Would you sue a performer for lip-syncing in concert?

[Temporal Renegade]

Something I've been wondering for a while...

If you're at a concert, where you've spend a LOT of money for a ticket, and the performers weren't actually singing or playing music for a good deal of the show, would you sue them? After all, if you go to a concert, you'd expect live music, wouldn't you?

I don't mean a show like Britney Spears, where the audience pretty much knows all of it's not 'live'; I mean a show like the Stones, where you'd think they'd really be playing.

[Bikewer]

I don't think I'd be tempted to sue....The performer may have laryngitis, or just be sung out... The show must go on, and all.

[Redtail]

Something I've been wondering for a while...

If you're at a concert, where you've spend a LOT of money for a ticket, and the performers weren't actually singing or playing music for a good deal of the show, would you sue them? After all, if you go to a concert, you'd expect live music, wouldn't you?

I don't mean a show like Britney Spears, where the audience pretty much knows all of it's not 'live'; I mean a show like the Stones, where you'd think they'd really be playing.

I went to a Patti LaBelle concert where she was not feeling well (unknown to the audience) and the show started with her lip-syncing and she got about 1/3rd through the first song and stopped told the sound man to cut, and explained what was happening and why and said something along the lines of "I can't do it ya'll. You paid to hear me sing not hear him play a record so I'm gonna give it my best but I don't know if I'll make it the whole show." She made through about 30-45 minutes and called it quits but I gained a whole lot of respect for her.

To answer the question, I might not sue but I would be pissed. (American pissed that is.)

[Wowbagger]

As long as it was not someone else's voice that they are claiming as their own (a la Milli Vanilli), I wouldn't care too much. The Show is often more than just about the person singing live.

[kittynh]

well Madonna and others use the lip sync excuse that they can't dance and perform and sing at the same time.

I went to a show in London and all the vocals were lip synced. It was really disappointing.

[Redtail]

well Madonna and others use the lip sync excuse that they can't dance and perform and sing at the same time.

I went to a show in London and all the vocals were lip synced. It was really disappointing.

Has anyone told this to the performers on Broadway and West End?:rolleyes:

[Jorghnassen]

Has anyone told this to the performers on Broadway and West End?:rolleyes:

Usually, either the dancing is not demanding or the singing is not. Singing and dancing simultaneously is not easy (and plain impossible with anything physical, according to my bro who's a dancer). With today's elaborate choreographies and cookie cutter performers whose singing can only sound good (relatively) with heavy editing and abuse of vocoder, of course Britney and co. only lip-sync and dance. Notice how those who actually sing live don't move that much.

[UserGoogol]

I don't see why it would matter. Music is music, just a series of noises arranged in such a way as to (hopefully) be aesthetically pleasing. Someone sang it, and of course most concerts are run through sound systems anyway. Complaining that the sounds are not being created by air running past a person's vocal chords right now seems like the same sort of nonsense of audiophiles who demand that their power cords be the right color so as to not cause any interference. The important question is whether people really tell the difference between a live performance and a lip-synced performance in a double-blind test?

Although, I admit I don't really see the value in live performances to begin with, so my opinion might be stupid.

[Loss Leader]

Have you ever read the back of your ticket stub? It's a contract that you agreed to when you bought the ticket. You may not have as much of a right to sue as you thought you did, even if it weren't an insane idea.

[geni]

Notice how those who actually sing live don't move that much.

Eh Eurovision requires people to be vocaly live and some of them move around a fair bit.

[CptColumbo]

Last time I saw The Who, Roger was not a well man at all. About half-way through Baba O'Reiley I thought he was going to pass out, but he still sounded great (even the screaming parts of "Won't Get Fooled Again"). He didn't come out for the encore.

I would rather a performer cancel a show, than risk their health.

If I knew ahead of time that a concert was going to be lip-synced, I wouldn't go. If it turned out that I had been deceived I might consider legal action to get the cost of the ticket (and parking if applicable) back, but I would take it to small-claims court.

[Complexity]

I like classical, jazz, and several other varieties of music, but not pop.

I wouldn't tolerate lip-synching and would insist on a refund.

I dislike crowds and rarely go to live performances - perhaps one every five years.

[richardm]

Eh Eurovision requires people to be vocaly live and some of them move around a fair bit.

Maybe so, but they only have to do it for three minutes, which is more manageable than two sets of an hour apiece. Same kind of thing with musicals - if they do have to do some hoofing then there's usually an opportunity for a break immediately afterwards. Again, this isn't available if you're the headlining arteeeste at a concert.

On topic; would I sue? If it's done well enough then you'd never know it was happening. If it's done badly then I guess the same applies as for any bad performance - complain bitterly about it but there's unlikely to be any legal recourse.

[Lothian]

Eh Eurovision requires people to be vocaly live and some of them move around a fair bit.Please keep to the topic. This thread is about music.

[Wildy]

I know that the Wikipedia article on lip synching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lip_sync) has a few examples of bands using it as a joke.

I guess the problem pretty much lies in the band itself. Take The Grates for example, lots of movement, the songs are quite happy etc.

Now would you be angry if Patience Hodgson (the singer) lip-synched a bit to get her breath back? I doubt it. Do I know if they do lip sync? No.

I would be annoyed if I learned that an entire concert was lip-synched by an artist who claims to sing their own songs without knowing why.

[Lothian]

I remember going to see Sigue Sigue Sputnik in the early 90s. 2 or 3 songs in Degville got glassed, the band stopped, the drummer threw his sticks into the crowds but the music played on……….

[billydkid]

It's fine if performers want to lip sink - as long as they don't call it a concert. Maybe they can call it an "appearance" - which is more accurately what it is. Or a dog and pony show.

[Francesca R]

If you're at a concert, where you've spend a LOT of money for a ticket, and the performers weren't actually singing or playing music for a good deal of the show, would you sue them?Yes I would want to. Whether I could be bothered is another deal, but I'd be angry

After all, if you go to a concert, you'd expect live music, wouldn't you?Yes, and personally I am not looking for it to sound like the CD, but to sound distinct, and hopefully include ad-libs or variations. Personally I don't consider a live performance to be about reproducing what all involved in the studio version intended, as accurately as possible. (Conversely classical is IMO about reproducing the live version of what the composer intended as accurately as possible)

I don't mean a show like Britney Spears, where the audience pretty much knows all of it's not 'live'; I mean a show like the Stones, where you'd think they'd really be playing.I don't want to see U2 at Wembley and discover they've put a CD on.

