New topic
PrintableDarlingDiana said: They advise all their performers to lip sync. As I said before, Prince would have had to fight hard to make them let him sing live.
In recent years, U2 Rolling Stones Aerosmith N'Sync Prince Paul McCartney did not lipsynch. I'm the first mammal to wear pants. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
Neither did No Doubt or Sting lipsynch. I'm the first mammal to wear pants. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Axchi696 said: DarlingDiana said: They advise all their performers to lip sync. As I said before, Prince would have had to fight hard to make them let him sing live.
In recent years, U2 Rolling Stones Aerosmith N'Sync Prince Paul McCartney did not lipsynch. There's some debate as to whether Sir Paul was entirely live, but other than that, spot on. If N' Sync can sing live, I think MJ would have had no problem had he insisted on a live performance. "What kind of fuck ending is that?" |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Come to think of it, Michael and Janet are the only shows I've been to where there was lipsynching. Been gone for a minute, now I'm back with the jump off | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JackieBlue said: Come to think of it, Michael and Janet are the only shows I've been to where there was lipsynching.
Why do they both feel the need to lipsync??? I mean, if fucking NSYNC did it with dancing and all, Im pretty sure that Janet could manage. And there's no excuse at all for Michael. He's such a great singer. Part of the problem could be that they're both perfectionists. Prince's show was raw and rough sounding, which I think made it a great show. It was mistake driven rock and roll. Who wants perfection? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
newskin69 said: JackieBlue said: Come to think of it, Michael and Janet are the only shows I've been to where there was lipsynching.
Why do they both feel the need to lipsync??? I mean, if fucking NSYNC did it with dancing and all, Im pretty sure that Janet could manage. And there's no excuse at all for Michael. He's such a great singer. Part of the problem could be that they're both perfectionists. Prince's show was raw and rough sounding, which I think made it a great show. It was mistake driven rock and roll. Who wants perfection? I totally agree. Perfection to the point of artificial I don't need especially when I pay to see a live show. I don't mind a little roughness around the edges. That's music. That's real life. Been gone for a minute, now I'm back with the jump off | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
purplehippieonthe1 said: And people are actually comparing this to Prince's performance on Sunday night.... and some even claim that THIS is better
 ..... Gimme a break! He's not only lipsyncing.... The whole first part (Billie Jean and Black & White) sounds like it's straight from the CD 
C-R-A-P! 
I will never understand why so many people compare Prince and MJ. There really is no comparison. MJ is an entertainer, Prince is a musician. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JackieBlue said: newskin69 said: Why do they both feel the need to lipsync??? I mean, if fucking NSYNC did it with dancing and all, Im pretty sure that Janet could manage. And there's no excuse at all for Michael. He's such a great singer. Part of the problem could be that they're both perfectionists. Prince's show was raw and rough sounding, which I think made it a great show. It was mistake driven rock and roll. Who wants perfection? I totally agree. Perfection to the point of artificial I don't need especially when I pay to see a live show. I don't mind a little roughness around the edges. That's music. That's real life. True. The best live music has a rawness to it, it will never sound as it does on the CD, that's why the older I get the more I appreciate the Jackson 5, if you see their old stuff little MJ, was quite a raw singer, the only reason he wasn't put there with the likes of Marvin Gaye and Otis Redding was because of his age at the time. When it comes to Michael today, I think he is just pandering to the kind of fanbase he has now, who seem to more into being "entertained" video style, as opposed to live singing, live instruments and all the imperfections that comes with doing everything live. [Edited 2/15/07 12:02pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
whatsgoingon said: JackieBlue said: I totally agree. Perfection to the point of artificial I don't need especially when I pay to see a live show. I don't mind a little roughness around the edges. That's music. That's real life. True. The best live music has a rawness to it, it will never sound as it does on the CD, that's why the older I get the more I appreciate the Jackson 5, if you see their old stuff little MJ, was quite a raw singer, the only reason he wasn't put there with the likes of Marvin Gaye and Otis Redding was because of his age at the time. When it comes to Michael today, I think he is just pandering to the kind of fanbase he has now, who seem to more into being "entertained" video style, as opposed to live singing, live instruments and all the imperfections that comes with doing everything live. [Edited 2/15/07 12:02pm] So true....The most level headed and articulate thing that's been said throughout this whole thread.... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
What is actually the problem with lip syncing? Even the Beatles did it. I don't get what's so wrong with it. The only thing I don't link it bands like Milli Vanilli who didn't even sing the song they are lip syncing. That's lipsyncing. What the Beatles did and what Michael does is using playback. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DarlingDiana said: What is actually the problem with lip syncing? Even the Beatles did it. I don't get what's so wrong with it. The only thing I don't link it bands like Milli Vanilli who didn't even sing the song they are lip syncing. That's lipsyncing. What the Beatles did and what Michael does is using playback.
