Please help. What to do? Taped and gig and told not to spread by management.

[randallanddarcy]

I have been taping shows all over the world since 1998. I've taped a lot of bands, and have circulated an awful lot of my recordings. I've just recently had a situation that has never occurred to me before, and I'm looking for taper's advice. I taped a musician's solo show. This musician has been in several bands, but isn't huge or anything. He has a global following, but it would be a cult following. But I'm a big fan. I posted on his board that I taped this small show. The webmaster of this guy's website sent me a private message, saying that he also recorded the show and would like mine to do a matrix of the recordings (mine is an audience recording, not a soundboard).  I then PM'd him asking if he was the promoter (the webmaster's first name and the first name of the promoter on the ticket were the same), and if he was the guy video-ing the show. I then got a PM that didn't answer my questions, but did request that I didn't circulate my recording, as the management is thinking of doing a live album of this one specific show. (Which maybe why he wants mine). I just set up 2 trades (big trades that would expand my collection of this artists music) that I will have to cancel if I agree to this.

What do I do? To give to these 2 guys in the trade and tell them it's not for trade, or to cancel altogether? Any advice appreciated. As far as I could tell on the night, the vocal was through the PA, but the piano wasn't. It was a tiny gig. I think the projected official live album won't be a soundboard anyway. But I could be wrong. I was seated front row between the artist and the left PA. All night, I got the piano in my right ear (from the instrument) and the vocal in my left (from the PA). The gig was in a church in the country (weird venue) and didn't even have a stage.

So, what do you think? Do I circulate for my 2 trades and tell those traders not to tape it, or just hold onto it myself. One of the guys that wants to trade was at the gig, and the other has the most complete collection of this artists songs ever. They're both obviously die-hard fans, but I don't know either of them.

Thanks in advance for the advice, and sorry this is so long. Just wanted to give all the information.

Randall

[OFOTD]

If you agreed to not trade, don't.  If they asked you not to circulate because they are going to release it, don't.   Absolutely no need to burn bridges with the artist for the sake of two trades.

[randallanddarcy]

I haven't got back to the webmaster that asked me not to circulate. I thought I'd get advice here first. Many of my friends ARE musicians, and have no problem with it. This artist I am not friends with at all. In fact, I live in Ireland, but the musician is American. And the gig was in England. So, knowing this, do I have any bridges to burn do you think? Thanks for the response.

[OFOTD]

I haven't got back to the webmaster that asked me not to circulate. I thought I'd get advice here first. Many of my friends ARE musicians, and have no problem with it. This artist I am not friends with at all. In fact, I live in Ireland, but the musician is American. And the gig was in England. So, knowing this, do I have any bridges to burn do you think? Thanks for the response.

Well I don't know if you have any personal bridges to burn but what you do or don't do could have an effect on others taping this artists.   Was you tape a stealth job or was it an open taping situation.

[dean]

I think you really need to honor the artists wishes in this circumstance.  Let the 2 traders know that they can buy the official release when it comes out, but that you've been asked not to circulate.  I think if you circulate it then you run the high risk of changing the artists attitude towards audience recordings, and that will have a ripple effect over time and artists that will eventually effect us all.

The "greatly expand my collection" argument is insufficient.  Whatever they were going to trade you, you can likely get elsewhere without impacting this artists relationship with tapers.

YMMV, of course. That's just my 2 cents...

[TNJazz]

The title of the thread makes it pretty clear what the right thing to do is.  Not sure why there's even a question.

[randallanddarcy]

OFOTD: That's a good question mate. In this fella's OLD band, they allowed taping, but didn't have a taping section as such. After their 1997/1998 tour, management solicited fan tapes, even. People sent them in, but nothing came of it. But, granted, that was 10 fucking years ago.  

Because this gig was small, in the country, in a (I presume deconsecrated) church (!), there was no security as such. I did stealth tape it though. I always stealth tape, because it's just easier. There is currently no official taping policy, but I THINK if it was any other gig, they wouldn't give a shit. I PM'd the webmaster fella when I asked him those original questions, and said I knew someone who taped the London show, and he didn't say anything about that one at all. This one specific show seems to be the issue.

Everyone else: thanks for the responses. I just mean: I paid my ticket, I've supported this artist and bought all his stuff for 15 years, I don't really feel I 'owe' him anything. He ain't bought me a pint or anything, y'know what I mean? I'm honestly not being a cunt: I guess I'm just playing devil's advocate. Having said that, the advice about the artist becoming non-taper friendly for other tapers is an issue close to my heart and has made the decision for me.

Other opinions still welcomed, though. Thank you all.

[eric.B]

The title of the thread makes it pretty clear what the right thing to do is.  Not sure why there's even a question.

what he said..  ^

[Belexes]

Always honor the artist/management request in terms of what is recorded.  It's not your music, it's theirs.  You just captured it.

