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.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
They released Live Killers, so people wouldn't buy bootlegs...
so i assume they hated bootlegs :P
so i assume they hated bootlegs :P
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!
I think they didn't care too much about it...
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.
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.
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...
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...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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![/QUOTE]
Isn't that so that Brian May also collects Queen bootlegs ??
Isn't that so that Brian May also collects Queen bootlegs ??
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME]NO professional artist likes bootlegs - as it is basically theft of their product, talents and energy.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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.[/QUOTE]
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?
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.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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.[/QUOTE]
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?
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).
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).
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
Pink Floyd didn't care although Nick Mason hated them. In fact, David Gilmour has several PF bootlegs in his possession.
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!
"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!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Roy ® wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Isn't that so that Brian May also collects Queen bootlegs ??[/QUOTE]
Hmm, I'm not sure if that's true... I've never heard him say so.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]tilomagnet wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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?[/QUOTE]
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!
Hmm, I'm not sure if that's true... I've never heard him say so.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]tilomagnet wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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?[/QUOTE]
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!
"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.
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.
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.
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.