Tracks.. at what point do you draw the line.

[Substrate]

(This horse doesn't want to die, so I'll risk posting again...)

My live music experience last night was fully live: a symphony orchestra with ~100 top notch musicians performing great "covers" from a span of two centuries. I am a season ticket holder, so I'm doing my part to support live music across the spectrum. It occurred to me that although the expenditure for the evening was greater than it is when I see small bands at a neighborhood bar, it was significantly less than the prices I have paid for "named" acts performing in venues from medium sized clubs to basketball arenas to football stadiums.

Perhaps I need to amend my earlier post. There might be enough money for live music out there, it's just that it's being funneled into a very small number of pockets. And many of those pockets do not belong to musicians (e.g. Ticketmaster.)

 

[DaBigBadaBoom]

I saw a big enough touring artist playing to 1500 people a few nights back. 5 piece band. Bass/keys, keys, guitar, drums and singer. They played to a click because of things like timed sequences on keys and delay tempos.

The opening act was a three piece. Drums, Bass and a singer that occasionally played guitar. But even when she played guitar there were other guitars, and synths and vocals on the track.

The crowd didn't seem to care at all.

In fact the band with the click sounded a bit more over produced than the one with the tracks, somehow.

Whatever these things used to mean to music fans seems to have mostly disappeared, at least in mainstream music.

 

[Jay Corwin]

I doubt that the crowd who is going to see these types of bands that use tracks even cares.

 

[DaBigBadaBoom]

I doubt that the crowd who is going to see these types of bands that use tracks even cares.

Correct

In fact the vastajority of these people want bands to sound like the recordings. Because every HUGE band they've seen sound like the recordings.

 

[staccatogrowl]

Tracks.. at what point do you draw the line?

Simple. Directly in front of your feet: Cross the line and use them, possibly expanding one's experience and skill set. Move away from the line to go backwards or laterally. Otherwise, no need to control what others choose.

 

[fdeck]

From a historical perspective, the earliest recorded music was considered to be a poor substitute for live performance, but could be more widely distributed. During the first few decades of the recording industry, considerable effort went into making the recording sound more like live music, bringing us the "high fidelity" era.

Some musicians objected to this approach, or saw wider possibilities. Glenn Gould and the Beatles both retired from performing, and considered their recordings to be their primary creations.

Today, in some cases a live performance could be seen as a poor substitute for a recording.

Where do I draw the line? As I've gotten older, it's gotten simpler, but also more important: Quality.

A band has to deliver a quality performance to the audience. That's it. For me, it hasn't involved playing to tracks -- yet. But that's a circumstance of playing a genre where the recording is still considered to be a poor substitute for live performance. There are very few jazz tunes that need to be played like a hit recording to satisfy an audience. I'm thinking of Glenn Miller. And I've been in bands that pulled off those tunes with smaller ensembles, but the musicians all knew the big-band arrangements cold. I haven't heard a jazz performance with tracks, that didn't sound cheesy. But "never say never." Ask me in a decade.