Read the RA feature /
Bootlegs: Unauthorized at any speed

very well researched and thought through piece. i respect how even-handed the author has been. great job engaging with a serious issue. thanks.

excellent article Richard, thought provoking.

thanks guys, glad you liked it

More of this type of editorial please.

Educate the electronic music minority, work together, become strong.

It makes you think if Phonica are getting unknown bootlegs sent via their stockists I wonder if its the same for all the smaller homegrown record stores up and down the land. Great piece of writing & very well researched,thanks.

That really was a well put together feature. Practically the best thing I have read on here.

More like that, please!

Well done, well done.

Oh, and about the 'Can you spot the fake?', I'm sure it's the one on the right. The typeface and pressing is cleaner and slightly more modern looking, no doubt owing to modern word processors, whilst the older ones were not made that way (I actually don't know how the old record artwork was made exactly).

Very nice article!

On side of the story that hasn't been mentioned is that amongst certain Techno artist there is this kind of appreciation of the almost anonymous release. If you look at the artwork on MDR, Sleeparchive, Equalized, Klockworks, and many many more of these so called 'stamp' releases (as the labels are made with a stamp, rather then printed), it is clear that these artists, labels and even their distributor, in most of the above cases, Hardwax feels strongly about anonymity.

I know these are technically not bootlegs, but they carry a similar aesthetic as white labels and by doing this promote a kind of attitude where a customer 'just buys tracks' regardless of what the artist gets out of it, who he is as a musician or anything else outside the actual hard copy. This is in my opinion comparable to how customers treat bootlegs and in some blog's and forum's cases file sharing.

Good article and please, follow this subject and this way of reporting, as its much more informative then just record and party reviews...

yeah, great article, especially considering how open ended the issue itself is. Big up yourself Richard

I for one was very pleased to be able to finally get hold of a copy of that Lil' Louis record mentioned, though this is naturally tempered with the knowledge that suddenly lots of other people have it. If you pay £40 on Discogs for a rare (un-bootlegged) record, you have something that few other DJs have, a secret weapon as it were, compared to a record that will suddenly be fairly common currency. This fact alone is enough to put me off buying some bootlegs, though not usually enough to stop me completely...

And I certainly have a fair few expensive records that have suddenly turned up in Phonica a couple of months later as an £8 bootleg (though it's usually as an edit thankfully), which is never a good feeling...

Great article Richard. This is proper journalism right here. You bring up many good points that may not have been known or considered before. Personally, I have purchased some bootlegs before, but only due to the exorbitant cost of having to bid on an original pressing. In some cases I probably didn't even realize it was a boot though, so it's good to know what sort of nefarious activities are behind these low-cost "represses" that turn up.

quote:

---

Posted by simonhold
On side of the story that hasn't been mentioned is that amongst certain Techno artist there is this kind of appreciation of the almost anonymous release. If you look at the artwork on MDR, Sleeparchive, Equalized, Klockworks, and many many more of these so called 'stamp' releases (as the labels are made with a stamp, rather then printed), it is clear that these artists, labels and even their distributor, in most of the above cases, Hardwax feels strongly about anonymity.

I know these are technically not bootlegs, but they carry a similar aesthetic as white labels and by doing this promote a kind of attitude where a customer 'just buys tracks' regardless of what the artist gets out of it, who he is as a musician or anything else outside the actual hard copy. This is in my opinion comparable to how customers treat bootlegs and in some blog's and forum's cases file sharing.

Good article and please, follow this subject and this way of reporting, as its much more informative then just record and party reviews...

---

Simon and everyone else, thank you very much for your kind words. I'm glad that you enjoyed the piece. There is just one small point I want to make and it;s to do with what Simon posted above. The stamped labels from Hardwax, eg MDR, Sleeparchive, Equalized, Klockworks, have nothing to do with bootlegs. All of these releases are legitimate releases, bootlegs are not. The fact that they are hand-stamped doesn;t mean there's anything dodgy about them. White labels - although digital means most stuff is now promoed by MP3 etc - are advance copies of releases sent to press, DJs etc to play/review in advance of an official release. In both cases, eg hand-stamped releases and white labels, there is no connection to bootlegging. I agree that the Hardwax labels put the emphasis on the 'track' but in the case of bootlegs (at least the ones going around at the moment), there is a focus on high-quality artwork and of course the classic tracks that are being touted. Just wanted to clarify that. Again, thank you very much for reading...

reading the headline i thought this was about mashups ,-)

Nice article.

I am glad that you made it clear that bootlegs can be dropped from a digital format. Today......many are done in that form and fashion.

As a producer/remixer, I hate digital. I hate Serato and the like. Why? An asshole can go from vinyl to digital then walk over to the pressing plant. Fuck mastering and fuck how it sounds. Turn a profit.

Imagine if Warhol did 15 exclusive prints sol for $1500.00 US, then he walks into a Starbucks and sees 35 bootleg copies of the print for sale for $30.00 US.

The artist must be compensated.

On the flip side, you have dirty labels. Yes, I fucking said it....dirty labels that may decide to license an artists' work without permission to an overseas label. Pocket the money and keep moving.

New problem: the third party license that just got passed to an overseas label.....might say hell.....press 100 legit then 400 bootleg. Can the artist keep track? Nope? Primary label? Nope? So all of that underhanded business hurts who.............the artist.

And finally, I will not discuss "Knight of the Jaguar" bootlegs. I will not mention how many bootlegs were made "available" after Sony.....sought an interest in the track.

Bootlegs needed to rock a party? Essential??

If you are a decent DJ and have some years, then you understand that a bootleg is not going to make your DJ set that HOT. No extra drinks. No illegal substances. No write up in RA. No write up in DJ Times. Blah.....Blah...

The Butcher
www.detroitfightclub313.com
Hates Bootlegs With A Passion.....

great work.
thank you

I applaud the 'Ode to Ralph Nader.

"Most customers really don't care as long as they can play the record."

very true. official reissue or if not: bootleg.
of course it's a shame that the original artists don't get anything from that...

great piece. echoing the others that this is possibly the best example of journalism on this website. thanks!

quote:

---

Posted by RichardBrophyThe stamped labels from Hardwax, eg MDR, Sleeparchive, Equalized, Klockworks, have nothing to do with bootlegs. All of these releases are legitimate releases, bootlegs are not. [...] Just wanted to clarify that. Again, thank you very much for reading...

---

Off course they are not bootlegs, but I meant to say they attribute in their own way to a certain tendency or (dying or reviving) cult (?) of owning a hard copy of a classic. Maybe they are just lucky to still actively control the Maurizio, Basic Channel, etc back stock they themselves have been reprinting recently. If not a bootleg would be right round the corner.

quote:

---

Posted by RichardBrophyAgain, thank you very much for reading...

---

I'd like more of these kinds of articles. They raise issues about our sub culture that people mostly don't like to face.

This is one of the better music pieces I've read this year, though it should be pointed out that record labels have ripped off their artists since the beginning of the music industry; the Rhythm & Blues Foundation began in the U.S. to help out artists who were given unfair royalty rates and/or payment dating back to the '50s and earlier, so Trax is hardly a pioneer in that regard.

nice article!!

great article, the first that's really grabbed my attention on this site. more of this standard please

Awesome piece of writting Richard. It would be a shame also if someone decides to buy a pricey classic via Discogs and it turns to be a bootleg!

A well written and very informative article. Nice one mate.

usually i never post comments but this article is so good, long time since i didn't enjoy an article as that one, kind of crazy investigation.
thanks Richard and congrats again.

Very nice article, very interesting view on rarely known side of the business

Nice article.

I have one problem with this whole thing though. I don't see how buying a record for £40 on discogs brings the moral high-ground when it comes to ARTISTS getting paid.

