It seems to me that now Tigermilk is supposedly fetching 100 to 200 pounds sterling, someone is bound to bring out a vinyl bootleg, if they haven't done so already. (and if they have, I'd quite like a copy!). A bootleg will be a close copy of the original, but with presumably some inevitable loss of sound quality. The bootleggers make a load of money by fooling fans, who may never have seen an original to tell the difference anyway. The value of the original copies will go down, The band will not get any royalties or share of profit. Surely it would be better for them to swiftly bring out a reissue, (maybe on CD, so there's no problem differentiating new copies from the original). I guess there are a few fans (me included!) who'll still want to get the original, but at least if people can buy the thing in one form or another, the 'street price' will drop to below the point where it is worth someone's while to bootleg it. And a lot more people will get to hear the songs! (I particularly prefer the version of "The State I Am In" to the version on the DOW EP) (Phew! no stranger to controversy, me!) In the meantime, my advice if you're offered a copy of Tigermilk in mint condition is to be very suspicious, there are few records that are over two years old which don't show signs of wear, on the sleeve at least. Does anyone know what the band thinks? (I don't have 'net access, only email, so maybe this stuff has all been covered before.) Cheers, Rocker, rocker@andyclin.exnet.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- . This message was brought to you by the Sinister mailing list. . To send to the list please mail "sinister@majordomo.net". . For subscribing, unsubscribing and other list information please see . http://www.majordomo.net/sinister . For questions about how the list works mail owner-sinister@majordomo.net . We're all happy bunnies humming happy bunny tunes. Aren't we? -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen J. Wood wrote:
It seems to me that now Tigermilk is supposedly fetching 100 to 200 pounds sterling, someone is bound to bring out a vinyl bootleg, if they haven't done so already. (and if they have, I'd quite like a copy!).
A bootleg will be a close copy of the original, but with presumably some inevitable loss of sound quality.
The bootleggers make a load of money by fooling fans, who may never have seen an original to tell the difference anyway.
What you are referring to is a _Pirate_. Pirate records are ripoffs of something that was put out legitimately. Bootlegs are of music that was never released (like if someone made a B&S at the BBC), or released in a different form ( like some of the remix collections that came out in the early '90's). It is very importiant to _me_ for people to make this distinction. Bootlegs, although I don't condone them, provide collectors with otherwise hard or impossible to get material. Pirates just ripoff the band, the record company, and ultimately the consumer because the quality is substandard. Most of the cassettes bought in 3rd world countries are pirates. In those places the copyright laws are relaxed, so it may not be illegal, but they almost always sound poor. In the case of B&S, if someone made an exact replica of Tigermilk and tried to pass it off as the real thing, it would be piracy. If someone made it and sold it to retailers or the public as a bootleg, then it would be so under my definition because of its scarcity. Sometimes it's a fine line. Usually it's not. Anyway, we'll get a proper reissue someday, and then it won't matter. Aadam Cap't of the nomenclature police ----------------------------------------------------------------------- . This message was brought to you by the Sinister mailing list. . To send to the list please mail "sinister@majordomo.net". . For subscribing, unsubscribing and other list information please see . http://www.majordomo.net/sinister . For questions about how the list works mail owner-sinister@majordomo.net . We're all happy bunnies humming happy bunny tunes. Aren't we? -----------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (2)
-
aadam＠interaccess.com -
Stephen_J._Wood＠andyclin.exnet.com