I'll admit i am impressed by those magic tricks but i cant see why she has to mime while doing them, where as people can be doing far more energetic things and still not mime, like Beastie Boys...

 

all that credibility crap....britney is still breaking records, selling albums, arena..and Circus era is her most Successful sinse BOMT....

the only reason she aint sold as much now is because of Illegal Downloading-same with every artist..no1 is going to sell what they did 10 yrs ago!

 

you are completely missing the point..... ( i picked this post out at random)

 

the point is that you are accepting this fake act as acceptable, which tip has clearly demonstrated SHOULDNT be. theres no excuse for being a fraudulant product.

 

its a very sad indictment that the younger generation accept 'plastic' products like this.... may watertwat rot in hell :angry:

 

 

lol, here is so many jelous bitchy britney anti fans, i can only laught on comments. the real thing is, britney doesn't have best voice in the world, but she have everything what people wanna see of some pop star. she is sexy, she is cute, she is great dancer, she is nice person and good singer. and that is why people love her.

 

another one who misses the point....

 

it aint about 'anti britney' its about anti FAKE. sexy? cute? how shallow...shes supposed to be a SINGER.

 

Hey Britney, mime me baby one more time

Daily Mail Review

By Pete Clark

Last updated at 12:12 AM on 05th June 2009

 

** Stars

 

Britney Spears may be no dancer, nor indeed the greatest singer - but she is an unashamed exhibitionist who displays a profound belief in her own sexuality and her right to flaunt it.

 

And judging by her appearance this week on the London stage - her first major concert here for five years - her preferred means of communication is the saucy strut, which she employed tirelessly, making sure there wasn't one audience member unaware of the allure of her thighs, midriff and cleavage.

 

Britney's Circus is a show with a theme and that theme is anything goes as long as it's eye-catching, gaudy and faintly risque

This, after all, is the woman who decided that, in defiance of the age-old rule handed down from mother to daughter, it was perfectly OK to pass on the knickers while wearing the shortest of skirts.

All things considered, though, it was heartening to see Britney Spears back performing, and looking fit and well.

 

Her recent life has been something of a car crash, the headlines she generated concerned with custody battles, rehab and weight problems, rather than music.

Britney suffered the backlash which has come to be the inevitable and undesirable companion of naked ambition and early fame.

 

But at London's O2 Arena on Wednesday evening, descending from the heavens dressed as a ringmaster on the first date of her Circus tour, she seemed once more in charge of her destiny.

The crowd, mostly female with a smattering of bemused dads, was on its feet instantly as she launched into current hit, Circus.

 

Although purists grumble about her lack of singing and dancing, there can be none who doubt her enthusiasm about displaying a body that is well-covered in flesh, but barely touched by anything as mundane as clothes.

Three interlinked stages in the centre of the arena seethed with dry ice and dancers, who spent the evening in a state of perpetual motion, bathed in coloured lights, disappearing and reappearing through trap doors. Britney's Circus is a show with a theme and that theme is anything goes as long as it's eye-catching, gaudy and faintly risque.

 

It was clear from the outset that she was exorcising demons. The carnival effects could not disguise a deep undercurrent of anger and frustration being worked out.

Many of the routines contained elements of bondage - at one point Britney was trapped inside a cage, around which muscular men prowled. It would not require a student of psychology to propose that underlying issues with the cruel trap of fame were being addressed.

Yet this was all done in the name of entertainment, and Britney, as far as I could see from Row M, was periodically sporting a large grin.

 

Since her precocious entrance into the business, Britney Spears has radically remodelled herself.

She is no longer the young Lolita who gambolled saucily through her early hit Baby One More Time, although she included that song towards the end of the set. Evidently, she was paying attention to the stagecraft of Madonna who has refined the tricky art of playing both a coquettish woman in peril and a vampish female.

 

Similarly, the music has become harder, the cute and catchy pop giving way to modern R&B songs propelled by hammering drums and shuddering bass.

Even the most ardent admirers of Ms Spears must concede that she does not have the strongest voice in the world. I would say that, without a shadow of doubt, she was miming during most of the concert, disguised by the use of backing vocals in the mix.

She seemed to expend most of her energy running around wiggling her derriere. She just didn't look as if she was belting out songs. And there were mutterings in the crowd about miming by the end of the night.

