You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- elevendayempire
- Rep: 96
Re: Interesting comment on the Troubadour show...
...from the video production company that shot the promo stuff:
thank you...and then when the big money shows came around,,,they didn't even take our calls and then agreed with tour promoters to use their in house people (always cheap) hired a company for Dodger Stadium who brought in a "FlyPac" to record the show. A FlyPac" is what news outlets use to do live shots from intentional distentions. Occasionally they are used as switchers for multi-camera shoots...3 cameras at most. (Dodger Stadium???? Three cameras..????) The Production company called me when they knew they were in trouble..,it was my time to not pick up the phone, Fuck them
From https://vimeo.com/161866755
Re: Interesting comment on the Troubadour show...
Eh, not really surprising.
What the guy is getting at is they went cheap for all the shows on their actual tour but ponied up the dough for the Troubadour show. It could be a whole bunch of sour grapes. I have to say, there's some questionable professionalism in that screed.
Anyway, this is somewhat in line with what was done in the past. I can't speak to the old days but the infamous House of Blues show was a different crew than the team that shot every show onwards and obviously different than the Appetite For Democracy show too (my God, that was poorly done).
A 3-cam setup for an big venue like Dodger Stadium is a limited amount of coverage. You'll get a wide master and two other shots probably a shot mid-shot and a reverse shot medium close-up.
I think the Troubadour video is a bit rough-and-tumble with quality but still put together by someone who knew what they were doing. I'd guess it was shot on DSLRs and GoPros.
I remember a crane at the Detroit show and remember a shoulder-mount roamer in the pit but can't remember much else.
- elevendayempire
- Rep: 96
Re: Interesting comment on the Troubadour show...
Yeah, it's not the most professional response, to call out the client in public. I wouldn't hire him after that. Still, it is a little worrying to anyone hoping for a Blu-ray release from the tour. They may be filming all the shows, but not to the highest standard...
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Interesting comment on the Troubadour show...
yeah it's frustrating...they film troublador well but it wasn't the best show cos the band was green, then they've filmed the others with only 3 cameras 
Hopefully we get a good proshot at rio.
I wonder if this footage will join the other GNR dvds that never were....from memory there's:
1. The Axl Rose Documentary - bits of it leaked in 2006 where u see Axl walk into the show from backstage
2. The Asian Tour videos from 2009-10. There was a leaked promo from a doco about that which never came out.
3. The london show that was to be in theares...this one leaked....
But no...none of that comes out...only a bad bluray of Axl's worst era....Grrrr.
Re: Interesting comment on the Troubadour show...
A 3-cam setup for an big venue like Dodger Stadium is a limited amount of coverage. You'll get a wide master and two other shots probably a shot mid-shot and a reverse shot medium close-up.
Three cams at Dodger with a show of this scale?
Pathetic.
I'd have done the Troubadour with 4-5 cams, with the stationary master, 2 stage cams, an audience cam... It's the commonplace setup for a band that can certainly pony up the cost. In other words, three cams on a club is the absolute minimum to get reasonable coverage; four gives the editor some much-needed options.
Dodger? I'd reckon you'd need 5-7, depending on your gear, to really capture the experience (incl. one dedicated Axl cam, maybe one Slash cam). Whoever made the call is seriously deluded about the necessities of recording live shows.
I think the Troubadour video is a bit rough-and-tumble with quality but still put together by someone who knew what they were doing. I'd guess it was shot on DSLRs and GoPros.
Given space limitations, that's not too bad, but again goes back to the quality of the gear. Solid DSLR's can handle it, and obviously, you wouldn't bring an ARRI Alexa to it.
That guy seems to have a handle on his stuff, so good for him to bail out. Can hardly blame him.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: Interesting comment on the Troubadour show...
You only need 3 cameras. One for Axl, one for Slash, one for Duff. What else is there to shoot?
Re: Interesting comment on the Troubadour show...
You only need 3 cameras. One for Axl, one for Slash, one for Duff. What else is there to shoot?
I'm sure your joking, but as a frame of reference you'd need minimum 1 main shot of the stage & all 5 of them, so you're limited to 2. Axl & Slash, Axl sure runs around alot, so when he's running you're now down to just Slash. Plus, no audience shots.
5-7 is definitely more likely. Yeah they definitely did a nice shoot with the Troubadour show, well done and probably used some pretty solid gear. I agree probably in poor taste to call them out publicly, but in fairness its only on his Vimeo page which has 409 views. No one really saw it, up until GnRevolution got a hold of it lol. Funny, I checked out their website tho and what did I see, 2 pics of Guns. The pic of Slash looks like it might be Dodger stadium, I wouldn't know.
Re: Interesting comment on the Troubadour show...
Still, it is a little worrying to anyone hoping for a Blu-ray release from the tour. They may be filming all the shows, but not to the highest standard...
It seems I missed the forest. 
Given space limitations, that's not too bad, but again goes back to the quality of the gear. Solid DSLR's can handle it, and obviously, you wouldn't bring an ARRI Alexa to it.
True, the A-cams are good enough. I can't make out the model but the pit looks like a Canon make, shoulder mount with a little baby Rode mic. The B-cams for time-lapse and a couple of B-roll isn't though. It looks like security cam video and you see all sorts of ugliness.
Not your sort of thing Average Joe will gripe about but immediately noticeable.
Interesting no help from the band but still was able to hook into the soundboard.
You only need 3 cameras. One for Axl, one for Slash, one for Duff. What else is there to shoot?
For comparison, Rock Am Ring 2006 at minimum, had 2 operators above the pit, 2 cranes, 2 stage cams, a wide master, an ultra wide, and at least 2 audience cams in the middle of the massive pit. All with long zoom lenses.
Great production.
Re: Interesting comment on the Troubadour show...
As monkey mentioned....if you never release any of it, what's the point of recording every show? I don't get it. It seems like a complete waste of money. They've been doing this for eons.
You only need 3 cameras. One for Axl, one for Slash, one for Duff. What else is there to shoot?
I get your point but I'm sure a full show that simply switches from one of the three would be terrible.
Re: Interesting comment on the Troubadour show...
Yeah, it's not the most professional response, to call out the client in public.
Granted, but there's a flipside to it. He insinuates Guns promised an ongoing commission, going into the NITL tour. However, they flip-flopped (Gee, when has that ever happened with this band?).
Then, the people organizing the Dodger shoot called him. He makes it sound like Beta gave them his number. Had he said yes, he would've mimicked Ron's initiation. They scoffed him for his openness and then came back at the eve of the 2006 tour, saying 'Save us.' And this was Axl's obsession over the band's preference.
I wouldn't hire him after that.
Funny that, I would. The proposed 3-cam solution is preposterous at their level, and anyone contacted by Guns on this matter should know about it beforehand. Besides, Ax's public image. Tis all rock n' roll, y'know?
They may be filming all the shows, but not to the highest standard...
I'd be even more worried about the allocated post-production time. That Better vid from 2006, by Jonathan Rach, I think, was pretty turgid. Given the raw materials, any reasonable editor could blow that one off the water.
It looked and felt like a rough assembly, which is when the editor usually starts to feel their way into the footage. Either the editor was poor (maybe...), or the employer felt it was good enough for their money (:haha:). What struck me was the Devil animation. Generally, you only add in those things after a picture lock, as waste not, want not. Which suggests a turned-in cut instead of a rough assembly.
This would answer the question as to why it was leaked in the first place. Why leak a version that makes everyone involved look bad, or at least, incoherent?
Axl,
If you're reading this, I'll pitch you a proper legacy. An 8-part documentary on the band, an hour-long episode per album - UYI gets two, albums & tour, CD gets 2, one w/ TSI (1993-2001) & a standalone (2002-2014). Then NITL-Axl/DC, and finally, CD2. When live footage is available, it'll be edited in. The CD years in particular will also feature recording session footage. Each episode will have a bonus vid, a live performance edited from archive footage.
We'll have you talk to the camera one day, all day. The good, the bad, and the ugly. We'll present you with any given framework of soundbytes you'll be responding to, so you'll have context to your side of the story. Just laying your vocals to a near-finished track. But I'd narrow the other talking heads to any lineup in question. Band only, please, unless absolutely necessary. They can promote it for you, too. Just release some of their extra stories as teasers.
This is a documentary about being in a band called Guns, and guess what?
You can do it with one camera.
