Comments on: Super Bowl – Jennifer Hudson and Bruce Springsteen

By: Aaron

Aaron — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:55:32 +0000

Hudson on the Grammy’s last night proves my point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1rTA_qffaw
Her performance was not flawless vocally BUT WHO CARES!! It was free and straight from the heart and I was moved emotionally. That is what live performances are all about.

By: Hannah

Hannah — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 01:06:00 +0000

I agree lipsynching is not singing, even if it’s to your own voice. If she couldn’t do it for whatever reason, then Faith Hill or whatever should have gone on as the understudy. JH could do it next year. I’m sorry, that’s just the way it is. The truth is people are extremely unforgiving with less than perfect performances — but sometimes they don’t even notice. In both cases it’s because it’s an audience which really has no respect or real appreciation for music or musicians, especially singers. They want canned perfection, and sometimes someone gyrating is all they want in the can. In either case someone who gives them either of these is a sellout, not a musician.

By: MaxxNY

MaxxNY — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 17:29:52 +0000

So will they lip sync at the Grammys ?

By: Victoria

Victoria — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 23:23:37 +0000

Lip synching sucks, in my humble opinion. I thought that stuff went out with American Bandstand and the Milli Vanilli boys. If you go on You Tube and start watching the videos, guess which ones are most compelling and dynamic? That’s right, the real live performances, not the lame lip-synched ones. I realize it’s not always the artist’s decision, but what a crummy thing to do to an audience.

By: Regine

Regine — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:27:08 +0000

I did not see the superbowl or half time performances, however I am surprised to learn that so many of these are pre-recorded. It makes me wonder how many performances I have watched in the past thinking they were live when they were not. I feel it gives people a false sense of what a live performance should be.
When watching a “live” performance as an audience member I hope to hear, see, and feel exactly that, even if it’s not perfect. On the occassion that I expect it to be more exact though, I listen to a studio CD.
Some songs or albums I own as studio and live versions, because of the differences and benefits of each.

By: Pete

Pete — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:33:50 +0000

Per you’re absolutely right. I cannot understand Minor’s comment either. I did not watch Super Bowl, so I do not comment performers here.

In Finland (where I live) lipsync also has been used in public live events and in TV a long time, but I could never personally accept it as performer. I feel sorry for the performers, and I don’t they love it either.

My personal view is and has always been that performers and, as it is in this particular case, the producer undervalues and despise audience when they do it.
First of all live music could never be played if faultless or perfect performance would be required. And how do we define perfect anyway? and from whose angle?
Pure, clean sound? Maybe in classic music, but not definitely in most of the pop/rock genres.

Most of the rock singers and musicians that I know say that it is the sense of swing or groove that is the whole point in live performance – to get the audience alive to get them feel “touched”. Not necessary the fact that singer does not hit every single note, even if for us singers it mostly matters ofcourse.

Secondly I must say that studio versions of songs are to be regarded as such (like jigsaw puzzle made).
Like everyone knows especially hardrock bands change/lower the key for live shows to make it possible for the singer to make it.
I have never blamed them for doing it. Well, I know from own experience how impossible it would be to sing notes (in the extreme end of your range) for e.g. two hours.

Isn’t it the feeling and the unique experience we as the audience look for, and I at least usually sense them comprehensively, not only with ears or only as audio signals.

Peace!

By: Tammy

Tammy — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:57:54 +0000

My comment is not directed towards Jennifer, she may not have even been given a choice in the matter, but speaking strickly about lip syncing, it hits me as acting, not singing. Her rendition was great and she is great. Even If my 13 year old daughter had the option of lip syncing each time she performs, she would refuse. Granted, I might be less nervous watching and might actually be able to breathe while she was on stage, but the rewards afterwards would not be the same for me or for her.

By: Martin P.

Martin P. — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 07:24:33 +0000

i love jennifer and what she has accomplished and what she has overcome. but lip syncing is for the birds. is it live or is it memorex? ask ella. she would never have lip synced. bruce certainly didn’t lip synce. were his vocals perfect? not even, but which do you remember more? BRRRUUUUCCEE!

By: karen

karen — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 05:17:31 +0000

They’re all lipsyncing nowadays. Jordan Sparks did it last year for the SuperBowl, and so on and so on.

By: MaxxNY

MaxxNY — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 03:20:56 +0000

I didn’t really watch the game. I am surprised she did lip sync. Would she have lip synced regardless of the tragedy? And I imagined she was booked before the tragedy . . . Would I ever lip sync ? Depends how much loot was being thrown my way, we are human and we like to live comfortably . Honestly I think Id rather flop on stage than lip sync. Ive seen my friends with an acoustic guitar have their good nights and bad nights singing, even when they were “out” they sang with soul. I also was told the performance at the inauguration was prerecorded. As were the fireworks at the Olympics; CGI.
But having said that I think all sports are rigged anyways, just like “pro wrestling”. So nothing surprises me anymore.