Talk:Bruce Springsteen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

Bruce Springsteen has been listed as a good article on a performer or composer for meeting the criteria for this category of articles. If you can expand or improve it further, please do so! If it does not meet the criteria, or has ceased to since its inclusion, you can delist it or ask for a review.

	New Jersey Portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Arts article has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale.

Bruce Springsteen is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL images. However, if you can improve the article, please do so!

Contents 1 Music COTW 2 E Street Band 3 Heartland Rock 4 Compilations problem 5 Starbucks and D & D 6 John Kerry connection 7 Random photo 8 Adele Zirilli 9 Which venue? 10 Misc. 11 the Born to Run resolution 12 Tours/bootlegs 13 cleanup 14 1984 presidential campaign 15 Featured Music Project evaluation 16 Origin of "The Boss" nickname? 17 Rumors of split with Scialfa 18 The First Photo 19 Full name 20 Graceland 21 This Is The Real Deal, Folks 22 Discography Gallery

[edit] Music COTW

So...what specifically needs to be worked on? ~~ Shiri 18:13, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Expand the lead section, fact check and maybe add inline references, more sound samples, maybe move discography to its own page, general copy-edit, move trivia into article proper, add a references section and add more images, if possible. Tuf-Kat 20:11, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Most of that's done, except that image without a source needs to be replaced. How do you go about getting sound samples, praytell? ~~ Shiri 01:28, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I made a few tweaks, removing one paragraph (see below). I do highly recommend inline references. There are some claims that will probably be objected to if this article is nominated for featured-status, like His eloquence in expressing Everyman's problems has earned him a huge fan base within America's middle class (I've removed "within America's middle class" since it isn't sourced and seems out-of-place amid claims that he appealed to the working ma, but even without that, the sentence should be changed to direct quote (cited) from someone prominent). Moving the discography to its own page is great, but generally you're supposed to leave a summary behind. For that section, I think just a list of his studio albums and the years they were released would be good, leaving all the details to the other page. The "current members of the E-Street Band" section is a list and should probably be expanded to include former members as well (with the dates of their tenure) A couple sentences on the E-Street Band would also be good in that section (explaining who has remained constant, who has played with the band the longest, that kind of thing). Sound samples have to be uploaded (see Wikipedia:Sound). If you have an mp3 of a song, it's easy and there is free software available to convert the file to ogg vorbis and clip a 20sec-or-so section that can be uploaded under fair use. I've got a number of springsteen mp3s and can upload some in the next day or two, if you can't/don't want to do that -- it's not hard to do though. Tuf-Kat 06:20, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following because it should really be sourced. It implies that Republican fans were offended by his partisanship and claims that many of them forgave him (but presumably some still harbor a grudge. It also claims to know the reasons the fans forgave him and then makes an absurd claim (there are numerous modern performers whose music is "widely relevant", the important distinction being that Springsteen is do damn popular). I have no problem with going into more detail on Springsteen's recent political activity, but we shouldn't be presuming the motivations for people's behaviors and such without citing sources. Despite his overt partisanship, however, Springsteen was forgiven by many of his Republican fans, many of whom said they found Springsteen's passion for America and personal struggle consistent with their own ideology. Springsteen thus represented one of only a few modern performers whose music was viewed as widely relevant to the politics and culture of the day.

I agree the removed paragraph was no good. I've added a paragraph that says the impact of this political involvement remains to be seen, which I think is true. If you read, say, rec.music.artists.springsteen you'll see that a lot of people were turned off by the VFC business ... but they may come back anyway assuming the new album and tour are apolitical. I've also tried to indicate that Springsteen's audience has become more homogenuous and affluent over the years.

