I agree with Slick on MJ - I love some of his stuff - especially the Off The Wall and Thriller period and he was once a fantastic performer. I thought his music began to suck around the time that he thought he was God himself .... until Jarvis put him in place at the Brits! Right now though - I just don't think he's up to a tour at all. Remember only a year or so ago we were led to believe that he was almost invalided and in very poor health. Having said that - at that press conference he seemed as fit as a fiddle and even looked rather good. So good in fact that if I was a sceptic, I'd even say it could have been a 'lookie-likie' there.

 

As for those allegations ... I honestly don't know what to believe so I'm not commenting on that.

 

And back on track - hope all the Britney fans have a lovely time at her shows! Miming or no miming!

 

Norma

Edited June 5, 200916 yr by Norma_Snockers

if you had read the thread youd see that grimly reported that mj was due to mime too :P

Yeah, and I was subtley suggesting that maybe it should get back to the actual topic :P

I dont get why people are having a 'debate' on this 'issue', why would one pay to go and see someone lip synch, where there talent is not lip synching :s

 

If someone lip synched at a gig i went to i'd ask for my f***ing money back, do people seriously pay money to see someone not sing?

 

In fact i would say it is rather unprofessional that one would pretend to sing at a show, on top of it being unloyal to fans.

she just can't sing...she doesn't have a voice...but still love her to death :w00t:

 

if she cant sing why have there been so many fans, such a s you, 'who love her to death'?

 

why do you love her, did you fall in love with her "singing"? you honestly make no sense to me.

 

 

Just to take the metaphore into other music genres... If, say, Slash were to fake playing a guitar solo because he couldn't then play the guitar with his teeth, feet or whatever other appendage, I somehow doubt that the fans would accept that as an excuse.... It would be a case of, "well then dont play the guitar with your teeth you prat...." :rolleyes:

 

I'm paying £40 quid to see Nine Inch Nails, believe me, if Trent Reznor comes on and bloody lip synchs because he's "feeling tired" or summat, regardless of me being a fan, he can fukk off and die..... I'd burn all by NIN CDs without question, simply because I'd feel cheated......

 

But at the same time Trent Reznot cares about his fans, he wouldnt rip them off buy selling them tickets to a live show, where he would lip synch.

 

yeah but Britney music just seems like it's too overproduced and she could never make them sound good if singing 'live'.

 

but in the other hand, she got ballads that she could sing them live...or at least try singing first 5 songs live or get some serious back-up vocalists that can help u whenever is hard for you.

 

If she cant sing live, then why is she getting people to spend money paying to see her live. If she cant sing live she shouldnt be doing live shows.

 

Why would someone charge their FANS to see them pretend to sing, its just plain cuntish, she obviously couldnt give a $h!t about her fans, the ones who love her music, she is obviously an all money person, couldnt give a $h!t about the fans, why do all these people love her so much.

 

 

 

OH and i think it is a CRIME, thats right a criminal offence, that someone would charge people large amounts of money from £50-£300 (the prices for Britney's o2 shows) to see someone not do their job, it's like people on 'Rouge Traders' you wouldnt pay an electrician to not do the job would you?

I guess, there can be some exceptions... Like Britney's Circus tour, i believe most of the songs are remixed and theres this whole huge show and i guess if theres that element then i guess lip-synching can be excused... But if all the songs were the same as the album and the dance routines were mediocre then no. No excuse for lip-synching. And also Britney Spears is considered to be more of an entertainer than a singer so i guess if she wants to entertain us without having her out of breath vocals (lets be honest with the dances that she used to do (and now rarely does) would leave her so breathless and would just ruin the "show"....) then i guess thats okay...

 

But then again, the main reason i go see Kelly Clarkson (the only TRUE gig ive been too :( been to secret gigs etc but not the same) is to listen to amazing voice...

I guess, there can be some exceptions... Like Britney's Circus tour, i believe most of the songs are remixed and theres this whole huge show and i guess if theres that element then i guess lip-synching can be excused... But if all the songs were the same as the album and the dance routines were mediocre then no. No excuse for lip-synching. And also Britney Spears is considered to be more of an entertainer than a singer so i guess if she wants to entertain us without having her out of breath vocals (lets be honest with the dances that she used to do (and now rarely does) would leave her so breathless and would just ruin the "show"....) then i guess thats okay...

 

But then again, the main reason i go see Kelly Clarkson (the only TRUE gig ive been too :( been to secret gigs etc but not the same) is to listen to amazing voice...

