Re: boots

Various and sundry remarks on boots:
>There's no way I can defend boots either legally or morally... [but] the
>drying up of bootlegs will actually harm the interests of the artists, 
>not help them.

	Legally you can defend owning a bootleg, its the making, selling and buying
them publicly that are the problem, but real tape traders do just that, they
trade for shows, though occasionally there is the odd tasty CD package that
one just can't live without. Once its in your house, it is perfectly okay to
own it for your own private enjoyment. Morally, I can defend boots in a
number of ways. The artists do what they do because WE pay for them to do
it. The moment we stop paying for it, is the moment they stop doing it. If
I'm plunking down $13 bucks for new CD's $11 for back catelog CD's, $5 for
posters, various $'s for various memorablia, $18 bucks  for t-shirts, $5 for
CD singles, $12 for import singles (and how about those multi disc single
packs from the UK where you have to buy the single as many as 5 times (Annie
Lennox) to get all the extra material and art work), $25 for import
releases, and $30+ for concert tickets... I feel more than okay to buy up
and trade all the live tapes I want. Particularly when bands like the Dead
and Metallica and other top draw acts actively encourage tape trading and
the recording of their shows.
	Now, the typical live boot sucks from most listeners viewpoint. It is
something the artists would not release, (though thanks to Zappa and others,
some are considering the option...) so if they aren't going to release it,
will not finance it's release, will not see any profit from its non release,
then who the hell really cares if people trade 2nd generation tapes of a
dingy live recording? The only people who are going to hear it and
appreciate it are fans of the band.
	The only real problem is that those selling boots are not necessarily fans
of the group and they are pocketing the money with no spirit of fandom what
so ever. So, the solution is, that if you have to buy a boot from a non-fan,
non fan club, outlet, you make copies of it free of charge for all who want
it, while of course accepting blank tapes in trade.

>However, I believe history has shown that without the pressure provided >by
bootlegs, artists as well as their labels would have found it easier
>to ignore fans.

The labels yes, the artists not always. Sometimes artists aren't savvy
enough to get done what they want done for the fans. Some artists are just
too close to their own concerns to know what to do for the fans. A huge fan
based band like Kiss is just now making statements that they didn't realize
just what the fans were about until they met them up close and personal at
their own Kiss Conventions. Suddenly its all, the Internet, making sure the
fans get what they want and the make up is back and the reunion tour starts
this summer. The labels love to whore bands who are making it, but they
don't realize the fan support and $$ potential of 'whoring' the back catelog
and live material... [yet].

>But imagine The Who without "Odds and Sods," Dylan without "The >Basement
Tapes," The Beatles without The Anthology series...

With this category of performer, I personally feel that everything that
artist has that is Scoop demo quality or better MUST be released to preserve
the recordings and as an historical document. For young bands like Pearl Jam
and Smashing Pumpkins, they should make use, as these bands do, of releasing
multiple b-sides to clear out the vault. Live tapes of these bands only
serve to promote the band, not steal money from them.

>... by buying [boots] I have taken money out of the pockets of those that
>created that music.

If you bought pirate copies of legitimate lps yes, but if you bought a live
tape, no, $30 bucks or more was paid for that concert seat, $20 bucks was
probably paid for a shirt and don't forget about the eats and drinks and gas
money and time off from work and all the hours spent combing the stores and
the internet and import shops for product and related merchendise... They
got their money... It is also free promotion of the band...

>In a commercial context, I'd be willing to say [bootmakers] should pay a
>compulsory license to the artist of $1-2 or so which is comparable to
>their cut from a contract recording.

Don't they do this in Europe? I would be willing to have that here myself,
just to clean up all the wasted time and effort to stop bootleggers. As long
as they have concerts, there will be bootleggers.

>The music belongs to the band and their contracted record company - not
>the fans, unless the band and/or record company desire that music to be
>issued to those fans.

I don't know, over the years I've made a healthy investment in the Who. I
probably bought their entire catelog several times over in different
formats, not to mention paying collectors prices for imports, and 45's. If
not for the fans, the Who would have died along with a lot of other British
bands in that wave of UK groups in the 60's.

>I think big artists like the Who don't have to feel threatened by boots.
>They SHOULD be afraid of their record companies, who can't market >worth
anything.

Yes, this is correct. Record execs and movie execs and tv execs are all
totally out of touch with reality. Almost everytime a CD reissue has a
"remastered from the original master tapes" sticker on it, there will be a
couple hundred fans all going, "No, that's not the original tape... in fact
it's this tape..." Yes, Genesis, Elton John etc... have labels that all seem
to think that the fans don't know anything about the business or
merchandising or what using/remastering the 'master tapes' really means.
They really think we are stupid and will just take anything. They think
"we'll remaster the same old lp master and slap a sticker on the front...
and everyone will rebuy it!"... not to mention the careless handling of
Quad... cut it down to fit on one CD??? puhleaze! I guess we're cheap and
stupid...

The point is, and I do have one, is to trade boots when you can, buy if you
have no other option and avoid buying pirate copies of legitimately released
material. The fans owe the band that much, but the band owes the fans their
careers... well at least 75%...
eddie, pandora's what? presley