What the hecky ho is this?!

[psychopharmacology]

Already said I agree that it's shitty when people other than the artist try to make money of stuff, which is why I hope this and anything else will hastily be distributed online to interested parties and that the official-official releases continue.

I get it, though. I'm evil. A "fan" not a fan. There's worse things happening on this earth than the wrong people making money and random Replacements LP's being distributed when they weren't intended to, just as there would be worse things happening than not having heard this LP if none of this happened.

[teddinard]

Well, the thing posted by czeskleba on Hoffman says "it is authorized" and it's "sort of like an authorized bootleg."

I trust czeskleba's information. He's worked on Replacements projects before, is cited in liner notes of them, etc. What he says here has been carefully stated by someone involved in this project, and in the absence of other information, I'll believe it, as far as it goes.

He also says "but not all interested parties were fully on board with the idea, so a decision was made" for a limited release. And "a decision was made" is a nicely passive construction. It leaves unclear who made the decision.

So this release seems to be in a very specific kind of gray area. The phrase "not...fully on board" is the sticky one. It could mean someone, let's say PW himself, said "I'm not crazy about this, I don't like it, but whatever, go ahead, as long as it's not a big thing." Or it could mean something less affirming than that.

Then again, "not...fully on board" does imply "at least a little on board," i.e. not willing to raise a stink or a big objection. So that puts this in a different category from the weird unauthorized things that pop up on Amazon from time to time.

[Jer]

Jun 18, 2022 9:04:43 GMT -5 teddinard said:

Well, the thing posted by czeskleba on Hoffman says "it is authorized" and it's "sort of like an authorized bootleg."

I trust czeskleba's information. He's worked on Replacements projects before, is cited in liner notes of them, etc. What he says here has been carefully stated by someone involved in this project, and in the absence of other information, I'll believe it, as far as it goes.

He also says "but not all interested parties were fully on board with the idea, so a decision was made" for a limited release. And "a decision was made" is a nicely passive construction. It leaves unclear who made the decision.

So this release seems to be in a very specific kind of gray area. The phrase "not...fully on board" is the sticky one. It could mean someone, let's say PW himself, said "I'm not crazy about this, I don't like it, but whatever, go ahead, as long as it's not a big thing." Or it could mean something less affirming than that.

Then again, "not...fully on board" does imply "at least a little on board," i.e. not willing to raise a stink or a big objection. So that puts this in a different category from the weird unauthorized things that pop up on Amazon from time to time.

This is very speculative. There's no grey area in something being authorized or official. But... It's possible one or both of them said "whatever go ahead but keep my name off it" sure, but that gets real murky real quick as far as the money goes. It sells WAY more if Paul and Tommy sign off and why would they ever agree to a half-ass, poorly promoted, god-even-knows release? I'd be really surprised if Paul has anything to do with this. There's better things out there that he's sitting on that would fetch a bigger payday and represent the band better than their first show in a couple decades. Tommy could be game for anything, that's the way this band has worked since the reunion. He's not holding anything up, even if he doesn't think it's great.  

It's also possible that SiriusXM owns the recording (I think that's who broadcast the concert if memory serves? I could be wrong, but I do remember listening to it live) and they're the ones who didn't sign off, and that's why this isn't authorized. It will be very interesting to hear what it sounds like. If it was sourced from a satellite radio or web broadcast it will be obvious. 

To me this is exactly one of those weird Amazon things, like the 2xLP 91 Grant Park show or those Hüsker live LPs that are popping up. Some dude finances a vinyl run from a decent sounding broadcast recording with some half-ass jacket art and knows he'll break even or better and won't get sued. Either way, seems like we've beat this to death, unless some news from official sources comes out or someone actually gets their hands on it and reports back about how it sounds and looks. Is the cover photo even from that show?

[teddinard]

Well, maybe it's wishful thinking on my part to trust czeskleba when he says, without equivocation, "it is authorized." But I don't think he'd say that about the Grant Park thing.

I will let you know what it looks and sounds like if and when my copy from Popmarket arrives. I'm not convinced it will—backordered everywhere, with vague predictions of date of availability. We shall see.

