Concert Photographers Against the 'Three-Song Rule'

[constrict]

I created a facebook group, I think those who share the same opinion should join and share their experiences, ect.

JOIN THE FACEBOOK GROUP, POST STORIES AND ISSUES YOU'VE RUN INTO!
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=103784116547&ref=ts

[greenlight]

Get your pictures and then get out of the way. No one is going to follow you around to stop you from taking your pictures. The staff is only willing to guard you when you are in the way for three songs, then let us do our work.

[narlus]

Get your pictures and then get out of the way. No one is going to follow you around to stop you from taking your pictures. The staff is only willing to guard you when you are in the way for three songs, then let us do our work.

i have no idea what you are saying.

[constrict]

HAHA, me either, that entire paragraph is all over the place.

[RDKirk]

Man, back in the 70s I could spend the entire concert with my elbows on the stage.

[constrict]

Man, back in the 70s I could spend the entire concert with my elbows on the stage.

Awesome, too bad these days there are people who are hired to be total control freaks and artists don't speak out against it.

[kmb]

Many times I see concert photographers behave in a way that I'm very happy there is a 3-song rule in place. I wish the security would take a more active role in throwing out (from the pit) photographers acting unprofessionally. This may be a Finnish thing, the whole business here is not run that professionally (and they keep wondering why the Swedes are so much more successful in exporting music).

Then again, many times the venue is such that I think there's a minimal chance to be a disturbance (to the artist or the audience), no matter how badly you behave.

[blackshadow]

To me there are bigger battles to worry about than the three song rule.

The increasing moves but musicians to make copyright grabs is far more insidious.

It's hard to believe how hypocritical the music business can be when it comes to copyright. Take a look at this article (http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/judge_rules_aga_1.html).

[RDKirk]

To me there are bigger battles to worry about than the three song rule.

The increasing moves but musicians to make copyright grabs is far more insidious.

It's hard to believe how hypocritical the music business can be when it comes to copyright. Take a look at this article (http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/judge_rules_aga_1.html).

How is this hypocritical?

[blackshadow]

How is this hypocritical?

It's hypocritical when an artist puts a rights grab contract in front of a photographer (when the artist is not the client of the photographer) and expects the photographer to hand over the copyright of their work to the artist. Yet musicians are very protective of their intellectual property rights as seen in the case mentioned in the article.

[René Damkot]

I have no problems whatsoever with a 3 song rule...
Mostly, a three song rule is in place with the bigger bands, with better lighting. So it presents no problems...
I do have problems with light technicians that only start proper lighting at song 4 ;)

Honestly, if you cannot get the job done in 3 songs, maybe you shouldn't be doing the job...
The audience paid for the privilege, the photographers didn't.

[Jacobredphoto]

Kind of new to this section. Can someone explain to me exactly what the point of the "3 song rule" is? I've been to many concerts and seen many photographers shoot but none of them seem to be in the way or are being unprofessional.

[DDCSD]

I have no problems whatsoever with a 3 song rule...
Mostly, a three song rule is in place with the bigger bands, with better lighting. So it presents no problems...
I do have problems with light technicians that only start proper lighting at song 4 ;)

Honestly, if you cannot get the job done in 3 songs, maybe you shouldn't be doing the job...
The audience paid for the privilege, the photographers didn't.


I agree 100%. While it would be nice to catch some moments that happen after the first three songs, how many photos do you really need of a show?

[DDCSD]

Kind of new to this section. Can someone explain to me exactly what the point of the "3 song rule" is? I've been to many concerts and seen many photographers shoot but none of them seem to be in the way or are being unprofessional.


I think its just one of those things that everyone does but don't know why. I suppose it does make it easier for security in the pit, especially at rock concerts with body surfers. The crowd seems to get more worked up in the middle of the show.

That and possibly performers that are overly concerned about their image. They don't want photos of them all sweaty and their make-up smeared.

[constrict]

I have no problems whatsoever with a 3 song rule...
Mostly, a three song rule is in place with the bigger bands, with better lighting. So it presents no problems...
I do have problems with light technicians that only start proper lighting at song 4 ;)

Honestly, if you cannot get the job done in 3 songs, maybe you shouldn't be doing the job...
The audience paid for the privilege, the photographers didn't.

Great lighting isn't always gauranteed during the first 3 songs as I'm sure most of us have experienced.

It's not a matter of "being able to get the job done in 3 songs", it's a ridiculous rule that's become a standard to the point where I don't think there's much(if any) reason behind it. If the management/artist doesn't allow flash then why does it matter which segments of the show are shot? All the security guys are up front working through the entire set, what makes a photographer any different?

Also in my opinion I prefer the climax of a bands set. You're essentially promoting the band and in fact working, just because an audience member paid doesn't mean you're not entitled to be there for the entire show, hence why I get ticket(s) along with my pass.

Maybe I'm bringing all of this up because I can never get the job done in time :lol:

[constrict]

That and possibly performers that are overly concerned about their image. They don't want photos of them all sweaty and their make-up smeared.

That may be so for stupid pop stars which I wouldn't care to shoot anyways, but metal/rock bands don't care about being sweaty or makeup (well, most).

As for body surfing, 1. it's hardly done, 2. most of the time there is PLENTY of space for security to do their job. 3. I always make sure I get out of the way so they can catch someone.

At the recent large concert I shot, AC/DC there was no crowd surfing (due to seating) and at least 15' feet between the barricade and stage...

[DDCSD]

That may be so for stupid pop stars which I wouldn't care to shoot anyways, but metal/rock bands don't care about being sweaty or makeup (well, most).

As for body surfing, 1. it's hardly done, 2. most of the time there is PLENTY of space for security to do their job. 3. I always make sure I get out of the way so they can catch someone.

At the recent large concert I shot, AC/DC there was no crowd surfing (due to seating) and at least 15' feet between the barricade and stage...


Well, most shows I shoot there isn't much room between the stage and the barricade. But I don't shoot stadiums shows with 10 foot high stages. At the Stimulate This show on Sunday night there was barely room for me to get around the security guy at center stage, there was so little room.

As for body surfing, I've had security catch body surfers literally on top of me at a couple of shows this year and had to get out of the way so that they could at others. Maybe we're just really behind the times here in SD, because body surfing still happens pretty regularly at shows here.


I was just listing reasons that the 3 song rule may exist. I was not endorsing the rule or saying that the reasoning makes any sense. Those are the only things I can think of. I agree it is kind of a silly rule, but I really don't think it is that big of a deal.

[RDKirk]

It's hypocritical when an artist puts a rights grab contract in front of a photographer (when the artist is not the client of the photographer) and expects the photographer to hand over the copyright of their work to the artist. Yet musicians are very protective of their intellectual property rights as seen in the case mentioned in the article.

Ah, the shoe on the left foot.

[constrict]

sidenote: I think crowd surfing is lame and anyone who does it should suffer the consequences of falling over the barricade without being caught by security :p

[René Damkot]

Some reasons I've heard for a three song rule:
Because the security is doing a more important job, and should be able to do it well
Performers want to look "good" (not all sweaty / tired)
You are an obstruction for the audience (let's not talk about TV camera's here)
Because they can


I agree with the first and third. Maybe also with the second...
Edit: Crowd surfing is not allowed at most Dutch festivals.
However I think it's more important that security can get someone inside the barriers if they faint or something like that... Seen it happen...

[kmb]

The most "common" reason for three song rule in Finland is that it's convenient. Everybody presumes it, and often there is nobody actively checking things like how sane the photographers are (will they disturb the audience or the performer), or - from the band management point of view - is the venue such that the photographers will naturally stay out of the way or not.

The staff of the venue where I'm a house photographer asks the band for me if I can photograph the whole gig, and literally 100% of Finnish bands (something close to 200 of them) have let me stay there over three songs, and well over 95% of the bands from abroad do it also (it's a medium-sized rock club so there aren't any big international bands there). For everybody else it's often three songs, since the venue staff do not know them and the photo pit (security pit) is such that you basically have to stay on your knees or to stay out of the way of the audience. Of course the security always has the right to remove me from the pit if thiings get heated.

BTW, I disagree with René regarding the three-songs-is-enough. For me it is not about great light (*), but great moments and "getting into the mood", finding the correct angle/aperture/focal length/point-of-view/moment/etcetc-cobination. I've solved this by avoiding big bands/gigs and concentrating on bands that appreciate what I do and provide me the credentials to work as their photographer, and so on.

(*) Check out Anton Corbijn's photographs for examples of great photographs in what would be considered by most very bad lighting (even if most of them are not taken in concerts).

Starting from tomorrow (Monday), there are seven of my photos on show in London, as a part of the PopView/Lex van Rossen 2009 exhibition, due to me being one of the finalists of the competiton. I believe exactly one of these pictures was taken at a three-song concert (well, one of them is taken after three songs, shooting from the audience).

Depends on your style and goals, of course, whether three is enough. It is enough for me to get publishable shots, certainly, but when I'm photographing "as an artist", publishable is not nearly good enough.

[narlus]

sidenote: I think crowd surfing is lame and anyone who does it should suffer the consequences of falling over the barricade without being caught by security :p

during the Converge set @ the Scion Rock Fest, i saw some hapless crowd surfer get tossed forward while the security guys were busy on the other end...the guy landed face first @ the edge of the stage. ow. :lol:

[BJWOK]

The audience paid for the privilege, the photographers didn't.

Ahh Rene, but we are there to work, the audience is there to party.

[blackshadow]

during the Converge set @ the Scion Rock Fest, i saw some hapless crowd surfer get tossed forward while the security guys were busy on the other end...the guy landed face first @ the edge of the stage. ow. :lol:

Pity you didn't get photos of it!

[The Moose]

It's hypocritical when an artist puts a rights grab contract in front of a photographer (when the artist is not the client of the photographer) and expects the photographer to hand over the copyright of their work to the artist. Yet musicians are very protective of their intellectual property rights as seen in the case mentioned in the article.

It's definitely hypocritical but I think it is much more prevalent when there are agents or labels acting for the artist.

Personally I have never had to deal with the three song rule as the shows I've shot have never been large gigs with international bands. Well, there was one show I went to of an international band and took my 400D/70-200 and I worked my way up to the very side of the stage, I was standing over everyone and shooting the band. Security never told me to go away, one of them actually let me get a better position :) One photographer (Canon shooter :)) came out from the back and shot for maybe 5 minutes during the middle of the gig and then left.

[René Damkot]

BTW, I disagree with René regarding the three-songs-is-enough. For me it is not about great light (*), but great moments and "getting into the mood", finding the correct angle/aperture/focal length/point-of-view/moment/etcetc-cobination.

No disagreement there: Off course you can get better / more creative shots if you have more time.
However, you should be able to get a "decent" shot in 3 songs...

[narlus]

Pity you didn't get photos of it!

yeah it happened just as i was getting over backstage, behind the drummer. even if i was ready, the light would have been tough (this is from that vantage point)

http://narlus.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p626695497-4.jpg

[dmb70]

3 song is even more of an annoyance shooting some bands. KISS, for example does their "trademark" gimmicks, (breathing fire, spitting blood, smoking guitars...ect) after the 1st 3 songs, so the average photog can't get those shots. Many other bands have similar moments in their show that only "their" photographer will get the opportunity to shoot.

Not to mention if you have never seen a particular artist before the longer you have to get a feel for their style of performance the more interesting shots you could get.

[pod_canon]

I would guess with KISS they don't do their theatrics with photographers in the pit since you're in close and liable to catch on fire.

[narlus]

if there are pyro or other dangers, security will let shooters know about them and/or restrict access to those areas. i doubt Gene's fire-breathing schtick would extend that far off the stage.

@dmb70, i hear what you are saying, but who says life is fair? i'd love to be able to get a shot of some massive band from behind, w/ the huge stadium audience in the background (i looked for that famous shot of Bono down in a semi-crouch but couldn't find it), but it's all about access...

[René Damkot]

The Lex van Rossen image? Linky (http://www.popview.eu/index.php?language=en&a=lex-van-rossen)

[narlus]

yep, that's the one! cracking shot!

[dmb70]

if there are pyro or other dangers, security will let shooters know about them and/or restrict access to those areas. i doubt Gene's fire-breathing schtick would extend that far off the stage.

@dmb70, i hear what you are saying, but who says life is fair? i'd love to be able to get a shot of some massive band from behind, w/ the huge stadium audience in the background (i looked for that famous shot of Bono down in a semi-crouch but couldn't find it), but it's all about access...


Right, I didn't mean it to sound like "boo hoo life isn't fair". I'm just saying since we are discussing the 3 song rule, those are some legit gripes that don't have anything to do with not being able to get a few acceptable shots during the 1st 3.:cool:

[nicolerork]

Have you been to Warped Tour, why would you want the idiot "photographers" cramping your space the entire set? I rarely shoot from the pit anymore, so I could really care less, but 3 songs is plenty of time to get the job done. Also, bands usually have the most energy during the first three songs.

[ChrisRabior]

I second Nicole. 3 songs are plenty. When it's less cramped and the lighting isn't too horrid, 1 song is enough.

And, hate to break it to everyone, but the argument that 'we're missing the most incredible moments' doesn't fly. The bands that are likely to be in those groundbreaking / moment of a lifetime photos... they've usually gone the step of giving an all access pass to a photographer who typically finishes the 4th song and on from the side of the stage.

[narlus]

I second Nicole. 3 songs are plenty. When it's less cramped and the lighting isn't too horrid, 1 song is enough.


if you got to only shoot one song, smugmug's servers would breathe a sigh of relief :lol:



Concerts (http://www.chrisrabior.com/Concerts)
529 galleries with 63696 photos

[ChrisRabior]

Hey now, to my credit, that's only about 120 shots per show on average, and a vast majority of the shows I cover didn't limit me to three songs. I do need to get better at culling shots though =)

And thinking about that more, 120 shots over 3 songs gives about 10 minutes of shooting time.. 12 shots per minute isn't much at all.

[jsphotos]

I'm lucky that I shot for a awesome promotor here in town. I really havent had to come across the three song rule. But I think the rule is kind iffy on who is really pushing this rule? the tour manager, the label?

[ChrisRabior]

I'd imagine it's usually the venue, but on occasion it's the band or their management. Smaller venues usually don't care one way or the other unless the band/management specifically asks for it, even if the act is a national artist. I've been able to shoot some major names at one of the local venues here without a 3 song rule, and it's usually because the band doesn't care. Larger venues, even with smaller groups who normally wouldn't care if you shot the entire set, typically enforce the 3 song rule just because it's industry standard. Besides, the big venue isn't there to provide photographers a chance to shoot, it's there to provide entertainment to fans. You're in the way, and it's a courtesy that they allow you to shoot.

Now, don't get me wrong, there are a lot of groups that don't want a lot of photos. Last night I was only given 2 songs for one of the groups, 3 for the rest. Then of course there's the first 30 seconds of the first song, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th song, and all sorts of other odd arrangements. All depends on the band.

[narlus]

Hey now, to my credit, that's only about 120 shots per show on average, and a vast majority of the shows I cover didn't limit me to three songs. I do need to get better at culling shots though =)

And thinking about that more, 120 shots over 3 songs gives about 10 minutes of shooting time.. 12 shots per minute isn't much at all.

on average you shoot every five seconds!?

https://www.samstores.com/_images/products/Canon%20XL2.jpg

[ChrisRabior]

As I said, the vast majority of shows I've covered didn't include a 3 song rule. That 120 shots is usually divided out over a full hour of music. To get more math-oriented, 120 shots for on average 4 band members is only 30 shots to work with per band member.. and 120 shots over a full hour averages about one shot every 30 seconds.. maybe 10 photos per song. That's really not that much..


Another thing that I forgot to point out is that I've just now started really getting into venues with adequate lighting. I've become accustomed to needing to shoot a higher volume to make up for the horrid lighting. The venue I shot the other night, I could get away with 1/200s, f/4, ISO 800 throughout virtually the entire stage.. much better than the 1/50s, f/1.8, ISO 3200 'bright' spots I'd hope to get with the right combo of light on the right part of the stage at the other venues.

[Tsariik]

I'm just starting out shooting gigs on assignment (as opposed to a member of the audience with a point-and-shoot), and here's what I've found so far:

-I shot an indoor concert on a very small stage this week, and luckily for me the three song rule wasn't enforced at all, because otherwise I don't think I would have had any usable material. All the photographers shot discreetly and without flash for the duration of the gig, without being enforced in any way. I ended up with some good shots, but nothing amazing.

-I did shoot an outdoor concert on a very large stage, and three songs was far, far more than enough time for me to get a wide variety of shots that were all higher quality than my indoor ones. Ah, natural light.

While it would be nice to have the leisure of an entire gig to shoot, I do hope that in time I'll have the equipment and experience to get the job done in two songs or less - it really is a long time when you don't need a lot of images out of it.

[nazpicman]

Each band has their own rules. Have shot 6 "name" acts from "the pit", all first three/no flash. One (JETHRO TULL) we were only permitted to be in the first few feet of the right side of the stage, and the band was set up on the opposite side. Another(JOHN FOGERTY) we had the whole stage width to work with and could follow him to either side. Later on (the B52's) we could not shoot each of them individually, but as a group only(sure??). (the Donnas) was an all angles shoot as was Pat Benatar, but on the same night (Blondie) was only from the wings...two photogs each side of the stage. Have shot many more lesser known bands where I have had FULL STAGE ACCESS and they are the most fun by far.
For another show, Joan Jett and the Blackhearts, the photogs got to shoot for the entire show from the pit, another of our photogs did that one....so there are really no set rules and each act does have their own rules. For another show, one of our photogs had to shoot from near a side fence and not in the pit, even though she was an "official" photographer.

[constrict]

Later on (the B52's) we could not shoot them individually, but as a group only(sure??).

I would refuse to shoot them unless I was being paid up front. That's such B.S...f-them.

[constrict]

And, hate to break it to everyone, but the argument that 'we're missing the most incredible moments' doesn't fly.

Yes it does fly. You might as well be saying that curtain falls in front of the band after the first three songs.

p.s. it's funny how most everyone does not know for sure who's responsible for this regulation.

[constrict]

You're in the way, and it's a courtesy that they allow you to shoot.

You sound like a photographer who gives all his work away for free, am I correct?

You are wrong, and should have the exact opposite attitude. It should be a courtesy to the artist/management/promoters that there are photographers covering their show and in turn promoting their act.

As for larger shows, it's nearly impossible to be 'in the way' when there's a 20-30' foot gap between the crowd and the 10-15' high stage. Also, most concerts do not allow flash, so there goes the argument that it disturbs the artists.

[ChrisRabior]

First off, I do not give my work away for free. I'm not sure what gave you that idea, but you're dead wrong. I'm represented by Alamy and MusicPictures, I shoot for a publication, I shoot for myself, and I'm available for hire. I've never given anything away for free, period.

As far as it being a courtesy that someone is giving press to the event, you're absolutely right, it is. But it's also a courtesy to allow press into the event. Do you really think the major acts NEEDS coverage, let alone that they need it city after city after city from multiple publications in each one?? I don't think so. Publications are often just as happy to run a standard press kit image.

Might as well have the curtain fall after 3 songs? Well, yeah. Don't be delusional. Tours are so incredibly choreographed, there really isn't much you're going to miss out on that the tour photographer hasn't already seen in a dozen other cities. You're more likely to capture the once in a lifetime shot from a local no-name group before they become popular than you are with a group that does a mirror image of their gig night after night.

Maybe the venues near you are different than those near me, but the pit can be wildly different in size, most in the Detroit area don't have the 20' separation from the crowd with a 10-15' high stage. The only one I can think of is the outdoor stage in Pontiac, the rest are maybe 5' high and have at most a 4' photo/security pit separating the crowd from the stage, if there's anything at all. I know that when I go to a concert, particularly in a more intimate venue (which Metro Detroit is blessed with many of), I don't want someone standing in front of me the entire set because they're press. Get in, do your job, get out.

[constrict]

First off, I do not give my work away for free. I'm not sure what gave you that idea, but you're dead wrong. I'm represented by Alamy and MusicPictures, I shoot for a publication, I shoot for myself, and I'm available for hire. I've never given anything away for free, period.

As far as it being a courtesy that someone is giving press to the event, you're absolutely right, it is. But it's also a courtesy to allow press into the event. Do you really think the major acts NEEDS coverage, let alone that they need it city after city after city from multiple publications in each one?? I don't think so. Publications are often just as happy to run a standard press kit image.

Might as well have the curtain fall after 3 songs? Well, yeah. Don't be delusional. Tours are so incredibly choreographed, there really isn't much you're going to miss out on that the tour photographer hasn't already seen in a dozen other cities. You're more likely to capture the once in a lifetime shot from a local no-name group before they become popular than you are with a group that does a mirror image of their gig night after night.

Maybe the venues near you are different than those near me, but the pit can be wildly different in size, most in the Detroit area don't have the 20' separation from the crowd with a 10-15' high stage. The only one I can think of is the outdoor stage in Pontiac, the rest are maybe 5' high and have at most a 4' photo/security pit separating the crowd from the stage, if there's anything at all. I know that when I go to a concert, particularly in a more intimate venue (which Metro Detroit is blessed with many of), I don't want someone standing in front of me the entire set because they're press. Get in, do your job, get out.

Okay, your attitude saying that it's a courtesy to us that we're allowed to shoot an artist made me think that you give away your work for free. So I apologize for assuming wrong. However I still disagree with you.

So maybe a few high profile acts may not need much press to survive but there's nothing wrong with having even more press, can't hurt!

Not all tours are as choreographed as you describe... lighting, stage size and setup, movements in correlation to your shooting angle (and of course photographers eye) always vary no matter how rehearsed. Unless we're talkin' some lame pop radio act that lip synch's in which you have to shoot from one angle 200 feet away. To me you're being delusional by claiming everything is exactly the same at every date of a tour. Especially with rock/metal acts where it's not. If photographers could shoot longer than the first 3 songs then photos night after night would vary even further.

