When live music isn't live (1 Viewer)

[Carlo_M]

Just saw a KCAL 9 report the other day on stars who don't sing their concerts live, or who prerecord the majority of it.
They targeted quite a few of the mega acts today: JLo, N'Sync, Britney, etc. They had a recording engineer (who used to work for Prince) show how they could make a singer's voice in the studio sound like it was live (echo, reverb, etc.). BTW, he said Prince sang and played every note in concert live, so don't worry.
And the industry engineers who were interviewed refused to give anyone up specifically, but said "if there's a lot of dancing involved and you don't hear heavy breathing, it ain't live." I've always wondered how the Boy Bands do their dance whilst singing perfectly. I can't even play my guitar and sing well!
When contacted, reps from Britney and the Boy Bands said "No Comment."
And the shocker?
Riverdance is prerecorded. However the producers said it's because it is nearly impossible to capture the sound of their feet live and have it sound good in the hall, so it's all prerecorded and the dancers just dance in time. Whodathunkit?

 

[Carlo_M]

Agreed, Buzz. I was a huge Queen fan, and even they had prerecorded the middle section of Bohemian Rhapsody in concert.

But I didn't mind that because there wasn't the pretense that it was live. everyone knew that part was from the album.

It's these acts (JLo, Britney, Boy Bands, etc.) who PRETEND that they are dancing and singing when in fact they are only dancing and lipsynching (N'Lip Sync they should call themselves) that chaps my hide.

 

[MickeS]

I always assumed that the song-and-dance acts like Spears, Backstreet Boys and others did a combination of lip-synching and live singing at concerts. They seem to sing just enough that it sounds live, but 99% of the time it seems like their synching. Nothing wrong with that, IMO, as long as they're up front about it. It's not like the audience cares much anyway, I think, the show as a whole, especially the dancing, is more important, I think.

/Mike

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

It does get complicated-- and some acts that claim to do their own signing do have live mics on during the performance- but the tape track is doing most of the work.

A prime example- I have worked with tons of "track acts" who travel only with a tape and no band. I can do sound check and look at the levels I'm getting from the vocal mic when I'm working it-- and then compare that to the levels I get when the "artist" is on stage. Usually it's 1/10 the level I had- and if I check the tape in headphones, the majority of the vocal is on the track.

Some have discussed passing laws in relation to truthful disclosure of lip syncing- but as many engineers have pointed out- as long as the mic is live- they would be legally allowed to claim they were signing.

Silly industry- that's what you get for putting image above all else.

-Vince

 

[Matt Stryker]

Almost all of the National Anthem singings since the Roseanne Barr incident have been pre-recorded; I recently saw Ellis Paul in concert, and he talked about how after he pre-recorded the anthem for a Boston game, he had a few beers and then stood on the mound trying to lip-sync.

I don't pay money to see people lip-sync and dance; whats the point? A real "live" show will give a great sense of connection between the artist and the crowd, and there is nothing better than that.

 

[Alex Shk]

I have nothing against a portion of the instrumental track being pre-recorded - hell The Who have done that since 1971 on Baba O' Riley and Won't Get Fooled again. I am dissapointed that singers don't sing, but as mentioned before, I think todays audience just wants a 3D music video anyway.

The real reason I despise pre-recorded vocal tracks (as well as dance routines and over the top pyrotechnics), is that they have a tendancy to make the program "fixed". There is very little (or no) room for muscians to modify a setlist, extend a solo, or create a "medley" on stage if every second of the show is pre-plaaned. Maybe that's why I tend to gravitate towards acts that do a minimal of such things in concert, guys like Pearl Jam or Springsteen or (you fill in the blank) where you never know exactly what songs your going to hear on tonights show - even if you attended last nights.

 

[Mike Broadman]

There are always a lot of pre-programmed and "fixed" elements in rock concerts. For example, the lights. They pop up just when the band gets to the bridge. Some groups have video accompaniment. Everything is timed perfectly. That also doesn't allow for the band to mix things up and be free.

