Are digital performances with live audiences the future?

I'm avoiding the ABBA thread for fear of spoilers, so forgive me if this has been referenced before, but ABBA apparently need to make £140m to cover the cost of this - which effectively means this running for three years in London, or moving it elsewhere, which means either heavily customising an existing venue or building something new like they've done in London. Apparently the band decided not to engage with sponsors, because of poor experiences with commercials in the past.

I doubt there are many acts that could countenance such investment, and consider the possibility of such a long run. Elvis or The Beatles would do it, but they can't do the motion capture so it wouldn't give the same results. Maybe the Stones could do it, but they seem to like the physical act of touring and if they're doing it live I'm not sure there would be a demand to see a virtual version. Maybe as the technology develops it will be possible to do it more cheaply or faster, but maybe the results won't be as amazing as the reports of the ABBA shows have been.

Story about ABBA's finances here (paywall): www.thetimes.co.uk/article/abba-needs-virtual-gigs-to-recoup-140m-to-cover-costs-52s3dhh3t

I can well imagine The Jackson estate looking very closely at this with a view to creating something around Michael. It looked like MJ himself was looking at using 3d film for his “This Is It” concert series so this would be the next logical step after that.

What will be harder to replicate is the fact that with Abba being very much alive, it is their project , therefore avoiding any suspicion of a cash in. At least we know that how they look and what they “sing” is what the artists themselves have approved. Also as with everything, the more ubiquitous the use of the technology becomes the less it will dazzle. Future projects will need to up the game further.

Aren't Queen notoriously touchy about Freddie Mercury's legacy overshadowing the band as a whole? I doubt they'd do it unless they want a pay day

And Adam Lambert who pretty much is in Queen now. I don’t know I know Freddie Mercury was in Queen but I also see him and them as somewhat separate. But that isn’t a surprise as he has been gone a long time now. 

Queen still Perform. ABBA are in a unique position really. No one would want to see singers who have died. It’s morbid and really counterintuitive to the way we go through life.

I can think of very, very few bands big enough to make the financial outlay even vaguely viable. Queen maybe.

Ker-ching! 

Kate Bush? Imagine the theatrics and like ABBA she doesn’t want to perform in person. 

Given Kate Bush already did a concert back in 2014, I'm not sure if a Kate Bushatar would anywhere near as successful plus I suspect she doesn't have the same global fanbase as ABBA to sustain a run.

Likewise with Barbra Streisand, she's done a few concerts in the last decade, this is very different to ABBA who hadn't done anything together in 4 decades until last year with the Voyage album and Voyage show.

I would imagine if it can move from place to place then it'll make money. Imagine having ABBA Voyage near to the ABBA Museum for example. 

It's worth noting that after the platinum party at palace big live event the headlines have been completely taken by the Queen and the wonderful created digital Paddington clip at the start.

Two and a half minutes of magical entertainment and fun based as the ABBA voyage creators say merging the physical with the digital and it outshone the following two and a half hours of live physical performances.

The only thing from later in the show getting anywhere near as good press are the programmed mechanical drones light display.

I don't think anyone is fully expecting full digital created performances to suddenly overtake live performers but when the two can merge as spectacularly as Abba voyage and the Queen/Paddington clip have done it's certainly look like a new dawn of creativity is coming.

They had a segment on Jeremy Vine about this the other day (my recent posts make it sound like all I do is listen to Radio 2, I promise it's not true!). Most people weren't in favour of it.

One said there was something a bit ghoulish about resurrecting dead artists. I think I agree with that. The technology was nowhere near as good, but in 2015 I saw Judy, with Louise Dearman and Lorna Luft, and I found I much preferred the sections with the live singing rather than the clips of Judy Garland. I'd happily watch those on television, but in a theatre it didn't really work for me.

The technology might work very well as a show attached to a museum, but would be far too expensive at the moment.

This brings back memories of when they gave Morcambe and Wise the hologram treatment back in 2012. Although I’ve always felt slightly cross for them because when they were ‘reunited’ Chris Moyles was stood in-between them!

That was probably just a use of Pepper's Ghost which has been around for over 150 years!

The video is too poor to tell I agree, but a screen will always look flat to an audience whereas a well designed mirror system can give depth (especially if the video projected onto it has some fake depth applied itself). It's amazing how convincing Pepper's Ghost can be with modern projection equipment.