do you think that you have to be able to sing live as well as record, or just be able to record your music?

that's all opinion.

my opinion of a great music artist is one who has the great voice naturally, can hit the pitch almost every time (every singer makes mistakes), and doesn't need a computer to spruce it up. that's my definition.

umm if you're talking about, you just want to record because getting up on a stage in front of an audience is scary...let that scare become a thrill! seriously, that's just something that can be overcome.

IMO, you can be decent if you can't sing live...but if you don't sing live, in my book you don't get any better than decent.

I have more respect for artists who can actually perform, but it all depends on your goals. If you want to be a performing artist, you damn well better be able to perform your creations live. If you want to be a writer or producer, then you can have someone else perform your work. The music business is like any other business; there are very few people who can do everything without the help or input of others. :cool:

I think it has to be a balence of both. If someone can sing live, but can't record, then they won't sell their c.ds. If they can't sing live, people will jsut say things like.... oh, they sound good on the album, but they are terrible live.

Codger's right. To be a successful artist, you have to be able to produce good records as well as put on good shows. Which is weighed more? That depends on the personal opinions of the audience.

Personally I'd choose live shows over records, and live recordings over studio recordings. The energy and atomsphere's just not the same in studio recordings. Even in live videos you get a feel of actually being there at the show. Anyways, I'm blabbing on about stuff that doesn't concern the debate anymore :p So yea, you gotta be good at both.


Paradise's got some good points too. Producers, technicians and sound engineers etc. have a lot of input on the records and live shows, but for the artists themselves, they still gotta be able to do a bit of everything. The best producer in the world can't turn a shitty recording into a hit, and the best techniciand and sound engineers in the world can't turn a shitty live show into a good one. Different people have different inputs into the music, but the artist(s) themselves have to have input into every aspect.

to append my previous post; The music industry seems to be cranking out alot of bands lately who sound great on the radio, but their live performances demonstrate that they are lacking in their abilities to actually perform up to par with the recorded versions of their songs. I will not name names for the sake of avoiding argument, but I have heard live versions of many new bands (new within the past two years) where the vocalist cracks or can not hit the notes with the best quality, or the guitar sound isn't quite comparable in tone or clarity to the recorded version. This is most annoying when the band is too overly animated ie: certain members jump around too much at unnecessary points just because they are playing live. I have seen this alot lately; band members jumping around and swing their guitars unnecessarily out of position. Certainly animation is important in a live show, but when it interferes with your technique and the overall sound, it is a detriment to the show. I would rather see a less- animated group who can play well than one where each member is more concerned with looking like a rockstar than they are with performing the song so it sounds good. In my opinion it is better to have the recording sound not-quite-as-good as the live performance.

Here I will contradict myself: Most bands make their money performing, but they draw fans through records, so intuitively, the recording should be better than the live performance. Most fans who were inticed by a recording are all too happy to see the band perform live, so their impression is already tainted by their fanaticism. The problem is that bands can loose fans when they don't perform as well as their fans expect from hearing the recording. Fans want to hear the solo exactly the way they remember it from the album, which eliminates improvisation (which used to be the defining characteristic of the solo). This contradiction is what defines a great music artist. Those who can win fans with their recordings and still impress with their live shows are the ones who truely endure as music artists.


Addendum- Some classic examples of how animated performance does not interfere with the musicians' abilities to play their parts accurately:

Angus Young (ACDC)- his (almost patented) hop across the stage. He can still jump across the stage, without disrupting his guitar parts

Iron Maiden- all of the members are very animated, but they keep their guitars in the most convenient position to play.

Kiss- Theatrics that never interfered with the musical performance.

James Hetfield (Metalllica)- He headbangs and gets agressive, but his guitar is always positioned for the best tone.

Fieldy (Korn)- He developed his own intermediate-upright position for playing bass so that he could jump around and head bang, but his bass never moves out of that position on his body.

Flea (Red Hot Chili Peppers)- No matter what he does he sounds good.

Nirvana- Although I have a fundamental problem with destroying your instruments, they did it very well and reserved it for times when it would have the greatest effect on the theatrical performance and the least effect on the musical performance.

