|
03 Mar 07 - 06:04 PM (#1985263) Subject: The Watersons at The RAH From: Lizzie Cornish So....who's going then? I thought I'd start a seperate thread, as The Watersons are being 'lost' in the 'Show of Hands at the Royal Albert Hall' thread at present, which seems a shame.... Lizzie :0) |
|
04 Mar 07 - 09:19 AM (#1985720) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Lizzie Cornish Royal Albert Hall Ticket Information |
|
04 Mar 07 - 10:46 AM (#1985796) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Jeri I thought they were more popular than they obviously are. Send them over here - they've got fans in North America! |
|
04 Mar 07 - 10:59 AM (#1985806) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: The Borchester Echo They're in the US now: Gig List |
|
04 Mar 07 - 11:12 AM (#1985822) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Ruth Archer More popular than they obviously are? Well, as a venue manager I can be pretty confident of a sellout if I book them. And there are a lot of venues around the country who would say the same. And there are not a lot of folk artists that I could say that about, to be honest. The tickets for the RAH gig are not cheap - around £25 each. And you have to travel to London. And if you're making a weekend of it, as we are, it is a bit of a dear do. But I have no doubt there will be sufficient fans of all Watersons and Carthys to ensure it's a very successful event. As I said earlier on another thread, the gig is over 2 months away. From the information available it looks like the tickets are selling really well. If I wanted to see this show and hadn't got my tickets yet, I'd get my finger out. |
|
04 Mar 07 - 01:54 PM (#1986008) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: DMcG I didn't post to this thread earlier because just saying I was going didn't seem to give much scope for a conversation (especailly as I've already said it elsewhere.) But just to show willing, I'm in the stalls, section J, row 6. |
|
04 Mar 07 - 02:19 PM (#1986026) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: GUEST,Devil's Advocate So Lizzie - since you asked the question.... are you going??? |
|
04 Mar 07 - 02:50 PM (#1986052) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Barry Finn They are Jeri. They'll be in Boston next Staurday evening. Justine & I will be heading down there after a bit of the shanty session. I expect that they'll draw a fair size crowd. They aren't as well known in the Irish music circles though. Years ago (maybe 25) I went to see DeDanan at an afternoon gig they had in Boston at the Black Rose (not really publicized) it was packed with Irish musicians. After the 1st set they introduced their friend & had him up on stage to join them, Lou Killen, then with Lou staying up they brought up the Watersons. The crowd had no idea of what was happening, it was quite a show, most were lost & dazed but enjoyed & left wondering what was all that (this was very pre Voice Squad). Me, I was almost pissing my pants, waiting, having seen them in the crowd thinking something's up but not knowing that DeDanan were such friends & fans of theirs. t was WOW! Barry |
|
04 Mar 07 - 02:56 PM (#1986063) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Lizzie Cornish No, sadly we're not going. But I did see them last year at Sidmouth Festival and enjoyed them very much too. Hoping to see Eliza and her Ratcatchers this year if possible.. Hope you all have a lovely time though. |
|
04 Mar 07 - 03:00 PM (#1986068) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Bill D We just saw Martin & Watersons in Maryland Friday night....they were having fun and ON! Had over 200 folks and a good sound system and had a great concert. Gracious as always, they chatted with folks between sets and autographed stuff and ....made amazing music. (I think they worked especially hard trying to compensate for Norma not being there) As Yogi Berra would say: "Don't miss 'em if you can!" |
|
04 Mar 07 - 03:17 PM (#1986087) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: GUEST,The Devonian Hope Norma will be fit enough to go onstage at the Royal Albert Hall even though she's not currently touring with Waterson:Carthy. Lizzie - why on earth do you start a thread asking if people are going to the Albert Hall show when you're not going yourself? Are you now trying to undermine the credibility of that show just like you single-handedly undermined Sidmouth Festival's reputation? Why don't you steer clear of computers and stick to your knitting? |
|
04 Mar 07 - 06:03 PM (#1986236) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Scrump Maybe I'll swap my SOH RAH tickets for Watersons ones then :-) |
|
04 Mar 07 - 06:21 PM (#1986252) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Folkiedave Got mine in the arena. |
|
05 Mar 07 - 02:15 AM (#1986564) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Ruth Archer Have you been to the RAH before, Dave? I was in 2 minds about the arena or the stalls... |
|
05 Mar 07 - 03:39 AM (#1986585) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Lizzie Cornish >>Lizzie - why on earth do you start a thread asking if people are going to the Albert Hall show when you're not going yourself?<<<< Please read the first message of this thread. Thanks. |
|
