I'm with you, lynn. I've bought most of the official stuff in several formats - I don't feel guilty about having a boot or 50.

"No Anchovies, Please"

Gazza,
I'm reading that about Muddy painting the Chess ceiling in Andrew Oldham's book--is that Keith who was saying it in there? You say, not true?

Keith mentions it in "25 x 5", Angee and maybe in other interviews. He said that when they arrived at Chess, they walked in and Muddy was painting the ceiling and had white paint dripping on his face . He wasnt selling too many records anymore, so Leonard Chess had him doing some work around the studio.

I think Bill mentioned that when they arrived at Chess studios, Muddy was there and that he was kind enough to help them in with their gear, which naturally they all appreciated. He doesnt mention the paint story (you'd think he would refer to such a noteworthy incident IF it happened wouldnt you?), and I think he has said specifically that it didnt happen (I dont have his books to hand this minute - maybe someone else has)

Marshall Chess flat-out denied that Muddy would ever have been asked to do anything like that by his father and stated in a TV interview a few years ago that he was absolutely baffled as to where Keith got this idea from. That, plus the fact that Muddy was a man who was very particular about his appearance and certainly wouldnt have been walking around in public with paint dripping off his face.

Naturally, none of us were there but Marshall Chess's story - plus Bill's omission of it - makes me side with the 'urban myth' side of the argument.

Makes a lot of sense, thanks, G.

hey mick cares about boots these days, it is well known that he was furious about voodoo stew and brew, it was in one of those many coffee table stones books, cant remember which, so whatever he said on static in the attic is to be reevaluated



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-05 06:00 by melillo.

Chris, I agree with you entirely; artists should recieve compensation for their work; I would never think of buying or downloading a pirated copy of an officially released recording. It's wrong. However in the case of live recordings that an artist has not released, and therefore has not generated any revenue for them, your argument in my view, doesn't hold water. As one amongst many here who has bought every official release of the Stones I don't feel any remorse about obtaining performance recordings they have not released. If they ever officially release "Brussels", "Ft. Worth 78" or any other concert from their hallowed vaults then I will be amongst the first to buy them.

Many of the Stones contemporaries have given their fans the option to purchase live shows either from their vaults or within days after the show. The Stones, inexplicably in my view, have not thus far followed suit. One wonders why. The demand is there so what aren't they meeting it?

By the way, I applaud your stand and thank you for your post!

Artists (the stones in this case) have received compensation for the concert already. Why should they get paid twice? If the concert is low quality but high popularity most bands have the good sense to release an official copy (even keith did it with the palladium).

So its less a case of stealing a paycheck and more a case of why should I pay them twice....

OLDKR

appreciate the back-up,Gazza. in Rolling With The Stones page 129, Bill writes "Muddy very definitely was not up a ladder painting the studio..." And you have a point,melillo. The static interview occurred on swiss radio(?) in 1970,I think. Since so much of the coveted material is from the 63-71 era I wonder if Klein is the holdup. Then again with his reputation for greed one would think he'd milk it for all its worth!

I don't have any issues with downloading Stones music whether it's an official release or not. For a couple reasons. First, the Stones are very rich and don't need the money. Second, the songwriting team of Jagger-Richards has themselves stolen plenty from people like Robert Johnson, Chuck Berry, Bill Wyman, Ry Cooder, and Mick Taylor to name a few. Besides they are making huge amounts of money at their concerts where tickets are about $300.

These days if I have money to spend on a CD, I buy one from a local artist who I know will appreciate and can use the few dollars they earn from the sale.

Having said that I admit that I have in the past spent a lot on official Stones releases.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-05 06:43 by Kick Jaggards.

..... when im elected president,, every household in the nation will be fortified with a cd/dvd burner and a rack of blanks...

about 5 years ago I donwloaded a Zeppelin-gig (Royal Albert Hall 70) and after I've heard it for the first time I started to buy every CD and LP I could get on Ebay and in stores because I liked the music so much.

This summer I did the same with a Who-gig - finally I traveled to the last O2 Stones-show and ended up with a rucksack of Who-CDs I bought at Piccadilly Circus (is it Tower records? can't remember) and only 3 months later I'm more or less complete with their legal stuff (both formats, vinyl and CD, including their solo-output).

2 bands I've learned to really appreciate that I'd have missed without the trackers that don't meet your ethical standards.

But back to the Stones - many of us I'd call hardcore-fans - we love the band and I (as many others as well, I'm sure) did spent a fortune to obtain all their output and I still do. But in the end we're talking of about 1,000 to 1,500 people world-wide which seem to enjoy a high-class recording (outtakes as well as soundboards) and about 500 (less is likely) only when it comes to audience recordings in average quality. I could be wrong but I bet that +99% of these 500+/- collectors are having any legal release from Hit Makers up to BiggerBang. They are fans/collectors/completists and want a little bit more then what's in the stores. The Stones made/still make history and to speak for myself - I try to preserve it for future. It's too important to get lost between moronic ethics and spongy considerations. Like Gazza I think that the Stones are aware of what's traded for free on the www and if they can get along with it I can't see your point at all. Most likely you're even more catholic than the pope...?!