[Francesca R]

[quote=kittynh;2984145]well Madonna and others use the lip sync excuse that they can't dance and perform and sing at the same time.quote]Right, but I don't think they should over-extend themselves in that case. Get some others to dance or advertise that the singing is not real.

[Francesca R]

I remember going to see Sigue Sigue Sputnik in the early 90s. 2 or 3 songs in Degville got glassed, the band stopped, the drummer threw his sticks into the crowds but the music played on……….That must have been horrific!

Sigue Sigue Sputnik's music continuing after violent attempts to silence it. Horrific! ;)

[tkingdoll]

oooohhh please don't think that the big live musicals don't have lip synching!

They do for certain notes and sometimes entire songs, and even have singers backstage to sing in the notes that the onstage performer can't manage. If the chorus also dances a lot, then choral vocals can be piped in.

I did musical theatre for years and it's impossible to do that many shows in a row. When you see a run of, say, Chicago, with a celeb star, they are guaranteed to have a little 'help' here and there.

The same is true of the non-stars.

The big note that's almost never live is the one in Phantom of the Opera. You know, after "sing onnnnnce again for meeee", she'd going "ahhhh ahhhhhh ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!".

[Francesca R]

Have you ever read the back of your ticket stub? It's a contract that you agreed to when you bought the ticket. You may not have as much of a right to sue as you thought you did, even if it weren't an insane idea.I would credit performers (and their legal team) with the sense to check whether their asses can be sued before going in and LS-ing

[Lothian]

That must have been horrific!

Sigue Sigue Sputnik's music continuing after violent attempts to silence it. Horrific! ;)Well yes, after 20 mins everyone had pretty much seen what they wanted to, and heard their one song twice. (they might give them different names but they all sound the same !)

However when the Mary Chain left after 20 mins…….. :(

[Cuddles]

What are you actually paying for? I suspect that you are not actually paying to see a person sing live, you are actually paying for the concert, which includes being able to see the performer and hear the music. You may want to see them perform live and may want that to be what you pay for, but I doubt such wants would have any legal standing.

The important question is whether people really tell the difference between a live performance and a lip-synced performance in a double-blind test?

I expect so. Have you ever seen a video where the picture was out of sync with the sound? Being just one or two frames out of sync makes a very noticeable difference, and I would be surprised if anyone could manage to lip-sync live to that accuracy through a whole song. Lip-synching basically relies on people watching the whole performance rather than concentrating on little details.

Although, I admit I don't really see the value in live performances to begin with, so my opinion might be stupid.

A good band, orchestra or singer will sound far better live than recorded, as well as giving the opportunity for variations and new things. Of course, a bad band often sounds much worse live so it depends who you go to see. There is also the social aspect and the atmosphere, but that is more personal preference.

I don't want to see U2 at Wembley

Should have stopped there.:p

[Morrigan]

I don't see why it would matter. Music is music, just a series of noises arranged in such a way as to (hopefully) be aesthetically pleasing.

"A painting is a painting, just a series of brush strokes arranged in such a way as to (hopefully) be aesthetically pleasing."

...Wait, no it's not. For some people, music is not just pretty notes, but it's ART, a meaningful experience involving strong passions and emotions.


Although, I admit I don't really see the value in live performances to begin with, so my opinion might be stupid.
Replace "might be" with "pretty much is", and I agree. :P
If you don't see the value in something, why even discuss it...


Yes, and personally I am not looking for it to sound like the CD, but to sound distinct, and hopefully include ad-libs or variations. Personally I don't consider a live performance to be about reproducing what all involved in the studio version intended, as accurately as possible.
:clap:

Sadly, sometimes there is no choice (budget constraints) to have recordings. For example, Therion on CD uses a full orchestra, but dragging the entire group on tour would cost them way too much, so they only do it occasionally (and only in Europe :mghissyfit). The band still plays, however, it's only the symphonic elements that are sampled - and they do bring a choir a long, so all the choir elements are live. :)

[Lothian]

I don't want to see U2 at Wembley


Should have stopped there.:pOr even at

I don't want to see U2

[Crossbow]

No way would I sue over something so silly!

However, I doubt that I purchase any more of the persons records, t-shirts, or go to anymore of their shows either.

[madurobob]

No, but if an air marshal started lip syncing - I'd totally take him out.

[I less than three logic]

If you don't see the value in something, why even discuss it...
Just wanted to point out that this seems a bit out of place on a skeptics forum like this. That's pretty much all we do here, discuss things we don't see the value in. Psychics, homeopathy, live musical performances, etc. :D

[KingMerv00]

Have you ever read the back of your ticket stub? It's a contract that you agreed to when you bought the ticket. You may not have as much of a right to sue as you thought you did, even if it weren't an insane idea.

You can say whatever you like on the back of a ticket stub. That doesn't make it legally binding.

[madurobob]

There are some acts you should expect to lip sync - Madonna, Back Street Boys, Britney, etc... Some, though, you expect to be musicians who happen to sing and you are there as much for the playing of instruments as the vocals.

In that case, it'd be difficult to for me to consider a suit for lip synced vocals while the band really played. You got the performance you paid for, more or less. I remember some big issue in the early 80's with Aerosmith being too stoned to play and getting boo'd off the stage where they were the headliner. I think some folks tried to sue, but lost since the band actually played - albeit badly.

Still, if I went to a Bob Dylan concert and he lip synced, I'd consider a suit once I finished laughing.

Redtail: I love the story about Patti LaBelle.

[Francesca R]

You can say whatever you like on the back of a ticket stub. That doesn't make it legally binding.Would that mean you could fleece everybody by not even actually bothering to have the concert then? Leave sixty-odd thousand people flummoxed outside a dark empty stadium? ;)

[malbui]

My band wouldn't bother lip-synching as the second most common comment we get is that no-one can hear the vocals anyway over the guitars.







The most common comment we get is "what the ****** hell was that racket?"

[Luciana]

My life would have to do be seriously devoid of any other source of worry for me to bother with something like that. Like, geez.

[pipelineaudio]

If you are watching pop40, you are probably watching lip synching.

