Hi PNH...
I always enjoy your posts, but do feel that your use of the word 'fraud' in this context seems a bit harsh, to the point of being unrealistic?
Hasn't there always been a difference in show business, between stage performances and records?
Some artists come alive on stage. They are natural artists and performers.
Group members known to the public at any time are principally those who actually appear on stage, or for personal appearances, and who also are shown in group photos.
Any techniques which can be used in the recording studio to then enhance said singer or group's appeal are considered a legitimate procedure within the industry. The record companies are in the business of selling the records as a finished product, so will want to maximise their potential.
In contrast, some artists are most well known and represented simply by their recordings. They do not have the same stage presence as those in the first category, and often enjoy a shorter career. These artists may be talented, but their appearances more heavily rely on lighting gimmicks, additional dancers, etc., to enhance their appeal.
[[I can quickly think of several examples which fall within each category, even within Motown, but I'm not going there
)
Wouldn't it be fraud only if Ronnie or Diana were then to receive royalties from the records sold where their voices were recorded with session singers, but not the other members from their group? The lead voices effectively represent groups both on recordings and on stage, in order to maintain sales. The other Ronettes and Supremes would normally have received royalties from record sales generated by the lead singer, even if their own voices did not, for various reasons, feature on the recordings.
Was it fraud when the girl singers invariably used wigs on stage and in public appearances, to maintain best appearances under busy schedules?
Was it fraud when they used heavy make-up, foundation, and false eyelashes, to improve their looks under the lights?
Was it fraud that their dresses were padded out, or carefully cut, in order to improve their figures?
Was it fraud if the voice of Connie Francis, for example, and many of her contemporaries, was double-tracked on records to enhance the sound, which she then had no hope of replicating when singing live on stage?
It would be seem that the object was to present everyone involved to best effect.
I would contend that the word fraud is more applicable to financial matters?
In this particular context of session singers, it seems everyone was paid.
There are only two words which seem appropriate : Show, and Business.
If the entertainment values involved do not directly relate to one of those words, they relate to the other.
And very often, both.
Bookmarks