reasons for the one/three song limit at concerts?

Hi All,

I recently shot the premiere of a major new venue in London where three high end acts were in concert as part of the celebration.

I was one of two photographers allowed in the pit, and we were given a one song limit (not even three!) to shoot the acts, and then we were only allowed to take crowd shots (no flash at any time). No problems, I thought.

For the first act, I took all the shots I could in my one song, and then I turned around and did my "crowd reacting to the band" shots. I did the same for the second act, but then I moved about 100m away into the crowd to get shots of the band through the rim-lit people. Much to my surprise, I was sought out by somebody I didn't know (but with "official" passes and badges) and told that I had been limited to a single song (he wasn't overly rude, but it was a bit of a surprise). Again, this was when I was far back in the crowd, all of whom were using compact cameras, mobile phones and DSLRs (including some chunky ones of similar size to what I was using).

Now, I wasn't working for a magazine, I was working for the organisers of the event, who themselves would provide shots to the acts if they asked (frankly, I didn't think that that would happen, as these were uber-famous types with all the photos they'd ever need). The only reason I can think that they'd want to restrict to a single song would be to restrict the number of photos that I could potentially sell on (if I were working for a magazine). Yes, I can conceive of the artists being distracted by photographers, but in this case, I was waaay back in the crowd among zillions of other photographing people.

So, what is the deal with this one/three song limit at concerts? (even if I were to have stayed in the pit in front of the stage?)

Chas

Its always been that way. I did concert photography 25 years ago at such venues as the Hammy Odeon and the Palace and those were the rules in place . I think initially it was done for a couple of reasons. Firstly to make sure the shots got to the press in time for the next mornings papers. Secondly so the photography did not interfere with the concert. Some photographers always managed to get far more access than that..Jill Furmanovsky is one name that comes to mind, and Annie Leibovitz in her early days with Rolling Stone. Now its just accepted as the way it is.

.Jill Furmanovsky is one name that

Paul Amyes said:

comes to mind, and Annie Leibovitz in her early days with Rolling
Stone.

Click to expand...

Or Guido Karp. He allways tours with the band for at least some concerts and shoots the whole show long...

tobibu

P.S.: shooting "Genesis" tonight

That will be Bon Jovi then, I guess?

I've been a fan since 1984 and I've noticed in the last 3-4 years that they have fleeced their fans by charging premiums for 'exclusive access' tickets etc that were always there for first come first served.

I wonder if this is becoming more prevalent at other live gigs.

In general I've noticed plenty more authoritarian action from all quarters, though I can't speak directly from a photographers perspective at these events.

Cheers

Paul
http://www.pauldickson.co.uk

So i was up against tradition? Hard to beat that.

I do wonder how a photographer, who is likely below the level of the stage, can interfere with the concert (when thousands of screaming fans are only a few feet further away).

I went to a Rolling Stones concert last year. I was up in the real nosebleed seats, but I watched a gaggle of photographers being escorted in by security guards, stay for what seemed like half a song, and then be hustled out again.

I can't think of what obvious negative there must be, from the perspective of the artist(s) and their management, to having photographers take their pictures while in concert. Is it to limit the possible sales the photographers might make? (an IP thing?).

I've read about numerous photographers who happened to get in with bands that went on to be big, and took the photographer on with them. That'd be cool.

I guess what really bothers me is to be treated like a negative issue rather than the positive one I'm usually viewed as (I don't do a lot of concert photography, and most of what I've done in the past has been either small venues and unknown bands, or in private events where the "talent" has been hired to entertain an exclusive group and didn't have any problem with the official photographer getting all the shots he wanted).

I take it that you're not doing concert photography any more? Did you know that the Palace is finally going to be "redeveloped"? (I've shot there many times as well, but again, private events).

Cheers!

Chas

Paul Amyes said:

Its always been that way. I did concert photography 25 years ago at
such venues as the Hammy Odeon and the Palace and those were the
rules in place . I think initially it was done for a couple of
reasons. Firstly to make sure the shots got to the press in time
for the next mornings papers. Secondly so the photography did not
interfere with the concert. Some photographers always managed to
get far more access than that..Jill Furmanovsky is one name that
comes to mind, and Annie Leibovitz in her early days with Rolling
Stone. Now its just accepted as the way it is.

