Did the Boss go Milli Vanilli at the Super Bowl?

Lost in all the hullabaloo over Bruce Springsteen's Super Bowl appearance, Wal-Mart apology and scathing attack on Ticketmaster is the revelation that Springsteen's heralded E Street Band ... didn't actually play live at the Super Bowl.

As the Chicago Tribune's Greg Kot reveals in this interview with Grammy-winning producer Hank Neuberger (who oversees the broadcast audio at the Grammy Awards telecast), everyone at the Super Bowl prerecorded their performances, including Jennifer Hudson and Faith Hill as well. Springsteen's vocals were live, though it's unclear from the Kot story whether the other singers were live or not, having clearly been asked -- by Super Bowl organizers -- to tape their performances and record backing tracks. Hudson's publicist says that "Hudson's mike was on" -- she was singing live to a backing track at the request of the Super Bowl producers.

Is this new? I guess not. Lots of singers (think Britney Spears and Ashlee Simpson) have been ridiculed for their use of backing tracks during live performances. Itzhak Perlman and Yo-Yo Ma also played to a recorded track during the presidential inauguration last month. But what about the Boss? A legendarily exciting live performer, should he have made it clear ahead of time that his band wasn't actually performing live at a mammoth media event like the Super Bowl, where everything is bound to go under the microscope? It wasn't like everyone was just miming to a record -- the band rehearsed and then recorded the new versions of the songs Springsteen performed on Sunday.

I think what stirs up criticism is that we live in a world that is now dominated by so many examples of pseudo events (starting with all the reality TV shows that are actually as carefully cast, scripted and edited as any dramatic fiction) that it feels increasingly unsettling to discover that something so seemingly authentic -- the E Street Band for the first time at the Super Bowl -- is, while not a fake, still technologically altered and rearranged. It creates all sorts of fuzzy gray areas. If it's bad for athletes to use chemical enhancement to improve their performance, then shouldn't we question artists if they use technological enhancement to improve their performance?

I'd like to hear your views on the subject -- as in where should we draw the line between the real and the artificial? As an audience member, I'm slightly squeamish about the blurred lines. But when I spoke to Neuberger, who as a producer is accustomed to dealing with new technology, he viewed the issue in a very different light, saying that using backing tracks is standard operating procedure in public live performances, especially when the artist is suddenly taking the stage in the middle of a football field.

"You're dealing with a staging set-up that would normally take all day, and suddenly has to be done in five minutes," he explained. "You really don't have a choice -- you're at a football game. There's a reliability factor that can't be guaranteed by five minutes of set-up time. The artists have to hear themselves, the mikes and sound equipment have to be all set up -- all that would be at risk if you tried to do a live performance with so little set-up time. The artists are really doing the right thing."

Fair enough. But does the audience have the right to know about the set-up ahead of time? Or would that spoil the illusion?   

Photo of Bruce Springsteen by Morry Gash / Associated Press

Comments

[Danny P]

The Rolling Stones performed live at the Super Bowl. Any act with integrity would refuse to mime. If there's not enough time to prepare for a real live performance, then the Super Bowl folks should just have marching bands and baton twirlers or whatever at half-time, rather than foisting a staged commercial for mega-star Artist X or Y.

I know singers who perform the national anthem live, in stadiums, so, again, it's a matter of choice - and musical integrity.

[Kay Stewart]

I'm a soundperson for a church band, and, although as a new soundperson I'm still learning basics of sound reinforcement, I do know that it would be impossible to put on an even marginally decent live show after getting only 10 minutes set-up. The sound quality would be horrible--feedback, musicians and vocalists not hearing themselves, etc. I don't think it's necessary for bands who perform in these type shows to announce their semi-liveness to the audience. It should be simply understood that if a band has less than one hour to set-up, then short-cuts wll be taken to give the audience a quality show. Now, if it's a concert where the band has hours to set up, then that's a different story.

[Kay Stewart]

I'm a newbie at sound reinforcement, but even with my limited experience, I know that it would be impossible to put on a quality show with only 5-10 minutes to set up for it. Feedback would be unbearable. The musicians wouldn't be able to hear themselves, which would translate to harmonies off-pitch. I don't think bands who record parts of the performaces ahead of time because they have no time beforehand to set up need to announce their semi-liveness to the audience. However, if a band has hours to set-up correctly, then that's a different story.

[Audiophile]

I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking. The recording was clearly live- the bad notes and wrong harmonies should have made that clear. This is one of the most unnecessary and wrong posts I've ever read.

[Alan Deane]

I would like to know if the Tom Petty band played live last year. It was fantastic, and I'll be disappointed if it was fake (so maybe I shouldn't ask). I'm a lifelong career musician, and it sure convinced me.

[Jon]

Springsteen was completeley live. I,ve been playing music for 30 years and that was not taped. You can hear every time bruce starts and stops playing his guitar. This was not canned

[Dan]

Use a better headline, dude. This one is so misleading. For one thing, it wasn't a question of whether Springsteen's singing was prerecorded, so the hed is flat-out wrong. And second, Milli Vanilli didn't even sing the original vocals to their tracks, so it wouldn't have been a case of "going Milli Vanilli" even if Springsteen's vocals were prerecorded. Does an editor even look at these posts before they go live?

[Leonard Braddock]

First off ... the Milli Vanilli reference does not apply. Remember, they were lip synching TO SOMEONE ELSE'S RECORDED VOICE. So forget that nonsense, and now begin a discussion about artists who prerecord their own music and voices.

[cliff]

I hate lypsynching and can't stand the few videos that Bruce did that way. I was relieved that he chose to sing live for the halftime show. I would be surprised if the rest of the singers weren't live as well since they need to be totally synched with the lead vocal.

It seems reasonable to me that the band was recorded in order to have the perfect synch with the fireworks and lighting. Remember they were not playing the versions of these songs that they have been playing for thirty years. It's hard enough for them to keep up with Bruce's changes during their live shows.

You don't need to tell the fans. Anyone who can't tell that the vocals aren't live probably doesn't care in the first place(Britney, Ashley et al).

[PJ Finnerty]

Somewhere beneath the mountains of hype that is Bruce's career, there was actually an interesting artist in there at some point in the distant past.