• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Bands using "Backing Tracks"

#81
Rob Lewis said:
The fact that a lot of modern pop/rock/whatever you want to call it is highly produced
doesn't help: people come expecting to hear what they hear on CD or the radio, so even if you've got keys/horns and you have multilayered tracks on your recordings then you're going to struggle to reproduce them live. My approach is to do it one way in the studio and another live.
Click to expand...

That seems very sensible! I've seen plenty of touring bands, in smaller venues, not big stages, use this technique. S.C.O.T.S. is an excellent example.

I think it is very sad that people demand a live show that sounds like the CD/radio. Why even attend a show then?

Cherie
 
#82
bassybill said:
Depends what you hired 'em for, I suppose. I play in a 21 piece band where only one person can sing really well. The rest of the band got the gig because of what they can do on their instruments.

Just sayin'. :)
Click to expand...

Around here, we don't get paid enough to have someone who just sings. Unless you have corporate gigs, any band larger than four pieces means that you have to spread the meagre pay too thinly. So I wouldn't have a six-piece, anyway.

I play mostly with three or four pieces. At least two of the players, myself and one other, have to be able to handle the vocals. If we hired a singer, we'd have to pay them, and they would have nothing to do but stand there when we did our lead vocals. If that extra singer cannot also play, then their contribution is not enough to be worth hiring them.

If they were spectacularly good, *and* super-cool, then maybe they'd be worthwhile. But I have yet to hear any "just singers" locally who are that good.

That's just the way I do things. Your mileage may vary. ;)

Cherie
 
#85
WalterBush said:
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.
Click to expand...

I totally agree...we are getting 1 side of the argument. Musicians are lousy critics.

I wish I was motivated enough to get some backing tracks and increase my bands professionalism. A cover band is about making your client happy...ie selling more drinks in a bar.
 
#86
The way I feel about is, if your band can't make a song sound good without pre-recorded tracks, then don't play the song. Only play songs that you can pull off with what you've got. Dance with the girl ya brung to the party.

Playing to sequenced tracks stifles creativity. The band is tied to the track and has less room to improvise. It takes away the essential human element of a live band. I want to see a band creating music spontaneously, warts and all. You want perfect CD-quality live music, hire a DJ.

All this business with looping and one-person bands is a very bad scene if you play a band instrument. I understand the economic aspects of it but I can't see any way to justify replacing me with a machine.
 
#88
txbasschik said:
Around here, we don't get paid enough to have someone who just sings. Unless you have corporate gigs, any band larger than four pieces means that you have to spread the meagre pay too thinly. So I wouldn't have a six-piece, anyway.

I play mostly with three or four pieces. At least two of the players, myself and one other, have to be able to handle the vocals. If we hired a singer, we'd have to pay them, and they would have nothing to do but stand there when we did our lead vocals. If that extra singer cannot also play, then their contribution is not enough to be worth hiring them.

If they were spectacularly good, *and* super-cool, then maybe they'd be worthwhile. But I have yet to hear any "just singers" locally who are that good.

That's just the way I do things. Your mileage may vary. ;)

Cherie
Click to expand...

My band got sick of dealing with lead singers a few years ago, and since then have just done all the vocals ourselves. Much more fun that way.
 
#91
...just my two cents:

We use sequenced keyboard and drum tracks because we can't find a keyboardist with the chops to play what we want, or a drummer with the motivation to learn our songs. Rather than wait for them to show, we just go ahead and gig with a laptop.

If we find players that are up to spec, however, that'd be another story. In short, it's just what we've gotta do to get the job done.

By contrast, however, there's a local 'band' around these parts that consists of 1 bass player, 1 singer, and 1 laptop. Not only is it a simplistic bassline, but you can't tell when one song stops and another begins. That, in my opinion, is taking sequencing too far.
 
#92
I stumbled across this thread through a web search and thought I'd offer my own input.

