+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 01/23/2018 11:11 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  1.796 Visits   2 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
11/08/2009 02:09 PM ID: 81591 Permalink   

Australia Considering Laws to Force Artists to Disclose Lip-Syncing


Australia: Several state governments including New South Wales and Victoria are considering introducing laws that would force performers to disclose whether or not they intend to mime during a show.

Possible changes include limiting when the term 'live' can be used and indications on tickets and advertising as to whether part of the show is prerecorded. In considering the changes officials are mindful of not deterring major overseas acts.

"It's very disrespectful to the profession not to have that sort of thing and it should improve things for real musicians," said Terry Noone, federal secretary for the Musicians Union of Australia.

    WebReporter: ixuzus Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  I Agree  
I agree with this change, So what if we dont get Brittney spears back that would probably be good, and we have enough local acts that can pull it off with out the pre-recorded vocals.
  by: veya_victaous     11/09/2009 12:18 AM     
  The merits of really singing live aside  
For me a live act is about the whole show and atmosphere. Which is why I might enjoy someone live but not listen to their music at home.

If the artists(or producers) decide lip-syncing is better, why not if everyone is entertained and there are entertainers on the stage wiggling their asses? It´s not like people are only going to see pre-recorded music videos.
  by: MouseJunkie     11/09/2009 01:19 AM     
So I assume you don´t care whether the law comes in or not? Since you don´t mind lip syncing, knowing that they´re lip syncing shouldn´t bother you.

I think it´s a good idea. Letting people know what they´re getting, and they can decide whether they want it or not.

Anything else is tantamount to fraud.
  by: tantryl   11/09/2009 08:32 AM     
What would they consider lip-syncing?

I didn´t see anything in the source that helped me with that. I saw something about partially live or live being put about, but not how much or what counts. Now I actually find myself sticking up for Britney after reading the source and another article that was on the side. What childish and immature comments those people who are supposed to be in important positions. I also read from a third link(getting the whole story) that hundreds of people didn´t walk out as the Journalist who wrote it claimed.

Accusations and claims flying back and forth are a good reason I only go to Rock or a few country councerts. You can be pretty sure it is live and pretty boring to a lot of people. You know when you go see Nickelback for example that you are getting loud rock and a contact high, everyone knows it before they buy the ticket.

What I wanted to say other than my question is people that buy tickets to insanely intense shows, which is really what the fans are there to see if they are honest, knowing full well that some of the artists do lip-sync. I mean really whoever says they think Britney sings live during those intense shows needs to get real. Now Madonna or Pink will be live and all over the stage (or above it) and they put on one hell of a show, they both have songs where they are saying two different thing at the same time. Does that now make their shows only partly-live? For shows of this nature does it really matter if they are playing live or not, since we go to them for the show they put on.
  by: TaraB     11/09/2009 10:07 AM     
  by: ixuzus     11/09/2009 11:14 AM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: