Funny, that one had 'Rhamadan' as an extra track, download only.
(I'd have bought the double album if they had added that as a "side 4" track, but they didn't it just had four sides of the same tracks as the CD, making four quite short sides.
― Mark G, Monday, 1 August 2016 11:25 (eight years ago) link
I'm trying to think of the known-to-exist (which in Pink Floyd's case has a strong overlap with "fan circulating") material _not_ appearing on this set. So far I've got:
The cut acetates of Arnold Layne/Let's Roll Another OneThe instrumental version of "Vegetable Man" played by Nick Mason in a 1969 interviewThe two minutes of Syd's Pink Floyd live in the 1968 film "DOPE"There's also an alleged 1966 instrumental demo of "Let's Roll Another One" but that might be a fake.Interstellar Overdrive (recorded at Mother's in 1969 for the "Ummagumma" live album)
Anything I'm missing?
― a confederacy of lampreys (rushomancy), Monday, 1 August 2016 12:01 (eight years ago) link
so really, the vast majority of this is already circulating in pretty superb sound quality.
"Seabirds"?
― Aw naw, no' Annoni oan an' aw noo (Tom D.), Monday, 1 August 2016 12:06 (eight years ago) link
... oh right, I see you mentioned that, ignore that post.
THis is a list that somebody on that lthread put together of things know to exist that weren't included
"Interstellar Overdrive (1966 demo) *Untitled (Sunshine) **Vegetable Man (alternate takes)Jugband Blues (alternate overdubs)Reaction In G (studio version)Bike (RM1, alternate vocals/lyrics, no harmonium)Lucifer Sam (RM1, early version)Chapter 24 (alt take 5)Pow R Toc H (RM1, alt mix)The Gnome (alt mix)Take Up Thy Stethescope and Walk (alt mix)Interstellar Overdrive (rough mix, take 2 unedited)Paintbox (early version)Remember a Day (alternate mono mix)
* Bootlegged from a good tape source.** Short fragment was bootlegged in poor quality.Everything else is totally unheard."
I was thinking there was an Interstellar Overdrive mentioned from '66 which presumably must need to be reissued in some form by the end of the year to avoid the 50 year thing with public domain.
This guy was also saying that Joe Boyd was vehemently against releasing stereo versions of Arnold Layne and Candy and a Currant Bun
― Stevolende, Monday, 1 August 2016 12:36 (eight years ago) link
oh yeah, forgot about that '66 interstellar overdrive (also heard on the soundtrack to the film "San Francisco", and as heard on the Rhamadan bootleg). these alt mixes... you know, i am a huge nerd, but i do consider "alt mixes" to be the shittiest form of bonus tracks. 90% of the time they're completely functionally identical to the released versions. the alt mixes on those zep and sabbath "deluxe editions"... so boring! i'd rather listen to the 11 cd Gaseneta box set. mind you, i am a little hyped for quad atom heart mother and "echoes". if there was actually a tape of lucifer sam with "percy the ratcatcher" lyrics, or "she was a millionaire", or whatever, that'd be great, but i do consider sh.tv message board posts, even really authoritative sounding ones, with a certain amount of skepticism.
― a confederacy of lampreys (rushomancy), Monday, 1 August 2016 13:02 (eight years ago) link
I AM ANTICIPATING THIS RELEASE QUITE HIGHLY.
― Mr. Snrub, Monday, 1 August 2016 13:40 (eight years ago) link
I'm left wondering how many units you need to press of a release in order for it to fulfill the 50 year copyright vs public domain thing. That's in general not just this set.
That first Dylan set in that vein barely existed IIRC. Something like 25 copies? Whatever it was, it wasn't much, but it was enough to fulfill the brief.
― Ned Raggett, Monday, 1 August 2016 13:57 (eight years ago) link
THanks, I'm assuming they must be commercially available in order to fulfil the thing too and find it odd that something that limited could be. but don't know the ins and outs.I mean presumably if you were coming to the end of the 50 year thing and printed up copies of something and only distributed them internally to chief executives or something it wouldn't fulfill the necessary criteria.
