Posted by Bill on 12/01/06 21:01

Just looked again: it's got to be lip-synched, and contrary to some
earlier posters, rather badly, in my opinion. I think she got it into
her head that it would look more convincing if she did that bizarre
thing with the microphone, as if that's how a singer controls volume???

Just thought about the fact that many figure skaters also use "nude"
material to make it look like they are wearing far less than they
actually are. What is the point of that? If you want people to think
you are half-naked out there, why would you mind if you really were?

Oh-- you want it both ways. You want to play the wildly passionate vamp
who is sexy and alluring-- but you don't want mom or Oprah to mind?

Honestly, I think God would prefer it if you paid your dues. It's like
when they glued Brooke Shields' hair to her breasts in "Blue Lagoon".
It just looked plain stupid. But then, that's the kind of titillation
the "wholesome" crowd craves: I didn't actually see anything, so you
can't say I have a dirty mind....



Bill wrote:
> Just checked out the video on Youtube. I'd be a little shocked if that
> was live. I might use different lingo but it looked to me like the
> variations in position in the microphone did not correspond to the audio.
>
> That leaves the possibility of some kind of mix...
>
> Either way short of an actual live performance-- if singers actually
> believe that their fans don't care if they are really singing or not,
> let them stop trying to make it look like they aint.... especially so
> those who really do perform live get proper recognition for doing
> something far more difficult.
>
> Brian wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I think it's impossible to tell looking at a TV broadcast anyway. Half
>> the time the audio and video aren't synched up right in the broadcast
>> to begin with. I was watching a football game the other day and the
>> announcer's mouth moved a good 3 tenths of a second before the sound
>> came out of the TV, and he wasn't lip-synching :)
>>

[Back to original message]