Bands Using Backing Tracks - Cheating?
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 07. 2024
- Eddie Trunk is a popular radio host who is very out spoken about the use of backing tracks in live shows. Is it cheating? Should it be stopped?
I have a different point of view involving KISS and Queensryche.
Timestamps
0:00 Intro
1:25 Lip-syncing
2:55 Backing Tracks
4:05 Songwriter’s Perspective
5:07 KISS Lip-syncing
5:57 KISS Backing Tracks
9:00 “Anybody can do this”
Social Media
/ kdhguitartv
/ kdhguitartv
/ kdhguitartv
Subscribe to support the channel :) - Hudba
Backing tracks get confused for Sequence tracks a lot.
Backing tracks = Karaoke Tracks
Sequence tracks = instruments you physically cannot play live with use of a click track, making your performance and timing perfect night after night.
Lipsyncing = music video and TV as mentioned.
Sequence tracks are great to add layers for a live show.
Backing tracks that you make yourself are great for one man band shows singers and pub entertainment.
Great vid 👍
Duhhh!
Great explanation, sequenced tracks have really bolstered a few of the metal gigs I've been to. Can you imagine the cost of hiring a chamber orchestra for an entire tour? Jaysis.
100% agree with this ^ - and thanks for explaining this better than most people understand. I've used sequencing plenty of times, I only have two arms and two legs...
Yes 💯👍
🤘
3rd to last
Someone beat(o) you too it!
Too soon? ❤
😅😆😆😂✌
The biggest lipsyncer of them all... Dovy... Das.... 😂 Hope u good bro 🤘
BILLY!!!!
Free dovydas from Rick Beato’s IG jail!
Hej o vad gör du här ?🙃
Pauls vocal cords are shot. They'd be playing in B Standard by now if they wanted him to hit any notes.
Plus they started doing more lipsync than backing, Paul only sang like 3 songs for real, and started switching around between live verse, then verse lipsync and so on when people started to point out that Paul obviously wasn't singing... i love seeing the video in which Paul is forced to sing live Psycho Circus because Eric started too early so the backing track wouldn't add up and you can see Paul stading more than 3 ft away from the mic when the song starts
Haha, like with Ozzy. They just keep on tuning lower and lower. 😁
I'd rather hear that honestly.
Saw kiss in Atlanta and I can say that I honestly believe Gene is the only member that still has passion for the band
@@benwright7547 IMO Gene never had a passion for the band after the mid 80ies , he had and still has a passion for making money. Nothing wrong with that, just not to be confused with the other.
@@rok4200 totally.
I was lucky enough to see Queen in the 70's. The famous multi-tracked vocals were not missed at all. Live music doesn't have to be a copy of the album.
Exactly! More energy live then!
they did use some tracks to fill the songs, very notoriously the opera bit of "Bohemian Rhapsody" they even shut the lights off and wait to come back playing after that section
Exactly, if you want the sound of the record stay home and listen to that
@@helugoconache Probably doing something else during that part! Hehe, who knows! Killer band, zero hate.
ew, queen. what a shit band
Finally.. a voice of reason. I agree 100%.
I’ve heard bands do this for over 40 years 1st hand. From ZZTop in the early eighties to Aerosmith in the nineties to DLR in the 2000’s etc…. Backing is fine as long as it’s backing. Great work man🤘🎸
I saw ZZ Top early 70s , love the records but they were terrible live….
My last cover band used backing tracks. We were a 4 piece doing lots of dance, pop, and R&B. It would have been mostly impossible to cover signature sounds of the tunes we played without them. I switched between playing bass and synth, sang lead vocals on some tunes and backing vocals on most of the rest. But halfway decent keyboard players are super rare and horn players are unicorns. It was much more cost effective to use the sequencing to fill out the sound. We had in-ears with click tracks and cues, just like the Kiss monitor mix, so we were pretty rock solid. And I completely reject the cheating accusation-- we were talented and really played our instruments the whole night. And mostly got paid peanuts for a huge effort. But the crowds LOVED us and we'd pack the place every night.
Rush used backing tracks, especially for backing vocals but for other things as well. But they made a point of stating that these were all things that the band were triggering in real time themselves, and you can see this when you watch live videos of them. I saw Rush many times, and I never felt cheated because of this, it was just part of the show.
A real band.
It's hard to say, I saw Def Leppard in 2019 performing all of Hysteria, and there is a moment where they play tribute to their deceased guitarist with a recorded solo before going into Gods of War. Not going to sugar coat it, it was incredible use of pre-recorded material to supplement the live show.
See now that would actually be harder than playing with a live performer. Gotta keep every thing perfect to the video.
I think things like that are a special case though, not least of which because they're not being deceptive about what's going on.
I always appreciated the approach Rush took with this. Their ethos was that any sound coming out from the stage had to be triggered by one of the band. They also took the position that they wouldn’t program something that you would hire a musician to do; as in, you wouldn’t hire a keyboardist to play two or three arpeggiated notes over and over. To them that was a legitimate use of samples and/or sequencers. Similarly the big band portion of Peart’s drum solo - you wouldn’t carry around a big band to play a few horn blasts and less than a minute of music, and it was very obvious to the audience that it was a track; it wasn’t used to falsely represent what they were able to do.
Yep. They used backing tracks, but they triggered them, themselves. In the tunes that had tracks, they (Neil) was listening to a click. Examples would be Roll the Bones, and Time Stand Still. Ironic that Eddie Trunk is flaming on backing tracks, yet one of the bands he worships used them. I wonder what he has to say about that...
You delivered that “Millie Vannili” line with the most perfect timing sir 👏👏👏🔥
He used a click track for that, I'm sure.
here's the rub...those 2 guys were incredible singers. they were hired as props
That was delivered perfectly 😂
3:25... Exactly. Devin Townsend is the perfect example. Even though he's heavy metal, his music has lots of orchestra, choirs, etc. He obviously can't tour with 50 musicians all the time. But it's those textures that make his music distinct from other heavy metal musicians. If I went to one of his shows and he didn't use backing tracks, I would be bored and feel cheated that the full sound wasn't there. I know he's playing live and singing live. The use of backing tracks to provide the unique textures only enhances the experience.
It’s sounds fake, and it’s it’s dishonest. Save your money and buy the record.
@@lanes58 Hey brotha. Pretty sure you’re not understanding lol. If it sounds good on the album, how does it sound fake live when they’re just using the tracks from the exact same mixed/mastered album? Just about every live performance these days are re-amping in Pro-Tools. Instead of paying for the travel and work of a 50 piece orchestra, the same album ‘parts’ or ‘sections’ are playing. No one’s trying to fool anyone when the string parts of a massive orchestra are heard during a song while there’s no visible orchestra at all on the stage lol
@@DougieD_Funk My point is...If I go to hear a band or performer, I expect to see all living breathing musicians, singing and playing their instruments. I appreciate the energy of fully live musicians. I would much rather see a solo artist with just his guitar, and maybe a harmonica, than one also using background tracts, in which case I will politely get up and leave. It's just me I guess.
@@lanes58 You’d leave a 5 piece band playing live because they can’t arrange for 50 more people on stage? Alrighty
@@lanes58 If you're seeing almost any live act beyond the local club level, there's a good chance you're hearing something recorded.
KISS having backing tracks and cues, etc, with their enormous show and pyro is one thing. I had the misfortune of once seeing Little Big Town at the New Orleans Jazzfest (they were ahead of another band I actually wanted to see at that stage), and they were on stage blatantly playing to a complete band track with live mics. They are all on stage with instruments, but the "band" and harmony vocals are all tracks. They weren't doing a big production, they weren't doing pyro, they were just on stage 'playing' their songs. Worst thing ever, particularly when juxtaposed against the hours of music on all the other stages where the musicians all played 100% live. Who wants to see this?
You’re absolutely spot on. This really needed to be pointed out. Totally agree with the songwriter’s POV on having the audience getting to hear the music as it was meant to be. Also, have played in a band with cues, and it makes longer complex songs so much easier to stay on time on.. we were playing all the music - just had a click and some directions…
I met Eddie in mid 2000's at a show on Long Island that he was promoting thru his radio show and I've ran into him quite frequently over the years at other shows. He's been in the business since the early 80's and is very, VERY passionate about the music. He has STRONG opinions about this and that which is both good and bad. I haven't heard the entire rant but I can see why people get on him since he has a tendency to step in it really deep.
Many bands nowadays layer their music very heavily, ie: Symphonic Metal, and if they tour without those backing tracks their music would sound very flat live. What choice would they have since you can't tour with a full orchestra and choir? As long as the band are ACTUALLY performing, I don't have a problem.
No - when I go see live music - I want to see live music. I don't care if it's not exactly like the album.
A long time ago, I think end of the '80s, there was a band doing a show in the Netherlands. Someone in the audience threw chewing gum at the singer and the singer decided to walk off the stage. The rest of the band followed. The music continued, until one member of the band pressed a button and it all stopped. I can't remember which band it was, unfortunately.
Milli vanilli
I'd walk out of a show if the band weren't singing and playing their instruments. I never ever want to see a band prancing around, lip syncing to tracks. But, I don't have a problem with bands who play and sing everything live as much as possible, but also use some other augmentation (backing tracks, sequencers etc). Two of my favourite bands, Rush and Queensryche both use some kind of augmentation live to enhance their live shows, and to replicate as closely as possible the original studio recordings but, if you've ever seen either of those bands live, you'll know that if the additional stuff failed for any reason, they could still carry on with the show. Because they're still performing as much as possible, totally live. EDIT, I wrote this while watching the video, and would you believe it, Queensryche get mentioned in it as soon as I posted this comment! EDIT #2. What about singers who can't do it anymore, so they hire musicians who can sing, while they prance around and shake their hair? Or they hold the mic out for the audience to sing a lot of the show. It pains me to say it, because I'm a big, long time fan but, David Coverdale has been doing that for a long long time now.
Then you’ll be walking out of a lot of shows. Many bands do it. More than you think.
@@DMDvideo10 Not the ones I go to see. I'll be seeing an old classic band later this week, Wishbone Ash. I guarantee, EVERYTHING will be totally live. It might not all be perfect, but it will be real.
Rory didn’t need backing tracks.
Best guitar player in the world, according to Jimi Hendrix
Irish Legend
Who?
@@Nghilifa Rory Gallagher, check HIM out
I think click track and directions for musicians doesn't count as backing track, because it's not heard by the audience. Click tracks, especially for the drummers, are good for keeping time, and are necessary if you use arpregiators or sequencers (which aren't backing tracks), because you need to be in time with the keyboards. Still I think using pre-recorded instruments or vocals make show not live, not fully fake either of course, but still not truely live anymore. But using samples, loops and live loops is ok, which also creates some questions, what is still a sample and what is a backing track already, 3 seconds castanets roll is clearly a sample and acoustic guitar going throughout the whole song is clearly a backing track, but at what length one ends and other begins, or maybe there's some overlap?
@@ChrisBrooksGuitar that doesn't make sense. Paul would absolutely need to hear the vocal track he's lip syncing to.
Keith Moon didn't use a click when the Who used arpeggiators.. I don't know how he got away with it but he did.
They make life easier on stage but they come at the cost of spontaneity and I'd rather hear what the band really sounds like.
I think recorded instruments for live shows are ok in some cases. If you're an indie band with strings in one song, you can't afford to take a couple violinists and a chellist on tour so there's no choice but to use a backing track or just not play the song. Click tracks make it possible to have samples pre-programmed, otherwise they'd come in at the wrong point in the song because no drummer can hold a perfect steady beat
Robert delong does this alot, where hell play each instrument live, then loop it back. I think loops is a better term than backing tracks, where the artist is actually creating the loops themselves in real time
@@alfsmith4936 you obviously are not a musician.
Props to Kai Hahto, for being both a speed beast and also a human metronome at the same time with Nightwish. Being able to do all the same thing at the same tempo each concert.
The other thing about using a backing track is you can not screw up the tempo
If bands like Rush, and the mighty Van Halen (to name a few) used backing tracks for their keyboard songs, we can be forgiving to others for doing it.
That being said... Lead vocal lip-syncing is unforgivable!!
Rush never used used backing tracks. At the absolute most, they used triggered samples or sequences for stuff like backing vocals or nonmusical sound effects all of which triggered as part of the performance by the band using keyboard or other controller devices such as foot pedals. Thus all the color coded sticker dots on Geddy Lee's keyboard. If you noticed everyone in the band played keyboard, or more precisely a Synthesizer of some sort played by either keyboard, foot pedals or drum triggers.
Even Neil Peart"s drum solo that featured him playing along with a horn section is him playing the horn section with drum triggers. (One hit plays the first note, the next hit on the same device triggers the second note pushing the song or sequence along and at some points triggering slightly longer sequences. In reality requiring even more talent than hiring an actual horn section.
@@christopherritter4149 You can believe that all you want. Go listen to a live version of The Big Money for instance and you’ll learn something. 😂
@@geraldhartley
Point out to me in this live video of The Big Money where the backing track is
czcams.com/video/_wDpVSq6awU/video.html
I didn't realize that Rush used tracks until I heard Dreamline live. I have to admit I was kind of disappointed. Had they left that bit out and just did an approximation it would have been better I think.
@@mp-kq3vc They were still amazingly talented musicians. They just added a little icing on the cake. A few samples and keyboard parts to fill things out is ok in my book! 💪😎🤘
I've nothing against backing tracks really, but I think the cool thing about live versions of songs is when there's parts missing and the song is more stripped back. I understand how it can sound better with backing tracks I suppose
Yeah it all depends on the band really, better suited to some than others
I like hearing certain parts that were played with an instrument the band doesn’t normally use on the studio recording recreated with guitar when live, it makes for a really cool alternate version
Some musicians think that the song should sound exactly the same way as on the record but personally I prefer the idea of using the pallet that’s available to you at the time and making the best of it. LIVE MUSIC also has traits that make it a special environment to play your songs in.
// Less is sometimes more. A back to basics live interpretation can be like having a good remix of you recorded song,
// Improvisation, making each gig a one of kind moment in time different to the next.
// Band and audience participation bringing momentum and special moments to your music you may not have expected.
I think of this as the best of both worlds. 1 song with recorded and live versions.
Agreed!
This.
Good point. The band I play in is a guitar/bass/drums/lead singer setup. We play covers of pop/rock songs and quite simply do as close as we can to the originals without worrying about not sounding the same. Usually nobody comments on that. I believe that once you start and the song is recognised the audience "hears" it as they remember it originally.
@@bobainsworth9571 you're spot on there. An audience is not concerned whether you matched the original recording etc. They just want to hear the hooks and have a good night with their friends or partner or whatever. That's why I always get a chuckle when I see guitarists doing local gigs and worrying about their tone. Nobody cares.
@@bobainsworth9571 Well said. The majority of audiences just want to sing along to the chorus and get drunk. If they wanted to listen to the record, they would be at home doing that.
Back at it again with the measured and well reasoned view point. Love it mate!
It's the same as always; tech advances and people either LOVE it or HATE it with a passion. Tracks and midi switching push the envelope for what's possible for live bands as well as make things more consistent mix wise which just leads to a better sounding show. I don't think these things necessarily discredit the bands. Tracks 95% of the time are used for sound effects, noises, ambient guitars layers that aren't worth being seen played live.
To consider tracks "cheating" that would imply music is a competition or a sport. Yes, there is obv a competitive side to music, but a touring band is not an instance of it. Furthermore, tracks don't automatically make you a god or something lol. You CAN sound bad with tracks. I've mixed bands that use tracks and it still didn't help them or me out much lol. If your band is sloppy, unpracticed, drunk, etc... tracks aren't gonna save your life.
Probably wouldn't get mad at a repairman for using a wrench instead of his bare hands to do his job, so I'm not gonna get mad at bands for using tracks live lol.
If the lead singer is faking a performance,it's called cheating,not just using technology .
@@Aesopos While I still probably wouldn't use the word "cheating", you are right and I think that's a whole separate argument. Using tracks to mime a live performance (lip syncing, miming guitar parts, etc.) DOES take away from having an actual live performance.
However, using tracks for the reasons I stated in my original comment is a completely different story and personally, I actually LIKE when bands use it.
@@obnoxious2909 Which other word would use ?😃 Agree with the rest you're saying.
If you can't afford a live keyboard player, don't have them in your tracks or don't play live.
@@alfsmith4936 If the keyboard part is there for atmo/ambience on a song,i'm alright with it. If you have busy keyboard parts in all of your songs,then you either have someone on stage to play the parts or don't have the keyboards at all,like you say.
i think i rather see a band live that doesn't use a backing track if it's in anyway possible(like a band that has keyboards in songs but no keyboardist hiring a live member to play the parts), but it's definitely not cheating, unless they claim they dont use backing tracks, but i dont think anyone has done that yet lol
Great show KDH, love when you have new content!
Just wanted to let you know that I really enjoy your videos. You rock!
As long as the band are playing and singing live they can add keys, orchestra etc if the song needs it.
It's a totally different Genre, but Deadmau5 officially states, "If you're just after the music, buy a good sound system and listen at home. If you want a show, come to the show." - It's more about the show when in person. I think the real difference is, with Deadmau5, we know it's all pre-recorded. If people believe they're getting a live performance in total, then anything different from that is seen as a negative.
I have no idea how a band is supposed to effectively disclose this information.
Deadmoose isn’t a guitar player. Totals irrelevant since this is a guitar channel.
@@75YBA Woosh.
@@75YBA Got some more editing to do.
@@75YBA it doesn't matter
@@75YBA he's barely a musician...more like an audio arranger. Fairly certain he doesn't even play an instrument, certainly doesn't write from one. Song creation is in front of a computer
Excellent video as always! Keep up the fantastic work!
Last year I got hooked on the Miley Cyrus track 'Midnight Sky', and the many varied video performances of her performing it, and the remix, 'live'. The Howard Stern one stands out. Anyhoo, I put them all in my DAW, and they are all using variations of the same 2 vocal recordings. I was pretty amazed how well it was done, IMO it was the best album of last year, and I am a middle aged rock fan. Not too surprised it happens in the rock arena too.
I saw Geoff Tate perform 'Operation Mindcrime' in a small club, and thought it a little suspicious how his perfect vocals were always coming from a mic hidden by his hands over his face, strange, but he got away with it in a tiny club.
I'll say this: In 2014, I saw Periphery at the Masquerade in Atlanta. It was the second and final time I saw them. Nolly, the band's bassist, had not made the tour. Periphery used a backing track in his place. I thought nothing of it. The band played seven songs and seemed poised to give an encore based on fan reception. The encore never happened. Later on, Misha told someone at the bar next to me that they "hadn't programmed any more songs in the iPad."
That, right there, is why rock bands should never rely exclusively on backing tracks. Midi switching too, is missing the point of what makes a live show. The fans want a live performance, not a listening party with marionettes on stage.
I don't think I've ever been to a single non-local gig where the band played an unplanned encore. So I don't think that is a very good example.
But speaking of Periphery, I think it was OK of them to use a bass backing track when Nolly didn't go on tour with them more or less unexpectedly. But I think now they could start hiring a live bassist. It's weird, just not having one of the fundamentals of band on stage. They did the whole last tour without a bassist.
Saw suffocation play and their bass player wasn't there (went back home for family emergency) and then one of the guitar players amps broke. So they continued to play just 1 guitar, drums and vocals and it was still awesome!!!
Periphery has a lot of moving parts and intricate song parts that require specific tones or it wouldn't sound right. Same goes for bass and vocals so it makes sense for them to do it the way they do (backing and harmony tracks). Just because they weren't expecting to do an encore doesn't mean to discredit them for not planning extra songs beyond there set time.
But they're still playing their instruments even if they're midi switching guitar patches? It just allows them to jump instantly from one sound to something completely different without having to fuck around which, ya'know, is required to play their songs. Tesseract is another good example. They use many backing tracks. Backing vocal harmonies, midi switching, synth backing tracks, orchestral backing tracks sometimes. They're still playing their instruments. Acle and James are playing guitar, Jay is playing the drums, Amos is playing the bass and Dan is singing. Just because they have a computer switching their tones, that somehow means they're not playing?
