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

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.

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 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