oh and: sorry, cc, i didn't mean to ignore your question:

>> do you buy used books? <<

if a book is out of print and i can't get a new one: yeah.
if it's still in print and i can't afford a new one, i do without it.
that's pretty much the approach i take to music too.
(anyway as folks have already pointed out, buying used books
isn't equivalent to illegal copying/downloading of official releases -
a used book has - usually, anyway - been duly paid for by the previous owner.)

again, what would really be interesting to me is an idea for a Better Way to distribute music
that takes into account the artists' need for/right to income. that Radiohead experiment sounds promising!

or ... four days before A Bigger Bang was released, the whole album appeared on rs.com;
it wasn't set up to be easily downloadable, but obviously Stones Inc/Virgin aren't naive enough
to think it wouldn't be hacked immediately and spread all over the internet.
that was an interesting move - does anyone here know (or have any good theories) why they decided to do that?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-06 15:10 by with sssoul.

"No reason to get excited," the thief, he kindly spoke,
"There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke.
But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate,
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late."

Bingo !

I do try to separate legally obtainable stuff from stuff you can't legally purchase in the stores. I don't download items that are legally available (well...maybe a song here and there if it's a part of a whole show and only available elsewhere on a live complilation or greatest hits or something). I'm not that cheap and I do believe in giving the artist their due. I don't even copy CD's other than boots; if I like it, I'll buy it.

I don't see this as taking money out of their pockets since I wouldn't buy the greatest hits anyway (having all the studio albums already) and probably already own the live compilation (and if not...soon will!). So I'm paying for the legal stuff one way or the other (with very few minor exceptions as stated above), and not taking money out of their pockets for things that aren't legitimately available.

Take Brussels for example, I bet everyone of us who have downloaded that over the years, if it became legally available, would purchase it. So as far as I'm concerned, no harm, no foul.

You also have to take the cost to put some of this stuff out knowing 99.5% of the world may be totally uninterested and there's no way it would turn a profit, so why bother. Economically, while we're talking about 'stealing', if available on the open market, may be a money loser (unless they went the 'Prince" route and bypassed the entire music industry and were able to produce these for mere pennies). And when have we ever known the Stones to produce anything they thought they'd probably lose money on?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-06 15:48 by kovach.

your approach sounds like mine, kovach - i'm not so sure about this part, though:

>> Take Brussels for example, I bet everyone of us who have downloaded that over the years,
if it became legally available, would purchase it. <<

Ronnie's recent experiments with the New Barbarians releases are real interesting to me -
unfortunately i've seen posts on various fan boards saying "i'm not buying them - i already own the bootleg".
it's hard to say whether that's a minority view or not - i hope so!

Well, I did never spend any time as an artists girlfriend, so maybe I do not have any right to speak out on this subject.

But, the point I was trying to make is that there does not seem to be any positive correlation between the creative output of an artist and the financial revenues he's earning with them. That is a rather macro economic approach I guess, and if there ever was a Mrs. Van Gogh I bet she would whip my arse for making this statement.

Of course every artist who choses to make a living out of his artistic creativity has the right to charge his audience. But isn't it the artists own responsibility to find a way to deliver his/her art in a way that he/she recieves his/her earnings for it?

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> your approach sounds like mine, kovach - i'm not
> so sure about this part, though:
>
> >> Take Brussels for example, I bet everyone of us
> who have downloaded that over the years,
> if it became legally available, would purchase it.
> <<
>
> Ronnie's recent experiments with the New
> Barbarians releases are real interesting to me -
> unfortunately i've seen posts on various fan
> boards saying "i'm not buying them - i already own
> the bootleg".
> it's hard to say whether that's a minority view or
> not - i hope so!

Good point. Although I think there may be a different attitude between Stones stuff and their side projects. I could be wrong...

>> But isn't it the artists own responsibility to find a way to deliver his/her art
in a way that he/she recieves his/her earnings for it? <<

no. the artists are artists.
why is it suddenly their responsibility to devise a whole new system for distributing music -
just because someone (who was not a musician, i promise!) devised & popularized technology
that makes it easy to simply take music?? try applying that "thinking" to other areas -
can i just take something of yours, and then argue that it's your fault for not stopping me?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-06 16:02 by with sssoul.

