|
The Illicit Recording Debate |
Participant's text
Jeff Preston being quoted by a participant
[ Jeff Preston's response ]
From: "Participant 1" (Excerped from "In The Dead Of Night" digest #126, with permission) Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 09:11:25 -0500 Subject: Fans' Rights vs. Artists' Rights Hello Mortals: What you've just witnessed was a play. We have put together two opposing viewpoints and let them clash mercilessly against each other to create nothing more than an effect in the psychedelic mindscape of all our ethics. Behind the scenes we "made nice", as you will see. I hope there is closure. To set the stage a bit, I ["Participant 1"], wrote an unbending opinion on the way Jeff conducts his life, around May 13, 1997. I was harsh, I flamed, I'm a newbie. I wrote: I'm just gonna jump in here... (Remember?) Jeff wrote, the next day, a reply which didn't get posted 'til after we made nice:
"....But let's get to the brass tacks: Yes, I do reserve the right to not distribute submissions to Atavachron which, in my opinion, help others to obtain bootleg recordings. .... You can beat that strawman all day, if you like, but it has nothing to do with your rights vs. those of the artist. Isn't this the real issue -- fans' rights vs. artists' rights?..."
Lo! Jeff goes as far as actually relenting in his policies the next day! Wow.
"Now, for something completely different... in response to
the objections over the years about the bootleg policy
in force on Atavachron (and being quite tired of having
people paint me as a censor and a revisionist), I have decided
to set up a special page on the Web site where people can
discuss the merits of these illicit recordings. HOWEVER, there
will be a few ground rules:
* Any specific reference to a Holdsworth bootleg (or otherwise
illicit recording, whether recorded by someone in an audience
or in violation of a legal contract) will be replaced with
words to the effect of "[illicit A.H. recording]", and;
* Everyone except for me will be posting anonymously -- I
will know what address sent which posting, but the addresses
will not be posted on the Web page.
Otherwise, the gloves are off. Anyone with a strong pro-
bootleg philosophy should be forewarned that there's a good
possibility that you will be quite offended by getting into
an extended discussion with me on this topic."
So I wrote: Dear Mr. Preston: Although I personally have never got into a run-in with you (about anything), I HAVE been guilty of publicly "painting you as a censor and a revisionist" on the UK site (ITDON #124). I don't know if I was wrong. However, I must congratulate you on the bold new step you have taken in creating "a special page on the Web site where people can discuss the merits of these illicit recordings". I don't even have a problem with your usage of the word, illicit. I don't happen to speak this way with MY friends (to us, bootlegs are the whole point of listening to Holdsworth short of actually seeing him LIVE! - the album coming in a distant 3rd) but as an individual with Individual's Rights you are free to use any terminology you will. I am happy for you and I am happy for your website that you have taken this step. The site will be much more legit, in my opinion, even if people simply refer to a specific tour date they heard rather than a specific arrangement of iron-oxide particles on a strip of plastic decoded over a playback device (illicit tape). Again, in my opinion, if someones says, "The solo Holdsworth played in [ A.H. composition ] the night of [ date ] was completely different than his solo of the previous night" it can be a perfectly valid starting point for a conversation and really shouldn't offend anyone. I assume you reasoned this out in coming to your decision. People's comments are just that, and do not have to represent an official statement made by the artist. Well, I better go now and watch the awesome video I shot of Eric Johnson recently. I don't distribute my videos but I sure get A LOT of pleasure reliving those great moments recorded on S-VHS quality video and Super Hi-Fi Stereo Mics played through my high-end Sony stereo and 35 inch Sony TV. Best of Luck to you,your website, and Allan. ["Participant 1"] Jeff wrote ( I only include this since there is nothing "personal" by Jeff here):
"I don't think you'll be happy with the site, since any reference that might assist someone in a bootleg-buying decision will be... censored, for lack of a better term. I agree that people's comments don't have to carry any sort of "stamp of approval," but I will not allow the resources that I have set up to be used to the perceived detriment of a good friend. There are plenty of other soapboxes -- no need to use mine for this."
