The Assault on Professional Concert Photography Finally Comes Into Focus

– – – – – – – – – – –
Often, much of what happens via the cause of Saving Country Music doesn’t make it into article form, nor is it offered up for public consumption via social media. These behind-the-scenes activities could include mentoring artists, working with venue owners and promoters to make connections or open doors, or championing issues that writing articles about just is not an effective tool for enacting change in the marketplace, and can even be detrimental to the cause if the timing is not right.
It’s in this behind-the-scenes capacity that for the majority of 2017, Saving Country Music has been engaged in a private war against the increasingly intrusive restrictions being placed upon music journalists—and photographers especially—who take time out of their evenings and weekends, leave their families at home, and often pay their own expenses with little or no financial return, to cover live music events and offer what amounts to free promotion for the artists and the venue.
Now I know what you’re thinking; one of the perks of being a music journalist or a photographer is that you get into concerts for free, and often get better access to artists and special areas than the general public. That may be true, sometimes, and that is the reason the general public never has much sympathy when music journalists begin to complain about access.
But if you’re truly a professional journalist, access just comes with the territory. It is a necessary tool to do your job. Yes, there usually is a passion for music there if you choose to get into the business of covering live music events, so getting into concerts for free can be a reward. But often the reward is much more marginal than it may appear from the outside looking in. As a journalist, you attend music events to work, and this is your priority above any personal enjoyment. It is often challenging and stressful, especially since the deadlines for covering live events are much tighter compared to other topics. Photographers and journalists, even in part-time or non-paid situations, still are doing a professional task, and one that is often of great value to the artists, fans, venues, and the public.
This war that Saving Country Music had been waging came to a head when I was kicked out of a Jason Isbell concert at the Moody Theatre in downtown Austin after three songs on July 14th, 2017. Though similar restrictions had reared their head many times before this incident, this is when it occurred to me quite personally that journalists were quickly losing their rights to cover events in public spaces, and something needed to be done.
Without going into great detail, I had secured what I believed to be press credentials which would allow me to attend the Jason Isbell show to review it for Saving Country Music, as well as shoot photographs during the the first three songs of the concert that I could then use in the review. Often, photographers are given this “three song rule” when shooting concerts (more on this soon), and so that was not out of the ordinary. The fact that I was working as a print journalist playing double duty by shooting my own photographs was irrelevant to the the ACL Live staff. Basically it was, “Thanks for taking time out of your evening, driving downtown, paying $15 for parking to come and promote our venue and the performing artist, now get out!”
If I wanted to remain in the building, I needed a ticket. If I wanted a ticket, I would have to purchase one. I couldn’t purchase a ticket because the show was sold out. And even if I could have purchased a ticket, I would also have to take my photography equipment and stow it in my vehicle, because I could not be trusted to not take photographs for the rest of the show. So along with half a dozen other photographers, I was personally escorted from the venue after three songs. The simple gesture of being allowed to partake in the same show you had taken from your evening to work was not extended to any of the photographers. So even that perk of the often thankless profession of concert photography wasn’t present.
It wasn’t even about the lack of space at the back wall of the floor level for the photographers to stand at, or fire code restrictions. It was simply part of the venue’s effort to keep control. The photographers were escorted out to make sure no worker bees got a free peep at the presentation, and because they couldn’t be trusted to keep their lens caps on throughout the show, even though they were all credentialed and vetted professionals.
It wasn’t Jason Isbell’s fault whatsoever that I personally was unable to attend his concert to share my experience with readers. Most often these restrictions come from managers, publicists, and venues. One reason I chose to start Saving Country Music a decade ago was from the principle that music sounds better when it is shared. Unfortunately, this effort was taken away.
But this was just one experience of many in 2017 where Saving Country Music was denied access, and seeing a dramatically-increasing trend arising throughout the industry, I started sending emails to publicists and venues challenging their increasingly intrusive efforts to restrict or eliminate journalists and photographers from covering events. To a man (and woman), the response to Saving Country Music’s queries and concerns was, “We’re not aware of any new restrictions or emerging trends affecting journalists and photographers,” despite overwhelming feedback from colleagues in the business complaining about similar experiences.
Unfortunately though, many of those colleagues did not want to go public, because you complain too loud and the public thinks you’re ungrateful for the perks of covering concerts, or perhaps you’ll find yourself falling further out of favor with the venues, publicists, managers, and artists who hold the ultimate say so on if you’ll be allowed to cover live events. So this war had to be waged in private, and uphill.
This all changed when a well-known professional Shutterstock photographer named Chelsea Lauren was purposely and violently kicked in the face by the frontman of Queens of the Stone Age, Josh Homme, at the KROQ Almost Acoustic Christmas show Saturday, December 9th as Lauren worked in the photographer’s pit of the concert at the The Forum in Los Angeles. The incident was caught on video (see below), and Chelsea Lauren was transported to the hospital with face and head injuries, spending the rest of the evening in the ER. New reports say that Josh Homme also kicked a security guard in the photographer’s pit that night. Homme has since apologized, but not before Queens of the Stone Age were barred from performing on Ellen on Thursday (12-14) due to the incident, and Homme was fired from a BBC children’s show Bedtime Stories. Chelsea Lauren says she is pressing charges.
Though isolated, the incident has gone to symbolize the flippancy, and in this case, sometimes violent rebuke that concert journalists and photographers are being dealt with in 2017. In a year when much has been made about the treatment of the media in the political forum—being denied access and impugned unfairly, especially from President Trump—many of the same artists who protest against the restriction of press and free speech are themselves demanding the press and photographers be restricted or barred from access from the public spaces they perform in, or vetted by their own publicists and managers before content can be posted by what are supposed to be impartial and independent members of the media.
This came into even clearer focus when on the next day of the Almost Acoustic Christmas event in Los Angeles, Brandon Flowers, the frontman of The Killers, invited the house photographer Rob Loud to join him on stage, telling him in front of the crowd, “I’m not going to kick you in the face, it’s ok. I just want to tell you to tell all your friends that you’re welcome here, and at Killers concerts you’re safe and respected.”
Brandon Flowers then hugged the photographer and said, “They make us look good — we need to take care of these people.”
But this all came across as very disingenuous from the only band who performed on the night who also demanded that nearly all photographers except the ones touring and working with the band be escorted out of the pit, and told not to shoot the set—a restriction The Killers have had in place for years covering all public appearances.
“It didn’t feel supportive coming from someone who prevents us from doing our job as press,” professional photographer Amy Harris told Billboard after the incident. “It is extremely frustrating for media professional photographers to travel to and shoot shows and festivals for their respective outlets, and not be able to cover the headlining acts. The artists don’t seem to care about press.”
Longtime LA Photographer Paul Hebert told Billboard, “If you dissect Brandon’s comments, they are comical. He was the only artist that weekend that doesn’t allow himself to be photographed.” Hebert also added that it is very difficult for photographers to sell their photography work when they’re not allowed to shoot the headliner, and said that in LA, other bands and artists are notorious for mistreating photographers, including Ivan Moody from Five Finger Death Punch who regularly pours water on the journalists in the photo pit, while others purposely spit on photographers as they work the concert.
Billboard also concludes, “With the explosion of social media, professional photographers and wires services have been crowded out of the photo pit by social media influencers, Twitter celebrities and Instagrammers who are credentialed to shot concerts with their phones alongside pro photographers with expensive lenses and bulky equipment. Veteran photographers also face increased pressure from acts to give up their copyrights on photos, often through complicated legal waivers that hand ownership of the images to the artists, and require artist approval before images are used.”
This issue should also not be conflated with the desire of some performers, including Jason Isbell, to not allow audience members to take pictures or video with their phones. In these cases it’s about wanting the audience to focus more on the moments, and not to obstruct the view of the people behind them. In these instances, the importance of professional concert photographers becomes even more pronounced, so there is an archive of professional photos to capture the event. Also, professional photographers are purposely put out of the way of the view shed of the audience in pits, while being mindful as part of the profession to not bother performers during their work. The charge of a concert photographers and videographers is to capture timeless moments, but be completely incognito when doing so as to not disturb the subject being captured.
Saving Country Music has long valued the importance of live reviews and concert photography, often showcasing the work of photographers, even if the articles get minimal interest from the public, or support from the artists, bands, venues, or events the photos feature. On numerous occasions in the past, I featured the work of Swedish photographer Charlie Ekstrom from Almost Out of Gas, and recently started working with a central Texas photographer named Brad Coolidge, whose work has now been featured numerous times on the site. Though concert photography can feel like a form of old media to some, there is something magical about capturing a moment in time that words can’t convey, and even video fails at finding the proper frame for.
But in 2017, along with my own issues at gaining access to events, Mr. Coolidge has also found himself amid numerous incidents where he had obtained prior permission to shoot events from the photo pit, only to be turned away when he arrived to work the event, even while other preferred photographers appeared to have carte blanche access to the front of the stage. Then, access to certain events began to be denied under the guise that no photographers would be allowed to work certain events, even though photos would surface the next day from “preferred” outlets.
“I worked tirelessly on shooting, editing, and getting the final shots to him to post the next day,” says Brad Coolidge, who is a retired active duty veteran. “I sacrificed many weekends that should have been filled by family to work on photos, always building my portfolio and climbing the ladder to something bigger and better always looking around the corner for my next shoot. The beginning of 2017 started out pretty fast and furious, shooting as many artists in the first 3 months of the year as I did in all of 2016. But, then I started noticing a trend as the year went on.“
Along with the rejections to even be able to work certain events, the bane of the concert photographer’s existence is the “three song rule” that many publicists and venues have in place simply as an unquestioned rule for any live event, only allowing photographers three songs to get their shots before they are ushered out of the area in front of or around the stage, or in the case of my experience at the Jason Isbell concert, completely out of the building.
“It seems as though the first three songs are always horribly lit and the artists haven’t really loosened up yet,” says Coolidge. “Many of my best shots are from shows where I was allowed to shoot the entire set and come at the end of the show, as the energy on stage and in the crowd is at it’s peak. Unfortunately, you just can’t get those shots at shows that have the three song rule.”
Though the idea behind the three song rule is that the artists will look “fresh,” and their hair will be combed and their clothing primped, that often doesn’t capture the artist in their most compelling moments. It’s not hard to understand why being able to shoot an entire show would result in much better pictures than just the first three songs. Often artists invite gusts up on stage making for important moments to capture, and that often happens later in sets. The point of a concert photographer is to flatter the subject, and the venue, and by proxy, the photographer by capturing the best moments. The three song rule hurts the quality of concert photography across the board, while restricting professional photographers from working shows entirely only allows the images on record from a given event to be the grainy amateur shots from cellphones in the crowd.
“I want those on the management/publicist side to take a peek over the fence and see that there are those of us who are just as passionate about what we do, as they are, and we only want to help make whatever band or artist we’re shooting to look the best we can. It looks bad on us if we don’t,” says Brad Coolidge. “Even the contracts that some photographers are told to sign in order to photograph a concert indicate a certain level of disdain and distrust of the photographer. While I do believe wholeheartedly that it is within the right of a manager or publicist to protect their artists (and they wouldn’t be doing their job if they didn’t), I don’t feel like the hostile wording and attempted copyright coup of the images is necessary to do that. Civility can and should win the day. We just need to find that agreeable middle ground.”
It is unfortunate that it has taken a professional, well-respected photographer getting kicked in the face and sent to the hospital to open a discussion about the widening trend of the treatment and restriction of photographers and media from live music shows. This issue also came up when the CMA Awards in November asked that the media to not ask political questions of artists. Yet it’s also important to note that these restrictions on photographers and journalists is not distinctly a mainstream problem. If anything, the restrictions being placed on media is even more demonstrative in the independent music space for certain headliner acts. All media and photographers were barred from covering Sturgill Simpson’s last tour, for example.
In an environment where music journalism is already under assault from media consolidation, layoffs, pay cuts, loss of benefits, and many in the profession are being asked to work either for cheap or free, the least the industry can do is be understanding how access and respect is key to allow media professionals to do their jobs, and to do them well, with the ultimate goal for both sides being the exposure of music, and the capturing of important and compelling moments for the future.
