Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stikkyfinger Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I recently read somewhere that bands like the
> > Stereophonics (I think it was them anyway) are
> > releasing their new album over the net for
> free,
> > and relying on the downloaders to pay them
> > whatever they feel it is worth.
> >
> > I have no idea how successful that idea was,
> but
> > it's an interesting concept.
> >
>
> It was Radiohead. I think the average 'donation'
> to date has been around £7.00. As they're pretty
> massive over here I would imagine it'll still be
> quite successful.
>
> When you consider that a new album costs anything
> from about £10 to the retail price of about £15
> and the artist gets a relatively small proportion
> of that, Radiohead's share of the £7.00 average
> price will maybe be higher than it would be from
> record shop sales, with a reduction on overheads.


Ah yes, Radiohead. As usual you are on the ball Gazza.

And the maths works very well for the artist doesn't it?

Rolling Stones Tribute

Play Rolling Stones

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

oh wow - great topic for a book or three! :E
a performance is fundamentally different from a piece of visual art - the whole nature of it is different.
among other differences: at this point there isn't any affordable/portable technology that allows people to create
nearly-instant and nearly-lossless reproductions of paintings/sculpture and then proliferate them all over the globe.

(there are all kinds of interesting questions related to the value of originals of visual art -
and with the "it's here and then it's gone" aspect of a performance of music.)

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> affordable/portable technology that allows
> people to create
> nearly-instant and nearly-lossless reproductions
>


But in how far is a bootleg recording of a concert (no matter sound or movie) ever a nearly-lossless reproduction of the show? Ceci n'est pas une Stones-show.

>> I tried to point out clearly that there's no law over here that allows the security of a venue to confiscate private property?!? <<

i understood your point, silkcut1978, and i'm not arguing with you - au contraire.
i'm interested in a different aspect of the question, but the general principle is the same:
it doesn't mean something's legal just because people find it impractical to prosecute.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-05 22:58 by with sssoul.

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

> a performance is fundamentally different from a
> piece of visual art.

Fair enough, but this is not the point.

> among other differences: at this point there isn't
> any affordable/portable technology that allows
> people to create
> nearly-instant and nearly-lossless reproductions
> of paintings/sculpture and then proliferate them
> all over the globe.

This is the point I don't get. A photo is not the painting, but neither a boot (even the best soundboard) is a live show. If you see a photo of the Last Supper, you will still want to see the original, just like if a boot (or an official recording) is not equivalent to the real thing.

You might argue that a boot could have an impact on the market of live recordings, but the same one could say of a (well done) photograph and the market of art posters or cathalogs (or even museums).

C

yeah, i agree, marcovandereijk - the recording (whether it's a bootleg or not) is what's reproducible,
not the experience of *being there* for the performance. the parallel i was making is lousy in more ways than one. :E

the question (i think!) was why recording a show is different from photographing a piece of visual art;
it's because performances are fundamentally different from tangible, permanent works of art.
photographing a painting doesn't normally raise questions about who owns the painting,
because the original is still there. the show isn't. it's here and then it's gone - unless it's recorded.
recording something that's by nature ephemeral gives it some of the attributes of property,
which it didn't have before, and along with that go questions of ownership, rights, etc.

one of those questions is whether performing artists still have - or should have -
the right to decide which of their performances to preserve/proliferate/profit from,
even if technology exists that lets us "override" that right if we feel like it.
to me "because i can" isn't enough to make something ethically okay - it's just a techno version of "might = right".

>> but the same one could say of a (well done) photograph and the market of art posters or catalogs <<

yes - i believe that's part of the reason many museums don't allow photography.
(and i have already pointed out that bootlegs can have an impact on the market for live recordings -
there are people who decline to buy official releases on the grounds that they already own bootleg versions.)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-06 01:45 by with sssoul.

self righteous hogwash this thread. give me a break. morality and rock and roll are like oil and water. don't try to mix the two up here, it don't work. morality itself is debateable and a tool of organized religion to keep the sheep in the same paddock. bootlegs of your favorite band fly under the radar of my higher power...

with sssoul, you forecast the downfall of the industry if its leading moneymakers have their market share reduced sufficiently. This seems plausible but not likely to me.

But personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the music industry go down. It's mammoth and broken, not even capable anymore of delivering good music. If it hadn't been there for the stones and others, it would have been a shame, but now... I do think that rock has basically run its course, and music more suited to today doesn't require conglomerated corporations to produce, promote, and profit from it.

The group of artists I have summarily decided it's "cool" to "steal" from are far less than 1% of working musicians, the very same group who prop up the dinosaur music industry through sales of their back catalog (and airplay, if we want to connect to the Springsteen/Clear Channel thread).