What's more, its been that way since there has been tape, if not before. Its also been there since "rock" began, if not before (I cant find any instances before but I doubt it was a novel idea, once there was amplification)

We LONG ago made it ok to hear drums coming thru the PA with no drummer onstage, why the distinction with voice?

Now, its a LOT LO LOT more common now, as its just too much a risk in this instant, everyone has a camera, internet speed/instant humiliation world to risk someone blowing it. This means when someone DOES blow it the results are spectacularly hillarious: Mili Vanili, Kelly Osbourne

There's another side to this too, with the Volume Wars that have been going in the last 15 years or so, with everyone trying to make a "louder" cd, instead of relying on people to just walk to their machine and turn it up or down themselves, there is NOTHING quiet enough to get masked or mixed.

EVERYTHING IS ALL LOUD ALL THE TIME JUST LIKE SOMEONE IS TYPING IN CAPS WITH NO PUNCTUATION SO ITS ALL THERE WIDE OUT IN THE OPEN LIKE A LOUD RUN ON SENTENCE AND YOU DONT KNOW WHERE STUFF STOPS OR STARTS IF ITS LOUD OR QUIET

SO now, *slight* imperfections are so loud as to stand out like a sore thumb.

Everything today MUST be perfect.

There is no artist, living or dead who can live up to the sonic standards the production side thinks people will insist on. IF someone tried to play live, a certain number of fans would be EXTREMELY upset on just how "bad" their artist sounds

When it comes to drums, humans are not computers, so the stick hits vary a bit in volume even when they are supposed to sound about the same volume, with even the best drummers, so if the drums ARE played live, you are usually hearing triggered drums, and have been ok with that for a long time see:

FORAT F16 http://www.forat.com/sampler/
DDrum http://www.ddrum.com/
Or for the budget band, Alesis' DM5 http://www.alesis.com/product.php?id=59

Thats what you hear from the drums IF the drummer is playing live most of the time.

Drums on albums have been replaced by synthesizers to a large degree since before the CD became a consumer format. Sometimes you heard people complain, but not usually.

There's a popular joke, since the synth age "why do you have a bass player? Thats what the keyboardist's left hand is for"

Except that synth is such an easy instrument to "lip sync" that its almost never live (also they can be the most susceptible to reliability problems so there's extra incentive to fudge it there)

If you think your favorite guitarist played that awesome lead on the last album, you might be in for a shock. Not that it matters anyway, since, just like the drums, the performance has to be perfect to an inhuman degree. The performance you hear on a CD, radio, whatever, bears only a superficial resemblance to what the guitarist or his stand in played

We dont record performances anymore, we create productions

Dont think the vocals escape it

Antares has been making Autotune for years now (http://www.antarestech.com/products/auto-tune5.shtml)

This WILL knock crappy vocals into pitch, resulting in a weird artificial metallic sound that is SO common that now it is insisted to put it on whether the artists needs it or not!!!

Yes, thats right, as close to human perfection as possible takes ARE run into autotune, JUST to get that fake sound because thats what the production team thinks the public wants

recording artists are completely aware that the technology and the will exists for us to edit them into perfection, and as such have adjusted their "skill" accordingly

The average guitarist seems to spend infinitely more time "practicing" in front of a mirror than playing with a band. Same goes for the other crap.

A lot of these guys wouldnt be capable of playing a live show if their lives depended on it, the concert is doing you a FAVOR doing a lip sync performance, believe me

[negativ]

L2fNWsP-GGM

;)

I wouldn't sue, but I would instantly lose all respect for the artist.

One of the best shows I've ever seen was Ravi Shankar with his daughter Anoushka. He practically burned down the venue by doing nothing more visually exciting than sitting on a rug the whole time.


ETA: Related -- "Before the Music Dies" (http://www.beforethemusicdies.com/blog/about-the-film)

[UserGoogol]

"A painting is a painting, just a series of brush strokes arranged in such a way as to (hopefully) be aesthetically pleasing."

...Wait, no it's not. For some people, music is not just pretty notes, but it's ART, a meaningful experience involving strong passions and emotions.

Well, aesthetically pleasing is perhaps the wrong word, but certainly aesthetically something. A painting is just a purposefully arranged pile of paint, and music is just a purposefully arranged pile of noises. To value the liveness of a performance is therefore stupid, since liveness in of itself cannot be recorded.

But since music is just a pile of noises, concerts themselves seem irrational. To value music based on whether or not it is being performed live is like valuing Mona Lisa whether or not you're seeing it in a Louvre or in the back of a van of some guy who just stole it from the Louvre. It's the same ****** smirk. Art is merely sensory information which the brain interprets in one way or another.

Of course, as billydkid alluded to in his snarky "appearance" comment, there's more to a concert than merely the music itself, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that people can derive value from that. If you judge a concert not merely as a mechanism for playing music but as an overall act of "performance art" that merely happens to have some music in it, then of course concerts have value, for providing visual stimuli to add to the audio stimuli. And I suppose I must admit that there are differences between lip synced music and live performance. However, I cannot see how there is any implied guarantee that you will be getting a live performance when you go to a concert. When you go to a concert, all you know is that the performer is going to be doing stuff and music is going to be played. Perhaps there is sort of a social custom that concerts involve live music, but social customs are made to be broken.

I admit, furthermore, that much of the music I like is the sort of thing which is conducive to this sort of insanity. Although I like much music from that vague metagenre that is "pop/rock," (and Jazz too, I guess) where live performances are inherently important, I also like a lot of music which is insanely composed, (electronic music, classical, and pop/rock/jazz that is also insanely composed) and in those genres, if there is a difference between a live performance and a prerecording performance it is because someone screwed up somewhere. (Also, in the more eclectic sorts of electronic music, it is not physically possible to perform live without a lot of prerecording.)

[Temporal Renegade]

Yes I would want to. Whether I could be bothered is another deal, but I'd be angry

Yes, and personally I am not looking for it to sound like the CD, but to sound distinct, and hopefully include ad-libs or variations. Personally I don't consider a live performance to be about reproducing what all involved in the studio version intended, as accurately as possible. (Conversely classical is IMO about reproducing the live version of what the composer intended as accurately as possible)

I don't want to see U2 at Wembley and discover they've put a CD on.


