Bands using "Backing Tracks"

[Marcus Willett]

I don't have any issues with them at all. As long as they ADD to what you're playing and not subtract actual players.

Agreed. I work in many situations where tracks are used to augment the band; not supplant anyone. That doesn't bother me. It would be nice if everything were live but lots of other things in life would be nice too with equal chances of not happening.

 

[ric stave]

Yes, I think you missed my point - sorry if I wasn't clear -

What I mean is, it would be pretty hokey to have a band (guitar bass and drums) cover Genesis songs and have ALL the synths on backing tracks, it would be kinda lame to see a gtr/bass/drum band play Tom Sawyer or Subdivisions, and have ALL the synths on tracks, rather than play at least the stuff Geddy does play live. Those are the cases where the band should play at least some of the synths or get a synth player or not do those songs.

When a main feature of the song or band you're trying to cover is taped, same as with lead vocals, is looks really lame - backing tracks aren't in a supporting role anymore. How about a SRV tribute that has no guitar player, just a bass player and drummer playing along w/recorded guitar tracks?

Huh?

I'm not sure what your point is, but both Rush and Genesis use backing tracks during shows. They're good at hiding them, but they're there. (I have no idea about Kansas, though.) Here's an example of Rush with sequenced tracks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnRy4ks87Xg&feature=related - at 2:45 is probably the most obvious - it's subtle, but there's a keyboard playing the track in the background.

 

[svtb15]

I dont mind doing it if everyone on board is as in tune to playing with the click as myself and the drummer are.. if not its silly bad.
I did a gig last week like that but the one guitar player was so far ahead of the click i just had them turn him off in my monitor.... dude was more into being a rock star than playing his parts correctly

 

[Ubersheist]

Yes, I think you missed my point - sorry if I wasn't clear -

What I mean is, it would be pretty hokey to have a band (guitar bass and drums) cover Genesis songs and have ALL the synths on backing tracks, it would be kinda lame to see a gtr/bass/drum band play Tom Sawyer or Subdivisions, and have ALL the synths on tracks, rather than play at least the stuff Geddy does play live. Those are the cases where the band should play at least some of the synths or get a synth player or not do those songs.

When a main feature of the song or band you're trying to cover is taped, same as with lead vocals, is looks really lame - backing tracks aren't in a supporting role anymore. How about a SRV tribute that has no guitar player, just a bass player and drummer playing along w/recorded guitar tracks?

I agree. That would be stupendously lame. The main parts of the songs should always be played live. Backing tracks should just be support sounds to make the band sound fuller or ease up a few more technical parts so that the stage show doesn't suffer.

We had this dilemma recently... We're a 3-piece trying to incorporate a few backing tracks on some of our songs. We got to the point where we were going to cover Slightly Stupid's 3am. The song is killer, but it really takes more then a 3-piece to cover it with the horn section. The horn section is one of the main hooks of the song. We tried backing tracks, and it just seemed lame to have that part played with a sequencer. So, we dropped the song.

 

[txbasschik]

+1 Level 42 got a big boost from him!


If a 6 piece band only has one, maybe two players who can sing, then what's the problem with tracks?

If a keyboard player is tasked with covering second guitar lines, horn lines and maybe strings, then SOMETHING isn't going to sound good- he still has to play keys sometimes.
Throw one or two of those things on a track and let him play keys.

I don't have any issues with them at all. As long as they ADD to what you're playing and not subtract actual players.

we use loops, samples and tracks all the time.

And yes, almost EVERY major label touring band uses tracks.

If I had a 6 piece and only two people could sing, that would mean that I'd hired the wrong people.

I am of the opinion that if my band wants to cover a tune, and we don't have the instrumentation for it, or none of the singers can sing it, then we don't cover it. We choose something else.

As for large acts...I do not pay $65 a person (at bare minimum) to hear backing tracks. I don't care if it sounds like the cd. The cd has a bunch of studio effects on it. I *want* to hear the rough-and-tumble live sound. I *want* to hear the warts. That's why I go to live shows. If I wanted perfection, if I wanted to hear the cd...I'd just stay home and listen to it.

I suppose it is a good thing I can no longer afford to see national acts.

I desperately miss Liberty Lunch.

