vc40 said:

This perfectly illustrates you don't read what we say, you only focus on what you belief...

Try to look a few posts up.

Of course they shouldn't be compensated, that's not their goal. That's why they differ from the profit-labels.

udo said:

So you mean the 'dedicated fans' should be compensated?

You say the dedicated fans are ripped off.

That implies you say that they are missing out on something.

On the other hand you say thet they do not need compensation.

So what gives?

This is not about what I believe, this is about what I read.

Next could be an analysis of the profits. Who can give one?

^It's not that you don't understand, it's just that you don't want to.

As I said several posts above, what free labels ask for is JUST that when someone PROFITS from the work THEY'VE done during their leisure hours just have the decency of saying where they sourced that from. It's this simple.

For example, as far as I know, whenever 4DF have reworked a previously circulating (as opposed to unreleased) source they have ALWAYS said whose the original source was, which also helps you evaluate the goodnes (or lack thereof) of their efforts.

vitriol said:

^It's not that you don't understand, it's just that you don't want to.

As I said several posts above, what free labels ask for is JUST that when someone PROFITS from the work THEY'VE done during their leisure hours just have the decency of saying where they sourced that from. It's this simple.

For example, as far as I know, whenever 4DF have reworked a previously circulating (as opposed to unreleased) source they have ALWAYS said whose the original source was, which also helps you evaluate the goodnes (or lack thereof) of their efforts.

So if others do not mention what their source was...

Or rather: do not say that their source was 4DF nor deny that their source was 4DF it MUST be a rip of 4DF's work and therefor they're evil?

Even if they someohow have sort of a story, how quickly would you believe them? They're evil b00tleggars and 4DF is not. Right?

Therefor: just listen and compare and listen again.

WOW, this is a heated discussion. I see things much simpler:

Up through about 1998 the options for new boots was buy a pressed CD or trade for a cassette copy. I always chose buy the CD.

Then came CD-Rs and I always chose trade for a CD-R rip.

Before long I was downloading files & burning my own CD-Rs.

Cut to 2010 and the specific boots in question: I bought the original City Lights and some other of these shows back in the day. I've downloaded every new version, tweaked or not, to be released since, and I downloaded this new one. I get the free releases from fans AND I get free copies of the pressed releases that are for sale. I get it all and pay for none of it. I only pay for official releases that put money in the artists pocket.

The only ones that should be mad that Sab is stealing from FBG is FBG. One could even make the argument that they shouldn't be mad as their work wouldn't exist without someone stealing from Prince. I won't make that argument because I want FBG to keep doing what they are doing even if Sab keeps doing what they are doing.

Who cares? It's all available for free. Get it all, pay no one, Yay!

PS - CD-R's sound as good as CDs but do not last as long as CDs. Not encouraging buying pressed CDs (I don't), just sayin'...

^^ Yes, maybe true. But CDs "play" better, which is different to "durability" and "sound". See?

udo said:

vc40 said:

udo said:

CD's play best,

CD-R's sound exactly the same.

Playing is not the same as sounding.

I guess it's about how they spin inside they player or something.

FunkyDissCo said:

^^ Yes, maybe true. But CDs "play" better, which is different to "durability" and "sound". See?

udo said:

Playing is not the same as sounding.

I guess it's about how they spin inside they player or something.

yeah right!

Pressed discs are no good when they get scratched..it happens very easily.
CD-R's can be downloaded again & again for free.

Or they can be stored on external HD's or on DVD-R's.

It's great that in this day & age fans can now download all the good stuff for free, before it ends up in the hands of the profiteers.

It's sad some people are still clueless.

vc40 said:

It's sad some people are still clueless.

I will read this remark as not directed to me but as directed to the general public that is not so internet savvy as you are.

FunkyDissCo said:

^^ Yes, maybe true. But CDs "play" better, which is different to "durability" and "sound". See?

udo said:

Playing is not the same as sounding.