Okay...let's clear up a few things... First, let me state, as I've said before, I'm an oldschool MJ fan from back in the days...So when i speak, I speak as a fan that grew up with the MJ that I dug before the whole King Of Pop stuff... Now on to the lipsynching issue...There is a huge difference between someone lipsynching on a taped shows (ie Soul Train; Top Of the Pops, ect...) and someone doing it in concert or a live event..So when bands appear on these shows, it's already understood that it's a taped appearance...Hence the Beatles lipsynching (which was rare; most of their performances were live)...I think anyone with common sense can seperate the two... In fact, in the beginning, as previously stated, it was acceptable in the beginning to lipsynch during halftime for the Super Bowl...But that was only when they were bringing on acts like New Kids On The Block...MJ was the biggest artist to grace the stage..And he was still looked as an exceptional talent...But even the lipsynching at the Super Bowl does not excuse MJ doing it at his concerts or live events like his 1988 Grammy's performance; Usually "live" concerts means just that...LIVE... That's the underlining problem here...MJ lipsynching at the Grammy's on in concert is not cool...Even in the Super Bowl, back then, Mike could get a pass for lipsynching the Halftime gig; But during his tours it's totally unacceptable for a guy that's supposed to be as talented as Michael Jackson...That's the problem... [Edited 2/15/07 18:59pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
murph said: DarlingDiana said: What is actually the problem with lip syncing? Even the Beatles did it. I don't get what's so wrong with it. The only thing I don't link it bands like Milli Vanilli who didn't even sing the song they are lip syncing. That's lipsyncing. What the Beatles did and what Michael does is using playback.
Okay...let's clear up a few things... First, let me state, as I've said before, I'm an oldschool MJ fan from back in the days...So when i speak, I speak as a fan that grew up with the MJ that I dug before the whole King Of Pop stuff... Now on to the lipsynching issue...There is a huge difference between someone lipsynching on a taped shows (ie Soul Train; Top Of the Pops, ect...) and someone doing it in concert or a live event..So when bands appear on these shows, it's already understood that it's a taped appearance...Hence the Beatles lipsynching (which was rare; most of their performances were live)...I think anyone with common sense can seperate the two... In fact, in the beginning, as previously stated, it was acceptable in the beginning to lipsynch during halftime for the Super Bowl...But that was only when they were bringing on acts like New Kids On The Block...MJ was the biggest artist to grace the stage..And he was still looked as an exceptional talent...But even the lipsynching at the Super Bowl does not excuse MJ doing it at his concerts or live events like his 1988 Grammy's performance; Usually "live" concerts means just that...LIVE... That's the underlining problem here...MJ lipsynching at the Grammy's on in concert is not cool...Even in the Super Bowl, back then, Mike could get a pass for lipsynching the Halftime gig; But during his tours it's totally unacceptable for a guy that's supposed to be as talented as Michael Jackson...That's the problem... [Edited 2/15/07 18:59pm] You see, Darling Dear sums up the current batch of MJ fans, as long as MJ is dancing and fireworks are going off during his concerts lip-synching is ok.  They obviously have no real appreciation of live music, they probably wouldn't appreciate a Jacksons/J5 concert, which were always live. I can understand peeps lip-synching at tap shows, etc, but even back in the day the J5 use to sing live on even some tape shows. If the "Kop" can't even sing live at his own concerts, then there is obviously problem.