My opinion...

Cherie

 

[David Jayne]

Where do you draw the line between concert production and karaoke? I see alot of single act guitar players using backing bass/drum tracks...

I've witnessed this. And the guy's computer kept crashing and doing goofy things, making horrible noises, speeding up tempos, etc. When I see this now, I head for the door.

 

[txbasschik]

I think backing tracks, harmonizers and other such tricks are blurring what is live music and what is essentially a karaoke act. I have no respect for bands that use either. You're either creating the music and harmonies entirely yourself, or you're not.

Unfortunately, you're seeing the future -- and essentially the death of live music as we know it now. It will get to the point where any group of hacks with fancy tools will be able to sound like pros.

*shakes head*

Hacks...they're already here. Britney is the prime example.

There's a chick who performs locally...she won't perform without her backing tracks and her vocal effects. She thinks she's the queen bee, but I have yet to find anyone who respects her. She has a high band turnover, too. Treats her bandmates like underlings. The only reason anyone thinks she's any good is because of her backing tracks and effects. She sounds thin and crappy without her "toys".

If she didn't have them, she wouldn't be singing at all.

Cherie

 

[WalterBush]

Do you have experience/thoughts on this? What say you?

Most of the touring acts, both cover and original, that pass through the local casinos (these aren't hacks--they're people who make a living playing music; Creedence Clearwater Revisited, Gretchen Wilson, Blondie, BB King, and others perform here) use backing tracks. Please, before anyone freaks out on me, no, BB King didn't use backing tracks. He and his band also got more for one show than I've ever made in a year. He can afford horns.

It's simple economics. Would I rather have a horn section and a keys player with the complete selection of vintage synths necessary to play the hits of the '60s, '70s, and '80s at my disposal? Including the willingness to not play at all when we're NOT playing dance music? Sure, but it's a logistical nightmare. We have problems getting four people in the same room for rehearsals on a regular basis, never mind an entire percussion and horn section.

Plus, the pay once split starts to get so low that it's no longer worth doing; if I can't make enough to even pay for my gas around town and a new pair of strings, why am I taking the time away from my family to do this? I may as well play in an original band, and cut the money factor out all together.

Even national touring acts are on a budget; some are larger than others, but if a moderately successful band with limited radio and no MTV play goes on tour, and has to look at paying $10,000 to a keyboard player, or just hitting play on their iPod for the keyboard and synth parts, what do you think they're going to do? I know what I'd do; that's a lot of dough for someone who's not as rich and famous as Britney, or to someone who hasn't had a hit since 1978 and relies on constant touring for their mortgage payments.

So, in my band, we have backing tracks. We don't record tracks for vocals, although I've tried to convince them it's a good idea; our drummer can't harmonize as well as he'd like to. Some things, like horns and strings, we just don't have players for. Keyboard parts? Assuming we had access to all the sounds, and that I could play them on our Taurus pedals, that adds more time to setup and soundcheck. We've got three people (singer doesn't count until it's time to wrap cables up) to set up, soundcheck, and perform, no money for roadies, and not enough keyboard-only songs to merit a full keyboard setup. The solution? Again, backing tracks with the key parts.

Another consideration? The bands that make real money at this often have EXTENSIVE set lists. We can learn tunes a lot faster, from any genre, if we have pre-recorded parts rather than trying to switch between instruments, sync keyboards up, trigger samples with my feet, get the singer to dance and play flute with her nose at the same time, etc. That means we have more tunes overall, and can market ourselves against older, more established acts over a wider area and stay working more often.

We use backing and click tracks at church, too, btw. Sounds great; one keyboard player only has so many fingers, after all, and too many keyboard players try to all play simultaneously; it makes for a noisy, unmusical stage even if the soundguy mutes them; we know, we've tried.

 

[WalterBush]

I think backing tracks, harmonizers and other such tricks are blurring what is live music and what is essentially a karaoke act. I have no respect for bands that use either. You're either creating the music and harmonies entirely yourself, or you're not.

Unfortunately, you're seeing the future -- and essentially the death of live music as we know it now. It will get to the point where any group of hacks with fancy tools will be able to sound like pros.

