Juanca
Diamond Member
Enjoying work, family/personal life with partner and doggies, and music. I couldn't ask for more :)
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 11,078
|
Post by Juanca on Jan 24, 2013 15:31:59 GMT -5
I agree with most of what has been said so far regarding live singing and lipping. It really makes me crazy when they actually just lip the album version with no changes. There is a German singer named Sandra who was popular in Europe in the 1980s. Up until even a year or so ago, she was lipping the original album versions of her songs from the 80s and basically passing themselves off as live performances. And the fans would comment on how her voice "has not changed". And it's not that she can't sing live but it is inexplicable why she did that. Only recently has she begun to sing almost all the songs live with new arrangements and everything. Oh I read about this once! Poor Sandra. Just FYI, she was also a bit popular in South America. She did a promotional tour in Peru back in 1986-87 when her (I'll Never Be) Maria Magdalena became one of the biggest hits of the year. I think the name of the album was The Long Play or something like that. In the heat of the night reached #2 on my personal chart, On the tray went top 20 but Hi hi hi didn't go far :( I was surprised later to know that she was the female voice behind Enigma
|
|
Ace
5x Platinum Member
The Guvanah
I enjoy walkin Soho drinkin in the afternoon
Joined: October 2008
Posts: 5,218
|
Post by Ace on Jan 24, 2013 15:47:53 GMT -5
i think it's kind of ridiculous to equate being a pop star with being a fantastic vocalist. Two different ballgames. If Britney could sit on a stool and sing all her songs in tune and well (which I believe she could, but different debate), who would actually want to pay to see that? (Well, I would, but that's besides the point.) She's not an amazing vocalist, never claimed to be, and didn't build her brand on it. There's no deception there. There is usually some amount of live vocals mixed with pre-recorded live vocals on her tours, and especially earlier in her career, she proved that she wasn't completely a studio creation, but that's not the point. Pop music is an industry comprised of performers, dancers, producers, writers, set designers, costume makers, managers, tour directors, and any number of other professions in addition to vocalists. There's not a set mold that has to, nor should be, followed, and our culture as a whole has clearly embraced the "pop star" over the "vocalist." Vocalists certainly deserve their due respect, I don't deny that, but even in Beyonce's case, while she happens to also possess fantastic vocal prowess, her empire didn't grow to what it is now because of her vocals. She went out of her way to prove that vocals happen to be one part of many that comprise the Beyonce Experience, and therefore, I don't really think she should be faulted for the incident. She became Beyonce because of the whole package and gained her level of fame based on her many talents. Kelly Clarkson became who she is pretty much mostly on the strength of her vocals, and she's kept her career focused on that. Any pop star should play to their strengths and maximize the potential they have to make both themselves and their audience happy; if that audience isn't you, then so be it, but don't ruin it for the rest of us.
|
|
Juanca
Diamond Member
Enjoying work, family/personal life with partner and doggies, and music. I couldn't ask for more :)
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 11,078
|
Post by Juanca on Jan 24, 2013 15:55:58 GMT -5
I saw Britney live in DC during her Circus tour. In the lapse of a year I saw Celine, Alanis and Britney. I didn't necessarily researched deeply what each artist will do in her shows. I knew Britney would lip some tho, but I still went and paid more than $150 to be there. I ended up disappointed. Very. The production was good, better than Alanis' (lol) and than Celine's, but except for a couple of songs where Britney danced something more elaborated, she seemed a lazy miming act. Sorry. I like her and that's why I paid to see her. But I was waiting to either hear her singing something good or dance with energy. Lots of props and dancers... But if I wanted to see that I would've just waited for cirque du soleil even when I thought she was singing in Everytime I found out it was a prerecorded track. Argh! There's no comparison between Madonna's and Britney's spectacles. I know M uses backing tracks too but that woman dances her wrinkles off! I surely give her a pass! She doesn't have the best voice live either but I like when I hear her singing live imperfectly as she does. Celine was a good middle point to me. She sang live, moved around, had dancers and everything. Worth every penny. Same with Alanis. Now with Yonka. I have to say I'm excited to see her live because of her performing skills. I bet she'll lip but with all her energy I'll give her a pass. I saw Gaga live a couple of years and she was dancing, moving around, singing live and lipping. That's fine by me too. Give me a good balance and I'm fine!! Yeah, surely being in a Britney concert was a funny experience but I'm sure I can live without seeing a bunch of guys dressing like school girls and jumping / humping... The 'show' itself I could've watched in DVD Just my 2 cents
