Is Performing With A Backing Track Cheating? My Opinion...
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 жов 2022
- In today's video whether using a backing track live is ripping off your fans?
📚👂 Ultimate Bundle Sale - ONLY $99 for all my educational products: rickbeato.com
📚- The Beato Book Interactive - $99.00 value
👂- The Beato Ear Training Program - $99.00 value
🎸- The Quick Lessons Pro Guitar Course - $79.00 value
… all for just $99.00
Get it here: rickbeato.com
Live Show!
Friday - 11/18 Chicago, IL Park West www.axs.com/events/438377/ric...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBSCRIBE HERE → bit.ly/2eEs9gX
For recurring support go here: flatfiv.co/pages/become-a-bea...
Hearing bands play different versions of songs or making changes to suit the vibe is such a big part of the magic of live shows. Not to mention watching musicians having fun vs. just grinding out a performance.
that also can happen with backing tracks
Depends. If it sounds like junk without the extra instrumentation, I'd rather they used backing tracks.
It can but too often the ease and comfort of 'not upsetting the cart' precludes it from happening
@@ellwitz9838 tell me you never played with backing tracks without telling me you never played with backing tracks hahah
It depends upon your taste and personality.
Most times I absolutely hate it when artists vary from the version on the recording.
That's what I like about some bands who go through the effort to make their live shows sound exactly like the hit recording.
I am reminded of Led Zeppelin. The albums had many layered guitar parts as well as keyboards, bass, mandolin, and guitar played by John Paul Jones. When they played live and were considered then one of the very best live shows, they played live...with no backing tracks. The shows were rawer and more unpolished, but they were amazing examples of improvisation and live talent. No one was expecting to hear Jimmy Page layering backing tracks to sound like the albums.
they were a band that made brilliant albums with multiple layers and innovative production techniques. Live they sounded totally different, no harmonies, one guitar, no bass if JPJ was on keys but yet the songs and members were so strong, it was usually just as good or sometimes better than the record.
@@rrdream2400 and still kicked more ass,......
Totally understood. But name the 50 other bands that could do that? They were an anomaly. The norm is that most of live players are not very good. The fact is most of the bands you heard even back in the day when they went in the studio they had a crew of people that would actually play. Usually it was only the lead singer that would actually sing. The studio players werent even part of the band.
That was like The Who of the late 60s, especially with "Tommy", how they played it live, compared to the studio version was completely different, the guitars were much more aggressive, especially on "Sparks".
Agree 💯
As long as each person on stage plays their instruments live and the singer acutally sings I don't care if there are tracks to complete the sound. I rather enjoy a full sound than a romantic minimalistic appoach.
100% agreed. And I think a fool like Eddie Trunk constantly beating his drum (to line his own pockets, really) is causing people to miss this point.
"I ain't farting on no snare drum"
Then just listen to the original through a good sound system.
Completely agree! Though I do sometimes enjoy a more simple aproach to songs when they are played live. Good example is/was Queen. Over-the-top arrangements on record, much more raw rock sound live. And of course they also used pre-recorded tracks for the opera part in the middle of Bohemian Rhapsody.
Another important point people seem to miss when they complain about use of backing tracks is that in most situations it's actually harder to play live with backing tracks than without because you have to pay much more attention to the correct timing.
@@andimachovec2719 Correct. As soon as a backing Track is on you cannot fail at any point in the song. As well as a Metronom/Tempo Map. This makes everything harder rather than easier.
Tracks are cool and have their use, but nothing beats a raw live performance from talented individuals playing in harmony with each other.
... along with a set of great tracks to fill out the sound. Unless you want to triple the ticket price for the extra musicians on stage, which is also fine to do.
@@shiftd_1114you don’t even play an instrument
"All this machinery making modern music, can still be open hearted. Not so fully charted, its really just a question of your honesty, yeah your honesty."
- RIP Neil Peart.
That's what it comes down to.
Thank you!
Rush always used tasteful backing tracks live (Roll the Bones, The Pass, and Stick It Out come to mind). It sure was cool, though, when they had a mini-orchestra on the Clockwork Angels tour!
And indeed, Ronnie was being honest!
Well said great reference
As a musician from Bangladesh, because of our 'low tech' everything, I and my fellow musicians still play everything live. Guitarist can still play everything sounding like that of the records they did. We still have stage monitors that most of the times probably doesn't work properly. We just go with the flow, and play our gigs. The crowd enjoys and so do we. I believe we are blessed by low tech in this instance!☺️
True! The less modern tech you use, the more natural talent we can listen, in my opinion 😆
Meetodisfrutooo🎉😂❤
@@lukahmad5683 So you think that this guy's band with low tech, just going with the flow would sound better and be a better show than Falling in reverse with backing tracks? 🤔
Yeah, i still believe a great band can perform on any given backline. It might be different or limiting but skilled musicians should still be able to make most scenarios work.
@@AlfredHugecokk What..?
I have this conversation with my friends all the time. I personally don’t use backing tracks with my band but almost every single one of my friends do. I don’t think backing tracks are “wrong” unless they are being used to cover up not being able to play your own songs. I generally find shows that are propped up by backing tracks to be boring. I want to see people actually play their instrument and mess up. I just saw the smile in SF and Jonny greenwood messed up the delay part in thin thing for like a couple beats and managed to pull it back into perfect time. That’s the stuff I want to see. Humans being human.
In the late seventies during a Jethro Tull show, I saw what I consider one of the coolest uses of a backing track. Prior to performing the song, "Songs From the Wood", which begins with a 4 part chorus singing the 1st verse a cappella with Ian Anderson, he came out on stage with the spot light on him and a small table holding a Teac reel to reel recorder. Ian smiled at the audience, held up one finger and pressed play on the recorder to begin the song with the rest of the band joining in at the 2nd verse. Instead of hiding the fact that he was using a backing track for all the voices he didn't have on stage, he made it part of the show.
Leonard Cohen used to do something similar, not with a backing track but with a cheap synthesizer in which he'd record a loop that would continue into the song. He'd joke that once he started that thing going it would continue by itself, which scared him a bit.
Doing these things openly is okay if it's only an enhancement for some songs and not hidden. Not being able to put on a show at all without your laptop is just weak.
Greetings from Ontario, Canada. My band opened for a well known Canadian country duo a couple of years before the pandemic. They were a 5 piece band with approximately 32 extra backing tracks. Well, their little machine malfunctioned. 10 minutes of dead silence. They made heart signs and asked if anyone had a birthday, but they couldn’t continue until the whatever they were using was fixed. 5 guys on stage that couldn’t play a song without backing tracks. To me that’s embarrassing.
Pathetic is a better word.
That's strange. I remember BAND-MAID lost their luggage in 2018 on their way from Moscow to Helsinki, including Kanami's guitar and what they called "the interface" (I think they meant the laptop with all the backing tracks). Kanami had to run around Helsinki to search for a guitar to rent. But during the show, they managed perfectly fine. A few improvisations here and there, and all the spaces were filled to everyone's satisfaction.
P.S. The lost luggage was found, they said so in the middle of the show.
How can they feel the energy of the music? Performing would be boring. No backing tracks for me please.
If you can't play a single tune without, that's an issue. From my experience we would just use them to fill out a song. If things went sideways, we'd kill the backing and continue to perform that song live without the backing, which all it did was fill out what drums, bass, guitar, and the singer couldn't. For the most part though, 95% of our sets were live with those 4 live instruments.
@@mikeydesignssilkscreen473 did it feel right? I'm not judging at all believe me. I just wonder if the vibe was good. I'm not a professional musician just been a few punk bands has all, so not much required to perform you know? But yeah, I've always wondered about that.
Backing Track never bother me but still a big bummer when band cancels show because of missing laptop. It's pretty scary if your entire live performance depends on a laptop.
that's why I use cloud ☁️
What's the saying? "Have a backup, and a backup for the backup."
Yeah, people are less bothered by using backing tracks and more bothered that they can't even put on a show without them. They're supposed to be a whole rock band but they can't even play the songs together because every song relies on the laptop.
The problem is all their laptops (along with backups) were sent to the wrong place and Falling In Reverse use the laptops for their backing tracks, orchestra, some songs require a more hip hop style of track in parts and they use it for the lighting as well
This ^^^^. 5 pro musicians with their instruments find out the day before the gig their laptops are missing. Heaps of time to vary the arrangements and set list of their own songs. Instead cancel the show. 100% ok to have backing tracks at a show, but to cancel is pathetic.
If you're in a band that has sound effects, synths, and other ear candy that's on your album I think it's very important to use it. It's part of the music you're playing.
Adding to your music YES. Having someone fake play/sing? Absolutely not.
A really good band, doesn’t need extra bells and whistles to enhance their sound. For example, a good trio…less is more.
@@lanes58 yeah probably for a band like Pantera... there's other genre's out there that have techno, synths, bass drops, and bells that ARE part of the sound.
Not everyone likes a simple trio band.
@@damnationistoday Totally agree! It's great we have these opportunities for new sounds!
I agree on that aspect ALONE if its there in your car you want it on the stage and that was my point. To keep it as they bought the ticket to hear. when you hear a song and it becomes i know this is tacky so bare with me but when it becomes your jam the song you keep going back to driving around etc that is what you want when you go see the show as well isn't it? it is for me i know that much i am 49 and its been that way my whole life and i think we should expect that from shows OK Enuff Said Blessed day to all who chimed in
I m not against it, it is what is, but they're dependent on factors alien from their musicianship.Doesn't happen in classical or jazz for example, where what you see is what you get. It also limits the improvisational possibilities.
As a songwriter in a three piece band I always put the rhythm guitar really low in the solo and make sure the bass can stand out on its own so it sounds good live, write a song that you can play live and you never have to worry about backing track mistakes!
As a bass player I approve!
Yes!
That's nice if you actually have all of the instruments you need to make up a band when you start a project.
And then you end up not changing or progressing your sound. Pretty much every artist and band has come up against this problem. That's partly why the Beatles stopped touring.
@@RebeccaTurner-ny1xx you can change your sound and progress as an artist without adding instruments and sounds that you don't actually play. If the only way you can "improve your sound" over time is by writing stuff that you cannot play then you just aren't any good.
I saw Duran Duran in the 80s and they were upfront at the start of the show that they would be using some backing tracks because it would be logistically impossible to recreate them on stage.
It was an amazing show and no-one cared what was live and what was off tape. they were honest and brilliant.
I played to backing tracks in multiple bands. It was awesome but when I played in a band with NO backing tracks years later, it was the greatest feeling ever. I have nothing against backing tracks. I just wanted to add to the conversation that playing with out them is a much more satisfying experience.
Yeah, i think its also a matter of whether you need them to perform your music live. Some bands just dont because the band is all there is.
There’s a certain something when a group of musicians play together with just what’s in their hands - and it just goes right; indescribable!
Music has really hit rock bottom when a professional band cancels a show because they can't play live.
Trouble with backing tracks is that songs can't progress. Even today there is somewhat of a time factor on songs that make it onto commercial playlists, concerts gave the bands a chance to take their 3-4 minute hits and turn them into epic 7-10 minute songs. With backing tracks, we lose the "jamming" factor.
Got to see a two piece band in high school, they were a drummer and a guitarist. Guitarist was controlling every other track from his laptop. They had a tower of pc monitors in front of the stage where they were playing the video of the female singer singing her part. They were performing so well and playing their parts amazing, blending every other track so smooth, a lot of rehearsal for sure. I do not mind at all when the performance is extremely creative like that.
The reason I go to live shows IS to see the spontaneity and creativity of the artists. Not knocking what tools the artist uses to accomplish their sound but it sure is nice to see bands and artist perform "au naturel".
Yeah, I don't want to see a perfect replication of the studio track I listen to on my stereo all the time. I want to hear them play it at maybe a slightly different tempo, maybe extend a solo, some improvisation.
Right on. I already own the album ... if I want to hear it note for note, I'll just put on the record.
Play it slower, faster, worse, better ... but different ... warts and all ... make it real. Otherwise, what's the point?
@@ari1234a lol no more synths. Really... its been 40 years and your still crying about a device that can create new sounds.
OK...but not everybody is you. Some people don't care. They're not wrong for not caring about that stuff.
@@doublestrokeroll Most people do care for it, the concept of concert is more towards what he described, most people see concert and interpret it correctly, there is always odd people out who like to go to a digital backing track rich "concert".
There are a lot of exceptions to the “bands are locked into a click track” part of this discussion (as I’m sure Rick is aware, he just didn’t break it down.) The artist I was working for for years up until the pandemic had bridges and other parts of songs where the click/tracks/programming would stop, allowing for off the cuff solos, band intros, talking without the crowd, and whatever else. And when they wanted to kick back into the actual song, the drummer (or playback tech) would cue a count off for the band to hear, and the tracks/programming would start again in that next part. It can be done, but it has to be precise and most often requires a drummer with great timing.
Very important point you made there. Having worked for Cirque Du Soleil I can tell you that all their modern shows have an element of Ableton live in there and an Ableton operator who can change things up when the action on the stage requires it. Its a great way to mix spontaneity with form and still get the lush arrangement of the album mix.
Intelligent approach.
@@jazzbassoonpaul yes, but then its an instrument in some sense now too, not a crutch.
Queen had to use backing tracks to perform Bohemian Rhapsody in its entirety. Because the song was to big for the band to do live. And I didn't hear this band till this current issue. Not my cup of tea. But those guys make a big sound. A way bigger sound than what a 4 or 5 piece rock band can make. With the sound they make there'd probably be 3 or 4 more people in the band to pull it off 100% live. For anyone that's a musician it should be completely obvious that those guys have to use backing tracks live. Like seriously guys. Where did you think all the EDM breakdowns, synthesizers and orchestral sounds were coming from? Hell maybe it's his Kemper and it makes his guitar sound like a 10 piece Orchestra with a bass drop at the end? Ya think? Those boys aren't up their lip syncing. They're actually really talented kids. I'm 43 and even I'll say "these old azz guys need to get over that sh!t". Times have changed. What used to be a quarter million dollar studio can now fit in a bag. A stage production that used to take a 25 person crew can now be run by 6 or 7 guys and a laptop. I guarantee in the 50s and 60s there were a bunch of old azz dudes talking about how whack Marshall Stacks and Les Paul's were and how playing acoustic guitar and stomping on an old milk crate was way cooler and took more talent. This is the modern day equivalent.
@@worldssickestmedia2713 Adding to this: Bradley Hall made a great point. Studios used to invest a lot of money into rock bands that they don't do now. Music used to make much more money. Do studios now take a band into a house to stay at for a few months, read through the lead singer's journal and find a great entry, and tell them "you should write this as a song!" (See the Professor of Rock's Story of Under the Bridge)
A lot of it now is done at home.
This reminds me of one of those lovely, lengthy post-show conversations I had with Jay Clifford about how awestruck and mesmerized we both were upon having seen the footage of James Taylor playing live and using a reel to reel tape machine to play the pre-recorded backing vocals when he played on SNL sometime in the 70’s.
I feel the key takeaway point is that we’re there to entertain to the best of our abilities, using whatever resources are available that we’re comfortable with, and that it absolutely does not matter what another musician thinks about your setup.
I grew up listening to Depeche Mode, who were always open about using backing tracks. They used to put the tape player on the stage (early 80s) and eventually just moved it off stage for logistical reasons.
Lots of early 80s synth bands had an open reel deck on stage. OMD was another; they were (and are) really limited musicians and could never get anywhere close to their records live.
100% agree with what Rick is saying in that it's not just the tracks, but pedals, lighting, etc. If you're an indie artist, this is a huge plus to be able to put on a bigger, better show without wrecking your budget. The only thing I'll add is to make sure you can still play your show if the laptop/tracks fail- because they will at some point. Practice just "as a band" (like the old days! Lol). Have an acoustic set in your back pocket. Have a backup plan! My opinion. I know just about every band I see is using them, and if it's done right, it's a great show most of the time.
I remember when Pink Floyd did the "Pulse" tour. They didn't use backing tracks, but they did have two drummers, two keyboard players, two guitarists, three backing singers and a whole load of recorded effects.
That's similar to some of Moby's tours, where he has people who sing the vocal samples that he used in the studio. Beck has had a large backing band to play the samples. Also, if we're just talking about recreating intricate sounds, The Smashing Pumpkins added Mike Garson on piano, along with a pair of percussionists. They were going to add Lisa Germano on violin, but that fell through.
@@scottcharney1091 that costs a whole lot more. There is an over saturation of music these days and bands don’t make much touring. I do accounting and tax work for several bands in the Falling In Reverse genre.
@@markconner5341 True; those are major-label examples. The point is that "live means live." It's possible now to at least trigger the samples in real-time. They're still being "played," so to speak. Rush might have pioneered that, precisely because they didn't want to bring along a keyboardist/backing vocalist, and they refused to use a backing track.
Pink Floyd has sold how many albums? They could afford the extra musicians and effects and the logistics required to set it up every night. Most groups can't do it, which is why technology is really the only answer.
What are those "whole load of recorded effects"? Those are tracks. That's where people get really blurry and undiscerning in this conversation. Pink Floyd's songs/tracks were so involved and crazy that if you didn't have a way to trigger those sounds effects/ambience, it wouldn't be the same song. Keep in mind, Pink Floyd did this basically before anyone else did almost, and they had to do it with tape, back in The Wall days. Those guys were revolutionary.
Thank You! Thank You! The questions you addressed in this episode have always concerned me and made me wonder about the authenticity of a live act. As long as the recorded addition tracts are for background support, then I have no problem with them. I really like to hear my favorite bands play my favorite songs like they sound when I sing along. You did an awesome job explaining how and why they are used.
I saw the Who in the 70s. Yep. They were using backing tracks for some tunes. I think the primary thing is not pretending that you’re actually playing or singing those parts. Even Keith Emerson during a live performance had a sequencer playing a little ditty and he gradually increased the speed to a rate that was humanly impossible to play. And the audience went wild. Who had heard of hardware sequencers back in the early 70s?
I used to play with backings with my Band, and eventually we decided to scrap the laptop, mainly because we didnt want to deal with the stress of our performance literally hanging on a usb-cable.
Also we became a much tighter Band as we had to listen to each other instead of clicktracks.
How’d you replace all the missing music?
@@videditorEB1 For the most part we didnt. We went through our backing track and asked our selves, Do we really NEED that live?
We kept two samples that I trigger manually with a sample pad, everything else was scrapped. That also has the nice side effect that our band is now way easier to mix as the sound is not as cluttered.
And you d be surprised how little people care live about the fourth layer of guitar or backroundvocals or bass drops.
The usb-cable or the software or laptop crapping out on you because of reasons xD
For me playing live creates the opportunity of things going constructively wrong, and the great satisfaction of reacting to it in a manner that makes the audience think you meant it. I once played a gig during which a song we'd played hundreds of times, "Already Gone by The Eagles, found us reach the chorus and all four of us stopped playing exactly together - we don't know why to this day, but instead of collapsing we just sang the chorus a capella with spontaneous harmonies, and came back in exactly together to finish the song conventionally. My best friend who watched us a lot wouldn't believe that we hadn't practiced the effect for weeks and weeks. You need to know and trust each other well to be able to do that of course, but for me, those are the moments you play for.
That would have been awesome to see … and hear!
You are not wrong! You just described the kind of spontaneity, magic, vibe, whatever you may call it, that can't be achieved with a backing track. But your friend was right, in a way. Most of us on stage get that vibe. Most audiences get a completely different vibe.
that sounds so so cool.
Funny it was an Eagles song. They were so polished from being touring perfectionists when I saw them in the 80's before they broke up after The Long Run. They did not have a flashy stage presence. They were just cool guys and the stage presence was the flawless music they made. They did Seven Bridges Road without Autotune or overdubbing. If ever you have a chance and interest look for the isolated vocal tracks of that song. I did not think the day would come but they definitely used Autotune on the last live tour recorded with Glenn Frey. BTW, if you have Serious FM they have an exclusive recording of the band with Glenn's son Deacon filling in for him. He fits perfectly with the band. He is not Glenn's clone, he fills in an area that was open and who would have ever known there was space for anyone else? He may sing Glenn's parts but he does them his way and it sounds like a space was meant for him. He has since left the band. Why? Why? Why?
Agree it's the 'wrongness' that leads to innovation and true creativity.
I think Nine Inch Nails is a good example of this. There is SO much going on with their songs and if it’s programmed into synths or backing tracks, they still sound like a beautiful live band. You still feel like you are getting a raw, live performance, but you also know it is all planned out meticulously
Right, the core elements are live and raw, but the additional layers of sounds are tracks. There's no way around it as there's too much going on in some of their stuff to not use tracks to enhance.
Trent and his ban members over the years have spoken about this. It has always been the case that they attempt to play as much as possible live. They often trigger samples from the original recordings, like specific kick drum sounds for example. Alessandro has even recorded loops that he plays through a 4 track machine, using the faders like an instrument of sorts (this is something Mike Mills did with backing choral vocals for REM shows years ago!)
In any case - NIN are amazing to see live.
N.I.N. are creatively genius tho, and go out of their way to make a show both mesmerizing AND organic. I'm sure they leave plenty of space for human elements, and even possible mistakes. Which is a lot different to 99% of pop stars claiming to sing live when they have only ever mimed to a backing.
keep on lying to yourself that you have been on live performance and it was so "real"
This is why Pearl Jam are so great live. You could argue that they're significantly better live than on their studio albums.
I don’t love some of their later albums but imo Ten is one of the greatest top to bottom rock albums ever… so your comment is saying a lot!
That's why they should stop playing live twenty years ago.
Queen played a tape for Bohemian Rhapsody live for the Operatic section and they’d walk off stage to show they weren’t playing it live. In the early days they’d simply add a medley of other songs where the operatic section would normally be. However they adapted their live set to account for the necessary changes needed for playing live. They were often considered two bands. The studio songs and the live songs.
Also now when performing with Adam Lambert Roger plays off of Freddie’s piano track in his headphones and Brian follows suit
They used to have Spike Edney play piano backstage, or even some extra rhythm guitar. I loved it when he joined them on stage for Hammer to Fall to play rhythm next to Brian, or piano when Freddie would stand up to entertain the crowd.
@@funlovingvoyeur i garee Spike was great. Interesting listening to his interview about how he started with them.
@@sergeinester6261 what do you mean was? spikes still there
@@D_phillips17 where did you hear that?
Glad you mentioned The Who having to play to a backing track on Baba O’Reilly. Daltry & Townshend have always been upfront about it and how terrifying it always was to be locked to the tape once the “Play” button was pushed. And if the machine failed, it failed and they’d have to play through it.
Fans know about this. I love the Who. The funny thing is to watch them play at something like The Concert For New York after 9/11. The song begins and the tv crew keeps focusing on their touring keyboard player, the amazing Jon Carin who is NOT playing one note. 😂
@@guyincognito8440 Well, they played other tunes with keyboard parts. And surely it was Carin who triggered the programmed parts as well.
As I mentioned in another comment, the Moody Blues used a Mellotron extensively in the late 1960s. What is a Mellotron if not a machine that produces backing tracks? There is no way the Moodies could have played any song from Days of Future Passed live without the tape loops of strings that Mike Pindar activated with a keyboard.
Won't Get Fooled Again needs to be mentioned as using a backing track alongside Baba. The Who got plenty of grief from critics and fans back then for using the tracks but eventually everyone accepted their use and moved on. It is always best for performers to be upfront about using them rather than pretending they are not when they are.
One more comment. Twice I have seen Adele, an artist I love and respect, play a "live" TV broadcast, and clearly the only actual live elements are her lead vocals, maybe background vocals, and the keyboard player whom I believe is the one that starts and stop her sequences. When you see a 20-something looking guitar player miming to a nylon string guitar part with a Stratocaster in his hands, that's when it becomes silly!! Once I auditioned for a big current pop singer and was told upfront I would be miming the entire show which was "canned" including her lead vocals. We were even told we would fake a soundcheck in case a particular venue had an issue with that and wanted to sue for breach of contract. Now that is dishonest, and I don't agree with it at all.
Backing track with a click track and in ear system isolated from PA is a powerful tool for the band to play in time. And if you do not want a keyboard guy. You just back track the click and keys and that helps a bunch sound better.
I dont see why some haters talk negatively about this.
I enjoy both with or without backing track live shows. Just different experience. But when you hear a band play without it and still to manage to sound big and wide, you know you've got a gem.
I'll add that the way Rush did this was best. They had some short samples that the band triggered. Even backing vocals. This raised the degree of difficulty to their level. Not many people could sing and trigger their own backing vocals with their feet the way Geddy Lee did live.
I would add to that; Neil Peart famously hated touring, but he did it because as he wrote in one of his books, "a real band plays live."
I listen to RUSH almost every day. I loved going to their shows. I have been to several where Alex has broken a string during a song. His guitar would drop out. As soon as the new guitar got on to Alex he would join right back into the song. I was there when Neil broke a Tom and someone replaced it during the song it was amazing to watch and hear a different drum being played for that beat while fix was being done.
Yep. Otherwise, Aimee Mann would have had to go on hiatus from 'Til Tuesday to accompany RUSH on the "Hold Your Fire" tour.
