Bruce Springsteen (1 Viewer)

[wasn't sure about resurrecting this damn old thread, but haven't found a better one and didn't feel like starting a new one for the purpose]

I've only just now seen that THE BOSS has been given a concert (kinda "recently"; d.i. 2009) where he was performing [entirely] one of my most favorite albums of his (if not THE Most Favorite of albums / the 5-LP-Live-Box from 1985 is another league of course):

Why didn't Anybody tell me? (or to quote from Buk: "why wasn't it advertised?")

Of course, in This concert he's not exactly in the Same (bad) shape as back then, but in an other sort of (bad)[-still-matching] shape. Considering this, I think his performance about the album works. Well. Still.

I do need that concert on video in HQ!
That's a demand.
Here in Philly there are many outlets to get 70's audio bootlegs and the occasional footage/concert. Next time i'm in said record stores i will make note of what they have. Bruce, especially early Bruce, is huge here. Some Philly fans get very posessive as if Philly was his home away from home, his first taste of success outside of NJ so to speak. Am I a fan of all his work? Nah, but his early stuff I do like a lot. Are you familiar with/do you have the "Born to Run" 30th anni 3 disc (1cd, 2dvd) set? Top shelf and brilliant quality. The same can be said for the "The Promise: The Darkness on the Edge of Town Story" box set. Here's part 1 of three:

Last edited:
Damn, Philly, NO! - I didn't know either about the 'Born To Run'-Special nor the 'Darkness'-thing! (or maybe I was drunk when people told me)
Thanks for that!

Lately I felt like getting into The Boss again a little more. Just a stage of course.
Still he is a hero to me and always has been.

Around the age of 15-19 I've been a HUGE fan of The Boss.
I even started to buy bootlegs (notabene: that was before the digital-age of 'everything's-available' and it was in Germany, not the US) - a financially hard task for a schoolboy. Also I had to take what was available here.

But, well, here's me tonight just showing off shamelessly in terms of my Springsteen-Bootlegs:

"Tell Tales"
1 LP "Limited Edition Interview", 1987

"Steel Mill" [!]
2 LPs, rec: 1970

"Back to the Roots"
4 LPs, rec: June 21st 1985, Milan (Italy)

"Buenos [sic!] Noches Argentina"
1 green-colored LP, rec: October 15th 1988, Buenos Aires (Argentina)
[with Tracy Chapman, Sting, Peter Gabriel]

"Saint in the City" (Swinging Pic Records - greyzone-legal at the time)
2 LPs, rec: March 3rd 1974, Washington (DC)

"Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band" (Swinging Pic Records- greyzone-legal at the time)
1 LP, rec: February 18th 1974, Cleveland (Ohio)

"Smalltown Boy" (Swinging Pic Records- greyzone-legal at the time)
1 LP, rec: April 24th 1973, [Main Point, Bryn Mawr ?]

"Springsteen Raises Cain"
2 LPs, rec: July 7th 1978, Los Angeles (CA)

"Bruce Springsteen 78"
2 LPs, rec: September 19th 1978, Passaic (NJ)

"Flat Top and Pin Drop"
2 LPs, rec: October 17th 1975, [The Roxy Theatre

I know, what you must be thinking now: Shit, this guy is anything but modest!
yes. true. you're right.

Last edited:
Allow me to show off shamelessly and say I have the Born to Run and Darkness sets. They are great. Love yr collection. Very cool.

1973 the Main Point, Bryn Mawr? Yes Bryn Mawr is a suburb of Philadlephia. I have Prodigal Son At Main Point from 5/2/75 2cd set, full show. The sound quality is superb bc it was aired on the radio.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bruce used to be a major dick about bootlegs well into the '90s. And it was weird because his true fanbase tried to get everything they could get their hands on. And this was pre internet. I don't know if it was because of the internet that he changed his mind. I actually think it was before. In anycase, his Sirius station plays unreleased stuff day and night. He embrassed it and pretty much owns it now. But in the day -- a very angry man.
Well, all the money is made touring now, right? So it's all about assets in seats. So bootlegs are just concert promoting, just like my copy of Nebraska used to be.
Look, any artist has a right to be a dick about bootlegs. For 1) it often portrays them in a poorly-produced light, and 2) they don't make any money from them. Contracts differ; some artists make decent money from their album (define this however you like) sales and others do not. King Crimson made some great albums and made barely a dime from any of them because they were told that touring is how a band makes money by promoting album sales. Basically, this was a tool used by music companies to rake in huge dollars while ensuring that the musicians that lined their pockets didn't starve to death, but might die in a road accident or from backstage antics. But hell, that was rare and the numbers bore it out.

Anyone who bitches one word about what musicians say about bootlegs should strap themselves to the top of a greyhound bus naked, ride around the country for nine months through January in Minnesota to Arizona in July with no water and no friends. Then, get back to me on how you feel.
Pogue Mahone - Springsteen also discovered he had signed a very bad deal with his label early in his career. His share of "Born To Run" sales was pretty weak and his lawsuit took years to correct that. So I don't blame him for having a bad attitude about official releases, bootleg releases, or methane gas releases.

