Does your band use tracks? (Poll)

[Nephilymbass]

We have a sampler/drum pad the drummer controls to play audio clips whenever there are guitar changes but nothing that the band plays along to during songs. Seems like it's becoming very common though. Ive noticed when my originals band plays shows particularly with more pop and softer rock style bands that there are more and more shows with "acts" that don't have a drummer and in some cases not even a bass player and use backing tracks in their place. Seen some more famous musicians do it as well. For example we opened for Fozzy and basically the lead vocal and vocal harmonies were all on a track and all he really did on the microphone was act like a hype man would for a rapper. Most of the crowd liked it but for me that was a bit overboard. I get having a backing track because as a local band you don't want/can't afford a keyboard player that's only going to play 20% of the time and/or play stuff that another member of the band can record in the studio. But some people take it so far that it's no longer "rock and roll" to me. More so glorified karaoke.

 

[crazyBassClown]

To me, calling us "a band" and using prerecorded music is an oxymoron.

Was The Who a band?

 

[JimmyM]

Was The Who a band?

Good point. The Who totally used tracks and nobody said they weren't a band.

 

[QORC]

completely false comparison. a national band playing big concerts for people paying big money who are expected to make their concert sound exactly like their recordings has nothing to do with the Joe Schmoe Cover Band playing in some dive bar in Topeka, Kansas, using tracks to play songs of their own choice because it has neither the instrumentation and/or talent to pull it off on their own. It's an often used arguments, but this is the definition of apples and oranges and is a poor excuse for local bands who are now bordering on being a karaoke act with guitars

 

[mpm32]

I'm not playing dive bars - lol. Casinos, weddings and big venues, regional, not local.

Do I qualify QORC, keeper of all that is real vs. fake? ;-)

If using a keyboard track vs. a keyboard player and all that entails makes us a karaoke band then I will happily be labeled as such. - lol

Oh, I also program our lights to go along with click, automatically switching scenes to the beat. We need to come up with a name for this fakery since we don't have an actual real life lighting guy.

 

[Wood and Wire]

completely false comparison. a national band playing big concerts for people paying big money who are expected to make their concert sound exactly like their recordings has nothing to do with the Joe Schmoe Cover Band playing in some dive bar in Topeka, Kansas, using tracks to play songs of their own choice because it has neither the instrumentation and/or talent to pull it off on their own. It's an often used arguments, but this is the definition of apples and oranges and is a poor excuse for local bands who are now bordering on being a karaoke act with guitars

So, for you, is it a covers band vs originals band division?

Is it a venue size / ticket price vs assumed audience expectation division?

Or is it simply ok for hugely successful bands to use production, but not ok for bands that haven't made the big time yet?


I've seen U2, and Nine Inch Nails, playing free, secret gigs for a couple of hundred people - both had their sound augmented by pre-recorded production elements (hugely successful bands, in tiny venues, for no ticket charge - is that ok?).

I've seen originals bands, before they had record deals, playing in pubs, their sound augmented by pre-recorded production elements - bands that would go on to become international arena acts (unsuccessful bands, at that point, with no audience expectations, playing in bars for a small cover charge - is that ok?).

Personally, I just never see cover bands (other than at a couple of weddings), and have never been interested in them.

On the one hand, seeing an ELO tribute act that can't pull off the ELO sound - be that due to lack of personnel, or lack of ability - without using pre-recorded production elements, would cause me to ask for a refund.

On the other hand, hearing someone doing yet another cover version of "Wonderwall" on an acoustic guitar, is more likely to cause me to leave the bar, than a 3 or 4 piece band, with the string section on backing.

So long as a band is playing live (rather than miming, so they can put on some cheesy display of stage craft), I'm really not offended by them fleshing out their sound with extra elements.

Originals bands have a duty to do whatever the hell they want / need to do, and let their imaginations run riot - the more they utilise, and interface with technology, the more interested I am.

 

[Bodeanly]

Man, I get the hate. I do. But when it came down to playing gigs that pay the bills vs my artistic integrity, I chose money. Just when I start to feel guilty about it, one of my other, "real" bands will book a show that doesn't pay for poopie. Ask me which one causes me to lose sleep.

