From elephant-talk at arastar dot comFri Oct 6 10:35:34 1995 Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 07:28:48 +0800 From: elephant-talk at arastar dot com Reply to: toby at cs dot man dot ac dot uk To: elephant-talk at anthor dot arastar dot com Subject: Elephant-talk digest v95 #227 E L E P H A N T T A L K The Internet newsletter for Robert Fripp and King Crimson enthusiasts Number 227, Thursday, 5 October 1995 SPECIAL ISSUE: TAPE TRADING & BOOTLEGGING #2 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] Hi, many ET readers have requested that (the endless!) discussion about tape trading and bootlegging be taken off-line from regular ET issues. So here is the second special issue in which recent posts on the subject are collected. I think we've done the topic to death now, and the same arguments and views are just spinning around and around. So, to conserve bandwidth, and keep ET fresh, I'd request a moratorium on discussion on this topic, for a short while, anyway. -- Toby [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] Today's Topics: More on bootlegs (for Elephant talk) some thoughts re livetaping Yet another perspective on bootlegging (response to Chris Dickey) BOOT Re: Elephant-talk digest v95 #222 BOOT - Just stating the obvious. BOOT Boot Does Fripp Bootleg?? E-Talk Boot discussion BOOT -- Abortion, trees, questionnaires and enjoyment BOOTS Re: Comments on my comments on taping Lizard & sonic excursions... Elephant Talk Boot- Second Poll Results An Observation About B'BOOM [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] POSTS: Please send all posts to toby at cs dot man dot ac dot uk The ET archives: WWW Home: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/aig/staff/toby/elephant-talk.html Topic Index: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/aig/staff/toby/et/index/topics/etopics.htm FAQ: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/aig/staff/toby/et/elephant-talk-faq.html FTP The Americas: ftp.qualcomm.com, in /pub/et Rest of world: ftp.cs.man.ac.uk, in /pub/toby/elephant-talk EMAIL Send "index elephant-talk" to listserv at arastar dot com [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] From: Karl Hagen Geppert Subject: More on bootlegs (for Elephant talk) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 11:03:15 +1000 (EST) More on bootlegs: We here in Australia have to listen to bootlegs if we want to hear anything of what the band have been doing lately. It is fine to ban the recording of live shows in favour of fans listening to them in the here and now, but not much use if the band never comes to your country. I've been following KC devotedly since the late seventies and am still waiting for the Australian leg to their so-called world tours. Cheers, Karl karlg at cit dot gu dot edu dot au [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 12:09:31 +1000 From: keens at pitvax dot xx dot rmit dot edu dot au (Jeremy Keens) Subject: some thoughts re livetaping these are some confused thoughts on the issue of bootlegs, tapes and live concerts. at the outset i would note that fripp's position on the issue should be taken as the starting point, and we should not traverse his rights to control his own music. there are some problems with his position though >> an illustrative story: the otehr day it snowed where i live (spring, australia) which was unusual. i drove home in the snow storm, then wandered round the garden feeling the snow crunch under foot. i took some pictures of it, (and would have loved to take a video). i will use the photos to remind myself what it looked like - seeing them will recreate the experience for me. but i will also use them to show someone something of what mt macedon looked like in the snow. it will be a far cry from being there, but will be an indicator, to which they can bring their own 'snow' experiences to >> to me, live recordings play the same role. they cannot be being there - that experience IS something between the musician and the audience. but if you were at a concert, hearing the tape, seeing the video can remind you, recreate it. when i play david bowie 'stages' i can see the fluorescent bank at the randwick stadium, hear the appaling accoustics etc. similarly the live radio concert of philip glass that i recorded takes me back to canberra and the best concert i have ever been to. and the other use is for the vast majority of people who have never seen the groups perform live. fripp has never been to australia or new zealand - we have never had the chance to experience a concert with him. live recordings go someway to showing us what they are like. in addition, artists like fripp create and change music throughout concerts (why else all the versions of easy money in TGD?) live recordings capture those moments. the truth of these points is indicated in the selfcontradictory releases >from fripp. of the discipleglobal releases featuring fripp only one is an offical record - thrak: there are live recordings of frippertronics (2, 2 to come) b'boom, the quintet, and vrooom is really a bootleg live rehersal. so fripp has recognised the desire (one could say need) for the fan base to have live recordings, and has dumped his aversion to live recording. what to do? my feeling is that personal tapes seem ok - they are like permanent memories: are we violating the agreement by talking about concerts? that the available (official) live material should be enough - i trust the musicians to select the best (ie most varied) material for live albums, although many artists seem to pick the most professional, fripp avoids that. that a disciplne era box set (or even single disk) is essential as that seems to be an exceptionally bootlegged period. A courtera disk (better than earthbound in quality) be made - and that USA and E'bound be released. and finally that