Latest on MJJC

Why the lip-synching?

zinniabooklover said:
I loved Partyman back in the day but am a bit lukewarm about it now. I only ever heard the chart stuff from Prince and it never really got me madly excited. He's really good but he just didn't ever really get through to me. So I never explored his stuff. Electric Chair wasn't a single in the UK, afaik, so I only heard it for the first time today. I do vaguely remember The Future.

I need to listen to the rest of the album. :D


I didn't know that. Seems weird. The songs I have heard (not many, obvs) are very radio friendly, very mainstream but at the same time not predictable at all.


I probably haven't listened to 97% of it so I've got a ways to go. :ROFLMAO:

For now, I'll stick with Batman. Seems like there'll be enough there to keep me going for a while. Just Electric Chair alone - it's so catchy but SO different, also. The structure, his phrasing. I'm in heaven.

omg, the guitars!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Electric Chair is a really amazing song, especially the live version of it at SNL. That performance really takes the song to another level for me.

I do also enjoy songs like Trust, Partyman, Arms of Orion & The Future from the Batman album. All really good songs, in my opinion.
 
Nite Line said:
Electric Chair is a really amazing song, especially the live version of it at SNL.
Click to expand...
I've already watched the SNL thing 4 times! I don't know if I even need the rest of the album, lol. I don't love 'Batdance' and am lukewarm about Partyman, as I said, but I'll check out these songs you've listed here. I mean, that's if I can tear myself away from SNL. I'm not confident I can manage that, lol. It's not just the fact of EC being an awesome song, it's also the SNL performance itself. It's off the chart.

Nite Line said:
That performance really takes the song to another level for me.
Click to expand...
Tell me about it! My day has been turned upside down!

Nite Line said:
I do also enjoy songs like Trust, Partyman, Arms of Orion & The Future from the Batman album. All really good songs, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
The Future I already love, album version and a live version I watched earlier today. I'm gonna check out Trust and AoO, see what he's got to say for himself.
 
filmandmusic said:
I’ve been listening to Hitnrun phase 2, nice and funky just the way I like it. Goes to show that old school funk with real instruments can still be cool in todays age, not that I doubted that
Click to expand...
Probably the best description I've seen of Prince's music. @PurpleThriller is probably gonna run me off the thread now but I still don't see Prince as particularly innovative. I still think what he's doing is, as you say here, old school funk. He's doing it brilliantly and I always thought he was great but it doesn't sound like something I've never heard before which would be my definition of 'innovative'. I'm loving this whole 'Prince' moment I'm having but there's no revolution (hah! geddit?) going on over here. I listened to a couple of songs and they just didn't land with me at all.

filmandmusic said:
Maybe you will like “computer blue” @zinniabooklover''
Click to expand...
I will give it and a go and will dip into the HitnRun album. It all depends on his voice. If he's doing the high-pitched thing I can't be bothered. If he's using his deeper voice then we might get somewhere. If there's too much of his singers I get bored, if it's mostly Prince (with the lower voice) it's instantly more interesting.

Having watched him doing the J5 medley, The Future and also the SNL thing, I def love the way he stages his shows. He seems to have a knack for doing simple things which are visually strong and so interesting to watch. The choreography on the SNL performance, omg! Extremely basic and extremely freakin' brilliant. The staging for The Future at that Tokyo gig is gorgeous.

Update - Computer Blue? No thanks. Sorry, f&m. I'm sat there not enjoying it at all, thinking it's all too Purple Rain-y. Didn't know it's on the album, lol. 'PR' is just not for me. I know it has his signature sound all over it but it just doesn't hold my interest. Tbf, I did love that Computer Blue guitar solo that his Dad wrote. That was cool.

2nd update - Aint About 2 Stop. Oh yes!
 
Last edited:
PurpleThriller said:
I know that there are dozens of such threads,but seriously..
Why did Michael overuse lip-synching like that?(not that i am extremely bothered by it or something,but still):
Click to expand...
Themidwestcowboy said:
This is like your 10th thread/topic of discussion about this topic. You’ll get the same answers here as you got in the other threads.
Click to expand...
PurpleThriller said:
I'm aware lol,but i was bored
Click to expand...
Annita said:
Maybe you can go in the Prince-thread to discuss him there instead of regulary popping up this thread, please:)
Click to expand...

