Is it OK for the backing band to atebriate, but not to lip-synch? Interesting psychology of the audience

There is a truly interesting phenomenon in the music industry. Many people do not mind when a backing band pretends to be playing (i.e., ateburi), but when a singer starts lip-synching, the moment he or she is accused of doing so, the criticism erupts. Both are a part of the performance, and both are a way to make people enjoy the music, but why is there such a difference between the two?

The ideal of "should be real" and the reality of "should be perfect

Truth is a form of illusion"-Nietzsche's words beautifully put the issue.


Many people wish to listen to live music. However, in the quest for perfect sound quality, the use of recorded sound sources is inevitable. On the other hand, there are those who feel that the use of recorded sound sources "lacks the emotion of live music. This contradiction is at the root of the criticism.

For example, in a concert involving a large-scale dance performance, singers are expected to sing perfectly while dancing as fast as they can. However, if she actually sings live, her breath rises and her pitch wavers, which is again criticized as "unstable pitch for a professional. Like Schrödinger's cat, the audience demands "music that is both perfect and raw," which can never exist at the same time.

Underlying this phenomenon is a deep human "structure of expectation and disappointment. When "one's ideal" is not realized, one feels a strong sense of rebellion. As Freud pointed out, we unconsciously give priority to "illusion" over reality and become angry when it is dashed.

A sense of "betrayal."

People only see what they want to see" - as Julius Caesar said, "People only see what they want to see" - and when they find out that someone is lip-syncing, they feel cheated or that they had high expectations, when in fact, it is due to the discrepancy between their own ideals and reality.


In contrast, the "guesswork" of the backing band is rarely seen as a problem. Perhaps because the audience's attention is primarily focused on the singer, few people care whether the performance is live or not. The psychology of "cognitive dissonance" is at work here. When people realize that the music they are enthusiastic about is not actually "completely live," they try to justify it. Therefore, they process in their brain that "the band's performance is irrelevant," and the problem is reduced to "the singer's lip-synching" alone.

Assumption that "it should be raw"

It is interesting to note that the audience is more concerned with whether the song sounds like a live song than whether it is actually a live song. For example, some people believe that "this is live singing" when breathing and breath sounds are added while playing a recorded sound source. Also, some people are convinced that they are singing even if they are lip-synching, by devising facial expressions and detailed direction.


As Picasso said, "All art is deception. For this reason, many people are satisfied if the performance has a "live" feel, even if it is lip-synched.


This is due to the psychology of the audience wanting to believe in "their own experience. Similar to the "placebo effect," people perceive "experiences that they think are real" as "the real thing itself. In other words, just because something "looks like singing" is enough to make one think it is "singing.

The joy of "seeing through it all

Some people enjoy the very act of spotting a mouthful. For them, it is a matter of "Is this a live song? Or is it lip-synching?" It is a kind of game for them. The moment they are convinced that they have not been fooled, they feel a sense of superiority.


As Plato said, "The wise man doubts, but the fool believes," and those who find value in discernment probably enjoy the act itself. However, if it is truly important that the songs be sung live, then enjoying the performance as a whole, rather than criticizing the lip-synching, would lead to a purer musical experience.


This also has to do with "self-affirmation. They get satisfaction from feeling that they are "smarter than the rest of the audience" and that they have "seen the truth. As long as this psychology exists, the very act of spotting a mouthpiece becomes an objective, and the reason for criticism itself becomes secondary.

Contradictions in the quest for the "perfect live song."

After all, audience expectations are not consistent. They say, "Live singing is important," but point out the slightest lapse in pitch; they say, "No lip-synching," but demand a flawless performance. They do not care if the backing band's performance is a recording, but they are sensitive to the singer's lip-synching.


The world is a stage, and we are all actors." To borrow a phrase from Shakespeare, music is also a form of theater, and the audience is enjoying themselves in this illusion. This is in keeping with "social constructionism. What is "real" depends on how each person perceives it. Live music is no exception.


Rather than focusing on whether the music is sung live or recorded, perhaps the true way to enjoy music is to see what kind of musical experience can be had on the spot.