Dave Grohl vs Taylor Swift - Are artists playing LIVE if they're using backing tracks?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 жов 2024
- After Dave Grohl's rant about Taylor Swift suggesting that she's not playing live, I discuss whether playing with a track means an artist isn't playing live.
With the current state of pop music, Milli Vanilli should be given their Grammys back.
I love what Roger Daltrey has done on his latest tour. He's playing Won't Get Fooled Again and Baba O'Reilly without synthesizers or backing tracks, and they're magnificent.
I saw Porcupine Tree in Manchester in June 2023 during the tour you mentioned.
Everybody knew beforehand what had happened to the bass player and were just happy to see the band, even though the bass parts were not live.
Rather that than cancel the gig.
I went to see alter bridge in Wembley arena and the concert was recorded for a live DVD. They were fantastic and I went straight out and bought the DVD. I was not a fan I went with my sons and only listened to their songs a bit before this concert. This concert was at the end of a tour but I went to see them again a year or so later in the same arena and only a row or two further back and they would garbage. If I hadn't been there with my sons I would have walked out. This show was at the beginning of the tour and miles are just come back off working with Slash. I think they were rehearsing as they went along. No way they used auto tune to be that bad or that good.
Brilliant shout out to Little Feat who I was lucky enough to see twice with Lowell George. A superb band indeed.
Wish I had! Jealous.
Watching a live performance involving a click track doesn't bother me, because I can't hear the click. A live performance with a few pre-recorded samples triggered at the right times, is also good. When Rush played Time Stand Still in concert, Aimee Mann wasn't touring with them year after year to do her vocal part every night. With no guitar in the chorus, Alex played the synth part and triggered the vocal sample. I'd expect them to play that to a click track, because they'd need to be at the right tempo during the chorus for that vocal to stay in time every time it's triggered, and it would sound weird to have the rest of the song at a different tempo when the original recording doesn't do that. That's still live.
If a musician on stage makes it happen, it's live. If the musician on stage doesn't make it happen, and it doesn't happen, that's live. If it happens without the musician making it happen, that part is very professional karaoke. That can still be enjoyable, but it's not live.
Two takes on opposite sides of this argument. A relative of mine once played in a band where he was the lead guitarist. For one particular gig the vocalist (and leader) of the band was stranded at an airport thousands of miles away, so my nephew took over vocal duties and had his guitar parts played from a computer. No one noticed the difference. Except for the vocal parts, which in my very biased opinion, were superior.
Many, many years ago, at the very first Lollapalooza tour, I saw Nine Inch Nails. They obviously played to click and prerecorded keyboard tracks. But the sound that the band was producing was completely different and way more exciting than what Reznor had played on the Pretty Hate Machine album. And sounding like the record isn't always a good thing. U2 pre-1990 consistently produced vastly superior versions of their songs on live performances compared to their records. If you're a good band you can do that.
I'd rather hear a stripped down version of a song played by live musicians. I know that the live setting is not a studio, so maybe there's one harmony singer, not 4, or maybe the piano and synths can't both be played. But maybe I hear the drummer taking a risk, or a solo that was not on the studio version. Bands that are truly legends for live performance create LIVE performances, not a reproduction of STUDIO versions. I like 21 Pilots, but I saw a video go them just miming and the crown was going wild. I don't get it.
Great video and your live song is wonderful. If your band makes it to Singapore, I will be in the front row and buy you a coffee.
Deal! I'm working on it...on day hopefully!
Additional thought about the band video - the Senny 441 has a hypercardioid pattern and you can hear the tonal and level difference when your singer looks down toward his fret board. Love the sound of the voice/mic combo but it takes a consistent position.
A couple of years ago I heard part of a country music singer's set where he was obviously intoxicated in the between-song banter, but his singing was flawless. ProTools, Ableton, or just a miracle?
Another aspect of using certain tracks, time code and syncing show elements is to consistently give each audience, each night, the same experience. That expectation exists in theatre; in Riverdance, the Show! the live mics on the dancers tap shoes were the backup to the Otari RADAR playback of the recorded tap sounds.
So are we attending a recital, a concert, or a show?
Those backing tracks... you know, I don't mind bands using backing tracks, as long as the majority of the stuff I hear is played live. A little keyboard part here, some harmonies there, I don't mind. Especially with indy artists, they might not be able to afford additional musicians or can't bring additional gear in their mini van.
And, I agree, it's more of a rock than a pop issue. I wouldn't care about a pop singer performing over a backing track, as long as the show is okay. If Dave Grohl would perform over a Foo Fighters track, that would be different.
One thing that always kinda bugs me, is, when people complain about modern musicians using backing tracks. Backing tracks aren't new, modern technology just made them easier to use and more powerful. But they have been used for decades. How many people were complaining about The Who using a tape for the organ in Baba O'Riley back in the '70s? (If it worked.)
As with many things, the dose makes the poison (according to Paracelsus).
I agree! Thanks for watching!
Van Halen used to use a track for the keys part in Jump so his son doesn't really have much of an argument. I think you can tell when a band are using tracks straight away as the tempo is so strict. Also that brief pause while the drummer waits for his count in before counting in the band, always a tell tale sign. I don't think it's bad if used sparingly and not totally relied upon
How the hell is the argument that a rock show which requires “a laptop with 60 stems running” isn’t a real rock show somehow negated by the fact that a band that happens to have featured relatives of the person making the argument once used a single backing track with one instrument on it for certain songs?
I can see that there can be good reasons for major label artists doing these things. The pressures of having to do more and more exciting & theatrical shows plus the inevitable social media humiliation that would result from a f-up live on-stage must be what drives a lot of this. But what hacks me off is the lack of honesty about what is being done. If a performer feels that they are giving their audience the best experience by having the whole show MIDI sync'd, with sections of lead vocal mimed and/or auto-tuned so they can show off their dance moves or still do shows with a knackered voice then that's their choice. But the audience should know about it. Personally, I would pack it in if my band felt that we had to play to backing tracks...but then I'm a dinosaur (apparently).
Today's audiences have a different aesthetic. Technology has changed not just the formula for creating and performing music, but the very value of that music in the first place. Appreciation for years of hard work to build a talent is largely gone. The pride fans would take in touting their favorites diminishes once ownership of the musical products is gone. Backing tracks? Hell, people fill stadiums these days to watch a DJ for heaven's sake. It is unintentional satire. Andy Kaufman couldn't have foreshadowed it any more accurately when he did his lip synch to an old Mighty Mouse record.
Tracks are not live. Tracks can be pre recorded snippets of the artist playing or singing, however that is not performing live. If someone wants a small piano part or orchestration, and cannot pay on stage musicians……well I won’t throw them under the bus for very limited tracks. In all cases an honest performer will disclose how much of their show is not live, so that the audience can decide whether or not to attend the “concert”. Personally, I will not go see bands who use an abundance of tracks. Give me the stripped down, completely live performance any day.
No they are not. They are conning the public.
TotP used to get a lot of stick for having acts mime their music but the sad truth is people want to hear the version of the song that they can buy, not a live version that is missing all of the bells and whistles that a studio can produce and, of course, that's what a record company wants to sell as well.
I don't know if acts produce 'Live' albums anymore.
I guess there's no point doing live albums if you're just doing a bad copy of the recordings rather than a one-off live performance!!
Our drummer tried using a click track and we decided to turf it as it ruined the organicness (that a word?) of our playing.
I wish that Dave would use a backing track.
David Byrne has no problems with backing tracks being used
If there is any dancing involved by the lead singer, you can guarantee that there is no live vocal going on, the diaphragm will not be able to keep solid if you are dancing around.
Good point!
In todays music industry yes - but Taylor swift is not a dancer. She is doing very basic choreography on a few songs on the Eras tour. Singing live and dancing was done by Michael Jackson on the BAD tour 88 - can go watch his concerts on YT. New York Wembley etc. The band are playing live, taking their cue from him how it used to be done. He is singing live and dancing like he did, thats physically demanding and for sure the vocal suffers, but you are getting what you paid for, tv performances sure mime away as you need to look perfect, but we go to live gigs as we want that real sound of the artist.
Taylor Swift should be able to do this as she is normally just playing a guitar however, even on those songs she is miming along to her backing track and if you watch any video on YT by fans of her tour, you will see she is standing on podiums and shuffling around - so its not in the same ballpark in terms of physical exertion. Dave Grohl is right to call her out on it, as she likes to present as an old-school artist, when in fact she is really extorting her fans out of $1000s for tickets to see a non-live show, whilst going to great lengths to pretend that it is live.
