|
|
Subject:
In defence of lip syncing
Category: Arts and Entertainment > Music Asked by: rservice-ga List Price: $55.00 |
Posted:
11 Oct 2004 12:14 PDT
Expires: 12 Oct 2004 09:52 PDT Question ID: 413271 |
This should be a fun one for someone. I'm looking for someone to help me find research that would provide a defence of lip-sync'ing. Are there any examples where lip sync'ing has HELPED the music industry, or an artist, or musical art in general. I'd ideally love three examples -- even if they're just well-formed thoughts from your own mind. |
|
There is no answer at this time. |
|
Subject:
Re: In defence of lip syncing
From: tar_heel_v-ga on 11 Oct 2004 12:16 PDT |
Mili-Vanilli won a grammy and made millions lip syncing..the end wasn't so nice, though |
Subject:
Re: In defence of lip syncing
From: kriswrite-ga on 11 Oct 2004 12:22 PDT |
The singers in the musical "A Chorus Line" lip syned. Apparently, the director didn't want to sacrafice voice quality for dancing...You can either support one or the other with your diaphragm...not both! So, you could argue that lip syncing gives audiences both the best voice and the best dancing/physical performance. Kriswrite |
Subject:
Re: In defence of lip syncing
From: aht-ga on 11 Oct 2004 13:18 PDT |
I'm there with kriswrite-ga. In spite of Elton John's protestations to the contrary, I personally feel that an artist such as Madonna has to lip-synch in a 'live' concert, in order to provide the audience with the audio experience that they expect to accompany the visual experience happening on the stage. Unlike Sir Elton, whose music is primarily acoustical, Madonna's is the product of several layers of electronic tweaking. When she's dancing and cavorting around on stage to satisfy the audience's desire for a visual display worthy of the Madonna name, it's technically and physically difficult to simultaneously sing at a studio-level performance without being affected by all of the noise and motion in the concert hall. Sir Elton, on the other hand, typically performs while sitting in one spot (ie. in front of his piano), where it is possible to better filter out the background noise. There's a lot less pyrotechnics at his concerts, after all. :) If many of today's 'modern artists' were to NOT use lip-syncing at appropriate points of their concerts, their fans' expectations would not be met. True, often an acoustic performance of an otherwise overproduced piece can be a reward to the concert-goer; the trend for many of the modern artists, though, is to provide an audio-visual spectacular that is so much more than just the musical lyrics themselves. By the way... one example where lip-syncing would most definitely come in handy... the singing of national anthems at sports venues when a 'celebrity guest' takes the mic. Rarely does that ever NOT make it onto the evening sports 'low-lights' segment! (Does anyone else remember Roseanne Barr's trashing of the American national anthem?) |
Subject:
Re: In defence of lip syncing
From: kriswrite-ga on 11 Oct 2004 13:31 PDT |
While I think you could argue that lip syncing is a "good thing," I do not believe it. Broadway performers sing, dance, and act every performance live ("A Chorus Line" was an exception). If the performer is well trained and disciplined, it can be done :) Kriswrite |
Subject:
Re: In defence of lip syncing
From: lahoria-ga on 11 Oct 2004 16:24 PDT |
play back singer would fall into same category or not????? If yes then whole of South Asia( Pakistan, india, bangladesh etc) film industry ( way much bigger then Hollywood) is geting benefit out of it. Where actors dance and some play back singer sing for them and they just lip sync. regards lahoria |
If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at answers-support@google.com with the question ID listed above. Thank you. |
Search Google Answers for |
Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy |