Heartland

Ι was listening last night to the excellent demo version which i believe is the best version there is, and i was wondering why didn't Von use that one for the b-side of Dr Jeep and instead he choose a version that was commonly available on several bootlegs.
With a decent production this could turn into a classic along gimme shelter Jolene and Emma.
The explanation according to Heartland, to beat bootlegers in their own field for a band that was so heavily bootleged just sounds ridiculous.
What a waste. Again.

Could it possibly be that the demo was among the batch of demos that included the Serpents Kiss, Garden Of Delight & Dance On Glass demos?
Even though the live track had Hussey on guitar, I guess there might have been a bit of crowing if Von had opted for the demo.
Besides, are the copyright laws different for live performances?
Did a bit of digging & didn't really get very far

I don't seem to recall the demo being in general circulation back then, and anyway it was most likely on one of the tapes that Gary nicked from the band so it probably wouldn't have been easily available to Von.

But despite that, considering the number of excellent quality live versions of KoHD that are (and were) doing the rounds, it always struck me as odd that Von chose to release one of the worst.

Pista wrote:Besides, are the copyright laws different for live performances?

Yes, but they're actually more complicated to licence because the venue has to give permission.

stufarq wrote:

Pista wrote:Besides, are the copyright laws different for live performances?

Yes, but they're actually more complicated to licence because the venue has to give permission.

I read that too, but couldn't find anything on the mechanics of a band releasing a live performance of a cover.

taken from offical sisters site:

"Why isn't 'Gimme Shelter' included on 'Wake'?

Because the Rolling Stones apparently refused to grant the so-called "synchronisation rights" which are necessary for visual cover versions."

looks like recording live performances of covers are a jungle

Drsisters wrote:taken from offical sisters site:

"Why isn't 'Gimme Shelter' included on 'Wake'?

Because the Rolling Stones apparently refused to grant the so-called "synchronisation rights" which are necessary for visual cover versions."

looks like recording live performances of covers are a jungle

That's true for video - Alice Cooper released a Wacken live set recently - the CDs contain the cover versions but the DVD does not. Big bands demand big bucks, I guess - poor Hot Chocolate!

Pista wrote:

stufarq wrote:

Pista wrote:Besides, are the copyright laws different for live performances?

Yes, but they're actually more complicated to licence because the venue has to give permission.

I read that too, but couldn't find anything on the mechanics of a band releasing a live performance of a cover.

You need a mechanical licence from the publisher/copyright holder to record and release a cover, regardless of whether it's live. That part won't be any different for live or studio recordings. You'll need permission from the venue to release a recording made there. The performers all need to give permission too. Whoever funded the concert may also have to give permission, which means label or promoter may or may not have a slice. (As czuzu said, synchrinisation rights only apply to visual recordings.)

Oki doki. Got it.
So releasing the demo would have been a whole lot simpler really

I think its realy frustrating for us fans to know that there is so much material there that deserves to be released properly and he prefers to keep it hidden in his basement.

Pista wrote:Oki doki. Got it.
So releasing the demo would have been a whole lot simpler really

Probably. You don't have to take the venue or promoter (if they have a say) into account, but you do still have the publisher/copyright owner, all the performers and whoever funded the recording - which may still be the label (and sometimes even a different label). Not sure who owned the demo recording in this case - was it the band or the label?

But was the point simply to release a version of that song (in which case they could have recorded a new studio version with the current band, or even a new live version)? Futile as it seems, they said the reason was to combat people selling live bootlegs, so presumably it had to be live and not demo. Of course, a better way to do that would have been to release an entire live album.

stufarq wrote:Of course, a better way to do that would have been to release an entire live album.

That would have made a lot more sense to me too.