Technology disruptions during concerts/recitals

[Belle]

An interesting piece of self-serving cant!

https://www.yevgenychepovetsky.com/sing ... es-a-point

[John F]

Actually, I think the piece is interesting and pretty sensible. Thanks for posting it.

We all know that when we "multitask," our minds are divided and we don't, can't, give our full attention to any of the tasks. That's why using a mobile phone while driving is illegal in many places, and why I never play "background" music while doing anything else. But I wonder how many of today's concert- and opera-goers really give the music and performance their full attention anyway. Simultaneous translations as in most opera houses enable us to read in addition to / rather than listen, as did following a recording with a printed libretto in the days when these were always provided. Distraction and even inattention, then, are common experiences for music lovers, and the smartphone - as long as it remains silent! - has introduced nothing radically new and disruptive.

[lennygoran]

An interesting piece of self-serving cant!

Belle whatever it is the possibilities blew me away-thanks for posting it! Regards, Len

[maestrob]

This was interesting, Belle, thank-you. The article leaves out one very important topic, though, and that's the (obviously available) ability for "smart glasses" to record the concert for future sharing. Right now, smartphones are easily detectable by concert hall staff, and the offender can be singled out and told to stop the recording. How, in the future, will ushers tell everyone wearing glasses to stop recording???? Even now, brave souls run the risk of cell phone confiscation at Carnegie Hall: will they then confiscate all pairs of glasses? I don't think so!

[John F]

Legalisms aside, and of course they're important, I find myself more and more in favor of informally recording as many live performances as possible, with or without the knowledge of the performers and presenters. They aren't really being cheated out of anything they would otherwise receive, as they've already been paid by the audience attending the concert, and the recordings are documents in the history of musical performance, balancing the approved and well-scrubbed commercial recordings made in the studio or live, or filling in for recordings that were never officially made.

Many of these surreptitious recordings do not circulate. I was with a friend when he recorded Stokowski conducting the adagio from Mahler's 10th symphony in Carnegie Hall; that was in 1963, and the recording has not yet turned up, as far as I know. Eventually, when the recordist/collector dies, his archive may find its way into a major library. This has been an important source for the Rodgers & Hammerstein Archive of Recorded Sound at the New York Public Library where I work.

A case in point is the collection of Richard McGuinn, a Catholic priest, who recorded an enormous number of Metropolitan Opera and especially New York City Opera performances in the house from the 1950s to 1981, as well as many concerts in Carnegie Hall and broadcasts on European and American radio. Non-operatic recordings, including several jazz concerts and Broadway musicals, are fewer but often significant.

So I'm all for magic eyeglasses with a recording device built in. By the time these exist (if they ever do), there may be no performances worth recording, but of course that's a separate issue.

[Ricordanza]

They aren't really being cheated out of anything they would otherwise receive, as they've already been paid by the audience attending the concert....

I disagree. They are being deprived of the potential income from the recording of the concert. Of course, from the (selfish) viewpoint of the concertgoer, I would love to be able to retain recordings of concerts I attended, and re-experience these events in future years.

[jserraglio]

I'm all for magic eyeglasses with a recording device built in. . . .

I know of a lady from London, a dowager she was, who would fly into the States just to hear special concerts and then record them in wonderful binaural sound from the best seat in the house using earbud "headphones" with embedded mics. If asked, she would tell the usher they were hearing aids. She got away with it. Who's gonna accuse an elegantly appointed, sweet, deaf old lady with a British accent of a Class A misdemeanor? I have a few of her recordings and they sound more natural and immediate, imo, than commercial broadcasts of the same material.

As for the law, I would never do such a thing as record surreptitiously, maybe because I would look out of place, with my Air Jordans, NFL Browns sweatshirt and MLB Indians starter jacket, but I'm sure glad that other folks are willing break that law. Many historic performances would have been lost if they hadn't.

I have been told by a university musicologist & archivist that he releases broadcast recordings b/c institutions like the LOC sit on a trove of audio that may never see the light of day for lack of interest or lack of funding.

I wonder who might be the national security adviser right now if some folks were not willing to risk prison and talk to the Times and Post.

[John F]

They aren't really being cheated out of anything they would otherwise receive, as they've already been paid by the audience attending the concert....

I disagree. They are being deprived of the potential income from the recording of the concert. Of course, from the (selfish) viewpoint of the concertgoer, I would love to be able to retain recordings of concerts I attended, and re-experience these events in future years.

That almost never happens. There is only potential income from an authorized recording if a record company makes and publishes such a recording, and that's so rare that nearly all unofficial recordings cost the performers and presenters nothing. For that matter, many official live recordings originate as radio or TV broadcasts, which millions of listeners may legally record at home without having to buy a ticket.

New York City Opera performances were almost never broadcast. It's only thanks to Father McGuinn's surreptitious in-house recordings that nearly three decades of its history have been preserved as sound documents which are now available to the public at the performing arts library, on demand and for free. None of those performances were ever recorded and published by legitimate record companies. The cost to the performers of these unauthorized recordings: not a penny. The cost to us and generations yet unborn if the recordings had been prevented: you tell me.

The contents of this and other sound archives, as at the Library of Congress, cannot be published without permission from all the rights holders, which would be difficult or impossible to obtain, or until the recordings go into the public domain, which hasn't been happening. You can't blame them for "sitting on" their collections; that's what libraries are supposed to do. If a record company, such as RCA or Sony Classical, does clear permissions, the library can and often has made its materials available for publication. Instead you should praise them devoting so much time, effort, and money to acquiring, preserving, and restoring these recordings, and making them available to the public that cares enough to come to the library to hear them.

[maestrob]

The MET has just released radio transcription tapes of its inaugural season (mono only) from 1966-7 on CD, so there is potential income from such recordings, as there has been for many of Stokowski's and Toscanini's live performances issued on CD. It's not a huge market, but it's there. Youtube is earning advertising dollars from many older and contemporary recordings (I believe that ALL of Gergiev's commercial discs are available online through youtube.).

If technology will soon make it possible for audience members (especially those in good seats) to record concerts, then these recordings could easily be shared on youtube or a similar service, making the CD market even less lucrative than it is now. I'll still buy them, for archival purposes, but how many people will feel like doing that, when all you need to do is download the file from youtube and burn your own free CD? Will it be worth it for collectors to buy the commercial product just to have the booklet? Legalisms aside, only time will tell, I guess.

[jserraglio]

. . . You can't blame them [sound archives, as at the Library of Congress] for "sitting on" their collections; that's what libraries are supposed to do . . . . Instead you should praise them devoting so much time, effort, and money to acquiring, preserving, and restoring these recordings, and making them available to the public that cares enough to come to the library to hear them.

Respectfully, what I can or cannot, should or should not do is my call, not yours. As I see it, being lectured to in a superior tone is something I can't praise and should blame. And I ain't got no quarrel with that there LOC neither.

So if I might clarify. The point that musicologist made to me is that archives like the LOC are sitting on audio long out of copyright for two main reasons: 1) lack of interest; 2) lack of funding. He wasn't blaming them, he wasn't praising them. Just reporting what they had told him. And giving us a reason for his releasing thousands of hours of rarely heard broadcasts into a public forum.

[John F]

The MET has just released radio transcription tapes of its inaugural season (mono only) from 1966-7 on CD, so there is potential income from such recordings, as there has been for many of Stokowski's and Toscanini's live performances issued on CD. It's not a huge market, but it's there.

Sure, no question. But since these were broadcasts, many of them could have been recorded off the air legally by home listeners with disc recorders, not by people in Studio 8H with portable audio recorders which did not then exist. So this is not a case in point.