I'm trying to be conciliatory now but Jeff is still a bit defensive. So I try again to make peace while letting him know that I didn't want a fight - I just wanted my way. And I got it... it may be HIS site but hey this is HOLDSWORTH and this is AMERICA and this is THE WEB and anything goes. So I wrote back: "Hi There, Jeff" Thanks for writing back. I honestly wasn't trying to get a rise out of you in my letter to you (in case you thought that of me). I WAS trying to on the letter to In the Dead of Night. In my letter to you I simply wanted to express my happiness for what you were trying to do with the new page. I fully understand the limited scope of the intent for such a page but I am happy all the same! You are absolutely right that I have never tried to start up a discussion with Allan on this matter for which he is so renowned. I'm afraid we are as far apart in our opinions as we could be. From the moment he asked my friend, Alex, back in 1982, to give him his copy of Velvet Darkness in exchange for a autographed pic of the IOU Band and a copy of his new album, IOU, I realized just how serious the man is. For my part, I would be happy to have a civil conversation with Allan. The reason I have never taken the initiative to start up something like this is because of the comparative anonymity required to pull off such a covert recording [people get busted doing this]. I'm not afraid, mind you, as I've never gotten popped. I'm at concerts not only to enjoy the show but to make a quality recording of a guitarist from which I can learn more about our art. I don't steal licks however. For me it is simply another instructional tape. In closing, I want to reiterate that in my humble opinion you are doing the appropriate thing for an official website. I don't feel it would be appropriate either to endorse boots. Censorship and all, what you've decided to do is very tasteful. I can't help but wonder, though, if Allan himself is softening. All the best, ["Participant 1"]. I'm quoted: >In my letter to you I simply >wanted to express my happiness for what you were trying to do with the >new page. I fully understand the limited scope of the intent for such a >page but I am happy all the same!
"I'm glad you see some value in it. I don't want to prevent anyone from expressing their opinions about bootlegs (in fact, in any other forum but Atavachron, I cannot possibly do so). However, I don't want to do anything that will help someone to find bootlegs of Allan's performances. That's why I've made the stipulations for the new page."
> For my part, >I would be happy to have a civil conversation with Allan.
"You can contact Allan through his manager, Akira Yada;
here's the address:
Allan Holdsworth
c/o Akira Yada
Arrow Field Productions, Inc.
14203 Leadwell St
Van Nuys, CA 91405"
>The reason I >have never taken the initiative to start up something like this is >because of the comparative anonymity required to pull off such a covert >recording (people get busted doing this) .
"That's because it's not only against the artist's wishes (in most cases); it's also against the law."
>In closing, I want to reiterate that in my humble opinion you are doing >the appropriate thing for an official website. I don't feel it would be >appropriate either to endorse boots. Censorship and all, what you've >decided to do is very tasteful. I can't help but wonder, though, if >Allan himself is softening. All the best, ["Participant 1"].
"Softening? How?"
["Participant 1"]: quick response. . . Allowing this new page on his site.
[ I didn't consult with Allan before deciding to do this, but I *did* contact him afterward. A small clarification, but significant, IMO. ]
********************************************** Jeff's original reply that only just appeared (edited by me, of course):
>"Actually, the problem begins when people try to >assert that their selfishness supercedes the artist's >right to have a measure of control over their own work. >Do you honestly believe you have a right to *any* of >Allan Holdsworth's work -- work that *could not exist* >without his efforts -- over any objections he may >have? If so, I'd like to see your unique ethical >hypothesis in this regard (though I will not hold my >breath...."