|
|
hidizzyguy
8x Platinum Member
hello
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 8,800
|
Post by hidizzyguy on Jan 24, 2013 15:57:13 GMT -5
i think it's kind of ridiculous to equate being a pop star with being a fantastic vocalist. Two different ballgames. If Britney could sit on a stool and sing all her songs in tune and well (which I believe she could, but different debate), who would actually want to pay to see that? (Well, I would, but that's besides the point.) She's not an amazing vocalist, never claimed to be, and didn't build her brand on it. There's no deception there. There is usually some amount of live vocals mixed with pre-recorded live vocals on her tours, and especially earlier in her career, she proved that she wasn't completely a studio creation, but that's not the point. Pop music is an industry comprised of performers, dancers, producers, writers, set designers, costume makers, managers, tour directors, and any number of other professions in addition to vocalists. There's not a set mold that has to, nor should be, followed, and our culture as a whole has clearly embraced the "pop star" over the "vocalist." Vocalists certainly deserve their due respect, I don't deny that, but even in Beyonce's case, while she happens to also possess fantastic vocal prowess, her empire didn't grow to what it is now because of her vocals. She went out of her way to prove that vocals happen to be one part of many that comprise the Beyonce Experience, and therefore, I don't really think she should be faulted for the incident. She became Beyonce because of the whole package and gained her level of fame based on her many talents. Kelly Clarkson became who she is pretty much mostly on the strength of her vocals, and she's kept her career focused on that. Any pop star should play to their strengths and maximize the potential they have to make both themselves and their audience happy; if that audience isn't you, then so be it, but don't ruin it for the rest of us. This is the answer I was waiting for
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2013 16:41:05 GMT -5
i think it's kind of ridiculous to equate being a pop star with being a fantastic vocalist. Two different ballgames. If Britney could sit on a stool and sing all her songs in tune and well (which I believe she could, but different debate), who would actually want to pay to see that? (Well, I would, but that's besides the point.) She's not an amazing vocalist, never claimed to be, and didn't build her brand on it. There's no deception there. There is usually some amount of live vocals mixed with pre-recorded live vocals on her tours, and especially earlier in her career, she proved that she wasn't completely a studio creation, but that's not the point. Pop music is an industry comprised of performers, dancers, producers, writers, set designers, costume makers, managers, tour directors, and any number of other professions in addition to vocalists. There's not a set mold that has to, nor should be, followed, and our culture as a whole has clearly embraced the "pop star" over the "vocalist." Vocalists certainly deserve their due respect, I don't deny that, but even in Beyonce's case, while she happens to also possess fantastic vocal prowess, her empire didn't grow to what it is now because of her vocals. She went out of her way to prove that vocals happen to be one part of many that comprise the Beyonce Experience, and therefore, I don't really think she should be faulted for the incident. She became Beyonce because of the whole package and gained her level of fame based on her many talents. Kelly Clarkson became who she is pretty much mostly on the strength of her vocals, and she's kept her career focused on that. Any pop star should play to their strengths and maximize the potential they have to make both themselves and their audience happy; if that audience isn't you, then so be it, but don't ruin it for the rest of us. Agreed. This does kind of highlight the reason why it's so "controversial" that Beyonce did it though. Beyonce is one of those people who is heralded for both superior performing and superior vocals. Much of her empire is built on her all-around-entertainer status and the singing is a part of that. So for a two minute performance in front of a mic, we assume that she will sing. Initially I think the Marine Band representative said something about Beyonce having limited rehearsal time with the band as the reason for it, but then one may think, well why didn't she just sing a capella? Some people are thus disappointed, not even just because she lip-synced, but because unless she was sick (and there's currently no indication she was) there wasn't a justification for it. It's like an A-capable student being perfectly fine with settling for a B. Not a bad grade in itself but you just wonder why they would be so complacent. I don't agree with the uproar over it at all, but I can somewhat see where the disappointment is coming from. I still hold that in this case it is perfectly acceptable because the inauguration is very much traditional, and about the pomp and circumstance of it all. Sure it's brave and thus very impressive when someone sings live and blows everyone away, but I don't fault anyone for being a bit nervous about whether they can pull out an A performance and opting to go for the safe B.
