CD: Greatest Hits (Wal-Mart Exclusive) Bruce Springsteen & The E Street Band
Release date: 01/13/2009
Track Listings
1.Rosalita (Come Out Tonight) 2.Born To Run 3.Thunder Road 4.Darkness On The Edge Of Town 5.Badlands 6.Hungry Heart 7.Glory Days 8.Dancing In The Dark 9.Born In The U.S.A. 10.The Rising 11.Lonesome Day 12.Radio Nowhere
"Why would Badlands and Darkness be on there before Philadelphia? (not that I care about this stupid release)" ===================================
I think the more important question is why would Springsten allow for a Wal-Mart exclusive release? Wal-Mart isn't exactly known for being all that employer-friendly. I find it an odd pairing. The idealist in me would like to think that maybe this was out of his hands, but knowing the control freak that Springsteen can be, I'd imagine that he'd have a say about it
> "Why would Badlands and Darkness be on there before Philadelphia? (not > that I care about this stupid release)" > ===================================
> I think the more important question is why would Springsten allow > for a Wal-Mart exclusive release? Wal-Mart isn't exactly known for > being all that employer-friendly. I find it an odd pairing. > The idealist in me would like to think that maybe this was out of his hands, > but knowing the control freak that Springsteen can be, I'd imagine that he'd > have a say > about it
> "Why would Badlands and Darkness be on there before Philadelphia? (not > that I care about this stupid release)" > ===================================
> I think the more important question is why would Springsten allow > for a Wal-Mart exclusive release? Wal-Mart isn't exactly known for > being all that employer-friendly. I find it an odd pairing. > The idealist in me would like to think that maybe this was out of his hands, > but knowing the control freak that Springsteen can be, I'd imagine that he'd > have a say > about it
> "Why would Badlands and Darkness be on there before Philadelphia? (not > that I care about this stupid release)" > ===================================
> I think the more important question is why would Springsten allow > for a Wal-Mart exclusive release? Wal-Mart isn't exactly known for > being all that employer-friendly. I find it an odd pairing. > The idealist in me would like to think that maybe this was out of his > hands, > but knowing the control freak that Springsteen can be, I'd imagine that > he'd have a say > about it
Easy, I think this is the trade off that allows him to do things like the Seger Sessions. That and the fact he owes so many releases per his last contract with Columbia. That being said, I find this very odd.
> > "Why would Badlands and Darkness be on there before Philadelphia? (not > > that I care about this stupid release)" > > ===================================
> > I think the more important question is why would Springsten allow > > for a Wal-Mart exclusive release? Wal-Mart isn't exactly known for > > being all that employer-friendly. I find it an odd pairing. > > The idealist in me would like to think that maybe this was out of his > > hands, > > but knowing the control freak that Springsteen can be, I'd imagine that > > he'd have a say > > about it
> Easy, I think this is the trade off that allows him to do things like the > Seger Sessions. That and the fact he owes so many releases per his last > contract with Columbia. That being said, I find this very odd.
> Dave
Plus, as has been noted before, they are firing every shot possible in the upcoming period to promote the new record and tour. A Walmart exclusive makes complete sense in that mindset for them.
> "Why would Badlands and Darkness be on there before Philadelphia? (not > that I care about this stupid release)" > ===================================
> I think the more important question is why would Springsten allow > for a Wal-Mart exclusive release? Wal-Mart isn't exactly known for > being all that employer-friendly. I find it an odd pairing. > The idealist in me would like to think that maybe this was out of his > hands, > but knowing the control freak that Springsteen can be, I'd imagine that > he'd have a say > about it.
Even more odd is the timing of this haphazard and redundant "Best Of" is so close to his newest studio album release. Usually this sort of thing is done by a old record label to cash in on an artist' new release on a different label but that's obviously not the case here. Not that I think it'll take any sales away from the new album, but I doubt it will benefit from the timing either by association when there's other far better single and multi CD "Best Of" Springsteen collections out there including the recently repackaged and price reduced 3 cd "Essentials" collection.
> Easy, I think this is the trade off that allows him to do things like the Seger Sessions. That and the fact he owes so many releases per his last contract with Columbia. That being said, I find this very odd.<
Odd. Sad. Hypocritical. Pathetic.
On the bright side, however, I look at the end of my admiration for the man as a money-saving turn of events.
On Dec 21, 7:40 pm, Denise <LuvTheB...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 7:01 pm, "DoubleD"
> > Easy, I think this is the trade off that allows him to do things like the Seger Sessions. That and the fact he owes so many releases per his last contract with Columbia. That being said, I find this very odd.<
> Odd. Sad. Hypocritical. Pathetic.
> On the bright side, however, I look at the end of my admiration for > the man as a money-saving turn of events.
That's funny because he looks at it like a money making turn of events. Are you saying you no longer admire him because of a Walmart exclusive that has NO new or alternate versions of songs that would make some of us here purchase it? I think 18 tracks is more of slap that this and it's not even close. It has been, is and always will be about the money. Only exception in my mind was Nebraska.
> > "Why would Badlands and Darkness be on there before Philadelphia? (not > > that I care about this stupid release)" > > ===================================
> > I think the more important question is why would Springsten allow > > for a Wal-Mart exclusive release? Wal-Mart isn't exactly known for > > being all that employer-friendly. I find it an odd pairing. > > The idealist in me would like to think that maybe this was out of his > > hands, > > but knowing the control freak that Springsteen can be, I'd imagine that > > he'd have a say > > about it.
> Even more odd is the timing of this haphazard and redundant "Best Of" is so > close to his newest studio album release. Usually this sort of thing is > done by a old record label to cash in on an artist' new release on a > different label but that's obviously not the case here. Not that I think > it'll take any sales away from the new album, but I doubt it will benefit > from the timing either by association when there's other far better single > and multi CD "Best Of" Springsteen collections out there including the > recently repackaged and price reduced 3 cd "Essentials" collection.
> T.B.
Yes, but none of those are being heavily promoted by Walmart, which is the biggest seller of CDs in the country. Not only will it not take away from WOAD, I imagine Walmart is going to have special priced two- fers with this GH and WOAD paired together a couple of weeks later.
Let's face reality, this is a business decision and they are leaving no stone unturned. Once he decided to do the Super Bowl, this was inevitable.
> On Dec 21, 7:40 pm, Denise <LuvTheB...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 7:01 pm, "DoubleD"
> > > Easy, I think this is the trade off that allows him to do things like the Seger Sessions. That and the fact he owes so many releases per his last contract with Columbia. That being said, I find this very odd.<
> > Odd. Sad. Hypocritical. Pathetic.
> > On the bright side, however, I look at the end of my admiration for > > the man as a money-saving turn of events.
> That's funny because he looks at it like a money making turn of > events. Are you saying you no longer admire him because of a Walmart > exclusive that has NO new or alternate versions of songs that would > make some of us here purchase it? <
I can't even imagine looking at it as anything other than pathetic on so many levels. It wouldn't matter to me what he released, the crucial element is Wal-Mart. If he released the new CD at Wal-Mart my feelings would be the same.
I don't shop Wal-Mart. In the last week I have given away 3 gift cards received as gifts for Wal-Mart. I wouldn't buy Antonio Banderos if he was $1 at Wal-Mart.
And Bruce ought to know better. If it's true, it's a truly sad turn of events. He's lost his principles, or rather he's traded them for money he doesn't need.
Never thought I'd say that. But for me, i think it'll be the final blow.
> > > "Why would Badlands and Darkness be on there before Philadelphia? (not > > > that I care about this stupid release)" > > > ===================================
> > > I think the more important question is why would Springsten allow > > > for a Wal-Mart exclusive release? Wal-Mart isn't exactly known for > > > being all that employer-friendly. I find it an odd pairing. > > > The idealist in me would like to think that maybe this was out of his > > > hands, > > > but knowing the control freak that Springsteen can be, I'd imagine that > > > he'd have a say > > > about it
> > Easy, I think this is the trade off that allows him to do things like the > > Seger Sessions. That and the fact he owes so many releases per his last > > contract with Columbia. That being said, I find this very odd.
> > Dave
> Plus, as has been noted before, they are firing every shot possible in > the upcoming period to promote the new record and tour. A Walmart > exclusive makes complete sense in that mindset for them.