 

yeah but would you really oay 50-300 quid to see Britney pretend to sing? i;d understand more if she wasnt ripping her own fans off. And as *Trouble* said earlier, P!nk can sing and do all this dancing around, why would you see Britney who does half of that (she doesnt do the singing) but probaly charges more, where as there are people who obviously have real talent as they can sing while still doing the routines.

That's one of the things that annoys me the most about Britney. Other artists get crucified for miming even so much as on a tinpot TV show to promote, yet she gets away with never singing live and even mining on tour because it's "Britney" and "people expect it" and it's "the norm" - why the bloody hell SHOULD she get away with it? <_< Her voice is so flat, it surely can't be that hard to replicate it live.

 

As for the initial point, miming on a TV show I'd say is acceptable (if lazy in most cases), miming when people have paid to see you perform is unacceptable.

here comes the usual "he sleeps with boys" thing. i absolutely agree that he shouldn't sleep with children but if you were to actually take some time to read about why he does stuff like that then you'd understand. for example he didn't have a childhood and he feels like a kid himself so he sees nothing wrong with what he's doing. again, i don't agree with men sleeping with children and if i had a kid i definitely wouldn't let them sleep in another mans bed but still, he did nothing wrong.

 

i said this somewhere else, if you were the parents of the child who allegedly got abused by mj, would you accept money to shut up about it which is what they did? i very much doubt it and if you would you're just as sick as you're making michael and his fans out to be.

 

lol...thats the story they spin around him... look m8, IM jackos age, i grew up with him, i saw him on his first totp with his brothers, ive witnessed him first hand

 

THERE WAS NEVER ANYTHING 'CHILD-LIKE' ABOUT JACKO IN THE 70'S ... he was a 'normal' black kid in showbiz. this 'thinks hes a child' is bull, excuses excuses. the fact is hes a strongly suspected paedophile and as such shouldnt be 'supported' or excused in ANY way just because of who he is... NO ONE should. no intelligent human being could condone his actions and NO intelligent human being should be supporting him.

 

there are plenty of people who were in showbiz as kids, plenty who werent and they didnt grow up to be some dodgy weirdo who make believes they are kids!

 

THERES NO EXCUSE.

 

and how can you say 'he did nothing wrong'?.... sleeping with children (even IF it was non sexual) is wrong!!!!! 100% wrong! not acceptable behaviour! .... but its jacko, the god-like genius of pop (even though hes clearly not capeable of creating anything himself), and hes done some songs i like... so it ok!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FFS!!!!

 

as for the parents accepting money... fair enough, they are lower then low.... but it begs the question WHY did mj offer money IF he was innocent?

Well really I think its a rip-off if artists lip-synch. I'd ask for a refund, and i'm sure as well it'd be a $h!t show. For someone like Britney though she could at least mime half her songs, and then not mime the other half? I don't know. But paying that much for a ticket just to see them dance is a bit of a rip-off imo no matter how much you love the artist. I think James Corden on X-Factor summed miming up to a tee last year.

 

For me anyway, a lot of the bands I go to see don't really have great voices, I just go for the atmosphere really. And well that's worth the money itself for me. How much is it for the Circus tour? £40? I mean bands like Muse are charging £40 for their current tour, but Muse are recognised as one of the best lives acts around and i've never ever heard a bad word said about them. I guess Britney could be considered an entertainer, but £40?! Its a bit of a rip-off imo. Although I suppose if you're a big fan then I could see why they'd want to go see them so much. But I still think its taking advantage of your fans..

That's one of the things that annoys me the most about Britney. Other artists get crucified for miming even so much as on a tinpot TV show to promote, yet she gets away with never singing live and even mining on tour because it's "Britney" and "people expect it" and it's "the norm" - why the bloody hell SHOULD she get away with it? <_< Her voice is so flat, it surely can't be that hard to mimic it live.

 

As for the initial point, miming on a TV show I'd say is acceptable (if lazy in most cases), miming when people have paid to see you perform is unacceptable.

 

i completly agree with you there, why do some bands get hate for miming on a TV show, when they are told to by the producers of the show, where as Britnet charges people to go and see her mime, it's worse that she actually charges an extortionate amount for people to go and see her mime, i do honestly see it as a crime.

 

Well really I think its a rip-off if artists lip-synch. I'd ask for a refund, and i'm sure as well it'd be a $h!t show. For someone like Britney though she could at least mime half her songs, and then not mime the other half? I don't know. But paying that much for a ticket just to see them dance is a bit of a rip-off imo no matter how much you love the artist. I think James Corden on X-Factor summed miming up to a tee last year.

