FlyAway58
HideOuter Hiperactivo
Ya sabemos lo de cantar y bailar al mismo tiempo, bla bla, . Pero porque las baladas no las cantó en vivo?
-
Cambios en el aspecto y funcionamiento del foro. Ver detalles
Playback en el HIStory Tour.
- Iniciador del tema MJFPHD
- Fecha de inicio
No hay explicación coherente en el mundo que pueda dilucidar porque no se animaba a cantar en vivo y en directo las baladas...creo que tenia miedo de no llegar a las notas altas y decepcionar a los fans, como paso en la gira regreso de Whitney que intentó cantar en directo y no llegaba a la mitad de las notas , causando gran decepción a algunos fans. Michael era tan ultra perfeccionista que le daba terror defraudar a los fans.
pussycontrol
HideOuter Gayhetero
¡Andando, xp! este argumento no (te) lo había leido nunca, y claro, en un post tan nuevo además no te ha podío dar tiempo, lógico ¡qué duda cabe!
Última edición:
pussycontrol
HideOuter Gayhetero
offtopic conectado: Según mi profesor de canto primero, los Stones no llegarían a -no ya Jagger haciendo playback, si no los propios músicos tendrían la instrumentación pregrabada, en las últimas giras al menos.
JayLennox
Panemyeísta
Amigo. Toni ha explicado que ese tema no se toca en el foro por diversas razones (puedes ver el post fijado en multimedia). Varios ya nos abstuvimos de seguir hablando por eso. Mejor edita tu entrada.
mjdavid007
Old Skool Hideouter
Yo pensaba que no se podía subir material relacionado con la filtración (vídeos/audios), ¿pero tampoco se puede opinar? Pregunto honestamente, tengo la duda.
pussycontrol
HideOuter Gayhetero
Largada en inglés eso también, de una visión muy original e interesante-y desde luego favorecedora al hecho que tantos replies ha suscitado-y aun continuan a dia hoy.
Sintetizando viene a decir que Michael lo realizó para darnos la mejor experiencia teatral posible.
"The more I have studied Michael’s live concerts from this era, the more it has occurred to me that what he was essentially melding together was all part of a grand concept-or at least, his grand concept-of what a live musical performance should be. It was a unique concept but, nevertheless, one steeped in postmodern ideas of both visual and musical art. In literary postmodern art, concepts such as the pastiche, intertextuality, and temporal distortion were all changing the way stories were being told, and perceived. These concepts were likewise being carried over to other art forms, including both visual and musical. Let’s not forget that it was these postmodern concepts, after all, which gave us a whole new musical art form known as sampling, whereby the idea of building on something familiar (i.e, a familiar hook from a well known song) is used to create something entirely new. In the case of sampling, it’s usually a given that the artist isn’t attempting to pull anything over on the public-quite the contrary, they know that a familiar riff or hook is going to be instantly recognized. That familiarity becomes a kind of foundation or groundwork from which the artist then expands with a new vision. Modern sampling is very much the musical equivalent of pastiche, in which several styles may be blended to form a new, cohesive whole, and also intertextuality, in which a previous work is acknowledged and built into the new text. In live concert, Michael was using his own studio recordings in much the same way, to create a kind of visual and auditory temporal distortion. Rather than viewing the live concert as merely a string of performances tied together, Michael was creating a series of connective narratives, both visual and musically, in which the familiar studio recordings were very much an integral part of the process. Today, these types of theatrical narratives are often very much a part of the modern concert experience. We may rest assured that Michael’s incorporation of pre-recorded tracks into his performances had nothing to do with a slacker mentality, but rather, everything to do with being a visionary artist who was ushering in a whole new, postmodern concept of live performance.
But this still leaves a burning question. Just how much of these latter performances were, indeed, illusion and how much actual, live vocals? And is it possible to always tell? The answer may surprise you, Many make the mistake of simply trusting their ears to tell them when a performance is “live”; conversely, many rely on techniques for spotting a lip synced performance that are not always entirely accurate, either. The truth is that the engineers behind live performances are privy to many industry tricks of the trade. What the audience actually “hears” (via the soundboard output) can be manipulated many ways. “Live” vocals can be spliced with “studio” vocals, or even previously recorded “live” vocals, so that what we may get-rather than a purely live or purely lip synced performance-can, in fact, be a hybrid of both. A performer’s mike can be turned “off” or “on” at any given time throughout a performance-and, if turned “off” can be instantly turned “on” to allow a live vocal to take over from a tracked vocal.
Michael had, by the time of the HIStory tour, become a master of all the tricks and illusions of the trade. He knew when he needed to “save” his voice and when it was absolutely essential that he “sing out”; he knew what parts could safely be lip synced without loss of quality or integrity and what numbers-or what part of a number-absolutely had to be live. And I will stress again, this was not by any means the work of a slacker, but rather, the work of a perfectionist craftsman who knew, instinctively, how to give the best theatrical experience possible to an audience".
Sintetizando viene a decir que Michael lo realizó para darnos la mejor experiencia teatral posible.