I see how your position is eventually concerned with that 99+%, but I'm not sure I buy this trickle-down theory anymore than I do the US Republican party's. (what book are you referring to, by the way? I might like to read it.) It seems outrageously retrograde: if we don't support the aristocracy, we'll all be peasants? Well, I wouldn't mind seeing a return to the days of traveling minstrels, such as you had in Europe, but come on.

But we have discussed this before and I understand your p.o.v. (I think... we may have had different experiences with the music industry.) It's Chris F I wonder about... where does his anguished sense of duty, honor, and sin come from? Is he some kind of Catholic knight, as silkcut suggests? or some other variety of masochistic ultraconservative?

>> what book are you referring to, by the way? I might like to read it. <<

Black & White Blues is the title: [www.alibris.com]
i'm not convinced by that statement either, but i find it real intriguing
(and it isn't really a "trickle-down" effect that it's describing, i don't think -
but let us not quibble over that - i'm juggling more than enough quibbles already here!) :E
and again: it's not the "music industry" i'm worried about, or trying to defend.
i'd simply like to see some new paradigm emerging that allows artists to prosper, and so far i don't.

the youth of today is not going to buy music...if they buy something its video games or i-pods only to steal...the discuscion is going nowhere cause the dammage is done and there is no way back to the old days....there are record stores here whom doesnt even sell cd s anymore they sell dvd s and games...bands make money via concerts....it doesnt matter anymore if you download or not nobody cares

I think it was Bowie who prophesised the beginning of the end of the music industry when he forcasted the internet and file sharing would mean the end of world domination of the huge cd selling artists. He said bands would have to go back on the road and ticket prices would go up to compensate for lack of album sales, (right on Davy).
The law says it is wrong to copy 'copyright' music. Since the invention of the plucked instrument it has gone on.

At least half of all my Stones enthusiasm comes from the
"unknown stuff", like soundboard boots and outtakes.

People who buy bootlegs, usually also buy all the official stuff from the band. And bootlegs make these people even stronger fans, who buy even more official stuff. That's one of the reasons The Stones themselves don't (seem to) mind bootlegs.

You think I should avoid listening to Brussels because The Stones have not published it officially? We are talking about the best rock ever played! It's not wrong, and I would listen to it even if it had been wrong.

Hey chris...if i was a good boy like you want me or us to be i would have never heard or see something from the 1978 tour...bohooo!! go and be a good boy and miss the real deal!!

sorry, could be bothered to read all the replies in this thread..but,

do you not think the Rolling Stones care that they are ripping YOU off with high ticket prices, high fanclub prices and the knowlegde that most tickets will go to scalpers anyway for your further purchasing pleasure?..

No, i agree that formally released music should be protected but, IMO, the stones cater for this loss in their pricing schemes in other areas.

Dog

in for fun?? anybody...go to hot stuff!! somebody is asking for george fucin-michael mixes....jesus i almost pee in my pants!!...love is so good when you stealing it!! ha ha!! after all this serious talk i really neede to laugh...andr&r should be fun



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-05 18:35 by rooster.

Chris Fountain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Regardless of Brussells or whatever stolen concert
> or out-takes it is simply wrong. What if someone
> took your paycheck? It is not like the Stones just
> had given music. They worked just as hard as
> anyone else. Remember? they were broke for ions! I
> pay for my music via Amazon or any other outlet.
>
> I rather die than cheat my favorite group!

I dunno. After all they ve taken and turned into Jagger/Richards productions excluding credits for riffs, licks, parts etc etc.

rooster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey chris...if i was a good boy like you want me
> or us to be i would have never heard or see
> something from the 1978 tour...bohooo!! go and be
> a good boy and miss the real deal!!

Mmmm, think you are missing some official relese: sucking in the seventies has a Detroit 78 live version of Whip ...

C

i know..but i allready had it and sucking sucked'''' whip'' and dance were the only real reasons to buy it



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-05 20:44 by rooster.

Chris Fountain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I doubt if the Stones upload soundboards on the
> net. What person would take from the Stones should
> be brought in front of a Judge.


What about artists that put on a bad show? Do the fans get their money back? I don't think so.
So why would an artist worry about a show's recording getting out? If the show was good then the artist's credibility will still be intact. Live CDs or albums never sell very well anyway and that is why so many artists do not release them.
The biggest thieves of an artist's music is the very record companies who release the artist's work.

Chris Fountain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Headly 123
>
> Thanks for the comments.
>
> Where is the evidence of the Stones buying their
> own music? Please share this this information if
> not false or incriminating.
>
> Secondly, I never stated as a spokesperson for the
> Stones. If you were a member of the Stones, would
> you like someone else confiscating your efforts?



Mick Jagger buying bootlegs in New York around 1974 or 1975. Do you need a copy of this recording?

It is available among many traders - but not on Amazon.

Pure economics...buying bootlegs is fine...and if the Stones don't like it, then to undercut and make their money they can start releasing the stuff. Just look at Dylan! He has been releasing the Bootleg series for years now, and a ton of great stuff that was previously on Boots has finally come out in great quality. In fact a lot of groups I feel don't mind bootlegs and get a kick out of it. Yes, Mick is known for collecting them. John Lennon collected boots as well, as does McCartney! (check out Hi Hi Hi..."standing in the station with a bootleg in my hand, I said come on back to my place for the taste of a multi-colored band, we're gonna get hi, hi, hi!")

Yeah, I can understand your moralistic point, to a point.

If the stones bring out the stuff which is now available on bootleg officially, most of the people here would buy the stuff including me.So it's kind of their own fault not to bring out the stuff we fans would really like to have in good quality. But there's no money in it cause the majority of the people buy best of's My guess is there's maybe a 10.000 people worldwide who would buy for instance a official '78 tour record. And please stop feeling sorry for the stones, we're not stealing! they are robbing us now....(if you let them)

>> The group of artists I have summarily decided it's "cool" to "steal" from are far less than 1% of working musicians <<

okay so ... if i understand you right, you're talking about official releases, not bootlegs, right?
there are artists who are rich enough already so you don't feel like you need to pay for their music -
but you still feel like you need to keep acquiring their music? [scratching head]
why not boycott these bands you consider overly rich, instead of helping yourself to their music?
seems like that would make your support for the struggling 99% more ... wholehearted, shall we say.
i'm not trying to be ornery - i'm seriously trying to understand this line of thinking:
when musicians achieve a certain level of wealth their music becomes like ... public property?
or is it more like: other people are paying them enough, so i don't have to? or ... ?

flattered that you've been mulling over my post...

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> okay so ... if i understand you right, you're
> talking about official releases, not bootlegs,
> right?
well, Chris F's original post was about both, right, or even mainly bootlegs? I meant both. I've only bought 3 or 4 bootlegs in my life, just when I was getting started, before internet sharing. well, then there are semiofficial things like Stooges outtakes... but anyway.

> there are artists who are rich enough already so
> you don't feel like you need to pay for their
> music -
> but you still feel like you need to keep acquiring
> their music?
> why not boycott these bands you consider overly
> rich, instead of helping yourself to their music?
just because they're rich doesn't mean they're not good. the stones' fame is not undeserved, just their ludicrous lucre. and of course fame and wealth don't go hand in hand, thanks to the industry.

that said, I have pretty much halted collecting stones stuff. I don't enjoy the new shows, and I have most of the notable old ones and the outtakes.

> seems like that would make your support for the
> struggling 99% more ... wholehearted, shall we
> say.
why is it a zero sum game for our attention? can't I educate myself about the history of the best artists while also exploring new ones? I would do more of both if I had more time (and, in lieu of internet sharing, $).

> i'm not trying to be ornery - i'm seriously trying
> to understand this line of thinking:
> when musicians achieve a certain level of wealth
> their music becomes like ... public property?
> or is it more like: other people are paying them
> enough, so i don't have to? or ... ?
it's more like, they're already obscenely overpaid, and I have virtually no disposable income, so the most rational solution for me is to freeload, your "twilight of the corporate gods" scenario notwithstanding. I do buy a few CDs a year by non-knighted artists and support them by seeing as many live shows as my schedule, life, and funds allow--of which, even in New York City, I can see dozens for the price of one stone$ ticket. speaking of how people can justify anything, I tried to justify paying $1xx to go by myself to see them on of their recent swings through MSG. I took a step back and just had a beer at Walter's bar before the show.

I also play my own music. that actually may be the main factor accounting for my different perspective, more so than my (temporarily?) sub-middle-class lifestyle... I became much less religious about collecting music once I became a producer more than a consumer. I've switched paths now but my perspective hasn't altogether reverted. it's all "research" to me. if the music industry disappears, I have instruments and friends enough to entertain myself while a new model is built. I'll remember the stones, and they'll have enough $ to live reasonably comfortably.

do you buy used books? I would be in debtor's prison if I didn't.

still looking forward to learning what cloister the Fountain springs from...

CC wrote:

>>>>do you buy used books?

Well, that's a good example. Are we stealing from an author when we are buying used books? Or lending them in a library?
I do it all the time and that's how I discovered great writers and maybe more important, that's the way these writers reached me and managed to influence my way of thinking or my knowledge or whatever message they were trying to communicate. I think this will satisfy the author of these books first and for all.
I think Vincent van Gogh painted because he felt the need to show the people the way he saw the world. He did not make any money with it, but still he kept on painting. Poverty did not stop him from being an artist.

