Popular Music (2003) Volume 22/1. Copyright  2003 Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–72.

DOI:10.1017/S0261143003003040 Printed in the United Kingdom

For and against the record

industry: an introduction
to bootleg collectors and
tape traders1
L EE M A RS H A L L

Abstract
This paper offers an introduction to a distinct group of musical consumers: bootleg collectors and tape
traders. It begins by defining the types of recording under discussion before outlining some of the
discourse surrounding the collection of unauthorised recordings. Bootleg collectors and tape traders
exist in a relationship of mutual distrust with the legitimate music industry: collectors view the
industry as a barrier to musical experience while the industry views these collectors as at best a
nuisance and at worst as having a detrimental impact upon official sales. The paper argues, however,
that the relationship is in fact more complex. It shows that through an intensification of discourses of
authenticity, collectors of unauthorised recordings actually provide ideological support for the
recording industry, helping valorise musical commodities and thus maintain a dialectical relationship
between collectors and the legitimate industry.

Introduction
Although legitimate record labels release a staggering number of popular music
recordings every year, there are many examples of musical production and distri-
bution that fall outside of the remit of the official industry. One such example con-
cerns music that is disseminated without the consent of either the record label or
the artist involved by a distinct subculture of record collectors – bootleg collectors
and tape traders. There has, however, been no sustained academic investigation
into the activities of these groups. This paper, part of a wider research project on
bootlegging, offers an introduction to this particular arena of musical production
and consumption.
The paper begins by distinguishing bootlegging and taping from other types
of music piracy, and then explains the sources of the material involved. It goes on
to discuss whether these collectors present a problem for the official recording
industry. Unauthorised music is viewed negatively by those working within the
recording industry because it reduces their control over the distribution of music
and, it is argued, damages official sales. Such a relationship may not be quite so
straightforward, however. Through an analysis of the main reasons why collectors
are interested in such material, the paper concludes that these collectors offer strong
ideological support for the legitimate industry even while their actions seem to
critique it. By relying upon notions of authenticity that work to create the value of
57
58 Lee Marshall

musical commodities, collectors are involved in a complex relationship with the

official industry, reinforcing the industry’s main ideological tenets while at the same
time challenging its control.

Bootlegs, tapes and their sources

Before discussing the activities of those involved with bootleg collecting and tape
trading, it is first necessary to differentiate bootlegs and traded tapes from other
forms of piracy within the music industry. Collectors often suffer the injustice of
having all illegal recordings labelled as ‘bootleg’, but this fails to take account of
crucial differences of production and consumption within the sphere of ‘piracy’.2
Unlike ‘pirates’ and ‘counterfeits’, which reproduce and distribute sounds that have
already been legitimately released by a record label (and also artwork in the case
of counterfeits), the music released by bootleg collectors and tape traders has never
previously been released on a legitimate label. The vast majority of this officially unre-
leased material contains either recordings of live concerts or ‘outtakes’ (studio
recordings of songs which did not make it onto finished albums, or alternative
versions of songs that were released).
Speaking generally, there are two types of unauthorised recordings – commer-
cial and traded – both of which are, despite some overlap, collected by distinct
types of collectors. The main difference between bootlegging and tape trading3 is
that the latter is an underground activity, most famously associated with the Grate-
ful Dead, but more recently with bands such as Phish, and the Dave Matthews
Band, often generically referred to as ‘jambands’ (Shachtman 2001).4 These bands
permit their audiences to record their live concerts and then let fans trade these
recordings amongst themselves on the condition that no money is involved.5 Fans
trade tapes between themselves on a one-for-one basis (swapping a recording of a
show you have for one that you do not). Occasionally, one fan sends a couple of
blank tapes to another and receives one recorded tape in return (this is known as
‘blanks and postage’ or B&P trade). The second tape covers the recorder’s postage
costs and something towards the effort of recording.
Tape trading is thus a non-commercial sphere of distribution that is often
endorsed by the artists concerned (though the attitude of their record labels is
ambivalent). Bootlegging, on the other hand, is a commercial enterprise. Bootlegs
contain the same type of material as tapes (live recordings and outtakes) but they
are produced on a larger scale (though not as large as is often imagined: a typical
bootleg pressing is about 500 copies). Traditionally, bootlegs have been created at
the same LP or CD pressing plants utilised by legitimate labels, but they are now
frequently produced using in-house CDR burning equipment. These bootlegs are
then sold commercially to a small market of interested people. Collectors generally
buy bootlegs from record fairs and mail order outlets.
The relationship between bootlegging and tape trading is complex and is an
extremely important aspect of this area of musical consumption. It has, however,
not been given sufficient attention in the small literature on these collectors. For
example, Neumann and Simpson’s otherwise excellent article (1997) makes no refer-
ence to the distinction and mistakenly refers to tape traders, who are the subject of
the study, as bootleggers. Throughout this article if I am referring to both traders
and bootleg collectors, I will refer to them as ‘collectors of unauthorised music’.6
Such a conflation would upset many traders who regard what bootleggers do as
 For and against the record industry 59