And here it is: What I do isn't hurting anybody. You can argue it undermines an artist's money making potentianal(taping a show) but I would have to argue back that everyone who has ever asked me for access to any tape ALREADY owns (again ALREADY owns) all of Allan Holdsworth's offical records. And as far as an artist's measure of control, when an artist performs in public whether it is painting, playing or performance art you just can't stop people from capturing the moment for their family albums. My justification? Yeah, selfishness (a desire to preserve for posterity, for one's children and grandchildren a moment all too fleeting). But that's not a crime yet is it? Or is it a mortal sin? Sorry, I wouldn't know anything about that: I'm not Christian - I don't sin. I CAN be selfish, though. And I CAN be unselfish.
[ You're right in that bootlegging
cannot be *stopped* -- but it could be lessened -- and that where I hope to
play a part. I also hope this doesn't become a major point for those expressing
a pro-bootleg stance, since it equates simply to "People will always steal."
Well, duh. This is called "stating the obvious," and doesn't serve to address
anything significant, let alone some imagined contrary assertion that it doesn't
*happen*. People will always huff paint thinner, too, but I don't know too
many people who would use that as a justification for doing so themselves.
I find that people often disregard all notion of potential injury
associated with their actions when they personally derive a benefit from those
actions. For instance, having sex with someone else's wife (as long as it's
consentual) probably wouldn't be "hurting anybody," by this standard, but I wouldn't
necessarily consider it unhurtful. The guy down the street from you who filed
a fraudulent insurance claim may not be slapping you silly, but when you see
him driving a new vehicle, do you think the increase in your insurance premiums
is some unfortunate coincidence? Life doesn't occur in a vacuum; some
effects are not observed because you're *straining your neck to turn your head
the other way* to avoid seeing something you don't really want to see.
As far as this "historian/preservationist" assertion is concerned, it doesn't
wash. If bootleggers thought this was their duty, they would confront Allan
Holdsworth, and plead the most convincing arguments of their young lives to
have him willingly allow them to do this. But instead, they simply take their
souvigniers, as if they have an unquestionable right to them. They don't
treat Allan Holdsworth as a human being -- they treat him like a tourist
attraction. ]
"....the arguments thusfar presented by ["Participant 1"] >consist almost wholly of personal attacks on me, and >the way I choose to operate the Atavachron resources)."
Jef, you're right; your point is well taken and I apologize for the personal stuff. I don't know you and don't really have the right, or need, to degrade you (or flame you) just as a matter of human decency so that's why, you'll notice, I'm "taking-it in the stomach" and only replying to the questions you are asking me here. A further excuse on my behalf is the fact that I'm completely shellshocked and deeply despondent over the breakup of YES (RW come back!!! And Get Well soon). Again, sorry to you and to the ITDON readership and also to Ron. BTW, It's Mr. O'Neal.
[ You use a band's breakup as an *excuse* to make an attempt of character assassination on a stranger? Hmm. At any rate, the apology is accepted as far as I'm concerned. ]
>"You could conceivably maintain any number of notions >about Allan's work, but the fact (sorry: FACT!) remains >that you have *no* rights which supercede Allan's in >regard to the disposition of said work...." >....Get Real? If Allan Holdsworth wants a "chronographer," >let him hire (or consentually acquire) one. Who are these >people whose rights supposedly supercede those of the >artist -- these people who feel they needn't respect an >artist's request to tape them without permission? I'll >tell you: Selfish, maladjusted people, not unlike those >who rummage through the trash of their favorite celebrities. >They fish for Holy Grails that they can claim as "rarities," >and hold up before other "true believers" as something to >behold! ("Oh, won't my pitiful compatriots be *envious*..."; >one might wonder aloud that this is the primary motivation >for certain entire websites, hm?) , etc. These noble >aspirations to officious historianship are nothing short >of shopworn rationalizations to commit thievery, IMO. Now >we *might* have something to discuss if you're starting a >scholarship fund for Allan's kids (even though I'm not >Catholic, and don't rely on this pennance thing), but I >do have trouble putting you in that picture.
Sure, I would be willing to run the operation to collect any and all royalties due Allan from any bootleg sold. I'll use my website, my home address and any other resource I have to put forward the idea to every person who buys a boot that they owe Allan a percentage. Let me know his bank account number for wire transfers and get his record label to clear me for this. I'm serious!