I guess it's about how they spin inside they player or something.

If you have playability issues with CDRs, one of these is usually the culprit:

- old ass CD player (not usually the issue these days, but was a problem 10 or 12 years ago)

- CDRs burned too fast - this is the most common reason, most people burn CDRs as fast as their computer is capable of. This is a bad idea. I burn all CDRs & DVDRs at 6x or occasionally 8x. The result is much fewer playability issues and much fewer write errors. Give it a try, it makes a huge difference.

- the burner or the player has issues: needs to be cleaned or replaced

- the CDR has a paper/sticker label affixed - THIS will cause the spin problems you mention

Check this stuff out, especially try burning at slower speeds, I expect you'll have better results.

[Edited 8/27/10 10:37am]

Oh, BTW, the set is the best thing since sliced bread.

Really.

I enjoy the shows very much.

Hey DJThunderfunk,

i really appreciate your hints, thanks a lot for caring.

Actually i was just joking... Because i failed to see what the term "playing better" could refer to if neither sound nor durability. Sorry for the confusion.

FunkyDissCo said:

Hey DJThunderfunk,

i really appreciate your hints, thanks a lot for caring.

Actually i was just joking... Because i failed to see what the term "playing better" could refer to if neither sound nor durability. Sorry for the confusion.

Cool

udo said:

Or rather: do not say that their source was 4DF nor deny that their source was 4DF it MUST be a rip of 4DF's work and therefor they're evil?

I'm sorry. I thought you were here for the sake of civilized adult discussion.

I can only see venom and childishness in that answer.

So I'll rather won't bother and live on.

vitriol said:

udo said:

Or rather: do not say that their source was 4DF nor deny that their source was 4DF it MUST be a rip of 4DF's work and therefor they're evil?

I'm sorry. I thought you were here for the sake of civilized adult discussion.

I can only see venom and childishness in that answer.

So I'll rather won't bother and live on.

If we cannot dissect my arguments and respond properly, we of course follow the path of least resistance and attack that way.

Yes, my comment that you responded to might be confusing but still very well worth responding to in a more proper manner.

In Dutch we say: zoals de waard is vertrouwt 'ie zijn gasten.

So ify ou see my comments contain venom and childishness....

To say that something can't be remastered because you aren't working from the source material is really not true these days. There is so much software out there that recognizes sound frequencies and then allows you to take them apart and do pretty much whatever you want with them that it's very much the same as "remastering". Especially when a lot of the original material is being sourced from 20-30 year old tapes. Call it restoration if you will, but it's something that I've been doing for almost 15 years with live Grateful Dead recordings. The power at our fingertips to change the quality of a sound recording is pretty freakin' mind blowing. I've done the same with more than a few Prince releases over the years and the difference is more than noticable. So I have no doubt that they are truly "remastering" these releases. However, I've said before and I'll say it again, anybody who pays for bootlegs from any artist is a sucker. No offense, that's just my opinion on the subject. I'm not paying ANYBODY for somebody elses illegally released materal. Nonsense.

vitriol said:

^It's not that you don't understand, it's just that you don't want to.

As I said several posts above, what free labels ask for is JUST that when someone PROFITS from the work THEY'VE done during their leisure hours just have the decency of saying where they sourced that from. It's this simple.

For example, as far as I know, whenever 4DF have reworked a previously circulating (as opposed to unreleased) source they have ALWAYS said whose the original source was, which also helps you evaluate the goodnes (or lack thereof) of their efforts.

Okay, all these words aside, how on earth does this apply to anyone on Prince.org assuming no one on Prince.org works for Thunderball or Sabotage or Eye?

Because MikeyB (and I, for that matter) downloaded a free version of this Sabotage release, it now constitutes as celebrating or supporting the bootleg companies? A free download is a free download. I haven't had the last 2 sets of City Lights in their completion ever and I've been collecting boots for upwards of 15 years. Why? Live shit was never my deal until recently, so I didn't particularly care. That and I did have the birthday soundboard and I wasn't terribly impressed with the Parade tour enough to seek out the real city lights release.