>>>>try applying that "thinking" to other areas

That's what I did. Think about how much money a merchand these days has to pay for protecting his wares? At least here in the Netherlands you don't see any retail shops without thorough protection. And everytime the crooks find new ways to break through the windows, the retailer has to invest in new devices to keep 'm out.

>> I think there may be a different attitude between Stones stuff and their side projects. <<

hm - well, maybe! although i don't really see why there would be.
if they were saying "i'm not buying it because i don't dig the New Barbarians" that would make sense,
but what they're saying is that they dig it, but don't see why they should pay the artists.
it's a strange phenomenon to contemplate along with the recurring cries of "open the vaults"

>> Think about how much money a merchant these days has to pay for protecting his wares <<

yes, and?
first of all hardly anyone would claim thieves are entitled to take whatever a merchant can't stop them from taking;
second of all, musicians are not retailers, and it's silly to say they should have to be.
(do you also expect authors to run publishing companies and book shops in addition to writing great books?)

the thing is: we can't discuss this sensibly without considering what i was ranting about a few posts ago,
about the intangibility of music, plus the ease with which we can now reproduce it (which ain't the musicians' fault!):
the weird ethical situation has arisen because we have the ability to take/copy music,
but it's "still there" for whoever else wants it. that - plus the convenience of the technology -
is what makes it easy for people to feel differently about helping themselves to whatever music they want
than they would about helping themselves to a book or a car they like.
what i'm saying is that it's too easy, because the people who create the music have a right
to be paid for what they do. since you agree with that point, marco: what is the Better Idea
that musicians should be implementing? i'd really love to hear it!

meanwhile, please note that the people who create/market the technology for taking/copying music
are making their money for their products - and for lame-ass "copy-protection" gizmos
that don't work, mess up the audio quality and just piss everyone off. grr.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-06 18:13 by with sssoul.

Well of course I agree that the fact that a merchand has to protect himself is no justification for theft in case his protection fails to do what it should. And this is the analogy with music.

The confusing part of it is, in my humble opinion, the remark I made before about the utility curve of an artist with reaching a big audience on the one hand and trying to make money on the other. It's not that I have any answers to this part of the problem, but I am sure this is what is causing most of the problems we are discussing here at the moment. In wanting to reach as many people as possible with his art, the artist has to create some serious "protection flaws". Getting airplay for his songs exposes the song to being taped. Playing a song live does the same thing. Music is just the vibration of the air. Where ever you play it, somebody will find a way to catch this vibration and spread it further.

So I guess there is no escape. As we agreed above, the one thing that can not be copied is the art of performing live. It is a good thing artists can make a living of that. Recorded music is a way to lure us into the venues where they are playing. Maybe the result of this whole proces will be that only artists survive who can bring a great live show.

marcovandereijk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe the result of this whole proces will be that
> only artists survive who can bring a great live show.

artists who cannot do this,overcome it simply, by using backing tracks/miming and other trickery.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> your approach sounds like mine, kovach - i'm not
> so sure about this part, though:
>
> >> Take Brussels for example, I bet everyone of us
> who have downloaded that over the years,
> if it became legally available, would purchase it.
> <<
>
> Ronnie's recent experiments with the New
> Barbarians releases are real interesting to me -
> unfortunately i've seen posts on various fan
> boards saying "i'm not buying them - i already own
> the bootleg".
> it's hard to say whether that's a minority view or
> not - i hope so!


I think thats more a reflection on the performance quality and/or overall desirability of the gig than anything else. Its a nice release, but hardly 'essential' listening and - being a solo venture - of minority interest, even for major Stones fans

..... everyone take a lunch break..

where s the pop corn!!??

with sssoul Wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
> Ronnie's recent experiments with the New
> Barbarians releases are real interesting to me -
> unfortunately i've seen posts on various fan
> boards saying "i'm not buying them - i already own the bootleg".
> it's hard to say whether that's a minority view
> or not - i hope so!

I've bought the Ronnie Wood releases, even though it's well-known material.
But I don't think it's such a bad thing to not buy them, if one allready have the bootlegs....hope you don't mind me saying so, with Sssoul

The reason for releasing First Barbarians and Buired Alive could be
- the material is allready out there, so Ronnie Wood want some income of those performances...a piece of the cake so to say
- it's a tribute to the bootlegs
- Ronnie have listened to the bootlegs, and love them, and he knows that there's only 10% of the Wood fans who have heard them....so he's spreading these recordings so that everyone can hear his 70s performances.

