On The Sphere

 

While watching the various videos of the U2 concerts at Sphere, I'm always thinking about how this new technology is going to change music. At this point it's going to change music in the sense that when we go to see a concert at these kinds of venues it's more of a music video than it is a concert, or is more of a hybrid. It is also an evolution in the sense that we're moving away from the proscenium arch to one that is a sphere, globe, or in-the-round, and for the U2 show, a spinning record.

I suspect other cities are going to want to have their own Sphere and will raise the bar on concerts. People will also be expecting more from visuals. The Roger Waters concerts have always been spectacular without having a sphere so it begs the question whether we need it in terms of enjoying music. Say they decide to stage classical concerts there: First of all, the sound might not be as good as a typical symphonic venue. But in some ways, it might be improved in terms of using microphone inputs which could incorporate other things within the music to enhance or extend it, such as various effects typically used in a recording. The visuals would be interesting as well and would be less "flashy". That's the issue I had with a lot of the graphics in the U2 show: Everything is blinking and flashing. But I do particularly like the ones that make the sphere transparent for the illusion of looking out over the landscape or perhaps the universe. I think they should try to stage classical concerts there but who would go? It could be a way for younger people to get interested in classical music and will create another dimension of music that is more "cosmic". Holst's Planets would be a possibility, albeit kitschy. But is there any money in that given ROI of billions of dollars? The programming will be such that they always have to sell out every show.

Sphere is also going to create possibilities for art-making in terms of digital art and video to be projected there. But will it be an exhibition opportunity for artists or will it be corporate art? Back in the age of the Old Masters, artists didn't sign their own name on paintings; It was always in the name of the studio. There was the primary artist who would be the "art director" and then you'd have a staff of artisans who would help them make the painting. They would do all the backgrounds and clouds and the Artiste would be the person who would be credited. They would do the important parts of the painting, as they typically did in religious paintings: they would paint the religious icons and everybody else would be doing clouds and tablecloths. In the future you won't be an Artist yourself; You'll just be a staff artist, but have this huge venue to make visuals for. Concert-going will be a "gallery" experience.

10/4/2023

***

10/4/2024:

On how technologies gradually evolve to seem like they were always the norm:

Back in 1998, streaming had just started using the RealAudio format. (It was actually “narrowcasting”). It would be 8 years before the first podcasts, which were downloads to the hard drive of the iPod. It was inconceivable, and perhaps unpredictable, that you could “watch” a podcast, let alone “listen” to a photograph. There are inconceivable things now that will be mainstream by 2032, but people are thinking of them, just as da Vinci’s idea for a helicopter didn’t materialize until all the components of it were conceived, invented, and manufactured over the course of hundreds of years. Similar to watching a podcast, we will be mostly "watching" books. The world is generally moving towards watching. This is both good and bad but early adopters will fully embrace it because it’s the new shiny thing. Paper books will be revived in, say, 2060, but we will be using them in new ways. But technology also expands and contracts. YouTube is extending the Short to 3 minutes, just as the single expanded to an LP. The era of the Short was too short.