Toronto and the Gruesome Twosome

[mattcoddington]

alice doing a magic screen again would be great, but they take up a lot of real estate.

[SKULLBOY]

>Keep in mind that there is video on the backdrop during "Vengeance".

I believe you are incorrect.

Kind of odd that it was there, then.

[mattcoddington]

Kind of odd that it was there, then.

what show(s) did you see this? every show i've seen have used simple stage lighting, nothing more.

[ElectedPlus]

[quote="Jumping Jack"]In my humble opinion, video screens are only good for selling tickets in the back of football stadiums. Part of the attraction of Coop's current show is that it is done close-up in a theater where you can see everything and feel like you are part of the action.

Coop is great even w/o all the theatrics and the focus is on the music (see Stones shows). Zombie, Kiss, and many other bands who haven't written decent songs need the video screens, flash bombs, and the rest because that is the entertainment, not the music. It is like going to a fireworks show, not a concert.

Coop should protect the integrity of the old school theatrical rock show, not become a music video or video game. The artist should be the focus and not the technology.[/quote]

I think you've got it bang on right about Theatre of Death. It's a great show - and a good example of how slotting in a video background wouldn't do much (might even make the show worse) and kinda goes against the Theatre of Death 'thing'.

To an extent I agree with you about Zombie and Kiss - but I think it's almost certainly not because of a lack of decent songs. They've both got CD's, which - I'm sure - many people find entertaining in themselves ...there's no fireworks or video screens as fans listen to their records so they must have written decent songs. Perhaps it's something else, since, as you say - they rely more heavily on stage visuals than Alice to put on a good show.

[SKULLBOY]

Kind of odd that it was there, then.

what show(s) did you see this? every show i've seen have used simple stage lighting, nothing more.

All four that I went to.

Perhaps you are taking my usage of the word "video" too literally. What they had was moving images reflecting off of the backdrop behind the drums. I'm sure this can be done with simple lighting and gels, or with video projection. I didn't ask any of the crew what type of technology they used, but it doesn't really seem that important. I was merely pointing out in my post that there was a bit of something on a screen on the stage.

[mattcoddington]

All four that I went to.

Perhaps you are taking my usage of the word "video" too literally. What they had was moving images reflecting off of the backdrop behind the drums. I'm sure this can be done with simple lighting and gels, or with video projection. I didn't ask any of the crew what type of technology they used, but it doesn't really seem that important. I was merely pointing out in my post that there was a bit of something on a screen on the stage.

yeah, those were just lights. NOT video.

[SKULLBOY]

yeah, those were just lights. NOT video.

Does it really matter that much?

[A_MichaelUK]

>Perhaps you are taking my usage of the word "video" too literally.

It's a pretty specific word to use. If that's not what you meant, you shouldn't have used it. There's little, if any, ambiguity about a word like that.

>What they had was moving images reflecting off of the backdrop behind the drums

Usually, one projects onto a blank screen, not onto a screen that already has something on it.

> I was merely pointing out in my post that there was a bit of something on a screen on the stage.

What you saw was the lighting.

[SKULLBOY]

>It's a pretty specific word to use. If that's not what you meant, you shouldn't have used it. There's little, if any, ambiguity about a word like that.

By video, I was referring to individual images, moving around on a screen. Sorry, next time I will use overkill and say: they were images projected on a screen and moving around in a pattern looking much similar to live bacteria with a pinkish color, suspended in liquid, viewed under a microscope, but not in anway meant to be confused with video, which is the technology of electronically capturing, recording, processing, storing, transmitting, and reconstructing a sequence of still images representing scenes in motion. Because there is no way these two things could be interpreted a similar, right?

>Usually, one projects onto a blank screen, not onto a screen that already has something on it.

The images covered up what was on the screen. The screen's image didn't interfere at all.

>What you saw was the lighting.
Yes, lit up images (which reqire a light source) moving around.

[mattcoddington]

Yes, lit up images (which reqire a light source) moving around.

nope, no images. just good old fashion stage lights.

[A_MichaelUK]

>By video, I was referring to individual images, moving around on a screen.

That's a very generic use of the word.

>Sorry, next time I will use overkill and say: they were images projected on a screen

This may be the worst piece of back - pedalling I have ever read. You replied to a post from ElectedPlus who said:
"But I bet a Cooper show could be done brilliantly with a video backdrop ... Zombie does it well from the little I've seen, Manson used it brilliantly"
He's referring speficically to "video" but you now say you're referring to "images on a screen". That's fine, but if that is the case, the "screen" you refer to was not blank. So anything you *think* you saw could have been already there. How come no - one else who was at the shows mentioned it?! The stage is saturated with red lighting during "Vengeance Is Mine" and it's more than likely that what you saw is a combination of those things.

>The images covered up what was on the screen. The screen's image didn't interfere at all.

That doesn't make sense. The audience's is on Alice almost at all times during that song. The stage is lit in red which saturates the entire area, so to to divert the audiences attention towards somewhere else is *totally* different to almost everything that has ever happened in the past during any Alice Cooper show.

[SKULLBOY]

>That's a very generic use of the word.
That's how I intended it.

>Sorry, next time I will use overkill and say: they were images projected on a screen

>He's referring speficically to "video" but you now say you're referring to "images on a screen". That's fine, but if that is the case, the "screen" you refer to was not blank. So anything you *think* you saw could have been already there.

Exactly they were already there as they were projecting them.

>How come no - one else who was at the shows mentioned it?!

Not on here. People commented to me about it after the shows.

>The stage is saturated with red lighting during "Vengeance Is Mine" and it's more than likely that what you saw is a combination of those things.

Yes, plus what was projected on the backdrop.

>That doesn't make sense. The audience's is on Alice almost at all times during that song. The stage is lit in red which saturates the entire area, so to to divert the audiences attention towards somewhere else is *totally* different to almost everything that has ever happened in the past during any Alice Cooper show.

It's displayed in the background. It doesn't distract at all, only adds to the scene. Do you think they should take background images out of movies so as to not distract from the actors?

It's not as though there are elaborate special effects here: just a simple image, which in my opinion, looks pretty cool.

I really don't understand why you want to make a big deal out of such a minor thing. If it makes you feel better, I will use the word "projection" instead of "video" from now on.

[SKULLBOY]

Yes, lit up images (which reqire a light source) moving around.

nope, no images. just good old fashion stage lights.

Do you mean like old gas or candle lighting? Be careful, some people on here want to be literal.

Either way, it would be hard to do without stage lights.

[A_MichaelUK]

>That's how I intended it.

Why would you do that when it wasn't what you meant?

>Exactly they were already there as they were projecting them.

You're getting very confused or are been difficult. I'm referring to the giant image of Alice, whereas you are not.

>Not on here. People commented to me about it after the shows.

Which "people", exactly? Perfect strangers or people you already know?

>Yes, plus what was projected on the backdrop.

I think I see where you are getting confused. During the show, different shapes can be projected (something similar was done on the "Alice Cooper Trashes The World" tour, so I want to retract what I said before) onto the stage to break up the beams of light, but that's a million miles away from what recoop and ElectedPlus were referring to and to which you replied about. They were referring to what sounds like state of the art technology, whereas you were referring to something that has been arounnd ever since moving lights were invented. They are two totally different things.

>Do you think they should take background images out of movies so as to not distract from the actors.

An Alice Cooper show isn't a film and now that I think I know the lighting effect you're talking about, I don't recall seeing it during a 'dramatic' part of the show such as when "Vengeance Is Mine" is performed. I've seen it during the less theatrical parts, though.

>It's not as though there are elaborate special effects here: just a simple image.

Again, I don't think that's what recoop and ElectedPlus were referring to.

>I really don't understand why you want to make a big deal out of such a minor thing.

Because both recoop and ElectedPlus were talking about something else entirely.

[SKULLBOY]

Wow, really?

>Why would you do that when it wasn't what you meant?
It is what I meant.

>You're getting very confused or are been difficult. I'm referring to the giant image of Alice, whereas you are not.

It was the same backdrop.

>Which "people", exactly? Perfect strangers or people you already know?

Are you serious? Some I know, some I'm acquainted with from other shows, some I just meant those nights.

>Yes, plus what was projected on the backdrop.

>I think I see where you are getting confused.

I'm not confused at all, it seems you are.

>During the show, different shapes can be projected . . . onto the stage to break up the beams of light, but that's a million miles away from what recoop and ElectedPlus were referring to and to which you replied about.

I was referring to images on a screen. Be it stick figures or shadow puppets, it all comes out to the same basic idea.

>They were referring to what sounds like state of the art technology, whereas you were referring to something that has been arounnd ever since moving lights were invented. They are two totally different things.

I never once tried to state that it was the same thing.

>An Alice Cooper show isn't a film.

No, as you said earlier, it's theatre. Theatre still uses stage props an backgrounds. Really, it's the same basic principle as the red lighting during the "Hell" sequence of the show. It sets the mood.


>Again, I don't think that's what recoop and ElectedPlus were referring to.


I never said it was, I was just merely bringing up this effect.

>Because both recoop and ElectedPlus were talking about something else entirely

So that's a reason to make a big deal out of a small thing?

[WickedYoungMan]

I think Andy and Matt meant to clarify this originally. Just for some perspective, an outside observer could take the "video on the screen" comment and run with it. For you it might be "the same basic idea," but I think we can agree that to someone else they are going to think that this is something like "The Magic Screen" or the visuals Zombie uses. Small things like that can lead to misinformation or small confusion, which is why it's important to clarify as I believe Andy was trying to do. It's not a huge deal though, it was clarified, world spins.

[Jumping Jack]

Back to the quality of Rob Zombie's work, his movies made this list:

http://movies.msn.com/cinematic-gender- ... ?GT1=28130

[A_MichaelUK]

>Wow, really?

Yes.

>It is what I meant.

So why use the word “video”? That would be like me saying “black” when I meant “white”.

>It was the same backdrop.

So you agree that what you saw was a combination of the lighting and the image of Alice that was already on “the same backdrop”. It wasn’t just the projections that made the noticeable difference. Again, that’s totally different to what recoop and ElectedPlus were referring to.

>Are you serious?

Yes, I am.

>Some I know, some I'm acquainted with from other shows, some I just meant those nights.

I’m trying to picture what the incredible lighting effect was that made such a deep impression on you that only you and the people you spoke to commented on it, yet no – one else here commented on it.

>I'm not confused at all, it seems you are.

At least I know what the word “video” means.

>I was referring to images on a screen. Be it stick figures or shadow puppets, it all comes out to the same basic idea.

You’re really grasping at straws, I’m afraid. What you describe has nothing to do with what recoop and ElectedPlus were discussing. By that logic, maybe Alice should make a reggae album and call it a rock album. After all, it’s all music. It’s “the same basic idea”.

>I never once tried to state that it was the same thing.

Actually, you did. ElectedPlus wrote:
But I bet a Cooper show could be done brilliantly with a video backdrop ...

You replied:
Keep in mind that there is video on the backdrop during "Vengeance".

>So that's a reason to make a big deal out of a small thing?

You’re the one making “a big deal out of” it, by initially refusing to accept there was no video used, especially as it turns out you’re referring to lighting and not video, even though you used that word. The reason it’s important is that if you had not been challenged, someone reading this would think video was actually used during the song you referred to.

[SKULLBOY]

>So why use the word “video”? That would be like me saying “black” when I meant “white”.

Not at all. The effects I saw could have been done with video or lighting. I didn't take the time to inspect the equipment on the stage to see what they used. It doesn't matter either way, the visuals were the same. A better example would be if you said "dark blue" when you really meant "navy blue". It doesn't matter what you call it, it still looks the same.

>So you agree that what you saw was a combination of the lighting and the image of Alice that was already on “the same backdrop”. It wasn’t just the projections that made the noticeable difference.

The projections covered the image. I've already explained this several times.

>Again, that’s totally different to what recoop and ElectedPlus were referring to.

That's fine. I never once claimed to be talking about the same thing. I merely posted this as an example of background effects, which they both are. You seem to be the one hell-bent on comparing them.

>I’m trying to picture what the incredible lighting effect was that made such a deep impression on you that only you and the people you spoke to commented on it, yet no – one else here commented on it.

As I've already explained several times. I never said it was anything incredible. In fact I even went out of my way on a few occasions to point at the it is a minor effect. You are the one that keeps trying to make it sound as though I claime otherwise. Nobody else commented because it is no big deal (both the effects and the silly discussion).

>At least I know what the word “video” means.

As do I. Explain to me why you think I should have all of the knowldge of how each and every nuance of a show is performed? I honestly couldn't tell you what brand of smoke machine they use, and really, I don't care.

>You’re really grasping at straws, I’m afraid. What you describe has nothing to do with what recoop and ElectedPlus were discussing. By that logic, maybe Alice should make a reggae album and call it a rock album. After all, it’s all music. It’s “the same basic idea”.

Now you're grasping at straws. To make it relevant would be to say that since it's reggae, we can't call it an Alice Cooper Album (even though it's all music).

>I never once tried to state that it was the same thing.

Actually, you did. ElectedPlus wrote:
But I bet a Cooper show could be done brilliantly with a video backdrop ...

You replied:
Keep in mind that there is video on the backdrop during "Vengeance".

Yep. I never said it was the same, I just said that there was video on the backdrop, which is how it appeared at the time that they did it.

>You’re the one making “a big deal out of” it, by initially refusing to accept there was no video used, especially as it turns out you’re referring to lighting and not video, even though you used that word. The reason it’s important is that if you had not been challenged, someone reading this would think video was actually used during the song you referred to.

I'm not debating on wheter or not it was video, I'm debating that you said there was nothing there at all when there obviously was. Call it what you want, it doesn't change the fact. I pointed out a long time ago that I misused the word video, but not for lack of terminology, only lack of knowledge of how they did the effect. gai, why should I be expected to know exactly how they dd it?

[SKULLBOY]

I think Andy and Matt meant to clarify this originally. Just for some perspective, an outside observer could take the "video on the screen" comment and run with it. For you it might be "the same basic idea," but I think we can agree that to someone else they are going to think that this is something like "The Magic Screen" or the visuals Zombie uses. Small things like that can lead to misinformation or small confusion, which is why it's important to clarify as I believe Andy was trying to do. It's not a huge deal though, it was clarified, world spins.

I agree, however, it has been clarified to death. Personally, I don't care how the effect was done, just that it looked cool.

I do think that I should not be held responsible for the embellishments of others. For example, if I said they played some video, and someone who read that were then going to go all over saying I said they used a magic screen and all kinds of cool visual effects on several screens, I would say that they took my information and ran with it. The best thing for them to do would be to say that they heard there was some video playing, and then when they were asked what it was, their answer should be "I don't know, maybe I can find out".