HART@VTMATH.MATH.VT.EDU (Heath (703)552-3177) (03/27/91)
Thanks to everybody who has sent in clarifications and corrections
to my description of the "This Woman's Work" pix. I certainly
learned a lot. (Maybe someday I'll break down and get a TV so
I can see more of her videos.) One assumption I made that I'd
like to see either confirmed or refuted is whether the LP set
contains the same pictures.
I'd like to offer a clarification to Andrew Marvick's recent
letter. At least around here, it is _not_ illegal to purchase
bootleg recordings. It is only illegal to distribute them.
I know there are as many opinions on bootleg recordings as there
are fans out there, so I'm about to open up a bag of worms and
get flamed, but here goes. (Actually, I'm sort of looking
forward to the flames. . .)
IMO IMO IMO IMHO IMVHO (Got it? Okay:) I see bootlegs as falling
into two categories:
1) Live material and b-sides
2) Demos, and other unreleased stuff
I don't have much of a problem with bootlegs of the first category.
This material is stuff Kate (or whatever artist you want) had
presented to an audience. It's stuff she _wanted_ to be heard.
It may be out of print now, or maybe never published, but it was
material that Kate was proud enough of to "give" to a loyal
following.
Demos, on the other hand, are tracks that she wrote, but didn't
let out. She may have had a good reason for not wanting them
released. Some of them she may consider inferior, but some of
them may have a personal meaning to her that she later deceided
that she didn't want public. When I listen to her demos, I feel
like I'm reading someone else's diary. To me that makes bootleg
demos "more" of a violation than bootleg concerts or bootleg
b-sides.
This at least is how bootlegs fall on my sensibiliities.
Anyone else care to comment?
-_Heath-_