[psychopharmacology]

Guys. The source used for this LP was not circulating publicly to my knowledge, a soundboard source as per the user referenced above. Yes proper bootleggers get their hands on new sources from time to time, but in 2022 I'm more inclined to believe this was in some capacity at some point "official" via the band, Riot Fest, whoever-the-hell. This isn't a bootleg, it's a botched and low-key release that appears to have had internal drama associated with it.

There are a lot of FM broadcast boots flooding the market, some European legal loophole, but this is nowhere near related to that and, like I said, I think it's far more likely this was slightly above unofficial and slightly below official for it to have been sourced from a new source and for it to have popped up on as many legitimate retailers as it did.

Now, whether or not people want to spend their time getting angry about a 10 year old concert that maybe less than 10k people in the world are even interested in hearing is another question, but I'm just giving you my inferences here.

(I was not around when this show happened, can anyone remember any sort of radio or web broadcast for it? Any SBD sources that could've been public? I only see two AUD sources in circulation, if someone knows otherwise I would love to know.)

[Jer]

Jun 18, 2022 17:01:29 GMT -5 psychopharmacology said:

Guys. The source used for this LP was not circulating publicly to my knowledge, a soundboard source as per the user referenced above. Yes proper bootleggers get their hands on new sources from time to time, but in 2022 I'm more inclined to believe this was in some capacity at some point "official" via the band, Riot Fest, whoever-the-hell. This isn't a bootleg, it's a botched and low-key release that appears to have had internal drama associated with it.

There are a lot of FM broadcast boots flooding the market, some European legal loophole, but this is nowhere near related to that and, like I said, I think it's far more likely this was slightly above unofficial and slightly below official for it to have been sourced from a new source and for it to have popped up on as many legitimate retailers as it did.

Now, whether or not people want to spend their time getting angry about a 10 year old concert that maybe less than 10k people in the world are even interested in hearing is another question, but I'm just giving you my inferences here.

(I was not around when this show happened, can anyone remember any sort of radio or web broadcast for it? Any SBD sources that could've been public? I only see two AUD sources in circulation, if someone knows otherwise I would love to know.)

I think you're right about the source. I thought it was broadcast but I was wrong. My interest is peaked and I hope to get ears on it someday myself. But even if someone did get their hands on a pristine, mixed soundboard recording, that doesn't make it authorized. I don't think there is any grey area when it comes to something being official or not. It's a pretty clear and absolute line in my view. I also don't know this label at all, or that guy on that other board, or claim to have insider information myself. His statement was interesting for sure, but vague.

I do think it's a positive (and fun) civil discussions about the merits, ethics, and justifications for and against releases like this. Even if nobody's mind gets changed, we can all learn something. I'm not angry about it, I just want to know and share the facts, and there aren't many around this release, unfortunately. xx

[anarkissed]

I have no personal opinion about this...But I am extremely angry...Just in general...

[FreeRider]

interesting discussion here. I'm on the side of trying to respect the artist's work and I'm not as comfortable with stuff that falls into the those gray areas--is this authorized, not authorized? Official or not? First, like anyone else, I don't want to get ripped off. Second, I don't know if I should be supporting someone I don't know who may be profiting in ways that I don't like. So that's my personal feeling about the matter.

Also, I don't know if there would be consequences that could legally affect me as well as the seller. I accidentally got an unreleased song from an artist that was on the label's publishing website that was licensing songs for all of their artists for commercial use. It was an unknown and unreleased tune to everyone and I tried to save the little sample clip of it, like a 10 second sample. I guess there was a glitch with the website and I actually got the entire song, not the sample! I was pretty worried that somehow the IT guys at the label would see that something got downloaded illegally and this big record label would come after me. I have never shared it for fear of legal action and also, I'd feel guilty that I had something that the artist wasn't planning on releasing yet, if ever. That's theft, intentionally or not, and I felt bad for having it.

And also, the idea that Paul has a lot more money than he actually does is interesting. I assumed the same, figuring he had some big money from publishing and copyright royalties from Glen Campbell's farewell CD, and the Sony soundtrack to Open Season. It may have given him some financial cushion, but I don't think it made him wealthy at all, regardless of him not owning a car or driving. He certainly doesn't seem to be living extravagantly, and maybe out of necessity he really lives within his means. He's not dirt poor but it's not like he owns a fancy lake side house or anything or some fancy condo in the city, right?

Moreover, there is a really interesting essay by Ted Goia in the Atlantic that came out this winter that shows why new music is having such a hard time making money. I have no idea how bands can make a living since streaming pays nothing at all. And Paul's music, while "old", never had much broader impact as the so called classic rock stuff. The essay is here:

www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/old-music-killing-new-music/621339/

A quote from the essay:

Old songs now represent 70 percent of the U.S. music market, according to the latest numbers from MRC Data, a music-analytics firm. Those who make a living from new music—especially that endangered species known as the working musician—should look at these figures with fear and trembling. But the news gets worse: The new-music market is actually shrinking. All the growth in the market is coming from old songs.

The 200 most popular new tracks now regularly account for less than 5 percent of total streams. That rate was twice as high just three years ago. The mix of songs actually purchased by consumers is even more tilted toward older music. The current list of most-downloaded tracks on iTunes is filled with the names of bands from the previous century, such as Creedence Clearwater Revival and The Police.

I encountered this phenomenon myself recently at a retail store, where the youngster at the cash register was singing along with Sting on “Message in a Bottle” (a hit from 1979) as it blasted on the radio. A few days earlier, I had a similar experience at a local diner, where the entire staff was under 30 but every song was more than 40 years old. I asked my server: “Why are you playing this old music?” She looked at me in surprise before answering: “Oh, I like these songs.”

Never before in history have new tracks attained hit status while generating so little cultural impact. In fact, the audience seems to be embracing the hits of decades past instead....

[curmudgeonman]

Jun 20, 2022 12:07:24 GMT -5 FreeRider said:

Moreover, there is a really interesting essay by Ted Goia in the Atlantic that came out this winter that shows why new music is having such a hard time making money. I have no idea how bands can make a living since streaming pays nothing at all. And Paul's music, while "old", never had much broader impact as the so called classic rock stuff. The essay is here:

www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/old-music-killing-new-music/621339/

Thanks for posting- here is a clip I saw last year, a very good explanation of the music industry and money.




.
And another interesting video of Neil Young in a small record shop, realizing they are selling unauthorized recordings of his work.

[psychopharmacology]

To make a long story short, the past few years I was on the hunt for some early cassettes from a popular artist, their high school band. I invested thousands of my own money, years of research and reaching out, years of fighting to make sure that not only did I get these albums, but that the artist's fans were able to hear them in their entirety as well. I'm proud to say that all 6 are out there now, one of which was personally purchased and transferred by me, and while I wasn't the only person involved, none of them would be out there today had I not gone insane trying to get them. These same albums were ones the artist, 20 years ago, made an off-handed comment about "not wanting out there" or that they were "embarrassed" by them, and yet they were professionally duplicated, sold in small quantities, and paraded around in documentaries and books, and of course representing a large portion of this person's work that's just gone totally unheard by the general public. Again, kind of a different thing because this was a band and I didn't think it was fair to have the 20 year old opinions of a now passed away person dictate what happened to 70+ tracks that multiple other people helped compose and record, but anyway...

I've done stuff like this for several artists, it's a small passion. I do the same with my own music. I'm very much on the side of once music is made I kind of think it belongs to the world, and with very few exceptions (bootlegs that re-hash already freely circulating material without the artist seeing a dime being one... - this Mats release ain't that) I don't really consider myself very sympathetic to an artist's "wishes" or anything, I think people bend over backwards trying to be respectful when in reality it really and truly does not matter. It's just music, but it's also just music you know what I mean?

Anyway.

[curmudgeonman]

Wow.

[jason066]

It looks like the release has been blocked or cancelled. Maybe good news we will get in an official format at some point.

[teddinard]

Yeah it's no longer a "pending transaction" on my card—just gone. So be it.

[who?]

Jun 20, 2022 16:57:47 GMT -5 psychopharmacology said:

To make a long story short, the past few years I was on the hunt for some early cassettes from a popular artist, their high school band. I invested thousands of my own money, years of research and reaching out, years of fighting to make sure that not only did I get these albums, but that the artist's fans were able to hear them in their entirety as well. I'm proud to say that all 6 are out there now, one of which was personally purchased and transferred by me, and while I wasn't the only person involved, none of them would be out there today had I not gone insane trying to get them. These same albums were ones the artist, 20 years ago, made an off-handed comment about "not wanting out there" or that they were "embarrassed" by them, and yet they were professionally duplicated, sold in small quantities, and paraded around in documentaries and books, and of course representing a large portion of this person's work that's just gone totally unheard by the general public. Again, kind of a different thing because this was a band and I didn't think it was fair to have the 20 year old opinions of a now passed away person dictate what happened to 70+ tracks that multiple other people helped compose and record, but anyway...

I've done stuff like this for several artists, it's a small passion. I do the same with my own music. I'm very much on the side of once music is made I kind of think it belongs to the world, and with very few exceptions (bootlegs that re-hash already freely circulating material without the artist seeing a dime being one... - this Mats release ain't that) I don't really consider myself very sympathetic to an artist's "wishes" or anything, I think people bend over backwards trying to be respectful when in reality it really and truly does not matter. It's just music, but it's also just music you know what I mean?

Anyway.

If someone had taken a picture of you that you considered embarrassing or unflattering , then published and distributed it even after you expressed you didn't want it seen, what then? Following the logic you just put forth...it's just a picture, you know?

[psychopharmacology]

Yes. Exactly, it is just a picture.

To elaborate, this isn't absolute. If something is truly distasteful or hurtful (ie: transcends embarrassment and falls into actively repugnant) and someone expresses regret and growth from that, I would want that limited or treated more seriously. But, for instance, if someone is just embarrassed about a goofy song they did when they were 16, does it really matter? If someone is upset that maybe the liner notes in this Mats release aren't as great as they could be, does it really matter? There's different levels to this argument and treating everything as if it's on equal ground isn't really congruent with reality. If someone doesn't want to listen or acknowledge something, feel free, but often times I find it more boils down to self flagellation less so for the artist and more so just to make the person feel good about themselves when in reality it doesn't really matter. It's just bizarre to me.

I also think this probably also boils down to how important one considers a song or artist's work, etc. Nothing needs to be heard, it's all just a form of entertainment. I don't really have any hobbies other than music, so for instance with the artist I mentioned above, I've been researching and writing about their sessionography for many years, conducted many interviews, always wanting to learn more and hear more. To me, stuff like that is important and I really appreciate it. Do I think even a big fan of this artist, with a spouse and kids and other hobbies, etc, etc would find it nearly as important? No, I don't. Just different strokes and phases, you know?

[Jer]

Jun 21, 2022 8:28:01 GMT -5 psychopharmacology said:

If something is truly distasteful or hurtful (ie: transcends embarrassment and falls into actively repugnant) and someone expresses regret and growth from that, I would want that limited or treated more seriously.

Interesting to me that you consider this your decision to make, your line to determine, when it's not your art/property/creation/actions being sold for money.

I would speculate that Paul isn't particularly proud of the reunion, and doesn't want it out there - his actions then and since indicate that to me, and I'm sure someone else may feel differently, and that might be a different discussion, but even if I felt the way you did about what would constitute something that deserves to be limited, this performance could fall under "regret" and might give me pause to support this release, if we were to look at it objectively. But...you also said:

Jun 20, 2022 16:57:47 GMT -5 psychopharmacology said:

I don't really consider myself very sympathetic to an artist's "wishes" or anything, I think people bend over backwards trying to be respectful when in reality it really and truly does not matter. It's just music, but it's also just music you know what I mean?

This is the core of our debate, I guess. I feel the opposite of this.    

[psychopharmacology]

Jun 21, 2022 9:00:51 GMT -5 Jer said:

Interesting to me that you consider this your decision to make, your line to determine, when it's not your art/property/creation/actions being sold for money.