Anyway, enough said - now I'm going to order the First Barbarians and Rolled Gold + on Amazon - nothing can beat an official release, even if it's a re-release :-)

Cheers
silkcut

I bought every thing on vinyl, then the London and CBS issues, then the London and Virgin issues, then the London SACDs and at the moment I'm buying the Jap minisleeves. I've spent in excess of £20, 000 going to concerts in the last ten years. This month I spent £300 on bootlegs.

The Stones don't lose a penny in bootlegging and if they were that worried they could put the whole lot out themselves. After all they've got the boots as well so they can put them out on CD or download. I'm sure the bootleggers won't sue if their product is suddenly legally distributed.

>> Its a grey area. For example, I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted
for being caught taping a show, have you? <<

i think everyone's heard of people having their equipment confiscated at shows they were trying to record.
confiscating private property wouldn't be legal if there were anything "legally grey" about unlicensed recordings.
performances are protected by copyright law (which you can look up as easily as i can).
when artists choose not to take measures against torrent sites and other forms of trading,
that doesn't mean those recordings aren't a violation of copyright. it means the artists are choosing not to pursue it.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> i think everyone's heard of people having their
> equipment confiscated at shows they were trying to
> record.
> confiscating private property wouldn't be legal if
> there were anything "legally grey" about
> unlicensed recordings.

I'm don't know where you live but it's NOT legal to confiscate recording eqiupment where I live. Yes, they do confiscate here as well but the fact that it happens doesn't make it legal. Simple as that.

>> if they were that worried they could put the whole lot out themselves <<

a few people are saying this sort of thing.
what happened to the notion that artists have the right to decide what to release?
that used to be fairly basic to the idea of being an artist. now that there's affordable technology
that allows music to be reproduced/distributed so easily, it's like that right has simply evaporated -
as if having the ability to do something means it must be okay to do it.
so are there any boundaries to what it's okay to record/proliferate all over the place just "because we can"?

seems like a mighty slippery slope - and i'm turning up Jiving Sister Fanny way loud again

I think this discussion is one example of the big dillema any artist is facing. On one hand he/she wants to reach an audience as big as possible and on the other hand the artist wants to make money. Once you charge money you take the risk you do not reach everyone you would like and once you give away your art for free you don't make any money. I think most artists prefer a combination of both: a reasonable audience and a decent living. I wish I'd know how to draw an economic chart on here with preferences and utility curves, to illustrate what I mean, but I guess you get my point.

From this line of thinking I happen to believe (but maybe I am just seeking justification for my own actions as a listener to bootlegs) that artists want leakage of their art through the way of bootlegs. It is one way to reach a big audience to express themselves to. As I see the big audience as one of the goals an artist wants to reach (just like making money is one), I think exchanging bootlegs is helping an artist to achieve his goals as much as buying his records and concert tickets is.

>> Yes, they do confiscate here as well but the fact that it happens doesn't make it legal. <<

that's interesting - so do people whose equipment gets confiscated often prosecute?
not that a shortage of prosecution makes something legal or "legally grey" - i'm just curious :E

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> Yes, they do confiscate here as well but the
> fact that it happens doesn't make it legal. <<
>
> that's interesting - so do people whose equipment
> gets confiscated often prosecute?
> not that a shortage of prosecution makes something
> legal or "legally grey" - i'm just curious :E

prosecute? try to make a report like "I was trying (actin' illegally) to tape a show but the security stole my equipment" and that because of a few hundred $$. No good idea, is it? Before I'd go thru such circumstances I'd prefer to buy new equipment the next day. And the security knows that as well.

But really, living in a country under constitutional state means that nobody, NOBODY except for elements of the constitutional state is allowed to confiscate private property. They can force you to stop recording, delete what you've already recorded (happened with cell-phone pics that were taken in Munich 2003, people were forced to delete their SD-cards) and they can even ask you to leave the venue. But that's it.

>> try to make a report like "I was trying (actin' illegally) to tape a show but the security stole my equipment" <<

that's what i thought, silkcut1978 - thanks
my points being a] that taping shows is illegal unless the performers have specifically given permission/licensed it;
and b] that the fact that some laws are difficult or impractical to enforce doesn't mean they don't exist.

Chris: I don't agree.

It is true that in most countries "bootlegs" are against the law. Fair enough. But to say that "bootlegs" are morally bad expresses your opinion, not a fact.

It is common experience that not always what is against the law is "bad", and what is done in compliance with the law "good". That is why laws change all the time. That is why different countries have different laws.

Back to the topic, who says that sharing non officially released music is "stealing"?

Is music something you can steal?

You will see that not even the law says so. It is an idea only recently imposed by the entertainment and software industry. Of course, for their purposes, it more effective to describe their "enemies" as a "theifs" rather than "someone who infringed copyrights".