One can say, that if one want to support Ronnie - or if one collect every official release, than yes....one should buy those albums.
But I don't think one should feel obligated from a moral point of view, just because Ronnie didn't get any payment from the Swingin Pig vinyl one bought in 1991.

Ronnie Wood would never have released those 2 albums if not for the bootlegs. It's not like he "was going to release those shows anyway but is being cheated - as the bootlegers beat him to it....decades ago".
There are plenty of stuff in the vaults for him - and RS to release - so it's a bit odd that he chose to put out Largo79 and Kilburn74. If he played his cards better, he'd either release new sources for those shows - instead of plain bootleg copies - or he'd put out a different 1979 show. I mean, why Largo? There are far better concerts with New Barbarians, than Largo.
Just like some fans don't spend money twice on the same concert, I'm sure there are plenty of ex-fans who don't care at all about what's happening in the RS-camp these days....and therefor won't buy these Wooden Records. And there's probably a lot of...DEAD fans as well. They had their fun with Kilburn and Largo way back when

The tape-traders/bootlegers should get their credit for circulating this stuff, instead of critisism

That being said - I think the Ronnie releases are great for all of those who never heard this stuff before.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-06 18:23 by Erik_Snow.

smile: all you folks who aren't interested are cordially invited to other fine threads -
i'll even sprinkle some popcorn in them for you. i'm interested in these issues, so ... i'll carry on :E

>> So I guess there is no escape. As we agreed above, the one thing that can not be copied
is the art of performing live. It is a good thing artists can make a living of that.
Recorded music is a way to lure us into the venues where they are playing. <<

ah: the Bowie Principle. it's strange for me to think of recorded music as just a flash in the pan,
or as a mere advertising gimmick to promote concerts. i like recorded music,
and think it's a brilliant invention. but maybe you're right. in which case
we can stop wondering where all the great albums have gone ... oh well, it was a gas while it lasted



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-06 19:20 by with sssoul.

great post erik !!....cheers!!

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> the fact that were getting free music of their
> concerts does not seem to be affecting them
> financially <<
>
> hm - that's if you leave out the part where
> concert material they might want to turn into an
> official release
> is proliferated all over the globe within hours of
> their playing it ... and then if they release it
> anyway
> miles of people not only decline to buy it, but
> even gripe that "we have that already" -
> as if the band were to blame for the fact that
> they've acquired bootlegs. it ain't pretty.


Ah, c'mon sssoul, they dont release live material from 1973 and 1975 because fans would compare them to the last tour. Thay are money makers and one day they will release a live album from 1973, best quality with extra material. Only not this christmas maybe next. They know fans praise some 1972, 1973, 1975 concerts. 1972 and 1973 will be released after they stop touring or change format.

and cheers s soul!! popcorn is needed! R&R is fun!

Cheers Rooster, I fear I'll get unpopped pocorn though



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-06 19:10 by Erik_Snow.

>> hope you don't mind me saying so, with Sssoul <<

smile: i don't mind! i see this differently from you, but that's okay too, i trust!
it's not all that clear to me that Ronnie never would have released these recordings
if it weren't for bootlegs, but we're both just speculating, so let's say you're right.
what i'm really hoping is that these Barbarian releases are an experiment
to see if vault-opening can be worthwhile, so i hope they do real well -
i'd encourage everyone who yearns for stuff from the vaults to buy them on those grounds alone.

and while i see your point about the greater appeal of releasing something that isn't in wide circulation,
it does seem to me that that argument backfires when you combine it with the argument
that bootlegging unreleased stuff is a positive phenomenon. we've talked about this before:
if i want them to release stuff i haven't got already, it would behoove me to leave something unbootlegged.
(the New Barbarians might be a good example: as far as i know, they didn't film/record very many shows -
how many other than Largo have survived in good enough condition for a little company
to get into releasable condition without a dauntingly huge investment?)
yeah i know the Stones' vaults are overflowing with stuff we haven't gotten our mitts on yet -
but "i've taken everything in easy reach, so now please hand me the stuff i couldn't get at -
and make sure you spiff it up real nice too - i want good quality!" can sound a little ... strange :E

meanwhile, i'm still waiting for my copy of the First Barbarians, but from what someone posted about it
it sounds like it does include footage that hasn't been in circulation before,
so that should make every Barbarian-lover happy.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-07 12:09 by with sssoul.

lets keep the subject to boots for a moment okay??!! so if you are a so called good boy or girl....you will die before you hear or see something from 1978 or 76 for excample....the artist dont see money...but they are rich enough i think and live is short isnt it? maybe one day we get old! I hope not btw....lets party!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-06 19:45 by rooster.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what i'm really hoping is that these Barbarian
> releases are an experiment


Yes, that would be quite explended, of course

> the Barbarians in fact might be a good example: as far as i know,
> they didn't film/record very many shows -
> how many other than Largo have survived in good enough
> condition for a little company to get into releasable
> condition without a dauntingly huge investment

There have been several soundboard recordings - mostly incomplete - and a bit muddy - of New Barbarians concerts during the last years. The original tapes must exist somewhere.
And; Buired Alive was a straight copy + added with some EQ work; from the bootleg. WOoden Records didn't have their own tape to begin with.
So - they got the material for free, from Swingin Pig. I still can't understand why Ronnie is not in charge of his own vaults. That's pretty sad.

> yeah i know the Stones' vaults are overflowing
> with stuff we haven't gotten our mitts on yet -
> but "i've taken everything in easy reach, so now
> please hand me the stuff i couldn't get at -
> and make sure you spiff it up real nice too - i
> want good quality!" can sound a little ... strange
> :E

It may sound greedy, if one put it like that. But it's a bit upside-down point of view on the fans/buyers.
THe thing about wanting something NEW, NICE and in GOOD quality is what we, as record buyers, wish for at EVERY album we buy. If there's a new album released by an artist of interest - of course it'll be disappointing if it's a poor affair. And if there's a compilation released - then I certainly won't buy it if it doesn't contain anything new. I'll bet 50% of the readers of this board, didn't pick up Jaggers last compilation. And if it wasn't for the few "new" songs -like "Too Many Cooks", there would probably be no more than 10%.
It's Ronnie Wood and Wooden Records who's in charge of what to release, - and they should be aware of what the public is interested in, if they want to sell more than what Buired Alive and Crossexion did. Same goes for Jagger - he has nothing to complain about either, concerning the sales for "Very Best Of" - as he gave us a taste of the 100% horror he's capable of, when he put out that crappy CHarmed Life.
And by "public is interested in" , I mean concerning material from the "vaults" or in this case : "the bootlegers shelf"
Artists should take musical chances if that's what they want to do - but things are different with retrospective releases.


> meanwhile, i'm still waiting for my copy of the
> First Barbarians, but from what someone posted
> about it
> it sounds like it does include footage that hasn't
> been in circulation before,
> so that should make every Barbarian-lover happy.



I haven't recieved mine either, but that's great news,
even in grainy quality it's a must-have



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-06 20:08 by Erik_Snow.

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

> ... a Better Way to distribute music..
> ..that Radiohead experiment
> sounds promising!
>
> or ... four days before A Bigger Bang was
> released, the whole album appeared on rs.com;
> it wasn't set up to be easily downloadable, but
> obviously Stones Inc/Virgin aren't naive enough
> to think it wouldn't be hacked immediately and
> spread all over the internet.
> that was an interesting move - does anyone here
> know (or have any good theories) why they decided
> to do that?

(disclaimer: all IMHO)
Nothing needed to be hacked to download the free 64kbps Bigger Bang album.
if one read the news about it you knew where to go to get it.
I guess most folks who downloaded also bought the real thing just to hear it in "best" quality and have it in their hands.
I also guess it was a marketing experiment, as I can't think of any similar example to put out a whole album for free - and it worked.
I don't think they would have sold as many copys as they did, without going that route.
especially when one takes a look at the released singles.

Radiohead is a good example for other ways to distribute music and I'm quite sure the MI is looking at it closly. they just can't be half arsed to get rid of the existing system.

btw, in this country you can get fined if you leave your car or house unlocked.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-06 20:34 by open-g.

