Thoughts on Tupac’s live performance
For those interested, it apparently works like this:
My thoughts:
I think this may be a God-send to the entertainment industry, who many believe has run out of ideas. They try hard to write a winning story, then develop trilogies, prequels, spin-offs, you name it. I bet many a record producer started salivating when seeing the hologram-Tupac and the salivating fan reaction. Dead stars who ended their own lives with stupid choices with drugs, alcohol, and the like, can perform in front of fans who desperately want to see them again on a stage in any form, new songs or not. It can also bring entertainers who have long since passed to a new audience. Think of Charlie Chaplin for example. Many people alive in the world at that time he lived and died may never have known such a man existed, now they may see him live. For all we know this may be hugely popular in less industrialized countries! It can’t help but be amused by the idea of dead-3D Charlie Chaplin being the biggest performer of all time in Myanmar, year: 2012. This tech may also make it safer for some performers to “tour” in war-torn countries during times of upheaval. How long will it be until one perform, performs “live” concerts in 10 cities at once?
I think this makes for a s**tsandwich for younger entertainers. They now have to compete against “hall of famer” dead people, some with renewed popularity now that they’re gone. Choices will grow, and exponentially so in the future. What happens to the world’s Justin Beibers after Kurt Kobain can perform live again? What happens when old bands, men and women in their 80s can appear as their younger selves, playing to recorded music? This could give longevity to the careers of aging stars, again more competition for the young. It can also be a wedge in the door for up and coming entertainers. One who is “just as good” as someone famous gets their chance to mime them. If they perform, people get curious, and suddenly they may have their own chance at prime time.
I believe there will be a new secondary class of entertainers, people with the dance moves or some facets of what’s necessary, now able to perform as a “puppet master” for a hologram. In the end, I believe the consumer will win. Want an end to the never ending Noah’s Ark off ramp of shoddy entertainers? Holograms of the greats can deliver this. I believe the quality of entertainment will, necessarily, improve. It will become more competitive, there will be better selection, and a better quality product selection to choose from. I believe it will also help increase the value proposition of live entertainment again. Want to see a hologram? Or the genuine article? I believe the price bracket will split. Holograms of the entertainer’s real-live performance will cost more than a hologram. This lets people choose which experience better suits their budget. It also helps return a sense of novelty to a large concert.
In conclusion
I think this technology will be a net positive overall. I’m excited to see what happens next, and I wonder if it really will help raise the bar on entertainers.
May 19th, 2012 at 3:38 am
To answer this quoeitsn, I need to ask myself why do I go to see a live concert versus just watching a video performance. Hmmm, is it the sound quality? Arguably, I never see a live concert for the sound quality. Do the artists provide good visual stimulation? Perhaps, with an elaborate light show, smoke, outfit changes, dancing, or the artists are just really attractive, the visuals are definitely a factor. How about the venue? A large outdoor/indoor concert with tons of drunk/drugged strangers all bonding over the love of music is certainly an experience. A smaller indoor venue usually provides a more intimate experience with the artist and the sounds quality is usually better. How about the personality of an artist? Does the artist interact with the crowd? Do they take time to tell road stories, jokes, and answer quoeitsns from the audience? The level of artist interaction is definitely a factor. So can a hologram provide the live concert experience ? I think for large venues with lots of people getting drunk, I think holograms can provide that experience of bonding with strangers. I think for a more personal experience with the artist where the artist interacts with the audience (doesn’t appear scripted), then I don’t think holograms can offer that experience. I like to watch the expression of an artist as they sing. Are they passionate when they sing or are the simply singing words that they don’t feel ? I like to hear why an artist wrote a particular song. I love artists who take time to play requests from the audience and answer quoeitsns. So no, going to see holograms would not be for me even if I was just looking for a large crowd experience. I see holograms being just a fad primarily catering to a younger audience because they fail to offer a human emotional experience that only live people can provide. Even if we could see Elvis or The Doors? What are you paying for? If you weren’t’ alive to see those concerts or too young, wouldn’t it be cool to know what it would have felt like? To have that experience, it takes much more than a hologram.
May 31st, 2012 at 5:20 pm
Palash- very interesting insights there. As someone that isn’t part of the regular concert going crowd, ?I missed some of the things you picked up on as part of the value proposition of going to a concert.
I wonder if this technology will spread, I wonder if our thoughts on this are correct.