Performing Live: Does it Matter?

I don't see anything inherently wrong with being a studio artist. Most of the concerts I went to in the 90s were extended knob- twiddling sessions that recreated fiddling around with your sequencers and synths in the studio, anyway. It became kind of a shock to see groups who actually _were_ playing stuff besides filters and samplers (ie, 808 State, who incorporates live synth playing and percussion in with their twiddling). I guess it all depends on what you're trying to get out of the performance. I don't watch Britney for her voice; I watch her for the moves.

I will say ONE thing in defense of 'NSync: their singing would be MUCH better if they weren't dancing so much. Also, Justin appears to be developing a technique beyond "place the tone as far into you nose as you can and bleat uncontrollably".

Seriously, I see nothing wrong with being a studio/video artist. I just have a major problem with those same artists then going and insisting on being live acts as well. Call a spade a spade and do what you need to do to preserve the illusion. Getting on stage and either refusing to ever sing or singing and sounding like you're getting stabbed to death while you do it isn't doing much to preserve the illusion in my mind.

Also, I don't buy that rubbish about NSync and their moves, because they sound just as awful singing ballads live, and they aren't doing any "fly" moves when they sing those. They just aren't good singers. In fairness, they sound like shit on record too so maybe they aren't a great example.

On a somewhat related note: The Royal Trux (and Haggerty now as a solo act)sound like they should be a great live band, however many say they are total trash. The only thing that I got out of a few recent Haggerty shows was that he was totally crazy, I mean completely out of it. Maybe this was what he was going for.

I agree it shouldn't be discounted, but I think the ILx aesthetic, if you will, is more than it shouldn't be seen as the end-all and be-all.

As for the SuperBowl - yes, I saw it. Yes, Britney wore an inexplicable sock on her arm. No, she did not perform well. Wearing a cut up sweatsock makes you neither big nor clever, and certainly not a vocal force.

I like Britney, I just think she should stop even attempting to perform live, because 99% of the time she's just lip synching anyhow (which, to me, is worse than getting up and singing badly) and when she's live she's just brutal to attempt to listen to.

I'd doubt Brit has much say over the twists and turns of her career, but, anyway, do the people who pay to see Britney in person really care if she is lip synching or not? Do Janet Jackson's fans give a toss or do they show up at the office the next day going on about the lights, costumes, etc. "She puts in quite a show." Kids are smart, I'd assume they know who is singing and who isn't, but it's not as important as seeing her in person and witnessing the Big, Pop Spectacle. If it's "all singing, all dancing" that's a bonus.

And quite frankly, no, "kids" aren't smart enough to know about whether someone is lip synching or not (kids in quotes because, um, why are we using that word at all?) - the fact of the matter is that in this discussion on this board in its various threads, I've seen no less than 3 people state different times when "Britney sang live" that were brutally, clearly lip synching. Just a minor point.

The point is this, and it's based off a common attitude on this godforsaken board: that actually having any ability at all doesn't matter because, wink wink nudge nudge, we all know what's going on. That's bullshit. Jay-Z is a better artist than Missy Elliot because he can pull it off live (besides the obvious fact that he's clearly better anyhow). I don't like it - this entire thing stems off a series of posts that was basically one person pointing out how the lack of quality in the performances at the VMAs kind of makes the pro-pop argument look a little less polished, and someone else replying, basically, "Oh, no one cares about that anyhow, we all know pop singers suck live" which A) isn't even true because of the pure number of pop stars who have really great live shows B) smacks of smarmy indie ironic attitude - it's condescending at best.

If you can't do it, you should stay in the studio. WOuldn't the "kids" rather that their favorite artists keep up the image anyhow rather than going to a gig, realizing their fave isn't pulling it off, and having that argument in their head?