discipline make the live bootleg alternatives cheaper than standard, and produces a post-thrak live album available soon. anyone from discipline global listening?? jeremyK [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 10:09:56 -0500 From: sanderso at gac dot edu (Scott T. Anderson) Subject: Yet another perspective on bootlegging (response to Chris Dickey) In the most recent issue of ET, Chris Dickey said: >"If Robert Fripp-ocrite thinks a live performance is so sacred that it >should not be taped why is he so quick to prostitute it for money? He has >said so himself that he has a huge collection of live performances. And >Bill Bruford states that EVERYTHING is recorded. Fripp has released more >live recordings than anyone other than Zappa or the Dead. And while we are >on the subject, how DOES he justify charging $30 for a 2CD set with >virtually NO production cost. Christ, it is nothing but an edited and EQ'ed >board tape of a moment that was supposedly very private and personal. I >guess for $30 a pop it isn't that sacred to him." In response to Chris's question, it's not a matter of live performance being something sacred nearly so much as it is simply Fripp's legal and moral right to protect his art and to be the sole proprietor of it. Bootleggers are infringing upon Fripp's legal copyright of his work, and they are also denying the artist his moral right to HIS creation. He, however, can do with it just as he pleases, and I, personally, have no problem paying $30 for a 2-disc set of excellent music. I'd RATHER pay more for this one because Fripp, the artist, is getting proportionally more money than in the cases of most major-label artists, whose profits go primarily to the record company. When a bootleg is made, however, no one profits except the greedy mooch who made the bootleg, and who will charge at least TWICE what Fripp would, for a vastly inferior product. I think people need to get off Fripp's back. I'm just glad he shares his art with us at all. Fickle music fans don't deserve it. -- Scott T. Anderson Gustavus Adolphus College sanderso at gac dot edu [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] From: bullj1 at westatpo dot westat dot com Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 13:18:32 EDT Subject: BOOT Re: Elephant-talk digest v95 #222 I believe my question to someone who had tapes of recent Crimson shows started this whole thing. I meant for it to be a gentle thought-provoker and was thinking less in legal terms and more in the sense of: if you think of the band and music as a friend, how can you do something they ask you not to do. I didn't mean for anyone to get all riled up over it but the response itself has brought up another item for thought. When someone puts something out to the media - whether a quote, interview, work of art, whatever - they have very little control over its repercussions. The same thing happens in forums such as this one. Joan Bull bullj1 at westat dot com [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 11:53:31 -0700 From: "William M. Heinrichs" Subject: BOOT - Just stating the obvious. Hello, This subject is personal to me because I own many bootlegs by various bands. However, I have never paid a dime for the music on the tapes. I enjoy listening to the way an artist evolves their music over time. Some artists will change >from concert to concert while others change very little over the years. What I seem to enjoy has brought about some heated debates. I have to chime in. I see the "correctness" of bootlegging as two seperate issues. The first is legal, while the other is ethical. From what I know, creating/taking a copy of a performance is illegal if the performers are against such acts. In real life, people will bootleg regardless of what anyone else thinks. Just like people will: speed, smoke pot, make love in a park, etc. What stops them from trying to bootleg is a matter of ethics. The ethical arguement seems clear cut. If RF tells you not record his music, it is wrong to record his music. An analogy can be made with photography. If I don't want my picture taken, I can ask you not to take my picture, hide my face behind my hands or walk away. Unfortunately, during a concert RF cannot hide his music or walk away. He is left with you either heeding his wishes or not. Deciding to bootleg is an personal/ethical choice that each taper must live with. Aquiring bootlegs is also a personal/ethical choice. Taking the photographic analogy further: Someone may have a special picture of RF and sells it to a tabloid. Another may wish to share that photo with their friends. It is obvious the RF is financially exploited with the tabloids, but with friends sharing a special moment it is not so obvious. How ET readers feel about financially exploiting RF seems to be reflected in the poll results. Most will not give money to the tabloids. All of the tapers I know are in it for the music. Each one makes thier own choice about whether to tape or not. They record and share the music with friends. I am of the belief that RF is against bootlegging because of the financial harm it causes to KC. Why else would he release the Argentina tapes instead of those from a later part of the tour. The band should have been well oiled by the time they hit LA. Just gotta get Tony to "plug in." later, Bill [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 15:06:05 -0500 (EST) From: "M. S. AtKisson" Subject: BOOT A couple of random comments about the whole taping thing. First, on the taping process: I personally would be destracted from enjoying the performance by worrying how the tape was coming out. I'm a techie, and I don't want to be in that mode when I paid to be at a show. Second, it would put me more in the space of observer than participant. (On this last point--I am reminded of the friend who was allowed