Most venues here are as you describe and I'm always respectful of people around me and try to keep low even though I'm probably not even obstructing any view except someones feet...

Do you tell the venue security to step out of the photo pit? Do you sit in the front row at a movie theater just to avoid having someone in front of you too? If you can't handle someone standing or being in front of you then maybe you'd be better off watching a concert dvd at home instead, eh? :lol:

[Rock Photo Star]

It's hypocritical when an artist puts a rights grab contract in front of a photographer (when the artist is not the client of the photographer) and expects the photographer to hand over the copyright of their work to the artist. Yet musicians are very protective of their intellectual property rights as seen in the case mentioned in the article.

Blackshadow, the most ironic incident I ever seen was an artists who posted a blog on his myspace amazed at a wedding photographer who took and used their music without permission for a slide show. He was amazed at the gaul of such a person and I laughed thinking, yeah, now you know how photographers feel about musicians taking pics.

[narlus]

one rule that annoys me is when you are restricted to *just* shooting from the barricade for 3 songs...it would be nice to be able to back up and get some full-stage shots as well.

[Rock Photo Star]

I have no problems whatsoever with a 3 song rule...
Mostly, a three song rule is in place with the bigger bands, with better lighting. So it presents no problems...
I do have problems with light technicians that only start proper lighting at song 4 ;)

Honestly, if you cannot get the job done in 3 songs, maybe you shouldn't be doing the job...
The audience paid for the privilege, the photographers didn't.

Rene, that's not fair. At least in the Christian circuit, I know many bands that do various "schtick" such as jumps, crowd interaction, firing off smoke, fire or fireworks, etc. until later in the set.

If the assignment is to just get a technically focused photographed. Yes, that can be done in 3 songs and less.

If it is to get full coverage of every band member or really document the "spectacle," stage show and personality of the band. Those moments in later songs are key to doing so.

[Rock Photo Star]

one rule that annoys me is when you are restricted to *just* shooting from the barricade for 3 songs...it would be nice to be able to back up and get some full-stage shots as well.

The few times I've been hit with a 3 song rule, I've still been able to shoot from around the venue.

[Rock Photo Star]

I second Nicole. 3 songs are plenty. When it's less cramped and the lighting isn't too horrid, 1 song is enough.

And, hate to break it to everyone, but the argument that 'we're missing the most incredible moments' doesn't fly. The bands that are likely to be in those groundbreaking / moment of a lifetime photos... they've usually gone the step of giving an all access pass to a photographer who typically finishes the 4th song and on from the side of the stage.



I've got a traveling photo exhibit of about 30 photos [plus others I rotate in] blown up to 11x17 and 13x19. Looking through the pics there at best 3 shots that were taken during the first 3 songs [that's only because I can't absolutely rule out, it is quite possible that none are from the first 3 songs of an act].

But sure, go ahead and please tell me more about how I didn't miss anything after the first 3 songs, even though I am staring at a wall of photos that say otherwise.

If the bands you shoot are pretty much done with their stage antics and spectacle after the frist 3 songs [or just repeat thereafter] ... maybe you need to find more interesting bands to shoot.

Look, I tell you what. I'm going to compromise and agree ... that Chris, Nicole and Rene are not able to capture anything interesting after the first 3 songs so the rule is perfect for you guys/gals :D :D :D

Constrict I am with you.

[narlus]

The few times I've been hit with a 3 song rule, I've still been able to shoot from around the venue.

this seems to be a Live Nation restriction (enforced at Comcast Center, Bank of America Pavilion, House of Blues (for the most part, though a security guy i talked w/ at the Motörhead show said it's really up to the tour manager) and Aggannis Arena.

[narlus]

Look, I tell you what. I'm going to compromise and agree ... that Chris, Nicole and Rene are not able to capture anything interesting after the first 3 songs so the rule is perfect for you guys/gals :D :D :D

no need to be so condescending...

i think the basic premise is yes, you can get more than usable/excellent captures most of the time under the 3 song rule...but if you are given more time, then obviously you can catch moments that are unique to that period (ie, Halford riding on stage w/ the Harley; Alice Cooper being hanged; Gene Simmons breathing fire, etc).

but there is no social contract to say that regular shooters have some sort of right to capture any moment they might see on stage; hell, i'd wager that most of the shooters are gone after the 1st three since they don't have a ticket, so they don't know what they are missing!

if you wanna be able to document the entire show (and i'm talking primarily of larger, well-known bands in 4 to 5 figure capacity venues), you need to have some more clout, whether it's shooting a specific assignment for a big publication or actually working for the band, or perhaps the venue (but the band usually has last say on this).

[Rock Photo Star]

no need to be so condescending...



First, I thought I was being humorous - see icons.

Second, condescending or just plain arrogant is telling others that there is no real reason/need to shoot after 3 songs. Like I said, I am staring at a wall of photos of moments after the 3 songs so my experience is pretty clear that there are plenty of moments after the first 3 songs worth capturing.

It is pretty arrogant for someone to tell me otherwise, as if they know what I've experienced.

If someone is that arrogant to be making broad generalizations and dismissals of others [that arguments on the merits that 3 songs are not enough], then you should be ready to be told, in effect, SPEAK FOR YOURSELF not for me. That's actually the message under the joking "compromise." There, you happy. Speak for yourself Chris, Rene, Nicole instead of be so arrogant to tell others what there experience is - that shooting after 3 songs is inconsequential. There, you like that better.

So I am the one being rude not the one making the broad, crass generalizations/dismissals of those asserting that there are substantial moments after the first 3 songs that justify need to shoot past the first 3 songs? That's bullsh*t Narlus.

Third, I've ignored the rest of your statement as I have no idea what you are talking about as none of what you are saying I was addressing let alone have disagreed with though your word and tone is that we are some how at disagreement ... you're a psychic or just want to find a reason to be in conflict with me.

As for what I addressed, whether there was any real point/need to shoot after the 3 song rule, i.e. moments worth capturing, a point YOU AGREE with, citing examples from Judas Priest and Alice Cooper. Yet instead of emphasizing that you agree with me, constrict and others and disagree with Chris, Rene, etc., you go on to act as if we are in disagreement?

Is there some reason you can't just man up and say, hey, Chris, I disagree with your dismissal that there is no substantial reasons to shoot after the first 3 songs ... my experience with Judas Priest, Alice Cooper, etc. is that there are substantial moments that convey the personality of the artist or tone of the show that don't occur until after the first 3 songs? Or better yet, say, "Gee, Chris, that's pretty arrogant and presumptuous to tell other people that it "won't fly" to claim as if you know every artist and know what's worth shooting or not. That sure isn't my experience. There were definitely moments with Judas Priest, Alice Cooper, etc. after the first 3 songs that I considered significant in capturing the personality of the artist, show, crowd, event, etc."

[blackshadow]

one rule that annoys me is when you are restricted to *just* shooting from the barricade for 3 songs...it would be nice to be able to back up and get some full-stage shots as well.

Last night all photographers were booted from the pit for Monster Magnet after the first song by security (not sure exactly why but I think it was because one idiot was blasting away with a 580EXII the whole time). I headed up to the sound board (luckily a mate of mine was doing the sound for MM) and proceeded to shoot most of the show from back there above the crowd.

Another 'tog told me he saw two photographers thrown out for getting their gear out after they'd been turfed from the pit.

BTW narlus Wyndorf and band were sensational.

[narlus]

rock photo star, get a grip. seriously. i can see the pulsing forehead vein from here.

[blackshadow]

Rock Star Photo - from the look of the shots in your exhibition on your website most (if not all) photos are of Christian acts not commercial rock acts. I'm guessing that while these acts are popular within a certain segment of the population they don't attract too much interest from the mainstream music media therefore they don't have a heap of photographers clamouring to shoot them, therefore there are few (if any restrictions) on photography.

[skifurthur]

I've just read this topic...twice. I figure that I can add a little to the conversation since the three song rule was pretty much invented by an artist that I have worked with often...Bruce Springsteen.

As I understand it, the three song rule was originally put in place because some photographers felt that, rather than work with the artist, that they should start being the diva and do whatever they wanted during and after the shoot. In today's world of media spin, why shouldn't a performing artist be able to control the use of their likeness? Not in a rights grab situation, but in a mutually agreeable fashion. A couple of bullet points and a few comments:

1) The three song limit (or any limit) is a lowest common denominator rule. Most shooters at big shows are under a deadline and need to file their photos very quickly in order to be in the morning press. Since most of those people shooting fall into that catagory the general rule, and manpower needed for that rule, is geared towards that end. Those photographers absolutely need to stop shooting and file.

2) I'm amazed on how many photographers are bitching and moaning about the restrictions to the point of saying that they are being told what they can do. Then proceed to stand tall in the pit, blocking out the audience and, by doing so, sever the connection of artist to audience. The photographer is not part of the show, they should be as unobstrusive as possible.

3) It's a job. If you feel that you have special needs to do that job, it is up to the photographer and/or publication to convey those needs to the band/management and make arrangements for further rights. The reason that I have had so many opportunities to shoot whole shows is that I sold the band/management on what I was trying to accomplish and made a good business case on why I felt they should allow me that expansion of shooting rights. If is was shooting for a publication that hit the street the next day, there was no good reason for me to shoot the whole show. By the time the artist got to their encores the deadline for copy was long passed. My pet peeve is photographers that got a photo pass with certain rules in place (3-songs) who, after they finish those 3-songs, proceed to shoot from the audience against what they agreed to in the first place. People within the bands notice that stuff and next time around put more restrictions in place to make sure it doesn't happen again. For the life of me I can't understand why other photographers agree to one thing and then do something else. Not only does it hurt themselves, it hurts others too. I've paid the price for others unprofessional manner and it sucks.

4) Even if you make a good case for extra shooting, anything can and will happen in the world of rock. Very few bands are run like IBM...actually many got into that game because they couldn't conform to the corporate world. I've had rules changed on the fly, been left off of the guest list, have an artist decide that they didn't want me there anymore during the show, etc. Being a professional meant that I worked with the cards that were dealt to me. Except when I was not in the show due to a communications mix-up, I have always gotten the shot(s) I need because I always need to deliver my end of the deal...no matter if the other party didn't provide what I thought was needed.

5) There are many photographers that try to work within the performing arts genre. To stand apart from others I need to conduct myself as a professional at all times. I need to show that I work with an artist, not work for myself and against the artists wishes. I have gotten work from this very message board because some of these artists have people scouring the internet for comments, reviews and photographs. This is a public message board and only I am able to show myself as a professional to the public...the public is everywhere. I also know of some photographers that have been removed from a shoot from what was posted on a message board. Newsflash...artists have egos that are sometimes fragile. So do PR firms and management types.

Not everyone gets the chance to do what we do. It the photographers' job to deliver the goods, not the artists job to work with the photographer.

[blackshadow]

I've just read this topic...twice. I figure that I can add a little to the conversation since the three song rule was pretty much invented by an artist that I have worked with often...Bruce Springsteen.

