The music companies don't even know the stats. Just like the movie companies, they make them up & put terrifying numbers on claiming to be losses & now they march around youtube serving take down notices left right & centre because they don't get a cut of the ad revenue. But youtube & audience recordings are two totally different things. Bands will usually only object to audience recordings because they are not of a quality that the artist wants people to listen to. Porcupine Tree, for example, have instructed dime not to allow torrents of their shows, as have other artists. Nowadays, more & more bands will have a webcast steaming live, but, and this is rather ironic, usually the audio quality is worse than what a state of the art audio recorder with decent mics on can capture. But then people will still capture the web streams/ casts & any artist who thinks this isn't going to happen needs their head examining. Same goes for FM broadcasts & those have been going on for many decades. Sadly they are being superseded by cr@ppy internet & satellite radio streams with audio that has been compressed to hell to fit in the bandwidth. Nonetheless, they can be very easily captured & bands know that. There are bands who also actively encourage tapers. I remember The Mish telling their fans in 1990 that tapers were welcome to give it a shot (which I did), as they knew the results would never match pro recordings. It sort of works along the lines of branded ashtrays in pubs (when they used to allow smoking). The logic being, the ashtrays were often stolen, but the pubs & breweries didn't care. They didn't care because they would end up on a table at a student's party or similar & serve as free advertising for whatever beer logo they were carrying. The same can be said of bootlegs. At some stage someone will say, "Have you heard this lot?" To his/ her friend & play them that recording. There it is. An advert for the artist & one the artist didn't need to pay for. I think that's a massive pro rather than a con. One more thing. Bands actually make a heck of a lot more money playing live than they do by releasing recordings.
Please don't get me started on Periscope though...
That's a different animal altogether. If people want to pay good money for a concert & then periscope it live (also costing them data charges), well that's just daft.
Post by blackclouds on Mar 23, 2016 10:58:37 GMT 1
Robert did say that he owned a bootleg recording of a band he liked, and enjoyed it a lot more than studio recordings from that band. I don't mind the idea of recording and sharing cure shows with genuine cure fans who love the sound of the cure playing live, every show has its own unique energy to it. I hate the idea of people recording cure shows purely to sell and make profit. I remember back in the old days before Internet searching every second hand record store I could find for rare cure stuff, and I was disgusted at the price some stores were charging for cure bootleg shows, some were over 200 dollars each. Pure greed.
I like bootlegs. Vinyl bootlegs above all. They give me the chance of hearing 1980/81/82/84 gigs that otherwise could have been lost forever. They gave me the oportunity of experiencing Seventeen Seconds/Faith/Pornography tours (when I was just a 9 year old kid). As Steve said, they are historians. They did the job. So I pay for it. Grateful with all those tapers. From my point of view, no problem.