to watch a Space Shuttle launch from the VIP stands. All of the observers had to be reminded by the NASA representative _not_ to watch the video monitors. They were all ignoring the _real thing_ happening before their eyes.) Third, the tape will likely never live up to my memory. I refused to have my wedding videotaped for similar reasons. Also, Nick Douglas mentioned that blank tapes were 'taxed' by the music industry. If memory serves, such an attempt was made, but was over-ruled for anti-trust reasons. It is interesting to note, however, that a study was done concerning the use of tape copies of albums (now CDs). Most of it was done by and for the original owner, to be used in a car cassette deck or walkman. No one except lawyers really seems to take issue with this. What is really telling, though, is that a pretty high percentage of people who recieve tape copies of an artist (for example, from a friend wishing to introduce them to a new artist) will buy other discs by that artist. Generally they'll even buy the disc that they originally had on an illegal tape copy. So the recipient of the illegal copy eventually spends _more_ money than the 'lost' revenue from the original tape. Lastly, sigs. Being on an .edu server I don't feel the cost of the extra disc-space, but I can sympathize with those who pay to download. (It's just that my snailmail address is so darn long (5 lines). It's also kind of fun to quote that A.B. line, coming from a neuroscience department.) Sometimes it's nice to see where someone is coming from, as addresses are not always informative. So overall I'd say to drop them, and maybe just include them occasionally. Off the soapbox, for now. Peg [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 15:30:05 EST From: Steven_L dot _Bender at mail dot nltl dot columbia dot edu (Steven L. Bender) Organization: NLTL/The Dalton School Subject: Boot Thought I'd get my 2 cents in, even if it's nothing radically new. What seems obvious to me is that there are scummy bootleggers, out to profit off of the work of others, and there are music-lovers who are more like archivists of their favorite bands, passing along great music (that is unlikely to be made public in any other way), for the price of a blank cassette. I am grateful to them, and I am surprised that more musicians aren't as well. I will buy anything that Fripp & Co. release, but when the opportunity arises to hear more of their music at such a low cost, I will not pass it up. I cannot see how I am hurting the musicians. I am what is called a "fan". Because of many factors (economic, geographical, etc.) I can't see as many shows as I might like, and tapes are the next best thing to being there (though hardly the same; I agree with Robert on this). The artist can probably circumvent bootleggers by releasing more live stuff in better sound quality (but please, make it complete shows!) With the release of B'Boom, I am less interested in searching out tapes of this Crimson tour, because the band itself has released a superior product. On the other hand, I am not going to throw away my tape (if I had such a tape) of the League of Gentleman live at the Marquee in 1980; to my ears, such a (hypothetical) tape is even better than the studio album (I would, however, probably recycle the tape if Possible Productions released a CD of the show). So, to Robert Fripp, Bob Dylan, Frank Zappa, et. al.-- we are not bad people. We love your music. We cannot get enough of it. We love to turn others onto it. Look at the relationship the Grateful Dead has (had?) with its fans. Look at the enormous popularity of the Dave Matthews Band and Phish. Let your fans celbrate your music; they're not trying to rip you off. sb -- Delivered by the Dalton/NLTL Internet gateway. [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 12:19:35 +0800 (PST) From: chris mahmood Subject: Does Fripp Bootleg?? Hello, After reading the special boot issue I had a though: Is Fripp guilty of bootlegging on several of his recordings. On Exposure we have the surrepitiously taped domestic fight, his mother, (supposedly) the complete Bennett lectures, and maybe more. On Discipline we have Belew relating his near mugging. (This is all off the top of my head so there may be more). Does Fripp's possesion of the Bennett lectures somehow distract from his experience with man? (I know, he never met him. But if he has these lectures, surely he has tapes of those given Bennett's wife.) Until now I really bought into RF's justification for the ban on boots---now i'm having second thoughts.... -ckm [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 15:47:00 +0700 (TST) From: "Gordon R. Deppe Jr." Subject: E-Talk I just wanted to get on record before I leave my internet home in Thailand and go back to the US. On the subject of bootlegs... I have never bought a bootleg tape of a concert simply because I've heard many and I haven't heard a single one I find listenable. In fact, I haven't even heard that many officially raleased live recordings I can listen to and enjoy. Not knowing Fripp's attitude, I suspect that it annoys him that poor quality recordings of his music are circulating, since his studio recordings are always so well done. I haven't got much sympathy for those who record with carry-in equipment at concerts. One, they get obtrusive and annoy those around them, and two, the stuff they listen to when they get home will be junk. I can't see listening to that stuff except for the novelty. It's not putting down a record for the ages, as some have given as a justification. It's just junk, not deserving of a place next to "Red". Gordon Deppe PS - Remove me from your e-mail list, my address will go away at the end of September. [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] Date: 22 Sep 95 14:37:01 EDT From: Todd Bernhardt <73364 dot 