|
|
beach1
3x Platinum Member
She's watching every move you make
Joined: November 2008
Posts: 3,472
|
Post by beach1 on Jan 24, 2013 18:34:01 GMT -5
I don't know if what Beyonce did was a big deal, maybe she had a cold or throat condition or something else at the time that made it so it would be better for her to lip synch. We don't really know the full details behind it so I don't think we can really judge.
|
|
Luckie Starchild
Diamond Member
Has a special title
2020 PMA Lifetime Achievement Award, 2011 PMA winner and 8X nominee!
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 14,524
|
Post by Luckie Starchild on Jan 24, 2013 18:39:20 GMT -5
i think it's kind of ridiculous to equate being a pop star with being a fantastic vocalist. Two different ballgames. If Britney could sit on a stool and sing all her songs in tune and well (which I believe she could, but different debate), who would actually want to pay to see that? (Well, I would, but that's besides the point.) She's not an amazing vocalist, never claimed to be, and didn't build her brand on it. There's no deception there. There is usually some amount of live vocals mixed with pre-recorded live vocals on her tours, and especially earlier in her career, she proved that she wasn't completely a studio creation, but that's not the point. Pop music is an industry comprised of performers, dancers, producers, writers, set designers, costume makers, managers, tour directors, and any number of other professions in addition to vocalists. There's not a set mold that has to, nor should be, followed, and our culture as a whole has clearly embraced the "pop star" over the "vocalist." Vocalists certainly deserve their due respect, I don't deny that, but even in Beyonce's case, while she happens to also possess fantastic vocal prowess, her empire didn't grow to what it is now because of her vocals. She went out of her way to prove that vocals happen to be one part of many that comprise the Beyonce Experience, and therefore, I don't really think she should be faulted for the incident. She became Beyonce because of the whole package and gained her level of fame based on her many talents. Kelly Clarkson became who she is pretty much mostly on the strength of her vocals, and she's kept her career focused on that. Any pop star should play to their strengths and maximize the potential they have to make both themselves and their audience happy; if that audience isn't you, then so be it, but don't ruin it for the rest of us. This is the answer I was waiting for So basically, we should hold talented artists to higher standards...
|
|
bornfearless2000
4x Platinum Member
SOMETHING IN THE WATER
Joined: November 2011
Posts: 4,020
|
Post by bornfearless2000 on Jan 24, 2013 20:18:56 GMT -5
i really don't mind if a singer 'lip syncing' or whatsoever, as long as they dance or do an acrobat or something dangerous.
But of course, i prefer 'live' vocal.
|
|
esoteric76
5x Platinum Member
https://mixcloud.com/djmusikdawg
Joined: July 2006
Posts: 5,953
|
Post by esoteric76 on Jan 25, 2013 15:16:47 GMT -5
I would still rather see someone lip sync, then see a performance like Xtina's Star Spangled messed up lyrics train wreck. That is what the lip syncing is for. The songs are important, the moment is important, a mistake could be devestating. I think she made a fair choice.
|
|
Wolfy
5x Platinum Member
She Wolf
Joined: December 2004
Posts: 5,986
|
Post by Wolfy on Jan 25, 2013 18:42:28 GMT -5
I'm surprised that some of you made such a big deal out of this. Its really a non-issue. Every year someone gets trashed for lip-synching. Its done to give people something to talk about. This year it was Beyonce. Next year it will be someone else. Everyone comes out of this unscathed (with the exception of Ashlee Simpson & Mini Vinilli). If the singer can't sing live and gets caught, that's when problems happen. But when a singer lip-synchs that has shown in the past that she can sing well live, then the lip-synching drama slides right off them. Beyonce will be fine.
