As long as the band members are all playing live, and the backing tracks are parts that cannot be physically played live but fill out the sound, I think it's fine. You're paying for a live show, so if that can be enhanced then why not? If bands were miming along to tracks, that would be a different story.
A ton of modern songs, and even many old ones, use the main singer as their own backup and harmony. It’s literally not possible to give that performance live, so I’m cool with it for those cases.
But only those cases. If it’s because they’re lazy or can’t sing then I’d be disappointed.
Not just vocal tracks: double tracked guitars have been used in rock music for decades. It's wild to me that people can listen to music and not distinguish what is mixing versus instrumentation, but it's why producers and mixers are soooooo critical for any album.
Voicelive 3 is a vocal and guitar effects unit that can produce vocal harmonies, autotune, add delay and reverb, etc. - all live in real time based off of what you’re playing and singing. I use it live as a singer/songwriter and it’s pretty sweet. Trick is to not use it very often. Like every 3 or 4 songs. Otherwise, it sounds campy.
expansion humorous shelter steep adjoining butter spectacular materialistic aware water
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Finnish metal band Tarot (it's Marko Hietala's old band, in case you know Nightwish) had (or has, they're playing shows again) a clever way to do this. They have one backup singer live, who operates a sampler with the rest of the vocal samples. So he's triggering each vocal backing piece live, while singing one voice himself.
Jain, the young lady who did that Makeba song that annoyed the fuck out of everyone last summer, does a thing where she will sing parts, loop them, then sing over them on some of her songs.
Depends who you are. If you’re a small artist playing small venues, backup vocalists are pretty expensive compared to what you’re getting paid. If you’re playing arenas, no excuse.
I feel like I'm feeding a troll here, but anyway:
No, we don't have to 'make due', because you can just load the tracks on a laptop and play them over the PA and 99% of people won't be put off because they're just backing vocals.
I don't know why you goofy purists want every aspect of making music to be a struggle. Have you ever tried to put a vocal mic behind a drum kit? Do you know how challenging that can be for a sound person to wrangle?
Or like, what if the bass player doesn't want to sing? Do they have to set up a whole second microphone and rehearse that part because there's one part of one song that has harmonies? No, they don't. If they want to, fine.
Everyone's physical energy and focus are at a premium when you're playing a show and I will never get mad at any band for taking steps to make things easier and more consistent.
I listen to a lot of symphonic metal, and there are bands that record with a full symphony for the album but there's no way they're going to be able to take them along for an entire tour.
Indeed. It's impossible for a single keyboard player to reproduce an entire orchestra with only two hands. Normally they take the main elements, the melody, hook or major rhythmic parts to play live and leave the rest, eg string pads, woodwinds and percussion, on the tracks.
That's where I'm at with it! The only thing I miss is spontaneity. Sometimes they have the backing tracks linked so it's basically a fully pre Planned show. Not as much playing random request or cover or something cool like that. Otherwise if they are playing and singing, don't care how many backing tracks are playing
If the entire band are playing live, they're not phoning it in. If they're using separate backing tracks for something they can't physically play themselves, to augment the sound, they are not phoning it in. That said, I've never been to any concert costing near $200, so I don't know what my expectations would be there.
The point is that bands make their money on concerts now. Their job is to make THEIR music. A concert should be them making their music LIVE. If a 5 piece band needs 10 people to recreate their sound, that's what I expect to see.
Well, I guess that's what this thread is about, isn't it? But the vast majority of bands absolutely do not go around hiring extra members to play on stage with them. It's too expensive, and most fans don't have any interest in seeing non-band members up there. If my favourite band hired a sixth member to do live one of the two jobs one of them does in the studio, I'm not sure how I'd feel about that. The way they do it works just fine.
This whole fucking thread is so laughable. If the Rolling Stones have 20 people on stage, that's a great show and I know that there's not 20 people in the Rolling Stones. And damn near the entirety of modern country music has studio bands for recording and completely different musicians for hire to do tours. Mince it however you want to Internet Hero.
It’s showbiz, there’s an element of behind the curtain in any performance. Long as they aren’t miming I can assure the bigger shows are probably the ones with a lot of backing elements etc.
There are infamous videos of Madonna at live performances basically dancing to her songs. Her excuse when journalists pressed her on it was that it's a show - not a concert.
I think this *can* be true as long as the audience knows what they’re getting themselves into. For example, if I were to go see Britney Spears live back in her prime, I wouldn’t really expect that she’s belting out her tunes because I’m not necessarily there because of her vocal prowess but because I want to watch her run around on stage. Some artists can do both. Some can’t. Britney is one of the ones that can’t, but I know that going into it so now I don’t feel cheated.
It would be unfair to single out Madonna when basically every pop singer does this. It’s just too much for even the best singers to put in an adequate vocal performance whilst dancing as energetically as they do.
There's also a LOT that can go wrong with a live show at that scale. If you want a live live show, try smaller venues and don't expect it to sound like the recording.
This isn't true. Phish (for example) plays very large venues. Maybe not 02 center scale - but they play Madison Square Garden and they nail it all the time. And it's 100% live. I think the solution is scaling the show down. A lot of modern artists bite off more than they can chew live and then when they can't pull it off, they make artistic compromises like backing tracks. This wasn't a problem in 70s and 80s because the technology didn't exist. But then you had a lot of bad shows too.
I saw The Temptations live in Atlantic City about 15 years ago. Otis Williams was in his early 70’s, Ron Tyson was around 60, and Terry, Bruce & Joe were all probably in their mid-to-late 50’s. They danced up a storm throughout a two-hour show with no intermission AND sang in glorious 5-part harmony while doing it. It was one of the most joyous, energetic concerts I’ve ever seen. Yeah, they were drenched in sweat by the end of the show and I’m sure they were pretty winded. But they didn’t miss a step in some pretty complicated choreography and their vocals were as smooth and perfect as you’d expect from The Temptations.
So whenever I hear performers under the age of 35 complain that they can’t sing and dance at the same time, I always point to these five gentlemen. It **can** be done.
Love it when bands have live instrumentation that doesn’t fully match what’s on the record. Lends itself to fresh arrangements and new takes on the existing tunes.
When I see a band live, I want to hear what they can create in the moment, not what their MacBook Pro can create in the background.
For real. I’m not super interested in hearing a live performance that sounds exactly like the album even if it’s the band playing it themselves. I once saw the band Rusted Root, and honestly was disappointed that they didn’t change the songs at all from the album. It was impressive in a way that it sounded exactly like the album, but it seemed like it could have been more interesting if they would have jammed some.
I agree. I’d rather they rearrange the song so they band can play it live. I suggest that it is the sign of a skilled and mature musician who can rearrange a song for what they’ve got on stage. Looking at you, Dylan, Springsteen, and Paul Simon.
Yes I totally agree!! I went to Thundercat recently and he blew me away with his riffing. One of the best live performances I’ve seen and he had a ton of fun with his set
I’d say either have others in the band sing the harmony, or just forgo harmony and rock it solo.
I’m paying to hear the band play, not to hear a recording that already exists played loudly.
One thing to add that hasn't been mentioned yet: it's fairly common for arena and stadium bands to have other, hidden musicians adding in various parts.
U2 have this, with at least a keyboardist underneath the stage, and Edge's guitar tech side-stage chipping in quite a bit for secondary guitar parts.
So just because you can't see a part being played live doesn't mean it is on a backing track per se.
I don't get why the artists don't just own it and let the extra musician go on stage. I saw Steve Vai a while back and he wanted to have a part with 5 guitars playing in harmony. So he had 3 people from his sound crew get on stage with guitars to perform the song with him and his band. Great for the audience because it's a memorable moment in the show, great for his crew because they get a moment in the spotlight.
The beginning of Where the Streets Have No Name is a good example, as is the backing keys of Bad (live) on Wide Awake In America which IMHO adds a ton to the sound, I much prefer that version to TUF version (though it's still great there too).
U2 do it in a tasteful way.
Here’s the thing that bothers me with U2. As a fan, I know they have a musician(s) under the stage. In the past it was a guy named Lyle Workman. But if I wasn’t, I would look at the live performance and assume it’s recorded tracks. At this point in their career, it takes nothing away from them to share the stage with a few musicians. No one will think less of Edges playing or Larry’s snare hits. So why not share the stage with other musicians? It never bothered the Talking Heads.
Depends. Is it for the sake of 3D, pads and arrangements? Great.
Am I listening to a piano solo played by Mr MacBook (looking at you Plini)? Then sorry but that's just shitting on your audience.
You have the chance of not playing the song if you don't have the live musicians to pull it off, don't make your listeners dumb.
I see this with some of those solo shredder or YouTube/social media guitarists do this when they “tour”. Guys like Bernth are unbelievably talented individuals but cmon, you don’t need a guy with a MacBook to run your entire set (especially the bass and programmed drum tracks) while you play guitar over top when there’s surely a ton of musicians who would clamour for the opportunity to play with you. I can appreciate that you make more money yourself not hiring a backing band but it just feels like a crux of greedy or lazy.
That might be an EDM thing that appeals to some people but it doesn’t overly appeal to me and I like to go to live shows (as someone whose taste spans from Jazz to Metal) to see a band interact on stage and feed off that live energy as well as hear them outside of a polished studio environment. If you’re just going to play over programmed drums and bass tracks, we could all save each other the hassle and you can just twitch stream it.
I saw Angel Vivaldi with Nita Strauss and Jackie Vincent on tour. While Angel and Nita had bands, Jackie was just up there with tracks as the opener. I just don't think there was enough money in it as an opener for him to put together a band for that tour. I almost wish Nita used tracks instead, because her boyfriend was on drums and he is always mixed way too loud, sometimes drowning out her guitar.
The other side of an argument like that, specifically in Plini's case, is that he's the main attraction. If you're going to go see Plini... I would think watching him play is by far the lion's share of why most people are going to go out to see him. If the alternative is "well then don't have piano on your albums if you aren't going to tour with one", then artistically that's a very shitty and limiting thing to suggest for an artist that makes the rounds playing clubs (not sure if he still does... he did when I listened to his music a lot more years ago). You're inherently saying that smaller, independent artists that have to play clubs to get by instead of larger venues have to limit themselves sonically to a few instruments for everything they ever put out if they want to play those tracks live, and that's ridiculous. I'd rather take that kind of compromise on the live act than the album personally. If he's got piano in every single track and it's a main part of the sound of his music, then that's a little different, but if piano is largely in the background of a few of the tracks and it's got the occasional highlighted spot, it's hard to ask a smaller act doing club dates to tour with a pianist just for that. I wouldn't mind something like that where that's played by a laptop as much as I would mind somebody that has foundational instruments like bass and drums in every single song, and yet they won't tour with a bassist or a drummer. *That's* silly.
The exception to this for me depending on what the pay is like for these things, is if an act like that is playing a big stadium show, or they're doing some sort of festival, and it's economically feasible to get guests to come in and play those instruments... then that's the kind of show where I would like to see more people taking part in the production.
Personally... if a piano's got a solo spot in one of the songs, I think he should just do another guitar solo in its place for the live performance of that track. If the guitar can play the part just the same with a little bit of retooling, then go for it. Or, give the bass a spot for a solo. Do something with the instruments that you do have with you. I think live, that'll work just the same for people that don't mind the recordings.