 

[QORC]

So, for you, is it a covers band vs originals band division?

Is it a venue size / ticket price vs assumed audience expectation division?

Or is it simply ok for hugely successful bands to use production, but not ok for bands that haven't made the big time yet?


I've seen U2, and Nine Inch Nails, playing free, secret gigs for a couple of hundred people - both had their sound augmented by pre-recorded production elements (hugely successful bands, in tiny venues, for no ticket charge - is that ok?).

I've seen originals bands, before they had record deals, playing in pubs, their sound augmented by pre-recorded production elements - bands that would go on to become international arena acts (unsuccessful bands, at that point, with no audience expectations, playing in bars for a small cover charge - is that ok?).

Personally, I just never see cover bands (other than at a couple of weddings), and have never been interested in them.

On the one hand, seeing an ELO tribute act that can't pull off the ELO sound - be that due to lack of personnel, or lack of ability - without using pre-recorded production elements, would cause me to ask for a refund.

On the other hand, hearing someone doing yet another cover version of "Wonderwall" on an acoustic guitar, is more likely to cause me to leave the bar, than a 3 or 4 piece band, with the string section on backing.

So long as a band is playing live (rather than miming, so they can put on some cheesy display of stage craft), I'm really not offended by them fleshing out their sound with extra elements.

Originals bands have a duty to do whatever the hell they want / need to do, and let their imaginations run riot - the more they utilise, and interface with technology, the more interested I am.

No, for me the difference is that comparing a local band's practices or issues or almost anything to a nationally recognized/famous band is simply a poor comparison.

Let alone a poor justification for using tracks because a) you aren't talented enough to play the instruments or do harmonies yourself, b) to save money by not employing a necessary instrument, or c) laziness.

Anyone here comparing themselves to the Who is silly on the face of it. Nobody here is The Who. None of you HAVE to play any song the way it sounds in the studio.

 

[SteveCS]

No, for me the difference is that comparing a local band's practices or issues or almost anything to a nationally recognized/famous band is simply a poor comparison.

Let alone a poor justification for using tracks because a) you aren't talented enough to play the instruments or do harmonies yourself, b) to save money by not employing a necessary instrument, or c) laziness.

Anyone here comparing themselves to the Who is silly on the face of it. Nobody here is The Who. None of you HAVE to play any song the way it sounds in the studio.

Well, with all due respect, you know absolutely nothing about anyone here other than what they choose to share. You know nothing of peoples' histories, backgrounds, abilities, experiences, talent, work ethic or 'success' rates.

Incidentally, please observe that thus far no-one has questioned or made assumptions about your history, background, ability, experience, talent, work ethic or 'success' rate...

 

[-Asdfgh-]

To me it's another tool. If you don't want to use that tool then that's fine.

 

[QORC]

Well, with all due respect, you know absolutely nothing about anyone here other than what they choose to share. You know nothing of peoples' histories, backgrounds, abilities, experiences, talent, work ethic or 'success' rates.

Incidentally, please observe that thus far no-one has questioned or made assumptions about your history, background, ability, experience, talent, work ethic or 'success' rate...

with all due respect, I must have hit a nerve. I'm sure the reasons for the vast majority of bands that routinely used tracks are among the reasons I list. Maybe one reason. Maybe more. 1. Lack of necessary instrumentation, but do the song anyway. 2. Lack of talent to pull off the instrumentation or harmonies (I've seen it repeatedly). 3. greed (if we don't have to pay for a keyboardist, drummer, or bassist, it's more money for us). 4. Laziness - why bother learning difficult parts if you can just pipe them in?

But I never said these reasons applied each one to anyone here. they are the common reasons why bands use tracks. so no reason to take it personally, chum.

and that being said, please nobody here compare themselves to The Who. It's silly on the face of it.

also, some of us know the difference between live music and partially faked recorded music parts. I wouldn't be in a band that used a bunch of tracks. I did it once and it was embarrassing. It was a reason I left. and yeah, it was for 2 of the reasons I listed above. I'd rather play music that we actually could do, or find the necessary pieces to do it. It's a personal pride thing for me. go figure.

so is there some reason from above that I haven't covered for one of you out there? it's possible. There are always exceptions, always outliers. But exceptions do not disprove the rule. My opinion. Accept or dont' accept it. but don't take it personally either. I don't know any of your bands, nor do I care what you do. but it IS a message board. and it was a question in the thread. What do you personally think of tracks? Just my opinion, chum.

 

[mpm32]

lol

 

[QORC]

and since 80% here reported not using them...must be a reason, eh?

 

[mpm32]

According to your calculations 80% real musicians 20% not so real. lol

I'm done. lol

 

[-Asdfgh-]

with all due respect, I must have hit a nerve. I'm sure the reasons for the vast majority of bands that routinely used tracks are among the reasons I list. Maybe one reason. Maybe more. 1. Lack of necessary instrumentation, but do the song anyway. 2. Lack of talent to pull off the instrumentation or harmonies (I've seen it repeatedly). 3. greed (if we don't have to pay for a keyboardist, drummer, or bassist, it's more money for us). 4. Laziness - why bother learning difficult parts if you can just pipe them in?

But I never said these reasons applied each one to anyone here. they are the common reasons why bands use tracks. so no reason to take it personally, chum.

and that being said, please nobody here compare themselves to The Who. It's silly on the face of it.

also, some of us know the difference between live music and partially faked recorded music parts. I wouldn't be in a band that used a bunch of tracks. I did it once and it was embarrassing. It was a reason I left. and yeah, it was for 2 of the reasons I listed above. I'd rather play music that we actually could do, or find the necessary pieces to do it. It's a personal pride thing for me. go figure.

so is there some reason from above that I haven't covered for one of you out there? it's possible. There are always exceptions, always outliers. But exceptions do not disprove the rule. My opinion. Accept or dont' accept it. but don't take it personally either. I don't know any of your bands, nor do I care what you do. but it IS a message board. and it was a question in the thread. What do you personally think of tracks? Just my opinion, chum.

For me the motivation is 5. Artistic ambition that cannot always be practically satisfied by other means. If i want to utilise a rhythm bed for a piece then getting five additional percussionists in for one track is just not practical given stage sizes let alone sound reinforcement. I don't think that my artistic desires need to be constrained but I also respect the right of others to make other choices. After all, Dylan plugging in was controversial by amplified music has not been banned.

There's also 6. Which is linking pieces between other pieces during which people can change instruments.

And there is 7. A form of click track to ensure synchronisation with lighting effects and so on.

I have used all of the above.

So,what's the opinion of arpeggiators?

 

[QORC]

According to your calculations 80% real musicians 20% not so real. lol

I'm done. lol

no according to the poll here 80% that answered have the good sense to not slide down the slippery slope of becoming a karaoke act

 

[-Asdfgh-]

no according to the poll here 80% that answered have the good sense to not slide down the slippery slope of becoming a karaoke act

I certainly don't see why using a few tracks would make anyone a karaoke act.

 

[BlueShox]

and since 80% here reported not using them...must be a reason, eh?

I think its been well established that the population of Talkbass is not an accurate representation of the general population of musicians or even bass players. Not saying that the polls aren't worth some sort of insight, but the results are definitely skewed. I'd be interested to see some analytics on what the voters' age, musical tastes and general venue types are. To be honest if I had just spent an hour and half setting up a stage plot and PA for a 3 hour classic rock cover gig at the local wing shack, taking even more time to set-up and coordinate tracks would be low on my list.

In my specific scenario, if I'm playing a dedicated music venue where people have paid to specifically come see my act play our songs with 100% attention focused on us, our music and our show, the tracks are worth the trouble. The tracks sync with our lights. The click and tracks help us coordinate with the projectionist, who also gets an IEM feed so he knows exactly what is supposed to happen and when. Our stage show has taken us to a whole new level with the integration of tracks.

I agree, it would feel cheap if the band wasn't really playing at all and were just miming their instruments Sid Vicious style. I've never seen that actually happen, but I'm sure it does because a few people mentioned it in the thread. I think you'll find that bands that use tracks like that are the extreme minority, and the overwhelming majority of track users are simply using pads or synth tones to thicken their sound.