|
|
|
Post by shawnshamrock on Jan 26, 2013 1:15:17 GMT -5
I'm surprised that some of you made such a big deal out of this. Its really a non-issue. Every year someone gets trashed for lip-synching. Its done to give people something to talk about. This year it was Beyonce. Next year it will be someone else. Everyone comes out of this unscathed (with the exception of Ashlee Simpson & Mini Vinilli). If the singer can't sing live and gets caught, that's when problems happen. But when a singer lip-synchs that has shown in the past that she can sing well live, then the lip-synching drama slides right off them. Beyonce will be fine. I wouldn't say Ashlee Simpson was in the same boat as Milli Vanilli or however you spell it. Her next album came out a few months after that, and including that disastrous performance at the orange bowl, yet I am Me, managed to debut at #1, went platinum too i think.., and I don't recall Boyfriend being a complete flop of a single either, so I wouldn't say that it killed her career, might have put a dent in her career but not a total halt. I think what else helped her out was having that Reality Show... The one episode acted as a behind the scenes look at the SNL thing and people tuned in to see what really happened.
|
|
Dalliance
2x Platinum Member
Do It For The Vine
Joined: December 2009
Posts: 2,455
|
Post by Dalliance on Jan 26, 2013 7:44:22 GMT -5
I haven't read most of the posts in this thread but I'll give my feelings on lip-sssssinning.
You have no life if you get overly offended by the act. It's one of pop's smaller sins, at this point especially. At the same time, the act of misleading your audience by pretending your live voice is booming from the mic is always going be awkward when viewing the performance in retrospect. I mean, for us rational human beings, that act seems quite idiotic and dishonest for the most part. You might as well just press the button in front of everyone and let your voice boom the recording.
EDIT: Actually, lip-synching at a concert when doing so isn't expected is a huge pop sin imo.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2013 11:49:42 GMT -5
I'm surprised that some of you made such a big deal out of this. Its really a non-issue. Every year someone gets trashed for lip-synching. Its done to give people something to talk about. This year it was Beyonce. Next year it will be someone else. Everyone comes out of this unscathed (with the exception of Ashlee Simpson & Mini Vinilli). If the singer can't sing live and gets caught, that's when problems happen. But when a singer lip-synchs that has shown in the past that she can sing well live, then the lip-synching drama slides right off them. Beyonce will be fine. I wouldn't say Ashlee Simpson was in the same boat as Milli Vanilli or however you spell it. Her next album came out a few months after that, and including that disastrous performance at the orange bowl, yet I am Me, managed to debut at #1, went platinum too i think.., and I don't recall Boyfriend being a complete flop of a single either, so I wouldn't say that it killed her career, might have put a dent in her career but not a total halt. I think what else helped her out was having that Reality Show... The one episode acted as a behind the scenes look at the SNL thing and people tuned in to see what really happened. I don't think the lip-syncing debacle killed her career; I think it may have just made an already sinking ship sink a lot faster. "Shadow" flopped before that incident even occurred. There's no way to really know if she would have been anything more than a one-hit wonder anyway.
|
|
GrΓΌn
Platinum Member
Come As You Are
Joined: August 2010
Posts: 1,189
|
Post by GrΓΌn on Jan 26, 2013 14:16:34 GMT -5
I would have to say lip syncing makes me livid.
I have to use Beyonce as one example. The earpiece thing made me so angry. Why make it all so dramatic if you weren't realy gonna sing? I am sick of the excuses of it was cold, a lot of pressure, or it was not a good day.
If she couldn't do it, then get someone else to sing. She was picked on the merit of being a wonderul LIVE singer and she did not even preform live. I am sure Adele, Pink, Carrie, or many others would have fought through the cold temperatures to sing.
One example is Baseball, the play offs and world seris are very high pressure events and you don't see them not playing the game to get out of it. Sure some of them might try and use steriods to give that extra boost. However, steriods are banned and I think lip syncing and back up tracks should be. Because it is an unfair advantage and a lie. Lip syncing gives other artists credit that they don't deserve.
In addition, when I see you live on MTV, The Superbowl, Grammys, or any other event I want to see you live. I have your cd, but now I want to hear it live with a different arrangement or some added lyrics and different expressions that studio version that did have. Or just give a great vocal or something like that.
Now I know some artists lip on almost every occasion, but that shouldn't cut it anymore. That also goes to the almost as untalented people who sing three words of the song and let the backup track do the chorus for them.
I think they should not be allowed to lip or do that back up track stuff on any live preformance. It should not be tolerated.
The next excuse is well my fave is a dancer and can't sing. Then just do one or the other. Just dance with your music in the background, or sing and do minimal dancing.
Also, it can be added that P!nk, Lady Gaga, and some artists can do both at one time. Even that Katy Perry preformance she sang Wide Awake and didn't do a great job, she sang live and she gets the respect of trying to do both.
Lastly, I don't get why so many people on here want their artist to lip sync. I think maybe you are afraid to see how your "fave" really is or maybe that would no longer have a career.
|
|
|
Post by Fat Ass Kelly Price on Jan 26, 2013 14:54:48 GMT -5
These analogies...do not work.
|
|
Pink Pvssy
Platinum Member
Joined: November 2012
Posts: 1,785
|
Post by Pink Pvssy on Jan 26, 2013 14:58:40 GMT -5
I am sure Adele, Pink, Carrie, or many others would have fought through the cold temperatures to sing. Oh for sure. Adele will sing "God Save The Queen" live at Obama's innauguration.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2013 17:27:37 GMT -5
I am sure Adele, Pink, Carrie, or many others would have fought through the cold temperatures to sing. Oh for sure. Adele will sing "God Save The Queen" live at Obama's innauguration. Actually that's essentially what Kelly sang, only with different lyrics. ;) And she did a beautiful job IMO, without lip syncing.
|
|
Exotic
Gold Member
VIVA GLAM.
Joined: January 2013
Posts: 974
|
Post by Exotic on Jan 27, 2013 14:57:57 GMT -5
I'm just here for stage presence, energy, and choreography. Lipping doesn't bother me, as long as you're out there giving your all. However, I would like for the vocals to at least be pre recorded.
|
|
|
Post by shawnshamrock on Jan 28, 2013 15:46:26 GMT -5
I don't really care if a performer mimes it! If I am going to get entertained in the process then I am happy. Of course I do prefer an pre recorded live vocal over the album version.. Although if you see a Drag Queen that can sing live then that is talent!
|
|
G-Reg
Gold Member
Joined: November 2011
Posts: 770
|
Post by G-Reg on Jan 29, 2013 4:20:02 GMT -5
Lipping doesn't bother me, as long as you're out there giving your all.. However, I would like for the vocals to at least be pre recorded. Instead of lipping with no recording? And what does this even mean??
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Jan 29, 2013 8:02:23 GMT -5
Lipping doesn't bother me, as long as you're out there giving your all.. However, I would like for the vocals to at least be pre recorded. Instead of lipping with no recording? And what does this even mean?? Recorded for the purpose of live performance and not to the album's vocal track.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 22:15:10 GMT -5
I actually kind of loathe pre-recorded 'live' vocals unless the arrangement and/or vocal melody is very different from the original. That just lends more to the 'attempting to deceive' feeling that many dislike. And I still have bad memories of Ashanti doing that when she performed "Only U" at some random award show (Source Awards maybe?) but there was absolutely NO noise or reaction coming from the audience, so it was even more blatantly obvious and made the performance seem weak.
|
|
G-Reg
Gold Member
Joined: November 2011
Posts: 770
|
Post by G-Reg on Jan 30, 2013 0:00:38 GMT -5
Instead of lipping with no recording? And what does this even mean?? Recorded for the purpose of live performance and not to the album's vocal track. I see. That makes a lot of sense. When I was a kid I remember seeing artists blatantly lip syncing to their studio versions, and always wondered why people didn't notice/care.
|
|
kc98
Platinum Member
We are all misfits living in a world on fire
Joined: February 2013
Posts: 1,489
|
Post by kc98 on Feb 20, 2013 15:05:15 GMT -5
I don't think any excuse is valid for lip syncing. To lip sync to an album track is not only lazy and cheap, but also unfair to the audience who is paying to hear you sing your music LIVE - hence the word live. I'd rather here you try, even on a bad day (anyone remember Kelly at the Thanksgiving game in 2007??) than be fake and dishonest.. and that's my opinion on lip syncing.
|
|
Vic
Platinum Member
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 1,063
|
Post by Vic on Feb 25, 2013 9:26:25 GMT -5
Plain and simple...if you can't sing without a machine or lip syncing then you aren't a singer. I don't give a crap if you are performing on stage doing a dance routine. If you aren't singing you are not a vocalist. You are just a stage act. I would rather hear/see someone actually sing a song than jump around on stage to a prerecorded track. What is the point. Its quite sad what today's music has become.
|
|
bryce
Gold Member
Joined: December 2011
Posts: 763
|
Post by bryce on Feb 25, 2013 9:51:32 GMT -5
If you're a good dancer, you can lipsync. Period.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,884
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Feb 25, 2013 10:20:44 GMT -5
^If a routine isn't requiring such heavy-duty movement, then there's no real reason to lip-synch. I mean, some performances have been blatant lip-synchs, but it didn't matter because it was so grand (i.e. Madonna at the 1990 VMAs- she didn't even bother to have a mic hehe) A performance here or there, even during a concert, no big deal.
But, if someone is lipping an entire show (or close to it)... I dunno... just makes the act itself seem very fake.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Feb 25, 2013 13:12:28 GMT -5
Plain and simple...if you can't sing without a machine or lip syncing then you aren't a singer. I don't give a crap if you are performing on stage doing a dance routine. If you aren't singing you are not a vocalist. You are just a stage act. I would rather hear/see someone actually sing a song than jump around on stage to a prerecorded track. What is the point. Its quite sad what today's music has become. What if you are lip syncing to a recording you already recorded? Isn't that what most do? They might not be "live singers" but still singers. I think there's a difference between someone like Adele lip syncing and someone like Madonna or whoever else does a lot of dancing. I don't think it has anything to do with "today's music". If you're going to watch someone sing, going to a high energy concert with a lot of dancing and theatrics probably isn't your thing. Those concerts centre more around multi-media entertainment combining visuals with sound and experience. If you want live singing 100%, go to a venue or event that specializes in folk singers or singer/songwriters. It really all comes down to the main focus of the show or performance in question. Entertainers aren't always going to be live singers.
|
|
Vic
Platinum Member
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 1,063
|
Post by Vic on Feb 25, 2013 19:49:41 GMT -5
I disagree. If you are a real singer...that should be your craft. That should be comes first. There was no lipping happening since the early 90's. The big "dance/pop" stars before that Donna Summer, Olivia Newton-John, Diana Ross, Cher, Sheena Easton...and so on all performed without lipping because they can sing. They all still moved around the stage...maybe not in some big huge dance routine but who cares they actually sang to the crowd and the crowds appreciated that.
Maybe that is the difference with today's concert scene. Its all about a big performance and the singing becomes less important. Its too bad.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Feb 27, 2013 0:57:48 GMT -5
But singers can have several "crafts". When it comes to big concerts, singing isn't the only thing used to entertain the audiences. The job of the performer is to entertain and that includes big productions, often singing and dancing. As long as the performer does incorporate live singing into the set most of the time, they've already proven their ability to sing.
Again, I emphasize that it all comes down to the purpose of the performance, hence why much of the time, I think it's more suitable to call them "performers" or "entertainers" rather than "singers".
|
|