Bruce is an Idiot...
It's his material I know.. but he is his WORST critique

He's and Idiot !!

He told Charlie Rose that he couldn't find a good version of "The Promise" ... WTF....???
I'd take either of the two popular Band versions in a heart beat, over that lame solo piano version he opted to re-record.... (at least he left "The Fever" alone.. But he admits.. He HATES the song.. - go figure... ). I had a friend, who is a Non-Bruce fan .. When he heard "The Fever", he was floored !!! He couldn't get over how ?soulful' it was.. He thought it was one of Bruce's best songs he ever heard...

He once told Gary US Bonds (when Gary was asked to re-record all of his old hits) that the 'charm' of the old hits is in the flaws, and limitations of the recordings at the time...

Then, he himself goes and re-records "The Promise"
he should have taken his own advice...

IMO..
One of the BEST Springsteen release in a LONG time....
Is the Fan mash.. of Bruce and SSJ doing the "Hearts of Stone" duet...

But, you could bet the ranch.. that Bruce would have NEVER entertained the thought of doing that mix...

Once Bruce invited Chuck Plotkin to master the old recordings.. he BLEW IT....

Chuck added "The Big Bang" drums to ALL the songs..
Yeah.. Sandy (4th of July.. ) with a Big Bang Drum...
God does that sound awful...
I liked "Saint in the City" with Vini Lopez's soft sleek
thump, thump, thump...not the BAM, BAM, BAM of Max's drums...
Don't get me wrong.. I LOVE Max's drumming.. but when they mixed it for the release.. they did an OVERKILL...
i know it was a sign of the times.. with techno drums and all in the 80's, but any moron should have realized.. it should have sounded like it was played in the 70's... where it belonged..

Bruce just doesn't get it.. and I don't think he ever will...

When he is long dead..
Maybe his kids will release stuff... kind of in the same way Jimi Hendrix's father it doing with Jimi's stuff...

ehhh...
2 cents worth..
conan..
[]One of the BEST Springsteen release in a LONG time....
Is the Fan mash.. of Bruce and SSJ doing the "Hearts of Stone" duet...

But, you could bet the ranch.. that Bruce would have NEVER entertained the thought of doing that mix...
[/]
Yeah, fake duets are a great idea <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleye0011.gif" alt="" />

Can you deny, there's nothing greater
Nothing more than the traveling hands of time?

[] Once Bruce invited Chuck Plotkin to master the old recordings.. he BLEW IT....

Chuck added "The Big Bang" drums to ALL the songs..
Yeah.. Sandy (4th of July.. ) with a Big Bang Drum...
God does that sound awful...
I liked "Saint in the City" with Vini Lopez's soft sleek
thump, thump, thump...not the BAM, BAM, BAM of Max's drums...
Don't get me wrong.. I LOVE Max's drumming.. but when they mixed it for the release.. they did an OVERKILL...
i know it was a sign of the times.. with techno drums and all in the 80's, but any moron should have realized.. it should have sounded like it was played in the 70's... where it belonged..[/]
When did this happen?
Originally Posted By: Earthslayer
[][]If I'd been an "insider", there would have been a live release per tour... or Bruce would be walking around with welts on his head.

[/]

Mid 70s to early 80s, everybody and their mother was releasing double and triple live albums. Regardless of what you may think of them, Frampton Comes Alive, Kiss Alive, At Budokan, Live Bullet, a hundred others - all became American FM radio regulars and are thought of as classic Rock albums.

How the hell did Columbia not get him to make a live album during the 75-81 years? His live show was supposedly a must see/hear, and yet the only things he released were Santa Claus and the edited Detroit Medley. He wasn't selling a billion albums, so how did he have the leverage to tell Columbia "NO" when it came to a live album all that time? [/]



I don't think this is any big secret - there were quite a few shows audio recorded during the Oct-Dec, 1975 period because Mike Appel wanted to follow-up BTR with a 2LP live set as a potential mid-late 1976 release....and then issue the next studio album after that (in late 1977). However Springsteen did not want to go down the live LP route and this was just one of several issues that caused the gradual estrangement between Appel and Springsteen in the early months of 1976 (the lawsuits started flying in July 1976).

Columbia Records had no capacity to dictate the delivery of a live album for them to release....it wasn't that type of contract. Appel could have done a deal with Columbia and released such a live album during 1976 irrespective of Springsteen's wishes....however Appel knew that would irreparably damage his relationship with Springsteen.

When Springsteen finally settled with Appel in mid-1977 this was immediately followed by a complete renegotiation between Bruce (who now had control of his business affairs) and CBS....and that new contract did not call for Springsteen to deliver any live albums to CBS.

Springsteen has incredibly tight control over his sound recordings (both released and unreleased, live and studio) and has had such control ever since mid 1977.


I seem to recall that the artists also got a bigger chunk of the cut for a live album release back in the day, no?
Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×