well, i get it...
but at the same time i don't.

back in the day, if you didn't sing live, there was no performance.
period.

ppl would lip sync for award shows and television performances
because it was cheaper and easier than putting mics on the instruments... but for the most part, ppl sung live out of necessity.


they asked diana ross how she felt about lip syncing,
because she doesn't do it.
she said that she doesn't begrudge the kids for doing it
because the technology is there, so why not use it?

ppl in her day used whatever technology was there to give the
best performance they could.




if somebody wanted to be really snobbish about it,
they would say that the great soul singers really ain't shit
because they are using microphones instead of singing over top of
the band like an opera singer would.


i mean...
it's whatever.



and for the record, i generally prefer it when artists sing live
instead of lip syncing.


>it's not so much a matter of thinking
>>he couldn't sing them songs, but the idea that he was
>actually
>>singing them songs while moving around the stage like that
>was
>>part of the super humanness of him.
>
>a particular artist moved around or danced on stage was always
>a phoney argument to me.... an argument that became easier
>over time because people became further removed from a time
>when lip syncing was limited to appearances on weekly tv shows
>like soul train or bandstand....
>
>I mean James Brown probably performed in a more strenuously
>physical manner than anyone ever....and would do it 2 or 3
>shows in a day some times.... and would do it all the way
>live...
>
>and that was pretty much the norm..
>
>when the music became more sanitized...packaged.... lip
>syncing became more of a fall back viewed by some as a
>necessity....but really only because the bar was being lowered
>as to what the expectations and standards were for an artist
>to be considered great...