Financial discussion RE: Unlistenable 2010 Bootleg

DreamOfAngels

This thread is intended to spark further discussion about some of the issues raised in the Unlistenable 2010 Bootlegs thread http://forums.pearljam.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=134823&start=0. My thoughts below are in response to statements read in that thread. Long post here so if you want to skip to the part in red and ignore the rest - go for it.

Some people expressed a displeasure in receiving a CDR vs. a CD. Others have commented on how we get what we paid for (implying not to expect the best quality for an immediate print recording). Does that mean that if we pay more, we should expect something that had more labor/effort/cost put into it? I'm familiar with how mass production can actually make things cheaper, and the more of a product you sell, the lower the profit margin needs to be per item to still be profitable.. which are a few reasons I can think of that might explain why the Backspacer CD is being sold for less than the bootlegs (even cheaper in stores).. but you would think that if Kufala is burning on demand to fulfill orders, and they are using CDR's, the cost might be lower than the studio albums that have months worth of mixing, design, and marketing efforts wrapped up in them...

Some people expressed opinions that we need to be happy we have boots available that are better than any audience boot ever was and to stop complaining or PJ might just stop making/selling them to us. If we think PJ is making these boots available to us because they think we are nice and we deserve it and they aren't anticipating any profit - why wouldn't the boot be cheaper since the profit motive is missing? My guess is that providing official boots removes the market for audience boots and allows the artist to receive the income stream vs. a bootlegger.. therefore, IMO, it's an income stream where they are making a profit regardless of whether some fans are satisfied with the sound.

Discussion? Is it reasonable to pay $3 more for a bootleg that is described as not mixed and mastered like a studio album would be, is not marketed the same as a studio album so it doesn't carry the marketing expense or sharing of revenue with Target, and is produced on demand where there is no leftover inventory to write off? What are your theories for why a studio album is cheaper to purchase and sounds better?

Full disclosure - I'm willing to pay the price for any PJ CD (boot or studio). They could charge $35 for each new studio album with 6 songs and I'd probably buy it. I like the physical case/CD. I don't care if it is CDR or CD. I do think the official boots sound better than any audience recording. There are a few of the 2010 boots I've heard that do not sound like a good mix to me (i.e. Stone is missing).

Just for reference - These prices are from the PJ Goods section as of today:
Backspacer CD: 13.99
Avocado CD: 16.00
Riot Act CD: 13.00
Bootleg 2010 CD: 16.98
Bootleg 2009 CD: 16.98

ahill721

Personally, I will continue to buy as long as they continue to produce. I love having the boots for memoribillia, and the fact that the band knows its listeners care enough about their live shows to continue to do this is just so awesome. These are live recording, and the fact that they sound like being at a live show I enjoy, takes me back to the time and place, friends, people met... Why do people bitch when I most bands won't do this at all!! I feel as though people are becoming too spoiled. This is a luxury for fans, and to complain about it is ridiculous, if you don't like don't buy, simple.

thefin190

DreamOfAngels wrote:

Discussion? Is it reasonable to pay $3 more for a bootleg that is described as not mixed and mastered like a studio album would be, is not marketed the same as a studio album so it doesn't carry the marketing expense or sharing of revenue with Target, and is produced on demand where there is no leftover inventory to write off? What are your theories for why a studio album is cheaper to purchase and sounds better?

My best guess is the economies of scales. The marginal cost of 500,000 to a million copies of backspacer is probably less than a few thousand bootleg discs. I doubt that PJ would charge more than necessary in order to fatten their wallets.

Paul Andrews

I think the nature of message forums on how people communicate (often badly) blows this issue up. Anyone see Silent Bob and Jay Strike back where they went after all the dicks who posted violent hatefilled crap about them on message forums, only to find most of them were kids, weaklings and nerds? But they beat them up anyway in a funny twist of what happens when the real world meets the online world.