05 Mar 07 - 08:39 AM (#1986798) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: DMcG I have been to the RAH before. The trade-off between stalls and the arena is the usual one; in the arena your view can easily be blocked by the people in front; on the other hand most seats are much closer than the stalls. |
|
05 Mar 07 - 08:51 AM (#1986809) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Ruth Archer That's really useful. Thanks. Does anyone know if there's a photography policy in the venue? |
|
05 Mar 07 - 10:06 AM (#1986894) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Surreysinger Cameras not permitted Ruth - see http://www.royalalberthall.com/flash/index.aspx?dest=info,etiquette |
|
05 Mar 07 - 10:11 AM (#1986899) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Surreysinger Meant to say that I can remember sitting in the arena seats for a performance of Mahler's Symphony of 1000 - the seats were somewhat narrow, and close to each other and for someone like me that was uncomfortable - did my back problems no good as well... and I got the obligatory giant in front of me so couldn't see much of the conductor, even thogh I was only about 9 rows back. I vastly prefer the stalls seats - comfortable, and if I recall with a swivel device, and raked. As has already been said you have to trade off the fact that they may not be as close to the stage,and will also be at an angle to it .... but personally I'd tend to go for the greater comfort every time . |
|
05 Mar 07 - 10:27 AM (#1986911) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Scrump It's a pity concert halls etc. don't distinguish between flash photography and non-flash. I never use flash in such a venue, as I realise it's annoying for other members of the audience, and off-putting for the performers. But I don't see any harm in taking pics without flash (as long as you don't obstruct anyone else's view of the stage). The results are often better too, subject to being able to keep the camera steady. It depends where I'm seated - if I am at the front of a balcony I can rest the camera on the wall/rail. If not, then the results can be blurred, but I've taken some pretty good pictures in the past on a small pocket sized digital camera. It seems the thoughtless 'flashers' (ooerr missus!) have ruined it for all photographers :-( |
|
05 Mar 07 - 05:59 PM (#1987491) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: GUEST,Surreysinger Actually Scrump - digital cameras can be extremely annoying if you're sitting behind the lovely person with the glowing little screen. Extremely distracting and annoying. I used to use mine when i first bought it, but then realised the effect it was having, and have now stopped doing so. |
|
06 Mar 07 - 04:22 AM (#1987843) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: DMcG Thoughtless flashers... Photographically thoughtless, as well. The flash on a digital camera is never going to illuminate anything 30+ feet away, and certainly not a lit stage, so it is literally doing little more than annoy people. |
|
06 Mar 07 - 04:26 AM (#1987846) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Scrump Actually Scrump - digital cameras can be extremely annoying if you're sitting behind the lovely person with the glowing little screen. Extremely distracting and annoying. I used to use mine when i first bought it, but then realised the effect it was having, and have now stopped doing so. Good point, but I turn off the screen and use the viewfinder. I will only take photos if I can do so without holding the camera in such a way that it will get in the way of others (e.g. I don't hold it above my head, which I find annoying when others do it). If it's not easy from where I'm sitting, I just don't take any. |
|
06 Mar 07 - 05:03 AM (#1987880) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: GUEST,Surreysinger Ah.. my first digi camera had a viewfinder, and I too used it in concert situations like that - on buying the current one, I found that most of the cameras in my price range didn't - something of a disadvantage in situations like concerts or out in bright sunshine... so I have reined myself in a bit now. Nothing worse than sitting towards the back of an auditorium or similar with lots of bright little screens shining away in your line of sight. I humbly nod the head in apology to you for assuming you were one of they ...! |
|
06 Mar 07 - 05:17 AM (#1987891) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Scrump Thoughtless flashers... Photographically thoughtless, as well. The flash on a digital camera is never going to illuminate anything 30+ feet away, and certainly not a lit stage, so it is literally doing little more than annoy people Agreed. At a "photo-friendly" gig I once tried using the flash as an experiment, and I wasn't that far from the stage (a few rows back). The picture came out a lot worse than the one I took from the same point without flash. |
|
06 Mar 07 - 05:18 AM (#1987893) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: GUEST I hope you always get permission from the artist before using any kind of recording device at any gig |
|
06 Mar 07 - 05:19 AM (#1987895) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Scrump The artists I photograph are only too happy for me to photograph them, post them on the web, etc. |
|