I've also tempered the assertion at the top that Springsteen's politics are left-wing. I've substituted "gradually identified as progressive", which I think is closer to reality. This is a subject fraught with difficulty and hard to describe in a sentence or two (it's one of the major themes of the Marsh books) (which themselves are subject to the author's radical politics). --jls 19 Mar 2005

Ah...I'll try to leave summaries here from now. And removing that part from the main section was good. This implies that there are some Republicans that are turned off by his politics. There's a second article like that, but you have to sign up for it. I can't find anything about them "forgiving" him, though. ~~ Shiri 16:42, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good! With just a couple more sound samples, I think it'll be ready for FAC. Tuf-Kat 16:56, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Is the sample I put copyright kosher? It's about twenty seconds. ~~ Shiri 18:01, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Looks fine. Tuf-Kat

I also replaced that image without a source, which I can't find anywhere. I put a fair use album cover instead. ~~ Shiri 20:04, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] E Street Band

Usage note: "E Street" is never hyphenated, no matter if used as a proper name or compound adjective. See the song and album titles that use it; see the album covers at [1] that use the group name, or see any of the Marsh biographies, etc. --jls 19 Mar 2005

I've tried to add more detail into the E Street Band section, including other instruments, backing vocals, etc., while removing some of the duplicate detail about who replaced whom. And the "larger-than-life persona and Springsteen foil" remark about Clarence Clemons is no joke, as anyone who's ever been to a Springsteen show can attest. I also tried to describe what makes Springsteen concerts special to his fans in the Live 75-85 discussion. --jls 19 Mar 2005

I've listed the members in chronological order of joining the band, instead of alphabetically. I think it's much easier to understand and follow this way. --jls 21 Mar 2005

There is a seperate article for The E-Street Band in their own right. Could somebody establish a link between the entry for Springsteen and this article. At moment the link from Springsteen's entry just reverts to his page. djln 26 Oct 2005

Ugh, this is a total mess. The intent has been that the Bruce Springsteen article would have section that would handle the E Street Band as a unit, while each E Street member would have their own individual article to cover their careers, including outside of Bruce. That's why E Street Band and The E Street Band just redirect back to the Bruce article.

This new The E-Street Band article overlaps and duplicates both the Bruce and the individual member articles. It also isn't very well written, and is based on a false premise (in my opinion) that the E Street Band has some meaningful existence outside the context of Springsteen. When I get a chance I'll try to look at the whole shmagoo and figure out what to do. Wasted Time R 15:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It gets worse. There is also a separate E-Street Band (stub) article as well. Wasted Time R 12:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It is only natural that articles will overlap and duplicate. None of us live in isolation and articles cannot be seperated so easily. In my opinion The E-Street Band article is well written in comparision to this article which is disjointed and contains some mistakes and plenty of waffle. To say the band is not worthy of a seperate article is frankly insulting and disrespectful considering their contribution to Springsteens albums and those of others. I find it hard to believe any true Springsteen fan could hold such an opinion. I agree the stub should be got rid of as it is very poor. djln --81.159.229.130 00:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

No reason not to have an article about the band itself. I moved The E-Street Band to E Street Band, cleaned up, copyedited, removed a few POV phrases. Overall it's a good article although there is still a lot of overlap with this one. [...] Rhobite 01:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

! NOTE ! : I've moved the continuation of this discussion into Talk:E Street Band, since it belongs there now that that article exists. Wasted Time R 01:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heartland Rock

That red link in the first paragraph is a bit conspicuous, especially since it's his genre. Anybody want to get started on that? ~~ Shiri 02:39, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've created that article, it's a start at least. -- jls 20 Mar 2005

[edit] Compilations problem

There is work that needs to be done on the "Bruce Springsteen Compilations" page. I personally would rather see each get its own page. JnB987 10:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The biggest problem remaining is in the discography, where 5 or 6 live/boxset/greatest hits albums all link to a Compilations page, which only describes Greatest Hits. This affects the main article as well, since consequently the links to these albums are either bad or missing. This problem has been around for a while, see the top of this Discussion page.

I'm working on that now. ~~ Shiri 19:59, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Starbucks and D & D

>The title track concerns an ordinary soldier's feelings and fears during the Iraq War. >Starbucks rejected a co-branding deal for the album, not only due to some sexually explicit >content, but also because of Springsteen's anti-corporate politics.

