| Soundfreak 07.05.2011 08:43 |
Probably this is a topic for the older fans from the days, when there was no internet. The question is, what was your first vinyl bootleg and where did you find it ? I was first aware that there must be more than the regular albums in the early 80s, when I was at the home of some guy who had a large album collection. And he showed me "Sheetkeeckers". I was surprised and curious. He played it for me and the sentence "What do you think of the show so far" in the break of "Ogre Battle" really impressed me. He promised me a tape copy but it never happened. So it was years later when a friend of mine surprised me at my birthday party with two vinyl albums "Cardiac Arrest" and "Falklands are rocking". They were horrible soundwise...but great to have. He never told me, where he got them...but soon I found some sources at flea markets and record fairs. The best boots I found were "Halfpence" and "Freddies boys at the Beeb" - and one day I finally got my copy of "Sheetkeeckers" for a reasonable price......those were the days....;-) |
| jamster1111 07.05.2011 10:36 |
My first Queen bootleg was Live in Newcastle 1979, and it wad from 12/4/1979 as you can probably guess. I got it a few years ago after hearing how great Freddie sounded performed BoRhap....and I actually bought it off a website and it came in the mail with a fancy design and CD case that looked like an official release. Great memories. |
| pogor1 07.05.2011 11:00 |
Ha , I obtained my first Queen boot in1993-4 i think. It was Italian pressed cassete 'We Will Rock You' It was the collection of tracks from various locations,some from official Live Killers ,some from hammersmith '75, But i really was impressed by tracks from bbc session 1977,what a great energy record!Funny thing is audience clapping between these songs just like it was also recorded during concert |
| rhyeking 07.05.2011 11:35 |
Soundfreak, here's my transfer of "Sheetkeeckers" from the LP to Youtube. Hope it brings back memories if you don't already own it. link As to my first live Queen bootleg, it was at a record store at Yonge & Eglington in Toronto. I don't remember the name of the store and it's sadly not there anymore. It was "Eve Of Christmas," the 1975 Hammersmith Odeon concert. Ever since, I play it every Christmas Eve. The second was "Queen Reigns The World," the Mannheim, Germany '86 concert, bought at a little record store a few doors north of the ChumCity building, on John St. I don't remember the name of that store, either, and i think it's since closed, too. |
| Edmund 07.05.2011 14:02 |
Brilliant - Sheetkeeckers - my first one bootleg also. Still got it on vinyl - will play it later. Thanks for great memories. |
| kosimodo 07.05.2011 14:07 |
on Cassette: Hammersmith 75 on LP: Geisha Boys Tokyo 76 on CD: Tokyo 86 |
| The Real Wizard 07.05.2011 15:17 |
jamster1111 wrote: My first Queen bootleg was Live in Newcastle 1979, and it wad from 12/4/1979 as you can probably guess. I actually bought it off a website and it came in the mail with a fancy design and CD case that looked like an official release. Great memories. ======================= Then it's technically not a bootleg, as it's just a couple CDRs that someone packaged together. A bootleg is something that is sold by a bootleg company, usually in Japan. Non-official =/= bootleg. My first vinyl bootleg should have been Sheetkeeckers, but for some reason I put it down at the record fair. My first vinyl bootleg ended up being "Mania" from Seattle 77. |
| drmurph 07.05.2011 15:20 |
I remember seeing a Queen CD when visiting Germany when very young (12 ish) which I didn't recognise nor the songs on it. I didn't buy it. Regretted it for years (actually still do a bit!) I first bought either " No more heroes" (Seattle 77) or "Killers" which claimed to be live but was BBC sessions with audience overdubs. This was probably about 1994 when I started university and became aware of bootlegs. It was so exciting back then looking forward to the next record fair so I could trawl the stalls searching for concerts. Then years later I found this site and queenconcerts... |
| The Real Wizard 07.05.2011 15:22 |
Check out my website - you might find that bootleg you saw in Germany. Just an inkling, but it might be from either Seattle 77 or Fukuoka 82. |
| Pim Derks 07.05.2011 15:41 |
My first bootlegs were probably the Italian picture discs "Everytime Everywhere" and another one simply title "Queen" I believe. Included snippets of Live Aid, Milan 1984 and Budapest 86 if I'm not mistaken. One of the earliest cd's I got probably was the In Nuce bootleg in 1995/1996. |
| eYe 07.05.2011 16:43 |
My first bootleg was Merry Christmas. link |
| jamster1111 07.05.2011 17:01 |
Sir GH wrote: jamster1111 wrote: My first Queen bootleg was Live in Newcastle 1979, and it wad from 12/4/1979 as you can probably guess. I actually bought it off a website and it came in the mail with a fancy design and CD case that looked like an official release. Great memories. ======================= Then it's technically not a bootleg, as it's just a couple CDRs that someone packaged together. A bootleg is something that is sold by a bootleg company, usually in Japan. Non-official =/= bootleg. My first vinyl bootleg should have been Sheetkeeckers, but for some reason I put it down at the record fair. My first vinyl bootleg ended up being "Mania" from Seattle 77. Well when people say "bootleg", I think of a non-official recording that someone compiled together and it is usually an audience recording. |
| dysan 07.05.2011 17:06 |
Considering I got into Queen at such a young age, I never really collected the bootlegs until much later - mainly via the internet. I think I reached 'collecting' age when I got into Bowie and hit the record fairs hard - Queen never really got a look in. Although I cherished my TV recording of Wembley '86 |
| Gregsynth 07.05.2011 17:09 |
Unauthorized recording = Bootleg |
| rhyeking 07.05.2011 17:51 |
According to Wikipedia: "A bootleg recording is an audio and/or video recording of a performance that was not officially released by the artist, or under other legal authority.[...] Bootlegs can consist of recordings of live performances, or material created in private or professional recording sessions. Changing technologies have had a great impact on the recording, distribution, and varying profitability of the underground industry. The copyrights for the song and the right to authorize recordings often reside with the artist, according to several international copyright treaties." So, basically, if the copyright holder of the music didn't release it, it's a bootleg. That concert recording you posted on YouTube, made with your iPhone, that's a bootleg! Copies of broadcasts that haven't been released otherwise are bootlegs. That's fine for concerts and such, but there are things like "Queen In Nuce" and "The Ultimate Back Catalog" CDs which contain officially released material in an unofficial format. These are pirate copies of the songs, except for the songs which were never released officially, which are bootleg tracks (Brian's 1991 radio performances, for example). So, sometimes you end up with a jumble of pirated and bootlegged tracks. Unreleased demos and outtakes leaked from the vaults are also bootleg tracks. That torrent copy of Thor you're downloading right now, made by a guy in the theatre with a camcorder, is pirated. |
| The Real Wizard 07.05.2011 18:21 |
Gregsynth wrote: Unauthorized recording = Bootleg ============= Yes, but not always. And these days with cell phones and youtube, bootlegs are less than 1% of what's floating around now. That wikipedia article was not written by a music collector. It was written by someone with a very limited and, quite frankly, myopic understanding of music recordings. If I go to a show tonight and record it, it's not a bootleg. It's just a recording I made. It isn't a bootleg until some company decides to sell it for profit with a pretty cover. When collectors dish out the big bucks for a bootleg, they generally do it for the collectible value of the disc and artwork itself, not just for the music contained therein. There are plenty of "Queen bootleg" websites where people create their own covers for audience recordings they have on CDR, but these are not bootlegs. This pisses many collectors off, because it adds to the confusion over which version is which, and whether or not this is a valuable collector's item to seek out. link - this is the most complete list of Queen bootlegs available online. About 99% of the Queen bootlegs ever pressed are listed here. Just about everything else is home made - they are not bootlegs. The word 'bootleg' has a stigma attached to it, dating back to the bootlegging of booze during the depression. As for music, throughout the 70s the only way for most people to get unofficial recordings was to buy bootlegs, and this led to the term as most people understand it today. But these days there is a large plurality of unofficial recordings and ways to release them to the public, hence the need for terms to differentiate between the different types. It's not as black and white as it used to be. |
| Kamenliter 07.05.2011 20:10 |
