Lip-synching: Music on TV

Jim of Seattle · Post by **Jim of Seattle** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:15 am

Watching a DVD of Rock and Roll Classics on the Ed Sullivan Show, watching a bunch of TV performances from the founding fathers and mothers like the Supremes, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, 5th Dimension, Janis Joplin, etc., and most of the performances are lip-synched.

I don't watch very much music performance on TV, but it occurs to me that "live" music performances are rarer than they used to be, and I wonder whether lip-syncing is still done. I'm not talking about videos, I mean the band just standing up there playing a song, i.e. SNL.

And I wonder whether lip-syncing to a recording of yourself before an audience must be a freaky experience. As the performer, you know that your audience knows that you're mouthing the words of your own recording, and subsequently I can imagine a weird sense of conceitedness that would plague me. I would have to be so intimately familiar with my own recording, that I could mouth it so perfectly, which means I had to have spent hours just listening to myself, which makes me a conceited bitch (female) or asshole (male).

Then I wondered what SFers thought about "live" music performances on TV in general, lip-synced or not. Myself I've enjoyed it occasionally a song at a time, but I've never been able to sit through a single band's hour-long rock concert on TV, nor do I tend to rent them.

Then I came before my computer and typed this.

Now I'm going to go back to my Ed Sullivan DVD. So long.

thehipcola · Post by **thehipcola** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 12:34 pm

lip-synching is for retards who shouldn't be onstage. If you don't have the confidence or chops to reproduce a live version of your material, you shouldn't be performing it imo. I always feel ripped off by lip-synched material. I'm especially amused by those shows (MTV usually) that have these pop groups lipsynching away and then in between songs or verses they engineer puts up the headset mics for them to talk or yell and the sound quality is so obviously different than the "sung" parts.... gimme a break.

Sober · Post by **Sober** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:47 pm

I lip-synced at the last two SFL shows.

Sober · Post by **Sober** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:58 pm

But seriously.

As far as watching live performances on TV, I generally prefer that to normal music videos. But then, I generally prefer live recordings to studio across the board.

When it comes to watching a whole concert, it's gotta be a group that I either already want to watch, or a group that is so damn impressive live that it makes me want to watch (i.e. the Dixie Chicks).

My buddy's got an Iron Maiden dvd, and it's probably the coolest concert I could ever image seeing.

The rise in lip-syncing live performances comes from the artists' marketers wanting to display their product as perfect. "See? She sounds just as good live as she does on the record!"

With Ashley Simpson absolutely fucking things up, Brittany Spears making it fucking obvious, and Milli Vanilli starting it all, most people are pretty aware of the practice. They just don't care.

I was listening to some live Pogues a while back. You can tell that everyone in the band is just tanked. Shane MacGowan forgets words, screws up entrances, and just screams when he can't find the pitch. But, because it is a real live performance, and because the Pogues were fantastic showmen, you can still feel the energy of the performance, and it is therefore incredibly entertaining.

And entertainment is what it's all about, right?

Me$$iah · Post by **Me$$iah** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:08 pm

nope Sober,
its all about money

Post by **Spud** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:13 pm

Jim, if the original Beatles performance on Ed's show is on that DVD, check out Ringo's drums. They've got sound-deadening pads on them so that when he hits them they won't make a sound and interfere with the recorded music.

Retards, indeed. There's a time and place for everything.

Jim of Seattle · Post by **Jim of Seattle** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:24 pm

Now I'm confused. There's a track on the Beatles' Anthology that is the boys' performance of All My Loving from Ed's show. It's clearly not the recorded version. What's going on there?

roymond · Post by **roymond** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:54 pm

The Sober Irishman wrote:...and Milli Vanilli starting it all...

Hardly, Sober. I assume you were kidding.

Lip synching is obviously just a piece of the "job" artists are asked (made) to do. When things are moving wildly fast, you have interviews, release parties, video shoots, hair cuts, wardrobe fittings, and painful other slocky items your handlers throw your way on top of the tour.

Anyone with a spine and the balls can stand up and assert their moral fiber, but what would you answer if they said "lip sync or you don't play SNL next week"? I don't know myself. Not sure i truly care, but it's certainly a trashy practice.

fodroy · Post by **fodroy** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:33 pm

i might as well lip sync on my actual studio recordings. i suck at singing.

Post by jb » Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:48 pm

Nobody can be awesome as frequently as these people are asked to be, and on these shows it's critical to everyone involved, from the band to the show to the advertisers, that the performance at least be mediocre. Thus, lip-syncing guarantees if not beauty at least a semblance of competence.

If an artist has balls, they'll do SNL live and they'll do it differently from their record. Kanye West did a fucking great version of "Gold Digger" a few months ago. Live hot-chicks-only string section backing him up.

I still remember Dionne Farris doing "Blackbird" live on SNL with just her, a backup singer, and an acoustic guitarist. One of the most beautiful things I've ever heard.