@@mrbroclobster So you see their rationale for using the iPad. But here are two things to consider:
1) Periphery was headlining. They were headlining the entire tour.
2) Periphery being unable to function as a band without an iPad is about as un-metal as it gets. Are they a metal band or an EDM stage performance? I don't care if there's no bass or axe-fx scene switching for an encore song.
It's all about expectations. My favorite example for this is the band Steel Panther. They use backing tracks, too. But how "severe" is that really? I personally don't care if there's a rhythm guitar track or a harmony guitar track when Satchel plays his solo. He's still doing the heavy lifting and he's still an amazing guitarist, especially live. The same goes for Michaels vocals. I don't mind if he lip syncs some refrains. I understand why they do it. They go for the consistency.
Steel Panther were one that came to my mind too. Agree entirely, and we bloody know that Satchel is a guitar god who can play live - doesn’t matter to me (and 99% of the audience if there’s an occasional added harmony in the background). Steel Panther are a great and extremely entertaining live act - they didn’t get to where they are by fakery👍
Yea but they are using wigs too. If you are going to play live then you are going to play live you don’t pay for a show of the exact versions from the album you pay for a good live performance
Ha! You said Steel Panther. WTF.
@@_vixen_4504 Imagine what the world would be like if Led Zeppelin, The Who, Beatles, Elvis, Rolling Stones and Hendrix had relied on click tracks and samples. I guess it would save time looking for the best live version..
@@spooge33 Sir. It's Steel Mother Fucking Panther! Get it right😅 \../,
I went to see kiss in 2017 and 2019. In 2017 Paul didn't lip sync, and honestly at points his voice was so strained I just felt bad for the man. In 2019 the show was so much better, he still sometimes sang without the backing track but the show was so much more enjoyable. Kiss are an act, their shows are meant to wow you. The backing track isn't detrimental, especially since the instruments are still being played live.
Saw them in sept of 2017 and I was shocked at how well Paul's voice was holding up. He's getting so old I bet the later in tour you see them the more backing track you hear.
What will be next? drum tracks? guitar tracks? Heck, the guys don't even have to show up!
I agree. I saw KISS the last 2 nights in a row and looked out specifically for differences and similarities.
There are clearly some passages (like that Psycho Circus example) where he actually lip synchs to a track, but it's a minority rather than a majority. There were obvious differences in a lot of his vocals from night to night.
Listening to the leaked in-ear videos too you can really hear that most of it is still live, some of it is supported by a double-track, and only some smaller parts are actually lip synched.
Paul Stanley was one of the best rock vocalists of all time at his peak in the 80s and 90s (his vocal peak, not the band's peak) and that era's music was written for his incredible range back then - which he totally nailed live for a couple of decades, and wrecked his voice in the process - so its no surprise most of the lip synched passages now occur in the later songs. If at 70 years old now following throat surgery it's taken the band this long to starting using some tracks in some songs to help him get through their final tour without it sounding like shit, I can forgive that.
If it was all lip synched it would be different but there's enough live Paul, warts and all, combined with almost everything else being live (moreso than a lot of other acts) for it to be more of an "assisted" live performance rather than feeling like the whole thing is faked.
Eddie Trunk: old man yells at cloud
fair enough. Kiss are a circus more than anything. But if i go see aerosmith and the vocals are perfect can i believe it? should i not be told if they are enhanced or should i just be happy to pay top dollar for an illusion? I know it's all gone click track now, perfection, such a shame. There should be room to push and pull or feck it lets just watch a music video of the track. I get enhacement if your music is created in such a way but if trivium can't be handed instruments and play a decent gig without help WTF are we coming to?
Live used to mean something special, no-one expected perfection , we expected a show, to watch and hear the music in our faces with the character of the band showing through, with live versions of songs, faster versions, slower versions, unique versions even. Live performance was hugely varied. Now go to Megadeth in Brazil and it will be note for note and time for time the same as Dublin. So i say throw out the metronome, play, play through mistakes that nobody cares about in the venue, and bring back LIVE!
meant the likes of Trivium, in terms of excellent musicians, sorry had to clarify
All the way back to (at least) the 80s, bands have used backing tracks for synth and stuff in the background. The drummer would run the tracks with a click, then the band would all join in over the top (guitar, bass, vocals, drums, etc.) I've done this a lot with my own shows, because even if I hired a synth player, it'd be one guy trying to play multiple different layered synth parts. The way I record, we usually have tons of different tones all pulled together into one sound in the background that sounds completely different than all the separate parts. I've never had a problem with this sort of thing. But, when you're running tracks with guitar, bass, drums, or vocals, while everyone is pretending they're playing it live, that's complete bullshit.
To your question of the song not sounding how it's intended to sound if you don't have 5 singers (for example) live, that's the beauty of live vs. recorded music. Live gives you a chance to do something totally different. Play the song differently, give a different perspective, etc. This is what Ed's talking about. There's a difference between playing "background" tracks, and pretending to play an instrument on stage while you're not.
Exactly I agree
The only issue I can see is if you're a big mainstream act and your fans don't "get" how music works. I've honestly heard people complaining that the live show they went to didn't sound EXACTLY like the album
@@krytenfivetwothreep2485 I like different song from album even not sound exactly the same . I don't why people are so primitive or don't understand most TV show acts are playback which everyone who is music business know this things ..or even pre- recorded
@@krytenfivetwothreep2485 But when you see an old school act like Black Sabbath, there is no rhythm guitar during the solo. It's bound to sound different and often the arrangements are different, solos and so on.
I am not against a band like Queensryche using a sampled orchestra but honestly a modern band like Periphery just doesn't have the energy and adrenaline of say Pantera or Metallica live in the 80's, when the songs were an average 20% faster than on the albums.
I can agree with Eddie as far as it being a slippery slope. I completely understand why the modern bands are doing this but I several bands now simply sounding too much like the albums live. Suddenly we can't tell at all and why pay for that?
Interestingly seeing Rihanna live was the opposite experience. Full rock band playing the songs with balls. I don't care for theusic but was positively surprised never the less, lol.
Sir, I agree with 100% My band is 3 piece. We're a drummer, guitarist, and singer. I play all the guitar and bass parts in the studio and I play lead guitars live. Rhythm guitar, ambient guitars, synths, bass guitar, backing vocals, edrums, sound fx, all of that we have as backing tracks live. We're still playing, and more importantly, we still wrote and recorded everything ourselves. It's just easier to coordinate 3 people than it would be 7 or so.
Your videos maintain quality content, good work!
