Typical Girls: Women in Punk/Post-Punk/Underground Music (Circa 1975-1980s)

[Shirley Braha <littleshirleybeans AT yahoo.com>]

fuck it. this is one of the days when i really love the interweb - and thats a
lot of love. i didnt think id ever be able to hear the live material. thanks
for posting this dina / don. 




> 
> --- pascale amzallou <pascaleamz AT yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Well, two different things.  Bootlegging is actually
> > pretty
> > rare and totally different to what Mike was talking
> > about.
> > An important point that no one seems to really think
> > about is that there is substantially more indie
> > postpunk
> > material from say 1978 to 1983 available RIGHT NOW
> > then there was at the time.  By "available" I mean,
> > that a
> > person have/had a credible chance of finding it.
> 
> Part of my point is that this is a relatively recent
> thing that largely wouldn't exist if there wasn't a
> market for it. I don't know that LTM would keep
> putting out CDs if James wasn't making any money on
> the releases, so we can't ignore the economic
> realities.
> 
> > In fact, I think it's pretty unusual for the a
> > postpunk
> > artist/band from that time period *not* to have at
> > least
> > the majority of their output available, and often to
> > have
> > lots of extra things out now too - unreleased tunes,
> > 
> > live albums, radio sessions, and so on.  Sometimes 
> > things fall out of print (Fire Engines, This Heat),
> > but
> > I reckon they'll be back in print at some point.
> 
> Well, speaking from experiance, there's many many many
> great things still out of print, and many reasons why.
> But speaking as a small label, I know I couldn't
> afford to release something if it ever had wide
> illegal exposure. I know Mike was talking about
> filesharing and not bootlegging, but in the desp bikes
> thread I conflate the 2, perhaps in a silly way. But I
> still think entire catalogs of bands' music shouldn't
> be shared in that manner.
> 
> > Pretty much any artist with any credibility from the
> > 
> > past can have a selection of labels from which to 
> > choose to issue their old stuff.  Labels are
> > generally
> > pretty HUNGRY for reissue material.  This is not
> > unique
> > to postpunk either - folk stuff, reggae, dub, soul
> > and much more is all readily gobbled up.
> 
> Again, it's not that easy. Sure, when I started it
> seemed like an open field, there was LTM and Cherry
> Red focusing on the period. There were thing's like
> Douglas's Family Fodder release and Marina and Rev-Ola
> with a few releases, but not many more. Now for
> certain releases there's an element of competition, in
> some cases this is actually holding up the release of
> material. Without getting into details, this is why
> there's no US domestic release of the Nightingales
> releases as of yet. Then there's all the issues of who
> owns the rights, bands who want their stuff reissued
> but their labels won't allow. But that's neither here
> nor there, just pointing out that the road to getting
> a reissue out isn't so simple. And lets admit this is
> very much a fad. Now I hope the post-punk era reissue
> scene/market stays vibrant untill every last wonderful
> band gets reissued (restricted code! the grow up!
> happy refugees!) and maybe it will be a constant
> thing, but I fear the moment when Acute puts out a cd
> of "really cool post-punk" and the kids and music fans
> go "oh that's soooo 2002". I don't mean this to read
> like I'm cashing in on the fad, of course, but simply
> the ability to sell many copies, even if those "many"
> copies is a 1/10th of what the music and artist
> deserves, helps make enough money back so we can keep
> on putting out CDs. We've got some releases that may
> sell well coming up, and I hope they do, because I've
> got some releases I want to put out that aren't gonna
> sell at all!
> 
> > If they were to release a CD today, it would
> > get
> > better press and sell more than any point all the
> > way back to their working days.  So how can one say
> > that they've really been "hurt" - except for lost
> > royalties?
> 
> My point on that thread at least was that the music
> had been bootlegged. It never got beyond a few people
> selling it on eBay, but if it had, it may have killed
> the ability to release a legitimate CD. Despite that,
> I believe nobody has a right to make profit of music
> that is not theres, it just strikes me as inherently
> wrong, and I say that as someone who goes through the
> effort to try to make money and support the artists he
> works with.
> 
> > Relate this to the Desperate Bicycles and the idea
> > of 
> > copyrights expiring so the work can contribute to
> > the
> > overall cultural wealth of the planet.  My idea is
> > this -
> > the artist (or assigned owner, such as a label) that
> > 
> > releases a work to the public also creates an
> > obligation.
> > That work becomes part of shared culture.  In
> > essence,
> > the genie's out of the bottle, you can't stuff him
> > back
> > in.  I believe that the artist or assignee should
> > have
> > 
> > full control of the copyright as the law allows,
> > with
> > one
> > caveat - if a work has been out of print for a
> > period
> > of
> > more than seven years, it becomes public a domain
> > work.
> > (There would be specifications for what "in print"
> > means
> > in relation to availability to the average
> > consumer.)
> 
> Well, they're are public domain laws but the term is
> longer then 7 year. While these laws still exist and
> while the artist themselves are fine with that, I
> definately can't justify bootlegging, and am not sure
> about file sharing. There's lots of gray areas. mp3
> blogs that feature one song get me interested in an
> artist, for instance, but an entire catalog strikes me
> as wrong.
> 
> > What's my rationale?
> > 
> > 1) It forces labels and artists to assess the
> > artistic
> > and
> > commercial value of their work and to DO something 
> > about it.  No more sitting on those Fire Engines
> > masters,
> > or whatever.  Use it or lose it.  (Get up and use
> > it!)
> 
> Trust me, the Fire Engines are not sitting on their
> masters. The Fire Engines do not own their masters,
> and the last company who had their music in print let
> it go out of print because there was no demand. Acute
> has been trying to rectify this for some time, I just
> dont like to make promises when it can still fall
> through. At this point, it's looking likely, so cross
> your fingers.
>  
> > 3) Labels who keep stuff out of print will see the
> > rights
> > to it revert to the artist, who have a year to
> > figure
> > out
> > what to do with it.
> 
> Personally, I think that's fine. And many contracts
> reflect that now, but didn't 20 or 30 years ago. 
> 
> > In real terms, this process is sort of already
> > happening,
> > what with the advent of the CD burner and cheap
> > CD-Rs.
> > How many copies of This Heat or the Left Banke or
> > Raincoats CDs have people asked me to make for
> > them, as they are out of print?  I am always happy
> > to
> > oblige them, because unlike the copyright holders, I
> > consider these artists to have artistic and cultural
> > value
> > that ought to be shared, and if the right people
> > won't
> > do it, well . . .
> 
> As mentioned before, I have no problem with copying
> out of print music, and have done it many many many
> times. But how would you feel if someone you gave a
> copy of a This Heat CD to pressed 1,000 copies and put
> it in the stores. Is that fine because it's out of
> print, even if it's only out of print for a year or
> two? There are some issues as to why it's gone out of
> print and I know they are working on putting it out
> again. They deserve that right.
>  
> > I don't feel sorry for Dolly Mixture or the
> > Desperate
> > Bicycles, they've made the choice to turn their
> > backs
> > on
> > their own material and people just want to hear the
> 
=== message truncated ===


Shirley Braha
2028 East 8 St, Brooklyn NY 11223 
Shirley AT ShirleyBeans.com
http://www.ShirleyBeans.com
AIM: ShirleyBeans