Alex Brightman Bootleg Tweets- Page 3

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 12/27/19 at 3:17am

You can't always get what you want. But wait about 30-40 years for a bootleg video to end up in a documentary. Then it becomes very much appreciated as an "audience capture."

[WestEndGal]

Posted: 12/27/19 at 6:20am

I have to admit I have mixed views on this. I do spend a lot on theatre both in the west end and broadway, but have to admit that I have watched bootlegs also ... and often it’s the bootleg that will make me want to see the show live. I guess the main issue I have is people who are blatantly disregarding phone usage and recording to the point that it is a huge distraction for both the actors on stage and the audience around them. I am sure a professional bootlegger is totally discrete and you wouldn’t even know they were doing it ..... not that that makes it okay from a legal perspective also. 
 

Kat McPhee also discussed recording in theatre in her recent BWW interview with Richard Ridge, and makes a good point. She said she hates when people film the show and post the vids (mainly of audio I guess) on YouTube and people just dissect and comment on those recordings negatively, because they’re focusing only on the audio and are coming at it from an artificial point of view because they didn’t experience the show live and in the moment where they wouldn’t even notice imperfections which are all part of the live theatre experience. I can see how that can be annoying also. But again I’m a bit of a hypocrite in that respect because I do enjoy listening to audio songs that are posted!

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 12/29/19 at 11:46am

The Distinctive Baritone said: "Personally, I think that once a Broadway show has closed, bootlegs are actually a good thing - people who didn't get see it can see at least get an idea of what the show was like, and those who did see it can relive their memories of it."

I'm more or less satisfied with a cast album but not every show (or replacement cast) gets that recorded legacy or press performances. So I get the desire for certain bootlegs. God bless those who can do it but I just don't have the perfect recall to keep shows in my memory forever. I think recording (or just being on your phone) is a terrible distraction for the performers and audience but I do think the copyright issue is a valid criticism. No, I don't really think it hurts Wicked or Phantom. But with smaller shows or shows with shorter runs, I've definitely seen people writing off shows or performers based on bootlegs as often as things are praised.

The artificial scarcity argument is a weak misreading of what that actually means.

There are cheaper tickets out there, especially for younger people. They're not available for every show but you're not entitled to see every show for an "affordable" price. It's not a movie. There are performers, stage hands, musicians, etc. who have to continue getting paid during the run of a show. 

As for a generation expecting to be able to film everything, that's what concerts and festivals are for. Though, at least in the city, with the ticket brokers the cheapest tickets are all creeping up into the $40 to $50 range and that's to stand around for hours with a row of filming phones obscuring your view. 

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 12/29/19 at 12:43pm

Everybody has their purity test for bootlegs until they land on what they think is their exception. Patti included.

People can crow about artists but they're not the ones getting undercut, it's the producer's pocket that is theoretically being undercut and frankly boo hoo so, but that doesn't quite work when you have so many show fandoms developing with young people under the means of bootlegs. Do you think Carrie would have ever came out of obscurity without the bootlegs? Heathers closed in quiet, then bootlegs caused an increase in interest and the show opened in the West End. How many of us has listened to the final performance of Merman in Gypsy?

There's the legal argument that is solid, but to pretend there's any ethical standpoint behind it is without merit. LMM can complain about Hamilton bootlegs all he wants but it's not stopping his flow of money or the show's relevance. No bootleg is going to hurt a show that is doing well or poorly, but it surely can help one doing poorly and give it new life.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 1:58pm

Lin has also made jokes on social media about 120-minute Maxells. So.

[Dionysus3]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 2:37pm

Make a professional recording of every Broadway show to make shows more accessible and increase interest. Make shows more accessible financially. The experience of watching live theatre will always be better than watching it at home, but if you want to build an audience, you have to meet them where they are. Not everyone can get to NYC or afford to spend hundreds of dollars on shows. Theatre is the people’s entertainment—it belongs to them. Additionally, a lot of shows suck—if you’re asking me to fork $100+ on a ticket, I want to know it’s worth it. Anyway, Alex Brightman can sod off.

[LuPita2]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 3:04pm

That's kind of the chance you take spending money on a show, the chance you won't love it. However, you thinking you deserve a professional recording of every Broadway show reeks of entitlement.  

