My take is that if it's just for one or two instruments that are key to a handful of tracks in a setlist, I'm ok with it. If it gets into multiple instruments in every song, it's crossing the line into karaoke.
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
xxx666 said:
Absolutely true.
Musicians dont finacially support other Bands, Joe-Q-non-musician-fan does.
I recently saw a local disco band, very successful, doing this, although only using the backing tracks to fill in essential keyboard and horn parts. They were not really even recreating the entire key/horn parts from the original tunes, just the most salient portions, the parts that would have been missed if not played. The guitar, bass, and drums all played to a click, and they had 4 good vocalists. The crowd loved it, and all the tempos were right on the button, of course, synched to the backing track. The crowd loved it and so did I. This is the kind of band that dresses in costumes and wears wigs and really puts on a great show. Most people didn't even hear the tracks, either, they were kind of subliminal.
Now playing bass along with a backing track that has bass on it- that is too strange for me. I think I'd have too much pride to do that. Maybe I could do an electronica project with pre-recorded bass, as long as it was a recording of me playing and I was sampling from that.
Now playing bass along with a backing track that has bass on it- that is too strange for me. I think I'd have too much pride to do that. Maybe I could do an electronica project with pre-recorded bass, as long as it was a recording of me playing and I was sampling from that.
Exactly.
Given that the paying audience doesn't give a rats-a$$ whether or not the band is or is not actually playing, then why not fake your shows?
Why spend the time and money to be an actual bass player when the same result can be had from an iPod? Or a sequencer for that matter?
I dont think you have toured much, or if you have you do small shows. It just seems like you are new and are formulating on opinion based on not really understanding the process.
My band used some backing tracks (triggered sounds only), but we played acoustic many times as well. We could play our songs raw with no triggers and did all the time for radio shows or smaller venues. One venue's PA was so bad it blew when we went up there, so we just played acoustic and it was an incredible show.
The main point is that you are saying bands with backing tracks..etc is karaoke, and demeaning it. Most bands don't have the skill to play to triggered sounds because their drummer loses time and the band is not tight enough. It actually is more difficult to play to triggered samples in a live situation.
Now I agree that I dont really like backing tracks. But the facts are it is part of a lot of big shows nowadays. Anyone who is a pro hired gun or signed to a large national act knows this. You either pay for extra members or play to triggers. What do you think costs more?
And as for the argument that metal..etc (the "pure" stuff) doesnt play to trigegrs. I have seen many metal drummers fired from their session because they sucked. They were replaced many times with MIDI kick drums. They then have to learn the parts and try and play them live. But since it is a wall of sound, they get away with sloppy kick playing or poor right hand technqiue live. So the purity of not using triggers is also a myth as well. Unless you are a truly tight band with chops like Gojira, Black Dahlia..etc. But a lot of these bands are kids with mediocre skill, thinking they are awesome live, getting signed by Metal Blade or Victory and then going into the studio and either getting fired or having to play their parts one bar at a time.
That to me, is a lot lower than playing to triggers, which one again, requires excellent timing.
Hopkins
Commercial User
The problem I would have with playing to tracks, is it takes away the option of doing any improv. My last band did a ton of improv. If a guitar player wanted to extend a solo, or if the singer wanted to extend the song by repeating a verse (or making up a new one) that would be impossible with tracks.
They take all the fun out of being a live act.
I have friends in a band that used tracks to fill in guitar parts when they were between second guitar players. It was a temporary fix, to a temporary problem. I never though less of them for it.
They take all the fun out of being a live act.
I have friends in a band that used tracks to fill in guitar parts when they were between second guitar players. It was a temporary fix, to a temporary problem. I never though less of them for it.
Not necessarily. Just use samples to cover your parts and it becomes quite easy. Same for the drummer, he doesn't have to actually play anything.
But that is not what is happening in a pro environment. If you are talking local band..etc..who knows.
Acts don't hire touring pros on each instrument to mime samples.
They hire them to play extremely well and tight, and also be able to handle triggered samples if that is part of the show.
You don't have to use triggers on every song. We only used them on a few, but were always on a click.
You only have so much time to fit in your songs. We usually could get 8 into a set. It's better to play as many songs off your record as you can.
I am talking modern rock here. If we are talking about more open jam type music, usually that is a whole different thing, but there are 2 things that never waiver on the road if you are a national, no matter what type of music :
Set time and Bus call.