December 15, 2017 @ 11:41 am
Covering a concert as a reporter or shooting one as a photojournalist *looks* glamorous, but it is work. Sometimes hard work. It is WORK to cover a concert and then have to write something sensible and insightful about it, often on deadline. It is WORK to return to the office or home from a concert and have to look through dozens (if not hundreds) of photos, edit them and choose ones for publication. It’s not fun and games. It’s a job.
December 15, 2017 @ 11:57 am
I want to cut and paste this from a comment thread on social media because I think it will help some understand the importance of this issue.
COMMENTER: I don’t intend to disrespect your profession, but I can’t think of any reason concert photography is even a thing. If I want to see an artist, I’ll buy a ticket or watch a music video on YouTube. I had never even considered concert photographers existed.
ME: No disrespect taken, because one of the marks of a great concert photographer is to NOT be noticed, to NOT become part of the story or focus, but simply flatter and capture the subject they are shooting.
But the function they perform for artists and the public is ESSENTIAL. Go to any of your favorite artist’s Facebook or social media pages. The avatar, the banner image, the images that accompany posts or tour date announcements were likely all taken by professional concert photographers. Often the work of concert photographers ends up on T-shirts, concert posters, billboards, etc., often without any acknowledgement of the photographer themselves. If a journalist writes a review for a concert, they need an accompanying photo. There are immeasurable ways this work goes into helping to promote and capture music, and these images are so commonplace we take them for granted.
I am personally not a concert photographer, though I have engaged in the practice many times as a journalist and live review writer. And I can tell you how important this work by my colleagues is, and how important it is to the artists.
Think about it like this: You know that picture of Johnny Cash shooting the finger? That was taken by a concert photographer named Jim Marshall. That image has now become one of the most iconic parts of music history, and arguably helped spawn a revolution in country music. Where would we be in country music if that image wasn’t taken, used by Rick Rubin to challenge the industry when they were ignoring Johnny Cash, and end up on millions of T-shirts making Cash cool once again? This is the power of concert photography.
December 15, 2017 @ 11:59 am
I’ve been to quite a few heavy metal concerts in the NYC area and I have never once seen the photographers mistreated. Of course they’re usually required to leave the pit after the third song of the set, but I have never seen them spit on or have water poured on them.
December 17, 2017 @ 8:13 pm
Go to a Gwar concert
December 15, 2017 @ 12:00 pm
It’s only a matter of time before journalists aren’t allowed free into concerts. Between ticket-buying fans praising shows on social media and Youtube showing the concert with tons of positive comments below, it no longer makes sense for band to take a chance with a journalist, who didn’t buy a ticket and could trash the band or singer.
December 15, 2017 @ 12:08 pm
I would rather have high quality images from a single, talented concert photographer than several dozen blurry cell phone shots and shaky Facebook Live streaming videos.
December 15, 2017 @ 12:14 pm
I love this story. Thanks for writing it. I’m part of the world of racing and I know what photographers mean to that world. I do. Racers always thank the photographers who are there to shoot the event. Happens a lot. Wish the music field was getting the same respect.
I know my comments will be off-subject to what you just wrote above (and I apologize). I’m a photographer. I do it some professionally and then all my personal work. I’m a photographer up and down. I document my life and others I love… a ton. So important. What I do personally is more important than what someone would hire me for.
Music and live shows are my passion. My go-to place. My release. I miss being able to go to a live show – indoors or outdoors and taking my good camera to shoot 3, 4 or 5 good shots that I can print to go in my REAL photo album that I stick with my concert ticket stub. I miss that. And when I say “good camera”… yes, I mean my DSLR but also my SLR film camera. Heck, I’ve taken my Polaroid to shows before. (I have a sweet Polaroid photograph of Merle Haggard on stage many moons ago. I was on the front row) I’m 37 and when I look back at my film photographs from when I went to shows at 15, 16… 18, 19 years of age.. it’s memory lane. It’s so awesome to have those. To hold in my hand. (FYI, I never use flash at shows either. Since that is a huge distraction to other music fans around you.)
I have a great photograph I took of George Strait (my favorite artist) at the last show on his final tour here in South Carolina. I printed it and also made it into a canvas. It hangs in my office at home. I love that photograph. Yes, I hid my lens in my purse that night. The venue I was at measured the lens you had on your camera body. You could have the “detachable lens camera body kind” but the lens could only be so many inches long. Yes, they had a ruler. So I had a small lens on the camera and they let me by. This was my last show and prolly last chance to ever see the singer I’ve loved since I was 7 in concert. Yes, I wanted a few photographs to print from that special night with my boyfriend and King George. You damn right I did. And I got them.
It just sucks that in the day of social media and smart phones.. I can’t do that anymore. I can’t take “the professional looking camera” to any show I attend now. No show. Anywhere. I’m the person who just wants that physical photograph to have in my hand… to put in my album with my ticket stub or any kind of memorabilia I get from that show. All I want. And one day, I will pass that down to someone (music fan) to have. But I can’t take photos anymore because that camera I have might be used to video or sell photographs or put on social media or Youtube to promote or take from the artist. Meanwhile, smart phones can Snapchat, Facebook live and whatever else they can do. They are allowed and for the most part can’t be policed.
I do get frustrated with it. But I also understand the current world I live in with technology. I totally agree with singers who want people to put phones down and just watch, just listen. I get it. I agree. I do it myself. But that artistic side or the documentation side in me wants a little piece of a memory in a printed photograph that has nothing to do with social media or making a buck.
Photographs are important to me. (like real paper photos) I don’t give a flip about posting a crappy pixelated cell image to Facebook.
I got to see Bob Seger for the FIRST time live a few years ago. Waited most my life for that. We had decent seats but no camera allowed. I was bummed. So tried my best to contact a photographer that covered the event and I finally found one after I read a write-up about the show online. I sent him an email and I asked if I could purchase one photograph of Bob from the show to have for my keepsake/concert album. He said he couldn’t sell me one.