Of course the artists have all the rights to be paid for their work. But there is also a general interest for the cultural growth of the people. And the law should find a balance between these two points.

Now it only overprotects the industry.

May I suggest you a good read? (Guess what? You download it but it's free!)

[www.free-culture.cc]

Don't you find it strange that you can take your camera in a museum and you cannot take a recorder in a concert?

Is it correct that a share of the price of any blank cd goes to the industry, even if I use them to record the music I play by myself?

Furthermore, the artists themselves are starting to question if the present copyright system is the best way to go.

See the example of radiohead.

See the example of all those obscure bands who gained popularity by sharing their music on the net and now fill up venues that once would be empty.

I could go on and on.

All I want to say is that you should think twice before saying "theif" to someone. Life is not simple as it seems on cowboys and indians movies.

C

Of course the cowboys and indians reference was not meant to be an offence!

C

>> you can take your camera in a museum <<

?!? i know miles of museums that don't allow photography
(i do agree with your main points, though - what's legal and what's ethical are real often not the same,
and obviously some Better Idea has to be found for distributing music, and for defining/protecting the rights of artists.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-05 14:46 by with sssoul.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> you can take your camera in a museum <<
>
> ?!? i know miles of museums that don't allow
> photography

Photos or flashes?

I can't remember one single major museum in the world that did not allow my camera in or that restricted its use (if not to prevent damages to the paintings)

C

>> Photos or flashes? <<

i think different museums have different policies, liddas, so maybe we're both right.
meanwhile, photos of paintings/sculture are different in fundamental ways from recordings of concerts -
but a pretty good argument could be made for crappy audience recordings constituting damage to the music :E
(ahem: the friendly :E means that's meant as humour - well, mostly as humour!)

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> try to make a report like "I was trying (actin'
> illegally) to tape a show but the security stole
> my equipment" <<
>
> that's what i thought, silkcut1978 - thanks
> my points being a] that taping shows is illegal
> unless the performers have specifically given
> permission/licensed it;
> and b] that the fact that some laws are difficult
> or impractical to enforce doesn't mean they don't
> exist.

sorry, I don't understand what you mean. I tried to point out clearly that there's no law over here that allows the security of a venue to confiscate private property?!?

sure - it's nearly impractical to keep a venue "taper-free" as it's nearly impratical to prosecute in case your equipment gets (illegally !) confiscated. Both sides know what they are risking - not too much in the end...

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> meanwhile, photos of paintings/sculture are
> different in fundamental ways from recordings of
> concerts -

Of course there are differences, but why "fundamental"?

C

didnt read this whole thread...but i will....i have to react now.
Chris think in your eyes im a real outlaw cause i love the forbidden stuff( how exciting!) but i think this is just...way over the top an you act like some kind of god mind you since the age of twelve i spended every penny i had on the rollin stones...i could buy a house from that money...im not regreting that...but dont point at us as if we are wrong cause i paid my dues...okay now im gonna read the rest with a fine bootleg on the background

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> but a pretty good argument could be made for
> crappy audience recordings constituting damage to
> the music :E
> (ahem: the friendly :E means that's meant as
> humour - well, mostly as humour!)


That's really a good point !! :-) Might be another reason why bands like The Who puts out all their shows themselves - so they prevent that lousy recordings gets traded...if only Jagger.....ok, no way ;-)

silkcut1978 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> about 5 years ago I donwloaded a Zeppelin-gig
> (Royal Albert Hall 70) and after I've heard it for
> the first time I started to buy every CD and LP I
> could get on Ebay and in stores because I liked
> the music so much.
>
> This summer I did the same with a Who-gig -
> finally I traveled to the last O2 Stones-show and
> ended up with a rucksack of Who-CDs I bought at
> Piccadilly Circus (is it Tower records? can't
> remember) and only 3 months later I'm more or less
> complete with their legal stuff (both formats,
> vinyl and CD, including their solo-output).
>
> 2 bands I've learned to really appreciate that I'd
> have missed without the trackers that don't meet
> your ethical standards.
>
>

Good point. I discovered Lucinda williams' music in a similar way. A friend of mine sent me a recording of a Neil Young show in Ohio four years ago, knowing I was a Neil fan. She also enclosed a CDR of Lucinda's set (she was the opening act) to see if I might like it. I'd never heard any of her stuff before. Reluctantly got around to listening to it a couple of weeks later, was blown away and then bought all her official albums as well as going to see her last year and again in 2 weeks time.

That wouldnt have happened had someone not recorded a show and it had been sent to me, so Lucinda's done OK out of THAT deal.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-05 15:30 by Gazza.

The only bootlegs I've ever listened too are ones I cannot buy from the band.

So not one cent has been taken out of their pockets by me privately enjoying this music.

When the Stones release these live shows "officially," I'll gladly buy them up, hoping the sound is even better.

And given how $-hungry...sorry $-savvy...Mick and Co are, I'm surprised they haven't offered more live recordings to fans for download for a price.