*shakes head*

This same statement could have been made 40 years ago about the Monkees. This is nothing new, the technology has just gotten cheaper and more powerful.

 

[QORC]

Hardly. You're justifying basically doing essentially a karaoke act due to "economics".

I don't buy it. If you can't do it live, you shouldn't be doing it. I don't care what CCR or other "big name" acts do. It's not the same thing as a local act.

Yes, I think it's a bit on the "hack" side. I won't watch a band where significant instruments or, worse, backing vocals are on tracks. It's cheating. it's a bit fake. It's not live music.

Comparing this to the Monkees? Why not compare it to Milli Vanilli? You can see all the professional respect they have in the music business.

 

[smeet]

It's all about the music. If it sounds good, why should I care if some of it is sequenced?

If the band is trying to mislead the audience, then I have an issue with it. Otherwise, if the extra background vocals come from a tape, I'm fine with it. Playing along with sequenced tracks and making it sound good and full of energy is a skill too. I have never done it, but not because of any moral objections.

It's a slippery slope, and there is a limit to how much trickery I will enjoy in a live show. But what about loopers, arpeggiators, compressors, autotune, and all the rest of the technology that many bands use?

 

[T-MOST]

Tracks for a live band is weak. Artists these days don't know what hard work and performing is. I can listen to CD's at home.

 

[wildhorse]

Ok well I attended a show that was opened by Terry Clarke... the poor girl was apparently used for sound set up. Feedback, bad balance etc. She put on a great performance none the less. The second act was Brad Paisley. The group sounded like a kick ass bar band... Very awesome but definately not dialed in on the PA yet. Last act Reba McIntyre... Sounded exactly like her records to a T. But the band was not using tracks. The public shouldn't put up with groups playing with tracks. Pre programmed midi'd keyboards yes but recorded tracks no.

 

[smeet]

Last act Reba McIntyre... Sounded exactly like her records to a T. But the band was not using tracks.

Not sure how I feel about that... If they really are playing live, I want MORE than what's on the record, in terms of energy, arrangement, etc. In any case, if a band really knows what they are doing, you might not be able to tell if they are using tracks to bolster the sound of the band.

Pre programmed midi'd keyboards yes but recorded tracks no.

Why is one better or worse than the other?

 

[WalterBush]

Hardly. You're justifying basically doing essentially a karaoke act due to "economics".

I don't buy it. If you can't do it live, you shouldn't be doing it. I don't care what CCR or other "big name" acts do. It's not the same thing as a local act.

Yes, I think it's a bit on the "hack" side. I won't watch a band where significant instruments or, worse, backing vocals are on tracks. It's cheating. it's a bit fake. It's not live music.

Comparing this to the Monkees? Why not compare it to Milli Vanilli? You can see all the professional respect they have in the music business.

A) Are you playing in a cover band?

B) Are you trying to make a living playing music? Not just hoping it happens, but making it happen?

If the answer is "no" to those questions, then I don't expect you to understand. The show is what people are paying to see...they don't care about what's sequenced and what isn't, until the band blows the illusion by being completely incompetent without their backing tracks.

Remember, Milli Vanilli tried to pass themselves off as something they weren't; they were lip syncing and dancing...cover bands are playing instruments, singing, dancing, and using tracks to fill out the sound. It's a different experience, and far from a CD. Live energy comes through regardless of track usage, unless the live energy isn't there in the first place; in which case, no one wants to see a band regardless of who is, or isn't, playing what.

Musicians' good opinions don't pay my bills; club owners seeing my band pack a dance floor do. I'm sorry you don't see the difference between hard-working musicians making a living and a CD; my paying audience members do, fortunately. Should I assume that worship bands using backing tracks aren't worshiping God by your definition, then? Money isn't the only justification for backing tracks, it's simply a measure of success in giving an audience what they want.

And, incidentally, calling any band's years of rehearsal, blood, sweat, tears, struggles, practice and mastery of their instruments, and the work they put in to making sure that their audience members have a great concert experience to dance, a "karaoke" act, could be taken as one hell of an insult. If you don't like a certain style or trend in the music industry, that's certainly your perogative. Belittling what others do for a living, and writing them off as "hacks" is a different thing entirely.

