Terminology

[Ted O'Reilly]

The current Miles in Europe discussion makes me question why these recordings are called 'bootlegs'. Illegal releases of the content are bootlegs, but the recordings themselves are legit. They are all radio or television audio recordings, for which the musicians were paid, often handsomely: European broadcasters were/are mostly State Entities with proper budgets.

If Miles' label (call it Columbia) makes an agreement with the original broadcaster, and the artist/estate agrees, the release isn't a bootleg, IMHO. It's a new release of archival material. (And it means "The Complete Columbia Recordings of ...." is out-of-date ).

To me a REAL bootleg is when some dolt sits in the audience with a 29 dollar cassette machine with failing batteries, then puts it out as a somehow special event, a la "The only meeting of two great artists at this famous club"...

And while I'm in a head-scratching mode: 'covers'. Stan Getz playing Summertime isn't a 'cover'. Just because the performer didn't write it, doesn't make it a 'cover'. It's repertoire. The NY Phil doesn't 'cover' Beethoven.

A 'cover' is Pat Boone copying note-for-note Little Richard's recording of Rootie Tootie and rushing it into the White market to rip off the Black artist.

I feel better now, having got all that off my chest.

[A Lark Ascending]

'Bootleg' suggest 'illicit'.

There's a 'cool' that hangs around illicit in many areas (soft drugs, booze during prohibition etc).

I suspect that's the marketing angle. Suggests you're buying something not easy to get from behind a counter with a hint of danger about it. All without having to leave the house.

Edited July 21, 2011 by A Lark Ascending

[Neal Pomea]

Not really a terminology question, I guess, but why is it verboten to link to music downloads or even God forbid speak the name of sites that provide links, but it's perfectly fine to link to YouTube videos that are every bit as much under copyright as songs? Never quite understood this. Sometimes the very person who is an absolutist about music mp3s unhesitatingly links to YouTube video clips of copyrighted material.

[marcello]

Ted, you're right, and you're right!

[Ted O'Reilly]

There's a 'cool' that hangs around illicit in many areas (soft drugs, booze during prohibition etc).

...and maybe that's why most girls like 'bad boys'? It must be getting harder for girls to find them, what with everybody getting tattoos these days.

[jazzbo]

Regarding the Miles recordings and similar radio broadcast items: it's not a bootleg if Columbia or the radio rights holder releases it, but it is if someone just puts it out on cd with no affiliation to any of the right-holders, right?

As for the youtube links, I agree with you, I really have an aversion to youtube (which isn't rational, but has more to do wtih how many links I get sent or see and just don't want to have my time taken up that way). To me it's the same as an MP3 on a blog, or should be on this forum if we're applying rules fairly.

Edited July 21, 2011 by jazzbo

[Ted O'Reilly]

Regarding the Miles recordings and similar radio broadcast items: it's not a bootleg if Columbia or the radio rights holder releases it, but it is if someone just puts it out on cd with no affiliation to any of the right-holders, right?

Yup, I'd say so.

But even the Radio Rights Holder would have to have further permission from at the artist, since it's most likely the original contract was for one- or two airings ONLY.

And if he's under an exclusive recording contract with, say, Columbia, the record company AT THE TIME OF THE RADIO RECORDING would likely have a right of first-refusal to commercially issue it, even if the artist is now with another company.

Many bootlegs are simply illegitimate releases of the edited concert broadcasts, taken off the air onto a home tape machine. Sometimes, a 'collector' has a friend at the radio station who steals a dub, who high-speed dubs it for another friend who makes copies of it for his personal circle only, one of whom issues the off-speed cassette version on an Andorran label. (And that's the truth! )

[Ted O'Reilly]

Oh, and let me throw in this 'terminology' too: remix, or re-mix. ONLY if you have access to the original multi-track recordings can you 're-mix'.

Original mono can't be remixed. With today's sophisticated equipment, it's possible to re-equalize (shift the frequencies around a bit, re-emphasize the bass or mid-range or treble, or ALL) then add some reverb/echo, but remember, that's changing what the artist and original producer signed off on. If you're working from two-track stereo, you can shift the image slightly, I suppose, but it's much like the mono situation.

I think that's all for today, but no promises.

For tomorrow, we'll take on "presently" (doesn't mean NOW), and "hopefully", and maybe the complete abscence of adverbs in current usage. I'll go now, my self-inflicted heat-headache is getting worse.

[GA Russell]

And if he's under an exclusive recording contract with, say, Columbia, the record company AT THE TIME OF THE RADIO RECORDING would likely have a right of first-refusal to commercially issue it, even if the artist is now with another company.

This reminds me of the Monk-Coltrane Carnegie Hall release of a few years ago. Monk was a Riverside artist and Trane was a Prestige artist. Yet the release was put out by EMI/Blue Note. I find it hard to believe that Concord passed on the opportunity, although I guess anything is possible.

[marcello]

Picking up what I heard in Alan Bergman's office ( who represents the Monk estate in these matters), I believe that in fact, Concord did actually pass on the Monk/Trane release.

It went to the highest bidder.

[GA Russell]

Thanks marcello.