The only way to be assured of seeing musicians really play is at a jazz concert.

 

[StevenW]

There are always a lot of pre-programmed and "fixed" elements in rock concerts. For example, the lights. They pop up just when the band gets to the bridge. Some groups have video accompaniment. Everything is timed perfectly. That also doesn't allow for the band to mix things up and be free.

But the point is that the rock bands are still playing their instruments live and singing live. So what if there are lights & videos playing?

 

[KrisM]

I don't think you have to have things mixed-up to experience good music. Take classical for example.

the only way to be assured of seeing musicians really play is at a jazz concert

There are other types of music besides jazz that are played without the use of lip-sync and fancy lighting. Classical and blues are a couple of examples.

The only way to be assured of seeing musicians really play is to only pay to see musicians who truly love what they are doing and refuse to lip-sync.

Regards

KrisM

 

[Mike Broadman]

There are other types of music besides jazz that are played without the use of lip-sync and fancy lighting. Classical and blues are a couple of examples.

Of course. My point was that big rock shows, like teeny-pop acts, are often more, or as much, about razzle-dazzle as music. This includes bands I like. That's just the way it is.

It was someone else who brought up the issue of "mixing things up." Tightly organized visuals is just as constricting to that end as lyp-synching, because they're both precisely timed.

A lot of complaints lodged against pop singers can also be applied to bands that supposedly have more integrity, albeit less extreme.

 

[Alex Shk]

Of course. My point was that big rock shows, like teeny-pop acts, are often more, or as much, about razzle-dazzle as music. This includes bands I like. That's just the way it is.

While this is true - it doesn't HAVE to be. Lighting cues can be established for well more than the 20 songs or so that constitute a concert, as the afforementioned Springstenn and Pearl Jam prove night after night. Try this: look up the setlists (posted on various fan based web sites) for either acts last tours (don't care for them? Try REM, old setlists by the Dead...many others). Look at any three consecutive nights and you will see anywhere from 40-60% overlap on consecutive nights - leaving the same ratio as being unique to any one nights show. Over the course of 3 nights - the ratio drops somewhat to around 20%. This is the difference between being a musician and a performer.

I always noticed that Bristish rock acts seem to vary their sets very little (Zeppelin and the Stones hardly ever varied), but there are exceptions (The Who mixed things up quite a bit). REM had a very visual stage show on the '95 Monster tour, but they had lighting and visual cues available for almost double the songs they played nightly. When they decided to do a song that had neither, they just dropped the screens and lit the stage "flat".

There is nothing wrong with a fixed set, but there is nothing better than a band that drops the list and plays a song they haven't done in 10 years - just for YOU - just for TONIGHT.

 

[Carlo_M]

Mike,

The extremity of the allegations are what bothered me. I have no problems with the use of some prerecorded material. Take the Bohemian Rhapsody example. Or a solo artist that I watch on some Friday nights, Jon Brion, who records each instrument and loops it one at a time, and ends up making a whole band sound just by himself looping tracks. Yes it's all him, but it's still "recorded" in a sense.

But the pretense that you're seeing Britney sing and dance is just that: pretense. You're actually just watching her dance. And I don't think the audience believes that's what they're seeing. despite the questionable nature of her (and the boy bands') music, I think if you ask some concertgoer if they are singing live, they will most likely say yes. And the fact that they are not is a misrepresentation.

 

[Alex Shk]

Carlo: Just to re-enforce your point: When Queen offered up the pre-recorded middle section of Bohemian, there was no pretense. The band left the stage when the pre-recorded portion started; they didn't stand there and try to mimic to a tape (of course they returned for the explosive finale). It isn't a matter of using pre-recorded material during a concert - it's just that pretending you aren't, by lip synching or playing air-guitar is just.... cheap.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Plus, with Queen you ARE getting some amazing singing/playing around that bit of "show", so who cares.

The problem with pre-recorded music is when it REPLACES live music rather than supplement it.

