I have never been a fan of Taylor Swift’s music, and this pair of videos further diminishes my opinion of her music, or at least of her performances.
These videos, by commenter and musician Fil from Wings of Pegasus, analyzes Swift’s live performances on her fabled “Eras” tour, for which tickets could cost thousands of dollars. Using electronic analyses of several of these performances, he proves, at least to my satisfaction, that Swift was lip-synching while purporting to sing live. (The recordings to which she lip-synchs also appear to be autotuned.)
Here’s one. Look at the repeatability of her supposedly live vocals across several concerts, a repeatedly that apparently cannot be attained by the human voice.
A comment from one cynical reader.
Here’s another video by Fil, one demanded by Swift fans, repeating what he showed in the previous video:
As Fil says, listen and judge for yourself. I have listened and judged. I don’t know about you, but if I paid mucho dollars to hear a live performance, I would want it to be really live. Now there’s one caveat here: perhaps Swift sang some of her songs live, and lip-synched others. But I would find that hard to believe.
Very insightful.
But they don’t go to the concert for that, right?
Put another way : I imagine Taylor could sing well at a coffeehouse gig, but I don’t know if that’d draw an audience.
I wonder what it is REALLY like, in a huge stadium, hearing what you are playing through enormous amplifiers – it is probably disorienting.
And yet many bands manage to do exactly that.
I don’t think the artists really hear what we, the audience, hear. They have separate monitor speakers (or often ear pieces).
Yes – And Swift and Milli Vanilla can’t handle it – the “it” is what I propose, a sort of cognitive reaction skill.
This would be different in a studio.
Fil is great. I’ve watched a lot of his videos. I think I first read about him on this blog?
It seems to be more common for bands to mime now. They want the music to be perfect, but that’s not what fans want. We want to see them live, flaws and all. Not just hearing the exact same music we already have at home. I love to see a band do a new interpretation of a song live and make it fresh.
The first time I noticed miming was in 2001 at Roxy Music’s 30th anniversary tour. Bryan Ferry got a bit breathless in a couple of the early songs, but suddenly, when he did three really fast songs, one after the other, there was no breathlessness at all. I was shocked and disappointed when I realised he must have been miming.
I realise all the bands of my youth are getting older, but Fil’s analysis of Roger Daltry shows he’s still belting out songs live at 80. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FSNONnUQvCw
Thanks – fascinating contrast between Taylor Swift and Roger Daltry!
100%
Recording engineer here…
Yeah, this doesn’t surprise me at all. I think presenters have always known that the live audience mostly wants to hear an exact recreation of the studio recording, down to the exact same guitar solos and drum licks — can you imagine In the Air Tonight without the iconic drum part? Phil would be booed off the stage!
As for autotune and live performance, anyone can have that at a very reasonable price. I note that this poduct also “adjusts from male/deep gender to female/alien gender”, which might be de rigeur in some markets?
And consider the risks entailed in not using it!
Well, the Beatles did okay without it, but fans were just there to see the Beatles, and couldn’t hear them anyway over the screaming. My favorite YouTube performances are live ones and not lip synched. One of the best examples of a band recreating a recording but live is Redbone’s “Come and Get Your Love”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnJqFrVD3uE
Another favorite of mine is the live version of “Ask the Lonely” by the Four Tops. There’s nothing like seeing Levi Stubbs sing his soul out, with the sweat running down his face.
And I love the imperfections and variations that you can only get live. I don’t go to big stadium concerts except for the Watkins Glen Summer Jam in 1973 featuring the Allman Brothers, the Band, and the Grateful Dead. It had even more attendees than Woodstock and lasted several days, but was more a Happening than a concert.
And of course Woodstock was fabled, and the performances were great, as you can see in the movie.
I was just listening to Marianne Faithfull’s version of Visions of Johanna before I read your post. Que dire de plus sinon que “the passage of time sweeps us along like a torrent “; not for the better, I’m afraid. Bien à vous, Jean.
Well, maybe I don’t go to the same gigs as most people, but no, we don’t want to hear exact recreations of the recorded music. We want to hear the band play the song live. We want the energy you get from the band responding to the audience.
If you don’t understand this, I suggest you attend a gig by your favourite band as an audience member, not a recording engineer.
Yep. I value spontaneity and improvisation in live music.
I bought a live album by Lyle Lovett once and was very disappointed that the album tracks were exactly replicated. Bah. At least he was singing them, I guess.
I’m not sure I understand this comment. If a singer can’t hold a tune, isn’t it better that they don’t perform at all rather than resort to vocal fraud?
Did you open my link?
Yes I did. It seemed to be a recording of somebody singing the US National Anthem quite badly.
As I said, I don’t understand the point you were making. It seemed like you were saying “if they didn’t do lip syncing and autotune and they were bad at singing, they might get found out”. To that, I would say “let them be found out”.
