That sounds like it's about business and/or avarice, not at all for the sake of art.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
'Live' bands with backing tracks
- Thread starter Buzzgroove
- Start date
That sounds like it's about business and/or avarice, not at all for the sake of art.
Well he was certainly trying to take advantage and way out of line.
But say it was a different bandleader (who actually loaded gear). And say he wanted the bass line to be played note for note (and you can change it to be whatever you want). And you keep the bass tracks in for added depth of sound and effect (can change to fretless or upright or synth sound for example). Then it's actually a great sounding product.
But "just drown out the tracks" is ridiculous, demeaning and would sound bad. A small change in perspective makes a huge difference.
- Oct 7, 2000
- 18,619
- 38,939
- Disclosures
- Endorsing artist: Musicman basses
Only one justification - that makes complete sense - making 10 + X the amount of money. Which is what it amounts to with many bands who do it. That may be nonsense to some, but it isn't to me.
I've mentioned before that my band does this with a few songs. I hated and fought it (a little) in the beginning, and now see its value and have no problem with it at all. Here's a list of "nonsense" justifications that are working for me with that:
- Doubling up the bass so that nobody notices is an art in itself. I have to be one super tight mo-fo to pull it off completely, and I enjoy the challenge.
- Nobody notices. If they do, they don't care. Since starting with my new band in January I've played in front of 10s of thousands of people, up close, and nobody has ever given me any reason to believe they cared - or even noticed.
- My willingness to "play along" has enabled me to earn 4 to 5x what I was previously making per gig doing covers, and I went from playing 2-4 times a month, to 8-13.
- My willingness has also enabled me to have roadies. I don't have to set anything up, nor break it down.
- My willingness has me playing gigs that end at between 10pm and midnight, as opposed to 2 and 4AM.
- Oh yeah... I get fed lots of excellent food at all my gigs too
. - This might not be a plus for some, but I also get to play tons of different music - which I love doing. Especially Motown, which I always wanted to perform, but never thought I would.
- Doing the above doesn't keep me from playing my own music, nor from playing with bands who don't use any tracks at all. I can (and do) easily get subs so that I can still play in my Zep tribute, and with another artist who gets some pretty cool gigs with some pretty cool people (see links in sig).
). Many people have no problem overdubbing, dissecting, moving, and piecing together their performances on recordings making them IMO completely inauthentic - but then consider the tracks thing some sort of blasphemy. I get it, but it seems silly to put down those who choose to do it because, well... for the most part, they're the ones who are winnnnnnning .
If I can make x10 per gig what I do now, get home on average 2 hours earlier, and have a roadie then sign me up!
Unfortunately with my band it just isn't going to happen because our (half deaf and terminally obstinate) drummer struggles to hear his IEMs at some point most nights so there is no way he could reliably play along to a click.
He did actually suggest using tracks, horns and keyboard, when we first started but the guitarist vetoed the idea. I suspect we would have wasted a lot of time, money and effort only to discover that it was never going to work.
Unfortunately with my band it just isn't going to happen because our (half deaf and terminally obstinate) drummer struggles to hear his IEMs at some point most nights so there is no way he could reliably play along to a click.
He did actually suggest using tracks, horns and keyboard, when we first started but the guitarist vetoed the idea. I suspect we would have wasted a lot of time, money and effort only to discover that it was never going to work.
- Oct 7, 2000
- 18,619
- 38,939
- Disclosures
- Endorsing artist: Musicman basses
In this case it is the drummer.Sure. Blame the drummer
He played his first gig in 1960 when he was 14 (he took his drums on the bus) and has never used hearing protection and it is catching up on him. Ironically he blames his hearing loss on a past bassist who was "too loud".
On talkdrums in a parallel universe there is probably a running joke about "fire the bassist" (and drummers can read).In this case it is the drummer.
He played his first gig in 1960 when he was 14 (he took his drums on the bus) and has never used hearing protection and it is catching up on him. Ironically he blames his hearing loss on a past bassist who was "too loud".
The problem I've run into with my band is that they wanted to do a bunch of music which is heavy on production. They asked me to make backing tracks so I made a bunch to try out. Now that they're realizing it takes effort to play to them perfectly, they're putting them on the back burner. They're telling me they want to make the money that the big boys are making but I don't see them putting in the work. I see this happen in many bands and they will use every excuse in the book not to do work.