[Dionysus3]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 3:22pm

People use that word “entitled” as a pejorative, but you know what? Yes, we are entitled to it. Art belongs to all of us. Historically, theatre has been among the more accessible forms of art. It’s in the last 40 years, at least in the US, that this has really changed, and it’s a shame. Christ, in the 70s, you could see a Broadway matinee for less than a movie. The risk of something being bad is a lot easier to stomach for most people if the loss is 15 or 20 bucks, but when you pay 150 for Beetlejuice with its monumentally awful book, that’s less easy to take. A professional recording would still allow the production team to make money, and open interest to a wider audience. So I suppose I would ask why you believe there are people who live in Kansas or Mississippi or Oregon who don’t deserve to see shows?

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 3:28pm

SOME art is geographically based. Not everyone can go see the sculptures at Storm King — you need a way to get there. Also, a lot of people tend to forget about tours when they name non-New York cities and states…

[Kitsune]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 3:29pm

I went to a well-known regional theater last night, and the couple in front of us were constantly on their phones. At one point they were even recording what was happening on stage. (It's not great anywhere in the audience, but they were sitting in the front row, for crying out loud.)

I talked to the House Manager at intermission, and thankfully they took it seriously (especially the part about the recording, which apparently was a big no-no under their agreement). The couple came back to watch the second act, this time without distracting the rest of the audience.

There's arguments back and forth about whether discreet recordings are ethically okay, but when you're interfering with my ability to watch a show, I get really ticked off.

[Olivia11]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 3:45pm

There's arguments back and forth about whether discreet recordings are ethically okay

I don’t get this. There is no ethical argument that it is ok. You bought a ticket to watch a live production, created and owned by someone else. You are specifically told you may not record it.

 

There is no valid argument.  “I want” is not valid and does not make it ok. I want a million dollars and can tell you why I really, really “need” it, but that doesn’t entitle me to take what does not rightfully belong to me.

 

Images and recordings of the show do not belong to you. It doesn’t matter who watches it. It doesn’t matter if you think recorded versions are needed. It doesn’t matter if that is the only way you can see the show. It’s not your decision. The decision as to whether professionally record or allow audience members to record (which is rare) belongs to the owners of that material. Not you. Period. 

Updated On: 12/30/19 at 03:45 PM

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 3:56pm

I do honestly want to hear from Broadway actors who watch and enjoy bootlegs — do they feel as conflicted as some fans do? Are they annoyed and/or appreciative when they find out there’s a recording of one of the five times they went on for a lead? I’m sure the opinions are as varied as the ones on the board. It’s just that none of them can be as vocal about being pro as Brightman is at being anti.

[Olivia11]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 4:04pm

LizzieCurry said: "I do honestly want to hear from Broadway actors who watch and enjoy bootlegs — do they feel as conflicted as some fans do? Are they annoyed and/or appreciative when they find out there’s a recording of one of the five times they went on for a lead? I’m sure the opinions are as varied as the ones on the board. It’s just that none of them can be as vocal about being pro as Brightman is at being anti."

 

But it really doesn’t matter. The actors don’t own the material. Even if every actor came forward and said they were fine with it (which would not even remotely happen), it isn’t their property to give away. 

Updated On: 12/30/19 at 04:04 PM

[JSquared2]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 4:15pm

Dionysus3 said: "People use that word “entitled” as a pejorative, but you know what? Yes, we are entitled to it. Art belongs to all of us. Historically, theatre has been among the more accessible forms of art. It’s in the last 40 years, at least in the US, that this has really changed, and it’s a shame. Christ, in the 70s, you could see a Broadway matinee for less than a movie. The risk of something being bad is a lot easier to stomach for most people if the loss is 15 or 20 bucks, but when you pay 150 for Beetlejuice with its monumentally awful book, that’s less easy to take. A professional recording would still allow the production team to make money, and open interest to a wider audience. So I suppose I would ask why you believe there are people who live in Kansas or Mississippi or Oregon who don’t deserve to see shows?"

