'Live' bands with backing tracks

[Charley Umbria]

I'd much rather hear live music & live mistakes/flat notes etc.. That's part of the charm.

Absolutely! And this, to me, gets to the heart of what it means to call yourself a "professional" musician. If you can't (or, worse, won't even try to... ) deliver the goods, even under adverse circumstances, you're nothing but a poseur.

Crappy sound system, too-small stage, farty monitors, rain...? Sorry. Welcome to the real world.

I've played a ton of good gigs in the last 25 years, some really terrible ones, and a rare few that were absolute magic.

Without the risk, there's no magic.

 

[Charley Umbria]

UNLESS..........the software watches the band's tempo and adjusts the track tempos to match.........not difficult to do.

OK, see, now I hadn't even thought of that. Genius, dmusic!

But, still, I hope not...

 

[Nephilymbass]

Crazy the stories some of y'all are posting. I personally use a digitech jamman to add additional parts/instruments to songs but we absolutely do not use it to fake what we all are playing. We use it to add keyboard tracks without having to pay a keyboard player to only play on a song or two. We use it to add orchestra instruments without having to hire a bunch of people and have no room on stage, but like I said we do not use it to fake what we playing. I personally don't even mind a single guitar band using a sampler for the Rythm guitar part during guitar solos and leads but the karaoke thing is crazy. I can't see that goin over well here.

 

[Bredian]

What we do is make the guy pressing the IPOD button for the backing tracks stand in front with a spotlight so he can generate crowd excitement and we don't look like a bunch of dweebs.

 

[busmandan]

Just because you see a laptop doesn't mean the bands are not playing their parts.

I have a laptop onstage. It serves two functions: 1) It's tied to my Presonus StudioLive 16.4.2 mixer so I can take my iPad out in the room to soundcheck the band (we don't have a dedicated soundman) 2) I have DMX software loaded on it for our light system - I switch the scenes with a foot pedal.

Backing tracks? No.

 

[Plumber]

I have in the past put my guitar/backing vocals on some tracks when playing duo gigs as I couldn't standing playing that amount of bollocks every night. wish I'd done all of the guitars that way

I have mimed keys through entire gigs

nobody knows or cares is the one thing I've learnt.

Bands I've seen blatantly miming - Garbage and Faithless (I'm looking at you sisterbliss)

 

[friskinator]

The wedding band I used to be in relied on extensive tracks. The drummer controlled them from an iPad, and occasionally it would freeze up for a few seconds before the song was supposed to be counted off. When that happened, it was awkward to stand around onstage staring at him while we waited for the count-off. I don't know if the crowd ever noticed.

I always wondered what we would have done if the iPad completely crashed mid-set. We had almost no trackless songs.

 

[Sav'nBass]

My wife and I went to a wedding recently, quite a big do in a very nice hotel and when we went through to the reception I noticed they had hired a five piece band consisting of a guitarist/singer, a female singer, drums, bass and keys.

I thought it was going to be a chance to hear a live band and was looking forward to hearing how they sounded. Just after the first song started it became apparent that all was not natural when the bass player stopped playing to fiddle about with some amp settings and the playing continued! (I thought he had managed to dial in a great tone up to that point)!

This became more obvious as the night went on - bass sound would radically change tone and volume between songs (when you could hear his own tone it was flabby and quiet) as would the drums which went from a really tight disco sound to stadium rock, without the need for mics! What the guitarist was playing live I have no idea.

The main purpose of the girl who was singing seemed to be to change discs between songs, her voice was ok but didn't add that much to the sound. Now I've seen a lot of people do this and I really don't mind if it's a couple of guys who can play well using backing (still better with a band) but this was a five piece who really should have been able to cut it live without that crap, the five piece I was in for a while did the wedding/club scene as well and we managed to sound good live.
This bunch were being paid around a grand (and possibly more) for what they did, it seemed like money for old rope and hacked me off no end.
Any of you had experience of this and what do you feel about it?
This isn't intended as a knock to people in a two piece or those using orchestral or keys backing in some tracks.

It all depends on the situation. The sax player in our band does solo gigs using backing tracks. In a case like that I see nothing wrong with it.. but a whole band? I wouldn't like it' especially if the "suck" of the band was able to slip through.. I'd feel cheated.

I live in the Chicago area where using backing tracks has become the standard for cover bands. Not only for weddings, but also for clubs.
There are quite a few of these cover bands that demand high dollars for weddings and corporate events. I've heard from some former members of one band in particular that gets between 4k and 6k for 3 pc band with 2 vocalists. They generally pack clubs and outdoor festivals with audiences that number in the 2-5K range at the latter. These bands use the defense that they are yhe iones actually playing on the tracks and they are not using them off of original performers tracks.
The sad thing is possibly 95% of their listening audience has no idea they are doing this, and when I point it out to anyone, they don't seem to care.
Now I have had the opportunity to hear a number of musicians from quite a few of these band in an actual live situation, and they are all great players.
Sadly, this has become the norm, what audiences are learning to expect. Not a band performing a song well with the instrumentation they have, but sounding exactly like an original recording, even if a 3 pc band comes off as sounding as big as Tower of Power!!
Personally, I don't think this will change, as more and more younger musicians are using this format to compete with the big money makers out there. This is the future, Karoake with stage performers!

In my opinion this is a different case though where they played their own tracks.. those are not really backing tracks .. but still... In my mind a backing track is a track that someone.. other than you .. played the background music to and you are playing along with it.

I agree with most of whats said here.
How do you feel about Loop stations?
I know of a solo act where he starts each song by playing 4 bars on guitar, loops that, and then plays lead and sings over the looped rhythm. He might have used some simple drum tracks too. Id say he this was OK being that he was a solo act and still played good leads and sang well.

Loopers are different in my opinion .. especially if the player is doing the looping live.. That actually takes a certain amount of skill to pull off seamlessly..

'Live' bands with backing tracks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rush and the Who have been using tracks for since the 70s.

Yeah but it still sound strange.. Earth Wind and Fire have done it too.. I was actually at an EWF concert where neithjer of the guitarists hands were moving .. but somebody was playing his butt off.

 

[Altitude]

FWIW, Rush has stated publicly for years that, although they use loops and samples on stage, everything you hear is triggered in real time by a member of the band. In other words, even if the sample is a keyboard riff that runs for sixteen bars, it's still "played" (via footswitch, drum pad, pedal, key...whatever) like any other note during a performance.

That reads like a rationalization that a Rush fan would make in order to exempt Rush from the dark side of this discussion. And I say that as a diehard Rush fan myself.

On the other hand, if a guy played something on an instrument in the studio, and if a guy triggers a recording of that same something when live, in whatever way, the hardline would be that it's a sample.

I have never been one of those guys who only likes old Rush, at all. I will say that they used too many tracks on their last 4 or 5 albums, notably including vocals, and by result they do (did) have to resort to syncing a lot of that in the live shows. To me, the overall effect was kind of frenetic, not in a great way.

I thought it was cool when Geddy used to play the bass, stop playing the bass and run over to the keyboards and play those, and balance on one leg playing Taurus pedals along with either one. I wish he had continued to write that way nearer the end, but I understand the appeal of the newer technology.

 

[Sav'nBass]

Honestly I dont believe those posts. Just because a band has a laptop computer onstage doesn't mean they are not actually playing their parts.
Logically, why would you pay a pro player to fake it? It makes no sense. Hired guns are expensive and take up a bunk on the bus as well.
What is happening is that backing tracks have become more prominent. So if you are not into that, do not go watch Device until they hire a bass player. I think it's pretty lame, but they are saving money by doing this.
The triggers are a cost cutting technique. Not a way to hide the fact that the band can't play. There is a big difference there.
On the national level, you are seeing results of people making less money to tour and create music. It is a shame, but that is how it goes now.