Roll the Bones
Geddy Lee could fly 2 helicopters simultaneously
I was working local crew in the early Eighties when both backing tracks and automated light shows came about. The first time it really came together was a Hall and Oats show. They were using the brand new Vari-lite computerized and movable lights and had a bunch of sequenced audio parts. They had to do the lights like that. There wasn’t enough computer processor to do it any other way.
Personally, I like music that doesn’t use or need backing tracks. I’m more Americana, bluegrass, singer songwriter type. For those guys, all the automation would just get in the way. And for real bluegrass, watching four or five musicians work a single mic is a work of art.
Here's a frustration - I auditioned for a band that insisted the drummer play to a click, me being the drummer. I thought it was strange, as they had no backing tracks or sequenced parts.
So the audition was fine, but during rehearsals I started noticing that they had never played with a drummer on a click before, so they would consistently forget that I had to count them in. The lesson here: If you're going to ask the drummer to be on a click, and YOU are not on that same click, let the drummer do their job hehe.
As a bassist, I was okay with drummers counting in, but after that _I_ was the boss from that point on.
Most drummers fought me, but the ones that didn't fight meshed with me like tapestry, and those grooves were often nothing short of transcendent.
@@BigBri550 I think a lot of drummers might forget that the bassist tends to have more intricacies that are tempo dependent. If a drummer rushes a bass player, the song can fall apart.
I've played with bassists who I happily let lead the pocket, and yeah, you eventually just line up anyway, only at a point they set.
Or look at Metallica, James drives that rhythm. And if he didn't....yikes heh.
@@sydhamelin1265 I have played with drummers like you described. I think they saw it as, "You do your job, and I'll do mine." But I saw it as: let's make this song _happen._
You seem to express the awareness of a good drummer. We probably would have played well together if fate had ever made our paths cross.
Even though i can be kind of arrogant and a pain in the posterior, i love it when bands actually play together, and I know how to glue it all together from the bass. And I do like to have fun, too, as long as there's a good groove.
@@BigBri550 I was fortunate to have a phenomenal teacher when I first started learning, then fortunate again to play with more experienced musicians starting out.
My current mentor is also a brilliant teacher, and very focused on two points. The ergonomics of drumming, and playing in service of the music.
The current bass player I'm working with is much more relying on me to hold the fort down, but my last bass player sounds a bit like you. He was extremely skilled, and while I may have been the drummer, he had a better overall sense of rhythm than I did.
I'm not saying this to beat up on myself, but to compliment him. His sense of groove was clearly more polished than mine. So when it came to setting tempos, it was absolutely on him, and I would actually work with him to hear what he did and didn't like on drums.
At one point I was playing something that he found a little too busy, and he had no qualms about saying "hey, I think there's too much going on there".
I feel like a LOT of musicians forget that you improve by having those moments. Someone more experienced who guides you...not necessarily in how to play your instrument, but how to understand what the song needs.
Well, if you're ever in Southern California, heh.
@@sydhamelin1265 Cool! You sound like my kind of musician. Unfortunately, my playing days are behind me as I've aged and gotten hard of hearing.
And I don't ever go to Southern California 😉
I agree! It just matters if they do it well! I also think that specifically Linkin Park id a lot for the acceptance for programming on stage, backing tracks, etc. Because they were probably one of the first bands that used ProTools etc from the beginning and Mike Shinoda, Joe Hahn and Rob Bourdon all knew how to utilize the technology well in the studio and on stage. They played as much live as possible too and their concerts sounded totally different. They also could make interesting medleys with old demo tracks, evolve the songs on the road (think how „Pushing me away“ or „Crawling“ evolved) etc…
I think they were a good example how to do this well and „musically“
Static X was one of the first bands using an ADAT on stage for backing tracks, they had that many channels of backing stuff. I remember reading about that back in the mid-90s. Now, granted, bands like New Order, Depeche Mode, etc had been using pre-recorded stuff or sequenced stuff for years, in conjunction with live performance instruments on songs, too, but Static X was doing this metal-industrial hybrid and taking backing tracks into an arena that they were not normally being used in. Nine Inch Nails got away with it because they were electro-industrial first, and metal heads just grew to like them.
A friend of mine who is a professional music director for various pop artists in Los Angeles once put his thoughts on backing tracks to me this way:
The best way to treat backing tracks is to utilize them as a supplement to the performance if need be. Think of them as another "tool' in your musical toolbox that can enhance the show if used tastefully and correctly. Where alot of artists nowadays go wrong, however, is it becomes a sole crutch that is relied upon that makes or breaks a show. So much so, that alot of modern pop performances have become a "glorified Spotify playlist." The laptop becomes the "soul" of the show so to speak; not the musicianship or live moments built in to truly engage the audience.
The goal of crafting a memorable, meaningful live show is to give the audience inside the venue something that someone who hasn't paid for a ticket CAN'T get outside of that venue. If your whole show is essentially a track for track karaoke, with no musical elements built in beyond that, you might as well listen to the record at home and save yourself the money.
I couldn't have said this better. As a band you should be able to perform / play your music, cover or original period. But you should be able to add parts if you need to but, not to the point where you can't perform if you don't have those parts. If you do need to add parts that are critical.. 1-Let the audience know 2-Make sure that what you are playing on your instrument is live and tell your audience that too. They are not gonna kill you, you just got to be honest with them. Also make your performance 50/50 or 60/40..meaning play as much as possible without tracks, this way your audience can experience both things and maybe not feel left out. It's different if you're a solo musician but, again let your audience know.
I'm a full time audio engineer. I totally agree with you. I want it to be live as much as it can. But I'm also all for supplementing it with tracks. The people I typically work with have portions of the show that are clicked and portions that are spontaneous. And these days, programs like Ableton can allow spontaneity if needed. You're exactly right about more being dependent on it than just audio. Lighting, video pieces, LED wall content, etc are all being cued with midi over network or tied to timecode. Ideally, all this stuff enhances the content of the show instead of substituting for it. Although, I always feel better if we can function without it and fire the whole show manually if needed. And 90% of the time we can. It's a balance I guess.
Based on what Rick said, it seems to me that every show should have one or two songs without backing tracks that they can improvise with, to bring some spontaneity, to change things up, because Rick said that the truly completely live bands who could change things up have the largest live success. I assume that he wasn't simply talking about song choice and order but how they are played. When writing and producing each album, consciously include at least one song that can be played completely live, without feeling out of place.
I no longer go to any live performances other than ten dollar punk shows, because the whole point of watching something live is because it's new and real and unpredictable never going to be exactly the same experience before or since. It's watching somebody build something and knowing they could screw it up.
Anything else is just a loud stereo with moving visuals, I could just turn up my volume at home and watch the VU needles for a lot cheaper than a couple seats at a recorded and overly choreographed show.
This is all my opinion, but it's also my money that I'm not spending on tickets to those shows - that's not up for debate.
@@ericdegaston8201 100% agree
@@ericdegaston8201 I mean I like jazz fusion played live and snarky puppy tends to record their concerts as their albums live
you wouldn't feel this way if you weren't an audio engineer. the final stage of this progression is a sad sanitized White musical tragedy that you don't want to see.
As a sound engineer for many top level bands, many of them use backing tracks in their live performance and I had to mix them in the monitor sends as well as front of house, most used digital tape as they were less likely to fail
My band has 3 members.Alot of the time we sometimes get super, over creative when we, not at rehearsal, but at our little studio spaces were we would come up with song ideas.
Unfortunately, sometimes we come up with parts that are not performable realistically in a live session, like keys or sound effects parts that are important to the rocknroll fullness of a song or 5.
We've battled with the backing tracks for those bits for ages.
And those songs to us sound better compared to when we played without them.
Sure we need more band members to facilitate that or backing track those parts.
It does cone with some technical risk like everything though.
I don’t mind backing tracks while playing live as long as it’s not a mime show like the Ashlee Simpson debacle. I remember thinking “Why would you completely fake the entire track of a basic four chord pop song live?” The way she danced off stage always gives me a chuckle.
The reason is she is not that talented
@@bigjayrillah3508 I guess her sister was the talented one 😂
That goes back to the 60s where tv show performances were for the most part taped. I remember a funny video during a Mamas and the Papas performance, Michelle Phillips was pissed that they wouldnt let them sing and play for real so during the performance she started eating a banana lol.
@@mmaviator22 There’s a TV “performance” by The Lovin’ Spoonful where the bass player plays a broom, and who could forget George on the punching bag and Ringo on the exercise bike in I Feel Fine while Paul and John dutifully mime singing and playing. They had fun with it being fake. Very rock n’ roll, and I’m sure the suits in the control booth weren’t happy about it.
True, but even in metal I get quite annoyed of very synth-heavy bands basically letting half of their music run from tape (granted ... I'm a keyboarder) . When I watched Rivers of Nihil on a festival, for example, I left after a few songs because it was just too dumb to watch a band that gets most of their character from such atmospheric parts (synths or even saxophone playing) playing everything from backing tracks ... Similarly with female vocalists: If you have several songs with female backing vocals, find a damn singer and don't let it run from tape or try at least to sing high parts by youself.
In contrast I really appreciate the big effort of some bands to play as much as possible by themselves (for example Soen with the 2nd guitar player doing synths and backing vocals).
I like live bands. There’s something about knowing that anything could go wrong at any second. It really shows how impressive they are and how much work they put into their performance.
Saw Bad Religion at Riot Fest last month and Brian Baker's guitar messed up right in the beginning and once more during a later track. But he's a seasoned pro and played right through it and the band never skipped a step. Sound guys fixed it and the show was fantastic and high-energy.
100% with you. I don’t really listen to mainstream music for this reason...give me my jambands, Colorado jamgrass, and progressive bluegrass. I want to hear it live and hear the true musicianship and variations they put in night to night. Organic, as music should be.
Well, by that logic you should love backing tracks. The more technology you have, the more things can go wrong. Look, having all this technology is not necessarily about making things easy. Playing live to a backing track is not easy. That requires serious skills.
That is such a great point about a true LIVE performance... It's also the difference between seeing a movie or a stage play for instance...where things go wrong, people adapt and each performance is a unique moment in time.
Surprised you didn’t mention Queen! They take great pride in playing their shows live.
I’ve recently seen a number of live acts using backing tracks. In most cases, it was a solo guitarist doing vocals using a bass and percussion backing track. I saw a duo in which there was a female primary vocalist and a male guitarist also contributing vocals. They sounded like a full band and were using backing tracks containing bass, percussion, guitar, and keyboard. I began to wonder when does this actually become karaoke?
It becomes Karaoke when the performers aren’t performing their own songs. That definition is already clearly outlined. I’m in an original alternative/hip hop duo and we have no intentions or desires to have anybody on stage with us performing the songs that we wrote, recorded, produced, and released. We rely highly on backing tracks because we don’t have or want a band. Very similar to Twenty One Pilots. There’s two guys. What else can we do?
This is the problem I've had for the longest time.
I haven't been able to put a band together because I come across this mentality that: "It's just a hobby for me"
Well, not for me dude, I didn't learn to play all the instruments being used in these songs, didn't made all the parts, didn't learn to produce video and audio and edit it and I'm not investing in promoting just for shits and giggles never mind the gear and the time to actually learn how to use it but also...so do I just remove the vocal and guitar track form the recording and perform "live" with it? If I, as a member of an audience walked in to a show where this is being done, I would just walk out...then again, maybe I should just say "Fuck it" and do it like that.
@@DiggitySchwag
At that point it's already karaoke, though admittedly kicked up a notch.
Thanx for making this clear and known 👍Music are more complexed today and honestly - I like to hear and experience the songs the way they where made 🙂
Excellent reflection. More and more I get away from spending money to go to a big concert by a band because you realize the "perfection" that the digitization of music creates. I go more and more to bars where you play without gimmicks and you give money to the person who actually plays, in the moment and without any hidden tricks.
Amazing Rick Beato!!!
tons of bar bands play to tracks in bars
Bingo! I do exactly that.
@@heartsquaremusic2953 You’re right. I mostly go to open mikes, bring a guitar or bass, and jam with someone if the opportunity arises. If a band is using tracks, I like to go up after their show and ask them how they control the mix etc.
Bars have crappy sound systems and acoustics though. Many times a good band sound no better than a garage band.
I like watching a band have the flexibility of adding an extra chorus or stopping to interact with the audience and then picking it back up again or the natural interplay of musicians feeding off each other which sometimes includes subtle tempo changes. Many from my generation (I'm 56) complain that recordings are locked on a grid but the use of backing tracks for live performances essentially creates the same effect. Using backing tracks on a couple of tunes per show to fill in instruments or effects the audience expects is ok but if the whole show is programmed then it's really just expensive karaoke, except in many instances the vocal parts aren't live either.
Nowadays you can pretty easily still do all that with the tracks. All you need is a talkback mic (or hell just good hand signals) and someone competent running the tracks. I played with a church where we used tracks for most of the mix and we were still able to change arrangements on the fly if we needed to because they had a midi controller (with pedalboard like buttons) that let the singer just start a new chorus or extend the instrumental or whatever by just stepping on one of the stomp buttons.
I'm with Ren Outlaw. I don't think that most of what you talk about and using backing tracks are mutually exclusive. Specially of the backing tracks are midi you can play, stop, speed up, slow down, transpose, etc no problem at all.
But if we are pragmatic, no matter if we like it or not, like electronic elements back in the day, computers are here to stay. We can complain about how using backing tracks is not playing live the same way people complained that using amplification to project your voice is cheating or that adding distortion to a guitar is "just making noise".
@@Zer0Spinn I think it's similar to the discussion around autotune where part of the negative connotation comes from the fact that most of the time if someone's utilizing it well, you're not going to notice they're using it. So people's idea of what it looks like is the sloppy instances because those are the ones that stick out.
@@renoutlaw8371 Yeah, I totally agree with that too.
At the end of the day, I value the classic getting 4 people in the same room and feeling your way through the jam as much as the super planned out, backing track using, live shows if they are both well done and the music speaks to me. It's music, who cares? This types of arguments only matter for people like us who have trouble separating our egos from our artistic process haha
Agreed John. All of my band's tracks can be played organically and sound fine, but we have one with a prominent violin part, and another song with a prominent synth/organ part. We use tracks for those two songs as we don't have a violin or keys player. It doesn't take away from the live experience at all in my opinion. Especially given that we sometimes jam during sections of the other songs on stage!
Glad you mentioned guitarists and AxeFX /NeuralDSP. It's made it easier for them instead of lugging a 4x12 an amp
I did a summer tour with a well known performer and used some backing tracks on stage. Mainly extra keyboard parts and strings. It made for a really fat sound. Of course everything else was live including main vocals, back harmonies.
I think it can make for a great live sound when done to enhance not to cover up.
One of the things I like to see in live music is how the musicians deal with the limitations that performing live presents. Songs have to be rearranged to fit the musicians and instruments at hand, and that can lead to something remarkable - even more compelling than the studio recording. In that case, watching a live performance is seeing music being made in the present moment, not something that was recorded previously - it is the musical equivalent to a high wire act. Doing it the old fashioned way also allows a greater amount of improvisation and adapting to how the audience reacts. Now, I realize that there are a lot of folks that get upset when a band plays a song that differs even a little from their hit, and using previously recorded tracks allows the music to be more complex and closer to the original recording, but this takes it out of the realm of being truly live.
Just makes me want to listen to side 3 of Cream's Wheels of Fire album. Three guys playing live. Perfect. Nothing else needed.
Side 3? EPIC - UNEQUALLED. As great as "Crossroads" was, "Spoonful" was maybe even greater.
@@robertvavra414 I agree. 😊 I was going to cite Spoonful alone, but decided it was easier to just say "side 3".
Thank you for this explanation. I had no idea. I don't think it bothers me either, if I'm going to see a band I like when it sounds like the original recording. I think it would be nice if this process was more widely known, but I guess it could be with a basic Google search nowadays. To me, it almost seems more difficult to have to maneuver a set with all this tech to remember.
Thank you for always creating such valuable videos super helpful info and shared experience you’re a blessing!
Once in a while I go to big concerts and I can tell they're using tracks. But I often go to small venues to see cover bands and I gotta say I enjoy them more because I can tell they're playing their instruments, I'm like 5 feet from them and it's so cool hearing live music coming out the speakers.
I liked the way Queen did it, at least when I saw them in the 70s. They did Bohemian Rhapsody. And at the part where they had multiple overdubbed vocals - that famous "Mama mia, Mama mia, let me go" part - they all left the stage, more or less saying, until here we can do it live, but this is impossible and so we leave you with the tapes for half a minute or so, and they came back with the fast guitar solo, played live of course. Think that was an very honest way of using tapes!
That's cool and funny. Respect to Queen even more : )
Check live Aid on headphones, where is the choir on stage?
@@eddie1brazil The Live Aid performance stops prior to the large choral portion of the song. They only do the first half.......smfh
@@brianjones8432 sorry I think you misunderstood me. I meant throughout the show not the arrangement they did for that song. But never mind, not everyone can hear or understand this.
@@eddie1brazil No, I understood you just fine. The OP was specifically talking about the middle section. The larger choral portion of the song. Queen had ALWAYS performed it that way live. They would play 100% live right up until that portion of the song, and then walk off stage and a reel-to-reel would play the middle section, and then they would come back out for the finale. There are countless videos here on UA-cam of them doing it this way at other shows. Live-Aid was no different. They just stopped at the point where they would have started the tape. They also had a supplemental keyboardist at Live-Aid as well, which they had been doing for years at that point live.
You are awesome bro thank you for your wisdom and knowledge as a multi-instrumentalist myself you are possiblity one of the best in the world I'm a fan keep on teaching
You said it, Rick- Mostly for the show lights and pyrotechnics they need the laptops for that-that’s a big part of the show
I remember when MTV launched “Unplugged” which seemed a way to show which bands could actually play.
Jean-Michel Jarre unplugged would be interesting!
Unplugged was boring as hell.
Can't say I care if a band uses backing tracks or not, but can say I care when a band feels they can't perform without it.
They probably can but it will sound kind of raw.... Like a demo tape of a garage band
@@josemorales5117 that’s what I’d want to hear. If I wanted to hear the recording, could listen to that on my phone.
@@andyfab65 For a lot less money!
you nailed it
@@josemorales5117 you nailed it. also i want to add to this that most pieces of music do not sound good at all if they are raw, they will always sound better with the same instruments used on the record. i dont want to hear a raw performance which sounds nothing like the record. very boring
Various bands I've been in we had some tune that required backing tracks or a drum machine or a keyboard loop , all of those are just tools to make the tune sound the way it should, Case in point my band played "In the Air tonight" Phil Collins which uses a Lynn drum intro , so my band used a Yamaha drum machine which I had to program the drum part to get it close to the original . After some time poking and proding I finally got an acceptable intro drum part to the song. ANother famous sax player I played with played Edgar Winters Frankenstein , and yup we used a farely elaborate backing track . Great Video and topic RICK
Most shows I went to were Death Metal or Jazz. No backing tracks 😁 I like being able to identify the source of all sounds at a show. Something magical about it all happening in front of you.
Ok nerd.
I remember seeing Van Halen on their first tour and was stunned how close they sounded to their records which of course is because they used to record close to live on most songs.
EVH was just a one in a million guy
@DONT WATCH MY VIDEO I won't.
there's a video of them trying to play "Jump" and the synth part was on a backing track synced to a video track, but the audio was at 44.1K and the video was at 48k, so when they played back the video with the synth audio it was all out of tune and speed with the rest of the band. It's a nice way to cheat when you don't want to pay an extra band member but it clearly can make you look like a joke.
Yes, King Edward made being on stage, wailing away on these intricate licks and solos, look like the easiest thing in the world! I firmly believe Eddie could still play every song perfectly, underwater and handcuffed - the man has alien DNA. Much respect to artists who can bring most of what they do in the studio, to the stage, with LIVE playing! RUSH, anyone?
Van Halen was a live band. What you heard is what you got. And Eddie could layer, without anyone helping. He was the best.
I’m a metalhead, and very used to hear bands play live with backing tracks, specially bands with a lot of symphonic elements in their songs; and by symphonic I mean orchestral parts that would be impossible to play live unless you bring the whole orchestra to perform live with the band. In this case, I’m more than confortable with backing tracks.
@@christo6765 what an unnecessarily elitist take. You’re sitting hear calling actual professional musicians fake because they use backing tracks for orchestral parts from their album while do all the singing and live instrument playing for the actual instruments they play. Get off your high horse.
@@jrjr.429 there's no getting through to people like that. they are so disconnected from reality, dude probably has protection around his house for 5g radiation
@UCuuhNlb60gNTX7C5-SOEjVA The fact is one person can't necessarily control a 50+ piece orchestra with a MIDI Keyboard... The music industry is one of the most innovative spaces ever - The use of backing tracks means almost anything is possible musically. Elitism has been a thing in music for hundreds of years yet it's those elitists who die out when they have too much ego to evolve.
@@jrjr.429 Uh…. Read his comment he literally said the opposite of that 🤣
@@jrjr.429 i retract the expletive i used. im not refering to the artists skill but to the product. Yes, it takes talent, artistry and ingenuity to construct and execute these productions. Can not take away from that. But automation is automation. It is what it is. If thats what you want...
We were smpte/midi in the 80s. We ran our back tracks with an alesis data disk. Guitar synth/keyboard patches/vocal fx processor all midi. The drummer used two roland octa-pads. We did it as sort of a gimmick because 3 people in the band worked music retail and we sat around in the store setting it all up as the gear was coming out then.
I am the drummer in a band who plays EDM/Metal. We use backing tracks that we play drums, guitar, and keytar over. In the backing tracks is all types of sounds, in some songs even vocals from songs we have done remixes of, but we always play our instruments live 🤷♂️
It's a huge difference between backing track and playback!
I also want to see how a live band adapts their studio tunes to a live setting. That's part of what I'm paying for. It's interesting to see the unique arrangements.
They're not going to have orchestras, full choires and 20 other people playing multiple keyboards and decks for a live show ..
@@mikepriestey2547 don’t bother explaining that. They think they want the live experience and don’t even know what that means.
@@BradsGonnaPlay It's the same as when people say "Good bands make it work in any situation!!". FIR are literally a rap/rock/electronic hybrid, without certain tracks it's impossible to make it work unless the quality of the show drops significantly and I'm sure all bands would prefer to put on the best show they can rather than half arse things.
People are clueless
@@mikepriestey2547 let them be, we don’t need to save the world 😂 we know what we know and they know what they think they know.
@@mikepriestey2547 but also 100%
Could you imagine going to a Kendrick Lamar show and going “THIS ISNT LIVE MUSIC” when he’s a rapper who uses tons of effects in his tracks.
He even shows The Who using tracks live and they make mental gymnastics to say “no it’s not like they do today”
In my mind there is a (maybe not so clear) line between using some tracks as additive parts to fill out an arrangement when they really can’t be reproduced by the members on stage and the song would suffer by not having the parts there versus using tracks as most of the sound coming through front of house. If the musicians are mostly onstage to fill space and dance around but the volumes are turned down, that’s no longer “live” music. The difference between production and deception…
Yep you nailed it there. Also there’s nothing more lame as a musician waiting for a Fukn robot to finish its section. Very different from awaiting the cue from a performer on the stage
U2, one of the biggest bands of all time, started using backing tracks when they did the unforgettable fire. They couldn’t play Bad without the sequenced synth part.
I worked with the Australian metalcore band Northlane on a leg of their Aussie tour not long ago. Their integration of backing tracks was masterful - currently it is just two guitarists, a drummer and a vocalist, but included in the tracks were bass (no bassist on stage obviously) all of the heavily produced synths and stuff, backing/processed vocals, and some atmospheric effects on certain drum hits etc. But the backing track rig did so much more, it hooked into a midi switching system that changed the patches on their neural quad cortex's - ran timecode to the lighting desk so it would run perfectly in time. All of the songs also ran into each other, so my job queueing the backing tracks was press play at the start, after a small speech and then at the encore. When you get to that level of production value with three quarters of a truck being filled with lighting and everything so tightly integrated into everything else then it just has to run from a laptop (or two).
I saw Queen live a couple of times in the 70's. When they played 'Bohemian Rhapsody', and the operatic bridge came up, the stage lights would go out and the band would walk off stage, making it obvious that they weren't playing, and that a tape player was being used.When the bridge ended, the lights would come on, the band were on stage again, and Brian May would go right into his 'headbangin' solo, obviously live.. It totally worked!
That sounds ridiculous.
They have always done that. That's the problem with writing songs that are massively overlayed, overdubbed and overproduced. What do you do when you play it live? Well you do what Queen have always done, walk off stage, go for a piss and a cup of tea and let the audience sing it.
@@fus149hammer5 Or...you perform the most integral part, and let the audience fill in the rest. You know, what WE paid for.
@@donkeydarko77 isn't that what I said?
@@donkeydarko77, no.
What Frank Zappa said about his shows " You will hear real musicians, playing real music in real time." That's what I want when I go to a concert. Say what you want but I feel this makes for a better experience.
Reminded me of what Phil Collins said, "Some of what you hear tonight will be intended." referring to the poor condition of his voice.
