Latest on MJJC

Lip Sync/Miming - the positive side :)

While I don't like the history tours. I will cut Michael some slack because one he been doing tours mostly his whole life he deserve to take a break and two because he did give us the tours even if he was sick etc.

we have our own opinions about this tour. i mean if i was paying money to see Michael on tour i don't think i would be really mad if he did lip sing because i just wanted to see him.

while there's others who want to see him sing as well when you are paying money for it.

so yeah.
 
i grew up on shows like 'top of the pops' where miming was the standard. so I have no problem with it at all. in fact, I prefer it.

perfection was already achieved in the studio in terms of audio. anything else would be, and often is, less than in my opinion. besides, he was doing it to his own pre-recorded vocals. not somebody else's.

Michael's performances were about adding elements that you couldn't get by simply listening to him, to create a once in a lifetime experience. the dancing, the costumes, the theatrics, etc.

the miming never took away from his passion and energy. I actually think it allowed him more freedom of expression. take 'billie jean' from Motown 25, or even 'rock with you' from the unicef event for example; the audience didn't seem to notice or care about live vocals. rather, they were engaged throughout.

charisma and stage presence is something that is innate and cannot be taught. Michael had that in spades, to the point where he only needed an empty stage to create magic
 
I can enjoy History concerts - that's the concert I grew up with. - Had 2 concerts recorded on VHS from TV3 and TV1000 I think. - I was 10 years old when I saw MJ LIVE at the birthday concert in Copenhagen. The entire day was great. - SO much was going on outside the stadium. There were competitions - those with the longest banner could win tickets, so there where so many people with HUGE MJ banners, people were singing and cheering. Even though I was only 10 years old I remember that day crystal clear. - AND I must say, back then I knew nothing about play-back. I just enjoyed the concert. - Also my father would always say that it was play-back when I watched the concerts on the TV. - and back-then I really thought it was live, so I argued a lot with my dad about that.

BUT - then fast forward to today... - Now we have Dangerous Bucharest and Wembley BAD concerts - and many more DWT and BWT concerts on youtube - we did not have that back in 1998-1999 when HIStory was first aired on television. Now we have something to compare it up against.

When I see the In the Closet performance - the playback becomes so obvious because it goes directly from perfect album vocals to live hoarse vocals with MJ out of breath - and the directly back to perfect album vocals...

Back then in the good old days - the concerts shown on TV - think it was Munich and Copenhagen I had on VHS - they did not include the D.S og OTW medleys.

BUT - seeing those today... especially OTW-medley... It is unwatchable really... - the dancing is great. 39 years old MJ miming to 20-years old MJ... so bad... I would have prefered if MJ had recorded new vocals for the tour. - Some would argue it was even more cheating. - I would no doubt prefer it. Especially if he recorded them while he waqs running or something so the vocals would also be a little out of breath like it would be if he performed and sang at the same time.

I never really watch HIStory concerts anymore. - Now we have some many DWT concerts in good quality - and BAD concerts - I prefer them anyday.
 
83magic said:
i grew up on shows like 'top of the pops' where miming was the standard. so I have no problem with it at all. in fact, I prefer it.

perfection was already achieved in the studio in terms of audio. anything else would be, and often is, less than in my opinion. besides, he was doing it to his own pre-recorded vocals. not somebody else's.

Michael's performances were about adding elements that you couldn't get by simply listening to him, to create a once in a lifetime experience. the dancing, the costumes, the theatrics, etc.

the miming never took away from his passion and energy. I actually think it allowed him more freedom of expression. take 'billie jean' from Motown 25, or even 'rock with you' from the unicef event for example; the audience didn't seem to notice or care about live vocals. rather, they were engaged throughout.

charisma and stage presence is something that is innate and cannot be taught. Michael had that in spades, to the point where he only needed an empty stage to create magic
Click to expand...

With the shows like Top Of The Pops those were one off performances for bands/artists to promote whatever new single they had out at the time. That's not the same as performing an entire show where every song (Except 2) is lip synced.

And yes, Billie Jean was lip synced at Motown 25, but again, that was a one off performance. And Michael did sing live when he performed with his brothers
 
83magic said:
i grew up on shows like 'top of the pops' where miming was the standard. so I have no problem with it at all. in fact, I prefer it.

perfection was already achieved in the studio in terms of audio. anything else would be, and often is, less than in my opinion. besides, he was doing it to his own pre-recorded vocals. not somebody else's.

Michael's performances were about adding elements that you couldn't get by simply listening to him, to create a once in a lifetime experience. the dancing, the costumes, the theatrics, etc.

the miming never took away from his passion and energy. I actually think it allowed him more freedom of expression. take 'billie jean' from Motown 25, or even 'rock with you' from the unicef event for example; the audience didn't seem to notice or care about live vocals. rather, they were engaged throughout.

charisma and stage presence is something that is innate and cannot be taught. Michael had that in spades, to the point where he only needed an empty stage to create magic
Click to expand...