Is this actually true? I know that Starbucks said it was about the Mature Audiences warning, and it wouldn't surprise me if politics played in...but has any credible source, either from Springsteen/Columbia/Sony or any commentator other than the people who made this entry, claimed that liberal or anticorporate politics played into it?

Yes because he made a reference to it in Cleveland '05. Also Bruce is also very against "selling out", he roasted U2 at their Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Nomination for the special U2 iPod.

Mattwolf7 04:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Kerry connection

>Whether Springsteen's stance causes a reduction in his fan base (now an older, more affluent demographic) remains to be seen as of 2005.

For what it's worth, last night at the Springsteen concert in Boston, John Kerry was in the audience with his wife. He arrived about 10 minutes before Bruce came onstage and received a standing ovation from the crowd, while a small handful of people (5-10) booed. Granted, Boston is Kerry's home base, but audience reaction was overwhelmingly in favor of him. Acarvin 15:34 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't mean much. Boston has always been a Bruce strongpoint. But Bruce has apparently had trouble selling D&D tour tickets in other parts of the country ... fallout from the Kerry support? lack of interest in a gloomy solo show? overexposure after two recent high-profile band tours? Hard to know, probably all of the above. Wasted Time R 16:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Random photo

What's the deal with that random photo in the middle of the early years section? Akamad 11:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Wasted Time R 14:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

picture of devils and dust to dark

It's a dark show. Wasted Time R 22:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

That's better than the picture I took at the show in Albany on Saturday. It is very dark on stage during his current show. Rhobite 01:12, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adele Zirilli

I see an anonymous user without a talk page claims that BS's mother was Italian-Puerto Rican. I can't find any evidence of this on the net. Does anyone know better? --Slashme 13:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I know this is no big deal, but I see that there is a cold revert war going on on this issue. No explanation coming from either side. Someone has an axe to grind, and I don't know who it is. I am going to edit the article to reflect both claims in the meantime. --Slashme 07:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't find a single source ANYWHERE claiming Springsteen's mother is part Puerto-Rican.--Freepablo 08:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which venue?

at one point it says that the 10 day concert is at Giants stadium. Later down in the bio it says it was a Madison Square Garden, which is it? 20:47, 3 December 2005 136.160.132.115

He's had 10-night stands at both venues. As well as 15-night, 11-night, and 10-night runs at Meadowlands/Continental Airlines Arena. The guy is very popular in his home turf.... Wasted Time R 21:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Misc.

Removed the teleprompter reference with the 92 tour. It was inaccurate (first use of prompter was Tunnel tour) and irrelevant.

Corrected the Reunion tour information so that the appropriate bits are in the 90s section and the '00s section.

Deleted the "50th birthday in Philly" bit as superflous. 1-13-06

The teleprompter reference is relevant, because it limits his facial interaction with the audience – he's always looking down at the stage when he sings now, with a semi-closed-eyes face so as not to make it too obvious. It also somewhat limits his ability to improvise ... he can't do something that the teleprompter operator isn't ready for. As for when he started using it, I took notes during multiple shows on both T of L Express and Other Band, and it was definitely the latter. Many fans noticed it on the Other Band tour, especially those seated to the side or in back of the stage. It was also discussed on the "Bruce Party Line", the telephone-based precursor to Bruce internet groups. Wasted Time R 19:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Teleprompter was clearly first used on the Tunnel tour. Clearly visible in videos from that period - one obvious example is the Tougher video. Take a look for yourself. 4-30-06

[edit] the Born to Run resolution

I thought it was reported that the resolution was killed in committee when Republican members (who made up the committee's majority) refused to vote for passage. Granted, no official reason was reported to the press, but the bipartisan vote is rather glaring. (It echoes a similar move in the GOP controlled Texas state legislature regarding Willie Nelson; the Republican members there were more vocal and unambiguous about their reasons for turning down Willie, who was seen as a Democratic supporter.)