vastly different from their own activities, but the focus of this paper is on the similar
beliefs of both groups.
I now want to explain the sources of the music that is traded and bootlegged.
Recordings of live concerts, which comprise the majority of these recordings, come
from two possible sources: audience recordings and line recordings. A line
recording is one which has been recorded directly from a connection to the venue’s
sound system, meaning that there is no intrusive audience noise on the tape. These
are often inaccurately referred to as ‘soundboard’ recordings (indeed, ‘soundboard’
has come to refer to all recordings which are not audience recordings) which are
made directly from the output of the mixing desk at a concert. The few soundboard
tapes that do get released tend to come from a mixing engineer or from the artists
themselves because they felt that the concert was good enough to warrant a wider
audience.
Line recordings are sourced from more varied avenues than the soundboard,
however. Some bands support ‘tapers’ sections’ at shows where tapers can plug
directly into line feeds; in US venues, line tapes have even been made using a
special low-level FM broadcast of the concert for the hard of hearing (Saunders and
Sullivan 2000). By far the dominant supply of line recordings, however, are TV and
radio broadcasts. Such recordings are good for bootleggers because they have
already been mixed by the broadcaster to provide the best musical sounds for
living-room listening.
The other source of concert recordings available to collectors is the audience
recording. An audience tape is simply the result of a member of the audience bring-
ing (or smuggling, if an artist does not permit taping) a recorder into the venue.
Today, almost every show by a major artist will be recorded in this manner. Audi-
ence tapes are often assumed to be of a lesser quality than line recordings, but
due to technological advances in portable recording equipment this is no longer
necessarily the case. (Heylin 1994, p. 255). Indeed, many collectors prefer good qual-
ity audience tapes to ‘soundboard’ recordings because they regard the former as
replicating the experience of being part of the audience.
Once a recording has been made, it will be traded and a few will find their
way onto a bootleg. The number of circulating audience recordings, however,
means that bootleggers will rarely pay for them. The source tapes that do sometimes
command a price are commercially unreleased studio recordings. Studio recordings
are less plentiful than concert recordings and are generally considered more desir-
able by collectors and, therefore, commercial bootleggers. A large proportion of the
outtakes emerging in the last ten years (certainly the majority of them by established
artists) are because a bootlegger could afford to buy the source tape – a function
that cannot be fulfilled by the trading community. However, not all studio tapes
have to be purchased. The reason that so many recordings ‘escape’ from the indus-
try in the first place is because of the number of people who have access to them:
sessions are recorded by engineers and session musicians for personal use or to
impress friends; demo tapes reach A & R staff who play them to interested parties,
who have friends who are collectors, and so on.
The carelessness of the record labels creates almost an air of collusion regard-
ing the ‘release’ of studio recordings. CBS records lost hundreds of master
recordings from Dylan, Presley and Johnny Cash, among others, when they sold a
warehouse in Nashville without first checking what was in it. Similarly, one of the
major finds of the 1980s was a series of sessions from the late 1960s at London’s
60 Lee Marshall

Olympia Studios. These tapes included outtakes from some of the most prolific
sessions of the Rolling Stones and were recovered from a skip while the studio was
being renovated by Virgin Records.

Collectors of unauthorised recordings

The individuals who collect unauthorised recordings are in general the most dedi-
cated fans an artist has: ‘bootlegs appeal most to die-hard fans who want every-
thing’ (Schwartz 1995). These fans generally already own all of their artist’s official
releases (the desire for unauthorised recordings tends to come from an extensive
knowledge of an artist’s official canon), ‘even crappy CD singles with dodgy
remixes and no proper B sides, promo items, merchandise – everything’ (‘Bog’,
email to author).7
Individuals collect unauthorised recordings for a variety of reasons, but I am
here going to concentrate on what I regard as the two most important. The first is
the prioritisation of live performance within popular music culture. The second is
the use of unauthorised recordings to create an ongoing, meaningful relationship
between artist and fan.
The ‘aesthetic justification’ of unauthorised recordings stems from the under-
standing that music is a ‘live’ artform. In live performance there is no safety net;
the artist cannot start again or make an overdub. Live performance is therefore
regarded as honest (in front of a thousand watching eyes the musician cannot pre-
tend to be something he is not) and exciting (the energy of the live experience is
seen to result in the inexplicable flashes of genius that form the bedrock of popular
conceptions of creativity). Live performance is also understood to be the occasion
when an artist reveals their true self to the audience: ‘Performers, however much
they try to hide in their private lives, always give themselves away at the moment
that they perform before an audience . . . The man on stage [Dylan] speaks to us
constantly of his inner life’ (Williams 1990, pp. xiv–xv).
Because the live concert relies on the humanity of the artist rather than the
mechanisation of the production line, the live experience is where differences arise,
where the same song is different night after night. Each concert is therefore per-
ceived as a unique experience:
. . . most fans see Springsteen’s live concerts on tour as varying considerably from night to
night . . . Even when Springsteen presented highly choreographed and unchanging shows . . .
fans – despite some complaints – continued to find and value differences from show to show.
(Cavicchi 1998, p. 73)

In a recent article on progressive rock fanzines, Chris Atton refers to Peter Ham-
mill’s ‘culture of errors’, whereby Hammill’s fans enjoy going to multiple concerts
to spot ‘mistakes’ in the performances, with one fanzine reviewer stating, ‘there is
not a perfect concert . . . [if a song was] perfect every time . . . that would probably
spoil it’ (Atton 2001, p. 42). This culture of errors, which exists not just for Hammill
but for many other artists, makes each live performance distinctive and explains
why the majority of unauthorised recordings are of live concerts, and why several,
or even all, of an artist’s or band’s shows are collected.
Live performance is understood by collectors to be the ‘truest’ way of playing
music. It is not just relevant to the stage, however: ‘playing live’ in the studio
 For and against the record industry 61

(meaning that a group play their instruments in the same room at the same time as
if they were playing together on stage) is understood to generate the same nuances
and differences as live concerts. Therefore, when a band is considered a ‘live band’,
studio outtakes become extremely valuable to collectors and are regarded as a more
accurate record of a recording session because collectors get to hear the perform-
ances before the ‘artificial’ overdubbing processes. They are also important, how-
ever, because they enable collectors to see their artist’s creativity as a process rather
than just as an end product (a series of concert recordings is important in much the
same way). Outtakes allow the collector the chance to be part of this process; to be
a fly on the wall in the recording studio; to hear how certain songs develop or were
dropped from the album; to ‘trace roots of tracks and see how the official discs
‘‘grow’’ ’ (‘Delmere’, email to author).
The fans who are more likely to collect unauthorised recordings are thus the
ones who feel that live performances are the most significant part of an artist’s
work. These fans see creativity as part of an ongoing process that occurs through
regular live performance and believe that the legitimate industry cannot success-
fully document the continually changing nuances of live performance. This is
because the industry is seen as being concerned with the studio-produced album as
the finished product which, by definition, is frozen in time and thus not processual.

That musicians must create a work, a product, and then go ‘on tour’ to ‘support’ it is belied
by the fact that most fans see Springsteen’s creative process the other way around: for them,
the tour is primary and the work – which the tour is supposedly supporting – is secondary.
(Cavicchi 1998, p. 74)

Such understandings provide the aesthetic justification for unauthorised recordings:

they exist because live recordings offer variations and aspects of a musician’s work
that cannot be adequately covered by the record industry. Recording each different
‘step’ of this process appears as the only appropriate way to document processual
creativity.
The second major reason that fans collect unauthorised recordings is because
doing so enables them to actively and continually engage with the artist’s career.
As Fiske (1992) has discussed, being a fan entails a continual process of engaging
with the object of fandom, of producing meaning within the fan’s daily life. Given
the lengthy gaps between an artist’s releases by the legitimate industry, official
releases do not satisfy the need of fans for an ongoing relationship with that artist.
Unauthorised recordings are one way of engaging with the artist when she is not
touring or releasing a new album. This type of fandom as a continual, everyday
process is mimetic of the understanding of processual creativity. It allows the art-
ist’s work to be seen as a living organic entity rather than as a hypostasised product.
Unauthorised recordings ‘fill in the gaps’, allowing an appreciation of aspects of
an artist’s career and work that may not have been well documented by official
releases:

There are so many hidden treasures that as a ‘legal’ fan you’d never get to appreciate. (‘Bog’,
email to author)
With Dylan, I felt I rediscovered a great artist through the bootlegs, a side of his art
not really documented officially very well. (Gary, email to author)
In my experience, the ‘official’ albums of an artist only tell a small part of his or her
story. (‘Uncle Sween’, email to author)
62 Lee Marshall

. . . live boots from past times open up doors which allow a better appreciation of the
band and how it has changed. Having a collection which spans decades of a band’s history
lets me see how they’ve changed. (‘Bog’, email to author)

This process of continually engaging with the artist’s work also enables collectors
to feel closer to the artist as an individual and to trace their development as a ‘real
person’ outside of the record industry. Unauthorised recordings are thus seen as a
means of overcoming the distance between artist and fan seemingly created by the
legitimate industry’s commodification of music: ‘having some of his interviews and
things that are on the bootleg tape, it’s just like hearing him talk and be a real
person . . . made him very real to me. It was important to hear that he was really a
real person’ (Neumann and Simpson 1997, p. 333). A Hammill fan stated that Ham-
mill’s ‘mistakes have a charm and reassurance of their own – he is only human
after all’ (Atton 2001, p. 42).
Recordings of concerts are also important for the authentication of the artist
as an individual. Many fans view concerts as the time when they can be closest to
the artist, diminishing the distance between them that builds up through the
mediation of the record industry. However, the constraints of time, money and
concert schedules limit fans’ ability to experience this closeness. A recording of a
show is thus an attempt to recreate this experience of intimacy away from the space
and time of the concert venue. One collector stated that concert recordings gave
him ‘a chance to see/hear who Bob Dylan is, to let me appreciate him even without
being close to him . . . I cannot really see Bob live, so I’m happy just to listen to a
tape and imagine I’m at a show’ (Artur, email to author).
The act of collecting unauthorised recordings thus stems from two significant
impulses. The first of these is an understanding of music that prioritises live per-
formance as the most human (and thus variegated) form of musical production.
Unauthorised recordings exist to document the variations that occur between per-
formances. Secondly, unauthorised recordings facilitate an ongoing relationship
between the fan and the artist rather than one that is punctuated by record industry
schedules. This enables fans to ‘get to know’ the artist outside of the confines of the
official record industry. Both of these impulses are underpinned by a notion of
creativity as processual: the artist’s creativity is understood to occur continually
rather than just at periodic, commodity-driven, junctures. This results in the collec-
tor engaging in their own processual creativity through their fandom.

Against the record industry

Despite collectors of unauthorised recordings being one of the most reliable con-
sumer groups for the music industry, rushing out to buy their artist’s new album
on the day of its release, they are often viewed with suspicion by the industry. This
attitude reflects the hostility or suspicion that fans are traditionally viewed with by
the rest of society (Lewis 1992, Cavicchi 1998, p. 6); which is why, state Neumann
and Simpson, tape collecting is ‘labelled as a criminal or deviant activity’ (Neumann
and Simpson 1997, p. 321).
Conversely, collectors of unauthorised material generally have a dim view of
the official industry: at best, they view it as an irrelevance to their relationship with
their favoured artist; at worst, it creates barriers between the artist and her work
and/or fans. In this section, I will first discuss the attitudes of collectors toward the
industry. I will then argue that their activities go further than mere griping about
 For and against the record industry 63

the record industry and contest the commodification of popular music more gener-
ally.
Individuals obviously collect unauthorised recordings because the legitimate
recording industry does not satisfy their needs for a specific type of music. How-
ever, since the release of Bob Dylan’s Biograph (1985) and Bruce Springsteen’s Live
75–85 (1986), legitimate labels have released a great amount of ‘archive’ material,
particularly in expensive box sets just before Christmas. This type of release reached
a new level when, in 1991 Columbia released The Bootleg Series vols. 1–3, a three CD
box set featuring fifty-eight ‘previously unreleased’ Dylan tracks. This set a pre-
cedent and there have since been a number of similar releases.8 It seems that the
official industry is beginning to understand the collector mentality and to compete
with unauthorised recordings. This is certainly the view of writers such as Blunt,
who argues that these releases ‘give fans the missing performances they’ve been
longing for, and [are] significantly effective in cutting the bootlegger out of the
picture’ (Blunt 1999, p. 201).
Such an argument is fallacious and based upon a lawyer’s understanding of
these recordings. Collectors see the industry as being both ideologically and struc-
turally incapable of meeting their needs. While The Bootleg Series did give Dylan
collectors some new treats, it is viewed as a wasted opportunity by many collectors,
as these comments by Dylan expert and bootleg historian Clinton Heylin highlight:
The first thing to look at if you’re going to put The Bootleg Series together is . . . look at the
ones that nearly made it. By that, I mean look at the [recordings] that made it to test pressing,
alternate sequences, final sequences of albums that didn’t come out. So you go to New Morn-
ing – there’s two alternate sequences . . . The Blood on the Tracks test pressing songs nearly
made it: that was an album that existed. The Down in the Groove outtake of Got Love If You
Want It nearly made it . . . [Compiler Jeff] Rosen didn’t do that. The decisions that he [com-
piler Jeff Rosen] made about the material were based on personal preference . . . You can’t
do that. You’ve got to understand that Dylan’s career has a sweep. It’s important. There
should have been at least one outtake from the Self Portrait sessions with the original backing
tracks, which were wiped. There’s 14 bloody outtakes to that album! You can take one of
them surely and put it up on a multitrack and mix it down. Just so people can get a sense
of what those sessions sounded like. And, if you’re putting out an archival release, that’s
what you need to do. He’s thinking ‘there won’t be anything good’ . . . [but] what you should
be trying to do, I believe, is explain the process. How did these things not happen? . . .
(Interview with author. See also Heylin 1991)

