If the announcer introduced her as "And now to lip sync the National Anthem, please welcome Whitney Houston". It wouldn't be as popular. They tried to fool people into believe she was really singing it. People thought she did really sing it for years. It was all fake and a lie.
Sure I can separate live performance from CD performances. I prefer CD performances to live performances most of the time because well, they sound a hell of a lot better. Music and listening is purely subjective. There are those who love Bose, there are those that love Martin Logans, Wilson Audio, etc., and there are still others that will buy some $99 surround sound system and be content. Somehow they all love the music that come from their speakers. So, despite the fact you may think a "live" performance is indicative of a better performance, there are those that think a "live" performance acoustically STINKS in large stadiums and is playing roulette with a screw-up. So despite the fact that you may have worked with incredible expense and wattage in audio, the fact remains - music is a subjective taste. If something sounds good to me, it sounds good to me - I couldn't care less how it's doctored up (yes, I know, you don't do any doctoring of material in your 100,000 watt setups. ). Somewhere all the music mavens will have to understand that it's not that people don't understand what they're saying - they just disagree with what they're saying. FWIW, I don't watch American Idol, either, and don't do karaoke. Man, I still love that Marvin Gaye version, though - maybe even more than Whitney's... and hey, it was "live".
just to get a little more abstract on ya'... yes, buying a CD is absolutely an illusion. It is mind boggling when you think about it. When you buy a CD what are you buying? That is the reason that music is in danger of becoming about as worthless as the trash in the street (as stated by Stevie Wonder). You are buying digital information that is going to be reproduced in the analog domain and eventually make it's way into the air. More specifically, according to the end result you are buying arrangement and movement of air molecules. You can't actually touch the product you are buying - which is why it must be packaged in fancy artwork with other things in order to have perceived value to the public. With the general public's disregard for things artistic unless backed by major marketing efforts I can see where the majority of people might not care whether a performance is live or canned. As a matter of fact, it seems the arguments of the Dunk Doctor seem to infer that canned might be preferred due to the removal of imperfections. While I understand how this can be the state of the world in some circles I can't except this in mine. I prefer quality over hype and packaging. Cheers, Brock
the sound stinks more in some large venues than others, but if you can make pre-recorded program material sound OK there isn't any reason you can't make live material sound OK unless either: 1) you don't know what you are doing 2) the budget doesn't allow for proper equipment 3) the artist isn't capable As to the doctoring of the venue in which I worked - other than standard tools it wasn't required as the musicians knew how to play and sing - and it was all live. The house band were all musicians in major touring acts and the performers from outside were all excellent at what they do. Anyways, long ago I decided it was futile to argue with Kenny G fans. Later, B
I guess this thread is relevant after Beyonce's pre-recorded/lip sync inauguration stuff. Just have a new addition to the pantheon of greatest performances of the Star Spangled Banner. Mr. Brian McKnight. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/96_Etd83qz8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/A8KxHBcPNT0?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> EPIC