[edit] Tours/bootlegs

Should there be an entire section on the touring phenomena. There are references of course, but so much of Bruce Springsteen's identity as an artist is tied to the live experience, it likely requires a section of its own. Likewise, I think the article (which is very very good) would be improved with information on how bootlegs helped build his reputation/career in the early days, evidence of Bruce's seemingly contradictory approaches to bootleggers, etc. I'm not prepared at this time to work on these passages, but suggest they would be good next steps to making an outstanding article even better.

I'd be interested in helping out; there's a fair amount of material re Bruce's cases in the Fourth Circuit (I think it was the fourth) in the '70's, interesting stuff. I'm also pretty busy, but if someone gets the ball rolling, I'll pitch in. Mitchberg 18:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've toyed with the idea of treating concerts as a separate section. The trouble is that doing so breaks the chronological connection with the rest of the article, e.g. in the 1990s section you'd read about the Ghost of Tom Joad album, but in the new section you'd read about the solo tour that followed it and the material that was played and "STFU" and whatnot. Since the sensibility of the album and tour were closely linked, splitting them apart might cause the thread of his career to be lost. As another approach, a very few artists known for their stage spectaculars have separate articles on each of their tours — see Template:Madonna and Template:U2 for the best examples — but doing that seems like overkill for Bruce. Wasted Time R 20:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point about the chronological structure of the article and how a separate section on touring might break the structure. Perhaps it should be a few notes on each tour...there might also be merit in including tour info from the fan perspective, for example, the long lines for tickets in the 70's, the move to larger venues, the man in black, the pit, jailbaits, holding the line on ticket prices vs. how Bruce's peers charge their fans, etc, etc...its all part of the experience in so many ways. Anyway, maybe if I keep typing ideas here and reading other thoughts I might take a first stab at this, and may enlist a writer friend who is also a rather active fan. [04:23, 14 February 2006 OttawaShane]

Bruce Springsteen is not only one the truely great artists of rock music but also one of the best bootlegged artists of all time. Through the many high quality live shows you can trace his development as a great stage performer and see how he developed songs, chopping and changing them, before they appeared on official releases. There really should be a link to Brucelegs. [20:44, 31 August 2006 TonkaTom]

Since the earlier comments were made, articles on each tour have started being written. See Category:Bruce Springsteen tours. Still more to do (have been going backwards in time), but those articles would be the place to put discussions of what you're talking about, not an article on Brucelegs (although the tour articles might mention the phenonemon). Wasted Time R 21:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup

I removed the cleanup tag because the lead isn't too long. Tuf-Kat 03:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1984 presidential campaign

Maybe I'm just not reading carefully enough, but I think there's something missing from the section quoted below. In the penultimate sentence "The campaigns obliged...." I'm not seeing what the campaigns were responding to - if, for example, they were asked not to use the song, I can't find the original reference to that request. Nichole 03/25/06

Springsteen is probably best known for the multi-million selling Born in the U.S.A.(1984), and the massively successful world tour that followed it. The title track was a tribute to Springsteen's buddies that had experienced the Vietnam War, some of whom did not come back. The song was widely mis-interpreted on release as nationalistic, with the co-opting by the major party candidates for president being the foremost example. (The campaigns obliged, but the song was already linked with Reagan, especially, in the minds of many. In later years, Springsteen performed the song accompanied only with acoustic guitar to more explicitly make clear the song's original meaning.)

This whole bit is subject to considerable urban legend. I've treated it in the new Born in the U.S.A. (song) article, to linked to that from this context. Wasted Time R 03:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Music Project evaluation

Bruce Springsteen has been evaluated according to the Featured Music Project criteria, most recently affirmed as of this revision. The article's most important issues are listed below. Since this evaluation, the article may have been improved.

The following areas need work to meet the criteria: Comprehensiveness - Sales - Pictures - References - Discography - Format/Style

The space below is for limited discussion on this article's prospects as a featured article candidate. Please take conversations to the article talk page.

