Some Enchanted Evening (The New Winspear Opera House)

[Guest LeoWalker]

Dallas has really impressed me. Already boasting one of the nation's largest musicals program through the Dallas Summer Musicals, the new Winspear complex is leading them in other directions...but definitely forward.

 

I was able to recently see South Pacific there. Having never seen the performance before...I missed the opportunity to record many of the good songs (I didn't know when they were coming)...but was happy to recognize three. Below I've included two very short clips.

 

 

 

Depending on the show, seats on the sides may be ok. I was told that people could not see the stage for Otello from the side seats.

 

http://leowalker.com/leowalker_winspear.jpg

[Guest greatness]

nice

 

Thanks for the post. I like your picture.

 

Dallas has really impressed me. Already boasting one of the nation's largest musicals program through the Dallas Summer Musicals, the new Winspear complex is leading them in other directions...but definitely forward.

 

I was able to recently see South Pacific there. Having never seen the performance before...I missed the opportunity to record many of the good songs (I didn't know when they were coming)...but was happy to recognize three. Below I've included two very short clips.

 

 

 

Depending on the show, seats on the sides may be ok. I was told that people could not see the stage for Otello from the side seats.

 

http://leowalker.com/leowalker_winspear.jpg

[+ Archer]

You were permitted to record the performance? That's a surprise. Prior to each play, opera, ballet, musical, or recital I've attended, there was an announcement that photographs and recordings of any kind are not permitted.

[Guest LeoWalker]

Thanks, greatness.

 

Archer, they're not permitted. That's why I own a small little flip video camera.

[jasoncarter_dfw]

It is a great venue! The Turtle Creek Chorale had their holiday concert there and it was great...acoustics and all.

[+ Archer]

Thanks, greatness.

 

Archer, they're not permitted. That's why I own a small little flip video camera.

 

You think it's okay to do that. Hmm. Would it also be okay with you for someone to secretly record you, while you're working, and post it on a message board for others to see?

[Guest LeoWalker]

Were I a go-go dancer...I'd probably expect it to happen at some point in time. However, I do private one-on-one interactions. I'm not on a stage. What you're suggesting is on the same lines as recording a phone conversation with the other party unaware of such an action. There's a very large difference.

 

Thank you for expressing your opinion.

[Guest alanm]

South Pacific

 

You were permitted to record the performance? That's a surprise. Prior to each play, opera, ballet, musical, or recital I've attended, there was an announcement that photographs and recordings of any kind are not permitted.

 

You are right, Archer. Leo should not have recorded the piece from "South Pacific," or posted it on this site. Daddy has enough personal financial problems without dealing with something like this.

 

But, if you type in "Mary Martin South Pacififc" on YouTube, you can watch lengthy excerpts from the 1952-53 London production of "South Pacific, which also starred the orginal Broadway Nellie Forbush, Mary Martin.

 

My guess is that the Rodgers and Hammerstein Corp. man not have the London excepts removed legally, because they was secretly filmed outside the U.S. There are many lawyers who post here, anyone know?

 

That issue does not apply to recording a short scene from the musical in Texas.

[Guest LeoWalker]

Daddy has enough personal financial problems without dealing with something like this.

 

If anyone has any liability...it's youtube, not Daddy. The posted link brings absolutely no liability...the material is not hosted on his servers.

 

And regarding youtube, I think anyone who even knows about the site realizes how absurd it is to discuss copyright violations and that site in the same sentence.

[Guest alanm]

South Pacific 2

 

The Rodgers and Hammerstein Organization is known to be very tough on violations of copyright laws. I was able to find several other

scenes from the revival of South Pacific on the Internet, but they were either part of news segments, video from the Tony Awards or videos taken from the audience with sound added later.

 

The only instances of sound and video from an actual performance

made from the audience were from the 1950s Mary Martin London production that I wrote about earlier.

 

Hey, we all know that bootlegs of Broadway shows have been around for decades. People do what you did all the time with their Blackberries/cellphones. Fine.

 

But, you seem to believe that you have some kind of legal right to post anything you want.

[Guest LeoWalker]

But, you seem to believe that you have some kind of legal right to post anything you want.