This, though, gives me the chance to snag all those shows and rehearsals and opening sets without having to dig for em because I basically decided... Sure, why not. And I am glad I did it now rather than later because the Triple Threat tour shows were on point and way better quality than I've been listening to for 15+ years.

I've never supported bootleg companies. I've always relied on the kindness of strangers and the old-style of trading silvers or CDRs. I think I can count on less than one hand the times I've ever even handled cash in regards to a bootleg and if I did, it was primarily because I was paying for CDRs to burn/ship, or I was paying for a set with really amazing artwork that I wanted to keep. (The Work series, Deposition, Dreams, and Fantasia all come to mind.)

For that matter, I also don't support fans who try to rip other fans off. I've brought it up before, but we USED to exist in a trading climate where anything you REALLY wanted would come from some select people and one of those select people would charge THE FANS $20 a CDR for his multiple-CDR sets of stuff that was marginally better yet still carried the tag of "perfect quality"... TBH, I can't figure out which song of that guy's ever came out as release quality barring "God Is Alive" or a chopped up version of the original "Come" track which had endless repeating of the beat in the beginning and end.

Shit, now it's getting personal...

You know what guys? You know what i wanted to start with my post? A guessing game. Anybody noticed that? Again:

Is it just me? Me being totally incapable of articulating my opinion?

Or might it be i just hit a bees' nest full of pre-fabricated opinion-stingers, ready to prick?

Think... It ain't illegal yet...

FunkyDissCo said:

Shit, now it's getting personal...

You know what guys? You know what i wanted to start with my post? A guessing game. Anybody noticed that? Again:

Is it just me? Me being totally incapable of articulating my opinion?

Or might it be i just hit a bees' nest full of pre-fabricated opinion-stingers, ready to prick?

Think... It ain't illegal yet...

Don't take the easy way out.

You stated an opinion about Sabotage piggybacking releases. Which is fine and all but we were screaming that from the street corners ages ago. Sabotage and Thunderball have made a routine out of repackaging existing recordings. Frankly, why does it matter? It matters to the free boot generation collectors? Really? Because, tbh, the bootleg silver market couldn't be as big as it was 10 years ago and the free boot generation stuff is wildly popular.

So people take issue with the repackaging? This above all? Who didn't know it would happen? How many times has City Lights been remastered or repackaged by a ton of different labels? Who carezzzzzzzz.

I am loving that collectors out there are putting shit out in never-before-heard quality. The proper release of "Heaven" has excited me so much as I've loved the tits out of that song for as long as I can remember being a Prince fan (damn near). I LOVED 30 Years of Funk and Box o Chocolates and The ExMas Rehearsal, The Bird Rehearsal, the Viage and Fillmore stuff, etc.

Whose approval are the free boot collectors seeking? It shouldn't matter that a big business like Sabotage or whomever is still in business. Just because you set up shop doesn't mean you're going to scare the big guys off entirely.

Spinlight said:

How many times has City Lights been remastered or repackaged by a ton of different labels?

Well, let me start with this:

ONCE.

The City Lights set has been re-worked ONCE by 4DaFunk, with huge work put into it, which led to amazing results. If anybody hasn't heard the news yet: Since those versions came out like YEARS ago, looking for the original CL sets has become the weird hobby of some completists. Since those days, the 4DaFunk set is THE one and only early SBD set to go for. It doesn't exactly match the original CL set, but its parts still rank among the best releases the Prince bootleg market has ever seen. Since that time, nobody speaks of City Lights anymore, except for commemoration value. THAT is what the 4DaFunk set is.

