View Single Post
  #10  
Old 2012-06-12, 11:05 AM
splumer's Avatar
splumer splumer is offline
Hello.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Re: Logistical Question about Bootleg Lists Online

Quote:
Originally Posted by siavash View Post
What if it's not analog and it's digital? What if I traded with the person who recorded the show and he/she sent me the master online? Would that still be considered a master and should I list it as such online?
Calling a recording a master is kind of superfluous in the digital age. When analog recordings were the only thing available, it mattered, but as long as the lineage to a particular recording is lossless, there should be no difference between the "master" and any subsequent copies. They are clones.

Quote:
So how do you guys recommend organizing one's list? I'm thinking of indicating masters, copies of masters, 1st generation, 2nd generation, 3+ generation, and Unknowns.

What falls under the category of being in "common circulation"? Especially with less sought-after bands?
I have all my shows listed on a Excel spreadsheet, listing, in order: band, date, venue, city, state (or country), quality, number of discs, source and notes. I used to use phishhook.com to host my list, but after a couple of scares where the site went down, I decided to download the delimited file from there, import it into Excel, and have that be my master list. I don't remember the last time I updated my phishhook list, and I doubt it's used much anymore.

"Common circulation" just means the shows every fan of a particular band has. For example, most Pink Floyd collectors have Oakland 77 and Wembly 74. With less-popular bands, the shows in common circulation are probably even more specific, simply because there aren't as many shows in the pool.
Reply With Quote Reply with Nested Quotes