Why no videotaping at shows?

[Guest Speed Racer]

What is "The DVD Project"? Is it for The People?

 

And by the people. Check it out. PM me if you want anything; I'm Lauren from the "Aquiring Discs" section of the site.

[LouieB]

Then don't read about it; that part's not really rocket science.

 

I don't think we're that much more self-absorbed than previous generations, but many more of us have decided to use our extra leisure time (this, of course, supposing that we have more than we used to a few decades ago) to engage in media that allow us to promote ourselves rather than media that explore other people, places and things.

 

My personal thought is that, to some people, popular culture phenomena can be a kind of religious experience: sacred texts, pilgrimages, conversion (surely we've all shared stories of how we got into Wilco; some were white-light moments, other were over time, through exposure), arguments about the myths, arguments about the texts. I find it interesting to think about, much in the way you find it interesting to write about and read about jazz.

 

I am just as obsessed about any and all popular culture as the next guy, I suppose, so that part doesn't bother me in the least. Reading about Springsteen's fans would be interesting to me, not that I am going to take the time, but I would be willing to. I am not bad rapping anyone's personal journey vis a vis music or other objects of popular culture at all. This is fairly specific to the phenomenon of someone needing a personal artifact that they record to be able to be in touch with their feelings about that object. So okay, I own a cell phone (not an i-Phone unfortunately) which could record clips of musicians and I have done that on occasion, but it never occured to me that I needed it to revisit my feelings after the fact. I CAN remember what it felt like to see that person and I can recall what it felt like to attend certain Wilco shows and how I reacted. I am not that detached from myself and if I was, now that would be an issue. I guess I feel similarly even to needing a recording of the show, since I am not a big re-listener to shows I have been to nor to those I have not been to, but again that is just me and I can see how that would help in some respects. But why does one need their own personal visual record of where they were in order to recall the feeling, that is a bit of a mystery to me ("this is the time and this is the record of the time..." Laurie Anderson). I will never EVER forget how it felt to hear Jeff Tweedy sing Chrome is Hell at Ottos after he got out of rehab and returned to performing. If anything, hearing it and more likely seeing it on a crappy vid would diminish the actual impact it had on me.

Oh, I also wanted to add how much I love that this is the century in which we can post on the internet, in our free time, judgements of how other people spending their free time doing something (like posting on the internet) is a total waste of time.

Yup you got that totally right. Back to work, since this is not MY free time.

 

LouieB

[Guest Speed Racer]

To paraphrase:

 

You filmed something using your phone, you felt no need to revisit it, and you have no idea why people would film something on their phones? Why did you film what you did?

 

I doubt most people who tape things at concerts on their phones feel one ounce of thought about why they're doing it; I doubt they ever rewatch the clips, though I'm sure most people will save them or post them somewhere. Nevertheless, many will fight to the death about their "right" to do it.

[MattZ]

the amusing thing about videotaping at shows (IMO) is that the videotaper actually watches the show through the viewfinder to be sure he/she is getting a good video. And, in essence, never actually gets to view the real thing. Any experience he is attempting to recreate, is actually pretty close to exactly what he/she experienced.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I know! The way ticket brokers are gouging people, I'm surprised someone is dumb-enough to pay about $50 for 2 1/2 hours of Youtube-quality Wilco.

[LouieB]

To paraphrase:

 

You filmed something using your phone, you felt no need to revisit it, and you have no idea why people would film something on their phones? Why did you film what you did?

 

I doubt most people who tape things at concerts on their phones feel one ounce of thought about why they're doing it; I doubt they ever rewatch the clips, though I'm sure most people will save them or post them somewhere. Nevertheless, many will fight to the death about their "right" to do it.

Why did I do it? Just to see if I could I suppose, but it wasn't for the purpose of revisiting my feelings about it afterwards even if I DID look at it again. I am not questioning why people want to do what they do, but the original question by Chinese Apple about needing to revisit it on a regular basis. The intentionality before hand of needing to revisit the feeling of what it was like seeing the real thing, wow, this is some sort of multi-leveled question that becomes both mind blowing and mind numbing all at the same time. Actually engaging in the act of recording something while experiencing it is one thing, but trying to anticipate the need to revisit it for the some sort of auto-ethnographic examination is a rather involved process attached to going to a rock and roll show. Sorry, but a rock and roll show simply is NOT a religious experience in my mind, but then hey, whatever gets you off I suppose.

 

 

the amusing thing about videotaping at shows (IMO) is that the videotaper actually watches the show through the viewfinder to be sure he/she is getting a good video. And, in essence, never actually gets to view the real thing. Any experience he is attempting to recreate, is actually pretty close to exactly what he/she experienced.

I have worked videoing performances as part of a crew which is intentionally recording it for the purpose of producing a video of he performance (isn't that complex enough??) and the experience of watching a live performance through the view finder of a camera is bizarre enough for me.

 

But the difference betweeen recording a video for a performer who wants themselves recorded and one that expressly is asking not to be recorded is quite different.

 

Another story I have is being at a Neko Case show, Neko being a performer doesn't even want her show audio-taped, and Neko stopped the show to yell at some woman standing next to me (who I did not know) was completely disconcerting, because at first I thought she was yelling at me, even though I didn't have a camera or know the person who was filming her (I may have given this person some room to do it, because that's the kind of guy I am); I felt like crap for the rest of the performance and I had not even done anything wrong. How is that for an autoethnographic experience I won't ever forget!!???!?!?!

 

(Does this whole autoethnographic thing tie into autoeroticism somehow? I wonder???)

 

LouieB

 

LouieB

[Guest Speed Racer]

I said "spiritual experience." And yes, if you don't think it's a spiritual experience then clearly you aren't experiencing music that way. Going to church isn't a spiritual experience for a lot of people, but they still go. Shock! Gasp! Sigh.

 

The intentionality before hand of needing to revisit the feeling of what it was like seeing the real thing, wow, this is some sort of multi-leveled question that becomes both mind blowing and mind numbing all at the same time.

 

Actually engaging in the act of recording something while experiencing it is one thing, but trying to anticipate the need to revisit it for the some sort of auto-ethnographic examination is a rather involved process attached to going to a rock and roll show.

 

So you've never taken a family photo? Never taken a photo at a show? Revisiting a document at all, for any reason, is a means of revisiting an experience - either of being there, or simply just experiencing it again, just like when you put on a record on that you've already heard.

 

This isn't really anything that requires overthinking.

 

How is that for an autoethnographic experience I won't ever forget!!???!?!?!

 

It's not? At all?

[Analogman]

 

But the difference betweeen recording a video for a performer who wants themselves recorded and one that expressly is asking not to be recorded is quite different.

 

Another story I have is being at a Neko Case show, Neko being a performer doesn't even want her show audio-taped, and Neko stopped the show to yell at some woman standing next to me (who I did not know) was completely disconcerting, because at first I thought she was yelling at me, even though I didn't have a camera or know the person who was filming her (I may have given this person some room to do it, because that's the kind of guy I am); I felt like crap for the rest of the performance and I had not even done anything wrong. How is that for an autoethnographic experience I won't ever forget!!???!?!?!

 

(Does this whole autoethnographic thing tie into autoeroticism somehow? I wonder???)

 

LouieB

 

LouieB

 

The difference being money, of course. As the band plans to sell the footage in some form or another. I guess that is another point, some bands get jacked up about money being made off of them by way of the AD revenue that Youtube collects.

 

I think really the main thing Jeff is on about is the distraction. He notices the devices (whatever they are) pointing at him and the band, and it upsets him.

 

I don't really understand the deal of knocking people for wanting to document things, but, as I have already said, there is a line there somewhere.

 

As I spend time searching for Wilco AUD sound tapes in some form or another almost everyday, and now have several hundred Wilco live shows, I suppose all of this hits home in way.

 

Also - just so we are clear - there are AUD shot Wilco videos at The DVD Project. They may be camcorder as opposed to cell phone shot video, but still, they are AUD shot video.

 

Yes, Neko has a no-taping policy. I have some Neko live shows at home - some she did not catch. I don't understand having a no (AUD) taping policy. I guess some band/artists are just out of touch.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Also - just so we are clear - there are AUD shot Wilco videos at The DVD Project. They may be camcorder as opposed to cell phone shot video, but still, they are AUD shot video.

 

Absolutely. As you said, I think Wilco's policy is primarily to take measures against distraction. I don't think there's hypocrisy in supporting the policy and watching the videos, as the band was clearly not distracted by them and no one profits from their distribution. I have all of them and watch none of the AUD recordings; off the top of my head, Toronto 2002 makes me motion sick and Northfield 2000 is an awesome video of the back of an eight-foot tall Norseman set to a bitchin' Wilco soundtrack.

[Chinese Apple]

And by the people. Check it out. PM me if you want anything; I'm Lauren from the "Aquiring Discs" section of the site.

 

O brave new world!

 

Thanks.

[Analogman]

Absolutely. As you said, I think Wilco's policy is primarily to take measures against distraction. I don't think there's hypocrisy in supporting the policy and watching the videos, as the band was clearly not distracted by them and no one profits from their distribution. I have all of them and watch none of the AUD recordings; off the top of my head, Toronto 2002 makes me motion sick and Northfield 2000 is an awesome video of the back of an eight-foot tall Norseman set to a bitchin' Wilco soundtrack.

 

The other day, I was watching some footage of a band on Youtube that had clearly been made by some people in the audience who knew what they were doing. It was really good.

 

I think the only DVD I have from the The DVD Project is the Pittsburgh show I was at. I actually remember seeing people with camcorders at the show.

 

I don't mind watching AUD shot video, if I can deal with the sound, and it is something I really want to see.

[LouieB]

I said "spiritual experience." And yes, if you don't think it's a spiritual experience then clearly you aren't experiencing music that way. Going to church isn't a spiritual experience for a lot of people, but they still go. Shock! Gasp! Sigh.

 

 

 

 

 

So you've never taken a family photo? Never taken a photo at a show? Revisiting a document at all, for any reason, is a means of revisiting an experience - either of being there, or simply just experiencing it again, just like when you put on a record on that you've already heard.

 

This isn't really anything that requires overthinking.

 

 

 

It's not? At all?

Oh yea, spiritual, not religious..my bad!!!

 

Taking photos of family or friends or a band is a way to capture a moment in time, which seems to me different than taking a video for the purpose of revisiting your feelings at a later time. Once again we are talking about the intention, not the end result, both of which could easily be the same; one does reflect on how they felt during a family gathering where snapshots or a group picture is taken, but rarely do we do it for the purpose of recalling the feeling later. It is a document of the time. Again we may be splitting hairs (and heirs) here, but I am specifically trying to address the reason for taking the picture, not the end result.

 

I personally have no problem with people video or taping bands either, so long as the band doesn't object. As I said, if you want a crappy approximation of your experience it doesn't bother me, just don't stand next to me a Neko show so she yells at me. And also as I have said I have moved out of the way for innumerable photogs and videogs at shows, because if someone wants that, who am I to stop them. I like seeing band photos and videos, particularly if I am taking the video. But I don't need them to recall how I enjoyed the show, either spiritually or any other way. I recall clearly the feeling of being at all sorts of events in my life, most of which I had no ability to video.

 

So yea, I don't care, people can record stuff to their hearts content as far as I am concerned. I'll even give you the opportunity to stand in front of me for awhile as long as it is not for the whole effing show.

 

(I agree with A-man about the quality of some of these vids....some are remarkably good from what I have seen, some are nausea inducing because the camera work is so bad.)