NOW, for the first time since then, somebody (SAB) comes, rips, and tries to win. RIPS THE 4DAFUNK SET BY THE WAY... AND FAILS! 80% of the collectors see what they're doing, and let me tell you it's not exactly appreciated.

And to come back to your question:

ME, I AM getting pissed when somebody gets ripped off. Everytime. Quite a general thing.

I don't have to be robbed myself to be angry at robbers. Have you ever heard about morals? It's an amazing invention of mankind...

(And ANYBODY thinking about starting anything like "but they robbed it from Prince in the first place" now... PLEASE DON'T...)

FunkyDissCo said:

Spinlight said:

How many times has City Lights been remastered or repackaged by a ton of different labels?

Well, let me start with this:

ONCE.

The City Lights set has been re-worked ONCE by 4DaFunk, with huge work put into it, which led to amazing results. If anybody hasn't heard the news yet: Since those versions came out like YEARS ago, looking for the original CL sets has become the weird hobby of some completists. Since those days, the 4DaFunk set is THE one and only early SBD set to go for. It doesn't exactly match the original CL set, but its parts still rank among the best releases the Prince bootleg market has ever seen. Since that time, nobody speaks of City Lights anymore, except for commemoration value. THAT is what the 4DaFunk set is.

NOW, for the first time since then, somebody (SAB) comes, rips, and tries to win. RIPS THE 4DAFUNK SET BY THE WAY... AND FAILS! 80% of the collectors see what they're doing, and let me tell you it's not exactly appreciated.

And to come back to your question:

ME, I AM getting pissed when somebody gets ripped off. Everytime. Quite a general thing.

I don't have to be robbed myself to be angry at robbers. Have you ever heard about morals? It's an amazing invention of mankind...

(And ANYBODY thinking about starting anything like "but they robbed it from Prince in the first place" now... PLEASE DON'T...)

Okay, that's not true that City Lights has only been reworked once. Not to mention the shows themselves have been marketed as single and double disc releases as just the shows themselves. Whether or not those releases improved upon City Lights or not, I don't know, as I don't bother w/ rehashed crap.

Not to mention the fact its been done with countless other shows as well.

You can be as pissed as you want to that Sabotage does a release like this, but don't get pissed at the people who download the set or who would be interested in the set at the very least. Voicing your disdain for Sabotage here falls on deaf ears unless your intent is merely to vent.

FunkyDissCo said:

Spinlight said:

How many times has City Lights been remastered or repackaged by a ton of different labels?

Well, let me start with this:

ONCE.

The City Lights set has been re-worked ONCE by 4DaFunk, with huge work put into it, which led to amazing results. If anybody hasn't heard the news yet: Since those versions came out like YEARS ago, looking for the original CL sets has become the weird hobby of some completists. Since those days, the 4DaFunk set is THE one and only early SBD set to go for. It doesn't exactly match the original CL set, but its parts still rank among the best releases the Prince bootleg market has ever seen. Since that time, nobody speaks of City Lights anymore, except for commemoration value. THAT is what the 4DaFunk set is.

NOW, for the first time since then, somebody (SAB) comes, rips, and tries to win. RIPS THE 4DAFUNK SET BY THE WAY... AND FAILS! 80% of the collectors see what they're doing, and let me tell you it's not exactly appreciated.

And to come back to your question:

ME, I AM getting pissed when somebody gets ripped off. Everytime. Quite a general thing.

I don't have to be robbed myself to be angry at robbers. Have you ever heard about morals? It's an amazing invention of mankind...

(And ANYBODY thinking about starting anything like "but they robbed it from Prince in the first place" now... PLEASE DON'T...)

Would it be better if Sab gave credit to 4DF? I'm not saying it would make a difference, I'm seriously asking, would it make it okay?

I'm not sure why I'm putting this out there now. Kind of already said my peace on this. I think purchasing bootlegs is a sucker move. I've been downloading them since 98 or so, but I've never purchased on in my life. Just doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, back to the point at hand...