Years ago, ELO used taped music at the beginning of a show, while they rose out of the stage for their intro. The hew and cry over that, was unbelievable; a lot of people claimed they were 'faking it' through the whole show, and called for a boycott of their concerts over it.

[Dorian Gray]

Queen left the stage for the operatic section of Bohemian Rhapsody, and no one complained, because no one seriously expected them to do that live.

If you have a concert, it should be with live playing and singing. If you can't sing and dance at the same time, don't dance. That's what I expect. If you're syncing, you might as well play videos.

I won't cut bands like Depeche Mode any slack on that, either. And sure enough, they have live guitar, drums and singing. Though I've heard stories of their past that would have made me request a refund.

[zooterkin]

Years ago, ELO used taped music at the beginning of a show, while they rose out of the stage for their intro. The hew and cry over that, was unbelievable; a lot of people claimed they were 'faking it' through the whole show, and called for a boycott of their concerts over it.

I think that was the "Out of the Blue" tour. As I recall, people were also timing the shows, and finding it suspicious how consistent the performance lengths were. But even then, the allegations were that they were using backing tapes, not completely failing to perform live.

Regarding the OP, I think it depends on the type of act involved. If I went to a Bruce Springsteen concert, and he was lip-syncing, then I would be extremely surprised, as well as disappointed. For a performer whose shows are a big production (Madonna, Kylie, etc.), I'd be very surprised if at least some of the elements weren't pre-recorded, just to keep the timings right, and due to the difficulties of singing while performing a strenuous dance routine. And for the latest pop sensations, who are chosen more for looks than musical ability, I think I'd be glad if they are lip-syncing.

[Redtail]

Usually, either the dancing is not demanding or the singing is not. Singing and dancing simultaneously is not easy (and plain impossible with anything physical, according to my bro who's a dancer). With today's elaborate choreographies and cookie cutter performers whose singing can only sound good (relatively) with heavy editing and abuse of vocoder, of course Britney and co. only lip-sync and dance. Notice how those who actually sing live don't move that much.


I can see where your brother is coming form because I'm an actor and it is really hard to do all three at the same time, (also I have never seen him dance so it may be FAR more physical than anything I've seen.) but I've seen true "Triple Threats" who could do it, granted this could be because they had duet time. IMHO, if you have the lungs to pull it off go for it, but if you don't call yourself an entertainer instead of a singer.

[rjh01]

It is easy to tell if a person is lip-syncing in concert. Method
1. Bring a pair of binoculars to a concert (one of the small ones that are good in daylight are good).
2. Look at the performers lips. If they are not moving right then he is lip-syncing.

[pipelineaudio]

It is easy to tell if a person is lip-syncing in concert. Method
1. Bring a pair of binoculars to a concert (one of the small ones that are good in daylight are good).
2. Look at the performers lips. If they are not moving right then he is lip-syncing.

Not quite, the speed of sound and the speed of light are different, which means unless you are sitting up close, the speakers you are likely listening to are "delay fills"

Also, there is latency in a lot of the fx used, and now that some concerts use digital consoles, there can be latency in the entire chain as well

Also, dynamics processing has become so unnatural in regular use that accents will frequently be in the "wrong" place according to when you see the lips moving

[yairhol]

Something I've been wondering for a while...

If you're at a concert, where you've spend a LOT of money for a ticket, and the performers weren't actually singing or playing music for a good deal of the show, would you sue them? After all, if you go to a concert, you'd expect live music, wouldn't you?

I don't mean a show like Britney Spears, where the audience pretty much knows all of it's not 'live'; I mean a show like the Stones, where you'd think they'd really be playing.


Hi all,
Since this subject is of personal importance to me (see my public profile picture) I have to say that I would demand my money back. Probably not go all the way as to sue but for sure I would not let this slip uncommented. I did not pay only to see the performing artist in person rather than on television. I payed to hear the artist play and sing live. The live sound, the artist's 'feel', and overall performance are much different than their recorded performance. When an artist records he does a hundred 'takes' of different parts of the song and then merges 'takes' in order to get the overall result. I want to hear it live with all the fu**ups and brilliance of the playing, the emotion of the artist at that night, etc.
For me to hear the recorded version, I would put on a cd at home and listen.

Regards,
Yair

[Slimething]

I'm not sure if I would sue because bringing and maintaining a lawsuit is serious business. If I did, I would do it as a nuisance to the offending party.

I believe there is a distinction that is being ignored in this discussion. A distinction has to be made between mass-market acts (especially pablum rock) and virtuoso acts. For example, if I went to a U2 concert, I probably wouldn't care if some music was piped in as I was buying the whole experience of being at a big rock concert. (Kind of like when I went to the Kentucky Derby and had a great time without seeing any horses!) OTOH, if I went to see some of the rock bands I really like because of their instrumental prowess (Steely Dan, Grateful Dead, CSNY, and the like) or a classical music event, especially with a noted soloist, I would be furious if I later learned that the act was faked. One of the great thrils of hearing a jazz band (as an example) live is that you hear the improvisation that naturally occurs in their pieces. Otherwise, you could as easily have stayed at home.

[yairhol]

I'm not sure if I would sue because bringing and maintaining a lawsuit is serious business. If I did, I would do it as a nuisance to the offending party.

I believe there is a distinction that is being ignored in this discussion. A distinction has to be made between mass-market acts (especially pablum rock) and virtuoso acts. For example, if I went to a U2 concert, I probably wouldn't care if some music was piped in as I was buying the whole experience of being at a big rock concert. (Kind of like when I went to the Kentucky Derby and had a great time without seeing any horses!) OTOH, if I went to see some of the rock bands I really like because of their instrumental prowess (Steely Dan, Grateful Dead, CSNY, and the like) or a classical music event, especially with a noted soloist, I would be furious if I later learned that the act was faked. One of the great thrils of hearing a jazz band (as an example) live is that you hear the improvisation that naturally occurs in their pieces. Otherwise, you could as easily have stayed at home.

In a U2 concert the band also improvises (sometimes not on purpose) on a maybe lesser extent than in a virtuoso act but they still do because it's a natural thing.
I would like to hear that in a live show. The whole "being in a rock concert experience" definately adds but it is definately not the only thing that's important even in a mass-market act.

Regards,
Yair

[Ian Osborne]

We LONG ago made it ok to hear drums coming thru the PA with no drummer onstage, why the distinction with voice?

What we're talking about here is more like a pre-recorded drum sound coming through the PA with a drummer onstage. It's called 'lying'.

As Morrigan pointed out, it's not always possible to reproduce the sound you want without using backing tapes - no one should complain about Therion using a pre-recorded orchestra when there's clearly no orchestra on the stage. The band are still playing after all. But if, say, the lead guitarist was miming, the audience would have every reason to feel ripped off.

[Temporal Renegade]

I think that was the "Out of the Blue" tour. As I recall, people were also timing the shows, and finding it suspicious how consistent the performance lengths were. But even then, the allegations were that they were using backing tapes, not completely failing to perform live.

Regarding the OP, I think it depends on the type of act involved. If I went to a Bruce Springsteen concert, and he was lip-syncing, then I would be extremely surprised, as well as disappointed. For a performer whose shows are a big production (Madonna, Kylie, etc.), I'd be very surprised if at least some of the elements weren't pre-recorded, just to keep the timings right, and due to the difficulties of singing while performing a strenuous dance routine. And for the latest pop sensations, who are chosen more for looks than musical ability, I think I'd be glad if they are lip-syncing.

Yep, the "Out of the Blue" show. Thanks for reminding me, as I'd forgotten which one it was. :)

[Temporal Renegade]

Hi all,
Since this subject is of personal importance to me (see my public profile picture) I have to say that I would demand my money back. Probably not go all the way as to sue but for sure I would not let this slip uncommented. I did not pay only to see the performing artist in person rather than on television. I payed to hear the artist play and sing live. The live sound, the artist's 'feel', and overall performance are much different than their recorded performance. When an artist records he does a hundred 'takes' of different parts of the song and then merges 'takes' in order to get the overall result. I want to hear it live with all the fu**ups and brilliance of the playing, the emotion of the artist at that night, etc.
For me to hear the recorded version, I would put on a cd at home and listen.

Regards,
Yair

The problem is, in this day and age, people seem to be more apt to sue someone, than to just demand a refund. For some reason, litigation always seems to be the first choice in these things...

[Beerina]

well Madonna and others use the lip sync excuse that they can't dance and perform and sing at the same time.

I was unaware these were dance shows. I thought they were vocal music shows.

Huh. Well, learn something new every day.

[Beerina]

What are you actually paying for? I suspect that you are not actually paying to see a person sing live, you are actually paying for the concert, which includes being able to see the performer and hear the music.

Well, I do know there's a real issue where the performer doesn't perform the song exactly like the crowd wants to hear it: like they hear it on the radio. There's probably some advantage to singing it exactly like on the radio if you want to maximize your audience.

Roll in some Spice Girls, who couldn't sing live to save their lives, i.e. without the equivalent of audio Photoshopping, and there you go.

[WildCat]

MziHkbJRMdU

[bigred]

If you're at a concert, where you've spend a LOT of money for a ticket, and the performers weren't actually singing or playing music for a good deal of the show, would you sue them? No, because even after I'm dead and buried I won't be that stupid.

But I don't want to think about how many people in this country are. Wouldn't surprise me a bit to hear about it (on CNN probably).

LMAO @ "I'm gonna sue for lip-synching"

[AgeGap]

without the equivalent of audio Photoshopping

I will now call said phenomenon Audioshop. I wiil instill terror in my children by saying all music they listen to is audioshopped. Music was much better in my day.

[Slimething]

MziHkbJRMdU

Thanks for that, WildCat! Sometimes, lip-synching can be good in that it protects the general public from these manufactured stars.

oDMx2OQwDtg

[tomgv15]

Go ahead, sue, be an indignant part of the herd.I don't get it, if you go to a basketball arena packed with thousands of people you're lucky if the performers are the size of action figures. OK, so now-a-days you get to watch a huge video screen.Big deal. Is the sound that good anyway? I don't know, but I doubt it. I'd rather go to a small venue for $15, buy a couple beers, talk with one of the band members after the show and have my money for their CD go directly to them.

In '81 a relative set me up with back stage passes to see KC and the Sunshine Band at a hockey rink in Springfield Mo. KC's career and disco were just started to lose momentum. At the time my favorite bands were Bauhaus and Pere Ubu so I wasn't a screaming fan. When we met him KC was friendly enough and did his bit. Talked about playing jazz in the future. He admitted that he had laryngitis and had to lip sync the show.At the time I felt that justified my snobbery. Now I realize that he did not show guilt because he didn't have to. He still gave the audience what they came for.

[Cuddles]

Well, I do know there's a real issue where the performer doesn't perform the song exactly like the crowd wants to hear it: like they hear it on the radio. There's probably some advantage to singing it exactly like on the radio if you want to maximize your audience.

Roll in some Spice Girls, who couldn't sing live to save their lives, i.e. without the equivalent of audio Photoshopping, and there you go.

I suppose it depends on the audience. The sort of person who listens to the Spice Girls is unlikely to notice lip-synching, let alone care, but they will notice if the music isn't exactly as they expect it to be. On the other hand, the sort of person who likes music is unlikely to care that the music is identical to the version on raido, and in fact are likely to see it live precisely because it isn't. To maximise your audience for the former, audioshopping is by far your best bet, for the latter, it is the surest way to lose your audience entirely.

Well, aesthetically pleasing is perhaps the wrong word, but certainly aesthetically something. A painting is just a purposefully arranged pile of paint, and music is just a purposefully arranged pile of noises. To value the liveness of a performance is therefore stupid, since liveness in of itself cannot be recorded.

Live music is good precisely because it can't be recorded. The whole point is that it's unique. To a certain extent, all good music is like jazz. You don't expect it to be the same every time and you don't want it to be the same every time. CDs are all very well, but you'll never hear any variation.

But since music is just a pile of noises, concerts themselves seem irrational. To value music based on whether or not it is being performed live is like valuing Mona Lisa whether or not you're seeing it in a Louvre or in the back of a van of some guy who just stole it from the Louvre. It's the same ****** smirk. Art is merely sensory information which the brain interprets in one way or another.

But people don't value it soley because it is live. They value it because it sounds much better than a recorded version, and will be different every time. It's not the fact that it's live that matters, it's the consequences of it being live.