SNL can let an artist stretch, or they can just go through the motions. But who can show up at 7 in the morning for TRL or Good Morning America and GUARANTEE a fine performance? Can you imagine what it means to a band trying to make it to totally suck in front of millions of people they're trying to entice into buying a record?

I don't like lip-syncing, but I'm never going to blame anyone involved except the people who over-schedule an artist or don't empower them to be creative in their solutions for the fucking hellish schedules they have to keep when promoting a major label release.

JB

Sober · Post by **Sober** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 6:35 pm

roymond wrote:
The Sober Irishman wrote:...and Milli Vanilli starting it all...
Hardly, Sober. I assume you were kidding.

I meant that they were the token first giant failure of the lip sync form. Of course it had been going on for years before, but Milli was the first big thing that showed people that this practice was widespread, and it showed the producers and businessmen that it was obviously flawed.

roymond · Post by **roymond** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 6:56 pm

The Sober Irishman wrote:
roymond wrote:
The Sober Irishman wrote:...and Milli Vanilli starting it all...
Hardly, Sober. I assume you were kidding.
I meant that they were the token first giant failure of the lip sync form. Of course it had been going on for years before, but Milli was the first big thing that showed people that this practice was widespread, and it showed the producers and businessmen that it was obviously flawed.

The issue with Milli Slick Willi Vanilli wasn't that it showed the practice was widespread. This was not only well known since the 50s, but also obvious. Lip syncing isn't an issue when no one pretends it isn't happening. Willi Vanilli's problem was that they denied it happened in the first place. Ashley Simpson didn't deny it,. but SNL was built on the whole concept of it being...LIVE FROM NY! So her little mishap killed that reputation and unfortunately changed everything about SNL. At least in my eyes, it significantly lowers my expectations there, which sort of sucks.

Denyer · Post by **Denyer** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 7:49 pm

There was a talk show in Australia a few years back where the host would give the bands words to throw into their songs to prove they weren't lip synching.

Jim of Seattle · Post by **Jim of Seattle** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 8:05 pm

Actually, the issue with Milli Vanilli wasn't that they lip-synced some performance, it's that they weren't even the ones singing on the recording!

roymond · Post by **roymond** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 8:08 pm

Jim of Seattle wrote:Actually, the issue with Milli Vanilli wasn't that they lip-synced some performance, it's that they weren't even the ones singing on the recording!

OMG that's right!

erik · Post by **erik** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 9:05 pm

jb wrote:If an artist has balls, they'll do SNL live and they'll do it differently from their record. Kanye West did a fucking great version of "Gold Digger" a few months ago. Live hot-chicks-only string section backing him up.

Did I just imagine this, or wasn't it a rule (at least for a while) that SNL wouldn't let rap artists play with just a turntablist? Like someone had to be playing a traditional instrument, whether it be a drummer, or a whole funk bad, or a bevy of hotties playing violins.

thehipcola · Post by **thehipcola** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:08 pm

Some surprisingly well-stated empathy for those who have been made to lip-synch posted in here, but for my live dollar, I'll stick to acts who I know will actually be live. I can buy media for the "perfect" experience. I expect and encourage the beautiful errors of live performance, those are a vital part of the live performance's charm.

But yah, my statement was fairly arm-chair quarterback-ish. Makes me feel good to think that I'd tell any bullish industry type to stick it when they tell me my performance has to be lip-synched.....

Jim of Seattle · Post by **Jim of Seattle** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:19 pm

I recal reading that Lorne Michaels allowed some band to lip-synch in the first season of the show, and it came out so terrible that he vowed he'd never let a band lip-synch again. Apparently either his resolve slipped 30 years later or else he got strong-armed, or else he heard her really sing and realized it would be far worse NOT to have her lip-synch.

Leaf · Post by **Leaf** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:22 pm

Didn't the Beatles do that simply cause they could n't hear themselves anyway? And didn't they hate that?

I was under the impression they loved to play live but gave up cause the gear of the times just couldn't make it happen.

Imagine the Beatles through a modern PA.... fuck yeah!!

Jim of Seattle · Post by **Jim of Seattle** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:41 pm

Notice how much better their post 1966 albums sound compared to their earlier ones. Apparently they had to bring the bass way down prior to that because record players at the time would skip too often with a big boomy bass in the record groove. I think Abbey Road sounds terrific.

Dan-O from Five-O · Post by **Dan-O from Five-O** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:43 pm

That's one of the main reasons Paul and George doubled up the mic. Not because it looked cool (which of course it did) but because it was the only way for them to hear themselves. (A little bit)

Jim, I don't think it's so much Lorne easing up on the rules as much as it is an NBC exec who is much more in control telling him that's how it's gonna be.

I mean you're talking about the network that told David Letterman to shop himself elsewhere and didn't see enough value in the NFL to let FOX outbid them for Christ's sake.