I agree about some of the ineffectiveness...
I've seen a lot of non Hybrid mixes listed as their
productions...unfortunately this is pouring over into Discogs too.
I'm not quite sure what you are talking about related to bootlegs
though. I'm guessing you are talking about the 1000 greatest hits
bootleg? I can sort of see why it would be reasonable to list it....So
Pure was only on the RAAPB promo...and lets be honest...I haven't seen
a single copy of that in years. (Also...it was an MP3 source...so yeh
don't bother), but I really don't know of bootlegs that don't have
unreleased material on them.
--- In HybridUK@yahoogroups.com, "Simon Chilvers" <schilvers@...> wrote:
> As much as I find it an invaluable tool for both useful and
> interesting) pieces of trivia, and applaud it for its openess,
> its flaws.
> I won't get started on the more general problems with wikipedia, but
> the nittygritty that may concern the likes of us.
> As Hybrid's page stands at the moment there is a concise discography
> bottom of the page detailing all the albums, singles etc along with
> of bootlegs. Now I don't have a problem with bootlegs being mentioned,
> especially when they are of interest to fans like promotional
> So Pure or TVFoot (ETIIRP), but only a mention!!! Otherwise the casual
> reader would be completely unaware of this potentially quite good
> interesting body of work that hasn't seen the light of day. I
> it and then go and shove a link in to Richard Lunds EBay profile!?!?!
> But when they are CD ripoffs with tracks on there that are available on
> official albums or downloadable from Distinctive etc I think this
> the mark, and even go as far as to mentioning where you can go to
> knockoffs I think this is at best advertising and at worse tantamount to
> aiding and abetting piracy??? Not knowing the standpoint that
> Hybrid themselves or Wikipedia would take on this I'm not sure what
> would be appropriate?
> Grumpy old man mode deactivated.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]