[ Just write to Allan and convince him to go along with it. I'm serious too! :) ]
>"Paul told you the story about the dog, then? :)"
No, actually a friend of Allan who does not live in the same state as Paul. But since you've let the cat out of the bag, yes, ALLAN FED THE TAPES TO THE DOG!!!
[ Well, I think this is less-than-factual -- although Allan could choose to clarify the matter. I have a hard time believing that a dog would eat magnetic tape... unless it were swimming in something really yummy. I think the point you're trying to make is that Allan destroyed the tapes -- and that he... had no right to do so, right? Any explanation of his lack of rights in this regard would be helpful. ]
>"Chronographers" exploit the fact that there is little an artist >can do to prevent it from happening without the artist's >consent. They prevent the artist from having proper >editorial rights over inferior material. They violate the >law (in most cases; check the back of your tickets, folks), >as well as all ethical considerations of respect for the >artist (by not soliciting the artist's consent to be >"immortalized" in this manner).
I'm quoted again: I wish Allan and his phone pal Jeff would just relent and understand that chronicling , aw hell, bootlegging, is the ultimate kind of support for such an underground artist as he if album sales are not sacrificed (and in my experience, album sales as well as ticket sales are INCREASED). Musical statements have been made in a LIVE! context without which the world would be a far inferior thing. I'm standing up for what I believe in and coming out of the closet (to declare my right...)
>"Stand up, sit down... shake your booty -- none of this >is relevant until you explain how you, Devoted-Fan-That- >You-So-Fervently-Believe-Yourself-To-Be, have more right >to something than the actual *creator* of that something. >Please pay particular attention to the additional fact that >this creator is unwilling to either give, trade, sell or >otherwise assign that something to you. Explain this "right," >and barring arguments concerning preservation of life or >limb, I believe you will be accomplishing something as yet >unaccomplished.
************************************************** Jeff makes a good defender of Allan Holdsworth. That is admirable. I, however, play the part of the devoted music enthusiast who will stop at nothing to obtain every second's worth of rare and sublime tapage. Although I still don't understand a number of rebutts that Jeff dedicated to sending in my direction I would like the opportunity to field one or two (just for the last word :-)
[ I have to ask: How do you see yourself being different than, say, someone who appreciates that Cindy Crawford is a beautiful woman? How would you differentiate your behavior from someone who, *because* Cindy Crawford is a beautiful woman -- worthy of some two-dimensional immortalization, as most appreciators of feminine beauty would agree -- takes it upon themselves to photograph her without her knowledge at every opportunity? ]
Jeff says:
"Chronographers "violate the law (in most cases; check the back of your tickets, folks), as well as all ethical considerations of respect for the artist (by not soliciting the artist's consent to be "immortalized" in this manner).
So, it must come down to ethics and law for you. For me it only matters if I have enough interest in an artist to come out, support his playing at a smoke engulfed dive, suffer all the talking and disinterest during the quiet moments of a piece, be sure to screen the show later to all who wish to discover said artist and securely lock up the tape in an air conditioned environment to prevent it's degrading. Oh yea, and protect it with heavy arms. Fair Warning!
[ Ethics, yes; law, NO. *Law* has no bearing on my arrgument (although it has been convenient to raise it as an issue on occasions; I will admit that my understanding of criminal and civil law is pretty sketchy, and I do not deny the possibility that the act of recording a live performance covertly may not be in violation of any criminal statute anywhere). I doubt anyone would dispute my assertion that there are good laws and bad laws, and varying degrees of enforcement of those laws at any point in the continuum. In my mind, legal does NOT equal RIGHT, nor does illegal automatically connote WRONG. The only time I side with the law in cases of intellectual property, is when an artist *willingly enters into an agreement* concerning their work (and this is civil, not criminal, law). If an artist willingly enters into an agreement which is not in their best interests, I do not think they have a right to complain if all the conditions of the agreement are fulfilled by all parties. ]
I just went to an Eric Johnson show and didn't get a ticket with anything on it. Is there some "implied" restriction to entering any band's club performance with a recording device on? See, this is where I have to part with all the law-abiding subjects of the King: I just don't care. The golden rule applies to me...and that's it. If you want to tape my conversation and replay it to your friends, have at it. If you come to my show and tape my band, THANK YOU!! Right now nobody is and I feel kinda sad! It would help if I had some decent musicians, too, but that's another story. Please!! TAPE MY BAND!!
