|
|
Post by welsh_tenor on Sept 22, 2016 17:37:38 GMT
Apparently they sent a note out saying all recordings made by fans at the 10th will be destroyed. Could this mean they're doing a live recording? Who is "they" and how would "they" be able to remotely get into people's phones and other devices to destroy data? To quote the letter, "Unauthorised recordings will be confiscated and cancelled." |
|
|
|
Post by welsh_tenor on Sept 22, 2016 17:54:56 GMT
Ok... don't immediately discount this wild theory.....
You don't think this "fans in the circle & celebs in the stalls" could be a big rouse for the live recording??!
We have all said how they can't fill just the stalls with YouTubers and friends and family so is there a chance that they ARE doing a live recording and those in the stalls are in the know to be on best behaviour with some seats being left empty for sound engineers etc?
That way the crazys are all upstairs and with only the downstairs mic'd for crowd noise it will be a controlled live recording?!
I'm. A. Genius*.
*probably not but you heard it hear first!
|
|
46 posts
|
Post by chrisorsomething on Sept 22, 2016 18:04:09 GMT
I think I went off on one about this in another thread and related to another show (maybe Phantom) but it's all tied into contracts, residuals, movie soundtrack deals etc etc etc. Boring stuff which fans don't understand/care about so choose to ignore and continue with their discussion
|
|
46 posts
|
Post by chrisorsomething on Sept 22, 2016 18:05:18 GMT
In other words I doubt there will be an official recording released purely for contractual reasons
|
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Sept 22, 2016 18:25:31 GMT
Who is "they" and how would "they" be able to remotely get into people's phones and other devices to destroy data? To quote the letter, "Unauthorised recordings will be confiscated and cancelled." That's weird. And not really feasible to execute. |
|
2,778 posts
|
Post by daniel on Sept 22, 2016 18:37:17 GMT
I think they mean more "if we see you filming or taking photos we'll take it off you and delete it. If we don't see you do it because you're audio recorder is in your top pocket/under your seat/wherever, well we can't actually stop you, but hopefully we've scared you off the idea"
|
|
2,778 posts
|
Post by daniel on Sept 22, 2016 18:39:42 GMT
Although to further add, they can't confiscate your phone anyway unless they've got an SIA badge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 19:45:40 GMT
I think I went off on one about this in another thread and related to another show (maybe Phantom) but it's all tied into contracts, residuals, movie soundtrack deals etc etc etc. Boring stuff which fans don't understand/care about so choose to ignore and continue with their discussion Surely they'd have negotiated the option to make a West End recording when the show first opened? I think there actually were plans to record one back in 2006, but for some reason it didn't happen back then. |
|
2,778 posts
|
Post by daniel on Sept 22, 2016 22:29:59 GMT
I think I went off on one about this in another thread and related to another show (maybe Phantom) but it's all tied into contracts, residuals, movie soundtrack deals etc etc etc. Boring stuff which fans don't understand/care about so choose to ignore and continue with their discussion Surely they'd have negotiated the option to make a West End recording when the show first opened? I think there actually were plans to record one back in 2006, but for some reason it didn't happen back then. As previously stated by another member, there was going to be one but producers wanted to use the Broadway recording for the orchestra, which understandably the London musicians weren't happy about. So in the end it didn't happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 22:32:45 GMT
Surely they'd have negotiated the option to make a West End recording when the show first opened? I think there actually were plans to record one back in 2006, but for some reason it didn't happen back then. As previously stated by another member, there was going to be one but producers wanted to use the Broadway recording for the orchestra, which understandably the London musicians weren't happy about. So in the end it didn't happen. Yeah, but that would mean they had permission to do a West End recording in the first place. The question is for how long was that permission valid? |
|
4,361 posts
|
Post by shady23 on Sept 22, 2016 22:35:30 GMT
If they don't do it now in the tenth year I can't see it ever happening.
|
|
4,361 posts
|
Post by shady23 on Sept 22, 2016 22:38:03 GMT
As previously stated by another member, there was going to be one but producers wanted to use the Broadway recording for the orchestra, which understandably the London musicians weren't happy about. So in the end it didn't happen. Yeah, but that would mean they had permission to do a West End recording in the first place. The question is for how long was that permission valid? Of course they have permission. You forget other Wicked companies away from Broadway e.g. Germany have released their own soundtracks. They seem to have managed to negotiate through the red tape ok. Perhaps they could give Wicked London some tips?! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 22:40:29 GMT
Yeah, but that would mean they had permission to do a West End recording in the first place. The question is for how long was that permission valid? Of course they have permission. You forget other Wicked companies away from Broadway e.g. Germany have released their own soundtracks. They seem to have managed to negotiate through the red tape ok. Perhaps they could give Wicked London some tips?! I think the main issue would be that this one would be in English. The ones in German and Japanese had a different target audience. This one could be competition for the OBC recording and maybe the movie soundtrack, although that one won't be out for more than 3 years. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 22:42:20 GMT
If they don't do it now in the tenth year I can't see it ever happening. My point exactly. It's hardly imaginable for the average Broadway transfer not to get a West End recording nowadays. It would be incredibly strange if one of the most successful transfer in the last decade didn't get its own recording. It's now or never. |
|
4,361 posts
|
Post by shady23 on Sept 22, 2016 22:43:38 GMT
This one has a different target audience too since those who go and pay their money to see the LONDON cast want to buy a cd in the lobby of the LONDON cast.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 22:46:49 GMT
This one has a different target audience too since those who go and pay their money to see the LONDON cast want to buy a cd in the lobby of the LONDON cast. Very true. I'm 100% with you on this. I'm just trying to imagine what the producers are thinking and have been thinking for the past 10 years. Recording one now would probably be one of the best decisions in the history of the London production, not doing one would be the worst decision in its history. Especially because the current cast is quite possibly the best we've had in a long time. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 4:40:14 GMT
I'm just trying to imagine what the producers are thinking and have been thinking for the past 10 years. What they're thinking is "Would we make money on this?" That's all they're thinking. They're not looking at the situation the way a fan looks at the situation. Remember, a new recording would have to cover its costs, and as there's already a cast recording of the show it's not enough for sales of the new recording to bring in enough profit to cover the cost of creating it. It's the increase in sales that has to cover the cost, because the level of sales they're getting at the moment is money they'd be getting anyway. If the specific market segment "people who would buy a new cast recording but would refuse to buy an old one" isn't large enough then there's no point having a new recording. |
|
46 posts
|
Post by chrisorsomething on Sept 23, 2016 6:25:32 GMT
chrisorsomething said:Copyrights, contracts, red tape. Royalties and residuals, high production costs (£250,000 approx) let alone legal fees drawing up contracts and whatnot. There are always reasons behind the scenes! Further to the above, I don't understand the confusion. It all comes down to contracts. Whether it's crowdfunded or not makes absolutely zero difference. Wicked is an IP (intellectual property) with undoubtedly a very complicated structure of backers/producers. There are legally binding contracts in place between those, the creators, possibly original cast members, upcoming movie producers etc to prevent exactly this from happening. Why? 1. Asset protection. If I own an IP worth X million that was raking in X million easy profits, with the cast album still selling to anyone who hasn't already got a copy, then why risk damaging my brand with a cast recording which is potentially going to damage my brand. 2. Niche market. You think everyone is clamouring for a new cast recording. They aren't. The average Joe/Joanne doesn't care like you do. It's just another musical. They don't dayseat, they don't know any of the actors names - they probably don't remember any of the characters names. They just want showtunes to sing along to in the car. 3. And most importantly. Contractual obligations. A movie deal has been signed which will, undoubtedly mean a movie cast recording. Any other cast recordings released will be in direct competition to the sale of theirs and therefore reduce profits. Finally, please look at The Phantom of the Opera. Ever wondered why there hasn't been another cast recording? It's in Michael Crawford, Hal Prince, Sarah Brightman and a host of other people's contracts that an English language album of the show cannot be produced without their consent. Well, why don't they just give consent? They're so mean! That'll be because they earn very healthy royalties on every single cast recording ever sold. Enough for Crawford to essentially retire on. Any deal they signed would still involve paying them - even if they aren't on the cast recording. Read more: theatreboard.co.uk/user/1053/recent?page=3#ixzz4L3ddYaGV |
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Sept 23, 2016 6:49:30 GMT
Finally, please look at The Phantom of the Opera. Ever wondered why there hasn't been another cast recording? It's in Michael Crawford, Hal Prince, Sarah Brightman and a host of other people's contracts that an English language album of the show cannot be produced without their consent. Well, why don't they just give consent? They're so mean! That'll be because they earn very healthy royalties on every single cast recording ever sold. Enough for Crawford to essentially retire on. Any deal they signed would still involve paying them - even if they aren't on the cast recording. Then how did they manage to release the English language 25th anniversary live recording? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 7:26:20 GMT
Finally, please look at The Phantom of the Opera. Ever wondered why there hasn't been another cast recording? It's in Michael Crawford, Hal Prince, Sarah Brightman and a host of other people's contracts that an English language album of the show cannot be produced without their consent. Well, why don't they just give consent? They're so mean! That'll be because they earn very healthy royalties on every single cast recording ever sold. Enough for Crawford to essentially retire on. Any deal they signed would still involve paying them - even if they aren't on the cast recording. Then how did they manage to release the English language 25th anniversary live recording? I was thinking the same thing |
|
46 posts
|
Post by chrisorsomething on Sept 23, 2016 7:42:17 GMT
It isn't a recording of the original West End production. It was restaged with a new director.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 7:55:18 GMT
It isn't a recording of the original West End production. It was restaged with a new director. The way it's staged doesn't really change the songs you get on the CD though. |
|
46 posts
|
Post by chrisorsomething on Sept 23, 2016 8:00:10 GMT
You're beginning to understand, then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nelly on Sept 23, 2016 8:39:38 GMT
Yeah, but that would mean they had permission to do a West End recording in the first place. The question is for how long was that permission valid? Of course they have permission. You forget other Wicked companies away from Broadway e.g. Germany have released their own soundtracks. They seem to have managed to negotiate through the red tape ok. Perhaps they could give Wicked London some tips?! The German Wicked cast recording has the Broadway orchestra on it. |
|
121 posts
|
Post by MusicalTalk on Sept 24, 2016 6:51:18 GMT
Of course they have permission. You forget other Wicked companies away from Broadway e.g. Germany have released their own soundtracks. They seem to have managed to negotiate through the red tape ok. Perhaps they could give Wicked London some tips?! The German Wicked cast recording has the Broadway orchestra on it. Cast Recording. Not Soundtrack. The film will have a soundtrack. Yes - they wanted to do a London Cast Recording with the BWay Orchestral tracks - but the musician's union wouldn't allow this - understandably. Possibly the German Musicians Union didn't care... but ours do, and we should support that fully. I wish they'd do a recording of JUST the orchestral tracks - with no singers at all - but that will never happen either for obvious reasons. London doesn't have the full Broadway orchestration, though... we were given the reduced US Tour version - so a London Cast Recording would be an inferior product in my opinion - no matter who sings on it. |
|