 

I'm not sure why you believe that. The posting on youtube is a violation of copyright. My point was that the site youtube is full of such violations. As well, that the site youtube has absolutely no connection to this site and does not transfer liability to this site, any posters, or the owner(s) thereof.

 

The other point: a comparison between recording a staged performance in public and an intimate experience is...well, a very bad logical comparison.

 

Your concern in safeguarding the financial interests of those involved is appreciated. That's what I figure your goal in posting is. It's my full interest that those whom I appreciate artistically should benefit financially.

 

I purchase CDs. I purchase software. I purchased (or led to the payment of) the concert/show ticket. So, this is not a topic of unaware illegal activity. I do not believe that posting partial, or even full sections, of a production will diminish the income of the parties concerned. No one is going to take my poor recordings as good substitute for actually seeing the show, if they're financially capable to. If anything, my clips would probably increase the profits of those concerned. With that in mind, I willfully practice civil disobedience.

[MsGuy]

Alanm & Archer, surely no one here really believes that bootleg recordings of copyrighted material are kosher. Personally I would respect the wishes of venue, the producer and the copyright holder. Each has legitimate reasons to stop this kind of material from circulating. Still, given modern technology, it's next to impossible to prevent a bit of casual, non commercial recording from occurring. The internet isn't going to go away; creative folks are just going to have to accommodate themselves to the new reality.

 

If it still bothers you, try thinking of Leo's post as being a review of sorts.

[Guest greatness]

Sustained.

 

Mr. Leo Walker, your counsel, MsGuy, made a convincing argument. Therefore, the case against you is dismissed without prejudice. I would suggest you be more careful about things you post online from now on. MsGuy please approach the bench. Only MsGuy please.

 

Judge greatness: You're hot! Please come to my chamber alone without your client. We have some matters to discuss.

 

 

 

 

 

Alanm & Archer, surely no one here really believes that bootleg recordings of copyrighted material are kosher. Personally I would respect the wishes of venue, the producer and the copyright holder. Each has legitimate reasons to stop this kind of material from circulating. Still, given modern technology, it's next to impossible to prevent a bit of casual, non commercial recording from occurring. The internet isn't going to go away; creative folks are just going to have to accommodate themselves to the new reality.

 

If it still bothers you, try thinking of Leo's post as being a review of sorts.

[Guest alanm]

......[G]iven modern technology, it's next to impossible to prevent a bit of casual, non commercial recording from occurring. The internet isn't going to go away; creative folks are just going to have to accommodate themselves to the new reality.

 

If it still bothers you, try thinking of Leo's post as being a review of sorts.

 

I am glad others jumped into the discussion. Your point is valid.

 

Since I do not own even one tenth of one percent of "South Pacific," I shall let the Rodgers and Hammerstein people take it from here.

[MsGuy]

Judge greatness: You're hot! Please come to my chamber alone without your client. We have some matters to discuss.

 

You want a lick off my lollipop, Yer Honor?

 

http://babyshrink.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/shyboy.jpg

[Guest greatness]

What?

 

Judge greatness: I hold you in contempt! Bailiff please take MsGuy to my chamber and bind him to my chair and take away all of his clothes. I will personally teach him how to behave in my court. ;) (MsGuy you know what I mean, role play lol) The court is adjourned.

 

 

 

 

 

You want a lick off my lollipop, Yer Honor?

 

http://babyshrink.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/shyboy.jpg

[skynyc]

If the images had come with a "Shhhh, I know I wasn't supposed to do this, but here are some clips of a show I recently attended," I don't think I would have read further.

 

What's interesting to me is the fact that Mr. Walker feels that it's his right to film and post moments of the show. He calls it a review. Yes, there have been bootlegs of shows and concerts for years, and they are also illegal uses of copyrighted material. Yes, he supported the production by having a ticket purchased for him, but doesn't acknowledge that that ticket purchase doesn't come with "duplication rights". He buys CDs, and software, but doesn't go on to tell us whether or not he copies them for his friends.

 

Napster made copyright a joke and changed the music industry. Now, copyright and intellectual property are terribly abused.

 

Last year when Patti LuPone stopped a performance of Gypsy to berate someone who was filming, she became the joke of the internet...and it was right there for all to hear, because she was recorded by someone ELSE who was taping. Very few folks were ringing in with comments commending Ms. LuPone.