I bought my first bootleg, also of 'Sheetkeeckers' on my first date with a college girlfriend at It's Only Rock-n-Roll, the great (and long defunct) bootleg and rock memorablia store in Greenwich Village, NYC, back in the Summer of 1987. I had heard about the store from a friend of mine, telling me had seen some live Queen shows there (all vinyl!)...I was of course, extremely excited by this news and we ventured into the city on the train one night. Unfortunately, he was a strange and rowdy type and wound up smoking a cigarette on the train, which was duly noticed by a police officer who pulled us both off the train. He was underage and got some sort of citation and we wound up not making it into the city at all. It was a few months later before I actually made it to the shop, on that above mentioned date. I had spent pretty much all my money for the night and was too excited by the prospect of hearing Queen live, so I had the gall to ask my date for $20 to purchase the album, and she sweetly obliged me. (we dated for another 6 months, just fyi)... After that, I think the next purchase, also from It's Only Rock-N-Roll, was the double LP of 'A Night At The Warehouse' from Denmark, 5-12-77. Since it was a double album, it was $40...I remember that being a nice chunk of change for a college kid in those days, but I HAD to have it! Then, I noticed the store had some boot tapes for sale, cheaper, at around $10 each and I bought a few of those..one of the first was the Hammersmith Christmas Eve '75, gig but the sound was AWFUL..strange, considering it was a radio broadcast, but this must have been like a 100th generation copy! From there, it just steamrolled, with picking up copies of Goldmine and scouring the ads. One guy sold me tapes of older vinyl boots for a few bucks each; I also got 'Gettin' Smile' from him...then I met one of my, to this day, closest friends from an ad in Goldmine, looking for fellow Queen traders, and we spoke on the phone a few times, and eventually he made his way down to my house with a milk carton full of vinyl boots, which he copied for me. From there, more contacts in Goldmine ads and years of trading tapes through the mail with people all over the world. The excitement of looking over trade lists and waiting weeks for trades to turnaround is definitely lost in this day and age of instant downloadable gratification..not that I'm too upset about that these days!...I put in the time for years to acquire my collection, but I'm happy now that I can see a post on Queenzone or dimeadozen and download a torrent of an unearthed treasure in minutes! The joys of technology. Queen Forevermore!!! |
| Sheer Brass Neck 07.05.2011 20:43 |
I think mine was Sheetkickers, also had Mercury Poisoning and Duck Soup from Seattle. What a treat looking for and finding those things. There was a shop in Toronto called Flash Jack's and for a kid from the suburbs, it was like another world, great tee shirts, posters, bootlegs and drug paraphernalia. |
| rhyeking 07.05.2011 23:41 |
I think we're hair-splitting on the definition of bootleg. Not all recordings need be of good quality or 'company' produced. It used to be that there were fewer ways to create a bootleg recording: a) sneak recording equipment into a venue and tape all, some or most of a show. b) get a soundboard recording, either officially recorded or done on the sly by the guy at the console. c) record something broadcast on TV or the radio. Some of these circulated on cassettes, as people just made copies and sold/gave them to other people. Some companies with resources to press vinyl would hunt the best versions down (or weren't worried about audio quality and found whatever they could) and pressed them. CDs allowed them to do the same thing, replacing the vinyl. Now we file-share and post online, including on YouTube. It's all still bootlegging. "Bootleg," as defined by Dictionary.com is: "something, as a recording, made, reproduced, or sold illegally or without authorization". ...which is basically what was noted earlier, originally by Gregsynth. It doesn't necessarily refer to the final product, but includes the process and legal-status of the recording, plus the medium it's presented on. |
| ksimpson1960 08.05.2011 00:23 |
I bought the album "Sheetkeeckers" = vinyl, 8 songs, total 36:42 length, (with instructional 'eye-gougeing' technique illistrated on cover) from the "Beggars Banquet" record store around 1977-78. ..also "The Mad Platter" had these albums that I bought as well : "Queen the Royal American Tour 1975,(03-22-75 Santa Monica Civic, Long Beach), 'Queen' (first album) w/gold printing, *rather than the common white printing, , also 'Queen II' in rare 'high-gloss' cover, a "White" Night At The Opera, a few others, ...although, I did miss my oppertunity to buy 'Mercury Poisoned' (still regreting it), bootlegs seem a little more rare here in the U.S. ..can't really find much in albums, since CDs |
| Yamaguchi 08.05.2011 01:57 |
My first Queen bootleg is MERCURY POISONING. In 1999, I found this in a store in Yamaguchi, Japan. MERCURY POISONING I have is orange-colored. I upload a scanning. Although original size was 5271pix X 3476pix, I made it small. |
| scollins 08.05.2011 02:27 |
live at the warehouse 1977 great gig :) i sat down with an 8 pack of guiness and aboot 10 blue valium ah those were the days lol |
| people on streets 08.05.2011 04:32 |
King's Favourite |
| dysan 08.05.2011 05:00 |
Actually, that 'what is a bootleg' discussion reminds me the first Queen 'unauthorised' (to be on the safe side) release I got was the Ultimate Back Catalogue Vol 1 (the good one with the Smile tracks and non album tracks) ON TAPE in the early 90's. Was the first time I'd heard those tracks. A great compilation that would be nice officially. Also IMO - 'pirate' is a copy of official release - like fake copies of the Larry Lurex single, or those curious unsantioned foreign versions of the official albums. 'Bootleg' is anything else - be it live or studio. The first rock 'bootleg' was studio material. |
| rhyeking 08.05.2011 09:07 |
Your description is exactly right, dysan. Copy of something unreleased by the copyright holder (either studio or live) = Bootleg Copy of something released by the copyright holder (either studio or live) = Pirate If I make a recording on my phone (or tape deck or digital recorder), post it on YouTube, or do nothing with it but save it to my computer, or make 10 CDs for my friends, or 500 CDs to sell on eBay, it's all still bootlegging. As to what bands think of bootlegging, it varies. I think most bands, at least in the old days, had no real problem with it so long as money wasn't disappearing from their bank accounts because of it, which wasn't often a problem with fans exchanging cassette copies of concerts. It also helped promote the band, as people shared these with non-fans and inducted them into the awesomeness of the performance, the same way we all made mixed tapes for each other (or mixed CDs if you're of that generation). I think a lot of bands are still fine with it, but it's becoming unnecessary for some bands, who now tour, then release a good quality concert DVD/Blu-Ray and CD/download of at least one whole show from the tour, for every recent tour. |
| The Real Wizard 08.05.2011 11:34 |
rhyeking wrote: I think we're hair-splitting on the definition of bootleg. =================== Yes, because it's very necessary. Wikipedia and the dictionary are not written by collectors of music recordings. The definition of the word 'bootleg' I have given is that according to most COLLECTORS who have come to use the word to differentiate company-pressed unofficial releases from everything else. Language evolves. It's a reality of our very existence. If someone records a show from the tenth row and shares it online, it's just a recording. When it is bootlegged, that taper has thereby been ripped off, because now some company is making money off something that was intended to be shared freely. These days some collectors go to extraordinary lengths to transfer old tapes preserving otherwise unheard pieces of music history and circulate them in the best quality possible. It is an insult to refer to their work as bootlegging. As you know, there is a Queen bootleg from the 70s called "Sheetkeeckers." There is no bootleg called "Rocking at the Rainbow." If I choose to share that same recording online with a cover that is entitled "Rocking at the Rainbow," it won't suddenly be added to the canon of Queen bootlegs of that show. A couple years back someone anonymously posted what is presumably a stolen soundboard recording of one of the Sun City '84 shows. That doesn't suddenly make them a bootlegger. The word bootleg was never once used. It's just an old tape. Yes, we are splitting hairs, but it is a very necessary exercise. The dictionary says what it does, but most collectors would disagree, since terminology for unreleased recordings has evolved greatly in the last 20 years. It's not collectors who write the dictionary. Look at the replies in this thread - people are referring to bootlegs exactly as I'm describing them. They are mentioning vinyl and silver bootlegs from the 70s through the 90s. They're talking about the physical product, not the music. Go to any forum where people collect unreleased music on a semi-serious level and the overwhelming majority will agree. Or go to Dime and start this thread. You won't last an hour. |
| angermair73 08.05.2011 12:02 |
My first Queen-bootleg was on vinyl and was called "Halfpence". A recording of the famous x-mas gig in 1975. I think i bought it in 1990 or there about. Unfortunately it was stolen from me some 3 years later with the rest of my records. But then again it is one of the easiest recordings to get hold of. Well now i have 2 different versions but none of them is called "Halfpence". |
| JeroenG 08.05.2011 14:13 |
I never bought any vinyl bootlegs, but the first CD was "18 greatest hits live from Queen" containing live recordings from Zürich 1982 & 1986 |
| BobbytheCat 08.05.2011 14:40 |
"Duck Soup" lp i found it at the local market must have been 1978 or so |
| Mr Mercury 08.05.2011 15:02 |
Mines was Mercury Posioning as well but it had a slightly different tracklist to it from the one that Whollsocks has. Mines included Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon just after Doing Alright and before Keep Yourself Alive. And after KYA, I had Now Im Here, Unfortunately this was all on a cassette which has since been lost :( |
| master marathon runner 08.05.2011 15:55 |
Still have'nt got any, but......as i was at the Newcastle '79 gig, i would be grateful if anyone could let me know where i could get a cd of this. Master marathon runner |
| guild93 08.05.2011 18:08 |
The first bootleg I got was actually a CD in 1990 ....... got it from a guy I worked with who was a dealer, he offered it to me for $55 and had to explain to me what a bootleg WAS as I was just out of school and never heard if one. The CD was Hammy XMAS 1975, sound quality is decent but had a few vinyl crackles which I thought was a bit crappy but I know better now! |
| léolacet 08.05.2011 19:09 |
Mine was call, Tokyo Rampage, and it began with cue tacking on a board and a voice saying: ladies and gentlemen, a night at the opera, and then the whole operatic segment of bohemian rhapsody came on and the show started with the heavy movement of bohemian, 1975 recorded, i think, and i received it in 1977, i was already magic |
| rhyeking 08.05.2011 20:15 |
Sir GH wrote: rhyeking wrote: I think we're hair-splitting on the definition of bootleg. =================== Yes, because it's very necessary. Wikipedia and the dictionary are not written by collectors of music recordings. The definition of the word 'bootleg' I have given is that according to most COLLECTORS who have come to use the word to differentiate company-pressed unofficial releases from everything else. Language evolves. It's a reality of our very existence. If someone records a show from the tenth row and shares it online, it's just a recording. When it is bootlegged, that taper has thereby been ripped off, because now some company is making money off something that was intended to be shared freely. These days some collectors go to extraordinary lengths to transfer old tapes preserving otherwise unheard pieces of music history and circulate them in the best quality possible. It is an insult to refer to their work as bootlegging. As you know, there is a Queen bootleg from the 70s called "Sheetkeeckers." There is no bootleg called "Rocking at the Rainbow." If I choose to share that same recording online with a cover that is entitled "Rocking at the Rainbow," it won't suddenly be added to the canon of Queen bootlegs of that show. A couple years back someone anonymously posted what is presumably a stolen soundboard recording of one of the Sun City '84 shows. That doesn't suddenly make them a bootlegger. The word bootleg was never once used. It's just an old tape. Yes, we are splitting hairs, but it is a very necessary exercise. The dictionary says what it does, but most collectors would disagree, since terminology for unreleased recordings has evolved greatly in the last 20 years. It's not collectors who write the dictionary. Look at the replies in this thread - people are referring to bootlegs exactly as I'm describing them. They are mentioning vinyl and silver bootlegs from the 70s through the 90s. They're talking about the physical product, not the music. Go to any forum where people collect unreleased music on a semi-serious level and the overwhelming majority will agree. Or go to Dime and start this thread. You won't last an hour. ******************************************* The old tape is a bootleg recording, no matter what you do with it. The person who made it is a bootlegger, as is anyone who continues to copy and distribute it. If some bootleggers don't know what to properly identify themselves and their product as, that's just sad. Since you mentioned what bootleggers refer to themselves as, I decided to look for myself and see. I found a Bootlegging site called Bob's Boots, which deals with the trading of bootleg recordings and features an informative essay on what a bootleg is, compared to a Pirate or Counterfeit copy. It's from 1996, so it predates the advent of YouTube and file-sharing, but the principal is clearly expressed, where the creation and distribution is key, rather than the medium itself: "A bootleg album, cassette, or CD is one that has been created completely from material (songs, spoken word, etc.) that is not commercially available. The material might be from an interview, radio broadcast, recording from a live concert, studio outtake tapes etc. etc." Here are the links: Full Essay: link Site Information Page: link Written for and by bootleggers, saying essentially the same thing as I and others did. |
| The Real Wizard 08.05.2011 22:59 |
That website is horribly outdated. It's like referencing a text book from 2003 and insisting that Pluto is still a planet. |
| GratefulFan 08.05.2011 23:20 |
People are fighting and they're not me! Yay! link :) |
| rhyeking 09.05.2011 00:14 |
Sir GH wrote: That website is horribly outdated. It's like referencing a text book from 2003 and insisting that Pluto is still a planet. +++++++++++++++++++++ Honestly, I've stopped caring, so I'll end with the fact that I cited three sources to support my point of view, representing a cross-section of the population, including bootleggers themselves. The argument against consists of entirely that both myself and these sources are wrong because...well, they just are...apparently, since they aren't the people on the bootleg sites the poster uses, which amounts to nothing more than "No, you're wrong, because I said so," which is pretty thin. |
| people on streets 09.05.2011 05:49 |
There is a huge difference between a bootlegger and a live concert taper. Taping + sharing = free bootlegging + selling = money Is that really so hard to understand? Most tapers would be offended to be called bootleggers. Go to link and say that tapers are bootleggers. |
| queenboot 09.05.2011 05:56 |
Hi, The first bootleg I ever bought was the Dynasty LP in the mid 80'. Cheers Norbert. |
| Bad Seed 09.05.2011 06:02 |
First bootleg was 'Live in Cologne' 1979. Bought it in the early 90's from HMV in Sunderland. Quite odd that HMV were selling audience recorded bootlegs back then! |
| Double-U 09.05.2011 06:59 |
On Vinyl I bought a horrible recording from Bradford 1974. The splattered clear Vinyl was limited to 75 copies with a hand made cover (even ALF the alien is on it) and is called "Fairytales Of Yesterday" I paid 75 deutch marks for it and it was send to me after I started a request at the "Rock Hard" magazine in the mid 90's. I'm not that old, I think W. |
| rhyeking 09.05.2011 07:59 |
people on streets wrote: There is a huge difference between a bootlegger and a live concert taper. Taping + sharing = free bootlegging + selling = money Is that really so hard to understand? Most tapers would be offended to be called bootleggers. Go to link and say that tapers are bootleggers. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Apparently I'm stubborn, even by my own standards. I'm personally not applying a higher moral judgement on the act of bootlegging. I own bootleg recordings. I've posted a bootleg recording in its entirety on YouTube: link By my own definition (and Miriam Webster, the people whose job it is to define words), I'm a bootlegger. I'm perfectly fine with the people doing it and hope the copyright holders don't care enough to cry 'foul!' Bootleg recordings are important archival recordings in a lot of cases. That the bootleggers themselves don't like the word, the label and don't consider themselves "bootleggers" doesn't change the meaning of the word. I thumbed through TapersSection.com and read their Legal thread, where the Original Poster attached links to the US Federal Laws which cover this issue. He summarized it thusly: "Briefly, recording and trading without the artist's consent is a violation of Federal law and brings with it the penalties that come from copyright infringement (actual damages and profits, or statutory damages between $200 and $150,000 plus possible additional damages as well as legal/court fees). HOWEVER, the very last part of section 1101 says that state laws are not pre-empted. Whether this means that federal laws do not apply if there's a state law, or if they apply in ADDITION to the states' laws, is not clear. Hence my hope that lawyers will help us out here. The general state party line is, if the artist says it's ok, you're not breaking the law. If the artist doesn't say it's ok, you're usually not breaking the law as long as it's for non-commercial use. Some states go so far as to say that distributing it isn't ok but owning it for personal use is permissible; these are noted in the posts for that particular state." Here's the topic thread: link Legalese doesn't tend to use the word "bootleg," despite authoritative sources applying it as I have done. Basically, "We don't like being called that" is hardly an argument. Okay, now I'm done...I hope. |
| people on streets 09.05.2011 10:00 |
Dude... you read the topic right? This was posted in the topic you are referring to: BIG EDIT: The original information (that not between these two lines) may no longer apply. A new statute was passed in 2006 that appears to supersede the code below. The full code can be seen here now: link The upshot is that penalties are MUCH worse...but now the all-important clause about "commercial advantage or private financial gain" has been inserted, and the clause about state laws having precedence over federal law has been removed. So bottom line - it appears that not-for-profit recording is technically legal even if not authorized by the artist, though you may have difficulty proving that you have no financial motives in a timely fashion that will enable you to continue your recording if the authorities decide to stop you. ________________________________________________________________ Other word for creating private financial gain with copyright protected material : bootlegging Other word for making not-for-profit recordings: taping. |
| reeddr 11.05.2011 20:38 |
Mine was a 2 album package called "Queen Live" and it had the Hammersmith 75 concert and an earlier one that was from the Killer Queen tour. This was around 1977 and I remember how I loved Brians guitar solo on "Brighton Rock". |
| paulosham 12.05.2011 19:15 |
Unauthorised Release = Bootleg |