Backing tracks for live performance bashing

[Shawn Lutz]

I understand it but I don't approve of it and never will. If I'm seeing a band fake it I leave. As I mentioned in the other thread I go to see band perform LIVE, not a few dudes playing to backing tracks. I have no problem with some sampled parts for intros and whatnot but that's about it. If you want to sound closer to the originals, put musicians together capable of doing that. I call it bush league performing, may as well just play iTunes through the PA and millie-vanillie it. If you have to use backing tracks because your band does not a full rhythm section, vocalists and guitarist then you are not a band. I view it as live karaoke and not really a band, its just a couple of dudes playing around with backing tracks. YouTube and the guitar Forums are filled with enough of that.

 

[Schaf]

I don't have anything against using backing tracks. If it enhances the song then fine. It does take a lot more skill to play with a track than most people think.

I know there's been a lot of talk about playing with tracks lately and a lot of the big guys use them to enhance the mix. Just not BG vocals, I mean a full mix. I always get flamed over this, but it's true. My buddy went on one of those cruises as a tech and a particular band had to end their performance because the board the the tracks were run through got wet.

 

[eljodon]

My band does pretty much exactly the same set-up as Darren's band does on several of our songs. (iPod with click to drummer and some additional parts including keys and BGV's)
More so our producer's call as he does a lot of elaborate arrangements of key, string, and vocal parts (which are great) and his philosophy is that the audience wants to hear it how it is on the CD or he wants to hear it as he envisioned it which can't always be achieved with a four-piece band.

My feelings on it? Mixed. I like being able to present our sometimes grandiose stuff live while still playing and singing our asses off. (and yes, I truly believe it takes being incredibly "in the pocket" to play well with a click). There's really no other way it could be done on our budget and the stages we play on. We all sing and sing well, but the extra stuff #1: helps "fill it out" more and #2 helps it sound more like our CD. If we played or sang poorly, there's no way those tracks would "help" us.

However, I love what 100% live brings. The spontaneity. The unpredictability. The raw power. I've always loved that Queen, despite their notoriously layered studio work, would play 100% live, just the four of them (although with a touring keyboardist on later tours.) Yes, the arrangements often sounded different from the record, but I personally liked that.
I love that the classic live records often breathed and varied in tempo and arrangement from the original recordings.

I can remember seeing Lenny Kravitz live years ago. I saw his guitarist's (Craig Ross's) mouth moving, but it was totally Lenny's voice/timbre I was hearing and Lenny was nowhere near a mic. When Lenny did sing, I'd hear Lenny singing BGV too, and yes, I felt somewhat cheated.
I've heard through the grapevine of one case of a nationally known current band where the guitarist looks like he's singing backup, but his mic isn't even on!
On a different but related subject, how about the use of AutoTune LIVE these days? I happen to really like The Killers, but bought a live album of theirs and it's pretty obvious they used it on Brandon's voice. Whenever I'd see Gwen Stefani perform live on TV before, she always had poor intonation. Last performance I saw of her, she was spot on. Every note. And I know it's not cuz she's been practicing!

I draw the line with Auto tune, now that's cheating! I never use Auto tune or Melodyne on my singer's voice on our original songs or on the backing tracks that we use live. If a singer can't sing what's on the album, that person should not be on stage! Our drummer had hard time when we first starded to use the backing tracks and he's a great drummer. I have a kill switch just in case things go south. I use a MIDI pedal that I can select the song, stop or start tracks. It's cool because I don't have to look at my Lap Top at all!

 

[kasperjensen]

If you suck, you suck over a completely live band and a backing track alike.

It works if you are doing Pop, since the drummer has to keep in time, and you all have to follow an arrangement. And what the hell is wrong with that? That takes discipline and musicianship.

Do whatever is right for the gig. You are there to entertain people, so do just that. And do it the best you can. Backing tracks, harmonizers, whatever the hell it is. Just put on a show, and don't be so precious.

 

[ewill52]

Nothin' wrong with backing tracks, as with almost everything, when used in moderation. Almost every live act I've seen in the last few years had some kind of backing tracks. Just playing devil's advocate, but if I were a non-musician and I go to see my favorite band and they can't drag a gaggle of singers for harmony\choir parts or a string quartet to cover string parts I'm going to be disappointed that it didn't sound like the album.

