Post by postscript on May 26, 2009 13:00:20 GMT
Hi everyone.
Today at 9:58am, postscript wrote:
Yes I realise when you get the Albert Hall and the BBC they are probably running 20 or so cameras and there is extensive editing but what I am talking about is not a formal DVD in the manner of 'Hayley live in New Zealand" but of a standard worthy of selling at a value for money people would be prepared to pay, rather than follow pirated versions.
It is not just Youtube that needs to give. Perhaps the structure of the whole music industry needs to give a little too.
Dave, any comment? Peter S.
Hi Peter and Jillian and everyone,
Well I've heard of performers having their concerts recorded live and producing CDs of the performance for sale after the end of the show, within half an hour or so... it can be done! But the idea doesn't seem to have caught on in a big way, I can see quite a lot of potential problems in doing that, especially for a DVD... including the record company contract!
Yes the music industry has to change and it is slowly doing so but I think further talk about that wiill be better left for another more suitable thread, feel free to start (or continue) one if you wish, Peter.
Cheers, Dave
Thanks Dave, I realised in the penultimate post a new thread would be needed but wanted input from someone like you to confirm the validity of my thinking. The above quote prompted this new thread and I hope my psychology in interpreting how to head this thread and where to put it meets agreement.
Dave went a little ahead of me. In the possibility of doing what he says, yes, I'm aware it has happened (in other sectors as a marketing promotion of convention speakers) but my feeling was more aligned to a qualitative end of 'value for money', which therefore envisaged a certain reasonable time for editing. I was not thinking so much of going to CD/DVD (which I quoted as a media principle rather than intending it literally) but seeing the availability electronically.
If Youtube were to accept a role in fee-gathering, as Amazon does as a legitimate seller and as artists' sites are offering song downloads or references to where a full professional copy can be downloaded. There really should not be a conflict. Basically I think the majority of people (allowing for the fact that some are less monied than others) believe in a principle of "fair do's".
Rather than the industry berating those who 'break the system', it should accept the way the world wags and interact with it. Dave is quite right when he says there could be horrendous contractual problems but I submit that it is only because the industry is being heavy-handed at handling a rapidly diversifying and more demanding market. The problem is like our financiers, generally they think short-term not long-term. By planning ahead, when an artist does a tour and chooses to invite guest performers the contractual arrangements for amplifier manning as well as CD/DVD provision should be made at that time.
It requires a complete re-think on industry-management. It means unitary concepts in legal arrangements. It also requires proper management planning not the seemingly haphazard scatterbrained approach we appear to experience.
Taking a long shot, I wonder if Bedlam had something like this in mind when they asked for opinions on what we would like to find at a Hayley concert interval etc?
I question that a tour is organised in the manner in which a factory or publisher would organise the production of a book (using an analogy from my own field). Is organising a tour as structured as this?
Tour. Define purpose: participants/rights/ locations/technicians/recording provisions, sound and visual and post-production availability. That definition determines we need Modules: A, C, F, H, K from the range of A-Z modules that cover all possible contingencies for organising a tour.
Another analogy with which people in the UK will be variously familiar, is the Home Selling Pack without which you cannot put a house on the market in the UK. It is not as effective as it might be because it was an INeffective government that brought it in to being.
In principle (if allowed to work properly) it removes the uncertainties that you picked a dud solicitor who didn't ask the right questions. Now the law (almost) requires the seller to provide all the information a prudent and competent solicitor would ask for, or research, as a statement of assured legally-contestable fact. It is composed of modules covering different aspects of the building, some of which will be relevant to some buildings and other aspects to other buildings. You refer to those modules relevant to your particular property.
Is it not time for the public to stand up against the music industry and say, 'this is what we want and the way we want to hear/see our music and you ain't providing it, to the disadvantage of your artists and our satisfaction? Perhaps it is time to tell the music industry the boot is on the other foot!
As an aside, it might mean artists would have to be tighter controlled in the way they run their lives but thinking on that, hardly, They are already broadly controlled by their management and recording contracts. All this proposes is better organisation--some might prefer erratic responses!
