Baraka_Guru

Below are a pair of live performances each of Britney Spears and Lady Gaga, two pop stars (among several) who can arguably vie for the throne as the Queen of Pop.





I'd like to pose a few questions regarding pop music and performance. If you have a look at each of the videos, you will note a few differences between the performers.

First, I don't think it's much of a surprise anymore that artists will lip sync performances to put on a show that includes flashy choreography. And if the artist is at least pretending to sing and has some sweet moves while the music is pumping, then who cares, right?

Well, me maybe.

I don't think Gaga is lip syncing in her videos above. The main difference you will find is that her vocals don't sound studio recorded, especially compared to Britney's.

Some have told me they've heard Britney live and it sounds like shit. Gaga's vocals aren't perfect, but they sound damn good for a live performance.

What do you think?

At a concert, would you be disappointed to know lip syncing is going on, or are you just after a flashy show?

Would you consider Gaga a better performer than Britney? Or is it just that Britney is more concerned about the overall visual/audio experience?

I never really liked Britney, and I'm not that much into pop music. But for some reason, Lady Gaga is very compelling. I think she's the best pop artist of her kind since Madonna, and I sincerely hope she continues to take risks and grow as an artist.

I don't have such hope for Britney. When she was down and out and planning a comeback, she made comments such as there not being any "real" pop music out there and she was going to fix that. She did have a comeback, but I think it's Gaga who's making the "real" pop music these days.

What are your thoughts on this?

I dunno...is Britney really singing? Is Gaga lip syncing?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

ZombieSquirrel

I go to the concerts for the music.

Gaga is actually a musician. She plays the piano....really well. I think she was accepted to Julliard, but didn't go for some reason. I heard her music before she was Gaga and I really liked it. Do I want to see her live? Maybe. I like the music because it has a good beat, but would prefer it at the dance club. I have not seen her in concert, but would go in hopes that she'd play a ballad. I'd love to hear her tickle the ivories. I think I'd like her music better unplugged at a concert.

I like Britney because her music is good to dance to...and she crazy. Could someone else do it....and probably better....yes. I don't think she has a good voice...even with all the audio enhancements. She's too nasally or something. Her dancing is good and entertaining though. I like her music at a club, but I have no need to see her live.

As for the lip synching, yeah Britney does it. I don't think Gaga is, especially in the SYTYCD clip. You can hear the air exerting when she sings and she pants a little.... You don't hear that when someone is lip synching. Her rifs are pretty organic too. I do think her mic is adding something though.

__________________
Attack ZombieSquirrels

jewels

Lip syncing would definitely be a turnoff. Not only would the idea of being gypped out of a live true performance piss me off but I think the performance suffers because the vocalization of the song is an equally important part of expressing the passion or mood of the song.

I don't think Britney has any particular vocal talent but she does put on a good show. Gaga has definitely has both vocal and musical talent and although I'm not a huge fan, I do enjoy some of her stuff.

Britney's been smart (or had some good advisors) to capitalize on her early fame and managed to keep most of her early followers, likely losing as many as she continues to gain.

Gaga's a bit of a genius, like Madonna, in that she recognized her actual talent would only take her so far so she's chosen to market herself to the max and built herself both a mainstream and cult following, which (I think) will give her more longevity.

__________________
We are always more anxious to be distinguished for a talent which we do not possess, than to be praised for the fifteen which we do possess.
Mark Twain

Iliftrocks

Not a fan of either, but as the undead squirrel says, Gaga is a musician and has some talent, whereas Britney only had her looks and Disney charm... Gaga is the better choice of the two. ( nice ass too )

__________________
bill hicks - "I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out."

Lasereth

Gaga can sing. Britney can sing with the help of a machine.

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

kutulu

I hate the type of music that both of them do but I'll recognize that Gaga is incredibly talented. Britney was created by the recording industry.

Checking them out on wikipedia, Lady Gaga has written just about all of her songs. Brittney only starting getting writing credits later in her career and never on her hits.

powerclown

I think Lady Gaga is the best female pop singer of the last 15-20 years. The outrageous dress and the publicity stunts turned me off at first but when I listened to her music for a while and watch her videos, I was impressed...some amazing visuals in Paparazzi especially. I think she's a real star and deserving of the tens of millions of dollars she earns every year.

Jinn

Gaga before she was "Gaga":


Interesting to note (as the Youtube commenters did) that this is the same chord progression she ultimately used in Poker Face.

The difference between the two is that Stephanie Germanotta is largely a product of her own musical skill, invented into the persona of Lady Gaga and popularized. Britney Spears came from celebrity on the Disney shows, and really didn't have much musical talent or training that aside.

I despise music snobbery, and as PERFORMERS I think both Britney Spears and Lady Gaga are excellent at their goal. I really enjoy pop/dance music. As MUSICIANS or VOCALISTS, I think Gaga clearly takes the show.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Cynthetiq

I like listening to the music products they create. I don't or won't go out of my way to see them perform and don't care if they perform lipsyncing. I wouldn't pay money to see them anyways so I won't feel gypped.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

StanT

Both are part of the music spectrum that I ignore. I love a hot guitar, half naked women dancing to synthesizers just don't do much for me.

I'd be seriously pissed if I went to see Joe Satriani or Joe Bonamassa and the tracks were pre-recorded. I understand that some effects require recording; but the bulk of a live show needs to actually be live to suit me.

kutulu

Exactly. A live show should be live.

roachboy

o i dunno. i think that lady gaga has smarter writers and a better production team, really. britney's music has some good hooks, but the writing doesn't let her work them and the production doesn't over-ride the writing. circus has a great break, but britney et al either didn't recognize and or didnt believe it and so didn't roll with it. lady gaga's production crew understands better the space that is pop/dance music and ways to cross back and forth one to the other.

as for the performances--i'm of two minds about this. on the one hand, i'm kinda interested in the live=live thing, but frankly after seeing more laptop performances than i can remember i've long since stopped really caring about what that means for certain instruments or types of music. but i don't but the old-fashioned notion that the only "real" music involves traditional musical instruments and repetitive chord changes and riffs that in the case of someone like satriani gets extended to arpeggios (ooo) no matter how fast you play them. i'd much rather attend a performance done by someone on a laptop who has an interesting sense of how to organize sound using found sound and pre-recorded materials than hear some fusion cat go blah blah blah really fast. but to each his or her own---people like what they like and it doesn't really matter so much except to them. but "authentic" performance, as a criterion, means nothing to me as such.

as for going to a pop show....depends what you're looking for (same as the above, really)....britney's sound is constructed through extensive overdubs. the choreography is such that nothing can be changed in the songs anyway. so it's not like there's going to be an improvised note in any given show. what's the difference between hearing a recording and hearing the recording reproduced live note for note except with the vocal track fucked up? but that follows from a particular conception of pop music, and it's a kind of recent one. are you going to a britney show for the music or for the spectacle?

i think lady gaga is obviously a better musician, btw. but i am not sure of the role her musicianship plays in the lady gaga thing.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite