I was sitting in the last row of the orchestra at Alice Tully last night and, at one point during a performance, the woman to my left leaned back and loud-whispered to an usher, “There’s someone taking pictures down there!”, gesturing to her right dramatically. No sooner had the dutiful usher trotted off to investigate the situation did the woman to my left whip out her iPhone and take a photo herself.
Bold, madam.
[That would be seat Z104, if anyone from Lincoln Center is reading.]
During the final bows, my tricky left-neighbor took another iPhone photo, and this time, the usher told her to stop, so she first took the picture and then turned off the phone. If I were the usher, I might have said, “Ma’am, I’m gonna need to delete that photo…” and then mistakenly deleted her contacts. Simultaneously, the woman to my right busted out her camera equivalent of Zach Morris’ cell phone and took a flash photo! The usher asked her to stop, at which point she implored, “But I’m a critic.” and waved scribbled notes on her program in his face. (Keep in mind, this was all happening while the Chamber Music Society was playing.) I was going to point out that, as a Publicity Professional, I can safely say we were not in press seats, but I thought it best not to cause a scene while on the new hall’s maiden voyage.
Call me a prude but I, not unlike Patti LuPone, do not like it when audience members take photos during performances. My real problem is that rules are rules; if I’m obeying them, you should be too. There’s a music blogger in the city who constantly posts illegal concert photos on his blog; I’m sure he’ll have a few posted from last night at Alice Tully soon enough. If I worked at a presenter who gave him press tickets, I would be infuriated by his lack of respect for the artists and the houses. I’m also the person who would have deleted the iPhone contacts, so perhaps I’m not the best acid test for such things.
On the train ride home, I found myself wondering why I was being so rigid. What is actually the problem with audience members taking non-flash photos at performances? Flashes distract performers, but iPhone/Blackberry/camera phone photos are very discreet: they’re silent and flashless. A second potential problem is that the artists don’t have approval of photos that are taken during concerts then posted who knows where, but shouldn’t performers be thrilled that someone was enjoying the experience of them playing enough to want to preserve a memory of it? We take photos when we like something, when we want to remember something or when we want to share our personal experiences with others. With that in mind, how can taking photos at concerts be against the rules? And if the photos end up on blogs or Flickr, or videos are posted on YouTube or Vimeo, what damage is done? If anything, a positive concert experience at your venue is being advertised. By prohibiting photos, presenters are essentially preventing audiences from doing the viral marketing leg-work for them.
I’ve personally been known to Photoshop my vacation photos, so I understand artists’ fear of not having any semblance of approval of live concert photography. Perhaps one solution is providing a gallery of water-marked high-resolution photos from every concert taken by an in-house professional photographer, advertised in the program and available to all ticket-buyers. That way, if someone who may or may not be on the official press list wanted to blog about the concert the next day – or simply e mail a photo to a grandparent in Michigan – he or she could procure a great shot without having to ask the venue or artist’s permission. The photos would be high-quality, and presumably the artist could approve or not approve them directly after the concert.
A second option is to allow photos and video during one piece only, be it the first piece on the program or the encore. The artist would know when he or she would be filmed/photographed, and could mentally prepare for it. This, of course, may prove to be a flawed system, but I have to believe if you give people a legal window to photograph, they’ll be less inclined to break the rules during the rest of the concert.
Regarding the audio–this might work for individual artists but might not work for orchestras and similar unionized groups that operate under CBAs. Those that I’ve worked with include strict and specific language about what can and can’t be recorded. Audience bootlegs are a big no-no, and management is beholden to police their patrons for this very reason.
But really, what’s up with people who bootleg performances, post them on snarky blogs, and then use those recordings (usually of very poor quality) to issue sweeping critiques of the artist? This has always struck me as extremely unfair, though I can’t argue with the free buzz. And on one level, I think it’s cool that recording and blogging about a performance excerpt can get patrons more deeply engaged.
But at the same time, I can’t argue with the musician/performer who gets defensive and uptight about having his work recorded. Those bootlegs have always felt a little bit like stealing to me. Most musicians’ core business is LIVE performance, and their work is sort of undermined when it is taken out of context and out of their control. Besides, that performer is being paid for one service, licensing their work for one-time-use, as it were. I really think this comes down to artistic integrity and respect of the live performance.
I do think it’s important that artists embrace being public figures. This is why I’d be all for photo sessions and limited, unobtrusive photography during performances. Let people hold on to the experience. But I do think the issue of audio or video is completely different…it gives patrons far more than they payed for, but cheapens the art in the process.
Taking a photo during a live performance is antithetical to the whole purpose of the experience; that being an emphemeral shared group experience, unique and created soley for those souls who chose to join the artists for that evening.
Producers and venues are obliged to enforce the pact made with the artists to ensure that their performance is not pirated for purposes the artists have not agreed to.
My company and our venue routinely confiscate and delete any attempts to record, video, or photograph the event. That you found the ushers in at Tulley not doing the same shocks me.
Regarding the press, you overlook that many houses provide dress rehearsal passes and/or in-house photography of live performance prior to opening for use in any news services. There is no excuse for any member of the press to illegally take photos during performance. None. We extend the same opportunity and services to bloggers.
With regard to the idea of letting people record or photograph at some point in the performance. That’ll fly when you let us all stand over your shoulder as you type, having disabled the backspace key.
As one of the pioneers of classical music concert photography for blogging bombthrowing purposes, oh, about four years ago, I think it’s time to come up with a few new rules:
1. Never take photos during a performance. It’s annoying as hell to look at somebody else’s shiny LCD instead of the stage during a performance.
2. Never use a flash. It’s also as annoying as can be, and it doesn’t help with your photo quality because the stage is usually lit up already.
3. If you do publish your photos on the internet, make sure they are flattering. If not, rethink what you’re doing. There’s enough ugliness in the world already.
Newspapers (while they still exist) regularly take live-performance photos, with the permission of the venue. Artists can’t control how those photos look. The NY Times regularly prints unflattering (to put it mildly) photos of singers in live performance at the Met, leading me to wonder whether the people picking the photos to print at the Times think opera is silly, and find photos that make it look that way.