1601 at compuserve dot com> Subject: Boot discussion Just read the special issue on bootlegging -- interesting stuff, and I hope it helps us all put this dog to bed and get on with the business of exchanging info about KC. Besides being appalled by the typos in my postings to Dan K., I was intrigued by postings from David Lynch -- are you the David Lynch who directed the movie mentioned in your address ("eraserhead") and other matinee thrillers like "Blue Velvet"? If so, thanks for some great entertainment and glad to know you're a fan of the world's greatest progressive band! Maybe we can talk over donuts sometime ... [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] From: David Kirkdorffer Date: 22 Sep 95 14:06:23 EDT Subject: BOOT -- Abortion, trees, questionnaires and enjoyment After reading the results compiled from my brother's questionniare, I feel moved to make the following observations: 1. I cannot help but notice that on a certain level the question of bootlegging and abortion have some similar qualities -- technological capabilities existing only in relatively recent times today are creating new options for individuals who have a multitude of personal desires and motivations on issues that society as a whole has not formed a moral concensus. Though clearly, the issues have different stakes at hand. So, what's my point? I'm not sure really, but I feel something new, or (to borrow a concept) a shock, will be needed to transform the bootlegging argument >from its current mix of variables. Let me ask this -- has anyone's opinions been *changed* by the arguments they've read on bootlegging? 2. Unbending trees snap in strong wind. Longevity comes from adapting to conditions presented. 3. Building unbiased opinion gathering survey instruments on any issue can be deceptively hard. I've been doing it for almost 10 years. Those instruments that closest do the job can be bores to complete. By the way on yes/no questions with a sample of 42 respondents the margin for error is about + / - 7.7 percent. 4. Enjoyment reading heated bootlegging debate can be augmented listening to Thrak (bootlegs or DGM releases) played loudly. David Kirkdorffer [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 17:36:49 -0600 From: dalton at isidis dot colorado dot edu (lizard man) Subject: BOOTS Another viewpoint: Early in the stages of my musical awakenings, a friend explained to me that REALLY GOOD bands vary their material over time, and that a REALLY GOOD concert is not a note-for-note replaying of the album material. This was at the time when i was first being introduced to KC, Floyd, Yes and those guys; one day, my friend played for me a Pink Floyd bootleg. The sound quality was awful, but an entirely new dimension of the music was revealed. In hearing these different versions, of songs i knew and recognized despite their being incredibly different (anybody ever hear a 1971 "Saucerful" or "Echoes?"), my understanding and appreciation of music, especially technically advanced music, was radically altered. From then on, i listened to music in a completely different way. Through my friends, i was exposed to a variety of boots by favorite bands; most of my music collection was on tape anyway, so they freely made copies for me. Ten years or so later, i got into Phish and other bands of their ilk who encourage trading. I couldn't collect enough different versions of my favorite songs! By the time i heard of Mssr. Fripp's distaste for bootlegging, i already had a number of KC boots. In fact, i found out via the article by Mssr. Fripp printed on the back of the "INDISCIPLE" bootleg. (BTW, this was a friend's copy. i didn't buy it!) Now, having bought every legally released Crimson album and a fair amount of other merchandise, it is clear that my practice of copying live recordings for my friends is not taking any money from the band: it is in fact enlarging and enriching the fan base. When i trade tapes, it is only fair that if i make a tape for somebody, they make one for me. Though this be barter, still NO PROFIT is made, so i do not see what the problem is. If the band would release more live recordings, we would buy them. If they won't, then what do they expect? A demand exists....and someone will fill that demand. I prefer it be small-scale traders rather than large-scale corporate bootleggers selling CDs, but it will be somebody. I understand that Mssr. Fripp may have his principles and beliefs; however there are a lot of talented artists whom i respect as artists but will still not adhere to their principles and beliefs. Roger Waters and Trent Reznor may be geniuses (and maybe not) but i still wouldn't care to sit down and have a cup of coffee with either. I will buy their products and support their muse....and if they will release more product, i will buy more of it. What is left? The artist-audience relationship. (1) A silent recording device is not as intrusive as having a video camera thrust in one's face during sex; (2) Feel free to come over and videotape my sex life, you might learn something; (3) live Crimson recordings have been released. Where is this "sanctity of relationship?" Bollocks, i say. I could not dream of relinquishing my boot collection, nor the insights it has provided me. I believe that when i finally had the opportunity to see King Crimson live, i was better able to appreciate it (BTW, i am an `active' listener) because of insights gained through listening to unauthorized live recordings. I knew what to listen for, i knew what to appreciate. I wouldn't trade that experience for the world. Especially since i had to wait ten years before seeing them again...i am glad that i was able to effectively utilize those two opportunities! Thank you Robert, for sharing your music with us in the many shapes and forms which it has taken. I shall never trouble you