Some of the most acclaimed performances have been pre-recorded.

Ex: Michael Jackson - Motown 25, Whitney Houston - National Anthem, etc.

Does it really matter?

To be honest, it doesn't matter to me.

as long as it is used for backup vocals, yes, it is

a lot of times lip-syncing was used because of union stuff. if there was live music people would have to be paid extra. that was a big deal for shows like soul train, so they only had few people singing live on it, like aretha franklin or james brown. most others just sang to canned music, either from the album or something already prepared.

outside of that... i used to get mad at michael singing to canned music- but i acknowledge that the way he did what he did, if he sang all that live later on in his career it certainly wouldn't be the same show. it would certainly be less involved. the 'bad' tour was pretty basic. it was just him and the band, no huge gimmicks. the 'dangerous' tour he sang a lot of the songs live, but he was so out of breath for some of it (like with 'human nature') that it's understandable that he sang the initial song ('jam') lip-synced... that whole song was just about movement. with HIStory he sang even less live, but the show was much more involved, in terms of the set. the thing is though, he sang 'heal the world' and 'earth song', which could have been sung live, had he lowered the pitch. with what he COULD have done though with the canned songs, again, was instead of playing back the album versions (like billie jean or thriller or whatever) he could have prepared a version which sounded realistic, to where his range actually was at the time.

either way, those were some good tours! i was pretty blown away at how much he gave of himself in terms of performance, even if some of the songs WERE canned.

i don't even know if people were even paying attention, they were screaming so much. HA! i think that doing autotune during a show (which madonna is doing lately) is actually more offensive than singing to canned music.

tony van dam will love this one: "we signed our soul to the dark side..." more and more people come out and talk about how evil this industry is. but people continue to bind themselves to it.

RKJCNE said:

In modern performances, there is no excuse. Sure singing along to a prerecorded track is okay, but why not hire back up singers?

too expensive

Unless it is required 4 a particular production...................I'd say NO.

Yes.

I think Rhianna should lipsynch 100% of the time.

For a TV show, that's fine. For a concert, hell naw.

RKJCNE said:

In modern performances, there is no excuse. Sure singing along to a prerecorded track is okay, but why not hire back up singers?

Hell, I'd rather see them lip sync than sing along with a prerecorded track. Singing along with a prerecorded track is sooooo 1990s and 2000s when people wanted to get cheap. I don't tolerate nothing cheap. If I'm gonna spend money to see a concert, then those bastards are gonna spend money on instruments and musicians. That's the problem these days, these so-called "artists" want to make the biggest profit available without spending a dime to make the product. Andy ain't their sucker.

Plus, singing along with a prerecorded track puts all the focus on the singing which I could care less about. I want the focus back on the music like it used to be.

MJJstudent said:

these are terrible ways to get caught lip syncing though! NOT justifiable in these instances...

epic, just EPIC

embarrassing and hilarious at the same time

Squeeze S-U-C-K-S

If a singer's voice is not up to par for whatever reason, I don't have a problem with them lip-synching for a televised performance. Now, for a concert that people are shelling out some serious bread for, I don't think lip-syching is acceptable in that case.

TV lipping is OK, concert lipping is not unless there's other stuff going on (elaborate shows, dancing, movement, etc.)

I don't mind the ones who dance lipping because that can be hard to do and only a few people have managed to pull that off.

Lip-syncing is really only acceptable when there is no pretense of a real show AND the performance is as much about dancing, sets, and costumes as it is about singing. I don’t think anyone really expected Michael Jackson or Madonna to do some of their crazy dance moves and sing at the same time. And nobody went to a Cher show expecting her to keep singing while climbing a stairway to the top of a elephant. Etc, etc.

That said, I prefer the way Lady Gaga handles it. She had a gaggle of competent backup singers, keep them on stage, and rearranges the songs to let them cover vocals during the big dance moves.

johnart said:

Yes.

I think Rhianna should lipsynch 100% of the time.

ouch. A+ on your reply Mr. art.

I agree with a few here that lip-synching is acceptable if you add other routines and skits to the show. Also to consider, if you are on tour for months or even a year, singing all the way live can put a strain on your vocal chords. Therefore, mixing it up is fine. MJ had laryngitis which is why he lip-synchs some of his performances, but people have attested that he gave a heck of a show, and you've got your money's worth.

It can only be justified if the performer is dancing their ass off or performing their heart out. If they're just walking back and forth, waving at the crowd and moving their arms then it can't be justified. All they're really doing is cheating people out of their time and money. But to be honest I think lip synching at concerts/tours is unacceptable. Maybe, for a few songs but for the vast majority of the show (that includes slow songs) is just ridiculous.

[Edited 3/3/11 11:17am]

If there's a lot of dancing going on, I'd rather hear a lip-synch with it than a bunch of huffing and puffing as someone tries to sing and dance at the same time.

And at events like the Superbowl where the National Anthem has to be sang a certain way or most of the population throws a tantrum.