How does anybody taking any credit for Prince's stolen music make any difference, or even any sense? If these people had half a lick of sense they wouldn't put any name on the things at all. Y'all seem to be arguing about one company admitting that they stole something from another company who distributed something that was stolen to begin with. It's just a really odd argument. Nobody DESERVES any credit. I don't care how much digital tweaking they did.

FunkyDissCo said:

NOW, for the first time since then, somebody (SAB) comes, rips, and tries to win. RIPS THE 4DAFUNK SET BY THE WAY... AND FAILS!

We need epic proof for these ellegiations.

Else they're an epic fail.

People keep repeating them without basis.

BTW: how can you rip (copy...) the audio and fail?

You really need to explain that too.

Spinlight said:

I don't know, as I don't bother w/ rehashed crap.

You don't? What else are we discussing here you think?

vc40 said:

Spinlight said:

I don't know, as I don't bother w/ rehashed crap.

You don't? What else are we discussing here you think?

As I stated before, this set isn't rehashed crap to me.

It has already been stated back in June...

Those shows originally released on Superhero's 1994/95 CITY LIGHTS

11CD box set have obviously been remastered meticulously by Sabotage

from those ORIGINAL CDs.

That's ALL of the original CITY LIGHTS shows on SAB's new REMASTERED

series. It's an obvious fact that these are remasters provided by SAB

and certainly not some tweaking efforts done by some fans for their free

"label". If you don't believe me, go read the liner noters carefully; the

work done has explicitly been documented. Then just choose whatever

disc you want and compare for yourselves.

However, what must have been used from fan-made source recordings

are ADDITIONAL gigs, such as the opening set for the Stones in L.A. 1981

(on CL-R Remastered, Vol. 1, Disc 4) or now the opening sets by Vanity 6

and The Time from the 1999 tour (CL-R, Vol. 3, Discs 5 & 6) or the

Purple Rain tour recordings from St. Paul and Inglewood.

Those were never part of the original CITY LIGHTS box. They, too,

have obviously been mastered now. And the differences are striking.

I think one should start sticking to the truth here and criticise the few

remaining labels whenever they REALLY do fail... although personally,

I find it hard to imagine how you'd want to do that with a series which

simply contains the best live material from what arguably was Prince's

peak decade.

To my knowledge you simply won't find any live compilation superior to

these particular pressed sets when it comes to the 1980s.

BTW, they're providing 24/28 pages of liner notes and dozens of photos

from the relevant tours again. I dig that. Free or not, both concepts
have their advantages from a fan's perspective. The free sources are

often faster with their distribution of a new show... but they rarely ever

deliver a complete tour, let alone a box set with an anthology of the

best shows from a whole decade. So I won't hold it against a label if

it comes up with simply stunning results in all categories. And with

CL-R, SAB certainly managed to let the free fraternity look pale.

32 discs and nothing new on it (from the 22 discs we have seen so far). Will there be anything new on the last volumes?

TheDataBank

As you were : pressed v's non-pressed

Cerebus said:

I'm not sure why I'm putting this out there now. Kind of already said my peace on this. I think purchasing bootlegs is a sucker move. I've been downloading them since 98 or so, but I've never purchased on in my life. Just doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, back to the point at hand...

How does anybody taking any credit for Prince's stolen music make any difference, or even any sense? If these people had half a lick of sense they wouldn't put any name on the things at all. Y'all seem to be arguing about one company admitting that they stole something from another company who distributed something that was stolen to begin with. It's just a really odd argument. Nobody DESERVES any credit. I don't care how much digital tweaking they did.

In the past the cost of a boot was outrageous, not sure about that now. If Prince were to have sold that stuff himself, he never would have charged that much.

motherfunka said:

If Prince were to have sold that stuff himself, he never would have charged that much.

FunkyDissCo said:

motherfunka said:

If Prince were to have sold that stuff himself, he never would have charged that much.