DCC Archive Steve - How to break a butterfly on a wheel?

Okay Steve, let's say I'm Jeff Beck (humor me) and a bootleg comes out that's absolutely fantastic. The fans hassle me to an annoying extent, and I finally check the archives and find the matser tape of "that show" is fairly poor.

Is it possible to take that very bootleg, give it to Epic or EMI and ask that it be released legitimately? Given if the quality of this boot was in suprisingly good order, form, quality, could *I* as Jeff Beck release it and call it my own, ie: steal from the bootlegger?

There must be politics in this somewhere, and you have a much better familiarity on this subject than I do. I also must think in many given possibilities there may be other factors involved which may or may not "let" this happen.

TIA Steve.

 

Oh its been done. The Beatles BBC set has a couple tracks that have been sourced from bootlegs. Also Anthology 1 there's a few too. They'll never admit to it of course.

And wasn't there a bunch of releases from Frank Zappa that was sourced from bootlegs? I don't have any but I seem to have read that he didn't even bother to clean them up at all!

 

But a lot of those "Beat The Boots" were decent. I own a couple and liked em!

 

Also see the recently released, two box sets from Emerson Lake & Palmer!

 

Van Morrison released bootleg live material on the b sides of european singles in the past couple years.

Chip

 

I'm not sure I understand. If the bootleg is "fantastic" how can the master tape be "fairly poor"? Do you mean hypothetically that the bootleggers have access to a better tape than what's in Jeff Beck's archives, somehow?

If this question is inspired by Pete Townshend's screed about Leeds, you have to realize Pete is being disingenuous, deliberately, to cloud the issue of what is wrong with the new Leeds. Pete implies that he could not have produced a CD that sounded the same as the boot, because he does not have a copy of the boot. But the mix on the boot is sourced from the multitrack master, which of course Pete does have. The Leeds boot most definitely does not come from a tape better than what's available to Townshend. It would be easy for him to duplicate the boot mix if he wanted to. Anyway, the reason the boot is so much better is not that it has a better mix, but because it was not mastered by an incompetent who compressed and nonoised it to death. Pete's essay focuses on irrelevancies, because he doesn't want us to focus on the real, relevant issue (the quality of Jon Astley's work).

But yeah, I would think an artist could take any bootleg and release it exactly as is, if they wanted to... assuming they had not in some manner signed away the rights to that particular performance (ie, I think the Stones could release a copy of a post-1970 boot, but not a pre-1970 boot because the material would be "owned" by Abkco).

 

Quoth Jason

Well, I *do* think the mix is better on the boot, but that's a whole other issue...

 

I don't think it's fair to assume that an artist may have (or have access to) the "best" or even original recording. We hope they do - but it may not be true.

A second generation dub may be in better shape than the master it was taken from 20 years ago, if the tape was never deemed worthy of proper preservation by it's keeper.

Leeds (as an lp) was really a "stall" by The Who between Tommy and the confused "Lifehouse" project. The fact that it remains as one of the greatest performances by one of the greatest rock bands notwithstanding. None of us - or even the Who - knew it at the time. I have heard the "Complete" boot, and while the honesty of the performance makes it miles above ANY of the released versions, sonically it still doesn't surpass ANY released version (prior to the latest - I have not heard it yet).

I must mention that all versions of the boot I have heard so far are MP3 sourced - this may be a factor.

Of course - I would LOVE to be convinced otherwise - Luke: e-mail me. I'm sure I gotta have SOMETHING on your "wish list".

 

Al,

Well one cannot completely argue your view on it sonically, as the Complete boot has it's sonic stubble, much like my face first thing in the morning, it's quite honestly a very real and convincing account of the article closest to definate in my book.

The crackles, the vocal flubs, the extended stage chatter, and the seemingly straight play of the program makes it one of my favorites.

No, Luke's right about all on this one, IMHO. The sound is phenominal. Makes the other 2 MCA's sound like an exercise in ruining some vital nooks and cranny's of Who history. The only thing I might miss is the 6-8' of tape run backwards in "Magic Bus" that was evident in the 1st LP and CD release, but that makes me too sentimental. Who the heck had that idea in the first place?? Weird, man.

You can literally listen on headphones and still feel the performace seep into your conscience quite easilly, eyes closed.

 

Here are some of my feelings on the sound quality of the boot:

I far prefer the mix on the boot to *any* official release. No added echo, a nice "natural" feel - it seems like you're hearing the hall itself and not some silly 50s style slapback.

I'd venture to say that the sound quality itself is better on the bootleg than on the original LP/CD. I've got the Polydor CD of the original album, and to me it just has a compressed sound to it. The boot, on the other hand, sounds very open and natural.

I *will* give you that the remix (1995) has better sound quality than the bootleg. Less hiss, better defined drums, etc. As I've said before, though, the mix just totally ruins it for me.

Does the DE sound better than the bootleg (for Tommy, anyway)? IMO, no. Again, there's less hiss, but it's harsh and shrill as hell. Everything has a hollow quality to it. Bad, bad, bad. The boot, on the other hand, sounds much more full and "real".

I have *no* doubts that the original 8-track masters are in fine shape. I don't hear any tape related problems on the DE, only problems with mastering and (to a somewhat lesser extent) mixing.

The bootleg (to me) makes you feel like you're at the show, while the DE (and to a lesser extent, the 1995 CD) makes you feel like you're listening to everything in a small room. I have to wonder if on the official mixes they cut the ambience track (singular) during the actual songs.

To Sckott, that backwards guitar in Magic Bus was right where an edit was made. I think Pete felt he was "cheating" by making the edit, so he put that bit in to make it even more noticeable. Of course, there are 2 or 3 additional edits in that song, but...

 

Actually, Apple did request home tapes and rare songs from "other" sources when they were compiling the BBC set. I may be wrong, but I think they even reference a few tracks that "got away".