Peter S.
Today at 9:58am, postscript wrote:
Yes I realise when you get the Albert Hall and the BBC they are probably running 20 or so cameras and there is extensive editing but what I am talking about is not a formal DVD in the manner of 'Hayley live in New Zealand" but of a standard worthy of selling at a value for money people would be prepared to pay, rather than follow pirated versions.
It is not just Youtube that needs to give. Perhaps the structure of the whole music industry needs to give a little too.
Dave, any comment? Peter S.
Hi Peter and Jillian and everyone,
Well I've heard of performers having their concerts recorded live and producing CDs of the performance for sale after the end of the show, within half an hour or so... it can be done! But the idea doesn't seem to have caught on in a big way, I can see quite a lot of potential problems in doing that, especially for a DVD... including the record company contract!
Yes the music industry has to change and it is slowly doing so but I think further talk about that wiill be better left for another more suitable thread, feel free to start (or continue) one if you wish, Peter.
Cheers, Dave
Thanks Dave, I realised in the penultimate post a new thread would be needed but wanted input from someone like you to confirm the validity of my thinking. The above quote prompted this new thread and I hope my psychology in interpreting how to head this thread and where to put it meets agreement.
Dave went a little ahead of me. In the possibility of doing what he says, yes, I'm aware it has happened (in other sectors as a marketing promotion of convention speakers) but my feeling was more aligned to a qualitative end of 'value for money', which therefore envisaged a certain reasonable time for editing. I was not thinking so much of going to CD/DVD (which I quoted as a media principle rather than intending it literally) but seeing the availability electronically.
If Youtube were to accept a role in fee-gathering, as Amazon does as a legitimate seller and as artists' sites are offering song downloads or references to where a full professional copy can be downloaded. There really should not be a conflict. Basically I think the majority of people (allowing for the fact that some are less monied than others) believe in a principle of "fair do's".
Rather than the industry berating those who 'break the system', it should accept the way the world wags and interact with it. Dave is quite right when he says there could be horrendous contractual problems but I submit that it is only because the industry is being heavy-handed at handling a rapidly diversifying and more demanding market. The problem is like our financiers, generally they think short-term not long-term. By planning ahead, when an artist does a tour and chooses to invite guest performers the contractual arrangements for amplifier manning as well as CD/DVD provision should be made at that time.
It requires a complete re-think on industry-management. It means unitary concepts in legal arrangements. It also requires proper management planning not the seemingly haphazard scatterbrained approach we appear to experience.
Taking a long shot, I wonder if Bedlam had something like this in mind when they asked for opinions on what we would like to find at a Hayley concert interval etc?
I question that a tour is organised in the manner in which a factory or publisher would organise the production of a book (using an analogy from my own field). Is organising a tour as structured as this?
Tour. Define purpose: participants/rights/ locations/technicians/recording provisions, sound and visual and post-production availability. That definition determines we need Modules: A, C, F, H, K from the range of A-Z modules that cover all possible contingencies for organising a tour.
Another analogy with which people in the UK will be variously familiar, is the Home Selling Pack without which you cannot put a house on the market in the UK. It is not as effective as it might be because it was an INeffective government that brought it in to being.
In principle (if allowed to work properly) it removes the uncertainties that you picked a dud solicitor who didn't ask the right questions. Now the law (almost) requires the seller to provide all the information a prudent and competent solicitor would ask for, or research, as a statement of assured legally-contestable fact. It is composed of modules covering different aspects of the building, some of which will be relevant to some buildings and other aspects to other buildings. You refer to those modules relevant to your particular property.
Is it not time for the public to stand up against the music industry and say, 'this is what we want and the way we want to hear/see our music and you ain't providing it, to the disadvantage of your artists and our satisfaction? Perhaps it is time to tell the music industry the boot is on the other foot!
As an aside, it might mean artists would have to be tighter controlled in the way they run their lives but thinking on that, hardly, They are already broadly controlled by their management and recording contracts. All this proposes is better organisation--some might prefer erratic responses!
Peter S.