MJ has done 3 solo tours in about 20 years and apart from the Bad tour the others were only half live. He was definetly better with his brothers, even his mother allegdley said so, but people just thought she was talking because she just wanted all her sons to be together on stage, but she did have a point. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
whatsgoingon said: You see, Darling Dear sums up the current batch of MJ fans, as long as MJ is dancing and fireworks are going off during his concerts lip-synching is ok. They obviously have no real appreciation of live music, they probably wouldn't appreciate a Jacksons/J5 concert, which were always live. I can understand peeps lip-synching at tap shows, etc, but even back in the day the J5 use to sing live on even some tape shows. If the "Kop" can't even sing live at his own concerts, then there is obviously problem.
MJ has done 3 solo tours in about 20 years and apart from the Bad tour the others were only half live. He was definetly better with his brothers, even his mother allegdley said so, but people just thought she was talking because she just wanted all her sons to be together on stage, but she did have a point. That's where you are dead wrong. I love live shows, where everything is live. That shit gets me off. And I am more of a J5/Jacksons than a Michael Jackson fan. I love their live shows. The Triumph tour was the best tour MJ was ever a part of, until the Bad tour. But the Triumph and Victory tours are better than the Dangerous and HIStory tours IMO. And I do think Michael was better with his brothers and I would love to see the Jacksons do just one more world tour, or even just a one night only concert. I thought the MSG concert in 2001 was great (the Jacksons part, not the solo part or the tribute performers). The only problem with the Jacksons part of the MSG concert, it wasn't long enough. I want 2-4 hours of that! And to tell you the truth, I would like it better if MJ was away recording another album with his brothers than recording another solo album with hip-hop producers. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DarlingDiana said: They advise all their performers to lip sync. As I said before, Prince would have had to fight hard to make them let him sing live.
In order words, you have nothing to back up your claim that the NFL asked Michael Jackson to lip-synch during his Super Bowl "performance." An empty allegation, made by a person who has established a pattern of apologizing of anything MJ does, to the point where your credibility continues to be challenged. THE TRAFFIC JAMMERS, The Org's house band: VAINANDY -- lead singer; NAJEE -- bass; THE AUDIENCE -- guitar; PHUNKDADDY -- rhythm guitar; ALEX de PARIS -- keyboards; Da PRETTYMAN -- keyboards; FUNKENSTEIN -- drums. HOLD ON TO YOUR DRAWERS! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DarlingDiana said: What is actually the problem with lip syncing? Even the Beatles did it. I don't get what's so wrong with it. The only thing I don't link it bands like Milli Vanilli who didn't even sing the song they are lip syncing. That's lipsyncing. What the Beatles did and what Michael does is using playback.
You can't be serious here. No one wants to pay to see an artist LIP-SYNCH his or her own songs. Let's not confuse going on taped shows like "Soul Train" (where most acts don't have their equipment set up to perform) to actual concert performances or expected live performances on live shows like The Grammys. [Edited 2/18/07 20:33pm] THE TRAFFIC JAMMERS, The Org's house band: VAINANDY -- lead singer; NAJEE -- bass; THE AUDIENCE -- guitar; PHUNKDADDY -- rhythm guitar; ALEX de PARIS -- keyboards; Da PRETTYMAN -- keyboards; FUNKENSTEIN -- drums. HOLD ON TO YOUR DRAWERS! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Najee said: You can't be serious here. No one wants to pay to see an artist LIP-SYNCH his or her own songs. Let's not confuse going on taped shows like "Soul Train" (where most acts don't have their equipment set up to perform) to actual concert performances or expected live performances on live shows like The Grammys.
[Edited 2/18/07 20:33pm] I paid to see Michael Jackson's HIStory tour concert in Sydney and it was well worth it. His dancing definately made up for the lack of live vocals. It was a stunning show. So much more than a simple rock concert. The atmosphere, the dancing, the pyrotechnics, were all incredible and made for a very entertaining show that I will never forget. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DarlingDiana said: Najee said: You can't be serious here. No one wants to pay to see an artist LIP-SYNCH his or her own songs. Let's not confuse going on taped shows like "Soul Train" (where most acts don't have their equipment set up to perform) to actual concert performances or expected live performances on live shows like The Grammys.
[Edited 2/18/07 20:33pm] I paid to see Michael Jackson's HIStory tour concert in Sydney and it was well worth it. His dancing definately made up for the lack of live vocals. It was a stunning show. So much more than a simple rock concert. The atmosphere, the dancing, the pyrotechnics, were all incredible and made for a very entertaining show that I will never forget. I saw all that at the Bad tour, plus he sang live. Infact if you watch the Dangerous and History tours they are more or less rehashes of the Bad tour, infact the Bad tour is more or less a rehash of the victory tour. I watched the Dangerous tour on TV and after the initial 15 minutes the excitement wore off. Now if you see a Jackson tour, each tour was different and best of all they were live. [Edited 2/19/07 3:28am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
HIStory was very different to the Bad tour IMO. I've seen videos of the Bad tour, and yes it was a lot better than both the Dangerous and HIStory tours. But HIStory was still a very good tour even though he lip synced. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DarlingDiana said: I paid to see Michael Jackson's HIStory tour concert in Sydney and it was well worth it. His dancing definately made up for the lack of live vocals. It was a stunning show. So much more than a simple rock concert. The atmosphere, the dancing, the pyrotechnics, were all incredible and made for a very entertaining show that I will never forget.
Well, to each his own because when a SINGER doesn't even want to sing HIS OWN SONGS when that's what he does for a living then that's a pretty strong indictment against the singer. You can see a Michael Jackson impersonator if all you want is a fabricated performance. Of course, somehow this makes sense to you that MJ can't have a choreopgraphed performance and SING LIVE at the same time. The people who work in amusement parks like Six Flags, Disney World and Disney Land do it regularly -- why can't MJ? It simply makes him look lazy. [Edited 2/19/07 6:57am] THE TRAFFIC JAMMERS, The Org's house band: VAINANDY -- lead singer; NAJEE -- bass; THE AUDIENCE -- guitar; PHUNKDADDY -- rhythm guitar; ALEX de PARIS -- keyboards; Da PRETTYMAN -- keyboards; FUNKENSTEIN -- drums. HOLD ON TO YOUR DRAWERS! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
hm, long discussion.
I've always loved the big shows, fireworks, dance-routines and all when I was young. But now at 21, if he'd sit down on a chair and sing live the whole performance, ballads, midtempo, acoustic versions of the hits, I would prefer that.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I'm a huge mj fan, but I don't feel right calling myself a fan of his without appreciating his work with his brothers, thus I own a lot of j5 and jacksons records and remastered CD's and they're full of masterpieces. I have yet to see the jacksons tours in full, but I do have the jacksons live CD and michael sounds even better live than on record on some of the tracks, such as rock with you, shake your body down to the ground, can you feel it, lovely one etc.
I also wish he would sing live but he had nodes on his vocal cords or something in 1992 so I think he got paranoid since and limited singing live, which is such a shame because he still has a great voice. I mean HELLO! Butterflies! if he ever tours I will see him no matter how he decides to perform because I've never seen the man in person in my life and it would be the ultimate seeing him in concert; BUT I would honestly prefer it if he sang LIVE the whole time and also did some unplugged numbers of songs that he doesn't often perform like whatever happens, break of dawn, who is it, etc. I still think there was no excuse for singing you are not alone and stranger in moscow lip synched at the history tour. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |