Bootlegging

Bootleg recording is....

  • ....fun!

    Votes: 17 38.6%

  • ...a huge waste of time!

    Votes: 7 15.9%

  • ...a lucrative business!

    Votes: 2 4.5%

  • ...illegal and laws should be enforced ruthlessly.

    Votes: 13 29.5%

  • ...a sign of mental degradation and pending insanity.

    Votes: 5 11.4%
  • Total voters
    44
Jack Russell

Jack Russell

I smell home cookin!
There is a sort of "underground" market for bootleg recordings. What are these you ask? Well, essentially, someone goes to a concert, with some hi-fi recording gizmos hidden on their body and they record it. Then they enhance the recording later (or not), and then they package it and sell it, sometimes even with photos they shot at the event.

These are, obviously, illegal. Yet, people will seek out and actually buy this crap. I'm puzzled why one would want to do this, myself, but there it is...

As a general topic what do you think about making bootleg recordings?

[somewhat related poll included....]
 
Stupid and a waste of time. I don't see why anyone would want to buy one?

I've heard of some people wearing those binaural headsets and recording concerts like that, and maybe that'd be cool to listen to, but I still wouldn't waste money on it.
 
Yeah, that's the way I feel about it. It might be of interest if something really unusual happened AT the gig. Such as if the singer fell off the stage or said something really important between songs, or if there was a fire.

But in terms of the music itself, pretty much as total waste of recording media.
 
from what i've heard most bootlegg recordings sound so shit anyway that they're not really worth listening to, nevermind paying for.

i do however have respect for bands who allow bootlegging as long as you don't sell'em, like DMB and Greatful Dead to name but 2. It's good cause there's websites set up where you can find many gigs. I think it's a good idea because it allows dedicated fans to listen to the concerts without breaking the law and without paying for them. And i don't think it would harm the sales of any Live albums the band releases.





whatever. as to the poll, i'm swinging between "a huge waste of time" and the mental degradation thingy..
 
I think it's important to make a distinction here. There are bootleggers (who go to concerts, record them, and then proceed to package and sell them for their own profit) and then there are people who go to concerts to record them for their own personal use - sometimes openly (for bands such as the Dead or DMB) and sometimes covertly.

Why? Because they went to the show and they are a fan, and they want to relive the experience. Sure it's not the same, but it's a very different experience than a studio recording.

The fidelity is usually not even close, but that's not the reason they do it. It's all about "capturing the event" for many people.

That all being said, the actual act of profiting from an artist's work is certainly morally reprehensible. I don't see anything wrong with the guy who goes to a concert and records it for his own enjoyment later though. Typically this guy already has all the official stuff, so he's really not taking anything away from the artist.
 
Bootlegging is as old as the hills...the only bootlegs I've ever bought were the Bob Dylan ones...but by the time I bought them they weren't even bootlegs anymore.

I think bootlegging just goes hand in hand with music, probably good music...I doubt I would go to the trouble, but for a music lover (not a money lover) I can understand the wish to get a concert on tape.
 
I've seen bootleg CD's that sell for more than your average CD...To me that's a joke. The quality is often shit for a start, not to mention that without any kind of permission it ripping people off.

If the band is happy for people to take their gear along and record the band, then thats cool. I'm sure they wouldn't be over the moon for you to sell it. But to be able to take a tape home as a souvenier of a good gig, for your own use, is pretty cool. I know there are lot of gigs I've been to that I'd like to relive via some kind of media somehow.

That said, I bought a Nirvana bootleg from a friend for like £5 when I was much younger. In the absence of a live album at that point, it was nice to hear how they came across live. But the audio quality sucked.
 
i LOVE live concert tapes. i'm a live tape junkie.

if more bands would allow audience taping and free trading of their live shows, there wouldn't be a market for "for pay" bootlegging.

the problem with "official" live releases is that more often than not, they're NOT truly "live". guitars and vocals (among other things) are often retracked in the studio (reference "Frampton Comes Alive" and the Garth Brooks Live albums). who wants to hear a non-live live album? or worse, an album that is essentially a studio album with a clap track? :rolleyes:

as for why to listen to live recordings? often versions of the songs are different (or better) than the studio cuts. there are songs in live sets that haven't made it to the album, and in some cases, never will. i don't care if the recording is crap as long as there's something interesting in the music.

i don't support the "for pay bootleg market" anymore, but i can completely understand why it flourishes. i say "anymore" b/c in the past (before i knew any better) i DID purchase a number of "bootlegs".

these days though, you can find most "bootlegs" for trade. the internet has really made that sort of thing a lot more convenient.


cheers,
awde
 
timboZ said:
If the band will allow taping I bring my gear and record it.
Click to expand...
meeeeeeeeeee too. i've got LOTS of DMB soundboard masters from "back in the day" here at Trax as well as Leftover Salmon, TR3, Edwin McCain, Train, ARU, you name it. :D


cheers,
wade
 
I think that selling a bootleg is wrong. In fact taping one without permission (or at least against pemission) is also wrong, but to be honest I just do not care much about that one. So long as it isn't being sold....

Not only do some bands allow taping, some actually reserve prime spots for tapers and hand out power and board feeds.
 
I'm indiffrent. it's a good way that indie people to get there name out without putting effort in it themselves, and it's nice for poor people like me who can't afford $200 dollar tickets to see the Who live. but so long they only charge for the cd. and maby a bit more for the ticket price and effort (like $5 total or something) but if your charging $50 for some crappy recording of a crappy band than you should be charged for stupidity.
 
I think its all artist-dependent. Some acts get on stage, play their songs exactly as they appear on-album, and leave. Other acts, however, like to change things up per live show, so on the same tour, you might hear a song played 10 different ways. I'm sure some people will argue against the musical quality of a group like the Barenaked Ladies, but I do enjoy their live shows, and after having seen them multiple times in the same tour, they have played completely different arrangements of the same song from show to show. A hard-rock style song they play was performed true to the original at one show, and was played acoustic in bluegrass instrumentation and form at another. If you can't make it to all of those shows, it is interesting to get them in recorded form, even if the audio isn't all that great, just to hear what they are doing differently. I do think that it is wrong to sell what you recorded at the show, and I do applaud bands like DMB and the Dead for allowing free trade of their live stuff (however little I may like either band).
 
i've never liked the phrase "bootlegging" to describe this. i've always referred to this as "live concert recording(s)".

there will ALWAYS be a demand for them, and as long as the artists ignore this demand, this sub-industry will exist.

but some artists DO get it. the who and peter gabriel are two artists who do. they release soundboard recordings (essentially the PA feed) through www.themusic.com. i don't know of their policy concerning trading these recordings, but i have no problems spending $25 for an official soundboard of a show I saw or one where they played a particular song.

other artists are doing the same thing through Instant Live. The Allman Brothers are one. You can actually walk out of a venue with a copy of that night's show in hand. What's better than reliving the show on the way home?

and i appreciate what the dead, rush, DMB, phish, widespread panic, (among others) have been doing with respect to live releases in recent years. they understand there's a market for it, and manufacturing cds isn't overly expensive when you know you're gonna sell em.

FWIW, the DMB wouldn't be where they were today if they hadn't allowed soundboard taping and free trading of the tapes when they were first starting out. people would send tapes to their friends in other cities the band had never performed in--and as a result, they had fans waiting on them when they got there.


cheers,
wade
 
I was going to keep out of this thread, but after seeing a basic groove develop, I feel the need to express the opposite. minority poinion - the one which I happen to hold, and I know there are a silent but signifigant mimority out there who agree...

Recording a live concert that I went to so that I can "re-live" it makes about as much sense to me as recording a great party I went to so I can re-live that; i.e. it makes no sense whatsoever to me, and it just doesn't work.

If I want icons to help me retreive memories of the experience, a few photographs will do just fine for that purpose. But a two hour (or whatever) crappy recording is IMHO not worth listening to just for the memories.

Just an honest opinion. YMMV.

G.
 
ez_willis said:
I think it should be called something other than bootlegging. I have no opinion of the act itself.
Click to expand...

That's just it - there is a distinct difference between live recording and bootlegging.

Bootlegging is taking someone else's work and selling it for your own profit. A very different thing than recording a show for personal use (not for sale).

The two terms really should be better separated - unfortunately there are many out there who equate the mere act of recording a live show to be "bootlegging", and that's simply not the case.
 
Actually, in my opinion "bootlegging" is ANY time you record a concert without the artists consent. At least when the artist has expressly said no.
 
You both are missing my point.

Forget about live recordings for a minute. When speaking of 'bootlegging', whatever your definition of it is, I'm not happy with it, and have started a movement to change the name of the act itself. I'm just not comfortable with the term 'bootlegging'.

I am open to suggestions for a replacement term though. Any ideas?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top