Jump to content
opinion

Lip syncing/not singing live in shows


mzncb

Featured Posts

PinkJelly

I don’t mind when artists use a backing-track (turned down) and sing live vocals over the top - but I would only ever pay to see an artist performing/singing live :coffee:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply
NewYorkCity
8 hours ago, steve.22 said:

You know that Whitney Nation Anthem we lipsync right...

That’s exactly my point :toofunny:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Economy
On 3/9/2019 at 2:06 PM, RochestrMonstr said:

Back in the 1970's it was very common to do on television.

I first learned that when I started listening to ABBA.

ABBA is my fav band of all time. They had amazing music but they weren't the best at love performing and they did lipsync a lot

Link to post
Share on other sites

dberrin

I agree with all of you but Gaga has also been singing on a track and used machines to modify and correct her voice (especially at the beginning of her carreer when she was performing poker face).  And i am almost sure that this one is prerecorded... even if this is my favorite performance of all time..:cryga:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ziggy
On 3/9/2019 at 1:16 PM, ILoveGypsyLife said:

No shade or disrespect to absolutely any artist or their fanbases, and I’m not calling out anyone in particular, but I personally cannot justify lip syncing at concerts. I side with Gaga when she says if people spend money to see you live, you better have some pipes and sing for them all night. In my experience, fans would rather hear flawed vocals that are live than having them mime to the studio versions. I think singing to a backtrack is okay, as long as you’re actually singing and not just miming. And I do understand that dancing and singing at the same time can be difficult, but like I said, I’d rather hear a breathy, messy, weak vocal performance during dance numbers than know that they weren’t even singing the song at all. Or at least sing over a backtrack for that portion of the song. That’s just my opinion though.

See, I’m okay with backing because it can fill out vocals better make them closer to a studio version *plus* it can have adlibs that fans might like which are a staple of pop tracks. For instance, Sexxx Dreams kind of *needs* backing and what’s the difference between that and backup dancers except that in this case it’s cheaper? I prefer backup singers most of the time but on Sexxx Dreams again Gaga’s specific vocal delivery is what sells it in a way singers would not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LUO YI

I don’t care about lipsync :huntyga: I’m here for the show.

The night sky tells all
Link to post
Share on other sites

RochestrMonstr
49 minutes ago, Economy said:

ABBA is my fav band of all time. They had amazing music but they weren't the best at love performing and they did lipsync a lot

Mine too! Before Gaga came along they were my favorite musicians overall (and are still a close second)!

The thing with ABBA sounding so different live was mainly just because it wasn’t possible to recreate the sound they got in the studio. Not because those girls didn’t have great voices, but the way they would overdub their own voices in the recordings to get their signature “wall of sound”. They needed like twelve backup singers just to come close live in their tours (and it was never the same).

Luckily it was standard for TV guest appearances to be lipsynced back then though, for any act. They would get a lot more crap for it today I imagine. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

sipthistea

Unless the show includes something like a hard dancing routine, acrobatics or something that makes it difficult to perform (Illness or some other type of problems), I think singers-musicians should always perform live.

And even plenty of them (Gaga,Pink, Beyoncé) do such things while singing live. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeroen Bloeming

For me it depends on the songs that are lipsynced. Michael Jackson wasn't a good example of it. And I didn't understand his decisions for example on the History tour. He did Wanna Be Startin Something (a very fast and hard song to sing) live and Stranger In Moscow (a calm and not that difficult song) was lipsynced. But he did dance a lot

Britney on the other hand.... She barely dances and never sings. I think that's unacceptable

Then we have Cher. She's 72 and on a world tour rn. Well, first of all respect to that. I know she lipsyncs most of the songs in the show and I think that's acceptable bc her songs are very hard to sing and she still dances. I think it's more than obvious that she can't sing a whole show live anymore

Madonna sings live a lot and lipsyncs a lot and I think it's okay. She's also not that young anymore and she always puts on a hell of a show.

So it really depends on the songs and the artists for me

Link to post
Share on other sites

2School4Cool
40 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

See, I’m okay with backing because it can fill out vocals better make them closer to a studio version *plus* it can have adlibs that fans might like which are a staple of pop tracks. For instance, Sexxx Dreams kind of *needs* backing and what’s the difference between that and backup dancers except that in this case it’s cheaper? I prefer backup singers most of the time but on Sexxx Dreams again Gaga’s specific vocal delivery is what sells it in a way singers would not.

I agree with this completely, as long as the artist is singing live. I like your example of Sexxx Dreams. The chorus of that song is hard to sing with a lot of power. She almost has to sing it in a falsetto, high pitched, quiet voice, so a backing track is helpful in keeping the full sound of the track during the chorus. Without a backing track, you would probably struggle to hear the chorus at all. The difference is Gaga still sings live with the backing track, as opposed to some others who just mouth along and don’t sing. I also agree that a backing track is like having backup singers. The only difference is a backing track is all the artist’s voice so it sounds more cohesive. 

See The Best In Everyone
Link to post
Share on other sites

latina twilight

It always depends. Sometimes it can be justified, sometimes it can't. What I find pointless is to criticize an artist when you didn't even pay to see a show or are willing to see it, let the people who actually paid be the judges.

You don't like that kind of gig? There's plenty more of artists with great live vocals you can watch instead. This has been discussed plenty of times, but no matter what you agree or disagree on, you'll always pay for what you want to see and it's fine, it's your money.

Also, it's 2019, it's so easy to know if a performer tends to lipsync before you invest money on them.

"YOU USED TO BE SO KIND, I NEVER KNEW YOU HAD SUCH A DIRRTY MIND".
Link to post
Share on other sites

2School4Cool
29 minutes ago, Jeroen Bloeming said:

For me it depends on the songs that are lipsynced. Michael Jackson wasn't a good example of it. And I didn't understand his decisions for example on the History tour. He did Wanna Be Startin Something (a very fast and hard song to sing) live and Stranger In Moscow (a calm and not that difficult song) was lipsynced. But he did dance a lot

I think in Michael’s case it stems from his perfectionism. Songs like Wanna Be Starting Something have a lot of ad libs that would be too difficult to lip sync, but he lip synced whenever he could on that tour because, in his mind, the crowd would rather hear the perfectly polished studio vocal. It’s easier to lip sync a song like Stranger In Moscow than lip sync all the “hee hees” and breaths and “ows” in Wanna Be Starting Something. This would also explain why he sung the end of You Are Not Alone live but lipsynced the rest of the song. That song fades out at the end, but you can’t lip sync a fade-out, so he had no choice but to end the song with a live vocal. That’s just my opinion on it though.

See The Best In Everyone
Link to post
Share on other sites

malazam

MJ did a whole world tour with lip syncing and it was fire.

another shot before we kiss the other side
Link to post
Share on other sites

Economy
48 minutes ago, RochestrMonstr said:

Mine too! Before Gaga came along they were my favorite musicians overall (and are still a close second)!

The thing with ABBA sounding so different live was mainly just because it wasn’t possible to recreate the sound they got in the studio. Not because those girls didn’t have great voices, but the way they would overdub their own voices in the recordings to get their signature “wall of sound”. They needed like twelve backup singers just to come close live in their tours (and it was never the same).

Luckily it was standard for TV guest appearances to be lipsynced back then though, for any act. They would get a lot more crap for it today I imagine. 

 

Same!!!!! They were my obsession before Gaga and still easily my second fav

 

Cher is my second fav solo artist but if we include groups as well Abba is actually my second fav! I know like all their songs!

 

This is why I'm so exited to see Cher's Concert with Abba songs!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...