As you can see from this little recap, @PurpleThriller started this thread bc they were bored. That has already been discussed with the moderator. When I joined in I explained that since the thread is already all over the place it can't matter if I ask a few Prince-related questions. Which I have done, they've been answered and I'm now finished with this particular Prince conversation. It's already been mentioned on this thread that there are too many other threads discussing Michael's lip syncing. That conversation had already fizzled out on this particular thread. I can't really see the problem. But, as I said, now I've had some helpful answers I can now look forward to focusing on exploring Prince's music.
 
Dancing for a full concert and singing live without sounding like you've been dancing for a full concert isn't something that is possible, especially as you age. Him lip syncing slow songs was ridiculous in my opinion, but it is what it is and he did what he did.

Can't wait for the next thread that's made about this so I can comment on the subject once more.
 
I have to say that, no matter how much I prefer live vocals, the lip-synching on the Bad Tour was genius. He did it only for the songs which were extremely hard to sing live and it wasn't as obvious that he was lip-synching, if you weren't super familiar with the songs.
 
To answer simply:
Age
Several Health issues
Tracklist

Also keep in mind he was singing & dancing almost his entire life (almost 40 years) at the time of the History tour.

He had lupus, lung inflammation, ongoing physical pain, laryngitis etc.
Now add aging to the above.

I dont blame him for doing it but dangerous was his peak tour imo.
 
Michael Prince said MJ told him the reason he used playback was because he thought the fans would've felt sonically cheated if the performance didn't sound exactly like the record. This is a philosophy he's had ever since the Bad tour where he wanted the instrumentation to sound just like the record but in the 90s this philosophy extended to his vocals and the background vocals.

It's a shame given he was clearly capable of singing the whole show live and most of the time sound good (especially on the songs with little to no dancing such as Will You Be There, Heal The World, Remember The Time, You Are Not Alone, Earth Song, Man In The Mirror etc...) but due to his perfectionism he chose not to. However with This Is It the plan was for the majority of the show to be live again.
 
8th wonder said:
Michael Prince said MJ told him the reason he used playback was because he thought the fans would've felt sonically cheated if the performance didn't sound exactly like the record.
Click to expand...
That's kinda odd considering some of the people who he was influenced by like James Brown would extend or even change the arrangements of songs in concert. Quincy Jones comes from a jazz background where there is often a lot of improvisation live and on recordings. It's also kind of weird that an audience wants to hear an exact replica of a record. Why pay a lot of money to go to a concert? Just listen to the record (or go see a tribute band/singer for a lot less money). 😀 I guess that's why the popularity of live albums started to fade away after the 1970s. There was that brief period when MTV Unplugged albums sold well in the 1990s.
 
I personally believe it because there is no way he wasn‘t able to sing any longer. If his voice was that far gone he would not be able to sing in the studio either. There is actually solid evidence he could sing live, he does so on the Clinton gala and in the Dangerous rehearsals. He sounds perfectly fine on the YANA endings too, he sang childhood in one take as proven in one lf the seminars, he sang the Jacksons part on the MSG live (not big on it but still live) and last but not least he sounds good on the live segments of this is it.

So he either lost the will to sing live, he lost the confidence or as @8th wonder says he simply wanted to recreate the albums.
And sure occasionally he would have voice problems, every singer has those. The Weeknd cancelled an ongoing concert because he voice was lost just recently. Freddie Mercury for many the singer with the best voice ever has played numerous concerts where he doesn’t sound all that great but at least he really sang.

Would Michael scream and hurt his voice even more underneath the playback (HIStory tour) if he really had voice problems? If yes then that would be incredibly dumb
 
SmoothGangsta said:
Dancing for a full concert and singing live without sounding like you've been dancing for a full concert isn't something that is possible, especially as you age. Him lip syncing slow songs was ridiculous in my opinion, but it is what it is and he did what he did.
Click to expand...
This is the bit I really don't understand. He certainly had the ability to do this. It's weird.

SmoothGangsta said:
Can't wait for the next thread that's made about this so I can comment on the subject once more.
Click to expand...
:ROFLMAO:

8th wonder said:
It's a shame given he was clearly capable of singing the whole show live and most of the time sound good (especially on the songs with little to no dancing such as Will You Be There, Heal The World, Remember The Time, You Are Not Alone, Earth Song, Man In The Mirror etc...) but due to his perfectionism he chose not to.
Click to expand...
It really is a shame. His live vocals are wonderful, when we get them.