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> with sssoul Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > Ronnie's recent experiments with the New
> > Barbarians releases are real interesting to me
> -
> > unfortunately i've seen posts on various fan
> > boards saying "i'm not buying them - i already
> own the bootleg".
> > it's hard to say whether that's a minority view
> > or not - i hope so!
>
> I've bought the Ronnie Wood releases, even though
> it's well-known material.
> But I don't think it's such a bad thing to not buy
> them, if one allready have the bootlegs....hope
> you don't mind me saying so, with Sssoul
>
> The reason for releasing First Barbarians and
> Buired Alive could be
> - the material is allready out there, so Ronnie
> Wood want some income of those performances...a
> piece of the cake so to say
> - it's a tribute to the bootlegs
> - Ronnie have listened to the bootlegs, and love
> them, and he knows that there's only 10% of the
> Wood fans who have heard them....so he's spreading
> these recordings so that everyone can hear his 70s
> performances.
>
> One can say, that if one want to support Ronnie -
> or if one collect every official release, than
> yes....one should buy those albums.
> But I don't think one should feel obligated from a
> moral point of view, just because Ronnie didn't
> get any payment from the Swingin Pig vinyl one
> bought in 1991.
>
> Ronnie Wood would never have released those 2
> albums if not for the bootlegs. It's not like he
> "was going to release those shows anyway but is
> being cheated - as the bootlegers beat him to
> it....decades ago".
> There are plenty of stuff in the vaults for him -
> and RS to release - so it's a bit odd that he
> chose to put out Largo79 and Kilburn74. If he
> played his cards better, he'd either release new
> sources for those shows - instead of plain bootleg
> copies - or he'd put out a different 1979 show. I
> mean, why Largo? There are far better concerts
> with New Barbarians, than Largo.
> Just like some fans don't spend money twice on the
> same concert, I'm sure there are plenty of ex-fans
> who don't care at all about what's happening in
> the RS-camp these days....and therefor won't buy
> these Wooden Records. And there's probably a lot
> of...DEAD fans as well. They had their fun with
> Kilburn and Largo way back when
>
> The tape-traders/bootlegers should get their
> credit for circulating this stuff, instead of
> critisism
>
> That being said - I think the Ronnie releases are
> great for all of those who never heard this stuff
> before.
I totally agree. I'm assuming there were probably most(if not all) shows from the barbarians tour recorded and I would love for the Ft Worth show to be released in SB form. One can tell the band is really up for this show. Of course I may be biased since I attended it! Still-great point. scottkeef

>> The thing about wanting something NEW, NICE and in GOOD quality is what we, as record buyers, wish for at EVERY album we buy. <<

yeah, i am cognizant! i'm a record-buyer too, so i know the feeling.
what i think people sometimes overlook (i don't mean you, Erik!) is that it takes an investment
to produce/package/promote a nice-quality commercial product.
(cf the New Barbarians again: how many record companies said "no thanks" to releasing that material
before Ronnie finally started his own company and did it himself?
and did the fact that it was circulating on bootlegs make potential investors more interested
in the idea of backing a release? i'm just speculating, of course, but ... you see what i mean.)

anyway: maybe i'm too pessimistic about potential sales, but it seems to me
that when we ask for stuff from the vaults, we're basically asking for presents:
we wish the Stones would invest in releasing this stuff because we want it,
not because we're sure it would be a great investment for them.
and we're the same people who are already enjoying all this music of theirs that's leaked out over the decades -
and snapping up new concerts as fast as we can get them - and there are also people
who would download/copy any archival treasures they release without paying for them too -
so i guess i feel like i'm/we're on thin ice when it comes to demanding more and more from the artists.

anyway if they release something i already own a bootleg of, i buy it happily,
and hope it will encourage them to release more archival stuff.
but for me the main point is that if i dig it, the artists have a right to be paid for it.
it's their work i'm enjoying.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-07 01:36 by with sssoul.

i love music.. any kind that gets me off, bring it all.

i buy all the offical from my all time fave bands. theres a few.

then since the first days of Napster, i D/L whatever my computer can take!

i have not bought a cd in years. i want the music not the packaging, right?

the net is just a great thing for music lovers.

in 1983 when i bought my first bootleg i was like "What theres more stuff?" (Duran demos, sorry i love them)
Then later we could get all this and more thru your cable line. and the taping and sharing scene just got better. i found shows i was looking for that were 20 years old. some that i went to i figuered "nobody would ever tape them"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-06 21:14 by Donkey Girl Scout.

... from the Words of One Syllable Department: [news.yahoo.com]