Barring those, I think singing should always be live.

In my opinion, if you're gonna pay a huge ticket price to "hear" an artist "sing," then your money should be going to "hearing" and NOT "seeing" them "pretend" to sing. Just MY opinion. If I paid $250.00 to see a concert, I'd expect and HOPE to get my money's worth. If I wanted to see a dance routine/skit, I'd catch it on Youtube for free.

Theres alot of diffferent things here, first thing is that Lip-synching on tv used to be the way it was done almost everywhere, American Banstand 99% of the time, to my memory i dont think anyone played live on that show, soul train mixed it up, most of the Euro shows are still lip-synching some do and some dont but most do, but it seems that if its a group or artist that has limited vocal skills, that its an issue or a THREAD, i mean Prince did his fair share, but then of course we all made excuses, if its MJ "well he was dancing" but if its Rihanna lip synching on a tv show, endless threads. NOW for a concert thats a whole other area, to me you sing and perform, i dont care how much dancing you gotta do, if you cant handle both singing and dancing, dont tour just do random dates so u can be in shape, but the flipside to that is that some want that "dancing to be the show" OK well then again, if its your favorite act and they dance and dont sing live, dont hate on Britney or whoever for doing it too.

kitbradley said:

If a singer's voice is not up to par for whatever reason, I don't have a problem with them lip-synching for a televised performance. Now, for a concert that people are shelling out some serious bread for, I don't think lip-syching is acceptable in that case.

I expect live performances when I am watching a performer live.

lastdecember said:

Theres alot of diffferent things here, first thing is that Lip-synching on tv used to be the way it was done almost everywhere, American Banstand 99% of the time, to my memory i dont think anyone played live on that show, soul train mixed it up, most of the Euro shows are still lip-synching some do and some dont but most do, but it seems that if its a group or artist that has limited vocal skills, that its an issue or a THREAD, i mean Prince did his fair share, but then of course we all made excuses, if its MJ "well he was dancing" but if its Rihanna lip synching on a tv show, endless threads. NOW for a concert thats a whole other area, to me you sing and perform, i dont care how much dancing you gotta do, if you cant handle both singing and dancing, dont tour just do random dates so u can be in shape, but the flipside to that is that some want that "dancing to be the show" OK well then again, if its your favorite act and they dance and dont sing live, dont hate on Britney or whoever for doing it too.

I believe that MJ gets a pass on lip-synching is because the world knows that he can sing, and he gives an electrifying performance, and the reason Britney and Rhianna gets criticized for it is because they can't, not even live. When you can't sing, and then you go and lip-synch a performance, that's like adding fuel to a fire. No good, but what has saved them so far are their looks, and when that fades, what else you've got.

The Maximus Query applies here: "are you not entertained?"

If not entertained, the answer to the question is no. If entertained, the answer is yes.

Those anachronisms known as music videos are okay for l/s, and in fact, we became so used to them that l/s became acceptable everywhere else. For some acts who must live up to the quality of their videos, instead of their videos living up to their true talents, it's essential. And to be honest, I've seen at least one act who lip-synched, Janet, and I enjoyed it.

lastdecember said:

Theres alot of diffferent things here, first thing is that Lip-synching on tv used to be the way it was done almost everywhere, American Banstand 99% of the time, to my memory i dont think anyone played live on that show, soul train mixed it up, most of the Euro shows are still lip-synching some do and some dont but most do, but it seems that if its a group or artist that has limited vocal skills, that its an issue or a THREAD, i mean Prince did his fair share, but then of course we all made excuses, if its MJ "well he was dancing" but if its Rihanna lip synching on a tv show, endless threads. NOW for a concert thats a whole other area, to me you sing and perform, i dont care how much dancing you gotta do, if you cant handle both singing and dancing, dont tour just do random dates so u can be in shape, but the flipside to that is that some want that "dancing to be the show" OK well then again, if its your favorite act and they dance and dont sing live, dont hate on Britney or whoever for doing it too.

All of THIS^!

Besides Milli Vanilli, if it weren't for the art of lip-synching, we wouldn't have C&C Music Factory, Blackbox, OR Betty Boo.

But then again, we wouldn't have Aislee Simpson neither.

I've seen Teena Marie live, Roisin Murphy (when she was with Moloko) and quite a few others, they all sang, and danced without lipsynching...I know Janet, Madonna all have their elaborate dance routines, but I'd rather hear a huff and a puff every now and then. Just to show me they are working hard for the money I paid to see them!

benjaminira said:

I've seen Teena Marie live, Roisin Murphy (when she was with Moloko) and quite a few others, they all sang, and danced without lipsynching...I know Janet, Madonna all have their elaborate dance routines, but I'd rather hear a huff and a puff every now and then. Just to show me they are working hard for the money I paid to see them!

Although they were never great vocalists to begin with, I respect the fact that The Human League are dead set against lip-synching. They prefer to act their ages by singing live, knowing that they do not sound like they did during the 1980's.