A few years ago, a friend and I were in the lobby before the start of a concert. He asked me if I had the latest release from the artist we were about to see. I said I would probably look for it online at Amazon or somewhere and he chided me: "You know the artist usually gets a better cut of the proceeds when they sell CD's at shows. Buy their music as directly from them as possible"... etc.. He then turned and headed to the merch table. Brian Wilson's merch table. It's all about the principle and not the fact that Wilson could wipe his ass with hundred-dollar bills if he wanted to.

That being said, yeah I own a couple bootlegs myself. But I also have bought pretty much their entire official discography plus concert tickets and some merchandise. I don't feel too guilty about it.
For 99.9% of professional musicians now, the bulk of the money is made from live shows, but that's a 180 degree turn from the way it was traditionally, when bands would tour to sell records. So back in the day, I think the argument was that live bootlegs cut into tour profits, which ultimately affected record sales. The reality is those bootlegs didn't really have wide enough distribution to cut into anyone's pie, but I suspect that's the way it was seen from the (big) music business side of the fence.

As a consumer you're not necessarily benefiting from that 180 degree change, because you're paying for it at the ticket window if you go to live shows. So we traded cheaper (or free) music for more expensive shows. But of course from a musician's standpoint it's a better deal, since the record company can't fuck you out of tour receipts. You know, unless you owe them millions of dollars, which most young bands on big record labels do.

The rise of the Internet has made it possible for a band to have a relatively small following and still survive, and that's good for musicians, music and anyone who loves music. The Grateful Dead (of all people) were the first to recognize that kind of shift, way before technology made it inevitable, since they sold fewer records than most big bands and made most of their money on the road. Which is probably why they encouraged bootlegging, going so far as to set up special roped-off areas near the mixing board for people to set up microphones and recorders and not be jostled by a bunch of spinning hippies banging on tambourines.

Any way you slice the argument, music and most musicians will only benefit from the death of the record companies. It's a painful transition sometimes while we figure out how things are going to work, but it's a positive one. For proof of that, all you have to do is look at who is most resistant to the changes: the record companies.
There's a debate going on cause some Kiss member said that rock was over, blaming the new internet era and the way music is sold. Maybe I guess he wanted to state that "rock stars" are dead...
But I see many bands like Priest that are, actually, grateful to their record companies, in the sense that contracts would guarantee a band the recording of four our five records, an achievement that, in those days, if you werent a HIT and success with your first release, you wouldn't get. I think that was the way with many bands that developed and built their fan base through extensive tourings.

There's this new Spotify thing going on, that you pay a monthly fee to them and get almost everything that's out there, in Streaming. My stepson's a death metal fan and he showed me that another day. I kept asking myself how do bands profit by that... and now you can see Rob Halford talking about it on an article named "Streaming for Vengeance".... laughs.
in those days, if you werent a HIT and success with your first release, you wouldn't get.
That's not exactly true. You had to be really bad or die in a plane crash to not get to make three albums back in the 70s. The Stooges and the New York Dolls both made two albums that no one bought. No one bought the first few Aerosmith records. You mentioned KISS, they made three albums that no one bought.

It was in the record company's interest to keep bands on the road and recording. Remember that every penny spent on making those records and doing those tours was charged back to the bands, so the record companies couldn't lose. If they could keep a band in the public eye long enough, some of them would catch on and make some money for the company. When they didn't catch on and the record company lost money on a band, it was tax write-off.

Of course someone like Judas Priest is "grateful" to the record company, because they became popular enough to pay back all that money and then make some for themselves. Most bands weren't that lucky.
Back in the 70s, Springsteen was one of the most bootlegged musicians due to his habit to play songs differently every time and tell little stories in between and play songs that aren't on the records, etc.
He seemed to apreciate that to a certain degree.

On one of my boots, just before playing a new song he announces:
"Are any bootleggers out there tonight? Roll your tapes!"
I still remember how pissed off the Doobie Brothers were at Rerun... Not sure why this always stuck with me.

[This video is unavailable.]

Go to about 13:00 if you don;t want to watch the rest of this jive-ass show.
Yeah, funny how that usually works.

Though I remember liking Rocks, but I haven't heard it in decades, so I reserve the right to change that opinion.

I have a copy jammed in with some other dusty LPs, but I'm afraid to listen to it.
Check out One Way Street on their debut. An excellent, overlooked tune. Underrated, as the vogue saying goes. Most of Get Your Wings is great also.

Here y'go:

[This video is unavailable.]
Y'all know, I'm a fan of the 'Darkness-on-the-Edge-of-Town'-Springsteen.

Now, I just bought this box at a bargain (19,- EUR shipping included):


Yes, it's 15 CDs; yes, it's 5 full concerts all from the Darkness-tour in 1978; yes, I said 19,- EUR.

But is it a buy?
Well, the sound-quality is - of course - lightyears below studio. But it is also Way above bootleg.
I must say, that a sound-engineer with a minimum of technical skills would've been able to produce a better mix out of this material (esp the 1st two concerts are unnesseccarily weak). So, audiophiles won't get their kicks. But everybody crazy for The Boss of this time will.

His performances of the songs - do I have to say it? - are gorgeous.
Yes, at the very moment I'm in the process of ripping the whole damn motherfucker.
Last edited:
There's a new Vanity Fair article where Bruce compares his dad to a Bukowski-like individual. Not sure if it's a good analogy, but good to know he's probably read some Buk. (Please, let's not turn this into a Bruce sucks thread).

Actually, it's a horrible analogy. My bad.
Last edited:
Read the article and liked it. If I recall correctly I think Bruce was referring to his father as a Bukowski-like individual at times/when he drank. Good or bad analogy I find it more than a little interesting that Bruce has read Bukowski.
My wife and I saw Springsteen the other night being interviewed for the New Yorker Festival of Books at Town Hall in NYC.
Each ticket came with a signed copy of his autobiography. All in all an interesting experience. Springsteen is a really good talker, told some cool stories, did the requisite bashing of Trump and managed to overcome interviewer David Remnick's fanboy need to over-mythologize and simplify a complicated guy. Best parts of the night were Bruce reading passages from the book. Strangest were watching him listen to snippets of his old tunes which seemed to bore him.
Funniest was leaving the theatre and seeing a crowd of 40-70 year olds crowding around his Range Rover and hoping for a special moment.
My co-worker friend paid for a meet & greet pic that included the signed book. Said Bruce seemed a bit like a deer in headlights but handled it really well and seemed genuinely nice. Bruce is only 5' 8.5", exactly my height!
did the requisite bashing of Trump

I know Mr. Ski is intelligent enough to know this, but Bruce is pretty much forced to do this. Many of the towns and people he has written songs about are still desperate and need of salvation -- to the point that Trump looks like a savior.

Down here in North Carolina, the fallout of Bruce cancelling his show because of HB2 was met with a lot of anger -- even with his fans.

But are they real fans?

Do they remember that Bruce joined other artists on the song "We ain't gonna play Sun City?" Because he didn't want to make a buck off the back of discrimination?

Do they remember the Amnesty International tour?

But most importantly: Do they remember that Bruce wrote the theme song to "The Streets of Philadelphia"? Those of us who were growing up at that time can testify that there was not much sympathy for gay people with AIDS. And it was not just hate, but genuine fear and confusion. How could a kick-ass band named "QUEEN" have anything to do with AIDS?

Anyway, I remember that when Bruce wrote "The Streets of Philadelphia", it gave me understanding and courage -- and as a result, I was much stronger human being at age 21.
I'm in the position to have to think about selling my copy of the limited (26) letterpressed, hardbound, signed by Springsteen and Hornby 'Thunder Road' chapbook.
More detailed info on this fine work: HERE & HERE

My copy has a binding-error but is integer and absolutely as new (has left its packing for about 2-3 times since purchace).
Not exactly sure now, that I will actually do it, but what would you guys think is a reasonable prize, if I sold it?
Damn Roni: You resort to unbridled capitalism after my heart-felt vodka rant on Bruce? Did you recently read "The Art of the Deal"? You've been spending too much time with Ms. Merkel... which in the American English translates into Merkin -- the thing Mr. Trump wears on his head.
Hey Pogue, I've been thinking about selling it for a longer time now, since I'm in need for some money and my total devotion to The Boss keeps absolutely unaffected, by selling a collectible, that someone could much more enjoy than I do. It sure is a beauty I don't really want to part with, but on the other hand, I don't exactly need it that bad (if I think about it rational for a change).

So there you have it. I'm in a position where I have to think about selling some of my stuff. I'd rather give my left testicle, but fear this is not so much of collectible value. Anyway, since the item is so scarce that I can't compare its possible value for a collector with the market, I thought, I'd ask here for some advice on prizing. Then I might offer it at some Springsteen-forum.
Springsteen fans have deep pockets and are hard core. Plus, Christmas is on the horizon. So go with a Buy It Now high number with a best offer auto decline with the price you'd like to get.
Ah, it had a hole in it. I wondered how he handled a heavy guitar so easily. But his Tele was extra light.
Weird, I know I posted this response yesterday, but it seems to have disappeared. That or I'm just out of it.

Anyway, this part of the description makes absolutely no sense. Not in the guitar world, the recording studio world, the world of the musician's union, or the physical world in which we all live:

"the guitar [...] was jury-rigged with four pickups wired into extra jacks that would each plug into a separate channel on the recording console. With the Fender modded this way, the session player could collect four times union scale for playing four slightly different versions of the same guitar solo."

And neither does this:

"Because of its provenance, the guitar also became seriously valuable, with reported insurance estimates ranging from $1,000,000 to $5,000,000."

I don't doubt it would go for a million, but not a lot more. Springsteen is not famous for being a guitar player, and it's typically the guitars of people known as guitar players (you know, the ones who do all the fiddly bits in the songs) that fetch those 6 and (rarely) 7 figure prices.
I don't know a lot about the technical side of guitars but that first quote didn't quite sound right to me either.

Users who are viewing this thread