Concert .. Lip Syncing .. Common ?

[cody8200]

I would never pay to see a band lip sync. Ever. I'd rather see a fill in singer do his best effort. I can't remember ever seeing a band do it either. I've seen several hundred concerts over the years. I've seen lip syncing on TV. Just not in person.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Its not a question of IF teh bands do this, they ALL do it sooner or later, whether they want to or get pushed into it. People gotta stop deluding themselves that their favorite groups/performers/etc etc have never or would never do such a thing.

The word "ALL" does not mean what you think it does...

[Mota]

Render, not sure why you have to insult everybody here for their opinions.

I personally listen to the kind of music where the bands would disband before having to lip sync their shows. I'm not a fool for that. And they don't automatically do it. There's plenty of "well" established bands where they may have tuned down their instruments a tone or two so that the vocalist can continue hitting the notes. Vocal ranges do shrink over time. They adapt. And there's some songs that can't be done 20 years later. I'm okay with that.

I listen to Opeth which is a death metal band and they've changed their sound because the singer can't do his growl night in and night out. If they want to pull out a heavy song on tour they can, but they have an increasing library of material that he can sing every night. I'm also okay with that. And I have the option of not supporting them if I don't like what they're playing now.

But if these guys came and lip synced a show, when they come back the next year they'd be lucky to draw 10 people.

Certain kinds of music, lip syncing may be considered acceptable, other kinds... NEVER.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

On TV appearances on talk shows it seems common but definitely not live.

Based on reactions I've gotten from both musicians & fans alike when I've commented on it, I'm actually considered extremely forgiving of that sort of thing.

[Grover]

There are a number of artists that I know of who hate appearing on talk shows, late night, etc because they're forced to mime their songs.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

The word "ALL" does not mean what you think it does...

Yeah well call it a matter of "Faith" for me. it can't be proven either way, I simply believe my opinion is the right one in this case, as it makes far more sense in the world as we know it. its simply easier to believe they do or have at some point than to believe its never happened.

Originally Posted by Mota

Render, not sure why you have to insult everybody here for their opinions.

I personally listen to the kind of music where the bands would disband before having to lip sync their shows. I'm not a fool for that. And they don't automatically do it. There's plenty of "well" established bands where they may have tuned down their instruments a tone or two so that the vocalist can continue hitting the notes. Vocal ranges do shrink over time. They adapt. And there's some songs that can't be done 20 years later. I'm okay with that.

I listen to Opeth which is a death metal band and they've changed their sound because the singer can't do his growl night in and night out. If they want to pull out a heavy song on tour they can, but they have an increasing library of material that he can sing every night. I'm also okay with that. And I have the option of not supporting them if I don't like what they're playing now.

But if these guys came and lip synced a show, when they come back the next year they'd be lucky to draw 10 people.

Certain kinds of music, lip syncing may be considered acceptable, other kinds... NEVER.

I'm sorry if you feel....no, wait, I'm not. I honestly just don't care if people feel insulted by what I feel is blatantly obvious. I'm not here to candy coat my opinion to make YOU or anyone else feel better about themselves. Welcome to the real world.

While I respect your chosen preference in music I also clearly stated the general grouping I was going for "bands 30 years past their prime" in that statement. If you want to extrapolate that out to cover everyone that's on you, not me.

Where your position fails is the bit in bold. How can people (maybe YOU in particular don't i don't really know) use this ideology and not feel utterly hypocritical? You cannot denigrate one band for lip-syncing and accept it from another. You can't have it both ways. You either accept it from everyone or you have to decry it entirely.

All this complaining that a band lip-synced a set or a whole concert is just grandstanding. while with some bands it is painfully obvious, Some bands (Journey in the 80's and Barenaked Ladies in the 2000's) specifically recorded a live version of their sets to use in case of illness or other problems.

I'm not the one making from grand statement that bands that do this suck or are cheating people. I'm on the realistic side of this issue. Frankly getting to see your favorite bands and hear the music is what you're paying for. If the music is done live thats a great bonus, but you're hearing the music either way.

