'Live' bands with backing tracks

[genesound]

we're not talking about massive, national extravaganzas. We're talking about mostly local bands playing in small venues and where the line is between "live" and "karaoke". pretty obvious why some national acts do it - you can't replicate the studio in many cases and the fans are paying big $ and expect to hear the music exactly as they know it. "The Wall" would be impossible to do live without one heck of a lot of help.

total apples and oranges.

Where is the line between using a few sound effects and essentially becoming Milli Vanilli except with instruments as well as voices? That's the debate here

That's like asking if a person would have sex with you for a billion dollars then giving them a fiver. When they complain "What kind of a person do you think I am?" you say "We already know what kind of person you are, we're just negotiating the price" ...

Several 24 tracks was hardly a few fx. They were thickening basically everything. And for that kind of money, perhaps they could have hired more of it to be performed live by other musicians or techs that would love to have the work instead of rolling it in on tape, although there was already a huge staff.

But giving nod or nay to lip syncing, backing tracks, looping, stealing licks for rap tracks or DJs, or whatever supposed fakery for whomever, is like attempting to define beauty for everyone, if not just oneself. Quantifying "art" is not really something we get to edict. Who knows? Maybe even Picasso could become popular... oh wait...

So getting back to the original post, yes that certainly seems like an odd act, but apparently they got commissioned somehow. Buzzgroove, you say you've seen a lot of it; somehow I've been spared, thank heavens.

 

[genesound]

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

There is live music that contains recordings, it's 2017.

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"

I understand your disappointment with the act. That basic concept of a band and what they should do or be able to do seems limiting from a music creation standpoint though.

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.

Yes, this.

I used to think (in the 60s and 70s) that the end all proof of a band was their ability to play their material live in a big shed and make it as good as their hit recording. Spectacle.

Perhaps my concept of what is art and music has changed. I think that necessity started about the time of The White Album and Abbey Road.

Nowadays, it's possible that music compositions will never be played "live" by the composers in a venue, so writing, arranging and recording it for doing so would just be an unnecessary constraint. Think TV and Film scores, and advertising for example... Yes, those are real musicians getting paid too.

But again, this is beyond the scope of the original post of this thread...

 

[pklima]

That's the key right there. There's a big difference between adding a little sweetening to your live playing and being a karaoke act. I've seen bands where it's basically all "Chip" and the band is just along for the ride and I agree it's misleading.

This kind of thing?

 

[LiquidMidnight]

When playing originals, you can always arrange/write in a way that serves the live performance. Covers require a different approach. I honestly believe it's more difficult to play modern covers than older covers while still maintaining the integrity of the original due to the propensity for modern recordings to be super layered and (IMHO) often over-produced. If you are playing Top 40 cover material that has been released after the mid-2000s and generally want to maintain the integrity of the source material, you have about five options:

1. Be highly selective of the material you add to your repertoire - probably easiest approach, more ideal for rock, can be frustrating for pop and very frustrating for country, where a lot of material has prominent keys, banjo, fiddle, and flat top parts. You're leaving a lot of good material on the table with this approach. If you have a guitarist who can make good use of looping, you can play a little more material.

2. Four piece band with one guitarist who can double on keys - a great format, but finding that multi-instrumentalist can be like finding a unicorn in some markets.

3. Five piece band with two guitars and keys player (or six piece with non-instrumental lead vocalist) - powerhouse format, especially if most/all of the members have vocal ability. If everybody has chops, then you can nail just about any popular music recorded in the past 70 years. Obviously most expensive in terms of overhead, stage space, time spent in the rehearsal room working out arrangements, and not to mention it's more personalities to deal with.

4. Say "Screw it!" and play what you want, regardless if you have the players to cover the parts - most people aren't going to mind Bad to the Bone without the sax parts, but Walk of Life without the organ is lame, IMO.