― Stevolende, Monday, 1 August 2016 14:12 (eight years ago) link
Yeah they have to be commercially on sale, and that's what said first Dylan set was, directly via a small clutch of stores. Ergo, on sale, for purchase, and purchased.
― Ned Raggett, Monday, 1 August 2016 14:17 (eight years ago) link
And sold on ebay by some of those members of the general public.
― Mark G, Monday, 1 August 2016 14:30 (eight years ago) link
let's get this thread back on track pleasehttp://3.imimg.com/data3/KG/YD/MY-10359218/12-250x250.jpg
― tylerw, Monday, 1 August 2016 14:41 (eight years ago) link
"Only 250,000 copies of this were sold, but everyone who bought one didn't go on to form a band."
― Ned Raggett, Monday, 1 August 2016 14:50 (eight years ago) link
Curious about the Zabriskie Point stuff, what about all those tracks like the Red Queen? Are they here under different names?
I'm still thinking the 2010 "remix" of Vegetable/Scream is the version that Peter Jenner did for fun and played on the radio once?
― dan selzer, Monday, 1 August 2016 15:07 (eight years ago) link
did peter jenner play those mixes on the radio? the story i heard (and this all gets very hazy) is that jenner made those mixes in 1974 for a possible third barrett record, at which point they leaked, _possibly_ via syd superfan bernard white? and that the other set of mixes, from 1987, were made by malcolm jones in 1987 for possible inclusion on "opel".
The "copyright loophole" thing is something that causes me no end of amusement. I'm not actually aware of any recordings that have been commercially issued to exploit this supposed 50 year loophole, and the legal status of it is a little uncertain to say the least. A classic "Y2K" thing, where fear of the unknown leads to overreaction.
As far as I can tell the thinking here seems to rest on the infamous "20 year loophole" in Italy that was responsible for much of the boom of the early CD era- but that loophole didn't result in any recordings being placed in the public domain.
But this flood of releases does nicely belie the conflicting motivations between anti-bootleg sentiment- on the one hand, wanting to protect the brand from being tainted by low-quality bootleg dross, and on the other, not wanting anybody else to profit from their work. Sixties musicians these days seem very happy to release low-quality bootleg dross at high prices, knowing full will these releases will do little to taint their corporate brand, so these releases must be largely attributed to the latter motive. Which is darkly hilarious, the notion that they hold the belief that some unspecified "people", no doubt dead ringers for Martin Shkreli in their fevered imaginations, will become millionaires on the back of a dodgy "Interstellar Overdrive" outtake that's been freely available on the net for well over a decade. Shades of Dave Clark!
― a confederacy of lampreys (rushomancy), Monday, 1 August 2016 16:48 (eight years ago) link
Lots of labels have released jazz recordings via the law.
― Cosmic Slop, Monday, 1 August 2016 17:04 (eight years ago) link
Like Cosmic Slop said, this is a major thing in jazz. I have a dozen or so cheapo box sets on my shelf that are called something like Art Pepper: Complete Albums 1952-1962 or whatever, and they'll combine eight albums from a bunch of different labels into one four-CD box for like $15. None of the bonus tracks that previous reissues might have come with - just the original vinyl track listing - but still, it's all material that's no longer under copyright.
― Don Van Gorp, midwest regional VP, marketing (誤訳侮辱), Monday, 1 August 2016 17:23 (eight years ago) link
sure i have some of those recordings myself but those aren't specifically _bootleg_ recordings, they're commercial recordings that have fallen into the public domain. which does lead to the potential of a somewhat amusing scenario where, say, "dark side of the moon" is in the public domain but the copyright holder maintains the sole right to legally sell that recording of pink floyd fucking around with wine glasses. unlikely to actually happen, as lawmakers' current attitudes towards copyright law tend towards never letting anything lapse into public domain again, but it would be funny!