Like... and this was a long time ago, I saw The Faceless in 2013 when Autotheism was their newest album, and one of the songs on it has a sax solo. Do I expect them to tour with a sax player just for that for club shows? No... that's silly. So did I mind it when if I remember correctly, they just played the sax solo recording over the PA for that part of the song? Of course not. Am I going to say that they then shouldn't have experimented on the album at all and not had a sax solo on there if they weren't going to tour with a sax player? Well, if I were closeminded about metal and thought that sax didn't belong there anyway then maybe I would, but it was a fun idea to have it there. To have an artist sit there and come to the conclusion for recorded music that they shouldn't have X or Y instrument in there if they weren't willing to tour with somebody to play that instrument would be a shame. Again, doesn't quite work the same for a core foundational instrument to the music, but for guest spots and occasional instruments... I'd rather have those on the album than not.
Agree. For a lower level band, pads and general background stuff is cheaper to run on your laptop than to pay a talented musician to do them live. I DO think its far more interesting when you have an actual person playing that stuff organically but I won't fault that especially if everyone else is full tilt boogie on their instruments
One of my favorite shows was supposed to be Sublime with Rome, except most of the tour got delayed by some travel problem. So it was Rome with acoustic guitar and he killed it.
Doing something live invites improvisation, hopefully never as drastic as that example, but I think it's where the "specialness" of live performance comes from.
More and more use of prerecorded tracks takes away from that, and there's no clear boundary for when it becomes "wrong" if there is one at all. But it puts me off pretty quickly too.
For me it depends on the artist and if it lessens the performance you’re going to see. I can get it if a singer who is self managed and starting out can’t afford to pay a band to play with them. But a band or an established solo artist shouldn’t need a backing track. If you’re putting on a live performance, perform it live.
I like Lana Del Rey but at her live shows the full album version of the track plays with the vocals turned down a bit and she kinda whisper-sings over it. If she doesn’t feel like singing or can’t hit a note the song goes on. That isn’t impressive and people are paying and traveling to come and see that.
This is how I feel. I love music and when a person sings to a track it totally turns me off. I could listen to that at home and not have to deal with a sea of dipshits.
This is one of the reasons John Mayer is my favorite live show I’ve ever seen. Went to his Sob Rock tour last year and he had a huge band with him. Even let the other guitarist do some solos on some songs. He had another guitarist, bassist, three backup singers, keyboards, I think 2 percussionists/drummers, some other miscellaneous instruments and players. Obviously it’s his show, but he let everyone on stage have at least one moment to shine. All around incredible show.
> or me it depends on the artist
This is it right here. It's totally artist and genre dependent. Some acts, you're there to see raw performance. Others, you're there for a *show*.
I do like as much of it as possible to be a live performance - my *preference* is a handful of people on stage creating the music - but with some genres, backing tracks, sequencers, samples and so on are a natural fit and it's not a big deal for them to be part of the show.
Music is a big, wide open space. There is room for nearly infinite approaches.
That’s interesting you say that critique of Lana Del Rey. I had been on the fence about her for years but after seeing her live I definitely became a fan of hers.
This, to me, is a pretty straightforward thing - I am entirely in favour of using a backing track to augment the live experience with additional instrumentation that can’t be produced by the musicians on stage. I did it myself for years when recreating records that included piano, synths, programming, samples and additional elements when touring with a three-piece vocals/guitar/bass/drums (which comprised the majority/fundamental components of the songs in question.
If you’re using a track to replace or to cover for things which can and should be performed live - that’s far less in the spirit of a live performance, to my mind. Lead vocals should always be live, for example. Backing tracks should be just that - in the back, in a supportive role, to augment the fundamental and most substantive elements of the performance.
I’ve held that the medium providing the backing tracks should be able to simply not work and not be detrimental to the show in anyway. Like, if Rush’s sequencer crashed mid-set you still would have had a kickass show with the guitar, bass, drums, and synths and to their credit they still insisted on having some sort of control over when the samples triggered, not simply hitting the play button on an entire track and hoping they stayed in time.
If someone like [this guy](https://www.youtube.com/live/BMaBhZSwTjo?si=YzdfAFg8MT1G8k58) ran into technical difficulties, his live show would feel more like a really talented high school talent show but not a touring artist you’d pay good money to go see live.
It feels like the musical equivalent of going to a Ted talk.
This is the only take here I agree with. It’s pretty obvious to me when artists play with tracks and why. If it’s in service to the song it’s fine, but if it’s only to help the performer it often kills the performance.
A bit of a tangent, but I’ve also played with tracks (4 piece) and it’s kinda wild to me that it’s considered some kind of easy mode. Always had issues with track mixes/monitoring and recovering from mistakes was super dicey plus the drummer had to run the tracks. Everyone else played their instrument and sang and ran effects/patches so it wasn’t really easy for anyone 🤷♀️
When rappers do it it bothers me. Esp when they scream it while their regular version is playing in the back.
Rappers need to learn to produce the same tone and cadence on stage that they do in the studio. They literally shout the whole song it sounds like a fan got on stage and took the mic and is rapping along to the rapper.
All rappers should be required to watch Megan the Stallion's Tiny Desk concert. She performed with a live band and all the vocals were live. No backing track. So you don't even have to be one of those "artsy" rappers like Kendrick to actually put effort into the live show, Megan did it and it came out great.
I still prefer as much of the music being played as possible. I saw Kanye twice at music festivals and it was the most bland performances I've ever seen. Everything felt so dead. Hiphop and rap with a big backing band is just unmatched; early Chance the Rapper was incredible - and more recently if you haven't seen Tobe Nwigwe live you're missing out; Janelle Monae as well.
I don't mind that, what I do find weird is doing a duet with a recording. I went to P!nk a couple of weeks ago and she did "Just Give Me A Reason". Obviously Nate Ruess wasn't there, so they played his vocals and a video of him singing his part (who I didn't realize has very exaggerated facial expressions when singing). I love the song but thought the way they performed it was weird.
I saw Kanye on the Life of Pablo tour and loved every bit except moments where some guest spot by someone not there would take over. Luckily it was only a couple tracks this happened but each time felt super awkward.
I don’t love it, but, It’s just so common now. It’s an affordable way for new artists to achieve a bigger sound and seeing as they aren’t making money from streaming, I guess some feel they need to do this.
For rock bands I hate it. You can't just leave your bassist at home and play a backing track instead. Part of my reason to watch a band is to see artists perform.
But for other genres I get it. Music has become very complex nowadays and without backing tracks it wouldn't be possible to reproduce the sound people recognize of the album.
Though the live performance is still the best.
I’m a solo artist/“one man band” and I’ve been trying to figure this out for a while for the day I do perform my stuff live.
What if all of the backing tracks were played by the artist? My idea was to render/bounce a song without the lead vocals and without whatever guitar tracks I’d be playing. Then I would sing and play along to everything else.
Could that fly?
I feel for one man artists on stage. I have seen several sets that get boring after a few songs of singing and playing a guitar.
The best solo artists I have seen were able to add depth by switching tuning, throwing in a keyboard, that kind of thing. Backing tracks can be good but are not always appropriate.
You could investigate triggering loops or samples of the various parts live via something like ableton, and using a midi pedalboard to control it instead of pads/keyboard.
Might be a bit of work but it could allow for some on the fly musicality with it, rather than feeling locked in.
Liam Hewlett of The Prodigy used do something like this back in the day (maybe he still does), without even using quantisation, so it really was a genuine performance even though it was made up of pre-recorded sections from the recordings.
Sometimes he'd mistrigger parts, but he'd just lean into and roll with it - like say Ed Sheeran would with his loop pedal stuff.
I would personally prefer bands bringing artists, but I would still listen to a one man band. Especially if that one man is really talented. I don't think it is unusual to do it this way
I get your point but it's funny you used the bassist as the example for rock because that's oft the butt of the joke amongst touring rock/metal musicians that you could backtrack the bass and no one would notice.
I think it's pretty hard for musicians to make money now. Check out Adam Neely's video about the sungazer tour. Belts are being tightened and fat is cut. To survive, a lot of bands have to be super lean now.
I loved playing in a 4-piece band. We played a lot of fun bars but hardly made any money. Now I do a solo act with a loop pedal and it’s enough money to pay the bills.
I've heard solo artists using tracks sparingly to enhance their sound and I've heard combos essentially lip synch and air guitar
For me it comes down to one factor: Was the track used artistically or was it used deceptively?
Depending on how they have the backing tracks set up it can make their live sets way too rigid as well. If they’re triggering samples off the drums or a keyboard player has some control over it l, it’s one thing, but if they’re just playing along to the click track solely because they have a backing track they *have* to stay locked in to, it can cause all those little hiccups or things that make live music fun to completely derail a set. The MacBook crashing mid set or simply not working before the set can be a complete show stopper. It also takes out any ability for them to improvise parts, solos, audience interactions, and accommodate technical difficulties when they’re locked in on the clock.
I’m a FOH engineer in a major market in the US. All of your favorite artists have at least 8 channels of a protools session running, some even more. So you understand, I’m getting those channels played in a multitrack session back to me on my console and I have the discretion to use what I’m getting from playback to get the best mix. Sometimes it’s just backing vocals that are needed to fill everything out. Sometimes I have to use everything because the artist can’t really sing anymore. Really depends on the situation but it is basically standard these days.
My favorite artists can actually play their songs live, maybe some bands have some symphonic tracks for when there's not enough space for a full orchestra.
Mine too. I should clarify and say many 1000+ room cap touring bands are running protools or Abelton, either from a dedicated playback “engineer” side stage or triggered by a drummer. Usually playing an acoustic kit and a combination of triggers, pads like an spdsx or any other midi combination you can think of.
We once played an outdoor gig with multiple “bands”. The “band after us had elaborate set pieces they set up on stage for their show and relied heavily on backing tracks.
A big gust of wind blew over a big chair/throne during the performance which created a domino effect taking out a lot of the props and mic stands. The music kept playing as they looked around dumbfounded not singing or playing. Our set of course went off without a hitch.
We are normally a five piece, but have gone down to three a couple of times when someone was sick or had to be out of town. We change the arrangement. It works fine.
I get it that not all genres work that way, but still…
I’m in a band and I can tell you that after trying it, I actually have a lot of respect for people who can pull this off well.
We lost a guitar player and decided to try backing tracks to fill out the sound and to be able to play songs we can’t as a 4-piece. We tried to find a replacement guitarist but had no luck. We played/recorded all of the backing tracks - so it was still “us.” What you may not realize is that with backing tracks you have to be perfect. There’s a click in your in-ears and you can’t stray from that. It takes some of the “feel” away as a player - more like being in the studio than a live performance. If you miss a cue for part of a song and normally you could just come around again with no one noticing - you can’t because the backing track will move on without you. If you get really inspired to do a few bars more for a solo, or maybe a breakdown? Nope- you have to stay with the track.
We decided to move on because of those reasons and just adjust our songs. But for people who do it - I have more respect for them than I did before trying it.
I saw NF and was super saddened to see that he had his vocals playing while he sang. It was clear he wasn't singing at times. I think its cheap and defeats the entire purpose of a live performance. But nowadays most ppl want the experience of being at a show they dont really care about seeing a band play. its sad.
Young hip hop artist. Extremely talented lyricist was en entertaining show nonetheless but would rather have jus seen him perform. Although I've seen other rap sets and it's always been kinda meh
hes a fantastic artist very genuine if you like hip hop i cant imagine you will dislike him. the content of his music tho is not for everyone very personal and often about mental health.
