I think SOAD should've played to prerecorded tracks when they were doing their thing a few years back. Lots of paying customers were not happy with their live performances, I've heard. Same goes for any number of bands.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Bruno Mars/RHCP *POLL*- Play Syncing! Where Do You Stand
- Thread starter faulknersj
- Start date
Anyone ever been a roadie or sound tech for a major rock act?
You'd be surprised how much "live" you actually get (or rather don't get) in any given big-name concert. They nearly ALL use pre-recorded material to some extent. Very few exceptions. Try singing 25 x 2 hour shows a month for a year and a half and stay sounding fresh.
That aside, the band knew people dont go to the football to see a rock band, and they also stood to save time, cash and drama by not having to have their sound engineers set up the gig properly. Plus most of the audience would have just whined that "they don't sound as good live as they do on record".
You'd be surprised how much "live" you actually get (or rather don't get) in any given big-name concert. They nearly ALL use pre-recorded material to some extent. Very few exceptions. Try singing 25 x 2 hour shows a month for a year and a half and stay sounding fresh.
That aside, the band knew people dont go to the football to see a rock band, and they also stood to save time, cash and drama by not having to have their sound engineers set up the gig properly. Plus most of the audience would have just whined that "they don't sound as good live as they do on record".
I'd rather see a dodgy live performance than idiots lip syncing to backing tracks. I'm very surprised that so many people here actually support such a travesty. And that's what's it is - a cop out for "musicians" who can't be bothered, or aren't capable of playing live. Lip syncing has more to do with comedy than music. It's a joke, and insulting to the audience, no matter what the occasion.
Tell me again how RHCP can't play live?
A couple of minutes of miming after decades of live performances and the band is basically crucified. Geez...
That's my point - they obviously can play live (I've seen them twice, and they were excellent), so "a couple of minutes of miming" to any audience is both lazy and an insult to their fans. "Crucify" is a tad strong, but they do deserve to be criticized for that lame (non)performance imo.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have come to this party late. They were not given the option of playing live .
The network/NFL set the terms. You sing live vocals to a backing track, or you don't do the gig.
So the discussion has nothing to do with the band being
1) lazy
2) afraid to take a risk
3) trying to save money
The discussion, at this point, comes down to an opinion on whether or not they should "compromise" their artistic integrity by accepting the gig.
I think Flea did a good job of explaining their decision, although they owed nobody such explanation.
My expectations for the halftime show is there should be some easy listening noise on the TV while I'm going to the bathroom and making some coffee and snacks in the kitchen. 
I'm sure it's been explained before, but here's the reality explained by those in the know:
Invalid Link Removed
And here's why you should just shut your pie hole and play along:
http://ajournalofmusicalthings.com/heres-want-play-super-bowl-halftime-show/
Want exposure to 115 MILLION people? Most of whom could care less if you played for real or not at that particular moment, let alone know the difference?
Invalid Link Removed
And here's why you should just shut your pie hole and play along:
http://ajournalofmusicalthings.com/heres-want-play-super-bowl-halftime-show/
Want exposure to 115 MILLION people? Most of whom could care less if you played for real or not at that particular moment, let alone know the difference?
Thanks JB, I did come to the party late, and didn't know that they weren't given the option to play live. Still, I listened to their explanation of why they did it, but I still don't agree with it. They have enough "star power" (for want of a better term) to have just refused the gig outright. Call me old fashioned (I am), but whether it's the RHCP's, Madonna, or Justin Beiber - miming to backing tracks is an insult to the audience. If it were the The Rolling Stones or Eric Clapton, I'd be saying the same thing.
The Chilli Peppers are a huge band, and have no reason to mime along at halftime at some sporting event, no matter how big it is. I can understand a relatively new band doing it (though I still wouldn't agree with it), but not a band that has been established for well over 2 decades.
I guess it's a matter of opinion, but I wonder what the majority of their fans think about it.
Those of you who are against lip-synching, I bet you actually think most bands play all the instruments on their albums.
So is that the "Milli Vanilli" argument?
Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course...
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
I care less about the Superbowl than I do about the contents of my toilet bowl. The bands I like and listen to probably feel similarly. There's more to life than money.
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course...
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
I care less about the Superbowl than I do about the contents of my toilet bowl. The bands I like and listen to probably feel similarly. There's more to life than money.
So is that the "Milli Vanilli" argument?
No it is the "that's how the music industry has worked since before Fab Morvan and Rob Pilatus were even born" argument.
Do you think Christian Bale goes home at night and is still Batman??
What the hell does an actor playing Batman have to do with music?
As for lip syncing, I'd never do it, no matter what sort of exposure or money I was offered - and I ain't no millionaire. As for bands that are already incredibly wealthy, what the hell is their motive if not greed? They should be damn well ashamed of themselves - it's as simple as that.
Perhaps that's how you think the music industry should work, but I'm afraid I object. Just because big names bands do it doesn't make it any less obnoxious. I could smell the stench of that "performance" clear across to Australia, and it didn't smell like roses - more like the fertilizer they're planted in.
Seriously though, if you really think that nonsense has anything to do with music, perhaps you should start auditioning for Batman films.
Most people have the critical thinking to "suspend disbelief" and be entertained by fantasy. I don't see how watching Flea bounce around with his bass unplugged is any more or less entertaining that watching a Batman movie, cheering for grown men playing catch, reading a book about wizards, etc.
Part of being a media-savvy consumer in the 21st century is understanding that not everything that appears on your TV screen is a 100% accurate facsimile of the "real world" (whatever that is).
Unknowns don't get the gig, so exposure's also moot. They should just run a bathroom cleaner ad and reference sports on the back bowl and be done with it .
Greed was not involved. The SB bands don't get paid for the gig.
Please go and read Flea's explanation for an answer as to why they did it.
Not that he needs to explain $hit to anyone.
I love it when people say "I'd never.........." when they really have no idea, and will never be put in a situation to make the choice.
Flea's note to fans touches on this a bit, in that he goes into their thinking. Clearly that type of gig, taken at face value, is something they would not do. But they thought about it and decided it would be a fun ride, you only live once!
More power to them, they really only need to answer to themselves.
FWIW - I am no Flea or RHCP fan boy.
Just for the record: nobody gets paid to play the super bowl...clicking through the comments, I don't think anyone's pointed this out yet, though a handful have said it was probably worth it for the money they made.
If they're not getting paid to step on the stage, obviously the exposure is worth it.
That being said, I can hardly imagine a band turning down the Super Bowl, sitting around at home on Super Bowl Sunday watching some other group miming and saying:
"Wow, gang, this is totally worth it. I'm so glad we're at home eating chips. High five, Chuck!"
If they're not getting paid to step on the stage, obviously the exposure is worth it.
That being said, I can hardly imagine a band turning down the Super Bowl, sitting around at home on Super Bowl Sunday watching some other group miming and saying:
"Wow, gang, this is totally worth it. I'm so glad we're at home eating chips. High five, Chuck!"
