Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As titled. Seems to be true. Ridiculous. Your thoughts?

 Byte wrote:
Your thoughts?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

 Breotan wrote:

 Byte wrote:
Your thoughts?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

Fair enough...

As a musician, every time I hear about an "artist" lip-syncing, a little part of me nerd-rages and dies. The rest of us put it all out there, the good and the bad. We screw up performances and make mistakes but we move on. If these performers are so bad live that they fear they will alienate their fans, they have no business being at the level they are at in the first place.

It is my understanding that the vast majority of pop singers lip sync at their live shows; whether this is due to the possibility that the singer is, in fact, not as good as you'd think and their albums use a lot of pitch correction, or due to a need for utter perfection and a reliance on pre-recorded material to deliver this perfection, or due to the fact that the singer is going to be spending a helluva lot of time dancing and may not have the stamina to sing properly simultaneously.... I don't know.

Either way, as a music fan, I don't like it. But I don't listen to pop music anyway, so I dunno.

 RatBot wrote:
It is my understanding that the vast majority of pop singers lip sync at their live shows; whether this is due to the possibility that the singer is, in fact, not as good as you'd think and their albums use a lot of pitch correction, or due to a need for utter perfection and a reliance on pre-recorded material to deliver this perfection, or due to the fact that the singer is going to be spending a helluva lot of time dancing and may not have the stamina to sing properly simultaneously.... I don't know.

It has more to do with the amount of money that goes into those productions. Advertisers don't want to invest 3.5 million USD for 30 seconds of airtime if the performance might flop.

Not at all surprised. Most pop singers who also dance lip sync. I think it's pretty dumb and I don't know how someone could do that and still call themselves an artist (especially when most of them write little to none of their own music or choreography), but it's the way it's been for a long time.

I couldn't really be less bothered.

What gets me is how many people are still surprised when big names lip-sync; they act as though it's the first time it's ever happened and everyone is ultra-disgusted until the next artist does it the week after, and then everyone is ultra-surprised and disgusted at them instead.

To bad Milli Vanilli didnt get royalties for starting this fad. Maybe theyd still be alive and kicking

A lot of it is to do with the venue. Lip syncing started when they began using tv studios for live performances as live music in those places sounds awful. Big open places like the inauguration also have terrible acoustics.

This is why they should have got Jimi Hendrix to perform instead.

 sebster wrote:
A lot of it is to do with the venue. Lip syncing started when they began using tv studios for live performances as live music in those places sounds awful. Big open places like the inauguration also have terrible acoustics.

The acoustics don't matter that much for broadcast, because everything will be close-miked or run direct. It might sound like crap to the audience in the studio, but you can still make it sound good for the people at home. If the acoustics are crap in the venue, it doesn't matter if the speakers are blasting a recording or a live performance, it's still not going to sound good. There are plenty of non-pop bands that play live and don't lip sync in TV studios performances.

Who said anyone had to sing live? When did this become some huge ethical deal, and why can't people just not care and let others enjoy what they enjoy?

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Who said anyone had to sing live? When did this become some huge ethical deal, and why can't people just not care and let others enjoy what they enjoy?

It's always been a pretty big deal among any musicians that I've played, performed, or interacted with. The point of a live performance is to perform live, not play a recording and pass it off as live. If you can't play well live, spend more time practicing and rehearsing. If you can't sing while doing a ridiculous dance routine, then tone down the dancing a bit or something. There are plenty of bands that have awesome stage shows that don't lip sync and actually play their instruments.

I think It would have been more of a story if she DIDN'T lip synch.

feeder wrote:
I think It would have been more of a story if she DIDN'T lip synch.

Yeah, exactly. I don't think I would have ever guessed Beyonce didn't lip sync live.

 Hordini wrote:

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Who said anyone had to sing live? When did this become some huge ethical deal, and why can't people just not care and let others enjoy what they enjoy?

It's always been a pretty big deal among any musicians that I've played, performed, or interacted with. The point of a live performance is to perform live, not play a recording and pass it off as live. If you can't play well live, spend more time practicing and rehearsing. If you can't sing while doing a ridiculous dance routine, then tone down the dancing a bit or something. There are plenty of bands that have awesome stage shows that don't lip sync and actually play their instruments.

And the cool thing about those musicians (which I've been paid to be on a small scale, but nonetheless) is that they are slowly but surely losing relevance and music is evolving. Whereas many of them could have launched a tour in the 60s or 70s and made a living, fewer and fewer can now, and most are only ever seen in the studio or writing the songs for the big names to perform and getting paid to stay quiet about it. This is, in my mind, very much a case of "things have changed." I get bored of hearing people who sing well (and that's their only gimmick) very quickly. There are tons of them, and most blend in with the next one. Spectacle draws more attention than being able to stay on pitch and belt notes and very obviously makes more money, so expect to see more of it. I'm not hating on anyone who appreciates musicianship as I do myself (my music collection spans every extreme imaginable), but fewer people care about technical proficiency now and it's time everyone realized it or tried to draw attention to would they would rather people hear instead of complaining about the current state of affairs.

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Who said anyone had to sing live? When did this become some huge ethical deal, and why can't people just not care and let others enjoy what they enjoy?

It's always been a pretty big deal among any musicians that I've played, performed, or interacted with. The point of a live performance is to perform live, not play a recording and pass it off as live. If you can't play well live, spend more time practicing and rehearsing. If you can't sing while doing a ridiculous dance routine, then tone down the dancing a bit or something. There are plenty of bands that have awesome stage shows that don't lip sync and actually play their instruments.