Heylin’s comments highlight the understanding of collectors that creativity is pro-

cessual and that the purpose of unauthorised recordings is to ‘explain the process’.
The Bootleg Series is just a collection of Dylan outtakes, some good, some indifferent.
While it was a revelation for fans who had not heard these songs before, if it was,
as Blunt suggests, an attempt to incorporate collectors of unauthorised recordings,
then it is a failure.
While it is possible that such a ‘failure’ is the result of an ideological misunder-
standing by the official labels, this is unlikely. There are many individuals working
within the industry who share the views of bootleg and tape collectors on creativity
and live performance (see, for example, Negus 1992, pp. 53–5) and their interest in
unauthorised recordings. They thus understand the mentality of collectors. Many
collectors believe that the reasons for the failure are inherent within the commercial
structure of the industry itself:
I don’t blame Rosen for the fact that it was cut down from its original 4 CDs, because the
original 4CD version made a lot more sense. But the record company’s logic was ‘we can
64 Lee Marshall

put a 3CD set out for $40, and we can put a 4CD set out at $55, and our marketing people
say that one will sell 50% more copies than the other, so the fact that it makes no sense, and
the fact that it’s an insult to the man’s career is not the issue: we’re putting it out as a 3CD
set’. Hence bootleggers, because no bootlegger would cut it from 4 to 3. (Heylin, interview
with author)

Many collectors feel that the industrial and technical processes involved in releasing
archive material (such as the cleaning up of the sound or the shortening of gaps
between songs) compromise the truth and integrity of the performance.9 Many col-
lectors therefore prefer a good quality audience recording of the ‘live experience’
to a soundboard recording:
the Dylan and the Dead album particularly. That’s the most striking example, I suppose, of a
live performance recorded superbly but coming out sounding like a studio recording.
Nobody at the concert heard that – that’s not how it came over the speakers. And that’s
what we want . . . what a live performance is like. It’s tweaked and toyed around with so
much afterwards that you lose a feel of what really went down. (‘John’, interview with
author)
An official live album is a soundboard recording with overdubs, but an excellent audi-
ence recording has the crowd, the talk and the excitement. Record companies record from
the wrong perspective and produce a sterile product. (Tony, letter to the author)

Collectors see the legitimate recording industry as unable to release the material
that they want to hear because of structural factors (having to sell archive releases
to a far wider constituency than just collectors; having to cater to artists’ needs) and
ideological factors (‘recording from the wrong perspective’). More than this, how-
ever, collectors often view the industry as being the cause of the problems that they
are trying to overcome: it is the machinations of the popular music industry which
create barriers between artist and fan. Through their immediacy, live performances
are supposed to overcome these barriers. As Cavicchi writes: ‘Springsteen’s
relationship with his audience tends to collapse the performer–audience boundaries
and corporate–consumer divisions that have been prevalent in much of rock his-
tory’ (Cavicchi 1998, p. 14). Collecting recordings of these experiences is one attempt
to repeatedly break down such barriers and enable a ‘real’ and ongoing relationship
with the artist, by capturing and repeating the moment when these barriers are
minimised.
Collecting unauthorised recordings is thus, as Neumann and Simpson state,
an arena where ‘people locate their experiences and their selves against the com-
modification of popular music’ (Neumann and Simpson 1997, p. 323, emphasis
added). In particular, it explicitly calls into question the ownership of popular music
(as manifested in copyright law) and the right of the record company to dictate
what music an artist can release and what can be heard by the public. Through
their activities, bootleg collectors and tape traders explicitly contest the commodifi-
cation of popular music.
The notion of active ‘resistance’ by fans has of course received much criticism.
As Cavicchi points out, ‘many cultural studies scholars portray fans as rebels fight-
ing against the tyranny of a ‘‘consciousness industry’’. However, I do not spend a
lot of time thinking about record companies, or how to ‘‘resist’’ them’ (Cavicchi
1998, p. 8). Cavicchi argues that fans do not contest the commodification of music
in the way that I am describing stating that ‘trading unauthorized recordings is
more of a social activity than a political one’ (ibid., p. 79). These are conventional
criticisms of subcultural studies; they read too much into subcultural activity and
 For and against the record industry 65

members of such subcultures (including the ‘subculture’ of collectors described in

