Jump to content
Greasy Lake Community

December archive: London, 24 November 1975


Recommended Posts

I don't know the history of how long these two Hammersmith shows have been known to Bruce and JLM, but if they've always known about them then it's criminal that nothing from either of these shows made it to the Live 75 85 box set.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Listening now through my trusted Bowers and Wilkins PX headphones and it is phenomenal. What a release this is. My collection just got enhanced beyond belief. 

Firstly, PRETTY FLAMINGO! Secondly, review!  https://cantfindtickets.wordpress.com/2020/12/06/new-from-the-springsteen-archive-november-24th-1975-london-uk-hammersmith-odeon/ - Hope it's worth yo

Incredible to think that there were 60 archive releases before they felt it time to unleash this absolute treasure. Hopes now raised that the well has run far from dry in this series.  

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Promise61 said:

I don't know the history of how long these two Hammersmith shows have been known to Bruce and JLM, but if they've always known about them then it's criminal that nothing from either of these shows made it to the Live 75 85 box set.

I second this: I’d be curious to know the timelines here, even if the format of 75-85 reduced the chances of anything from Hammersmith making the cut (just one song from 1975 made it on the album).

What we do know:

—> BBC Glory Days documentary (1987) contained clips from Hammersmith #1.

—> This 2002 auction (https://lelands.com/bids/bruce-springsteen-famed-hammersmith-odeon-reel-to-reel-tapes--2) involved the sale of Record Plant tapes from the second show. 

I’d like to think that INC had the night two tapes in the archives throughout, but given their old attitude to archiving, who knows?

I don’t have the BTR box set to hand but from memory there was nothing in the linear notes that mentioned when INC acquired the tapes etc... happy to be corrected there!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Born To Walk said:

They didn't!

That´s right; but this show it is somewhat justified by the greatness and historical importance of the show.; which makes the 'Kool-Aid' less annoying (or not annoying at all, maybe even) than previous essays which hailed every release as The Second Coming.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nick21 said:

I second this: I’d be curious to know the timelines here, even if the format of 75-85 reduced the chances of anything from Hammersmith making the cut (just one song from 1975 made it on the album).

What we do know:

—> BBC Glory Days documentary (1987) contained clips from Hammersmith #1.

—> This 2002 auction (https://lelands.com/bids/bruce-springsteen-famed-hammersmith-odeon-reel-to-reel-tapes--2) involved the sale of Record Plant tapes from the second show. 

I’d like to think that INC had the night two tapes in the archives throughout, but given their old attitude to archiving, who knows?

I don’t have the BTR box set to hand but from memory there was nothing in the linear notes that mentioned when INC acquired the tapes etc... happy to be corrected there!

From memory, I think the video footage of the whole show was a later surprise discovery. No idea about the audio.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lampi said:

That´s right; but this show it is somewhat justified by the greatness and historical importance of the show.; which makes the 'Kool-Aid' less annoying (or not annoying at all, maybe even) than previous essays which hailed every release as The Second Coming.

I didn't read the essay, as it would just turn me off.

But this one deserves raves.

I absolutely love this release, which is VERY rare for me with shows in the series.

I'm listening to it now for the second time, well at least some of it.

This show is truly fantastic. I'd take 12/31/75 over it, I think, but I love this, and I can't even recall the last time I listened to the 2005 CD release; it's got some great moments, but overall, can't compare to this one. Just fantastic.

  • Bruuuuce! 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, BruceHistory said:

I wonder if we’ll get that 75/CW Post show some day as it’s where the "Santa Claus" single comes from we hear every holiday season?!?! It certainly means there’s a good recording of it somewhere lol

 

Brad

There is - one song, I think Sha La La, was going to be on the project Bruce started in...1994? '93? - that turned into Tracks later - with many other songs left off as well, of course (Thank you Clinton Heylin for titles that make me wonder what I'm missing there).

I think it would make a perfect release this Xmas (as well as a remix of Winterland night 2 [dammit!]).

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, here's a thing. Could be something to do with the download, could be the recording/mix. 

The channels keep shifting. One song Roy and SVZ are in the right channel and Danny and CC are in the left (as per stage set up), then they swap places. Then change back again. Odd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Promise61 said:

So, here's a thing. Could be something to do with the download, could be the recording/mix. 

The channels keep shifting. One song Roy and SVZ are in the right channel and Danny and CC are in the left (as per stage set up), then they swap places. Then change back again. Odd.

Hadn’t noticed, but I expect it’s the case with many of the releases and not unique to this one. I don’t think it’s got anything to do with replicating the stage set up, more to do with enhancing the instrument separation from song to song. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Promise61 said:

So, here's a thing. Could be something to do with the download, could be the recording/mix. 

The channels keep shifting. One song Roy and SVZ are in the right channel and Danny and CC are in the left (as per stage set up), then they swap places. Then change back again. Odd.

I was just listening, enjoying it for the second time, and I noticed how low the guitars are for Carol.

So I went and checked my Shit Hot and Rockin' boot, and of course the sound for the guitars is much better, more appropriate there.

Shit.

I myself didn't notice the channels shifting; I was less intensively listening than usual - I usually spot problems right away.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup.  I remember when Hammersmith was released, and I also remember the contemporaneous reviews of Hammersmith by veteran fans as being largely negative.  Marsh even mentions the sub-par show in the first edition of Born to Run.  

THIS is the '75 show I have been waiting for.  Nice work here by all.   

  • Like 1
  • Bruuuuce! 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Promise61 said:

From memory, I think the video footage of the whole show was a later surprise discovery. No idea about the audio.

The Blinded By The Light book mentioned the filming as early as 1985.

BTW it [Blinded By The Light book] says Hammersmith 2 was filmed, but that is a mistake.

But then, the thought both shows were recorded, Night 1 also filmed, and Bruce Inc. did nothing with Night 1 until 2005 (except some footage of Sandy in the Glory Days doc) and nothing with Night 2 until now, 45 years later...

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t have it in front of me, but I remember reading (maybe in Hammersmith liner notes or Bruce autobiography) that Bruce had it in his mind it was so bad he never wanted to listen to it even though he knew it was recorded - my impression was that in his mind why would he listen to it because it was so bad and a bad memory. Thank God they finally did!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, lilbud said:

11/18/1975: Business

11/24/1975: Personal

Yet, the footage of that first Hammersmith show is incredible. When Bruce said it was rubbish, we all now know different.

Two great shows from the Mike Appel era.  Has he had a mention yet?  Did Erik mention him?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m sure I’ve read somewhere (maybe the autobiog?) that Bruce took back his remarks about Hammersmith night one after watching and listening to the performance for the BTR box - he acknowledged that he didn’t have fond memories of the night but that, after listening back, it wasn’t actually as bad as he thought 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BobbyJames said:

I’m sure I’ve read somewhere (maybe the autobiog?) that Bruce took back his remarks about Hammersmith night one after watching and listening to the performance for the BTR box - he acknowledged that he didn’t have fond memories of the night but that, after listening back, it wasn’t actually as bad as he thought 

"All I remember is ........ thinking we hadn't played that well. I was wrong"

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Floom2 said:

 Marsh even mentions the sub-par show in the first edition of Born to Run.   

It seems newspaper reviews about Hammersmith 1 were rather negative too (at the least the Blinded By The Light Book says so). Maybe Marsh just wrote what Bruce told him (that he [Bruce] thought they did not play well; as Bruce said himself in the liner notes to the Born To Run box quoted above).

So it is the (negative) myth of things combined together; the hype; Bruce tearing down the 'Is London...' posters from the wall; Bruce's bad memories leading to the false assumption they did not play that well, and telling Dave Marsh so; all leading to the myth Hammersmith 1 was the worst show they ever played. And every book or career overview etc. until 2005 did 'copy and paste' the fake news.

Something else; for decades there was the myth Exile On Main Street got bad reviews at release, with reviews saying a single album with the best tracks would have been a better album (which was often said in reviews of double albums in the vinyl age anyway). Seems this was fake news too; most reviews were positive, only the few negative reviews were in famous publications, especially Rolling Stone; again a sort of 'copy and paste'. (More Rolling Stone fake news: the story about Mick Jagger, Marianne Faithfull and the Mars candy bar which was...well you know were the Mars was; except it was not. Fake news indeed).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Lampi said:

It seems newspaper reviews about Hammersmith 1 were rather negative too (at the least the Blinded By The Light Book says so). Maybe Marsh just wrote what Bruce told him (that he [Bruce] thought they did not play well; as Bruce said himself in the liner notes to the Born To Run box quoted above).

So it is the (negative) myth of things combined together; the hype; Bruce tearing down the 'Is London...' posters from the wall; Bruce's bad memories leading to the false assumption they did not play that well, and telling Dave Marsh so; all leading to the myth Hammersmith 1 was the worst show they ever played. And every book or career overview etc. until 2005 did 'copy and paste' the fake news.

Something else; for decades there was the myth Exile On Main Street got bad reviews at release, with reviews saying a single album with the best tracks would have been a better album (which was often said in reviews of double albums in the vinyl age anyway). Seems this was fake news too; most reviews were positive, only the few negative reviews were in famous publications, especially Rolling Stone; again a sort of 'copy and paste'. (More Rolling Stone fake news: the story about Mick Jagger, Marianne Faithfull and the Mars candy bar which was...well you know were the Mars was; except it was not. Fake news indeed).

Fortunately, we were all able to see and hear that first Hammersmith show for ourselves. Unanimously declared to be wonderful.

Marsh always slanted that Hammersmith show and hype negatively against Mike Appel. No surprise. I don't know if Marsh was actually there. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Lampi said:

the story about Mick Jagger, Marianne Faithfull and the Mars candy bar which was...well you know were the Mars was; except it was not. Fake news indeed

But we never let the truth get in the way of good joke material.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...