Musical feature films- studio vs live singing

The film of EVITA is quite good. The only flaw is Madonna.

---

I agree that in some cases it can add something, when things are not supposed to be sung, but more spoken/cried. Mostly scenes where someone is dying benefit from it, with all the breaths etc.

In fact, madonna's final scene was recorded live: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R0P1Bwzhug

It basically sounds the same as all the songs in the Les Miserables film and that is too much if you ask me. Imagine Madonna would sing the whole film like that. The problem is that that particular music (Les Mis, Miss Saigon) demands great singing voices and the uplifting notes and the placement of the sung notes create the emotion and storytelling too, that is what musical is. Especially combined with great editing instead of using just 1 close up for each song. Singing the first word of a sentence and then speak or sigh the last word of each sentence is not the solution of singing in a musical film (Although Hugh Jackman thinks so).

I believe that the scenes I posted above would have never been so great if recorded live. And vice versa, I think a lot of scenes in Les Mis could have been much better.

I see moviemaking as more than just putting a camera in someone's face and let him/her sing the song a couple of times. I can imagine that for example "The movie in my mind" from Miss Saigon can turn out very average if done that way, while with the right editing, cinematography and studio recording with the soaring notes, including singing along live for the acting can make this scene exceptional. Raw emotion for the viewer comes from other things too.

Updated On: 1/9/14 at 08:24 PM

Yeah, I agree with a lot of what's been said here. There's going for a grittier sound and then there's just not being able to hit the notes properly. And the lip-synching is totally what takes me out of Evita. That and the static cinematography. Crane shots and tracking shots, Parker, ever heard of them?!

---

It is true that some pre-recorded, lip-synced performances are really alienating. It's gotten a lot better over the years, but there are some films where the transition from camera-recorded dialogue to pre-recorded singing is so stark it's laughable. And the lip-synching can be bad.

On the other hand, some live-singing performances can sound too thin for large numbers like "One Day More" and often appear to be of lower quality due to background noise on the studio lot.

Both extremes can be bad, so filmmakers should try to use their own discretion and pick and choose which numbers to studio record and which to record on the studio lot. I also think it would be nice to re-record some live-sung songs for the soundtrack album, although that may seem to defeat the purpose of the original live-singing.

I think there should be a mix. For example, look at "My Man" in Funny Girl. The emotional first part was done live and the rest was dubbed in later to hit all the right notes. The only issue with this approach is the shift in audio quality. There are ways around this of course, but typically, there's a slight switch.

I don't see why certain numbers can't be done live. In Les Mis, a pre-recorded track would have killed I Dreamed A Dream. I'm glad they went the live route with that, but for the bigger songs, they could have used a little studio finessing.

I much prefer live singing. Flaws and all. There are plenty of quality studio recordings that I can listen to, but for me, nothing can match the presence of an actor singing in the moment. In fact, I wish OBCRs were live recordings, although I understand that there may be technical and contractual issues that make that impractical.

---

Well, if they can’t sing the notes, then they shouldn’t be attempting it.

---

Here is a clip with some examples of how the Les Miserables film could have been. I feel the singing in the film should have been much less theatrical, more nuanced, more filmic, more like fine art, because that is the whole point of singing in a musicalfim. Acting through song. That creates emotions. Not the attempt of speaking, sighing, or groaning words instead of singing (Hugh Jackman's theory). Strangely enough other recordings are much more filmic. As you can see it lifts every scene to a higher level emotionally. Musicalfilmmakers need to think about what triggers emotion in viewers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0qQ_7RFGSc

Updated On: 1/10/14 at 11:11 AM

I prefer a mix of studio and live singing. There are certain emotional scenes where live singing is necessary. Even in Evita, most of the singing in the end towards Eva's death were sung live. Madonna's acting really shone in those portions. Live singing works best in recitatives. I do wish Stars, Bring Him Home, and On My Own were pre-recorded. Then again, we wouldn't have gotten the marvelous performance from Anne Hathaway had I Dreamed a Dream been pre-recorded.

I agree that a mix of live and studio recording would work for future films but I wonder would it cost more to do for a studio to do both rather than one or the other?

If it's a well-made film, I don't care one way or the other. I thought the live singing worked fine in Les Mis (with the obvious exception of Crowe), but the film missed the mark in many other ways. I thought the studio singing of Evita worked well, but the film missed the mark in many other ways. I think Dreamgirls was superior to both of them in terms of sound and vocals (though it had its flaws as well).

---

The only way non-singers can make it work is in scenes of crying or despair. In all the other senes it does not work.