ProLightingSpace

Where Entertainment Production and Design People Meet!

Grammy Awards - Better than Super Bowl Halftime?

I didn't see much of the Grammy Awards show last night but what I did see looked spectacular. Maybe it's unfair to compare it to the Super Bowl halftime show just a week earlier because the studio is a much more controlled environment than a football field, and they have much more time to set up the stages for the Grammys. But what a difference a week makes. Does anyone know if Allen Branton was the lighting designer? What about the programmer?

Tags: Allen, Awards, Branton, Grammy

Views: 28

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by cody stoltz on February 14, 2011 at 9:22pm

Moderation or raves I should say
cody stoltz said:
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...
Permalink Reply by Brit Manning on February 15, 2011 at 10:52pm
I'm under 30 and didn't like the strobing in during the Arcade Fire number at all.  I could totally understand using it at the end as part of the climax.  But to have it running continuously seemed like over kill.  It ruined most of the camera shots, which was a shame given that they had those bikers riding around the stage with cameras on their helmets.  But you could barely see what they were doing. (isn't rule number one, especially in situations like these, to light the talent?)  Can't imagine that the crowd saw much of the action either.  Must have been completely blinding in the house.   

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 February 16, 2011 at 1:33pm
I think the rules are being re-written and I applaud the people who take chances to erase the old rules and write the new one. I don't always agree with what is being tried, but someone's got to take chances and roll the dice before we can make progress. But can we please move on from the looooong strobing?

Brit Manning said:
I'm under 30 and didn't like the strobing in during the Arcade Fire number at all.  I could totally understand using it at the end as part of the climax.  But to have it running continuously seemed like over kill.  It ruined most of the camera shots, which was a shame given that they had those bikers riding around the stage with cameras on their helmets.  But you could barely see what they were doing. (isn't rule number one, especially in situations like these, to light the talent?)  Can't imagine that the crowd saw much of the action either.  Must have been completely blinding in the house.   

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 Auggie Hill on February 16, 2011 at 8:30pm

I agree with Richard.  We definitely have to try new/different things.  But, to totally disregard that basic rule of lighting the talent and to replace that with blinding the audience for the entire song.  That doesn't really seem like progress.  That seems like a very bad decision.  Not sure who made it, but I hope they watched it back and realized their mistake and learn from it. 

Permalink Reply by cody stoltz on February 16, 2011 at 9:40pm
Maybe thats what the band wanted, and in all fairness there seems to be a good bit of bands that I read about that they have it set up to where the artist can step into the light if they want to be seen, along with what ive seen and heard like: NIN, Tool, slayer

Auggie Hill said:

I agree with Richard.  We definitely have to try new/different things.  But, to totally disregard that basic rule of lighting the talent and to replace that with blinding the audience for the entire song.  That doesn't really seem like progress.  That seems like a very bad decision.  Not sure who made it, but I hope they watched it back and realized their mistake and learn from it. 

Permalink Reply by Mike Davidson on February 17, 2011 at 3:47pm
I could not agree more!

Auggie Hill said:

I agree with Richard.  We definitely have to try new/different things.  But, to totally disregard that basic rule of lighting the talent and to replace that with blinding the audience for the entire song.  That doesn't really seem like progress.  That seems like a very bad decision.  Not sure who made it, but I hope they watched it back and realized their mistake and learn from it. 

Permalink Reply by Mike Davidson on February 17, 2011 at 3:58pm
Yes you can set up lighting so an artist can sept into the light.  What was done for Arcade Fire was not lighting where the artist(s) could have ever stepped into.  There was no constant light on stage except for strobing...

cody stoltz said:
Maybe thats what the band wanted, and in all fairness there seems to be a good bit of bands that I read about that they have it set up to where the artist can step into the light if they want to be seen, along with what ive seen and heard like: NIN, Tool, slayer

Auggie Hill said:

I agree with Richard.  We definitely have to try new/different things.  But, to totally disregard that basic rule of lighting the talent and to replace that with blinding the audience for the entire song.  That doesn't really seem like progress.  That seems like a very bad decision.  Not sure who made it, but I hope they watched it back and realized their mistake and learn from it. 

Permalink Reply by Auggie Hill on February 17, 2011 at 4:09pm

Exactly.  I have worked with several bands that didn't even want a front wash.  They just wanted a light they could step into at their mic.  But this was totally different.  I will be 40 in July, and I love strobes.  Use them whenever I can, as an effect, at appropriate times in a song.  What I saw during Arcade Fire, was  (in my opinion) a weak excuse for a light show.  And again, that may have been exactly what that band wanted.  Judging from the amateurish garage band style music, it probably was.  But, you would think somebody would have stepped in and said, hey this is being broadcast and we just can't have that.  lol

Permalink Reply by cody stoltz on February 18, 2011 at 5:38pm

Im just trying to be optimisitic about it, Trying to find the good in it. Personally I didnt agree with it but dont want to hurt anyones feelings, lol
Auggie Hill said:

Exactly.  I have worked with several bands that didn't even want a front wash.  They just wanted a light they could step into at their mic.  But this was totally different.  I will be 40 in July, and I love strobes.  Use them whenever I can, as an effect, at appropriate times in a song.  What I saw during Arcade Fire, was  (in my opinion) a weak excuse for a light show.  And again, that may have been exactly what that band wanted.  Judging from the amateurish garage band style music, it probably was.  But, you would think somebody would have stepped in and said, hey this is being broadcast and we just can't have that.  lol

Permalink Reply by Auggie Hill on February 18, 2011 at 5:55pm

I understand Cody.  You work in this business and may actually encounter this person.  I don't really have any desire to ever be at that level, so I guess I can tell it more like it is without fear of repercussions.  lol

I'm sure that some people actually liked it and thought it was cool.  It just wasn't my cup of tea.  I thought the rest of the show was lit very well though. 

cody stoltz said:


Im just trying to be optimisitic about it, Trying to find the good in it. Personally I didnt agree with it but dont want to hurt anyones feelings, lol
Auggie Hill said:

Exactly.  I have worked with several bands that didn't even want a front wash.  They just wanted a light they could step into at their mic.  But this was totally different.  I will be 40 in July, and I love strobes.  Use them whenever I can, as an effect, at appropriate times in a song.  What I saw during Arcade Fire, was  (in my opinion) a weak excuse for a light show.  And again, that may have been exactly what that band wanted.  Judging from the amateurish garage band style music, it probably was.  But, you would think somebody would have stepped in and said, hey this is being broadcast and we just can't have that.  lol

Permalink Reply by Chuck Dillingham on February 22, 2011 at 2:48pm
I found that there were several acts in the show where key-lighting was virtually ignored and the bands were all but in the dark.  I have noticed a growing trend lately with where looks are backlight heavy and almost no frontlight, not to mention several bands where you had to dig your way through the lighting to find the artist.  Have we begun to forget that our role as lighting designers is to support the artist we are supposedly lighting, not to necessarily have the artist we are lighting be the incidental background music to our light show?
Permalink Reply by Mike Davidson on February 26, 2011 at 2:04pm
Could not agree more Chuck!  Light the talent, after all that is how you get your paycheck!

Chuck Dillingham said:
I found that there were several acts in the show where key-lighting was virtually ignored and the bands were all but in the dark.  I have noticed a growing trend lately with where looks are backlight heavy and almost no frontlight, not to mention several bands where you had to dig your way through the lighting to find the artist.  Have we begun to forget that our role as lighting designers is to support the artist we are supposedly lighting, not to necessarily have the artist we are lighting be the incidental background music to our light show?

▶ Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2012   Created by Justin Lang.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service