Where Entertainment Production and Design People Meet!
Grammy Awards - Better than Super Bowl Halftime?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Vance Vegas on -
Hi Richard,
Credits read Bob Dickinson as LD.
Cheers,
Vance Vegas, ADL!GHT INC.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael S. Eddy on -
Richard,
The Grammys were lit by Bob Dickinson. I believe that Andy O'Reilly was the programmer.
Best regards,
Michael
-
Permalink Reply by Richard Cadena on -
My apologies to Bob! Great job Bob!
-
Permalink Reply by Nook Schoenfeld on -
It did look absolutely great. But I'm starting to notice a habitual way he's been lighting these events. Horizontal rows of video walls on bottom/then row of wash lights above/then some other video element above that/another row of lights/ more video walls. Then bunches of hard edged lights over the stage.
The design concept does work well and I bet the producers want him to keep to this formula. I'm probably the only one that notices the similarities.
-
Permalink Reply by Auggie Hill on -
I thought they looked awesome and were very tastefully done as well. The lights actually matched the moods of the songs in most cases and were not just a billion moving lights, moving just to be moving.
I had read about the lighting design for The Muse and it was nice to see it in action even though I'm not a fan of theirs.
The only thing I didn't enjoy was Arcade Fire. Didn't really give much thought to the fact that it was being televised because any shot from the front of the stage was completely washed out in white light. Probably doesn't help that I thought they were horrible and was terribly disappointed that a band with no more talent than most garage bands in my small hometown won Album of the Year.
All in all though, a well designed and programmed show.
-
Permalink Reply by Richard Cadena on
-
I noticed that too Nook. I agree, it does look good but it is a look we've all seen before.
Nook Schoenfeld said:
It did look absolutely great. But I'm starting to notice a habitual way he's been lighting these events. Horizontal rows of video walls on bottom/then row of wash lights above/then some other video element above that/another row of lights/ more video walls. Then bunches of hard edged lights over the stage.
The design concept does work well and I bet the producers want him to keep to this formula. I'm probably the only one that notices the similarities.
-
Permalink Reply by Richard Cadena on
-
Auggie,
I don't want to sound as if I'm just agreeing with everyone, but the same or similar thoughts went through my head as I watched Arcade Fire. I thought the strobing went on too long and I couldn't quite make sense of all the chaos on stage. Maybe that was the intended effect. As for the music, that was my first exposure so I'm going to reserve judgement until I've had more time to listen and assimilate it.
Auggie Hill said:I thought they looked awesome and were very tastefully done as well. The lights actually matched the moods of the songs in most cases and were not just a billion moving lights, moving just to be moving.
I had read about the lighting design for The Muse and it was nice to see it in action even though I'm not a fan of theirs.
The only thing I didn't enjoy was Arcade Fire. Didn't really give much thought to the fact that it was being televised because any shot from the front of the stage was completely washed out in white light. Probably doesn't help that I thought they were horrible and was terribly disappointed that a band with no more talent than most garage bands in my small hometown won Album of the Year.
All in all though, a well designed and programmed show.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Davidson on
-
Yes the strobing for Arcade Fire was way too much and yes hurt all the camera shots. Reminded me of the last NIN tour with Jane's where I had to leave the stage area and go outside because of the relentless strobing for NIN. I liked the whole design overall though.
-Best
-
Permalink Reply by Richard Cadena on
-
Do you suppose the strobing is an age-related thing? Do people under 30 enjoy longer intervals of continuous strobing?
-
-
Richard,
I think age might play a factor but I also think it is a easy way to fake a lighting show. There are so many other "effects" you can pull off with these toys. Sometimes I think it is the easy or lazy way out of a lighting show. I use strobing when it is called for but I like using the different movers for the same effect with fast color changes and radically different positions. I like the contrast from going in between your floor package to your overhead lighting as a "strobing effect" and looks cool, adds depth to the stage. I think these days it is too easy to just hit the strobe button. Don't get me wrong, I love Atomic 3000's with color changers. I have made effects with them that looked amazing but I think too much just takes away from your over all lighting design. I consider strobing to be an "effect" not a staple in your lighting design or programming plan. Plus for a Grammy show the LD should have had more light on stage (Arcade Fire) when it is all about a show with a camera angle from everywhere at anytime.
-Best
Richard Cadena said:
Do you suppose the strobing is an age-related thing? Do people under 30 enjoy longer intervals of continuous strobing?
-
Permalink Reply by Richard Cadena on
-
Makes sense. That also makes me wonder if someone is trying to do something different. It's hard to come up with new looks all the time and that's certainly one way to do it.
-
Permalink Reply by cody stoltz on -
Sadly I missed it, Ive been working fashion week I caught arcade fire though and I noticed that the strobing did get a little ridiculos after like 3 minutes of it. I enjoy strobes but in moderation, I think what looked like over a hundred of them in the rig would be quite painful had they been running at full...
© 2012 Created by Justin Lang.