I am a lead vocalist/guitarist that has played and earned a living doing everything from covers to Christian worship. My current band does not use tracks, but we have discussed the option for using them in the future. I have used them in the past, and I can attest to their convenience.

I think we have to come to terms with the fact that backing tracks aren't going anywhere. With all of their advantages, we will see (hear) backing tracks being used by many of the world's top performers. And with ANY technological advancement, it can be used for good AND evil.

Many of the musicians here already discussed the good. Paying $10,000 for an orchestra to perform a string accompaniment in the studio for your rock ballad is a lot different than bringing the same orchestra on the road to perform 42 show dates. Should the band then play the shows live without the string arrangement? Or can they just play to the track and make the fans happy?

I know of many bands, by the way, that arrange/compose/play all the parts for their backing tracks themselves. No other musicians are part of the process. I think this is acceptable. It's almost saying "Look, if I HAD 4 pairs of arms, I'd be playing "this".

And, of course, is the evil side. 'Musicians' playing live to tracks that weren't even composed or played by the band members, that are more essential to the structure of the song than the band is. This has allowed lots of 'one-man-bands' to achieve the impossible and make one guy sound like 27. I'm sorry, but I don't find that entertaining. Yes, I agree...it's glorified karaoke.

The best bands that play to tracks, that get a thumbs up in my book are as follows:

A) Your live show isn't bound in chains to the backing tracks. Use those tracks, but we want to hear some extended jamming, extra goodies we can only get at a live show. Not just a performance of exactly what's on your CD I already own.

B) Your band wrote and played most/all of the backing tracks themselves. (Exceptions are massive choral/orchestral parts.) This shows a higher level of musicianship.

C) Your tracks sound real. I just ran sound for a band who had backing vocals during the choruses that sounded like Queen or Journey. It was too polished for the band's stage sound. It was so prominent and noticeable, it came across and ultra-fake and disappointing.

D) You acknowledge you use them. Acting like or saying you don't, but do, comes off as being a douchebag. Be honest with your fans, and you will gain their respect.

Finally, if you feel that your backing tracks aren't necessary to pull off a good live show, then I would say don't use them. If your band can arrange a tune differently without them and still make it awesome, I think THAT is even cooler to a fan then replicating parts. The best band is one that can adapt to whatever lineup and technology that comes its way. Make your live shows be set apart from your recordings (for the better) and you're okay in my book.
 
#93
SLIV said:
What happens if management says "you have only $xxx for your budget and we only want to send the singer." It seems impossible but you never know. If an audience gets used to backing tracks for primary instruments playing primary parts, it can happen.
Click to expand...

Amen. I love how people are using the argument "Oh, well our (drunk, unwitting) audience doesn't know the difference and we sound great!" First it's vocal harmonies, then a key part here and there, then drums, then you know what? Your singer, who your audience ACTUALLY CAME TO SEE can do everything themselves. If your audience really doesn't care about a key part here or there, what makes us so important? Do you think they're buying drinks and paying cover so they can see us? Lots and lots of people who fill the venues we play don't even know what a bass is, and will notice the eerie absence of piano or drums long before they even care to think that there's not some fat guy playing an oversized guitar somewhere onstage. :eyebrow:
 
#94
How inexpressibly sad to see alleged musicians trying to pass off playing with pre-recorded "tracks" as live music

If any significant part of the tune is coming out of a recording machine instead being produced in Real Time by human beings, then what is happening onstage isn't live music anymore IMO. It really is nothing more than carefully disguised karaoke. The musical equivalent of some bimbo with silicone boobs faking an orgasm

Not surprising that the folks who make their living playing in cover bands are apparently the biggest defenders here of pre-recorded "tracks" onstage. They're already professional fakers by definition *shrug*

