Jump to content

Bootlegs


anniemouse

Recommended Posts

How many bootlegs? Too many...or not enough, depending on yer perspective :lol:

Did the band know? Of course they did- Zeppelin was one of the bands (along with the Beatles, Stones and Bob Dylan) to be bootlegged on a 'mass' scale (see Bootleg: The Secret History Of The Other Recording Industry by Clinton Heylin for details)

Did they approve? Most certainly not :lol: Peter Grant and Richard Cole used to scour the venues where Zeppelin played looking for filmers and tapers. If they caught them- the equipment was destroyed at the very least, and maybe the tapers would also get a good thumping for their troubles. Peter Grant also used to search record stores looking for Zeppelin bootlegs, and simply confiscate them if he found any. Nobody argued with him...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know Nutrocker, I do wonder if Peter softened up somewhat in the latter era. I say this because the most publicized bootlegging "busted" events occurred in 1970 at Bath and 1971 in Vancouver. Thinking about 1972, we have very little in quality audience bootlegs, so maybe they kept up, but even 1973, maybe they wavered, primarily at least on the US Tour, things got so big, as did death threats, that maybe this wasn't a priority anymore.

From 75 on, with things on a "fishbowl scale" as Plant once said about touring then, maybe it fell off, as more 75-77 audience recorded shows became available. Hell, even 1979 in little Falconer theater, we get great audience recordings. And of course, 1980, were mostly soundboards and outside of audience recordings for Vienna and Munich, maybe there weren't as many audience recordings. Given the size of the venues in 1980, maybe it became a priority again.

I think at some point after 1972, Peter let it go a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know Nutrocker, I do wonder if Peter softened up somewhat in the latter era. I say this because the most publicized bootlegging "busted" events occurred in 1970 at Bath and 1971 in Vancouver. Thinking about 1972, we have very little in quality audience bootlegs, so maybe they kept up, but even 1973, maybe they wavered, primarily at least on the US Tour, things got so big, as did death threats, that maybe this wasn't a priority anymore.

I think at some point after 1972, Peter let it go a bit.

Keep in mind the scene in The Song Remains The Same where Grant is berating the guy for selling posters :lol: That was in 1973...Personally I think the heavier into drugs Peter got (not to mention heavier...) the less he could be bothered with intimidating bootleggers. Not only that, but I think at some point Grant realized just how huge the bootleg industry was and that he was pretty much powerless to stop it whether he liked it or not.

Mind ya, I do remember reading a story about some poor bastard getting busted for filming one of the MSG '77 shows- Grant, Cole and Bindon took the guy into a back room and destroyed all of his equipment. One of the roadies made the mistake of walking in at the moment, saw what was going on, said, "Oh, excuse me!" and quickly vamoosed...

^ Or maybe the party became more of a priority than the pirates?

See above. Why waste time chasing bootleggers when there's a bloody ounce of pure Merck pharmaceutical cocaine to be had?!

there are audience tapes of every 1980 show.

Exactly. The only tour where every show is covered recording-wise. That said, I've always wondered what became of the Vienna and Munich soundboard recordings...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind the scene in The Song Remains The Same where Grant is berating the guy for selling posters :lol: That was in 1973...Personally I think the heavier into drugs Peter got (not to mention heavier...) the less he could be bothered with intimidating bootleggers. Not only that, but I think at some point Grant realized just how huge the bootleg industry was and that he was pretty much powerless to stop it whether he liked it or not.

Somewhat puzzling then, that he wouldn't have thought to professionally film & record more shows in order to decrease interest in bootlegs. If we had perfectly sounding and looking CD/DVD releases of, say, 3/21/75 Seattle & 6/21/77 L.A., I bet there would be a lot fewer bootlegs sold from those years. It always slays me that they wouldn't have had a meeting and thought "The shows in L.A. & Seattle always seem to be some of the best of each tour, why don't we record our shows there just in case we get something good?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a coincidence. I was just discussing this very topic with Ddladner a few weeks ago. I will reiterate what I told her here.

Judging from the evidence, it seems that Peter Grant and his minions eased up on prowling for bootleggers around 1972. I certainly never saw Peter or Richard combing the aisles at any of the Led Zeppelin concerts I was at.

The documented events, such as Bath and Vancouver, were in 1970. Even the filmed harangue at MSG in 1973 was about pirate merchandise sellers in the MSG concourse and not some grubby kid with a tape recorder in the crowd. Hell, security was so lax they were able to film those kids scamming their way into the Garden.

It's not just the proliferation of audience tapes from 1972 on that suggests Peter relaxed his vigilance on tapers. It's the astounding increase in 8mm footage. Look at all the 1975 fan-shot 8mm from New York, Philadelphia, Seattle, Los Angeles...often shot within the first few rows!!! It's clear the band had relaxed its stance on bootleggers. Hell, by 1975 Plant was even joking about it..."that there's a guy selling t-shirts over there" at the 2.12.75 MSG show; "For the benefit of anyone making a bootleg, the guitar was out of tune for 'The Song Remains the Same'" at the 3.12.75 Long Beach show.

