Re: [Leica] Re: concert shooting (was Leica Camera-Handling)

["Bryan Caldwell" <bcaldwell@softcom.net>]

>>Similarly, Robert Frank's documentary of the Rolling Stones "Cocksucker
Blues" is arguably the best rock documentary ever made. The Stones forbid
it's release, so it's now only available as a bootleg. Nearly 30 years after
completion, the Stones are still forbidding an artistic genius like Robert
Frank (a great Leica photographer -- hey, I'm back on topic) from releasing
it to the public. <<

Actually, the Rolling Stones have never denied that the film has artistic
merit, they've just prevented it from widespread release. I believe that it
belongs to the band, as they hired Frank and paid the expenses. However,
they allow it to be shown several times a year in "artistic" settings. I
first saw it about ten years ago at a Robert Frank retrospective being held
at U.C. Berkeley. Frank was present and answered questions following the
screening. I remember hearing that the condition imposed by the band was
that Frank had to be present for it to be shown - thereby limiting it's
release to similar events.

My two cents are that, while I admire Frank and consider "The Americans" to
be a true landmark in the medium, "Cocksucker Blues" is far from the
greatest rock documentary. It's slow and downright boring at times, the
musical sequences are not very well shot or recorded and a number of scenes
seem obviously staged for the camera. It offers very little insight into the
band or their music. "Gimme Shelter" is much better.

Bryan



- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Fisher" <tekapo@golden.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: concert shooting (was Leica Camera-Handling)