I think the financial part is important, of course. But I also think money is a highly overrated stimula for an artist. I think huge appreciation for the art is at least as important.

marcovandereijk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, that's a good example. Are we stealing from
> an author when we are buying used books? Or
> lending them in a library?

> I do it all the time and that's how I discovered
> great writers and maybe more important, that's the
> way these writers reached me and managed to
> influence my way of thinking or my knowledge or
> whatever message they were trying to communicate.
> I think this will satisfy the author of these
> books first and for all.


You nailed it. Same can be said about music. Are we stealing from artists when we are buying used CDs?

in most copyright laws there a thing called "copyright exhaustion". means that once a (legal!) copy of a work is sold and paid for, this copy is free and can be sold again and again without further copyright payment like royalties and so on. to make it clear - if buy a Stones CD in a shop, Stones and their record company benefit from this sale. if I sell this CD to someone else, they wont see further payments from the sale of this CD and law says that this is LEGAL.

is this "stealing" too in Chris Fountains book?

how many used vinyl, cassette, CD and whatever format copies of, lets say Sticky Fingers change hands year after year, worldwide? 1000? 10.000? 100.000?

can you imagine the yearly "losses of income" for the Stones through total sales of ALL their used records worldwide? and its perfectly legal.

and now someone complains that free distribution of live shows for a couple of hundred hardcore fans wordlwide is a big loss for the band and not ok in moral terms. gimme a break!

If you´re buying a used book or album it´s already been paid for once, so that´s no problem. When you´re lending a book in a library, the author gets economical compensation.

great thread- great read.

thanks for starting it, Chris.

thanks for the elucidations, cc -
what i was hoping is that your principles for supporting only underpaid musicians
might include something like an idea for a Better Way to organize the "music industry".
i'll have to ponder your thoughts a while longer to see if they help me any - but thanks.

first off, i see the bootlegging of unreleased stuff as a different set of issues than copying/downloading official releases,
which is why i wanted to distinguish between them - can we talk just about official releases for now?

>> can't I educate myself about the history of the best artists while also exploring new ones?
I would do more of both if I had more time (and, in lieu of internet sharing, $). <<

sure, but ... sorry, this is getting fuzzed up again: since this 1% you feel okay with freeloading from (your term!)
is comprised of what you consider "the best artists" then ... [scratching head] ...
where does the point come where you deem great artists no longer worthy of support?
is it more like "i dig what they do so much that i'm entitled to have it for free",
or more like "other people have already paid them enough so they don't need me to"?

and yes, most people have limits to how much time they can spend paying attention to music -
for most of us it maxes around 17 hours per day. so if you weren't cluttering up your senses
with fatcat artists, you would have more time and attention to seek out, appreciate & support
artists who (in your scheme of things) deserve it; plus which, by boycotting fatcats instead of freeloading,
you wouldn't be subject to accusations of stealing music. all kinds of advantages, see?!

>> your "twilight of the corporate gods" scenario notwithstanding. <<

smile: you're deliberately misinterpreting what i wrote, but ... i forgive you, since i just deliberately misinterpreted you :E
what i'm really looking for (as i keep saying!) is an idea that would allow artists to prosper.
we seem to agree that the "music industry" in its traditional form doesn't do that anywhere near well enough;
we seem to agree that some entirely new set-up is needed; my concern (which you keep sidestepping)
is that too many people are getting to feel too comfortable about not paying for music they love -
not because they've thought about it much, but just because they have the technology to freeload.
that (for me) is not a way to go, because it fails to account for the artists' need for and right to income.

perfectly thoughtful people - right in this thread, even! - are resorting to statements like:
"oh but a true artist will churn out music for us even without income", as if gifted people dying in poverty
were a beautiful ideal that we should aim at helping artists achieve. that sucks (just my opinion, of course!) -
and it's a line that could only be generated by someone who never spent much time as a musician's girlfriend :E

>> do you buy used books? I would be in debtor's prison if I didn't. <<

why don't you just take the books you want, or borrow them from a library and photocopy them -
doesn't the principle of "they're great/rich enough already" apply to authors as well as musicians?
if not ... is that a thought-out ethical stance, or merely a result of existing technology
that makes it easy to simply take music, but not (so far) books? that techno "might = right" again ...

>> still looking forward to learning what cloister the Fountain springs from <<

i think he's gone off somewhere to try to sort out what the difference between Flowers & Metamorphosis is.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-06 19:40 by with sssoul.