for an autograph, interrupt your dinner, or sully your name. However, i understand that each of us may have views, precepts and beliefs with which the other disagrees. That is the way of the world. But rest assured, the next article of music you release, i will purchase. Legally. --lizard man [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 11:39:30 GMT From: neputnya at fishnet dot net (G Garner) Subject: Re: Comments on my comments on taping >And whoever said taping concerts was STUPID because 1) taping the Dead >revealed their feebleness and 2) there's better 'official' live recordings >out there seems to be forgetting that 3) KC aren't the Dead and 4) the >main reason there's lots of live official KC product out now is because >there were SO MANY boots of the 70's and early 80's stuff in circulation. >Used to be that apart from USA and Earthbound, there was NO live KC >product. Until Frame By Frame, there was no official live KC product on >CD. How soon they forget. I might add that the official product does not >always represent the best performances (one word: Yesshows). Mr. Sullivan, the "reactive" portion of your mind is guilty of selective paraphrasing. I was not comparing the Grateful Dead to King Crimson (What??) as it does not make sense to compare "The Best of Archie & Jughead" or "The Fantastic Four" to "Ulysses" or "Seven Gothic Tales" . I apologize if it appeared that I was doing so. On the next point, nowhere did I mention the word "official" recording. I said "superior" recording, and my comments were directed not soley towards KC, but industry wide, as have been a good deal of the previous discussions in ET concerning taping. I was talking not about recording superior performances, but recording performances using a superior method of recording. Consider this metaphor: Would you rather own a Van Gogh masterpiece that has a big rip down the middle, splattered with peanut butter and motor oil (and bong water), or a Van Gogh that is considered to be less important, but in perfect condition? I mean come on, Earthbound is UNLISTENABLE! I could get the same effect by taking "Islands", tossing it out the back door and letting my dogs customize it for about an hour, then tape it with a "Mister Microphone" while I vacuum my house, and then play it on a Fisher-Price cassette machine lubricated with Cheez-Whiz. Whew! [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] Date: Wed, 27 Sep 95 17:05:32 EDT From: Geoff Chester Subject: Lizard & sonic excursions... In ET #223 Joe Rodriguez wrote.... >Greetings Crimmers! >šI have been hassled in the past for admitting that "Lizard" is my >favorite KC album. There are many reasons for this (none of which I will >go into). However I would like to hear some of your comments on why you >do or you don't like it and the comparisons to other Crim albums. Joe, either your an old fogey like me and actually remember when "Lizard" first came out, or you've got good taste in music! For that era it was one of the most stunningly well-recorded albums, and its quality is hard to beateven today. I think it was the penultimate incarnation of the first phase of Crimso, and I still play it loud on Sunday mornings to shake up the 'hood! >šSomeone made reference to not being able to listen to a Crimson >album in a casual setting because of the wide range of volumes presented >on certain albums (ItWoP, LTiA, Lizard). I have all the definitive >editions of their CDs (not knowing that anything else existed) and wanted >to assure that person that it is the same way on these versions. I also >agree with your allusion that the King is not exactly music for a casual >setting. Exactly the effect the artists intended! This was something that was extremely hard to do given the limitations of the vinyl medium, but as I recall LTiA won some sort of award for the engineering feat of actually being able to achieve this incredible dynamic range. I still have my vinyl pressing of LTiA since it has something the DE CD doesn't...Jamie saying "Can I do one more immediately?" as the last echo of the coda from LTiA Part II fade to sonic blackness.... "Night:, her sable dome scattered with diamonds, Fused my dust from a light year..." (hey, I work in a planetarium!) TTFN Geoff [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] Date: Sat, 30 Sep 95 01:19:14 0500 From: tonyola Subject: Elephant Talk And now for the question of taping and bootlegs... It is true that the Grateful Dead have always encouraged recording of their shows and the trading of concert tapes, but it is also true that they vigorously take legal action against anyone who attempts to make a profit from the taping. Do the people that encourage taping for profit think that it would be okay to go to a Broadway play with a camcorder , recording the performance, then selling the tapes? How about going to a movie and recording from the screen with a camcorder? When a person buys a ticket for a movie, concert, or stage play, the ticket gives them the right to attend ONE performance. If artists (such as the Dead) permit members of the audience to somehow record the show, then that permission is given only because of the artist's prerogative, and the permission can be withdrawn if the artist so chooses. The audience does not, however, have the legal or moral right to expect to record any performance. I both compose and perform music. When I am composing for a commercial client (such as an advertiser), it is stated in the contract that I give up the rights to control the use of the composed piece when I receive the fee. It is also stated that I cannot use the piece for any commercial purpose unless the client gives permission. When I compose a piece of music for myself and I copyright it, the piece is MINE unless I choose to sign away the ownership (as in a typical recording contract). If