Pianist Krystian Zimerman storms out over phone recording ( what do people think)

It seems to me that he was entirely within his rights to object to non-approved filming. Filming / recording should only be with the permission of the performers/organisers (or whoever would have the rights to recordings of the event), and likewise the distribution of such recordings. Having said that, I absolutely do not agree with his statement that YouTube is the cause of "the destruction of music", rather I have the impression that YouTube and other new media channels are causing an flourishing of musical activity in dozens of new ways, including giving access to those who would otherwise have found it impossible, and also in reviving interest in older artists/works/performances.

But by all means, if he wants to control his image and sound, he should be able to do so.
 
Clivey said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22780812

I hope this is not too political or controversial but it is a very relevant issue to ALL musicians particularly Pros.

What else has an Artist got left to sell if they cant sell their live performances?

If it`s not allowed to discuss this please delete it Mods.
Click to expand...

1st off we all must love the choice of stuff we can now watch on youtube and other type sites so how do I answer.Well I see his point for sure and respect his views.If I stand 100% with him then I should not use youtube !!!!!!!!!!!!! So that's all I can say on it as its a catch 22.
 
Again. I also think YouTube is incredible. But I feel sorry for lesser Paid and not as well Known Performers who are trying to slog out a living in an ever decreasing circuit when people think that they can disregard that performers right to market their own Act.

Whos going to pay to go see a comedian if they know all the Jokes. Who`s going to a Whodunit if the outcome is made public?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Force YouTube to delete uploads of Filming/Rec. in a private place. ie. Concert Hall/ Jazz Club etc. If the Artist/owner/ object. Simples. Some won't as they see it as a free promo. But others don't need it and Their wishes should be respected.
 
Jamesmac said:
Force YouTube to delete uploads of Filming/Rec. in a private place. ie. Concert Hall/ Jazz Club etc. If the Artist/owner/ object.
Click to expand...

That is their policy. Well, almost. They remove a clip if the copyright owner asks them. That could be the copyright owner of the composition or the owner of the performance, presumably the performer but I suppose depending on whether there is a contract between the performer and the venue that they own recordings of then performance.

Whether Youtube is or isn't a good thing is not really the point. Exposure on Youtube is probably good for some, bad for others. I can certainly see the comedian's problem.
 
Technological developments outpacing social protocols.

People go on facebook and twitter and say outrageous things. Thankfully the law is catching up. I've been telling friends and family that what they write is published material. It's not like a forum.

Similarly people have technology in their pockets that was only available to professionals a few years ago. Owning the equipment doesn't give you a right to use it any time any where. I think people are quite familiar and comfortable with not whipping out a video camera in the cinema.

The same applies to a live performance. Many of us would quite appreciate the exposure of a video on you tube. However if the artist asks you to stop filming it would seem only prudent to comply. Similarly if there is a ban on using cameras then your smart phone is included.


I'm sure the said artist spoke in anger and frustration without giving the matter serious thought and seeing the big picture. YouTube is a wonderful resource and archive. Lots of stuff is removed at the owners request because the publisher doesn't own the rights. Some people are un aware of copyright and some don't care.


In this world of 24hour, on demand entertainment, people forget the uniqueness and specialness of a live performance. I think we as players and performers are very aware of the fragile nature of the artist. I wouldn't want to pay a fortune to see a world class instrumentalist, which may be a once in a lifetime experience and then upset them. I'm sure the romantic passages or the sensitive bits aren't as good when he's p!ssed
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Colin the Bear said:
In this world of 24hour, on demand entertainment, people forget the uniqueness and specialness of a live performance. I think we as players and performers are very aware of the fragile nature of the artist. I wouldn't want to pay a fortune to see a world class instrumentalist, which may be a once in a lifetime experience and then upset them. I'm sure the romantic passages or the sensitive bits aren't as good when he's p!ssed
Click to expand...

Unfortunately there are also a few creeps that like to"Scalphunt" and believe that being the first to post a "Spoiler" or a "bootleg" counts as a Badge of honour.( I would hope that not many fellow performers would think like this).