If you're that concerned with just hearing the CD version, don't bother going to concerts, you're wasting your money in many cases.

[Draft Dodger]

oh cute - someone's off their meds

[RendeR]

Not true, I am thoroughly medicated. I've just missed you all lately is all

[Ksyrup]

Sorry to report that based on the YouTube clips I've heard, Ozzy is definitely NOT lip-synching. Good Lord he's making me wish Black Sabbath didn't exist at all at this point.

I would be offended at a rock band using total lip-synch for the lead vocals. I can understand augmenting an old guys voice, to a degree. I remember taking my wife to see Survivor in the late 90s and Jamison's voice was not anywhere close to what it had been, but they handled it right, IMO. The backing band was young and could sing. There was one guy in particular whose job it was to fill in on the high parts Jamison couldn't hit anymore. I thought that was appropriate and definitely necessary. And refreshing that they recognized his limitations and did something to make the fans' experience good without sacrificing the live element.

[RendeR]

And that makes perfect sense to me as well. I'm just floored at the vitriol for something that at times could well be unavoidable.


The night of the Concert something happens and the lead singer simply...can't. Do you cancel 2 hours before the show just to save face? Pissing off everyone who drove all day to get there and even the locals?

Probably not, you do what you have to do to make the show happen. Thanks to teh labels and other factors many bands can't afford to just cancel and refund an entire show like that.

"The show must go on" as they say.


Do I LIKE it? No, of course not, but I'm certainly not going to trash them for making a choice when it has to be made.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RendeR

The night of the Concert something happens and the lead singer simply...can't. Do you cancel 2 hours before the show just to save face? Pissing off everyone who drove all day to get there and even the locals?

Yes, or you cover it with an adjusted setlist & other members filling in, or even use a fill-in vocalist. (just not a jazz odyssey set)

I've been to one concert postponed outright & another where a featured opening act got through three songs before they simply had to stop due to the singer's health. It happens.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I'm sorry if you feel....no, wait, I'm not. I honestly just don't care if people feel insulted by what I feel is blatantly obvious. I'm not here to candy coat my opinion to make YOU or anyone else feel better about themselves. Welcome to the real world.

While I respect your chosen preference in music I also clearly stated the general grouping I was going for "bands 30 years past their prime" in that statement. If you want to extrapolate that out to cover everyone that's on you, not me.

Where your position fails is the bit in bold. How can people (maybe YOU in particular don't i don't really know) use this ideology and not feel utterly hypocritical? You cannot denigrate one band for lip-syncing and accept it from another. You can't have it both ways. You either accept it from everyone or you have to decry it entirely.

All this complaining that a band lip-synced a set or a whole concert is just grandstanding. while with some bands it is painfully obvious, Some bands (Journey in the 80's and Barenaked Ladies in the 2000's) specifically recorded a live version of their sets to use in case of illness or other problems.

I'm not the one making from grand statement that bands that do this suck or are cheating people. I'm on the realistic side of this issue. Frankly getting to see your favorite bands and hear the music is what you're paying for. If the music is done live thats a great bonus, but you're hearing the music either way.

If you're that concerned with just hearing the CD version, don't bother going to concerts, you're wasting your money in many cases.

I don't use this ideology. I'm just saying that in the type of music I listen to, it wouldn't be accepted. In a lot of pop music where the show is more important than the music, the fans are more willing to accept it. I personally don't. I decry it all the time. But that's my opinion. Most people that have similar taste in music share my opinion. I'm not trying to wrap up all of this into a nice blanket and force my beliefs on everybody. There's entertainment for you, and entertainment for me. I don't care what Justin Bieber or Journey do at their concerts, that's up to them and their target audience. If they find it acceptable then all the power to them.

I'm not going to call you an idiot or a hypocrite for liking music where they may lip sync at a live show. You just won't see me at that show.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Yeah well call it a matter of "Faith" for me. it can't be proven either way, I simply believe my opinion is the right one in this case, as it makes far more sense in the world as we know it. its simply easier to believe they do or have at some point than to believe its never happened.