5. Embrace sampling and prerecorded tracks - where we are with our discussion right now.

I'm all for doing what it takes to get your point across on stage. I have no problem with sampled pads and drum layers, and am considering adding them into my current project. I know some bands sample extra guitar parts, backing vocals, etc. I personally don't dig that, but I don't begrudge any band who does it. I'm also not big on the one and two man band with full backing tracks thing. My last band leader and rhythm guitarist would play those types of gigs on off nights. I have nothing personally against it, but again, it's not my thing.

Music performance is changing, and the players need to adapt. For instance, a drummer playing classic country can easily nail all of the material with a four or five piece acoustic kit and nothing else. However, a drummer playing a modern country repertoire should probably make it a point to invest in a Roland SPDSX or something similar to add to their existing kit. There's just so much material in that genre that relies upon electronic drums and hip hop-influenced beats.

 

[QORC]

we play modern and older covers. a wide variety of eras and styles. We don't use tracks. We don't use harmonizers. They may not be exactly as the original in a lot of cases, but whatever we are playing, we play live. If we can't pull off a song in some credible way with resorting to electronic tricks, we simply don't do it. having a singer who plays keyboards well helps with that. She can, when necessary, play the horns part. Or a rhythm guitar. or whatever. But she is doing it. It's not prerecorded. She's not faking it. She's playing it live. and everyone else in the band is pretty good at harmonies, even high ones, so we're able to fill out those parts without cheats or pretending to play something that's really on a track. Songs may not be as layered as the original but it's all being done live in a way that's pleasing and recognizable.

that's pretty much our standard - can we do it well and do people like it? it's how we decide to pick and/or retain (or drop) cover tunes. If it's beyond our ability to really do it (eg, we wouldn't do some really complicated, mostly synth covers, no matter how good), we simply don't. Fortunately our singer/keyboardist and guitarist are incredibly talented and are able to pull things off that a lot of bands could not. it helps. but we won't be adding some Depeche Mode song anytime soon either.

 

[Bredian]

My tolerance for people comparing this to karaoke is fading fast. You simply do not know what you are talking about.if you knew what it involved you would not say that.

You are correct! Most bands are not as drunk and off key as most Karaoke singers. On the other hand, K-jays rarely screw up their tracks vs bands with click tracks ... its the usual. Once drummers put on the ear pieces and manage the tracks they tend to loose touch with the band, dynamics are poor.

If you're in a stadium from the cheap seats, of course it doesn't matter... but why go?

 

[Runnerman]

If we can't pull off a song in some credible way with resorting to electronic tricks, we simply don't do it. having a singer who plays keyboards well helps with that. She can, when necessary, play the horns part.

So let me get this straight.....playing the horns on the synth is ok, not an electronic trick? Just wanted to make sure I understand your interpretation on what needs to be real and what doesn't.

 

[Bredian]

Absolutely. Playing the part in person, via any instrument, is prefered to playing a prerecorded track.... otherwise, just watch it on my phone. Now, I'd rather stand 10' in front of a funky horn band, so I can feel the percussive waves from the horn section instead of a mono blend through the PA, but that's another thread.

 

[Joe Nerve]

I'm not sure what people are arguing about here. Isn't it really pretty black and white?

• A band can make more money if they use tracks as opposed to musicians.
• If you have talented musicians, a band will be better with real instruments.

Some people put pride before money. Others put money before pride. I am of the latter category . At least regarding this issue, as I think it's actually ego as opposed to pride. Let's argue that now !!!!!

 

[Altitude]

I'm not sure what people are arguing about here. Isn't it really pretty black and white?

• A band can make more money if they use tracks as opposed to musicians.
• If you have talented musicians, a band will be better with real instruments.

Some people put pride before money. Others put money before pride. I am of the latter category . At least regarding this issue, as I think it's actually ego as opposed to pride. Let's argue that now !!!!!

I think there are 2 distinct categories:

1. Cover bands who use tracks to make the covers sound more accurate, based on unavailability of some instrument in the band versus the recording.
2. Bands [probably original] who use backing tracks to fill out their sound.