DuranDuran said:
That's kinda odd considering some of the people who he was influenced by like James Brown would extend or even change the arrangements of songs in concert. Quincy Jones comes from a jazz background where there is often a lot of improvisation live and on recordings.
Click to expand...
This is just one reason why I find this whole thing so confusing. Michael grew up watching the greats do their thing live. James Brown. Stevie. All of them. I get the perfectionism thing (not really but intellectually I understand it) but still don't understand why that ends up derailing live vocals.

DuranDuran said:
It's also kind of weird that an audience wants to hear an exact replica of a record. Why pay a lot of money to go to a concert? Just listen to the record (or go see a tribute band/singer for a lot less money).
Click to expand...
There are people here on the board who have stated that they want the live thing to sound like the record. I don't understand that at all. That is the last thing I want from a gig. But I have to respect other points of view. It's still weird, though. For every fan who wants the gig to sound like the record there are probably just as many - maybe more - who don't want that. Plus, I would think it would be far more fulfilling for an artist to sing live. I'm not a musician so that's just a guess on my part. If it was exhausting, draining or physically painful for Michael to sing live for 2+ hours, then fair enough. But if he chose to mime for other reasons, I'm baffled.

DuranDuran said:
I guess that's why the popularity of live albums started to fade away after the 1970s. There was that brief period when MTV Unplugged albums sold well in the 1990s.
Click to expand...
I think you're right. It's such a shame. Live albums were never totally live, in one sense. They were always produced, there was always some tweaking in the studio before they were released. But they were as 'live' as it gets and they certainly sounded different from the studio stuff.

Michael made his decisions and I have to respect that. I just find it confusing. His voice is so beautiful and amazing. His artistry is a wonder to behold. I just think it's sad that we don't get to hear much of his voice, live, after a certain point.
 
Robbsaber01 said:
To answer simply:
Age
Several Health issues
Tracklist

Also keep in mind he was singing & dancing almost his entire life (almost 40 years) at the time of the History tour.

He had lupus, lung inflammation, ongoing physical pain, laryngitis etc.
Now add aging to the above.

I dont blame him for doing it but dangerous was his peak tour imo.
Click to expand...
But then there is all of this. It's hard to argue with this stuff. His health issues in particular must have played a big part in this.
 
It's difficult to judge how big of a role his health in the decision to use playback. On the one hand he was older & didn't have as much stamina as before but on the other hand he was still fit enough to sing every song (but we just hear the playback instead of his vocals).

Something that makes me think his health wasn't that big of an influence on his decision is that in many cases when he was healthier the use of playback actually increased. For example when the History tour started MJ was obviously much healthier than he was at the end of the Dangerous tour, the 2001 MSG show & This Is It but there was actually more playback on the History tour than all of those other shows. Another example is during This Is It MJ had many health issues however he planned for the show to be 90% live which is more than most Bad 88' & all Dangerous 92' shows even though he was healthier & fitter during those 2 tours. Another example is during the 2nd leg of the Bad tour MJ was sick for most of the 1st US leg but the show was still either 95% or 100% live but after the 1st US leg the show was around 85% live even though he was generally healthier.
 
8th wonder said:
It's difficult to judge how big of a role his health in the decision to use playback. On the one hand he was older & didn't have as much stamina as before but on the other hand he was still fit enough to sing every song (but we just hear the playback instead of his vocals).

Something that makes me think his health wasn't that big of an influence on his decision is that in many cases when he was healthier the use of playback actually increased. For example when the History tour started MJ was obviously much healthier than he was at the end of the Dangerous tour, the 2001 MSG show & This Is It but there was actually more playback on the History tour than all of those other shows. Another example is during This Is It MJ had many health issues however he planned for the show to be 90% live which is more than most Bad 88' & all Dangerous 92' shows even though he was healthier & fitter during those 2 tours. Another example is during the 2nd leg of the Bad tour MJ was sick for most of the 1st US leg but the show was still either 95% or 100% live but after the 1st US leg the show was around 85% live even though he was generally healthier.
Click to expand...
Touring and performing night after night the way he did especially while pushing 40 changes things imo. I think he simply couldnt sing the entire setlist live every night like on the bad tour.

filmandmusic said:
This is often said but these ailments were also there in the studio, so he could still sing.
He just didn’t want to sing imo
Click to expand...
Singing in the studio, taking breaks in between takes, is different from singing and dancing for 2 hours every night. He simply couldnt do it the way he did in his 20s. That being said theres still no excuse for the OTW medley lol. That should have been cut from the beginning.
 