Interesting take on this. BUT… use an external mike in next video because the sound of your room is quite bad.
Cool song, syncopation and synths.
Thank you, glad you like it! It's on Spotify etc and there is a video of it on my channel.
I think it's a lot of musicians that have a problem with the use of backing tracks. It's a sense of it being somehow false or dishonest. I think that's missing the point of 'show'. It's a whole audio/visual performance as a package, and musicians tend to hone in on the music element, where the intended audience probably don't even think about it like that. It also has something of a luddite element to it perhaps, but generally speaking, if the show is about the talents of the musicians, so be it, but if it's about the stage, lighting, dancers, video, etc etc then musicians should concentrate on what they contribute to making those backing tracks the best they can be.
Yes I agree.....it depends on genre
What’s the thoughts on having extra players back stage,i.e. hidden?
loved your click track noise...
I thought if I actually generated one people might say it was the wrong sound.....doing my brilliant impersonation left it open to interpretation!😀
It wasn't a rant Dave was just poking fun.
IMO if thay cant put a live show together with everyone playing the instruments then they should not be touring, I would never knowingly pay to see a band using a backing track!
I wouldn't want to see Taylor Swift in any case!
I saw Lizzy McAlpine the other day, and what I loved was that it was a beautiful mix of musicians creating a live audible experience that you don’t get to hear anywhere else. I feel like it’s a mistake for big pop artists to just try and recreate what the record sounds like. If that’s the case, I don’t see the point in going to the show. I expect live to be different than on record. I love live music because I love hearing a performance, and the energy, like you describe, and fun improvisations too. More musicians need to embrace the differences of live vs recorded music.
In the case of someone like Taylor Swift, shes dancing and doing other stuff, making ot harder to play instruments, dancing puts her out of breath so miming is acceptable sometimes. Live for me is my idols being in front of me. Playing live is not the be all, it can still be enjoyable.
she is not dancing, why do people make this excuse up? she is NOT a dancer - not even remotely a dancing performer.
If you want to watch a performer mime their track - barely move around a huge stage set and take 1000 for the privilege thats fine, but most fans are not going to pay that for hearing playback.
Don’t show up on a stage if you can’t play or sing live. It’s perfectly okay to be the kind of studio artist that labors over music not meant to be performed on stage. Many brilliant artists have created outstanding albums that way. But if you’re putting a concert together, be an actual live musician or singer. Otherwise, you’re a fraud.
Coldplay are the worst.... U2 are offenders to a lesser degree. Old guys like The Stones still are 100% live. That's how you do it.
Who cares? I saw Nirvana about £10 in 1989/90? Pink Floyd £25 '94. Today's prices are ridiculous! If you can afford your Era ticket, you're doing better than me!
😴
Musicians shouldn’t publicly diss other musicians. It’s just bad form.
Some musicians take pride in their work, their dedication to the craft. Then they see an "artist" like Taylor in this instance, who come along (and many of them in todays music) who try to present as traditional - yet are just clearly exploiting their fanbase. We see older acts like The Eagles also doing it. So calling people out is fine.
If they cannot perform their songs "live" - cut back the number of songs played on a set, lessen the dates, OR simply let everyone know upfront what you're doing - if they are prepared to pay 1000s still to watch you mime, than thats ok.
@@petes1742 Another musician putting down another successful musician reads like petty jealousy or personal bias. We don’t need to see that. If your music/shows are good, just focus on being the best you can be. Don’t worry what others are doing. Especially, in a genre with an audience that is completely different to your own. Dave can be a dick. I know, I read his book (which I highly recommend).
Boring waffle. Just stop all this bollocks.
Noooo, I’m enjoying it.
Musicians who hate click tracks are DINOSAURS.
Musicians who hate click tracks are musicians. Ringo Starr: "I'm your click track".
Only the truly cloth eared could make that comment.
I love a big production when I go to a show… Backing tracks are vital for that.
I’ve seen Foo Fighters three times, and they were absolutely rubbish every time noisy mess of a show (except when Dave swapped on to drums for a song, turns out Dave is a better drummer than front man… who knew!?).
I generally prefer a show that have at least some parts on a backing track.
If you hated it so much, why did you go 3 times?