Re: boots

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

Alan:

While I agree with you, there are some points where the labels claim
different reasoning.

> To capture the money that's "escaping", all the artist would have
> to do is release a legit recording of a full show

This is true, especially since most of the best boots (I've heard) are
studio tracks, radio shows, or shows owned by the label but not
released. Someone owns the rights and could release them. The
audience-recorded boots would then become (for the most part)
insignificant.
However, the artists/labels don't own ALL of the material. Most likely,
it would appear, is it all comes down to angling to get the most money
for the product. As with Talmy and the MG masters vs MCA/Polydor. The
label WOULD release this, but can't get their hands on it for what they
consider a reasonable amount of money.
I would give all of those who own and are holding Who unreleased
material (BBC, King Biscuit, Talmy, etc): the time to have released it
would have been last summer during the tour/remix releases. Every day
which passes will decrease the amount you can make on this
stuff...unless The Who tour again, or make another album. Which
unfortunately the odds are against, as things now stand.

> the artist could release that same show
> and outsell the boot.  The fact that they don't says to me that they (or
> their record company) don't see enough profit potential in it to bother
> with.

Here is a point where what they SAY is not in line with your conclusion.
One reason the labels claim for not releasing this material is that the
quality is often less or it's a performance deemed inferior by the
artist...who then doesn't want it out there. My solution would be not to
mass market it, but have a mail order (or something similar)
situation...not producing so many it becomes unprofitable. If they took
a good look at the artist's catalog and had one performance from every
tour, including all unusual/unreleased songs, then there would be little
demand for bootlegs. Why is it so hard for them to see this?
As for the quality, they could include a disclaimer to that effect...and
sell it for less, since (after all) production and advertising costs
would be minimal.
I suppose then it comes down to getting the artist to OK the release.

> Second, anyone who is interested enough in a band to care about buying
> boots probably has most if not all of the legit releases anyway

The percentage MUST be very small in any case. Too small to have an
impact, surely. This is an unfounded argument from the labels,
completely without merit. It's not a reason but instead an excuse.

-- 

            Cheers                ML

   "                                     "
                                   Meher Baba