8th wonder said:
Another example is during This Is It MJ had many health issues however he planned for the show to be 90% live which is more than most Bad 88' & all Dangerous 92' shows even though he was healthier & fitter during those 2 tours.
Click to expand...
I wasn't thrilled when I first saw this. I'm not convinced he could have done this. I worry that he planned to try to deliver 90% live vocals bc he was aware of the criticism around HWT and was maybe feeling the pressure. Just a guess on my part. I would want to be wrong about this. My hope is that he genuinely wanted to do this for artistic reasons, not bc of pressure.
 
Robbsaber01 said:
Touring and performing night after night the way he did especially while pushing 40 changes things imo. I think he simply couldnt sing the entire setlist live every night like on the bad tour.
Click to expand...
That does sound punishing.

Robbsaber01 said:
Singing in the studio, taking breaks in between takes, is different from singing and dancing for 2 hours every night.
Click to expand...
True. A singer might only be recording a short phrase. They don't always go through the whole song in one go.

Robbsaber01 said:
He simply couldnt do it the way he did in his 20s. That being said theres still no excuse for the OTW medley lol.
Click to expand...
This, lol.
 
zinniabooklover said:
I would want to be wrong about this. My hope is that he genuinely wanted to do this for artistic reasons, not bc of pressure.
Click to expand...
I hope it was because of pressure. You can’t get away wih such blatant miming. No excuses.

I better shut up about it, I hate playback with a passion, nobody can convince me otherwise
 
zinniabooklover said:
This is just one reason why I find this whole thing so confusing. Michael grew up watching the greats do their thing live. James Brown. Stevie. All of them. I get the perfectionism thing (not really but intellectually I understand it) but still don't understand why that ends up derailing live vocals.


There are people here on the board who have stated that they want the live thing to sound like the record. I don't understand that at all. That is the last thing I want from a gig. But I have to respect other points of view. It's still weird, though. For every fan who wants the gig to sound like the record there are probably just as many - maybe more - who don't want that. Plus, I would think it would be far more fulfilling for an artist to sing live. I'm not a musician so that's just a guess on my part. If it was exhausting, draining or physically painful for Michael to sing live for 2+ hours, then fair enough. But if he chose to mime for other reasons, I'm baffled.
Click to expand...
Some songs can't be reproduced live, like Tomorrow Never Knows by The Beatles. Maybe it can today, but it couldn't in the 1960s. It was basically an early version of using tape loops. Another is the Beastie Boys album Paul's Boutique. In other cases it would be too expensive like if the song has string arrangements. An artist is not going to carry an orchestra or string section around for 1 or 2 songs. When The Beatles did Yesterday in concert, it was nothing like the recording. On the record, only Paul McCartney is on it, the other 3 don't participate on the song. It can't be done exactly with today's popular music, since a lot of it has featured guest artists, usually a rapper. It can be performed, like with Carlos Santana. He has singers in his concerts but not the people singing on the recording. A lot of veteran groups don't have the original members (or the most popular lineup like a Fleetwood Mac), either because they are deceased, retired, had more success as a solo act, or have bad blood between them.
 
DuranDuran said:
Some songs can't be reproduced live, like Tomorrow Never Knows by The Beatles. Maybe it can today, but it couldn't in the 1960s. It was basically an early version of using tape loops. Another is the Beastie Boys album Paul's Boutique. In other cases it would be too expensive like if the song has string arrangements. An artist is not going to carry an orchestra or string section around for 1 or 2 songs.
Click to expand...
I understand all of this. Although I'm not sure the 'string arrangements' argument stands up. With synths you can have pretty much any sound you want at your live show. You certainly can build in multiple layers into your gig with decent synths. But I'm not even talking about the songs. I'm talking about Michael's live vocals.

DuranDuran said:
When The Beatles did Yesterday in concert, it was nothing like the recording. On the record, only Paul McCartney is on it, the other 3 don't participate on the song. It can't be done exactly with today's popular music,
Click to expand...
Live performances don't have to be 'exactly' the same. That's kind of the point. A live performance will never sound exactly like the record nor should it, imo. The live performance has its own distinct sound. That's where the excitement starts, imo.

DuranDuran said:
since a lot of it has featured guest artists, usually a rapper.
Click to expand...
Michael's backing singers did a good enough job of covering these parts of various songs. I don't think this is an issue, really.
 
SmoothGangsta said:
Dancing for a full concert and singing live without sounding like you've been dancing for a full concert isn't something that is possible, especially as you age. Him lip syncing slow songs was ridiculous in my opinion, but it is what it is and he did what he did.
Click to expand...
First sentence makes sense. The slow songs would be a way for him to recover so that he can dance some more later. I would assume the setlist was prepared keeping the sustainability of performance in mind.

