From: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org (idealcopy-digest) To: idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Subject: idealcopy-digest V3 #40 Reply-To: idealcopy@smoe.org Sender: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk idealcopy-digest Monday, February 21 2000 Volume 03 : Number 040 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Study Wire at Crichton College! [Stephen Harper ] bootlegs ["Michel Faber" ] Re: trolls ["MackDaddyD" ] Re: bootlegs [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: bootlegs ["Michel Faber" ] Free RFH ticket, with catch ["Mr. P. Kulawec" ] Re: bootlegs ["A. Izenstark" ] Re: bootlegs [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re[2]: bootlegs [paul.rabjohn@ssab.com] wed night [paul.rabjohn@ssab.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 01:49:12 -0800 (PST) From: Stephen Harper Subject: Study Wire at Crichton College! Hi all, To the amazement of me and many who know me, I've just been appointed Lecturer in Communication Studies at Glasgow University's new liberal arts college in Dumfries. Among other things I shall be teaching a course on "Popular Music: Theory, Text and Sound". Artists on the menu will include Talking Heads, Pavement and, naturally, Wire. So if anyone out there is interested in such a course, check out the Crichton College website (http://www.cc.gla.ac.uk), which should have details later in the year (I begin in August). Suppose I should let Wire know too...? Stephen __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 06:38:50 -0600 From: "charles / wmo" Subject: Re: Tape Trading Take the extremes - you'd never buy a used album - let alone a promo - if you wanted to be completely egalitarian about it. On the other hand, it's not as though you wouldn't buy 154 because you could get a bootlegged concert instead. You already own 154. And Pink Flag, and Chairs Missing, Ideal Copy etc... Rationally thinking what are we talking about? ... six people that wish to "deal" in Wire Bootleg material? The point for Wire: there is Bootleg activity when there is a lack of Commercial Product available. Demand outweighs supply. Let's see how Wire respond. I find it quite complimentary that Wire Merchandise will exist. The experiment worked. Finally, Arthur Brown has on his website that he desires to make every recording of his available for FREE download over the internet in the year 2003! How's that for an alternative.... charles wmo@interserv.com http://wiremailorder.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:21:38 -0000 From: "Michel Faber" Subject: bootlegs To all those who have contributed to the Wire 'bootleg' debate: I grew up in Australia during the 1970s, when bootleg LPs were very freely available. Every second-hand record store and every specialist import store worth its salt stocked them, and they were also available by mail order, from catalogues which graded them according to sound quality, etc. No serious music fan - and this included journalists and musicians themselves - left them out of discussion. A glance at interviews with prominent musicians from the 1970s will verify that many were enthusiastic bootleg collectors, even (or perhaps especially!) of their own work. Certainly no one was so protective of the profits of EMI or WEA that they were prepared to forgo superb music that was not officially sanctioned. Bob Dylan bootlegs sold extremely well for the simple reason that they were chock-full of material that CBS did not get around to releasing until thirty years later. The Beatles' 'Get Back' sessions have still not been officially released today, except for heavily doctored excerpts on the Let It Be album and a few inferior throwaway selections on Anthology 3. During the increasingly corporatised 1980s, record companies became noisier and noisier about lost profits, and musicians began to complain about the damage being done to their creative autonomy and the trust of their fans. The fact that those musicians who showed themselves most keen to stamp out bootleggers were the likes of Phil Collins and Bruce Springsteen perhaps speaks for itself. In all the time that I lived in Australia, I knew many people who bought bootlegs regularly. I never met a single person who decided not to buy an official release in favour of a bootleg of the same material. I never met a single person who, once a nicely packaged superior sound quaity official album was released of material previously bought in bootleg form, decided he could do without the official release. In my experience, if someone was a Sex Pistols or a Deep Purple or a Yes fan, they would buy all the official product PLUS whatever bootlegs seemed to be offering sufficiently interesting unavailable material. The only qualification to that assertion would be this: some fans lose all interest in an artist after a certain stage in their musical career. For example, someone who believed that Roy Harper went seriously off after the 1970s might choose to buy, in addition to all the official seventies Harper product, a bootleg from the seventies, rather than bothering to buy an official eighties Harper album. But it would take a Sony marketing executive to imagine that such a consumer, if deprived of bootlegs, would heave a sigh of defeat and march into a store to buy that eighties Harper album after all. They would