So do you prefer the lip-synced peformances of Rock With You like in HIStory Tour to live pefrormances like Yokohama for example? Live performances are a lot better and more fun to watch in my opinion.
 
analogue said:
With the shows like Top Of The Pops those were one off performances for bands/artists to promote whatever new single they had out at the time. That's not the same as performing an entire show where every song (Except 2) is lip synced.

And yes, Billie Jean was lip synced at Motown 25, but again, that was a one off performance. And Michael did sing live when he performed with his brothers
Click to expand...

This thread is about lip sync in general, not just HIStory tour
 
I would say with no doubt - no song could ever be better with play-back IMO...


I would always prefer live vocals.
 
Hess said:
I would say with no doubt - no song could ever be better with play-back IMO...


I would always prefer live vocals.
Click to expand...

As much as I prefer live singing, I gotta disagree with you there. Dangerous for example is a song that benefits greatly from playback because that song has some complex dance moves and it would be hard for Michael to concentrate on that while also trying to sing at the same time.
 
I like The Way You Make Me Feel Wembley 1988 performance. Would be great if it was sung live but I like it how it is.
 
I went to a HIStory tour concert. And I'm a massive critic of lip-synching.

If I went to see virtually any other artist and they did what Michael did with regards lip-synching, I would be outraged and probably stop listening to them.

He gets a pass because Michael at his worst, is still Michael Jackson.
 
analogue said:
As much as I prefer live singing, I gotta disagree with you there. Dangerous for example is a song that benefits greatly from playback because that song has some complex dance moves and it would be hard for Michael to concentrate on that while also trying to sing at the same time.
Click to expand...

But at AMA etc. where he only performed 1 song it would be possible to sing/talk live. - It's not a difficult song to sing I think.
I understand why he choose lip-synch to this song - but I would NO DOUBT prefer it sung live. - even if he missed a word og didn't sing 100 % on cue or missed a tone - that would be part of the live experince for me. - the small variations in pronouncing the words, the way he sometimes put pressure on different words - or parts of a word - all these small variations is what makes a live performance magical to me.

If I just wanna hear the album version,... - well, then I just play the song on the CD/Spotify/iTunes... - I love live versions because they are different.
 
We really can't say anything because at end of the day we all have opinions. so we really shouldn't debate.
 
MJ’s voice did change a lot. OTW medley I’ll accept, he could’ve at least pitched down the vocals like with the 30th Anniversary concert. Thriller too I’d argue is fairly obvious lip-synch, even on Dangerous tour, which makes it look a bit ridiculous. But the rest of the songs that use playback sound good imo.
 
OTW medley was awful imo. Should have at least re recorded the audio. I have noticed on reaction videos that casual fans dont even notice the playback on the history tour at all. They are just enjoying the performance. On certain songs I have no problem with the lipsync (Jam, Smooth criminal, Dangerous etc) but YANA, OTW medley, SIM, should have been live imo. I agree his voice wasnt there this tour.
 
Robbsaber01;4297369 said:
I have noticed on reaction videos that casual fans dont even notice the playback on the history tour at all. They are just enjoying the performance.
Click to expand...

Now that you mention it … I remember back in 2009, when MJ’s music was suddenly everywhere, I watched a concert on TV, and from all I know now, I assume it was a rerun of the HIStory in Munich show. As a casual back then, I didn’t even ponder the possibility that it was lip-sync or anything. I was just blown away by the show. Didn’t turn me into a fan right there and then, but I remember being impressed.
 
I often hear talk about MJ's voice that's different to his early 80s voice, personally I don't hear that much difference. I'm sure he could still sing his early songs pretty much the way he recorded them. Michael wasn't old when he passed away, he was too young for there to be a really big difference in his voice. I could be wrong though.
 
Michael wasn't exactly old when he die. he was in his early 50's. would have been 51 if he didn't die on the 25th of june. i say his vocals did change. they were different. but to me they sounds more mature.
 
Robbsaber01 said:
OTW medley was awful imo. Should have at least re recorded the audio. I have noticed on reaction videos that casual fans dont even notice the playback on the history tour at all. They are just enjoying the performance. On certain songs I have no problem with the lipsync (Jam, Smooth criminal, Dangerous etc) but YANA, OTW medley, SIM, should have been live imo. I agree his voice wasnt there this tour.
Click to expand...


They might not that impressed after learning that he lip-synced most of the concert.
 
analogue;4297250 said:
The fans who watch the HIStory Tour on Youtube and criticize it are the same fans who also watch the Bad and Dangerous Tour on Youtube, and they don't criticize those shows and give them extremely high praise (Aside from maybe a few nitpicks). You didn't need to be at the Bad and Dangerous tours to appreciate those. You can tell just by watching them that they were fantastically performed shows.

There's a reason why the HIStory Tour gets a lot of criticism. And it isn't because people didn't attend those shows.
Click to expand...

Yes, ok, I understand what you mean. Of course, there is not a tiny doubt, that BAD and DANGEROUS were great tours + shows.

But what I mean is: if you are a part of the audience, in this case within a HIStory-concert, you are a part of for instance 70.000 people - you experience it totally different comparing to a million time consumption of a youtube-video. In this one show you are standing just one time. If you don´t have the luck to stand in front of the stage but anywhere in the crowd, you are looking between many thousand dancing heads in direction to the stage - you don´t see a lot of Michael Jackson on stage. He is just a tiny sparkling dancer very far away. Unfortunately. You may say, there are the screens - yes, but only: screens. But you hear the sound - and the sound in those concerts was always great! Also the mood and the spirit of the audience! And I don´t believe that in such situation anybody has any sense to think about: does he sing live or does he lip sync? When does he switch the micro from this to that? Does it sound better or more rough or whatever in comparison to an album version? I fear if you are moving such thoughts you are not able to enjoy that one concert.
 
flymetothemoon;4297530 said:
but what i mean is: If you are a part of the audience, in this case within a history-concert, you are a part of for instance 70.000 people - you experience it totally different comparing to a million time consumption of a youtube-video. In this one show you are standing just one time. If you don´t have the luck to stand in front of the stage but anywhere in the crowd, you are looking between many thousand dancing heads in direction to the stage - you don´t see a lot of michael jackson on stage. He is just a tiny sparkling dancer very far away. Unfortunately. You may say, there are the screens - yes, but only: Screens. But you hear the sound - and the sound in those concerts was always great! Also the mood and the spirit of the audience! And i don´t believe that in such situation anybody has any sense to think about: Does he sing live or does he lip sync? When does he switch the micro from this to that? Does it sound better or more rough or whatever in comparison to an album version? I fear if you are moving such thoughts you are not able to enjoy that one concert.
Click to expand...

this.
 
I think miming (as I like to call it) takes a level of commitment that isn't easy. the artist has to have every minor detail of the song memorised from top to bottom. they must also coordinate their movements around, and in time with the pre-recorded vocal. one slip up could ruin the illusion. not everyone can pull it off convincingly. it's a fascinating artform in itself that i particularly enjoy :)
 
83magic said:
I think miming (as I like to call it) takes a level of commitment that isn't easy. the artist has to have every minor detail of the song memorised from top to bottom. they must also coordinate their movements around, and in time with the pre-recorded vocal. one slip up could ruin the illusion. not everyone can pull it off convincingly. it's a fascinating artform in itself that i particularly enjoy :)
Click to expand...

But it will never feel spontaneous and it leaves no room for improvisation. I personally can't stand it. I compare it with an overdubbed film it's really hard to enjoy those. I don't care if impersonators mime and usually is for the better if they do but the real artist should do what he gets paid for imo
 
JichaelMackson said:
But it will never feel spontaneous and it leaves no room for improvisation. I personally can't stand it. I compare it with an overdubbed film it's really hard to enjoy those. I don't care if impersonators mime and usually is for the better if they do but the real artist should do what he gets paid for imo
Click to expand...

it can appear spontaneous for the audience if the song itself has been specially rearranged or remixed in a way previously unheard of. like at an award show, or a one-off event. maybe it is a medley?

an artist miming to their own voice is not the same as an impersonator doing it to somebody else's. I don't enjoy or support that.

to record a song is to preserve a moment in time. I liken it to keeping a fine painting in a gallery. the work has already been done, and is there to enjoy forever. why bother to try and recreate a lesser version of it?
 
83magic said:


to record a song is to preserve a moment in time. I liken it to keeping a fine painting in a gallery. the work has already been done, and is there to enjoy forever. why bother to try and recreate a lesser version of it?
Click to expand...

Well this is an interesting point where you and I have a very different opinion. I often find a live version to be a better version because of the energy that comes with it. A perfect example for this is any performance I'e seen of "another part of me" and the vast majority of Jackson 5 songs for example that live version of "rockin robin" you posted in the J5 subforum.
Also give a listen to "who's loving you" live at the forum. I find it extremely good, in fact legendary.

I do think many of the post thriller tracks are harder to reproduce live with real instruments but it shouldn't be a perfect reproduction imo. For example the live versions of "one day in your life" in Mexico and Venezuela are different because the album track backing vocalists and lush strings are absent in the live shows but I think it is equally charming and as an added bonus there is more room for Michael's voice to shine because of the minimal production.
 
I already said earlier in this thread that it's what your opinions. if you don't care about paying money on lip singing then so be it but not everyone would agree. so at the end it's what you would do.
 
Being on stage is about giving your all. It's that connection and honesty with the audience that is so essential. The soul of the artist and nothing left off, the pure excitement and vitality of being alive in that moment.

It is not deception, it is not placing barriers between you and your audience.

Nobody will ever convince me that miming is impressive. Never.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top