Thought the same thing. Harleyfest. Super Bowl. "Workin' on a Dream" is middle of the road (though still go). NFL spot to debut it.
Workin' on an icon.
cwb
ps-- I agree it is a bit odd that just a few years ago he granted license for his music to be used in the documentary condemning Wal- Mart, and now they're gettin' a f-ing exclusive.
HalS007 wrote: > Let's face reality, this is a business decision and they are leaving > no stone unturned. Once he decided to do the Super Bowl, this was > inevitable.
My general attitude about it is---eh.
I seriously don't care. The music industry is changing and the means of getting music to the masses has changed. Do I wish it was not Walmart--sure. But that also means that a lot of people who only know Bruce through those three BITUSA songs that they hear on the radio and will be buying this release for just might hear some other really good songs.
And the music business has always been that--a business. They will move a lot of product with that, and Bruce will continue to divide his recording time between products aimed at the masses and projects aimed at the fans. Hell, I'm still pissed they had to make the artistic misstep of rearranging the song order on the Born To Run album to balance it out for release on 8-track, but I am glad I did not refuse to purchase Darkness as a result.
The music is what matters to me---the business side of it is what it is. When Bruce starts leasing his music to Cirque du Soleil and releasing $200 box sets of Blood Brothers I might take notice. A 12 track sampler of greatest hits? Meh!
So the E Street Band just might go out with a couple of huge selling releases? Sorry, I can't get to the righteous level indignation that seems to be required here.
As for me, I won't be buying it--I don't purchase items from Walmart and this will be the only place to get it. Oh well, both Bruce and I will survive.
But a big deal---just not feeling it....
-- Dan
"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
> > "Why would Badlands and Darkness be on there before Philadelphia? (not > > that I care about this stupid release)" > > ===================================
> > I think the more important question is why would Springsten allow > > for a Wal-Mart exclusive release? Wal-Mart isn't exactly known for > > being all that employer-friendly. I find it an odd pairing. > > The idealist in me would like to think that maybe this was out of his > > hands, > > but knowing the control freak that Springsteen can be, I'd imagine that > > he'd have a say > > about it.
> Even more odd is the timing of this haphazard and redundant "Best Of" is > so > close to his newest studio album release. Usually this sort of thing is > done by a old record label to cash in on an artist' new release on a > different label but that's obviously not the case here. Not that I think > it'll take any sales away from the new album, but I doubt it will benefit > from the timing either by association when there's other far better single > and multi CD "Best Of" Springsteen collections out there including the > recently repackaged and price reduced 3 cd "Essentials" collection.
> T.B.
Yes, but none of those are being heavily promoted by Walmart, which is the biggest seller of CDs in the country. Not only will it not take away from WOAD, I imagine Walmart is going to have special priced two- fers with this GH and WOAD paired together a couple of weeks later.
Let's face reality, this is a business decision and they are leaving no stone unturned. Once he decided to do the Super Bowl, this was inevitable.
So does that mean he WILL be doing American Idol this season???? :)
>> > "Why would Badlands and Darkness be on there before Philadelphia? (not >> > that I care about this stupid release)" >> > ===================================
>> > I think the more important question is why would Springsten allow >> > for a Wal-Mart exclusive release? Wal-Mart isn't exactly known for >> > being all that employer-friendly. I find it an odd pairing. >> > The idealist in me would like to think that maybe this was out of his >> > hands, >> > but knowing the control freak that Springsteen can be, I'd imagine that >> > he'd have a say >> > about it.
>> Even more odd is the timing of this haphazard and redundant "Best Of" is >> so >> close to his newest studio album release. Usually this sort of thing is >> done by a old record label to cash in on an artist' new release on a >> different label but that's obviously not the case here. Not that I think >> it'll take any sales away from the new album, but I doubt it will benefit >> from the timing either by association when there's other far better >> single >> and multi CD "Best Of" Springsteen collections out there including the >> recently repackaged and price reduced 3 cd "Essentials" collection.
>> T.B.
> Yes, but none of those are being heavily promoted by Walmart, which is > the biggest seller of CDs in the country. Not only will it not take > away from WOAD, I imagine Walmart is going to have special priced two- > fers with this GH and WOAD paired together a couple of weeks later.
> Let's face reality, this is a business decision and they are leaving > no stone unturned. Once he decided to do the Super Bowl, this was > inevitable.