simply buy something else altogether. Similarly, no Dylan fan is going to wake up one morning realising that his desire for a Dylan fix is so strong that he simply must cave in and buy the officially sanctioned duet between Bob and Guns & Roses on 'Wiggle Wiggle'. Every fan of every artist has their limits. As for the argument I've sometimes heard raised - that the artist may be embarrassed to have bad live performances or feeble, drug- addled studio jams publicly heard, I sympathise up to a point. If I found out that early drafts of my novel Under The Skin had been photocopied by my friends and were now circulating among readers who fancied seeing the evolution of the book, I'd feel a bit peculiar. But I know that music fans appreciate that rehearsals are, by their nature, imperfect. The fact that Salome, the double CD of U2's sessions for Achtung Baby, gets rather tiresome pretty quickly doesn't detract from the quality of the final album. (And while we're on the subject of U2, they're a band who used enormous corporate might to bully and financially ruin an obscure independent avant- garde outfit, Negativland, for having the temerity to issue a tongue-in- cheek 12" called 'U2', which they argued could deceive U2 fans into mistakenly buying it, thus depriving Bono & co of rightful profits - Not a very inspiring example of the anti-bootleggers' righteous bravery methinks.) As for the issue of artists being embarrassed by gigs or sessions that are laughably awful, I'm afraid my attitude is that it's the job of artists not to fuck up their music by being drunk, drug-addled, uncommitted, bored, etc etc. I would contend that any gig/rehearsal where the artists audibly care about what they're attempting is interesting and worthwhile, even if there are technical mishaps, audience aggression, etc. In that sense, the only bootlegs that can embarrass an artist are those that betray a lack of passion or focus. I respect the determination Wire's manager shows to defend his artists' rights to profit from their music. I think he's worrying unnecessarily. I own only one Wire bootleg, Come Back In Two Halves, because I was curious how the (then) newly reformed Wire played live. If Wire themselves released that material now, to the same standard of sound or better, and with a liner note from the band members and/or some nice photos on the sleeve, I'd buy it. In fact, I might be marginally more motivated to buy it having already had the opportunity to verify that it's worth having. Who wouldn't? I don't ask that rhetorically. I literally mean: What Wire fan wouldn't? Does anyone seriously imagine that anyone would buy a Malka Spigel bootleg but pass up the challenge to buy her next release on Swim? Come on! Wire fans, like fans of any group, be it Yes or Van Der Graaf Generator or The Clash, love the music and want to hear as much of it as possible, see its evolution through live performance and studio sessions, share its delights with fellow fans. They are the ones who go to the gigs (if they can); they are the ones who buy the official product - even when (I'm not accusing Wire here) it's sometimes poorly mastered, shoddily packaged, etc. Most importantly of all, they ensure the survival of a band's music by enthusing about it to the uninitiated, long after the band have broken up, died, gone back to being interior decorators, etc. Please, please, let common sense rule on this issue. People who swap tapes at cost are merely sharing their enthusiasm and doing no one any harm. Bootleggers who charge £10 for a product that's cost them 80p to produce are greedy but, ultimately, are ripping off the fans not the band, because the fans will buy the band's official product anyway. Michel Faber ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 10:43:35 -0600 From: "MackDaddyD" Subject: Re: trolls I'll take one last spin at this. Sometimes communication in the group is asynchronous at best. I took the comment of tape the shows and profit by it to be contentious to the announcement that the band would make future live material available through pinkflag, and could think of no reason for the aforementioned statement but to be contentious for contention's sake (hence the troll comment). As to unofficial releases augmenting the 'official' oeuvre, of course these recordings do not hurt the band, other than individuals capitalizing on a niche opportunity. w/ appologies )tho i did wait a while for it all to filter in befor adding my HO) d > I don't know what a stone temple pilot is but i asume it's not very > complementary. i'm not a bootlegger i couldn't be arsed,in fact i don't care > for live albums(except live at maxs kansas city,bootlegged by the way).i > support bootleggers in the spirit of 77,in the do yourself,in the v sign to > authority attitude.does anyone on this list really believe someone would > choose a bootlegged tape over an official release,but what if there is no > official release?.c,mon wake up,if one anorac at a record fair sells half a > dozen tapes > who gets hurt. apparently there are trolls in avery interest group,everyone > look in the mirror! > yours a.w(troll) > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 12:26:46 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: bootlegs On Sun, 20 Feb 2000, Michel Faber wrote: > on the subject of U2, they're a band who used enormous corporate > might to bully and financially ruin an obscure independent avant- > garde outfit, Negativland, for having the temerity to issue a tongue-in- > cheek 12" called 'U2', which they argued could deceive U2 fans into > mistakenly buying it, thus depriving Bono & co of rightful profits - > Not a very inspiring example of the anti-bootleggers' righteous > bravery methinks.) It's my understanding that this sorry episode came primarily from Island Records (U2's label) not from U2 themselves. I suppose if U2 were really brave, they would have paid off Island and SST's lawsuits (not as if they couldn't have afforded it). But this would have put them in a precarious legal position w/Island, their label, as well w/ref to any material of their own thatmight be bootlegged - so they played it cautious and essentially let Island nearly ruin Negativland. Read Negativland's account of it (I forget the title fo the book) and see the film documenting the whole thing, whose title I also forget - "Sonic" something, I think - directed by Craig Baldwin (whose _Tribulation: 99_ is a hoot and 3/4). Jeff Ceci n'est pas une .sig ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:03:27 -0000 From: "Michel Faber" Subject: Re: bootlegs Thanks Jeffrey for this info. It's nice to learn from you that U2 weren't personally out to get Negativland, and I do take your points about the legal quandary U2 may have felt themselves to be in. In the end, though, the result was the same - the crushing of an independent band - and it is indeed, as you put it, a sorry tale. In any case, Bono & co aren't entirely off the hook in my view. I'm continually astounded at what passes for autonomy and self- determination when bands throw their lot in with major corporations. (I'm sure U2 see themselves as mavericks who do exactly as they please. For them to shelter behind the idea that 'it weren't us, guv, it were the big bad record company' is a bit rich.) Have you ever noticed how all these major 'stars' like to flaunt their untamed independence by behaving like brawling adolescents in public, taking journalists on Bacchanalian trawls, yelling 'fuck' every ten seconds in interviews with the press, insisting on remixing their albums for the umpteenth time while high on cocaine, demanding that their favourite food be delivered to them by jet, etc etc - but when a really important decision has to be made, they appear to be completely powerless! 'We didn't want that single released, but the record company overruled us'; 'Yes, the greatest hits album with the two unavailable tracks is a rip-off, but that's how they market these things nowadays'; 'Our album's been sitting in the can since last year, the record company said it was the wrong time to release it'; 'In our original conception it was a double album but the record company cut it down to a single'; 'We delivered them an album as per contract and they refused to put it out, nor would they let us put it out ourselves', 'Don't blame us for the cheesy repackages, we don't own those songs anymore', etc etc - the list of complaints goes on and on. The Sex Pistols are perhaps the best example of a band who proudly declared their complete and aggressive independence while having no real say in the way their music was issued, managed, repackaged, renumerated, and so on. Plainly, true independence goes deeper than bad boy gestures. Best wishes, Michel Faber _______________________________________________________ _ Date sent: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 12:26:46 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey To: Grand Mute Proof Subject: Re: bootlegs On Sun, 20 Feb 2000, Michel Faber wrote: > on the subject of U2, they're a band who used enormous corporate > might to bully and financially ruin an obscure independent avant- > garde outfit, Negativland, for having the temerity to issue a tongue- in- > cheek 12" called 'U2', which they argued could deceive U2 fans into > mistakenly buying it, thus depriving Bono & co of rightful profits - > Not a very inspiring example of the anti-bootleggers' righteous > bravery methinks.) It's my understanding that this sorry episode came primarily from Island Records (U2's label) not from U2 themselves. I suppose if U2 were really brave, they would have paid off Island and SST's lawsuits (not as if they couldn't have afforded it). But this would have put them in a precarious legal position w/Island, their label, as well w/ref to any material of their own thatmight be bootlegged - so they played it cautious and essentially let Island nearly ruin Negativland. Read Negativland's account of it (I forget the title fo the book) and see the film documenting the whole thing, whose title I also forget - "Sonic" something, I think - directed by Craig Baldwin (whose _Tribulation: 99_ is a hoot and 3/4). Jeff Ceci n'est pas une .sig ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 22:44:06 +0000 (GMT) From: "Mr. P. Kulawec" Subject: Free RFH ticket, with catch Hi I have a ticket for the Wire concert at the RFH this Saturday, but am no longer able to be there. If anyone wants this ticket please reply to me personally and it's yours. It's for seat D48 which was an #18 seat but isn't particularly central. The catch is that I still want the CD single that will be available on the night. I can't remember whether it will be free, or whether you will be able to buy it in the foyer, but your part of the deal is to get hold of a copy and send it to me. OK? peter (PS. The really annoying thing is that I _can_ be there for the night, but can't get back to Liverpool for early the next morning which is the essential thing. First time in my life that I've regretted not being a driver!) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 22:25:42 -0500 From: "A. Izenstark" Subject: Re: bootlegs > Read Negativland's account of it (I forget the title fo the book) and see > the film documenting the whole thing, whose title I also forget - "Sonic" > something, I think - directed by Craig Baldwin (whose _Tribulation: 99_ is > a hoot and 3/4). The book was "The Letter 2 and the Numeral U," and the movie was "Sonic Outlaws," both highly recommended. Also, much of the grief was caused not by Island records, but by other parties affected by the song's release. Negativland's label SST, among other insidious things, released an unauthorized (by the band) live cd in a feeble attempt to gouge money out of the band. And Casey Kasem holds the threat of a major lawsuit over the band members' heads if he ever hears that the version of "U2" containing his expletive-filled rant has been broadcast. U2 eventually had their charges against the band dropped, apparently. Amanda ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 22:29:52 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: bootlegs On Sun, 20 Feb 2000, Michel Faber wrote: > In any case, Bono & co aren't entirely off the hook in my view. I'm > continually astounded at what passes for autonomy and self- > determination when bands throw their lot in with major corporations. Oh, I wasn't attempting to let U2 off the hook - only to point out that they at least weren't the driving force behind the whole thing. In order, I'd blame Island, SST (who remain special objects of my distaste, for Greg Ginn's arrogance and ill-treatment of other bands on the label - Meat Puppets, for instance), and U2. Kasem? whatever... > Have you ever noticed how all these major 'stars' like to flaunt their > untamed independence by behaving like brawling adolescents in > public, taking journalists on Bacchanalian trawls, yelling 'fuck' every > ten seconds in interviews with the press, insisting on remixing their > albums for the umpteenth time while high on cocaine, demanding > that their favourite food be delivered to them by jet, etc etc - but > when a really important decision has to be made, they appear to be > completely powerless! This, in a nutshell, is why "rebellion" is ultimately not an attempt at gaining power but only an expression of one's ultimately powerlessness: "just rattlin' the chains, boss." Not to mention that all the behavior you mention is a stupid cliche. But I remember U2 making some noises about the way labels make money a hell of a lot sooner adn w/less effort than bands do (cue the famous Albini article on "Some of Your Friends May Already Be This Fucked") and found myself thinking: I wonder what would happen if hugely popular (at the time) bands like U2, R.E.M., maybe Springsteen, would actually put their money where their mouths were, and form an artist-oriented music-making cooperative - maybe along the vague lines of the original United Artists movie cooperative - that attempted to function as an artist-centered label, not only for megabucks bands but for much smaller acts like, say, Wire. I suspect the reason bands are more and more eschewing major labels (or even indie labels) and attempting to do everything themselves, even if that means limiting releases to the internet, is precisely to avoid this kind of powerlessness and the hypocrisy it entails. That sort of independence is one thing I've always admired about Wire: they did what they want, when they wanted, and didn't regard the band as something that needed to continue solely for financial reasons (even though it surely would have been more lucrative to have maintained the fiction of a "Wire" brand name for the various early '90s releases individual memebers put out). When the music stops being interesting as a band production, the band stops. (I'd look to King Crimson here, too - probably Pere Ubu as well.) - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/reviews.html ::clip clop clip clop clip clop clip bang clop clip clop clip clop:: __Amish drive-by shooting__ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 9:56:43 +0100 From: paul.rabjohn@ssab.com Subject: Re[2]: bootlegs The Sex Pistols are perhaps the best example of a band who proudly declared their complete and aggressive independence while having no real say in the way their music was issued, managed, repackaged, renumerated, and so on. >>>>> not so sure about that ; all the silly releases happened long after the band was split and thus weren't in any position to exert pressure on the various peopple exploiting them. much better examples are the acts who do it whilst in the position of power (eg u2). p ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:11:33 +0100 From: paul.rabjohn@ssab.com Subject: wed night in an interesting bit of synchronicity i see bbc2 has a documentary about michael clark on at almost exactly the time wire will be on stage in nottingham. spooky.p ------------------------------ End of idealcopy-digest V3 #40 ******************************