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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Jorghnassen]

Originally Posted by Redtail

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

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]

Originally Posted by Jorghnassen

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]

Originally Posted by geni

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]

Originally Posted by geni

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 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^WP 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]

Originally Posted by Temporal Renegade

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

Quote:

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)

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by 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……….

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by acuity

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.

Originally Posted by UserGoogol

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.

Quote:

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.

Originally Posted by acuity

I don't want to see U2 at Wembley

Should have stopped there.

[Morrigan]

Originally Posted by 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.

"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.

Quote:

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...

Originally Posted by acuity

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.

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 ). 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]

Originally Posted by acuity

I don't want to see U2 at Wembley

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Should have stopped there.

Or even at

Originally Posted by acuity

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]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

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.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

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]

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

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"

[UserGoogol]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

"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]

Originally Posted by acuity

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]

Originally Posted by Temporal Renegade

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.