As I understand it, the three song rule was originally put in place because some photographers felt that, rather than work with the artist, that they should start being the diva and do whatever they wanted during and after the shoot. In today's world of media spin, why shouldn't a performing artist be able to control the use of their likeness? Not in a rights grab situation, but in a mutually agreeable fashion. A couple of bullet points and a few comments:

1) The three song limit (or any limit) is a lowest common denominator rule. Most shooters at big shows are under a deadline and need to file their photos very quickly in order to be in the morning press. Since most of those people shooting fall into that catagory the general rule, and manpower needed for that rule, is geared towards that end. Those photographers absolutely need to stop shooting and file.

2) I'm amazed on how many photographers are bitching and moaning about the restrictions to the point of saying that they are being told what they can do. Then proceed to stand tall in the pit, blocking out the audience and, by doing so, sever the connection of artist to audience. The photographer is not part of the show, they should be as unobstrusive as possible.

3) It's a job. If you feel that you have special needs to do that job, it is up to the photographer and/or publication to convey those needs to the band/management and make arrangements for further rights. The reason that I have had so many opportunities to shoot whole shows is that I sold the band/management on what I was trying to accomplish and made a good business case on why I felt they should allow me that expansion of shooting rights. If is was shooting for a publication that hit the street the next day, there was no good reason for me to shoot the whole show. By the time the artist got to their encores the deadline for copy was long passed. My pet peeve is photographers that got a photo pass with certain rules in place (3-songs) who, after they finish those 3-songs, proceed to shoot from the audience against what they agreed to in the first place. People within the bands notice that stuff and next time around put more restrictions in place to make sure it doesn't happen again. For the life of me I can't understand why other photographers agree to one thing and then do something else. Not only does it hurt themselves, it hurts others too. I've paid the price for others unprofessional manner and it sucks.

4) Even if you make a good case for extra shooting, anything can and will happen in the world of rock. Very few bands are run like IBM...actually many got into that game because they couldn't conform to the corporate world. I've had rules changed on the fly, been left off of the guest list, have an artist decide that they didn't want me there anymore during the show, etc. Being a professional meant that I worked with the cards that were dealt to me. Except when I was not in the show due to a communications mix-up, I have always gotten the shot(s) I need because I always need to deliver my end of the deal...no matter if the other party didn't provide what I thought was needed.

5) There are many photographers that try to work within the performing arts genre. To stand apart from others I need to conduct myself as a professional at all times. I need to show that I work with an artist, not work for myself and against the artists wishes. I have gotten work from this very message board because some of these artists have people scouring the internet for comments, reviews and photographs. This is a public message board and only I am able to show myself as a professional to the public...the public is everywhere. I also know of some photographers that have been removed from a shoot from what was posted on a message board. Newsflash...artists have egos that are sometimes fragile. So do PR firms and management types.

Not everyone gets the chance to do what we do. It the photographers' job to deliver the goods, not the artists job to work with the photographer.

Excellent post Tony.

[René Damkot]

If it is to get full coverage of every band member or really document the "spectacle," stage show and personality of the band. Those moments in later songs are key to doing so.

Obviously. :)

[badnad]

Excellent points Tony. You made a great argument, and provided all of us with a point of view that many don't consider...

[shkspr]

ok my 2 cents.....
first 3 is kinda dumb, a lot of times i can get better shots as the show 'slows' down, usually around songs 4-7. i get hired by the venue to record the event, that includes trying to shoot the crowd.

my a$$ ache is that the audience is allowed to shoot away, yet i get to only shoot the first three, AND NO MORE.

hey, this year one band only allowed the FIRST song... ONLY. and another did a 'medly' and i could only shoot the first 3 minutes. yeah, had my stop watch for that.....

some samples http://tjsphotographic.com/public_html/clients/SMS_2009/index.html

tim

[vtred]

Interesting post Tony, didn't know you were still employed as a photographer. Good luck!

[ChrisRabior]

Like I said, I am staring at a wall of photos of moments after the 3 songs so my experience is pretty clear that there are plenty of moments after the first 3 songs worth capturing.

It is pretty arrogant for someone to tell me otherwise, as if they know what I've experienced.
Nobody's debating the fact that many awesome things occur after the first 3 songs. They most certainly do happen, and we all know this. We're not trying to deny it, but there's a certain reality of the business that prohibits most photographers from shooting an entire set.. and that reality is the publishing deadline. Our comments aren't coming out of arrogance, they're coming from experience.

Don't get me wrong, I love having more than 3 songs to shoot, but if I'm on a deadline, I can make do with 3 or less. Things are obviously different if you're not shooting for a publication with a deadline, and you have more permissions from the band, or if you're shooting at a smaller venue that just doesn't care how many songs you shoot.

For big names at big venues, 3 songs is the standard. Get in, shoot, and get out. You didn't pay for your entry, why do you think you have the right to stand in front of fans who likely paid good money to see a group perform? Also, consider the band's image. Many don't like to be seen after the heat from the stage lights have played havoc on any makeup and elicited rivers of sweat. Is the sweatball image cooler? I think so, but what I think (and what you think) is irrelevant if the band doesn't want to be seen that way.


You also conveniently dismiss the notion of a tour photographer. Big tours almost inevitably have an allstar photographer assigned the task of capturing the images (note: beyond the 3 song limit for the rest of us). They're special in that manner. But why not let every photographer shoot the whole set? Well, I think we've been over it. There's no need. As I've also stressed before, those greater moments later in a set happen basically every night of the tour.. The tour photographer will inevitably be there to capture the greater moments later in a set, and the difference between that person and the rest of us, he/she gets multiple chances on the tour to get it right.


Is there some reason you can't just man up and say, hey, Chris, I disagree with your dismissal that there is no substantial reasons to shoot after the first 3 songs ... my experience with Judas Priest, Alice Cooper, etc. is that there are substantial moments that convey the personality of the artist or tone of the show that don't occur until after the first 3 songs? Or better yet, say, "Gee, Chris, that's pretty arrogant and presumptuous to tell other people that it "won't fly" to claim as if you know every artist and know what's worth shooting or not. That sure isn't my experience. There were definitely moments with Judas Priest, Alice Cooper, etc. after the first 3 songs that I considered significant in capturing the personality of the artist, show, crowd, event, etc."

Not at all. What I disagree with is the attitude that every single photographer that shows up to cover a show is automatically entitled to shoot the entire show. Some inevitably do, but they have special permissions to do so. Think of it as the same logic of why we're only given a photography/media/press credential, instead of an all access/backstage credential. They both cover the same in terms of allowing us to shoot from the pit, but the simple truth is that the working photographer does not need (and should not automatically be entitled to) that much extra freedom.

For working photographers, 3 songs are standard. If you don't like it, shoot somewhere or for someone that either doesn't care or is willing to give you the extra access. I don't always like the limitations, but I can at least appreciate the multitude of reasons why they're in place. Every photographer loves the chance to stay the extra songs, but sometimes deadlines don't allow, and most of the time that's just not an option.. be it the band protecting their non sweaty image, security needing the control of the pit, the mere time factor for deadlines, or the possibility that the venue and artist are respecting the fans that paid instead of making allowances for photographers who didn't.

[chrisdscott]

Wow, relative to a lot of you guys, I'm a new arrival on the scene of concert photography. I haven't quite shot a dozen different shows yet, but I should break 20 by the end of the year.
My initial thought is that I'm amazed that such a post against the "3 song rule" even exists. Seems like the guys that are against it have almost taken things for granted. As a house photographer, I serve at the pleasure of the venue. There are times that I don't even get approved for a show. The times that I am approved, I am granted the opportunity to photograph with my DSLR (that they prevent all ticketholders from bringing in) in an atmosphere of excitement. I get a rare opportunity to capture the band enjoying what they do, the audience enjoying the show and I get the adrenaline rush of doing what I enjoy in a situation that few others get the chance to do.
I am very thankful every time I get to go, and get a complete euphoric high that takes hours to come down off of. It may be that I am new to it, but it seems like some of the guys on this conversation have gotten jaded and maybe need to move onto a different aspect of photography. Three songs works for me.
Taylor Swift would only allow the 2nd and 3rd song, the first song was her big radio rotation song (name escapes me) and was dazzling to watch. My trigger finger itched, but I was ready when the first song was over. That being said, three songs works, because I don't know if I had enough stamina for more than 3 songs. Dave Matthews was three songs, but those seemed to go on forever. I was exhausted after that gig.
My question is, if three-songs is a problem, what are you in it for? Try wedding photography where you have to be "on" for 12-14 hours. That long enough for you?

[narlus]

a lot of it depends on the band (and to some degree, the lighting director)...for a fair portion, what you can get in the 1st three wouldn't be all that much different had you been able to shoot the whole show.

then again, shooting the whole show allows you to capture some stuff you wouldn't be able to under the 1st and out conditions...for instance, from last Saturday (the Jesus Lizard...finest live band ever in the history of music... saw 'em three times back in the early 90s and twice on their reunion tour which is wrapping up):

yes, that's the singer
http://narlus.zenfolio.com/img/v7/p160263277-4.jpg

David kept his pants on...but just barely
http://narlus.zenfolio.com/img/v7/p227968602-4.jpg

[bacchanal]

See, this is why I shoot in ****ty dive bars. The only thing I have to worry about is keeping the PBR off of my camera.

[constrict]

26 members going strong...lol.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=103784116547&ref=ts

[DDCSD]

:) :)

[Nouks]

I'm not against the three-song rule. Anyone not able to shoot a band in 3 songs should not take photos at that bands, but do some practicing first.

I AM against bands, light technicians, venues and tour managers who first tell you you've got 3 songs to shoot and then don't give you the proper ability to shoot that band in that 3 songs. That's just photographer-nagging.

[BJWOK]

that facebook page is somewhat of a silly idea. a lot of the venues i shoot in are on my facebook and if the issue was really as large as what some have said here, it would be better to talk directly to them as opposed to creating yet another silly facebook group. when did making a facebook group for the slightest thing that you disagree with become the answer?

shoot the first three songs, unless you are with the band - then shoot whatever they want you to. easy.

[Village_Idiot]

I ended up being the only photographer at a show on Sunday and they said I had access to shoot the whole set. After the third song, I really felt I had everything I needed and ended up leaving.

[narlus]

I'm not against the three-song rule. Anyone not able to shoot a band in 3 songs should not take photos at that bands, but do some practicing first.

i don't think that's the point...at least i don't think that Constrict needs more practice :p

i think the point is that more unique opportunities unfold after the 1st three, and a lot of the times it depends on the band. i've been at shoots where 1 song was more than enough. other times, i'm glad i was able to shoot the whole show (usually shows where there is no photo pit, so getting different angles takes time, patience, and courtesy).

[nctrnl]

Honestly, 3 songs is more than enough. I've never gotten to the end of the three songs and thought, 'damn, if I could just keep shooting...'. I feel like its their show, they get to decide what gets shot.

I did like how Incubus did it though. Their 3 songs were 4,5,6. That allowed Brandon to get nice and warmed up.