 

For me anyway, a lot of the bands I go to see don't really have great voices, I just go for the atmosphere really. And well that's worth the money itself for me. How much is it for the Circus tour? £40? I mean bands like Muse are charging £40 for their current tour, but Muse are recognised as one of the best lives acts around and i've never ever heard a bad word said about them. I guess Britney could be considered an entertainer, but £40?! Its a bit of a rip-off imo. Although I suppose if you're a big fan then I could see why they'd want to go see them so much. But I still think its taking advantage of your fans..

 

I go mainly for the atmosphere aswell, but if the band on stage are miming then they arent doing their jobs, I think if you go and see Britney and she mimes you should get a refund!

 

and your complaining about £40 to see her, that's how much NIN tickets were with all booking fees and stuff for a band with an astonishing live show and then Britney plays the same venue, and on ticketmaster the prices started at £50 going up to £300, and this isnt like people re-selling them at £300 that's how much they actually cost :|

Chris sums up why real music fans don't pay and see them miming.

It's one of the things why acts should not mime, I don't want to see bands who will "fakely" perform too.

One more thing before I go, there are also artists who criticise Britney for miming (e.g. Demi Lovato).

 

lol...thats the story they spin around him... look m8, IM jackos age, i grew up with him, i saw him on his first totp with his brothers, ive witnessed him first hand

 

THERE WAS NEVER ANYTHING 'CHILD-LIKE' ABOUT JACKO IN THE 70'S ... he was a 'normal' black kid in showbiz. this 'thinks hes a child' is bull, excuses excuses. the fact is hes a strongly suspected paedophile and as such shouldnt be 'supported' or excused in ANY way just because of who he is... NO ONE should. no intelligent human being could condone his actions and NO intelligent human being should be supporting him.

 

there are plenty of people who were in showbiz as kids, plenty who werent and they didnt grow up to be some dodgy weirdo who make believes they are kids!

 

THERES NO EXCUSE.

 

and how can you say 'he did nothing wrong'?.... sleeping with children (even IF it was non sexual) is wrong!!!!! 100% wrong! not acceptable behaviour! .... but its jacko, the god-like genius of pop (even though hes clearly not capeable of creating anything himself), and hes done some songs i like... so it ok!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FFS!!!!

 

as for the parents accepting money... fair enough, they are lower then low.... but it begs the question WHY did mj offer money IF he was innocent?

Calm down, please. Not good for the blood level. :)

lol...thats the story they spin around him... look m8, IM jackos age, i grew up with him, i saw him on his first totp with his brothers, ive witnessed him first hand

 

THERE WAS NEVER ANYTHING 'CHILD-LIKE' ABOUT JACKO IN THE 70'S ... he was a 'normal' black kid in showbiz. this 'thinks hes a child' is bull, excuses excuses. the fact is hes a strongly suspected paedophile and as such shouldnt be 'supported' or excused in ANY way just because of who he is... NO ONE should. no intelligent human being could condone his actions and NO intelligent human being should be supporting him.

 

there are plenty of people who were in showbiz as kids, plenty who werent and they didnt grow up to be some dodgy weirdo who make believes they are kids!

 

THERES NO EXCUSE.

 

and how can you say 'he did nothing wrong'?.... sleeping with children (even IF it was non sexual) is wrong!!!!! 100% wrong! not acceptable behaviour! .... but its jacko, the god-like genius of pop (even though hes clearly not capeable of creating anything himself), and hes done some songs i like... so it ok!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FFS!!!!

 

as for the parents accepting money... fair enough, they are lower then low.... but it begs the question WHY did mj offer money IF he was innocent?

 

Whoa - do you really want him to think he's Jesus? 'Cos you sure as hell did a good job of crucifying him there! Ummm...what happened to innocent until proven guilty...?

Whoa - do you really want him to think he's Jesus? 'Cos you sure as hell did a good job of crucifying him there! Ummm...what happened to innocent until proven guilty...?

 

ive only mentioned the acts he HAS committed, the acts he IS guilty of :)

Hmm, I think I'm going to get attacked her, but in Britney's case, I don't think anyone going to see her perform really cares. Because that's basically what she's doing, performing and not singing. I've seen clips from her recent tour and her dancing & overall as a show looks fantastic! If someone wants to pay £50 to see her, then let them. They're the ones either being taken for a mug, or on the other side, just going to see a great show!

yeah but would you really oay 50-300 quid to see Britney pretend to sing? i;d understand more if she wasnt ripping her own fans off. And as *Trouble* said earlier, P!nk can sing and do all this dancing around, why would you see Britney who does half of that (she doesnt do the singing) but probaly charges more, where as there are people who obviously have real talent as they can sing while still doing the routines.

I know you probably don't mean it, but can you stop making it out like it's her PERSONALLY picking the prices? :heehee: It's annoying me LOL. It's the management and event organisers etc... that pick the amount the tickets are etc...

 

I'm just gonna put in my two cents... I'm going to see Britney on Wednesday, yes I'm truly gutted she probably won't sing any songs live, but to me it's not JUST about singing LIVE. That's sort of an extra added "bonus" if you like, if the artist is a PERFORMER (like Britney). I am slightly disappointed to hear the only ballad on the tour isn't even live :( But I am sort of made up for the fact that she is more of a performer/entertainer. (I think I'm in the cheaper seats for the tour, I wouldn't pay £300 for ANYBODY :heehee:). I've been to a few gigs where the artist has sung live, but I've been sat there bored SHITLESS and not motivated at ALL! So out of them two, I'd most certainly prefer to go and see Britney perform, whether she mimed or not, coz she puts on one hell of a show.

 

Even if I knew the artist was $h!t at singing live and I liked them (Katy Perry for Example) I'd still go and see her, coz she too puts on a damn good show, so it sort of makes up for the fact she can't sing and stuff. But if the singer was just standing there, had a decent voice, but didn't put on a "good show", then I'd start pulling my hair out or something! LOL.

 

I'm just basically TRYING to say that the PERFORMANCE/SHOW is just AS important (if not a little more) than singing live etc... Yes it'd be alot better if she sung live and put on a good performance, OBVIOUSLY. But when she puts on a show that keeps her fans happy (and it bloody works, hence why it's grossed $61,576,699 from just her NA tour [NOT including Merchandising and stuff either]), I don't see the crime TBH, it's not like she's just stood there miming...

 

Please do understand the above is just MY opinion so don't attack me please :heehee: If anything looks wrong then ignore it, I'm an idiot and couldn't do a long essay-type post to save my life :heehee:

What does everyone think about Katy Perry? she does sing live but gets bad reports about it because it sounds 'worse' than the cd's. I would much rather see katy than britney even if katy cant sing live at least she tries. If you're going to a gig and expecting it to sound exactly like the cd, then why bother going, of course its gonna sound different.

 

Pink has always sang live, even when spinning around in the air, doing trapeze acts and being suspended in a net with no safetly harness, thats one of the reasons why her gigs are so good, she puts in so much hard work.

I wouldn't enjoy a Katy Perry concert as she tends to sound like a cat in pain, but I'd sooner see her than Britney. I bought the album for about £10, I'm not gonna spent about £40/50 to sit in an arena while the songs are played from a CD with Britney dancing to it. If anything, I'd buy a DVD of it. Screw the 'atmosphere' if it's not live it ain't worth going out to see.

 

Agreed about P!nk. Ok, she doesn't do huge dance routines like Madonna or Britney, but she certainly moves around a lot on stage. Whether it was on a trapeze during "Sober", spinning around in the air after being dipped in water on "Glitter In The Air" or jumping around to something like "Just Like A Pill" or "U + Ur Hand" she sounded great. So I don't buy this "can't sing because they were moving about too much" rubbish, P!nk showed me that it's possible to be swinging through the air and still put out a decent vocal.

 

Definitely a great first show for me and, actually, her show had a slight 'circus' theme with it being the "Funhouse" tour. I'd recommend P!nk to anyone if you want a female popstar who can sing and put on a show at the same time.

I know you probably don't mean it, but can you stop making it out like it's her PERSONALLY picking the prices? :heehee: It's annoying me LOL. It's the management and event organisers etc... that pick the amount the tickets are etc...

 

I'm just gonna put in my two cents... I'm going to see Britney on Wednesday, yes I'm truly gutted she probably won't sing any songs live, but to me it's not JUST about singing LIVE. That's sort of an extra added "bonus" if you like, if the artist is a PERFORMER (like Britney). I am slightly disappointed to hear the only ballad on the tour isn't even live :( But I am sort of made up for the fact that she is more of a performer/entertainer. (I think I'm in the cheaper seats for the tour, I wouldn't pay £300 for ANYBODY :heehee:). I've been to a few gigs where the artist has sung live, but I've been sat there bored SHITLESS and not motivated at ALL! So out of them two, I'd most certainly prefer to go and see Britney perform, whether she mimed or not, coz she puts on one hell of a show.