 

LouieB

[Guest Speed Racer]

Taking photos of family or friends or a band is a way to capture a moment in time, which seems to me different than taking a video for the purpose of revisiting your feelings at a later time.

 

What do you capture that moment for, if not to revisit it?

[LouieB]

What do you capture that moment for, if not to revisit it?

Let's see..I think we were talking about the concept of autoethography and the need to have a video to do that.

 

Of course you are totally correct, we revisit the time and the feelings involved when we look at a photo of our families and friends. Do we need that photo or that video to recall how we feel about our family and friends (how many people actually rewatch videos of family events or children's performances?), I just don't buy that part of it and I particuarly don't believe one needs concrete documentation of a rock group to recall how they felt about them. Okay, I could be totally wrong, I have been wrong about shit before.

 

Yes, a photo or a video of a long lost relative sure is nice to have because that is an experience one doesn't want to lose. A video of a Wilco show? Not so sure, but whatever gets you off, (back to autoeroticism) is perfectly fine with me. End of discussion from me. If people want to piss off Jeff Tweedy by videoing him when he has asked you not to, feel free also.

 

LouieB

[Guest Speed Racer]

We're talking about two separate issues:

 

As we've previously said in this thread, autoethnography is an act of documentation, and a video recording device is something that documents things. So do you need a video recorder for autoethnography? Not necessarily, but you need some sort of documenation.

 

*********

 

Some people think they need to document things in order to revisit events in their life. Whether they actually revisit these documents, or whether they actually document things, it doesn't really matter. Other people don't think they need to document things to revisit events in their life, but still own camcorder and cameras, which they use frequently. People's actions frequently contradict their principles. That's okay.

[Atticus]

they are the object of devotion. Not in a creepy way at all, but you can't deny that waiting in line for half a day, buying multiple formats of the same record, buying posters and merch and trading and talking about them on a message board, is far more than a pastime for a number of individuals. That doesn't make them weird or fanatical or crazy, but some people go to lengths for Wilco that they would never go to for any other band in their collection;

 

please don't undercut my unhealthy Jeff Tweedy mancrush creepiness

[LouieB]

We're talking about two separate issues:

 

As we've previously said in this thread, autoethnography is an act of documentation, and a video recording device is something that documents things. So do you need a video recorder for autoethnography? Not necessarily, but you need some sort of documenation.

 

*********

 

Some people think they need to document things in order to revisit events in their life. Whether they actually revisit these documents, or whether they actually document things, it doesn't really matter. Other people don't think they need to document things to revisit events in their life, but still own camcorder and cameras, which they use frequently. People's actions frequently contradict their principles. That's okay.

I said I wasn't going to reply again....but...

 

The absolute best way to record your feelings....take notes as you go. It is how critics and scientists have done their jobs for centuries. Writing at the time you feel something is the best way to document what you felt at the time. Everything else is going to be an approximation.

 

As for compulsively recording everything that happens....that is a new phenomenon and not necessarily going to enhance your recollections at all. There are times you are entranced by what you see and hear because of the moment, that later on you can't figure out why the hell you gave a damn. Also time does change one's feelings and opinions.

 

As far as treating oneself as a scientific study....that is a iffy proposition at best...of course I could be wrong....

 

LouieB

[Guest Speed Racer]

No one in this thread is talking about what best documents an experience. At all. Everyone is pretty clear that cellphone and camcorder videos are lousy records. We are talking about a phenomenon of people using video recording devices to document there experiences, and what might motivate them to do that.

 

In regards to your final remark, autoethnography is generally regarded as a suspect means of actually obtaining an authentic document of someone's actions. Simply knowing that their work will have an audience, the autoethnographer is likely to change the tone or self-monitor what they document to avoid things they think might embarrass themselves or show them at anything other than their best and brightest. That does not make it any less worthwhile as a document to be studied when doing an ethnographic study of a group of people, just one that you need to treat with caution and skepticism.