Poor Examples- As I said before I won't name names, but some of the new emo/punk, whatever-you-call-them bands seem to like to do the punk jump, where the guitar player jumps up as if doing a cannon-ball, then spreads their legs for the landing. You can usually see them almost loose their instrument on the way up, and try to regain control on the way down. Don't get me wrong, this performance device is impressive when used properly, it just seems that most bands are overusing it in the wrong situations (ie, when it doesn't fit the music). :cool:

A good voice , a good sound , and off course a good mind , not " Im THE MASTER!! " ..and of course .. One people who now sing In live performances , not using playback

I really don't like artists that sing very well on the albuns and then, in the live shows...they don't sing at all... I think the big prove of being a good artist or not... is the live perfomances!

kisses,
SaRa...

[my english suck...] :o

Seems like this is an old topic but...i think i may have a good answer to be a true artist....

I think to be a true Artist ...you must beable to connect with your fans just as much as you connect with your music...Like...Wouldnt it make you extremely happy to hear a hundred and fifty million fans screaming your name at the top of there lungs...becuz sumhow sumway ...You have touched them in a way they will never forget....Fans look up to there favorite artist like sum of us do with Amy Lee....Take me for example....Alot of people say im overly obsessive with Evanescence....But they dont know there real true reason...I look up to Amy...i watch her preform an i can see the happiness it brings to her ...of all of you guyz being there...supporting her....and loving her music....ive wanted to do whut shes doin ever since i was little...One day maybe i will get to....That is my dream...and i do know...The day you stop dreaming is the day you die....So i can truly smile and say....Amy Lee iz my idol and She is a True Artist in whut she does.....
Much Love and Respect
Alissa

Imo it's a combination of these things:
(1)They need to be able to produce a good record
(2)perform it live with little (if they're sick) or no playback
(3) write their own material
(4) be themselves (probably the most important, because I can't stand people who are fake :mad: )

I have more respect for people who embody all of these, but if artists are at least 1 or 2 of the qualities I can appreciate them for what they are. If an artist posesses 0 of these qualities, it ain't going in my cd player.

I don't understand how someone could be amazing live, but not be able to reproduce that to make a record. The only cases I've really heard are bands that are good in the studio, but aren't that 'fabulous' live. Let's name drop -- Taking Back Sunday. Great band in the studio. Can't recreate the sound live too well. Good artist -- Christina Aguilera. I don't need to explain. I think in order to gain *respect* as an artist, you should be good live. But it doesn't seem like such things matter anymore with artists like Hilary Duff and Britney Spears out there. =\

A band definately has to be at least decent live to get respect. Sure people may gain temporary popularity even if they suck live(i.e. britney spears) but to have staying power you have to be good live.

A good music artist is an artist who is good at making music, in whatever way they can or choose to do, in a way that is themselves and in a style that they really enjoy regardless of many who might not enjoy it, as well.

Being able to play live or produce a record is not a factor. I know a few people who have not played anything live, nor came out with a record, that I consider good music artists.

Playing live is what makes a band. Like, when I first saw Breaking Benjamin, they were just such awesome crowd workers, I couldn't help but love them. So yeah, I think playing well live is really important.

all depends on your idea of music, if music is just something you listen to the recorded is fine, however if you fell music is the extension of one soul, mind thought( as i do) then the music or sound you here should come from that person not a cop'ed out version of that ones voice

A band definately has to be at least decent live to get respect. Sure people may gain temporary popularity even if they suck live(i.e. britney spears) but to have staying power you have to be good live.

Depends how you view a good live performance, and who your targeted audience is. For instance, Britney may not sing live (which may actually work to her benefit), but is her audience really paying for that? Being that most of her audience consists of 8 to 14 year old girls, I'd say no. They want to see her dance around in lots of crazy little outfits, rub herself against poles, ect. That's what all the 8 year old girls are really there for..

They want to see her dance around in lots of crazy little outfits, rub herself against poles, ect. That's what all the 8 year old girls are really there for..


That's why I went to see her ;) :cool:

That's why I went to see her ;) :cool:
I bet you were pretty disappointed when you paid $70 bucks for a ticket, and the most she would do is fondle a random chair on her stage, in almost revealing clothing.. damn tease. You'd think for that price, atleast one boobie is in order. ;P

I bet you were pretty disappointed when you paid $70 bucks for a ticket, and the most she would do is fondle a random chair on her stage, in almost revealing clothing.. damn tease. You'd think for that price, atleast one boobie is in order. ;P


Yeah, I thought Janet Jackson was a much better musician after the boob "accident" at the super bowl. :cool:

Britney should get herself a nipple tweeker like J Lo has. All great musicians should have one.