And the cool thing about those musicians (which I've been paid to be on a small scale, but nonetheless) is that they are slowly but surely losing relevance and music is evolving. Whereas many of them could have launched a tour in the 60s or 70s and made a living, fewer and fewer can now, and most are only ever seen in the studio or writing the songs for the big names to perform and getting paid to stay quiet about it. This is, in my mind, very much a case of "things have changed." I get bored of hearing people who sing well (and that's their only gimmick) very quickly. There are tons of them, and most blend in with the next one. Spectacle draws more attention than being able to stay on pitch and belt notes and very obviously makes more money, so expect to see more of it. I'm not hating on anyone who appreciates musicianship as I do myself (my music collection spans every extreme imaginable), but fewer people care about technical proficiency now and it's time everyone realized it or tried to draw attention to would they would rather people hear instead of complaining about the current state of affairs.

I agree with you about spectacle, and I even agree with you that at least in some sense, traditional good musicianship is not necessarily as relevant as it once was. What I'm saying is, spectacle and good musicianship don't have to be mutually exclusive. I think the spectacle of a live show is just as much a piece of the art form as the music and the performance, and it definitely improves the show overall. But I don't think you have to lip sync to be able to have a spectacular show. And I'm certainly not saying you can't use effects or modern technology, I just don't want to go see an artist lip syncing to a recording. Even more so, if it's obvious someone is lip syncing a performance, it really undermines a lot of the energy and hampers spectacle of the show.

 Hordini wrote:

It's always been a pretty big deal among any musicians that I've played, performed, or interacted with. The point of a live performance is to perform live, not play a recording and pass it off as live. If you can't play well live, spend more time practicing and rehearsing. If you can't sing while doing a ridiculous dance routine, then tone down the dancing a bit or something. There are plenty of bands that have awesome stage shows that don't lip sync and actually play their instruments.

Beyonce is less a musician and more an entertainer who incorporates music into her performances.

 dogma wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

It's always been a pretty big deal among any musicians that I've played, performed, or interacted with. The point of a live performance is to perform live, not play a recording and pass it off as live. If you can't play well live, spend more time practicing and rehearsing. If you can't sing while doing a ridiculous dance routine, then tone down the dancing a bit or something. There are plenty of bands that have awesome stage shows that don't lip sync and actually play their instruments.

Beyonce is less a musician and more an entertainer who incorporates music into her performances.

This is true, and is also why I wasn't really surprised that she lip synced. I don't even have a problem with Beyonce, and I've heard her music before. I just don't have the same respect for her on an artistic or musical level as I do artists who don't lip sync live. I also recognize I'm probably not in her target audience, as I don't listen to much pop music.

 Hordini wrote:
The acoustics don't matter that much for broadcast, because everything will be close-miked or run direct. It might sound like crap to the audience in the studio, but you can still make it sound good for the people at home. If the acoustics are crap in the venue, it doesn't matter if the speakers are blasting a recording or a live performance, it's still not going to sound good. There are plenty of non-pop bands that play live and don't lip sync in TV studios performances.

I've heard a lot of stories over the years about bands being told they couldn't perform live in various venues, and the reason given was the terrible acoustics of the venue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
Beyonce is less a musician and more an entertainer who incorporates music into her performances.

Joe Biden standing behind her certainly seemed to enjoy the show.

 sebster wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
The acoustics don't matter that much for broadcast, because everything will be close-miked or run direct. It might sound like crap to the audience in the studio, but you can still make it sound good for the people at home. If the acoustics are crap in the venue, it doesn't matter if the speakers are blasting a recording or a live performance, it's still not going to sound good. There are plenty of non-pop bands that play live and don't lip sync in TV studios performances.

I've heard a lot of stories over the years about bands being told they couldn't perform live in various venues, and the reason given was the terrible acoustics of the venue.

Yes, and that would be because it would sound bad to the audience in the venue at the time. That doesn't mean you can't get it to sound good for those watching it on television at home.

I am confused why I should ever care about anyone lip synching (unless, I guess if I am seeing the band live, but I've not seen any modern pop acts in concert)
something like this doesn't make me care in the slightest and am annoyed when it is considered news

 Hordini wrote:
I just don't have the same respect for her on an artistic or musical level as I do artists who don't lip sync live.

Musically, I agree. Artistically I think she is actually quite gifted. She is a woman that understand how to use her physical gifts.

 Hordini wrote:

Yes, and that would be because it would sound bad to the audience in the venue at the time. That doesn't mean you can't get it to sound good for those watching it on television at home.

But is that still a live performance?

Sebster wrote:
Joe Biden standing behind her certainly seemed to enjoy the show.

 dogma wrote:


Musically, I agree. Artistically I think she is actually quite gifted. She is a woman that understand how to use her physical gifts.

In Living Color is too far away for me to readily remember how good of a dancer she was, but I know my sisters were absolutly obsessed with her, and they are good dancers, so...

KingCracker wrote:To bad Milli Vanilli didnt get royalties for starting this fad. Maybe theyd still be alive and kicking

Boney M might object to your statement (same manager, too)

Kids are still gullible enough to buy pop and hip hop. World keeps turning.

Why does anyone care?

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
Kids are still gullible enough to buy pop and hip hop. World keeps turning.

Let me guess. You listen to metal because you're different and won't be tied down by trends.

 LordofHats wrote:
Why does anyone care?

Because finding ways to be critical of people who are more attractive than you, have more money than you, and do things more people care about than you is a nice way to feel a little better about yourself sometimes.