Click to expand...

Lucky guy

Shooting Genesis? Cool, were you in the pit? (and one song, or three?).

Cheers!

Chas

tobibu said:

tobibu said:

comes to mind, and Annie Leibovitz in her early days with Rolling
Stone.

Click to expand...

Or Guido Karp. He allways tours with the band for at least some
concerts and shoots the whole show long...

tobibu

P.S.: shooting "Genesis" tonight

Click to expand...

Hi Paul,

No, it was the exclusive O2-only premiere the night before (I did hear that Bon Jovi was in the crowd, scoping out the venue for his concert the next day). O2 really pulled out the stops for the 18,000 O2 employees and family that were there (and I killed myself trying to photograph it all, from 10am until 10pm).

I think that maximising profits at all levels is just becoming the norm. If they can rip off the fans (and there are always more fans), then why not? I think that, to a finance manager, it's an easy decision. Sad, but true.

I think that, at my event, I was particularly lucky: as I was escorted in, I spotted an old friend of mine who was (yay!) head of security for the concert. I think if I didn't have such an "in", I might have been kicked out for my flouting of the one song rule!

Cheers!

Chas

PaulDickson said:

That will be Bon Jovi then, I guess?

I've been a fan since 1984 and I've noticed in the last 3-4 years
that they have fleeced their fans by charging premiums for
'exclusive access' tickets etc that were always there for first
come first served.

I wonder if this is becoming more prevalent at other live gigs.

In general I've noticed plenty more authoritarian action from all
quarters, though I can't speak directly from a photographers
perspective at these events.

Cheers

Paul
http://www.pauldickson.co.uk

Click to expand...

chasg said:

I take it that you're not doing concert photography any more? Did
you know that the Palace is finally going to be "redeveloped"?
(I've shot there many times as well, but again, private events).

Cheers!

Chas

Click to expand...

Hi Chas

no don't do concerts any more, have n't for a long time. I migrated to Australia about 20 years ago and moved into other areas of photography.

I'd always assumed it was so that photographers didn't get in the way of 'security'

It may have been that way 25 years ago but in London in 1978 it wasn't, when I shot at hammersmith palais and the palace they didn't have pits.

Its a strange situation where anyone who doesn't have a proffessional camera can video the entire gig whilst anyone who looks like they know what they're doing is treated like a criminal.

Personally I won't shoot in places that treat me like that. I stick to smaller places where bands and promoters appreciate the benefits of having good photos.

I think of the whole situation as very similar to music downloading. The music industy as a whole is famous for failing to understand new technology. How long will it be before the crowd can get better pictures with their camera phones for the whole gig than the guys in the pit get with their 10 secs. There is surely a market for a camera that doesn't look professional, but inside is (or is that why nikon and canon have started producing silver tacky looking slrs at the bottom of their SLR ranges.

And anyway who wants to take pictures from the pit ? Its not exactly a good angle to shoot from; But thats why I'm not a professional gig photographer, I don't shoot bands I don't like either.

I was told that they want photographers out before the performers get sweaty and "not so pretty."

During a ludacris concert, i gave a security guard some earplugs and he let me and my then editor sit in the pit all by ourselves for the remainder of the concert- "no pictures of course". The 400 pound security guard looked like he was about to cry standing in front of the bank of speakers, it was brain rattling. The crowd was absolutely out of control, it was nice to be separated from the madness by staying in the pit.

I have been able to stay in the pit and enjoy a couple of concerts when I didn't have super close deadline. Earplugs for security or convincing the media rep that you won't take pictures and that you will give their band a bigger picture, section cover shot, color, etc sometimes work (if you can back up those statements of course- I just sweet talk the band we were going to be running anyways). This only really works if there is a bunch of competition ie a bunch of concerts that are being covered in a weekend/ day or multiple feature bands.

I always try to reward nice bands that let me shoot for an entire performance.

-Mason