Of course, as billydkid alluded to in his snarky "appearance" comment, there's more to a concert than merely the music itself, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that people can derive value from that. If you judge a concert not merely as a mechanism for playing music but as an overall act of "performance art" that merely happens to have some music in it, then of course concerts have value, for providing visual stimuli to add to the audio stimuli.

And that's the other half of it. Concerts aren't just music. Have you ever been to a comedy night? It's not just someone telling jokes, it's a performance. Music is the same.

I admit, furthermore, that much of the music I like is the sort of thing which is conducive to this sort of insanity. Although I like much music from that vague metagenre that is "pop/rock," (and Jazz too, I guess) where live performances are inherently important, I also like a lot of music which is insanely composed, (electronic music, classical, and pop/rock/jazz that is also insanely composed) and in those genres, if there is a difference between a live performance and a prerecording performance it is because someone screwed up somewhere. (Also, in the more eclectic sorts of electronic music, it is not physically possible to perform live without a lot of prerecording.)

I would say you have that almost exactly backwards. If there is no difference between a live performance and a prerecorded performance in jazz or rock then someone has screwed up. When it comes down to it, that's pretty much the whole point of jazz. There are now even seperate jazz exams from regular piano (and other instruments) exams because standard learning just doesn't teach you anything about improvisation or other aspects of jazz.

I think this is actually one reason that classical music has faded. Before recording was possible, of people wanted to hear a piece of music they had to hear someone play it. This meant that it needed to be played the same every time. This is no longer the case. A piece of music only needs to be recorded once and it can be heard as many times as you like, identically each time. Since recordings are far better at this than live performances ever could be, live music is no longer needed for this purpose and now exists for the exact opposite reason. A recording can't ever give you any variation, but a live peformance can.

Another point you seem to have missed is that even if the performance is identical, live music sounds very different from recorded music. Recordings don't record all the sound, and audio equipment can't reproduce it all. Even if all the notes, timing and everything else is identical, a live performance will almost always sound much better than a CD at home, no matter how good your equipment.

[UserGoogol]

[I][I'm replying to the whole post but there's nothing that stands out as being particular quotable but I'll still have a quote in case someone posts between me and him so as to not be ambiguous.]

Yeah, I really shouldn't have put jazz into the "sometimes composed" catagory. There are genres of jazz which are pretty composed, but since improvization is sometimes considered part of the fricking definition of jazz, it's stupid to put it in that catagory. Otherwise... I guess I have to admit you're right. I did not think for instance that it would be possible that there could be sounds that can't be recorded from live performance. That sounds a bit like crazy audiophile talk, but at the same time I should concede that audiophiles aren't always insane.

Still, I can't say I agree on a personal level with the value of improvisation over composed music. Again, electronic music is a great example that shows the value of no improvisation whatsoever. With electronic music, you don't have to worry about noises not getting picked up, since it's being created in a synthesizer and so everything can get copied over pretty neatly, and frankly I'm pretty content listening to just some crazy ambient music which is not only not unique, it's not even unique within the song itself, just repeating the same notes over and over again.

That said, I am young and cheap and antisocial, and that limits both my experience with live music as well as my willingness to go, so my opinion is definitely skewed.

[pipelineaudio]

Even if all the notes, timing and everything else is identical, a live performance will almost always sound much better than a CD at home, no matter how good your equipment.

I would say "different" not better. In terms of timing and pitch, no human being is capable of playing to the currently accepted recorded standard.

Find me a current pop40 album where any drum hit is more an 1/256th note away from whatever grid its supposed to be on

Show me an unedited live recording that can do that

[Cuddles]

Still, I can't say I agree on a personal level with the value of improvisation over composed music. Again, electronic music is a great example that shows the value of no improvisation whatsoever. With electronic music, you don't have to worry about noises not getting picked up, since it's being created in a synthesizer and so everything can get copied over pretty neatly, and frankly I'm pretty content listening to just some crazy ambient music which is not only not unique, it's not even unique within the song itself, just repeating the same notes over and over again.

That's fair enough really. If you listen to music that sounds the same live or recorded, there's not much point paying extra to see it live. I think for most types of music, recordings are really just an attempt to replicate the live music, so unless we can somehow make completely perfect recordings, that kind of music will always sound better live.

I would say "different" not better. In terms of timing and pitch, no human being is capable of playing to the currently accepted recorded standard.

Find me a current pop40 album where any drum hit is more an 1/256th note away from whatever grid its supposed to be on

Show me an unedited live recording that can do that

But small mistakes don't make it sound worse. It's not the accuracy of the playing, it's the sound itself. Recordings can't capture everything and even the best systems can't reproduce everything. It's all the extra harmonics and resonances and often the actual feeling of the sound that makes live music special. That's why I said "Even if all the notes, timing and everything else is identical". It doesn't matter that that's not really possible, even if it were, live performances would still sound better.

[Morrigan]

But small mistakes don't make it sound worse. It's not the accuracy of the playing, it's the sound itself. Recordings can't capture everything and even the best systems can't reproduce everything. It's all the extra harmonics and resonances and often the actual feeling of the sound that makes live music special.
For some people, music is just a bunch of notes. Nevermind the emotions or the passion they stir, that's all music is for them. Something to use as background noise, or perhaps something to dance to. But they will never understand what you wrote because they don't see it that way.
I don't especially have a problem with people who don't value music, but few seem to realize it, strangely enough.

[pipelineaudio]

But small mistakes don't make it sound worse. It's not the accuracy of the playing, it's the sound itself. Recordings can't capture everything and even the best systems can't reproduce everything. It's all the extra harmonics and resonances and often the actual feeling of the sound that makes live music special. That's why I said "Even if all the notes, timing and everything else is identical". It doesn't matter that that's not really possible, even if it were, live performances would still sound better.

Oh, im not arguing these points with you...for sure I have never heard a system that could accurately reproduce the feeling of sitting in front of a real kick drum, for instance...

BUT

In terms of "better"?

I will respectfully submit that hearing Brittney Spears in REAL life, with no processing would make you cringe. Same as almost any pop40 you could name

Hearing any of these newer rock bands without timing and pitch correction? TOTALLY awful. Terrible terrible noise

Like it or not, in todays world, in a LARGE part, the production IS the performance...most of the stars are not capable in any way of providing a listenable experience if playing raw.

