>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.


the technology has existed for years for people to use pre-recorded vocals and music during their performances... The fact that it's used more exclusively now....more often..and in venues which it wasn't really used before isn't a matter of technology being available now that was not previously available at all....

it wouldn't have been accepted by the public or the industry itself if any big artist who lip synced on Soul Train taped during the week....went to the Forum or the Universal ampatheater and lip synced their concert. Nobody would have accepted that.

Marvin Gaye could have used pre-recorded music and background vocals in his shows just as much as R.Kelly uses today. The technology existed for Marvin to do that.

But the music world that Marvin was in at that time would not only not have accepted it...doing so was completely outside of the norm....

the fact that it is the norm today....and even though the technology existed previously to do it..yet it wasn't the norm back then.... I view that as a lowering of the bar....

although a lot of this crosses genres...particularly with your more pop solo artists...but it hasn't impacted pop or rock type of artists or groups in the same manner it's impacted Black groups. "White" bands of even minimal noteriety perform songs live on award shows and tv shows..while "so-called" kings (lower case k intended) in R&B or "Black" music performances are full of lip syncing and pre-recorded music and vocals..

it's a cheapening of the music...a lowering the bar....

and it's been detrimental to the music and genre's overall...




>
>>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...
>