I agree with the highlighted part.. but I also think that as someone else already said, a distinction needs to be made between backing tracks and prerecorded music that the members of a band have done .. I see nothing wrong with the latter if it is done well.. especially if there is a big stage show going on..

Believe it or not is happens and goes on national stages all the time, today more than ever. Your on a long tour, tired ,getting older in some bands caes and the tracks get them thru allot of nights.
I know two guys who did pro sound who told me of many national bands who use them. All the teeny boppers and diva's use them today more than ever. Technology to day makes it very easy to use tracks, efects, pitch correction whatever.
On a local level I dont see why they are used but like I said before only musicians care, the public could care less.

+1 .. It all depends on the band.. in the case of the OP.. a real schlock move.. because they could not back up what they were doing and were trying to cover up mediocre playing..

I think this is a thing now. I saw a "band" in Brooklyn a few weeks ago where it was a singer with a laptop on which she had backing tracks. Otherwise known as "karaoke." I don't get it. If I were a singer, I wouldn't WANT to play a gig as literally just a solo artist. I would want at least SOME live element besides singing over prerecorded material.
I've been actively looking for a band to play in that's more in the synthpop/electronic vein, and it's killing me how many bands just don't even seem to feel they "need" a bassist or can't get it together to figure out what they want me to play on. I got jerked around for months by this band who claimed to not have it together as to which tracks they "needed" bass on..it was ridiculous.

See in this case i see absolutely nothing wrong with it.. that soloist is putting herself out there.. Now if she were lip synching .. that would be another story..

earth wind and fire. the whole band except for lead vocals

+1 .. but no one doubted that these guys could play..

 

[Altitude]

I know two guys who did pro sound who told me of many national bands who use them. All the teeny boppers and diva's use them today more than ever.

A lot of that music was never played by a human on an instrument to begin with, so I don't know how tracking could be avoided during the live show.

 

[Bredian]

When the singer you paid $250 to see is actually an actor in make up, it will be OK too.

My oldest 20 something year olds were born about the time Milli "Girl, You Know It's Lip Sync" Vanilli were run from the business for not singing their own vocals.....does it matter anymore?

If you're happy hitting concerts where "only a few of" the instrumentalists are actually just dancing to tracks, and "only a few of" the vocalists are doing the same, you won't be surprised when Lady Gaga or Cher perform live and you find out that behind the make up it was just an actor with tracks .... So when you've paid $100+ for festival seating and you're too far away to be sure, you should wonder because its coming...

There is live music. There are recordings.



I did hit a weekend festival last month, over $100 and the #2 billed headliner, a nationally known tribute band, had added vocal & horn tracks.... which was odd as they were a 7-8 piece group, but with personnel changes only 3 of them sang and they had lost a horn player. The horn tracks didn't line up on most tunes and the backing vocals were not great. Failure. Not what I paid for. With the exception of some drummers, every musician in a band should be capable of backing vocals unless your part at the moment is "busy"

 

[Runnerman]

If I had to play every song to a track...yeah, I'd probably head for the exit. But I can put up with the 6 or 7 we do in a 40 song night.

 

[arbiterusa]

That reads like a rationalization that a Rush fan would make in order to exempt Rush from the dark side of this discussion. And I say that as a diehard Rush fan myself.

When all the keyboards, all backing guitar tracks and backing vocal tracks are being "triggered in real time by a band member", I don't care how you rationalize that, it's not an entire live band anymore. I could live with them using amp modelers instead of amps (all the BS about their "stage rigs" aside) but if you took their backing tracks they simply could not do their last 4 or 5 albums live. And that's BS.

All that being said I'd still go see them, but in all honesty they retired in the nick of time. Their R40 show was amazing but the brutal issue that no one wants to address is that Geddy can't sing live anymore. At all. It's not that he "can't hit the high notes", it's that he can't hit any of them. Damn shame because he's playing bass better than he ever has, and he wants to keep going, but if he does find another outlet for his talents it should probably not include singing.

 

[Altitude]

When all the keyboards, all backing guitar tracks and backing vocal tracks are being "triggered in real time by a band member", I don't care how you rationalize that, it's not an entire live band anymore. I could live with them using amp modelers instead of amps (all the BS about their "stage rigs" aside) but if you took their backing tracks they simply could not do their last 4 or 5 albums live. And that's BS.

All that being said I'd still go see them, but in all honesty they retired in the nick of time. Their R40 show was amazing but the brutal issue that no one wants to address is that Geddy can't sing live anymore. At all. It's not that he "can't hit the high notes", it's that he can't hit any of them. Damn shame because he's playing bass better than he ever has, and he wants to keep going, but if he does find another outlet for his talents it should probably not include singing.

I agree. Being actually at the recent Rush shows was enjoyable enough, but I find the live recordings unlistenable because of Geddy's voice. He is obviously singing from far back in his throat in order to maintain a fundamental, and it does not sound good at all. He needs to call it.

 

[blubass]

I used to care, but I don't anymore. My band writes the best tracks we can write. If that means a few songs have instruments we don't play live, so be it. We aren't hiring someone to come up occasionally, and we aren't going to strip our set down because some people turn their noses up and make comments about it. We write and play what we want, we don't have time to entertain anyone's opinion of what "real" musicians or bands do.

 

[Altitude]

I do think there are two ways to think about this -

A cover band tracking a few things here and there is normal and mostly necessary. You can't pay a horn section every night when you use them on three songs. But you might need those horn tracks to pull off "Sir Duke" the way your audience wants to hear it. I see nothing wrong with that.

On the other hand, a band who routinely tracks in music additive to what they are playing in order to fill out their live sound, or who records such complex music that it can't realistically be performed live without tracking some of the parts, is cheating a little.

For the record, as much as I love Rush, I put them in the second camp since about Vapor Trails.

 

[Porkchop2]

Backing tracks of any kind I call Karaoke. No offence to those that do it, more power to you. I've never done it. You don't need to reproduce every last note or instrument if you're doing cover tune. If I want to hear it like the original, I'll listen to the record. Part of the fun of seeing a band is hearing their take on a song. I've seen 3-piece band cover Chicago and sound fantastic without any samples/backing tracks.
Why not take the important parts/phrasing form horns, keys, etc and incorporate it into the guitar and bass parts to fill those spaces?

 

[Altitude]

Why not take the important parts/phrasing form horns, keys, etc and incorporate it into the guitar and bass parts to fill those spaces?

That's all good for bands that can stay employed doing it.

I'll take my "Sir Duke" example a step further, though - in the eyes of most venue managers, a bass-guitar-drums-vocals group that plays that song with the horn lines in the guitar is a less credible cover band; the sound will be distant enough from Stevie's recording that people in the audience might not recognize it - at which point you have an originals band with a different appeal. Bands who do that well can be amazing - but they do depend on their own draw versus the draw of being a "70s R&B cover band" or whatever, where people come in because of the book, not the band playing it.

I realize this is an offensive philosophy to many musicians.

 

[Porkchop2]

That's all good for bands that can stay employed doing it.

I'll take my "Sir Duke" example a step further, though - in the eyes of most venue managers, a bass-guitar-drums-vocals group that plays that song with the horn lines in the guitar is a less credible cover band; the sound will be distant enough from Stevie's recording that people in the audience might not recognize it - at which point you have an originals band with a different appeal. Bands who do that well can be amazing - but they do depend on their own draw versus the draw of being a "70s R&B cover band" or whatever, where people come in because of the book, not the band playing it.

I realize this is an offensive philosophy to many musicians.

I wont argue you there, there are limits be it ability, recognizability venue preference, customer preference, draw, etc.. It still feels like cheating though. Folks get upset when an athlete uses performance enhancing drugs, I look at this sort of thing as performance enhancing tracks if you will. Granted, I can’t argue with getting paid. Personally though, Give me a big amp and let me play that tune like I stole it (not like I sampled it)!