Out of curiosity, were you listening to the box set on Tidal Max? It sounded pretty decent to me but then again I may have cloth ears. I expected that the resolution would have been 192KHz on Tidal although I haven’t confirmed it and would have perhaps sounded better than CD for sure.
Tidal regular - I have 1st gen streamers
Which is why either the CD or vinyl should sound much better that what I’m listening to - but given I don’t have the full fat stream, wasn’t sure
Thanks for your response. Yes, that makes sense. Since Darkness, I have bought every Springsteen album on day of release but in this instance, I decided not to, primarily as I now only stream.
Having said that, I have swithered about buying a CD release as the boxed set has we’ll-exceeded my expectations.
1 Like
No they do not sound like basement tapes. I think most recordings were done in a studio on regular studio equipment.
I am biased but I would go for the LP version every time.
1 Like
Same here. There were some on the forum going on about how this was sub-standard Springsteen stuff, poor VFM, being released as a money grab by Sony. So I just streamed them about two months.
Now realising the above is complete BS. These are most definitely worth owning if you are a Springsteen fan.
Check the 'bay as I did if you’re going to get the CDs. There are a number of complete sets in the original box for less than the original price there.
1 Like
The “standard” is up for debate. If you like second or third tier Springsteen tracks then it’s doubtless very good in comparison to much of the overcompressed same old same old he’s been turning out for the last decade or more. If you prefer first tier Springsteen then it’s nowhere near. Momentarily interesting at best. Sales suggest we’re very much in the latter territory for the overwhelming majority of people who would have been potential buyers i.e. a lot more than the unnecessarily sniping and passive aggressive “some on here”.
VFM then? Much less debate there. The original Tracks box sold poorly and delayed the release of the original version of this by around 17 years. Originally scheduled for a decade after the first box.
This is slated to sell around 70 to 75,000 worldwide at best and has been priced ludicrously but has absolutely been released now because Sony think there will not be a better time to recoup money on this stuff. Given that they’ve said exactly that in the trades, it’s hard to conceive of it as anything other than a money grab.
Pays your money takes your choice.
I’m leaning that way
Vinyl set on its way 
2 Likes
Round 2 about to begin with the long-anticipated Electric Nebraska and outtakes. 17 October.
Incidentally, the last information that I have for the original Tracks is that at least 750,000 copies were sold worldwide. For a specialist collectors’ release that feels to be pretty decent sales albeit I appreciate that’s a very subjective view. I don’t think the release of Tracks 2 was due to the sales of the original Tracks, poor or otherwise. It’s simply Springsteen has become more relaxed about releasing material from the vaults, no doubt related to the sale of his catalogue.
1 Like
Noooo. The Tracks boxed set sold way less than that. That figure is a conflation of physical sales and streaming album equivalents. The figure you’re quoting is for the 18 Tracks single CD. That’s the figure I was aware of too but it’s out of date at this point. 18 Tracks eventually sold around 1.1/1.2m.
From 2012
US_Non-US_Total
18 TRACKS (1999)…266,000…603,000…869,000
TRACKS BOX SET (1998)…310,000…438,000…748,000
Cross-referencing Wikipedia, Tracks is listed as selling c250 in the US and c200k in selected other countries. They’re still less than any studio album listed.
And you might want to then read on as to how that data is now collected in a world of streaming instead of just accepting stuff at face value. It’s fascinating and quite terrifying. Margins of error around 75% in a significant number of territories.
By all means carry on. I mean you have a Sony executive on record saying this one was delayed by 7 years because of the poor sales of the first one and in part the narrative of that was the discovery that, not for the first time, they’d bought a catalogue whose sales had been over-estimated.
There is a fairly famous story of the UK single in the 1970s whose sales on the first day were around 45 to 48,000. 200,000 plus in the first week and it went on to sell 2 million. Years later the A&R man noted in a book that the first day sales were pre orders and of those pre orders around 30,000 ended up being returned and trashed. The record books continue to show circa 45,000.
It then turned out the first week figures were literally a x5 multiple of the alleged first day sales with a bit of exaggeration on top and the 2 million a conflation of sales over 3 months. The samples of sales taken from the stores which informed the charts at that time suggested actual sales were probably closer to 70,000 in total. Inevitably the record industry gave them the requisite metal coloured disc for sales.
My sibling has a gold disc currently resting against the wall of the bathroom. Belongs to a well known late 1980s pop star. Given to them by the mate of theirs who used to manage him. Nested inside the frame behind the glass is a small notebook which in pencil details the actual sales in various territories as known at that time (1987). The discrepancy between that and what’s inscribed on the gold disc is huge.
Space apart, there is a reason most artists consign such things to the toilet or give them away to other people who end up storing them in the toilet.
I tend to look at it in more of a relative way vs an absolute way.
Assuming whatever fudging is a constant - largest selling studio album = c30m, smallest selling studio album = c1m. Both compilations should indeed sell less than 1m. Less demand at a higher price point. The basic economics makes sense.
3 Likes
Good throwaway line in DMFN: “Like Bruce is going to release all his demos.”
2 Likes
Not a throwaway at all. It’s a line you’ll find in the book and paraphrases what Columbia execs said at the time about Nebraska. Zanes was an executive producer on the film and was asked about it in a film Q&A. He noted that the line always had to be in the film because it was a key line in the story but also because with the benefit of hindsight Bruce has had a complete about turn and in his own words the other week “I’m old. I don’t give a f%£k” so it’s also become a very knowing line very deliberately intended to amuse.
Haven’t read the book, so don’t know. Seems doubly ironic given the release of Tracks II, the timing of the film, etc.
To me when he said it, it felt like a wink and a nod past the fourth wall.
Yes, but that was exactly it though. It wasn’t “throwaway”. It was very deliberate and knowing. You were totally meant to see the irony.
Well they did a fantastic job then.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.