booTleg cds

[Henry_Burdett_Messenger@cup.portal.com]

I've been reading this newsgroup for a long time, and I figure it's about
time I contribute something :-) 

With all this talk of bootlegs, and the humanistic and philosophical issues
involved, I transcribed this article, which you may find interesting...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bootlegging, Royalties and the Moment

Robert Fripp

There are two sides to bootlegging: professional and amateur. I recognize
that at its real level music belongs to everyone. In fact, the ownership
of music is a fairly recent phenomenon. It began in the 19th century, and
was firmed up in the 20th by the Copyright Act of 1911, the formation of
the PRS in 1914, the Composer's Guild (straight) in 1944, the
Songwriters' Guild (popular) in 1947 and the Copyright Act of 1956. All
these reinforced the notion of music as personal property; this is our
market background. 

Given that background, if money is to be made by the sale of my work then
I wish to receive my share of it. All of the sex scenes in "Emanuelle"
feature music lifted from "Larks' Tongues in Aspic, Part II." Following a
lengthy legal action, my rights as composer have been acknowledged and a
settlement made out of court. The implication that receiving royalties
for one's work is inherently bad I find very queer and somehow peculiarly
English. I espouse, through the Drive to 1981, "Action in the market place
but not governed by the value of the market place." This presents all the
dilemmas regarding money that any sane soul might need. Having lived in
the States, I've seen some of the contradictions of a commercial culture,
the other side of the famed "American Dream." And I'm familiar with
Proudhon's "property is theft," communalistic philosophy and praxis, and
some of the arguments of the Leveller, Ranter and Digger movements of the
17th century -- all reactions against our widespread belief in the
sanctity of private property.

Facing all the hazardous contradictions borne by that sanctity, the real
issue is surely: what might one do with one's royalties? The principle I
follow is that proprietary advantage involves proprietary responsibility;
that is, if one makes more money that one needs, there is an opportunity
to use it socially. Different religions traditionally recommend giving 10
to 15% of one's income to charities; the church tithe was compulsary; our
tax system is _supposed_ to enforce the proprietary responsibility, by
involuntarily redistributing income more equally than it is divvied up,
willy-nilly, by market forces. I recognize that different kinds of people
want -- and therefore feel they "need" -- different standards of living,
and that mine is higher than some and lower than others. The wide
difference between class levels seems queer, the exploitation and social
pretension ot involves is offensive. 

What I've chosen to do is to support a farming project in Cornwall, an
adult education experiement in the States and a naturopathic hospital in
England. The hospital is bankrupt, the farm and school are in serious
trouble. The League of Gentlemen has a deficit of $30,000; my house has
no hot water and the rain leaks through the roof; and, keep in mind, I
wish to remain financially independent of the industry so that my musical
choices remain personal and musical. And then there are those
concert-goers and record-buyers and ideologues and "fans" who criticize
artists who seek full royalty payment for their work and who try to halt
exploitation of same by profiteering bootleggers. Forgive me but I find
their posture exasperatingly naive.

Conversely, I have great sympathy for amateur bootleggers. With them,
enthusiasm for the music is the motive. After all, are not the best
Charlie Parker tracks live bootlegs? I also know quite a few performers 
who don't mind, such as the Instant Automatons in England [and the 
Grateful Dead -- hbm], who have gone so far as to provide a facility
wherein audience members may hookup their cassette recorders to the
hall's mix-board. Admirable, but not for me. My views are generally known
to my audience; to bring a recorder is a deliberate violation of the
ground rules, at best a violation of courtesy: it's rather like taking
notes of a personal conversation to circulate of publish later. This from
someone who's been a steady fixture on bootleg lists for over seven
years. 

Now we come to the humanistic and philosophical reasons why I oppose the
furtive taping of live music. I am seeking the quality of attention, of
being in the moment without expectation and without history, the moment
between the human _being_ and the human animal behavioral psychology so
terrifyingly describes. As Blake put it, "He who bends himself a joy/Does
the winged life destroy." Experiencing a piece of music repeatedly in an
active state has its own qualities and merits. On tape, music is music:
good, bad, lively, lethargic, spirited or whatever. In live performance,
the music is still music there is another element: the music mediates a
relationship between the player and the listener. This relationship is
fragile and easily spoilt. To try to pin it down desrupts it, much like
writing down one's thoughts during a meditation significantly disrupts
the very process of meditation. For some players, this presents no
difficulties, as with cameras, but it does for me. After all the years
and miles I've covered with music, I've fully realized the significance
of of the relationship between player and listener; what in music could
be more primary, more valuable? To experience a piece of music once and
only once is to experience that relationship in its most crystalline
form. It cannot be repeated: how many times can one lose one's virginity? 

        "This will prove a brave kingdom to me,
        Where I shall have my music for nothing."
                - Shakespeare, _The Tempest_

Originally appeared in _Musician_ magazine, circa 1979. Reprinted without
permission.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
henry_burdett_messenger@cup.portal.com




  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
e PRS in 1914, the Composer