Why is Britney's lip syncing excused?

[ryhanna 3,507]

I don't think anybody "excuses" it. Like, we all know it's pretty cheap and disingenuous, but it's expected from her. You get what you pay for. People who are going to Britney shows know what they're in for. And most people know why. Everyone knows she's not the same person she used to be. They just want to see a big budget production with Britney is person, because like her or not, she's an icon of the new millennium, and a living legend who a lot of people grew up idolising.  

It does suck, though. Britney had such an awesome early career. It's a shame her breakdown and career issues have weighed her down in recent years, because there truly hasn't been anyone quite like her since. 

 

[YeehawKylie 7,817]

She gets ridiculed for it quite often. It's typically the go-to punchline for Britney. While she has sung live before, at this point in her career she relies on lipsynching. It doesn't bother me. I'd assume if I paid to see her live, I would do so knowing I was getting a well-done production with no live vocals. 

[ZephyrInTheSky 1,235]

She just cant really sing live at all. Shes tried but it doesn't sound great, her voice cracks A LOT. Still not an excuse given that she has access to a great vocal coach but she DGAF. She does her gig for the money now because she can sell out shows just on her name.

[thierryrreiht 20,984]

Y'all defending her like  

[RochestrMonstr 3,216]

Her fans don't seem to mind much for whatever reason, so I guess good for her! She's able to get away with it. 

One of the main things I love about Gaga is her ability to deliver flawless live performances.  She can nail anything, often sounding just as good live as she does on studio performances.  I'm gonna sound like a jerk here, but vocal ability definitely is very important to me. That's why I could never stan for Britney.  

I will say this though: I don't care for Britney much, but I would enjoy a performance of her lip-synching more than I would enjoy watching someone like Katy Perry sing live and sound awful. Britney does what works for her, and it's worked for a very long time. She has no reason to change. 

 

[Bebe 17,093]

5 hours ago, JoeysWorldTour said:

For the people saying that she is performer not a singer, what about Lady Gaga? Lady Gaga is performer but also a singer.  Britney has no excuse.  

Gaga is an excellent performer but she is a different kind of performer.

It's like saying "For all the people saying Adele is a singer not a dancer, what about Lady Gaga? Lady Gaga is a singer but also a dancer. Adele has no excuse."




Honestly, everyone in this thread has acknowledged Britney isn't the dancer she used to be - but she is pretty good right now, good enough to put on a show.

Since so many people in this thread discrediting Britney are like "But she can't dance like she used too - she is more stiff!" I'd make comparisons to singers such as Taylor Swift and Katy Perry. Those two are huge stars, but lets be real - vocally they are not super impressive... At best they are good. At the end of the day though, as performers, their main asset is their singing, they don't claim to be decent dancers at all.

People come to see Britney for her huge productions and her dancing. People come to see Katy and Taylor for their huge productions and singing. Britney's dancing might not be perfect, but Katy and Taylor's singing isn't perfect but we don't give them as much flack  

Personally I think this:

Is a more entertaining performance than:

 

Whether Britney's dancing was a good as it used to be, it's still a high energy performance. She works the stage so well, making sure she covers every inch of the stage and delivers an entertaining visual spectacle.

Katy Perry walks around the stage, singing fine and occasionally bounces up and down while walking forward and backward. Her singing isn't incredible, but it does the job.

Taylor Swift has a nice performance, she sings fine and has some energy as she struts upon stage - but again it doesn't have the energy of Britney's performances imo... She also isn't perfect vocally.

Katy and Taylor don't have spectacular, overwhelmingly good vocal technique - Current Britney doesn't have spectacular, overwhelmingly good dance technique. With that said they all have a catalogue of hits and are able to deliver good performances with high production values.

That's not to diss Katy or Taylor, it's fine if people like them as performers, I just think people are going to Britney's concerts for a different reason than they are going to an Adele concert or some other concert.

As a performer and entertainer, Britney has always sold herself as a dancer. You come to see her dance, not to deliver a spectacular vocal performance. She puts on a high energy show with fantastic set production and energetically dances around to her hits. That's what a lot of people want to see and that's fine imo.
 

[Bradley 59,059]

7 hours ago, drinkmytears said:

She got a Billboard Millenium Award last year and performed at the VMAs. 

Yes, the awards she's been receiving are for her career, which I think she deserves because she makes great music and is a great performer. But more prestigious award shows like the Grammys would never nominate her.

[Talent 9,333]

Her lipsynching is lame, but she's a sweetheart and she's been through so much. Leave her alone.  

[moonpig8400 110]

In my opinion it's accepted firstly, because it's so well known and obvious that she lip-syncs lol, so no one feels like they are being duped, they know what to accept and are willingly buying tickets/choose to. 

Secondly/MORE IMPORTANTLY -- "singer" might actually be an insufficient term for our pop stars of today because they are actually not simply "singers". Since the dawn of music video, they are equal parts VISUALS and SINGING, as well as the style of the instrumental music, quality of the actual song, IMAGE and personality being equally as important as simply the singing. If you think about the reasons why you like a pop star, it's usually a combination of all these things. They are IDOLS & personalities: we idolise them, identify with them, dream about them, see them as Gods and Goddesses. They communicate to us via all of our sensory apparatus and spark our emotions. 

And Britney basically provides all of these things (character, personality, visuals, dancing, story) bar the live singing lol. So her show is still a worthwhile and valuable thing to experience as you're getting most of the elements. But you still know she sang the record anyway and that's enough: the show is simply an extension of the record and I expect people go for a visual spectacle rather than to see her stand there sing, 

Because on Britney's record you FEEL the personality of Britney, I feel like if we didn't know what she looked like and we listened to the records we would wonder what she looks like: that American voice having connotations with some kind of high school girl "who is she? wonder if she has blonde hair?" because in culture we are fascinated with "the girl". Her voice has connotations. 

Whereas Barbra Streisand for example the story is coming through the voice itself. Her voice is in and of itself on her records, we feel the story with what she does with her amazing command of her voice, technique and artfulness of her voice.... 

Also I love Britney !

EDIT: the only thing I would add, is that if you were sitting FAR at the back where you can see no visuals, no live singing would feel like because you have no connection to the artist. Though actually I still felt this way about monster ball even though Gaga was singing live -- but the live voice again is only one element -- what we are looking for is our Goddess and the story 

EDIT: Also as mentioned here, it's known Britney has been through a VERY hard time and has come through, so I think the public understands this, I'm appreciative she's still around ! It's also quite humorous and funny her blatant live singing lol and we look for humour in our idols too

[drinkmytears 2,332]

5 hours ago, Bradley said:

Yes, the awards she's been receiving are for her career, which I think she deserves because she makes great music and is a great performer. But more prestigious award shows like the Grammys would never nominate her.

I mean, maybe not today, but she has won before.

[Bradley 59,059]

20 minutes ago, drinkmytears said:

I mean, maybe not today, but she has won before.

I know she has a single Grammy but does it sound okay to you that all of her recent efforts are not recognised (understandably)?

[Brian Ryan 1,468]

It's Britney bitch!

 

[Magneto 13,432]

On 2017-6-4 at 10:27 AM, Anduin said:

lmfao I can't with people bringing Beyoncé when it comes to Britney's lipsyncing issues. 

Like really? like have you never heard Beyoncé 's vocals when she sings live? She has nothing to prove. From MJ to Whitney Houston , they all had lipsynced prerecorded too sometimes.

Nevertheless, as the others said in previous post, everyone knows that Britney lipsyncs at her show and they can do whatever they want with their money. If she can make her fans happy with that, so be it. I don't understand why are the non-fans complaining.

[StrawberryBlond 14,851]

20 hours ago, MEDONER said:

But can't she just sing in her normal voice for live shows? It's not like Gaga sings Just Dance with her The Fame album voice and she still does it great anyway  (I'm not here for hating, it's a legit question of why can't it be a possibility at all)

Her real voice is much deeper than the album versions, though. It would be too different and the fans might not accept it. Also, Britney's been singing in this fake voice for so long that I doubt she even knows how to sing in her natural voice anymore. I remember in that interview with Diane Sawyer that she was asked to sing one of the songs she sang when she was an aspiring child singer and she couldn't even begin it. And that was way back in 2004 or something.

20 hours ago, HugoMonster said:

I agree with everything you say but the bolded part. Mariah Carey was doing a-ma-zing during the 90s with soulful ballads and she fits that description. Christina Aguilera did very good too. 

Mariah is mixed race, which made that style of music so much more acceptable for her to do. And Christina did pop music, she's always done pop music. A pop ballad isn't the same as a soul ballad. Christina is also half-Hispanic, which again, made being not-quite-pop more acceptable. It was a very uniform music world in the 90's. If you were a white girl, you had to sing 'white' genres, namely, pop, particularly if you were young and pretty. That's just the way things were.

[drinkmytears 2,332]

6 hours ago, Bradley said:

I know she has a single Grammy but does it sound okay to you that all of her recent efforts are not recognised (understandably)?

I mean, I think her last album Glory is really good. I think she puts as much effort into her work as some artists. I think she's criminally underrated. Beyoncé and Katy get Grammy moms, and I see Britney's work as on-par with theirs