I see nothing wrong with #1 and not much wrong with #2 as long as the band isn't disingenuous about it.

Examples in the Wild:

I saw Lady Gaga the other night. The show was as much a fashion show and dance expo as it was a live music concert. I doubt much if any of the music was being performed live. But it was very good in the context of what it was. No foul.

2 nights before, I saw Green Day. Pretty sure every single note came off of somebody's instrument, right there, right then. I'd never seen them live before and wasn't sure what to expect. They were freaking fantastic.

As much as I love Rush - to my ears, a live Rush show in the final ten years or so had too much support track activity. I don't really think they needed 8-part all-Geddy harmonies or 18 guitar tracks, which to my ears just took away some valuable space in the music.

 

[MonetBass]

As much as I love Rush - to my ears, a live Rush show in the final ten years or so had too much support track activity. I don't really think they needed 8-part all-Geddy harmonies or 18 guitar tracks, which to my ears just took away some valuable space in the music.

Geddy harmonies? Those are few and far between, and even then, there's only one. The many times I've seen them, I've only heard them use a backing track ONCE, and that was Aimee Mann's vocals on "Time Stand Still". Otherwise it was all Geddy, Alex and Neil. And I've seen them three times in the last seven years.

My last band used sequenced drum parts because we couldn't find a drummer we were happy with. Plus it was 80s pop, so we could get away with it.

 

[Altitude]

Geddy harmonies? Those are few and far between, and even then, there's only one.

Really? I hear them all over the place. Sometimes as effect, not always as harmony. Listen to the title track from Clockwork Angels, for example, around the 1:50 mark. There's something like a reverse vocal effect happening as one of the layers. Also a couple effect vocal tracks at the very beginning.

 

[pklima]

Did one of these "evil" gigs last night. Some acoustic covers at the start, then one cover with tracks, then all the originals in a form that's less "band reinforced by backing tracks" than "singer with backing tracks reinforced by live musicians", and finally one of the originals in an acoustic version for an encore. A lot of the songs are kinda pointless to have real people play all the parts. I mean, there's like five really really simple parts which would just involve holding down simple chords while repeatedly moving a mod wheel up and down. That would be an interesting spectacle, I suppose, in a silly way.

A lot of mainstream tracks these days seem to be a hybrid of programmed instruments using organic sounds which include some randomness and real instruments that have been quantized and compressed and excitered to sound unrealistically nice and even. It's not so much robots and humans anymore, it's more androids and cyborgs.

 

[GBBSbassist]

Only read the first few responses, but found some irony in this.

I've been playing bass for decades, and have played in over 100 bands. Until the band I just hooked up with in 2017, I could count on 1 hand the amount of times I played to any tracks. The band I'm in now, we use tracks 90% of the time - and it is by far, without a doubt, the most professional situation I've ever been in. These guys pay me quadruple what I'm used to being paid (plus my expenses), we have roadies, our own truck, and we're booked solid (2-4x a week) through 2018.

If given the choice I'd always prefer to play with real musicians, but as far as being professional goes - the times they aren't a changin, they've changed. Bigtime. And I'm fine with it.

In an amusing and somewhat sickening note, there are a couple of songs we do where the backing tracks have bass on them, because that's the way they were before I got in the band, and... whatever. Anyhow, I double up the bass and it sounds fine - BUT this Saturday night I have to admit to something. One of those songs is Justin Timberlake's Can't Stop the Feeling. There's a little bass solo thing near the end, that I double up on. For some reason I brain farted this week and thought it was a stop. I stopped playing, and the bass did it's solo. The band looked at me and laughed - I think they think I did it purposely. Funny thing is that not a single person dancing noticed. I scanned the crowd as best I could. Nobody cared. Nobody knew. Ehhh.... It's a little sad, actually.

People going out to hear bands today aren't like the people who used to go out to hear bands. That I'm certain of. Will start another thread on that one day. I'm happy I'm still having fun though, and finally earning my living doing it.

Respectfully, I don't support backing tracks to the degree that you seem to, and that's fine.

Personally, I didn't pick up a guitar when I was a kid looking up to rock icons to some day be fortunate enough to get paid to play covers of songs I'm not particularly fond of just so that drones with no musical taste can enjoy their bud lights a little more. It may just be my dislike of generic top 40's music. I truly think the pop music industry has hit an all time low on creativity while hitting an all time high with production value.

That said, I've only played in a handful of bands that did exclusively covers, though they were very professional in a sense that we took it seriously, practiced the hell out of the songs, and did our best to cover every part in the original tune. We didn't use any backing tracks though, and I still detest the idea.

I think it's great that there are musicians out there in your shoes who have fun and make money playing in your situation (no offense intended if it sounds that way, i simply mean a cover band playing top 40's music). I just personally don't have the same level of musical respect for you guys AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR PLAYING ABILITY, and I mean that in the most polite way possible. That said, I know you don't give a poopie, nor should I expect anyone in your situation to.

I got into playing music because it was a great way to express myself creatively. Just my two cents.

 

[Joe Nerve]

Respectfully, I don't support backing tracks to the degree that you seem to, and that's fine.

Personally, I didn't pick up a guitar when I was a kid looking up to rock icons to some day be fortunate enough to get paid to play covers of songs I'm not particularly fond of just so that drones with no musical taste can enjoy their bud lights a little more. It may just be my dislike of generic top 40's music. I truly think the pop music industry has hit an all time low on creativity while hitting an all time high with production value.

That said, I've only played in a handful of bands that did exclusively covers, though they were very professional in a sense that we took it seriously, practiced the hell out of the songs, and did our best to cover every part in the original tune. We didn't use any backing tracks though, and I still detest the idea.

I think it's great that there are musicians out there in your shoes who have fun and make money playing in your situation (no offense intended if it sounds that way, i simply mean a cover band playing top 40's music). I just personally don't have the same level of musical respect for you guys AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR PLAYING ABILITY, and I mean that in the most polite way possible. That said, I know you don't give a poopie, nor should I expect anyone in your situation to.

I got into playing music because it was a great way to express myself creatively. Just my two cents.

No disrespect was taken at all.

I see it like this. I love performing. I love playing bass. I love writing. I've written lots of songs and plan to continue. I get opportunities to play with a variety of great musicians and plan to continue that, too. Nobody can take that away from me. I also, now, after many years of playing for very little money, get the opportunity (with a band that uses tracks) to earn my living with music alone. I much prefer doing that to supporting my love for the arts by driving Uber, waiting on tables, substitute teaching, working in an office, plumbing, or anything else for that matter . If I had the choice to play for a band with no tracks and make the same money, I might take it (but I like the people in my band, so maybe not). I am happy to put my pride and ego on the shelf (which I don't even feel I'm really doing), and have fun doing what I'm doing. Not that big a deal to me.

 

[QORC]

So let me get this straight.....playing the horns on the synth is ok, not an electronic trick? Just wanted to make sure I understand your interpretation on what needs to be real and what doesn't.

yes, because it's not a prerecorded track. she's actually PLAYING it live with her fingers. its just a different sound out of a keyboard, yet she is doing it. usually while singing. So it is as live as anything you're playing on any instrument. It's not that's the difference. Appreciate it

 

[QORC]

justifying it by saying "I make money doing it" I think is really kind of beside the point. It's like saying steroids in sports by some guys was ok since they got big contracts by taking them. Lance Armstrong. Barry Bonds. Roger Clemens and tons of NFL players. Nope, said the leagues, it's cheating. Ok, so you're a music whore - as long as you get paid, then it's ok. To each his own. but I think the debate is where is the line between "live" and "karaoke", not as much as "do people care?" or "do I get paid better playing alone or in a duo with live tracks?"

 

[craigie]

justifying it by saying "I make money doing it" I think is really kind of beside the point. It's like saying steroids in sports by some guys was ok since they got big contracts by taking them. Lance Armstrong. Barry Bonds. Roger Clemens and tons of NFL players. Nope, said the leagues, it's cheating. Ok, so you're a music whore - as long as you get paid, then it's ok. To each his own. but I think the debate is where is the line between "live" and "karaoke", not as much as "do people care?" or "do I get paid better playing alone or in a duo with live tracks?"

How people feel about it and the reasons for doing it are the point.

The line before live and karaoke is self evident in that there is no line. Completely live is one bookend and lip sync is the other. In between is a sliding scale.

On a funny note I'm visiting Korea and saw some honor guards playing some drums and crazy sounding horns outside one of the old palaces. After they were done and I walked to the other side of where they had been I found there was a speaker playing the same kind of music and of course I thought of this thread. I'm not sure if it was playing at the same time.

My traditional hanbok I wore today was made out of rayon and hot as hell.

P.s. Who's the whore: those who play with tracks and make a reasonable return for their time and investment, or those who play for beer or "exposure" or anything less than what standard should be? If it's artistic integrity you're speaking of then either you're an artist and in that case do *** you want because it's your art. Otherwise refer Joe nerve's note about ego.

 

[Joe Nerve]

justifying it by saying "I make money doing it" I think is really kind of beside the point. It's like saying steroids in sports by some guys was ok since they got big contracts by taking them. Lance Armstrong. Barry Bonds. Roger Clemens and tons of NFL players. Nope, said the leagues, it's cheating. Ok, so you're a music whore - as long as you get paid, then it's ok. To each his own. but I think the debate is where is the line between "live" and "karaoke", not as much as "do people care?" or "do I get paid better playing alone or in a duo with live tracks?"

Sports is a competition. Music isn't. Nor is art. Maybe this topic riles you up like it does because you're viewing it as a competition? And c'mon, a music whore ? Does that even mean anything?

As I said in my last post, people earn money doing lots of different things. Is it better to take a job doing something you don't like (like most people do), or be able to do what you love? I'm playing my bass exactly as I'd be playing my bass whether there are horn players standing next to me, or if it's coming through a loop (both of which happen, by the way). When it comes through a loop as opposed to a live player it lowers the cost of the band, and allows more people to have live music at their event. The alternative is to have a DJ.

I get the difference between bands playing with tracks vs bands with real musicians, I grew up in the 70s. I've done lots of recording before digital "fixing" was possible. I got into fist fights over disco/rock arguments. When I first heard they recorded each drum track separately for some disco records I almost lost my mind. I would NEVER sacrifice my integrity and be involved in anything like that! Then I started to grow up. I started to realize that my playing for money didn't mean I couldn't keep on writing and playing the way I want. It in fact enables me to do that, even better. I play now every Fri and Sat, sometimes Thurs and Sun. That leaves me a lot more time to be creative than working a 9-5 Mon-Fri. And it also makes me a much more versatile and experienced player.

I don't know what you do for a living, but I hope whatever it is you enjoy it. I enjoy making music more than anything else I've ever done for money, and I'm grateful that I'm finally getting to earn my living doing it. I have no fear that what my band does regarding tracks is going is going to hurt anyone, destroy the music business, bastardize the definition of art, or anything like that. Times change and we can fight it or roll with it. I choose to roll with it, while continuing to do what I love most. I'll play with tracks, and still create music on my own like they did back when I loved music the most.

 

[Runnerman]

yes, because it's not a prerecorded track. she's actually PLAYING it live with her fingers. its just a different sound out of a keyboard, yet she is doing it. usually while singing. So it is as live as anything you're playing on any instrument. It's not that's the difference. Appreciate it

Well I see it as cheating every bit as much as a backing track. She's triggering a synthesized sound with her finger for crying out loud. Not even using her lips and lungs to make the sounds like a real horn. I would never go to see your band if you faking the horns like that. No better than Karaoke I say.