I like music, and will buy a repress every time when it comes to mega money vinyls. Why does discogsnob17 deserve my £40?!

The answer - artists and lablels should get their heads together and sort it out. Basic Channel have the right idea - official represses in different sleeves / cuts. Collectors can collect, people who want the tracks can have the tracks.

Yep I feel bad for the originators sleeping rough, but they're not in that way because Piccadilly sell a bootleg, it's because when they were 17 years old $1000 was a big price for signing on the dotted line!

The real answer is for an artist to create, start and manage his/her own label. Then, release their music on their own label.

Stop bootlegging?

No.

Better than nothing?
Sitting idle?
Getting mad?

Hell yes.

quote:

---

Posted by TheButcher
The real answer is for an artist to create, start and manage his/her own label. Then, release their music on their own label.

---

Do you know the amount work involved to do what you suggest? All the people I know of that did this either stopped doing it, or became a business, like Kompakt.

I understand.

Other than an artist maintaining legal representation in their respective country and abroad, what do you suggest?

How far would you go "For The Love Of The Music"?

SICK

An excellent article Richard. Well planned and carried out, thank you very much!

As a fan of blogging on all things digital and music industry based I found this a great read.

Hmm... sorry to be the tell tale, but it seems that Phonica still have them in stock, and are selling them. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that Simon had no idea that these were bootlegs. He's a proper record geek, and should really know that a when batch of these twelves turn up all at the same time, they'll be bootlegs. My assumption would be that in the ultra competitive world of online record shopping, they simply couldn't risk the chance of not stocking them, and sending buyers with large orders to other stockists that were carrying these records. I would empathise with this point of view, but simply do not believe the line that he is towing on this. See the links below:

www.phonicarecords.co.uk/detail.aspx?ID=31379 www.phonicarecords.co.uk/detail.aspx?ID=31374 www.phonicarecords.co.uk/detail.aspx?ID=31373 www.phonicarecords.co.uk/detail.aspx?ID=31378 www.phonicarecords.co.uk/detail.aspx?ID=31377
http://www.phonicarecords.co.uk/detail.aspx?ID=31376

I agree.

That Armando is a straight bootleg. "151" was on album. "Land of Confusion" was a 12" by itself.

"Essence of Dream"......I would have to pull out the original.

quote:

---

Posted by richardcarnage
Hmm... sorry to be the tell tale, but it seems that Phonica still have them in stock, and are selling them. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that Simon had no idea that these were bootlegs. He's a proper record geek, and should really know that a when batch of these twelves turn up all at the same time, they'll be bootlegs. My assumption would be that in the ultra competitive world of online record shopping, they simply couldn't risk the chance of not stocking them, and sending buyers with large orders to other stockists that were carrying these records. I would empathise with this point of view, but simply do not believe the line that he is towing on this. See the links below:

www.phonicarecords.co.uk/detail.aspx?ID=31379 www.phonicarecords.co.uk/detail.aspx?ID=31374 www.phonicarecords.co.uk/detail.aspx?ID=31373 www.phonicarecords.co.uk/detail.aspx?ID=31378 www.phonicarecords.co.uk/detail.aspx?ID=31377 www.phonicarecords.co.uk/detail.aspx?ID=31376

---

That's really disappointing. I spoke to him about this for the article about a month ago and he assured me he would remove the bootlegs. Thanks for pointing this out Richard. Simon, if you are reading this, would you care to comment?

It's a difficult situation for the record shops, especially in the current climate. I appreciate that as a buyer, I am part of the problem, but can't really say no to high quality bootlegs of records that would otherwise cost me in excess of £40 each to own.

I wish people would stop referring to these as "high-quality". Yeah, the covers are glossy and the music is pressed LOUD. But loud isn't necessarily high-quality, you can still hear certain distortions in the sound, usually due to the fact the mastering process is vinyl to digital master then pressed back on vinyl.