SmoothGangsta said:
Can't wait for the next thread that's made about this so I can comment on the subject once more.
Click to expand...
 
8th wonder said:
It has been said that Michael Jackson was about to re-record (in the studio) many of his vocals in order to later use them on stage in those 'This Is It' shows (which is actually another way of lip-syncing).

It's difficult to judge how big of a role his health in the decision to use playback. On the one hand he was older & didn't have as much stamina as before but on the other hand he was still fit enough to sing every song (but we just hear the playback instead of his vocals).

Something that makes me think his health wasn't that big of an influence on his decision is that in many cases when he was healthier the use of playback actually increased. For example when the History tour started MJ was obviously much healthier than he was at the end of the Dangerous tour, the 2001 MSG show & This Is It but there was actually more playback on the History tour than all of those other shows. Another example is during This Is It MJ had many health issues however he planned for the show to be 90% live which is more than most Bad 88' & all Dangerous 92' shows even though he was healthier & fitter during those 2 tours. Another example is during the 2nd leg of the Bad tour MJ was sick for most of the 1st US leg but the show was still either 95% or 100% live but after the 1st US leg the show was around 85% live even though he was generally healthier.
Click to expand...
Michael Jackson was not really old (in the HIStory Tour) for live singing and dancing at the same time.

Look, for example, at James Brown: he sang live and danced at the same time even during his very final shows when he was in his early '70s.

Michael Jackson was only in his late '30s in the HIStory Tour, meaning that this stamina claim does not make sense (about him being too old to sing live and dance at the same time).
zinniabooklover said:
I wasn't thrilled when I first saw this. I'm not convinced he could have done this. I worry that he planned to try to deliver 90% live vocals bc he was aware of the criticism around HWT and was maybe feeling the pressure. Just a guess on my part. I would want to be wrong about this. My hope is that he genuinely wanted to do this for artistic reasons, not bc of pressure.
Click to expand...
It has been said that Michael Jackson was about to re-record (in the studio) many of his vocals in order to later use them on stage in those 'This Is It' shows (which is actually another, but more convincing, way of lip-syncing).
 
mj_frenzy said:
Michael Jackson was not really old (in the HIStory Tour) for live singing and dancing at the same time.

Look, for example, at James Brown: he sang live and danced at the same time even during his very final shows when he was in his early '70s.

Michael Jackson was only in his late '30s in the HIStory Tour, meaning that this stamina claim does not make sense (about him being too old to sing live and dance at the same time).

It has been said that Michael Jackson was about to re-record (in the studio) many of his vocals in order to later use them on stage in those 'This Is It' shows (which is actually another, but more convincing, way of lip-syncing).
Click to expand...
Such a shame Michael has been heavily associated with lip-synching antics his whole life.
I know I said that before but yeah.
No superstar is ever 100% healthy so the health excuse is ridiculous. You either can or can't sing.If you can,then prove it live damn.
Michael's case was more of like either you want or don't wanna sing. He obviously chose the latter.
By the way:
I'm sorry but if someone with a vocal performance like the one Mike delivered here turned up on ,,The Voice,, or ,,X Factor,, they would most likely get laughed at. Just found this performance,damn this is just as bad as the Munich live vocals XD
 
Last edited:
I find it disappointing that Michael didn't deliver more in the way of live vocals for HWT. Otoh, I'm not sure how helpful it is to compare him to other artists. James Brown did not have, afaik, any auto-immune diseases. He might have had a much stronger constitution than Michael. I wouldn't know. James Brown used to be known as 'the hardest working man in showbiz' so he certainly was no slacker. And his performances were really energetic. But, as I say, maybe he was just physically stronger than Michael. Dancers have strong bodies, that's for sure. Michael had the strength of a dancer, no question. But maybe his *basic* constitution wasn't so robust. We can't possibly know. A persons basic constitution is a different thing to their physical, muscular strength. But it's one reason why I'm not sure it makes any sense to be comparing him to other people.

That doesn't alter my basic position which is, I don't understand why he couldn't sing some (not all) of the slower songs live.
 
mj_frenzy said:
It has been said that Michael Jackson was about to re-record (in the studio) many of his vocals in order to later use them on stage in those 'This Is It' shows (which is actually another, but more convincing, way of lip-syncing).
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm aware of this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top