Is Performing With A Backing Track Cheating? My Opinion...
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 24. 10. 2022
- In today's video whether using a backing track live is ripping off your fans?
đđ Ultimate Bundle Sale - ONLY $99 for all my educational products: rickbeato.com
đ- The Beato Book Interactive - $99.00 value
đ- The Beato Ear Training Program - $99.00 value
đž- 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 â bit.ly/2eEs9gX
For recurring support go here: flatfiv.co/pages/become-a-bea... - Hudba
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
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 đŻ
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 donât even play an instrument
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.
"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!âșïž
True! The less modern tech you use, the more natural talent we can listen, in my opinion đ
Meetodisfrutooođđâ€
@@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? đ€
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..?
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.
I have this conversation with my friends all the time. I personally donât use backing tracks with my band but almost every single one of my friends do. I donât think backing tracks are âwrongâ 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. Thatâs the stuff I want to see. Humans being human.
Totally agree, that.s what I want to see in live shows, no laptops!
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 âïž
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.
There are a lot of exceptions to the âbands are locked into a click trackâ part of this discussion (as Iâm sure Rick is aware, he just didnât 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.
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.
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, doesnât need extra bells and whistles to enhance their sound. For example, a good trioâŠless 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 70âs.
I feel the key takeaway point is that weâre there to entertain to the best of our abilities, using whatever resources are available that weâre comfortable with, and that it absolutely does not matter what another musician thinks about your setup.
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 couldnât continue until the whatever they were using was fixed. 5 guys on stage that couldnât play a song without backing tracks. To me thatâs 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.
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.
Thereâs a certain something when a group of musicians play together with just whatâs 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.
I saw Twentyonepilots a few years ago. Here is a band with two members but had a huge full production sound when playing 'live'. Much of what I was hearing was pre recorded music done to an amazing light show, makes for a very non organic concert. When I did band pyro work in the 90's maybe the only artist who was playing a real show was Prince. Just about every big live show heavily relied on a tightly pre scripted lighting show that was synced with the music, of course the pyro cues could be in sync as well. In the end the pyro becomes a 'no fire' instruction if the 'show' was running the cues. I certainly witnessed Bon Jovi, Bobby Brown, Motley Crue and lots of others rely heavily on parts of the show that were pre recorded. As Rick says here this has been in the live music scene for a very long time, it's sad it's now becoming so heavily relied on to a point where a live show is basically a complete lip sync performance. And when thinking of this in the extreme look at Paul Stanley of Kiss. Pauls been caught out several times well away from a microphone yet he's singing very loudly in a song. I'm certainly not paying $500 to see this style of live show no matter how final the tour is. If they cant play live a band needs to retire when it can no longer sings it's own songs. Yep, playing with backing tracks is ripping off fans unless it's clearly disclosed in the ticket sales.
Joe Elliot of Def Leppard admitted to using backing tracks to "sweeten" the vocals during the Hysteria tour. I read this back when the Milli Vanilli scandal first broke. This stuff isn't new.
I remember going to a Cinco De Mayo festival with Gloria Trevi (look her up) singing on stage. She was hopping up and down while singing. The band was playing loudly. Then, the music stops dead cold. She kept going. 1 minute later, the music starts up and it's like the blooper never happened. This was back in the early 80s.
I agree. You can add some parts to have a better sound, but replace yourself is cheating.
twenty one pilots is fully within their rights to do that ya. and Tyler from that band creates all those sounds from absolute scratch, the drums are real and the bass is real live, its the best they can do
kiss has so many suckers willing to give them money I don't really blame them for taking advantage.
I totally agree if it just backing vocals ok but if the singer is lip syncing and not singing or the band is not playing I am not paying to see them plain and simple
I think Nine Inch Nails is a good example of this. There is SO much going on with their songs and if itâs 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"
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 donât 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.
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.
Howâd 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
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.
This is why Pearl Jam are so great live. You could argue that they're significantly better live than on their studio albums.
I donât 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 theyâd walk off stage to show they werenât playing it live. In the early days theyâd 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 Freddieâs 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?
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".
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.
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.
I donât mind backing tracks while playing live as long as itâs not a mime show like the Ashlee Simpson debacle. I remember thinking âWhy would you completely fake the entire track of a basic four chord pop song live?â 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 đ
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 Thereâs a TV âperformanceâ by The Lovinâ 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 nâ roll, and Iâm sure the suits in the control booth werenât 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'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.
Glad you mentioned guitarists and AxeFX /NeuralDSP. It's made it easier for them instead of lugging a 4x12 an amp
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 âPushing me awayâ or âCrawlingâ evolved) etcâŠ
I think they were a good example how to do this well and âmusicallyâ
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.
I like live bands. Thereâs 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 donât 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 didnât mention Queen! They take great pride in playing their shows live.
Glad you mentioned The Who having to play to a backing track on Baba OâReilly. Daltry & Townshend have always been upfront about it and how terrifying it always was to be locked to the tape once the âPlayâ button was pushed. And if the machine failed, it failed and theyâd 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. đ
@@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.
Thank you for always creating such valuable videos super helpful info and shared experience youâre a blessing!
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 youâre 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'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 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.
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.
@@edwardprete used tracks..can clearly hear it on jump
I remember Van Halen only using keyboard tracks on their later tours, on 5150 and previous tours Eddie played all the keyboard parts live and switched to guitar when he needed to. Michael Anthony even played keys a couple times.
Iâve 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 arenât performing their own songs. That definition is already clearly outlined. Iâm 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 donât have or want a band. Very similar to Twenty One Pilots. Thereâs 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 đMusic are more complexed today and honestly - I like to hear and experience the songs the way they where made đ
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.
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 Youâre 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.
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
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.
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 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 wasnât enough computer processor to do it any other way.
Personally, I like music that doesnât use or need backing tracks. Iâm 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.
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.
Most shows I went to were Death Metal or Jazz. No backing tracks đ 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 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 donât bother explaining that. They think they want the live experience and donât 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 donât need to save the world đ 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 âTHIS ISNT LIVE MUSICâ when heâs 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 âno itâs not like they do todayâ
I remember when MTV launched âUnpluggedâ which seemed a way to show which bands could actually play.
Jean-Michel Jarre unplugged would be interesting!
Unplugged was boring as hell.
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
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
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.
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 canât 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, thatâs no longer âliveâ music. The difference between production and deceptionâŠ
Yep you nailed it there. Also thereâs 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
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
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?
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.
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!
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).
Beato knows ALL!!! SO GIFTED, love you Rickđ€đŸ
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.
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?
â@@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 CZcams 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.
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.
Another great Rick Beato video! I have to admit, I was reluctant to watch this one as I assumed Rick would slam backing tracks. However, I think he says it very well "as long as the backing tracks are done well" :)
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.
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?!?!
Without backing tracks, the entire Symphonic Rock/Metal genre probably wouldn't exist in a live format.
It's like many bands could do 150 shows a years with a full orchestra.
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 thereÂŽs 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
@@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...
Iâm 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, Iâm more than confortable with backing tracks.
@@christo6765 what an unnecessarily elitist take. Youâre 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 UhâŠ. Read his comment he literally said the opposite of that đ€Ł
@@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...
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.
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.
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 thatâs what Iâd 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
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!
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.
U2, one of the biggest bands of all time, started using backing tracks when they did the unforgettable fire. They couldnât play Bad without the sequenced synth part.
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. đ I was going to cite Spoonful alone, but decided it was easier to just say "side 3".
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.
Very interesting history. My band in the mid 90s played to MIDI tracks. A lot of industrial bands back then used sequencers.
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.
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! đ
Great idea. I can can think of AC/DC's Thunderstruck from the 1991 Donington show (no backing tracks needed here).
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
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 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.
Iâm 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 âfill outâ 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 itâs 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.
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 đ 12:02
Mister Beato, I am recording my first album and I am 61 years old.... despite the fact that I have couple of friends THAT you know...but I will not share these on this page. Anyway, I am recording this album in memory for my son's mother that passed away in 1999! Why am I mentioning this? Because my son is the producer of the album. He does the drum backing tracks and the mix. I was a musical coach back in the days on how to create songs and how to perform on stage. I am very impressed on your set of mind! My son and I do think that you seem to be such an amazing person that just hearing you talking would motivate young musicians to out perform! Thank you! PS If we have one day the chance of taking ... I will tell you a very funny story about Sebastian Bach in 1984 when he was with his Toronto band Kid Wicked and me with my band Slave!
You said it, Rick- Mostly for the show lights and pyrotechnics they need the laptops for that-thatâs a big part of the show
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 âaugmentationâ Of overall sound. NOT as replacement of anything. Just adding elements that are impossible to play given amount of performers on stage. Thatâs all.
The Warning... Love them
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....!!
100% with you on this Rick. I donât mind, if itâs done right.
Todd Rundgren used to come out with a real-to-reel tape deck in either sing live or play piano and sing live while the tape deck played the backing tracks then later on in the late 90s and early 2000s he would sometimes perform with a mini disc in the same fashion. I think the first time I saw Todd do something like that was maybe 1974
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.
TO me it's not about sounding FULL , it's about sounding REAL .
Nice statement!
Funny concept. Most of us are looking for sounding good lol.
They also use the backing tracks for concistency, specially if they don't have the time to practice
Then go watch some neckbeard garage band practice on their trailer park.
Great video. Really really great. I feel as though the general public is completely uninformed in terms of how computers are used in modern live music, so when they see a quote about "laptops", they immediately go to, "well they're not really playing". As Rick explained so brilliantly, it goes WAY deeper than that and is much more complex an issue. What I take umbrage with, are groups who lip sync their lead vocals, or mime a guitar part or bass part that is pre recorded. That, to me, is not fair to the audience who have paid to see the band play their songs live. This is why people love the Foo Fighters. They have everything they need right up there on stage. Background singers, Keyboards, violin, the works. And if they need something else, they get it and play live. Having grown up in the 70's and seeing Queen live several times, they sang their parts, played their parts, had the middle of Bohemian Rhapsody pre recorded, but they left the stage so it wasn't a big secret, and they sounded freaking amazing. With all the stuff they did in the studio, all the tracks they used, bouncing and bouncing til the 24 track was almost used up, Queen still sounded great live with 4 guys and most times only 3 playing instruments. Different times, my friends,. Different times.
Rick, I appreciate your take on this. problem from 8 minutes on in your video. I understand why I would want to use a mixing engineer to turn on for me the variety of sounds coming out of the instruments used. That is one thing. In another video you speak of clicks. I remember what Ringo Starr said about this: I am the click. What I am getting at is what sort of performance does an artist wish to offer? A four piece band can sound pretty full to my liking. And very good. If a band needs two synth players than they should hire those other musicians. And get fake violins on. Is this not what The Rolling Stones chose to do? King Crimson never used a track, and I have been following them since 1973. I can't imagine a show where improv would be eliminated. Music is about improv. Jazz with a backing track, really? Or the Blues? No special moment is ever possible? That young band with the female singer whose machine screwed up, she should have turned around, and started singing a capella and let the musicians slowly get into the groove. That horror could have turned into something really great. It was missed. No need to sound like the record. Why sound like the record? Mistake occur ALL THE TIME on stage. Peter Frampton spoke about it in your interview. How musicians deal with mistakes is what makes a show amazing. The Spectacle is not the way to go. This is not about REPRESENTATION. Music is about silences and presences. About communication. All audiences will prefer authenticity over the fake. Even if fakes are often better than the real stuff. Basically, this is an issue about what one expects when meeting another person. One perfume is enough, I need not have my friend carry the entire wardrobe for me to enjoy her presence. Perhaps shows could be about something else than what Guy Debord called the SPECTACLE. Just saying. Thank you again for your wisdom.
Music and the industry have changed so much since the "true live" days, this "issue" doesn't even register on my richter scale. I will say that knowledge of these kinds of things makes me appreciate bands that do "true live" well even more.
I recall the first time I saw KANSAS live (1974? Masque tour) I was completely blown away given the complexities of their tunes. In short, it was apparent that dudes could play and had chops.
I wouldn't say the industry has changed so much as the standard has been lowered.
@@kipknee Yup, and the advancement of technology has enabled that lowering of standards.
@@kipknee - I would argue the opposite. Go watch Aerosmith's Texxas Jam '78 where Steven Tyler was a complete wasted mess. Not only did they play this show and get away with it, but they recorded and released that embarrassment. It's insane. That show would NEVER be acceptable today and would possibly end their career.
I happen to look at Kansas' Masque album cover last night, by coincidence, and it came out in 1975 if that helps you with your memory timeline. Things get fuzzy over the years, ha!
@@dpb22 OTOH, listen to Frampton Comes Alive, ABB - Live at Fillmore East, Deep Purple - Made in Japan, Little Feat - Waiting for Columbus, David Bowie - Live, Paul Simon - Live in Central Park, etc., etc.
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
When my band wrote alot of our music originally we didn't have the ideas for samples or any of that until we got time to learn how to even do any of that in the studio. It really opened up a massive world to me and a creative outlet i didn't know I would enjoy. I added track to our songs for the recording and it made them much better IMO and others. When it came time to execute this live it added a whole other piece of the puzzle. We never played to a click live and we had to learn that. Had to make the samples and click go to the drummer and not to FOH. We had to learn how to do that as well. We lost a guitar player in the process with a show on the horizon with no time to replace and train for a 10 song set. Needed to figure out how to sample his parts and relearn my own to accommodate. With all that said its a process to learn these skills and are in my opinion essential to being in just about any modern band. The hate people get i believe are reflecting on some bands or singers or w/e that really just go out there and don't do anything other than fake it. I can tell you now, we are not faking it but have enhanced it in a way that we can move forward and become better.
I would be interested to know what you would think about about triggering samples through a device like the Native instruments machine or the Ableton push .That for a performance which really an interactive application of backing tracks . Idealy for me it would be a performance using a midi splitter to trigger multiple hardware instruments and sequences .
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.