[randallanddarcy]

Just want to clear something up. Been thinking of the right way to convey it. Here's an example. When I say, 'I don't owe the artist anything', I realized it can come across as kind of obnoxious. Some of the responses I've had have basically said: if the artist doesn't want it circulated, don't.
If I put it this way:
Pearl Jam allows audio taping. They do not allow video taping. PJ fans still collect stealth fan-shot DVD's. This is against the artists wishes. How is what I'm saying about this gig different? I'm not going to circulate it, but as a genuine question about taping ethics, how is it different. PJ's whole Italian 2006 tour was shot by fans and circulated as DVD's (which the band don't allow) but the band still released a DVD of the Italian tour. Are all us PJ fans who got the fan-shot DVD's arseholes for trading them?

[randallanddarcy]

Always honor the artist/management request in terms of what is recorded.  It's not your music, it's theirs.  You just captured it.

That's a fair cop. I can't really argue with that. I've taped literally hundreds of shows, and this situation has never occurred to me.

[dean]

Just want to clear something up. Been thinking of the right way to convey it. Here's an example. When I say, 'I don't owe the artist anything', I realized it can come across as kind of obnoxious. Some of the responses I've had have basically said: if the artist doesn't want it circulated, don't.
If I put it this way:
Pearl Jam allows audio taping. They do not allow video taping. PJ fans still collect stealth fan-shot DVD's. This is against the artists wishes. How is what I'm saying about this gig different? I'm not going to circulate it, but as a genuine question about taping ethics, how is it different. PJ's whole Italian 2006 tour was shot by fans and circulated as DVD's (which the band don't allow) but the band still released a DVD of the Italian tour. Are all us PJ fans who got the fan-shot DVD's arseholes for trading them?

Apples and oranges.  The artist specifically requested that YOU don't circulate THIS ONE show.  It's not some general "no" policy, it's a specific request to you.

[randallanddarcy]

Deanlambrecht: yeah, that puts me in my place!

Just as a side issue: has anyone released one of their recordings (a show not in circulation, so maybe your copy is the only one), and just released it to a few die-hard collectors on a 'Not For Trade' basis. This is a complete side issue from my current issue. The reason I'm asking is because I have some shows from some bands that I've got on a not for trade basis because the taper doesn't want them circulated. However, does a taper have a 'right' to do this? They don't own the copyright. If you give it to a couple of people and other fans know you have it but can't copy it for them because of the original taper's wishes, is the original taper being a prat? The shows I have as Not For Trade that I didn't tape: it seems to me there's no reason for it other than the taper wants to have a 'exclusive' I-have-it-and-you-don't kinda vibe. My natural inclination is to circulate most everything I tape. I mean, it's a good feeling to give someone something they're gonna love, especially if they can't get it else, y'know? If I tape something myself, and don't want it circulated, I just don't advertise the fact I have the fucking thing, y'know?

[Belexes]

The NFT recordings I have are ones where I or the taper signed some legal waiver not to distribute. If we let the recording out, we are screwed.  I also have recordings from bands where if I let them out, the sound engineer will likely get canned because he gave me board access when I really wasn't suppose to have it.

I honor the wishes of whomever gave me the recording and if it goes out of my house, I make certain permission is granted by whom I received my copy first.

We have all seen it, someone lets out a show they were not suppose to and it makes the whole community look like a bunch of ass hats.

[Brian Skalinder]

Pretty well covered so far, but I'll add my $0.02 anyway, starting with a quote from another thread:

Every action we as tapers take (or fail to take) as individuals reflects on the broader taper community.  Likewise, traders' actions reflect on the traders and the tapers.

It's not just about me, or you, the night we tape.  It's also about musicians, venue management, security, band management, musicians' labels, even fans, and their individual and collective perceptions of tapers, what we do, how we do it, why we do it.  A single, simple wrong step may have broad-reaching repercussions.  Stories abound of a musician or management or venue getting pissed off at a taper, or group of tapers, and shutting taping down temporarily or permanently, or causing conflict and tension, bad blood between fans and tapers, tapers and musicians, tapers and management, tapers and venues, etc.  Is sharing a recording against the musician's or management's decision really worth risking the potential down side?

IMO, disrespecting the wishes of the musicians, venues, security, management, etc. isn't worth the downside repercussions.  I think this holds true especially for situations in which the musician or management specifically requests a performance not be shared.  Sharing anyway, even among a "trusted few", simply doesn't work - the recording gets out eventually one way or the other, and if the musician gets word of it...we don't know what repercussions might be in store.  Maybe none.  But possibly significantly negative ones, too.  Multiple references on TS reflect this experience:  share a recording even once, and you lose control.  Please don't put someone else - trader, fellow fan, even another taper - in a position to jeopardize your personal or our community's relationships the musicians, etc. or negatively influence their perceptions of us and what we do.

[/soapbox]