I was already confused for the Abba digital concert and with Kiss I'm still confused. What do they mean by avatar and why would I go to a "concert" of a prerendered game sequence instead of watching a video of the original band on YouTube at home?
Edit: the headline is sort of misleading. It seems like the band will still perform in motion-capturing suits, and their avatars will be displayed in multiple concert venues simultaneously. Eh, not my jam. If I go to a live show, it's to see the actual artists with my very own eyes.
Oh, so it would be just a 3D animated movie?
The only way I maaaay consider watching such a concert is if I knew that the actual band is still playing and interacting with the audience behind the avatars. They could be playing sitting down, in their pajamas if they want. But the sound must be live to be okay in my book.
Otherwise, no thanks.
No. I think they created the avatars from them wearing motion capture suits. I don't believe they will be using them any longer.
It specifies this in a roundabout way in the article by mentioning how kiss did not show back up on stage when the avatars were sent out because "that's the point".
They didn't go ran into the backstage area and put on motion capture to send out their fake avatars. Plus, why would they?
*I watched a video of the concert at Madison Square garden. It's definitely not them behind stage in motion capture suits. Also, it's lame. Starts at 2 hours and 14 minutes:
There's already tons of concerts that are done virtual.....
I mean to be fair, if it's been 50 years it's probably becoming a lot more difficult for them to do concerts anyway
Sorry but if you actually want audio quality you don't get it at live shows with people screaming all around you. What you meant is "loud" and you can also do that at home but you quickly realise it's not that fun to have tinnitus.
It wouldn't necessarily be prerendered; they could do gigs in VRChat for an example. It would take some effort and money, but they've got money and they could pay someone else to put in the effort so that all they have to do is strap on some fbt trackers and grab a guitar that's been modified with fret sensors and then play concerts from their living rooms.
Edit: I should have finished reading the article first and gave them more credit than I should have. It sounds like it's the whole """hologram""" thing but at a distance?
Nope. It's actually terrible. CGI on a big screen. Here's the concert. CGI starts at 2:14:00
Damn, managed to suck more than I was expecting. I would be cool with VR/green screened stuff. I'd be cool with "holograms" that let them play live from a studio 1000mi away. Not that prerendered shit though. Not that I like Kiss or have a lot of respect for them to begin with, but man, talk about missing the point.
I was already confused for the Abba digital concert and with Kiss I'm still confused. What do they mean by avatar and why would I go to a "concert" of a prerendered game sequence instead of watching a video of the original band on YouTube at home?
Edit: the headline is sort of misleading. It seems like the band will still perform in motion-capturing suits, and their avatars will be displayed in multiple concert venues simultaneously. Eh, not my jam. If I go to a live show, it's to see the actual artists with my very own eyes.
Oh, so it would be just a 3D animated movie?
The only way I maaaay consider watching such a concert is if I knew that the actual band is still playing and interacting with the audience behind the avatars. They could be playing sitting down, in their pajamas if they want. But the sound must be live to be okay in my book.
Otherwise, no thanks.
No. I think they created the avatars from them wearing motion capture suits. I don't believe they will be using them any longer.
It specifies this in a roundabout way in the article by mentioning how kiss did not show back up on stage when the avatars were sent out because "that's the point".
They didn't go ran into the backstage area and put on motion capture to send out their fake avatars. Plus, why would they?
*I watched a video of the concert at Madison Square garden. It's definitely not them behind stage in motion capture suits. Also, it's lame. Starts at 2 hours and 14 minutes:
https://youtu.be/oAf8a344zW8?si=rGlHlKyCrPd4fxMH
Got it. Thanks.
Because the audio quality would be really good?
There's already tons of concerts that are done virtual.....
I mean to be fair, if it's been 50 years it's probably becoming a lot more difficult for them to do concerts anyway
Sorry but if you actually want audio quality you don't get it at live shows with people screaming all around you. What you meant is "loud" and you can also do that at home but you quickly realise it's not that fun to have tinnitus.
It wouldn't necessarily be prerendered; they could do gigs in VRChat for an example. It would take some effort and money, but they've got money and they could pay someone else to put in the effort so that all they have to do is strap on some fbt trackers and grab a guitar that's been modified with fret sensors and then play concerts from their living rooms.Edit: I should have finished reading the article first and gave them more credit than I should have. It sounds like it's the whole """hologram""" thing but at a distance?
Nope. It's actually terrible. CGI on a big screen. Here's the concert. CGI starts at 2:14:00
https://youtu.be/oAf8a344zW8?si=rGlHlKyCrPd4fxMH
Damn, managed to suck more than I was expecting. I would be cool with VR/green screened stuff. I'd be cool with "holograms" that let them play live from a studio 1000mi away. Not that prerendered shit though. Not that I like Kiss or have a lot of respect for them to begin with, but man, talk about missing the point.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/oAf8a344zW8?si=rGlHlKyCrPd4fxMH
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
You go to a virtual concert for the same reason you go to the movies. Or the same reason you don't.
Ah, that makes total sense, I agree.