 

In terms of spectacle, though, there could be no complaints. Above the central stage was suspended what looked like a giant Victorian lampshade which was full of tricks of light and levitation.

When the sides were lowered, images were projected on it, including the video-link introduction courtesy of American gossip columnist Perez Hilton, who has a certain fame in blogging circles.

 

In truth, Britney needed some help from this garrulous fellow because she didn't have much to say. She correctly identified the city in which she was performing and said how pleased she was to be there. And that was the sum of her communication with the audience.

Britney Spears put on a lavish production after coming back from depression, custody battles, weight problems and rehab

 

Finally, despite the disappointments, it was an evening of celebration. Not long ago, Britney Spears shaved off her hair and gave every appearance of a woman on the verge of disintegration.

 

Somehow, and in an industry which does not always look after its own, she has put her life back together. If she had time in her hectic schedule, a few words with Amy Winehouse might not go amiss.

 

Circus is not, despite its lavish production, the greatest show on the road. The influence of Madonna has not been fully assimilated into something Britney can call her own, while her songs have a generic quality. And perhaps as she gets stronger and more confident, a vocal coach might be able to pep up a non existent delivery on a recording voice that has always been weedy.

 

Yet there is a section of the show which features a magician who saws Britney in half and then puts her back together. This, in exaggerated terms, might stand as a metaphor for her life. Not many performers come back from the dead.

 

Britney Spears is still only 27, but already a veteran. If she can put more of her experience into her music, she might still become a major artist.

She does not lack resolve, as the opening words of Circus make clear: 'There's only two types of people in the world, the ones that entertain and the ones that observe.'

LOLZ. ^

 

I also think the point Tyler made is important .. why is this SUDDENLY an issue? Britney has mimed/sung along for her last 2 tours before this one. Why is it suddenly a problem, when it wasn't in 2004? All these 'huge Britney fans that have been let down' ... where were they in 2001-04? I'm not saying it's ideal, or even right, to lip-synch on tours (although from my previous post, people know I don't care much either way), but it's hardly a SURPRISE for this tour.

 

I've always had a major issue with it, I'm glad it's finally being widely recognised to be honest. ^_^

I've noticed that a few times in this thread people have said stuff along the lines of 'miming would never have been accepted 20 years ago, why now' etc; to answer that I don't think it is in the main. Sure the likes of Britney can get away with it but that's because she has a huge (and slightly delluded) fanbase who she's had for a decade and who won't be giving up on her just because she's sort of the youngest and most accessible of all the 'icons'. But if you like elsewhere - specifically TV - miming has become the subject of ridicule and hate. When Ashlee Simpson was discovered to be miming on American TV the press made it into a scandal and, co-incidence or not, she lost a lot of fans; her third album flunked spectacularly. Top Of The Pops employed a no-miming rule in the latter years and it's only on a couple of daytime TV shows with a tiny stage setup that anybody ever mimes on TV these days. Generally it's seen as a lot less acceptable than it was 5 years ago.

Another good point! Also Rachel Stevens wasn't taken seriously around the Come And Get It era because she mimed to promote her singles on TV shows and stuff, and as a result her album tanked big style and the singles performed below par. This isn't exactly fair when Britney can get away with miming on TOUR, and it's not as if she's any more talented than Rachel is either.

Hmm, some interesting points here, good debate Grimly!

 

I will try to be as neutral as possible, as I am one of these "deluding fans" that is going to see Britney in a couple of weeks! :rolleyes:

 

The thing is, the whole concept of Britney's shows, and any artists tours, are purely for performance purposes, it is a show, a stage, a performance, it is not an audition or the X Factor where we judge our 'idols' vocal abilities; it is merely a space for fans of the artist to gather an watch them perform, irregardless of live vs. lipsynching.

 

In addition to that, the majority of commercial pop music today is over-enhanced (Reinforced in GaGa's 'Pokerface' - a live singer) and it is difficult for the artist to adhere to the standards of the track, and sing to the level at which the track is produced. I applaud Lady Gaga for singing her performances live, especially with songs like 'Just Dance' and 'Pokerface', but I think that she needs to perform live to ensure her longetivity in the music business, without it, she is just another wannabe, seeking the 'life-fulfillment' of singing forever to please fans :rolleyes: pfft. Britney has proved she can sing from 1999-2004, on cd's and tours, but yet she is still being forced amidst the:

 

50-odd date tour,

album promoting,

music video making,

single promoting,

appearences,

rehearsels,

travelling,

and being a mother *no comments please*,

 

to sing LIVE! I find it ludicrous that critics judge her because of this, she puts on a spectacular show, from what I've seen, and it is well worth the money! Hence selling over 1,000,000 tickets and selling out all the dates at the 02!