Youtube is earning advertising dollars from many older and contemporary recordings (I believe that ALL of Gergiev's commercial discs are available online through youtube.)

Many or most of these were uploaded by anonymous contributors without permission from the performers or record companies. Early efforts to enforce copyright failed, and now it seems anything goes. Which is great for music lovers everywhere, not least here in CMG.

If technology will soon make it possible for audience members (especially those in good seats) to record concerts, then these recordings could easily be shared on youtube or a similar service, making the CD market even less lucrative than it is now. I'll still buy them, for archival purposes, but how many people will feel like doing that, when all you need to do is download the file from youtube and burn your own free CD? Will it be worth it for collectors to buy the commercial product just to have the booklet? Legalisms aside, only time will tell, I guess.[/quote]
I doubt many of us go to the trouble of saving YouTube files to our hard drives and burning them on CDs. There's no real need, when all you need to do is listen to the YouTube stream.

The classical record business, and the recorded music business generally, has been in decline for quite a while, but not because of YouTube. Seems to me it's all about the iPod, which allows people to assemble commercial recordings of their choice and carry them wherever. Early on, file-sharing sites such as Napster made those files available for free, but the record companies sued them and shut them down. And this was mainly about rock and pop commercial records, not unauthorized recordings of classical music performances.

[jserraglio]

Many of YouTube's commercial classical recordings, esp. broadcasts, are now being uploaded complete by the rights holders. I suppose they earn revenue from them a la Spotify and Pandora as well as promote their DVD and CD products.

[John F]

The MET has just released radio transcription tapes of its inaugural season (mono only) from 1966-7 on CD, so there is potential income from such recordings, as there has been for many of Stokowski's and Toscanini's live performances issued on CD. It's not a huge market, but it's there.

Sure, no question. But since these were broadcasts, many of them could have been recorded off the air legally by home listeners with disc recorders, not by people in Studio 8H with portable audio recorders which did not then exist. So this is not a case in point.

Youtube is earning advertising dollars from many older and contemporary recordings (I believe that ALL of Gergiev's commercial discs are available online through youtube.)

Many or most of these were uploaded by anonymous contributors without permission from the performers or record companies. Early efforts to enforce copyright failed, and now it seems anything goes. Which is great for music lovers everywhere, not least here in CMG.

If technology will soon make it possible for audience members (especially those in good seats) to record concerts, then these recordings could easily be shared on youtube or a similar service, making the CD market even less lucrative than it is now. I'll still buy them, for archival purposes, but how many people will feel like doing that, when all you need to do is download the file from youtube and burn your own free CD? Will it be worth it for collectors to buy the commercial product just to have the booklet? Legalisms aside, only time will tell, I guess.

I doubt many of us go to the trouble of saving YouTube files to our hard drives and burning them on CDs. There's no real need, when all you need to do is listen to the YouTube stream.

The classical record business, and the recorded music business generally, has been in decline for quite a while, but not because of YouTube. Seems to me it's all about the iPod, which allows people to assemble commercial recordings of their choice and carry them wherever. Early on, file-sharing sites such as Napster made those files available for free, but the record companies sued them and shut them down. And this was mainly about rock and pop commercial records, not unauthorized recordings of classical music performances.

[John F]

. . . You can't blame them [sound archives, as at the Library of Congress] for "sitting on" their collections; that's what libraries are supposed to do . . . . Instead you should praise them devoting so much time, effort, and money to acquiring, preserving, and restoring these recordings, and making them available to the public that cares enough to come to the library to hear them.

Respectfully, what I can or cannot, should or should not do is my call, not yours. As I see it, being lectured to in a superior tone is something I can't praise and should blame.

Oh come on now. If you insist, I'll rewrite it in the passive voice. Sound archives should not be blamed for "sitting on" their collections; that's what libraries are supposed to do... Instead they should be praised for devoting so much time, effort, and money to acquiring, preserving, and restoring these recordings, and making them available to the public that cares enough to come to the library to hear them. OK?