Your argument is ridiculous.  Even if one buys your premise that everyone is "entitled" to Art, that does not mean that everyone is "entitled" to see a hot Broadway show from the 6th row aisle in the orchestra.  Using your logic, since everyone is entitled to Food (which is a much more basic need than Art), then I should be able to walk into Per Se tonight and demand that they serve me their 10 course tasting menu on the house!

Further if you still believe it is your god given right to see Beetlejuice -- then you have the option of going to the theatre and purchasing a $40 (or whatever it costs) rush seat.  

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 4:15pm

I’m not justifying anything. I just want to hear what an actor has to say who’s on the other side of it.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 6:16pm

But it really doesn’t matter. The actors don’t own the material. Even if every actor came forward and said they were fine with it (which would not even remotely happen), it isn’t their property to give away. 

Ah yes, lets think about the poor poor producers who are making money off the shows while creatives and casts receive their peanuts. Be glad that you're on the side of theatre being inaccessible to lower income people who don't live their lives hanging around Times Square hoping to scrape a last minute cheap ticket. 

The fact that it had to be a THING of Lin carving out Hamilton tickets for Puerto Ricans to see the show gives you all the information you need to know about unfettered capitalism in the arts. "Well, the rich are willing to pay $600? Well then they can pay $600!"

Updated On: 12/30/19 at 06:16 PM

[Dionysus3]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 6:38pm

JSquared2 said: "Dionysus3 said: "People use that word “entitled” as a pejorative, but you know what? Yes, we are entitled to it. Art belongs to all of us. Historically, theatre has been among the more accessible forms of art. It’s in the last 40 years, at least in the US, that this has really changed, and it’s a shame. Christ, in the 70s, you could see a Broadway matinee for less than a movie. The risk of something being bad is a lot easier to stomach for most people if the loss is 15 or 20 bucks, but when you pay 150 for Beetlejuice with its monumentally awful book, that’s less easy to take. A professional recording would still allow the production team to make money, and open interest to a wider audience. So I suppose I would ask why you believe there are people who live in Kansas or Mississippi or Oregon who don’t deserve to see shows?"

Your argument is ridiculous. Even if one buys your premise that everyone is "entitled" to Art, that does not mean that everyone is "entitled" to see a hot Broadway show from the 6th row aisle in the orchestra. Using your logic, since everyone is entitled to Food (which is a much more basic need than Art), then I should be able to walk into Per Se tonight and demand that they serve me their 10 course tasting menu on the house!

Further if you still believe it is your god given right to see Beetlejuice -- then you have the option of going to the theatre and purchasing a $40 (or whatever it costs) rush seat. "

I didn’t say anything about seeing a show from the orchestra. I said there should be professional recordings for people who can’t get to NYC (or even see a tour). The line to see The Mona Lisa at the Louvre is no less long because pictures of it are readily available. Broadway and the theatre in general has a horrible problem with elitism. We need more Jeremy O. Harrises making theatre accessible and far fewer Scott Rudins. 
 

Sorry, we’re making theatre socialist in the new decade.

[Olivia11]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 7:15pm

TheatreFan4 said: "But it really doesn’t matter. The actors don’t own the material. Even if every actor came forward and said they were fine with it (which would not even remotely happen), it isn’t their property to give away.

Ah yes, lets think about the poor poor producers who are making money off the shows while creatives and casts receive their peanuts. Be glad that you're on the side of theatre being inaccessible to lower income people who don't live their lives hanging around Times Square hoping to scrape a last minute cheap ticket.

The fact that it had to be a THING of Lin carving out Hamilton tickets for Puerto Ricans to see the show gives you all the information you need to know about unfettered capitalism in the arts. "Well, the rich arewilling to pay $600? Well then they can pay $600!""

You are a shining example of the term “entitled”. 

[MollyJeanneMusic]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 8:25pm

LizzieCurry said: "I do honestly want to hear from Broadway actors who watch and enjoy bootlegs — do they feel as conflicted as some fans do? Are they annoyed and/or appreciative when they find out there’s a recording of one of the five times they went on for a lead? I’m sure the opinions are as varied as the ones on the board. It’s just that none of them can be as vocal about being pro as Brightman is at being anti."

Well, I'm not a Broadway actor, but I'm a regional theatre actor who is still waiting on a bootleg of her recent production of Matilda that she knows for a fact was filmed during the last show for almost two months now.  To be honest, a lot of the kids - and some of the adults - would ask me to film clips from the sidelines, and they would try to find someone to film the show at least once a weekend.  Seriously, I wanted to make a joke on Twitter or something that was "Broadway actors: We don't want people to film bootlegs.  Regional actors: So, which parent is filming the show tonight?" 

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 12/31/19 at 12:09am

>You are a shining example of the term “entitled”.

Not entitled, just not blind to the role bootlegs have played in the community for almost 100 years.

[veronicamae]

Posted: 12/31/19 at 12:37am

Dionysus3 said: "I didn’t say anything about seeing a show from the orchestra. I said there should be professional recordings for people who can’t get to NYC (or even see a tour). The line to see The Mona Lisa at the Louvre is no less long because pictures of it are readily available. Broadway and the theatre in general has a horrible problem with elitism. We need more Jeremy O. Harrises making theatre accessible and far fewer Scott Rudins.


Sorry, we’re making theatre socialist in the new decade."

Are you aware it can cost $500,000 or more to commercially release what you're demanding, on top of the millions to mount the show (which will statistically fail financially) just because you think you shouldn't have to pay for professional entertainment in an industry that employs thousands (and needs to pay millions to those thousands)?

Okay, Veruca.

[Olivia11]

Posted: 12/31/19 at 1:19am

TheatreFan4 said: "
Not entitled, just not blind to the role bootlegs have played in the community for almost 100 years."

Got it. You are the victim and those nasty commercial producers are the villians because you deserve to see live entertainment at a low cost or free (illegal bootlegs)... but you’re not entitled. Okaaaaay.  Good luck with life. 

Updated On: 12/31/19 at 01:19 AM

[SweetLips22]

Posted: 12/31/19 at 1:21am

I'm only pdoff when watching a bootleg when the camera is never where, or on who, I want to watch.

Where did that spunky chorus boy go?

Why is the camera pointing to the roof?

Why is that idiot walking in front of the camera?

Don't 'they' know that their laughter is very loud?

Why audio for the first few minutes without picture?

Why do I always end up with motion sickness after the first 30mins?

Why do I ALWAYS say, 'How can people pay to see this shxxt, as that was shxxt?'

'Glad I didn't pay to see THAT crap'.

Pleased to be able to say I have seen all these shows on Broadway[LIAR] .

[carnzee]

Posted: 12/31/19 at 6:18am

 I said there should be professional recordings for people who can’t get to NYC (or even see a tour). The line to see The Mona Lisa at the Louvre is no less long because pictures of it are readily available. Broadway and the theatre in general has a horrible problem with elitism. We need more Jeremy O. Harrises making theatre accessible and far fewer Scott Rudins.


Sorry, we’re making theatre socialist in the new decade."

Who is supposed to pay for all these professional recordings? If there was a viable way to film these and release them on DVD/streaming for $19.99 or whatever, they would. 

Thank God for Scott Rudin. His shows are what usually make me get on a plane to New York. He also offers $30-$40 rush for his shows. He can't make every seat that price or else no investor could hope to make any money and theater wouldn't get produced.

There is so much great regional theater to see all over the US for twenty bucks or less. Not having access to all the big Broadway hits isn't the same as not having access to theater.

 

 

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 12/31/19 at 8:07am

Dionysus3 said: "Make a professional recording of every Broadway show to make shows more accessible and increase interest. Make shows more accessible financially. The experience of watching live theatre will always be better than watching it at home, but if you want to build an audience, you have to meet them where they are. Not everyone can get to NYC or afford to spend hundreds of dollars on shows. Theatre is the people’s entertainment—it belongs to them. Additionally, a lot of shows suck—if you’re asking me to fork $100+ on a ticket, I want to know it’s worth it. Anyway,Alex Brightman can sod off."

If I want to know if a show is worth it, I read professional reviews, listen to word of mouth in person or on message boards, listen to the cast album, watch press videos and promotional appearances, etc. The idea of making professionally filmed recordings only available in certain regions that will never have a touring production come through because they aren't near big cities is interesting... But you know it would never be limited to that. Even when a small creator asks people to not record and release things that are limited to their patreon subscribers, it still gets out. Frankly, we undervalue creative work.