Championing Bootlegs Is Bad

[Rabid Axelmod]

Really like the site etc. but putting bootlegs on a mantel is out of order I think.

[Gingham Kitchen]

I don’t think anyone is championing the cause of bootlegging as a good thing at all, but, in this case, the results were hugely influential, and sent lots of people out to collect the original records. Ironically, of course, the artists wouldn’t have benefited from that, either, so are you against second hand records, too?

In the longer term, interest in the artists bootlegged often led to a renaissance for them - take your near namesake David Axelrod, for instance - and that included legitimate reissues and retrospectives, paying gigs and, in some cases, new material. Again, I'm absolutely not saying that bootlegging is cool on its own terms, simply that, in this case, it was a prime factor in creating something cool and, as such, is indivisible from that early 90s scene of discovery.

[Ian Townsend]

Rabid!

I appreciate the courteous way you've phrased your disagreement. Of course the law is the law, copyright infringement is copyright infringement and there would be no defence for it in a court of law. So you're right in one respect.

As for putting them on a mantel, yes I have done that and will continue to do so. The very best ones are like the sort of fantastic mixtapes you get from friends who know how to segue tunes together. In some cases the best ones are better than the sum of their parts.

Also, as GK rightly and eloquently put, their influence was enormous, they stimulated further purchases and best of all, in a number of cases lead to legitimate re-issues which may not have otherwise happened.

I've been researching their evolution for nine months and I'm more interested in them now than I was when I started and via this forum I've heard from Dexters i wouldn't have otherwise found.

I can't apologise for my interest I'm afraid.

[Rabid Axelmod]

Thanks for the replies. I understand where you are coming from and I suppose most people reading the features appreciate their impact as source material and precursors to searching out original and official releases. Gingham Kitchen brings up the 2nd hand market aspect of official releases but these would have had dues paid first time around so maybe not as bad as outright bootlegs. Perhaps there was a (hate to say it) right time for bootlegs but with the new millenium communications explosion there is no reason for bootlegs to exist in the modern age...

[treeboy]

Don't really understand the reference to the "modern age". Surely it's easier than ever to access stuff and download it without the artists seeing a penny. I can see both sides of the argument for sure, don't get me wrong.
I was blown away by the Chocolate Soup comps in the early 80s, and the seeds of the mantra were sown then, "dig deeper". Gingham Kitchen is bang on the money with the Axelrod example. The South Bank show bears testament to that.
It's great to discover new sounds, in any way. Not everyone has bottomless pockets and can keep pace with the "elite" collectors. Which is where a lot of the sounds we are talking about would remain.
Interesting thread

[Runswick]

It's great to discover new sounds, in any way. Not everyone has bottomless pockets and can keep pace with the "elite" collectors. Which is where a lot of the sounds we are talking about would remain.
Interesting thread
It is great to discover new sounds in any way be it, radio, live, TV, Internet etc etc. in the 70s and 80s I always found the best music via mix tapes from from friends, then went out and bought the stuff I liked. I see those 90s bootlegs as being a bit like that, and it sounds from the article as though people used them to get try something new for cheap before exploring further....

The stuff that rises massively in price and becomes expensive only does so because it has become known about in some way shape or form. Someone has shared it (mix tape / comp / on the Internet), a critical mass of people have approved it ( 'Whoah, that's great!), and then a similar mass of people start pursuing it.

By this token I think 'big ticket' collectors are potentially the most pathetic and insecure individuals in record collecting. They can seemingly only buy stuff that they know a whole load of other people have approved and then, possibly, cannot afford.

But that record wouldn't have got to that point if it hadn't first been shared somewhere. And does anyone know any artists who've careers have been ruined by a bootleg of their work?