The point that musicologist made to me is that archives like the LOC are sitting on audio long out of copyright for two main reasons: 1) lack of interest; 2) lack of funding. He wasn't blaming them, he wasn't praising them. Just reporting what they had told him. And giving us a reason for his releasing thousands of hours of rarely heard broadcasts into a public forum.

Come on again. That musicologist was indeed blaming the libraries for what he described as "sitting on" the recordings, not a neutral phrase. And he doesn't know what he's talking about. Duration of copyright in sound recordings is a mare's nest, varying from state to state for those made or published before 1972, but to keep it simple:

"There are NO Sound Recordings in the Public Domain in the USA."

http://www.pdinfo.com/copyright-law/pub ... rdings.php

The musicologist's supposed reasons are false, and I'm sure he didn't get them from a professional librarian or archivist. Just because a library houses a collection of sound recordings (or anything else) does not give it publication rights. The New York Public Library's sound archive acquired Arturo Toscanini's complete collection of NBC broadcasts and some concerts that weren't broadcast, paying a sum in the six figures for them, and has probably spent as much again to restore them. So much for lack of interest. But the publication rights remain with NBC and RCA, and will do so as long as the U.S. keeps extending the period of copyright protection.

[jserraglio]

The musicologist being criticized here was talking about a time when there was a public domain in the US. He wasn't referring to recordings by name artists like AT that commercial outfits owned rights to. He wasn't dissing archivists/librarians (they were friends and colleagues) or accusing them of lack of interest.

Agree with him or not, he did know what he was talking about.

[maestrob]

The MET has just released radio transcription tapes of its inaugural season (mono only) from 1966-7 on CD, so there is potential income from such recordings, as there has been for many of Stokowski's and Toscanini's live performances issued on CD. It's not a huge market, but it's there.

Sure, no question. But since these were broadcasts, many of them could have been recorded off the air legally by home listeners with disc recorders, not by people in Studio 8H with portable audio recorders which did not then exist. So this is not a case in point.


Actually, it is a "case in point." Privately made recordings of broadcasts in any format are illegal to distribute in any way, including and especially selling or even distributing copies for free. When I recorded my concerts at Carnegie Hall, my contract stated that it was illegal for me to make copies even for the competition participants, so I had to go to recording studios to make recordings to distribute to subscribers. The disc I gave you at our dinner function came from studio recordings, not from reference recordings made in Carnegie Hall.

Youtube is earning advertising dollars from many older and contemporary recordings (I believe that ALL of Gergiev's commercial discs are available online through youtube.)

Many or most of these were uploaded by anonymous contributors without permission from the performers or record companies. Early efforts to enforce copyright failed, and now it seems anything goes. Which is great for music lovers everywhere, not least here in CMG.

If technology will soon make it possible for audience members (especially those in good seats) to record concerts, then these recordings could easily be shared on youtube or a similar service, making the CD market even less lucrative than it is now. I'll still buy them, for archival purposes, but how many people will feel like doing that, when all you need to do is download the file from youtube and burn your own free CD? Will it be worth it for collectors to buy the commercial product just to have the booklet? Legalisms aside, only time will tell, I guess.

I doubt many of us go to the trouble of saving YouTube files to our hard drives and burning them on CDs. There's no real need, when all you need to do is listen to the YouTube stream.

Actually, there is a real need in my house, because my computer is not connected to my stereo system, so I need a physical disc in order to listen through high quality speakers. My computer only has headphones plugged into it, and I can only listen for two hours or so before my back gives out.

The classical record business, and the recorded music business generally, has been in decline for quite a while, but not because of YouTube. Seems to me it's all about the iPod, which allows people to assemble commercial recordings of their choice and carry them wherever. Early on, file-sharing sites such as Napster made those files available for free, but the record companies sued them and shut them down. And this was mainly about rock and pop commercial records, not unauthorized recordings of classical music performances.