• Comprehensiveness: Needs more on musical style, influences and legacy
• Sales: Barely mentioned
• Pictures: Needs fair use rationales
• References: Needs inline citations, print sources that aren't bios
• Discography: Only on subpage
• Format/Style: Trim external links, general copyedit, simplify TOC

[edit] Origin of "The Boss" nickname?

I know I've heard a few possible origins for Springsteen's nickname, "The Boss." Is there any offical origin that can be added to his Wiki page?

[edit] Rumors of split with Scialfa

I added a New York Post report of a split with Scialfa that has been referenced by some other web pages. Wasted Time promptly deleted it - something he seems to do a lot, judging from his Talk page - with the comment "it is not Wikipedia's role to include gossip page rumours". I respectfully invite him to explain here for readers of the article: 1) On what basis he claims to pronounce on Wikipedia's role, and 2) What, in his unimpeachable judgment, would be a legitimate source documenting a change in the subject's marital status. Ribonucleic 23:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

1) See the top-most box on this discussion page? It says: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy as it directly concerns one or more living people. Poorly sourced, potentially libellous material must be removed immediately." That's exactly what this New York Post gossip page is - weakly sourced material that (if untrue) defames Springsteen's character. 2) If Springsteen's or Scialfa's publicist or management officially confirms a separation or divorce action, then it can be added to the article. Not before then. Wasted Time R 02:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"Weakly sourced"... well, fair enough. Time will tell. Ribonucleic 04:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

See http://www.brucespringsteen.net/site.html today for an official, signed denial of the above "unfounded and ugly rumors". Wasted Time R 21:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The First Photo

This is a very poor picture of Bruce Springsteen, mainly because his face is in darkness, and it seems very unprofessional as he is talking (hence his open mouth).

It does not relate to his music and I believe that the last picture was better, or a better one could be found.

TheMountaineer

It's exactly because it is unprofessional — meaning taken by a fan and thus without copyright burden — that it's being used. It's very difficult to get any photographs or images into Wikipedia these days, as the admins have clamped down on the fair use rules. Wasted Time R 12:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the previous photo of Bruce on the front of that magazine? That was a much better introduction to this page and his legacy. Can that not be used due to copywrite?

The Mountaineer

The first photo is one of the worst of Bruce ever taken! I can't believe that no one has uploaded a better one. I'd rather have an album cover like Born To Run for the introduction to the page than what is there now. It makes Bruce look like a joke. --Jstrap 19:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The image uploaded at the moment, Springsteen.jpg is a good representation of Bruce as he currently is, and has been released under a Creative Commons 2.5 license. No legal ambiguity, or anything. It also fits the new infobox template pretty well. Palaeologus 21:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Found another image from the same source which at least looks like Springsteen hasn't been chain sucking on helium balloons. Should be fine as license is the same. --Jstrap 06:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, Jstrap, this is getting slightly ridiculous now. Will you please stop overwriting the current image with blurry/unlicensed photos? The photo may look fine on your monitor/resolution, but certainly on mine it's unfocused and not in keeping with the quality of the article. Please don't make this issue a matter of pride. Palaeologus 14:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What is "slightly ridiculous" is your emotional investment in the current photo. I have to chuckle at your vigilant censoring of any attempts to improve it. Personally, I'd rather have a slightly blurry picture that at least looks like him than a more clear picture that is ridiculous. But that's just me (and everyone else who has tried to fix this). Jstrap 15:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"Vigilant censorship"? If you want to take this any further, then feel free to find a high-resolution, focused image that is freely licensed. The images you have replaced the current with have been either copyvios or blurred. There's no "censorship" here, just common sense. Care to educate us all in why the current image is so bad, anyway? Looks like Springsteen to me - is freely licensed and perfectly visible. Palaeologus 15:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You can't be serious that you need me to explain why it's a bad photo to you! You seem to be alone in thinking it's good - it's a topic on this talk page because it's so bad and even Wasted Time says it's horrendous. You're best sticking to the "free" argument, not defending the picture on its merits! Let's just say it would be hard to come up with a worse picture. Everyone I've directed to the article has laughed out loud and prefer the slightly blurry picture BruceSpringsteen2.jpg that's more in keeping with the quality of the article. It at least looks like Springsteen. It's hard to take the article seriously with that picture there. But seeing as it's a matter of personal pride to you to keep it ... Jstrap 23:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not. That's been sort of the point - I'm not 'defending' the image I uploaded, I'm defending the article it's on. I don't believe that a blurred camera phone image is "in keeping with the quality of the article" - and I'm wondering at this stage whether we're talking about the same photo anymore. This photo seems perfectly acceptable: it's clear, it's free and it's blatantly Springsteen, odd mid-photo facial expression or no. My point is that an unfocussed low-resolution shot is detrimental to the article's credibility - this isn't a personal attack on you or anyone else. Wasted Time R hasn't expressed the sentiments you seem to attribute to him, either. Anyway, I won't be dragged into further discussions about this - if you want to make it your crusade to replace the current one, be my guest - but good luck finding one that fits to the harsh requirements of Wikipedia and the article's quality. Palaeologus 23:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Dude, with regards to Wasted Time R's comments on your photo, look below. Jstrap 05:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's true that the photo currently being used is horrendous, but that's the Wikipedia way. The first photos for Mariah Carey and Christina Aguilera and Madonna (entertainer) and Tom Hanks are all bad too ... it's whatever the best amateur crowd shot someone can get is. Wasted Time R 14:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Full name