I like Jay-Z and I like Missy, and I don’t care who can cut it live, unless I’m deciding whether to see them live. Maybe one is a better performer than the other is but as a listener I’m approaching them both as recording artists. Knowing who can perform live and who can’t is as elemental to my home listening experience as knowing whether or not some musician cheats on their spouse. I don’t care.I almost posted an addendum along with correcting my typo about coming of all indie. Despite the "those people" tone of my Janet comment, I’m not approaching this as such. As I said, Ian hit it right on the head. Every word. Choosing what to listen to at home and what to see live are two different things, and just as there are pop acts I’d see live (say, Outkast or Jay-Z), there are indie or rock acts that are better approached on record. Oddly, despite your claims that I’m being condescending to pop, you’re taking the stereotypically rockist view. Like you said, pop singers don’t all suck live, but your proof of such -- the pure number of pop stars who have really great live shows -- is part of my point, isn’t it? The "show" itself – in which the vocals are one element -- is more valued in large-scale shows. It just so happens that most, if not all, pop shows are theater/arena/stadium shows.

Performing Live: Does it matter? I’m answering "no" to your question and letting you know that I suspect that most of those in Britney’s audience, by attending a show that I suspect they know features lip synching, are doing the same. You are saying Jay-Z is a better artist than Missy Elliot because he can pull it off live so I assume you’re answering "yes." If you didn’t want anyone to disagree with you, maybe you shouldn’t have asked in the first place.

Really now,....WHO CARES about that shit?

Good lord. Those who "truly" (as opposed to "fakely" appreciating it?) appreciate professional wrestling (a population that includes huge numbers of people in Japan and Mexico, where pro wrestling is appreciated as a form of athletic theater, as well as probably every American wrestling fan over the age of 8) know exactly how "fake" it is, and appreciate it for what it is. The whole industry in America has changed to the point where they don't even pretend it's real anymore (see shows like "Tough Enough"). It's a SHOW, just like a pop concert. If you go and see Hamlet are you going to stand up in the audience and start screaming, "But we're not IN Denmark! This is a fucking sham!"

To answer Ally, of course it would be okay for Britney to choose not to perform, except that "seeing" Britney is exactly what lots of her fans want to do (whether or not she was lip synching at the Super Bowl, she was the best part of the whole thing). Actually, I think the overall analogy to pro wrestling is sound; some people know it's fake, some believe it's real, but they all get their own particular enjoyment out of it. The wrestling business was "exposed" by the Vince McMahon steroid trials, the pop business was "exposed" by the Milli Vanilli fiasco, both went through a sort of rut that forced them to retool their approach, de-emphasizing certain aspects of authenticity and allowing them to focus on what it was they were really good at (creating characters and putting on a show), and both businesses emerged healthier than ever. In any case, I think Britney would make a far better wrestler than Cyndi Lauper.

Alright, fair enough (and I quite enjoyed your "Hamlet" example). That a vast number of folks (with deplorably low standards) appreciate teen pop cannot be discounted (although that's never been a necessary indicator of quality). My beef is more with the attempt to legitimize teen pop -- or drum it up to be something more than the fleeting, disposable product that it ultimately is. Yes, it indeed sells bucketloads to "the kids," but in this current era, it has been exalted to such ridiculous heights. It should not be treated as timeless art.

I bet more people bought "Fresh Fruit For Rotting Vegetables" last week than the first Backstreet Boys album.

Probably something by Drowning Pool :)

this entire thread picks at one of things that fascinated me abt eg hearsay and the popstars phenom: which is that — for purely televisual purposes — the auditions were trawling above all for LIVE PERFORMANCE SKILLS, not for some time considered particularly of consquence in this strand of pop: which is always been what I took myleene's infamous declaration of war on manufactured pop (forget exact words now) to refer to... because of course MK really is a FULLY FLEDGED TRAINED CLASSICAL PIANIST, not just some prettyboy w. a good producer.

I was simply countering your suggestion that "disposable" pop is being considered timeless. Ain't a lot of catalog sales in teenpop, till nostalgia hits many, many years later. "Furious Orange..."

Holy shit that's funny! Britney Spears is the new Hulk Hogan!

In other words, boring old pluralism here as elsewhere: both records and performances can be good, but in their different ways.

Remarkable thing about this thread = Tracer H is SERIOUS about not liking recorded music. What a *weirdo*.

Caveat: I completely invalidated my first statement this past weekend, when I saw Mike Ladd and bought his latest record. Live, he had a great band and an astonishing amount of charisma. The record is a little flat by comparison, mostly because there aren't really any live musicians on it. It's still a great album that I've been listening to a lot, but I don't think I would have quite the same appreciation if I hadn't seen the live show.