The battle to control artists music and images was in evidence last night and I fear Placebo have done themselves no favours.
The band has a new album out in June which begs the first question of why tour before it is released particularly if it is going to have management in such a copyright protection froth it risked alienating many of the core fans?
But I get slightly ahead of myself. The above notice was posted outside the venue and not that unusual except that the policy was enforced to the letter with every one receiving a thorough frisking by security. (This alone caused a great deal of bad feeling as it meant queues to get in the venue were long and very slow moving, indeed it took Mosh and I nearly an hour).
Cameras found in pockets and bags had to be 'checked in' and collected after the gig (another fiasco in organisation).
The result was a dark mood and a rebellious one after all most people still had their phones with cameras and video.
Security prowled on the look out for anyone who dared although a few people in middle rows got away with it purely because of where they were sat. It made me laugh in a two-finger-salute way that within a minute of the first song I saw a flash go off somewhere. However, those standing in front of the stage had bright lights shone at them by stage security if they so much as raised their phone towards the stage.
The band seemed tense, the crowd too and there was a noticeable lifting of mood when half way through the set lead singer Brian Molko declared a camera amnesty because the lights being shone into the audience were distracting him.
Cue hundreds of phones raised above heads to take pictures.
Talking to people afterwards it was evident that the ban had pissed a lot of people off and tainted the evening. Indeed rather than writing about what the gig was like (Brian's voice was amazing, new material promising but the new drummer and keyboardist need reigning in) I'm instead writing about not being able to take pictures.
So why do it? OK so they want to keep the new material off the web before people get a chance to buy it but is a scratchy youtube video of a couple of songs really going to stop someone parting with their cash?
Likewise the odd half decent photo of the band performing?
Some bands have embraced the internet and use it to generate a fevered anticipation ahead of releasing new material or touring. Some, Metallica for instance, offer fans a professional recording of each gig to download for a few quid afterwards and most fans would rather have that than a poor quality bootleg.
It is also baffling that on Placebo's website and myspace page they are asking people to send in pictures and video clips of them live. They even have a flickr group for fans to upload images to.
Placebo and it's management need to determine a consistent policy on new material, photography and images working with the internet not against it.
Last nights incident has left a bad taste in my mouth and at the time I determined I wouldn't buy the new album but I probably will.
On a slightly separate issue, a few years ago some bands resisted the mp3 revolution and copy
protected songs or even whole albums. I like many of my friends listen
to music via my iPod probably 90% of the time and any albums or songs I
have that can't be listened to that way just don't get listened to.
It wasn't so long ago that Radiohead was one of those bands that would
copy protect a song or two on it's albums, fast forward to last year
when it was giving away its latest creation for free...