>i think i may have asked a similar question about the difference
>between an edit and a bootleg. i don't think the answer is that
>straightforward tho. i can see both sides (ie. 'yeah it's no different
>to bootlegging' and 'nah there's some creative input involved so it
>ain't a bootleg').
>i think most re-edits though are done without permission. so make of
>that what you will.
I don't think bootlegs and edits are really comparable.
edits are alterations to the complete track. that is you don't have the
split elements (seperated bass, drums, synth 1,2,3,etc.) to work with.
Technically speaking, edits don't have any connection to bootlegs or legal
releases. It's purely a engineering/mixing term. Much like dub (that's a
whole other thread though).
Whether the original artist/label wants to give the editing artist access
to the original splits will determine if it is a remix or an edit.
A remix would mean that the person doing the remix had access to the
original split channel recordings. Chances that a bootlegger had access to
these is slim unless they were stolen from the artist or studio.
Bootleg is a legal term. Not a term for style of editing. It's just a way
to define the way in which it was distributed and under the condition it
was made - not the actual process in which it was made.
MEK
