9 minute read
Is the Future of Concerts Virtual?
Art by Deana Dieujuste
IS THE FUTURE OF CONCERTS VIRTUAL?
Written by Parmis Etezady
How would you feel if you saw the ghost of your favorite (dead) musician on stage? Seeing an artist in concert, hearing songs you’ve only ever heard on your phone (or another music player) come to life in an energetic, lively crowd, is often a breathtaking experience. Imagine a world in which your favorite musician is projected onto the stage, not with a gravity-defying fall from the ceiling or a rise from under the stage as a grand entrance. Instead, they are cast onto the stage as a collection of lights, producing a human-appearing figure who will near-perfectly imitate the artist from their voice to their body movements. They’ll even have small quirks that only a few may recognize. The figure becomes the artist and puts on a hell of a show doing it. Say hello to the virtual concert.
NEW REALITY
THE SCIENCE OF IT
WHAT THE F*CK IS A VIRTUAL CONCERT?
Virtual concerts occur in various forms. Multiple sources reveal that the musicianturned-hologram responsible for sparking the virtual concert revolution happened at the Coachella Festival in 2012. Tupac Shakur, one of the world’s most famous rappers, was brought back to the stage as a hologram 16 years after his death. The hologram sang and danced next to fellow rappers Dr. Dre and Snoop Dogg, shocking hundreds of thousands of people watching both in the crowd and on television.
Since this event, there has been a boom in dead musicians being “brought back to life.” Pioneers of garage rock Buddy Holly, the unforgettable Frank Zappa, “The Voice” Whitney Houston, the King of Pop, Michael Jackson, and heavy metal singer Ronnie James Dio are all musicians who have been regenerated for the entertainment of the masses.
The man responsible for directing the creation of the Tupac hologram, John Textor (CEO of Facebank Group), wants to take it one step further. He believes any celebrity, dead or alive, could have a “digital human” version of themselves. He claims that having an option for one’s virtual self to take their place at times could “give celebrities a freedom they didn’t have.”
The technology used to bring Tupac “back to life” is referred to as “Pepper’s Ghost,” according to Global News. An invention by Dr. John Pepper “involves projecting an image onto a piece of glass that is slightly angled, which then is reflected back onto the stage.” The Washington Post says the creators of this hologram spent 6 weeks with a body double who imitated Tupac’s moves. They were then digitally animated to look identical to the rapper when projected onto the stage.
Swedish supergroup ABBA has followed a similar venture. Instead of a traditional hologram, they have utilized motion capture technology to form digital versions of themselves. According to The Mirror, “the band performed in motion capture suits for five weeks while 160 cameras scanned their body movement and facial expressions.” These avatars then appeared on a pixel screen beside live musicians. Together, they performed 90-minutes of ABBA hits and songs from their most recent album, Voyage. 6 years in the making, an entire stadium was built at Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in London for this stationary tour, which premiered on May 27 of 2022.
Another hologram concert, this time for the deceased Frank Zappa, featured a set-up of a center screen where Zappa’s hologram was shown with musical equipment and LED screens surrounding that area which ran all the way beneath the stage, according to the Washington Post. The hologram sang with Zappa’s live recorded voice and looked just like him from how it dressed to its movements on stage.
MORAL OR IMMORAL?
Proponents of the virtual concert cite a few reasons. For one, bringing back dead musicians for a new generation of music lovers to enjoy can be a beautiful thing, perhaps even a music history lesson. Younger people who adore old artists may feel overjoyed to be able to see them in concert one way or another. For example, a Frank Zappa tour featuring a screen that could show his hologram and create other eyecatching animations received much positive feedback. Audience members ranged from young kids to people of Zappa’s generation. In addition, the ABBAtar concert mentioned previously can be a great experience for a younger generation who could never have seen the group at their peak in the ‘70s.
It may be valuable to have the opportunity to appreciate and celebrate an artist’s accomplishments. It may even somewhat show what they would have looked and acted
OLD IS THE NEW...
OLD IS THE NEW...
like when they were alive through a virtual recreation of them at the defining era of their career. However, I can’t help but raise a ton of questions regarding the ethics of taking an entire human being’s identity, especially if they are no longer living, and profiting off it.
The most obvious point for me is that one is clearly crossing a boundary when resurrecting a musician in virtual form for the masses to view. It’s just weird. Once someone is dead, they are supposed to remain dead. I get wanting to stay connected to a musician you grew up with and have a certain intimacy with. Still, there’s just something about fawning over a dead musician’s hologram that rubs me the wrong way.
Of course, the thought of experiencing a performance from someone who has retired or is simply not alive anymore is an appealing image. However, what does this say about why one enjoys a certain artist’s music? If you really love an artist, you love them for the art that they create, not what they look like. It seems to me the lack of boundaries for appreciating a dead musician’s work without wanting to “resurrect” them in hologram form roots from the need for physical—just as much as mental—stimulation when listening to music. This can destroy any ability to thoroughly enjoy the music itself rather than the artist’s face attached to it.
The consent necessary to use a person’s name, image, and in the case of holograms, their entire persona is evidently inaccessible when it comes to that of a deceased musician. While a team is often behind living musicians, helping make decisions regarding the copyright of themselves, the artist is ultimately in charge of how their identity is used. However, when the artist is taken out of that equation, it is up to their relatives, estate, or whoever possesses control over their name to make the appropriate decision.
While a deceased musician’s life is managed by an estate, there’s no guarantee that the estate will do its best to protect the musician’s legacy. The Washington Post brings up that when such large amounts of potential profits are on the line, how could estates look past the dollar signs and recognize that they could possibly cross a line by selling an artist’s entire name and image to a hologram-production company? Creating a virtual copy of a deceased musician to be displayed to thousands of people and generate thousands of dollars (if not more) seems a violation of that person’s right to rest in peace—no matter who gives the green light to do so.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with honoring someone’s life and accomplishments, as long as it’s from afar. The next time I want to see my favorite dead artist on stage, I’ll watch their original concert movie in my local theater.
Apart from dead musicians, living ones may also begin to utilize the virtual concert for themselves, as we’ve already seen with ABBA. But what could this mean for the connection between an artist and their fans?
There’s no doubt that many enjoy concerts due to the connection felt between themselves and the musician performing. It’s a beautiful thing to be noticed by the artist, or if not, even being in the same room as them can feel like a privilege. Many musicians are known for their unmatchable stage presence, whether they sound 100x cooler live or put on a show you wouldn’t be able to see with anybody else. The virtual concert, however, completely destroys this factor of the concert we know and love. How is one supposed to connect with a screen? A hologram can only do so much to imitate the artist. Sure, they can look and act like a musician and even perform stunts that the musician themselves wouldn’t be able to do, but holograms possess absolutely no human traits. No ability to speak openly and freely to an audience, to improvise, to be authentically themselves. When musicians begin utilizing holograms or other virtual effects instead of appearing at shows themselves, the bond between a fan and the artist is broken, nonexistent. Why would one pay hundreds of dollars to basically see a music video in person?
Another worry is that the virtual concert could potentially destroy fans’ expectations of being entertained. We already see this with the decreasing attention span among younger people due to social media. Though holograms do not possess any human attributes, the technology used to create them gives them access to a greater range of abilities to entertain. The Frank Zappa virtual concert not only had Zappa in hologram form on-screen but also included various animations demonstrating the imagery he created with his songs. For instance, the Washington Post says Zappa transformed into dental floss at one point during one of his songs about owning a farm of floss. While this kind of vivid, interactive performance can be fun and a spectacle to see, I wonder what this could mean for the future of concerts. Are the possibilities of ways in which holograms could put on a show going to bore people of ordinary, real performers?
Take tribute concerts. If a dead musician can return to stage in holographic form, perhaps people won’t see any value in watching a tribute band anymore, costing these musicians their jobs.
THE VERDICT
This may sound like me reaching for reasons to hate virtual concerts, but many connected to the music industry feel the same way. According to Rolling Stone, Amy Winehouse’s ex-husband has called her hologram tour a “moneymaking gimmick.” Music journalist Simon Renolds also describes hologram tours of dead musicians as “ghost slavery.” In addition, Jeff Jampol, manager of the estates of 20th-century music icons such as the Ramones, Jim Morrison, and Janis Joplin, has compared these concerts to movies. He said, “There’s a black hole where this film is being projected,” that is, the projection of the hologram.
Clearly, there is much debate over whether or not more and more artists should begin to perform with the aid of digital effects or even completely trade in themselves for holograms. For now, I don’t see many holograms taking over concerts of my favorite musicians and groups. Let’s hope it stays that way.