Sometimes we all make statements online which under our 'avatar' and 'handle' we'd never make in person or create a persona that is far from our real identity (this is the reason I post with me real name and my pic - you're talking to me - not my online alter ego). This is not aimed at anyone, but just saying it is easy to make anon remarks and statements - often in the that of the moment - that

If we all take the 'heat' and 'hyperbole' out of the discussion and base the comments on pure unemotive fact then we'll get somewhere.

In some posts, people made valid and constructive comments like 'you can't hear stone in the mix on X song on X boot'

In some posts people said 'these are shit and unlistenable'

You tell me which comment deserves fair consideration and which one deserves the scorn other posters heaped upon it?

DreamOfAngels

ahill721 wrote:

Personally, I will continue to buy as long as they continue to produce. I love having the boots for memoribillia, and the fact that the band knows its listeners care enough about their live shows to continue to do this is just so awesome. These are live recording, and the fact that they sound like being at a live show I enjoy, takes me back to the time and place, friends, people met... Why do people bitch when I most bands won't do this at all!! I feel as though people are becoming too spoiled. This is a luxury for fans, and to complain about it is ridiculous, if you don't like don't buy, simple.

Ok.. I think I need to clarify my purpose of making this post, or maybe I'm reading your post a bit defensively... but I'm not bitching or complaining here. Maybe you meant to make your post in the original thread? The purpose of this thread is to spark an unemotional discussion about the finances and marketing and such that goes into these products and pricing, etc based on issues raised in the other thread. That's all. Just friendly discussion.

Thanks

DreamOfAngels

Paul Andrews wrote:

I think the nature of message forums on how people communicate (often badly) blows this issue up. Anyone see Silent Bob and Jay Strike back where they went after all the dicks who posted violent hatefilled crap about them on message forums, only to find most of them were kids, weaklings and nerds? But they beat them up anyway in a funny twist of what happens when the real world meets the online world.

Sometimes we all make statements online which under our 'avatar' and 'handle' we'd never make in person or create a persona that is far from our real identity (this is the reason I post with me real name and my pic - you're talking to me - not my online alter ego). This is not aimed at anyone, but just saying it is easy to make anon remarks and statements - often in the that of the moment - that

If we all take the 'heat' and 'hyperbole' out of the discussion and base the comments on pure unemotive fact then we'll get somewhere.

In some posts, people made valid and constructive comments like 'you can't hear stone in the mix on X song on X boot'

In some posts people said 'these are shit and unlistenable'

You tell me which comment deserves fair consideration and which one deserves the scorn other posters heaped upon it?

Paul, I'm not sure I'm understanding the relationship between the discussion I'm asking for and what you've written above. As you stated, this is the difficult part about communicating online vs. in person. I really am just curious how people look at this issue from the financial decision made by a consumer who is evaluating his options to how the pricing of these products are determined to begin with. I'm trying to spark the discussion that does not carry the "heat" or emotions the other thread did which is why I started a new thread. I'm sorry for not understanding your post. Can you please explain?

Thanks

Paul Andrews

DreamOfAngels wrote:

Paul Andrews wrote:

I think the nature of message forums on how people communicate (often badly) blows this issue up. Anyone see Silent Bob and Jay Strike back where they went after all the dicks who posted violent hatefilled crap about them on message forums, only to find most of them were kids, weaklings and nerds? But they beat them up anyway in a funny twist of what happens when the real world meets the online world.

Sometimes we all make statements online which under our 'avatar' and 'handle' we'd never make in person or create a persona that is far from our real identity (this is the reason I post with me real name and my pic - you're talking to me - not my online alter ego). This is not aimed at anyone, but just saying it is easy to make anon remarks and statements - often in the that of the moment - that

If we all take the 'heat' and 'hyperbole' out of the discussion and base the comments on pure unemotive fact then we'll get somewhere.

In some posts, people made valid and constructive comments like 'you can't hear stone in the mix on X song on X boot'

In some posts people said 'these are shit and unlistenable'

You tell me which comment deserves fair consideration and which one deserves the scorn other posters heaped upon it?