I just miss the days of how it use to be. Even in the 90’s. I’ve seen people my Mama’s age show me photographs they took of Elvis at shows they attended. Like one or two photographs they took. It is SOOOO amazing to me. Unreal. Like how cool is it to have that. To show that. I still shoot film but I can’t take that camera either. Blah. Lol.
Anyways, thanks for this write-up Kyle. My brain went off track and subject. Sorry. I’m just a music fan.. not a journalist. I know. But just wanted to type my thoughts. I appreciate all your efforts and work you do for music and country music. Thank you.
December 15, 2017 @ 12:35 pm
The point of the 3-song rule is to not have your ass blocking my view from the audience. Three songs is irritating enough. No offense.
December 15, 2017 @ 2:00 pm
They call it a “pit” for a reason. A photographer should never be getting in the way of a performer or the crowd, and if they do, that’s on them, first three songs or not. They should be escorted out of the area. But if they’re doing their job, nobody should even see them. They should blend into the background, and usually do. If anything, a three song rule often results in photographers feeling like they need to be more aggressive to get a good shot in a limited amount of time.
December 15, 2017 @ 2:15 pm
I’m a (mostly) amateur concert photographer, and I make a particular point of not blocking the audience’s view, with my ass or any other part. In smaller venues this makes it tough sometimes since there is no photo pit (I more than once have ended up laying down on a very sticky floor to get the right shot). I work from the side walls of the room for the most part. When I shift position I do it in between songs.
The people who do the most blocking are assclowns with cell phones who hold them over their heads while taking a poor quality video of an entire song, or who somehow feel it’s okay to march right up to the stage and get right in the performer’s face.
December 15, 2017 @ 3:25 pm
With the evaporation of traditional music media, magazines going out of business, and local newspapers cutting back on arts coverage, it’s falling to fans and amateurs to capture these moments and tell the stories of bands that otherwise would have nobody to tell their story.
December 15, 2017 @ 5:30 pm
I will never understand why people record video on their cell phones through the majority of a concert. First of all, the audio on pretty much very phone concert video sounds like it came off a 90’s tape recorder. How do you enjoy yourself when your face is buried in your phone or your hand is raised above your head for a hour? A concert is about the experience, I am not sure someone can experience a concert doing that. I went to Trans-Siberian Orchestra the other night and the guy in front of me recorded the ENTIRE concert, his battery died with a few songs to go. Ridiculous.
December 19, 2017 @ 11:15 pm
I think 3 songs is enough. If your even just an alright photographer there’s no reason you need to be there the entire time.
This whole kicking photographers out after is a bit irritating though. Also the waivers they’re making us sign are terrible. I refuse to shoot concerts that make you give up all the rights to your images and let them review your images before posting them.
Soundset does that. I’ve covered it for years and now they are having us sign waivers that essentially say they could take out images, put them on a poster, not give me any credit as the photographer, and keep all the money. That’s caused a lot of people to not cover it.
December 15, 2017 @ 12:41 pm
Many sides to the issue that I can appreciate.
I can say I had to deal with a journalist/photographer at a recent show who was covering from the crowd area and he was a major pain in the ass. A general admission show where people spent some time getting there early to get good spots and waiting for the show.
Getting in peoples way with his huge camera, acting like he deserved extra space, writing comments in a notebook, etc. It was a distraction for many of the paying customers.
He’s kinda lucky he didn’t get pushed around a lil for his approach (I thought my wife was gonna kick him. LOL)
Then in his review of the show, he prefaced by saying he really wasn’t a fan of the act and went to the show with opinions that weren’t changed by what he saw.
What a dick.. Can see why acts could be leery of putting up with this all the time.
December 15, 2017 @ 3:38 pm
Like I said in another comment, this is not to excuse rude photographers or journalists. Like any profession, there’s good ones and bad ones.
But one thing that must be understood is that the right to free press doesn’t begin and end with politics. A lot of people say these days, “Well what do I need the press for when I can just go to my favorite artist’s social media feeds and get all the info I need?” The reason is because that information is being served to you without being vetted by a 3rd party. So when Brantley Gilbert falsely claims that he donated $10.5 million to Toys For Tots, then there must be someone there to question it. Or if a rock star kicks a photographer and a security guard in the face, there are other members of the media there to report it. Once we start deciding who can and can’t cover live events, objectivity is lost. You don’t want some media blowhard criticizing you? Perhaps choose a different profession than music.
I’m sure there are a lot of musicians who hate photographers and the press, and that’s fine. There are a lot of elements of all of our jobs that we all hate, but have to do anyway because they come with the territory. If you want to be a big popular music star, the press is going to follow.
December 15, 2017 @ 4:22 pm
I agree with you.. i love good music journalism, reviews, and photos.. Can go a long way to help an artist.. thats why i am always on this site.. even when i dont agree i respect you.. there are definitely asses that ruin things for the good guys though
December 15, 2017 @ 12:42 pm
Photo-journalism of all ilks has taken a huge hit in the cell phone era. It is rare to have a staff photographer any more. But I too prefer the work of a professional over an amateur.
Since artists really only make money from concerts, it is only natural to want to minimize the freebies to maximize the income. So if there’s any trend, then that might be the root cause there.
Every celebrity eventually slaps a camera lens (or the person behind it) out of his/her face. It is a rite of passage, it seems.
December 15, 2017 @ 12:55 pm
Interesting article. As far as Homme goes, he is a known tool with an inflated ego. I hope she threatens to sue him and gets a good settlement.
December 15, 2017 @ 1:06 pm
He’ll still be the last rock star standing.
No excuse for his behavior though.
December 15, 2017 @ 1:18 pm
Homme, that is.
December 15, 2017 @ 8:24 pm
As far as currently active front men and their “rock star” status goes in the realm of popular rock, Dave Grohl mops the floor with Homme. Way more popular, more talented, and not a douche.
December 15, 2017 @ 9:10 pm
Way more popular, definitely not as talented. Dave’s got power and passion, but homme has a unique way of weaving groove with intricacy all the while staying infectious that is unparalleled in mainstream rock. Seven album streak like no other right now.
Hey, get em together and what do you have…Songs For The Deaf and Them Crooked Vultures. Doesn’t get any better than that.
December 15, 2017 @ 9:36 pm
He was at his peak with Kyuss in my mind. We can agree to disagree I guess. But when your measure is “rock star”, again, there is no comparison. And I’m no Grohl superfan by any measure. It just is what it is.
December 16, 2017 @ 5:18 am
Kyuss was great. All good man, and you are right about Dave being the biggest. I said homme would be the last one standing. But who knows really.
If you like loud, check out Mutoid Man, my favorite of the last five years.
https://youtu.be/F9yF1ZK3ORQ
December 15, 2017 @ 2:01 pm
If I were photography girl’s father, the financial penalty from my lawsuit would give new meaning to the words “stone age.”
What an SOB!
Concert photographers helped to make concerts FUN. There were no cellphones. If you wanted to make it on camera, you had to get creative and wild. So rock concerts were great! They were like carnivals and the photographers were there to capture the energy.
Trig, you’re making me conclude that the music world today sucks. No traditions, no skills, no joy, everything bought and paid for, everything held up to a microscope, and everything recorded recorded recorded down to the minutest navel detail.
No wonder people come to prefer the company of horses.
December 15, 2017 @ 3:03 pm
Great article. I am a concert photographer myself, I shoot for a few clients and write articles on musicians for a magazine. Sounds glamorous right? It aint. I’ve been turned down often. I’ve been told that no pictures or media are allowed, then I bought a ticket, attended and guess what? Photographers there that somehow got in. The bigger named artists generally the more problems. Rock n Roll bands are the worst period, they seem to have complete disdain for media and photo guys. Homme is a tool. Heard bad stuff about Chili Peppers, Janes Addiction, Springsteen. Personally I have changed my approach, I get better success with up and comers who actually want media attention. I also am focusing on niche, roots stuff like rockabilly, western swing, vintage country, blues etc. Not surprised about Sturgill though. A general observation…the more obnoxious and outspoken an artist is politically, the more they seem to be douche bags to the media and photographers. Overinflated sense of themselves I guess. Trigger is spot on, in that there’s a general nastiness from security at big venues, they have zero tolerance, you got 3 songs, now get your gear outta here dirtbag. I could under stand hatred for paparazzi , but concert photogs are on the side of the artist, we wanna make em look good. I think of my photos as portraits, it’s a pride thing, make the artist look good, I look good.
And don’t think for a minute we are making money doing this, I have a day job as do most others in the business. You do it for the love of the art.
December 15, 2017 @ 4:14 pm
Where did you get Sturgill out of this?
December 15, 2017 @ 4:21 pm
Sturgill purposely restricted photographers and journalists from covering his last tour. He even made a post about it at the end of the tour on Instagram about how he wanted it to be about the fans, and not be filtered through the media. I can’t blame him in some respects seeing how The New York Times just did him, and I have a bit more respect for how he did it, which was basically just to say “no press at all” as opposed to selectively choosing outlets his management felt may give him positive coverage. But it still puts a burden on the press. Sturgill is a popular artist, and a review with pictures of his recent tour would have been a popular post. It’s hard enough for outlets to survive these days.
December 17, 2017 @ 1:01 pm
I have shot Jane’s Addiction once, worked with them once on the stage show and Just last night I shot Royal Machines with Dave Navarro. I can say you get what you give. They have been very welcoming to me.
Now, that being said, I am an amateur concert photographer. I try my best to be respectful and invisible. In smaller venues, I will shoot from the back of the house so that the other attendees never see me.
It is a shame that so many artists and venues don’t seem to like our presence. Perhaps a temporary solution is a media boycott of those artists and venues? Music is all about image. If no one captures the image, artists would have a harder time getting out there.
There needs to be a solution because we need them for our passions and they need us to show the world theirs.
December 17, 2017 @ 6:01 pm
Thx for weighing in. I haven’t photographed Janes . But I talk to other shooters in the biz and that’s come from some sources. Personally I have to have thick skin to do this. I often get declined for various reasons. For example, Buddy Guys manager didn’t even respond to my inquiry, even with a pdf of the magazine attached with my work. Sometimes, PARTICULARLY with legends, they can be very choosy and reluctant to issue many press passes. I tend to have better success at festivals. And of course it helps to be in with a venue owner. No matter, my atittude at this point is to go after acts I’m gonna do a feature or review on and not worry about chasing down every big name in the pipeline. Some guys become like big game hunters, trying to bag a picture of everybody for portfolio purposes. Find your niche, stick with it, be polite and accommodating and eventually you will meet your goals. That’s my 2 cents.
December 15, 2017 @ 3:04 pm
Let’s call this: Photogate
December 15, 2017 @ 3:07 pm
I’ve been writing about music for close to 30 years and never experienced anything you’ve written about here. yes there are rules. but communication between the artist, their handlers and the venue goes a LONG way. I’ve been to literally dozens of shows at the Moody Theater in Austin and never had a problem covering one.
December 15, 2017 @ 3:48 pm
There is a reason that I quoted three other journalists in this article, as well as another outlet covering this very same concern. This isn’t just about my experience at a Jason Isbell concert, it is about a widening phenomenon throughout music journalism occurring in numerous markets, at numerous venues, and with multiple artists. The underlying problem heretofore is you had media professionals saying this was a growing problem, and publicists, managers, and promoters trying to sweep it under the rug as they tightened the screws on media to help control the narratives they want to present to the public.
There have been numerous occasions where I have had both artist representatives and venue representatives acknowledge and sign off redundantly in bulletproof verification that I will be there covering a certain event, names and emails of the individuals that I spoke to printed out, pulled up said emails on my phone as triple evidence, and still be turned away at the door. In fact, this is the common occurrence compared to walking up to will call, obtaining a badge, and being admitted.
December 15, 2017 @ 8:47 pm
I shared this post with professional music writer group I’m involved with on facebook. They all agree on two things: you need an editor, and your experience, such as it is, is very much out of the ordinary.
December 16, 2017 @ 1:36 pm
An editor would kill Saving Country Music. Articles like this wouldn’t just be ravaged, they would never be posted. And the discussion topics like these stimulate would never happen. Besides, 80% of music outlets have either had to shut down or sell out to pay staff they eventually lay off before turning the URL into a redirect to Wal-Mart. I never have been able to pay myself. Paying an editor would ostensibly mean the implosion of the site.
December 15, 2017 @ 5:33 pm
If you are reviewing you should be given a ticket to stay the show and do a proper review. That’s what happens here in Toronto. A photographer, like myself, gets three songs and the boot. You should be able to get what you need in that time frame. I personally do not want to shoot the whole set unless I really like the up and coming band or I’m paid. I could go on and on with stories.
December 15, 2017 @ 7:16 pm
I’ve been seeing some blow back from certain professional photographers who are reading this story and are stupefied at what all the hubbub is about, and I think it is because of two separate perspectives on the same profession. Some professional photographers are covering a concert at the behest of a periodical or a newspaper and are expected to snap a few photos for a concert review and skedaddle. Like you said, they may not even capture the opening band. Some of these photographers might be working a country show one night, and a hip-hop show the next, or a ballet, or a basketball game.
Then you have others such as myself, or the photographers quoted in the story who have a more dedicated passion in a specific realm of concert photography who would never even consider skipping the opening band, even if they didn’t like them. They want to dive deep into covering the experience. They want to keep shots of every member of the band, shots of the crowd, really help put viewers in the venue. I just posted a 30-paragraph article on concert photography. Most newspapers or magazines wouldn’t allow this much space for a cover story. If I’m going to post a photo blog of a live event, I want there to be 25 photos or more. Not in any way to discount the newspaper and magazine photographers who are just looking for three really good shots to turn into their editor, but there just isn’t the same passion for the subject, in either the journalist, or the readers of a general newspaper or magazine compared to the niche coverage of a website like Saving Country Music.
I hope that makes sense.
December 15, 2017 @ 7:02 pm
Follow the money.
December 15, 2017 @ 7:16 pm
All of the amateur cell phone photographers at shows drive me crazy. They are not at all concerned with blocking anyone’s view as long as they have a good photo or video for Facebook or whatever. I would much rather restrictions be placed on that than on professional photographers.
December 15, 2017 @ 8:39 pm
I think the short version is, some media outlets are viewed as legit and some aren’t. Old media versus new.
December 16, 2017 @ 12:15 am
Your article is interesting, and I mostly agree… and have personally experiences much of the stuff you’ve described (thankfully not as often, with the negatives, as it sounds you have). Thankfully we have a sponsor… that helps enable our concert & event photography, without them… we probably wouldn’t have been able to shoot nearly as much over the last twenty years, or had the variety of quality gear we do.
In my experience, as an active concert photographer in the Knoxville & Nashville (and surrounding areas)… the ‘three song’ limit, along with most limits are dependent upon the Tour Manager first… and venue second (the contract the artist signed with the venue). The label or publicist can, and has (at least for us) over ridden both the venue and artist, enabling us to show the entire show (knowing we’ll likely get some great images after those first three songs). There are also some artists that have ‘tour photogs’ traveling with them, which can totally change the rules, but seldom limits us from shooting the show. Thankfully, my wife & I are seldom limited to just three songs, and have never had to any artist actually hit or kick us… though the tossing of water and alcohol INTO (on) the audience is sadly becoming far more common place at a couple of the venues we work. Most of the artists we’ve been able to meet before they go on stage, either at sound check or the M&G we usually shoot.
As a tiny person (sarcastic font missing… I’m 4’30” in my boots… and 17 stones)… when I’m ‘in the pit’ I’m usually crouched down, sitting on the floor, or on my knees (seriously, carry knee pads just for that reason). Thankfully I wasn’t born with a window to see through me, and very very few can honestly see over me… I know this, and go out of my way to NOT be in people’s way. (By the way, for the mathematically challenged, I’m 6’6″ and 280lbs). For the last couple years, my wife does the ‘pit’ shooting as she’s much smaller, and as good behind the camera as I am. But even then, she’s often shooting while sitting or kneeling, to be sure to stay out of the way of the fans that paid to see the show. I’m off looking for different angles, often targeting the ‘other’ band members once I’ve captured a few of the lead singer(s), and I’m seldom in the same spot for more than 5 to 30 seconds if there is anyone behind me… then off to the next spot (at the venues we most often shoot at). Those at the venue seldom ever notice either of us. That’s the way, IMO, it should be. I get very frustrated with people that ‘stand’ in the same spot in the pit (or in the way of fans) for minutes, or entire songs… and will sometimes say something if they are blocking the fans.
To date, I’ve never signed any of the ‘rights grab’ contracts, though I’ve been asked to a few times. They either let me do my job without such an agreement, or I won’t shoot. Twice in the last six years we’ve packed up our gear and left… twice we’ve packed up, and before we left we were stopped and told we could shoot without the agreement. A few times we’ve been relegated to ‘the sound board’ (especially at the bigger shows in Nashville). Which, as most concert photogs know, is OMG a long ways away. But that’s what 400 – 600mm glass is for. They can still reach out and touch someone at a distance. However, it limits the angles, the details, and the potential that different angles, and lower f-stops allow. We’ve had a few we’ve refused to shoot because they required a contract. At least they did it before we got there. Personally, I think if more photogs refused to sign… and either ignored those artists requiring it (or called them out for their attempted rights grab), there would be far fewer attempting to pull that type of garbage. Seriously, it’s not like they are ‘giving’ anyone rights to use their music in any fashion that person wants without buying it, and even then it’s limited to personal use without special licensing… so why can’t they respect the copyrights of the professional photographer? (Thankfully, most do… or learn that it’s truly a symbiotic relationship). I have NOT released images I felt might embarrass an artist, such as the image I captured of one of the lead artists in the Celtic Woman show that had a wardrobe malfunction, and accidently flashed her panties. Tabloids would have loved that, and paid good money for it, but releasing it would have trashed artists trust, and our reputation.