[ You are presupposing that you have something to *SAY* that would be of interest. I don't mean that to sound harsh, but it is easy for me to say that I don't mind being "chronicled" when I know that no sane person would have such an interest. You can't know what it is like to have your work misappropriated and used in ways you never intended until it actually happens, can you? ]
Jeff:
"Heh... well, I declare my right to follow you around with recording devices, and to share the resulting "chronography" with your friends, family... "
["Participant 1"]: See above. I'm sure I'm good for a few more gems such as my saying, below. I'm quoted (and this is actually good enough to go down in the Book of Sayings in the Hall of Records -- and I don't care if I'm credited for it, somebody had to say it): >Music History and future generations will value our few recordings of >virtuosi despite this scourge we (erroneously) call intellectual >property. Jeff:
I wonder if you would feel this way if you were making this posting from a work-related address. Surely your boss would have a right to know what usage you make of the 'net during business hours...?
I now reply: I AM making these posts from my home based business computer. I build terrifically high quality acoustic guitars, Martin "copies" in fact. So, I'm self-employed and making authorized copies (Martin sells me their wood, and their plans, and teaching assistance as well as other resources) of Martin guitars to sell to anyone with the money. But I don't care. I would be doing if it were totally illegal because I love Martin's design and I shamelessly promote them; the band Yes; Allan Holdsworth; and my own business on my website and anywhere I am welcome and get the chance. Check out my website for these very links if you don't believe me. I don't get any gratuity, I do it for the experience that can be had, and with the spirit and intent of the Net.
[ Well, being self-employed, I doubt anyone can berate you for goofing off on company time. But what if someone started making copies of your guitars -- good ones, but not as good as yours -- and was giving them away with *your name/trademark* on them? Would your chest swell with pride, knowing that people were crediting you with giving them a not-quite-perfect product which they otherwise would not be able to obtain? ]
This was a lot, I know. One could look at this as a train wreck or a learning experience. The one I hope that learns something is Allan Holdsworth. It is not a tenable position for him to confiscate any unofficial recordings I may own. Why would he bring up the fact that this or that item he is signing, at a record signing, is a bootleg and then hand it back to you? Does he HAVE the legal right to confiscate an item you just paid $50 for?
[ Has he ever *tried* to confiscate anything of yours? Who ever said anything about *confiscation*? This is the first I've heard of it. ]
If I resisted could I be jailed? Would he lose fans when it finally got around? Is he willing to lose those fans.
[ I won't presume to speak for Allan Holdsworth, but I would place my life's savings on a wager that he'd *gladly* be rid of "fans" who cannot respect his wishes about illicit recordings of his performances. ]
Wouldn't the world be a happier place if Allan didn't try to litigate every fan who owns a dubious recording he or she only listens to under the covers late at night? This is what I mean by let's get real.
[ By all means, let's "get real": Whom has he sued? ]
I am not trying to exploit Allan in any way.
[ You may not be trying, but you ARE succeeding. ]
I collect rare appearances by Allan which by some's standards are illicit.
[ By whose "standards" are they *not* illicit? A thief, perhaps? The word has a meaning; the definition is close at hand in any dictionary. I don't think the definition of the word can have any subjectivity applied to it, anymore than the definition for the word "pregnant." It simply applies, or does not apply. ]
I listen to and wholeheartedly enjoy these scant recordings. They warm the cockles of my Soul, you know. And now am I supposed to feel bad that I have these things in my possesion? Should I feel threatened that Allan will get the FBI to raid my home?