Paul, I'm not sure I'm understanding the relationship between the discussion I'm asking for and what you've written above. As you stated, this is the difficult part about communicating online vs. in person. I really am just curious how people look at this issue from the financial decision made by a consumer who is evaluating his options to how the pricing of these products are determined to begin with. I'm trying to spark the discussion that does not carry the "heat" or emotions the other thread did which is why I started a new thread. I'm sorry for not understanding your post. Can you please explain?

Thanks

I was backing up your remarks in regard to having this discussion without heat and just basing on facts, sorry i got rambling

DreamOfAngels

Paul Andrews wrote:

I was backing up your remarks in regard to having this discussion without heat and just basing on facts, sorry i got rambling

No worries. I appreciate that you responded. I think I got thrown off from the 1st response to the thread and then when I was reading your post which included the question about which comment deserved fair consideration.. I got confused. Thank you for clarifying.

I guess maybe this is why they say our brains need sleep in order to function properly... I didn't get enough last night

ahill721

ahill721 wrote:
Personally, I will continue to buy as long as they continue to produce. I love having the boots for memoribillia, and the fact that the band knows its listeners care enough about their live shows to continue to do this is just so awesome. These are live recording, and the fact that they sound like being at a live show I enjoy, takes me back to the time and place, friends, people met... Why do people bitch when I most bands won't do this at all!! I feel as though people are becoming too spoiled. This is a luxury for fans, and to complain about it is ridiculous, if you don't like don't buy, simple.

Ok.. I think I need to clarify my purpose of making this post, or maybe I'm reading your post a bit defensively... but I'm not bitching or complaining here. Maybe you meant to make your post in the original thread? The purpose of this thread is to spark an unemotional discussion about the finances and marketing and such that goes into these products and pricing, etc based on issues raised in the other thread. That's all. Just friendly discussion.

Thanks


I apologize, I know that you did not mean to start anything, I made the mistake and should have made reference to the individual who started the other thread. By no means, did I mean to be defensive towards you, him, maybe? but you know, so I am sorry.

benjs

As it's been stated here, I think it's just a product of economies of scale - not to mention that, in my opinion, by releasing every show in bootleg form, they are almost ensuring an oversaturated market for Pearl Jam bootlegs, so it's a bit of a catch 22 in my opinion (release every show poorly, or release bootlegs for select shows with higher quality mixing/mastering). The way I see it, Philly bootlegs entered a different market space than any other bootlegs being released, hence their 'upgrade' in quality (that is to say, people tend to talk about the Philly shows like they were in some magical elevated space greater than most PJ concerts - almost like a bootleg release vs. a 'live album' release). The delay until their releases also added hype, and ensured a larger demand so that they could justify this effort.

One more thing - I'm obviously not a lawyer, but does PJ have to share profits from their show bootlegs now, considering that the shows do consist primarily of songs recorded under Epic's management? The fact that Backspacer was released independently is not something to discount, as their profit margins I would imagine are quite large compared even to the bootlegs... even if Epic doesn't get paid, Kufala certainly take a cut.
In my opinion, the Pearl Jam bootlegs are a good value statement. Would I prefer paying $5 extra for higher quality mixing/mastering? Yes! But am I happy with things in their current state? You bet.

Sorry if this was incoherent at any given point - I'm trying!

derbydave

To me, the boots are a document of that evenings show.
No more, No less!!, I don't expect perfection from a live performance by anyone!!
The bootleg recording quality, while important to me, doesn't have to be "studio quality."
I like the imperfections in the bootlegs... They just feel more natural to me.
Also if you compare the number of tracks on a studio album - 10 to 15 tracks, to what you get on a PJ Bootleg CD - 30-40 tracks...
I think we are getting an EXCELLENT value for the money.
Just my opinion!!!