I perform the music in public, the piece DOES NOT automatically become public property - I still retain the copyright. If people tape my performance without my permission, then they are, quite simply, stealing. I record my own performances, and I sometimes give cassettes to friends or associates. I always include a copyright notice on the J-card that comes with these cassettes. I allow these people to make limited duplications for others, but I insist that they also include a copy of the copyright notice with each copy that they make. If this attitude seems overly hard-nosed to any ET readers, that's too bad. This business is already filled enough with sharks and ripoffs without audiences thinking that they somehow automatically have the right to take the fruits of an artist's labor for free without the artist's consent. If Robert Fripp chooses not to permit unauthorized recordings of Crimson concerts, then that is his right. If anyone still tapes the concerts without Fripp's blessing, then they are committing theft, and - in the eyes of the law - are risking being subject to prosecution. No ET poll results will change that. [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] From: "David Lynch" Organization: University of Dayton Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 09:59:38 EST Subject: Boot- Second Poll Results OK, well, on further reflection this poll probably wasn't strictly necessary. I sent the message to Elephant Talk with a misunderstanding of how the poll results would be interpreted. And actually, in trying to "correct the imbalance", I may have come up with something more biased than the original- at least one respondant thought so. OTOH, someone else thought exactly the opposite- guess that's what happens with polls. Despite the great job done by the first poll, I'm compiling the responses here- they were great, and shed a lot of light on the subject. Everybody here is quoted anonymously- I commented on some of them, and my comments are marked with brackets. First the question will be indicated, then my thoughts on the question, then the responses- y for yes, n for no, o for other. If other, I tried to include the disclaimers/modifications the respondent offered. 13 people in all responded, but only 11 people answered questions 2 and 8. And for those of you who don't know, roio is another word for bootleg. It's an acronym for recording of illegitimate/indeterminate origin. >1. Do you support the right of artists to derive profits from live >concert performances? This was fairly straightforward- except for one apparent communist, the response was unanimous. y:12 o:1 Definitely. Their art is their livelihood, and while I don't intend for my answer to be interpreted as an endorsement of hucksterism, there's a lot of ground between that and receiving fair recompense for a live performance. Depends. Profit is theft, unless the amount is completely agreed upon by both sides and both sides are happy about it. Then profit becomes gift. >2. Do you think it is permissible to make a profit off live >recordings of other artists which the artists make no profit from? I was referring here to the bootleggers, i.e. the people at all those Italian companies, etc. Apparently my phrasing wasn't quite clear. n:11 o:1 "Permissible" is a tricky word...I don't believe anyone has permission to do so. I wouldn't sell such recordings for profit, but I would buy them >from someone else. Permissible, yes, but of questionable morality. >3. Do you support the exchange of unofficial live >concert recordings for money? This looks fairly evened out- most of the o's said a charge to cover costs was acceptable, but profit was not. y:3 n:5 o:5 Only in that I have been known to buy them occasionally. I do not sell them to others, though. I'd prefer that they only be distributed for media costs and not for profit. YES (if by "support" you mean willing to pay money for an unofficial recording I want) >4. Do you support the free exchange of unofficial live concert >recordings? I'm not sure the person who answered no to this was responding to the right question. Other than that, it was unanimous. y:12 n:1 YES that is how I got into music (not only KC - all groups i love) Yes -- removing the "for money" element removes the exchange from the realm of commerce. >5. Do you think that the existence of unofficial live recordings >will hurt sales of official live recordings? It probably would've been better to amend that to "official recordings". Anyhow, again fairly straightforward- from the comments I'd gotten in ET I'd gotten the impression that there were some people who would answer yes to this question. n:13 NO those who buy/get roios WILL BUY any official release of the musician. It has been verified to be truth... [I'm unsure what's being referred to here- can someone point me to studies, etc. regarding this?] N----Anyone who thinks otherwise either hasn't heard many boots or needs to invest in a better stereo. >6. Do you think it hurts the integrity of the artist to have >recordings the performer feels are of inferior quality available? Responses started getting interesting here. Fairly consistent response, but a good variety of justifications. n:12 o:1 Depends on the artist. I've no doubt that Fripp doesn't like it. But others don't seem to mind much. IMO, if the artist is that bothered, let him release something official. N-- Traders expect audience tapes to be of an inferior quality. Fripp's rantings damage his integrity far more. No. The people who go to the trouble to buy bootlegs are not so stupid to think that every note of every show will be perfect. I can enjoy a show with a flub or two. The same can be said of live shows. If Robert makes a mistake during a show, why doesn't he make everyone get up, go home, and forget all they've heard? We can live with