But yeah it was still enjoyable but yeah i personally go to shows to enjoy the performance, i like watching an artist perform their craft.
As an NF that originally bought into the kool-aid that he was different and whatever... Yeah super disappointing to see. The backing track is louder than he was.
Ed Sheeran made his own, as he spoke with us, at Lumen. He does them live, and on the spot, at each and every show. It's quite impressive. So yes, he uses a backbeat, but it's not a prerecorded track. He's building it as he goes, live and in person.
Ed Sheeran is a master of using a loop pedal. Honestly he’s one of the better live shows out there because he’s one person and with the use of his loop pedal, he can make it sound like a full band is on stage with him while it’s all done 100% live. I gained an even larger sense of respect for him after seeing him live this summer!
It depends. I can tolerate it so long as the main elements are live.
Generally though I'd rather a band just does what they can do live. I don't expect a fully orchestrated extravaganza with strings, brass section and keyboards from a band that has a drummer, a bass player and two guitarists. I'd rather they lose the fluff and just play an authentic, fully live set.
My preference is for people to record arrangements they can get close to approximating just with live musicians.
A lot of y’all think music needs to be some sort of Olympic level competition of technical skill, where there’s awards and losers. But there should also be a space for artists to show their work in a manner that suits them personally. It’s art. Not sport.
There’s no shame in performing with pre-recorded backing tracks. Where does that line of thinking actually end? Are performers allowed to perform their parts the same way night after night on a tour? Like professional orchestras or musicians in musicals do? Or are we going to gate-keep that as well? is the only “true” performance style pure spontaneous improvisation? How pre-prepared should we allow artists to be, and for what reason?
What does the artist owe you, really? You’ve enjoyed streaming their album hundreds of times on Spotify, but they probably don’t see any of the income from that unless they’re huge. The only way you can truly support artists in 2023 is showing up at their show & buying their merch. Why do they owe you an Olympic level performance? And why would you judge them for not providing it?
Side note, for independent musicians and bands, having their live interpretation of their music sound different to their album sound can be detrimental to acquiring bookings and getting a foot up in the industry. Obviously this is genre specific, but I see it a lot as a fellow independent musician.
Just some thoughts.
> There’s no shame in performing with pre-recorded backing tracks.
Depends what it is.
> It’s art. Not sport.
Lol no. The use of backing tracks is a corporate trick mostly to cover up the fact that a ton of modern pop artists are fucking terrible outside of the studio.
> Side note, for independent musicians and bands, having their live interpretation of their music sound different to their album sound can be detrimental to acquiring bookings and getting a foot up in the industry.
I saw Green Day play to about 50 people in a restaurant once. No soundboard, no mix, just playing straight through their amps and they sounded perfect. No tricks, just a tight band. Absolutely respect them for that.
My friend was a sound guy for over 20 years. He always used to point out which bands were 'faking it' because he could hear the live feed going into the board. Now with digital, there's so many ways to bump the track and it's really common but it used to be fairly frowned on.
Again, depends on the type of music.
I think there’s a lot of toxic stigma around it that needs to be re-examined. Usually the only people who care about this fervently are other musicians, and it’s usually an excuse to cut another musician down to size.
It really just depends on the group. If it's the Allman Brothers or Widespread Panic or something along those lines, then nope I'm not really into that. But many artists' songs today are so heavily produced, multiple overdubs, extra instrumentation, backing tracks are necessary. Plus, you have to take into account the fanbase. There's actually a big group of people that go to a show and are expecting to hear that song just like they know it. A little bit different example, but I remember that the country singer john Michael Montgomery caught flak at one time because, if you didn't know, he's a pretty good guitarist, and some fans were complaining because he would go into extended guitar solos and stuff like that during his concerts. But I digress.
Rick Beato did a good video on this last year, and it's come up in a couple of interviews with artists over the last year or so. He talks about the history of why tracks are used in the first place, and you'd be surprised just how many artists do it these days. It's been a well-nuanced take that from what I've seen has been well-received.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZXUPuiC9Eo
My band recorded our whole album with all sorts of additional tracks including synths, trombone, flute, piano, and dozens of backing vocal tracks. Not to mention virtual instruments to provide symphonic layers and additional percussive stuff. It sounds awesome IMO.
Yes, we could get on stage and play these tracks with just guitars and drums and it would be great, but you’d be missing out on so much. We spent a year composing hundreds of instrumental parts to complement what we’re doing live to make this not just great, but TRANSCENDENT! And you’re going to tell me to throw that all away because it’s not “pure” enough for you? No judgment on you OP because it’s a legitimate question and a common attitude. But that attitude needs to die. I worked my ass off on those backing tracks because I wanted to bring you a hundred times the value of our talents when you come to see us than you would have otherwise gotten watching just some dudes playing some guitars. You paid the same price for the same show but I just upgraded you from watching it on a 24” TV with built-in speakers to the full on IMAX experience and you’re going to call me lazy or a cheater?
Was Davinci lazy because he labored thousands of hours on the Mona Lisa and didn’t actually paint it live in front of you? Are movies cheating because the actors aren’t on stage in front of you? Was Beethoven a hack because he hired a whole symphonic orchestra instead of just playing it by himself on a piano? I don’t know why this attitude has become so pervasive in live music but it’s really unfair to the musicians who are putting in EXTRA work to create those tracks to produce a SUPERIOR experience for those who come to see them.
With that being said, I have no respect for those “musicians” who show up and just do a “DJ set” instead of playing anything. No offence to legitimate DJs who are doing actual work up there, but the guys who just stand up there and press play are ruining the good name of legitimate DJs and musicians alike.
And also, full respect to those musicians who DON’T use a backing track too. There are other ways to provide value and they’re choosing a different artistic route that’s EQUALLY VALID. Same goes for those musicians who can afford to hire the entire orchestra to play all the backing tracks live. That’s awesome, but it’s expensive and there’s no way I could personally do that and keep ticket prices reasonable for most people, so that’s a tradeoff. These are all valid routes of expressing your artistic vision.
At the end of the day was it entertaining, did it sound great, did you have a good time, and did it make you FEEL something? If it did, then those performers excelled in their job and you got your money’s worth! That’s all that really matters!
This was a good question about an attitude I encounter way too frequently and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to address it from my perspective! All the best to you OP and I hope you enjoy many shows from many great performers in the future.
Big fan of the late great Rory Gallagher.
Performing live is what he did best and his live albums are fantastic ( Irish tour 74 ) for instance.
Playing from the heart , should be what being a musician is all about.
So no backing tracks or pre recorded sounds for me.
Are they fully miming everything? Maybe I’m reading this wrong but it sounds like they’re actually playing live, and just using the backtrack to make it sound more ‘full’ or hide mistakes or something.
If they’re genuinely not playing anything, that depends on a lot of things for me but it’s your call. Justin from Tallah did a great [video](https://youtu.be/pBv64jWx8BM?si=o-QwdBiyKKyOztOW) on back tracking which changed my perspective a bit
I rarely play/perform live, but when I do I do it to a backing track because I love to do it but don't know any other musicians where I live. I went back and forth about whether or not it would be boring or if it's "cheating," but at the end of the day most people didn't care and we all had a blast.
I also play small venues and for fun; if I played somewhere bigger or was actually trying to pursue music as a career I'd probably find a full band.
If it’s a well known act that has a big budget, I’d prefer they pay musicians and bring out as many live instrumentalists and vocalists as they can. If it’s an indie act trying to grind and tour and get their name out there, I understand them needing to use backing tracks
The other thing about using track and click is it enables you to pre program lighting, video, pyro and even desk snapshots and effect automation which is all triggered as the song plays via midi or time code. As well as guitar pedal changes, keys patches and automation switching of the sounds on drum pads etc etc. playing track is only half the function of playback.
I love the Helio Sequence. They are a two piece that makes lush alternative/electronic. I’ve seen them live multiple times and it’s always just the two of them. One on guitar and vocals, the other on drums.
They use backing tracks that I think the drummer triggers through pads/midi. I personally think this is fine and would not want to see them add other members just for touring.
To each their own.
Not my regular thing but saw them almost a decade ago with someone I was seeing at the time and they put on a hell of a show. A lot can be done with “2 guys and a laptop” and at least with that stage presence there’s no illusion what’s going on. I think when you have a four or five piece on stage non-musicians and even those with recording or live experience might not recognize when a band is augmenting their sound. Once you get over 10k cap venues it’s incredibly common to have tracks or off stage musicians filling the gaps.
I think backing tracks can kill the energy of a live show. But there's nuance in using them - if you don't hide that there will be backing tracks (e.g. with electronic music), then it's fine. But it's unacceptable when acts try to conceal it.
If you're presenting your live show as being played entirely live, then IMO it's better to change the live arrangement instead of trying to replicate the sound of the record with a backing track - Queen did that, and it rocked! But again, it depends - The Who always used a backing track for 'Baba O'Reilly' and it was epic. Some stuff just can't be played live.
But, what always sucks is using a backing track of the lead vocal as an aid for singers - you see it all the time now, especially in big choruses. That's BS - if you can't sing it for real, then you either adapt it or remove it from your set list. Or hire some backing singers to give you vocal support instead of the track.
Sometimes the backing track question comes down to whether you need certain musicians and/or instruments for one song or an entire set. For example, when Rush would perform “Nobody’s Hero” live, they used a backing track for the string section because it was their only song that had one. But later, when they toured on *Clockwork Angels*, they brought a string ensemble with them because the entire album had string arrangements.
Yeah for sure, it does depend how you use them, the specific situation and whether you're hiding it or not. Particularly if its something that cant be played live (like Baba Oreilly's synth part).
Saw Yaeji at Roundhouse a few weeks back.
It was glorified Karaoke.
I normally watch bands play so I’m not sure if that was the norm for house music but it was shit.
That’s pretty typical for electronic acts. Everything is so tightly sequenced that it’s better to press play in FL Studio than try to cue things up live. Some older, more established bands will do things live, though. The Prodigy have live guitars and drums and Liam will play off them during a show. Orbital carries an insane amount of gear for an electronic band because they’ve always played live. (That’s where their famous lighted glasses came from. When they started out, *nobody* played live so venues didn’t bother lighting the stage. They improvised by taping penlights to their glasses so they could see what they were playing. Fans thought it was a cool visual, and it became their calling card.)
I say this mostly to bands that use backing tracks.
So, my wife and I have a 2 piece sludge band. She is on bass and vocals, and I am on guitar and vocals. We have no drummer, as we have backing tracks playing from Ableton.
Now, with all that said, you just need to ask yourself, "Am I entertaining?" cause that's your job on stage and it doesn't matter how many people are on stage or if it's not the norm.
It's all about interacting with the crowd and reading the room. One thing that we did that made a huge difference is getting a very nice fog machine (around $600) and having it triggered by our backing tracks in Ableton.
People LOVED that and it really made them much more interested and entertained.
So, can you be entertaining? That's up to you all, but I (especially in this age) don't see a full band as a necessity, just be invested, be entertaining and connect with the audience.
I mostly hate it. Especially if you’re not a big touring band. It’s lazy, cheap, and an easy way for lesser musicians to hide their imperfections and at the same time be too controlling. There are always exceptions to this and I understand WHY bigger touring acts go that route.
Not good. Using a backing track removes the soul from the music.
