Folowing Coldcuts performance at Greenbelt I've found myself in a number of conversations about how they actually put the show together. Is it all live or do they pre-record bits of it? I came across this piece by Matt Black who gives a tour of the equipment and how they run the visuals.
couldn't watch movie as sound seems to have gone awol from my browser... (weird)
anyhow... i am absolutely convinced that a good proportion of their set was pre-edited.
it was very noticable in the brilliant version of 'the lunatics have taken over the asylum'. it was such a clean, totally glitch free performance, unlike other parts of the show... and actually was better for the pre-edit in my view.
i was interested, as doing visuals live for audio is one thing i'm doing right now and i wanted to get my head around what it was they were actually doing live. my conclusion, not a lot... does it matter?... not a lot. it was a great show and that does matter.
btw. great seeing you at gb... all the best as you settle in to your new role.
j:-)
Posted by: jon birch | September 07, 2007 at 12:40 AM
The live or pre-edit debate is a bit of a red herring (either way it is something which is enviable and brilliant)but at the Tiny Tea Tent later I was talking with two VJ guys who had seen the Coldcut set at two previous festivals - not only was the running order different but the choice of cuts within each item was very different each time in terms of timing and repetition of clips - they were convinced that most of it was live - and rather gobsmacked still. The significance of it being live is its transferability into worship situations which is what really got me thinking if were to think of the visuals being illustrative or evocative rather than didactic in their use. The other staggering thing is how affordable their basic gear is.
Posted by: Tom Allen | September 10, 2007 at 09:38 PM