Bruce Springsteen - Live At The Main Point

It's not a legal release

Hope this helps.

Nope.

Chris

Whether Springsteen and Landau don't recognise this release is irrelevent, as long as the law recognises this release as legal then thats all that matters.

Really? That is all that matters? The artist's position on how his work is released, or released at all, doesn't matter? The legalities of it is one thing; the artist's control over his work is another.

When you highlight a persons quote then please have the decency to highlight the whole sentence not just the bit to suit your irrelevent argument.

Whether Springsteen and Landau don't recognise this release is irrelevent, as long as the law recognises this release as legal then thats all that matters.

Really? That is all that matters? The artist's position on how his work is released, or released at all, doesn't matter? The legalities of it is one thing; the artist's control over his work is another.

We are discussing the legalities of this cd release, nothing else.

Please try and keep up.

Your statement didn't just reference legalities -- you specifically stated, "Whether Springsteen and Landau don't recognise this release is irrelevent." You didn't say, "Whether Springsteen and Landau don't recognize the legality of this release is irrelevant." Based on your initial statement, I merely pointed out that the artist's position on how and when his work is released does matter. And frankly, even if a second-rate public domain company is issuing something through a legal loophole, in this instance when you still have an artist very much alive and in control of his catalogue, it does matter how the material is released regardless of the legalities. Your hardline, narrow pro-public domain position clearly doesn't allow you to view anything from a reasonable, rational state of mind.

It's not a legal release

Hope this helps.

Nope.

Chris

I have given you several opportunities to be graceful or graceless.

You have consistently chosen the latter.

Be proud. And begone!

. And begone!

Begone? It's way too much fun watching you squirm around your utter inability to admit that you were wrong.

Chris

Begone?

be·gone [bih-gawn, -gon]
verb (used without object)
to go away; depart

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/begone

Using your style of reply here. Hope this helps.

ad·mit /ədˈmit/
Verb: Confess to be true or to be the case, typically with reluctance.

wrong /rôNG/
Adjective: Not correct or true.

Hope this helps.

Chris

As i said before "When you highlight a persons quote then please have the decency to highlight the whole sentence not just the bit to suit your irrelevent argument".

Your statement didn't just reference legalities -- you specifically stated, "Whether Springsteen and Landau don't recognise this release is irrelevent." You didn't say, "Whether Springsteen and Landau don't recognize the legality of this release is irrelevant." Based on your initial statement, I merely pointed out that the artist's position on how and when his work is released does matter. And frankly, even if a second-rate public domain company is issuing something through a legal loophole, in this instance when you still have an artist very much alive and in control of his catalogue, it does matter how the material is released regardless of the legalities. Your hardline, narrow pro-public domain position clearly doesn't allow you to view anything from a reasonable, rational state of mind.

Whether Springsteen and Landau don't recognise this release is irrelevent, as long as the law recognises this release as legal then thats all that matters.

Was there a reason why you changed the comma(,) in my quote to a full stop(.) when you hacked it to suit your argument,again?

Pathetic.

Your comma doesn't change the fact that as far as you are concerned, as long as the law recognizes the release as a legitimate release from a public domain loophole, "that's all that matters." Yes, your position is very much pathetic.

Your comma doesn't change the fact that as far as you are concerned, as long as the law recognizes the release as a legitimate release from a public domain loophole, "that's all that matters." Yes, your position is very much pathetic.

But at the same time you are happy to praise FTD, which releases unfinished recordings and often less-than stellar live performances. They are also legal, but it could also be argued that such releases have complete disregard for the artist or what he wanted people to hear. Would Elvis, had he been alive, sanctioned the release of any of the 1976/77 concerts that FTD has put out? Or the Dragonheart CD? And what about the alternate takes? Surely if he was happy with them, then he would have stopped there and they would have become master takes? Just because a big gun puts out a release does not make it any more in the interest of the artist than the smaller public domain companies. So to think that just because Springsteen is alive and could have been consulted about such a release makes this any worse than any release from FTD is hypocritical.

And the public domain law is not a loophole. It's not a "they forgot to say this, so we can do that" situation. Whether you agree with the rights and wrongs of it, it was a thought-out piece of legislation - and without it much quality music (and historically important music) would no longer be available to us.

And the public domain law is not a loophole.

True, but the recording being discussed here is not Public Domain. It uses a copyright exemption relating to licencing of overseas radio broadcasts. The radio station owns the rights to licence the recording for release in the UK. It is a "loophole" in the sense the artist's permission is not needed and is not entitled to royalties.

But at the same time you are happy to praise FTD, which releases unfinished recordings and often less-than stellar live performances. They are also legal, but it could also be argued that such releases have complete disregard for the artist or what he wanted people to hear .

I agree that is a valid point of view.

Would Elvis, had he been alive, sanctioned the release of any of the 1976/77 concerts that FTD has put out?

...but this argument is weaker. If Elvis were still alive, there would be no demand for this material.

Chris

But at the same time you are happy to praise FTD, which releases unfinished recordings and often less-than stellar live performances. They are also legal, but it could also be argued that such releases have complete disregard for the artist or what he wanted people to hear.

You aren't drawing a relevant parallel. Elvis and Tom Parker are very much dead. One can only speculate what Elvis would have wanted others to hear -- and considering Elvis did not own his masters, lost control of the bulk of his catalogue, and allowed for significant amounts of substandard material to be issued during his lifetime, the lines are even that much more difficult to distinguish if you are going to speculate. Springsteen and Landau on the other hand are very much alive and in control of Springsteen's catalogue management. Their position and vision is very much clear.

But at the same time you are happy to praise FTD, which releases unfinished recordings and often less-than stellar live performances. They are also legal, but it could also be argued that such releases have complete disregard for the artist or what he wanted people to hear.

You aren't drawing a relevant parallel. Elvis and Tom Parker are very much dead. One can only speculate what Elvis would have wanted others to hear -- and considering Elvis did not own his masters, lost control of the bulk of his catalogue, and allowed for significant amounts of substandard material to be issued during his lifetime, the lines are even that much more difficult to distinguish if you are going to speculate. Springsteen and Landau on the other hand are very much alive and in control of Springsteen's catalogue management. Their position and vision is very much clear.

But the issue of substandard material is irrelevant here. No-one anywhere is saying that this release is detrimental to Springsteen's name or legacy. Quite the opposite from what I can gather.

And we do know some of Elvis's views on his own material - didn't he say that he never wanted Dominick to be released, for example? And yet out it came in the 1990s. We know that Elvis was dismayed by his performance on June 19, 1977, but still some of that material came out a few months later both on TV and record.

But the issue of substandard material is irrelevant here.

Oh, but it is relevant. You are the one who brought up FTD's "unfinished recordings and often less-than stellar live performances."

But the issue of substandard material is irrelevant here.

Oh, but it is relevant. You are the one who brought up FTD's "unfinished recordings and often less-than stellar live performances."

a substandard finished recording is very different to an unfinished one. One was meant for public consumption, substandard or not. the other was not.

But the issue of substandard material is irrelevant here.

Oh, but it is relevant. You are the one who brought up FTD's "unfinished recordings and often less-than stellar live performances."

a substandard finished recording is very different to an unfinished one. One was meant for public consumption, substandard or not. the other was not.

Is a Springsteen radio broadcast meant for public consumption via retail, or was it aired 35+ years ago for promotional purposes? Is a former radio broadcast from the mid-70s a "finished recording?"

Is a Springsteen radio broadcast meant for public consumption via retail, or was it aired 35+ years ago for promotional purposes? Is a former radio broadcast from the mid-70s a "finished recording?"

You are using a double-standard here. You have a problem with this Springsteen release because Springsteen is alive so therefore he should have control over this radio broadcast, but you have no problem wiht Ernst releasing Presley's Hayride Radio broadcasts because Elvis is no longer with us.

Whether an artist is alive or dead their legacy deserves the same respect, you can't be on both sides of the fence (ok for Presley, not ok for Springsteen)

For the record, all of these releases are ok by me, be it Sony, MRS, FTD, smaller labels, imports etc.

Only a hypocrite would buy an import cd then have issues with this Springsteen release.

I didn't bring Presley into the discussion. I already pointed out there is no relevant parallel to be drawn. That said, there is a significant difference between the catalogue management of a deceased artist whose estate has essentially no control over the artist's audio output and that of an artist very much alive and in control of his artistic output and catalogue management. The fact you would ignore such an obvious reality once again goes towards your agenda of a free-for-all, public domain arrangement for all copyrighted work.

You posted the following in April.

It is a boot.

As soon as Amazon confirms it is a bootleg, it will cease offering it for sale.

I don't see this boot remaining in print very long - or at least being available for mainstream consumption.

It must hurt to be so wrong all the time, but you must be used to it by now.

7 months later.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Live-at-Main-Point-1975/dp/B004OWPWEO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321396725&sr=8-1

http://hmv.com/hmvweb/simpleMultiSearch.do?searchUID=&pGroupID=-1&adultFlag=false&simpleSearchString=bruce+springsteen+live+at+main+point&primaryID=0

http://www.play.com/Music/CD/4-/19055462/Live-At-The-Main-Point/Product.html?searchtype=musicall&searchsource=0&searchstring=main+point&urlrefer=search&strefer=musicall&searchfilters=s%7bmain+point%7d%2bc%7b34%7d%2b

I didn't bring Presley into the discussion. I already pointed out there is no relevant parallel to be drawn. That said, there is a significant difference between the catalogue management of a deceased artist whose estate has essentially no control over the artist's audio output and that of an artist very much alive and in control of his artistic output and catalogue management. The fact you would ignore such an obvious reality once again goes towards your agenda of a free-for-all, public domain arrangement for all copyrighted work.

Grasping at straws again i see.

Ernst has taken over the responsibility for Elvis' audio output as he is the one that oversees Presleys legacy, so there is someone with plenty of control in charge of Presleys recorded work. So what is the difference?

btw. Do you own any imports?

You posted the following in April.

It must hurt to be so wrong all the time, but you must be used to it by now.

Yes, I was wrong, along with the vast majority of other music consumers, when I concluded that a non-Columbia, non-Springsteen sanctioned release of a much-booted Springsteen show was issued for release. If only we had your distinct insight into public domain releases, millions of Springsteen fans could have rejoiced in delight that a grey-area release of a radio show not from the actual master tapes was being released in an official capacity. Sadly, you were nowhere to be found.

I didn't bring Presley into the discussion. I already pointed out there is no relevant parallel to be drawn. That said, there is a significant difference between the catalogue management of a deceased artist whose estate has essentially no control over the artist's audio output and that of an artist very much alive and in control of his artistic output and catalogue management. The fact you would ignore such an obvious reality once again goes towards your agenda of a free-for-all, public domain arrangement for all copyrighted work.

Grasping at straws again i see.

Clearly you recently had a lobotomy that affects your ability to analyze the most basic concepts. There is nothing more I can say. Ernst Jorgensen is a Sony Music employee who produces posthumous music releases of Elvis Presley material. Bruce Sprinsteen is an actual artist who still produces and creates music and is very much involved with his own catalogue management and release philosophy. There is no rational parallel between Bruce controlling his actual work -- and Ernst Jorgensen, an employee of a music company who owns many of Elvis' music copyrights, who releases posthumous product by committee. Again, it is odd you guys keep trying to bring Elvis into this topic. Enjoy your stupor and keep spinning those public domain releases!

Yes, I was wrong, along with the vast majority of other music consumers, when I concluded that a non-Columbia, non-Springsteen sanctioned release of a much-booted Springsteen show was issued for release.

Ha Ha!! I seriously doubt that the "vast majority of other music consumers" were/are too concerned about this release.

If only we had your distinct insight into public domain releases, millions of Springsteen fans could have rejoiced in delight that a grey-area release of a radio show not from the actual master tapes was being released in an official capacity. Sadly, you were nowhere to be found.

If only, but i am quite sure plenty of Springsteen fans picked up this release along with buying plenty of illegal Springsteen imports, so don't be too concerned about them.

bootleg or not.. I want ´em!
but it looks like I have to ask Joern where to get it