Live and let live...

[Ed Stanley]

I have never performed with a sequencer, loop, mp3 player or any other type of "prepared" accompaniment nor can I envision a scenario in which I would. That said, I do not see those that do as illegitimate but I can honestly say that I have never heard anybody that does that sounded good.

[Tonysounds]

Interesting views all.

 

XXX using a good amount of backing trackes and live musicians is a fully legit performance??? By it's very definition (legitimate), no. Is it acceptable? Apparently we're used to it. (Not me.)

 

Another interesting comment: that a cover band sticking to the arrangements is a human sequencer, and "whoopdidoo", this is less than live or legitimate. But a Disklavier playing is live music. Hmmm. A disklavier playing is more "live" than a keyboardist playing a digital piano? WTF is going on here?

 

So if I am to follow this logic, hearing the Disklavier play an XYZ performance is more live than XYZ himself sitting down at a digital piano? A smooth jazz artist playing to full backing tracks is more listenable and legitimate than some band playing Sweet Home Alabama (this might actually be hard to argue)? Yet symphonies playing classical music (and sticking to the arrangements, but yet also "interpreting them") is more legit than a band covering Sweet Home Albama. All I really get from this response is that anything is more legit than a rock band.

 

Then there's the argument that because it's a high budget situation, it's MORE legit to use backing tracks. 10 musicians or more on stage isn't enough, you STILL need backing tracks? Oh, but it's XXX, therefore, it's legitimate.

 

Using technology is fine, I'm a big fan of it. But I'm appalled at the number of "musicians" who can't do a show without backing tracks of one type or another. Or the number who wouldn't DREAM of it.

 

Another example of style over substance.

[stoo schultz]

I'm with tony.

 

However, if I have a choice between listening to great musicians playing to (say) bass and drum tracks, and listening to nothing at all, I'd prefer the former.

 

But at the same time I'd probably be annoyed at the venue for not coming up with the $$ to pay a full band.

[David Loving]

"XXX using a good amount of backing trackes and live musicians is a fully legit performance??? By it's very definition (legitimate), no. Is it acceptable? Apparently we're used to it. (Not me.)" I am squarely in the tonysounds/Ed Stanley corner on this one. It is easy to rationalize playing along with records, or playing piano rolls [that's all a disclavier is really] but it's not a real, authentic, live music performance. We are used to having instruments that are portable and sound like the instruments they imitate, and thank goodness for that. But, using electronics that do the performing for you or replace the other musicians is out of bounds in my book. It's done all the time, but not by me. I do not consider that a legitimate live musical performance, maybe an entertainment that people may enjoy, though it's not live authentic real time playing. One might consider creating an arrangement that conveys the feel of the tune using real live musicians, instead. The idea that reading scores, or playing a note by note arrangement is sequencing is ridiculous; just argument to try to legitimize sequencing. This is a good topic to discuss. Just my 2 cents.

 

 

[DonaldM]

Using technology is fine, I'm a big fan of it. But I'm appalled at the number of "musicians" who can't do a show without backing tracks of one type or another. Or the number who wouldn't DREAM of it.

 

Another example of style over substance.

 

It has been fun to read everyone's responses to this topic. I seemed to have opened a Pandora's box of sorts.

 

Regarding Tony's comment here, I think he points to an important distinction where the use of technology is concerned and a point that needs to be clear, in my mind. That is that there is huge difference between employing technology in a performance as an instrument that is played and employing technology to merely fill in for missing musicians. To clarify my position on this, I view the employment of technology as an instrument to be perfectly acceptable in a live performance, but view the employment of technology in place of musicians to somewhat questionable. In the former case, the musician/performer is utilizing these wonderful tools as another musical instrument; in the latter it seems to me to be mere "fill in"...if that makes sense.

 

 

[DonaldM]

To me, all those electronic extras we all use are just other instruments we play to create to our music. Am I wrong?

 

I don't think its wrong at all.