“the live audience mostly wants to hear an exact recreation of the studio recording”
I don’t agree. Most people I know want to hear a live performance. That’s not the same as just listening to the CD. You want to hear someone’s live voice. A perfect example is David Bowie’s Jean Genie. I’m a huge fan, but it’s one of my least favourite songs of his, but when I saw him in Milton Keynes in the 80s he did a slowed down sexy version of it that was terrific. A unique experience, until they released it a live album later, of course 😁 Then again he can actually sing live, as Fil has demonstrated several times.
With live music you also get bonuses that you don’t get on original albums, a 5 min Mike Garson piano solo during Aladdin Sane or a long sax solo by Andy Mackay of Roxy Music.
I paid a lot for Roxy tickets because I want to hear them live. If I didn’t, I could just go and watch a tribute band for a fraction of the cost.
I’m flying to Germany to see Phillipe Jarrousky sing in December. I’d demand my money back if he was miming.
(Ok. I’m writing from my phone. I was able to come directly from email to this post on my phone with no problem.)
I don’t understand the craze around Taylor. Yes, she has pretty hips and facial features. But so do at least a million people on Earth. I despise her music.
I don’t say this very often, nor am I keen on readers using it as a lazy way of saying, “I agree,”
but
+1
Ah — I didn’t realize you’re not a fan of “+1” — it being used here when I first showed up. Won’t use it again. I can’t comment on Taylor Swift, but now I know about Fil Henley from Wings of Pegasus. Another YouTube distraction, here goes…
At my age, my taste in music, I recall Grace Slick’s comment on stage: “Once is a mistake. Twice is an arrangement.” I’m used to bands not sounding like their records and I enjoy improvisation and respect imperfection. But a pop concert’s a relatively harmless event?
An occasional +1 is okay, but I don’t like a lot of them because they just say “I agree”. What do readers agree WITH? A “+1”, to me, adds little to the discourse.
We recently saw The Righteous Brothers in a fairly small venue and it was great! It wasn’t the Bill and Bobby of old, but Medley and his new partner put on a great show. Understandably Bill had to sit out a few tunes, but he certainly still has the chops to do live performances.
One of my favorite songs ever is “Wooden Ships” by CSN. The studio version is incredible, but there is a live version from around 1978 that I discovered recently that’s even better.
Proving that good bands not only don’t need miming but can often do it better live…
I think there is a cultural shift here that has its origins in the rise of rap and hip-hop, where lip-syncing is the standard practice. Hip-hop has reshaped the style and content of pop music, as well as the expectations of fans. The people paying good money to see Taylor Swift are likely expecting a very different experience than I did when I went to see Springsteen, John Mellencamp, and U2 as a young man in the 80s. Swift and performers like her are offering more of a dance club-like experience, which makes me suspect that most of her fans would shrug and say “who cares?” to this video. I’m not saying one is better than the other (though I certainly have a strong preference), just that criticizing Swift for violating the norms of rock and roll performers of past times is a bit of a category error.
If it is a category error, why doesn’t Swift say to the fans that the music will be lip-symched if it is? They do not mention it AT ALL, which to me means that they are hiding it. She certainly PRETENDS that she is singing.
If nobody expects living singing, why does the concert not SAY that, and why does it take someone like Fil to call it to peoples’ attention through analysis? I’m sorry, but if it’s lip synching, I think people need to straight-out say that before you buy a $1000 ticket. Otherwise it is duplicitous.
Any comments from Milli Vanilli?
What irks me is that fans payed a LOT of money for tickets, and this does diminish the value of that. I am convinced.
Now, is this sort of thing pretty common at concerts? I don’t know. But the true greats did not need to do that.
For a better tilt at Tayloy Swift try her Tiny Desk Concert. (YouTube) There is nowhere to hide and no tricks. Never been a fan but in this setting it was pretty good and enjoyable.
I will say that I do like her music. She can sing and has skill/talent to a degree that puts her miles ahead of a large # of overly-rich stars in the music industry today. But that is because those other stars suck really bad.
If she were dropped into the 60s and 70s, she would still be in the mix, I think, but she would not stand far out.
Are you sure that the music you like isn’t autotuned? I also consider that a form of duplicity because the voice is manipulated, and not in an obvious ways like the Beatles did with, say, “A Day in the Life”
Fil’s analysis of Bowie’s Space Oddity shows the horrors of auto tuning in making songs emotionless. As Ground Control desperately tries to contact Major Tom, Bowie’s voice goes sharper, because it expresses their anxiety. But when Fil used auto tuning on it it removed all the expression from it, making it less animated.
There were two occasions in the past when I had tickets for concerts by Luciano Pavarotti. Both times he did not appear because he had minor throat problems and felt his voice would not be up to his usual standards.
Of course this was a different type of music.
Having a lot of trouble getting on the site and a lot of trouble entering a comment.
[start rant]
Wow, what a bunch of Abe Simpsons yelling at clouds! Of course there will inevitably be parts of a modern stage production in a 3 hour concert that uses backing tracks and lip syncing to enable some of the extreme choreography. You can also see literally hundreds of clips of Swift having some technical difficulty during a concert and when she pauses the singing doesn’t continue (and every 22 hat video singing is different). And of course she has the pipes and the talent which can be seen and heard in multiple intimate live venues (like the tiny desk concerts). So this is not a Milli Vanilli situation, this is using technology to help create a show. I doubt any of her fans paying 1000s for the ERAS tour are demanding a refund over this “revelation”. Aren’t you doing the same kind of outrage on behalf of a group you are not a member (Swifties) as any of the extreme liberals you vilify for taking offense at misuse of language towards groups they don’t belong?