 

Even if I knew the artist was $h!t at singing live and I liked them (Katy Perry for Example) I'd still go and see her, coz she too puts on a damn good show, so it sort of makes up for the fact she can't sing and stuff. But if the singer was just standing there, had a decent voice, but didn't put on a "good show", then I'd start pulling my hair out or something! LOL.

 

I'm just basically TRYING to say that the PERFORMANCE/SHOW is just AS important (if not a little more) than singing live etc... Yes it'd be alot better if she sung live and put on a good performance, OBVIOUSLY. But when she puts on a show that keeps her fans happy (and it bloody works, hence why it's grossed $61,576,699 from just her NA tour [NOT including Merchandising and stuff either]), I don't see the crime TBH, it's not like she's just stood there miming...

 

Please do understand the above is just MY opinion so don't attack me please :heehee: If anything looks wrong then ignore it, I'm an idiot and couldn't do a long essay-type post to save my life :heehee:

 

well yeah she obviously doesnt personally pick the prices lol, but at the same time if people are paying that much to see her, you'd think she could at least put some effort into it and sing (and no one bring out that whole 'but omgz the stage show is amazze! bollocks, she doesnt get a say in that), yeah the PERFORMANCE/SHOW is just AS important, but that's the point, even you just pointed it out, your saying it's AS important, so her not singng is taking 50% of the importantness away.

For me anybody who thinks it is acceptable to pay big bucks and watch a singer mime for the vast majority of the concert is a mug who is allowing an artist to get a way with cheating and ripping off her profession, and their audience.

 

As others have mentioned, the fact that Britney Spears miming is not regarded as such a big deal shows how far standards have dropped within the music industry thanks to the awful influence of idiots who have exploited the music industry over the last 20 years and have caused it a great deal as harm such as Pete Waterman, Simon Cowell, Frank Farian, Lou Pearlman, Louis Walsh, etc.

 

Milli Vanilli Song Skips Live

 

Classic CBS News: Milli Vanilli Controversy 1990

 

For me Britney Spears, Michael Jackson or whoever miming at their concerts deserve to be treated with the same contempt that destroyed Milli Vanilli's career in 1990, and overnight severely damaged the whole pop genre for the best part of a decade.

For me anybody who thinks it is acceptable to pay big bucks and watch a singer mime for the vast majority of the concert is a mug who is allowing an artist to get a way with cheating and ripping off her profession, and their audience.

 

As others have mentioned, the fact that Britney Spears miming is not regarded as such a big deal shows how far standards have dropped within the music industry thanks to the awful influence of idiots who have exploited the music industry over the last 20 years and have caused it a great deal as harm such as Pete Waterman, Simon Cowell, Frank Farian, Lou Pearlman, Louis Walsh, etc.

 

Milli Vanilli Song Skips Live

 

Classic CBS News: Milli Vanilli Controversy 1990

 

For me Britney Spears, Michael Jackson or whoever miming at their concerts deserve to be treated with the same contempt that destroyed Milli Vanilli's career in 1990, and overnight severely damaged the whole pop genre for the best part of a decade.

 

full truth

here comes the usual "he sleeps with boys" thing. i absolutely agree that he shouldn't sleep with children but if you were to actually take some time to read about why he does stuff like that then you'd understand. for example he didn't have a childhood and he feels like a kid himself so he sees nothing wrong with what he's doing. again, i don't agree with men sleeping with children and if i had a kid i definitely wouldn't let them sleep in another mans bed but still, he did nothing wrong.

 

i said this somewhere else, if you were the parents of the child who allegedly got abused by mj, would you accept money to shut up about it which is what they did? i very much doubt it and if you would you're just as sick as you're making michael and his fans out to be.

 

anyway back to the lypsyncing thing. i don't see a problem with it as long as they put on a good show though i'd much rather go to a gig where they do sing live. i went to the oasis gig at heaton park yesterday and if they would have mimed (which they never would because they can actually sing unlike some people) the they would have been slaughtered by the crowd. i think it depends on the artist. bands like oasis are all about the singing whereas artists like britney are all about putting on a show.

Other bands are just as much about putting on a show as Britters! Look at Iron Maiden for example! They do all their instruments and singing live AND they put on a great show and the fans leave thinking it was worth the money! My problem with Britney is the fact that people let her get away with miming and saying they just love her but the question is WHY? If she doesn't sing live or have anything to do with her music then what's to love about her?

 

I have spent nearly £300 on my upcoming gigs which are Blur at Hype Park, Reading Festival and Green Day at O2 Arena and I bloody hope that every one of those bands I see on those bands that I see play perform live or I'll definitely feel ripped off!