Sure, they're better than the bootlegs of yesteryear, but I still feel it's a bit of a misnomer. If they were official reissues they wouldn't be considered high-quality.

I agree with richardcarnage about not buying the excuses, THEY KNOW.

good article

Great article. Saw some of these release at Phonica but also at my record supplier in Brussels, Doctor Vinyl, and even bought some of them. I suspected they were represses or might have been bootlegs. I wonder about a couple of Kerri Chandler records that came out a couple of months ago as well, one record featured his 'Shelter' track as well as three others with random label artwork.

I know this isn't going to be popular, but I'm okay with bootlegs. When something is rare that it costs $300 to buy the record, I will get a bootleg. When a label releases something only on vinyl I will get a bootleg mp3. That said, I would happily pay a reasonable price to buy these mp3s-but in most cases they aren't available. Not everyone in the world is a dj or wants a vinyl collection, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have access to the music. And as someone who isn't making a living off of music, I fail to see why I should pay ridiculous prices for second-hand records that the artist isn't even getting a cut off of anyway. How does bootlegging (of releases that aren't out currently) harm the artist any more than buying and selling used records on discogs.

I think it's the responsibility of the artist and label to make sure that their tunes are available, because if they don't, they will get bootlegged. (I think bootlegs of currently available stuff is a different story.) And frankly, although most artists want to get paid, if the options are be forgotten in obscurity or have your songs loved via a bootleg record or mp3, they'd probably pick the bootleg option.

I think that the FUTURE IS IN REMIX, IF NOT BOOTLEG Richie Hawtin pointed it in this article: www.beatportal.com/feed/item/richie-hawtin-all-music-is-version-10/ All music is 1.0. The future is to allow multitrack downloads. For some artists/labels like Richie / Minus, I think it will be adopted very fast, for others, it will take some time as it took time for them to sell MP3/Wave with no DRM (actually they just waited for the old system to collapse...), they will probably wait that all music is free with something like We7, Imeem or other ad-based music websites but I think multitrack this is definitely the way to go, especially for electronic music.

By giving the "consumer", the right to remix, you not only can sell your music at a premium price, but you can also benefit from all popular remixes of your original content. You get credit from it (and viral marketing at no cost). And you don't feel like you're ripped off as it is nowadays with bootlegs. We now have powerful tools like Ableton, we get and play music in a few clicks... we're in the digital era, it's time to forget about the same old distribution/product manners we were used to in the physical music market. And at least it would show that music is endless creation process, not only a product ! And Imagine how labels with a great back catalogue could benefit from this trend ! How many charts titles nowadays are remixes of previous hits ? And still we didn't give the whole world the opportunity to remix these hits.

Remix.me is built on this idea (and remixer can possibily sell its remix - in controlled environment, if artist/editor agrees... hopefully they will) and I'm eager to see the first artists/labels/remixers to embrace it.

Great article. Something I've been suspecting for a long time as I browse through releases at just about any record shop. I'm also highly suspicious of the digital shops as well, especially when Beatport's got "Exclusive" all over them, yet these other shops are selling the same tracks. Granted, Beatport's "exclusivity" is bullshit

The sad thing about this all is that in the end, it's the artist that gets fucked (and the consumer, since they're not getting a "legitimate" product, and often times they think the artist is getting comp'ed and they're doing the right thing).

I've been fucked by a label, too. It's extremely weak. Assholes.

i know someone at Azuli and they said this is a serious alegation to make as its totally incorrect from there part anyway

Perras claims. "Even when 'Beginnings of Life' was licensed over the past 17 years by important labels like BBE, Defected, International Deejay Gigolos, Azuli, Outland, Accelerator and Logic just to name a few—even with a licensing agreement and promises of money advances—none of them ever paid me a penny.

Well written article. Always been a very pressing problem for lots of genre's of music.

Admittedly I look for rare pressings (bootlegs) etc. To me these are good finds and at times worth the $$ since the track usually isn't readily available on an MP3 site like Beatport, Juno etc. I do also have a ton of blogs where I Download hard to find tracks, edits and so forth. This article does make you step back and realize that the Artist usually isn't seeing any $ which sucks.