The only time I have a problem with bands using backing tracks is when when I'm sound checking after them. Sure, doors are in 30 minutes and 2 other bands need to soundcheck, but lets just make sure that synth pad intro to your metalcore track REALLY pops -_-
Sounds like doing soundcheck for 3 bands 30ins before doors is your problem
@@JayMatharu No dude, I was implying the band with the backing tracks took up the entirety of the soundcheck, leaving just 30 minutes to do the last two bands. This has happened SO many times in my years of gigging.
@@BaBaBaBenny Sounds like they were unprepared
@@BaBaBaBenny I get ya.. I've had to sit through an hour of someone e.q'ing a prerecorded intro and (Keyboard) orchestra, while the musicians go up and down scales and the drummer does triplets and double bass patterns as fast as he can, whilst looking at any other musician to see who's watching.. I've been that asshole too :)
Yup. Spot on.
I have used backing tracks in cover bands to fill the space for keys, horns, and random ancillary percussion but as far as rock music or any original music goes I would not use backing tracks. I think it takes away from the honesty and integrity of a band. There are people who can manage it tastefully, but my personal preference is still no.
Well said
Another, fair, informative, well balanced and researched video. Keep it up Sir.
I agree with you 100%. I've been saying pretty much the same thing ever since I first started hearing Eddie Trunk sounding off about this. Using backing tracks to fill out your sound with additional instruments (or sound effects) is not even close to the same thing as lip syncing and pretending to play your instrument. I have no problem with backing tracks so long as the band members are playing their primary instruments live. I tend to like bands that include orchestration in their compositions such as Dimmu Dorgir and Nightwish. To expect bands like this to haul an entire symphony orchestra complete with a symphonic choir along with them while embarking on a world tour would be completely ridiculous.
It depends on the genre and the band but the more backing tracks or samples you insert into a live performance, the more 'on rails' it becomes and you can lose spontaneity and a bit of feel.
Periphery on the last tour just didn't feel the same when both bass and one rhythm guitar are play back. I've been lucky enough that every time I've seen Periphery before that (in London) even Nolly has been present and playing bass.
Having said that though, you can tell when play back is being used to provide cover for weak performance (Shinedown, Kiss etc) and where it is used to enhance the sound (Rush for example). Alter Bridge, for example, never use play back and sometimes it can leave their music sounding a little empy when their studio tracks are full of overdubs and vocal harmonies.
Worst case was when I saw Mötley Crüe in 2009 and they played their new song Saints of Los Angeles. Vince hardly sang anything at the chorus and there was like a 20 vocal track chorus playing on the background. Sounded really really fake and it didn't help that I was standing pretty far back at a outdoor concert (Everything sounded clear, no mushiness from walls that would blend the real instruments and backing tracks together.)
Not only that, no guitarist can play the "Looks that kill" riff and solo at the same time. I was at one of their shows years ago thinking wait a minute, who's playing the main riff while he's soloing? Another thing that got me suspicious was that their sound was way too big for just 1 guitar and 1 bass.
@@Deucealive75 yeah it's easy to spot that way. Some bands have a extra guitarist for the tour so they can play the studio versions live. Bands who have backing tracks can't improvise, so many bands don't use them. There is few clips where they fucked up the timing and the wrong part plays in the background.
Hey friend> Your videos are of great quality, I know the work involved in high-quality videos. Great work!
I played at a large church for a year and we used stage directions in ears and it was aweeeeesome. I practiced but be we all didn’t get to rehearse together that often so it was great having “guitar 2,3,4 or chorus 2,3,4” etc. if I can ever play with in ears for my band, I definitely want to set that up
This has gone on for decades and is often the band playing along with what is running. Backing vocals sounding better, music being perfect not just good. Its all down to the industry wanting the best show possible. The music is all the band anyway. In the studio people rarely play the whole track right through its cut a pasted together. . But you would never know. No one seems bothered by that. Most great players are still playing and singers singing. Personally, being a musician who has done both and you cannot tell when youre on stage as you hear your own playing clearly.
My favorite is Iron Maiden being forced to perform on a TV show to a pre recorded track and they traded off instruments to one another mid performance.
Muse did the same, all three of them swapped instruments and clearly had no clue what to do with them.
@@MostlyLost here's the Muse one, off some Italian show... czcams.com/video/U7LT3FtPtbc/video.html
Another eye opening, sensible video, legend
I remember watching Metallica as the opening act in the Freddie Mercury tribute AIDS awareness concert in 1992. They used a track for the "now I lay me down to sleep" section but were still playing their instruments. It didn't take away from the performance. Archspire play all their gigs to a click track. It gives them the tightest possible performance as a band. There's a meme going around with a picture of Milli Vanilli with serious looks on their faces captioned "Milli Vanilli watching people get famous for lip synching on tiktok". I shared said image on my Instagram. It's all about context. Interesting thing about kiss, I remember many years ago they cancelled a show in the point in Dublin because they couldn't sell enough tickets.
Give me Led Zeppelin with Robert Plants voice being a bit shot after 4 straight nights performing. At least he would grind it out and actually sing during the performance. And it would always sound real (because it is) and have substance and feeling.
Robert plant apparently re did most of the vocals on the song remains the same in studio...old story that is true
I'd rather listen to a stripped down version of the song, it it's good it'll sound good anyway
This is quite a contentious topic. One in which I can, and have, defended both sides of the argument in regards to backing tracks.
I definitely think they're useful and in many cases, necessary, but at the same time, some bands are perhaps too reliant on them to provide much of the performance, which often sounds somewhat sterile.
I was in a band which relied on samples in certain parts of songs, so we played with a backing track that would feed a click to our drummer and the samples to the front of house. It started off as a sample here and there, then it became keyboards and overdubs, then eventually vocal harmonies, guitar harmonies, samples and keys because the drummer (who was the main songwriter and singer) wanted us to sound as close to our recordings as possible. Due to that, we'd lost the ability to play off each other and it felt more like we were just backup for the recording. We may have sounded better out front from an audio perspective, and were able to have a sound we couldn't have achieved without a bunch more band members, it became kind of lifeless, no matter how much we bounced around the stage or spun our guitars or banged our heads.
Well said. I love the band Jesu which is a 3 piece band. Guitar/vocalist, bass player and drummer but the songs have background synth layers so before every song the singer hits a couple keys on a laptop. We used to joke that he was checking facebook between songs. That is a perfectly acceptable backing track.
Can you imagine a guitarist who would have to play 4 guitars live to make their song work live?
I understand that I like when everything is live, I don't necessarily want a studio performance live.
Capos are a thing. Tune down.
@@DeAthWaGer what are you talking about? We're talking about a track that might have multiple distinct guitar parts that were layered in the studio. How does a 3 piece replicate that?
Yeah, like Brian may had to ... and like every other guitarist had to back in the day.