― a confederacy of lampreys (rushomancy), Monday, 1 August 2016 17:29 (eight years ago) link
Somebody on Hoffman was saying that the public domain only had rights to the recording rather than the post production processes added. Which might be why people would be interested in releasing mixes since those would remain protected whereas a straight recording wouldn't.
― Stevolende, Monday, 1 August 2016 17:32 (eight years ago) link
probably true, but not super relevant imo. yes, those 2016 mixes of obscured by clouds will likely remain under copyright until after we're all dead. but if the 1972 release falls into the public domain, how much does that matter? are people really going to pay for the 2016 mix at a premium when the 1972 version is readily available to them for a pittance?
the issue with public domain, and probably one of the major reasons legislators fear it, is that the only practical way to make a profit with it is to maintain a monopoly on its means of production (which is where shkreli becomes relevant). maintaining copyright on unique copyrighted variants of public domain works has value for under two circumstances: first, when this prevents direct copies of your releases (which has a certain utility, though usually not a tremendous amount unless the copyright holder can somehow make public domain editions of the work unobtainable), and second, when those unique variants are highly desirable in ways the public domain versions are not.
― a confederacy of lampreys (rushomancy), Monday, 1 August 2016 17:51 (eight years ago) link
pink floyd rules
― who is extremely unqualified to review this pop album (BradNelson), Monday, 1 August 2016 18:05 (eight years ago) link
Other thing that people have said relevant to this is that for something to be practically in public domain there has to be an available version of the recording to be traded. I think it may have all been hypothetical but thinking about unreleased an unavailable tracks being hidden away in vaults wherever and only being released as whatever year's mix which would therefore mean that the track in question while not being protected per se because it hadn't been officially released would remain unattainable for anybody to release as public domain.
Not sure if that would be anything other than hypothetical though. Though it does appear that several tracks in this box are not otherwise in circulation. So that's 50 years nearly.
& the idea that one could prevent a track from leaking once in any way available also seems to be largely hypothetical doesn't it.Not sure how successful anybody's been in actually blocking the circulation of tracks while in copyright anyway.
But I guess it stops somebody releasing a sub par version commercially. But if it was sub par anyway , would anybody be buying it?
― Stevolende, Monday, 1 August 2016 18:10 (eight years ago) link
trusting vaults to be non-porous is a foolish assumption, particularly when the vaults in question aren't controlled by the band to begin with.
― a confederacy of lampreys (rushomancy), Monday, 1 August 2016 18:39 (eight years ago) link
Thing is, like that double single of 1965 Pink Floyd, limited edition, high price.
So, either pay £200 on ebay (record company only got the original purchase price out of that deal), or someone shares an upload recording which gets effectively bootleg distribution.
I guess that's against a legitimate public domain release, like those Beatles' "Love Me Do" 'collectors' editions (heart shaped, pic-disc, etc)
― Mark G, Tuesday, 2 August 2016 11:50 (eight years ago) link
listening to this right now. man, pink floyd really does rule. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ijy4GCcBgVw
― tylerw, Tuesday, 2 August 2016 14:19 (eight years ago) link
Is there a commercially available dvd of promo films? I can't believe the Gerald Scarfe "Welcome to the Machine" has been removed from YouTube
― Iago Galdston, Monday, 8 August 2016 16:08 (eight years ago) link
there are dvds with the "immersion editions". pink floyd are pretty brutal about taking their stuff off streaming sites.
― a confederacy of lampreys (rushomancy), Monday, 8 August 2016 16:41 (eight years ago) link
I saw the "Syd's first trip" DVD got withdrawn as well.