There is a big risk/reward in using them. Things that would normally just be a minor clam in a live-band setting become potential train wrecks. My band's tracks have gone horribly wrong; Ableton has crashed mid-show and needed a computer reboot, one time it sent track audio to the PA but nothing to our ears resulting in a gong and synth pad playing out of PA while us and our projectionist were doing nothing but waiting. I have ripped my in-ears out mid-song to try to collect my band and prevent a mid-song stop, which I would probably consider the worst thing that could happen. The potential disasters are less frequent now that we have more experience using them, but they are certainly not a fail proof crutch.

 

[Runnerman]

I'm sure the reasons for the vast majority of bands that routinely used tracks are among the reasons I list. Maybe one reason. Maybe more. 1. Lack of necessary instrumentation, but do the song anyway. 2. Lack of talent to pull off the instrumentation or harmonies (I've seen it repeatedly). 3. greed (if we don't have to pay for a keyboardist, drummer, or bassist, it's more money for us). 4. Laziness - why bother learning difficult parts if you can just pipe them in?

But I never said these reasons applied each one to anyone here. they are the common reasons why bands use tracks.

First of all "I'm sure" implies that you know and others don't.
I'm guilty of 1 & 3 I guess.
Reason's 2 and 4 are totally bogus. Lack of talent and laziness....seriously?

We are a 3 piece band....we are a bar cover band. We make good money and people like to hear us. No one has ever complained about tracks. As I mentioned before we use tracks on maybe half a dozen songs in a night. Not going to hire a keyboard player for that. It doesn't make economic sense....if you want to call that greed ok. Let me also say that the technology and equipment to pull off a track successfully is not free, it requires an investment. Yes we could drop those 6 songs but why? And because we do that on 6 songs in a night does that mean the other 30+ songs without tracks are somehow tainted?

As far as laziness and lack of talent, we pride ourselves in our vocal harmonies because we know that's what sets bands apart from just mediocre ones. We also pride ourselves in playing our covers as note for note as possible.....including the tough parts. The drummer is 67, he's been playing in clubs since he was a teenager and had to be smuggled in the back entrance. The guitar player is in his 40's and he is arguably one of the best players I've ever played with. I'm 57 and been playing since college days. We are not novices and we don't lack talent and we are not lazy.

no according to the poll here 80% that answered have the good sense to not slide down the slippery slope of becoming a karaoke act

There, now that you know a little more about me, would you still consider me over the edge into the karaoke abyss?

 

[Wood and Wire]

No, for me the difference is that comparing a local band's practices or issues or almost anything to a nationally recognized/famous band is simply a poor comparison.

Let alone a poor justification for using tracks because a) you aren't talented enough to play the instruments or do harmonies yourself, b) to save money by not employing a necessary instrument, or c) laziness.

Anyone here comparing themselves to the Who is silly on the face of it. Nobody here is The Who. None of you HAVE to play any song the way it sounds in the studio.

All of those famous national acts started out as unknown local acts - some with backing tracks as a signature part of their sound.


It sounds like you've previously had a lousy personal experience, with a group of musicians who relied on backing tracks, for all the wrong / bad reasons you listed.

It also sounds like you've seen some local cover bands, relying on backing tracks for the same bad reasons.


However, for you to decree these as immutable laws, is to, by extension, accuse everyone who uses backing tracks as :

A) incompetent as a musician

B) tight fisted

C) lazy

Or all of the above ; and is hugely insulting to a great many musicians, bands, and audiences.

It would be equally as easy, insulting, and ill considered, to make a sweeping statement saying any band that does not use backing tracks is :

A) too incompetent a musician, to be able to play accurately to a backing track.

B) too tight fisted to invest in the technology.

C) too lazy to learn the songs properly, without using "freedom to improvise" as an excuse for going off piste.

"It's a personal pride thing for me. My band is so skilled, we can utilise technology live ; whereas lesser musicians fail, or are too scared / lazy to try."

Nobody here is making those statements, because they're equally as ludicrous - and equally as against the forum rules, regarding insulting other members (or their butt ugly instruments).


Simply saying it's not for you, is perfectly fine.