[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Bootlegs & Sell Outs

It's taken me a few days to get around to reading the last few digests.
 Here's my two cents (more like a dime all together):
Bill Cody's post on #287 was the kind I love to see.  Stir things up and get
everybody debating a bit.  I agreed with a lot of what he said too.  Here's
where I took exception:
>I hope everyone will understand that bootlegs, although >seemingly a great
thing to get one's hands on, are obtained >through selfish and illegitimate
means, and don't make the
>band (any band) one red cent.... Do we really have the band's >best interest
at hand when we are really only looking after >our own?
Thanks for the lecture on the personal responsibility we Who fans "owe" to a
band WE have made multi-millionaires legitimately.  Do I believe that buying
bootlegs is a selfish act on my part?  God forgive me, yes!  Do I believe
releasing "Who's Last" was a selfish act on the band's part given the quality
of that album.  Of course it was, and I forgive them too.  The point is they
didn't have much of a choice.  Locked into a record deal they had to fulfill.
 I understand.  Of course, they could have refused to release that album, and
could have fought to release other material from that tour, or could have
gone to court over the contract (to spare their fans that album).  But then
again, I bought that album and still own it even though it stinks, just as I
own piles of Who bootlegs that are far superior to it.  Of course, I could
have refused to by "Who's Last" on principle, since surely the band didn't
like it and weren't very proud of it.  Wouldn't a true Who fan do that for
his heroes?  Well, it was a Who album and I am a Who fanatic, and whether the
band wanted me to hear that album or not I certainly was determined to hear
it.  I was just as determined to hear the bootlegs they would rather I hadn't
bought.  I wish those bootlegs did put money in the The Who's hands, but they
didn't, so I guess they'll just have to live off the "Who's Last" royalties a
bit longer.  Me?  I can live with my selfishness if they can live with
theirs.  I never bought Who albums for Pete Townshend's sake, as much as I
love him for making them.   I bought those albums for my sake.  I'll keep
buying them for my sake too, with or without anyone's approval.
Bill also said of "Sell Out":
>This album was a watershed in the band's development, when
>they thought commercialization of their music was the way >to make money.
I've always read that "Sell Out" was actually The Who's way of brilliantly
parodying the commercialization of music, specifically the pop radio
stations.  It was really their tribute to the pirate stations, Radio London
and Radio Caroline who helped launch the early Who.  Unlike a truly
disgusting band (Love And Rockets, I think) the commercials weren't real
commercials placed on the album for money.  On "Sell Out" it was all fake
jingles or simulations of real station breaks.  That was the real brilliance
of the record to me.  It was hip, but if anything it was the antithesis of
selling out.
I do agree with you on The Who, Zep, Stones comparison though.  
The world's best band is whoever you like the most.  Music is so subjective,
any person with a smidgen of knowledge about rock history can argue
convincingly why Their favorite band is the best band ever (unless the band
is Styx, REO Shitwagon, Mellencamp, or Tom Petty - that's right Tom Petty!).
 It's just a whole lot easier to make your case if you happen to think The
Who is the best.  Because they are.
"There once was a Note..."