Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Girl, You Know It's True.....

I was not an avid watcher of the Superbowl on Sunday; rather it was on in the background while I was doing other things. I did stop for a second, though, to watch Jennifer Hudson sing the national anthem at the start of the game. She's not really my cup of tea, music-wise, although the girl has some amazing pipes. I actually thought she did a really good job. It was stirring, emotional, intense; in other words, everything a national anthem should be.

The only problem is: she was lip-synching.

Normally, when this happens, it's a huge scandal. There are press conferences and headlines, apologies and heads hung low. Not so, in this case, my friends. Apparently, the producer, who is also on American Idol, announced to the world that she had mimed, and gave several reasons for it. Firstly, the acoustics in stadiums are bad, and it would not have sounded good on tv. Secondly, she was nervous, and he didn't want any wrong notes or any breaks in the song. I can almost buy the first reason, as you get that annoying delay when you're in a venue of that size, but we all saw her, in a football stadium. I don't think we would have been too surprised had there been an echo or a delay. The second reason though? This girl is supposed to be a trained, professional, award-winning singer. SINGER! If she's too nervous to perform in such a situation, fine, get someone else.

I am not picking on Jennifer Hudson, as such, because I'm sure she was just doing what was asked of her. But the fact that everyone is so matter-of-fact about the situation saddens me a bit. It's just accepted that 'singers' lip-synch at events like these, or awards shows, or other such 'live' performances. Why even have someone singing live? Why even have her stand there, pretending, when you're only going to reveal what a sham it was anyway?

I really don't mean to get so hot under the collar about it, but music is just getting worse and worse for this. The most famous recording artists in the world today, in the main, are people whose records are over-produced, Auto-Tune-enhanced, computer-generated fakes. If Britney Spears really sounds like that when she sings, I'll eat my hat. But who knows what the girl sounds like, because she lip-sychs! People dish out hundreds of dollars to go to a stadium to watch karaoke. And it's not even really karaoke, because those people actually sing! Britney's excuse is that it's hard to sing and dance at the same time. Well, are you a singer or a dancer? If you're a dancer, market yourself that way, and leave the singing to the people who actually have some talent!

I have friends and relatives who would give their left legs to get to perform their music in front of people, but no, the Britneys of the world are the ones who get the most attention. I'm no singer, by any means, but given adequate studio time, a talented producer, and some clever software, I, too could be a pop sensation. Oh yeah, I forgot. I'm not a hot blond train wreck.

It sounds a little like jealousy, but I just know that getting to that level of fame should take some hard work and perseverance, not just looking good in a school girl outfit. And, like I said, I do believe Jennifer Hudson has some talent, it's just a shame she had to put people's minds in doubt as to whether or not she's really singing as she moves forward in her career.

Any thoughts? Are we just supposed to say, "Well, that's how it's done now" and move on? Should we be more outraged? Milli Vanilli had to give back their Grammy Awards for this. Shouldn't there be more disdain for the fakery?

7 comments:

  1. Although I'm sure the same thing went on "back in the day" too, I really think music died a long time ago. About 99% of the music I listen to is at least 20-25 years old. Will anyone care about Britney, Jennifer Hudson, etc, in 20-25 years?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ah today's music industry has been forever changed by the internet. The wealth of music floating around and how to play said music (tabs) has churned out a wealth of talented people. I read somewhere that if just 1 in 3000 can genuinely sing, that's 100,000 in the US alone that could produce and sell a record. I'm sure most of you can't name off 3000 people, but I bet you can name at least one person who's good enough to go on an album. Talent is not what these people are looking for anymore because talent comes to them daily.

    The qualities they are looking for are: 1, look pretty for the camera (sex sells!), 2, sign any contract put in front of them like they're signing autographs, and at a distant 3rd: carry a tune.

    So yeah, on to Ms. Hudson. The whole thing has changed to an industry where it's ok to lip sync as long as you don't lie about it. The Vanilli's fatal flaw was that they lied to the public. That said, they revolutionized the industry. We trusted it before, and now we just think everyone lipsyncs these days, so it's ok. It's like the age old "all politicians are crooks, so I don't expect any more from them" mentality.

    As for the performance excuses, the "sound delay" excuse can be debunked by watching U2 (or whatever) deliver flawless performances to a packed stadiums daily. The "audience pressure" is another load of crap. You're a performer, perform! It's what you're paid for! Otherwise, step down and give the job to someone who is up for it.

    Problem is, it probably wasn't her decision to lip sync. I bet ABC had a hand in "influencing" how the performance was to be handled to make sure their event had gone off perfectly. Just follow the money trail and ask yourself who has the most to lose from a lousy performance.

    Anyways, I'm rambling...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah, I know it wasn't her choice to lip-synch, although I'm sure she's glad that she did, but Springsteen managed to sing live, and he sounded great. The little imperfections here and there is what makes live music great.

    I just find it a little sad that it's so widely accepted now that it's ok to mime.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I was having a discussion the other day about people who can sing, and can do precious little else. While having a great voice is, well, great, being able to sing, dance, play an instrument, etc, makes you more versatile.

    Hence my intense dislike for "American Idol" and shows of that nature. I find that the so-called 'talent' are pretty one-dimensional. And when they go on to bigger and better things (I use that term very loosely) they are exposed as not being all that talented.

    Since the mid-to-late 1990s I have found it is getting harder to tell most musical artists apart. There is a generic formula out there that most bands follow. It brings up an interesting point, and it's a concern I have as a writer, and it's a point my boss at Water Werks made: she actually said "there are no new ideas". Is that why all music tends to sound the same? Is no one capable of sounding different because of that? How much of a role should your influences play in your craft?

    All reasons why I stick to older music. Long live Uncle Meat!

    ReplyDelete
  5. God, we'll all be telling kids to get off our lawns any day now. I am also finding myself looking back and rediscovering music from 15 or more years ago. Today, it's just a big cash grab, and no one thinks about an artist's longevity. When the kids of today are adults, their 'classic' music will be ours, simply because none of the popular acts of today has any staying power.

    I just know that if I did enjoy the music of someone like a Britney or a Madonna, and I paid through the nose for tickets and they were lip-synching, I would be livid.

    ReplyDelete
  6. There is a lot of new and interesting music being created today, it's just being driven deeper underground. The problem with truely creative works of art is that they are never financially viable when averaged over a broad collection of artists that create said work. It's a numbers game.

    For exaple, if you love Cap'n Beefheart and I love Led Zeppelin but we both think Deep Purple is just ok, then the smart move for the suits is to invest in Deep Purple, since they'll get two sales per production rather than one. This is why there are currently only 40 songs on the radio right now. Smaller investment for bigger return.

    Wow. I think I'm turning into an indie snob. Side note: check out this from my favorite web comic, Virus Comix:
    http://www.viruscomix.com/sloan.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh yeah, one more thing. If you want a real eye opener, check out Courtney Love's essay on the record labels:

    http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html

    (Yes, Courtney Love! Who would've thought!)

    ReplyDelete