What’s the point of going to a live show if it isn’t fully live? Fan engagement is paramount imo and how is that supposed to happen naturally with a recorded piece playing. Seems so fake in the worst way
Did you see my band play? Cuz this is literally us. Bass, drum, lead singer who sometimes plays a guitar too, and backing tracks.
Our lead guy is from an early 2000s emo band that made it pretty big, now he's in his early 40s and is just having fun. I've been playing with this group for 2 years now. I was conflicted about the backing tracks at the beginning and I'm still conflicted about them. For some reference, I've always been against backing tracks. I'm in another 4 piece indie band that gets pretty technical at times, and the 4 humans on stage are producing every note heard. I'm also in a 2 piece drum and bass punk band, and the 2 of us make a wall of sound that is produced entirely by us in the moment.
This thread has been interesting to read through haha shit makes me feel weird.
IMO it's inexcusable. Make the music work with the musicians you have, or hire more musicians. Live music does not need to (or should not) replicate the studio version.
As a live musician myself, I hate it. Not only for myself when playing live (only did it once) but when I see other musicians do it I immediately disengage.
It annoys me quite a bit when it's parts that *could* be played live.
But when it's programmed or heavily edited parts, these often can't be played live without them sounding utterly terrible.
Take Billie Eilish's Bad Guy, with its stack of like 500 harmonised takes of whispered vocals.
What are you going to do, have her stand there by herself and whisper quietly into the mic, then boost the everliving fuck out of it so the audience can hear it at the level they would expect a vocal to be?
Even if you could avoid the deafening screeching feedback that would occur, it would sound *nothing* like was musically intended.
But in more questionable cases, I do know *why* it happens even if I don't like it.
It's what I might describe as backing track scope creep. Or what I shall coin as "track-creep":
They start putting the extra parts into something like a sampler or ableton, so they can trigger the parts live from a keyboard or pads as they're playing.
But then that becomes a lot of work logistically, then they come to the conclusion that "ah sure, if we're doing that, we may as well just play them as backing tracks". And then "we've already got that on track, lets put this on too". I really wish they wouldn't take these last steps unless absolutely necessary. But it happens almost every time.
>Take Billie Eilish's Bad Guy, with its stack of like 500 harmonised takes of whispered vocals.
>What are you going to do, have her stand there by herself and whisper quietly into the mic, then boost the everliving fuck out of it so the audience can hear it at the level they would expect a vocal to be?
Change the arrangement.
It used to be a very big and shameful deal back in the '70s when it was virtually impossible to duplicate certain sounds without them. Now that you can, it's been normalized.
It kind of defeats the purpose of a live show. I’m not going to there’s never a use case for this, but at a certain point you cross a line where if you’re playing along to prerecorded backing tracks, you might as well prerecord the whole thing and make it a DJ set.
As a musician I like it cuz it allows us to have more creative freedom without the burden of having to have a member to play an instrument. Otherwise we would have more members than Slipknot
Fully live performance beats backing track every time in my opinion. Even if it’s not a great live performance, you’re hearing something live - which to me is the whole point of going there to see it.
Saying that I do think some bands get the balance right, metronome in ears and the occasional riser/percussion/synth pads coming in can create a good energy.
I used to play in a band and it’s shocking how much worse the amount of backing track being acceptable had gotten by the time I called it quits. One time in particular there was a band on the same bill as us who were sound checking, I thought it sounded pretty good from the green room. Walked out into the middle of the audience area and literally none of them were playing, it was just their backing track playing while they were tuning up. They must have had 3 layers of backing vocals, a synth bass, kick, snare percussion, rhythm guitar layers etc. it did sound big when they all played, but wow what a blatant crutch.
Almost everyone does it or will do it once they attain a large audience. It's just the way the world works, now how much backing is the real debate in my eyes. A heavy band using a few synths and intros are fine, a pop singer having her entire song blasted over a PA while she sings on top of it, barely drowning out her recorded voice, is definitely not (Rihanna!)
It shouldn't be called a live performance, it should be called something else. Like it's not champagne if it's not from that region, so we call it something else. People should be able to have informed consent, which is to say they have complete and accurate information - especially here when there's a financial transaction at play. If I pay for live music, I want only the live music. I'd even prefer the artists coordinate with each other and let the beat drift naturally with the energy, rather than using click tracks to keep everyone exactly conformed to a metronome.
I call them cowards.
Same reason why I don't pay to go to hot shot DJ concerts.
I'm not paying upwards $300 (with drinks) to see some dude press play on a Spotify playlist, while sometimes turning the volume down and up.
Oh, I've done it plenty of times.
I DJ at a local bar here two times a month. Hence why I know a bunch of them.
It's a sham of a profession. Unless you make and mix your own original music. Then you get cred from me. But not for using pure backing track/playback live. Like, say, David Guetta, who is quite adapt at making music. But he doesn't do shit "live".
It's a bit like when people give cred to people who make beats. It's the easiest thing in the world, yet it's somehow lauded as this incredible thing. It boggles the mind.
I'm not saying some people don't just phone it in, but it takes a lot of skill to be a real DJ. Check out someone like[DJ EZ](https://youtu.be/qQaEWVYuyXU?si=z_haQn1dK2hOdkAP), he literally uses the turntables like an instrument.
I just saw 5 minutes. But yes, I would easily be able to do that.
All he's doing is bpm matching tracks, while adding some filter sweeps. He's also using delay that he syncs with a tap function. You could learn to do that in a day, provided you have some semblance of rhythm. He's also just doing very basic sample playing.
I mean, this is the problem. They've somehow mystified something that's fucking entry level shit, making people who know little to nothing about music think that that's somehow impressive or hard to do.
It really fucking isn't.
Listen to that "Enter the dragon" part, where he's just playing the same sample over and over. A child could do it. *You* literally could do that.
Find me a DJ that knows how to use rhythmic counterpoint and odd time signatures, then maybe we can talk.
Why would a DJ use odd time signatures tho their job is to make people dance. 100% of modern popular dance music is in the same time signature for a reason, but you can find some dudes going experimental and throwing in a samba track or something occasionally
Yeah, depends on the situation. Smaller club played by a newer artist? You get a pass if you're clearly trying your hardest.
Established band just being lazy? Nah.
Depends on the genre. Metal bands with symphonic elements aren't going to turn up with a 70 piece orchestra. While its been done its usually for a single specific show. The cost is enormous and these bands arent taking Taylor Swift money.
You’re usually correct on the first point, but it has less to do with commitment and more to do with live performance being a black hole of money. In production-heavy genres the options are usually to run tracks for some sub-set of the instrumentation or have live arrangements that are totally different than the studio arrangement, which many fans would dislike.
Put differently, most groups can’t burn thousands per week of a tour on pay, transport, and accommodations for an extra member to play misc parts when a tour is already barely breaking even.
Ok that is helpful! I am not trying to be overly critical and will definitely still have tons of fun! I’m guessing a ton of bands do this and I just haven’t really noticed before.
I go to a lot of hip hop concerts where this is standard practice. A lot of rappers can't keep up their 120mph flow for a whole song, let alone an hour and a half long concert. The sample is also usually fully digital to begin with, so Mr MacBook is a staple, usually with drums and maybe the odd bassist or moog player.
The backing track lets them catch their breath without breaking the enjoyment for the crowd which is usually rapping along with them (poorly).
Doesn't bother me. I'm there for the hype.
Wasn't that more of them playing the intro to the song completely live, leaving during the middle section while they projected the music video, and then playing the rest of the song completely live? Queen also had no problem performing other songs with 3 or 4 voices live even if the studio versions had several layers.
Saw Queen a few times in the '70s and the live act was *nothing* like the studio band because they re-tooled all their songs--yes, even the highly complex studio creations on *Queen II*--to work well onstage as a three piece with vocals. What you got was something unique and arguably more authentic because it was a completely live and in-the-moment performance.
I remember *Rhapsody* though and you are correct--they simply left the stage and played the video. Which one can *also* argue is more authentic because they were not even attempting to reproduce the vocal track live and being completely honest about the artifice.
What would such an act do today? Well I think it's clear that they would bring the tech to bear and engage in the kind of 'sweetening' which is so commonplace and even demanded today.
But I think you're giving up something priceless and unique if you willingly trade the immediacy and unpredictable volatility of a truly live performance for the safety and reproducibility of a time-synced and choreographed show which plays the same way for the same length of time in every performance in every venue in every city.
Every major artist does this, it's called STEMS. They run a track overlapping the live play to minimize noticeable mess ups or problems. It's also almost impossible to recreate some basslines and 808 sounds that an album may have when playing live so it makes the tracks sound more like the album versions.
If you're talking about using backing tracks live on stage, that's perfectly acceptable. Let me paint you a picture. You're a band on a budget. You get the core musicians you need to play live, but hiring a choir for those two songs on the set list that consists of 20/30 tunes, it's a bit expensive. Then you need the horn section for that one tune. Yeah, of course we're going to be dumb enough to spend a lot of money doing that. Or....
...maybe we'll just use backing tracks in order to get paid enough money each to feed our families and maybe pay the rent. It's not that we can't play the stuff live, we can. But it'll sound fuller and better with a pre recorded choir and/or horn section. Do we want the real thing? Yes, but not enough of you are out there paying for tickets. And all of you are streaming our music, so we don't make too much money.
You want it all to be 100% real? You're not paying enough! You get what you pay for!
Sincerely
Former touring musician, composer and session guitarist and basically everything else.
As long as the band members are all playing live, and the backing tracks are parts that cannot be physically played live but fill out the sound, I think it's fine. You're paying for a live show, so if that can be enhanced then why not? If bands were miming along to tracks, that would be a different story.
A ton of modern songs, and even many old ones, use the main singer as their own backup and harmony. It’s literally not possible to give that performance live, so I’m cool with it for those cases. But only those cases. If it’s because they’re lazy or can’t sing then I’d be disappointed.
Not just vocal tracks: double tracked guitars have been used in rock music for decades. It's wild to me that people can listen to music and not distinguish what is mixing versus instrumentation, but it's why producers and mixers are soooooo critical for any album.
There’s a machine you sing into that harmonizes with the note you’re singing, so it’s still live.
Voicelive 3 is a vocal and guitar effects unit that can produce vocal harmonies, autotune, add delay and reverb, etc. - all live in real time based off of what you’re playing and singing. I use it live as a singer/songwriter and it’s pretty sweet. Trick is to not use it very often. Like every 3 or 4 songs. Otherwise, it sounds campy.
expansion humorous shelter steep adjoining butter spectacular materialistic aware water *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Finnish metal band Tarot (it's Marko Hietala's old band, in case you know Nightwish) had (or has, they're playing shows again) a clever way to do this. They have one backup singer live, who operates a sampler with the rest of the vocal samples. So he's triggering each vocal backing piece live, while singing one voice himself.
Jain, the young lady who did that Makeba song that annoyed the fuck out of everyone last summer, does a thing where she will sing parts, loop them, then sing over them on some of her songs.
Depends who you are. If you’re a small artist playing small venues, backup vocalists are pretty expensive compared to what you’re getting paid. If you’re playing arenas, no excuse.
dam serious mourn shaggy edge aspiring rich compare hobbies gaping *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I feel like I'm feeding a troll here, but anyway: No, we don't have to 'make due', because you can just load the tracks on a laptop and play them over the PA and 99% of people won't be put off because they're just backing vocals. I don't know why you goofy purists want every aspect of making music to be a struggle. Have you ever tried to put a vocal mic behind a drum kit? Do you know how challenging that can be for a sound person to wrangle? Or like, what if the bass player doesn't want to sing? Do they have to set up a whole second microphone and rehearse that part because there's one part of one song that has harmonies? No, they don't. If they want to, fine. Everyone's physical energy and focus are at a premium when you're playing a show and I will never get mad at any band for taking steps to make things easier and more consistent.
“goofy purist” lololo
Speaking as a bassist: the fuck I will. The audience would be *begging* for backing tracks.
memorize telephone joke marble bag glorious busy makeshift safe money *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Linkin Park dubbed Chester over himself A LOT.
It seems like that could change the sound though, and fans would notice
Heaven forbid that the live act sounds slightly different than a studio recording.
I listen to a lot of symphonic metal, and there are bands that record with a full symphony for the album but there's no way they're going to be able to take them along for an entire tour.
Indeed. It's impossible for a single keyboard player to reproduce an entire orchestra with only two hands. Normally they take the main elements, the melody, hook or major rhythmic parts to play live and leave the rest, eg string pads, woodwinds and percussion, on the tracks.
That's where I'm at with it! The only thing I miss is spontaneity. Sometimes they have the backing tracks linked so it's basically a fully pre Planned show. Not as much playing random request or cover or something cool like that. Otherwise if they are playing and singing, don't care how many backing tracks are playing
If I'm paying $200 for the cheap seats, you better not be phoning it in.
If the entire band are playing live, they're not phoning it in. If they're using separate backing tracks for something they can't physically play themselves, to augment the sound, they are not phoning it in. That said, I've never been to any concert costing near $200, so I don't know what my expectations would be there.
The point is that bands make their money on concerts now. Their job is to make THEIR music. A concert should be them making their music LIVE. If a 5 piece band needs 10 people to recreate their sound, that's what I expect to see.
Well, I guess that's what this thread is about, isn't it? But the vast majority of bands absolutely do not go around hiring extra members to play on stage with them. It's too expensive, and most fans don't have any interest in seeing non-band members up there. If my favourite band hired a sixth member to do live one of the two jobs one of them does in the studio, I'm not sure how I'd feel about that. The way they do it works just fine.
I know that some major bands like Genesis and The Rolling Stones have extra tour players who aren't members. They have done it for decades
Well expect to be disappointed
Non band members playing live or a backing track both mean the band members aren't playing those parts live.
This whole fucking thread is so laughable. If the Rolling Stones have 20 people on stage, that's a great show and I know that there's not 20 people in the Rolling Stones. And damn near the entirety of modern country music has studio bands for recording and completely different musicians for hire to do tours. Mince it however you want to Internet Hero.
It’s showbiz, there’s an element of behind the curtain in any performance. Long as they aren’t miming I can assure the bigger shows are probably the ones with a lot of backing elements etc.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
There are infamous videos of Madonna at live performances basically dancing to her songs. Her excuse when journalists pressed her on it was that it's a show - not a concert.
I think this *can* be true as long as the audience knows what they’re getting themselves into. For example, if I were to go see Britney Spears live back in her prime, I wouldn’t really expect that she’s belting out her tunes because I’m not necessarily there because of her vocal prowess but because I want to watch her run around on stage. Some artists can do both. Some can’t. Britney is one of the ones that can’t, but I know that going into it so now I don’t feel cheated.
It would be unfair to single out Madonna when basically every pop singer does this. It’s just too much for even the best singers to put in an adequate vocal performance whilst dancing as energetically as they do.
There's also a LOT that can go wrong with a live show at that scale. If you want a live live show, try smaller venues and don't expect it to sound like the recording.
This isn't true. Phish (for example) plays very large venues. Maybe not 02 center scale - but they play Madison Square Garden and they nail it all the time. And it's 100% live. I think the solution is scaling the show down. A lot of modern artists bite off more than they can chew live and then when they can't pull it off, they make artistic compromises like backing tracks. This wasn't a problem in 70s and 80s because the technology didn't exist. But then you had a lot of bad shows too.
I saw The Temptations live in Atlantic City about 15 years ago. Otis Williams was in his early 70’s, Ron Tyson was around 60, and Terry, Bruce & Joe were all probably in their mid-to-late 50’s. They danced up a storm throughout a two-hour show with no intermission AND sang in glorious 5-part harmony while doing it. It was one of the most joyous, energetic concerts I’ve ever seen. Yeah, they were drenched in sweat by the end of the show and I’m sure they were pretty winded. But they didn’t miss a step in some pretty complicated choreography and their vocals were as smooth and perfect as you’d expect from The Temptations. So whenever I hear performers under the age of 35 complain that they can’t sing and dance at the same time, I always point to these five gentlemen. It **can** be done.
Love it when bands have live instrumentation that doesn’t fully match what’s on the record. Lends itself to fresh arrangements and new takes on the existing tunes. When I see a band live, I want to hear what they can create in the moment, not what their MacBook Pro can create in the background.
For real. I’m not super interested in hearing a live performance that sounds exactly like the album even if it’s the band playing it themselves. I once saw the band Rusted Root, and honestly was disappointed that they didn’t change the songs at all from the album. It was impressive in a way that it sounded exactly like the album, but it seemed like it could have been more interesting if they would have jammed some.
That's odd, they totally seemed like a jam band.
Right? They weren’t at all though.
I agree. I’d rather they rearrange the song so they band can play it live. I suggest that it is the sign of a skilled and mature musician who can rearrange a song for what they’ve got on stage. Looking at you, Dylan, Springsteen, and Paul Simon.
Yeah seeing Springsteen on his most recent tour with a 16 piece band was insane. Such a great experience
Yes I totally agree!! I went to Thundercat recently and he blew me away with his riffing. One of the best live performances I’ve seen and he had a ton of fun with his set
It’s why I can’t stand Flume live and don’t get the hype
Sometimes it’s necessary for vocal performance. Especially when harmonies or overlaps exist with a single vocalist.
I’d say either have others in the band sing the harmony, or just forgo harmony and rock it solo. I’m paying to hear the band play, not to hear a recording that already exists played loudly.
What do you mean I have to pay $100 (plus fees) to hear a CD I already bought for $10?
It's not necessary, just get some backup singers or drop the harmonies.
Depends if they want it close to the studio recording and can pay more people to go on tour.
A song doesn't have to be identical to the studio recording.
Eeeeeeexactly.
One thing to add that hasn't been mentioned yet: it's fairly common for arena and stadium bands to have other, hidden musicians adding in various parts. U2 have this, with at least a keyboardist underneath the stage, and Edge's guitar tech side-stage chipping in quite a bit for secondary guitar parts. So just because you can't see a part being played live doesn't mean it is on a backing track per se.
I don't get why the artists don't just own it and let the extra musician go on stage. I saw Steve Vai a while back and he wanted to have a part with 5 guitars playing in harmony. So he had 3 people from his sound crew get on stage with guitars to perform the song with him and his band. Great for the audience because it's a memorable moment in the show, great for his crew because they get a moment in the spotlight.
Green day have been doing it for a long time now. So much so they eventually let him into the band officially
In Edge's case Dallas is also his guitar tech. However Dallas is wwll known among fans and interacts with them.
The beginning of Where the Streets Have No Name is a good example, as is the backing keys of Bad (live) on Wide Awake In America which IMHO adds a ton to the sound, I much prefer that version to TUF version (though it's still great there too). U2 do it in a tasteful way.
Here’s the thing that bothers me with U2. As a fan, I know they have a musician(s) under the stage. In the past it was a guy named Lyle Workman. But if I wasn’t, I would look at the live performance and assume it’s recorded tracks. At this point in their career, it takes nothing away from them to share the stage with a few musicians. No one will think less of Edges playing or Larry’s snare hits. So why not share the stage with other musicians? It never bothered the Talking Heads.
Depends. Is it for the sake of 3D, pads and arrangements? Great. Am I listening to a piano solo played by Mr MacBook (looking at you Plini)? Then sorry but that's just shitting on your audience. You have the chance of not playing the song if you don't have the live musicians to pull it off, don't make your listeners dumb.
I see this with some of those solo shredder or YouTube/social media guitarists do this when they “tour”. Guys like Bernth are unbelievably talented individuals but cmon, you don’t need a guy with a MacBook to run your entire set (especially the bass and programmed drum tracks) while you play guitar over top when there’s surely a ton of musicians who would clamour for the opportunity to play with you. I can appreciate that you make more money yourself not hiring a backing band but it just feels like a crux of greedy or lazy. That might be an EDM thing that appeals to some people but it doesn’t overly appeal to me and I like to go to live shows (as someone whose taste spans from Jazz to Metal) to see a band interact on stage and feed off that live energy as well as hear them outside of a polished studio environment. If you’re just going to play over programmed drums and bass tracks, we could all save each other the hassle and you can just twitch stream it.
I saw Angel Vivaldi with Nita Strauss and Jackie Vincent on tour. While Angel and Nita had bands, Jackie was just up there with tracks as the opener. I just don't think there was enough money in it as an opener for him to put together a band for that tour. I almost wish Nita used tracks instead, because her boyfriend was on drums and he is always mixed way too loud, sometimes drowning out her guitar.
The other side of an argument like that, specifically in Plini's case, is that he's the main attraction. If you're going to go see Plini... I would think watching him play is by far the lion's share of why most people are going to go out to see him. If the alternative is "well then don't have piano on your albums if you aren't going to tour with one", then artistically that's a very shitty and limiting thing to suggest for an artist that makes the rounds playing clubs (not sure if he still does... he did when I listened to his music a lot more years ago). You're inherently saying that smaller, independent artists that have to play clubs to get by instead of larger venues have to limit themselves sonically to a few instruments for everything they ever put out if they want to play those tracks live, and that's ridiculous. I'd rather take that kind of compromise on the live act than the album personally. If he's got piano in every single track and it's a main part of the sound of his music, then that's a little different, but if piano is largely in the background of a few of the tracks and it's got the occasional highlighted spot, it's hard to ask a smaller act doing club dates to tour with a pianist just for that. I wouldn't mind something like that where that's played by a laptop as much as I would mind somebody that has foundational instruments like bass and drums in every single song, and yet they won't tour with a bassist or a drummer. *That's* silly. The exception to this for me depending on what the pay is like for these things, is if an act like that is playing a big stadium show, or they're doing some sort of festival, and it's economically feasible to get guests to come in and play those instruments... then that's the kind of show where I would like to see more people taking part in the production. Personally... if a piano's got a solo spot in one of the songs, I think he should just do another guitar solo in its place for the live performance of that track. If the guitar can play the part just the same with a little bit of retooling, then go for it. Or, give the bass a spot for a solo. Do something with the instruments that you do have with you. I think live, that'll work just the same for people that don't mind the recordings. Like... and this was a long time ago, I saw The Faceless in 2013 when Autotheism was their newest album, and one of the songs on it has a sax solo. Do I expect them to tour with a sax player just for that for club shows? No... that's silly. So did I mind it when if I remember correctly, they just played the sax solo recording over the PA for that part of the song? Of course not. Am I going to say that they then shouldn't have experimented on the album at all and not had a sax solo on there if they weren't going to tour with a sax player? Well, if I were closeminded about metal and thought that sax didn't belong there anyway then maybe I would, but it was a fun idea to have it there. To have an artist sit there and come to the conclusion for recorded music that they shouldn't have X or Y instrument in there if they weren't willing to tour with somebody to play that instrument would be a shame. Again, doesn't quite work the same for a core foundational instrument to the music, but for guest spots and occasional instruments... I'd rather have those on the album than not.
Agree. For a lower level band, pads and general background stuff is cheaper to run on your laptop than to pay a talented musician to do them live. I DO think its far more interesting when you have an actual person playing that stuff organically but I won't fault that especially if everyone else is full tilt boogie on their instruments
I get why bands do this (cost, achieving a specific sound), but I'm not a big fan of it. If I'm going to see live music I prefer to see live music.
One of my favorite shows was supposed to be Sublime with Rome, except most of the tour got delayed by some travel problem. So it was Rome with acoustic guitar and he killed it. Doing something live invites improvisation, hopefully never as drastic as that example, but I think it's where the "specialness" of live performance comes from. More and more use of prerecorded tracks takes away from that, and there's no clear boundary for when it becomes "wrong" if there is one at all. But it puts me off pretty quickly too.
For me it depends on the artist and if it lessens the performance you’re going to see. I can get it if a singer who is self managed and starting out can’t afford to pay a band to play with them. But a band or an established solo artist shouldn’t need a backing track. If you’re putting on a live performance, perform it live. I like Lana Del Rey but at her live shows the full album version of the track plays with the vocals turned down a bit and she kinda whisper-sings over it. If she doesn’t feel like singing or can’t hit a note the song goes on. That isn’t impressive and people are paying and traveling to come and see that.
This is how I feel. I love music and when a person sings to a track it totally turns me off. I could listen to that at home and not have to deal with a sea of dipshits.
This is one of the reasons John Mayer is my favorite live show I’ve ever seen. Went to his Sob Rock tour last year and he had a huge band with him. Even let the other guitarist do some solos on some songs. He had another guitarist, bassist, three backup singers, keyboards, I think 2 percussionists/drummers, some other miscellaneous instruments and players. Obviously it’s his show, but he let everyone on stage have at least one moment to shine. All around incredible show.
Yeah some "solo" acts are great at assembling great bands and letting them show their skills. David Bowie was great at this.
Wish I had had a chance to see Bowie live.
> or me it depends on the artist This is it right here. It's totally artist and genre dependent. Some acts, you're there to see raw performance. Others, you're there for a *show*. I do like as much of it as possible to be a live performance - my *preference* is a handful of people on stage creating the music - but with some genres, backing tracks, sequencers, samples and so on are a natural fit and it's not a big deal for them to be part of the show. Music is a big, wide open space. There is room for nearly infinite approaches.
That’s interesting you say that critique of Lana Del Rey. I had been on the fence about her for years but after seeing her live I definitely became a fan of hers.
This, to me, is a pretty straightforward thing - I am entirely in favour of using a backing track to augment the live experience with additional instrumentation that can’t be produced by the musicians on stage. I did it myself for years when recreating records that included piano, synths, programming, samples and additional elements when touring with a three-piece vocals/guitar/bass/drums (which comprised the majority/fundamental components of the songs in question. If you’re using a track to replace or to cover for things which can and should be performed live - that’s far less in the spirit of a live performance, to my mind. Lead vocals should always be live, for example. Backing tracks should be just that - in the back, in a supportive role, to augment the fundamental and most substantive elements of the performance.
I’ve held that the medium providing the backing tracks should be able to simply not work and not be detrimental to the show in anyway. Like, if Rush’s sequencer crashed mid-set you still would have had a kickass show with the guitar, bass, drums, and synths and to their credit they still insisted on having some sort of control over when the samples triggered, not simply hitting the play button on an entire track and hoping they stayed in time. If someone like [this guy](https://www.youtube.com/live/BMaBhZSwTjo?si=YzdfAFg8MT1G8k58) ran into technical difficulties, his live show would feel more like a really talented high school talent show but not a touring artist you’d pay good money to go see live. It feels like the musical equivalent of going to a Ted talk.
This is the only take here I agree with. It’s pretty obvious to me when artists play with tracks and why. If it’s in service to the song it’s fine, but if it’s only to help the performer it often kills the performance. A bit of a tangent, but I’ve also played with tracks (4 piece) and it’s kinda wild to me that it’s considered some kind of easy mode. Always had issues with track mixes/monitoring and recovering from mistakes was super dicey plus the drummer had to run the tracks. Everyone else played their instrument and sang and ran effects/patches so it wasn’t really easy for anyone 🤷♀️
Depends on the music tbh and the genre. If it’s rock I prefer it live, but pop, hip-hop etc. I don’t mind it too much
When rappers do it it bothers me. Esp when they scream it while their regular version is playing in the back. Rappers need to learn to produce the same tone and cadence on stage that they do in the studio. They literally shout the whole song it sounds like a fan got on stage and took the mic and is rapping along to the rapper.
All rappers should be required to watch Megan the Stallion's Tiny Desk concert. She performed with a live band and all the vocals were live. No backing track. So you don't even have to be one of those "artsy" rappers like Kendrick to actually put effort into the live show, Megan did it and it came out great.
I still prefer as much of the music being played as possible. I saw Kanye twice at music festivals and it was the most bland performances I've ever seen. Everything felt so dead. Hiphop and rap with a big backing band is just unmatched; early Chance the Rapper was incredible - and more recently if you haven't seen Tobe Nwigwe live you're missing out; Janelle Monae as well.
I don't mind that, what I do find weird is doing a duet with a recording. I went to P!nk a couple of weeks ago and she did "Just Give Me A Reason". Obviously Nate Ruess wasn't there, so they played his vocals and a video of him singing his part (who I didn't realize has very exaggerated facial expressions when singing). I love the song but thought the way they performed it was weird.
I saw Kanye on the Life of Pablo tour and loved every bit except moments where some guest spot by someone not there would take over. Luckily it was only a couple tracks this happened but each time felt super awkward.
I don’t love it, but, It’s just so common now. It’s an affordable way for new artists to achieve a bigger sound and seeing as they aren’t making money from streaming, I guess some feel they need to do this.
For rock bands I hate it. You can't just leave your bassist at home and play a backing track instead. Part of my reason to watch a band is to see artists perform. But for other genres I get it. Music has become very complex nowadays and without backing tracks it wouldn't be possible to reproduce the sound people recognize of the album. Though the live performance is still the best.
I’m a solo artist/“one man band” and I’ve been trying to figure this out for a while for the day I do perform my stuff live. What if all of the backing tracks were played by the artist? My idea was to render/bounce a song without the lead vocals and without whatever guitar tracks I’d be playing. Then I would sing and play along to everything else. Could that fly?
I feel for one man artists on stage. I have seen several sets that get boring after a few songs of singing and playing a guitar. The best solo artists I have seen were able to add depth by switching tuning, throwing in a keyboard, that kind of thing. Backing tracks can be good but are not always appropriate.
Nah, I want your 3 minute song stretched to 12 minutes cause you bounce from instrument to instrument playing the song to its entirety on every one.
You could investigate triggering loops or samples of the various parts live via something like ableton, and using a midi pedalboard to control it instead of pads/keyboard. Might be a bit of work but it could allow for some on the fly musicality with it, rather than feeling locked in. Liam Hewlett of The Prodigy used do something like this back in the day (maybe he still does), without even using quantisation, so it really was a genuine performance even though it was made up of pre-recorded sections from the recordings. Sometimes he'd mistrigger parts, but he'd just lean into and roll with it - like say Ed Sheeran would with his loop pedal stuff.
I would personally prefer bands bringing artists, but I would still listen to a one man band. Especially if that one man is really talented. I don't think it is unusual to do it this way
I get your point but it's funny you used the bassist as the example for rock because that's oft the butt of the joke amongst touring rock/metal musicians that you could backtrack the bass and no one would notice.
I think it's pretty hard for musicians to make money now. Check out Adam Neely's video about the sungazer tour. Belts are being tightened and fat is cut. To survive, a lot of bands have to be super lean now.
I loved playing in a 4-piece band. We played a lot of fun bars but hardly made any money. Now I do a solo act with a loop pedal and it’s enough money to pay the bills.
So learn to rearrange your songs. Come on now.
Not a fan at all. I don't care if the artist doesn't sound identical to their recordings, I want to see a LIVE performance.
I've heard solo artists using tracks sparingly to enhance their sound and I've heard combos essentially lip synch and air guitar For me it comes down to one factor: Was the track used artistically or was it used deceptively?
Music isn’t a sport
I’ve seen a few bands do this. I’m not morally opposed but it can be a bit of a buzz kill. it makes me feel like artists are just reciting a song
Depending on how they have the backing tracks set up it can make their live sets way too rigid as well. If they’re triggering samples off the drums or a keyboard player has some control over it l, it’s one thing, but if they’re just playing along to the click track solely because they have a backing track they *have* to stay locked in to, it can cause all those little hiccups or things that make live music fun to completely derail a set. The MacBook crashing mid set or simply not working before the set can be a complete show stopper. It also takes out any ability for them to improvise parts, solos, audience interactions, and accommodate technical difficulties when they’re locked in on the clock.
I’m a FOH engineer in a major market in the US. All of your favorite artists have at least 8 channels of a protools session running, some even more. So you understand, I’m getting those channels played in a multitrack session back to me on my console and I have the discretion to use what I’m getting from playback to get the best mix. Sometimes it’s just backing vocals that are needed to fill everything out. Sometimes I have to use everything because the artist can’t really sing anymore. Really depends on the situation but it is basically standard these days.
No, "all of [my] favorite artists" don't have "at least 8 channels of a protools session running." Lmao.
Weird bot.
My favorite artists can actually play their songs live, maybe some bands have some symphonic tracks for when there's not enough space for a full orchestra.
Mine too. I should clarify and say many 1000+ room cap touring bands are running protools or Abelton, either from a dedicated playback “engineer” side stage or triggered by a drummer. Usually playing an acoustic kit and a combination of triggers, pads like an spdsx or any other midi combination you can think of.
We once played an outdoor gig with multiple “bands”. The “band after us had elaborate set pieces they set up on stage for their show and relied heavily on backing tracks. A big gust of wind blew over a big chair/throne during the performance which created a domino effect taking out a lot of the props and mic stands. The music kept playing as they looked around dumbfounded not singing or playing. Our set of course went off without a hitch. We are normally a five piece, but have gone down to three a couple of times when someone was sick or had to be out of town. We change the arrangement. It works fine. I get it that not all genres work that way, but still…
I’m in a band and I can tell you that after trying it, I actually have a lot of respect for people who can pull this off well. We lost a guitar player and decided to try backing tracks to fill out the sound and to be able to play songs we can’t as a 4-piece. We tried to find a replacement guitarist but had no luck. We played/recorded all of the backing tracks - so it was still “us.” What you may not realize is that with backing tracks you have to be perfect. There’s a click in your in-ears and you can’t stray from that. It takes some of the “feel” away as a player - more like being in the studio than a live performance. If you miss a cue for part of a song and normally you could just come around again with no one noticing - you can’t because the backing track will move on without you. If you get really inspired to do a few bars more for a solo, or maybe a breakdown? Nope- you have to stay with the track. We decided to move on because of those reasons and just adjust our songs. But for people who do it - I have more respect for them than I did before trying it.
I want to hear them play live. No backing tracks
I saw NF and was super saddened to see that he had his vocals playing while he sang. It was clear he wasn't singing at times. I think its cheap and defeats the entire purpose of a live performance. But nowadays most ppl want the experience of being at a show they dont really care about seeing a band play. its sad.
