| Dear Friends 02.10.2005 20:24 |
Do they support them or are the against them? (Referring to any form of unreleased materials whether they be concerts, tracks, et cetera) Also, how about other artist? For instance, Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, and even the newer artist like Green Day, Robbie Williams, Thursday and Weezer. Thanks for any and all help my friends. |
| The Fairy King 02.10.2005 20:55 |
They released Live Killers, so people wouldn't buy bootlegs... so i assume they hated bootlegs :P |
| The Real Wizard 02.10.2005 22:16 |
I know for a fact that Jimmy Page loves bootlegging. There are pictures of him browsing through the bootlegs at Led Zeppelin stores in Tokyo. He's probably the biggest LZ collector of all! |
| Serry... 03.10.2005 00:25 |
I think they didn't care too much about it... |
| John S Stuart 03.10.2005 03:29 |
NO professional artist likes bootlegs - as it is basically theft of their product, talents and energy. So as far as studio stuff is concerned most view it as a personal violation. How would you like someone to come round to your house, steal your personal photographs, and then flash them across the web, without your permission - do you think you would still feel good? The reason Page collects bootlegs, (as does Sir Paul McCartney - his lyrics to "Hi, Hi, Hi" read: Well, When I Met You At The Station You Were Standing With A Bootleg In Your Hand. I Took You Back To My Little Place For A Taste Of A Multicoloured Band. We're Gonna Get Hi Hi Hi,), is that they are mainly recordings of live concerts, which Led Zep did not record professsionally. In otherwords, sometimes, bootlegs are the only record of a live performance. The reason Queen do not condone live bootlegs is that they are perfectionists, and are afraid to release an inferior product. ALL Official Queen live releases, have therefore been "artificially" overdubbed, edited, or electronically enhanced in some way. However, because bootlegs DO exist, and the band can not exercise any authority or control over these, in a bid to bite back at the bootleggers, Queenonline, have made some bootlegs available as "Official downloads". This ofcourse has died a natural death. |
| Serry... 03.10.2005 05:46 |
I'll try to explain what I've meant when I wrote "They didn't much care about it". Queen Productions, managers, lawyers, tour managers etc. - yes, they don't like bootlegs because of the obvious reasons (on Moscow after-party show Queen's PR-manager Mr Shymes were looking for any amateur audio/video recorders in audience even BUT this show was professionally filmed and was planed to be shown on TV what never happened in reality). But artists itself... I'm not sure that John Deacon would lose some money because someone have recorded Drammen '82. They didn't plan to release it, so they lost nothing. Pirate copies of studio albums or bootleg releases with demos and outtakes from forthcoming studio albums is another story of course... |
| Roy ® 03.10.2005 06:43 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: I know for a fact that Jimmy Page loves bootlegging. There are pictures of him browsing through the bootlegs at Led Zeppelin stores in Tokyo. He's probably the biggest LZ collector of all!Isn't that so that Brian May also collects Queen bootlegs ?? |
| tilomagnet 03.10.2005 07:35 |
John S Stuart wrote: NO professional artist likes bootlegs - as it is basically theft of their product, talents and energy.I don't know if you are reffering to silver pressed bootlegs or 'normal' live recordings which are just traded around and not sold. In fact there are actually a lot of bands who support taping and trading of their live shows. Jambands for example. So it's definately not true that "no professional artist" likes recordings of their live shows, that aren't made by themselves. John S Stuart wrote: The reason Page collects bootlegs, (as does Sir Paul McCartney - his lyrics to "Hi, Hi, Hi" read: Well, When I Met You At The Station You Were Standing With A Bootleg In Your Hand. I Took You Back To My Little Place For A Taste Of A Multicoloured Band. We're Gonna Get Hi Hi Hi,), is that they are mainly recordings of live concerts, which Led Zep did not record professsionally. In otherwords, sometimes, bootlegs are the only record of a live performance.I'm pretty sure LZ as well as Queen taped all of their shows maybe aside from the very early ones. I think LZ even multitracked all shows of several tours, didn't they? |
| john bodega 03.10.2005 08:39 |