It was clear by the mid-70s that bootlegs weren't hurting a band's sales and that it was, in fact, a badge of honour. Only the truly worthy bands were worth bootlegging. This was just one more area, along with album sales and concert attendance, that Led Zeppelin could claim supremacy over the Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan and Jann Wenner's other lapdogs. Peter and Jimmy must have been smart enough at some point to realize "Why fight it?"

Somewhat puzzling then, that he wouldn't have thought to professionally film & record more shows in order to decrease interest in bootlegs. If we had perfectly sounding and looking CD/DVD releases of, say, 3/21/75 Seattle & 6/21/77 L.A., I bet there would be a lot fewer bootlegs sold from those years. It always slays me that they wouldn't have had a meeting and thought "The shows in L.A. & Seattle always seem to be some of the best of each tour, why don't we record our shows there just in case we get something good?"

Well, look at it this way...the band did go out of its way to professionally film and record four gigs: RAH 1970, MSG 1973, Earls Court 1975, Knebworth 1979. Yet, not one of those gigs has been officially released in a way that makes the bootlegs unnecessary. Even the RAH on the DVD has some cuts and edits that make keeping your bootleg handy.

We all know about the MSG 73 fiasco. There still is no complete Earls Court or Knebworth official release. Don't forget about the How the West Was Won debacle, too. Here was another chance for Jimmy to put the bootleggers out of business...all he had to do was release the entire 6.25.72 LA Forum show, with 6.27 Long Beach patched in as needed, and nobody would ever need buy the "Burn Like a Candle" bootleg ever again.

Well, we saw how that turned out. HTWWW was butchered...all of the Plantations were cut, no Tangerine, WWL medley cut, no "Louie Louie/Thank You", no "Communication Breakdown".

So even if Peter Grant had given the go ahead to record Pontiac or the LA Forum '77 for posterity, it would still be up in the air if Jimmy would release them complete and unedited. Until Jimmy realizes the disservice he does to Led Zeppelin by editing so much out of the official releases, we will still need the bootlegs to paint a fuller and complete portrait of Led Zeppelin in concert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with everything you said, Strider, but the following gets down to the heart of the matter:

So even if Peter Grant had given the go ahead to record Pontiac or the LA Forum '77 for posterity, it would still be up in the air if Jimmy would release them complete and unedited. Until Jimmy realizes the disservice he does to Led Zeppelin by editing so much out of the official releases, we will still need the bootlegs to paint a fuller and complete portrait of Led Zeppelin in concert.

"Disservice" is as good a word as any to describe what Page does regarding the official Zeppelin live releases. Mind ya, not that Jimmy Page is the only person guilty of this. Off the top of my head, matters of sound quality aside, I can't think of an official live release by any artist where, if there are corresponding bootlegs to the show, the bootlegs do not trump the official release in regard to completeness. Yes, they may be official live albums out there that are not covered in a zillion after-the-fact overdubs, but none that seem to preserve the banter with the audience and whatnot.

For example, somewhere around here I have a boot called The Real Love You Live where some enterprising folks gathered up all the songs on the Stones' Love You Live LP (including the El Mocambo tracks) from the various audience/soundboard tapes. I always thought Love You Live was awesome...until I heard the bootleg version. Some of the tracks on the official release were absolutely butchered (particularly the longer songs). I can't even listen to the official LP anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Disservice" is as good a word as any to describe what Page does regarding the official Zeppelin live releases. Mind ya, not that Jimmy Page is the only person guilty of this. Off the top of my head, matters of sound quality aside, I can't think of an official live release by any artist where, if there are corresponding bootlegs to the show, the bootlegs do not trump the official release in regard to completeness. Yes, they may be official live albums out there that are not covered in a zillion after-the-fact overdubs, but none that seem to preserve the banter with the audience and whatnot.

For example, somewhere around here I have a boot called The Real Love You Live where some enterprising folks gathered up all the songs on the Stones' Love You Live LP (including the El Mocambo tracks) from the various audience/soundboard tapes. I always thought Love You Live was awesome...until I heard the bootleg version. Some of the tracks on the official release were absolutely butchered (particularly the longer songs). I can't even listen to the official LP anymore.

The Rolling Stones and Bruce Springsteen are two that have started to get wise lately and release unedited shows, warts and all. The Stones have released in quick succession Brussels 73, LA Forum 75 (CD & DVD!!!), and Hampton 81 (CD & DVD) that pretty much makes the bootlegs I have superfluous...not that I'm getting rid of my vinyl box set of LA Forum 1975.

Bruce is pretty good at releasing full shows too...Hammersmith Odeon 1975 and Houston 1978 are two recent ones. The Houston one was taken from the Houston Summit in-house video feed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know how many bootlegs of live shows exist and who actually recorded them and why. Did the band know and approve.

