I don't play in the kinds of bands that would use or need this stuff, nor do I think I'd intentionally go see a band that does. This is mostly cover band stuff, something I have zero interest in as a listener/player.
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.
Tracks.. at what point do you draw the line.
- Thread starter pepj
- Start date
All the bands I know that use tracks are original bands. I don't know a lot of people in covers bands, but the people I know in wedding bands use very few tracks, if any, because they can afford to pay a 5-10 piece band.
As long as the guys on stage are really playing and the parts they can, I have no issue with tracks to augment as long as it does not interrupt the flow
JazznFunk
Supporting Member
Which unfortunately is more of a statement about how little establishments want to pay a full band, versus hiring a gimmick performer to advertise that they have 'live music'. I went thru that once. After COVID, we tried to re-up with a spot that we had a great rapport at before the pandemic, with a booking contact who loved music and made sure people were paid well. He left, and the new person in charge gave us the runaround about how they couldn't afford to pay what they did before for a trio. So what did they end up doing? Hired a DJ for 2 hours (versus us for 3 hours) and paid them exactly what they used to pay us as a trio.... for 1 less hour of work! I only know how much they paid the DJ because I know the DJ! The mental gymnastics to not hire a legit band but get a DJ for the same money will always baffle me.
I've gone so all-in on tracks that the singer could do gigs by herself with a complete backing track, or we could have less complete backing tracks depending on what musicians were available. At some point, you're really DJing with live musicians replacing some of the tracks as a nice enhancement, which is totally the opposite of a live band that's using tracks for enhancement, but both work... well, in the right style, anyway. Bluegrass, not so much, though I have seen folky stuff as a solo act with backing tracks and for that sort of folk, totally fine.
It's funny, because the bigger you get as an artist, the more likely you are to use technology to create a sound you can't create with just the equipment on stage.
But also, some of the highest paid popstars rely on tracks etc and the fans could care less.
It's the local bands that get slighted, for doing what theyd be doing if they were superstars.
But also, some of the highest paid popstars rely on tracks etc and the fans could care less.
It's the local bands that get slighted, for doing what theyd be doing if they were superstars.
I'm not a fan of backing tracks, and neither do I use them myself. There's something lost when a whole section of a live performance is just a queued track. If the band doesn't have enough players to exactly recreate a part of a song then I prefer to arrange it so it fits the players. At least in my experience it engages more with the crowd than otherwise (and it's way more fun to perform that way).
Unfortunately this isn't what fans want, nor most younger musicians. They want things which sound like the songs they know, not some lesser variant.
I don't think tracks stop you from engaging with the crowd, but I do think - as with any instrument - if you use it like a dummy it's gonna be garbage. Use it creatively and it'll be amazing.
If you've ever seen how hands like Soulwax use tech it's freeing, not a hindrance.
Tech doesn't mean you stop thinking or being creative.
Put it another way:
If venues and festivals paid enough to have 5 musicians on stage - assuming I could find 2 more musicians who could do the job AND who we got on with - then I'd do that.
But they don't.
My project just sold out a national tour in my country. We paid everyone. We sold so much merch...
And yet... Just crunched the numbers this morning... After all expenses we made 200 euro.
For a sold out tour.
You see artists out there using only fans to supplement their incomes as well.... It's just how it is in 2026.
Id rather tracks than a worse sound, or not paying people fairly, or selling feet pics.
Zero tracks live. Sound effect type things are fine, but if its a part played by an instrument, have that instrument on stage or change the arrangement. Live should be live.
Fair enough. I suppose it's down to a difference in our audiences. Mine come to see me perform and enjoy the arrangements I make when I do covers. They aren't there to hear my exact rendition of whatever popular song. Though even if some people were, I actually don't care about what they want because I'm not making enough money to care But it's not my career so I have the freedom to do whatever I want. I completely understand that people in different situations would need different tools to make it work for them, so your point is well taken.
200 Euros profit after a sold out tour is rough! I guess on the bright side you didn't lose any money. But wow, that sucks man.
Yeah, it does suck. But also... Not out of pocket... Unless you count all the gear, rehearsals, the cost of the studio we built, etc etc. Lol.
But we're all full time musicians, and are ostensibly on the way up... So.. You gotta invest.
The one thing I'd say about the tracks thing is we made it all ourselves. Like two of us recorded it all. A Grammy Winning guy mixed the album. But like a final 10% mix. I mixed everything we released before that.
Our fans know all this and I think, based on chatting to people at gigs, realise it's just a practical thing. They'd rather we have a sustainable career and aren't purists the way I'd previously worried they'd be.
But they all reference famous acts using tracks and say eg if Billie Eilish does it why shouldn't you.
And they have a point.
I mean the singer plays guitar, vass and Drums live. I play guitar and bass live. The drummer drums, sings and plays bass.
If you watch us do all that and still think we're cheating... Well... Nothing I can say will ever convince someone otherwise.
I do wish SOMETIMES we could have a 5 piece band, but also I'm relatively misanthropic and am surprised I have 2 people I like enough to spend trapped in a car with for weeks in a row. Lol.
Yeah, you gotta do what you gotta do eh? No shade from me for that.
Good luck in the future! I hope it works out for you.
Playing with tracks at my current spot.
I can't deny they add more to what is going on.
But in my heart of hearts, I just can't come round to accepting it.
My soul feels like something is missing, musically (and ironically).
That's the best I can put it right now.
I can't deny they add more to what is going on.
But in my heart of hearts, I just can't come round to accepting it.
My soul feels like something is missing, musically (and ironically).
That's the best I can put it right now.
Other than not being into that kind of music, I don't object to solos/duos using backing tracks as long as it's all up to snuff.
The barn-dance band I was in back in the 90s had drums and bass on backing tracks (if people wanted a full band, they had to pay more). It worked for us because the drummer and the other bassist only wanted to play a couple of gigs per month but the fiddle player, guitarist, and myself (sax or bass) wanted to play at least a couple of gigs ...per week!
What we didn't like about using tracks was that we couldn't extend a dance if the crowd were loving it or restart from the middle if the dance was going wrong. These days I'd be using my MPC in song mode and just leave it running when we wanted to go long with a dance. I'd also be able to loop a section if the dancers got out of sync with the music. This is all trivial stuff when not playing with tracks.
The barn-dance band I was in back in the 90s had drums and bass on backing tracks (if people wanted a full band, they had to pay more). It worked for us because the drummer and the other bassist only wanted to play a couple of gigs per month but the fiddle player, guitarist, and myself (sax or bass) wanted to play at least a couple of gigs ...per week!
What we didn't like about using tracks was that we couldn't extend a dance if the crowd were loving it or restart from the middle if the dance was going wrong. These days I'd be using my MPC in song mode and just leave it running when we wanted to go long with a dance. I'd also be able to loop a section if the dancers got out of sync with the music. This is all trivial stuff when not playing with tracks.
It's the influence of all the money involved. In fact, a cover band using backing tracks is really being done purely for the money, not artistic integrity.
Sure.. But cover bands are like... Why woukd anyone care about what they do? Same with corporate bands?
It's just a money making gig. There's nothing in there to concern me.
It seems to me that preparing tracks would be a lot more cost and effort than having someone just show up and play. At least, you'd have to get a lot of mileage out of the tracks to make them pay off. And there aren't enough gigs in my area for anybody to get any mileage out of anything.
I did once see a saxaphonist at a wedding, where he was standing behind a little booth that contained a sound system. His card indicated that he drove all the way up from Chicago, which is quite a haul.
I did once see a saxaphonist at a wedding, where he was standing behind a little booth that contained a sound system. His card indicated that he drove all the way up from Chicago, which is quite a haul.
So I co- write and produce all the music we make. I make the tracks and they take a couple hours each.
With those I can take a gig that pays 450 and everyone gets a bit of money and isn't out of pocket.
If that same 450 was divided by 5 - what I'd need to replace the tracks - we'd hardly ever gig, because driving 5 hours to play 45 mins at a festival for about 20 bucks after fuel, food, etc., isn't viable. Nor would I ever expect anyone to take that deal.
We'll play let's say 60 gigs this year.
An extra €150 x 60 is 9000. For one person. I need two, so 18k.
Vs two hours of work in my home studio per track. So say 20 tracks, that's 40 hours. Which I can do at my leisure.
Even if I pay myself 200 an hour - I don't - it's 8k a year.
Musicians are wildly more expensive than tracks.
And btw this doesn't count things like flights, per diems, another hotel room, etc.
Say the gig is worth $600..divide by 4. $150 per head.
Or add in keys, that goes down to $120 per head.
I doubt the band could get more...not in terms of musicianship, but they might if well supported at gigs. I don't see they have that card, but maybe they top $700 occasionally.
I do not think those numbers or the gig will attract a top keys player or anyone who could top the backing tracks.
If you have 30 full tracks, with gtr, percussion, keys, horns strings and vox, I wonder how much they would cost to get someone to make them.
I know guys who could do that but I can't see them being interested in doing them unless they could get their commercial rate.
Or add in keys, that goes down to $120 per head.
I doubt the band could get more...not in terms of musicianship, but they might if well supported at gigs. I don't see they have that card, but maybe they top $700 occasionally.
I do not think those numbers or the gig will attract a top keys player or anyone who could top the backing tracks.
If you have 30 full tracks, with gtr, percussion, keys, horns strings and vox, I wonder how much they would cost to get someone to make them.
I know guys who could do that but I can't see them being interested in doing them unless they could get their commercial rate.
