I notice in a lot of the pictures I see, that the majority of lighting seems to focus on the wall/backdrop behind the bands. While this can be visually stunning, especially if the architecture is nice. Doesn't it take the focus away from the band itself? I have always felt my job was to light the band and make them look as good as possible.
I actually prefer to light a stage where there is limited or no backdrop. it challenges me to get as much light on the performers as I can and from as many different angles as i can. We all know that there has to be something there to light or the look of the show falls flat.
But, I would much rather focus my design on the band and the stage itself. And in case you're wondering. No, I'm not a big fan of video walls that I feel are overused these days to compensate for a lack of design ability (not always the case of course). But, I'm a small time designer in a small market where video is rarely ever used. And never for a light source.
Anyway, just my opinion. Any thoughts?
video is more of a distraction than lighting a backdrop. Backdrops can enhance the show, depending on their usage
There was one act that I grew up listening to at my place a few weeks ago... I couldn't tell you what one of their encore songs was because I was too busy watching the video that played during the song!
hey, I tend to agree, mainly because the background effects tend to upstage the bands because of the size of the drop or set. but when a band uses a logo or name hanging behind them, and is occasionally lit thats seems ok, or the use of black draps to hide the background screen or effect is also useful for small concerts. but when you move up to large halls or areas, that tiny little group on the stage is hardly noticable without video and large set.
But in the end its the band and there songs that make the show, all that background and set is rubbish if the band don't cut it. Some of the best show I've seen were in clubs with very little lighting at all.