Thanks for the reply. You are correct on two counts; I have not toured much and I have only played small shows. But over the past 30 years, I have been to countless concerts both big and small. Good bands and crap bands. Bands that sound great on record and terrible live. Bands that sound so-so on record and can deliver the goods live.
You say that most bands don't have drummers that are tight enough and that backing tracks are part of big shows nowadays. That may be so...for lame bands. I guess I'm from the old school where a live band is really just that, a live band. And that goes for any genre: rock, jazz, metal, punk, rockabilly, bluegrass, zydeco, funk, R&B, country, pop.
When you see a band live, the proof is in the pudding. Either they can do it or they can't. If they can't, I'm not going to waste my time watching them and I'm certainly not going to waste my money.
My comments are more directed towards the majority of the members of this forum who aren't pros, but local bands.
That said, there have been several posts in this thread indicating that successful national touring acts use backing tracks while the band members fake it. If that's true, then it sets an example of success for lower-tier bands to follow.
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.
totally depends on the music.
I played in a techno industrial band, where 90 percent of the music was sequenced and the only live parts were the drums & guitar. The music was in very good taste, and sounded the way it was supposed to sound, very true to the vision. To do all those parts live, we would have had to hire 3 or 4 more people. However, the programming dude knew his equipment so well, that if the singer went off on a tangent, he was able to keep things going, so we always had room to wiggle if the spirit moved us.
I've also played in a band where we had a DAT machine and MIDI controller and we triggered tape loops during the songs. That was a lot of fun, but also a lot of work.
Totally depends on the band.
And yes, most national touring acts use backing tracks on just about every song.
That's why they sound so tight!
I played in a techno industrial band, where 90 percent of the music was sequenced and the only live parts were the drums & guitar. The music was in very good taste, and sounded the way it was supposed to sound, very true to the vision. To do all those parts live, we would have had to hire 3 or 4 more people. However, the programming dude knew his equipment so well, that if the singer went off on a tangent, he was able to keep things going, so we always had room to wiggle if the spirit moved us.
I've also played in a band where we had a DAT machine and MIDI controller and we triggered tape loops during the songs. That was a lot of fun, but also a lot of work.
Totally depends on the band.
And yes, most national touring acts use backing tracks on just about every song.
That's why they sound so tight!
Hopkins
Commercial User
Your right, I was talking more of a blues/classic rock/country cover band with a few originals. We played 3 hour sets on average.
I can understand why you would think this, but it isn't necessarily true (either point, actually). Even when playing to a sequence I am (in my corporate band) able to improvise (albeit in a smaller "box" than on some gigs). In most cases I can still take liberties with bass lines and place fills where I deem it suitable (I'm actually encouraged to do this by the MD). I've learned to really enjoy being part of a show (not just standing back and playing bass - which I also enjoy in a lot of settings). So, for me, my corporate gigs are no less fun than any of the other gigs I play. On the contrary, their a lot more fun than a considerable number of the non-sequenced gigs I've done. Plus the pay and conditions are invariably better.
Meh. It's ENTERTAINMENT. Was the crowd entertained? Did they know or even care? If not, it's perfectly valid. Entertainment, no more, no less.
Now if I pay money to see a Jazz quartet at a club, different story. In that case you are there to hear them PLAY. Still entertainment, but with a different mission.
Now if I pay money to see a Jazz quartet at a club, different story. In that case you are there to hear them PLAY. Still entertainment, but with a different mission.
I think the posts referenced bands with band members rather than hired gun pro musicians backing an artist. Kind of hard to determine the truth of the situation there.
FWIW, I don't like the idea of acts using backing tracks with "musicians" faking the show. However, due to cost-savings, that may become more common. An important distinction is that I'm referring specifically to situations with musicians on stage faking their parts over a backing track. I'm not referring to using backing tracks as a supplement to the band.
Along similar lines, I don't like the idea of bass players being replaced by sequencers, but I can certainly see that happening more often as a cost-cutting measure.
Ah. the old "band in a box" trick. Or single "musician" to add fill, BV's, or whatever.... I don't like it, and never will. I understand why many do it. I still walk out when I hear it. Anyone who does it should be required to wear a lime green leisure suit complete w/bell bottoms.