Is this issue just another facet of Piracy? Who Knows. I still believe that the "Money Trail" is behind a lot of this and that ultimately the Big Fish, ISP`s, Google etc, who are profiting financially from the uploaded content should be held to account. It`s time that a mechanism was put in place to at least reward the Artists who provide the content. ( Oh It`s sooo Confusing ).
 
I support Zimerman. He's the performer and has a right to allow or veto this. Personally I find someone using a phone to film a performance really irritating, there's the arm floating above the rest of the audience, moving around and distracting me. Usually the screen is bright in a dark theatre or concert hall (as this would have been). I want to see and hear the concert that I've paid a fortune to see, without someone's phone!
 
I agree these would be Spielbergs are a real pain, perhaps they feel they are getting involved in the creative process of performance, but annoying everybody in the vicinity. I blame the culture that we have, re. Performance. ie. involving the public in the performance, it used to be , that you just sat there and enjoyed the performer, now everybody thinks they are performers, and almost demands to get involved. I am sure it has happened to many of the members when a half loaded member of the Audience wants to have a blow on your sax. Depending on how pretty she may be, I usually mention, that there's an other alternative.
 
I tend to agree with a blanket ban on phones etc in area where a performance is taking place be that the cinema or a concert hall.
If I had my way there would be no standing up, no singing along, no banners, no shouting, no stamping of feet, no clapping along, no rustling of sweet wrappers, no coughing, just some polite applause at the end of the performance I am British after all. ;}
 
Then again this type of thing will just keep going as the world gets more hitech.Its been going on since the dawn of tape recorders.We have all recorded stuff for our own enjoyment in the past.Tape,cd or what ever format.How strong does one feel on this to stop using say youtube incase there watching something the artist does not want us to watch.I understand the artist here but I will still be watching stuff on youtube for sure.I know theres been plenty of very old rare jazz recordings found were nobody even knew they had be captured for us to hear in this day and age.So do we thank them lone people who done the recording or pull them down.As I said its a big catch 22. Lots of rights and wrongs.
 
All joking aside this is a problem for all performers and some are taking a stand. The current trend which I thing is a nice compromise is no filming except for a small portion of the show (two or three numbers) where people are encouraged to film then put the cameras away. For me personally I don't see why if you paid a lot of money to see an artist perform live you would then want to watch it on a 3" screen - seems like a waste of money.
 
I suspect that much of the ire raised in the pianist is due to the fact that to pay the composer(s), venue and management, all the musicians in the orchestra (if there is one) the appropriate fees and rates to record it for himself would be generally so astronomically expensive that to make an official recording release usually impossible.

(Not to mention all the added sound recording gear, crew, editing, mixing, mastering, graphic design and manufacturing when you actually do it right)

So to have some knob with a smartphone recording it in lo-fi from the front row and uploading it to YouTube would be very infuriating.
 
Don't know if it's OK to wave your iPhone around in a pop concert, and don't really care, but at a piano recital, when the performer tells you to desist, and you don't, we'll you should be taken out the back and shot in the head.;}
 
wol916 said:
All joking aside this is a problem for all performers and some are taking a stand. The current trend which I thing is a nice compromise is no filming except for a small portion of the show (two or three numbers) where people are encouraged to film then put the cameras away. For me personally I don't see why if you paid a lot of money to see an artist perform live you would then want to watch it on a 3" screen - seems like a waste of money.
Click to expand...

Its the same, when tourists take a pic on holiday, of Times Sq. or whatever, they are not saying look at Times Sq. they are saying LOOK WHERE I AM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Café QuickLinks

Contact admin or mod
Timezones
Saxophone Glossary
Forum issues support
Calendar
Taming The Saxophone

Bluesky  Facebook

Members' Blogs

Calendar events

Latest: Members' Recordings

Trending content

Forum statistics

Topics
29,698
Messages
515,263
Members
8,757
Latest member
Elisa
Back
Top Bottom