I personally would have prefered him to not lipsync. Note that I'm talking about concerts here - not TV specials like Billie Jean at M25, or the MTV10 thing etc. those are TV shows - they are not important in the context of this topic.
Why? Well because when you go to see a performing artist live in concert, it's supposed to be live. the band, the singers the whole peice - that's why it says "live" on the ticket. But....
I don't really have any issue with him doing it so much in later tours. HIStory tour was obvioulsy very blurred between "the show" and "the performance". and it never said "live" on the history tickets.
I certianly don't think it's ripping off fans per se. The dude sang 100% live concerts for what 25 years or more. He didn't have anything to prove once he started doing loops a lot on the dangerous tour. No issue with the few songs looped on Bad tour either.
I don't agree that most peeps went to the shows for the dancing - they went for the whole show IMO. IMO Mike is one of the greatest live singers ever, and sure it's a shame he did so much miming later in his career. I certianly don't agree that singing is not the most important part of a entertainer, but i;m an old git to that explains that
Try telling Jackie WIlson or James Brown or Marvin Gaye that singing isn't where it's at!
But the thing is - Mike is the kick ass singer - it's his decision to do it. Who are we to critise it? If we are all great vocalists who have had a 30 year career at the top and done oodles of shows - then we're in a postition to slag him of for it.
Mike wanted to do big shows, with huge productions. He obviously decided that following the Dangerous tour he could "get away" with a mostly mimed show for history - it's a compromise he made. It's well known that he suffered vocal problems after the bad tour and doing it every night with all the other stuff - something has to give.
here's a question -would you rather have a history tour mostly mimed, or no history tour? I know which I'd choose, the show!
I would have liked him to do something without the theatrics to shut the complainers up and really prove he still had the killer voice - even if it was just a couple shows - but hey such is life.
people really underestimate just how many hours this guy put in on the microphone, and I don't doubt that he damaged his voice over the years. I'm not saying he lost his ability to sing. But to sing live three times a week for 45 shows with all the travel etc. that's a different matter.
it's worth noting that you have to be extrememly fit to sing live like he did. small ailments have a large imapct. doing a big tour in outdoor arenas, traveling about all over the world. It's a dead cert you are gonna pick up bugs. Frought with risk.
So the common argument is if Madonna or Bono can do, why couldn't Mike? Well in comparison to MIke they are terrible singers. they are not bad singers, but they ain't real singers like Mike! it's a nonsensical comparison.
Here's another thing not often considered by non musicians...
Mike's songs - most of them are pretty hard to sing. all those peeps doing covers that sound terrible - that's cos these things are hard to sing. I'm a trained singer and would never even attempt to do a tune like Don't Stop. never mind in concert with the dancing!
When most singers cover Mike they change the keys. and then consider to sing it as well as Mike does - forget it!
I'm rambling, but it's my contention that people underestimate the skill and talent required to sing like Mike. In some ways Mike set himself too high a standard with the Bad Tour - it sounded fantastic, some tunes were just as good as the records (e.g. Billie Jeam), if not better, whilst others (e.g. Rock WIth You) were glorious in thier interpretations. And others (e.g. Dirty Diana) were just pure exhileration vocally. When he let's rip with the "come on" screams - oh man! No one can tell me that doesn't impact your chops.
So once he set that standard he wanted to keep it there - and it wasn't on by Dangerous - so a compromise was made to keep the value of the show and to protect Mike's voice.
For all we know someone like Seth Riggs, or a doctor may have advised him to protect his vocal chords at all costs or risk damaging them beyond repair (like Miles davis). And slinging it 1988 style across the globe is not a good way to look after one's voice.
In short I don't beleive it makes him less of a performer - he had nothing to prove once he started doing it so much.
One down side to all of this is some newbies saw him do it and thought that was acceptable - so that is a negative influence on younger "artists" (e.g. trousersnake and britney) but then they could never sing without an autotune anyway so who cares?
IMO, the bottom line is - if you can sing like Mike then you can critisise Mike for miming - otherwise you need to shut the hell up.