 

I also think some people are assuming those that might use backing tracks, sequences and/or arps are pulling a Milli Vanilli on the listening audience. It's almost as if there is a feeling of an overall lack of musicianship present because of that factor, which is furthest from the truth.

 

Again, I think that depends on how it is being employed per my comment to Tony above. It could well be a Milli Vanilli type thing if used as a substitute for actual playing. But it is a fine (and obviously blurry) line.

 

This has been a great discussion. Its certainly made us all think!!

[mate stubb]

Where would the Who's live use of the backing tape track for "Won't Get Fooled Again" fall then?

[wmp]

Where would the Who's live use of the backing tape track for "Won't Get Fooled Again" fall then?

 

Right up there with Janet Jackson, Madonna, et al.

[MusicWorkz]

Again, I think that depends on how it is being employed per my comment to Tony above. It could well be a Milli Vanilli type thing if used as a substitute for actual playing. But it is a fine (and obviously blurry) line.

 

This has been a great discussion. Its certainly made us all think!!

 

Exactly. I just don't think wholesale dismal of the use of what we can just call "backing tracks" is fair. It's one thing to pull a Milli Vanilli and PRETEND like you have the skills you don't. It's another to use them to support what it is you are doing.

 

My band is from four to seven members, depending on availability (not including the singers which adds another 5-7 ppl). At minimum, its bass, drums and two keyboardists. At most, we add an organist, guitarist and percussionist.

 

Even with all that skill and music capability on stage at any given time, for us to effectively do our two radio tracks (out of a total of maybe 15 songs we pull from), we need the drum loop backing on TOP of the regular drums. Be it iPod or sequenced is inconsequential. But there is no way anyone can tell me our performance is any less "live", "legit" or authentic for that use.

 

Now, I do agree, if the entire show is slaved to the sequencer, it robs the musicians of the ability to move and flow. That is my criticism for the current crop of music "stars" who do nothing more than reproduce their CD (and video) on stage.. But I also don't think I can blanket that statement after listening to an artist like Madonna, Sting, Justin Timberlake et. al. and hearing the obvious talent of the band and knowing what it takes to make that happen on that level (which is actually a move from "performance" to "entertainment")?

 

This has been a great discussion, if only for us to share our philosophies and ideas.

 

 

 

[David Loving]

"I just don't think wholesale dismal of the use of what we can just call "backing tracks" is fair. It's one thing to pull a Milli Vanilli and PRETEND like you have the skills you don't. It's another to use them to support what it is you are doing. "

 

All due respect, but it is not a matter of what you intend; it's a matter of what you do. I bet Milli Vanilli thought the tracks they lipsynched were supporting them, too, when they really could sing -' just not this arrangement.' I bet madonna and brittny look at it the same way - ' I really can sing this, but I gotta dance now, too.' It's a distinction without a difference, as we say at the office. You are either using the skills in a live performance or you are faking it with tracks. A music minister with praise band I was in years ago played the cd behind the band and the congregation when it didn't know the song too well. Sounded good but it was something else besides an authentic live realtime performance by the band.

 

[kad]

This same discussion came up a while back, and one of the forum members commented (paraphrased): "If the performer(s) on the stage suddenly died, would the the music continue? If so, it's not a live performance."

 

That summarizes my take on it as well - I'm from the old school (obviously). That doesn't mean I'm right or wrong - just my take...

[linwood]

I really couldn't care less what someone uses on their gig. I don't think any less of them for using backing tracks on stage or running a seq or using an arp on a synth. It's just how "some" things are done. Not all. Take a razor blade to a roll of 2" and seq the performance together; never bothered me and done on countless records that I love. It's a tool of the trade. Not all things are done this way, but some are. I just want to be prepared and know how to do all of these things. If someone needs a track for stage, I want them to buy it from me. I want to be in the "loop" some how; have the reputation for knowing how to do all of it. If I were to think any other way, I'd be limiting my potential.

[burningbusch]

Interesting views all.

 

XXX using a good amount of backing trackes and live musicians is a fully legit performance??? By it's very definition (legitimate), no. Is it acceptable? Apparently we're used to it. (Not me.)

 

Another interesting comment: that a cover band sticking to the arrangements is a human sequencer, and "whoopdidoo", this is less than live or legitimate. But a Disklavier playing is live music. Hmmm. A disklavier playing is more "live" than a keyboardist playing a digital piano? WTF is going on here?

 

So if I am to follow this logic, hearing the Disklavier play an XYZ performance is more live than XYZ himself sitting down at a digital piano? A smooth jazz artist playing to full backing tracks is more listenable and legitimate than some band playing Sweet Home Alabama (this might actually be hard to argue)? Yet symphonies playing classical music (and sticking to the arrangements, but yet also "interpreting them") is more legit than a band covering Sweet Home Albama. All I really get from this response is that anything is more legit than a rock band.

 

Then there's the argument that because it's a high budget situation, it's MORE legit to use backing tracks. 10 musicians or more on stage isn't enough, you STILL need backing tracks? Oh, but it's XXX, therefore, it's legitimate.

 

Using technology is fine, I'm a big fan of it. But I'm appalled at the number of "musicians" who can't do a show without backing tracks of one type or another. Or the number who wouldn't DREAM of it.

 

Another example of style over substance.

 

You're twisitng my words. I never said I thought the live rock group was less legit. I said I would prefer to listen to an artist using backing tracks playing music I like vs. a fully live band playing stuff I don't. Very simple. I posed the question if the diskclavier or the DP was more live, but didn't answer it.

 

When a major pop star uses all the behind-the-scenes devices they can, they're doing it for one reason: to provide the audience with the best show possible. The audience has come to expect a very high degree of visual entertainment and full production sound. When you eliminate the musicians' ego and focus on what's best from the perspective of the audience, you open yourself up to a new world of possibilities. But that's what a lof of this comes down to, musicians' ego.

 

I've done pickup work for a female singer you used backing tracks on maybe 20% of the night. I hated the sound of the backing tracks. They were poorly done, mono (the other side was click) and added little. We convinced her to eliminate them as we picked up the tunes. So my actual experience with them has been negative, but I have heard them done well by others.

 

If I walk into a store with a diskclavier playing I can always determine very early on that it's an acoustic piano. There's something about how it fills the room. It's only when I get close enough for a visual can I determine whether it's a human or the diskclavier. Similarly when I walk by a club with loud music it's invariably the acoustic drums that signal to me that it's live vs. a recording. As we use more digital instruments we move away from the "live" acoustic sound and closer to the two dimensional sound of the CD.

 

Busch.

[Prague]

XXX using a good amount of backing trackes and live musicians is a fully legit performance???

 

Another interesting comment: that a cover band sticking to the arrangements is a human sequencer, and "whoopdidoo", this is less than live or legitimate. But a Disklavier playing is live music. Hmmm. A disklavier playing is more "live" than a keyboardist playing a digital piano? WTF is going on here?

Welcome to the 1990s Age of Rationalization. I don't get it, either. But, people will rationalize just about anything.

 

A live band is like a high-wire act performing without a net. The crowd subliminally knows that at any moment a failure can occur. The attraction for a crowd is the potential "danger".

 

Even if a band is playing an exact, duplicate arrangement, they are still playing without a net.

[richwhite9]

The Luddites should be lugging their Theatre Organs to every cinema in the city and protesting the use of recorded orchestras and clamoring for John Williams and Danny Elfman's heads.

 

 

[Tonysounds]

Busch, I did NOT twist your words. I totally UNDERSTOOD that you would rather LISTEN to smooth jazz played to backing tracks than listen to a live rock band. You made that clear.

But if you go back to your original statement, you DID say that Disklavier playing is more live than someone sitting a digital piano. And I feel compelled to point out that that is not only crazy talk, but that now you're comparing apples to cardboard boxes, or more accurately, "real" acoustic instruments (apples) to digital recreations (cardboard boxes), which of course is not even the topic.

