hello, im writing this thread because i think playback bands are no music, they just mimetice playing music. what do yo think?
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.
playback bands
- Thread starter erbesoderpayaso
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bands
s0c9
Supporting Member
I think he means bands that use tracks !!
In response.. I don't think people (at least in the US) don't care, and don't worry about it. Only the musicians do..
Back when I played guitar, one band I was in needed a sax solo. I used my Roland GR and we got awesome comments.. but most were.. "Who's playing the sax part??"...
That said.. I've never played in a band that used tracks.
I think you're probably clueless when it comes to that space.
I have 2 bands... one is one of the highest booking bands on gigmasters, the other is a totally legitimate Zeppelin, Metallica, etc. rock band (No tracks). The straight up band is way easier musically. We spend hundreds of hours more building and practicing the track show.
And what's funny is that we've had dozen's of musicians sit in with us for the entire night (the track band) who never even knew we had tracks going - but that's part of the magic and I'm not giving away our secrets here
Last edited:
yes there are many ways to do something new. in the us the possibilities are infite i believe, and studying music helps playing.
electronics make music bigger too.
i've hear a lot of us bands and i believe the good ones make music live in their presention. the bad ones dont.
electronics make music bigger too.
i've hear a lot of us bands and i believe the good ones make music live in their presention. the bad ones dont.
s0c9
Supporting Member
Almost all pop artists these days seem to have tracks running in the background these days. In my mind it is cheating, but this isn't new either. Having backup players or keyboards back stage or behind screens have been around since at least the 70s. It sucks for those people that are off stage, but I guess if you are getting paid, you are getting paid.
What I don't get are solo artists that use loops and tracks to play live. I played a show where two guitarists played to pre-recorded tracks and a "one man band" who played a bunch of instruments through loops. The guitarists were good players, but it was exceptionally boring to watch. The YouTube looper style guy took twice as long to set up and tear down, and after the initial novelty of it wore off, it was boring.
That sort of stuff is fine for the internet or clinics, but someone doesn't go out to a big club to watch one guy play to a CD.
What I don't get are solo artists that use loops and tracks to play live. I played a show where two guitarists played to pre-recorded tracks and a "one man band" who played a bunch of instruments through loops. The guitarists were good players, but it was exceptionally boring to watch. The YouTube looper style guy took twice as long to set up and tear down, and after the initial novelty of it wore off, it was boring.
That sort of stuff is fine for the internet or clinics, but someone doesn't go out to a big club to watch one guy play to a CD.
using loops is not playing them, playing and recording live it's not a easy task and not evrybody can do it. so that's not boring, maybe its too much to watch or to listen but boring no. i didnt understand what you said about the bands you were. its kind of wreird.
I think this topic is easily understood (for what it truly is) when you look at the show for what it truly is: a show. It's show business. What is the audience there for? To be entertained, and by any means possible. If you do that by singing, dancing, tracks, no tracks, lights, camera, action... It doesn't really matter; a good show is a good show, and it really doesn't matter how you get there. It only matters that your audience is satisfied with what they've experienced.
Now, let's say you went to a show and were not satisfied with your experience. Did you go to hear live music to be performed by capable musicians? If so - and instead you saw/heard tracks running - now you can be disappointed because the "show" you wanted to see was live art and instead you got karaoke (I'm exaggerating, but you get my point). I'll stand by that.
However, just because an act is choosing to perform using tracks, that doesn't mean their show is any more or less impressive. It's a different kind of show, a different way to express their art.
In other words I don't get mad at theatre plays for being un-cinematic; that's what movies are for. Both involve acting, but doing a movie is a totally different art-form than a play. If I play soccer, I don't get mad about basketball players for dribbling the ball wrong - it's a different sport.
I say whatever the audience is there for - give it to them. Of course, YMMV.
Now, let's say you went to a show and were not satisfied with your experience. Did you go to hear live music to be performed by capable musicians? If so - and instead you saw/heard tracks running - now you can be disappointed because the "show" you wanted to see was live art and instead you got karaoke (I'm exaggerating, but you get my point). I'll stand by that.
However, just because an act is choosing to perform using tracks, that doesn't mean their show is any more or less impressive. It's a different kind of show, a different way to express their art.
In other words I don't get mad at theatre plays for being un-cinematic; that's what movies are for. Both involve acting, but doing a movie is a totally different art-form than a play. If I play soccer, I don't get mad about basketball players for dribbling the ball wrong - it's a different sport.
I say whatever the audience is there for - give it to them. Of course, YMMV.
My band uses backing tracks for all keyboard parts. I honestly see no issues with this and I could give a **** if another musician doesn't think we are "legit musicians" because we use them. At the end of the day, my band entertains the crowd and gets paid. That's all that matters to me.
I think there's a big difference between using backing tracks for instruments you don't have, and just miming. The Who used to use a track for the synth part in Baba O'Riley and nobody cared. But if Pete Townsend were to mime his guitar parts, then I could see why people might get upset.
W t f is gigmasters?I think you're probably clueless when it comes to that space.
I have 2 bands... one is one of the highest booking bands on gigmasters, the other is a totally legitimate Zeppelin, Metallica, etc. rock band (No tracks). The straight up band is way easier musically. We spend hundreds of hours more building and practicing the track show.
And what's funny is that we've had dozen's of musicians sit in with us for the entire night (the track band) who never even knew we had tracks going - but that's part of the magic and I'm not giving away our secrets here
Polomo, I'd like to clarify what you mean when you say "Tracks band". Do you mean bands that use sequencers or pre-produced parts to fill in with a live band or are you talking about bands that don't play a note and mime to a CD?
i didn't meant even to refer to a virtuoso band, i was talking about simple music. but taken it to that level that just cant be accepted for me. if its simple music why are you using playback? that my point.
i can agree with you that they are many type of music but music involves science and art not necesarily theatre or acting.
yes im agree with you but still you have to be carefull... im really into electronics, closed minded its not my problem.
im not talking about something specific, it could be a band or a singer with a band that has playback too.
It all comes down to where your head is at.
Those who see what they do as primarily being "entertainment" and "putting on a show" will have no issues with using whatever technology is currently available.
Those who see music more as "live" or "realtime" performance art - complete with all the limitations it entails - will be more selective in what technology they see as acceptable.
It's kind of like the difference between traditional theater and motion pictures to me. Each approach has its own resources. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. And each needs to be judged (if you feel the need to judge anything) on its own merits purely for what it is.
For my own part, I prefer not to make any judgements. I play things the way I think they should be played - and I work with fellow musicians who feel the same way I do about it. And I listen to and mainly go to hear the musicians who play it the way I like to hear it.
No fault no foul in that for either myself or the people I go (or don't go) to hear. It's a big enough world to accommodate any taste as far as music's concerned.
I'm good with that.
Those who see what they do as primarily being "entertainment" and "putting on a show" will have no issues with using whatever technology is currently available.
Those who see music more as "live" or "realtime" performance art - complete with all the limitations it entails - will be more selective in what technology they see as acceptable.
It's kind of like the difference between traditional theater and motion pictures to me. Each approach has its own resources. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. And each needs to be judged (if you feel the need to judge anything) on its own merits purely for what it is.
For my own part, I prefer not to make any judgements. I play things the way I think they should be played - and I work with fellow musicians who feel the same way I do about it. And I listen to and mainly go to hear the musicians who play it the way I like to hear it.
No fault no foul in that for either myself or the people I go (or don't go) to hear. It's a big enough world to accommodate any taste as far as music's concerned.
I'm good with that.
s0c9
Supporting Member
