...if you get my meaning!?

I mean there are some singers that always sing live (mainly American ones) but others, for example S Club 7 that never, ever sang live.

So if a singer or singers can't sing live, does that mean there not as good as the ones that do sing live?

I've always thought that it is much easier to sing in a studio, where you can make mistakes but sing again. Of course, you can't do that live, so I respect singers that sing live more than those that don't

Well yeah. A live performance is VERY hard, and incredibly easy to mess up - look at Gemini in Eurovision 2003...

A vocalist singing live has a much easier job than a guitarist singing live, or like these pop groups flogging themselves silly whilst trying to sing. They just end up puffing and panting.

Some people are quite capable of singing live. They might occasionally fluff it, but otherwise its pretty damn good. I think its always a sign of a real band if their vocals sound just as good live as recorded. These pop acts are just a bunch of overdubs, so nothing on the album is real. Its all re-recorded and in some cases pitched to fit.

It doesn't make them less of a singer but does make them less of a performer. It is also very disrespectful to their fans.

I would like to agree with everything above, especially June's last comment.

that its disrepectful to fans? if a band is billed as live at a concert or on tv in a live event and they don't sing live how can that be anything but disappointing to fans (especially if the fans have paid money or gone out their way to watch an artist perform)?

For S club 7 it is different because they jumped around so much and it sounds rubbish when you sing and jump at the same time

No one want to hear S club 7 sing, only to watch woman jump up and down

If artists are going to mime at a concert, I think it reasonable to have a significant discount on ticket prices......

They don't sing live, they pay the price.....

Hi, i'm new to the forum so be easy on me.

I don't think that it makes the perfromer any less of a singer. When people are doing heavy dance routines and trying to sing at the same time then all the audience would hear is heavy panting and a bad performance. I know for a fact that the producers of Top of the Pops always encourages their acts to perfrom live.

Sometimes singers aren't provided with the facilities to sing live either e.g the surroundings aren't always ideal.

With regard to concerts I think that people should sing live as they have an audience paying to see them. I'd rather see an excellent vocal performance rather than a dodgy dance routine in all honestly.

Mark

But surely when you go to a concert for a big-name pop act, you go for an EVENT, not for the singing?

I mean even last weekend, when i went to the last ever Shed 7 gig, i didn't go there expecting to hear BETTER versions of their songs - just to be part of the atmosphere and the event.

I'd sooner an act mimed to a backing tape and gave me an EXCELLENT show both visually and aurally than standing around trying to sound as much like the recorded version as possible.

The best acts, of course, are those that can do both!

Nope - when I go to a concert, I expect them to sing, full stop.

If concert orchestras can perform without the need to 'mime' playing their instruments to a backing track, then there's no excuse for anyone else.

The singing IS and should be part of the event.

It's a bit of both: when I go to a gig I want to hear live vocals and get involved in an amzing atmosphere... I don't care if there are a few bum notes, ad-libs and f*** ups - it's those things that make a gig special IMO
If I wanted to hear a note-pefect rendition of the album I'd stay at home, put the album on and save myself £15 quid....
I've never seen a big name pop act so can't really comment on that side of things but at the kind of gigs I go to, miming wouldn't be stood for...

Pphtt.

I'm not that easily pleased.

The only excuse for a singer not to sing live, for me, is if they've got a sore throat. Other than that, they should always sing live

i have and always will be allergic to miming.

IMO if someone is employed as a singer then thats what they should be. any old idiot can stand up there and mime along to a studio recording.

the question of whether it makes them a worse singer? yeah i think it does. theres got to be a reason why they have to mime in the first place. maybe its the simple fact that the voice they produce in the studio is impossible to recreate on stage because theyve messed around with it so much.

sclub7 and atomic kitten - the only times ive seen them live was when they were at the queens jubilee concert. they werent great but they werent that bad either. its kinda understandable for bands to mime if they have a strenuous dance routine to go with it, but it begs the question - is a dance routine that necessary that it takes presidnce over the singing?

hate it when people make excuses. ie 1)'theyre not allowed to sing live on certain shows' 2)'they have a sore throat' 3)'theres a dance routine'
1) why is it that when one person mimes the next person can sing live
2) if they have a sore throat - cancel the appearance or show the video - its a lot more honest. plus some singers do still sing live even when theyre ill
3) dont bloody dance then idiots.

any singer/band that mime in my opinion are conning fans. although strangely enough i still like libertyx who mime a heck of a lot

But that's the thing - they're NOT employed as 'singers'. They're employed as 'performers' or 'entertainers'.

Charlotte Church - singer
Busted - performers

If you're a serious audiophile and care about talent, then why in the blue HELL are you even going to big pop gigs?? And if you do, don't you see that the focus is so far removed from the 'singing' that complaining about it is akin to calling S Club 8 crap because the concession stands were too expensive. It's not the point of the gig!

If you go to see a rock band, then you go to rock out to the music and experience the riffing and expansion of the oeuvre that comes with a live gig. If you go and see a classical concert, you go to hear the most powerful renditions of the work that a CD simply can't compare with. If you go and see a pop act, you expect cutting edge dancing, a lot of interaction with the crowd, a son et lumiere show and a celebration of the music and their image and talents. You don't go there expecting pitch perfect singing or groundbreaking musicianship. If i go and see Beyoncé or Justin Timberlake, i go to be in the same space, to breathe the same air as a true celebrity. The music is incidental because there is so much more to a true pop performer than just music.

Firstly, I am more wowed at 19 by a great vocal performance and someone who can work the stage, rather than a group of overated lasses jiggling their asses at me, I find it somewhat insulting to my inteligence, "Look at me I took your money to just mime and shake about a bit LMAO at you, you FOOL".

Also if people can't sing that should not be signed to labels, what people like Simon Cowell, and Simon Fuller do should be illegal, they exploit young kids by pushing them absolute crap.

Artists like the Cheeky Girls and Fast Food Rockers should be shot with SHIT! If Simon Cowell hired talent and filtered out the shit he wud probably make just as much money from a talented artist as opposed to one with just good looks and a half decent voice.

The only musicians worth anything in the UK are:

The Darkness
Craig David
and now I'm struggling for singer / songwriters

We need more of the above and less Victoria Beckham to make music in this country attractive again on a larger scale!

erm i dont. saw the jubilee on the tele.

Best. Comedy. Post. Ever.

I salute you, new person!

That's what I was laughing at!

I'm here all week ladies and gentlemen!

Firstly i'd like to thank god for being such a great friend in my life, and my mum, mum I love you.