― Mark G, Monday, 8 August 2016 22:43 (eight years ago) link
OK, thanks, Rushomancy, Mark
― Iago Galdston, Tuesday, 9 August 2016 00:56 (eight years ago) link
Didn't get thrown a rope out of the gig economy. Feh. Listening to Manchester 1974
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXZGpvqUmNQ
― Elvis Telecom, Friday, 26 August 2016 08:06 (eight years ago) link
http://mlb.com/images/9/7/2/197731972/082516_milb_goat_field_med_srg4a3v8.gif
wave upon wave of demented avengers marched cheerfully out of obscurity into the outfield
― mookieproof, Friday, 26 August 2016 14:52 (eight years ago) link
http://s5.favim.com/orig/53/pink-floyd-animals-elephants-love-Favim.com-487973.jpg
― tylerw, Friday, 26 August 2016 14:57 (eight years ago) link
...rules?
― great Canadian prog-psych debut from 1969 (Sparkle Motion), Friday, 26 August 2016 15:06 (eight years ago) link
getting pretty close to not ruling there
― tylerw, Friday, 26 August 2016 15:17 (eight years ago) link
Not pigs on the wing then?
― Mark G, Friday, 26 August 2016 15:19 (eight years ago) link
that picture rules imo
― niels, Friday, 26 August 2016 16:04 (eight years ago) link
this video definitely ruleshttps://www.facebook.com/pinkfloyd/videos/10153823948907308/
― tylerw, Friday, 26 August 2016 19:21 (eight years ago) link
hehe, "psychedelic is a silly term"
― niels, Friday, 26 August 2016 23:15 (eight years ago) link
The Copenhagen set has a real bite that I haven't heard elsewhere. So looking forward to hearing the Stockholm remaster.Do wonder what the individual section sets are going to cost. Will definitely want the first couple.
― Stevolende, Saturday, 27 August 2016 10:20 (eight years ago) link
Roger Waters announced as part of this year's Bridge School Benefit
:D
Secretly kinda wish it was Dave instead of Rog but it's still gonna be cool to see him in that setting
― Flamenco Drop (VegemiteGrrl), Saturday, 27 August 2016 17:02 (eight years ago) link
why would you rather see Gilmour live than Waters
seriously that is crazy
― heaven parker (anagram), Saturday, 27 August 2016 20:25 (eight years ago) link
yeah, you'll miss out on all that great Waters guitar playing
― Ben Wankolinc (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 27 August 2016 20:44 (eight years ago) link
Gilmour has a beautiful voice and a majestic guitar style
Waters is a creep who should've just lurked in the background.
― brimstead, Saturday, 27 August 2016 23:04 (eight years ago) link
That's a joke post right? Everything about live Floyd is better w gilmour
― niels, Saturday, 27 August 2016 23:04 (eight years ago) link
Xps
Maybe it's just me but I'd rather hear Floyd songs sung by the person who wrote them. All the nice guitar playing and singing can't disguise the fact that Gilmour is and always has been a mediocre songwriter with nary a creative idea in his head
I saw Waters' Wall show a few years ago and it was one of the best shows I've ever seen. It wouldn't have been up to much if he had "just lurked in the background"
― heaven parker (anagram), Sunday, 28 August 2016 06:41 (eight years ago) link
whatever
― brimstead, Sunday, 28 August 2016 06:48 (eight years ago) link
yeah it would be pretty weird if a headliner just "lurked in the background" that's exactly what i meant, what the fuck
― brimstead, Sunday, 28 August 2016 06:50 (eight years ago) link
he's a creep with a crappy voice and he writes horrible lyrics
cue one of buzza's socks to tell me i'm shit
― brimstead, Sunday, 28 August 2016 06:51 (eight years ago) link
My son was in the kids choir in the Wall show and met Waters backstage, said he was a lovely man. He comes across very well in that Wall concert movie/doc thing from a couple of years ago as well. As someone wrote upthread or in some other thread somewhere, he's obviously been through therapy and has worked out a lot of his issues. Besides which he wrote the lyrics to every Floyd song since 1968, that's an awful lot of lyrics to dismiss as "crappy"
― heaven parker (anagram), Sunday, 28 August 2016 10:11 (eight years ago) link