> > From: "Mark Rutledge" <markrut@ticnet.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: concert shooting (was Leica Camera-Handling)
>
> > - - Does Charlie Parker's estate or his descendants(if he has any)
profit
> from
> > these illegal recordings? Is this going to ultimately become a "the ends
> > justify the means discussion", which is what it seems you are
advocating.
>
> It seems I have opened a can of worms here, and possibly at the expense of
> being called a socialist and a thief. What follows is a long post, and
I'll
> try to keep it as on-topic as possible.
>
> I can't answer the question about Parker's estate. It would seem criminal
to
> me that a record company would release recordings, even if they were
> illegally recorded, and not reimburse the artist or his estate. I don't
> think that's happening. Even in the most recent past, bootlegs were
flowing
> legally out of Italy, because that country had a law that any performance
> could be sold so long as there was a percentage set aside in accounts for
> the artist. I would imagine that American record companies wouldn't
release
> Parker's recordings without proper recompense. (Indeed, perhaps Parker's
> estate booted the boots themselves, much like Frank Zappa did, taking the
> bootleggers tapes, cleaning them up, and releasing them under his own
> imprint.)
>
> As for my advocating an "end justifies the means," I suppose I am, and
> here's where it gets sticky. We commodify and place monetary value on
> everything. Sadly, even on art. Obviously, I am not advocating theft, but
> instead a process of documentation and authenticity.
>
> Many years ago the Rolling Stones' record label released a live album
called
> "Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out" that as a recording and performance was a pale
> representation of their live show. Bootleg albums from that same tour,
such
> as "Bedspring Symphony," later appeared that were vastly superior as
> documents -- superior in audio quality, performance, and purity (no
> over-dubs, as was the case of the official live release). The Stones
didn't
> profit financially off the illegal recording, but as an artistic document
> the bootleg is doing them a huge favour, because it captures them at their
> best. "Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out" commences with the boast, "The Greatest Rock
and
> Roll Band in the World!" Uhh, sorry, not on the evidence of that official
> album they're not, who are they trying to kid?. But the boot actually
makes
> a considerable argument in favour of the boast.
>
> Similarly, Robert Frank's documentary of the Rolling Stones "Cocksucker
> Blues" is arguably the best rock documentary ever made. The Stones forbid
> it's release, so it's now only available as a bootleg. Nearly 30 years
after
> completion, the Stones are still forbidding an artistic genius like Robert
> Frank (a great Leica photographer -- hey, I'm back on topic) from
releasing
> it to the public. The problem with Frank's documentary, as far as the
Stones
> are concerned, is that "it's too real, man." Well, that's precisely what I
> want. Ask yourself if you'd rather see another dreadful Stones video or
> Frank's "Cocksucker Blues." Ask yourself if you'd rather go to a gallery
> exhibit of your favorite performers photographed in dull artificial studio
> set-ups, or working in performance as they really are. As a Leica user,
> philosophically and aesthetically I'm much more predisposed toward the
> latter.
>
> Getting back to the Bird, I have to ask myself whether Parker would have
> wanted his cultural legacy to endure for generations, or would he have
> preferred to remain in obscurity and never receive his proper respect and
> credit as a musical genius. If bootleggers hadn't taped his shows, you're
> looking at the latter scenario. And culturally, we'd all be the lesser for
> it. The same applies to the Velvet Underground. The news and arts media
> didn't care a crap about them, only a small handful of fans did. Thank god
> those fans took photos and made tapes of live shows when they did, because
> the band is now hailed by serious art critics as one of the greatest
ever --
> PBS "American Masters" did a big profile of Lou Reed, so we know they've
now
> been accepted to the pantheon -- and we've got documents outside of the
> original official channels to prove it.
>
> I can detail several significant first-time live appearances by bands on
> this continent and country that I illegally shot when photographers from
> official news organizations (Toronto Star, Globe and Mail) bailed rather
> than get down into a mosh pit to get their pix. I know for a fact that I'm
> the only person with visual documentation of many now-legendary
> performances. Which just demonstrates to me the lack of passion the
> "official" shooters often have when they're out filing assignments (or as
> the case sometimes is, turning their backs on them), as opposed to fans
who
> actually share a stake in having the artists faithfully represented, and
> documenting it all for future generations. In my opinion, this is not a
> crime, but a public service.
>
> > - -If you photograph/tape a musician w/o their consent and then in turn
> profit
> > from it, isn't that a bit shady?
>
> Yes. But before we get too carried away, understand that I'm not invading
> somebody's bedroom and secretly photographing them having sex, and turning
> around and selling the images. Some people will argue what I'm doing is
the
> same thing, but I certainly see a big difference. I'm documenting them in
> their working environment, I'm not interfering with their work (I never
use
> flash), and I'm not reproducing the images for sale. (Disclaimer: I have
> sold some fb prints for the cost of printing and framing to individuals;
> I've also given many away for free to the artists who requested them
> themselves -- they saw them in fanzines I was published in and that I
never
> received nor expected payment. Several of them have told me that camera
> restrictions are imposed specifically because they don't want flash bursts
> in their face, and then again for no other reason than the promoters
thought
> that's what they wanted. I should note that I've been taking clandestine
> photographs for 15 years -- never with flash -- and am now on a first name
> basis with many international performers who have actually been
disappointed
> when I didn't bring my camera to the show. They also see value in my
> documention, it has nothing to do with money and everything to do with
> posterity.)
>
> >What if someone in turn "illegally" uses
> > your photo/recording and profits from it, do you have a leg to stand on?
>
> Since it's not an assignment, no. But I don't care about that. If I take a
> great photograph of a performer I admire tremendously, and that photo ends
> up on a record sleeve without my credit or receiving payment, I'm chuffed,
> because there wasn't any expectation of payment in the first place, and
the
> people ripping the photo off are more likely to be fans and curators than
> profiteers. Crude reproductions of my pix have actually made their way
onto
> at least three bootlegs that I'm aware of, without my consent or
knowledge.
> All I can do is laugh. But if I'd known they'd wanted the pic in the first
> place, I would have preferred giving them a print myself, rather than them
> scanning it off a fanzine or newspaper. If I enter into an contract with
> somebody and they don't give me the agreed credit or payment, that's an
> entirely different story.
>
>