Why Do Celebs Lip Sinc

Why do celebrities, particularly singers like Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley, take drugs?

MJ took anti-anxiety medications as well as sedatives.They can reduce anxiety and stress. If you had millions of people watching your every move, expecting perfection time and time again in show after show and people ready to criticize for any mistake, you'd probably have some anti-anxiety medication too.As for cocaine:Addicted in Hollywood: Stars' Problems With Cocaine 'Still Going Strong'

Why do they Lip-Sync on the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade?

Basically, the parade is one big advertisement for the artists, so promoters desire to deliver the best vocal performance. (The easiest analogy is the difference between listening to a song’s “live” recorded version verses the “produced” studio version.) The logistics that would be required to make each vocalist sound their best in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade’s outdoor application would be a sound engineer’s nightmare. There are three mixes that would need considering. One mix is the “live” performance on the street, one is the audio mix broadcast over the air, and finally, the audio mix the artist hears in their own ear buds. For example, if the instrumental music is too loud or soft in the earbuds, the artist can’t hear themselves, thus making it more difficult to sing on pitch. There are apps where an artist can adjust the mix in the earbuds using a smart phone, however, the parade moves fast. (This is something done at sound check, (which the parade may not even have), not in front of national broadcast cameras.) Despite today’s hi tech world, orchestrating live audio for the parade would be an enormous task. Consequently, when artist’s lip sync to their own songs, the audience hears the best version of their song and perhaps may even be enticed to buy a ticket to see the artist in a full concert or play where, hopefully, the artist sings “live”.

Why do singers always lip sync (usually poorly) at the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade?

Most live television events include lip syncing, especially if the movement is great. The super bowl only has a live singer - no musicians are actually playing (I think Prince being the only exception).It can be difficult to get sound to work perfectly, not only for the audience but also for in-ear monitors the performers wear (fitted earphones) and the signal to the tv trucks for broadcast.Prerecorded is easier to manage and safer rather than having technical difficulties.

Do the singers really sing in live concerts?

For the name act at a true concert (where the performer is the primary act rather than, say, halftime entertainment at a sports event): almost without exception, yes.  The occasional "lip-synching scandal" that erupts is almost always outside the realm of concerts - a performer at a non-concert event (Beyonce at the Obama inauguration, Ashlee Simpson on SNL) is seen to be more or less obviously faking it (proving that it's hard to lip-synch well).   In these one-shot cases it's often a production issue (the venue may  not have the right type of microphone or monitoring setup, or the right  backup music to add vocals to)  and/or an environmental one (it's very difficult for some singers to be ready to perform a single song on demand without a warmup routine, particularly outdoors).   Similarly, at something like an ice-skating show or theme park attraction where the primary point of the event is something other than music, lip-synching to tapes might be used when the characters "sing".   But for a concert where ticketholders have paid to see a singer, they had better sing; there is actually legal exposure if they don't.  The few exceptions and grey areas are in the realm of "pop spectacles" and other places where the line is blurred between "musical performance" and "entertainment extravaganza" -- if a pop singer is dancing non-stop backed by a giant special-effects and light show, it's likely the vocals are at least helped out by backup tapes (see below).  The other assumption here is that you are a bit liberal about what you mean by "singing".  Given modern electronics which provide auto-tune and other sweetening/improvements, it may be that while the sound you hear originated in some way with the performer, it may bear little resemblance to the actual vibration of the air in the region of their vocal cords.   Many pop songs today use massive amounts of chorus effect and multiplication of the vocals; in concert this can be done electronically or using backup tapes or backup singers "doubling" the parts; the effect of this is that the performer basically just has to shout along and the full effect is there.   If they do become out of breath or flub a line, the backup tapes can carry the load.

Is lip-syncing in concerts justified?

I don't think lip syncing is per se unjustified. Circumstances may render it a necessary measure. Consider the example of an artist on a world tour, which spans several months or even a year or two, which requires him/her to perform several times a week (maybe every alternate day, or sometimes even every day) - each performance spanning several hours.I can speak only for pop acts, but these performances can be extremely draining, especially given the intense choreography, not to mention the sheer duration of the concerts. It is humanly impossible for anyone to sing perfectly, or for that matter even passably for several hours continuously, several days a week, for months on end, without suffering adverse consequences on his/her voice. Lipsyncing therefore, is not as much as a device to deceive as it is a necessary measure; it is, for the want of a better term, a necessary evil. Is this to say that every instance of lip syncing is justified? Perhaps not. There are instances when the artist is required merely to put up a short performance, such as of the kind required for award shows etc. Many an artist is known to have lip synced their way even through such short performances. Many artists also use lip syncing as a device to hide their otherwise blatantly obvious inability to hold a note in tune, while some, while not lip syncing, use pitch correction software real time (such as Nicki Minaj, and Usher, during some performances), so as to compensate for their lack of good vocals. Of course all of these measures could be seen as reducing the authenticity of the performance.The question however, is this, and the answer to this question is highly subjective - does the end result of the performance matter more, or the integrality of its live component? In other words, would you rather see a lackluster, yet completely live performance, or a near perfect but not entirely live performance? Some would prefer the former, while some would prefer the latter. Personally, and I speak for myself alone in this regard, I'd prefer the latter. I'd rather not listen to someone like Britney Spears (whom I immensely respect, and look up to for the record) sing live, simply because (and I say this not to undermine her as an artist, but only as a vocalist), her vocals are simply not there. Yet, her performances can be immensely entertaining. I believe I've adequately addressed the issue.