Old school artists need to capitalize on the demand for their tracks.

I really think the next version of this article should be about those so called producers who make a redo of a very well known track and then pawn it off as if they are the ones who made the track by themselves with no knowledge given as to whom was the original maker of said track.

I can understand people making remixes of a track they like and then giving it away. That's just flattery to the originator of the track, and a way for the remixer to try to get some people knowing who they are, so when they come out with originals they will get even more known for them.

But to purposely take a Depeche Mode track and call it your own is wrong.

When it comes to bootlegs of older tracks that can no longer be found on vinyl...other than for $50. I can see that people would rather spend 10 on it than 50 for the original. And nowadays, not even knowing for sure if the version you are buying off the net is real or not. But with the bootleggers taking the track off a 320 MP3...you are no where near to getting the quality of the original in that bootleg version. And they is where the real thievery is happening. They are not only being robbed of an original pressing, but they are being robbed of the quality of the pressing.

And unfortunately it costs so much to press vinyl in small pressings, that it makes it very hard for these producers to have a desire to repress their own vinyl. Especially when there is no guarantees that the whole lot of vinyl will sell.

great article, very well written and thought out.

quote:

---

Posted by 1trickpony
I've been fucked by a label, too. It's extremely weak. Assholes.

---

i don't think you're an artist until you've been fucked by a label. as much as it's annoying when your music is available on blogs and russian download sites within a few hours of it being released, it's worse to know that you're going to get as much back from these as you are from legit sales, ie nothing.

Richard, I don't know who you are, in short I'm unfamiliar with your name but this my friend is the most important article that has published.

Kudos to you and the editors for publishing this. To be honest I'm too old and too worldly wise/cynical to be bothered by the underground ketamine diaries and yet, your piece has rejuvenated my faith in RA.

There is no reason whatsoever for dance music producers not to be paid, unlike the jazz and bluesmen of old.

Tape blew up this year with some bedwetter from Strictly rhythm asking for a dj mix to be removed. The douchebag confused a mix tape/ download with piracy.

The bullshit is so deep, that back in the day (circa 1990) artists were not paid for radio royalties because they did not pay the entire track! All those Hot Kiss 97 mixes did not generate any capital for the producers , even though I paid £8 at Blackmarket for a mixtape.

I hope this article gets the attention of John Jellybean Benitez who is responsible for the Dance Music Grammy and has spoken at Harvard regarding the state of this industry.

Many thanks to you and yours, keep the faith, Scott class of 88.......

Good article.

quote:

---

Posted by Mooken
I have one problem with this whole thing though. I don't see how buying a record for £40 on discogs brings the moral high-ground when it comes to ARTISTS getting paid.

I like music, and will buy a repress every time when it comes to mega money vinyls. Why does discogsnob17 deserve my £40?!

---

If the record is really going for £40 and there's no legitimate repress out there, get in touch with the artist or label and let them know. They could be unaware of the demand and may well repress. Bootlegs prevent those with actual rights to the music from meeting this demand and thus the artist from getting paid. They also step on the rights of the artist to choose when and how and with whom to disseminate their work.

Great article.

I'm the founder and owner of Bassic Records. Mike Perras and I go way back; I had the pleasure of working with him on many tracks since the mid 80’s. With the resurgence of "Beginning of Life" a couple of years ago I came very close to re-pressing it myself, however I had second thoughts of getting back into the game after all these years. Surely many of you know how difficult it is to distribute and shelve vinyl in today’s market.

Sure we wouldn't get rich from the re-presses nor from the bootlegs, however it would be nice for the artists to get paid; that being said – the bootlegs have been a great promotional means for Mike, combining that and his amazing talents he is positioned for a very successful career (Part 2). You never know, I may join him down the road.

Robby Demlakian (www.BassicSoftware.com)