Now, I love the music of the 70’s. 1370’s, 1470’s, 1670’s. The 1970’s bores me to tears and the deification of that sliver of music history by those trying to relive their high school glory seems right out of Uncle Rico in Napoleon Dynamite (“but, but, it’s objectively the best music of all time!!!!”). But I’m fine letting people enjoy what they enjoy even if it’s not for me. So leave Swifties alone!!
[end rant]
Thank you for giving us a different perspective. You may have noticed that many of us already realized that Swift concert goers probably wouldn’t mind at all, after all, this is the generation for whom the word concert is compatible with seeing a hologram dance and mime, but we feel the management should be open about the use of playback in parts of the show. Otherwise, it’s not fair on artists who go through 2 hour concerts without even autotune (these people still exist). It’s also true that tastes differ enormously and that the high school glory day effect is a massive one. Nevertheless, I do think that in a comparison between e.g. Taylor Swift (who is a versatile songwriter and singer) and Joni Mitchell, Mitchell has produced the superior work even according to semi-objective criteria (like musical complexity). I think that a certain degradation of popular music has been going at least since the late 19th century.
Madona and Kate Bush were probably singing live in the early days of head mics, with difficult choreography.
No one would have even heard of Taylor Swift if she were average looking. One of the biggest examples of the phrase “American Music” being, largely, an oxymoron.
“the phrase “American Music” being, largely, an oxymoron.”
Ridiculous hyperbole.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to imply Taylor Swift is only successful because of her looks. I find that idea both disrespectful and deeply sexist. It also suggests you are not familiar with her music or career.
Taylor Swift has achieved remarkable success because of her talent and hard work. For example:
She was first nominated for a Grammy at 17.
Her album Fearless, which she wrote as a teenager, won four Grammys, including Album of the Year, making her the youngest winner ever at the time.
Over her career, she’s won 14 Grammys, 4 of which are for Album of the Year (a record), and 118 Guinness World Records.
She’s been on Time’s 100 Most Influential People list three times and is the first woman to be named Time’s Person of the Year twice (2017, 2023).
If her looks were the key to her success, how do you explain why equally or more attractive women haven’t achieved the same level of influence? Her achievements, both in music and beyond, speak for themselves.
As a father of two young women, I’m proud of how her career promotes assertive feminism and challenges outdated stereotypes. I’m also proud that my daughters are big fans of Swift in no small part because of her feminist message. Comments like yours remind me how much work still needs to be done to combat casual sexism. I hope you’ll reconsider your perspective with a more logical and informed approach.
Taylor Swift concerts are sing-a-long parties. She has written songs with lyrics that describe the concerns of her young female fans as they grown up. Many of her songs have stories to tell. She has written tons of songs.
“Shake it off,” “Cruel Summer,” “Red,” “Lover” are favorites.
She is a cat lover.
She is also personable and funny. She wrote
SNL Monologue Song for hosting there.
I can understand one reason why Taylor (and her team) does it. At an average of $US1,088 a ticket for the Era tour, if she lost her voice for whatever reason (say she got a cold), that’s a $100 million revenue loss in the case of one Melbourne concert, and avoids disappointing ticket buying fans. It takes the pressure off performing at one’s best (though dropping the mic could be embarrassing), ensures pitch perfection, takes the pressure off backing musicians (and maybe less of them needed). It ensures the music syncs with any visual effects. I just think they should be more open about the lip-syncing to a pre-recorded track, as by hiding it, they are deceiving their audience.
Also her voice is not auto-tuned (where a live vocal is snapped to the correct pitch in real time). Instead a pitch correction program is used to alter a vocal recording to “sanitise” it (adjust pitch, vibrato, etc). The latter avoids the tell-tale instantaneous snapping to the correct note of auto-tune and can allow bending of notes that auto-tune takes out.
This is my understanding having watched a lot of Wings of Pegasus (Fil) videos.
https://x.com/Evolutionistrue/status/1862909499712958945 🐱
Taylor Swift sings over 40 songs in a single concert. 🇺🇸🎤🎶
This would be impossible even for Freddie Mercury. 🇬🇧🎤🎶
So I knew that Taylor Swift’s concert would be partially “lip-synced.” 😐
But I love Taylor Swift’s songs because they’re bright and fun. 🙂
By the way, Bruno Mars has won 15 Grammy Awards, Lady Gaga 13 times, and Taylor Swift 14 times. 🏆
Also, it’s very unfortunate, but young Japanese and Korean singers often use “lip-syncing.” 🇯🇵🇰🇷😔
https://x.com/Evolutionistrue/status/1862909499712958945 🐱
https://youtu.be/nfWlot6h_JM
Taylor Swift is a wonderful comedienne. 🇺🇸🎤✨😆