My band has about 5 songs we use tracks for. All are recorded by us and cover things we dont have on stage. We dont hide it and in fact make fun of it from stage sometimes. For instance, we play "dont stop believing" and one guitar player pulls out a toy piano while we play the intro with a piano track.
When this becomes a problem is when it interferes with the band's abilities like described in the OP.
When this becomes a problem is when it interferes with the band's abilities like described in the OP.
Only one justification - that makes complete sense - making 10 + X the amount of money. Which is what it amounts to with many bands who do it. That may be nonsense to some, but it isn't to me.
I've mentioned before that my band does this with a few songs. I hated and fought it (a little) in the beginning, and now see its value and have no problem with it at all. Here's a list of "nonsense" justifications that are working for me with that:
While I can understand people wanting to be purists and hold onto what they consider the integrity in music - I really feel that refusing to do this is, as my mother used to say, cutting one's nose off to spite their face (apologies if I said that in an earlier post and I'm repeating myself
- Doubling up the bass so that nobody notices is an art in itself. I have to be one super tight mo-fo to pull it off completely, and I enjoy the challenge.
- Nobody notices. If they do, they don't care. Since starting with my new band in January I've played in front of 10s of thousands of people, up close, and nobody has ever given me any reason to believe they cared - or even noticed.
- My willingness to "play along" has enabled me to earn 4 to 5x what I was previously making per gig doing covers, and I went from playing 2-4 times a month, to 8-13.
- My willingness has also enabled me to have roadies. I don't have to set anything up, nor break it down.
- My willingness has me playing gigs that end at between 10pm and midnight, as opposed to 2 and 4AM.
- Oh yeah... I get fed lots of excellent food at all my gigs too
- This might not be a plus for some, but I also get to play tons of different music - which I love doing. Especially Motown, which I always wanted to perform, but never thought I would.
- Doing the above doesn't keep me from playing my own music, nor from playing with bands who don't use any tracks at all. I can (and do) easily get subs so that I can still play in my Zep tribute, and with another artist who gets some pretty cool gigs with some pretty cool people (see links in sig).
Great that it's working for you.
Honestly, you can't know what people notice. I guarantee that I would notice you're playing over a track. I was offered over 400/gig @ 2 gigs per month, all local, to do that bass karaoke BS and I turned it down.
It's not about being a purist, it's just that I think it's redundant. If a band wants to track the bass on certain songs then play the track and I'll move over to percussion, rhythm guitar, or synth bass. That's enough challenge for me.
I'll admit that I haven't read all 17 pages of this, but I can understand all sides in the argument.
I'll give you my experience.
When I'm not playing bass, I'm playing keys in several bands, one of which is a Who tribute band.
As has been mentioned, most bands, even the Who, use tracks and/or several keys players live to reproduce some of their most iconic songs (Baba O'Riley, Won't Get Fooled Again, Eminence Front).
I am aware of several who tribute bands that don't have a live keyboard player and play those iconic tunes to backing tracks. I am VERY GLAD that my band wants to be different and wants to have a keyboard player play live. It's a point of differentiation for us, and it's got me into a very good and fun band. so far so good.
Now before I get called a hypocrite, there is one song that even I can't play live, and that is Eminence Front. I've tried to get it, but I only have 2 hands. I've had professional synth programmers on retainer, but we just decided that it's too much work, would take too long, to get that down right. So we do the next best thing. I have the actual isolated keys track from the record (includes the "casio-like" percussion) as a wav file on my Kronos and I launch it from there and then everyone plays along for the rest of the song. No click, just relying on the monitors. One song out of 40 is done this way. Everything else is me and my keys rig. It's a compromise, perhaps, but one I can live with, since we kinda have no other choice in the matter.
I'll give you my experience.
When I'm not playing bass, I'm playing keys in several bands, one of which is a Who tribute band.
As has been mentioned, most bands, even the Who, use tracks and/or several keys players live to reproduce some of their most iconic songs (Baba O'Riley, Won't Get Fooled Again, Eminence Front).
I am aware of several who tribute bands that don't have a live keyboard player and play those iconic tunes to backing tracks. I am VERY GLAD that my band wants to be different and wants to have a keyboard player play live. It's a point of differentiation for us, and it's got me into a very good and fun band. so far so good.
Now before I get called a hypocrite, there is one song that even I can't play live, and that is Eminence Front. I've tried to get it, but I only have 2 hands. I've had professional synth programmers on retainer, but we just decided that it's too much work, would take too long, to get that down right. So we do the next best thing. I have the actual isolated keys track from the record (includes the "casio-like" percussion) as a wav file on my Kronos and I launch it from there and then everyone plays along for the rest of the song. No click, just relying on the monitors. One song out of 40 is done this way. Everything else is me and my keys rig. It's a compromise, perhaps, but one I can live with, since we kinda have no other choice in the matter.
I tried to bring clicks into my band but they're not really good at playing to them so they make up excuses not to use them. You kinda need them with pop music unless you have a really good keyboard player that's running loops but at that point you're on a click anyway.
Just ran into this topic after a conversation with a fellow musician who invited me to play drums in his wedding band (drums are my primary instrument). He is a great musician with heaps of experience, but he insists on using backing tracks for bass and keys, as he claims he could not gather good enough players to make the band sound as good as by using these tracks. He also says that in order to look like and actual band he needs a drum kit on stage. Of course, for me this means in-ear monitoring with a click and the backing tracks mixed with the live vocals and guitar. I am against this idea due to the thoughts below:
I have played to a click before, I have no problem with that, it helps me with keeping the tempo (I tend to drag and sometimes rush some fills). BUT, as a drummer I can not fathom not being the "director" of the band, it's like the very role of drums becomes irrelevant by playing to something pre-recorded, the whole concepts turns upside down. Also, if the tracks are professionally recorded, and the bass sounds excellent, the drums recorded along with it should make the sound much better than me bashing away to it on any kind of drum kit. What if my groove doesn't match that on the backing track? I always thought that bass and drums should rely on and adapt to each other, a cooperation yielding in great groove and good sound. By removing one or the other this becomes meaningless. Strings, backing vocals or some other minor parts might be okay if done with taste.
Yeah, some might say that wedding gigs are not about musical integrity, but I never saw any customer complaining about a live band being "too musical", and this whole situation is a result of money taking precedence over music, plus the unrealistic expectations of a band's live sound.
Whenever I see a wedding band with no bassist or drummer, I am always disappointed in them as musicians. They might be good enterpreneurs, good managers, great businessman, but to me it's the very idea of playing music that is defied by the overuse of backing tracks.
So yeah, the bride might be happy, but don't be surpirsed once they won't hire you anymore, 'cause the duo with a huge array of backing tracks steals your gigs.
I have played to a click before, I have no problem with that, it helps me with keeping the tempo (I tend to drag and sometimes rush some fills). BUT, as a drummer I can not fathom not being the "director" of the band, it's like the very role of drums becomes irrelevant by playing to something pre-recorded, the whole concepts turns upside down. Also, if the tracks are professionally recorded, and the bass sounds excellent, the drums recorded along with it should make the sound much better than me bashing away to it on any kind of drum kit. What if my groove doesn't match that on the backing track? I always thought that bass and drums should rely on and adapt to each other, a cooperation yielding in great groove and good sound. By removing one or the other this becomes meaningless. Strings, backing vocals or some other minor parts might be okay if done with taste.
Yeah, some might say that wedding gigs are not about musical integrity, but I never saw any customer complaining about a live band being "too musical", and this whole situation is a result of money taking precedence over music, plus the unrealistic expectations of a band's live sound.
Whenever I see a wedding band with no bassist or drummer, I am always disappointed in them as musicians. They might be good enterpreneurs, good managers, great businessman, but to me it's the very idea of playing music that is defied by the overuse of backing tracks.
So yeah, the bride might be happy, but don't be surpirsed once they won't hire you anymore, 'cause the duo with a huge array of backing tracks steals your gigs.
It's kinda like when DJ's took over the club scene. Not enough people cared. The percentage of people out there who appreciate talent and expertise is very small. Most club owners don't care either. They care about how much cash they are clearing for that night. If people show up for canned tracks then club owners will pay for it.
Another example of technology replacing human effort.
That being said...I would take Joe Nerve's deal any day, for every reason that he listed.
Last edited:
buldog5151bass
Kibble, milkbones, and P Basses. And redheads.
Fact is, the expected product is not the same. Today, most people want to hear a reproduction of the original recording, rather than talent. The Who originally toured doing Tommy tunes with one guitar and one bass - nothing else. When they first started using a backing track for synths, it was considered a terrible thing by many.
I'd much rather hear musicians do more with less.
I'd much rather hear musicians do more with less.
if you're using tracks, you're not a live band. You're at best a half-karaoke experience. I won't see bands like that, let alone play in one.
we did a duel gig with a band a couple of years ago and we had no idea the extent to which they were using tracks.
It was a successful night, but the venue owner was not impressed. He told them after essentially you won't be hired back here again if you're using tracks. We have live bands here.
and that was that.
Comparing yourselves to legendary pro bands in stadiums who use tracks is not a very good comparison. If you don't have the talent to pull off a song without a track, find a different song. If you are so greedy that you literally include that position, like bass, only on tracks? That's just pathetic. Pro bands often HAVE to use tracks because they can't reproduce what they once could play or did in the studio and people often pay BIG money to see them. So they do what they have to do. but local bands do not. I have way more respect for a band that pulls off every part of a song on their own and in an average way than a band that is obviously dubbing vocal harmonies, or keyboards, for example, with tracks. its karaoke. a sound effect? That's ok (like let's say the big church bells at the beginning of Hell's Bells) and I get that. actually subsituting entire instruments and harmonies in a band? ick.
and I don't see anyone making 10x what the standard band makes that are using tracks around here. in fact, it's the opposite. track bands seem to get the lesser gigs and are sneered at. reality.
we did a duel gig with a band a couple of years ago and we had no idea the extent to which they were using tracks.
It was a successful night, but the venue owner was not impressed. He told them after essentially you won't be hired back here again if you're using tracks. We have live bands here.
and that was that.
Comparing yourselves to legendary pro bands in stadiums who use tracks is not a very good comparison. If you don't have the talent to pull off a song without a track, find a different song. If you are so greedy that you literally include that position, like bass, only on tracks? That's just pathetic. Pro bands often HAVE to use tracks because they can't reproduce what they once could play or did in the studio and people often pay BIG money to see them. So they do what they have to do. but local bands do not. I have way more respect for a band that pulls off every part of a song on their own and in an average way than a band that is obviously dubbing vocal harmonies, or keyboards, for example, with tracks. its karaoke. a sound effect? That's ok (like let's say the big church bells at the beginning of Hell's Bells) and I get that. actually subsituting entire instruments and harmonies in a band? ick.
and I don't see anyone making 10x what the standard band makes that are using tracks around here. in fact, it's the opposite. track bands seem to get the lesser gigs and are sneered at. reality.
Last edited:
Mark Wilson
Supporting Member
So much hate for tracks.
Let's be honest now guys. It's a numbers game out there. If I can pitch a wedding band at $100/person with 5 people that sound like 10 with tracks (I would never undercut the market like that. just an example) vs. a wedding band with 10 people at a higher cost because they're taking on more responsibilities, who do you think is getting hired?
Now the argument that i THINK is being made, because i'm not a mod anymore and frankly I don't want to read a 17 page thread anymore, is where tracks REPLACE fundamental musicians. Like, a bass player. First thing to go in pop music is the bass; "put it in the tracks!" and yeah, I don't love that. but it doesn't discredit the talent of the musicians in the group at all. They're expanding what they know, because the market is changing.
Maybe instead of complaining about it, learn Ableton. Learn how to make these backing tracks to fill out the empty space in a song.
Let's be honest now guys. It's a numbers game out there. If I can pitch a wedding band at $100/person with 5 people that sound like 10 with tracks (I would never undercut the market like that. just an example) vs. a wedding band with 10 people at a higher cost because they're taking on more responsibilities, who do you think is getting hired?
Now the argument that i THINK is being made, because i'm not a mod anymore and frankly I don't want to read a 17 page thread anymore, is where tracks REPLACE fundamental musicians. Like, a bass player. First thing to go in pop music is the bass; "put it in the tracks!" and yeah, I don't love that. but it doesn't discredit the talent of the musicians in the group at all. They're expanding what they know, because the market is changing.
Maybe instead of complaining about it, learn Ableton. Learn how to make these backing tracks to fill out the empty space in a song.
If it's effects (i.e. the Hells Bells example above) or extra percussion or keyboard fringe parts that the drummer/keyboardist simply don't have enough hands to cover all at once I can live with that, assuming it's not a significant percentage of the performance and no musicians are being displaced. Seen too many bands that rely on backing tracks/harmonizers for a significant part of their performance and it just comes off as phony. But as also stated above, most folks don't know and don't care as long as it sounds like the original recording. We actually advertise our group as authentic with no backing tracks etc added, which we believe helps set us apart.
With certain kinds of metal, it's becoming practically standard for the drummer to also trigger the intros, FX, orchestra etc.
