How Biopic Soundtracks Work: Artist Dubbing, Actor Vocals, or Both?

How Music Biopics Handle the Singing, the Actual Recordings, Actor Performance, Or a Mix

Welcome to MsMojo, and today we’re looking at the ways singer biopics bring their music to life in preparation for the upcoming film, “Michael.” Should they honor the real singer’s voice, let the actor portraying them imitate them, or a mix of the two? There are pros and cons to each approach, so let’s get started.

Lip Synching/Dubbing: Pros

This approach should be a no-brainer, right? Portraying legendary singers and musicians is no walk in the park. Many of them have such distinct voices and styles that even the best actors can struggle convincingly imitating them. That’s why they’re legends, after all. That’s where lip synching comes into play. Jamie Foxx did a very convincing Ray Charles in the award-winning 2004 film. Marion Cotillard snagged an Academy Award for Best Actress for her spectacular performance as Édith Piaf in the 2007 film. And the in-depth preparation the then-novice Jennifer Lopez underwent to become Tejano superstar Selena Quintanilla-Pérez, including sleeping in the late singer’s bed, really must be seen to be believed. The best part of these performances? They are all lip-synched to the real singer’s own vocals. Sometimes you just can’t mess with the greats.

Lip Synching/Dubbing: Cons

So why don’t actors in musical biopics always lip-sync to the real singer’s songs? One reason, unfortunately, is that the practice won’t guarantee your movie will be a hit. For every “La Vie en Rose,” there is the lip sync fail of “Great Balls of Fire!” starring Dennis Quaid as Jerry Lee Lewis. Also, when an actor is a trained singer in their own right, it can be a bit of a bummer to watch them lip sync, even if it is to the real deal. The creators of the otherwise fun parody biopic on Weird Al Yankovic even expressed regret about having Tony Award-winning Daniel Radcliffe lip-sync. For actors willing to go the extra mile for their craft, having them dubbed can constrain them unnecessarily.

Actor’s Own Vocals: Pros

As we have seen before, some actors really have the vocal and performance chops to portray the real deal convincingly. Sissy Spacek sounded exactly like Loretta Lynn in the award-winning film, “Coal Miner’s Daughter.” Lynn even chose her for the role, encouraging the producers to let Spacek do her own singing. A great singer herself, Diana Ross used her own voice to portray Billie Holiday for the 1972 biopic, to terrific results. There are also cases where recordings of the original singer are too old or imperfect to use. Hence, Mario Lanza using his vocals to portray the tenor Enrico Caruso in 1951 was very much necessary. It must also be said that some renowned musicians are not known for perfect vocals. Bob Dylan’s diehard fans readily admit his talents lie mostly in his songwriting, not in his voice. So why not give Timothée Chalamet’s live vocals a chance to shine? Sometimes you can get just as good authenticity by letting the actor truly step into the singer’s shoes.

Actor’s Own Vocals: Cons

Unfortunately, not all actors are up to the task of delivering convincing vocals. Renée Zellweger’s otherwise decent voice and award-winning acting are absolutely no substitute for Judy Garland’s musical theater-trained belt. You don’t need to be a Judy Garland fan to hear the difference. Actor Taron Egerton got widespread acclaim for his portrayal of Elton John, but his vocal imitation was not quite there, though that wasn’t necessarily what they were going for. Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon gave excellent performances in the 2005 film “Walk the Line.” Phoenix’s singing as the Man in Black, however, was a mixed effort, getting the timbre right but lacking some of Cash’s expressiveness. Let’s not even touch on the mess that was Zoe Saldaña as Nina Simone. Sometimes it’s okay to just use the original singer’s voice, we promise.

Mix of Original & Actor’s Voice: Pros

Of course, it doesn’t have to be either/or. With today’s technology, blending original recordings with the actor’s own voice, whether sung live or in the studio, is an easy feat and the most reasonable compromise. The blending of vocals was pretty much seamless in “Love & Mercy,” a biopic about Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys. Still, there are few scenes as jaw-dropping as Rami Malek’s star turn as Freddie Mercury in “Bohemian Rhapsody.” Malek’s vocals were used as well as Mercury’s, but it’s hard to know which is which. You get the best of both worlds: Hearing the original singer in their glory while also giving their actor flexibility and a chance to make the role their own.

Mix of Original & Actor’s Voice: Cons

But like everything else in movie-making, mixing two or even multiple voices in an audio facsimile is no guarantee of success. 2014’s “Jersey Boys” featured both original recordings of The Four Seasons and vocals by John Lloyd Young as Frankie Valli. Even so, the jukebox musical failed to please critics much. More dismal results could be found with 2024’s “Back to Black,” which had both Marisa Abela’s vocals as Amy Winehouse and the late songwriter’s real recordings. Even the well-received “Get On Up,” with Chadwick Boseman playing soul singer James Brown, does not soar as it should have. All in all, there is no one right way to do a musical biopic, especially when the people involved, living or dead, differ so much in artistry. Here’s hoping Jaafar Jackson will do his uncle’s legacy justice. Fingers crossed!

Do you prefer that biopics let their modern stars or their old ones shine—or both? Let us know in the comments down below!