> So does that mean he WILL be doing American Idol this season???? :)
look, I may get in trouble for saying this - my source told me to keep it quiet until it's announced so don't spread it around - but no, not American Idol.
>>> > "Why would Badlands and Darkness be on there before Philadelphia? (not >>> > that I care about this stupid release)" >>> > ===================================
>>> > I think the more important question is why would Springsten allow >>> > for a Wal-Mart exclusive release? Wal-Mart isn't exactly known for >>> > being all that employer-friendly. I find it an odd pairing. >>> > The idealist in me would like to think that maybe this was out of his >>> > hands, >>> > but knowing the control freak that Springsteen can be, I'd imagine >>> > that >>> > he'd have a say >>> > about it.
>>> Even more odd is the timing of this haphazard and redundant "Best Of" is >>> so >>> close to his newest studio album release. Usually this sort of thing is >>> done by a old record label to cash in on an artist' new release on a >>> different label but that's obviously not the case here. Not that I think >>> it'll take any sales away from the new album, but I doubt it will >>> benefit >>> from the timing either by association when there's other far better >>> single >>> and multi CD "Best Of" Springsteen collections out there including the >>> recently repackaged and price reduced 3 cd "Essentials" collection.
>>> T.B.
>> Yes, but none of those are being heavily promoted by Walmart, which is >> the biggest seller of CDs in the country. Not only will it not take >> away from WOAD, I imagine Walmart is going to have special priced two- >> fers with this GH and WOAD paired together a couple of weeks later.
>> Let's face reality, this is a business decision and they are leaving >> no stone unturned. Once he decided to do the Super Bowl, this was >> inevitable.
>> So does that mean he WILL be doing American Idol this season???? :)
> look, I may get in trouble for saying this - my source told me to keep it > quiet until it's announced so don't spread it around - but no, not > American Idol.
> Dancing with the Stars.
> with Courtney Cox.
> it's in the can!
I have no idea what you are talking about......... ;o)
On Dec 21, 8:17 pm, Dan <D...@highway29.net> wrote:
> HalS007 wrote: > > Let's face reality, this is a business decision and they are leaving > > no stone unturned. Once he decided to do the Super Bowl, this was > > inevitable.
> My general attitude about it is---eh.
> I seriously don't care. The music industry is changing and the means of > getting music to the masses has changed. Do I wish it was not > Walmart--sure. But that also means that a lot of people who only know > Bruce through those three BITUSA songs that they hear on the radio and > will be buying this release for just might hear some other really good > songs.
Agreed. I can't get that fired up about this. It's a business decision, and Wal-Mart is where the majority of physical CD's are sold in this country.
If you knew some of the indie record promoters that Bruce has used in his career, you wouldn't make such a big deal about this. There are times and places for morality - I don't think this is one of them.
From the man who was quoted as not wanting to ever be an oldies act. This release to me, IS just that
and granted, one one hand, there are FAR more important things to worry about in this world today that Bruce and the promotional merry- go-round, but...
<There are times and places for morality - I don't think this is one of them>
on the other hand, ALL things considered in this world today, perhaps more than ever before in my lifetime anyway, we could use all the morality we can get
> > > > "Why would Badlands and Darkness be on there before Philadelphia? (not > > > > that I care about this stupid release)" > > > > ===================================
> > > > I think the more important question is why would Springsten allow > > > > for a Wal-Mart exclusive release? Wal-Mart isn't exactly known for > > > > being all that employer-friendly. I find it an odd pairing. > > > > The idealist in me would like to think that maybe this was out of his > > > > hands, > > > > but knowing the control freak that Springsteen can be, I'd imagine that > > > > he'd have a say > > > > about it
> > > Easy, I think this is the trade off that allows him to do things like the > > > Seger Sessions. That and the fact he owes so many releases per his last > > > contract with Columbia. That being said, I find this very odd.
> > > Dave
> > Plus, as has been noted before, they are firing every shot possible in > > the upcoming period to promote the new record and tour. A Walmart > > exclusive makes complete sense in that mindset for them.
> Thought the same thing. Harleyfest. Super Bowl. "Workin' on a Dream" > is middle of the road (though still go).
|