[ No, that would require vast mental malfunctioning of the delusional sort (which I don't think applies to you, by the way). Your delusions are not of that magnitude, IMO. But should you feel *bad* about having these things? Not if you can adequately justify your right to them, considering that the undisputed creator and rightful owner of them does not want to give, sell, trade or otherwise assign them to you. I haven't seen that assertion in your argument thusfar -- all I have seen is a belief that legitimately supporting an artist gives you an inherent right to take and use something of theirs without their permission, and another belief that no damage is done because *you* don't see any evidence of damage. I do think this is delusional, but only for convenience's sake, i.e. you WANT the bootlegs, and therefore have a RIGHT to them. Having wild fantasies about the FBI breaking in your door because of your private collection of ill-gotten tapes would easily surpass *that* on the Loony Scale! ]
Sorry. I am hardened to the prospect of this. I
don't care. My reasoning is simply this:
'Should I continue to make accurate recordings of events in which the
most significant guitarist in history (I defy anyone) participates?
--------- OR ---------hmmmmmm?
Should I destroy every recording I have that he deems UNOFFICIAL, no
matter what it cost me, because of his Official Website Moderator?'
(No direct jab there Jeff, ole boy)
[ None perceived. No, you have only your own sense of
right and wrong to appease. Perhaps you have never thought about the issue
from any other perspective... or prehaps you *have*, and are still quite
comfortable with your actions. If the latter is the case, you're not the kind of
person *I'd* want to consider as a friend, not knowing if you might someday
covertly take something important of mine which you see as insignificant. I
can only hope to express *MY* feelings (NOT Allan Holdsworth's) on this topic,
and hope that someone will give it some thought before they seek out these
misappropriated works. The degree of impact that I might have is, to me,
unimportant. If I didn't think I would have *some* impact, I wouldn't waste
hours typing this stuff, no?
At the end of the day, you only have to satisify
yourself on the matter -- I can't infuse you with a sense of fair-play, or
a sense of respect for someone which, to you, may seem absurd. All I aim to do
with these discussions is try to derail the train-of-thought which becomes
automatic for *either side* of this issue -- it's easy to lead the unexamined
life, but hardly as worthwhile, IMO. ]
EPILOGUE Jeff put forward every ounce of effort on Allan's behalf. He did a good job and wrote eloquintly. Paul is equally eloquent (say that fast) and in my opinion did the main work to allow Jeff to perceive the need to change something on the OFFICIAL ALLAN HOLDSWORTH WEB SITE whether he will want to contribute or not.
[ You give Paul too much credit -- far better proponents than he have argued these points; you're just coming into this "game" late, and may not have seen some of the excellent text-tacticians at work. Many have only corresponded with me privately, but I assure you that there are FAR more valid assertions than the ones that Paul puts forth on a regular basis. Paul is, however, quite welcome to participate here. ]
It feels a little less like the Soviet Union at last.
[ It sounds good, anyway. I await a comparison to Hitler (which is due at any time, I suppose). :) ]
I have actually contributed to that site's discussion once and feel it was a much needed change to what was being speculated on at the time. I have not wished to silence anyone here , only to bring harmony. I'm sure I've not gotten the last word. I can't wait to read more -I got such a laugh over what you said, Jeff. Finally, I have one correction to make about UK. Regarding my saying that without Holdsworth, UK was just Asia, with Holdsworth in the band, I feel UK were enigmatic. Without him, even without Bill Bruford, they were a hot band. But do they get a cigar? Asia had 2 great albums in my humble opinion. And I didn't even mind John Wetton's crooning (in either band). My intent was simply to emphasize the heavy duty contribution made by Holdsworth and Bruford and that without them UK is less artistically adventurous. I have big hopes for the new album, too, but I wouldn't be honest without admitting my utter disappointment that Allan Holdsworth wasn't included on ANY new song! Goodbye!
[ This is all that has been submitted so far. Submissions are welcomed. ]