With Jeff Lynne confirming he and the Electric Light Orchestra will bow out next year, the Over and Out tour appears to be the last chance of seeing the Mr. Blue Sky hitmakers. For those who coughed up the eye-watering, £170-a-ticket cost for their “last-ever show” at Hyde Park, what are we in for? Artificially generated, cheap-looking visuals and a man who has distributed much of the singing duties to backing vocalists. Artists and artificial intelligence are still butting heads, the former adamant the creative part of their process should not be given to machines and the latter used by those who neither care nor have creativity running through them. Such is the case for the visuals used in the Over and Out tour thus far, a sloppy collection of images taking literal meaning from songs of real depth. Lynne should be ashamed of these decisions, made by some part of the conglomerate ELO now appears to be, because it undermines the visual creativity his work spearheaded all those years ago.
Outcry over the imagery seems minimal because they are a small part of the show. Backdrops are not the be-all and end-all of a performance but their inclusion is purposeful. Often, like with Stewart Lee or The Chemical Brothers at Glastonbury, it is the point. The crux of a show which, even at its most basic, is still respected as part of the performance. Nobody in their right mind would pay to see Lynne without all the bright lights, the big band feel and the grandeur others bring to the stage with him. Why does the band see it fit to cut corners with the vital part of an in-person experience? The visuals have always been the cornerstone of Electric Light Orchestra. Their very image is based on the repeated spaceship on the front of most of their album covers. It is one of the most identifiable images, a logo repeatedly showcased on merch, releases and in the Over and Out show. Not leaning into this seems like a tragedy, especially when bands on a similar legacy tour pathway are doing the same without the cheap crutch of artificial intelligence.
Aesthetic choices are crucial for live shows. Nobody wants to see an artist on a plain backdrop with no thrills or spills to the performance. You can sit at home with your eyes closed, Spotify on, and receive an identical experience. There is a layer of respect for the audience in the time and care taken to craft those unique moments. From a giant polar bear at the Wembley shows Blur carried out to the depth found in the pop-sophistication of Pulp shows across the globe. The care from an artist for their work cannot be just to the music. To put on a show is to consider the impact of the visual experience. It is why Paul McCartney has used fireworks for his shows, why Bryan Adams spotlights himself in the opening bars of Summer of ‘69 before the band plays in, the lights coming up. All of it is timing, sharply tuned moments that may define the performance. “Did you see that bit where…” is all part of the post-gig adrenalin. ELO are swiping this away with their AI.
All ELO offers now is a static and unchanged run-through of the hits. They know an element of visual flavour is necessary but phone it in. If the point of an in-person show is not to pair visuals with music, then what is it? Whether you like them or not, creating imagery through tech is cheap. A coldness to it which is appreciated by those who see the creative cycle as nothing more than a financial investment, a quantity-over-quality approach. Just look at the logo on this site. There is a depth and personal pride to having a logo made by and for a specific purpose by an artist, a history to it however brief. Having ties to culture, to a period in music history – that link from here to Well Dweller to Yard Act – is a tiny drop in a massive ocean of artistic layers. You cannot and will never get that by using artificial intelligence.
For Electric Light Orchestra to cheapen the experience with these tacky illustrations is to show they have no respect for their image, for the very concept of their songs and the meaning behind them. Last Train to London being paired with morphing images of a literal train is a gut-punch for those who find something deeper in the song than public transport. “I was extremely pleased that they did not waste money hiring artist and graphics engineers to do what they could do with AI thereby keeping the concert cost low so more fans could attend,” one comment on our news piece reads. As though the cost of the tickets was not already extortionate. To see ELO are content to use vocals fed through a machine lifting from other artists’ work, to cough out this sort of minimal effort imagery, is to grift their fans more than an increase in price to fund an artist would.
It is ludicrous to think ELO would charge their fans more for tickets to pay off an illustrator anyway. Reasonably priced tickets from artists with a bigger cultural sway than ELO are providing better visuals. Those who do not need to consider their representation of songs on the stage – the grassroots venues that let the music speak for themselves – do not yet have this problem. But you can be assured they aren’t going to touch artificial intelligence because culture from the roots to the blossoming, world-touring flowers still standing tall today depends on the cultivation of other work from other living, breathing artists. ELO were once at this level, benefitting from being given a hand by those bigger than them. They then pulled their friends up along the way, such is the cycle of the live music scene. Why break it? Who benefits from a band tasking a computer with generating visuals? Nobody.
Not the band for their specific style, the integrity of their song and the specifics of the message are lost in garbled code. Not the audience who are already paying through the nose for the show. Not the new creative frozen out, put out of work by a tool which will never create at their level. Electric Light Orchestra are responsible for some of the all-time great albums. Some of the finest music to come from Birmingham, however low the bar may be. Their lack of respect for visual displays is deeply rooted in a lack of care, which some would argue is deserved as Lynne flogs the dead horse of a farewell show and lines his pockets for the last time. Artificial imagery misses the whole point of the creative cycle and Lynne deploying it at these gigs, or at least approving its use, rips at the very threads which tie the band to their creative roots.
Think back to those great album covers. Out of the Blue, Discovery, and Zoom in particular. Would they be as groundbreaking or memorable had they been made without the flourishes or individuality of a person? Without the sleight of hand needed to pull off the subtle details? No. Why is it deemed fine to use a shoddy tool which is still struggling to make teeth and hands look right for your farewell gig? A lack of care is coming through the ELO of today, the Jeff Lynne-led band used to have a striking visual impact. Just look at their Wembley show or the previous Hyde Park performance. But with the lack of care taken in the visuals, some may question where else the band are cutting corners. Lynne’s legacy will not take a hit because of this because the average audience member will likely not care, but they should, because this is a slippery slope where nobody benefits from skidding down it, and to see a band of this status do so is damnable.
Discover more from Cult Following
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
While it MAY be shameful to relegate the visual elements of a performance to a computer, I completely DISAGREE that the only reason you wouldn’t get the same experience by playing a song on Spotify in your living room is the visuals. The BEST live performances don’t rely heavily on the visual aspect at all, but on different interpretations of familiar songs and a smattering of never-before-heard works. THIS is where ELO failed (to a much greater degree than their backdrops). Virtually every song was rendered identically to the record — no surprises. I wouldn’t care a whit if they were in front of a plain white curtain, as long as I could hear a little unreleased material some hidden gems, and/or a bit of the familiar stuff re-invented in a new way — (this is why Eric Clapton’s acoustic version of “Layla” became more popular than the original at one point; it was ‘of the moment’ and NOT just a regurgitation of the Derek & the Dominos version). Letting a song EVOLVE always keeps it fresh. Playing it in front of a new background seldom ever does!