[slingblade]

Lawsuit? That seems a bit too drastic to me, especially since my society seems so virulently litigious. (I dunno, but it sounds tres impressive.)

People with money to waste on attorneys may think of suing, but I'll settle for not buying any more of their records or going to any more of their shows. Oh, and a nasty letter, letting them know how ripped off I feel. If I do.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

There is no artist, living or dead who can live up to the sonic standards the production side thinks people will insist on. IF someone tried to play live, a certain number of fans would be EXTREMELY upset on just how "bad" their artist sounds



Absolute nonsense. I'm not interested in a band unless they can produce the goods live - not necessarily exactly like the studio version, indeed preferably a little bit different but with enough elements there to show the studio version was them as well (albeit maybe taking a number of goes to get it perfect). Use of pre-recorded samples or backing is ok (as mentioned above with the orchestral bits for Therion, similar for say 'Within Temptation') as long as it's obvious that's what they're doing, but pretending to play stuff live when it's actually recorded is fraud. I wouldn't sue but I wouldn't buy anything by that band again.

As for bands not being able to produce the goods live without help, you're obviously watching the wrong bands. For the better known ones try someone like Rush but any of the prog, rock or folk bands that pride themselves on their musicianship will be able to perform live (Spock's Beard pre 'god interfering in their line-up' being a perfect example).

Perhaps the difference is I don't give a damn what they look like or how they dance (or even what the laser show is like) it's how well they can actually play and sing that matters and how good the songs are.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

What we're talking about here is more like a pre-recorded drum sound coming through the PA with a drummer onstage. It's called 'lying'.

As Morrigan pointed out, it's not always possible to reproduce the sound you want without using backing tapes - no one should complain about Therion using a pre-recorded orchestra when there's clearly no orchestra on the stage. The band are still playing after all. But if, say, the lead guitarist was miming, the audience would have every reason to feel ripped off.

Spot on. It's pretending to play / sing something that you're not that's the problem.

[Ian Osborne]

I'll settle for not buying any more of their records or going to any more of their shows. Oh, and a nasty letter, letting them know how ripped off I feel. If I do.

Agreed. And maybe downloading their next album from the internet, while miming the act of handing over the money for it.

[3point14]

I don't want to see U2 at Wembley and discover they've put a CD on.

I have seen U2 live at Wembey, I wish I hadn't. I wouldn't have cared if they'd been lip-synching.

I saw Matchbox 20 at Wembley (arena), I really, really hope they weren't lip-synching.

I saw Alison Krauss and Union station (with Jerry Douglas) and they were definitely not synching in any way. They were note perfect.


For my money, if you can't do it live, don't put on a live show.

If the show you're putting on is a 'dance show' then please don't advertise it as a music show.

Pi.

[Morrigan]

Absolute nonsense. I'm not interested in a band unless they can produce the goods live - not necessarily exactly like the studio version, indeed preferably a little bit different but with enough elements there to show the studio version was them as well (albeit maybe taking a number of goes to get it perfect). Use of pre-recorded samples or backing is ok (as mentioned above with the orchestral bits for Therion, similar for say 'Within Temptation') as long as it's obvious that's what they're doing, but pretending to play stuff live when it's actually recorded is fraud. I wouldn't sue but I wouldn't buy anything by that band again.

As for bands not being able to produce the goods live without help, you're obviously watching the wrong bands. For the better known ones try someone like Rush but any of the prog, rock or folk bands that pride themselves on their musicianship will be able to perform live (Spock's Beard pre 'god interfering in their line-up' being a perfect example).

Perhaps the difference is I don't give a damn what they look like or how they dance (or even what the laser show is like) it's how well they can actually play and sing that matters and how good the songs are.

Indeed, and I'm puzzled as to what bands pipeline could be referring to. Most bands I've seen live were just as good, if not better than on studio. Of course, I don't listen to crappy pop music.

[Cuddles]

BUT

In terms of "better"?

I will respectfully submit that hearing Brittney Spears in REAL life, with no processing would make you cringe. Same as almost any pop40 you could name

Hearing any of these newer rock bands without timing and pitch correction? TOTALLY awful. Terrible terrible noise

Like it or not, in todays world, in a LARGE part, the production IS the performance...most of the stars are not capable in any way of providing a listenable experience if playing raw.

I agree that not all performers will sound better live. However, when it comes down to it, if you're going to see someone who can't perform, you have no reason to be disappointed if they turn out not to be performing.

[pipelineaudio]

Absolute nonsense. I'm not interested in a band unless they can produce the goods live -

You, me and ten other people care about this. The majority of the record buying (or not buying - perhaps thats the root of the issue/derail) public does not


Perhaps the difference is I don't give a damn what they look like or how they dance (or even what the laser show is like) it's how well they can actually play and sing that matters and how good the songs are.

Yes, unfortunately

[pipelineaudio]

Indeed, and I'm puzzled as to what bands pipeline could be referring to. Most bands I've seen live were just as good, if not better than on studio. Of course, I don't listen to crappy pop music.

This is a deep, deep subject I could go on for years about. There are a LOT of related issues and a ton of tangents and derails.

Here's the simplest I can sum it: Turn on the radio, if the band you hear is pop40 and from the past ten years, chances are FAR better than not that they are lip syncing live

I keep saying pop40 and you guys keep confusing that with bands from way back in the day

But even still, I would like to see any band from any era, create the same sound live as they do in the studio. There are far too many production techniques we use, some of which become THE identifiable sound of the band, that the band cannot in physical reality create themselves

Again though, there are many many many many many many many reasons that the powers that be will not let many bands play live, and there are even many many many many more reasons why most of these bands composed of parents living thru their kids will not allow their children to play live

[Ethan Thane Athen]

...
But even still, I would like to see any band from any era, create the same sound live as they do in the studio. There are far too many production techniques we use, some of which become THE identifiable sound of the band, that the band cannot in physical reality create themselves

...