 

[Richland123]

One of the worst cases of playing to backing tracks I saw recently was a local polka/variety type band. The lineup is guitar/singer, keyboard, accordian/singer, saxophone. The keyboard player is a woman who can't play well anyway. They perform along to karaoke type CD tracks and sing over top of them and pretend to play. The worst case of this was when they did Lee Greenwood's God Bless The U.S.A. and the guitar player sang (without his guitar) and the keyboard player pretended to touch the keys and the accordian player and sax player stood there holding their instruments and pretended to play. Of course, that song does not have any accordian or saxophone in it which made the fake performance even cheesier looking.

 

[Ubersheist]

Not sure how I feel about that... If they really are playing live, I want MORE than what's on the record, in terms of energy, arrangement, etc. In any case, if a band really knows what they are doing, you might not be able to tell if they are using tracks to bolster the sound of the band.



Why is one better or worse than the other?

You should arrange songs differently for a live performance, but utting more into a live show doesn't usually work. The stuff that works the best live is a more stripped down version of the record, but played with a different intensity.

Records and live are two different mediums and should be approached as such.

 

[SLIV]

There's a local guy here (goes by the name "Calico") who uses a looper extensively for his "backing band." He builds each song up layer by layer right in front of you-- a tap on the microphone for the kick, an actual snare hit for the snare, scraping the pick across the mic for a high hat. Its pretty incredible but its also a house of cards that does fall down at times. I think what he does is extremely musical. He does an occasional cover but just like a full band, the cover has to fit the instrumentation he can offer.

For those who are doing backing tracks for economics-- eventually this will all catch up to them. Slippery slope, indeed, and the last stop is Karaoke. Still, there will always be a desire for the real thing. I did "Karaoke" with a full band while on a recording trip in Dallas. It was great fun-- like playing in a band for one song!

 

[WalterBush]

For those who are doing backing tracks for economics-- eventually this will all catch up to them. Slippery slope, indeed, and the last stop is Karaoke.

Seeing as to how bands at the national and club level have been using tape, clicks, keyboard sequences (is an arpeggiator 'cheating,' or just saving the keyboard player's hand?), on up to minidisk, samplers, and iPod tracks, since the 1970's, I'd love to hear you elucidate on how this "catches up" with them, other than to possibly expand their repertoire without hiring extra musicians, thus making them more hirable, and more fun to listen to.

Please note, I'm talking about people fleshing out their sound to perform songs they don't have the instrumentation to, otherwise; I'm not talking about doubling pre-recorded parts (which happens, but I don't see often) or flat-out pretending to play parts they're not. I'm not even talking about pre-recording background vocals, although I don't see a problem with that, either. I'm talking about replacing percussion and horn sections, and synth or piano parts with a sequence to a click.

To the OP--obviously a lot of people here have opinions regarding backing tracks. I'd say at least half, if not more, cover bands who play regionally, nationally, or in a couple of cases I'm aware of, internationally at $10,000 a pop, use backing tracks for various reasons. They put on amazing shows, crowds love them, and that's their job; they don't have to tear down after 45 minutes and go home early so they can wake up and go to their real job. Some of these people are booked solid a year in advance.

Obviously, whether or not it's appropriate to your situation depends on, well, your situation, but it's a standard thing to do in a cover band, and has been at all levels for decades. If you feel it's robbing something from your band's performance, convince them not to do it, or find another gig, but don't worry about whether or not it's standard or acceptable to audiences; it is.

Even for background vocals; if for no other reason that so many modern background vocals are heavily processed, compressed, vocoder'ed, auto-tuned (for tone a la Cher, not pitch correction), etc, and it's impractical to tour that way live, unless you're the much-mentioned Britney. So people pre-record their background vocals.

I wouldn't want to do it to every tune, but on some of our Journey set or Queen covers, I think it'd be completely appropriate, since it's difficult to get some of our band members to sing multiple-part harmonies consistently, or for that matter, to keep the drums from blaring through the drummer's vocal mike on a regular basis, which makes the whole mix sound bad.

YMMV, but don't let a bunch of people with ideas of what proper music is try to tell you it's cheating, somehow, or that it's not a live performance anymore.

 

[Munjibunga]

I call it "karaoke."