I don't get it. If i went onto Limewire and found my songs available - fuck, I'd track down the people and THANK them for listening to me in the first place. Rather - I'd take it as a sign I'm getting something right. I mean come on - there are a lot of acts that lose a lot of money from piracy and it's a crying shame. But I don't think that enters the discussion when we're talking about Queen (that band, that had 4 separate limos). |
| Maz 03.10.2005 14:27 |
John S Stuart wrote: NO professional artist likes bootlegs - as it is basically theft of their product, talents and energy. So as far as studio stuff is concerned most view it as a personal violation.I'm a little confused by this statement, John. Are you referring to studio releases (which I would classify as pirated product) or concert recordings (most identified with bootlegs)? The reason I mention it is because there are several bands that are very pro-bootlegging of their live material. U2 has been mentioned, but their attitude is more of the "hands-off, don't sell it" type. Most famously, bands like the Grateful Dead had sections within their venues dedicated to tapers. In recent years, bands like the Dave Matthews Band and Phish have continued that tradition, though DMB has scaled this back some. In fact, I've heard stories of bands that not only allowed tapers sections, but also allowed individuals to tap directly into the band's own sound mix. I think saying "no professional artist" likes bootlegging is a stretch. Certainly some like Queen cringe because they are perfectionists and lose control over the recording. Both others see it as a way for their music to thrive. |
| NOTWMEDDLE 03.10.2005 15:20 |
Pink Floyd didn't care although Nick Mason hated them. In fact, David Gilmour has several PF bootlegs in his possession. |
| deleted user 03.10.2005 15:39 |
Brian i think encourages bootleggin of his concerts/ Queen concerts, note back to Newcastle:- "ok this is just for you guys fuck the videos" so he obviously knew there would be videos, he saw em and did a wonderful show for em, probably hoping they would circulate or something! i dont know actually to be honest, i will shut up now! |
| The Real Wizard 03.10.2005 20:52 |
Roy ® wrote: Isn't that so that Brian May also collects Queen bootlegs ??Hmm, I'm not sure if that's true... I've never heard him say so. tilomagnet wrote: I'm pretty sure LZ as well as Queen taped all of their shows maybe aside from the very early ones. I think LZ even multitracked all shows of several tours, didn't they?The first half of your statement is most likely true, but I don't think Zeppelin multi-tracked nearly as many shows as we'd like to believe! |
| Negative Creep 05.10.2005 08:28 |
"NO professional artist likes bootlegs" You should rephrase that as "NO record companies like bootlegs". Most artists take it as a huge compliment, especially factory pressed bootlegs, not homemade cdr's... it takes a real arsehole to take an active dislike to bootlegs, considering its only an artists hardcore fanbase that would be even interested in such a thing. Bootlegging normally comes with a degree of success... put it this way... an artist would be more bothered that they weren't being bootleged, than if they are. I think, say Brian, would be more irrated by a personal collector obtaining an alleged one off acetate of a recording that the band don't even have the reels or even a cassette dub for anymore, and refusing to part with it. |
| Haystacks Calhoun 05.10.2005 09:29 |
In fact, John Deacon was spotted at several of the European shows this spring recording video on a Sony DCRTRV900 MiniDV Handycam... By the accounts of my very private source, he was forcibly removed and summarily beaten, the video erased, and he was then taken to the nearest strip club and made to perform a lap dance. |
| *3*Playful as a pussycat 05.10.2005 13:44 |
^ 0_0.......-____________- anyway, i would personally think that any band would appreciate the fact that fans would take the time to record their performance because it shows how much they are loved. but then again, that is basically stealing from them and they obviously wouldnt appreciate that...hmmm, you know, if you are lucky enough to go to a gig that wouldnt be videotaped(which would obviously mean that it's not meant to be) you should feel special that you are witnessing a once in a lifetime gig that only you out of 200 (or so) other people get to see and that a million others fans would die to see only they couldn't. the memory itself should be enough to satisfy you. |
| Negative Creep 05.10.2005 14:43 |