Whatever. Many 'consumers' prefer to have a perfectly predictable experience every time, whether it be musically or sexually. Oftentimes those same folks will pay Big Bucks for that "safety" and predictability. The thought of something happening that wasn't carefully choreographed in advance terrifies them, as does the idea of hearing (or feeling.....) something spontaneous and completely unplanned. If your primary motivation is the $ then you'll invest in the sequencer/sampler/whatever (or the silicone and labioplasty) in order to keep the customer suitably faked out and your own income stream flowing

It ain't for me, either way. I go to live music events to hear Real humans play Real music on Real instruments. The thought of paying Real $ for what amounts to the Dancing DJ onstage leaves me cold

Live music is inherently risky. I like that, and hearing a good band make Magic out of thin air is well worth the risk of hearing (or playing....) a clinker or two

YMMV
 
#97
I'm seeing a lot more of this lately even with local cover bands. I was at a bar last week and the lead singer/ guitar player had his laptop on a stand in front of him playing with it all night. I could hear keys through the PA even though the band had 2 guitars, bass and drums. It was subtle, but turned me off a little bit.
A few weeks ago, I saw another band at a bigger club. Their backing tracks were so prominent, it was ridiculous. The bass player was dancing around slapping wildly while the bass line was clearly fingerstyle. A few times he actually took his hands off the bass to wave and motion to someone in the crowd and the "bass" kept playing. I walked out. Maybe I'm old fashioned. But, I guarantee 95% of the audiance didn't notice or didn't care and liked the show.
 
#99
The worst I have seen was a band who played Disco/dance music, and was made up of 4 guys, and they did "Dancing Queen" by ABBA - with the original chix vocals. People danced, but to any musician in the crowd, or any 'regular' person with an ounce of smatz, it was really hokey. And there were other songs they did that had all the bass parts on the "backing tracks" - that was kinda lame.

The band I put together that plays disco/dance music is a 4 piece band, Guitar, Bass, Drums & lead vocals - we have a female lead vocalist, and the 3 other of us (all guys) all sing lead on the male vocal songs. We use backing tracks, but everything we do is stuff that I transcribed, arranged/rearranged, sequenced, and recorded. The only parts on the tracks are things that we couldn't possibly do live without a 10-12 pc band - horns, strings, keyboards, percussion. Very few backing vocals - we all sing in almost every song - the only ones that have anything on our tracks are ones that have like 8 backing vocal parts. All the drums, bass and main guitar parts are live, and all the lead vocals and most of the backing vocals - up to 4 parts in every song.

We also do many songs 'live' - no tracks. I would LOVE to play in a 10-12 pc band and do everything live, but it is not logistically or financially possible to do this. My choices would be 1) do as I do now, or 2) don't play.

Now, I have no problem playing as a 4 pc and working my ass off every show and recreating songs (yes, they are all cover tunes in this band) as people expect to hear them - and most of the arrangements are my own, with extra solo sections or brass and string parts added. (That sounds like a contradiction right there....) Hell, most of the disco artists toured with either a full band and orchestra, or just solo/group and full backing tracks of all the music.


I have seen other bands play with downloaded midi tracks, or recorded tracks - I know of a local 5 pc band that uses tracks with all the vocals and bass and some guitar and keyboards on it - very noticable to hear one song with 'questionable' harmonies, and then the next they do "Babe" by Styx with perfect vocals that sounds just like Dennis, Tommy and James.... that, to ME, is lame. But you know what? Most of the people that come to see them don't know, or care.


I wouldn't go there, but the line is drawn in a different place depending on who's voting.
 
#100
AnchorHoy said:
Not surprising that the folks who make their living playing in cover bands are apparently the biggest defenders here of pre-recorded "tracks" onstage. They're already professional fakers by definition *shrug*

Guess I'm guilty of being a professional faker. I have played in cover bands for years. I'm pretty sure I'm in good company though cause just about every musician I know of has covered other artists material. I realize everyone has their line that they won't cross as far as augmenting or adding to their performance. However, to catagorize anyone playing in cover bands as "fakers"? Really?..........*shrug*
Click to expand...
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back