As a player, all you gotta do is watch eljodon's vids and know he's got chops (as does the whole band).

 

[Bob Savage]

I have no problem with embellishments with backing tracks. Heck, I won't even play in a band because of the drama, schedule conflicts and such so the more people that can be replaced by clips the better.

 

[RG955TT]

But then is it live, or is it something else? Live performance is supposed to be just that, never used em in all the years I've been gigging. If you can perform all the parts as you say then why not just do that? Its fake and Kareoke band in my book. Key phrase in your OP is "live performance". It isnt really live performance if you play to prerecorded tracks now is it? Or just somewhat live? Or...? Where is the line on what is too much of it?

Dude, seriously. Nobody cares about your "book" or the performing nobility of your weekend cover band. Situations arise where the use of backing tracks is desirable or even necessary. Doesn't automatically mean the musicians are any less skilled.

First off how do you know what I do or bands I've been in? I don't give 2 shits if you don't care what I think about me or my opinion, some things in life are facts, and the fact is too much of what you hear in live bands today is canned and prerecorded and its cheating, period. And yes it has a lot to do with skill, sorry for the reality check but prerecoded tracks are just that, pre-recorded or canned,not being performed live. If nobody cares then why ask for opinions? I'm expressing my personal opinion. How do you know what kind of band I play in? I've opened for some pretty high level bands in my time (Queensryche, Allan Holdsworth, Kim Mitchell, Steve Morse band, Simon Townsend, etc etc) so maybe I'm just old school (most likely) and yes I do understand in some limited cases its neccessary (and I have used small sound effect samples triggered by the drummer in the past). BUT around here it does get seriously overused and to me (and again, to ME!) it gives a seriously unfair advantage to bands who wouldnt sound anywhere near as good without them. When 30-40% or more of what I'm hearing is canned and prerecorded (and I do give a lot of credit to the OP because he at least records his own backing tracks) it's bull shit, again, in my opinion. It must be nice to not have to really work out vocals harmonies and not have vocal rehearsals, pushing the limits of everyone in the band, singing hard parts while playing a hard part, fuck it, let the machine do it all. Or find creative ways thru effects or a harmonizer for your guitar or some other way to pull it all off. Minimal use is OK, but overused which seems to be the case these days at least around here is cheating anyway you look at it. The band is NOT performing all of what you are hearing. Why bother at all, lip synch it all and fake the guitar playing and you'll sound just like the record. I know I may be in the minority here but its how I feel. Sorry if it offends anyone but I feel the extensive use of this stuff as offensive when it makes a mediocre band sound really good with little to no real effort on their part, offensive as well when we work really hard and spend the time and effort to pull it all off without the use of bed or backing tracks. Again, just my opinion but on this topic it's a strong opinion. If I'm in competition with all of those other bands so how do you figure it doesnt give them an unfair advantage compared to a band playing/singing it all themselves? The audience doesnt know, so band A sounds better than band B to them but band A is using extensive backing tracks and isnt nearly the talent of band B yet they get credit for being a better band? It's like a lot of things these days, ok to cheat, ok to do "whatever it takes". Whatever, it won't change, bound to get worse but I like to think that all the hard work, rehearsals and years of playing live show to an audience and this dilutes the field and makes very mediocre bands sound far better than they really are. How can you not see that as deceptive and unfair to bands that do the work and/or have the talent and really great backing vocals etc because they are really that good or work at it that hard? Again, if you are in competition with these bands your opinions might be different. Or maybe we should just "join the club"? Sure would make my life easier but it just goes against the grain for me. Again, all my personal opinion and I do understand how others might feel differently depending on to what extent or how much you mix in the "band helper".

 

[Anonymous]

It also depends if the band wrote the material or not; if you're a cover band and can barely play songs you're covering, then it might be cheating. But when you perform your own songs, it's more enjoyable for the fans if the track sounds good and close to the recording. Heck, when you take a guy like Brent Hinds, who can't sing and play his parts at the same time, I'm not sure a vocal backing track would be that bad.

 

[Bob Savage]

But then is it live, or is it something else? Live performance is supposed to be just that, never used em in all the years I've been gigging. If you can perform all the parts as you say then why not just do that? Its fake and Kareoke band in my book. Key phrase in your OP is "live performance". It isnt really live performance if you play to prerecorded tracks now is it? Or just somewhat live? Or...? Where is the line on what is too much of it?

Dude, seriously. Nobody cares about your "book" or the performing nobility of your weekend cover band. Situations arise where the use of backing tracks is desirable or even necessary. Doesn't automatically mean the musicians are any less skilled.

First off how do you know what I do or bands I've been in? I don't give 2 shits if you don't care what I think about me or my opinion, some things in life are facts, and the fact is too much of what you hear in live bands today is canned and prerecorded and its cheating, period. And yes it has a lot to do with skill, sorry for the reality check but prerecoded tracks are just that, pre-recorded or canned,not being performed live. If nobody cares then why ask for opinions? I'm expressing my personal opinion. How do you know what kind of band I play in? I've opened for some pretty high level bands in my time (Queensryche, Allan Holdsworth, Kim Mitchell, Steve Morse band, Simon Townsend, etc etc) so maybe I'm just old school (most likely) and yes I do understand in some limited cases its neccessary (and I have used small sound effect samples triggered by the drummer in the past). BUT around here it does get seriously overused and to me (and again, to ME!) it gives a seriously unfair advantage to bands who wouldnt sound anywhere near as good without them. When 30-40% or more of what I'm hearing is canned and prerecorded (and I do give a lot of credit to the OP because he at least records his own backing tracks) it's bull shit, again, in my opinion. It must be nice to not have to really work out vocals harmonies and not have vocal rehearsals, pushing the limits of everyone in the band, singing hard parts while playing a hard part, fuck it, let the machine do it all. Or find creative ways thru effects or a harmonizer for your guitar or some other way to pull it all off. Minimal use is OK, but overused which seems to be the case these days at least around here is cheating anyway you look at it. The band is NOT performing all of what you are hearing. Why bother at all, lip synch it all and fake the guitar playing and you'll sound just like the record. I know I may be in the minority here but its how I feel. Sorry if it offends anyone but I feel the extensive use of this stuff as offensive when it makes a mediocre band sound really good with little to no real effort on their part, offensive as well when we work really hard and spend the time and effort to pull it all off without the use of bed or backing tracks. Again, just my opinion but on this topic it's a strong opinion. If I'm in competition with all of those other bands so how do you figure it doesnt give them an unfair advantage compared to a band playing/singing it all themselves? The audience doesnt know, so band A sounds better than band B to them but band A is using extensive backing tracks and isnt nearly the talent of band B yet they get credit for being a better band? It's like a lot of things these days, ok to cheat, ok to do "whatever it takes". Whatever, it won't change, bound to get worse but I like to think that all the hard work, rehearsals and years of playing live show to an audience and this dilutes the field and makes very mediocre bands sound far better than they really are. How can you not see that as deceptive and unfair to bands that do the work and/or have the talent and really great backing vocals etc because they are really that good or work at it that hard? Again, if you are in competition with these bands your opinions might be different. Or maybe we should just "join the club"? Sure would make my life easier but it just goes against the grain for me. Again, all my personal opinion and I do understand how others might feel differently depending on to what extent or how much you mix in the "band helper".

Dude, I hate being the grammar police but paragraphs are your friend. Quite frankly, I stopped reading after the second or third sentence.

 

[Shawn Lutz]

But then is it live, or is it something else? Live performance is supposed to be just that, never used em in all the years I've been gigging. If you can perform all the parts as you say then why not just do that? Its fake and Kareoke band in my book. Key phrase in your OP is "live performance". It isnt really live performance if you play to prerecorded tracks now is it? Or just somewhat live? Or...? Where is the line on what is too much of it?

Dude, seriously. Nobody cares about your "book" or the performing nobility of your weekend cover band. Situations arise where the use of backing tracks is desirable or even necessary. Doesn't automatically mean the musicians are any less skilled.