imperfection. Robert (and Richard Thompson, another such perfectionist) should too. On a related note, I find that boots are usually more representative of live shows than "real" live albums. Artists tend to play it safe when they know they're being recorded for posterity, and the performance suffers. [I agree- the recent Pink Floyd live release, for instance, bears this out. Of course, more and more artists are simply taping all their gigs and then picking the best bits out later, making this mainly inapplicable.] No, provided the buyer understands what she/he is buying No. From a performance standpoint, if the artist is that concerned about his integrity, he should raise his live performance skills to the level where he needn't worry about the existence of recordings of inferior performances. As for recordings of inferior quality, their existence would make crisper, officially sanctioned live recordings all the more desireable. >7. Do you think that free exchange of live recordings is an >outgrowth of respect and enthusiasm for the work done by the band? OK, this was kind of a no-brainer; I put it in to counterbalance the questions that presented common challenges to bootlegging. y:13 In the case of tapes made and sold for profit, I don't think so. >8. Do you think that unofficial CDs are comparable to official >recordings? If so, in which ways? How about unofficial freely >traded tapes? Harder to quantify due to the open-ended nature of the question. Actual responses were fairly consistent, but the reasons behind them varied WIDELY. [for both] n:9 o:2 Quality of recording : NO Quality of performance : YES No. Altough I've found some very good bootlegs, the sound quality is always significantly worse than released material. Even more so with tapes, which are often duplicated on poorly-maintained equipment. No, unofficial product is for the gain of the producer - we need to face it, there is no other reason to do it!!! Tapes: out of frustration of not being able to get a recording of a favorite artist's tour or love of the music to a degree where a fan would like to hear other versions of songs (maybe to see where the final version came from). YES as documentation of a performance, NOT ALWAYS as a slickly produced product N-- With the exception of radio broadcasts, which usually are of a decent quality. Both unofficial CDs and unoffical freely traded tapes are not comparable to offical recordings because of the factor of Production...an unofficial live recording is generally a stream-of-consciousness record of the entire performance, warts, catcalls and all, while an official live recording goes through a production process that turns it into more a succession of songs recorded before a live audience than a record of a concert event. [I don't agree here- there are bootlegs that have been produced (i.e. Weird Person's Guide to King Crimson), and many live CDs are indeed "warts and all" recordings- for instance, Zappa's You Can't Do That On Stage Anymore, vol. 2. Personally, I think that as it's fairly well known that boots don't live up to the quality of legit releases and are not sanctioned, they're not comparable. I've never heard of someone buying a boot thinking they were getting a legit release since the days when boots were cheaper than legit albums.) No, why do you group illegal CDs with tapes from shows? I know I have tapes that sound as good, if not better then "offical recordings". [I wasn't trying to group them together- I wanted them to be addressed separately. Perhaps I should have put them in different questions.] >9. Do you agree with Robert Fripp's reasoning on the recording of >live performances, i.e. that a musical concert is a special communion >between performer and audience, and that recording concerts is a >violation of that relationship, akin to surrepetitiously videotaping >sex? Most people completely went off on Fripp in this question, although at least one person said they don't bootleg Crimson (but do trade other band) due to Fripp's feelings. y:1 n:11 o:1 No. Concerts are open to the general public. If the artist wants to have a special private concert, he should make his concerts "by invitation only" and not sell them to anybody with the money. If taping a show is like videotaping sex, it's like videotaping people having sex on stage with an audience. Not quite the same thing as someone bringing a camera into your bedroom. Yes an No. He HAS THE RIGHT to say it and act this way, I will personally respect him for this...However, I feel like it's not fair... Not really, but he does tend to go over the edge occasionally - however, it is nice to see an artist who is willing to put his naked ass in motion for all of us to see and hear(?) NO - and I think that hypocritical bastard has a lot of nerve charging $29 for "B'Boom"... [Nowadays you'll find lots of double live CDs cheaper, but I don't find it especially outrageous- I think this goes back to question 1.] N-- That analogy is so flawed it really isn't worth talking about. No, but I respect RF enough to respect his wishes in this regard NO, especially since Fripp himself does it. I don't take the words of anyone, much less hypocrites. [Good point- if concerts are supposedly a communion between performer and audience, should we be miffed at him for surrepetitiously recording us?] In theory, yes, although when faced with the availablility of an unofficial tape of Robert having sex onstage I suspect I'd take the tape anyway. No, I don't agree with Mr. Fripp alot, I actually think he is kind of strange, but I sure do love his music! >10. Should local law on the making, exchange, and selling >of unofficial live recordings be respected regardless of any of the >above? This question was probably the most political, and I could see a LOT of discussion revolving around this point. y:2 n:10 o:1 I would have to say yes, even though I probably don't obey the law in all of these cases. I have never made such tapes, and I have never distributed them for money. But I buy them, and I have on occasion given tapes to others. Always respect and obey the law - is the risk worth the reward? NO - SLACK!!!! SUSPECT COPYRIGHT! That would be a personal choice. Therefore it isn't anyone else's business. It's like requesting people to not smoke pot or exceed the speed limit. And on a King Crimson mailing list? These people take themselves, and Fripp, way too seriously. No. Laws exist to protect people from being harmed. I still am not convinced that an artist is harmed when an audience member makes a recording of them. NO. Law is crime. Miscellaneous comments: BTW, have to mention, that I'm on Pink Floyd ML, and there the approach to roios is more constructive - in fact they (we) have a database of these recordings and roios is one of the main topics... I'm really surprised that on ET it is always a "painful question"..does it have to do with Fripps attitude towards it ? [Highly likely.] Final note: looks like boots did the job. Most fans had been requesting for years recordings of tours and outtakes. Hence B-Boom, Springsteen issuing Murder Inc., Beatles at the BBC, new Beatles sets this and next year, Dylan Bootleg series, et al. If nothing else these recordings are great marketing tools to keep fans interested in bands at times there is a lag in new "product" reaching the shelves. Jeez - think of Springsteen's and Dylan's vault. All issued recordings should be given the OK for release by the artists. And if they limited the production costs, I'm sure they would break by themselves and most likely improve sales for the next recording issued. I mean, really, who ever thought we (or at least some of us) would be buying Beatles recordings in 1995? HMMMMMMMMM?????????? Let me wrap this up by saying this: I subscribe to several different mailing lists and the rest of them tend to be trading houses. True fans of an act want EVERYTHING available, regardless of quality or legality. This list seems to be populated by a lot of people with WAY too much time on their hands. No matter what the results of this poll you aren't going to change anyones view. I own over 100 CDs of "bootleg" material (i.e., unauthorized live recordings) as well as dozens of CDs of unauthorized studio recordings (e.g., alternate takes and false starts). Most of them involve jazz musicians, particularly Charlie Parker. I think that unauthorized recordings give the listener a fuller picture of the musician's gifts than the "official portrait" does. Nevertheless, there has been considerable debate in the jazz world concerning the musicians' rights and wishes. The issue is further complicated because often major labels charge fans top dollar for this material, but the musicians (or their estates) do not receive any payment. As stated above, I respect RF's feelings with respect to unauthorized live recordings of KC, largely because he has demonstrated good faith in releasing live recordings of KC (disc 4 of FbF, all of TGD, and B'Boom) to satisfy fans. If there were _no_ authorized live recordings of KC, I might feel differently. [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] From: "tim siefkes" Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 12:28:26 +0000 Subject: An Observation About B'BOOM An Observation by a King Crimson list-reader: >If Robert Fripp-ocrite thinks a live performance is so sacred that it >said so himself that he has a huge collection of live performances. And >Bill Bruford states that EVERYTHING is recorded. Fripp has released more >live recordings than anyone other than Zappa or the Dead. And while we are >on the subject, how DOES he justify charging $30 for a 2CD set with >virtually NO production cost. Christ, it is nothing but an edited and EQ'ed >board tape of a moment that was supposedly very private and personal. I >guess for $30 a pop it isn't that sacred to him. And if I may be permitted to offer a contrasting opinion-- I just bought the B'Boom Official Bootleg CD and I don't feel like I'm being ripped-off in the least. To witness: Taking it from Mr. Bruford that "EVERYTHING is recorded"; and Fripp writes (referring to the tape running out during the live recording of _The Law of Maximun Distress_) "Most live recording follows the policy of two machines in use simultaneously to meet an eventuality such as this. We learn." One could conclude then, that they must be constantly keeping two machines running, everywhere they go. These would be constantly consuming tape, requiring archiving and handling and maintenance. I don't expect that this does not come without some associated costs to keep this up and running. Therefore to suggest there is "virtually NO production cost" seems a bit unfair to this reader. Ignoring the ethical questions of bootlegging, why shouldn't the artist be allowed to compete for available revenues in the "bootleggers market" by offering a clearly superior product at a competetive price. No this won't stop the proliferation of traders and illegal profiteers, but at least the artist can plug into that cash flow a little bit and share in what's rightfully theirs, anyways! (Thank you. Off of soapbox now.) Tim Siefkes timsks at visi dot com http://www.visi.com/~timsks Minneapolis, MN [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] The views expressed in Elephant Talk are those of the individual authors only. Elephant Talk is released for the personal use of readers. No commercial use may be made of the material unless permission is granted by the author. Toby Howard, Elephant Talk editor. http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/staff-db/toby-howard.html toby at cs dot man dot ac dot uk [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]