Spencer

I think the main gripe people are having with the boots is that the quality of them is seen to be markedly less than in earlier years, but the price remains very much the same. I won't hide the fact that I greatly prefer the sound of the boots when Brett Eliason was mixing them (2000 being my favourite, followed by 2006) but I know there's also plenty of people who like the more up-front mixes that are being released on the last few tours.

I don't the band "owes" it to anyone to produce the boots, but I doubt I'll be purchasing any further in the future as the sound just isn't to my liking - I prefer audience boots, if well recorded. That's my decision, but I'm happy for others if they're happy with how they sound now. It's not terrible or unlistenable by any means, it's just a different style of mixing than from when Brett was producing them - for better or worse.

I think the argument "they're just bootlegs!" is weak, however - nobody's asking for perfection, my understanding of any unhappiness is just that they used to be mixed in a certain way and that's changed over time to something some people are less happy with. I don't think they should me made to feel ungrateful, they're customers voicing an opinion. If your favourite restaurant changed chef and the new chef started cooking in a different style to the old chef, some people are inevitably going to be unhappy - just because they're able to taste the difference between one way of cooking and another, doesn't mean they're too picky.

Some folks are happy to just eat whatever's served up, and good for them; it must be nice! I guess I wish the boots were still mixed like they were before, but hey I'm not ripping my hair out over it, it just is what it is. As long as people are still making audience recordings, I'm happy.

Porchsitter

As I stated in the other thread, my beef with the boots have more to do with the fact that they were of so much better quality in year's past and don't understand why they aren't now (2000 boots aside due to months of preparation for their release). I've listened to a few boots from this past tour and there are moments when Mike is hidden behind the rest of the band and I just don't understand that. I've seen complaints on this board about the boots extending all the way back to '03, and for the most part I've never agreed with the complaints. Sure, the mix could probably be better but when you consider how fast they were turning them out it was a bit understandable. It's different this year. This year, I really took notice in the quality moreso than ever before, and I am not a sound guy. I'm just happy to hear the shows, but this year the mix is so bad that it's hard not to take notice. And the argument that these are bootlegs and the quality isn't going to be there IS weak. Why is it that many of the '03 shows sound better than the shows that are releasing now? They were turning out those discs in a week's time and they weren't CD-R. I just don't understand it. Does this mean that I'll stop buying the boots? Hell no, but I do think they need to do something about the mix to make it better.

Paul Andrews

Spencer wrote:

I think the main gripe people are having with the boots is that the quality of them is seen to be markedly less than in earlier years, but the price remains very much the same. I won't hide the fact that I greatly prefer the sound of the boots when Brett Eliason was mixing them (2000 being my favourite, followed by 2006) but I know there's also plenty of people who like the more up-front mixes that are being released on the last few tours.

I don't the band "owes" it to anyone to produce the boots, but I doubt I'll be purchasing any further in the future as the sound just isn't to my liking - I prefer audience boots, if well recorded. That's my decision, but I'm happy for others if they're happy with how they sound now. It's not terrible or unlistenable by any means, it's just a different style of mixing than from when Brett was producing them - for better or worse.

I think the argument "they're just bootlegs!" is weak, however - nobody's asking for perfection, my understanding of any unhappiness is just that they used to be mixed in a certain way and that's changed over time to something some people are less happy with. I don't think they should me made to feel ungrateful, they're customers voicing an opinion. If your favourite restaurant changed chef and the new chef started cooking in a different style to the old chef, some people are inevitably going to be unhappy - just because they're able to taste the difference between one way of cooking and another, doesn't mean they're too picky.

Some folks are happy to just eat whatever's served up, and good for them; it must be nice! I guess I wish the boots were still mixed like they were before, but hey I'm not ripping my hair out over it, it just is what it is. As long as people are still making audience recordings, I'm happy.

i think you've put it perfectly.

I'm happy with the boots, but I've never been as fussy when it comes to bootlegs as I am when it comes to studio albums or food for that matter. I usually only buy the shows I go to and regard them more as a document/momento of the night rather than a pristine recording that needs top be perfect. Like collectin the posts, ticket stubs and t-shirts at a show. i too have noticed different mixes and there are shows I prefer more than others, but as I said, it's not just about the sound for me.