First off how do you know what I do or bands I've been in? I don't give 2 shits if you don't care what I think about me or my opinion, some things in life are facts, and the fact is too much of what you hear in live bands today is canned and prerecorded and its cheating, period. And yes it has a lot to do with skill, sorry for the reality check but prerecoded tracks are just that, pre-recorded or canned,not being performed live. If nobody cares then why ask for opinions? I'm expressing my personal opinion. How do you know what kind of band I play in? I've opened for some pretty high level bands in my time (Queensryche, Allan Holdsworth, Kim Mitchell, Steve Morse band, Simon Townsend, etc etc) so maybe I'm just old school (most likely) and yes I do understand in some limited cases its neccessary (and I have used small sound effect samples triggered by the drummer in the past). BUT around here it does get seriously overused and to me (and again, to ME!) it gives a seriously unfair advantage to bands who wouldnt sound anywhere near as good without them. When 30-40% or more of what I'm hearing is canned and prerecorded (and I do give a lot of credit to the OP because he at least records his own backing tracks) it's bull shit, again, in my opinion. It must be nice to not have to really work out vocals harmonies and not have vocal rehearsals, pushing the limits of everyone in the band, singing hard parts while playing a hard part, fuck it, let the machine do it all. Or find creative ways thru effects or a harmonizer for your guitar or some other way to pull it all off. Minimal use is OK, but overused which seems to be the case these days at least around here is cheating anyway you look at it. The band is NOT performing all of what you are hearing. Why bother at all, lip synch it all and fake the guitar playing and you'll sound just like the record. I know I may be in the minority here but its how I feel. Sorry if it offends anyone but I feel the extensive use of this stuff as offensive when it makes a mediocre band sound really good with little to no real effort on their part, offensive as well when we work really hard and spend the time and effort to pull it all off without the use of bed or backing tracks. Again, just my opinion but on this topic it's a strong opinion. If I'm in competition with all of those other bands so how do you figure it doesnt give them an unfair advantage compared to a band playing/singing it all themselves? The audience doesnt know, so band A sounds better than band B to them but band A is using extensive backing tracks and isnt nearly the talent of band B yet they get credit for being a better band? It's like a lot of things these days, ok to cheat, ok to do "whatever it takes". Whatever, it won't change, bound to get worse but I like to think that all the hard work, rehearsals and years of playing live show to an audience and this dilutes the field and makes very mediocre bands sound far better than they really are. How can you not see that as deceptive and unfair to bands that do the work and/or have the talent and really great backing vocals etc because they are really that good or work at it that hard? Again, if you are in competition with these bands your opinions might be different. Or maybe we should just "join the club"? Sure would make my life easier but it just goes against the grain for me. Again, all my personal opinion and I do understand how others might feel differently depending on to what extent or how much you mix in the "band helper".

Dude, I hate being the grammar police but paragraphs are your friend. Quite frankly, I stopped reading after the second or third sentence.

The board should have an auto grammar and punctuation app so it would be easier for people to post properly...why take the time for proper grammar when technology can do it for you...ya know, kinda like using backing tracks for a (not so) live performance

 

[Bob Savage]

The board should have an auto grammar and punctuation app so it would be easier for people to post properly...why take the time for proper grammar when technology can do it for you...ya know, kinda like using backing tracks for a (not so) live performance

I see what you did there!

 

[billm408]

Outside of some ambient keyboard/rhythm parts, I've never seen them done well by club/bar bands where it didn't come off badly.
To a couple of the OP's examples, my band does both Highway Star and Still Of The Night w/o keyboards and it sounds fine. IMO, if you can't pull it off live with what you've got, then don't play it. There's too many other songs to chose from. I can't imagine being on stage playing Highway Star and having Jon Lord's B3 solo coming from some invisible keyboard player!

 

[dooredge]

I love the idea of embellishments as far as backing tracks/samples go. Beyond that, I don't care for them or appreciate bands that make ab-use of them.

In the original thread that started this topic, I mentioned a couple bands that totally abused the use of backing tracks. I could clearly see the bands not playing their instruments and guitars are still bumping through the PA. That to me is a joke. The bands are all-original outfits & apparently incapable of reproducing live what they wrote in the studio.

If you wrote it and you can't play it live, stay in the studio. My $.02.

 

[rupe]

I've never used them and have no plans to anytime soon. That said, I have no problems with them as long as the musicians on stage are still playing live and doing their thing...and if that weren't the case and the "live" musicians were in fact faking something, me having a problem with it would still ultimately have zero significance. I'd still rather see the OP's band than any DJ or Karaoke performance, and I'm sure the mindless masses that constitute the majority of cover band audiences care more about how things sound than how those sounds are made. Your integrity as a musician is meaningless and worthless to the vast majority of those who show up at your shows...they simply want to be entertained at best (and there's a good chance that they're there simply for the drink special or to get laid).

As far as calling backing tracks cheating, that's outright moronic...there have to be rules for there to be cheating. Until the official gigging guidelines come out, backing tracks are just another way of doing things whether anybody likes it or not...and most audiences will probably fall into the "likes it" category.

 

[eljodon]

I love the idea of embellishments as far as backing tracks/samples go. Beyond that, I don't care for them or appreciate bands that make ab-use of them.

In the original thread that started this topic, I mentioned a couple bands that totally abused the use of backing tracks. I could clearly see the bands not playing their instruments and guitars are still bumping through the PA. That to me is a joke. The bands are all-original outfits & apparently incapable of reproducing live what they wrote in the studio.

If you wrote it and you can't play it live, stay in the studio. My $.02.

I totally agree! The funny thing is that many of the musicians that see my band have no idea about it, but I don't keep it a secret, besides the audience don't care. But I understand some people having pride in not using thme. Is hard to find good musicians that wpild join a band that plays once or twice a month. My drummer and bass player play in many other bands to make extra $$. But they love to be in our band because we have great musicians and thanks to our singer we can play almost any song we want to do.

 

[Shawn Lutz]

I always though Live music = live music, meaning every sound is performed by a group of musicians without the aid of backing tracks

OP do you have any live performances for the covers your are doing? Point being, a lot of artists themselves often don't sound just like their studio recording

 

[eljodon]

Outside of some ambient keyboard/rhythm parts, I've never seen them done well by club/bar bands where it didn't come off badly.
To a couple of the OP's examples, my band does both Highway Star and Still Of The Night w/o keyboards and it sounds fine. IMO, if you can't pull it off live with what you've got, then don't play it. There's too many other songs to chose from. I can't imagine being on stage playing Highway Star and having Jon Lord's B3 solo coming from some invisible keyboard player!

I did the B3 solo in my studio and I harmonize the classical sounding run with my guitar live. I know Jon Lord's solo on the guitar also, but we wanted to sound authentic. We're planing to do Carry on my Wayward son by Kansas and I suggested to the band to put a Love Doll by the keyboards and before the B3 solo and my singer can intoduce our new menber of our band! LOL!

 

[eljodon]

I always though Live music = live music, meaning every sound is performed by a group of musicians without the aid of backing tracks

OP do you have any live performances for the covers your are doing? Point being, a lot of artists themselves often don't sound just like their studio recording

True. But at least the audience can get an accurate representation of what they hear on the CD. I do enjoy watching bands playing raw without all that stuff they use on their recordings.For us it started as an experiment and the we started having a following because they love the way we sound. When we do a small gig were they have a bunch of bands playing, we don't use the tracks, we reserve the backing tracks for the higher paying gigs. It's like a deluxe package! lol!

 

[reverymike]

Like em or not, pro tools tracks (backing tracks) are a way of life with the big acts. So, what should it matter if local bands want to use them too. I would be very confident in saying that there are hardy ANY touring acts (national acts who get airplay, etc) who DON'T use them in some capacity. Some use them more than others (Shinedown and Sevendust come to mind). A friend of mine runs FOH for the major club in my area (it's a 1200 capacity place), and he'll tell you that every band who comes thru has some pro tools tracks used in their performance - most commonly as backing vocals or additional instrumentation).

Van Halen is a rare example these days - their keys are played live backstage, and they don't use extra tracks for anything.

 

[stratotone]

Like em or not, pro tools tracks (backing tracks) are a way of life with the big acts. So, what should it matter if local bands want to use them too. I would be very confident in saying that there are hardy ANY touring acts (national acts who get airplay, etc) who DON'T use them in some capacity. Some use them more than others (Shinedown and Sevendust come to mind). A friend of mine runs FOH for the major club in my area (it's a 1200 capacity place), and he'll tell you that every band who comes thru has some pro tools tracks used in their performance - most commonly as backing vocals or additional instrumentation).

Van Halen is a rare example these days - their keys are played live backstage, and they don't use extra tracks for anything.

I know for awhile the offstage keyboard player for Van Halen was the guy from Night Ranger. You know, the dude who appeared in their videos about 1/10th as much time as the other members and wore shades and some sort of hat all the time.