"The more I have studied Michael’s live concerts from this era, the more it has occurred to me that what he was essentially melding together was all part of a grand concept-or at least, his grand concept-of what a live musical performance should be. It was a unique concept but, nevertheless, one steeped in postmodern ideas of both visual and musical art. In literary postmodern art, concepts such as the pastiche, intertextuality, and temporal distortion were all changing the way stories were being told, and perceived. These concepts were likewise being carried over to other art forms, including both visual and musical. Let’s not forget that it was these postmodern concepts, after all, which gave us a whole new musical art form known as sampling, whereby the idea of building on something familiar (i.e, a familiar hook from a well known song) is used to create something entirely new. In the case of sampling, it’s usually a given that the artist isn’t attempting to pull anything over on the public-quite the contrary, they know that a familiar riff or hook is going to be instantly recognized. That familiarity becomes a kind of foundation or groundwork from which the artist then expands with a new vision. Modern sampling is very much the musical equivalent of pastiche, in which several styles may be blended to form a new, cohesive whole, and also intertextuality, in which a previous work is acknowledged and built into the new text. In live concert, Michael was using his own studio recordings in much the same way, to create a kind of visual and auditory temporal distortion. Rather than viewing the live concert as merely a string of performances tied together, Michael was creating a series of connective narratives, both visual and musically, in which the familiar studio recordings were very much an integral part of the process. Today, these types of theatrical narratives are often very much a part of the modern concert experience. We may rest assured that Michael’s incorporation of pre-recorded tracks into his performances had nothing to do with a slacker mentality, but rather, everything to do with being a visionary artist who was ushering in a whole new, postmodern concept of live performance.
But this still leaves a burning question. Just how much of these latter performances were, indeed, illusion and how much actual, live vocals? And is it possible to always tell? The answer may surprise you, Many make the mistake of simply trusting their ears to tell them when a performance is “live”; conversely, many rely on techniques for spotting a lip synced performance that are not always entirely accurate, either. The truth is that the engineers behind live performances are privy to many industry tricks of the trade. What the audience actually “hears” (via the soundboard output) can be manipulated many ways. “Live” vocals can be spliced with “studio” vocals, or even previously recorded “live” vocals, so that what we may get-rather than a purely live or purely lip synced performance-can, in fact, be a hybrid of both. A performer’s mike can be turned “off” or “on” at any given time throughout a performance-and, if turned “off” can be instantly turned “on” to allow a live vocal to take over from a tracked vocal.
Michael had, by the time of the HIStory tour, become a master of all the tricks and illusions of the trade. He knew when he needed to “save” his voice and when it was absolutely essential that he “sing out”; he knew what parts could safely be lip synced without loss of quality or integrity and what numbers-or what part of a number-absolutely had to be live. And I will stress again, this was not by any means the work of a slacker, but rather, the work of a perfectionist craftsman who knew, instinctively, how to give the best theatrical experience possible to an audience".
De donde es este texto? Coincido en parte para justificar. Pero las baladas porque no rn vivo?
Y no entiendo el porqué las mismas pistas del disco tampoco.
En fin
pussycontrol
HideOuter Gayhetero
De un link en el que se comentaba el problema de voz, la laringitis vaya, de Michael en el HT.De donde es este texto? Coincido en parte para justificar. Pero las baladas porque no rn vivo?
Como explicas amigo que para el medley de Off the wall usaran voces de 1979 y no se tomaran al menos la molestia de re grabar los temas para hacer el playback, o que el playback de Scream tenga cortada la voz de Janet ....son descuidos increibles para un artista tan profesional como Michael . En fin hay cosas que nunca tendrán explicación. Yo hubiera querido que su última gira mundial hubiese tenido más momentos cantados...pero bueno ya está hecho....This is it.¡Andando, xp! este argumento no (te) lo había leido nunca, y claro, en un post tan nuevo además no te ha podío dar tiempo, lógico ¡qué duda cabe!
Puede haber tenido laringitis en 4 o 5 conciertos...y el resto de la gira ? la explicación médica nunca cerró en ese tema. yo me inclino por el hecho del temor a defraudar o desafinar . Pasa que en el show de Brunei que fue más en directo, hubo varios percances vocales y ahi tomó para mi la decisión de Michael de hacer esa gira en playback world tour. Justo antes del incio del tour hizo lo de Brunei y parece que luego vio el video y no le gustaron nada las partes vocales.
JayLennox
Panemyeísta
bueno, creo que lo de Scream es natural, para qué iban a dejar la voz de Janet si no estuvo en ninguno de los conciertos....
pussycontrol
HideOuter Gayhetero
Una laringitis recordemos no es poca cosa, máxime cuando no paró de cantar por debajo del playback lo cual pudo-quizás- derivar que le durase hasta el final de la gira, es plausible vaya.
Por otro lado percances pudo ser también que previamente tuviera cierto inicio de la laringitis dichosa, empezando con voz ronca por eje; de todos modos, y aparte d estas conjeturas factibles, luego está bien contrastado que el lupus que padecía afectaba en buen grado a su voz.
pussycontrol
HideOuter Gayhetero
dannyjackson, este comment te lo hice con toda la ironía del mundo mundial, xp!¡Andando, xp! este argumento no (te) lo había leido nunca, y claro, en un post tan nuevo además no te ha podío dar tiempo, lógico ¡qué duda cabe!
pussycontrol
HideOuter Gayhetero
Última edición:
JayLennox
Panemyeísta
Me parece que eso lo comentó Michael Prince en algun episodio de MJRadio
Ninooa
0
Exacto! Que llegaron a Stranger in Moscow y un poco más del setlist pero no mucho.