[EscapeRocks]

As others have pointed out, I think it's a fine line.

 

As an example there are some sounds I play for certain songs where the ARP is part of the sound....just like the original we're covering. Take the intro to Steve Perry's "Oh Sherrie".

 

I still have to play all the notes and chords, but the ARP is in the construction of the basic synth sound, just as it was 20+ years ago when it was first recorded.

 

An answer to a question someone posited above: yes, if I fell off the stage, the music would stop. (at least the keyboard parts...then eveyrone would have a good laugh at the klutz )

[burningbusch]

XXX using a good amount of backing trackes and live musicians is a fully legit performance???

 

Another interesting comment: that a cover band sticking to the arrangements is a human sequencer, and "whoopdidoo", this is less than live or legitimate. But a Disklavier playing is live music. Hmmm. A disklavier playing is more "live" than a keyboardist playing a digital piano? WTF is going on here?

Welcome to the 1990s Age of Rationalization. I don't get it, either. But, people will rationalize just about anything.

 

A live band is like a high-wire act performing without a net. The crowd subliminally knows that at any moment a failure can occur. The attraction for a crowd is the potential "danger".

 

Even if a band is playing an exact, duplicate arrangement, they are still playing without a net.

 

And by that way of thinking a junior piano recital is the most thrilling musical experience imaginable. Everyone is waiting on pins and needles for the little shits to fuck up, and they WILL. Actually they are typically painful events for all involved--but it's not why people listen to music, live or recorded.

 

Busch.

[Ed Stanley]

With all due respect to Prague and Burning Busch I think the reason people that prefer live performance do so is not fot the risk of real time failures but for the unexpected moments of inspired brilliance which can never occur with a machine.

[Tonysounds]

Thank god Busch was born a fully formed prodigy. It would have been so painful for him to listen to himself otherwise.

 

But again, he's way off topic and off-base. The topic is "is it live if you're using backing material", not "is it better than listening to something I don't like, whether it's a bar band playing Sweet Home Alabama or a burgeoning yet not quite Ahmad Jamal talent".

 

Hey, do you hate small dogs too?

 

 

[burningbusch]

Busch, I did NOT twist your words. I totally UNDERSTOOD that you would rather LISTEN to smooth jazz played to backing tracks than listen to a live rock band. You made that clear.

 

You repeatedly used the word legit in your response and I never used it.

 

But if you go back to your original statement, you DID say that Disklavier playing is more live than someone sitting a digital piano. And I feel compelled to point out that that is not only crazy talk, but that now you're comparing apples to cardboard boxes, or more accurately, "real" acoustic instruments (apples) to digital recreations (cardboard boxes), which of course is not even the topic.

 

If all this discussion is about is "live is a human playing all the parts and anything less is not" then WOW I get, OK. Sorry for trying to introduce adjunct ideas and expanding definitions such as "live playing" or "live sound."

 

Busch.

[JeffLearman]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

 

Anyone who makes a gross generalization is a complete idiot.

 

 

[MusicWorkz]

All due respect, but it is not a matter of what you intend; it's a matter of what you do. I bet Milli Vanilli thought the tracks they lipsynched were supporting them, too, when they really could sing -' just not this arrangement.' I bet madonna and brittny look at it the same way - ' I really can sing this, but I gotta dance now, too.' It's a distinction without a difference, as we say at the office. You are either using the skills in a live performance or you are faking it with tracks. A music minister with praise band I was in years ago played the cd behind the band and the congregation when it didn't know the song too well. Sounded good but it was something else besides an authentic live realtime performance by the band.

 

I both agree and disagree. Lip syncing isn't in the spirirt of what we are talking about. Standing in front of a mike PRETENDING to sing or singing over pre-recorded vocals is MUCH different than a band augmenting their performance using a backing track.

