HW: actually, really RE: Off: Tull!!! but explicit HW at the end

[Doug Pearson]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:54:14 +0100, Jonathan Jarrett
<jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK> wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 08:08:01PM -0400, Doug Pearson typed out:
>> Sounds like the "Collectors Series" (especially the bit about "old
>> soundboard recordings ... not realistically releaseable in todays musical
>> climate" - that would describe the 76/79/82 sets to a "T") to me! ...
>
>        Well. Thing is, that those Collector Series sets were marketed on
>the high street, whether "realistically releasable" or not, they were in
>HMV. So there's the usual argument about someone who goes and looks for
>Hawkwind, buys _Yuri Gagarin_ or _Glastonbury 1990_ and never looks at it
>again. They weren't marked as being sub-standard or anything, whereas it
>seems clear Tull know the difference.

Admittedly, 'Yuri Gagarin' lacks the necessary caveat.  But to
me, "Collectors Series" sounds more than sufficient (see my perception
of "collector", below).  Perhaps "For Collectors ONLY" (or "Bootleg", per
Aerosmith, Dylan, etc.) might be more accurate.  But I think they're
sufficiently marked for someone to figure out what's a "regular" live album
(i.e. 'Yule Ritual') and what's for the more hardcore fan ...

>        I don't blame HW for it so much as I blame Voiceprint.

Why would you blame Voiceprint?  Their only alternative would be to refuse
to release whatever material is deemed "sub-standard" (which would probably
be in violation of whatever agreement they have with Hawkwind/Dave, unless
there are legal reasons to not release it, as I assume is the case with
Weird 6, for instance), in which case Hawkwind fans (at least me!) would be
blaming Voiceprint for NOT making the material available.  It's a lose-lose
situation for them (which makes me feel sorry for Voiceprint, really;
they've been very much damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don't on this
list, while I think they've been doing an EXCELLENT job with not just
Hawkwind, but many other great artists).  And who would be the one to make
the judgement call of what's deemed "sub-standard"?  This exchange is
certainly evidence that differences of opinion among Hawkwind fans are far
too vast for any one person to make that decision ;^).

>The stuff that HW has sold privately (like _Hawkwind 1997_)
>has been much better quality.

But that one IS a Voiceprint release!  (Catalog# HAWKVP 999)  It's just the
only Hawk/Voiceprint release that *isn't* distributed (only manufactured)
by Voiceprint.  And certainly 'Yule Ritual' and the recent 'Nottingham
1990' are superb sound quality (well, the Simon-less half of '1990' is
superb sound quality, the Nottingham/Live Legends half is very, very good -
way better than either Complete '79 or '82 IMO - but not quite superb).

Are you suggesting that something like 'Glastonbury 90' should be sold
*only* by the band, and not be available in stores ("high street")?  That
would A) make it more difficult for the fans (especially overseas) to
obtain the release, and B) make a lot more work for Dave/Kris/whoever, that
actually has to pack and post all the orders from fans (or they'd have to
pay someone to do it ... and I have a feeling that Ian Anderson is much
better equipped for this than Dave).  I personally would rather see (even
though it's none of MY business!) Dave spending time playing guitar,
writing songs, working on stage set ideas, or even just hanging out on the
farm, than filling CD orders.  Also, removing the releases from normal
distribution channels would mean that a whole lot fewer copies would be
sold, which would presumably not be in the band's and label's best interest.

>On the other hand Dave gave them the tapes and presumably
>sanctioned the distribution.

If that wasn't the case, they'd be bootlegs, right?  (Or at
least "questionable"/"non-official" ala 'Yuri Gagarin'.)

>There is a difference here between fan
>product and high-street product.

... which is why they say "Collectors Series".  At least in my experience,
a "collector" (to say nothing of a "kollektor"!) is a good deal more
hardcore than the average "fan".

>> if you want "perfection", go listen to ... one of
>> those "live" albums where all the guitar parts were re-recorded by a
>> session player in the studio.  Jeez!)
>
>        Weren't a fair few bits of _Space Ritual_ re-recorded in the
>studio? :-)

Possibly some (have we ever had firm evidence on this, besides good guesses
by people with good ears?  It's certainly possible, although I also think
it's possible that there are some areas where two guitar parts can be heard
because an edit is being cross-faded, so the guitar from part 1 can be
heard fading out while the guitar from part 2 is fading in) ... but
certainly nothing like live albums by Thin Lizzy (according to producer
Tony Visconti, all of the lead vocals & bass, and most of the guitars, are
studio overdubs), Kiss (on which Ace's guitar parts are played by a session
musician), the Stones, etc.  And 'Space Ritual II' (which would presumably
have NOT been re-recorded/overdubbed/augmented) sounds pretty good to these
(admittedly tin) ears ... ;^)

Sorry if I'm being argumentive (not my intent!  I enjoy the discussion -
thanks, Jon!) ... it's just that when I consider the alternatives, I don't
see anything that's more workable than the way the Collector Series is
already distributed/marketed, since selling them direct instead of through
stores would be a lose-lose-lose situation (fans can't get 'em - band has
to do more work to sell 'em - label doesn't sell as many copies).

    -Doug
     jasret at mindspring.com

P.S. If anyone's listening - Collector Series spring '84 or
Stonehenge '84 ... PLEASE!!!