CJMST3K

I'd be happy if they just did soundboards.

I know the mix will vary depending on what the venue needed, but frankly when I'm listening to the MSG '10 cd, it's annoying to not hear the singer. I'd rather have a soundboard where I can't hear the guitarist and can hear the singer than the other way around.

TunnelThroughDenial

I think they need to release the boots on vinyl - what do you think of that?

teflonsteve

It's strange that phish can put out pristine recordings within hours of shows end yet Pearl Jam is unable to do so.

derbydave

One of the issues brought up in this thread was the price of the boots and the value for the fans...
Do we feel like we are getting a good a deal for our $$$??
I still can't believe how much GREAT music we get for so little money!!!
I know NOTHING compares to seeing a LIVE performance , but Look at how much a ticket to just one show costs.... Add in travel, hotel rooms, food & drink and most of us can't afford to go to more that 1 or 2 shows per tour. But for $17.00 I can enjoy a pretty decent LIVE documentation of a show that I wouldn't have been able to hear, if the boots weren't available.
To me, that's a pretty good bargain!!!

demetrios

teflonsteve wrote:

It's strange that phish can put out pristine recordings within hours of shows end yet Pearl Jam is unable to do so.

I know what you mean. It's funny that back in '03, we got to download the 64kbps tracks hours after the show then waited a few day's to get the silver CD's in the mail. The '05's, we got the mp3's hours after the show, and imo, they sounded great (wish though it was pressed on CD & available via flac style). From '06 & on, it's been a long wait. Their method isn't the same anymore, and it's all about the touch of mixing & editing. I wish it was all coming directly from the soundboard. No editing, no mixing, no subtracting, all untouched audio from the show. Just the raw feed from the show. Why it takes so long to get these recordings out to the fans.

Nittany1bn

the allman brothers have cds ready 20-30 minutes after their shows, you pay on the way in and get a wristband, wait in line after the show and get a soundboard recording. they have racks of burners going and a crew of people sticking them in the cases, the first disc will already be done and they start cranking out the second disc almost as soon as the lights go up. just sayin'

Spencer

Personally, I'd be really happy if we waited until a few months after the end of the tour for the boots, providing they were mixed to sound similar to the 2000 boots (which I don't think have ever been bettered). From memory, that's exactly how the system was run in 2000.

teflonsteve

demetrios wrote:

teflonsteve wrote:

It's strange that phish can put out pristine recordings within hours of shows end yet Pearl Jam is unable to do so.

I know what you mean. It's funny that back in '03, we got to download the 64kbps tracks hours after the show then waited a few day's to get the silver CD's in the mail. The '05's, we got the mp3's hours after the show, and imo, they sounded great (wish though it was pressed on CD & available via flac style). From '06 & on, it's been a long wait. Their method isn't the same anymore, and it's all about the touch of mixing & editing. I wish it was all coming directly from the soundboard. No editing, no mixing, no subtracting, all untouched audio from the show. Just the raw feed from the show. Why it takes so long to get these recordings out to the fans.

Hey D!

Ya know, I think those 2005 mp3s sound better than any of the flacs from 2006 on!

demetrios

Nittany1bn wrote:

the allman brothers have cds ready 20-30 minutes after their shows, you pay on the way in and get a wristband, wait in line after the show and get a soundboard recording. they have racks of burners going and a crew of people sticking them in the cases, the first disc will already be done and they start cranking out the second disc almost as soon as the lights go up. just sayin'

I think The Pixies did the same thing back in '04. After the show you would wait by the merchandise table & buy that show's audio on freshly pressed CD's. I forget now if they were silver Cd's or burned Cdr's. I used to download the Flac's off this cool site the day after!

If Pearl Jam ever did something like this, I would love a 2nd job working @ the back with racks of burners, making copies of the show. I've got experience in dealing with cdr's & dvdr's! Trust me!