06 Mar 07 - 05:38 AM (#1987908) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Liz the Squeak It's all very well not using your flash so's not to annoy the artist, but how about all those little red lights and things that flash to tell you that you're about to take a photo, that you're pressing the shutter and that you've just taken a photo? I perform in concerts and it's very off-putting to see little red lights flashing intermittently in the audience, even more annoying than a flash might be. A red light to me is a warning, and when I see red lights flashing, I look for the sprinkler system about to go into icy tropical downpour mode. I was at a concert once where the group playing introduced a 'photo opportunity song'. The group did one song, during which people could take whatever photos however they liked. Then, all cameras were to be put away. It worked surprisingly well. I live in London, but I'm still not going to the Albert Hall, it's just too expensive, even without the overnight stay. The majority of seats are, as mentioned above, not at all comfortable and I dislike looking up a performers nose. Besides, why pay my whole weeks' pocket money when I can see them for free by stewarding a festival?! LTS |
|
06 Mar 07 - 06:15 AM (#1987939) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Scrump I perform in concerts and it's very off-putting to see little red lights flashing intermittently in the audience, even more annoying than a flash might be. As for me, if people photograph me while I'm performing in a concert, I'm just glad that they even want to photograph me. It's when they stop wanting to, I'll start worrying! |
|
06 Mar 07 - 06:21 AM (#1987943) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Pete_Standing I find official photographers scurrying around distracting enough. I would prefer people to leave their cameras at home and just enjoy the music and allow the others around them to do likewise. Unless you are very close or have good zoom lenses, what do you get anyway? Lots of stage and audience and some smallish figures in the middle who you can pick out afterwards with the knowing eye of faith and when blown up are very grainy. If you want a memento of the concert, many artists are very willing to sign your CD (purchased there or elsewhere) or a programme. BOT - I'll not be there but I hope that those of you who do have a great time - likewise to those going to the SoH gig too. |
|
06 Mar 07 - 06:25 AM (#1987948) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Liz the Squeak Ah yes, but I perform in the sort of concerts where the best photo you'll get is likely to be of the conductors ass, and it's not that memorable! LTS |
|
06 Mar 07 - 01:00 PM (#1988358) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: GUEST,Bainbo at work The ones I find annoying are mobile phones (cell phones). Those of us old enough will remember how certain songs used to produce a forest of matches, or cigarette lighters, waved above heads. Now it's little glowing screens, as people all try to film the performance on their phones, then sit hunched over them as they send the film to all their mates. I don't know why it's distracting when other people aren't paying attention at a concert they've paid money to attend. But it is. |
|
07 Mar 07 - 09:20 AM (#1989409) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Scrump Ah yes, but I perform in the sort of concerts where the best photo you'll get is likely to be of the conductors ass, and it's not that memorable! If I saw a donkey in the concert hall, I think I'd photograph it! :-) |
|
07 Mar 07 - 10:16 AM (#1989472) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Liz the Squeak I'm sorry, I should have said arse. Will buttocks do? LTS |
|
07 Mar 07 - 10:18 AM (#1989478) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Scrump I'm sorry, I should have said arse. LOL - like the bloke in the Fast Show? :-) Will buttocks do? LTS Thanks, but I'd prefer cash :-) |
|
08 Mar 07 - 07:13 AM (#1990334) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: The Fooles Troupe "as people all try to film the performance on their phones, then sit hunched over them as they send the film to all their mates." Braggarts... |
|
08 Mar 07 - 07:51 AM (#1990365) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Ruth Archer What was it TS Eliot said? "The moments of happiness We had the experience, but missed the meaning..." |
|
08 Mar 07 - 07:52 AM (#1990366) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Folkiedave Clearly you have never seen LTS's buttocks then Scrump. |
|
08 Mar 07 - 08:15 AM (#1990383) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Scrump Oops, sorry LTS, I didn't realise you were referring to your own buttocks. I thought you were talking about the conductor. Apologies for any embarrassment caused. |
|
05 May 07 - 06:37 AM (#2043807) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: Allan Price If you haven't got your tickets yet, Genevieve is giving a couple away. Listen to the show and answer Steve Heap's question. It's on line until Sunday night (6 May). Sunday Folk You need RealPlayer to listen. |
|
19 May 07 - 03:37 PM (#2056578) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: GUEST,Spidey Bobe My recording came out very nicely, thankyou very much! |
|
20 May 07 - 05:30 AM (#2056876) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: GUEST,Non smokie Joe Fantastic, are you going to post it on Dime or Zomb? |
|
20 May 07 - 06:07 AM (#2056887) Subject: RE: The Watersons at The RAH From: GUEST,Maart I wouldn't mind a copy! |