Re: Kate Boots

[chrisw@miso.wwa.com (Chris Williams)]

>I find it hard to think that someone who wasn't interested in the 
>development of Kate's work would buy the Cathy Demos.  When I'm looking 
>through record bins at unfamiliar artists I'm more likely to buy 
>something that I've seen an ad for, heard about from a friend, etc.  

   Of course. The ONLY people who buy bootlegs are those who have
already bought *everything* legimately offered.

>I'd be unlikely to pick up something with a color xeroxed cover, from a 
>record label like "Ugly Pigs" or "Pickled Bobbits" or "Rip Off Schemists" 
>or whatever those guys call themselves.

   Especially considering the low quality of most of the Kate boots, and
how few original Kate pieces there are to bootleg. Most of the boots are:

   * Dubs of the Hammersmith Open videotape.
   * Dubs of the Christmas special.
   * Audience recordings of other shows on the tour
   * Various collections of the "Cathy Demos."
   * Recordings of her few live performances since the tour.

   A boxed collection of all these could fit on four or five CDs. This
would give EMI something to sell during the long, bleak sales winter
between Kate albums. It would also completely destroy the Kate bootleg
market.

   Frank Zappa understood this. His "Beat The Boots" set basically 
bootlegged existing famous bootleg recordings down to the cover art.
So, if you wanted them, you could buy them from him. 

   It's a tired example, but if bootlegs and home taping had the
*slightest* impact on record sales, The Dead, Primus and Metallica
would all have sunk from sight.

>Thinking back, when it became obvious that the Demos were going to be 
>circulated, it would have been a smart move by KBC to offer the recordings 
>as a free bonus cassette with their official magazine.  They would have
>instantly foiled the bootleggers, who wouldn't have made any money, and 
>would have retained control over the quality of what got released.  
>They could even have distributed them in small groups of five songs 
>over a period of several years, delighting Kate's fans with rare 
>collector's items.  

   This has *never* been about money, unfortuntly. If it had been, it
would be easy to deal with rationally. Money is the one thing that record
company squid understand. 

   No, this is, and always has been, about *control*. Kate's control
of her music. I have no objection to *positive* control. It's the 
*negative* control that it irritating. This the famous Bush family
passive-aggressive way of dealing with things.

   Releasing the "Cathy Demos" would do no harm to Kate's career. No
one would mistake it for a new release. The only person who doesn't
want them out there is Kate...because she doesn't think they are "good 
enough." Fine. She is welcome to think that. We have the right to disagree.
But could *somebody* try to convince her that her fans are intelligent
enough to understand the work of a mature artist, and to also want to
see the "garden" that that art grew from? 

  She could put a big red warning sticker on the package "Warning!: Kate
is of the opinion that these songs are of not 'up to snuff!'"

>Yet another lost opportunity. . . perhaps someone needs a marketing manager . 

   She needs a manager. Period. Not a producer, no, she handles the musical
part wonderfully. She needs a business manager to offer an objective opinion 
from outside her family and friends. To handle the details of putting a tour
together (according to sources, she *has* tried to assemble a US tour.) To
look after Sony and try to get some effective marketing in the US (they 
couldn't get 50 people to see a free showing of _The Line, The Cross and The
Curve_ in *Chicago*?!? Hell, Vickie and I got 100 people to contribute to
charity to see old videos during an ice storm in Kansas City!)


--
Chris Williams of
Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago
chrisw@miso.wwa.com
"How perfectly goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure." - C. Crumb