Talk:Bootleg recording/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 09:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks cool, I'll take it! FunkMonk (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"arose among Pink Floyd collectors" Has it been adopted by collectors of other bands?

Not as documented in reliable sources from what I can find. :-/ Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems some mention of Frank Zappa's enormous Beat the Boots, Beat the Boots II, and Beat the Boots III series ("part of Zappa's campaign to dissuade his fans from buying illegal recordings of his concerts") could warrant a mention under Official releases?

As promised, there is some Zappa down in "Official Releases". I never realised he wanted the FBI to nail the bootleggers - gosh! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"This term has become an umbrella term for illicit, unofficial, or unlicensed recordings, including vinyl LPs, bootleg silver CDs, or any other commercially sold bootlegged media or material." The bolded occurrences of the word "bootleg" seem redundant/arbitrary, as the sentence is already about what the term has become an umbrella for.

Agreed, removed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One comment that's just come to mind is what style of English the article should use. I've written it as British English, but other editors have gone for American. The industry was popularised in the US, and certainly some of the more popular bootlegs were by US artists, but so were British ones (eg: Kum Back, Live'R Than You'll Ever Be, The Dark Side of the Moo), and since then they've been produced by anyone anywhere. So I wonder what style of English we ought to go for. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is up to the main writer to set the standards, especially when the term isn't specifically connected to any nationality. FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I care much, but there are some MOS guidelines about using boldface outside the lead that seem to discourage it:[1]

Fixed. I think this was stuff in the original lead that I moved around and forgot about. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"A bootleg recording is an audio or video recording of a performance" Specify musical performance, if that is exclusively the case. Alternatively change "not officially released by the artist" to "music/recording artist". Perhaps also change "the" to "an" artist.

The obvious counter-example I can think of is The Troggs Tapes, which is generally considered a bootleg, but it doesn't strictly contain music bar a few drum beats and strummed chords, none of which is really the main appeal of it. Also the Shakespeare "bootlegs" documented in the first part of the history section aren't music either, but at least Heylin's books consider them part of the topic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful to clarify the scope fuerther, especially since this article is practically only about recordings by musical artists, and since Shakespeare texts are not "recordings", though this is what the title implies the article is about... In the case of the Troggs Tapes, they were recorded by musical artists, so perhaps the "not officially released by the artist" to "music/recording artist" version would be a compromise... Otherwise, I guess this article should somehow cover for example recordings of stage performances by actors? Also, we have stuff like Cam (bootleg), which also seems to fall under a broader scope... Actually, it could seem the current title has too broad a scope... Something to think about, at least. FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The litmus test I used is when I type "bootleg" into Google, the dictionary definition I get back is "an illegal musical recording, especially one made at a concert". A cam is subtly different, as if you miss the showing of a film, you can watch exactly the same one again very soon after, which is impossible for a bootlegged concert - plus films are generally officially released on DVD after theatre showings, while bootlegs generally aren't.

Something missing from the article at the moment that should hopefully clarify the scope is a mention of sales figures. Heylin's book certainly says while collectors had been doing original soundtracks for most of the 20th century, they would sell 1,000 copies while The Great White Wonder and Live'R Than You'll Ever Be sold 250,000. That said, I think a few more sentences documenting theatre bootlegs wouldn't hurt. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. FunkMonk (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there is a "pre 1960s" section in there now which talks about the rise in copyright through the 19th century, pirate sheet music, and classical bootlegs. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"managed to obtain a selection of unreleased Dylan songs" What was the source of the recordings? Stolen?

No, the reel to reel tape was available to purchase within the industry for radio broadcast, they bought a second hand one and decided to mass-produce it. I've explained a bit more in the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"(incorrectly assumed to be the Royal Albert Hall for years)" Not sure if that level of detail is particularly relevant in this article.

I would say it is, simply because "Dylan at the Albert Hall [sic]" has a good claim to be the best known and best selling bootleg ever. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the source photo of the Pink Floyd cover[2] appears to be unknown, I don't think it can be licensed freely, but needs a fair use rationale. We don't know where the cow photo itself was first published.

We (sort of) do know the photographer, it was the same guy who made the bootleg (Clinton 1994 .p197, also referenced in the bootleg's own article) and he was more interested in the cover than the contents. However, as he was blatantly infringing copyright (everything on the boot had previously been released, albeit not in an easy-to-obtain state in the US c. 1975) he used a pseudonym "Richard". How can we fit that in the file's licence box? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be possible to include all that under description and author. FunkMonk (talk) 11:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, should be done now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This cover[3] on the other hand, does not contain any copyrightable artwork, so it could be PD in theory.

Agreed, I've changed it to {{PD-shape}} Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The DMCA has ruled that YouTube's owner, Google cannot be held responsible for content, allowing bootleg media to be hosted on it. As the technology to host videos is open and available, shutting down YouTube may simply mean the content migrates elsewhere." This seems to be outdated. I and another guy had collectively uploaded pretty much all known Led Zeppelin video bootlegs on Youtube back in 2007, but Google began clamping down shortly after, and now has software that can recognise even live recordings of songs, automatically disabling the sound of the videos.

I'll have a look around for a more up to date source, but from my experience what gets clamped on YouTube are pirate copies of officially released material, while very well known bootlegs are just a click away. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be done on a case by case basis then. The Led Zeppelin videos that were deleted have never been released, and they were removed on the request of the record company. A video of Björk at the Roskilde Festival I recorded also had its sound removed. So I guess it depends on how strict the artists/record companies are. Seems to be a glitchy system:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 11:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit more from a Rolling Stone report from 2012, but that gives the impression that YouTube bootlegs are here to say. Indeed, when I typed in "youtube bootleg" into Google, the first hit I got was "Dazed and Confused" from the March 1969 BBC session (and hasn't that been released officially?) I think while videos have been removed, they've just come back - there was a time you couldn't find any King Crimson bootlegs on YouTube, largely due to Robert Fripp's rigorous enforcement, but now they're a dime a dozen. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, seems I should maybe dust off my collection... I've been kind of bitter about it since 2007, haha... FunkMonk (talk) 09:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Even if a song is "traditional" in the public domain" What is meant by this?

Any public domain song who does not have a known author registered with a suitable publishing company is listed as "Traditional" on album credits. For instance, A Night at the Opera's version of "God Save The Queen" has the credit "Traditional, arranged May" on the label, and Thin Lizzy's version of "Whiskey in the Jar" is credited "Traditional, arranged Lynott / Bell / Downey". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, then I know what is meant, the text just seems oddly worded. Could it be made clearer somehow? Perhaps say "if a song is a traditional arrangement with no known copyright" or similar? FunkMonk (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the "Bob Dylan bootleg recordings" link under see also should be incorporated into the text relevant to him, it is a bit arbitrary why he should be the only specific artist mentioned there.

Done Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: I think I've addressed all these points aside from the Br / Am English, is there anything else? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great to me. Decided on an Engvar? FunkMonk (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm the main contributor (only editor with over 100 edits) and American would involve changing all the dates on citations, I've gone for British simply for convenience. So, are we good to go? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a pass then, merry Christmas! FunkMonk (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And to you, too! I think this one has been at the back burner to take to GA for about three years.... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]