probably been said before but doesnt stop me trying.
would be great if we had a live dvd of a kula performance released. obviously doesnt compare with the actual live experience but still enjoy watching dvds of live shows.

peace x

Yep, its definitely due!

Well, seconded (or thirded, I guess here.) And the frustrating thing is that it wouldn't even have to be shot specially, there's plenty of existing footage (both from pre-split and post-reform) that could be used to make a stunning live DVD.

Actually I'd prefer it if it wasn't shot specially for DVD release. Not only would it be an un-necessary waste of money, but in my opinion those kind of films are often ruined with tricksy-editing and wannabe-arty photography, for no other reason than some assumption that a straightforwardly-shot concert isn't good enough where people paying money for a DVD is concerned. I'm probably biased right now cos I watched "Snow Patrol at Somerset House" the other night, and I've never seen before such a shocking example of a great gig ruined by wanky, overly-pretentious filming / editing.

The unofficial Live at Irving Plaza '97 is the best kula live DVD out there.

What footage are you referring to drykid? I mean footage that they could actually viably and affordably acquire the rights to release a dvd with.?

quote:

Originally posted by 2-J:
What footage are you referring to drykid? I mean footage that they could actually viably and affordably acquire the rights to release a dvd with.?

Well, it depends on your definition of viable, I guess. I don't know how deep the band's pockets are. Also, the amount of money that broadcasters charge for use of footage is as I understand it, highly variable, depending mostly on what they feel they can get for it. (There were some postings on another forum I'm on from a guy who produced a BBC documentary on Marc Bolan that was shown recently. He was saying how he wanted to do a highly-expanded version for DVD release, but the costs involved of obtaining commercial rights turned out to be such that they could only afford to add a small amount of extra footage in the end.) But having said that the band could get lucky. A lot of the material I was thinking of is festival footage, and that might well be controlled by the festival organisers rather than BBC / Ch4 (even if they were the ones who broadcast it originally.) Ultimately all it takes is someone to start doing some research, and that in itself costs nothing but time...

In terms of footage, obviously as K says Irving Plaza would be amazing, although I've no idea who would hold the rights to that (I don't even know why it was filmed in the first place; the version I have has no credits of any kind, which suggests it might not have been made for TV.) But in terms of UK stuff there's an amazing Reading appearance from '96, T in the Park from the same year, Glastonbury from both '97 and '99, V festival and T in the Park from 2006. Presumably all these sets still exist in full in the archives. That would be enough to fill several DVDs, without even considering the numerous Euro-festivals that probably exist.

Of course if they filmed a concert especially for release now then that would solve the problem of paying for existing footage. But I'm sure the production costs would be just as great. Didn't someone from a production company post on here last year trying to contact the band about filming a DVD?

I think there must be some reason why bands don't release 'live at Reading' 'live at Glastonbury' dvds, etc. And non-festival stuff filmed in the old days may very well have been done by the record company who would have had the capital and maybe even first dibs, per the contract.. not sure how it would work out. But yeah behind my remark was the idea that there probably isn't a dvd's worth of footage they could actually viably release, in existence.

About the guy who wanted to film the dvd, well it seems bands not much larger than Kula's size can release live dvds in this day and age precisely when such a company comes along. With improvements in technology etc they probably offer a competitive package. But knowing Crispian *sigh*

quote:

Originally posted by 2-J:
I think there must be some reason why bands don't release 'live at Reading' 'live at Glastonbury' dvds, etc.

It could be the cost, or it could simply be that it somehow isn't considered "sexy" enough, and that people are only interested in seeing filmed-for-DVD concerts with all the bells and whistles, multiple angles, backstage footage etc etc. In recent years festival coverage on TV has increased drastically, to the point where for the last few years you've been able to watch complete / near-complete sets for many of the bands at Glastonbury, for instance. That kind of exposure is bound to reduce the perceived value of such things. Why pay £15 for something you can just record off the TV.

I know that festival footage does get released often enough, but it often tends to be a track here or there on compilations rather than whole sets. That might suggest that cost like you say is the real issue. I still stand by my original point; you never know unless you go out there and start asking.

quote:

And non-festival stuff filmed in the old days may very well have been done by the record company who would have had the capital and maybe even first dibs, per the contract..

That was my point about Irving Plaza, that it might have been the record company themselves who filmed it for possible (VHS!) release. In which case I can't possibly see it resurfacing cos I can't imagine the band voluntarily negotiating with their old label.

Yeah or maybe the Irving Plaza stuff might just have been for tv spots and the like. I could see a record company doing that. Especially for e.g. the US market. Maybe the idea was abandoned, no skin off a major US record company's nose.

Hello

Interesting. If you're just looking to watch gig footage there is some on fabchannel.com - you can watch from the official Kula MySpace and there is quite a lot on YouTube. Kula even have an official YouTube page as well!

On footage - footage from other companies usually costs quite a bit depending on the source. Things like Glastonbury have the media rights sold - I think they're on BBC 2 - can't remember

I love the idea of a documentary and live music mix, but if I were Kula I would be very careful who I let film as the tv industry are generally untrustworthy and tend to edit for effect. I know a few friends doing 'friendly' interviews and ended up being totally betrayed by the industry. Editing is a powerful tool and in the wrong hands can be quite a vicious weapon. So any documentary or video must come from within, or be within a circle of trust (trying to sound scary like DeNiro hehehe). What would probably work is a long term voluntary filming (something a bit similar to what Harry & the guys do with their photo blogs, except with video) and then let the Band have full control over the editoral process and then self publish on Lulu.com - you can publish both music cds & dvds and it doesn't cost a penny in set up, you can sell it direct and just keep your profit. Costs of filming would have to be kept to a minimum though to make the risk worthwhile. So it would have to be done through friends & volunteers, which is probably the way kula would prefer it. I think it's something Harry would be good to develop as he seems that way inclined having seen his latest slideshow on MySpace. I would happily donate some of my time & resources if I got the opportunity

Lulu is fantastic though, it gives the power back to the creators and takes away the middlemen who get all the money. My friend has 10 proper published books and she's just started to experiment with self publishing on lulu as it gives her complete freedom and every sale profit she makes will go directly to her and will be in her account in under a month. Who needs publishers anymore? There is a big revolution brewing where the power is returning to the artists who create the work and it's a very exciting time to be around creatively - Kula couldn't have timed it better. (yipee!!!!)