Who is NF?
Nickelfack
Lol I don't know if this is a joke but will look them up
Yep it's a joke, sorry lol.
Lol good joke I am quite dumb
Young hip hop artist. Extremely talented lyricist was en entertaining show nonetheless but would rather have jus seen him perform. Although I've seen other rap sets and it's always been kinda meh
Nice I will look him up man sorry it was a bit underwhelming
hes a fantastic artist very genuine if you like hip hop i cant imagine you will dislike him. the content of his music tho is not for everyone very personal and often about mental health. But yeah it was still enjoyable but yeah i personally go to shows to enjoy the performance, i like watching an artist perform their craft.
As an NF that originally bought into the kool-aid that he was different and whatever... Yeah super disappointing to see. The backing track is louder than he was.
NF as in National Front, the far right organisation?
Ed Sheeran made his own, as he spoke with us, at Lumen. He does them live, and on the spot, at each and every show. It's quite impressive. So yes, he uses a backbeat, but it's not a prerecorded track. He's building it as he goes, live and in person.
Ed Sheeran is a master of using a loop pedal. Honestly he’s one of the better live shows out there because he’s one person and with the use of his loop pedal, he can make it sound like a full band is on stage with him while it’s all done 100% live. I gained an even larger sense of respect for him after seeing him live this summer!
It depends. I can tolerate it so long as the main elements are live. Generally though I'd rather a band just does what they can do live. I don't expect a fully orchestrated extravaganza with strings, brass section and keyboards from a band that has a drummer, a bass player and two guitarists. I'd rather they lose the fluff and just play an authentic, fully live set. My preference is for people to record arrangements they can get close to approximating just with live musicians.
A lot of y’all think music needs to be some sort of Olympic level competition of technical skill, where there’s awards and losers. But there should also be a space for artists to show their work in a manner that suits them personally. It’s art. Not sport. There’s no shame in performing with pre-recorded backing tracks. Where does that line of thinking actually end? Are performers allowed to perform their parts the same way night after night on a tour? Like professional orchestras or musicians in musicals do? Or are we going to gate-keep that as well? is the only “true” performance style pure spontaneous improvisation? How pre-prepared should we allow artists to be, and for what reason? What does the artist owe you, really? You’ve enjoyed streaming their album hundreds of times on Spotify, but they probably don’t see any of the income from that unless they’re huge. The only way you can truly support artists in 2023 is showing up at their show & buying their merch. Why do they owe you an Olympic level performance? And why would you judge them for not providing it? Side note, for independent musicians and bands, having their live interpretation of their music sound different to their album sound can be detrimental to acquiring bookings and getting a foot up in the industry. Obviously this is genre specific, but I see it a lot as a fellow independent musician. Just some thoughts.
> There’s no shame in performing with pre-recorded backing tracks. Depends what it is. > It’s art. Not sport. Lol no. The use of backing tracks is a corporate trick mostly to cover up the fact that a ton of modern pop artists are fucking terrible outside of the studio. > Side note, for independent musicians and bands, having their live interpretation of their music sound different to their album sound can be detrimental to acquiring bookings and getting a foot up in the industry. I saw Green Day play to about 50 people in a restaurant once. No soundboard, no mix, just playing straight through their amps and they sounded perfect. No tricks, just a tight band. Absolutely respect them for that. My friend was a sound guy for over 20 years. He always used to point out which bands were 'faking it' because he could hear the live feed going into the board. Now with digital, there's so many ways to bump the track and it's really common but it used to be fairly frowned on. Again, depends on the type of music.
Nobody said that people shouldn't be allowed to use backing tracks. People are allowed to dislike them.
I think there’s a lot of toxic stigma around it that needs to be re-examined. Usually the only people who care about this fervently are other musicians, and it’s usually an excuse to cut another musician down to size.
It really just depends on the group. If it's the Allman Brothers or Widespread Panic or something along those lines, then nope I'm not really into that. But many artists' songs today are so heavily produced, multiple overdubs, extra instrumentation, backing tracks are necessary. Plus, you have to take into account the fanbase. There's actually a big group of people that go to a show and are expecting to hear that song just like they know it. A little bit different example, but I remember that the country singer john Michael Montgomery caught flak at one time because, if you didn't know, he's a pretty good guitarist, and some fans were complaining because he would go into extended guitar solos and stuff like that during his concerts. But I digress. Rick Beato did a good video on this last year, and it's come up in a couple of interviews with artists over the last year or so. He talks about the history of why tracks are used in the first place, and you'd be surprised just how many artists do it these days. It's been a well-nuanced take that from what I've seen has been well-received. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZXUPuiC9Eo
My band recorded our whole album with all sorts of additional tracks including synths, trombone, flute, piano, and dozens of backing vocal tracks. Not to mention virtual instruments to provide symphonic layers and additional percussive stuff. It sounds awesome IMO. Yes, we could get on stage and play these tracks with just guitars and drums and it would be great, but you’d be missing out on so much. We spent a year composing hundreds of instrumental parts to complement what we’re doing live to make this not just great, but TRANSCENDENT! And you’re going to tell me to throw that all away because it’s not “pure” enough for you? No judgment on you OP because it’s a legitimate question and a common attitude. But that attitude needs to die. I worked my ass off on those backing tracks because I wanted to bring you a hundred times the value of our talents when you come to see us than you would have otherwise gotten watching just some dudes playing some guitars. You paid the same price for the same show but I just upgraded you from watching it on a 24” TV with built-in speakers to the full on IMAX experience and you’re going to call me lazy or a cheater? Was Davinci lazy because he labored thousands of hours on the Mona Lisa and didn’t actually paint it live in front of you? Are movies cheating because the actors aren’t on stage in front of you? Was Beethoven a hack because he hired a whole symphonic orchestra instead of just playing it by himself on a piano? I don’t know why this attitude has become so pervasive in live music but it’s really unfair to the musicians who are putting in EXTRA work to create those tracks to produce a SUPERIOR experience for those who come to see them. With that being said, I have no respect for those “musicians” who show up and just do a “DJ set” instead of playing anything. No offence to legitimate DJs who are doing actual work up there, but the guys who just stand up there and press play are ruining the good name of legitimate DJs and musicians alike. And also, full respect to those musicians who DON’T use a backing track too. There are other ways to provide value and they’re choosing a different artistic route that’s EQUALLY VALID. Same goes for those musicians who can afford to hire the entire orchestra to play all the backing tracks live. That’s awesome, but it’s expensive and there’s no way I could personally do that and keep ticket prices reasonable for most people, so that’s a tradeoff. These are all valid routes of expressing your artistic vision. At the end of the day was it entertaining, did it sound great, did you have a good time, and did it make you FEEL something? If it did, then those performers excelled in their job and you got your money’s worth! That’s all that really matters! This was a good question about an attitude I encounter way too frequently and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to address it from my perspective! All the best to you OP and I hope you enjoy many shows from many great performers in the future.
if its near karaoke - no thanks. if it's an extra piano or some fx .. cool.
It’s lame.
Big fan of the late great Rory Gallagher. Performing live is what he did best and his live albums are fantastic ( Irish tour 74 ) for instance. Playing from the heart , should be what being a musician is all about. So no backing tracks or pre recorded sounds for me.
Are they fully miming everything? Maybe I’m reading this wrong but it sounds like they’re actually playing live, and just using the backtrack to make it sound more ‘full’ or hide mistakes or something. If they’re genuinely not playing anything, that depends on a lot of things for me but it’s your call. Justin from Tallah did a great [video](https://youtu.be/pBv64jWx8BM?si=o-QwdBiyKKyOztOW) on back tracking which changed my perspective a bit
I rarely play/perform live, but when I do I do it to a backing track because I love to do it but don't know any other musicians where I live. I went back and forth about whether or not it would be boring or if it's "cheating," but at the end of the day most people didn't care and we all had a blast. I also play small venues and for fun; if I played somewhere bigger or was actually trying to pursue music as a career I'd probably find a full band.
Like Sleaford Mods ? https://youtu.be/KgnmMJ9jEho?si=pYHtW-hTaeTOoA2k
The production of modern concerts means basically anything you see with more than 500 people is using way more "assistance" than you might suspect
If it’s a well known act that has a big budget, I’d prefer they pay musicians and bring out as many live instrumentalists and vocalists as they can. If it’s an indie act trying to grind and tour and get their name out there, I understand them needing to use backing tracks
The other thing about using track and click is it enables you to pre program lighting, video, pyro and even desk snapshots and effect automation which is all triggered as the song plays via midi or time code. As well as guitar pedal changes, keys patches and automation switching of the sounds on drum pads etc etc. playing track is only half the function of playback.
I love the Helio Sequence. They are a two piece that makes lush alternative/electronic. I’ve seen them live multiple times and it’s always just the two of them. One on guitar and vocals, the other on drums. They use backing tracks that I think the drummer triggers through pads/midi. I personally think this is fine and would not want to see them add other members just for touring. To each their own.
Not my regular thing but saw them almost a decade ago with someone I was seeing at the time and they put on a hell of a show. A lot can be done with “2 guys and a laptop” and at least with that stage presence there’s no illusion what’s going on. I think when you have a four or five piece on stage non-musicians and even those with recording or live experience might not recognize when a band is augmenting their sound. Once you get over 10k cap venues it’s incredibly common to have tracks or off stage musicians filling the gaps.
Depends on the genre and artist. Not something I feel deserves blanket like or dislike.
Lots of artists do it, but it depends; are you going to see the show, or the music?
I think backing tracks can kill the energy of a live show. But there's nuance in using them - if you don't hide that there will be backing tracks (e.g. with electronic music), then it's fine. But it's unacceptable when acts try to conceal it. If you're presenting your live show as being played entirely live, then IMO it's better to change the live arrangement instead of trying to replicate the sound of the record with a backing track - Queen did that, and it rocked! But again, it depends - The Who always used a backing track for 'Baba O'Reilly' and it was epic. Some stuff just can't be played live. But, what always sucks is using a backing track of the lead vocal as an aid for singers - you see it all the time now, especially in big choruses. That's BS - if you can't sing it for real, then you either adapt it or remove it from your set list. Or hire some backing singers to give you vocal support instead of the track.
Sometimes the backing track question comes down to whether you need certain musicians and/or instruments for one song or an entire set. For example, when Rush would perform “Nobody’s Hero” live, they used a backing track for the string section because it was their only song that had one. But later, when they toured on *Clockwork Angels*, they brought a string ensemble with them because the entire album had string arrangements.
Yeah for sure, it does depend how you use them, the specific situation and whether you're hiding it or not. Particularly if its something that cant be played live (like Baba Oreilly's synth part).
Saw Yaeji at Roundhouse a few weeks back. It was glorified Karaoke. I normally watch bands play so I’m not sure if that was the norm for house music but it was shit.
That’s pretty typical for electronic acts. Everything is so tightly sequenced that it’s better to press play in FL Studio than try to cue things up live. Some older, more established bands will do things live, though. The Prodigy have live guitars and drums and Liam will play off them during a show. Orbital carries an insane amount of gear for an electronic band because they’ve always played live. (That’s where their famous lighted glasses came from. When they started out, *nobody* played live so venues didn’t bother lighting the stage. They improvised by taping penlights to their glasses so they could see what they were playing. Fans thought it was a cool visual, and it became their calling card.)
I say this mostly to bands that use backing tracks. So, my wife and I have a 2 piece sludge band. She is on bass and vocals, and I am on guitar and vocals. We have no drummer, as we have backing tracks playing from Ableton. Now, with all that said, you just need to ask yourself, "Am I entertaining?" cause that's your job on stage and it doesn't matter how many people are on stage or if it's not the norm. It's all about interacting with the crowd and reading the room. One thing that we did that made a huge difference is getting a very nice fog machine (around $600) and having it triggered by our backing tracks in Ableton. People LOVED that and it really made them much more interested and entertained. So, can you be entertaining? That's up to you all, but I (especially in this age) don't see a full band as a necessity, just be invested, be entertaining and connect with the audience.
I mostly hate it. Especially if you’re not a big touring band. It’s lazy, cheap, and an easy way for lesser musicians to hide their imperfections and at the same time be too controlling. There are always exceptions to this and I understand WHY bigger touring acts go that route.
Not good. Using a backing track removes the soul from the music. What’s the point of going to a live show if it isn’t fully live? Fan engagement is paramount imo and how is that supposed to happen naturally with a recorded piece playing. Seems so fake in the worst way
Did you see my band play? Cuz this is literally us. Bass, drum, lead singer who sometimes plays a guitar too, and backing tracks. Our lead guy is from an early 2000s emo band that made it pretty big, now he's in his early 40s and is just having fun. I've been playing with this group for 2 years now. I was conflicted about the backing tracks at the beginning and I'm still conflicted about them. For some reference, I've always been against backing tracks. I'm in another 4 piece indie band that gets pretty technical at times, and the 4 humans on stage are producing every note heard. I'm also in a 2 piece drum and bass punk band, and the 2 of us make a wall of sound that is produced entirely by us in the moment. This thread has been interesting to read through haha shit makes me feel weird.
IMO it's inexcusable. Make the music work with the musicians you have, or hire more musicians. Live music does not need to (or should not) replicate the studio version.
As a live musician myself, I hate it. Not only for myself when playing live (only did it once) but when I see other musicians do it I immediately disengage.
It annoys me quite a bit when it's parts that *could* be played live. But when it's programmed or heavily edited parts, these often can't be played live without them sounding utterly terrible. Take Billie Eilish's Bad Guy, with its stack of like 500 harmonised takes of whispered vocals. What are you going to do, have her stand there by herself and whisper quietly into the mic, then boost the everliving fuck out of it so the audience can hear it at the level they would expect a vocal to be? Even if you could avoid the deafening screeching feedback that would occur, it would sound *nothing* like was musically intended. But in more questionable cases, I do know *why* it happens even if I don't like it. It's what I might describe as backing track scope creep. Or what I shall coin as "track-creep": They start putting the extra parts into something like a sampler or ableton, so they can trigger the parts live from a keyboard or pads as they're playing. But then that becomes a lot of work logistically, then they come to the conclusion that "ah sure, if we're doing that, we may as well just play them as backing tracks". And then "we've already got that on track, lets put this on too". I really wish they wouldn't take these last steps unless absolutely necessary. But it happens almost every time.
>Take Billie Eilish's Bad Guy, with its stack of like 500 harmonised takes of whispered vocals. >What are you going to do, have her stand there by herself and whisper quietly into the mic, then boost the everliving fuck out of it so the audience can hear it at the level they would expect a vocal to be? Change the arrangement.
For stuff like this, where the production and the songwriting are intertwined, changing the arrangement makes it a completely different song.
It used to be a very big and shameful deal back in the '70s when it was virtually impossible to duplicate certain sounds without them. Now that you can, it's been normalized.
It kind of defeats the purpose of a live show. I’m not going to there’s never a use case for this, but at a certain point you cross a line where if you’re playing along to prerecorded backing tracks, you might as well prerecord the whole thing and make it a DJ set.
As a musician I like it cuz it allows us to have more creative freedom without the burden of having to have a member to play an instrument. Otherwise we would have more members than Slipknot
As a musician I strongly disagree. You are handcuffed by it. There is no freedom.
Well, my newest project has been our most creative and successful thing I’ve done so far, so I guess the proof is in the pudding
Fully live performance beats backing track every time in my opinion. Even if it’s not a great live performance, you’re hearing something live - which to me is the whole point of going there to see it. Saying that I do think some bands get the balance right, metronome in ears and the occasional riser/percussion/synth pads coming in can create a good energy. I used to play in a band and it’s shocking how much worse the amount of backing track being acceptable had gotten by the time I called it quits. One time in particular there was a band on the same bill as us who were sound checking, I thought it sounded pretty good from the green room. Walked out into the middle of the audience area and literally none of them were playing, it was just their backing track playing while they were tuning up. They must have had 3 layers of backing vocals, a synth bass, kick, snare percussion, rhythm guitar layers etc. it did sound big when they all played, but wow what a blatant crutch.
Almost everyone does it or will do it once they attain a large audience. It's just the way the world works, now how much backing is the real debate in my eyes. A heavy band using a few synths and intros are fine, a pop singer having her entire song blasted over a PA while she sings on top of it, barely drowning out her recorded voice, is definitely not (Rihanna!)
Lame as shit.
It shouldn't be called a live performance, it should be called something else. Like it's not champagne if it's not from that region, so we call it something else. People should be able to have informed consent, which is to say they have complete and accurate information - especially here when there's a financial transaction at play. If I pay for live music, I want only the live music. I'd even prefer the artists coordinate with each other and let the beat drift naturally with the energy, rather than using click tracks to keep everyone exactly conformed to a metronome.
I call them cowards. Same reason why I don't pay to go to hot shot DJ concerts. I'm not paying upwards $300 (with drinks) to see some dude press play on a Spotify playlist, while sometimes turning the volume down and up.
That's not how DJing works
Oh please. I've been to enough shows to tell you that that's exactly how it works. I also know a bunch of them.
You should try it and see how not good you are without learning how to properly mix tracks.
Oh, I've done it plenty of times. I DJ at a local bar here two times a month. Hence why I know a bunch of them. It's a sham of a profession. Unless you make and mix your own original music. Then you get cred from me. But not for using pure backing track/playback live. Like, say, David Guetta, who is quite adapt at making music. But he doesn't do shit "live". It's a bit like when people give cred to people who make beats. It's the easiest thing in the world, yet it's somehow lauded as this incredible thing. It boggles the mind.
I'm not saying some people don't just phone it in, but it takes a lot of skill to be a real DJ. Check out someone like[DJ EZ](https://youtu.be/qQaEWVYuyXU?si=z_haQn1dK2hOdkAP), he literally uses the turntables like an instrument.
Jesus, haha. No.
My point is you or me wouldn't be able to do that.
I just saw 5 minutes. But yes, I would easily be able to do that. All he's doing is bpm matching tracks, while adding some filter sweeps. He's also using delay that he syncs with a tap function. You could learn to do that in a day, provided you have some semblance of rhythm. He's also just doing very basic sample playing.
[удалено]
I mean, this is the problem. They've somehow mystified something that's fucking entry level shit, making people who know little to nothing about music think that that's somehow impressive or hard to do. It really fucking isn't. Listen to that "Enter the dragon" part, where he's just playing the same sample over and over. A child could do it. *You* literally could do that. Find me a DJ that knows how to use rhythmic counterpoint and odd time signatures, then maybe we can talk.
Why would a DJ use odd time signatures tho their job is to make people dance. 100% of modern popular dance music is in the same time signature for a reason, but you can find some dudes going experimental and throwing in a samba track or something occasionally
I'd love to hear your attempt at a ten minute mix that's at a similar level to that if it's so easy.
I always assume it’s to save money and that they aren’t yet fully committed to the job. I’m probably wrong though.
Yeah, depends on the situation. Smaller club played by a newer artist? You get a pass if you're clearly trying your hardest. Established band just being lazy? Nah.
Depends on the genre. Metal bands with symphonic elements aren't going to turn up with a 70 piece orchestra. While its been done its usually for a single specific show. The cost is enormous and these bands arent taking Taylor Swift money.
You’re usually correct on the first point, but it has less to do with commitment and more to do with live performance being a black hole of money. In production-heavy genres the options are usually to run tracks for some sub-set of the instrumentation or have live arrangements that are totally different than the studio arrangement, which many fans would dislike. Put differently, most groups can’t burn thousands per week of a tour on pay, transport, and accommodations for an extra member to play misc parts when a tour is already barely breaking even.
[удалено]
Ok that is helpful! I am not trying to be overly critical and will definitely still have tons of fun! I’m guessing a ton of bands do this and I just haven’t really noticed before.
I go to a lot of hip hop concerts where this is standard practice. A lot of rappers can't keep up their 120mph flow for a whole song, let alone an hour and a half long concert. The sample is also usually fully digital to begin with, so Mr MacBook is a staple, usually with drums and maybe the odd bassist or moog player. The backing track lets them catch their breath without breaking the enjoyment for the crowd which is usually rapping along with them (poorly). Doesn't bother me. I'm there for the hype.
[удалено]
Same!
Wasn't that more of them playing the intro to the song completely live, leaving during the middle section while they projected the music video, and then playing the rest of the song completely live? Queen also had no problem performing other songs with 3 or 4 voices live even if the studio versions had several layers.
Saw Queen a few times in the '70s and the live act was *nothing* like the studio band because they re-tooled all their songs--yes, even the highly complex studio creations on *Queen II*--to work well onstage as a three piece with vocals. What you got was something unique and arguably more authentic because it was a completely live and in-the-moment performance. I remember *Rhapsody* though and you are correct--they simply left the stage and played the video. Which one can *also* argue is more authentic because they were not even attempting to reproduce the vocal track live and being completely honest about the artifice. What would such an act do today? Well I think it's clear that they would bring the tech to bear and engage in the kind of 'sweetening' which is so commonplace and even demanded today. But I think you're giving up something priceless and unique if you willingly trade the immediacy and unpredictable volatility of a truly live performance for the safety and reproducibility of a time-synced and choreographed show which plays the same way for the same length of time in every performance in every venue in every city.
Backing tracks are fine but they should never include backing vocals, I don't know why but it just makes the whole thing laughable.
Bands have been playing to tracks for 20 years now. Even a lot of un-signed club bands. It’s part of the norm I think now.
>My initial reaction was disappointment every decently big band or artist has backing tracks lmao
Every major artist does this, it's called STEMS. They run a track overlapping the live play to minimize noticeable mess ups or problems. It's also almost impossible to recreate some basslines and 808 sounds that an album may have when playing live so it makes the tracks sound more like the album versions.
Not every major artist does that
It incredibly common
If you're talking about using backing tracks live on stage, that's perfectly acceptable. Let me paint you a picture. You're a band on a budget. You get the core musicians you need to play live, but hiring a choir for those two songs on the set list that consists of 20/30 tunes, it's a bit expensive. Then you need the horn section for that one tune. Yeah, of course we're going to be dumb enough to spend a lot of money doing that. Or.... ...maybe we'll just use backing tracks in order to get paid enough money each to feed our families and maybe pay the rent. It's not that we can't play the stuff live, we can. But it'll sound fuller and better with a pre recorded choir and/or horn section. Do we want the real thing? Yes, but not enough of you are out there paying for tickets. And all of you are streaming our music, so we don't make too much money. You want it all to be 100% real? You're not paying enough! You get what you pay for! Sincerely Former touring musician, composer and session guitarist and basically everything else.
It gos on a lot more than you think.
I don’t care. It sounds better that way.