@@anthonyman8008 What?!?!
The band/performer generating live time from their bodies as opposed to a click is 50% of the magic of live music for me personally
1968 Blind Faith, San Antonio Tx. Clapton hits a ftswitch activating a Revox tape machine onstage, plainly visible, while he plays lead. The tape had rhythm guitar. I was there, saw/heard it.
Saw Vince Gill on tour this summer....Beautiful LIVE music...all components were LIVE....Talent!!
Aimee Mann's group was playing a show in NYC and there was a power failure. They lit candles and played the show acoustically. I wasn't there, but they say it was a great show. That's what a group of musicians should be capable of.
I have seen from hearsay that it was great.
I remember watching SNL (?) years ago: Dave Mason - We Just Disagree & when there were backing vocals, the camera angle would switch to show a reel to reel tape recorder switching on to play the backing vocal track.
I've done a lot of this backing track stuff, and plan to do some more. This time around we'll use the latest Ableton Live's "warp" feature to see if we can get the backing tracks to follow the band, instead of the other way around (so we don't have to use earbuds). By running the kick and snare from our drummer's v-drums mixer (so no mic bleed to worry about) into our laptop running Ableton (which is running the backing tracks) the hope is we can employ backing tracks more reliably than we did in the past. Our use of backing tracks is limited to just a few songs (e.g. "Comfortably Numb").
Cool!
So the drummer is the only one playing his instrument?
Then you have U2. The stories about their use of backing tracks and sequencing are fascinating. There'd be communication between the band members on what they'd want to do any given night. Edge would have loop controllers at his feet, and if the band decided they wanted to extend a middle 8 into a "middle 32" or something, he'd have the control to trigger that, and their techies working in the trenches would figure these things out on the fly, so the lighting and the visuals would continue to sync up. It was brilliant, and they'd spend days of practice figuring out what options they had, and how they could make any kind of improvisation work, while still making full use of their backing material, and sequencing. It boggles the mind...
Horrible. I am positive they never did this pre- Achtung Baby when they were at their best
They are rich 😉 12:02
Hey Rick, two new video ideas for you based on this!
1. Top 10 live versions of songs that sound different (and arguably better) to the studio versions.
2. Top 10 live versions of songs that include a backing track. (could be looping, fx, comparison between a performance with/without).
I used to say that every track on Thin Lizzy's Live and Dangerous album sounded better than the original studio albums. Then I found out a huge part of the album was overdubbed! 😀
Great idea. I can can think of AC/DC's Thunderstruck from the 1991 Donington show (no backing tracks needed here).
I think Issues hit a really good balance between playing to a track and adding in variation for the live performance during the Beautiful Oblivion tour.
I remember when the Moody Blues would have a local orchestra backing them up on stage. Good times.
Mike Lienhard
Sapper 18...I was thinking of the Moody Blues as I watched this episode. Justin Hayward said many years ago that he only used songs in the tours that they could play on stage and sound just like the album songs. And yes, I love the live orchestra behind them and not a bunch of backing tracks. I think they have done very well all these decades...!! Go Moodys....!!
I feel like I've lived this video - the whole evolution from 100% live to ~80% backing tracks. I even remember switching to Mini Disc because portable CD players would skip if we had too many people on stage! I had never imagined using backing tracks until a keyboard player pulled out of the most prestigious and high paying gig I had booked at that point in my career. I had 30 days to sequence all of his parts... and then the laptop failed at the gig. Ugghhh. That's why I bounced everything to CD and then to Mini Disc. This was all in the early 2000s. Then, I got clean for a number of years At the end of 2014, I began reverse engineering a lot of songs, bouncing stems in Pro Tools, importing them to Ableton Live, and manually cueing a light show that would perfectly synchronize with the stems while I provided live guitar and lead vocal for a very elaborate solo act. This was an insanely tedious process, so I can appreciate the effort made by acts that supplement their live parts with backing tracks, especially when this also cues the lights, switches guitar patches, automates effects, etc. It's SO much easier to hop on stage with some great players and simply make music :-) And I get the economics of touring with a smaller ensemble and supplementing with backing tracks. The only time it has ticked me off was when I suspected the lead vocal was pre-recorded, or when there was a very prominent instrument in the mix that was not represented on stage. That's my two cents worth ;-) Nice video, Rick!
There are some bands that DO need backing tracks/did need backing tracks. A band like They Might Be Giants definitely needed them! Same did The Flaming Lips for a period.
Great commentary on it and I totally agree 100%. The only time I think backing tracks are a huge thumbs down is when the lead vocals are on them. Like you said.
I don't have an issue with backing tracks, but it really makes me appreciate when a band puts in the extra effort (and money!) to have live performers covering all the 'extra' parts, such as Ghost who had 3 keyboardists on stage last time I saw them.
I think Ghost relies heavily on backing tracks... he doesnt have the greatest voice ever so there´s definitely backing vocals there ... and I m also sure that there are a shitton of extra effects as well....
or pink floyd in the olden days
you know what's funny is I've seen Ghost throughout the years (huge fan here) and I kind of miss when they were a 5 piece and tracked the organs. I think their guitar tones were better. Maybe also it's the material? IDK. The last two tours, his arrangements have been really growing. A bit much. I am waiting for the album where he goes back to his roots, a la Rush Counterparts, where they threw away all the synths and simplified a bit.
@@lookmanostrings feel you... but I dont think they'll go back... Tobias likes epic sounds...there might be a chance that he d step back for one album... but I dont see a huge turnaround there...
I’m old enough to remember the Milli Vanilli thing and that was frigging crazy.
I believe people think very differently about using vocal tracks than instrumental tracks simply meant to “fill out” the sound.
My take is: The main thing you are hearing needs to be played live.
Yes, as most of the discussions nowadays, this one got way out of the point. Things need to be played live... i dont think this whole issue were ignited cause of backing tracks of stuff like choir, orchestration or anything like it...
You cant compare things like a intro to a song, or the opera stuff on "bohemian rhapsody" to a full on playback... thats just a non sense comparison. Some of the newest bands have their live songs almost 100% equal to the studio version, singers are just flawless...
I think theres a HUGE difference between using backing tracks and going border line mimicking songs.
@@Liece45 agreed. Sometimes it’s hard to know where to draw the line. Especially with so much of the sound being electronically produced these days.
The big difference with them was they didn't even record the backing tracks.
@@ccampau ya I know different situation for sure. That was like the ultimate lip syncing debacle.
It's a difficult skill in it's own right, there's no room for messing up or missing a cue with a backing track. But if you're a big live show with visuals, lighting and effects they're almost essential.
There goes a dude that gets it. It really is it’s own form of playing. And goes double for bands taking tour support from a major label, that want a consistent show, night-to-night, that sounds like the record they’re putting the band out there to sell. The band’s need to eat isn’t their problem. Do the shows, do the press, shift those units. I know of a major label act whose drummer fires the whole show like Rick described from Ableton. The thing craps out on them at least once a night. They shrug, laugh it off, then play & sing their asses off when it comes back online. They’re certainly not cheating anyone on the effort they put into doing their live gig.
Hey Rick, love your channel. I just wanted to pipe in. I play in a band with drums bass and me. I play multiple instruments (keys, guitars, horns, vocals etc.). We decided to start using tracks to fill out our sound. I have produced music for decades and am able to pre-program our tracks to help with the sound. It works great. I am old school. I like live musicians but at the end of the day it comes down to getting the job done. Once everything is set (programmed) the show is ready anytime with minimal setup. It sounds amazing but maintains performance value if done correctly. We try to maintain a backup system in case computers break down. We also have sets we can play with just the 3 of us in case the tech completely fails. My rule of thumb using tracks is to only use them to enhance what you do live. We don't use instrumental solo tracks or lead vocal. Most people have no clue what we are doing to create the sound. They just know if they like it or not. I appreciate what you said in this video. Again, love your content.
all respect to Mr Beato. I respect all opinions. But tons of contemporary bands do not do this. And I have talked to many who take exception to it. Halestorm, Pretty Reckless, Mammoth WVH (Wolf called it "lame"), Alter Bridge, Rival Sons, Dirty Honey, Tyler Bryant, Jared James Nichols, I could go on and on. The "everybody does it" argument in my view is exactly what takes us down the Ashlee Simpson road in rock and gets us to the place pop is now. Where it's blatant and a live show is anything but. Also for clarity the tweet Rick read from me was not in response to Falling In Reverse, but to a previous incident related to the band Santa Cruz. Again, I am totally okay with this being done for parts in songs. But the elephant in the room is the bands that do TONS more. Including backing and at times lead vocals. It is happening every night right now! At the end of the day I am glad I have inspired conversation about this, and personally will always believe a live rock show should be (at least mostly) live!
