2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 21, 2018 15:31:54 GMT
let alone sorting out the actual hosting and streaming. A system could be used like the one with indie films on Vimeo - you could apply and get a password, maybe for a fee, and watch it a home rather than travel hundreds of miles and pay a lot of money travelling and a day out of your life to see it in the V&A or wherever.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 21, 2018 16:46:02 GMT
It would certainly be convenient for the viewer, yes. I think you are underestimating the work and the cost involved in setting it up, though.
In order to create a system that the people whose agreement they need would be happy with, they would have to spend quite a bit of money on it. The cheap-as-chips options wouldn’t be suitable. So unless someone comes along and donates a chunk of money, or there’s a way it can be linked to a revenue-generating product to fund it, it’s not going to happen.
Edit: To give a bit more of an example - the recording I watched in NYPL was of a Cheek By Jowl touring production recorded at Brooklyn Academy of Music. So the recording was deposited in the NYPL archive but still owned by BAM. Obviously they needed Cheek By Jowl’s agreement to make the recording. In order to view it, I had to contact the NYPL and they then had to send a request to BAM to be approved before they could book in an appointment for me. I then had to fill in a form on the day to state why I wanted to view the recording - I was told that ‘research’ was too vague and that I needed to add more detail, so presumably someone somewhere cares enough to check! That process must be written into the contracts somewhere - either the agreement with one of the unions or the theatre company or the venue required it.
For the V&A, they are a lot more open to the public, but you still have to register for a reader card and turn up with ID. Once there Obviously you're not allowed to take any recording equipment in. How can an online access system verify who is accessing it and where they are accessing it from? How can it ensure that the user doesn’t copy the recording?
Answering those questions takes time and money. I don’t think people quite realise how hard it is - the publishing industry is struggling to sort out easy off-campus access to resources via a single sign-on still, to try and combat piracy - at the moment lots of people find it easier to pirate content they have paid access to when they’re off campus because logging in via their institution portal is a pain - and we’ve been publishing our content online for a couple of decades!
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 21, 2018 17:24:18 GMT
How can it ensure that the user doesn’t copy the recording? It all sounds ludicrously Kafkaesque! It reminds me of librarians when I was a kid who seemed to think their job was to guard the books from readers rather than open them up and engage people with literature. If a production has finished, is not touring, that cast has moved on, years have passed, why be so precious about who sees it? Imagine if writers or poets or painters behaved like that - no, you weren't around in 1996 when I wrote the book so you have to jump through a dozen hoops before I'll let you read it. No wonder there are so many people who think theatre is a sort of Freemasonry - certainly, my Facebook friends bear that out. The ones from Oxbridgey families with parents who were theatregoers are theatregoers, and the others don't, unless it's something very high profile with a TV star headlining.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2018 19:54:57 GMT
I have to stand up in defence of the archives, who I've worked with a fair bit professionally. The idea seems to have been gotten here that they're trying to "keep" these recordings (and other information) from people. Quite the opposite!
Both V&A and NT archive are open to the public. Anyone can go in and watch them or read materials. They aren't open 24/7 because they're working archives, on mostly a shoestring budget. Nobody is making a profit, and their primary aim is to preserve these records for historical and scholarly purposes. But they are still AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
As much as it would be nice for more people to see them, anyone who wants to can. Yes, obviously being physically near them helps, but the NT archive is...at the NT there's not much they can do about that without being ridiculous about it.
I'm not quite sure what more people want?
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 21, 2018 21:03:59 GMT
I can see why you have to travel to see the Lindisfarne Gospels, and why access is limited to fragile, medieval books, but when something exists in a digital format it is not that difficult to make it available online so why not just do it? The BBC wanted to do it with their archives but I think it was blocked by rival TV companies, though it's now being mooted again.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 21, 2018 21:39:28 GMT
I feel like I’ve spent several posts explaining why they don’t just make it available online. It’s not because they’re being mean or stingy or they *want* to make it awkward, it’s because it’s a lot more complicated to do than you think it is.
For example, it’s not the case that all archive recordings are in a digital format - some of them are still on video tape!
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 21, 2018 22:10:46 GMT
some of them are still on video tape! Which I read earlier in the thread and am frankly astonished by! Videotape deteriorates and is a fire risk - if the average householder now gets videos of their dead cats digitised you'd think a national archive would have found the wherewithal even if it's just to future-proof it - look what's happened to Glasgow School of Art twice! Regional libraries, photo libraries etc are making their archives available online. Some of this presumably involves manually scanning 19th records and documents on paper. There are some people I follow online who create and curate image archives and local history archives for free, for the sheer love of it and of sharing something interesting with the public. Why can't theatre archives put what they have already digitally formatted online, and get their arses in gear saving what isn't digital to digital before they find their tapes have decomposed?
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Jun 22, 2018 4:30:35 GMT
Why can't theatre archives put what they have already digitally formatted online, and get their arses in gear saving what isn't digital to digital before they find their tapes have decomposed? The first part of that has already been explained multiple times and asking over and over again isn't going to magically change the answer to one you want to hear. The second part is because it's expensive. It takes a lot of time to transfer data between media and that requires money to pay people for that time. In addition, digital formats are not the solution you think they are. Standards change over time, and there are already many old data archives that can no longer be read because there's no physical hardware to read them on and no software that understands the format. Even where the hardware and software still exists the media itself deteriorates over time: most digital archives are stored on tape that decomposes just as quickly as videotape (and is harder to read when it does because the data density is higher), and optical and magnetic discs also have limited lifespans. The advantage of digital formats is that creating duplicate copies is faster than duplicating analogue data, but you need to set aside time and money to make copies of everything every few years to maintain the integrity of the archive.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2018 6:38:06 GMT
I’m not repeating everything above again, but for example the NT archive employs 2 people. We aren’t talking multi million pound corporate enterprises trying to hide treasures from the public here...
Sometimes I spade is just a spade: time, money and the purpose of an archive.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 22, 2018 7:11:44 GMT
Why can't theatre archives put what they have already digitally formatted online, and get their arses in gear saving what isn't digital to digital before they find their tapes have decomposed? Copyright. It’s the right to make copies of something. The archives don’t have it. They have a physical recording they are allowed to show to people. This is why digitising the archives would mean going back through all the contracts that were made when the recordings were handed over, checking who the rights holders they need permission from are, and then approaching and negotiating with them for permission to make a digital copy and distribute it online. The key to the 19th Century documents that are being made available online is that they are out of copyright.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 22, 2018 8:34:57 GMT
most digital archives are stored on tape that decomposes just as quickly as videotape Which is why people use cloud storage etc. and make backups. The BBC haven't yet made their archives freely available but some kind souls have transferred their tapes to Youtube for which I am very grateful and which has actually led to an increase in interest in genres like Folk Horror - I think in an era where the theatre profession is coming from an ever-narrower strata of society widening access and sharing great performances is vital. NT Live is four or more times the price of a cinema ticket and if my local cinemas are anything to go by only attracts oldies - a young relative got 'looks' as she was going in to watch a ballet, oh no, is this child going to be annoying etc. type looks, noticeable enough for her mother to remark on it later to me. I'm aware of copyright issues (I'd asked at the NT, and about why some productions weren't NT-LIved even though clearly potentially more popular than some which were) but if an archive is publicly funded (as I presume some of these are) and technology advances it should be made accessible to the general public, not just able-bodied Londoners or the time-and-money-rich.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 22, 2018 8:37:54 GMT
I might add that I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone who had mobility issues for many years and for whom the internet has been a godsend.
I've looked up some info on the collections and it seems some archive bodies are trying to digitise material and get it out to a wider audience - I'm hoping that means online or more local hubs.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Jun 22, 2018 9:11:04 GMT
Which is why people use cloud storage etc. and make backups. Backing up to the cloud sounds like a good idea but it's effectively the same as trusting all your valuables to a complete stranger, and nobody who really cares about their data uses it. There was actually a case a few years ago of a cloud provider who went under — if I recall correctly one of their many customers had been using the cloud service to store details of criminal activity so the police seized all the equipment as evidence — and everyone using it lost everything. All they got back was a partial refund of their fee, because that's all that every cloud provider offers. It's entirely an "at your own risk" service. If you care about your data you back it up yourself to your own tapes, and that means you're responsible for making sure you can read the backups.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 22, 2018 9:30:11 GMT
most digital archives are stored on tape that decomposes just as quickly as videotape I'm aware of copyright issues (I'd asked at the NT, and about why some productions weren't NT-LIved even though clearly potentially more popular than some which were) but if an archive is publicly funded (as I presume some of these are) and technology advances it should be made accessible to the general public, not just able-bodied Londoners or the time-and-money-rich. You clearly don't understand copyright and permission issues at all or you wouldn't just be waving them away as if they're not the major reason why things just can't be done. A publicly-funded archive can't just go around breaking copyright law because it would be convenient for you, the way an individual with a youtube/file sharing account can. The BBC can digitise their archives because they own the copyright to them. You can digitise archives that are out of copyright. You can create products to sell to other libraries or institutions out of digitised archive material (hey, check out what Adam Matthews and The Globe are launching next year: www.researchinformation.info/news/adam-matthews-shakespeare-collaboration) if you own or license copyright to it from the owners (who will expect a royalty fee back from sales, obviously). But if someone has given you a recording for your archive on the basis that it's used for research purposes only, and not for any commercial uses, in a protected environment where users cannot make copies of it, and not granted you the copyright on the recording, you can't do any of that.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 22, 2018 9:46:40 GMT
they're not the major reason why things just can't be done. As I think I commented earlier, the National Theatre has made some of its performances available to stream online for schools, so it can be done - where it can be, I think it should be.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 22, 2018 9:55:27 GMT
they're not the major reason why things just can't be done. As I think I commented earlier, the National Theatre has made some of its performances available to stream online for schools, so it can be done - where it can be, I think it should be. Because the NT owns the copyright. Because providing those recording to schools was part of the contract that everyone who was involved in the production signed. Because the unions negotiated extra compensation for everyone who worked on the production to compensate for their work being recorded and re-used. None of that was done with archive recordings because it wasn't technically possible - it wasn't event conceived of - at the time they were made.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 22, 2018 10:05:13 GMT
Yes, and I discussed that with someone from the NT when I asked them about other recordings, but in this day and age they should be seeking permission and where possible making it available - I can see the big West End shows probably wouldn't want to but less commercial places like the Royal Court who seem more politicised and concerned about access. TBH I think this will happen at some point with more productions because some places and theatres have already digitised their paper records and made old programmes and stills etc. fully browsable (I recently found some nice pics of a relative which we had never seen before on his old theatre group's online archive).
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 22, 2018 10:13:25 GMT
Many theatre practitioners disagree with you on the *should* part, because they feel that theatre *should* be a live experience, not a recorded one, since the recorded one is always a second-best experience (even when it's the best possible version of that second-best experience).
You are much more likely to see paper records from archives digitised that performance recordings, and even in the future not every theatre practitioner is going to want to record their performances for general consumption. We'll see more of it, yes, but I think they'll still want to keep more control over broadcast than your ideal would be.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 22, 2018 10:25:34 GMT
Many theatre practitioners disagree with you on the *should* part I know - I saw Maxine Peake on stage this week with a Q&A and I know she wasn't easy about her Hamlet being released on DVD but people I was talking to in the audience urged me to get a copy. Many years ago I remember an indie filmmaker saying he hadn't wanted his films to be shown on TV (where they caused quite a fuss) because cinema should be on the big screen. I said if it wasn't for TV I and the friends who had come to the talk with me would never have had the chance to discover his work. My argument is about education, access and giving people the bug and the courage to feel confident about a medium that many feel is exclusive, not replacing the live experience. I also always bear in mind a line by Mathew Sweet about wanting a time machine to see great past productions - he'd love to have seen David Warner's Hamlet, as would I.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2018 11:39:54 GMT
The point is the ARE accessible to the public as much as reasonably possible; they are in free to access archives, housed in accessible buildings.
That is the extent of the fulfilment “owed” to anyone by these archives- we’re lucky they are owned by public bodies and not locked away in the loft of some old theatre queen.
Obviously, yes people have to be able to get to them, and abide by the opening hours, but such is life I’m afraid, it’s not a basic human right to be able to download Hiddleston Hamlet on the Internet.
Speaking with my creative hat on, I signed a contract for the rights to a thing I wrote. In signing that me and the others involved made a decision on the final distribution- and I’m with the other creatives who say I don’t want a crappy archive recording being floating around the Internet because that’s not a fair professional representation of my work.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 22, 2018 11:45:51 GMT
Many theatre practitioners disagree with you on the *should* part I know - I saw Maxine Peake on stage this week with a Q&A and I know she wasn't easy about her Hamlet being released on DVD but people I was talking to in the audience urged me to get a copy. I regretted watching the Peake Hamlet in the cinema rather than live in the theatre - I felt the camera direction was particularly poor. Couldn't get into the production at all as a result.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 22, 2018 11:51:17 GMT
that’s not a fair professional representation of my work. But people know that of archive recordings. They'll watch an old 'lost' Dr Who just as some stills with a home-taped audio soundtrack from someone's garage because at least it's something. Given the way some plays were written and shaped around, with and by their first director and cast, seeing that original production can be important to an understanding of the development of the play. As for the basic human right thing, it's rather like the arts subsidy issue - we all pay towards it but London gets the lion's share and then some, and that's now being addressed.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2018 11:53:52 GMT
Several of us have now tried to have a reasonable discussion and failed.
I don’t live in London either. It costs me money too. But I kind of accept that the National Theatre archive lives at the National Theatre. Just like the National Library of Wales lives in Wales...I can’t demand they digitise all their books and manuscripts either...
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 22, 2018 12:27:13 GMT
Several of us have now tried to have a reasonable discussion and failed. I don't think it's an unreasonable discussion. Someone earlier in the thread suggested a Theatreboard petition for it to be made accessible online, as the NT already have to schools for some better quality recordings with Cumberbatch etc.. As someone living in the North on a low income and resigned to not being able to visit it as it is, but who has been delighted to find other archive recordings on Youtube which have brought me joy, I think it would be a wonderful thing if it could happen.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2018 12:59:16 GMT
I don't know if it's an unreasonable discussion, but from a spectator point of view, it's certainly become circular. "These should be more accessible." "They're already pretty accessible, and *more* accessible isn't really possible for these reasons." "Well they should be more accessible." "Yes, they're already pretty accessible, but *more* accessible isn't really possible for reasons already stated." And so on and so forth.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 22, 2018 13:19:16 GMT
The step you've ommitted is the 'but why can't they make them more accessible?', but other than that, yes!
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 22, 2018 13:39:51 GMT
*more* accessible isn't really possible I think it is and I think with time (and nudging from disadvantaged groups) they will be.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2018 16:31:38 GMT
The point is, I’m sorry you aren’t “disadvantaged “ by a lack of access to archival material just for your own entertainment, that is not (a point you are choosing to miss over and over) the sole purpose of archives. I agree theatre should be continually made more accessible. This includes (to a degree) more NT live style recordings and in the case of those I agree that streaming sites are also a good option that should be used more. I disagree on a level of practicality that is could and should be the case for ALL archive recordings. Just like I can’t demand the Bayeux tapestry be brought to my house on a level of practicality and purpose of those looking after it. But kathryn and myself both have substantial professional experience of this sector, what do we know right?
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 22, 2018 18:04:55 GMT
"Just for your own entertainment"? As it happens, I have been an arts writer, I've made extensive use of libraries and archives as a student, postgrad, campaigner and for my work. So I have used these things with a 'work' hat on, but I don't see why you think 'entertainment' is a bad motive! It's what makes life worth living. As a human being who loves to experience as much as possible of the work of artists and writers whose work I love, being able to see recordings of them actually performing rather than just words in biographies, reviews in old magazines or reading a playtext is like the difference between having a painting described to you in words and actually seeing the thing - even if it's just a grainy repro in an art book. Londoners have a clear advantage here* - whether it's a teenager studying for A levels or someone who is 'just' a theatre fan. I got into a certain well known posh uni to study English (first from my family to university) by enthusing in an interview about a filmed play I'd seen - a film the director had (as I mentioned earlier) not wanted to be shown on TV. I saw it on TV.
I don't happen to think there would be an appetite for ALL archive recordings, but for some 'you had to be there' productions like Jerusalem - where most of us for whatever reason couldn't be there but would have liked to be - I really think they should be online or accessible through hubs at regional libraries or arts centres.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2018 18:30:36 GMT
Yes, I who waste far too much of my life on a theatre message board think 'entertainment' is bad...
Stop looking to pick a fight. And stop deliberately disagreeing or willfully missing the point of several people offering reasonable reasons why what you wish for isn't a realistic possibility.
Or to quote a well known pop song 'You can't always get what you want'
|
|