 

The first is a severe lack of ability to begin with if you can't sing the tune. The second is about the production and presentation for the audience, supporting what you can do.

 

And even then, it is different than someone sitting at a keyboard PRETENDING to play the piano parts versus the track, seq or arp taking a supporting role for the song.

 

That is the distinction. If we are talking about replacement (i.e Milli Vanilli) or support (drum loop for the "sound" of a song on your CD), there is a BIG difference.

 

 

 

[MusicWorkz]

This same discussion came up a while back, and one of the forum members commented (paraphrased): "If the performer(s) on the stage suddenly died, would the the music continue? If so, it's not a live performance."

 

That summarizes my take on it as well - I'm from the old school (obviously). That doesn't mean I'm right or wrong - just my take...

 

The backing track could fail and unless you knew the original, the song would go on and you (the audience) wouldn't be the wiser.

 

Conversely, the music-keys, acoustic drums, bass, guitar, vocals-would die completely if we all fell dead. No substance at all would remain. But the drum loop would continue (depending on what song it was in the set)...

 

So is that still not a live performance???

 

[David Loving]

Again, that is a distinction without a difference, imo; you're still trying to fool the audience. Why not just cut out the middle men and play the record for them.

[MusicWorkz]

Again, that is a distinction without a difference, imo; you're still trying to fool the audience. Why not just cut out the middle men and play the record for them.

 

Because it's a LIVE performance .

 

There is no fooling the audience. It's clear there is a drum loop, for a purpose and not to replace the drummer. Would it be any less live if I were triggering the drum loop samples from my keyboard? Oops, wait a minute, we are ALREADY doing that with our Motif's, Nords, Triton's and Fantom's. What about a drummer playing to a click track in his earpiece? That's not a live performance either?

 

No one is pretending to play. No one is faking. We all are playing our instruments and parts.

 

Bottom line, there are different contexts for different genres. Some include judicious use of backing tracks. Other uses tend to be more prudent. Its perfectly acceptable to include backing tracks at some moments (like in Pop music where the expectation is to sound precisely like the CD). But I wouldn't expect it for a classic rock act, but would understand if the Who or Genesis used it selectively in their performances.

 

Does it make that a better music performance than others if they don't use backing tracks? Not at all. I would wholly expect backing tracks for certain R&B music but not all off it. Gospel music, too as long as it is contemporary and not traditional. Some situations its not a good music "move" to do that (i.e. a praise and worship service). Others, it might be.

 

I think the trick is understanding the context the music is being performed in. That gamut is so large, it defies a strict application of a particular definition.

[linwood]

 

[Strategery]

Well, I think if you're a ONE MAN BAND...playing some festival using your laptop of MP3 backing tracks is one thing because you can offer entertainment at a lower price than a full band.

PLaying and singing with those BT's can sometimes mean the difference between getting the job or not.

 

Would I prefer to listen to the above scenario?

Probably not but I've been to small OktoberFests and those setups were ok for the occasion.

 

But in my opinion...adding those nice little sounds from your work station keyboard or sequencer can mean the difference between a good performance and a killer one.

 

In a normal band set up of Keys, Drums, Bass, 1 or 2 guitars, and a bass...I think most listeners and musicians would fine with small arpeggios or loops that add to the song.

Also, I think some small horn section work etc... from the keyboard would be acceptable as well.

Just one example of course.

I think the KEY is....KNOWING your work station/Keyboard well enough to do it CONVINCINGLY, authentically, and musically.

 

That comes from understanding what an instrument would play IF you had that instrument in a band.

To get the tone, technique, and sound down on your keyboard, is a feat in itself.

 

What say ye?

[MusicWorkz]

 

Nice groovin' clip...I hear a drum loop(electronic hand clap and tambo rhythm in the breakdown is the give away), but this isn't a live performance by some definition because a loop/sequence is being used???

[David Loving]

Hey, PM had me fooled! Maybe it's just me, but I hate phony synth horn sections. I'm just a luddite, I guess.