Another reason why Queen + Adam Lambert is actually great. They don’t use click tracks or backing tracks, they’re straight up live. Awesome group. Pete Malandrone, Brian May’s guitar tech, said it himself in Brian May’s rig rundown!
Freddie Mercury was an amazing piano player!
They do use addition live members to fill put the sound where necessary. I don't know if bands that didn't make bohemian rhapsody could afford this.
@@AJPMUSIC_OFFICIAL Agreed but they do perform completely live so it isn’t just straight up lip synching
They do use samples though. They're triggered by Pete Malandrone (Brian's guitar tech) but they're not synced to anything.
@@BrunodeSouzaLino Yeah Brian May has a switchboard that basically replaces Brian May’s pedalboard. Some cool stuff tbh. Still not to the level of completely faking it like some bands too. Luckily most rock bands with that level of class do perform legit!
You are as ever a veritable font of wisdom and reason, thank you sir.
I think you actually get some of Trunks point, he's saying that actual lead vocal and guitar tracks are being played, as opposed to augmenting the sound with the extra components of the original recording. The kiss tracks actually show he's not the loudest thing in his ear monitor, he doesn't have to actually sing, he's talking, listening, and getting ready for a cue to lip sync. There are a few other culprits. It is what it is. I think triggers and samples and tracks can all be used live and I've done sound for a couple famous old school R&B singers at some small clubs where the whole band is tracked, only lead vocals live, and it's actually a whole different challenge from a full live band. Good vid as usual man :)
Kiss isn’t using backing tracks. They are lip syncing AND miming playing their instruments.
I went and saw them on this last tour and was pretty pissed at first. But you know what? Who fucking cares. Paul’s voice is shot, those dudes are in their 70s, and they are wearing a ton of heavy gear. But you know what? I was super entertained. I had a great time. I’ve seen kiss a number of times over the years, and if they need to do this stuff to put on a kick ass and super fun show for me.. they totally get a pass.
When I saw them I could tell they weren't miming they're instruments because genes bass was so sloppy
Well,that's a sad state of affairs.
Ive been playing in a duo with my friend for almost 30 years at this stage. He plays bass and I play guitar. When we write and record there are 3-5 guitar parts, bass, drums/percussion, samples and some synths/sound fx. I cant physically play 3 different guitar tracks live unless the audience wants to listen to me layer stuff on a looper pedal... and then switch over to synths/samples and do another couple of passes of the tune. So Id prefer people hear the songs how we wrote them than having 2 live elements and a whole lot of empty space that makes no contextual sense! [EDIT] Id love a percussionist, keyboard player and 2 more guitarists in the band - but hey its worked this long...
No you have to pay 25 musicians for your live performances! Otherwise it's CHEATING!!!!!!!1!!1
Musicians?? What are they? Are they like people who put sounds in a computer and edit them?
I remember a few years ago, St. Vincent did a tour of solo live performances, meaning her vocals and lead guitar was live, but everything else was quite visibly not live. Some people were very angry, even though most of those people had probably paid to see bands perform with backing tracks in the past. But the lack of a visible band was too much for some people.
I pressed a button, I pressed subscribe 😄 great video!
I’m surprised The Beatles weren’t mentioned. They had the decency (and luxury) to quit touring when they realized they couldn’t reproduce their songs live anymore due to their complexity and layers.
I think for them it was more about the fact it was a nightmare... Getting pelted by jelly babies and being mobbed nonstop. And also the fact the PA systems were simply not able to convey it. Had that tech come earlier, it's possible they might be evolved into a live monster like the Who did.
I think it's important to talk about "emergency" backing tracks too. I have opened for a couple of different touring bands that would have their singer record a unique, live vocal for every song at the beginning of the tour, then save it and take it with them. This way, if he caught a cold and his voice was wrecked, they could get through the show and it wouldn't need to be cancelled. This is good for the fans, the band and the venues.
As a singer, I can relate. Especially nowadays where if you have a bad vocal night, cold, whatever, people put that up on the internet and you will be judged by it forever.
Also, as you pointed out, you might record extra parts in the studio for the song that aren't feasible to reproduce live on the road for budgetary and spatial reasons.
When I was gigging locally, it was very common for rock bands to have synth and keyboard parts played on a backing track behind them, while everything else was live.
We never did that because our music rarely had auxiliary instruments and in-ears were a pain to run for 45 minute sets with 15 minute set-up and tear-downs, but I totally get why bands would use them for polished "sound-like-the-record" live performances.
That's an interesting approach, I've never heard of that before. It gives an interesting twist to this topic.
That's exactly what happened to the first show of the Helloween reunion tour, the singer Micahel Kiske which was the big deal about the reunion, caught a cold right at the start of the tour, fortunately and also unfortunately, they recorded their rehearsals, so they have him lipsyinc some parts of songs, high notes for the most part, as it was planned on the run and the man was not familiar with doing lipsyinc, it was a trainwreck, every time he forgot he wasn't really singing and put the mic away too early or kept his mouth opened too much as if he was singing live changing a little bit the vocals, for the second show they ditched the idea and had him 100% live
The part about people putting bad performances online is so spot on. I also kind of feel like people have gotten way too sensitive to pitch issues in singers. Live singing isn't and shouldn't be pitch perfect. But, you can bet for sure that if you do go out and actually sing live for real that some smarmy react channel is gonna be all over that calling you "pitchy" in a video if you aren't autotune-perfect.
@@kassemir I personally blame the digital age of music and recording. It's not all bad, but I believe it has lent a helping hand in sterilizing music in general. Everything has to be polished to perfection or else it "sucks". That's just my opinion as a fan of music.
@@kassemir From all singers everywhere, god bless you.
One of the best artists to use this approach: Shinedown.
They could never match the recorded version live without the backing tracks. But they are playing the other parts, guitars, drums, et al so it is not technically cheating, its supporting the recorded version to give the audience the recorded version sound.
I've done live Gigs with Sequencers and It's much harder than playing with just a band, If one of you lose your way, it can be a nightmare,
much more fun with just a band, you can take the song anywhere you want with decent players.
Me too. I find It's like painting by numbers once I know the parts but it gets bloody boring having to play the same stuff, in the same order, with the same banter inbetween the songs and if you play anywhere regularly, people do realise they are seeing the same act over and over.
Give me 100% live anyday but I do like the money on one 45 minute set cooperate gigs..
I actually find Pyro annoying and detracting from the kind of music I enjoy seeing live.
Queensrhyche also have the record for most lawsuits between a band.
When I go and see live music, I want live music. I want to hear the tiny mistakes or slips that make it more human and I want to hear what the performers do slightly differently each time they play it. I also want to see how they can take their song meant for a larger group and strip it down for what is possible for their members onstage.
As for the stage directions in the in-eat monitors, I don’t take an issue with that because I don’t hear it. A metronome or click track for the drummers might be OK.