Well, while this could differ from artist to artist and I'm certainly not in the head and familiar with the thought process of every artist, I think it can be looked at with some objectivity. To give you an example, there's a horrendously offensive track by a band I liked that the lead singer did when he was 15 or so, not funny or clever, just gross and over-the-top, supposed to be a satire of racist views but it's just in poor taste. That's something that to me is genuinely regretful and damaging to someone, the artist and the listener, and broaches a topic that kind of transcends the importance of us enjoying music, so if that artist didn't want that circulated, which he doesn't, I'm all for it and understand. On the flip side, if PW doesn't have fond memories of the reunion tour for the reason of... he considered it whoring his past, wasn't happy with his performance, whatever, that kind of sucks for him and I'm sorry he may feel that way, but it's just a band and he's just a guy. I just think the reasons are kind of superficial and if he really, really objected to something like that it probably shouldn't have happened in the first place. You and I are making a lot of assumptions about how someone feels, so who knows. I would posit, what if PW hated the tour/the idea of a reunion release but Tommy was thrilled with every night and wants it documented and out there for the public? Freese? Minehan? Sure it's PW's band and songs, but why should these other key players not get a say? Again, this is just for the sake of argument as I've no clue how anyone feels about this release other than that clearly there was some head butting. This is kind of like those cassettes I mentioned, this was a four piece band 3 members of which had no problem with the material being out there, the fourth having vaguely expressed some vaguely disapproving opinion a very long time ago, what do you go by?

[FreeRider]

There are some things that to me fall into gray areas. And there different perspectives on things, some I agree with, others I don't. Am I guilty of being in possession and enjoying bootlegged stuff someone painstakingly put together and shared? Yes, of course. However, these things were not expressly prohibited by the artists.

Some are and have been prohibited from day one by the artists (like one former Jefferson Airplane member whose show I wanted) and I have to respect that they don't want bootlegs of their shows circulating around on these torrents. Was I able to obtain some anyway from some sketchy sites? Yes, but not from purchasing so that no one person financially profited from the shows being released. Does that make me a hypocrite? Yes, in some ways it does because I don't know the motives behind the original taper. But at least I have a standard: that the work I obtained wasn't for sale but to be shared among fans.

Look, I appreciate and understand the archivist sentiments, yet I do have to disagree about not respecting an artist's wishes or be dismissive of it. Yes, it's music but it's not just music. It's someone's livelihood, their intellectual and creative property and/or something personal to them. Not everything needs to be seen or heard by the artist and it's not up to me to decide on the behalf of the artist what gets to be shared.

Now, maybe if I'm a band member, an accountant, lawyer or something for the band and the artists, I might have a say to the person who wrote the material. I remember that Roger Daltry got mad at Townshend for withholding material from the band (post Moon) and thus additional albums after Face Dances and It's Hard. Townshend said the material was all wrong for the band and Daltry said something like, "but it's not up to you to make a final decision, it's the band." In the end, the material was too experimental and Townshend was correct....there was no way that Daltry and Entwistle would've made it work because those songs were really for Townshend and him only.

And who knows what goes through Paul's mind. But I'm not one to cross him. I remember at one of the in-store appearances, he got mad that the store was showing behind him the "Seeing Through Paul" promotional video. And he told the store to turn it off, that they weren't supposed to have it and he'll call his lawyer after the appearance. Just something he said when he was miffed? Maybe, maybe not---but he still has legal recourse over his intellectual property. Maybe not the movie itself, but his performances and songs in it though are his properties.

[anarkissed]

Jun 20, 2022 16:57:47 GMT -5 psychopharmacology said:

I'm very much on the side of once music is made I kind of think it belongs to the world

So if you were growing vegetables in your backyard garden, once they ripen, it's o.k. for me to go back there and eat them? After all, once they're grown, they belong to the world.

[psychopharmacology]

We could think of things like that all day to use as examples. Really my point boils down to the fact that I don't think music is a temple, I think it's something to be used, enjoyed, and studied. I don't feel this makes me a bad person and I don't really care if it does? I just like music, what can I say. If something helps people get through life, why think about it too hard? Basically I don't think anyone has the right to take themselves that seriously and if you do, you're doing it wrong.

I don't know if there's anything left to say, really. Anyway, apparently as per the Hoffman forum these things are still shipping, so anyone who objects to the release, I don't think you should listen to this. Out of respect for the band.