And despite what an audio engineer might say, you can almost always tell live from synch'd.

And Prince, definately live and amazing. As for changing sets, cripes go see Phish or Pearl Jam to see a show pull it off (following the Dead standard obviously).

But then again 2 of the greatest shows I ever saw were Kiss on their "back in makeup" tour and Alice Cooper. Totally pre-set and highly coordinated, but you know what, when you put that much work into it and still play/sing I can stand the same "set" everynight. Not really different than seeing a great Broadway show. It will be the same, yet not quite the same, every night.

But stuff like that Britny show in Vegas...worthless. That sort of routine is dull as hell to me because other artists have similar routines AND actually perform too.

Hey, you knew Freddie was coming out in the cape at the end with God Save the Queen, right? Still didn't make it awesome.

For laughs, my favorite live album - Bob Marley Live! Incredible emotion and power.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

hell The Who have done that since 1971 on Baba O' Riley and Won't Get Fooled again.

WHAT??? That's it - I'm never paying to see those phonies again!!!
In an amusing - to me, at least - related issue, during the new Music From Lifehouse DVD, Pete used the same old synth tapes. At the start of "Baba", the director cuts to a shot of the keyboardist... just sitting there. I guess they figured an image of a guy who looks like he SHOULD play that part beats a bunch of others with no connection at all...

 

[Tim Campbell]

There are always a lot of pre-programmed and "fixed" elements in rock concerts. For example, the lights. They pop up just when the band gets to the bridge. Some groups have video accompaniment. Everything is timed perfectly. That also doesn't allow for the band to mix things up and be free.

The only way to be assured of seeing musicians really play is at a jazz concert

I respectfully disagree. Phish changes their setlists every night they play and their lighting guy, Chris Kuroda,

Rarely uses cues. He is jamming on the lights along with the band. OF course it helps that he has worked with them since 1985 or so

 

[Mike Broadman]

Of course, I was generalising.

 

[Nigel McN]

I have a fairly basic rule, if it sounds like the CD, then it probably is.

 

[Ryan L B]

I just saw the most obvious scene of Lip syncing I have ever seen, it was the Brittney Spears las vegas concert on hbo that they just replayed. About 80 to 90% of it was fake singing. When there was real singing it was all off pitch and I think it was only 2 or 3 songs that contained real singing.

 

[Nate Public]

Howdy,
I just want to add that, while pop singers that lip-sync are not my personal favorite, there are legions of 7-67 year old kids who don't mind. While I think there is something uncomfortable about the machine-like productions of N'Sync, JLo, Britney - and that lip sync on stage is a cop-out and a fraud, I doubt the majority of fans would mind a whole lot what I think about the technical details of their favorite bands.
What I'm leading at is not that HTF is elitest or anything, just that so long as there is a demographic to market to, mainstream music is not going to be done for the music. (Heck, Riverdance is arguably a purely commercial product as well.)
Britney is not looking for credibility in her performance...she's looking for exposure and money. (Jokes about her strip act not withstanding!)
Gene Simmons of Kiss (an early boy-band) said this in a article with "The Onion."
"O: Have you always played a major role in how Kiss is merchandised?
GS: ...I don't want credibility. That means nothing. Remember, none of these guys learned how to play their instruments properly. They all did it by ear, the lazy man's out. So a big word like "credibility" coming out of a guy who's unqualified to say anything other than "Do you want fries with that?" is delusional. I've never deluded myself about what this is. Kiss appears in comic books and puzzles and condoms and anything else we damn well please. I'm happy that the rest of the bands are afraid of merchandising themselves. They should all be afraid of it, and leave it to Kiss to do everything."
Anyhoo. Write your congressman, but I doubt that any of us can come up with the $$$ to make artists stop lip syncing.
What we should be concerned about is if we pay $70 to send lil' Susie to see Britney, and she gets a show filled with bad DAT tracks, off-pitch singing, and so-on. I mean, if it is gonna be fake...there isn't much excuse is there???
Peace,
Nate