Jump to content

Why so few in studio photos?


Timbale
 Share

Recommended Posts

It seems like there are very few pictures of the band in the studio...certainly relative to live shots. There's the odd pic of them at the mixing board maybe...but I can think of multiple albums where I don't think there are any images of them in the studio recording. It seems sort of weird to me. Do you think photos exist (even personal pics by the members or crew), or do you think they just didn't bother to document themselves in that way? I would think if photos existed, at this point we would have seen them in some book about the band. Maybe no one thought watching Neil get a good bass drum sound during the Hemispheres sessions or Geddy hunkered over his PPG during the GUP recordings would be of interest, I don't know....but I'd love to see shots of them recording through the years!
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

there's photos of PeW and MP sessions, but that's all I can recall. Never really thought about it but now that you have mentioned it, yeah, not a lot. All business and a frugal operation
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's strange since it probably wasn't a priority for them to bring a camera with them to the studio. If we're talking about more recent times where everyone has a camera than maybe it would be a little strange. But years ago when you needed to have a camera with film in it? I can see why they didn't do that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's strange since it probably wasn't a priority for them to bring a camera with them to the studio. If we're talking about more recent times where everyone has a camera than maybe it would be a little strange. But years ago when you needed to have a camera with film in it? I can see why they didn't do that.

 

But why the delineation between live and studio photography? They clearly chose, to some extent, to document their live shows by having photographers on the payroll.

 

I think of all the photos of The Beatles in the studio and it makes me wonder, is all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's strange since it probably wasn't a priority for them to bring a camera with them to the studio. If we're talking about more recent times where everyone has a camera than maybe it would be a little strange. But years ago when you needed to have a camera with film in it? I can see why they didn't do that.

 

But why the delineation between live and studio photography? They clearly chose, to some extent, to document their live shows by having photographers on the payroll.

 

I think of all the photos of The Beatles in the studio and it makes me wonder, is all...

 

Not all of those live photos are from people on their payroll. A lot of those were probably people from magazines and newspapers who were there to do concert reviews or an article on the band.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's strange since it probably wasn't a priority for them to bring a camera with them to the studio. If we're talking about more recent times where everyone has a camera than maybe it would be a little strange. But years ago when you needed to have a camera with film in it? I can see why they didn't do that.

 

But why the delineation between live and studio photography? They clearly chose, to some extent, to document their live shows by having photographers on the payroll.

 

I think of all the photos of The Beatles in the studio and it makes me wonder, is all...

 

Not all of those live photos are from people on their payroll. A lot of those were probably people from magazines and newspapers who were there to do concert reviews or an article on the band.

Yep.

 

Also, the boys weren't marketed as teen pinup types like the Beatles. RUSH were more selling pure musicianship, so live performance was a marketing focus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a feeling that there are private photos. Not intended for us to see.

 

How could they not do that at least? If I were in a recording band, I sure as hell would.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard to take photos through pungent dense clouds of smoke?

 

Atmosphere. A certain vibe to a smoky photo.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's understandable. I don't have any photos of me at work either.

 

Big Brother has entered the chat.....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have only a few tour books ( A Farewell To Kings, Test For Echo, Vapor Trails and R40) and arguably each has some studio photos. But a photo in a hallway or off to the side for a photo shoot is hard to discern if it's a studio photo or some kind of context promo photo. Aside from the album cover jackets.

 

For me, I think they were such a live band most photos are going to be of them playing live? And then there is a sh*t tonne of supporting artwork to augment a lot of their photo coverage. That should count for a balance of photo takes?

Neat perspective, though, thanks Timbale for the idea.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's strange since it probably wasn't a priority for them to bring a camera with them to the studio. If we're talking about more recent times where everyone has a camera than maybe it would be a little strange. But years ago when you needed to have a camera with film in it? I can see why they didn't do that.

 

But why the delineation between live and studio photography? They clearly chose, to some extent, to document their live shows by having photographers on the payroll.

 

I think of all the photos of The Beatles in the studio and it makes me wonder, is all...

 

I think the mindsets were 180 degrees apart on that aspect.

 

The Beatles were seemingly the rarest of cases. I'd love to find a book on the wide-ranging documentation of The Beatles and what the plan was (if there was one.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I have read that The Beatles were a band for less than ten years.

Brit media and pop crazes made sure cameras were everywhere, making a dime off every snap shot.

 

Rush simply was not that scene?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a feeling that there are private photos. Not intended for us to see.

 

Absolutely this. Think of the mid 80s when they were recording in places like Montserrat and Paris bound to have some personal records of that.

 

The lack of filmed live recordings perplexes me. Fair enough in the mid 70s when they were on a tight budget but by the 80s they were a huge headliner. Hard to fathom why there wouldn't be some pro shoot footage done from the Signals or Power Windows tours?

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if Rush were more focused on documenting their live show in photos and in-studio not so much, why are there so many from the PeW - MP era?

 

This is a good question.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if Rush were more focused on documenting their live show in photos and in-studio not so much, why are there so many from the PeW - MP era?

 

This is a good question.

 

My guess is at that point in time they had accepted the truth of life that in business (even the music business) advertising promotion is a HUGE part of getting people to buy albums & take notice of a product.

 

This is very evident in our current Internet age where a whole lot of mainstream Internet is commercial in nature.

 

& Also in general shy people hate being photographed. & All three members of the band could have be characterized as shy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...