U2 KROQ Show

[trevgreg]

Originally Posted by Blue Room

What you have heard is a board copy that was not originally meant for distribution and was bootlegged or one that was just recorded from the mixing desk feed (like some of the Wolfgangs Vault recordings) and has mixing variations that were never corrected. Listen to the official boots of some other major artists like Springsteen or Pearl Jam. They are great quality. In fact, Pearl Jam even offers different downloads, a polished mixed version or the raw version. Nugs.net (who handles Bruce, Pearl Jam, Metallica, etc) even takes care of a lot of the mixing and sound issues before posting them.

Out of curiosity... for those that do this consistently and are "great quality", how long does it take for them to get sent out/posted or whatever? I've heard some cases where these are put out immediately after a show, and maybe that explains the difference there?

[Blue Room]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

Honestly I think the reason they don't want every show out there is the same reason why they don't want to have truly rotating set lists, or why they're constantly tinkering with their albums causing constant delays...

They've become very self conscious and need everything to be perfect.

I know this has been thrown out there before. But even if it is the reason (which I think is partially the reason given) it is a super flimsy one. They know all of their shows get bootlegged and put out there anyway and sometimes bootlegged in sometimes poor quality. Springsteen supposedly saw one of his shows on Youtube and thought it was poor and that they could do better than that kind of release. If quality is the reason, than there is just as good of a reason to do it for quality. The setlist variety is not an issue either. Hell, The Who released all of their shows from the last tour and the setlists were identical for every single show. At least U2's a somewhat different from show to show, so far anyway.

If they were so against imperfections live, then why do they release them on the official tour releases at times? IE Party Girl on UABRS, Frog in my throat on the Chicago DVD, etc. They could have edited these or used different versions but chose not to.

Again, I think they just do not care enough about it to pursue it. Which is just sad for me and a lot of other people who would love to see this done. Springsteen supposedly didn't care either until he took a look at what was being done for himself.

Ok, off my soapbox on this. Not going to change anything anyway. Like I said previously, there really is no "legitimate" reason for them not to at this stage. But the point is moot if the band simply do not care.

[Blue Room]

Originally Posted by trevgreg

Out of curiosity... for those that do this consistently and are "great quality", how long does it take for them to get sent out/posted or whatever? I've heard some cases where these are put out immediately after a show, and maybe that explains the difference there?

I think Springsteen's are out within a few days of the actual show. I think you can purchase a band at the show with code on it to go and download it when it is available. Or you can just go to the site and pay and download it when it is available. There are many variations on it. All work very well. Nugs.net handles Springsteen's and supposedly had to expand their building due to the demand. Imagine U2 doing it, they would need another building IMO.

[galactic2154]

Great show!!! I was the 2nd person behind the rail between Bono and The Edge. A photographer by the name of Sam Jones was snapping away pics front right of me. Just focused on taking pics while his partner creating space for him hogging two rail spots. But I got over it and enjoyed myself.

Bono looked like in top notch form considering the guy just had a freaky bike accident. He decides to step up on the rail with both feet and with a whole bunch of us with our arms in the air, he grabs onto my arm to support his balance for a good 45 seconds singing "your eyes make a circle..." That was an unbelievable moment. And he did that twice grabbing my hand both times. Also, he crowd surfed directly over my brother and I. The guy was just into it and felt comfortable moving. Impressive!

A memorable show that will never be forgotten!

[Blue Room]

Originally Posted by Axver

It's as if they don't realise there are literally thousands - probably tens of thousands - of fans around the world who would throw good money at official recordings, especially of a show like this one. I'm about as jaded a fan as they come and even I would buy the Roxy show if U2 put it up for sale. Surely Bono needs a new gold-plated toilet seat?

They could donate all the profits of it to charity if they think it looks like a money grab.

There is also no reason this show should not have been broadcast in some way. A radio station sponsored show, to a small crowd. Lets make sure that doesn't get out there to the rest of the fans! Yeah, that makes sense.

[luckytwn]

Originally Posted by Blue Room

I think Bruce does full covers quite a bit. So I don't think that is the issue. I don't think there really is one, other than U2 just don't care about it.

Going back to topic, why not broadcast this show? Makes ZERO sense. They just don't care. Which stinks IMO

When you cover a song in a live performance and want to release it, it is covered by compulsory license. That means as long as you follow the rules for payment of royalties and notification, you do not need permission to release the song.

Ironically, one of the only times I've ever heard of a band fouling this up was actually U2. They did not properly notify Stephen Sondheim under the rule on the Send In The Clowns snippet during Electric Co on Under A Blood Red Sky. As the rule says below, failure to provide notice constitutes a copyright infringement and Sondheim took action, which is why the snippet was edited out on all later editions.

"The compulsory license for non-dramatic musical compositions under Section 115 of the Copyright Act of 1976 allows a person to distribute a new sound recording of a musical work, if that has been previously distributed to the public, by or under the authority of the copyright owner. There is no requirement that the new recording be identical to the previous work, as the compulsory license includes the privilege of rearranging the work to conform it to the recording artist's interpretation. This does not allow the artist to change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work. In order to take advantage of this compulsory license the recording artist must provide notice and pay a royalty. The notice must be sent to the copyright owner, or if unable to determine the copyright owner, to the Copyright Office, within thirty days of making the recording, but before distributing physical copies. Failure to provide this notice would constitute copyright infringement. In addition to the notice to the copyright owner, the recording artist must pay a royalty to the copyright owner."

[Blue Room]

Originally Posted by luckytwn

When you cover a song in a live performance and want to release it, it is covered by compulsory license. That means as long as you follow the rules for payment of royalties and notification, you do not need permission to release the song.

Ironically, one of the only times I've ever heard of a band fouling this up was actually U2. They did not properly notify Stephen Sondheim under the rule on the Send In The Clowns snippet during Electric Co on Under A Blood Red Sky. As the rule says below, failure to provide notice constitutes a copyright infringement and Sondheim took action, which is why the snippet was edited out on all later editions.

"The compulsory license for non-dramatic musical compositions under Section 115 of the Copyright Act of 1976 allows a person to distribute a new sound recording of a musical work, if that has been previously distributed to the public, by or under the authority of the copyright owner. There is no requirement that the new recording be identical to the previous work, as the compulsory license includes the privilege of rearranging the work to conform it to the recording artist's interpretation. This does not allow the artist to change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work. In order to take advantage of this compulsory license the recording artist must provide notice and pay a royalty. The notice must be sent to the copyright owner, or if unable to determine the copyright owner, to the Copyright Office, within thirty days of making the recording, but before distributing physical copies. Failure to provide this notice would constitute copyright infringement. In addition to the notice to the copyright owner, the recording artist must pay a royalty to the copyright owner."

Hmm, interesting, how does this apply to the official downloads? I believe Bruce does it quite a bit. Do they just send a general fee to the copyright owner or a fund? I'm sure there has been case law on this since 1976 that could change things a bit especially given the current technology.

[luckytwn]

Originally Posted by Blue Room

Hmm, interesting, how does this apply to the official downloads? Bruce does it all the time. Do they just send a general fee to the copyright owner or a fund? I'm sure there has been case law on this since 1976 that could change things a bit given the current technology.

It applies to all releases, doesn't matter on the format and there is no case law that changes it. That is the rule. Bruce simply follows the requirements, which are easy to comply with.

[Blue Room]

Originally Posted by luckytwn

It applies to all releases, doesn't matter on the format and there is no case law that changes it. That is the rule. Bruce simply follows the requirements, which are easy to comply with.

I would guess Nugs handles that for Bruce. No reason the same could not be done for U2. Anyway, I have hi jacked this thread enough, I think my position and point are clear on it.

[luckytwn]

Originally Posted by Blue Room

I would guess Nugs handles that for Bruce. No reason the same could not be done for U2. Anyway, I have hi jacked this thread enough, I think my position and point are clear on it.

Nugs did not originally release the Springsteen 2014 High Hopes Tour downloads, they were done by the Springsteen org through Live Nation, so Nugs had nothing to do with completing the compulsory license requirements.

Nugs did not come into the situation until November. Nugs does now offer the 2014 downloads and they are also doing the archive titles and they will be doing the releasing of new tour downloads moving forward. I'm not sure why you are so hung up on the compulsory license requirements, every artist like Bruce has a team in place to handle such details.

[KEVIN051269]

Originally Posted by Blue Room

They could donate all the profits of it to charity if they think it looks like a money grab.

A 'Live (RE)cor(D)ing' perhaps? Everyone's a winner, makes perfect sense.

[Martinski]

Bruce does alot of covers and put them online, just look at his Youtube account. He has covers of Lorde's Royals, Van Halen's Jump etc on there.

[chocky]

Originally Posted by trevgreg

Out of curiosity... for those that do this consistently and are "great quality", how long does it take for them to get sent out/posted or whatever? I've heard some cases where these are put out immediately after a show, and maybe that explains the difference there?

A few Boston indie bands that I'm a fan of used a small local mobile recording company called "Instant Live" to record their gigs in the mid 2000s.

You could wait around for about 30 mins after the show and go home with a CD copy. Or you could get a cleaned up copy off their website a couple of weeks later.

They changed their business model and went national about 5 years ago. I don't think they do immediate releases now but they're quick to post on their website.

I've used Springsteen's service plenty of times and the quality is usually excellent and takes 2-3 days to appear on his site.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Blue Room]

Originally Posted by luckytwn

I'm not sure why you are so hung up on the compulsory license requirements, every artist like Bruce has a team in place to handle such details.

I'm not, we are talking about why U2 does not do the same thing and someone mentioned this as the reason. That is the only reason I responded to that particular topic if you read the thread. You responded and I said that was interesting and wondered how Bruce handles it. Not sure how that qualifies as "hung up" on that topic. But anyway.....

[mtnfox]

Originally Posted by romi

Just reading through all this now.

First of all, I really wish all big U2 fans had made it in. The celebs (I didn't personally see any) were there for the novelty. Freaking Ron Jeremy was there. You guys should have been there over people like that.

For the rest of it: This band is called U2. You know how U2 GA works? There are lines. They are usually run well. To expect anything else? "But the rules said no lining up before 5:30!" Really? You guys on the forum are gonna go with that? Only three people caused any sort of problem yesterday. The first two walked around the Roxy twice figuring out how they could sneak in the back. Once they realized they couldn't, they got in line, and being right behind me at the show, they told me how happy they were and how thankful that there was a list that held their spots while they could go and eat beforehand. The other guy showed up at 6 and demanded to go to the front. The sheriff's deputies sent him back.

You guys love that Sil was streaming the show? You want to know how she had her great spot? She came early like me, and helped me run the line. Neither of us has run a line on this tour, and she has never run a line before. So no, not the regulars.

No one in line complained. Everyone thought it went great; at least everyone who showed up at 5:45 or earlier. And you want to know why U2 fans are comfortable lining up? Because they don't want to hurt each others feelings by a mad dash.

1) I saw / talked to plenty of celebs that appeared to be legitimate fans. Perfect example was Kevin Smith. Really nice guy and huge fan. There was definitely the share of that group that was there for the novelty (Courtney Love) but I don't think you can say that about all of them. They may have not won tickets the hard way or waited in line, but hey, if I was a celeb and a U2 fan I'd use whatever means I had to get into that gig!

2) There were some complaints (not me) albeit they weren't "fired up". More like "grumbling" lol. I didn't get there until 5:30ish, since I live an hour and a half away (2 with traffic) and couldn't leave until 3:30. There were people in my part of the line that indeed were a little upset that the no lineup before 5:30 thing didn't happen. I don't really care - if you are able to get there early and do it - more power to you. I have kids to feed and bills to pay so no matter what gig it is that comes first for me. I was just happy to be in the door. Glad that it was someone organized like you Romi running the line, because there would have been a lineup no matter what.

3) Amazing gig no matter where you were in the building. 'nuff said.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by romi

You guys love that Sil was streaming the show? You want to know how she had her great spot? She came early like me, and helped me run the line. Neither of us has run a line on this tour, and she has never run a line before. So no, not the regulars.

All praise our Lord and saviour Romi, guys. How would people have got to the show without him? Thank GOD, someone was there for us to run the line.

[corianderstem]

Originally Posted by romi

You guys love that Sil was streaming the show? You want to know how she had her great spot?

Well, she didn't have to be in the front row to stream it, so we don't have to thank the line for that.

I know, I know. The line thing will just always get me all annoyed. But hey, I know a lot of people love it and they have fun, and they make it work. Just because I don't dig the lining up doesn't mean I don't dig a lot of the people.

[Diemen]

Yeah, saying you've never run a line on this tour isn't saying much considering the tour is only 9 shows old. What it is saying is that you have run a line in the past, so I don't know why you're throwing in the "so no, not the regulars" line.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by corianderstem

Well, she didn't have to be in the front row to stream it, so we don't have to thank the line for that.

I know, I know. The line thing will just always get me all annoyed. But hey, I know a lot of people love it and they have fun, and they make it work. Just because I don't dig the lining up doesn't mean I don't dig a lot of the people.

With or without the self-appointed line "organizers" people would be able to get in the show. No other GA thing I've ever done includes this BS. Some fans just really seem to think they're more important or special.

[romi]

actually, the fans who think they are more important or special are the ones who show up when doors open or when an official time is listed, and still expect to be in the front.

Those of us who line up are the ones who believe entry should be on first come-first in.