I am fine with clicks, and I am also fine when it's something where it's obivous its happening--for example I'f there was a synthezizer intro to a song and a band didn't have a synth--ok add it in-- we all know it's there, it's only an intro It's another thing when a vocal track is recorded and somebody is lipsynching trying to pass it off as a live vocal
Exactly. Using background tracks sounds fake and it’s dishonest. Unfortunately, some bands are too weak to carry the sound by themselves, so they require these tracks to fool the audience.
@@lanes58 if you have orchestral parts etc in your music you need to absolutely have those in your performance as well. You can NOT just rearrange things like that especially when those parts play a vital role in the song. Having a full orchestra etc live on an entire tour is simply financially and logistically impossible for any band. That only leaves one option which is using tracks
You simply can not "strip down" a song where major parts are played by an orchestra etc. Your fans deserve the real deal. Trying to make that work in a usual band setting is going to result in a gigantic train wreck. However touring with a full orchestra etc is simply financially and logistically impossible. That means the only option is to use tracks
This truly is an excellent channel.
My friend. Very very good analysis on this topic.
Intereeting take as always man. For me I'd prefer to hear a live arrangement of an album song over backing tracks any day of the week. Its another form of the art and should not be of any less value. In fact its kind of more unique. You have to be there in the crowd to hear that version (bootlegs aside!)
Can you imagine an artist doing a painting by numbers book and selling it as his own work?
@@alfsmith4936 Of course not, but that's not always what backing tracks are. Often they're more like an artist having their assistants do the basic layout work, which is a fairly common practice in the art world.
@@alfsmith4936 If the artist was the original painter, then sure. Which is exactly what we're talking about with using tracks live.
The truth is you cant rearrange many songs that way. Especially when orchestral parts are taking a major role in a song. No matter how hard you try you wont be able to recreate an orchestral sound in a usual rock band setting. And your fans rightfully expect it because its a major important part of the song.
Part of what I value in going to a concert is seeing and hearing the ability and talent of the musicians to create what I'm hearing by playing their instruments skillfully and artfully. To the extent that parts are prerecorded to fill in parts of the composition due to a lack of live players, it's not live and thus devalues going to a live performance, for my intents and purposes. To the extent that parts are prerecorded to cover faults and inability of the live players, while they stand there and fake it, that is reprehensible and a fraud. That is what Eddie Trunk is rightfully calling out. The same holds true for concert DVDs that have been doctored up with auto-tune, replaced flubs and added tracks.
Agree 100%. I’ve never set up a backing track for something I couldn’t play. Always just to add material that wouldn’t otherwise be possible given organizing and budget constraints. And here’s the other thing: creating those backing tracks takes a lot of time and effort. It’s the opposite of lazy to add them in.
Not exactly...it's pretty easier to grab a Guitar Tech and say "Hey, record these backing tracks". None of the infamous Fakers recorded their own backing tracks.
@@justinlast2lastharder749 this is not about guitar tracks. This is about orchestral tracks, synth etc. It is NOT easy to write that stuff so that it fits in a rock and especially metal band context. And even recording it with virtual instruments takes lots of skills. Its not just about being able to play it in on a MIDI keyboard. Its also about making it sound real with all the velocities and post production etc.
I'm on the fence about this. I think it depends on that specific circumstance. For example, I'm a small-time solo artist and it's not financially feasible to hire a band to play my music for a show, so I've played a few shows to my own backing tracks (I removed the vocals and leads so that those are truly live).
Also, for bands that may have more instrumentation on their album than what they can pull off live, that may be warranted.
Crap like this is why I listen to blues. Live, raw, authentic. Old school rock too. I can’t picture Ronny VanZant going for this.
I don't mind backing tracks live. It adds more depth.
There’s nothing wrong with having a few pre-recorded sequences played on stage alongside the musicians to more closely resemble what the fans hear on the albums. All good bands do this and I think it was actually Ronnie Radke who said “you guys wouldn’t enjoy the show nearly as much if we didn’t have that stuff layered in behind what the guys on stage are playing” and I definitely agree.
Most modern music just has an insane amount of tracks. There are several dozen, perhaps 100+ individual tracks which make up each song on an album. A five piece band is a five piece band. They can’t possibly play everything live.
It’s not cheating to play what amounts to sound effects, synth pads, subtle string parts, etc, as a “backing track” to more fully realize what the album sounds like on a live stage with only 5 performers.
I think it is possible to take this concept too far, though. I’m personally not a fan of modern rap but that is a live performance industry that is basically a joke in my opinion. They not only have the full “beat” or “instrumental” playing but they often keep the original album vocals playing as well. It’s akin to someone just playing a Spotify playlist while the rapper shouts over the album version of their song. They really should hire a full band to play the instrumental live and only play tracks of background vocals and other sound effects. I think some rappers do this to some extent but the vast majority of rap concerts are just some dude yelling lyrics over an unmodified song file being played over the PA. That is true laziness.
That is why I like the bands that think through when they are recording a record on how they are going to replicate the same sound live or when they perform an arena. I have heard a few bands from the stage and it's a weird animal with the delay and having to use stage monitors or in ear monitors.
If you can't perform it "live" then you can't perform it.
If you wanna pay to see someone acting like they're playing "live" that's up to you but it shouldn't be hidden either...lol
I get why it happens, certain cases you could argue are fair enough, but I dunno. it seems unnecessary to over do that live. I'd be happier to see session guys if they're that desperate to fill out the studio tricks. I'd far, far rather get a live show than walk out with a 'sounded just like the album' experience. I don't know what it is. I guess certain bands are so obsessed with providing that experience, that they justify to themselves, blurring the lines between what's real in the moment and what isn't. I don't find one or two tracks that offensive if it's tastefully done. I'm not even remotely offended by big production shows having ques. But faking entire parts and miming live. I just don't understand that. I might as well be watching a guy step up to a laptop and hitting play. Nobody would show up for that. Not even if the original artists were there to mime over it. That isn't my idea of a phenomenal live show. I'd take a raw, rough edges but absolutely real and in the moment, Rory Gallagher over a miming Madonna any day of the week.
Have fun spending hundreds of dollars for a show ticket so the band can at least break even while hiring many many session musicians to get the sound they want! :Edit: The sound they want and the sound many people in the audience expect.
@@jhint1929 Depending on the situation I'd honestly rather spend the extra money for a better, more authentically live experience. Worth adding too, most of these old school rock bands who are most guilty of using backing tracks, can absolutely 100% afford to pay for a few extra musicians, if they really cared enough about limiting the 'need' for using pre recorded tracks. I'm not necessarily even saying that bands need to go that far. I'd also rather see a band play live and 'miss out' on a few elements. The way ZZ top used to do, for example. You don't necessarily 'miss' the album synths and 80s studio stuff, you might notice it's not there. But it doesn't damage the experience any. It enhances the uniqueness of the performance and the shared moment you experience with the artist as a fan.
