Latest on MJJC

MJ lip-syncing

Status
Not open for further replies.
My question is why does it bother so many people?

You know Michael could sing you. What difference did it make if he mimed the tracks or not? At least you got to see him, At least you got to be in the same room with him. That's a lot more then some of us can say. If he lip synced the words to his own songs who gives a ish. We know Michael was perfect for being a perfectionist this might have been one way he could perform and not screw up the words. See Video of Dirty Diana live.

Its easy to forget words even if they are your own songs. I think people need to get over it and move on. ENJOY his music and concerts not pick it apart because you don't like that not every song is live. Be happy if you were part of the lucky that GOT to see him live. Don't be an ass and freak out because he mimed the words. IMO its kind of a dead argument that people are still trying to give CPR to.
 
I actually think this thread is now getting very interesting. At first it started off a bit of ranting at each other about the lip sync thing - but as with good argument it then throws things up in the air and begins to prick minds and thoughts run along another track and perhaps begin to understand things better.

I still believe however I would have seen Michael and been over the moon if he had just sat on the stage miming the whole way through with the occassional foot tap. I believe he had earned his right to do that........
 
Well, to be honest, Michael and Madonna are the only ''pop'' acts I like.

I'm more into other kind of music, artist that don't stand out for GREAT vocals, but for the music itself ... such as Bowie, Lou Reed, Brian Eno, Pink Floyd, The Killers, Morrissey and The Smiths, Stone Roses, Ronelles, The Jeevas, Libertines, The Auteurs , Jesus Jones, Lisandro Aristimuño, Spinetta, Illya Kuryaki, Babasonicos, Juana La Loca, Joy Division, Jobriath, Iggy Pop, Cold war kids, Brett Anderson and Suede, Pulp, Blur, Andrew Bird, NIN, Stone Temple Pilots, Nirvana, The Clash, Aqualung, Artic Monkeys, As tall as lions, The Ramones, Gustavo Cerati, Cielo Razzo, Editors, Idiot Pilots, I'm from Barcelona, Juana Molina, Sumaia O , Loveninjas, Menomena, Mutemath, Radiohead, Pantera, Prodigy, The cure, The Draytones, The National, The Lurios, The Verve, Virus, Postal Service...

To name a few.

And to complete my other post. I don't mind if he sings or not...it's just him what I want, and the magic of it all. OK, live songs are better, but I love HIM, above and beyond everything. It would have been nice to re-record the tracks, yes, but he didn't... I love the HIStory tour, because of the interpretation, because of the show as a whole.

MSG is a complete different story, I was there, I was thrilled...it was one the best nights of my life...and even though I think he did THE BEST HE COULD at the time, he clearly didn't want to be there. I don't blame him, and I'm thankful he actually finished the show.

Was it his best performance? No,but while it lasted, it was perfect.

I love MICHAEL , just the fact of seing him freezes me, he has that power over me. He moves me, even when he's doing nothing (for example, on the WMA'06)

That's the big difference with all the other artists, when I see a KILLERS show, yeah, they're good, they're energetic, the music's great, but I can do other stuff meanwhile.

With Michael...the world stops and that's about it.
 
Last edited:
pamiiee said:
George Michaels voice has changed so much, with age it has added body like a good wine. So I can see where you're coming from Arty. Do you feel with the lip sync thing that we were missing out on a development of voice? That Michael was trying to keep the vocals of his youth rather than develop as an aging performer - which I guess if he had then perhaps physically he wouldnt have also tried to go back in time?
Click to expand...

Yes I think so not only development of voice but also development in the arrangements.
If he wasn´t able to hit the high notes so he could have sung in a lower register and that would mean a new fresh arrangement on songs we ´ve heard a thousand time.
This would also change the feeling of some songs. Mostly all the songs sound live exact the same as on CD. But we all have the CD why not arrange the songs new for example add to Remember the Time a Jazz Vibe sing it live with acoustic instruments and a lower voice. etc etc.
 
pamiiee said:
George Michaels voice has changed so much, with age it has added body like a good wine. So I can see where you're coming from Arty. Do you feel with the lip sync thing that we were missing out on a development of voice? That Michael was trying to keep the vocals of his youth rather than develop as an aging performer - which I guess if he had then perhaps physically he wouldnt have also tried to go back in time?

I know when I saw Genesis (reformed) couple of years ago that Phil Collins had adjusted obviously because he couldnt get certain notes and the partial deafness - which was very interesting and I suppose with age there can be developments of a plus side and also add something different.
Click to expand...

Maybe he was bothered by the idea that he had to sound the same as in his younger years, because he thought that was what a lot of people wanted to hear. Though he may have had difficulties to sound the same, because his voice had changed and he was insecure about how people would feel about that. So instead he choose to lip-synch, because he knew a large part of the performance was also the contact with the fans and the dancing. He knew people came for that to, so maybe it was a compromise.
 
Last edited:
I completely agree. I have heard many performers who as they get older re-arrange their music accordingly.

Its interesting, so basically because Michael Jackson wanted to be forever childlike he was in fact restricting the progression of himself musically, he was denying it age and progression.

Because he had held himself in a certain state, youthful innocence and attempting physically - his development was restricted and therefore with the This Is It, as with other performers who have come back and come back with the advances of age and thus age reflecting in their music and arrangements Michael Jackson was holding time and attempting to recreate.

Therefore if he had progressed and accepted and provided something more in line with time then he would not have been attempting to put on a performance far more straining to his years than he should have been?

This is exactly what I have said before. I even would have been happy with Michael Jackson, orchestra and the audience...........
 
GinnyJackson said:
My question is why does it bother so many people?
Click to expand...


To put it real simple. If you have 45 History Concerts on Cd to listen to-well in the end You´ve only 1 Concert to listen to because they all sound alike and on top of that the one concert you´ll have isn´t even live.
That means for Michaels music legacy we ´ll don´t get concert cds past Dangerous with songs from the History and the Invincible album.So over 16 years from 93-to 2009 without any Mike vocals. 16 Years!!! Hello!!!And this should not bother a fan???

I would´ve love to hear what his voice sounded like 99 or 2001 etc.

If you have 45 Concerts from Elvis or Marvin Gaye or Stevie Wonder or Prince-well than you have 45 Concerts all concerts are different and it´s nice to hear different performances because the voice sounds different on every concert.

So 45 live concerts vs. 1 playback concert and the winner is??

By the Way Prince has over 300 Concerts out on bootleg so Prince fans can enjoy a lot of music.
 
another fan after my own heart - michael and madonna are my fave pop artists too. madonnas actually gotten alot better singing live in recent years cause she had her voice retrained when she did the evita movie.


fridu_reyk said:
Well, to be honest, Michael and Madonna are the only ''pop'' acts I like.

I'm more into other kind of music, artist that don't stand out for GREAT vocals, but for the music itself ... such as Bowie, Lou Reed, Brian Eno, Pink Floyd, The Killers, Morrissey and The Smiths, Stone Roses, Ronelles, The Jeevas, Libertines, The Auteurs , Jesus Jones, Lisandro Aristimuño, Spinetta, Illya Kuryaki, Babasonicos, Juana La Loca, Joy Division, Jobriath, Iggy Pop, Cold war kids, Brett Anderson and Suede, Pulp, Blur, Andrew Bird, NIN, Stone Temple Pilots, Nirvana, The Clash, Aqualung, Artic Monkeys, As tall as lions, The Ramones, Gustavo Cerati, Cielo Razzo, Editors, Idiot Pilots, I'm from Barcelona, Juana Molina, Sumaia O , Loveninjas, Menomena, Mutemath, Radiohead, Pantera, Prodigy, The cure, The Draytones, The National, The Lurios, The Verve, Virus, Postal Service...

To name a few.
Click to expand...
 
MichaelYoureAStud said:
Wow.
I shouldn't really be stunned, but I thought I was on a *fan* board.
I'm honestly way too busy watchng his body from the neck down to see his dance moves to care what his lips are doing.
It's not like we're talking about Milli Vinilli.
I love the HIStory tour. I thought it was wonderful.
I love the Bad and Dangerous tours as well.
At the end of the day, I really don't give two sh*ts what anyone else thinks about Michael or his legacy.
Click to expand...

Exactly!! Agree 100%
 
one thing i dont know if people have mentioned sometimes how a concert is mixed for broadcast can make it sound like its lipsynched when its actually live. case in point: i have two different versions of blond ambition live from wembley stadium. one on cd and the other a radio broadcast. the cd version sounds much more live whereas the radio broadcast is speeded up a bit more and sounds more lipsynched
 
..........I have seen Neil Diamond live.......lol

Now theres a talent.
 
yep theres not much you can say after a post like that ^^^.........lol
 
its funny about the lipsynch argument. ive been looking around the net and some people claim when they saw the jacksons live in 84 that the concert they attended was lipsynched. im pretty sure all their live shows were actually live. same with the bad tour. i guess people hear different things. different strokes for different folks!
 
my mom.........lol!

Actually he's very very very very good. He takes the pee out of himself, like when he gets down on the stage to croon and asks the front row ladies to help him up cause of his arthritis.

BUT

interesting story, I was sat next to members of the uk fans and apparently on a date they couldnt get tickets at front because of the corporates and anyhow sent a letter to him about it.

He then arranged a private concert for fans only from the fan site. How sweet is that.
 
a really bad example of michael lipsynching was at the mtv awards 1995, even though his mic was on. check out when he's doing billie jean, at times he doesnt even bother making sure he's singing into the mic. but did people care? hell no! they went crazy!
 
sorry I have digressed............. its an age thing......lol!


Lip sync' is it a good thing or bad...
 
pamiiee said:
Arty, what does Michael Jackson mean to you?
Click to expand...

Good question, are you a Fan of Michael Jackson the Entertainer or Michael Jackson.

I can't tell.

I am a fan of Michael Jackson, the entainer part comes along with the package.

I don't understand this post, who gives a F**k if he lipsync or not. Michael has nothing to prove to anyone he has already done that.
 
thought you were inferring he is a mobile butcher.......

credit crunch an all.
 
I wonder if the lip sync issue is a male/female divide thing?
 
i think its a necessary evil. without it many of our favorite artists wouldnt be able to do the same kind of show.


pamiiee said:
sorry I have digressed............. its an age thing......lol!


Lip sync' is it a good thing or bad...
Click to expand...
 
I'm north of england female so I am just pleased if anyone speaks to me let alone lip syncs it.....lol
 
Also what is so annoying about the lip-syncing.

The Lip-syncing is like a cage.

It doesn´t allow Mike to interact with the Fans during the performance.
If he sings live he can interrupt the song, pause and tell something to the fans etc etc. His interactions with the fans was the best during the Triumph tour and the worst during History there was no interactions during the songs because it isn´t possible when you ´re lip-syncing.
 
krism said:
a really bad example of michael lipsynching was at the mtv awards 1995, even though his mic was on. check out when he's doing billie jean, at times he doesnt even bother making sure he's singing into the mic. but did people care? hell no! they went crazy!
Click to expand...

Another really bad example was the Remember the Time performance when he was sitting on the chair. Ok he hurt his leg but at least sing live then.
Or the Elisabeth I love you performance
 
another example why lipsynching should be acceptable for certain songs. check this brief video of madonna doing vogue in concert (only goes around 25 seconds):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq09GkkgmF8

the routine is difficult enough without having to sing live on top of that - and in tune.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top