"It's all about story."

Tommy / Laura

So, Tommy Gabel - Transgender, eh? EVERYONE PANIC AND HAVE AN ILL INFORMED OPINION! Including me. Here goes.

By making it into a news story, Laura (Tom’s preferred name) has taken a bold decision. Indeed, I think it’s really “punk” in the true sense of the word. Transgender issues are rarely discussed in the mainstream. On a day when we can tally 30 states in the USA that can’t get their head around two people of the same sex wanting to live faithfully together, I can only imagine the mental short-circuitry of trying to explain to the more neolithic amongst us that someone who is married should choose to change gender, and stay married. 

And good for her for doing so. However, bringing a rarely discussed issue to the mainstream brings all the cranks out on both sides. When I first tweeted “impressed by the bravery of @TommyGabel - now that’s punk” (supportive, well considered, gender neutral - these things aren’t just thrown together) the first heckle I got was from… A transgender woman. Perhaps “heckle” is strong, but she sent me several tweets complaining it was more about survival, that the Rolling Stone article (which isn’t yet published) is biased and poorly written, etc. Now, I understand hitching your wagon to an issue you feel strongly about, but a little part of me is begging for everyone to do some reading.

For what it’s worth, most mainstream news coverage I think has been pretty supportive, and used respectful pronouns and terminology. In terms of introducing a difficult and complex issue to the mainstream, we have to start somewhere. It’s better to gently introduce a topic, than plunge the uninitiated in. 

So -If you had a reaction to the news, be it shock, outrage, confusion or support - you owe it to yourself, and Laura, to read the article. Then do some wider reading. Then do some thinking. THEN have an opinion about it. Bringing such an intensely personal issue into a public forum is massively brave, both personally and professionally, so out of respect, let’s try to avoid politicking it, and be respectful. We might all learn something.

MCA.

It’s awkward being white and middle class. Nothing we create is “authentic”. It’s a copy. It’s cringeworthy. It’s mainstream. 

Which is why the Beastie Boys are such a significant force. White rap has been done by lots of folks. But the Beasties made it legitimate. No Sleep ‘till Brooklyn wasn’t cheesy - it was fresh. Sincere, clever, ironic and new. All at once. Paul’s Boutique was a revelation - hip hop that wasn’t an imitation, but a progression. It wasn’t about race - Beastie Boys rapped about social problems, inequality, parties, drinking, all the while creating fresh beats and borrowing old school jams. The fact that they were white was co-incidental, but meant that for the first time, white hip hop fans didn’t have to cringe when expressing their love for the style. Ill Communication, Licence to Ill, and even Hello Nasty proved it wasn’t a fluke.

And that’s before we get to MCA’s video directing - clearly cine-literate, the videos for Intergalactic and body movin’ showed his love for film history. His work for Tibet raised awareness by attracting other celebrities to the cause.

It goes without saying that 47 is too young to die. It’s so much worse when you realise how creative, inventive, and energetic MCA was. RIP. We lost an important one today.

Music Photography

Lots being made on the Music Photographer’s FB page about release forms for bands, and using images for free. I’m interested in opinion on this - should a photographer put their work online? if so, when? Does putting it online devalue it? make it easier to pirate? does it ever bring positive attention?

My personal take currently is that I have a very small number of music clients, and blogs / magazines that know me or my work. If I’ve been asked to keep stuff off the net, I do. All of my sales terms say that I can use the image as much as I want for personal promotion, and that my images aren’t allowed to be manipulated without my consent.

BUT

I’ve seen my images trimmed (to get rid of the watermark) on Facebook pages, blogs, and once, on an artists website, often without attribution or payment. These are the risks of putting work “out there”. I’m also a big believer in showing off (!) if you were lucky enough to get good shots of a band, you aren’t selling them, or the window to sell has passed, why not share them online with people?

AND

Another business model I’ve been considering - the “app route” as I call it. Let’s say I have a flickr selection of 60 pics from a show. If I priced a fullsized download, limited to 150 pixels Per inch (good enough to print at A4, say, but no higher) would people pay an amount (£1 / £2 / ?) to download it? would this just cause problems? would YOU pay? I’m interested. Hit me back on twitter or via messages - I might put some of the interesting responses up. Ask your friends, too!

onefootbeforetheother asked: I agree. A revenue split would be fair. Something which should be negotiated before making a deal with someone. Which you are most likely aware of. Although, if you were asked to do a music video by a record label then they should entirely fund the video and commission you to do it. You may not have been referring to exactly that, but you are being to kind if you pay for something (other than your own equipment) that you need. I may have lost my point somewhere in there... but you're right.

That was sort of my point - you’ve been paid to do a job fully, by a label, and they take ownership thereafter. That’s why I wasn’t complaining about previous jobs. BUT I’d say going forward, if YouTube is the way most people consume music videos these days, perhaps writing a clause into the final invoice is the way forward. Or professional suicide. Does a director have any right to the finished article? I can see arguments for both sides - that’s why I brought it up!