@@jhint1929 Although, I do accept your point definitely has merit in certain situations. It isn't always feasible to travel with a horn section, or a choir. That said, I don't have a problem with using tracks instead for that either. This whole topic is so situational to be fair. Prolly why it pisses so many people off as a conversation to have. There aren't necessarily right and wrong answers. Just different opinions, personal preferences and specific circumstances for certain bands and styles. 😅😂✌❤
There’s different levels I find acceptable for different circumstances. I know some pop acts now lip sync concerts which in my opinion makes it a dance show and not a concert music performance and I don’t think it should be billed as a music performance. Backing tracks is fine for my personal opinion for a vocalist that’s not really known for a certain band being behind them but I think it’s a bit in poor taste for a band that’s known for their individual musicians playing.
Sequence tracks are understandable for bands to a degree. I know ZZ Top used some sequence tracks but they’re a 3 piece. As a musician I would rather hear a all live show but it’s understandable to a degree.
I like your feedback. Very well put. Let us understand the the Chipmunk has a lot less influence that he may think ! All of these bands he quotes are selling out !
My band uses backing tracks for the drums for the time being as we don't have a replacement yet but still want to perform live. I would have loved to be able to play drums, play guitar and sing at the same time but sadly I am not an octopus so that's not going to happen. We are trying to get one of those Duracell bunnies and build in a midi connection so for the time being that can be our "drummer".
To be fair to Eddie Trunk, he has said before that he doesn't have an issue with using pre-recorded tracks for things like strings etc or when you have a band member who plays multiple instruments on the same track but can't do both live e.g. Van Halen. His problem is particularly with pre recorded vocals and main instrumental tracks in a live concert context. I'm not sure of any examples of the latter though. I think it's interesting that as soon as I saw the title of your video, I thought of Eddie Trunk. I haven't seen anyone else in a relatively high profile position be so vocal about it
It's a great topic, it really makes you question where do you draw the line on the credibility and authenticity of an 'act'. Also backing tracks would be pristine studio level quality, recorded and compiled from multiple takes, and could easily be used to give the impression of a band being 'tight' and superhumanly rehearsed and well practiced in a live setting. Then there are those live DVD's with obvious post-production polish. I wonder if one could make the argument that all creativity is essentially the manufacture of a lie, you produce unto the world something which is merely representative of the world to varying degrees but not it itself. From the strands of self-replicating molecules in the form of DNA, to the seeming necessity of bridges and planes which are merely inferior versions of existing land and birds... yeah maybe.
I would have played a show with Locracy (2 guitarists) yesterday. Unfortunately, I had to quarantine short-notice the day before.
Therefore, I recorded my guitars and our drummer synched the tracks with his click tracks and so sent my guitar parts to FOH in sync with the songs they were playing.
Worked out nicely, people liked it.
It was either that or cancel the show. Easy choice there.
I believe the keyboardist is on the verge of extinction. Synths and samplers are there to give supporting strings, special effects, pads, etc. There is no excuse for a big band to use backing tracks when we have these real musical tools/instruments and artists running them. Small bands would rather save that wage to increase profit. The same is happening to second guitarrists.
It depends on the genre. Dead and Company and other bands that improvise would never use anything besides real keyboards. Roger Waters and David Gilmour add extra keyboards if they need them, not backing tracks.
The keyboard is what makes those sounds.. Guitars and live drummers will be the first ones to go extinct. They're too much like hard work to set up when a Tyros can do the job as well.
Well since I paid a small fortune for the family and I to see KISS one last time I appreciate the fact that they supplemented with backing tracks. My memories of Kiss are linked to both albums and live shows from yester year before Paul's voice took a crap. A KISS live show is more than just the music. It's a spectacle of grand proportions and hearing Paul struggle through the songs would detract from that experience. The backing tracks don't take away from the performance they only support it. It's still KISS that recorded the backing track. Their sound, their creativity and their essence in it's best format. It was still a live performance. I saw them early in the tour before they polished up their timing and track blending and I could definitely tell when they blended in the tracks. It just sounded better and more reminiscent of what I remembered when they did. In fact I was a bit weirded out by Paul's speaking voice between songs. He sounded like an old Jewish lady. So yeah I'll take the backing tracks layered under a live performance any day.
You think kiss recorded those backing tracks lol? Gene is one of the most sloppy bass players on stage
Adam Neely once pointed out that backingtracks are often used for content ID recognition. So make what you will of that.
Great video, i agree with everything that you said. I've been playing music for over 30 years and I am a music lover and hearing a band with tracks is completely fine if the tracks add to the song. I am part of a cover band and we play local gigs and having tracks just makes the songs fuller as we are just 3 musicians playing guitars and bass and we all sing but we as a 3 piece band cannot cover every track. There are times where having no tracks is fine as well, it's more raw but the average music listener would prefer to hear more instruments and voices most of the time... cheers.
In the case of Paul Stanley, his voice is gone. I mean, gone. Period. His head voice has become weakened due to age and touring, and his foundational singing has suffered. This last tour is in my opinion, a way for Gene Simmons to get every last Kiss Fans’ dollar before he rides off into the sunset.
And for the money, they put on one hell of a show, canned vocal tracks and all… so, the concert goers are getting the spectacle they paid for, and more.
I hope Paul is able to rebuild his vocal foundation, and come back much like Steve Perry has; maybe not the way we remember, but healthy, and still able to do what he loves.
Literally every symphonic metal band does this, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.
I just left a similar comment. Couldn't agree with you more.
Hit the nail on the head with this one brother. I completely agree.
I would like to suggest next topic of similar manner: Should bands play to click track live?
Last
Second last
I am in a 3 piece power trio doing my 26 tunes. We record a crude mono recording of all our tunes just by switching on a cell phone. If it doesn't cut it ...I scrap or rewrite the damn tune until it does. If a tune doesn't cut it live ...then either fix it or don't play live. It is lame lazy bullsh@t. The audience should walk out! While booing the band as they leave. They should quit and let the 'REAL' players play!
@@creamwobbly No...we tape everything just by clicking on a phone to find if it has impact even on someones elses phone if they record one of our gigs. We aim for excellence. We practice 4 hours a day 6 days a week. I also work at least 2 hours a day on theory and composition.
Great Vid, Many bands need sequenced tracks to back them up regardless of their genre.
i am a one man show, of course i could do acoustic style unplugged truncated versions of songs with nice guitar solos etc but i want to play the nice guitar solos so ill just a drum and bass track behind me so it frees me me up to play lead guitar, some people hate it sure, but the majority would prefer to hear the solos, so thats that, i dont mind bands using backing to fill out the song, as long as they arent miming the vocals and guitar solos