I've seen enough concerts in person, and watched enough concert clips online to know that there are plenty of rock bands - in fact most rock bands - that don't use a pre-recorded lead vocal track to augment the lead singer. And I'm not talking just young bands with singers in their prime - I'm talking bands like Soundgarden, Robert Plant, the Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, Rush (I could go on and on) where the lead vocal is clearly live. In many cases, bands have had to re-arrange their music to drop songs down a key or so if the singer has lost their high-end range. In some cases - the recent Soundgarden reunion comes to mind - I've seen examples were the singer can still hit all the notes one night, but be ragged on another.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

In many cases, bands have had to re-arrange their music to drop songs down a key or so if the singer has lost their high-end range. In some cases - the recent Soundgarden reunion comes to mind - I've seen examples were the singer can still hit all the notes one night, but be ragged on another.

Saw another variation of that with Iron Maiden a couple of weeks ago, Bruce can still hit most of the notes he chooses to, but he can't hit them all in one night so some stuff is dropped down, other stuff is turned into "sing for me Atlanta", and other stuff he nails himself.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

And I'm not talking just young bands with singers in their prime - I'm talking bands like Soundgarden, Robert Plant, the Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, Rush (I could go on and on) where the lead vocal is clearly live.

Paul McCartney was at the front of my mind while reading RendeR's rant as well. I've seen a couple recent televised performances that were a little wince-worthy at times because his voice is clearly going, and yet, I respect the hell out of him for not trying to cover it up.

[Kodos]

This performance from 2012 seems on par with how Joe Elliott sounds at shows I've seen in recent years. I picked Foolin' because it has some higher parts in it (as opposed to a song like Hysteria). Granted, I haven't seen them on this tour. I'm not sure what happened at the show that the thread starter saw, but I think it's clear he isn't lip-synching in the video. Is there maybe some enhancement? I dunno. I would think it would sound better if there was enhancement going on.

I know sometimes Def Leppard does echo effects for parts of their songs - for instance in Hysteria it will echo what he sang at times (like in the first minute or two of this recording of Hysteria from 1988). Is it possible somebody hit the echo button at the wrong time?

[BYU 14]

Yeah, no lip sync there and actually for someone who has been singing and smoking for 30+ years it is not that bad, minus the high notes he just can't get to any more, which happens to a lot of singers late in their careers.

[Mota]

I'm thinking Geoff Tate from Queensryche when you talk about losing your voice. The guy had a maniac voice with a HUGE range, and he can't sing any of his early stuff anymore. The last 3 albums he's shown no vocal range at all, to be honest I think he lost the ability to sing more than 1 note per song. Brutal. As much as he's been a big part of my teenage music years, I'm looking forward to the band restarting with the new singer Todd La Torre.

[Ksyrup]

That's OK - Tate won't be singing any QR songs anytime soon. He's more interested in selling wine.

[Apathetic Lurker]

I wish Vince Neil would lip-synch Crue songs....Maybe then I would actually understand them instead of his butchered modern versions........

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Apathetic Lurker

I wish Vince Neil would lip-synch Crue songs....Maybe then I would actually understand them instead of his butchered modern versions........

They've been pretty bad live for a long time as I recall.

[Landshark44]

going to the def leppard show tonight....

saw nickelback/bush last night and am almost embarrassed to say both bands were great live... nickelback played a few cheesy slow songs, but for the most part were very entertaining...

[Apathetic Lurker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

They've been pretty bad live for a long time as I recall.

Musically they are a above average band...Its just that vocally.....not so. The last ten years have been hard Vince. Its a huge sad change hearing Vince at the US festival back in the early 80's and then hearing him now....Guess the brain cells had to die somewhere.....Still, I'll see them as long as they go on.

[JonInMiddleGA]

FWIW
Joe Elliott in voice dilemma | News | Classic Rock