Most people, especially these days, don’t realize that there are usually hours of actual work after the concert… before any images are shown. They seem to ‘feel’ it’s all like a cell phone, and instantly transferable to fakebook, instacrap, or some other social media fix. There is a huge difference between taking a snapshot and an actual photograph of someone moving in less than optimum lighting, often ‘eating’ a mic or with fans hands, hats, or stuff getting in the way.
I don’t know about you, but we’ve found, on average, we’ll arrive at the venue about 2 hours before ‘the show’ – about an hour or so later shoot the ‘M&G’ (meet & greet) about 99% of the time at a couple of the venues (seldom at the Nashville venues). Sometimes with our ‘green screen’ back drop (which does take longer in post to process), sometimes with the artists back drop… sometimes without any. By then the opening act is on… and we scramble to capture as much as possible, of each of those band members. When they are done, there is usually a 30 to 60 minute pause for the changeover… and the headliner starts. That show is often about 1.5 to 2 hours (we’re now 4+ hours into the show). Often, but not always, there is another M&G after the show (usually no background, more candid’s)… then we pack up and head home. Depending on the venue, that could be 20+ minutes, to 4 hours or more. Once home, the downloading from the cameras starts… batteries are put on the charger (for the next show)… and then it’s a quick rating, sorting, and tweaking of the images. Then exporting them to high res jpgs… then up loading them to our web site, and emailing some of the low res ones to the venue, any media. In general, about another 8 to 16 hours of work AFTER the show.
If an artist considers for a moment, just the basic process taking only 30 seconds an image doesn’t sound like much. However, we usually have three cameras going, often with 2000 images between the two acts (usually about 500 of the opening act, 500 from the M&G, and 1000 of the headliner)… and that’s 1000 minutes (at just 30 seconds to do everything that needs to be done). That’s nearly 17 hours of work AFTER THE SHOW (thankfully we are much, much faster than that… and get more right ‘in camera’ than not… and have a quick culling process. The people that feel it’s quick, easy, or ‘instant’ to get quality images don’t understand low light motion photography. However, when we are there to work, we don’t get to ‘listen to’ the music much or often. Listening means the body might start moving, if it’s a good song… which is counterproductive to photography.
I agree there are some artists, albeit few in the Country Music world, except the biggest acts that have been ‘on the stage’ for years, are ridiculously picky and restrictive. However, as I said, we’ve experienced very few of those.
I believe, if you’re ‘in’ good with the venue, the label, and have introduced yourself to the artist (when possible), and their tour manager, and FOH (can’t forget them)… you will get much further, and usually have fewer restrictions. If they’ve SEEN your work, it can help. Most of the established artists value a ‘great photograph’ … and good experienced photographers. Many of the opening acts are like most freelance photogs, either opening for free or cheap, and some seem to feel they are somehow ‘owed’ images (for free). That can be a problem, which requires some education and effort. There are some artists, especially older ones that ‘were hits’ (20, 30+ years ago) that don’t really want people knowing what they look like TODAY (but are attempting to keep that 30+ year old photo what people ‘see’ and ‘remember’… especially if they were ‘buff’ or far better looking way-back-when, than now. We’ve experienced that a few times
Personally, I love it when there aren’t any cell phones up… but have learned to work around it when they are up and around, and sometimes, use those ‘up phones’ in our crowd photos, showing some of the interaction between the artist and audience. More of the younger artists are actually ‘grabbing’ a fans cell phone and popping off a ‘selfie’ with or for the fan, before handing the phone back. Some of those type of pictures, or them doing that, can be pretty cool too. They’re often crappy blurred images make our sharper better angled images look even better. Capturing the moment and memories are our goal. Now, the ‘sitting on the shoulders’ and constant waiving of hats, and beer bottles raised, are far more annoying (to my wife and I) than cellphones. But it’s different with each different artist. The difference in the fans attracted to the shows is vast. Some are mellow, mature, and just there for fun. While some are getting sloppy drunk, and even start fights. The latter keep security busy, and are usually dealt with quickly.
I do believe that more and more ‘internet based’ outlets are gaining ground, both for their editorial content and higher quality photography (nearly always higher than any fan cell phone pics, though once in a while some of the dedicated fans with the newest cell phones are getting better in the quality of the images they capture, but often the majority aren’t even good, and their acceptable ones are often limited to just the lead singer (center stage, in the best lighting). If there are hats, oh yeah… that usually requires a professional photog, with expensive glass, and experience to get up under the shadow that hat creates.
In my experience, few venues should allow more than 2 or 3 photogs ‘in’ the pit area, ‘the house photog’ and 1 or 2 other’s – from the media or band. Seldom should there be more than 3 to 6 in the sound board area, unless it’s just a huge area, like some of the arenas have. There is a vast difference between the venues that serve alcohol, and those which don’t. There is a huge difference between the venues where people are sitting, vs those venues where the majority is standing. The variables are also different from venue to venue, and artist to artist, as are the problems. Getting in good with security and the venue management is vital to any concert photographer hoping for better access.
There have been times where we had an unreasonable deadline, but in nearly every one of those cases, the venue made available a place (a media center or back room, out of public view) we could ‘download’ our images and rate them, and get a few emailed before we left the venue. Thankfully this type of pressure, hurry –hurry, rush-rush, doesn’t happen often (especially once we cease working with newspapers, who are notorious for unreasonable deadlines and terrible pay).
Anyhow, I did enjoy your article… and perspective. As I said earlier, I mostly agree… and am glad we don’t have the negatives crop up too often (or we’d probably move to a different industry). But have witnessed a drastic shift in ‘the music industry’ over the last few years. I believe the venues that service 300 to 5000 fans are generally easier and far looser with the ‘rules’ than those venues that cater to 5000+ fans. Those catering to 20,000+ fans are even more restrictive toward professional photogs, but you’ll see 10,000 cell phones up video’ing and attempting to snap something, just so that person can claim ‘they were there.’
December 16, 2017 @ 9:44 am
I also have a job.
December 16, 2017 @ 10:31 am
The vast majority of ‘concert’ and ‘music industry’ photographer’s I’ve met over the years do. Some are ‘wedding’ (or stock) photogs ‘during the day, many work in completely different industries (besides music), some are writers/bloggers/marketers. A couple work for some facet of the government during the day, and work concerts & events a few nights and weekends each month.
About six years ago, I started transitioning toward video… seeing the growing amount of cellphone cameras. While I have a great understanding of the ‘lens work’ (angles and lighting), dealing with ‘ambient sound’ and attempting to get quality live sound is over the top challenging (getting the necessarily releases to actually use, sell, or do something with that video is also a flood of different challenges). Anyhow… the music industry most defiantly is NOT boring, easy, or a ‘get rich quick scheme,’ no matter how good or consistent you are. LOL
But I will tell you, working in the music industry is usually warmer, drier, far more entertaining, and less dangerous than getting tackled on the sidelines of a football field, basket ball court, or dodging the hammer or javelin in track & field. (I love sports action, but hated working those days there was freezing rain… snow… or over the top NCAA rules).
December 16, 2017 @ 9:54 am
A FEW THINGS:
First, you talk about “journalists … losing their rights to cover events in public spaces.” I would disagree. I’ve NEVER egregiously encountered a time where I lost my rights to cover an event in a public space in my 15+ years as a photographer.
You need to understand that covering bands in a *private*, ticket-entry event in a PRIVATE-property music venue is NOT a public space and does not really cover First-Amendment Rights to journalism as you please. If you’re permitted entry to cover a few songs — ESPECIALLY if you don’t pay for a ticket — then that’s ALL you’re there to do… Better hope you got good shots and you’re getting paid decent money to do it. Because you *ARE* privileged to be there above paying ticket-holders.
If you’re given the standard First Three/No Flash rule and then promptly escorted off premises, then those are the rules. If you’re allowed to shoot an ENTIRE set, awesome! If you can do it from up front the entire time, even better!! If you can roam around the venue, that works great, too. But these are all *PRIVILEGES* you are granted as a member of the press. These do not fall under our Rights as journalists.
Secondly, Miss Lauren isn’t really a “well-known” photographer, otherwise I doubt she would be shooting for a second-tier stock photo pool. I’ve been in the industry for years and I personally haven’t heard of her, until a famous person kicked her in the head. That doesn’t make what happened any less heinous, of course — she was just there doing her job — but I just don’t see how it had anything to do with photographers losing “rights.” Losing respect from artists, certainly… but that’s a different story.
Lastly, The thing the Killers dude did was annoying and disingenuous, at best. But again, if that’s *their* rules for press coverage of their performances, to have a select few staff and tour photographers there, that’s *THEIR* Rights — yes I said Rights — as a headlining act who basically Produce the performance as a whole. All the while, paying ticket-holders and phone-holders get to snap grainy Instagram pics all. Night Long.
It’s annoying, sure, and it can argued back-and-forth whether that helps the band from a journalistic standpoint, but hey… that’s the world we live in.
December 16, 2017 @ 1:45 pm
You’re right, freedom of the press does not necessarily extend into the private sector, and I made that point myself when the CMA Awards requested media not engage in political discussion. It was their event, their red carpet, and they could request whatever they wanted. But one of the issues I have personally experienced, as have others in an increasing frequency according to the people I talked to on this matter, is actually being approved for press credentials, having all your ducks in a row, to end up being turned away at the door or not allowed access to the photo pit last minute after you have put forth the effort to cover the event. Or, artist management or venues saying there will be no press at all, and then come to find “preferred” outlets were invited in. Artists and venues have a right to include or exclude press from private events (though some are held in public places that are owned by municipalities). The problem is the mixed messages, or the shady practice of back scratching to massage positive press coverage for backstage perks that is becoming more prevalent as the publicist corps tries to figure out how to makes perception fit their preference.
December 17, 2017 @ 6:51 pm
I’ve personally not experienced any of that at all, in my 15 years covering live concerts.
Concert photography is a chaotic beast, to be sure — but NEVER have I been confirmed access but turned away last-minute, except in the RAREST instance of press lists getting lost or not updated in a timely manner.
If you find you’re getting the short end of the stick that you’re consistently not considered “preferred” outlet, then maybe find more and better ways to be hired by someone who easily qualifies as such.
I don’t mean to disparage anyone here, but let’s be honest: Local blog photographers are LITERALLY a dime a doz these days. And while I know that “staff” photographer positions are about 5% of what they used to be before the digital/social media age, these people need to either find a way to cram in to an ever-narrowing field, or make better relationships with bands/venues/PR teams, and maybe even get HIRED by them directly. This way, they minimize instances where they put in time and effort only to be turned away before even checking in.
December 16, 2017 @ 11:24 am
As a publicist, I see both sides. I have never restricted access to photographers, but there is one who often takes unflattering shots that sometimes end up on the Internet. Since he is not intentionally trying to make my client look bad, I do not want to be a jerk and ban him. I would rather have enthusiastic fans and photographers sharing positive information and, yes, even mediocre photos, than nothing. I used to be a journalist myself, and I know what it is like to be treated like crap, by a celebrity. I appreciate the hard often thankless work that honest journalists and photographers do, and welcome them whenever it is up to me.
December 17, 2017 @ 6:03 am
Strong article Trig.
December 17, 2017 @ 12:03 pm
Brandon Flowers definitely was not being disingenuous.
He was making fun of Josh Homme.
Clearly.
December 17, 2017 @ 4:09 pm
Homme needs his ass kicked obviously, but most photogs are obnoxious. And if you really think “credentialed and vetted” really means anything beyond having a friend who can get you a press pass…you’re new to this, or lying to yourself. Of course, there are real, respectful, professional photogs – but let’s not pretend they make up any kind of a majority in that pit – simply not the case. Next time you’re in a photog pit – take a good look around and see what the iPhone to portrait lens ratio is… I’ve been out of the music biz a few years, but I can look back on mental pictures and give a good solid guess that it’s about 10:1 …and I’m sure worse now.
…and yea, yea – iPhone is the new DLSR, blah blah – bullshit.
P.S. Turn your damn flashes off. You’re ridiculous iPhone flash ain’t gonna light anything but an artists temper.
December 18, 2017 @ 9:24 am
I’m just getting around to reading this, and I have what I’m certain is a stupid question. Why do the artists hate the photographers?