Eddie Trunk
@rickbeato this is really Eddie Trunk:) love ya Eddie!
Awesome response Eddie. Daily listener here.
Just listened to Free For All Monday and searched through these comments to find Ed's "Official" comment... Eddie is a man of the people! Glad you responded, Ed!
There is a huge difference between what Ashlee Simpson did and what these bands are doing though. How does it keep going back to miming and lypsincing, nobody is talking or doing that, so shouldn't even be a part of the conversation
@@suffersystemstudios Dream Theater uses some vocal backing tracks of James' lead vocals live, i am not sure if the sound man or Jordan trigger them though, and i cant say they are a lesser group of musicians for it, because Dream Theater is high caliber musicianship
I'm a fan of a great rock trio out of Mexico, The Warning, three sisters that have been playing and recording music since they were children. As a three piece band it's often difficult produce a full sound so they have integrated backing tracks in their live performance. The drummer programs and controls the set list from her laptop running Ableton Live. This runs the click track, backing tracks, video playback and other effects. But the thing is they have had technical issues with the laptop and software but they were able to continue on without anybody ever noticing. That's the important thing, those are all just tools and should never be used as a crutch to cover up lack of talent. Backing tracks should be used to augment the show not be the show. The artist should always be able to play their music live.
And this is the important piece. Backing tracks are an ENHANCEMENT to the live sound. Bands should be able to pull off most of their catalog live, although it may not sound as full due to parts missing. The Warning understands that. My current fave band is Band-Maid. They do live shows with Backing tracks because their compositions are just really complex and can't be fully recreated with live instruments. Well, one show, their Backing track messed up and was off, throwing thd band off, and they had to do a rare mid-song stop. They couldn't get the track working, so they just said screw it, and played the song without the track. It sounded just fine.
You only have to see Crimson Queen at Foro Didi where Dany's guitar failed, OK so it is not a backing track, but she went on to perform that song without it and it was incredible. But as you say there have been times when the laptop has failed and yet they still put on one hell of a show. One of the reactors just pointed out that UGH on the studio version there is a guitar harmony on the song that they don't have when performing it live, yet is still sounds great. I hadn't noticed that at all until he pointed it out, they could have put that on the backing track but they didn't.
The Warning is really good. The drummer sings lead on some songs. AND works a laptop?!? Backing tracks can yes, augment. Going old school, Rush claimed to make every sound. Peart said he recorded his own vocal drums, his voice making a woosh like sound or the like. Then he would add that to the electronic drums. It is still his voice, simply use of modern tech. Great discussion!
Exactly! Tracks as “augmentation” Of overall sound. NOT as replacement of anything. Just adding elements that are impossible to play given amount of performers on stage. That’s all.
The Warning... Love them
Something that's started happening with backing tracks that I don't like is when you go and see a band with 1 guitarist but that guitarist also does vocals and they'll stop playing to sing but the guitars don't stop. Obviously with some bigger bands there's maybe a session musician somewhere playing the whole set anyway but I don't know whether it's just because I'm a guitarist but if I go to see a band, I'd quite like the band to be at least playing their instruments 🤷♂️
I don't know if they used backing tracks or pre-recorded anything...but I saw Talking Heads live 3x and they were awesome each time
Stop Making Sense tour they had like 15 or more musicians on stage!
(each playing or singing their little part). Using backing or recorded bits is okay I guess, but I much prefer the real thing
Depeche Mode used to do that throughout most of their career, and also had whole phrases triggered by keys live - there is no other way they could reconstruct their stuff live with so much synths and effects. Still they have incredible shows with a lot of people, and nobody's complaining.
The thing is DM, never hid that fact, and fully embraced it. Alan Wilder even gave a tutorial on how they pull it off in their 101 tour movie.
@@crazyralph6386 Who said that any of these bands are 'hiding it'? Obviously lip syncing is at the extreme end of the spectrum and we aren't talking about that - but, when Rick says that "the majority are doing it"(standard tracks, not full bore lip syncing), it's not like he's revealing an industry secret. Fans don't know about it because, frankly, that's how well executed it is, not because anyone is going out of their way to 'cover it up'.
Most fans probably don't realize that these modern digital effects processors(AxeFX, etc.) have replaced pedal boards. Or that a lot of times the amps/cabs aren't the primary output for the guitars, sometimes they aren't even real amps/cabs. It isn't a 'secret', no one is trying to keep this from you, bands just don't put out PSAs about what equipment they use during their shows.
DM still use backing tracks, and their shows are still amazing to this day.
The whole "they already did it on the album" is a weak argument. Maybe don't make the album that way. Maybe learn some more harmony tricks that make you sound fuller.
@@thediminished98 I will take my Nine Inch Nails exactly how Trent wants to deliver it, thank you very much!
As long as it's not a primary instrument or lead vocals, I'm fine with it. AND as long as the cumulative impact of tracks doesn't overwhelm the actual live instrument and vocal sound.
I agree, I've seen many bands play without a bass player just using a track to play along with and it's not the same. One band I seen play without a bass player at least had the track going through an actual bass head and cabinet so it sounded more authentic on stage at least.
Right! People always ask me, "What's your favorite music?" My answer, "Music done well". That's it. I don't need to get into details. I'll say that in the 80's when I was a full-time bar and wedding musician, I had my own fully produced MIDI backing tracks. MIDI lights too. Thousands of gigs over the years, full dance floors, happy customers. Nothing's changed except how it gets done, and today it's just better.
We were asked to play at an event that couldn't handle all of our sound gear, so we were asked to play to some tracks from our own CD. The sound system for playing the CD was really good and handled quite a lot of volume and power, so it was pretty much at the level it would have been at if we had played live. The only problem was - at the back of the stage where I had my drums set up, the sound was really washed out so I couldn't hear anything with any clarity or sharpness, so it turned out to be a really hard thing to to - play along to your own songs. Really took me by surprise.
I prefer a straight live show where the players on stage perform the sounds we hear. I understand that backing tracks make it sound more the like the recordings, but I like when the live version is different from the recording. I like to see how a band is going to pull it off.
As an old school guitar player, starting before and during the Hendrix era, I can't imagine having to play to a rigid set, with specific solo lengths etc. To me music is all about the spontaneity of band members interaction. However, as with so much else, modern technology takes over and allows musicians to do things differently. Perhaps not always better, but I guess without fearing stage failures.
With rock and metal bands, the backing track wasn't for masking mistakes. It usually for weird sounds, or orchestra, but mostly weird sounds. Also, as a guitar player, I would enjoy playing my part automated than tap dancing throughout the whole show.
@@Marta1Buck Pink Floyd is an example of this. Their live shows, as well as David's live shows after Floyd, use tracks that have sound effects (such as Time), but once they are over, the band and David, play to how they feel. I must have 8 or 9 different versions of Time alone, both live and studio. That said, I still prefer to see bands in concert that actually do play their instruments verses just play along. As others have stated, I enjoy the variation of the songs from the album version. If I am going to pay such an exorbitant price for tickets to a show, I should be able to expect the music to be different from the studio version.
I pay to see a concert not a bunch of dorks practicing in front of a crowd.
Love this discussion. I use back ground tracks at church since I don't have a band. But i do it to add organ and strings and play acoustic live. I blend it together using ableton live. I used this setup not to cheat, but because I could control my slides, create a click track to not lose groove, and because congregation sang too loud and I needed a way to control timing and monitoring. And YES it thickens the performance!! I get compliments on my presentation. I would never pretend to play along with myself. AND my vocal tracks are for thickening not lip syncing.
Great Info, Im actually looking to do backing track sequence for all my tracks, even-though I Love the old school Live music, but I guess thats how NEW MUSIC Industry is now.
One thing is using backing tracks.
Another is to not be able to play without them.
And feeling that you no longer need to play live because a backing track is easier than music lessons and the 10,000 hours of practice required to be a professional.
In the case of Radke, it seems more that it was an issue of quality for the paying audience.
Luke Holland is their touring drummer currently, I'm pretty sure they could swing it without the laptops, ya know if they had a gun to their heads. It was a consideration for the ticket buyers to give them the show they actually paid for.
Sure, but something like Baba O'Riley performed without any keyboard parts would be incredibly boring.
@@jts3339 what I've heard is that playing to a click is actually difficult for most musicians, it leaves little room for error.
Exactly