U2start.com | North Star & Glastonbury IEM Matrix

So U2 don't like IEMs? Impossible. They are hosted on this site.

Asking a taper for permission before fiddeling with his recording is a matter of respect. Nothing more, nothing less. In this particular case, I don't think it was done intentionally as these samples circulate without any further info.

Anyway, I used to be pissed seeing taper's (and my) wishes disrespected, recordings converted to all kinds of formats, 15 matrices, etc. I've changed my mind though. If you don't want a recording to be altered, don't spread it on the internet. That's the way to go, imho.

MattG

14 years

Originally posted by yeah:Anyway, I used to be pissed seeing taper's (and my) wishes disrespected, recordings converted to all kinds of formats, 15 matrices, etc. I've changed my mind though. If you don't want a recording to be altered, don't spread it on the internet. That's the way to go, imho.

Thaaaaaank youuuuu.

Seriously, this doesn't need to be debated on yet ANOTHER thread. It seems to find its way into more and more of them lately.

LikeASong

14 years

100% agree on the asking permission things. The tapers spend hundreds/thousands getting their recording equipment and sneaking it into the stadium is not always easy... Therefore, they have made an important effort to get that recording, and everyone who wants to alter it in any manner (specially to produce another bootleg) should ask their permission, or at least inform the taper of what they're going to do. But tapers are surely much pissed when they find a matrix in which has been used one of their recordings without knowing it. It must hurt. If I were a taper I would be angry too.

Tapers' orders about not converting to lossy formats etc are a different question. Some (many) of the people who download lossless bootlegs can't reproduce lossless files in their computers and/or don't know how to burn them to a CD. I can see why they convert them to MP3 or whatever other format they want, and I don't think the tapers can have any influence on that.

MattG

14 years

I believe that it's respectful, but I also don't see the harm in having a taper specifically request that it not be used if he/she is really that concerned with it. If you saw that in an info file or ANYWHERE when you downloaded, I could see understanding that. But if I was a taper, which I'm not, I would be pleased to know that my recording could be used and shared in different ways behind my back, as long as I still got credit for being a source. If someone's out to make something better, and I can help, why would I not be happy with that?

And I understand why some wouldn't be, because the work that they put in hard-earned cash & effort would be somewhat "tainted", but at the same time, not allowing someone the chance to use something you've done that with, and potentially make it better for the people- the entire reason you share a bootleg for- seems stupid to me. If you want to hear it the way you recorded it, listen to it that way. But you shouldn't have to force others to do the exact same thing if they have the opportunity to improve it.

yeah

14 years

Originally posted by LikeASong:

Tapers' orders about not converting to lossy formats etc are a different question. Some (many) of the people who download lossless bootlegs can't reproduce lossless files in their computers and/or don't know how to burn them to a CD. I can see why they convert them to MP3 or whatever other format they want, and I don't think the tapers can have any influence on that.

That's not the point, though. No one says that every bootleg should be kept lossless everywhere. The point is that it shouldn't be circulated in lossy formats. If someone wants a 28k wma for his personal use, no one has a problem with that...
If people don't know how to burn flac files they can easily google it.
But as I said before: If it's a real problem for someone to see one's recording altered, it should be kept in tight circles. Quite simple. Besides, hoarder debates are always fun.

MattG

14 years

Originally posted by yeah:[..]

That's not the point, though. No one says that every bootleg should be kept lossless everywhere. The point is that it shouldn't be circulated in lossy formats. If someone wants a 28k wma for his personal use, no one has a problem with that...
If people don't know how to burn flac files they can easily google it.
But as I said before: If it's a real problem for someone to see one's recording altered, it should be kept in tight circles. Quite simple. Besides, hoarder debates are always fun.

I agree with this; plus, I think the point of not circulating in lossy formats is that it just creates more duplicates of a "master" source.

JulienLossless

14 years

Originally posted by Yogi:[..]
You're one little funny guy. Did you ask U2 for permission to tape their show?!

funny that you enjoyed so much my recording from the Snow Patrol Barcelona opening gig, when it was clearly 'stolen', by your account about these u2 recordings.

Originally posted by Yogi:[..]
But it's insane to ask people to ask you if they can use your recording of someones work.

you might have forgotten a little something, it's the fact each recording (official or not) has a producer, you know the guy actually making the recording. and wether that record is legally or illegally done, the producer still has say about what has to be done with it.

Originally posted by yeah:If you don't want a recording to be altered, don't spread it on the internet. That's the way to go, imho.

duly noted, next time i won't release any full song sample, don't worry about it.

Originally posted by EyesWithPrideB3:And I understand why some wouldn't be, because the work that they put in hard-earned cash & effort would be somewhat "tainted", but at the same time, not allowing someone the chance to use something you've done that with, and potentially make it better for the people- the entire reason you share a bootleg for- seems stupid to me. If you want to hear it the way you recorded it, listen to it that way. But you shouldn't have to force others to do the exact same thing if they have the opportunity to improve it.

better ? it would have to actually sound better than the raw iem for that to be considered. i've listened to this 'matrix' and i don't like it, too much compression applied, and the voice have been cranked up too much, and i mean really too much. the audience part is buried deep inside and is of no use in that 'matrix'. working on a 'matrix' with a mp3 sourced file is completely dumb, detructing sound even more when further recompressed on mp3.

if people want to do something with the recording for themselves, go ahead, but keep it for yourself. don't use other people's work without even asking, for your own credit. same goes for mp3 downsampling, if you wanna do it, go ahead, but keep it for yourself, don't distribute shitty reencodes that will one day will be burned to cd and traded as lossless copies when in fact they will be shitty ones.

Remy

14 years

Thanks for the informational ending to this topic Julien

Thanks for sharing some stuff with us u2mario.

Thanks all, this topic evolved in an discussion that shouldn't take place here, so I will close this topic. Anyone who wants to download the songs, please be our guest.

North Star & Glastonbury IEM Matrix

what they said

did you know

you

forums

U2start