[Chinese Apple]

That does not make it any less worthwhile as a document to be studied when doing an ethnographic study of a group of people, just one that you need to treat with caution and skepticism.

 

They don't give an accurate picture of individuals. But taken collectively, auto-ethnographies reveal the values of a community or society precisely because they are self-censored and self-edited. Officially sanctioned videos or publicity materials are edited to represent the ideals of the artist or the record companies. They all paint parts of a bigger picture of the times we live in.

 

Decades (or centuries) from now, people might look at Youtube videos and get an inkling for the sort of things that had cultural credibility among the population that used that medium.

[Guest Speed Racer]

please don't undercut my unhealthy Jeff Tweedy mancrush creepiness

 

Always have to be the exception to the rule, huh?

[LouieB]

No one in this thread is talking about what best documents an experience. At all. Everyone is pretty clear that cellphone and camcorder videos are lousy records. We are talking about a phenomenon of people using video recording devices to document there experiences, and what might motivate them to do that.

 

In regards to your final remark, autoethnography is generally regarded as a suspect means of actually obtaining an authentic document of someone's actions. Simply knowing that their work will have an audience, the autoethnographer is likely to change the tone or self-monitor what they document to avoid things they think might embarrass themselves or show them at anything other than their best and brightest. That does not make it any less worthwhile as a document to be studied when doing an ethnographic study of a group of people, just one that you need to treat with caution and skepticism.

Actually I thought that was what we were talking about, a means to record an experience that can then be studied at a later time. Isn't that what this thread is about, someone not being able to tape their experience for later reflection.

 

Meanwhile, while autoethnography may be a new thing (it sounds sort of bogus to me...), what is not new is autobiography, which is basically the same thing and is suspect as well, but terribly entertaining and enlightening about someone's state of mind.

 

And regarding taping stuff and also experiencing it; once you start to watch an event through a viewfinder you don't really experience it. Mostly you are worried the equipment working, getting a good image, and maintaining the subject in the frame. I have missed the best parts of shows while taping them while at the same time seeing all of it.

 

LouieB

[In a little rowboat]

No, the thread is about why there is a no video rule, and people's questionable reasoning for trying to justify breaking that rule...and Ill again propose that cellphone vids of wilco are not the culturally relevant records people are trying to make them...the thread is trying to assign too much value to a practice used mostly to establish proof of experience, and not as a means of intense reflection or study...if they were 'notes' where are the books, documentaries, and essays that should have been written as a result...

 

As a regular concert goer, I cant imagine even taking my attention away from the stage for even a 4 second photo, let alone holding up a vid cellphone...the experience is the emotional connection to the music and the musicians, anything else is a shallow substitute for that...

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

.

 

I don't think we're that much more self-absorbed than previous generations,

 

 

I kinda laughed out loud at reading this. Just saying.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I kinda laughed out loud at reading this. Just saying.

 

You don't think you're self-absorbed? Not meant as a knock at you, but you really think you're not self-absorbed?

 

Teenagers are supposed to be more self-absorbed than adults; that's why everyone always says the next generation is worse when they look at the dumbass 17-25 year-olds running around.

[monster]

I kinda laughed out loud at reading this. Just saying.

 

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a more self-absorbed generation in adulthood than the baby-boomers, though the Gen-Xers are showing some excellent potential and might just give them a run for their money.

 

Back on topic, I think people that video at concerts are sadly missing the whole point of the concert experience. IMHO the videoing is another example of our "look at me" society, the majority of videoers just want to "prove" they were there, so I don't think it's anything to do with them making a record of the concert experience at all. (At this point though i must admit to occassionally enjoying the odd bootlegged concert footage on youtube out of curiosity; generally only if it involves something a bit special or rare, but not if it's just "straight" concert footage as the sound quality is invariably - to use technical parlance - shit.)

 

I think the fact the band don't want people to video is a good enough reason for everyone to refrain. They are generous enough with what they do allow and what they give away to fans, so i think the least we can do as fans is respect their wishes.