I understand where you're coming from but, again, I say you're watching the wrong bands. There are many excellent (in terms of live performance) bands out there - agreed not 'pop', more rock, folk or whatever. Yes I include some of the 'old names' like Rush because they're still performing but there are many new bands with similar standards of musicianship. I've already mentioned Spock's Beard (you could add Dream Theater, Flower Kings etc to that). From my own country you could add in someone like Porcupine Tree (or Mostly Autumn or several others). Now Steve Wilson, their singer / guitarist is a studio demon but he can still produce it live. Yes they will use some pre-prepared keyboard effects, orchestral samples etc but the bulk of the music is live and crucially, everything they appear to be playing, they are playing. I should think lip-synching or miming his guitar playing would be anathema to Steve Wilson. Even on his own with an acoustic guitar he can do some great renditions of his songs but with the full band they do a damn fine job of re-creating the sound live.

As for the pop stuff...well, there's a reason sales are so low these days and it's not illegal downloading (the only independent studies into illegal downloading that I've seen show the vast majority of downloads are of 'old' stuff not current releases).

[billydkid]

I can see where your brother is coming form because I'm an actor and it is really hard to do all three at the same time, (also I have never seen him dance so it may be FAR more physical than anything I've seen.) but I've seen true "Triple Threats" who could do it, granted this could be because they had duet time. IMHO, if you have the lungs to pull it off go for it, but if you don't call yourself an entertainer instead of a singer.Look, Britney wears a headset mic when she performs as do a ton of these lip sinkers. Obviously their intention is to deceive people into believe they are singing. I simply do not understand the point of lip sinking. If a person wants to play a recording of themselves and dance to it - great, but I don't understand the point of pretending you are singing.

[billydkid]

This is a deep, deep subject I could go on for years about. There are a LOT of related issues and a ton of tangents and derails.

Here's the simplest I can sum it: Turn on the radio, if the band you hear is pop40 and from the past ten years, chances are FAR better than not that they are lip syncing live

I keep saying pop40 and you guys keep confusing that with bands from way back in the day

But even still, I would like to see any band from any era, create the same sound live as they do in the studio. There are far too many production techniques we use, some of which become THE identifiable sound of the band, that the band cannot in physical reality create themselves

Again though, there are many many many many many many many reasons that the powers that be will not let many bands play live, and there are even many many many many more reasons why most of these bands composed of parents living thru their kids will not allow their children to play liveI always really admired the Beatles in their early years - they were as tight as an ensemble can be and wonderful live performers - all from years of playing clubs and having to make it work. I don't listen to the radio and haven't for many years - it is all nothing but commodity, mass produced like McDonalds hamburgers, all studio contrivance.

You can go out to clubs and hear really good bands - people who play better and sing better than virtually every performer you hear on the radio. I knew this guy years ago who was obsessed with his ambition to become famous and his parents had a lot of money. I used to perform in theatre groups with him. He was as talentless as a person can be and a horrible singer. He went to Europe, hired a bunch of people to make him famous. They gave him new hair and a new name and went into the studio to begin making records. Through the magic of modern recording technology they produced a product that was unrecognizable as the person with which I was acquainted.

He made several techno-pop records that became big hits in Europe - but he was still the same talentless dick he always was. My personal opinion is that the whole label based recording industry is on it's way out. They are fighting tooth and nail to hold onto the golden goose that had made them millionaires for so many years. But the digital revolution has opened the flood gates for the age of the amateur. To me there is nothing more fun than going into CDBaby or Amazon and finding records produced by people in their living rooms which are amazing. In fact, in their early days the Beatles and many other bands could give you in person virtually exactly what you heard on their records. People like to look at records like Sargent Pepper and records by Queen who were one of the first to take advantage of the power of multitracking as watersheds and they were, but it also spawned an era of artificial music which could only be created in a studio and by technicians.

[slingblade]

But even still, I would like to see any band from any era, create the same sound live as they do in the studio. There are far too many production techniques we use, some of which become THE identifiable sound of the band, that the band cannot in physical reality create themselves.

I'll grant that is true for many, if not most.

But I saw the Moody Blues live, with a philharmonic orchestra (the Red Rocks concert that PBS recorded and still plays), and they sounded very much like their recorded selves. Very close to studio sound. The two being different media, there's no way one will be identical to the other, but they were very, very close.

And Dan Fogelberg sounds live just like he does recorded.

Stevie Nicks doesn't. Robert Plant came fairly close.

Again though, there are many many many many many many many reasons that the powers that be will not let many bands play live, and there are even many many many many more reasons why most of these bands composed of parents living thru their kids will not allow their children to play live

(bolding mine)

Huh? If the bands are composed of parents, why are the kids playing? Sarcasm is more effective if it makes sense.

[pipelineaudio]

I understand where you're coming from but, again, I say you're watching the wrong bands.

We are talking past each other. Im not watching the wrong bands...Im not watching any bands, because Im a bum and dont feel like paying ticket prices to the bigger promoters, since there arewnt any bars to go to to see live, local bands for free

I know that many older bands didnt lip-sync, my point is, almost everyone from the last ten years does, if you are talking about pop40

[pipelineaudio]

Huh? If the bands are composed of parents, why are the kids playing? Sarcasm is more effective if it makes sense.

There's no sarcasm, these are the parents who sign my check. Many of these kids don't even want to play in a band...or if they do its more about image and could care less about practicing an instrument. Its very often my job to find someone who can play the parts that need to be played if I cant play them myself (I am a crappy musician, but with the power of computers and the ease of most of the parts needing to be done, I can often do it myself)

Im sure you know of "Tennis Dads" or "Ice Skate Moms". Band parents are no different

[slingblade]

Oh, them. Okay, I get it. Phrasing was a little off....apparently you weren't lip-synching.


:p

[pipelineaudio]

Oh, them. Okay, I get it. Phrasing was a little off....apparently you weren't lip-synching.


:p

Some other studio friends are so up in arms about the whole fakery of this business that they made an art form of making fun of it

http://www.crackmoneyrecords.com/

Crack Money records features the act: Metal Vanilli, where a group of my friends dresses up like rock stars from all eras, one plays the tennis racket, one plays the hockey stick, and they lip sync Motley Crue songs and other stuff. Its quite a show and lets off some of the steam of frustration

[slingblade]

I like that idea*. Creative, not harmful, allows for venting of steam, and makes a good point. Nice!


(*haven't looked at the site, itself, so I can't say it's not "harmful," but the idea itself is a good one.)

[Soapy Sam]

I'll bet the Dagenham Girl Pipers didn't lipsync.