 

Britney has nothing to prove, she has established herself as a successful leader in the music industry and if she does sing live on the ballads, or if she sings live in future concerts - good for her! However, even if she doesn't it wouldn't bother me.

she is still being forced amidst the:

 

50-odd date tour,

album promoting,

music video making,

single promoting,

appearences,

rehearsels,

travelling,

and being a mother *no comments please*,

 

to sing LIVE!

 

... all of which are things every other artist in the music industry has to do as well. But yes, poor Britney being pressurised into doing her job amidst these things. :(

Whoa Britney really can sing im impressed :o

 

... all of which are things every other artist in the music industry has to do as well. But yes, poor Britney being pressurised into doing her job amidst these things. :(

 

:lol:

 

The excuses get better!

Britney just need more confidence in her vocie because she's not that bad vocally. As long as she knows her limitation when it comes to belting it out and stepping out of her comfort zone.

This is the vital point here ... a lot of people in this thread are talking about miming artists 'cheating' their fans. But surely to God, anyone who's been a Britney fan for any reasonably length of time (hell, even anyone who saw her X Factor performance) would KNOW that she won't sing live. She barely sung any of the Onyx Hotel tour live in 2004, and no-one had an issue with it like they suddenly do now. So I'm using Britney as an illustration because I know the most about her, but it applies to MJ/etc aswell

 

Anyone who comes out of one of Britney's O2 concerts this week feeling cheated because she mimed deserves it for their ignorance and stupidity of thinking she wouldn't. We can debate til the cows come home about whether she should, but the fact is that people have known for 5-6 years that she won't ... why suddenly be surprised when she doesn't sing live for their show? I'm going tomorrow, and have REALISTIC expectations of what she'll do, and so won't feel like I've been cheated, because I got what I expected.

 

I also think Britney is a performer and visual artist before a singer. Her songs are that ... songs, not 'pieces of art' or even (arguably) 'music'. I'm a huge Britney fan, but I'm realistic ... they're uber-produced pop songs performed by a pretty blonde woman. But fact is, they're intense fun and look fantastic on a similarly styled visual production. There ARE exceptions, because all different artists provide different things. I'll go and see Britney for her stunning stage show, and I don't much care if she mimes, because I'm not there to see her prove herself as a vocalist ... I'm just not interested in that from her. I'll go and see Kelly Clarkson because of her, proven, amazing voice - I do want her to sing live because that's what she's amazing at. Both shows are fascinating for different reasons. I maybe could have both, if I went to see Pink, but I won't, because I don't like any of her songs that much. Why do I have to choose to go and see a Diversity show if I want dancing? They're incredible, but it wouldn't be like the Britney show. Why can't I have both in the same place and save myself about 200 quid? I'd also point out that just because Britney fans don't care about her not singing live, doesn't mean they have no musical credibility or taste ... we're not stupid. Not a direct criticism at anyone here, but it's just something I've come up against a lot ... people think because I can enjoy a Britney concert, I can't enjoy anything of quality or worth.

 

The bottom line is that anyone who doesn't understand what's so great about a Britney gig will NEVER be satisfied with any answer I could give. If you don't get what's incredible about it, you just don't get it :lol: Personally I'd just let everyone enjoy what they want to enjoy

 

With all due respect Andrew, that is just a bullsh!t defence..... The likes of Girls Aloud, Saturdays, Sugababes, Kylie, etc aint exactly doing "great" music either (I believe your phrase was "uber-produced Pop Songs"... :rolleyes: ), but they KNOW in themselves that a LIVE show is meant to be just that.... LIVE (I really dont think that this point can be stressed too much).. And they simply have more credibility than Britney because they keep their music live when they go out there and perform to a paying crowd.. Let me repeat, I dont so much care if an act goes on TV show and lip-synchs, but a LIVE show, that's just not on, full stop....

 

And, frankly the criticism of Britney's "live" shows are just totally long overdue in my book.... And just before you criticise my position as being a "Rockist" one, I've had issues with Rock adn Metal acts whom I've considered to have overly-relied on Playback to fill in backing vocals, keyboards, even second guitars.. Obviously I dont expect a band to have a 20-piece choir or a 40 piece orchestra on stage, that's impractical, and these are the occasions where Playback DAT is probably necessary.... But when it's a case of having one or two session musicians onstage or a couple of extra backing singers, then sorry, but you're taking the p!ss by using DAT..... I'm afraid I am very much of the "Keep Music Live" school, and I make absolutely no apologies for that position.... But, I dont discriminate, I feel ALL acts from ALL genres should "keep it live and keep it real"...... Singers are supposed to SING, end of story mate....

 

Britney's main job is a singer like my job is a chef funnily i am expected to be able to cook and deliver quality food every day and i understand thats my role along with other bits and pieces why does britney not have to do her job? Britney is a singer but for some strange reason she does not sing at all does this not ring alarm bells with people.

 

The comment about her having to do tv shows promote single albums tours etc is what makes up the rest of her job and every other artist in the undustry has to do the same thing day in day out so thats no excuse for britney not singing.

 

I totally understand britney puts on a great show and yes the tour has sold well but it would be very easy for any singer to put on a spectacular show is they didnt have to worry about singing. If britney feels its ok to mime fair enough but why does she even bother with having a microphone when its clearly a backing track that is been played... i often wonder how she would react if the backing track scratched mid way through a song?

 

In the real world like any of us are living in and when we go to work if we dont do the job we are employed to do we get sacked and rightly so we are emlpoyed on the basis of our skills and those skills we are expected to deliver and this should be no different for britney.

Hmm, some interesting points here, good debate Grimly!

 

I will try to be as neutral as possible, as I am one of these "deluding fans" that is going to see Britney in a couple of weeks! :rolleyes:

 

The thing is, the whole concept of Britney's shows, and any artists tours, are purely for performance purposes, it is a show, a stage, a performance, it is not an audition or the X Factor where we judge our 'idols' vocal abilities; it is merely a space for fans of the artist to gather an watch them perform, irregardless of live vs. lipsynching.

 

In addition to that, the majority of commercial pop music today is over-enhanced (Reinforced in GaGa's 'Pokerface' - a live singer) and it is difficult for the artist to adhere to the standards of the track, and sing to the level at which the track is produced. I applaud Lady Gaga for singing her performances live, especially with songs like 'Just Dance' and 'Pokerface', but I think that she needs to perform live to ensure her longetivity in the music business, without it, she is just another wannabe, seeking the 'life-fulfillment' of singing forever to please fans :rolleyes: pfft. Britney has proved she can sing from 1999-2004, on cd's and tours, but yet she is still being forced amidst the:

 

50-odd date tour,

album promoting,

music video making,

single promoting,

appearences,

rehearsels,

travelling,

and being a mother *no comments please*,

 

to sing LIVE! I find it ludicrous that critics judge her because of this, she puts on a spectacular show, from what I've seen, and it is well worth the money! Hence selling over 1,000,000 tickets and selling out all the dates at the 02!

 

Britney has nothing to prove, she has established herself as a successful leader in the music industry and if she does sing live on the ballads, or if she sings live in future concerts - good for her! However, even if she doesn't it wouldn't bother me.

 

Of course she does, she has to prove that she deserves her reputation as a "Top" popular act.... Frankly, if this were 20 years ago, her rep would be in the fukkin' toilet along with Milli Vanilli's, of that, I have absolutely no doubt.... She's proven to me that she doesn't deserve her status or reputation.... And, sorry, but I will comment on the "mother" thing mate... Madonna has THREE kids......

 

And why is it "ludicrous" to judge a singer's competency on whether or not they sing live...COME ON dude, the ability to sing live is what a SINGER'S rep is based on... She's not Bob fukkin' Dylan, Tori Amos, Kate Bush or John Lennon whose reputations are based more upon SONG-WRITING than the technical ability to sing.. A songwriter can get away with a slightly off-voice or a voice which is imperfect and flawed..... Perhaps Britney should grow the hell up, mature and actually BECOME a proper songwriter like Kelly Clarkson or Kate Bush if she gets out of puff wiggling her arse and singing at the same time or if her voice isn't what it used to be.... Or maybe she just doesn't have the talent to be as good as them.... So, just what fukkin' EARTHLY use is a "singer" who doesn't sing or build up a reputation as a decent songwriter....? Answer - NO BLOODY USE WHATSOEVER......

