Squidward T 1,796 Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 So people are already starting on how Britney lip synced her entire performance, do you think its fair that artists make millions of dollars when they cannot sing live? Do you think its justified? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FATCAT 55,820 Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 If people were upset about it, they wouldn't buy her music or go to her shows. I don't think they should, but it's not really up to me. Purr more, hiss less. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leecy 1,476 Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 Because Britney's art is not singing, her songs are just bgm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quartz 11,923 Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 Well, they are already digging their own grave. Lipsyncing is it's own punishment Inside, we are really made the same. 🕊 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thatfoxyfeeling 11,997 Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 I'll never understand how someone can give away their money to go and see an 'artist' lip sync for 2 hours. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
display name 4,360 Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 In Britney's case, I think that most fans let it slide because she's shown that she can sing in the past, and her fans still love her because they view her more as an entertainer, rather than just a singer. I've gone to see her Vegas show twice now, and it's certainly entertaining. By now, her fans know what they get when they buy her albums or tickets to her shows. In that sense, I think it's justifiable for her to have the success that she has, and as long as there are people who are interested in seeing them perform, it is justifible to give people who lipsync a stage in my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReidOne 12,427 Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 The tide is definitely turning against these types of performances, but you can't count them out. They are a longstanding tradition in televised pop music culture. American Bandstand, one of the longest-running music TV series in US history featured 100% lip synching... ...same with Top of the Pops in the UK. ...I think it's here to stay and it has it's place, when executed well. But it's definitely not as welcomed as it once was. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nativenewyorker 1,190 Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 With a legend like Britney, her lip-syncing kinda gets overlooked. People watch Britney to see her perform, not just sing. It's never been about powerful vocals for her or her music. It's more about the excitement she brought by entertaining. People are well aware that she lip syncs and if they continue to buy her music and support her live shows, it's their choice. Obviously they aren't paying to hear her vocals, they're paying to see her. If an up and coming artist tried to lip-sync their way to stardom now in 2016, it wouldn't be okay. The only reason Britney gets a free pass is because 1) she has the legacy and performing skills to make up for it and 2) the sexy, perfectly pop voice she uses in the studio ruined any kind of power she had. In a way, she sacrificed her ability to sing live for the vocals we loved on her albums. Britney is the exception to the rule that all SINGERS doing a live show should SING. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zakariah 11,556 Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 I accept artists that lipsync but has the ability to sing & hold a note (literally). But the people who lipsync but can't sing at all definitely don't deserve a platform. Britney can definitely sing, she just can't sing AND dance at the same time. That's okay, cos she compensates for her dancing and stage presence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bebe 16,562 Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 You can have other talents though. I wouldn't go to an Adele show expecting extravagant choreography and I wouldn't go to a Britney concert expecting stellar vocal performances. I wouldn't really see Britney live now, but in her heyday she was an incredible performer with amazing skills. She was never an incredible singer but she could dance and perform like nobody else. Not only that, but she was extremely provocative and really pushed the boundary of what was acceptable. If you are a great entertainer and your skills are as a dancer, that's awesome. If you put on a great show who cares if the focus isn't on vocals? It's like going to the Ballet and complaining that none of them are belting songs while doing their pirouettes. The focus of Britney's shows are her dancing. I'll buy Britney's music, she releases cool stuff. I actually loved Make Me as the lead single, it's a great song. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Gaga 21,891 Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 8 minutes ago, hellothing said: Well, they are already digging their own grave. Lipsyncing is it's own punishment I'd give a million likes to this 5 minutes ago, JamesFox said: I'll never understand how someone can give away their money to go and see an 'artist' lip sync for 2 hours. In britney's case, no one sees her as an artist...i mean, people who attend her shows (fans) don't expect her to sing. They want just to see her. Her face, idk, moves... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Gaga 21,891 Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 3 minutes ago, Zakariah said: Britney can definitely sing Can't believe what i read Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronyoji 2,007 Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 4 minutes ago, nativenewyorker said: With a legend like Britney, her lip-syncing kinda gets overlooked. People watch Britney to see her perform, not just sing. It's never been about powerful vocals for her or her music. It's more about the excitement she brought by entertaining. People are well aware that she lip syncs and if they continue to buy her music and support her live shows, it's their choice. Obviously they aren't paying to hear her vocals, they're paying to see her. If an up and coming artist tried to lip-sync their way to stardom now in 2016, it wouldn't be okay. The only reason Britney gets a free pass is because 1) she has the legacy and performing skills to make up for it and 2) the sexy, perfectly pop voice she uses in the studio ruined any kind of power she had. In a way, she sacrificed her ability to sing live for the vocals we loved on her albums. Britney is the exception to the rule that all SINGERS doing a live show should SING. "perform, not just sing" how is there a way of performing without not singing well? or at all! flailing around is not a form of performance, if you can call her dancing and half-hearted arm movements that. her fans have this delusion that she once sang well, and hate to break it to ya but she never could. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zakariah 11,556 Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 1 minute ago, Mister Gaga said: Can't believe what i read Can u sing tho? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaperIz 7,261 Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 9 minutes ago, JamesFox said: I'll never understand how someone can give away their money to go and see an 'artist' lip sync for 2 hours. I would spend every dime I have to see Britney sit on stage and eat watermelon. She's glorious. A goddess. ---- I mean Britney CAN sing, she just doesn't do it live barely ever. She's so nervous and shy. She deserves everything she has. She's a warrior. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.