Talk:The Beatles bootleg recordings

BBC Sessions 11-Disc Set

"The BBC Sessions: The Beatles regularly recorded live in studio for the BBC. In addition to performing their own material, they often did covers of other artists like Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Ray Charles. These sessions often were passed off as studio outtakes on many 1970s-era bootlegs. The popularity of Beatles BBC discs reached its apex with a celebrated nine-CD set by Great Dane Records, which aimed to supplant the varying configurations of BBC discs available on bootleg, while presenting the material in chronological order and in the best quality available at the time. The popularity of this release directly lead to the official, Beatles-sanctioned Live at the BBC 2 CD set. While the official disc did collect many of the otherwise-unreleased cover versions performed by the Beatles on the BBC, it did nothing to stem the tide of BBC bootlegs; in fact, collectors and archivists continue to discover new and improved sources for the BBC session material, much of which makes its way into internet bootleg. The current, "most-complete" version is an eleven-disc set available for free on the internet."

Does anybody know where I can find this 11-disc set of BBC session material? I'd really like a copy, but I don't know where to find it. --Ian911299

Old chitchat

TraxPlayer I don't think that Beatles is so much bootlegged. I would say that Dylan is the most bootlegged artist. Every concert he has played in the last many years has been taped illegal.

The Grateful Dead is more taped than Dylan as they allow bootlegs of their shows but the Beatles history from 60-70 is the best in rock and roll by the best group EVER

Well, the Beatles bootleg recordings article should be deleted all together, except they may be still more "bootleggers" who sell recordings that claim to be the Beatles.

See: votes for deletion.

what about the vancouver show? i see that on every bootleg trader's site.

Who the hell are the Hamburger Bunns????

I think I heard that the carnival of light thing is just a rumour. Carnival of Light is a hoax and should be removed.

No, there actually are fake "Carnival Of Light" Mp3's circulating. -SW

The supposed "Carnival of Light" MP3 you refer to is a fake, because I know who did it. The story behind it is, back in the days when Napster was popular, there was an MP3 on the network, supposedly by George Harrison, called "Krishna is Here". This person decided it would be funny if they renamed it "Carnival of Light", and share it on the network. Napster users downloaded it and over time it spread to other P2P networks. Goldwings 05:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on your pionts about Dlyan and the Dead but I don't think this artical should be deleted. I just needs some dramatic cleaning, that's all. -paulisdead 21:05 15 Janurary, 2007.

Dramatic cleaning is my vote. I love the Beatles and I love Dylan but the Beatles have a meager presence in the bootleg world considering they have sold the most records of all time. Based on the number of separate titles available (concerts, unreleased albums/tracks, alternative albums) the Beatles would not be in the top 100. Perhaps in the era when the bootleg had to be a pressed LP, they may have been, but since cassettes and even more since CD-R they can't be considered "one of the most" bootlegged artists. The argument above

The Grateful Dead is more taped than Dylan as they allow bootlegs of their shows but the Beatles history from 60-70 is the best in rock and roll by the best group EVER

has nothing to do with the bootleg question. Regardless of all this, it is plain that the statement mentioned uses weasel words and is not documented anyway and should be removed. --Kevinskogg 21:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

beatles/rolling stones fake bootleg?

I remember a while ago being shown a supposed bootleg of the beatles and the rolling stones. It was quite fake and probably belongs in the section "A number of songs have been fraudulently passed off by bootleggers as unreleased Beatles songs..." if anyone knows any more about it than me --Hugzz 15:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of the Masked Marauders, which wasn't a bootleg... it was just a parody. -SW

God Save The Queen on Rooftop Concert

This article, possibly incorrectly, has stated that God Save The Queen at the rooftop concert at the end of January, 1969 has not surfaced on bootleg albums. I have one bootleg album which contains it and be found on bootlegzone here:

http://bootlegzone.com/album.php?name=omi30169&section=1

Just thought I'd check in with everybody else first before editing.

Christmas Recordings bootlegs

This part should probably be cleared up, I don't actually know what they are talking about when they say "that was Birds".

• The Christmas Recordings: Each year, the Beatles recorded an EP of comedy and music that was Birds (also known as The Castle of the King of the Birds) – later released by McCartney
  

A link to the official release would be nice, pointing out the various unreleased material found on these bootlegs, like the extra long version of "Christmas Time is Here Again!" and the "Hello Dolly!" outtakes from 1964. You know, once that "that was Birds" thing is cleared up. Danthemankhan 18:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In Spite of all the danger

I don't think that this was ever bootlegged, which is why its release om Anthology was so interesting. This should be removed from list of most commonly bootlegged tracks. Alanmoss 12:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Anthology version of Danger was edited because the disc was damaged (about 40 seconds). I believe complete versions of the original recording have leaked. Also That'll be the Day was played on a Buddy Holly special in 1985 with Paul McCartney's commentary over it. The 40 seconds that were broadcasted have been booted as well.Paulisdead 20:58, 15 Januray 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Beatles Great Dane.jpg

Image:Beatles Great Dane.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)