My opinion is that they should be able to sing live as good as the record. If they don't then what's the point of even having concerts?
You normally go to hear a good band playing a great concert. I don't want to go to a concert where the band or singer iam seeing can sing or they do not sing.

A band definately has to be at least decent live to get respect. Sure people may gain temporary popularity even if they suck live(i.e. britney spears) but to have staying power you have to be good live.
I disagree with that. Have you seen how long Britney has been around and she is still somewhat popular. I don't even think Britney fans would want to hear a live performance like on sessions@aol or something. They just listen to the music there friends like. My sisters are like that. They only like what other people like so they can look cool or something lol. I don't even understand them. Hope that made sense.

Originally Posted by mbmanus
A band definately has to be at least decent live to get respect. Sure people may gain temporary popularity even if they suck live(i.e. britney spears) but to have staying power you have to be good live
I disagree too. Brittany Spears was and still is very popular. I'm not a big fan at all, but some of her music is good. The proof that she is popular despite (in some peoples opinion) her lack of ability to sing live, is in her fan base. If she really was bad, no-one would like her.
I believe that to be a good artist, success cannot be narrowed down to one important factor. Some bands may be liked because of their image e.g- t.A.T.u, the whole lesbian thing sparked their career as it was different and conriversial. Lordi too, the eurovision has never seen an act like Lordi before, and they won. However, there are also bands that are liked due to the music that they produce. If the music is catchy, people will like the band no matter how they portray themselves.
Success in music is due to a balance of important factors and if a band gets the balance right, they become very popular.

They need to know how to perform live if they put out a good record cause if the live performace don't match up to the recording they'll loose a lot of fans by that.

If they can perform live well then they'll sell more records is my view on it.

<3
- Nina

I disagree too. Brittany Spears was and still is very popular. I'm not a big fan at all, but some of her music is good.


You give her to much credit!! in my opinion,for it to be truly her music she would have to have written it. A Swedish bloke Max Martin is responsible for most of her hits, not her. And that being said, there not technical masterpieces by any means!!:D

to be a good musician is hard..it's not anything easy..i have an uncle, he is a musician and has been for a long time..i asked him about music and about being a musician and he told me all these things, and i am like wow, it's not easy...i knew it wouldnt be, but i didn't think it woulda been that hard..he started telling me about singing, i am interested in singing, anyways, he told me that to sing is hard you gotta learn how to sing on key-note whatever..you gotta learn how to do that, and then you gotta 'perform' your songs live...you could learn how to be a good musician, but it takes time...you gotta want to do it, you have to take it seriously, you cant say, hey, i'll have other people make my music and then i'll see how i go..no..then you're not considered a musician! you have to do it yourself, make your own music, write your own lyrics..then i would consider someone a musician..

They need to know how to perform live if they put out a good record cause if the live performace don't match up to the recording they'll loose a lot of fans by that.

If they can perform live well then they'll sell more records is my view on it.

<3
- Nina


If that were true, there would be hundreds more good bands making it "big" right now.


You give her to much credit!! in my opinion,for it to be truly her music she would have to have written it. A Swedish bloke Max Martin is responsible for most of her hits, not her. And that being said, there not technical masterpieces by any means!!:D


Keep in mind that "artist", "true artist" and "good" are all relative terms. It is really a matter of opinion, if you think about it.

I like pop music, and so do a lot of other people, regardless of how many "hate" it for its catchy ways or mainstream-ness. I like the pop formula, other people do not. It's all about taste.

To have talent is nice and all, but to be a successful music artist you also have to be marketable. If you are going for a career in the industry, you can have all of the talent in the world and there are so many artists that will not get signed because of that lack of marketability and accessibility. You have to somehow find a happy medium.

If you want to sell records, you've got to be marketable. Hell, all of the major labels won't even sign you unless you've already established somewhat of a fanbase and even then if you wind up on such a label, you'll either wind up waiting for an album to get released for a long time or you might get lost in the shuffle of other releases.

If you're comfortable with not selling as much, there are indies all over the place. Indies are always looking.

As a fan, I appreciate good studio releases more than flawless live performances, but for a band themselves, well, how do you gather a fanbase in the first place, ie. before your debut album is out, if not with tight live shows? If you suck live, I'm sure fans have no interest in seeing you again or buying your demos.

