Lip Syncing - Controversial More...Years Ago Or Today?
Hey everyone,
I have been talking about this with some people for ages now and have realised something.
If you look at performances of famous popstars years ago, mostly everyone has lip synced, particularly on top of the pops.
Even one of my favourite performances ever which was the Spice Girls at the Brits.
So why is it, nowadays it is frowned upon so much. Michael Jackson was even known for doing it often BUT at the time, no one gave a s**t?
Quote from Ian Inglis, author of Performance and Popular Music: History, Place and Time (2006) notes the fact that "Jackson lip-synced 'Billie Jean' is, in itself, not extraordinary, but the fact that it did not change the impact of the performance is extraordinary; whether the performance was live or lip-synced made no difference to the audience.
Britney Spears is also well known for doing it too, even though i believe she is a fantastic performer, she does however lip sync. When i went to her concert in 2004 and i went to her recent one in 2009.
There was a HUGE difference to the reaction when people witnessed her lip sync.
I think the public expect so much more nowadays then years ago. Not saying whether thats wrong or right, just basing it on everyones reactions from years ago to today.
If Cheryl Cole came out in the 90's, no one would have butted an eyelid on her lip syncing.
So my question is : is it more controversial now or years ago?
I have been talking about this with some people for ages now and have realised something.
If you look at performances of famous popstars years ago, mostly everyone has lip synced, particularly on top of the pops.
Even one of my favourite performances ever which was the Spice Girls at the Brits.
So why is it, nowadays it is frowned upon so much. Michael Jackson was even known for doing it often BUT at the time, no one gave a s**t?
Quote from Ian Inglis, author of Performance and Popular Music: History, Place and Time (2006) notes the fact that "Jackson lip-synced 'Billie Jean' is, in itself, not extraordinary, but the fact that it did not change the impact of the performance is extraordinary; whether the performance was live or lip-synced made no difference to the audience.
Britney Spears is also well known for doing it too, even though i believe she is a fantastic performer, she does however lip sync. When i went to her concert in 2004 and i went to her recent one in 2009.
There was a HUGE difference to the reaction when people witnessed her lip sync.
I think the public expect so much more nowadays then years ago. Not saying whether thats wrong or right, just basing it on everyones reactions from years ago to today.
If Cheryl Cole came out in the 90's, no one would have butted an eyelid on her lip syncing.
So my question is : is it more controversial now or years ago?
0
Comments
It does however really bother me when I see people paying £60/£70 to go and see a Britney Spears concert, and she can't make the effort to actually sing live. I don't see how anyone can justify that - I don't understand why anyone would pay good money to see a singer prance around stage for an hour to a backing track.
I'd rather go to a concert and have the artist mime than go to a concert where the artist is out of breath and all I'm hearing is heavy breathing. Of course, my favs don't need to do this as they are capable of both dancing and singing fully live:)
The odd performance is not so bad tbh, like every year or few years but to mime on tour/ on a talent show/ or mime anywhere frequently and consquetively is just WRONG.
If they can't do a simple thing like sing then people like Cheryl Cole and Justin Beiber then they should consider a career change.
Britney is just becoming a joke.
Exactly - you might as well just watch the music videos.
I find that viewpoint really confusing see. If I were paying to see someone famous dance, I'd go see a professional dance couple perform.
Spot on.
Having said that, I have agree with a few ccomments on here. If you can't sing and dance, sing first and leave the dancing to the dancers.
This current trend of having loads of dancers in stage and putting on a "show" is only to hide the shortcomings of the singer and the songs
But when people pay to see them (tour or something like that) then they should sing live. Tut tut.
When I go to see Britney, I'm looking for entertainment, a proper show, a big production and lots of perfect plastic pop.
But if I go to see The White Stripes, less is more, there's more interaction, more talent, and it's all about the songs and atmosphere.
Its a bit of a cop out if a singer does not sing, weather they are doing an acoustic set or a full on performance. Kylie (Who dosen't overdo the dancing) can do iT, GaGa can do it (Very well). Why can't Britney. ?
I went to her last tour and it just felt like it was Britney day on 4music.
And the dancing was pretty limited, she could easily have sung but didn't. Why laziness, shyness, no talent in the singing department.
Hmmm, the sooner she sings live, the sooner people will lay of her. Thats what she and her management need to understand. Atm she is acting very unprofessionally.
She's too easy a target now.:(
At least she used to sing live rather than mime, she's proved she can sing unlike the new "stars" who mime their way through everything they do because they have absolutely no talent.
Kudos for her, but not too many.
Well it would defiantly help, ALOT.
Cheryl Cole.
That's something I always use in her defence, that she can actually carry a tune.
She's a much better singer than *shudders* Katy Perry.
All you need is a pretty face to be famous nowadays.
That's been happening for years now, darling.;)
And I thought you were only 14!?:D:D:D
But, she best be singing when I see her live in April or I will burn the arena down.
I don't understand how my age comes into this.
People tend to view the past with rose-tinted spectacles, as some posters on these forums have shown me in amazing fashion.
Excuse me?
Is the sound of a Lady GaGa record distracting you?