[DDCSD]

I did like how Incubus did it though. Their 3 songs were 4,5,6. That allowed Brandon to get nice and warmed up.


That would be nice, since most bands don't even turn the lights on until the middle of song 2.

[nctrnl]

That would be nice, since most bands don't even turn the lights on until the middle of song 2.

Yeah, it allowed Brandon Boyd to get all worked up so the pics just have a better emotion to them.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nctrnl/sets/72157621671552533/

[blackshadow]

It's not always three songs (although mostly it is).

Last year when I was shooting Sinead O'Connor at a festival all the photographers left the pit after three songs - the publicist came and found us and told us Sinead's tour manager would love us back in the pit if we felt like it.

Shooting The Saints earlier this year their publicist was awesome - we were welcome to stay in the pit, shoot from side/back stage and he made sure we were well hydrated with water, beer or whatever. That's the way it should be!

[nctrnl]

It's not always three songs (although mostly it is).

Last year when I was shooting Sinead O'Connor at a festival all the photographers left the pit after three songs - the publicist came and found us and told us Sinead's tour manager would love us back in the pit if we felt like it.

Shooting The Saints earlier this year their publicist was awesome - we were welcome to stay in the pit, shoot from side/back stage and he made sure we were well hydrated with water, beer or whatever. That's the way it should be!

Heck yeah, that's definitely a best-case scenario. Nothing better than being treated like an asset rather than a liability...

[kmb]

shoot the first three songs, unless you are with the band - then shoot whatever they want you to. easy.

Eh... I'm with the band, shooting whatever I want. Even easier. Only requirement is mutual trust and respect between me and the band.

In any case, I guess I'm against the three-song rule in the sense that I no more do shows that are restricted like that (unless I need the money I get from magazines, which I often do not since I have a day job).

It's so much more fun documenting full gigs, backstage, on-the-road. And probably anybody who has a half-decent portfolio can do this, just choose a band that will allow you to do so. Small bands with a cult following are a great choice.

By the way, I've never shot a concert for a magazine/newspaper with a publishing deadline for that night - this is because they'll write a review, and obviously the writer does not have time to write anything before the deadline as it is typically before the show ends. I'm not claiming that this is the deal for all newspapers, of course.

In any case, for me - somebody who aims to be an artist rather than magazine photographer - doing big 3-song gigs seems just stupid. The large venues typically allows you to take shots from very restricted angles (compared to smaller clubs), and you get to do this when the artist gets warmed up.

And of course, now they increasingly make you sign a contract that says you cannot use the pictures in any way other than once for the publication. So that's a waste of time if I'm aiming to do an exhibition, for example.

It may be true that some people will give you more respect for having shot big-name bands for three songs at a time, but I say f*** that. I want to be respected for my creativity, vision and passion, not who I shoot.

Not that I'd spit on a proposal to do a tour documentary of a big band, but that's different than photographing them for three songs.

[skifurthur]

Eh... I'm with the band, shooting whatever I want. Even easier. Only requirement is mutual trust and respect between me and the band.

Well said. The trust between artist and artist is essential for that scenario to work well.

In any case, I guess I'm against the three-song rule in the sense that I no more do shows that are restricted like that (unless I need the money I get from magazines, which I often do not since I have a day job).

It's so much more fun documenting full gigs, backstage, on-the-road. And probably anybody who has a half-decent portfolio can do this, just choose a band that will allow you to do so. Small bands with a cult following are a great choice.

It is more fun doing that. Since my only source of income is performing arts photography, I don't always have this luxury. My job is to produce what the client wants and needs. Sometimes I need to communicate to them what they need and how and what I need to give it to them.

By the way, I've never shot a concert for a magazine/newspaper with a publishing deadline for that night - this is because they'll write a review, and obviously the writer does not have time to write anything before the deadline as it is typically before the show ends. I'm not claiming that this is the deal for all newspapers, of course.

When I originally posted I was referring to newspapers and wire services who provide photos to daily publications. Deadlines loom large in those instances.

In any case, for me - somebody who aims to be an artist rather than magazine photographer - doing big 3-song gigs seems just stupid. The large venues typically allows you to take shots from very restricted angles (compared to smaller clubs), and you get to do this when the artist gets warmed up.

Since my background is in performing arts, not photography, I have a different perspective on this. Much like the performer(s) on stage, my job is to produce art with the situation I am presented with. Some nights I am on, some nights I am not as on as I would like. Over time I feel that I am on much more often than not. An artist with the consistancy of almost always being on is one that builds a following (clients) who know that they get what they pay for.

And of course, now they increasingly make you sign a contract that says you cannot use the pictures in any way other than once for the publication. So that's a waste of time if I'm aiming to do an exhibition, for example.

I am finding that, at least in the US, that those restrictions are often put in place by the promoter (Live Nation, AEG) who have become more like partners with the band in exchange for some serious money. I have also found that any release is negotiable if you know how to do it. Of course this is easier if you have the band/band management on your side. That take time and the mutual trust that you speak of above.

It may be true that some people will give you more respect for having shot big-name bands for three songs at a time, but I say f*** that. I want to be respected for my creativity, vision and passion, not who I shoot.

Not that I'd spit on a proposal to do a tour documentary of a big band, but that's different than photographing them for three songs.

And that respect is earned by how you present your self, your body of work and how you interact with all of the parties. You have done well in those areas, Kalle. That is why you get the opportunities that you do.

[kmb]

Thanks for the insightful reply.

I might not have stressed this enough in my previous post, but many things certainly depend on whether you're a hobby photographer (who may or may not get some money every now and then), "an artist photographer" (whatever that means), or full time pro (typically a magazine photographer). I shared what I think from the viewpoint of somebody who has a passion for music-related photography but does not have make a living out of it, and I'm guesssing most of the "agains-3-song-rule" crowd fall into this category. I guess the point I'm trying to make that there are other roads to success(*) than trying to get to shoot the shows of the most famous artists.

(*): again, speaking to the crowd who does not do PA photography as their primary income.

[skifurthur]

Just to be clear, I don't like it when I am under a restriction of three songs but I understand why they do it, as per my first post in this topic. I'm lucky in that I, more often than not, do not have that restriction put on me and that is in large part because I pride myself on working with the band towards a mutually constructive goal...whatever that goal may be.

[Rock Photo Star]

Honestly, 3 songs is more than enough. I've never gotten to the end of the three songs and thought, 'damn, if I could just keep shooting...'.

Just shot 24 bands at a music festival this week and many great moments occurred after 3 songs, including leaps/jumps, certain poses/faces, tumbling onto the ground, going to the crowd or jumping in, etc.

Now yes, there were bands that 3 songs pretty much represented all the moves they do and its just repetition from there. That was a minority.

Further, and repeating what I've already agreed, yes, if all the aim is to get shots of a band, then yes, of course 3 songs is enough.

You and others go further to assert that there are not moments that happen after 3 songs that are worth shooting and otherwise are distinctive from what can be captured in the first 3 songs. That is pretty amazing to me. To your credit you just "speak for yourself" and your experience and not try to dictate that such conclusion is to be had by every one else (or otherwise, is the be all, end all), as if you know what every one else's experience is.

If that's your experience, that's your experience. As mentioned, it's not mine and I won't to tell you or presume that your experience or conclusion has to be mine.

As far as explaining why your experience/conclusion is different from mine. I can only think of two logical explanations:

One, you have consistently shot really boring, unimaginative live acts. Is there another explanation?

Or two, the only other thing I can think of is that you don't consider things like leaps/jumps, tumbling to the ground, going or jumping into the crowd, etc. interesting and thus, when and if they happen after 3 songs, you thus don't consider you are missing anything. I would be surprised you thought that way, but like I said, it's another logical explanation to your claim.

Likewise, you and others are entitled to not think such moments are interesting or worthy of capture if they happen after the first three songs. I definitely disagree with that and from the reactions of those that see pics capturing such moments after 3 songs, the "average" person would seem to be on my side.

Are there other logical explanations for are different experience and conclusion? Or is there something I've said that is not logical/reasonable, etc?

[narlus]

i'll add a clause...


how about photographers against the 'only from the barricade' rule?


sometimes it is impossible to adequately convey the stage presence of a band when you are just a few feet from them...even fisheyes and ultrawides aren't sufficient to do this properly. it would be nice to be able to shoot from a bit farther back to get shots of this nature, after you are done w/ shooting in the pit (or make it the shooter's choice, in that you can leave during the 3rd song for this).

i can see some of logistical challenge if a media relations person is trying to keep track of ~10 shooters, and there would be resistance to ceding control to the shooters, but really, what is the inherent harm?

[Rock Photo Star]

i'll add a clause...


how about photographers against the 'only from the barricade' rule?


sometimes it is impossible to adequately convey the stage presence of a band when you are just a few feet from them...even fisheyes and ultrawides aren't sufficient to do this properly. it would be nice to be able to shoot from a bit farther back to get shots of this nature, after you are done w/ shooting in the pit (or make it the shooter's choice, in that you can leave during the 3rd song for this).

i can see some of logistical challenge if a media relations person is trying to keep track of ~10 shooters, and there would be resistance to ceding control to the shooters, but really, what is the inherent harm?

We are in agreement Sir Narlus!

Fact is I've built my reputation in my "circuit" on shots not from the pit and it really shows when all others have are 3/4 body shots of individual band members (and often, just the singer) from shooting up close to the stage from below in the pit.

[TeenPhotog]

We are in agreement Sir Narlus!

Facts is I've built my reputation in my "circuit" on shots not from the pic and it really shows when all others have are 3/4 body shots of individual band members (and often, just the singer) from shooting up close to the stage from below in the pit.

absolutely true.
It's hard to have a style when everyone is shooting from the same spot with no control over lighting, poses, ect.
For me specifically it is even harder, when at the moment, my fast glass collection consists of one prime.
Also in my experience I have been free to roam the venue and shoot as I please. At least, that has been the case at 1000-2000 person venues, not arenas. Of course limited to the 50 1.8 things are tricky, but I try for crowd shots like this http://abramowitzimages.zenfolio.com/img/s8/v9/p1025801734-5.jpg


To continue ranting: I was once given the opportunity to shoot a whole set from the pit rather than three songs and I must say, everyone benefits. I could actually pause and wait for shots, take my time and plan for what I want. This is much better than frantically crawling around other shooters, firing off shots without having the time to really consider setting as much as we would like. For concerts the issue is time (yes equipment is an issue, but I get by with the most elementary of setups). For many other kinds of photography, location limits us. Both of these limitations share a basic principle, without either time or location, you are getting a shot, but not the shot. Photography loses its art. We are relying on the right scene to present itself. And yes I know in many ways I am simplifying, but with concerts, the shooter is not in control and needs either time or location to overcome this. Concert shooters are put in a solid location, but aren't given enough time to take artistic photos. We are not in a position to take photos, but to cover the event.

Phew
Sorry if that contradicts itself or doesn't make sense.
Basically- we should be able to shoot at least a set

and also, we should get sidestage access- why don't we already? Out of luck I have occaisionally ended up onstage, like punch the guitarist in the face onstage, and nothing has happened. I understand not putting photogs on stage, but sidestage would be nice.

[skifurthur]

I see this topic is still going on.

While I agree with narlus about having some alternate shooting angles and positions available, experience has shown me that far too many photographers abuse that accomidation as well. Mostly because photographers block the sightlines of paying attendees. I see many find a spot and then stand in front of people for 5 or more minutes while they find the shot...or not. When I'm allowed to roam, I have my shot in my mind before I even bring my viewfinder to my eye. Rarely will I be in a spot blocking anyone for more than 15 seconds. I was at a show in NYC recently were there were 4 photographers allowed to go past the 3rd song and had free access to the house (I had additional access to backstage but due to the stage set up, never went there). By midshow I was the only photographer who hadn't been removed by security for getting in the way of the paying customers.

Additional access is earned by establishing yourself with the performers and management. What payoff does the band have granting access to sidestage unless there is an existing relationship with them? They have to make sure you don't trip over wiring, get in the way of the performance or start acting like you aren't there for a job. Get it done and get out of the way. You are not the star of the show.

I'm fortunate because I get a lot of access to bigger name acts but I had to put in a lot of dues to prove myself first. Even with Springsteen I have specific rules that I have to deal with and some of those are unspoken. I had to watch and listen to see what they were. The main reason I got that chance was I didn't think it was all about me.

[René Damkot]

how about photographers against the 'only from the barricade' rule?

I hate having to shoot up nostrils. ;)

[MMX]

Honestly, I´m not against the rule.
How many photos of one band do you need to publish? 10? 15? 20?
With suitable equipment, everyone can take 10 good photos in 60-90 minutes. But if you have only 10-15 minutes, then you can show if you are a good photographer or not.
Moreover, have you ever visited a music festival with 40-50 bands? I have, and some photographers were leaving the photopit not after 3, but often after 2 or in the middle of 2nd song. Not because they had to, but because they were satisfied with what they captured. So this rule also makes fair conditions for everyone and doesn´t give an advantage to to those who are crazy enough to spend the whole day in front of the stage.

[constrict]

I'm surprised to see this thread still being bumped, lol. It was not really to be taken this seriously despite my real life frustrations some rules many artists (their management & venues) have regarding photography, not only the three song rule :)

[400dabuser]

I can understand why they want the 3 songs rule, for me it doesn't bother me this allows me to free up much wanted space on my memory card in time for the next act

I don't even care about not using flash, ok when I first started the streets of London, there was a case where I had to, because the venues were so poorly lit, there are only a couple of clubs that really do have good enough lighting as to avoid using flash. I also could shoot as many songs as possible, because the musicians couldn't give a damn. But the 3 songs rules, ok, puts pressure on me to deliver, which I particularly like, otherwise I will end up with a card full of hastily composed photos which no photo editors will want.

So, all in all, I am in favour of the 3 songs rule

[BJWOK]

interesting to hear a bunch of different opinions on this.

i recently interviewed Alison Lee for my site at the launch of her rock n roll photography exhibition and the 3 song rule came up:

http://www.bjwok.com/discussions/alison-lea-on-the-3-song-rule/

interesting answers, pretty much echos my thoughts exactly.

[bacchanal]

interesting to hear a bunch of different opinions on this.

i recently interviewed Alison Lee for my site at the launch of her rock n roll photography exhibition and the 3 song rule came up:

http://www.bjwok.com/discussions/alison-lea-on-the-3-song-rule/

interesting answers, pretty much echos my thoughts exactly.

Ha, cool. I like that she mentions a couple of my favorite artists in the comments...both hard to shoot too.

[narlus]

What about photo releases? How many have you not signed? How many have you altered before signing?

I just ignore them, or I’ll sign a false name. No one checks them at the door.

i know that some people are requiring signed releases faxed to the person handling passes a day or two prior to the show. also, it's been my experience that Live Nation press handlers do check the signatures against the names on their photo pass list pretty carefully...i've seen illegible releases handed back to the shooter w/ the messy handwriting.

Why do you think some bands WOULD allow shooting after the third song from outside the pit?

That’s unusual. Most bands wouldn’t allow that. At Brixton Academy in London I’ve had to put my camera backstage to go and watch the rest of the show, there are lots of rules like that.

in my experience it's more to do w/ the venue rather the band, but also the band probably considers that once shooters are not in the pit, they are not tightly regulated and they don't want fans being inconvenienced by a group of ~10 shooters spread out all over the place.

That said, I would definitely like the option of shooting the 3rd song from the house, rather than just from the pit, but in a lot of cases there is no choice.

[BJWOK]

thanks tim :)

my thoughts are that 3 songs, no flash should definitely be the rule, however there ought to be an amendment that allows shooting from the back of the venue until you have got the long shots you want.

this is simply because these styles of shots are impossible to get from the pit and they do a lot to showcase the amount of people at the show, which is in turn invaluable promotion for both the artist and the venue. (house lights on and a packed floor full of punters taken with a wide lens?)

there are artists who ENCOURAGE this, in my experience it has nothing to do with the venue (perhaps things are different here in oz tho!)

[noxcuses1]

It's hypocritical when an artist puts a rights grab contract in front of a photographer (when the artist is not the client of the photographer) and expects the photographer to hand over the copyright of their work to the artist. Yet musicians are very protective of their intellectual property rights as seen in the case mentioned in the article.
+1.

[BreitlingFan]

I don't have a problem with the three & out rule.

The road manager for Styx told me the reason they have it in place is, and I quote, "After three songs they start lookin' like wet poodles". Hey, that's good enough for me. I wouldn't want my photo taken in such a state, either. That said, they did let me shoot for an entire outdoor show in the Fall, though.

Occasionally, I'll get to shoot an entire show. I shot Eddie Money last night, and there was no restriction on how long I could shoot, or where I could shoot from...

[constrict]

MASTODON, 3 Song Rule, Serious business.

After the first three Mastodon songs: I was about to put my gear away when their uber-professional Tour Manager physically dragged me all the way from the stage to the entrance and tried kicking me out of the venue (which I frequently shoot at and was as the 'house' photographer). At one point he had me in a chokehold. He's was a real homely looking older guy with long dark greyish hair and 'gandelf goatee'. Anyone know who he is?

[narlus]

no.

i've shot Mastodon 4 times and never have had a problem. one time we got to only shoot the last ten minutes, which i thought was kinda cool.

[splithesky]

I've shot Mastodon twice and am about to shoot them a 3rd time next week. I've never had a problem either.

[Jacob Dinesen]

I've shot Mastodon twice and am about to shoot them a 3rd time next week. I've never had a problem either.

Same here; I have taken pictures of them, interviewed them, had beers with them, and erhmm...breakfast with them...great guys and no bull****.

http://jacobdinesen.net/gallery/2005/Mastodon,_Vega,_2005/images/7BBF5775.jpg

[andydunlop]

As a venue manager, tour manager & photographer, I completely agree with the rule.

You are not the most important person at the show, and chances are you never paid for your ticket. Get over yourself if you think you "deserve" to be in there.


Anyway, one of the better bands I've shot would have to be Hayseed Dixie ... they have a very cool rule for photographers. No pictures the first three songs, after that, no restrictions

[BJWOK]

andy, just wondering how do you come to that conclusion? being a venue manager, tour manager and a photographer surely you can see the benefits of a more relaxed stance??

[400dabuser]

I think I have found out why this "three song rule" has come about, there are some performers who are camera shy and can't perform to their best when lenses are stuck in their faces...yes, most are not camera shy, and yet this 3 song rules apply because they felt that it was good enough for every performer

I say that Idlewild lead singer is camera shy, when I was covering a festival they were act, he just wasn't looking at the camera that were pointing at him, I am not a performer (musician) myself, and I am deadly against photos of myself being taken. I just shudder

[90c4]

Regardless of the reasons, if you can't get your shots in 3 songs you should be shooting landscapes. 3 songs is plenty of time.

[narlus]

assuming good light and a pit to move in, yeah.

for club shoots, it's not always that easy.

[TeenPhotog]

Regardless of the reasons, if you can't get your shots in 3 songs you should be shooting landscapes. 3 songs is plenty of time.

Makes sense to me.
Being forced into stopping to enjoy the music is plus for me as well.

My one silly idea that would be too difficult to implement from a logistics standpoint is: the 15 minutes/3 songs of shooting could be in the middle of the set. I think there is often more emotion as a set builds up.

[90c4]

I fully agree but I guess most of the small dark club shows I go to don't have 3 song rules.

assuming good light and a pit to move in, yeah.

for club shoots, it's not always that easy.

[narlus]

I fully agree but I guess most of the small dark club shows I go to don't have 3 song rules.

agree, but i didn't see the term 'rule' in yr first post :D

[400dabuser]

Regardless of the reasons, if you can't get your shots in 3 songs you should be shooting landscapes. 3 songs is plenty of time.


I agree, it is plentiful for me :)

[René Damkot]

and chances are you never paid for your ticket.
So what? Neither did the other people working at the show. I do agree that because the audience paid for their ticket, you shouldn't be in their way more then you have to. Same as other personnel.

Chances are I wouldn't have paid for the ticket if I weren't shooting, simply because I wouldn't have been there. I shoot bands I don't like as often as I shoot bands I do like.
If I really want to see a show, I don't bring a camera, or at least put it away as soon as I can. :mrgreen:

Get over yourself if you think you "deserve" to be in there.
True. But I am there doing my job, and I'd like to do it as good as I can. Without being hampered by restrictions if possible.

No pictures the first three songs, after that, no restrictions
Sounds great :)

[wrecksimple]

If there's a photo pit, then the 3 song rule is fully justifiable... especially at large shows.

I ran into a situation last week where there was a 3 song rule and I had to shoot from the crowd. Now THAT is entirely different, and completely unjust. You can't get good photos from twenty people back, period. Especially in the first three songs. I was in the middle of the crowd after the headliner's third song, packing up my equipment, and security came and yelled at me until I put everything away.

[BJWOK]

i still maintain the type of shots you can get outside the pit should be enough reason to allow at least a couple extra songs after the third from anywhere in the venue.

thankfully, some bands think the same, i recently shot Bliss N Eso and was quite surprised by their email and photo policy which i posted over at my site: http://www.bjwok.com/

[400dabuser]

With DJs like Tiesto, there is a 20minutes rule, the only problem with that is there is nothing really of note to photograph, plus he is hidden behind a desk where all his stuff is....another thing is, he isn't doing much other making the odd facial expression

[TeenPhotog]

I have had that problem with Pretty Lights. When I shot him last, the stage isn't that high of the pit, so I could use his turntables and samplers in the pictures. This time though, as he has become more popular, he is playing a larger venue. The stage is notably higher so I won't have the same opportunities. That's next Wednesday.

[jparniawski]

I llike the 3 song rule...everyone who already said it before me is correct...if you can't get the shots you need in 3 songs, you shouldn't be shooting concerts...I usually never run into any issues with shooting just 3 songs, but 99.9% of the time, I shoot 2.5 songs or so and get out of the pit and get my other/long/etc...shots. You *can* get great shots outside of the pit, if you know what you are doing...and the bands usually love seeing themselves on a stage with a huge crowd in front of them...so you need to get these shots anyway...which you CAN'T get in the pit. Furthermore, i usually NEVER have any problems shooting outside the pit for the rest of the show...where I get the crowd inside the shots.

[DONKEYTROLL]

I understand the rule etc, but its annoying when you go and shoot someone like Linkin Park who's three songs total about 8 minutes max!

Also, I recently shot the Fun Loving Criminals, and they demanded that all togs only shot 3...the only problem was that there was no press pit or barrier, so when I had to leave, the guy with the lumix next to me at the front row of the crowd, continued to shoot them...

Having shot large festivals, I understand the ruling, especially when there are 40 or more photographers in the pit at once

[neonlazer]

I can see this being a good rule in certain situations were your blocking the view of the audience for too long. I am shooting my first large festival tomorrow(possibly 8-10k, like 10 bands back to back) and as far as i know, me and another guy(who i think is a professional) are in charge of taking pictures...there will be barricades in front of the stage which allows us to take pics without fighting the crowd. I am hoping there is enough room to kneel in front of the barricades cause I am not one to block anyones view. If that is possible i stay there a while..but if i must stand and block someone..i would def stay up long enough to get my shot and get out of the way...it should be fun!

[90c4]

At a festival the pit is going to be deep and the stage is going to be high, so you likely won't be blocking anyone's view

[Jumpcut]

I'm an amateur photographer but a professional television cameraman. I have shot many concerts for tv news. One of the reasons I can think of for the three song rule is due to copyright reasons and video/audio recording. Bands dont want bootleg videos and CD's being sold by someone who was there with a 'tv camera'. Just to make it easier for the organisers they apply the rule across the board.

It sucks for photographers, but it also sucks for tv people. It can be very hard to shoot a news story with the many various shots and cutaways within a 2 or 3 song period. Frankly, I'd love to shoot stills in a lot of these situations.

[narlus]

most of the video releases i've seen (and i'll be honest, i don't shoot video and don't see that many, unless it's also covered on the photo release) only allows a portion ~(30-60 seconds) of a song, enough to give a flavor of the performance for a TV news broadcast, but not capturing the entirety of a single song.

[blackshadow]

I understand the rule etc, but its annoying when you go and shoot someone like Linkin Park who's three songs total about 8 minutes max!


What's even more annoying is that people actually want to shoot Linkin Park with anything other than a large calibre weapon.

[BJWOK]

What's even more annoying is that people actually want to shoot Linkin Park with anything other than a large calibre weapon.

haha! i shot them on Thursday Richard and I'm hearing you loud and clear!! hahah

[TeenPhotog]

What's even more annoying is that people actually want to shoot Linkin Park with anything other than a large calibre weapon.

bw!

Absolutely bw!

[Gipetto]

The three song rule isn't horrible, in my opinion. As mentioned before (and hopefully not linked to yet) is the bands trying to claim rights to the photos. Fortunately there are people willing to push back on that (http://stlmusicpress.com/news/?p=3278). Kudos to him. I probably would have just turned down the show.

[silhouettedreams]

I myself have never actually shot any shows but I would love to do so.
I do, however, frequently go to shows at places like the HOB and venues that are even smaller than that. I will honestly say that those photographing the band do sometime get in the way. I never complain though because I would love to be them; to be the one photographing my favorite band. I've never seen anybody in the photo pit be "unprofessional" or impolite though.
I understand both sides to the argument. I see why people would get upset over only being allowed to shoot 3 songs, but I also see why there is such a limit.

[Flashyphotos]

3 at the start and the Encore/Finale is fine, never needed more than that, use the time between to edit/wire as required, (Maybe I am getting old but more than that would normally drive me nuts anyway)!.

[90c4]

Slightly off topic, but this makes three songs seem like an eternity - http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/01/04/insanely-awesome-solar-eclipse-picture/

[theshowlastnight]

I'm also against this 3 song bull****.

They're just getting started, and you've gotta put the camera away. That's an awesome way to catch the mood of a concert :rofl:

Typically, it's the larger bands that are worried about it. WHen I get to shoot a full concert, I don't just hang out against the stage. I shoot it from tons of different vantage points. Joe Satriani (dickbag) had the photographers escorted out, after the 3 songs. Which we were only allowed to shoot from two angles. :ugh2: I won't ever request his show again.

[blackshadow]

I'm also against this 3 song bull****.

They're just getting started, and you've gotta put the camera away. That's an awesome way to catch the mood of a concert :rofl:

Typically, it's the larger bands that are worried about it. WHen I get to shoot a full concert, I don't just hang out against the stage. I shoot it from tons of different vantage points. Joe Satriani (dickbag) had the photographers escorted out, after the 3 songs. Which we were only allowed to shoot from two angles. :ugh2: I won't ever request his show again.

That's standard practice for a lot of acts. If you're gonna moan about it then rock n roll photography probably isn't for you.

[mdflowe]

That's standard practice for a lot of acts. If you're gonna moan about it then rock n roll photography probably isn't for you.

You hit that one right on the head, Blackshadow ... couldn't agree with you more.

Joe Satriani is a great guy and exceptional performer ... to call him a "dickbag" is totally inappropriate, especially if you were there on his ticket/pass ... totally unprofessional. His management team sets the rules on the media access so if you have an issue about it ... curse them.

I have shot Joe on several occasions over the last 15 years. After the 3-songs in the pit I generally move about to different spots. It helps in my situation that I have known him for this long. Since I haven't publicly called him a "dickbag", I usually get an All-Access Pass instead of a Photo Pass, which grants me the freedom to move about both onstage and off.

You've gotta take the bad with good on what you can and can't shoot at any concert to develop a level of trust within the industry to garner more access in the future with any act that comes your way.

ROCK ON!
-Michael

[theshowlastnight]

You hit that one right on the head, Blackshadow ... couldn't agree with you more.

Joe Satriani is a great guy and exceptional performer ... to call him a "dickbag" is totally inappropriate, especially if you were there on his ticket/pass ... totally unprofessional. His management team sets the rules on the media access so if you have an issue about it ... curse them.

I have shot Joe on several occasions over the last 15 years. After the 3-songs in the pit I generally move about to different spots. It helps in my situation that I have known him for this long. Since I haven't publicly called him a "dickbag", I usually get an All-Access Pass instead of a Photo Pass, which grants me the freedom to move about both onstage and off.

You've gotta take the bad with good on what you can and can't shoot at any concert to develop a level of trust within the industry to garner more access in the future with any act that comes your way.

ROCK ON!
-Michael

Yes, that was a bit of venting from me after a bunch of beers. :o

3 songs is tough for me. Most of my lenses are primes, so I'm switching a lot (usually 3x per location). I'm lucky to have a minute & a half with each lens :o

And the dickbag comment was due to the fact that photogs had to leave after the 3 songs. Never before have I dealt with that.

[blackshadow]

Yes, that was a bit of venting from me after a bunch of beers. :o

3 songs is tough for me. Most of my lenses are primes, so I'm switching a lot (usually 3x per location). I'm lucky to have a minute & a half with each lens :o

And the dickbag comment was due to the fact that photogs had to leave after the 3 songs. Never before have I dealt with that.

Fact is you need to get used to it, sometimes you're lucky to get one song from the soundboard and then out. If you can't handle that concert photography isn't for you.

Blaming a bunch of beers for your vent is unprofessional and irresponsible - I love beers (and drinks in general) but I can hold my tongue.

Vents such as yours make it harder for all other photographers, it's very easy for artists, publicists and TMs to take a bad experience with one photographer and tar everyone with the same brush.

[mdflowe]

Yes, that was a bit of venting from me after a bunch of beers. :o

3 songs is tough for me. Most of my lenses are primes, so I'm switching a lot (usually 3x per location). I'm lucky to have a minute & a half with each lens :o

And the dickbag comment was due to the fact that photogs had to leave after the 3 songs. Never before have I dealt with that.

Shame on beer. Beer is bad. bw!

The best thing you can do with concert shooting is to use two or three zoom lenses. Multiple bodies even better. Every thread you read on here for concerts come to that same conclusion.

If you have to use primes stick with one and shoot on the largest resolution and quality you have available and then crop the image in final process. I've tried the prime usage way back in the beginning(30 years ago) and quickly learned that zooms are the best in that situation ... especially in the 3-song limitation. Primes are for when you have unlimited access and time. The best two lenses for concerts, especially in the pit, are 24-70mm(or 24-105mm) and 70-200mm. The faster the better.

The reason they make photogs leave ... you're there on a free pass. You're entitled to shoot three songs for professional purpose or assignment. You're not guaranteed to see a free full length concert on that pass or privilege. Most likely if you had bought a ticket you could have gone to your seat and enjoyed the show, but don't even think about pulling your camera out back there ... that's a one way trip to the parking lot with no refund.

The key thing to remember is the three song access is a privilege, not a right. You're a guest of the band under that set of rules. Now if you know the band it can be a whole different story and set of rules.

ROCK ON, Bro!

[narlus]

If you have to use primes stick with one and shoot on the largest resolution and quality you have available and then crop the image in final process. I've tried the prime usage way back in the beginning(30 years ago) and quickly learned that zooms are the best in that situation ... especially in the 3-song limitation. Primes are for when you have unlimited access and time. The best two lenses for concerts, especially in the pit, are 24-70mm(or 24-105mm) and 70-200mm. The faster the better.

having two bodies and two f/2.8 zooms is the de facto solution for the 3 song restriction, but i always make sure i've got either a 50 or 85 prime in my bag as well. i've been burned by low light shows in the past, even w/ bigger names, and sometimes you really do need a prime.

[bbgeekchic]

While I didnt have time to read through this entire post, which I usually do... I have been covering events/major concerts for about 4 years now. Those four years I am talking as press, not just a happy concert go'er.
I am ALWAYS no more than 5 feet from the stage if not right up against it. Here in MN crowd surfing still happens a LOT. At the Alice Cooper/Rob Zombie concert I worked on, I walked away with a cracked rib and neck injury (damn crowd surfers). They were CRAZY at the Nickleback concert when Avenged Sevenfold came out.
I started out using my BlackBerry smartphone camera (laugh if you want but many thought they were professional photos :/ ) I then moved on the an expensive Nikon P&S, you would think I'd remember which one but as much as I go through electronics for my business I test and review HUNDREDS of electronics a year.
Currently I have a Pentax and Canon SLR film based and a Canon Rebel xs.
I have had to deal with the 3 songs rule, but not too often. It depends on the venue and the artist. More often than not I can make it through the entire concert, but as mentioned above do you really need THAT many concert photos? I find that I end up with hundreds of what seems like the same pose depending on the artist and how crazy they get.

[TeenPhotog]

While I didnt have time to read through this entire post, which I usually do... I have been covering events/major concerts for about 4 years now. Those four years I am talking as press, not just a happy concert go'er.

I am ALWAYS no more than 5 feet from the stage if not right up against it.
I started out using my BlackBerry smartphone camera (laugh if you want but many thought they were professional photos :/ )

Let's see some Blackberry shots.

[BJWOK]

...the three song access is a privilege, not a right.

no, it's neither of those.

it's part of our job.

do train guards riding the subway all day act as tho it's a privilege to be getting free travel? no, it's necessary for their job.

do air hostesses view flying all over the world as a privilege? no, it's a necessary part of their job.

exactly the same scenario here.

[bbgeekchic]

I will find them later. Although people who thought they were from a professional camera....I'm thinking were blinded by the concert lights :P because there is NO WAY they would be considered "that" great in my eyes. Maybe the average person would think that, but anyone who has a keen eye for quality photography would notice the difference.
So you wont be hurting my feelings any when I post them. :P I know they were taken with a camera less then 10 megapixels.

[mdflowe]

no, it's neither of those.

it's part of our job.

do train guards riding the subway all day act as tho it's a privilege to be getting free travel? no, it's necessary for their job.

do air hostesses view flying all over the world as a privilege? no, it's a necessary part of their job.

exactly the same scenario here.

There are many definitions for the word Privilege, the primary one being ...

Privilege: A benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most.

It being a part of your job is a privilege. A person in the stage pit at a concert is being given the privilege to shoot inside the pit while others are not granted access.

Your example of the train guard and airline stewardess is incorrect in comparison, because their work is part of their job. But as a side note to that ... they do get free travel privileges on their off time on their jobs mode of transportation because they work for that said company. My brother has worked for an Airline for 10 years now and even I get special privilege of a price break for being a family member of an employee.

Where does it say a photographer/photojournalist has absolute access to a concert or stage pit because it is their job. For you to be in the venue you were granted a privilege by the band or its management to be there. Your job can be done from any location in that venue, but to gain access to the stage pit you must have the privilege of a pass that allows you entry to such pit.

If you actually work and tour with the band then yes, it's part of your job. If you do not work for the band then yes, you are being granted a privilege to shoot within the confines of the venue to fulfill your job assignment.

ROCK On!

[BJWOK]

Your example of the train guard and airline stewardess is incorrect in comparison, because their work is part of their job.

?? did i miss something there ??

i completely disagree.

the band wants the best pics of them regardless of where they are going to appear (print, web, music blog, the bands website whatever) - they want their image to reflect a true comparison of who they are and how the show went down.

the only person to judge where the best vantage point to shoot the show from is the photog - as that is our job. and that is what we know better than anyone else.

being able to get those shots from the pit is absolutely no different than a sound guy being at the back (or halfway back if a large venue) so he can hear the best possible acoustics and mix correctly and hence do his job at the best of his ability.

sure, he could mix from side of stage, but we all know that will end up in a bias mix.

exactly the same for photogs, we can get shots from anywhere - sometimes the pit is not even the best place to shoot from (GWAR anyone?), whey should anyone else tell us where the best spot to shoot is from?

next you are going to tell me the sound guy has the privilege to watch the show for free.

c'mon man!

[mdflowe]

?? did i miss something there ??

i completely disagree.

the band wants the best pics of them regardless of where they are going to appear (print, web, music blog, the bands website whatever) - they want their image to reflect a true comparison of who they are and how the show went down.

the only person to judge where the best vantage point to shoot the show from is the photog - as that is our job. and that is what we know better than anyone else.

being able to get those shots from the pit is absolutely no different than a sound guy being at the back (or halfway back if a large venue) so he can hear the best possible acoustics and mix correctly and hence do his job at the best of his ability.

sure, he could mix from side of stage, but we all know that will end up in a bias mix.

exactly the same for photogs, we can get shots from anywhere - sometimes the pit is not even the best place to shoot from (GWAR anyone?), whey should anyone else tell us where the best spot to shoot is from?

next you are going to tell me the sound guy has the privilege to watch the show for free.

c'mon man!

How did you get in the venue to do your job? A pass from the band was given to you as a privilege to do your job, right? Do you just walk on in free willy and go about the place shooting with no one challenging your presence at all? Or does the pass around your neck grant you unencumbered access??

Unless you are on the payroll of the band, or venue, you have been granted a privilege to be inside that venue to do your job. It obviously has nothing to do with the sound guy, light tech, or anyone else on the band/venue payroll and kind of silly to make any such comparison.

How can you possibly not understand that?? If you are there under the employ of another entity such as a newspaper or such, even if it is your job, then you are there on the privilege granted to such media sources by the band/venue.

Seriously ... how can you possibly not understand that??

[BJWOK]

privilege has nothing to do with work mate.

you have a job to do, you do it.

a pass around your neck, regardless of how you got it is a quick way for anyone that needs to know that, yes, you are legit.

you are on a payroll. doesn't matter who it's from. the band, the venue, the local rag, local radio, whatever. it's your job to shoot the show, so you get in and do it the best you can. often that involves NOT shooting from the pit.

[mdflowe]

privilege has nothing to do with work mate.

you have a job to do, you do it.

a pass around your neck, regardless of how you got it is a quick way for anyone that needs to know that, yes, you are legit.

you are on a payroll. doesn't matter who it's from. the band, the venue, the local rag, local radio, whatever. it's your job to shoot the show, so you get in and do it the best you can. often that involves NOT shooting from the pit.

I still think you need to go read the many definitions of the word privilege to get a better grasp of the subject. Look it up in the dictionary. Privilege is a given/earned right of access even if it means you're doing a job.

Just what the heck do you think the word privilege means??

Access to the event is a privilege granted to you by the band to complete your job within the confines of the venue they are performing in if you are from the local rag, local radio, or whatever. There is no given right to the media to show up and just shoot a band in concert without permission from that band or venue. You have to get permission. Once granted permission you ARE there on a privilege granted to media representatives to accomplish their jobs. If you are physically hired by the band to be there shooting then yes, you are doing your job and yes, its a privilege to do the work and be paid for it.

C'mon, get a better grasp on the concept of that single word.

[mdflowe]

BJWOK,

You've got some great work on your site ... Did you ever get the chance to shoot Billy Thorpe before he passed away

I got to meet him a few times when he toured over here back in the 80s. He was always very kind to me. We stayed in contact right up to his passing. I never got the chance to shoot him though. I've got some cherished mementos he sent me a few months before he did pass.

[BJWOK]

i think privilege in the context of being "allowed" to shoot from the pit area is where we've gone slightly off topic.

i'm against the 3 song rule in that i don't agree we should be limited to shooting ONLY three songs from the pit. my thoughts are we should be able to shoot the three from the pit then move to the back of the room to get long shots (the kind that are physically not possible from the pit) from anywhere in the venue that is going to cover that particular shot best.

i don't think having access to the pit to shoot close, wide shots is any more of a privilege than having access to the back of the room to shoot long, tight shots. it's all a necessary part of the job.

now, stage access is another thing altogether - and to get it, you invariably need to know the band.

thanks for the nice word re my site :) no, i never got to shoot billy thorpe :(

[mdflowe]

i think privilege in the context of being "allowed" to shoot from the pit area is where we've gone slightly off topic.

i'm against the 3 song rule in that i don't agree we should be limited to shooting ONLY three songs from the pit. my thoughts are we should be able to shoot the three from the pit then move to the back of the room to get long shots (the kind that are physically not possible from the pit) from anywhere in the venue that is going to cover that particular shot best.

i don't think having access to the pit to shoot close, wide shots is any more of a privilege than having access to the back of the room to shoot long, tight shots. it's all a necessary part of the job.

now, stage access is another thing altogether - and to get it, you invariably need to know the band.

thanks for the nice word re my site :) no, i never got to shoot billy thorpe :(

Privilege is another definition for being "allowed". Being allowed to shoot in the pit for three songs, while everyone else in the crowd in not allowed in the pit to shoot. The word "allowed" can be replaced by the word privilege/privileged and it means the exact same thing. If if we change the words to say "back of the room" instead of pit ... it results the same.

I agree with many that dislike the three song rule. In the 30+ years of shooting bands I've garnered the privilege to be able to move about and shoot whatever I want, wherever I want from within the venue. This usually involves a laminated All Access pass. It took some time to receive that privilege through years of working behind the scenes with many acts.

The industry standard is three songs from the pit because they lack control of your presence once out of the pit. In most cases they don't have the assigned personnel to escort you to monitor lets say three more songs from the back of the room. They have absolute control of the stage and surrounding area, like the pit. I know that reasoning from doing work as a stage manager for the same 30+ years of shooting.

It wouldn't hurt to present the question to the band production office, or the person granting you the pass, to shoot a song or two from the back. In some cases they make an exception. As you say previously, you are there to do a job. That job can be accomplished within three songs thus there is no reason to stay for the remainder of the two hour show and get a full concert experience for free(and being paid to be there) while the audience has paid a $100+/- for a ticket. From the three song access you can accomplish over 100++ images to select the one or two single image(s) that will appear in the media. That is another reason for the rule ... the one shot in the paper next day is more than enough. We both know the media doesn't care for the wide venue shot in most cases, but they do want those glamorous close-ups of the Rock Star.

Today many photographers now offer their work shot while on that job on personal websites or eBay for personal profit and no longer for the job of which the person was allowed access to the show for. The band mentality(managers) doesn't mind the one or two shots you do that get the media printing ... it helps promote the current tour. But when someone allowed in on a media pass starts selling $50-100 prints to the public the band is missing their cut of the profit. The managers then get upset because they are missing out on their cut. That is what a lot of it boils down to ... some corporate entity not getting their cut.

I've been in the meetings and conversations of these bands and their management bitching about the after sales by media employed photographers and the sales of those prints. If it was up to them they would sue every one doing it. Hence the catch-22 and its results ... bad press. So the industry turns a blind eye to it and goes on. If all these personal sales sites didn't exist I think there would be a different "shooting rule" for the shows.

Back before the rule existed many photographers had unlimited access to the shows and it was never heard of that a photographer was selling prints on the side as it was a big no-no then. Now with the internet and worldly access like today everyone can buy and sell at the snap of a finger. Thus creating a need in the corporate mentality of the touring manager to keep the access limitation of three songs.

ROCK On!

[theshowlastnight]

i think privilege in the context of being "allowed" to shoot from the pit area is where we've gone slightly off topic.

i'm against the 3 song rule in that i don't agree we should be limited to shooting ONLY three songs from the pit. my thoughts are we should be able to shoot the three from the pit then move to the back of the room to get long shots (the kind that are physically not possible from the pit) from anywhere in the venue that is going to cover that particular shot best.

i don't think having access to the pit to shoot close, wide shots is any more of a privilege than having access to the back of the room to shoot long, tight shots. it's all a necessary part of the job.

now, stage access is another thing altogether - and to get it, you invariably need to know the band.

thanks for the nice word re my site :) no, i never got to shoot billy thorpe :(

I agree here. I'm fine with doing the 3 songs from a pit - but there really should be some time allotted to get some longer shots. Out of everyone's way.

There was a girl at the Old 97's/Langhorne Slim concert I was at last week that set up shop right dead center on the stage and didn't move until the entire concert was over.

Shooting her 75-300 4.5-5.6 for a full two hours. UGH.