Also, you won't get a record deal if you can't play live. You can make a demo, but record execs will most definitely want to check out your live shows before investing money in you. At the bare minimum, you should be able to pull off your own material live and perform tight. If your guitarist screws up every solo, drummer can't keep a beat and the vocalist can't hold a note, you probably won't go very far. It's not like they are just buying rights to tracks you've recorded for your demo, they are investing in your future releases too, and not being able to perform live indicates your musicianship may not be that high after all. Also, everyone knows the value live shows have for promoting your music. Especially in heavy metal, where radio play and music videos are a rarity.

do you think that you have to be able to sing live as well as record, or just be able to record your music?

IMO, you have to be able to record music, and support any album with a tour.

An album won't sell heaps if the artist can't sing live, therefore would not be able to support the album with a tour. It is known that touring an album heaps boost album sales, and if you can't do that...then the albums probably gonna be a flop.

An album won't sell heaps if the artist can't sing live, therefore would not be able to support the album with a tour. It is known that touring an album heaps boost album sales, and if you can't do that...then the albums probably gonna be a flop.
But then how do Britney's albums sell so much expecially her first one because she cannot sing live. She still does the tour thing, but it's more of a slutty show than a performance.(hope that made sense)

But then how do Britney's albums sell so much expecially her first one because she cannot sing live. She still does the tour thing, but it's more of a slutty show than a performance.(hope that made sense)
She cant sing live? (Serious question)

It's not about being good when live, but it should just be respected for the fact of trying and not lipsyncing.

I used to think that the point of live music was what they talk about while they sing some, but now I've completely fallen in love with the different sound of live instruments and voices, and the extended intros and "Merci Paris!" lol.

She cant sing live? (Serious question)
I don't know if she can. But she doesn't.

Edit:Looked back at my other post didn't realize I said cannot.

I think a singer should be what the word says. Someone that sings. If someone can't sing Live it's not a singer to me. It's just a voice that a machine does.

She cant sing live? (Serious question)

She can sing live. Britney is an OK singer, but there was this whole thing of her miming at a live show once. Obviously if you watch top of the pops she will mime, because loads of people do, it's much easier for the show. Amy Lee didn't though, but I think the instruments were on playback. I can't remember... it was a long long time ago.

I've never been to a Britney concert so I dunno. :p

As other people were saying, in the pop world at the moment (where most of the money is) it's less important to actually be talented, and more important to have a good image, and have something catchy. In the rock and metal world image is just as important, but it's a different KIND of image, AND you have to kick ass live too.

Keep in mind that "artist", "true artist" and "good" are all relative terms. It is really a matter of opinion, if you think about it.

I like pop music, and so do a lot of other people, regardless of how many "hate" it for its catchy ways or mainstream-ness. I like the pop formula, other people do not. It's all about taste.


Agreed, thats why I wrote "in my opinion". I also like the pop formula some times, but it usually involves someone who in my opinion, is quite talented!!:D

One more thing: metal bands love to do live albums, so not being able to play live does take away that possibility.

Unless you like do it in studio and just add crowd noise on top...

The thing is, with records, everyone knows that they are perfected. The voices are sometimes created. Live is a whole new experience. You can hear the quality of the singer. It also gives the audience a thrill to be able to see their fave muso play live, it's so much more intimate.

has different interpertations...there are many wanys to be a good musician/artist. to me it's to have the ability to express what music is to you. you know your material, theory, and so forth. being able to perform well is a plus, cause you want to show your passion for music, and of course your own. i also think that the business side doens't mean squak to be a good musician/artist. these days it's all about money, and when you solely set yourself on that, then that just goes to show you don't care about the music and the passion for music.

also i think talent doesn't have anything to do with being a good musician/artist. talent is a load of crap. IMO. i hate that word. seriously it's REALLY pathetic when people tag that word on someone to say, "oh wow he/she is soooo amazing. he/she is sooo talented". you don't need to be talented to do something that your good at and passionate about. That word has lost meaning in it. that's just my STRONG opinion about that. i probably didn't explained that well, but i'm sure to catch me drift.

to me if someone sees the passion and the ability to express that strong will, and not get caught up in the tangles in the negative aspects in the music world, it'll show in their music and/or art and that's what gets people's attention. being passionate, creative, and expressive is what makes a good musician/artist to me, because that's the kind of mentality/philoshy i live upon when i do my own music. to be your own person is another great aspect of a good musician/artist.

ok i think said a lot...haha sorry if i babbled too much ;)

She cant sing live? (Serious question)

I think she prefers to whore around the stage infront of 8 year old children who want to grow up to be just like her. She can sing (even if its not to my taste) and she can perform (again, not to my taste :P) just, evidently, not at the same time :rolleyes: