It seems that the world of music is not alone with the intrusion of modern technology. I read an interesting article by Ruth Graham, 'Surreptitious Snapshots', in the New York Sun.
Basically she is saying that museums and galleries have a problem with people taking photographs of paintings and within minutes they are used as screen savers on
'phones and even reproduced to hang on the wall at home.
I can't quite understand why people cannot see that this is not allowed for a reason.
Artists, like musicians, labour long and hard over their work and for every 'home made' copy which hangs on your wall an artist has forfeited his or her royalty, in much the same way as 'home made' recordings or videos of a concert deny the musicians their income. The sound quality would certainly not have been of a high enough standard to allow public release. To me it's just taking the arts for granted, people must realise that to be a performer or artist one must be completely dedicated to that role. It reminded me of a Hill/Wiltschinsky concert many years ago. They played in a very nice venue and after the concert a distinguished gentleman came backstage and said, "Splendid chaps, splendid. You must came and play for us but, of course, we can't afford to pay you.."
They do occasional charity concerts, but come on, they need to earn a living..
'As always, it was sheer pleasure to observe Robin Hill's remarkable fluent technique: everything looks easy when he plays it.' Colin Cooper- Classical Guitar Magazine ----- 'Wonderful for their (Hill & Wiltschinsky) precision, touch and clarity of sound... refined virtuosity, the achievement of a long interpretive process.' Il Giornale D'Italia (Rome) ----- 'I loved your CD and thought your technique and performance were fabulous...' Rick Wakeman