I don't think anyone has covered the 'why' did people record them yet.

The majority of the people likely were thinking "hey, I'm going to see Led Zeppelin! This is going to be a show I would like to look back on and hear it again someday". I know if I went to a concert that I really want to see the band perform, I would definitely record a few of my favorites just to listen to again and show my friends. I doubt many of them were doing it to make money off the band, or else you would think they would've used premium equipment, which we all know Millard did, but it's known that Millard was quite upset when he found out that his tapes were bootlegged (I'm not sure if that's true, everyone knows that rumors spread like wildfire, but I'm sure someone here knows if that's true or false). But of course there are those people out there who likely did want to make some money on the side, which I don't see an issue there, Led Zeppelin has made sooooo damn much money for themselves and if a few people made some money off of them as well as provided us with some AWESOME material well I'm all for it. If Led Zeppelin wants to make some money on bootlegged material, I'd be more than happy to purchase any show they decide to release. One thing I know about Zeppelin bootlegs is that I likely wouldn't be a huge fan of their music all these years later if it wasn't for bootlegs, once I get tired of their songs I happen to stumble across another concert that I haven't heard and find a new favorite performance of a song, it keeps their music fresh. For example, I went a long time with 0 listens to Stairway To Heaven (radio wore it out for me) up until a year ago when I heard it performed at LA 6/23/1977, since that day I've listened to the original and various live performances of it a lot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone has covered the 'why' did people record them yet.

The majority of the people likely were thinking "hey, I'm going to see Led Zeppelin! This is going to be a show I would like to look back on and hear it again someday". I know if I went to a concert that I really want to see the band perform, I would definitely record a few of my favorites just to listen to again and show my friends. I doubt many of them were doing it to make money off the band, or else you would think they would've used premium equipment, which we all know Millard did, but it's known that Millard was quite upset when he found out that his tapes were bootlegged (I'm not sure if that's true, everyone knows that rumors spread like wildfire, but I'm sure someone here knows if that's true or false). But of course there are those people out there who likely did want to make some money on the side, which I don't see an issue there, Led Zeppelin has made sooooo damn much money for themselves and if a few people made some money off of them as well as provided us with some AWESOME material well I'm all for it. If Led Zeppelin wants to make some money on bootlegged material, I'd be more than happy to purchase any show they decide to release. One thing I know about Zeppelin bootlegs is that I likely wouldn't be a huge fan of their music all these years later if it wasn't for bootlegs, once I get tired of their songs I happen to stumble across another concert that I haven't heard and find a new favorite performance of a song, it keeps their music fresh. For example, I went a long time with 0 listens to Stairway To Heaven (radio wore it out for me) up until a year ago when I heard it performed at LA 6/23/1977, since that day I've listened to the original and various live performances of it a lot!

Not for money eh !!....

http://douglasongww.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/it-coulda-happened-this-way-liver-than_17.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check. Just recently got Queen's Rainbow box set.

You're gonna love it. It's a fantastic early show, (even if there are overdubs all over, but they were dubbed on the master tapes so nothing could be done about it). I'd have to say of all of Queen's live releases that's truest to what actually happened, Queen on Fire: Live at The Bowl is the least edited concert. It's from June 5, 1982 at the National Bowl in Milton Keynes, UK, and it's an absolutely killer show.

I really hope Jimmy releases a full Earl's Court show on DVD or SD-BD, it would be magnificent!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I also said "but of course there are those people who did want to make some money". I highly doubt every last person who recorded a show was doing it to make money or else more would have used equipment like this, but naturally some seen a opportunity in there. Good read nonetheless, crazy they made the albums along with an official release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhat puzzling then, that he wouldn't have thought to professionally film & record more shows in order to decrease interest in bootlegs. If we had perfectly sounding and looking CD/DVD releases of, say, 3/21/75 Seattle & 6/21/77 L.A., I bet there would be a lot fewer bootlegs sold from those years. It always slays me that they wouldn't have had a meeting and thought "The shows in L.A. & Seattle always seem to be some of the best of each tour, why don't we record our shows there just in case we get something good?"

I'm not sure if there's even a point to following this line of thinking...it only leads to disappointment. Still, what you said reminded me of what I said once in a different thread (quoted below.)

I wonder what Jimmy was thinking by waiting until the end of those bigger tours to get out the cameras. Hindsight is 20/20, but still, filming at the end of the first leg in both years would have been wiser. It's that sweet spot where they finally get a good feel for the setlist and really start opening up during jams, but before they get too tired or bored. They also tended to do a multi-night performance to finish the first leg, so that'd allow for cross-night editing.

End of first leg 1973 - 31 May and 3 June at The Forum

End of first leg 1975 - 13 and 14 Feb at Nassau Coliseum

End of first leg 1977 - 27 and 28 Apr at Richfield Coliseum

That's three legendary concert films or albums right there, if only they'd planned a bit better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...