 

The argument is probably "What harm is it going to do?" And truly, probably none, perhaps Mr. Walker's clip will even sell a ticket. But the fact that there is no nod to the fact there was probably an announcement at the beginning of the show saying that "The use of recording devices is strictly prohibited," and Mr. Walker still felt it was fine to do so (and share it) says much.

[Guest alanm]

The argument is probably "What harm is it going to do?" And truly, probably none, perhaps Mr. Walker's clip will even sell a ticket. But the fact that there is no nod to the fact there was probably an announcement at the beginning of the show saying that "The use of recording devices is strictly prohibited," and Mr. Walker still felt it was fine to do so (and share it) says much.

 

I would not have pursued it either, but for Walker's attitude of entitlement throughout.

[Bart]

I am not sure Leo is showing a sense of entitlement, here is merely posting a recording which I do believe is techinically illegal, for our enjoyment period.

 

As such he is gaining no profit by doing so or really for this website. When copyright infringement comes up it is usually for the issue of doing so and the resulting profits plus penalty. There are no profits here. As to Daddy being held liable, I am sure he would feel sure bring it on all you will get is a bunch of IOU's and a website to discuss gay escorts. Wow I am sure that is worth the court costs. Of course that would be publicity and who couldn't use that these days unless your Tiger Woods.

 

I think we should just sit back and enjoy a brilliantly written muscial by two of the greatest that ever lived.

[Guest LeoWalker]

I am not sure Leo is showing a sense of entitlement, here is merely posting a recording which I do believe is techinically illegal, for our enjoyment period.

 

Thank you.

[+ Archer]

Leo,

 

Let me see if I have your logic straight. You paid to see a performance. The only people who were allowed in to see the performance had to pay or were invited to view free of charge. (They received free passes.) Because this was a public performance, your words, you believe it was alright to record part of it and post it on YouTube. This despite being told prior to the performance that photographing or recording any part of the performance was prohibited. In addition, you and other posters think it's no big deal because you made no money from the posting and someone else did it, too.

 

By that logic, if I hired you, taped our session without your knowledge or consent then posted it on YouTube, it would be okay as long as I don't make any money from the posting and, most likely, someone else has secretly recorded a session with you, also. After all, I paid for it and I think it's no big deal.

 

Both of the above are wrong. Neither you nor I get to decide that it's okay to take someone else's work and give it away for free.

[Guest LeoWalker]

Leo,

 

Let me see if I have your logic straight. You paid to see a performance. The only people who were allowed in to see the performance had to pay or were invited to view free of charge. (They received free passes.) Because this was a public performance, your words, you believe it was alright to record part of it and post it on YouTube. This despite being told prior to the performance that photographing or recording any part of the performance was prohibited. In addition, you and other posters think it's no big deal because you made no money from the posting and someone else did it, too.

 

By that logic, if I hired you, taped our session without your knowledge or consent then posted it on YouTube, it would be okay as long as I don't make any money from the posting and, most likely, someone else has secretly recorded a session with you, also. After all, I paid for it and I think it's no big deal.

 

Both of the above are wrong. Neither you nor I get to decide that it's okay to take someone else's work and give it away for free.

 

I've already stated I found that comparison wrong and illogical...so if your intent in this discussion is to persuade me of my unethical acts...I suggest you come up with a better analogy. Otherwise, if that's not your intent, what is it?

 

In my view, this is nothing more than a personality conflict. Had one of your closest friends posted something similar, you would probably have bypassed it on some issue of semantics ("Oh, he admitted what he did was...bad...so that made it ok, hehe").

 

With that in mind, I don't think we'll see eye-to-eye on this ever, as I think there's some deeper issue pushing your interest in rebuking me. Something personal. I'm sorry to have stirred such disapproval from you but it will not change who I am or what I do...and when I do those things...how I talk about it.

[+ Archer]

Had one of my closest friends done something like this, he would get a much more aggressive response from me. I would never laugh it off and say it's okay. Many of them make their livings from programming, writing, photography, and art.

 

I have nothing personal against you; however, I do believe that when I see something wrong, I should speak up. This may not result in a change in the behavior, but remaining silent is the same as condoning the behavior.

 

Clearly, you won't change your behavior, but perhaps someone else will think twice.

 

Good luck in all your endeavors and have a Merry Christmas.