Is he not Bruce Frederick Joseph Springsteen ?

Derek R Bullamore 13:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

YES, that is correct

~~TheMountaineer Joseph would be a Confirmation Name adopted by Catholic youth as they are confirmed as adult members of the Church. A birth certificate would not contain this name. Many ignore their confirmation name completely. Some because they get to choose their own name use it as a first name.I'm guessing because Mom being Italian would have influenced the choice of Joseph

[edit] Graceland

Why was the Graceland section deleted? [07:16, 2 November 2006 68.232.40.61]

It wasn't deleted, rather it was moved to the Born to Run tours article. It wasn't appropriate to be a section of its own in the main article. Wasted Time R 11:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This Is The Real Deal, Folks

If there has been a better song ever written than "Youngstown" on the Ghost of Tom Joad, I want to hear it. The Boss Lives On. proserpine Dec 2, 2006.

[edit] Discography Gallery

I've finished the move from an unordered list to an album cover gallery, a la The Beatles - and am currently doing the same for The Eagles. However - I'm wondering if it's worth creating a further 'Compilations' gallery to house the 'Greatest Hits' and 'Essential Bruce Springsteen' albums... almost doesn't seem worth it, and the albums seem to be made up mostly of studio-recorded songs anyway. What're your thoughts on this? Palaeologus 14:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Are these galleries legit on fair use grounds? I thought album covers could only be used in the article about that specific album, and not elsewhere. As for your question, I would mix them all together chronologically, as that helps 'tell the story'. The Live/75-85 album was really the end of an era for Bruce, and so it needs to be seen in sequence. The 1995 Greatest Hits was a placeholder because a couple of album projects had failed, same thing, needs to be seen in sequence. Wasted Time R 15:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would refer you to The Beatles article, there seems to be some discussion there about the covers. There's also been a number of illustrative covers on this page for a period of time which have been unchallenged. It seems to me that the gallery is 'fairer use' than random covers used as illustration for the article. The galleries have been put their in good faith, as I'm attempting to bring the article closer to FA status, a la The Beatles article. As for your sentiments about the chronology of the gallery, I can see your point of view - but it'll be interesting to see some other people's opinions on this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Palaeologus (talk • contribs) 10:24, November 4, 2006.

I do not think adding the compilation albums to the main article page in necessary, because Bruce has a seperate discography article. The section in his main article should be kept to a minimum. – Heaven's Wrath   ^Talk  15:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)