Synaesthesia

Long has there been a symbiotic relationship between the visual arts and music.  From hundreds of years old paintings depicting musicians, and orchestras, to the more modern art of photography and the music video, they are two art forms that go hand in hand, especially in todays digital world.

The visual image has become ever more pervasive since the advent of photography, making the creation of images more accessible to a wider and more diverse group of people.  The easier it became to craft, the cheaper it got.  It was a weapon that changed the face of war, a voice that changed societal beliefs, and it was a tool that fueled business.  Advertising campaigns of the 20th century took on new meaning.  People could see the objects that they were supposed to buy.  It was all part of a changing time. Music too was caught up in this change.  Music began to be broadcast, recorded and distributed.  People were beginning to take music home with them, they didn’t need to attend a live performance to listen to music, though people did because it was still fun to do.  Music and visual art began to become even closer than they once were.  In 1981 the deal was officially sealed.  MTV came on the air and from that point  Sound and Vision were inseparable, in order for an artist to have any real success in the decades that followed the music video wasn’t an option it was a necessity.  Now in the new digital age everything again has become closer, and closer, not only sound and vision, but it’s medium, and distribution as well.  Art and music are now stored on all the same storage mediums, magnetic tape, compact disc, dvd, and hard discs.  They are all played back on the same devices, computer, ipods, and mobile phones.  The devices are smaller and hold more, and people don’t just want the music of their favorite bands, they want the videos and photos too.  The internet makes the distribution simple and easy.

Going to a show  these days the blend of sound and vision is obvious as well, the t-shirt usually adorned with some art that represents the band, along with stickers and buttons,  and lets not forget being in a crowded place when the slow song comes on, the lighters go up and the flames come out, except there are now as many lights from the screens of electronic devices as well, and when they are done filling in for a lighter they go back to doing their previous job, photographing and recording the show.  These cameras are now overlooked at shows.  Security ignores them, the bands don’t care, though to be honest I don’t understand why any band would care in the first place.  People want to remember the show, and with the price of going to the shows these days, and the amount people make, can you really blame them for wanting a free souvenier.

So why is it that when at a show like the Pack A.D. at the Commodore Ballroom during Vancouver Jazz Fest this year, there were 30 people in attendance, 10 of them taking photos, flash bulbs blasting the band and security doesn’t say a thing, but when I pull out my Canon, working as a representative of a media outlet I’m asked to put it away?  Of course I listened when some big burly bouncer came up to me and says you can’t do that and if you continue we’re going to stamp on your toys, all because I didn’t have the little plastic badge that says I could, even though the badge apparently doesn’t matter to the fine folks of the commodore ballroom, another contributer who did have the proper credentials was also denied, more than likely by the same tight shirted gorilla.  The truth is I try not to step on toes, I shoot only without a flash, and I try my best not to disturb the bands on stage.  In fact I’m seeing more and more of my photos popping up around the web, the bands posting them on their sites, so I don’t think they do mind, but someone does, and I want to know why.

This whole policy of no cameras at gigs is done. Obviously many places state no professional cameras, or no cameras with interchangeable lenses, but what does that even matter any more.  With Canon, Panasonic, and Nikon all selling products that you can slip in your pocket capable of shooting photos that one could make billboard ads with being allowed into the shows, often by people not knowing what they are really doing, so where does that really leave this policy?  I could understand if they didn’t want people to make money off the photos, okay, but how can you stop the people with the pocket cams from making money, where is the difference.  Chances are those people are going to take the photos and post them in a public forum, say facebook or myspace, and often without context.  If the photos are bad that will reflect poorly on the band.  However flip the coin to the media, such as myself.  I shoot the show.  The photos are posted, but they are posted with context in the form of a review of the show, yes the show may have sucked, for whatever reason, the venue could have failed to deliver, the lights may have been bad, the drinks watered down.  The band may have been bad.  Someone will probably not like to see a bad review be it the venue, the band, or their management, perhaps they may take offense to the review, how does taking photos in the capacity of a professional differ from the capacity of taking photos as an amateur?  I challenge someone to respond to this, to provide even a little insight as to this stupid policy.  After all if I was a band, or a venue owner I would relish the chance to have a little free press, we’re not talking piracy, we are talking promotion, and not being allowed to take photos doesn’t stop my fingers from dancing over the keys.  It won’t stop a bad review, but maybe having some decent photos to go along with it might dull the pain.

I guess in the future I’ll just take my trusty point and shoot, and post the photos anyway, because you can’t stop the signal.

db