modern camera work spoils concerts

Subject: modern camera work spoils concerts
From: GUEST,FloraG
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 04:49 AM

Does anyone else share my views?

I saw a concert on TV last night from the 1970's - and I thought it was so much better than todays offerings. It lacked the constant flicking of the cameras from person to person, so you could actually concentrate on the music.

Ant thoughts?

Subject: RE: modern camera work spoils concerts
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 07:10 AM

I think the whole ultra high resolution tv images of today have missed a serious trick. We dont really need to see every blade of grass on a football pitch - it adds almost nothing. But a transmission of a ballet or concert for example which is just one long fixed position shot (or better multiple angles) where the viewer could 'zoom in' to see that footwork or violinist would be something worthwhile.

Subject: RE: modern camera work spoils concerts
From: Will Fly
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 08:52 AM

It wasn't all great in the 60s and 70s either. If you get the chance, watch the TV film of the Cream's last concert at the Albert Hall, directed in 1968. The cameras are everywhere but where they should be - from a musician's point of view. Trendy fast zooming in and out, focussing on players who aren't' taking a solo. Complete fuck-up, in my view, and not the best work of director Tony Palmer.

Typical of much of the period, and I remember it well.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEaZe7LWc-Y

Subject: RE: modern camera work spoils concerts
From: Mr Red
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 05:57 AM

I saw a TED.com video from a person who demonstrated this adequately. (can't find it)

He put two videos side by side. One was a Cary Grant movie, the other "Chicago". Both were made from one frame every second of the original. Cary Grant average scene's times were on the order of 28 seconds. Chicago 7 seconds. His point was about how stories and meaning were conveyed by each approach.

I can paraphrase it as: the Obama method - cf - the Trump stratagem.
Nuff said.

Subject: RE: modern camera work spoils concerts
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 06:54 PM

When I read the title, I had a completely different idea what the thread was about: I object to obtrusive camera people at concerts: some are very good and discreet, but I do remember one concert where a rather large female photographer was crawling all over the place exhibiting a Builder's bum cleavage: rather spoiled the concert for me! (Oh, did I really say that?)
At another one, there were so many flashes, shutter clicks, red lights, green lights. etc on performers' faces that I complained to the organisers, and a camera embargo was put in place!

Subject: RE: modern camera work spoils concerts
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 08:26 PM

Post-classical editing. "If the cut's too quick... you're too old."

I too thought the subject was the inconsiderate amateur. Add 'selfies' to the list of plaints.

Subject: RE: modern camera work spoils concerts
From: GUEST,FloraG
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 03:10 AM

I thought lots more people would have posted by now - or is it just a me who does not like the modern trend in camera work.
FloraG

Subject: RE: modern camera work spoils concerts
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 03:41 AM

Personally speaking I don't watch concerts on TV.

Subject: RE: modern camera work spoils concerts
From: Mr Red
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 04:36 AM

the Obama method - cf - the Trump stratagem.

Which camp are you in? Or should I point to the dumbing-down adjectival phrase?

Age does come into it, but there have been many complaints about TV programmes where the "realism" translates to mumbling. Background music that intrudes, flash cuts. It all parallels Farcebook et al. And Farcebook is the digital street corner

How many time do you have to say "could you repeat" when listening at a street corner? In a movie theatre you can't do that.
Farcebook you can. TV with a pause/rewind facility you can. Closed captions/subtitles you stand a chance. (I do, I do, I do).

Post Classical hasn't thought it through. It is the old "form v function" story, fashion is not about function, never has been. Ever been to a ceilidh in stiletto heels? (not me!)

Subject: RE: modern camera work spoils concerts
From: leeneia
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 11:14 AM

"If the cut's too quick... you're too old." What fool said that?

I don't think age has anything to do with it. I've disliked movies and television for most of my life. The more frantic the camera work, the more likely I am not to watch.

Subject: RE: modern camera work spoils concerts
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 10:09 PM

Red: Post Classical hasn't thought it through.
Leena: I don't think age has anything to do with it.

But what does post-classical think of you?


"Ted Nugent live is not for the weak-hearted. Warning—if it's too loud, you're too old." 1978 ad copy. Mudcat's fav Trumprocker his foolishly deaf self.

"If the game is too fast, you are too old." Intel marketing thirty years later ad nauseum. The MTV generation are grandparents now.

The godfathers of pop music visuals were a couple of American crime bosses named Meyer Lansky & Fred "Jukebox Smitty" Smith and the Scopitone 16mm (and all the other jukebox) rackets. Call me a cynic but, I just never expected the apples to fall too far from the tree.

Subject: RE: modern camera work spoils concerts
From: Mr Red
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 05:57 AM

But what does post-classical think of you?

I never ask, but the look on their faces when the band are playing a 5-time waltz is a joy to see, as they struggle to follow some of us "too old" dancers. 1-2-3-1-2, 1-2-3-1-2 .....

All too easy to dismiss something as irrelevant when you can't cope with it.

A movie is a communication document. Ask yourself: what is it saying, and how effectively does it do it? Attention span, what is the norm now? When was "sound bites" coined to reflect the current norm?