And, by the way, can we please stop talking about "whose shifting the more units P!ink or Britney"... Shifting units has bugger all to do with an artist's "credibility" or their ability to perform live...... What a stupid and totally reductive argument that is..... The facts are, I see teengage kids in Camden pubs putting on a better live performance that Britney Spears......

Britney's main job is a singer like my job is a chef funnily i am expected to be able to cook and deliver quality food every day and i understand thats my role along with other bits and pieces why does britney not have to do her job? Britney is a singer but for some strange reason she does not sing at all does this not ring alarm bells with people.

 

The comment about her having to do tv shows promote single albums tours etc is what makes up the rest of her job and every other artist in the undustry has to do the same thing day in day out so thats no excuse for britney not singing.

 

I totally understand britney puts on a great show and yes the tour has sold well but it would be very easy for any singer to put on a spectacular show is they didnt have to worry about singing. If britney feels its ok to mime fair enough but why does she even bother with having a microphone when its clearly a backing track that is been played... i often wonder how she would react if the backing track scratched mid way through a song?

 

In the real world like any of us are living in and when we go to work if we dont do the job we are employed to do we get sacked and rightly so we are emlpoyed on the basis of our skills and those skills we are expected to deliver and this should be no different for britney.

 

Spot on..... Good use of metaphor as well.... Because, it IS essentially the same thing... Merely saying that Britney is an "Entertainer" as some kind of get-out clause is nonsense.... And it proves to me that people just have no sense of history of the actual "Entertainment Industry"... The likes of Sinatra, Tony Bennett, Sammy Davis Jr, hell, even BRUCE FORSYTHE were considered the "old-school" Entertainers, and they did EVERYTHING, sang, danced, told jokes.... And absolutely and categorically WITHOUT ever "lip synching....".. Even Elvis in his worst era in Vegas didn't resort to cheating a crowd in this manner..... And cheating is what it is.... Britney should have Trading Standards on her arse, simple as.....

 

Damn yall being sooo hard on britney lol

you are completely missing the point..... ( i picked this post out at random)

 

the point is that you are accepting this fake act as acceptable, which tip has clearly demonstrated SHOULDNT be. theres no excuse for being a fraudulant product.

 

its a very sad indictment that the younger generation accept 'plastic' products like this.... may watertwat rot in hell :angry:

another one who misses the point....

 

it aint about 'anti britney' its about anti FAKE. sexy? cute? how shallow...shes supposed to be a SINGER.

 

Spot on Rob... I absolutely care not if Britney as a "good" or "bad" singing voice, I simply object the the fact that she's a singer who refuses to sing.... of course one does expect a degree of plastic-ness to a Pop star, or Group, but this plastic-ness should simply NOT extend to their tacit refusal to sing live to a paying crowd, a live show being performed live is a fundamental, it transcends genre arguments or "who sells the most records" arguments... That's not being a "star", that's being a total cheat, a fake, a charlatan..... As a music fan, I would never, EVER tolerate paying for a live show only to see the act pretend to sing or pretend to play guitar, bass, drums, whatever.... It's not a show in my book if the act is faking it.... This is really the worst thing you can do to your fans as far as I'm concerned... It shows utter contempt for your fans, for the people who buy your records... I really just dont get why Britney fans accept this cr@p... Are they masochists, or just stupid....?

 

Damn yall being sooo hard on britney lol

 

Damn Britney for showing contempt for her fans Dinno..... I mean, come on dude, what's with the delusions you people have....? She clearly doesn't give a sh!t about YOU by her actions of not even PERFORMING songs for her fans. So, why should anyone give a sh"t about her.....? And to think, I actually felt sorry for her during her problems..... But, frankly, now, she could just put two barrels into her mouth and pull the trigger as far as I'm concerened, if that's the sort of attitude she shows to people who are devoted to her....

 

Sorry to sound blunt, but Britney can just FOAD as far as I'm concerned... And I'd say this to ANY act who fakes a live concert performance, regardless of whether I'm a fan of theirs or not, I'm not gonna continue to buy the records of an act which shows ME contempt by not even singing or playing live to me at a show I pay good money for.....

if she sang live the reviews would be worse and they would say she's a terrible singer.

I think that they prefear being criticised for the playback instead of being criticised for bad singing abilities, which would be worse...