Stealing what exactly? They choose to perform music in a public environment. Live performances have been bootlegged since the turn of the last century, and nothing is going to stop it. Most record companies have little interest in releasing full live concerts, and when they do they usually surpass any existing audience recording... bootlegs take nothing away from the artist. |
| Jamaleni 06.10.2005 06:38 |
There is one particular band, called Metallica which should thank bootleggers for their popularity in the beginning of their career. Actuallly, they openly supported bootleging, because that was the best way for them to get known. Today, I suppose the storry is much different. |
| Jjeroen 06.10.2005 08:09 |
I would not say it like that, but 'yes' Brian is indeed a 'collector' of bootlegs himself. He was very happy with some stuff I gave him a couple of years ago. (and he in fact DID give something in return! :-) (Remember Groningen 1998 btw? His words when he played 'Sleeping On Thse Sidewalk': "I hope you guys are bootlegging this".) I dunno about John and Roger. But it is true that Freddie after a show sometimes took home some tapes that where confiscated from bootleggers by security that night. |
| The Real Wizard 06.10.2005 13:32 |
jeroen wrote: But it is true that Freddie after a show sometimes took home some tapes that where confiscated from bootleggers by security that night.I know that's true about the NY 2-5-77 video. The same bootlegger filmed the Uniondale show the next night with the little film he had left. |
| likecats 06.10.2005 17:13 |
I had read that Led Zeppelin hated bootleggers, and that their manager Peter Grant would find bootlegs in record shops and destroy them on the spot. Perhaps Jimmy Page has softened on that over the years. The Grateful Dead, on the other hand, would reserve a taping section at each show, specifically so fans could capture each performance. The understanding, though, was that the tapes would not be sold, just traded and shared. I guess then, that artists who hate bootleggers hate them for two reasons: There might be a recording of a sub-par performance (or just a bad recording of a good performance) out there, which reflects badly on the artist; or the bootleggers who sell the product are leeches who are making money off the artist's work without paying any royalties. In defense of bootleg collectors, I would suspect that they are mostly fans who have already purchased every official release, but are always hungry for more. I confess to collecting a number of bootlegs in the 1970's and '80's. (Vinyl bootlegs! You know, the ones with a blank label and cover, with a cheap Xerox inserted in the shrink wrap to indicate the contents. Ah, the good old days! But I digress....) I don't really collect them much anymore, but it's always tempting to get a recording of a show I actually attended, so I can re-live it. I think that's why there will always be a demand for them. |
| The Real Wizard 06.10.2005 23:34 |
I think it was just Peter Grant who hated bootlegs, not any of the LZ members. Or at best, they or some of them disliked it, but not nearly as much as Grant. The reason most artists who dislike bootlegging feel that way is because they think the bootleggers are doing it for profit, which the majority of the time is NOT true. Fans make recordings for other fans and trade them freely. In fact, many bootlegs these days come with a disclaimer on the cover art which reads "not for sale". Metallica, U2, and so many others need to get with the program and realize that their most hardcore fans just want to hear more of their music, not "steal money" from them, even though they already are multi-multi-millionaires, but we won't get into that! |
| SilverShoes 16.10.2005 21:31 |
OK, I think we need to make a distinction here: I think most musicians don't mind their shows being RECORDED. It's when they're being sold for 50 bucks a pop in a record store, that it becomes an issue. I think most artists would be against their fans being ripped off (which one can very easily be, if one doesn't know which shows they should be collecting, in terms of the best performances, best sound quality, etc). Given the comments that's being made here, I suspect Brian takes it as a complement that there are fans who collect whatever recordings they can find of the band. I know a lot of people who don't mind the stuff being traded, just so long as they can get a copy too (I remember seeing Frank Marino And Mahogany Rush once, and he actually said onstage "I don't mind you taping the shows, just please send me a copy too"). As for Zep, I think it was mainly Peter Grant who hated the bootleggers, mainly because he wasn't getting his ten percent from the bootleggers. |