this paper) would not recognise themselves in such studies and would rarely see
themselves in the role of class warrior.
While some of these criticisms ring true, contesting the commodification of
certain objects is an activity which can be interpreted without reference to subcultu-
ral theory (see Radin 1996 for an example). The commodification of many items,
such as prostitution or kidney-selling, is regularly contested. One area where com-
modification is persistently seen as inappropriate is the aesthetic realm. As Appadu-
rai states, ‘it is typical that objects which represent aesthetic elaboration . . . are, in
many societies, not permitted to occupy the commodity state (either temporally,
socially or definitionally) for very long’ (Appadurai 1986, p. 23). This has certainly
been the case for much of Western capitalism, where the predominance of a Roman-
tic understanding of aesthetic production incorporates a radical separation of art
and market.10
Contestation of commodification can be explained through both personal
reasons (items in which one has invested a significant part of one’s self – such as a
wedding ring – should not be commodified; Radin (1996) refers to these items as
‘personal property’) and in terms of aesthetics (art should not be commodified). I
would argue, however, that there is also a political dimension to the contestation of
commodification by collectors of unauthorised recordings. Despite their lack of
‘class consciousness’, I find it impossible to see how knowingly participating in
what is at best a quasi-legal activity (and many collectors think that their activities
are illegal when actually they are not) that creates alternative means of production
and distribution, and is frequently labelled as deviant, could not be seen as a form
of political activity, even if the individual involved has only personal or aesthetic
reasons for buying a bootleg or trading a tape.
In order to support such an argument, I want to highlight two areas where the
political critique of the commodification of music is explicit: (i) the counter-cultural
element of collecting, and (ii) the attitude of tape traders toward bootleggers. These
two areas are not exhaustive (other examples include challenges to, or criticisms of,
copyright law, and the vitriolic comments of collectors about the RIAA [Record
Industry Association of America], and do not preclude other areas of implicit
contestation).
When the bootlegging of rock music first began in 1969, the bootleg pioneers
were explicitly counter-cultural: their aim was to destroy the record industry. One
early bootlegger, Rubber Dubber, was a darling of the underground press and fre-
quently defended his activities in revolutionary terms, stating ‘our goal is very
simple. We want to put the record companies out of business’ (quoted in Heylin
1994, p. 82). However, when the Europeans began to produce their own bootlegs,
this attitude was too conservative: Marc Zemati, founder of a Dutch bootleg label,
stated, ‘We realised that these guys [US bootleggers] were only in it for the money.
For us it was a much more radical thing . . . [we wanted to] undermine the whole
record industry’ (ibid., p. 154).
This counter-cultural impulse also lay behind the rise of authorised taping. It
is little surprise that the most counter-cultural band of all, The Grateful Dead,
should be the band that initiated ‘tapers’ sections’ at shows. This counter-cultural
impulse has mellowed over time but still exists today:
It seems to me that we like to think of ourselves as rebels but not actually causing any
problems. Anti-establishment without actually being aggressive or negative about anything.
66 Lee Marshall

And bootlegging, kind of like CB radio, is a way of being a little bit rebellious but without
letting it get out of hand. Rock music is rebellious. And collecting bootlegs is just a little bit
rebellious. (‘John’, interview with author)
As Flanagan points out: ‘the illegality of bootlegs is, of course, part of their appeal’
(Flanagan 1994, p. 38), and it gives unauthorised recordings their value: there is a
feeling that the music is more authentic if it is untainted by music industry interests.
Many collectors therefore state that they do not want the industry to adapt and
address their needs because it would undermine the authenticity of their own col-
lections:
I like it [the music industry] as it is. I wouldn’t change a thing. A forbidden fruit is the
sweetest. (Artur, email to author)
Most bootleggers [and tape traders] are not in search of social legitimacy. The deviant
quality of their practices as bootleggers is an essential component of what they produce.
That is, their recordings hold value precisely because they are unauthorized, unique, and do
not carry a stamp of approval by the music industry. (Neumann and Simpson 1997, p. 339)
One explicit area of contestation, therefore, is the attempt by collectors to keep
their activities outside the remit of the legitimate industry because music is under-
stood as more authentic if it has not been commodified. The second area where
the contestation of commodification is explicit is in tape traders’ attitudes toward
bootlegging (to reiterate the distinction: bootlegging is commercial but small scale,
whereas with tape trading, ‘recordings are exchanged but never sold; this is the
cornerstone of the purist and staunchly anti-commercial taper philosophy’:
Endelman 2001). The difference between tape trading and bootlegging may seem
small to outsiders but it is of fundamental importance to traders, who see their
trading activities as vastly different from those of commercial bootleggers. As one
trader stated:
I absolutely DISDAIN the word ‘bootleg’ because it implies evil intentions and the exchange
of money. I have NEVER charged anyone for tapes (either in the form of cash or extra blank
tapes) and find it repulsive when others do. Tape trading is done because one enjoys music
and wants to spread it to others, bootlegging occurs when one wants to make a quick, dis-
honest, buck. There’s a HUGE difference and I feel as though the mainstream media fails to
see this. (Ken, email to author)
This level of fervour is not untypical within trading circles: bootleggers are viewed
with more contempt by traders than by official labels! The difference between boot-
leg collectors and tape traders is important, not least because, as the above quote
illustrates, it is extremely important to the traders themselves. As should become
clearer below, however, I do not think that any of these collectors successfully avoid
the commodification of music and, despite their attempts to mimic the processual
nature of creativity, it is difficult to overlook the fetishising nature of collecting
when each show becomes a tape on a list which includes details of sound quality,
tape length and so on. In addition, by giving a tape an exchange value (it is worth
another tape), traders themselves may also be engaged in a process of commodifi-
cation. However, in my view, it is more interesting to analyse how these inconsist-
encies emerge through everyday practice rather than showing the beliefs of collec-
tors to be merely ‘false’.
The inconsistencies are most apparent amongst those who collect bootlegs,
because their contestation seems to be against the commodification of music by
large corporations, rather than commodification per se. There is no a priori assump-
tion in their actions that commodification and music are incompatible even if some
 For and against the record industry 67

of their statements suggest this is the case. Commodification in this understanding

becomes a problem when it undermines aesthetic priority: big companies prioritise
profit at the expense of music, and although bootleggers may make a bit of money
out of their activities, the music is first and foremost in their list of priorities. Com-
modification is thus a problem only when the profit motive takes priority over
aesthetic concerns. Bootleg collectors can be equally damning about bootleggers
who they believe are only in it to make a quick buck. In a complaint about a particu-
lar bootleg label, one writer for a Rolling Stones fanzine stated, ‘Sister Morphine
started out as a homegrown outfit – one guy wanted to do some great sounding
boots. It was a great idea, and it worked for a while. But now Sister Morphine is . . .
just ripping you off with a smile and a sheen of clean sound’.11
Tape traders, however, are opposed to any commodification of music, because
commercialisation is seen as undermining the purity of music. One trader, while
highlighting the purity of his own involvement, stated that ‘commercials, videos,
MTV – all that stuff seems so fake to me, so capitalist’ (quoted in Endelman 2001).
Commodification and art are a priori incompatible. Bootleggers are viewed as cor-
rupting the music because they also have an interest in money. One of the best
examples of this attitude is the Grateful Dead who are commonly perceived as
being in favour of bootlegs. However, while the Dead are a pro-taping band, they
are also one of the most anti-bootleg bands, and have frequently prosecuted boot-
leggers. From this standpoint, commercial interests corrupt the relationship
between the artist, the music and the listener. Tape trading is understood as a
means to overcome this corruption.

Supporting the record industry: the intensification of authenticity

It is thus possible to interpret the actions of both tape traders and bootleggers as
contesting the commodification of popular music without relying too much upon
romantic notions of resistance. While the majority of collectors are by no means
political radicals, their activities do have a political significance which is often sup-
ported by explicitly ‘resistant’ ideologies. By challenging the copyright system upon
which the ownership of popular music rests, these collectors attempt to subvert the
problems that they regard as created by the commodification of music. Collecting
unauthorised recordings challenges the ownership of popular music, suggests that
the commodification of music does not reflect the processual (live) nature of creativ-
ity and criticises the artistic compromises that must occur in the commercial world.
Some commentators have gone further than this, however, and have used tapers
and collectors as an example of how popular music is produced by the people:
. . . [unauthorised] recording producers and collectors are often labelled as deviant because
they resist and call into question rules, conventions and definitions of popular music pro-
duction and consumption. Instead, [unauthorised] recording often underscores (and to some
extent, critically amplifies) the popular dimensions and meanings of popular music.
(Neumann and Simpson 1997, p. 321, emphasis in original)
This seems to me to be slightly overstating the case. We also need to investigate
the attitudes of these collectors more closely: it is not enough to assume that the
relationship is one where collectors are continually fighting against the corporate
machine. As the brief discussion regarding attitudes toward commodification may
suggest, the relationship between the unauthorised subculture and the legitimate
industry is more complicated than all-out war. In fact, collectors help support the
68 Lee Marshall

legitimate industry by relying upon and reinforcing the beliefs that help to create
value for it. This occurs through what I shall refer to as an ‘intensification of authen-
ticity’.
Authenticity is a key term within popular music discourse. Although the
specifics of what is considered authentic vary from genre to genre, within popular
music more generally the notion of authenticity relates to much wider social
assumptions about the nature of individuality and creativity, and the relationship
between art and society. Authenticity has even been put forward as one of the
constitutive ideals of modern society:
[The ethic of authenticity] accords crucial moral importance to a kind of contact with myself,
with my own inner nature, which it sees as in danger of being lost . . . because in taking an
instrumental stance to myself, I may have lost the capacity to listen to this inner voice. And
then it greatly increases the importance of this self-contact by introducing the principle of
originality: each of our voices has something of its own to say . . . Being true to myself means
being true to my own originality. (Taylor 1993, pp. 28–9)

This idea of authenticity, philosophically outlined by Taylor, emphasises our own

unique individuality and humanity in opposition to the processes of instrumental
rationality and/or capitalist accumulation. The idea has penetrated all of modern
society, most obviously in relation to art. Artists are held up as the exemplar of this
ideal of authenticity: their creativity reflects the fact that they are in touch with their
own selves, and the work that they produce is representative of their unique individu-
ality – thus the emphasis upon originality within Western art (Taylor 1989, ch. 23).
This reaches its apotheosis with bohemianism: the bohemian creates an original life-
style that is the ultimate example of being true to one’s own originality (ibid., p. 425;
Wilson 2000). Art and artists thus become fetishised as the antithesis of the commer-
cial, instrumentally rational impulse that dominates modernity. An artist is supposed
to shun any interest in commercial success; art is supposed to be above the market.
As has been documented elsewhere (Frith 1983, pp. 52–3; 1998, pp. 36–9),
these artistic notions of individuality and originality form the bedrock of what is
traditionally considered to be authentic in popular music. Stratton (1982; 1983)
argues that the predominance of such notions within the music industry are of great
benefit to it because they serve to ‘distract the consumer from the commodification
[of music] which has taken place’ (Stratton 1983, p. 148). This distraction is neces-
sary because of the modern conception of art in its relationship to the market, and
because, following Taylor’s notion of individuality and Radin’s conception of per-
sonal property, cultural products – particularly popular music – play an important
role in the defining of the self in modern society. Music is a particularly important
element in creating our own individual way of being human: the music we like
reflects our unique personality. Individuals are thus likely to reject the notion of
music as a standardised and interchangeable commodity, thus record labels need
to differentiate their music product from those of their competitors.
Romantic conceptions of individuality are thus more prominent in the music
industry than in other culture industries.12 This is contrary to regular capitalist prac-
tices which push toward a standardisation of product, but if records are not sup-
ported by the idea of uniquely creative individuals making them, then not only
would this deter people from buying the ‘same’, standardised, product twice, it
would also diminish the importance of popular music for identity formation. If
the consumer thinks of herself as a unique individual, she is not going to view a
standardised song as important to her personal identity. The consumer must there-
 For and against the record industry 69

fore be convinced that each record is unique and the most effective way that this
occurs is through an emphasis on the individuality (or individual creativity) of the
artist. This then highlights the indirect, seemingly non-commercial, relationship of
artist/fan at the expense of the two direct, more explicitly commercial, ones (artist/
label and label/fan) (Stratton 1983, pp. 148–9). The issue of commodification is thus
side-stepped by a Romantic ideology of authenticity that provides the value of the
entertainment commodities produced by record labels. Ideas of authenticity are
therefore a vital component of the music industry (though the industry is by no
means unique):13 It is the authenticity of Bruce Springsteen the individual that val-
orises Bruce Springsteen the commodity (Frith 1988).
The dominance of the Romantic ideology also creates problems for record
labels, however, in that it is an ideology whereby the artist is situated against the
record label. There is a tension in the artist/company relationship between the feel-
ing and creativity (art) espoused by the artist and the rationalisation (commerce) of
the company. This can be seen, for example, in Courtney Love’s recent assault on
record labels and in some artists’ endorsements of online music as a way of cutting
labels out of music delivery.14 This understanding maintains the popular image of
the authentic artist trapped within or alienated by industrial commodification. The
further down the production chain the work goes (i.e. the more it becomes trans-
formed from individualised creation into alienated commodity form), the greater
the emotional distance between the artist and his music and thus between artist
and fans. The search for ‘authentic’ music is a quest to overcome these distances.
Bootlegging and tape trading represent an attempt to forge a relationship with
the artist despite the industry by engaging in a relationship with the ‘real person’
outside of the industry structure. The measures of authenticity in unauthorised
recordings are the same as within the legitimate music industry: an emphasis upon
originality over imitation, feeling over reason, rather than concern over the sale of
records. More than this, however, the activity of collecting unauthorised recordings
seems to intensify this understanding of authenticity.
Given the measures of authenticity served by unauthorised recordings, it is
little surprise that the majority of them stem from rock: there are very few bootlegs
or unauthorised tapes of, say, pop or rap.15 The heavyweights in the bootlegging
world (Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, Beatles, Bruce Springsteen, Led Zeppelin)
are all exemplars of rock authenticity.16 Similarly, the ‘jambands’ of today, as well
as containing some of the ‘old school’ (such as Phil Lesh, formerly of the Grateful
Dead), are primarily rock bands (such as Pearl Jam). The standards of authenticity
that emerged during the late 1960s lead to the desire to hear live concerts and
outtakes: unauthorised recordings exist within rock music as a discursive necessity.
This intensification of notions of authenticity means that bootlegging and tape
trading may not pose the threat to the official industry that is often assumed. In fact,
these activities provide ideological support for the music industry because the motiv-
ations behind them, and behind the contestation of the commodification of music
more generally, result from Romantic ideas about art and creativity which form the
bedrock of the legitimate industry. The world of unauthorised recordings is the area
of popular music consumption that is perhaps most firmly embedded in rock’s
Romantic roots. Fans try to break down the monolithic industry structure to make
contact with the specific individuality of the authentic artist trapped within (which is
the reason why they are connected to that particular artist and not any other). It is the
cult of the author that drives the desire to hear unauthorised recordings. What we find
70 Lee Marshall

in bootlegging and taping, therefore, is a reliance upon, as well as a challenge to, the
recording industry: the motives for these activities are what give record industry com-
modities their value in the first place. Furthermore, these activities actually serve to
improve the value of the mainstream commodity: being bootlegged often has a critical
kudos attached to it that will improve a band’s standing in the commercial world. Not
only does being taped by definition label you as a ‘live act’ (which is important for
notions of authenticity utilised by A&R staff: Negus 1992, pp. 53–4), but also being
bootlegged (and not complaining about it) also tends to give the band a rebellious
edge, putting them on the side of the rock outlaw rather than the corporate suit. The
intensification of authenticity through unauthorised recordings valorises the artist
within the legitimate industry; the processes re-energised by collectors make the band
more saleable to the mass market. As Flanagan states, ‘if you ain’t bein’ bootlegged,
you ain’t happenin’ ’ (Flanagan 1994, p. 38).
Despite outward challenges to the commodification of music, collectors rely
on the assumed architect of this commodification – the music industry – for their
very existence. Collectors depend upon the ideology of the music industry for
notions of their own worth (unauthorised tapes are valued for their rarity and auth-
enticity in comparison to mass production), for their artistic judgements (it is only
the geniuses like Dylan and Hendrix, or the authentic artists like Springsteen and
Young that get recorded) and for their material (outtakes recorded in industry stu-
dios and concerts from industry-supported live tours). The ideology of the music
industry creates the need for unauthorised recordings which challenge the industry
but ultimately cannot escape its myths:
. . . attempts to get beyond the star making-machinery inevitably reaffirm it. The use of boot-
leg tapes to deconstruct the artist’s image occurs within a tension between the idea of the
artist as a ‘normal’ person, and the fact that ownership of the artist’s bootleg is valuable
because he or she is a ‘star’. (Neumann and Simpson 1997, pp. 333–4)

Although both sides view the other negatively, the relationship between bootleg-
gers/tapers and the record industry is thus dialectical. Industry representatives
criticise and try to stamp out unauthorised recordings because they challenge their
control of the musical commodity, but the commodity is given its worth by the
collectors’ actions. Unauthorised recordings reinforce the ideology that creates the
value of the music industry’s commodities, thus maintaining the industry’s domi-
nant position. Despite their ‘resistant’ strategies, collectors of unauthorised
recordings are parasitic upon the ideology they challenge and thus maintain a social
situation in which theirs can only ever be an illicit activity.

Endnotes
1. Thanks to Simon Frith and Dai Griffiths for
their comments on an earlier draft.
2. For example, Blunt (1999) refers to all types of
piracy as ‘bootlegging’.
3. Although there has been some trading using
online file formats, most trading still occurs
through traditional mail because of concerns
about the audio quality of online formats,
though collectors use the internet to contact
each other to arrange trades. It should also be
pointed out that although I am using the
moniker ‘tape trading’, much of the trading
that now occurs utilises recordable CDs
(CDRs) rather than analogue tapes.
4. See http://www.jambands.com
5. For example, Pearl Jam’s taping policy states
that ‘Trading is okay, but selling is not ok [it
would be a betrayal of the band’s trust]’
(http://www.sonymusic.com/artists/
PearlJam/tour/taping.html, last visited 15
April 2002).
6. This phrase is not perfect because many
 For and against the record industry 71

traders only trade recordings that bands have
authorised them to make at their concerts.
7. It should be noted that it is not my argument
here that these collectors are necessarily the
most authentic fans by virtue of their interest
in unauthorised recordings. This is, however,
how the collectors feel and that in itself has
some significance. I have sometimes adopted
the phrase ‘casual fan’ to indicate those fans
who do not collect unauthorised recordings as
this tends to be the term used by the subjects
of this study. As should become clearer below,
I do not think that these collectors necessarily
experience a different type of fandom from
‘traditional’ fans, but I would suggest that the
vast majority of those considered to be fans in
rock music culture will own some unauthor-
ised recordings.
8. For example: Genesis, Archive 1967–1975;
David Bowie, Bowie at the Beeb; John Lennon,
Anthology; Jimi Hendrix, Experience Hendrix;
Little Feat, Hotcakes and Outtakes.
9. A similar complaint has been made by jazz
fans concerning the remixing of old jazz
recordings.
10. See Frith and Horne (1987); Marshall (2002).
11. By ‘Disarranging Mine’, Sticky Fingers Journal,
776, February 2000.
12. It is important to highlight here that individ-
uals within the recording industry do not use
the Romantic conception of creativity in any
instrumentalist way. As Taylor points out, the
ideas have ‘entered very deep into modern
consciousness’ (Taylor 1993, p. 28). Record
executives and producers do not (most of the
time) sit around working out how to hide com-
modification from its consumers. But as
Negus’ study highlights (Negus 1992, pp. 69–
77), Romantic assumptions of creativity are at
the foundation of many decisions within the
recording industry.
13. Artists are also authenticated through a ‘folk’
ideology as well as the ideology concerning
individualism (Frith 1983, pp. 27–32). Such an
ideology is also prevalent within unauthorised
recordings and can be seen in the earlier quote
from Neumann and Simpson regarding the
‘popular dimensions . . . of popular music’.
14. See for example, Andrew Gumbel, ‘Will she
rock the world?’, 4 March 2001, http://
www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=
59029 (last visited 12 March 2001).
15. This is not to suggest that rap does not have
its own forms of authenticity, just not those
that give rise to bootlegs. There is a different
form of collecting done by rap fans which
involves recordings of the original sources of
samples. As these original recordings have
been officially released, the resultant collec-
tors’ tapes are forms of pirate recording rather
than bootlegs.
16. The model of authenticity within unauthor-
ised recordings was discursively highlighted
by a trader who told me that the difference
between bootlegging and tape trading was
the same as the difference between Robert
Johnson and the Spice Girls (Artur, email to
the author).

References
Appadurai, A. 1986. ‘Introduction: commodities and the politics of value’, in The Social Life of Things:
Commodities in Cultural Perspective, ed. A. Appadurai (Cambridge), pp. 3–63
Atton. 2001. ‘Living in the past?’: value discourses in progressive rock fanzines’, Popular Music, 20/1,
pp. 29–46
Blunt, R. 1999. ‘Bootlegs and imports: seeking effective international enforcement of copyright protection
for unauthorized musical recordings’, Houston Journal of International Law, 22, pp. 169–208
Cavicchi, D. 1998. Tramps Like Us: Music and Meaning among Springsteen Fans (New York)
Endelman, M. 2001. ‘Reel World’, Boston Phoenix, 17–24 May. http://www.bostonpheonix.com/boston/
news features/other stories/multipage/documents/01639191.htm (last visited 19/5/01)
Fiske. 1992. ‘The cultural economy of fandom’, in The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media,
ed. L. Lewis (London), pp. 30–49
Flanagan, E. 1994. ‘Inside the bootleg industry’, Musician Magazine, 191, pp. 36–49, 94–5
Frith, S. 1983. Sound Effects (Bury St Edmunds)
1988. ‘The real thing – Bruce Springsteen’, in Music for Pleasure: Essays in the Sociology of Pop
(Cambridge)
1998. Performing Rites (Oxford)
Frith, S., and Horne, H. 1987. Art into Pop (London)
Heylin, C. 1991. ‘Bob Dylan: The Bootleg Series volumes 1–3’, Record Collector, 140, pp. 84–9
1994, The Great White Wonders: a History of Rock Bootlegs (London)
Lewis, L. (ed.) 1992. ‘Introduction’, in The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media (London), pp.
1–6
72 Lee Marshall

Marshall, L. 2001. Losing One’s Mind: Bootlegging and the Sociology of Copyright, Ph.D. Thesis, University
of Warwick
2002. ‘Metallica and morality: the rhetorical battleground of the Napster wars’, Entertainment Law, 1/
1, pp. 1–19
Negus, K. 1992. Producing Pop: Culture and Conflict in the Popular Music Industry (London)
Saunders, M., and Sullivan, J. 2000. ‘A boost in bootlegging technology’, Boston Globe, 31 July, B08
Neumann, M., and Simpson, T.A. 1997. ‘Smuggled sound: bootleg recording and the pursuit of popular
memory’, Symbolic Interaction, 20/4, pp. 319–41
Radin, M. 1996. Contested Commodities (London)
Schwartz, D. 1995. ‘Strange fixation: bootleg sound recordings enjoy the benefits of improving technol-
ogy’, Federal Communications Law Journal, 47/3. http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v47/no3/
schwartz.html (last visited 7 February 2001)
Shachtman, N. 2001. ‘Where music trading thrives’, Wired Magazine, 21 November. http://
www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,48446,00.html (last visited 22 November 2001)
Stratton, J. 1982. ‘Between two worlds: art and commercialism in the record industry’, Sociological Review,
39, pp. 267–85
1983, ‘Capitalism and the Romantic ideology in the record business’, Popular Music, 3, pp. 143–56
Taylor, C. 1989. Sources of the Self (Cambridge)
1993, The Ethics of Authenticity (London)
Williams, P. 1990. Bob Dylan: Performing Artist volume 1 (London)
Wilson, E. 2000. Bohemians: the Glamorous Outcasts (London)
Woodmansee, M. 1984. ‘The genius and copyright: economic and legal conditions of the emergence of
the ‘‘Author’’ ’, Eighteenth Century Studies, 17/4, pp. 425–48