"Live band that doesnt play..." poll

[Sir_Matthew]

It really does have to do with what style of music is being presented. Pink Floyd used backing tracks for ages and no one cared. And technically, a Mellotron was a taped backup, so Zeppelin did it, too.

I've seen it work and I've seen it really suck. It all depends on the style of music and what sort of stage presence the performer has. I used to be more of a hardliner on this kind of stuff, but in 2000 I saw a show by Casey Hess in Dallas doing his Jump Rope Girls material with nothing but him, a guitar, and backing tracks, and it was awesome. But again, it was because he was a great performer.

I think it can be done well, but often it isn't.

 

[joshw]

nah

Overall, I'd say no way. But then you have bands like The Postal Service who I'd love to see live, but there's just no way for them to do their thing without backing tracks. So Jimmy uses a laptop to do most of the background, while Ben plays guitars and sings. Definitely not ideal, but I think it's more understandable under certain circumstances.

 

[David Hooper]

Hello, my friend and I talked about this recently so I thought I would ask a larger audience this question. If you knew of a rock band that you had heard on a CD, on the internet, etc and you knew ahead of time that their live performance was only the vocalist singing live with the recorded track playing in the background (kind of like a rock Britney Spears but ya know, better), how many of you would pay to see this band live?

Most people wouldn't pay to see this. I've only seen backing tracks go over well for pop music and gospel.

 

[glimmer_doll]

Bands that play with backing tracks piss me off.

I don't care if the music doesn't sound just like the cd, i want to see an impassioned performance...i want to see you put your fuckin heart into it, and make me beleive that you beleive what your playing/saying.

fuck that little keyboard overdub at the bridge, or vocal harmony, or whatever the fuck it is...just play

look at the system of a down song chop suey. on cd it has all these guitar overdubs, synth strings & piano. They do it live without the keyboard parts, without the multi-layered guitars...and it doesn't matter because it's still a kickass song and they play it with heart...

I call out shame to U2, Linkin Park, Marilyn Manson, Korn, Orgy, Motley Crue, The Who....and all others who spread this infectious disease throughout the spectrum of bands that i would like to see "live"

 

[Homegrown Vinyl]

I've seen the Pulsars do it, although I saw people in the audience making fun of them. I thought they were great, but to each his own.

In general... it would be better to make a disc of yourself and make it EXACTLY how you want it to sound. Then learn how to play those songs on an acoustic and do it yourself.

If I have my band with me, we play loud, and fast. But if I'm by myself I think it's better to go acoustic.

 

[glynb]

In general... it would be better to make a disc of yourself and make it EXACTLY how you want it to sound. Then learn how to play those songs on an acoustic and do it yourself.
QUOTE]

Exactly. A studio album is one thing, a self contained recording project. A live performance is another. Live performance shouldn't be about simply reproducing the studio album perfectly in front of thousands of people, it should be about a unique expereince and new interpretation of the songs each time.

If a song doesn't work live without a particular instrument which the members of the band can't reproduce (perhaps because it was overdubbed) then they should either not play it, or damned well pay for an extra session musician(s) to join them for the live tour, but definitely not play along to backing tracks!

I think it's just about OK for a band to play along to a loop or sequence if that is a major part of a track, but when it gets to musical parts which could be played by a musician coming from a machine in a 'live' situation then it over steps the mark IMHO.

My comments here mainly apply to music played on instruments in the conventional way (eg guitar based rock), music which relies on computer technology (house/techno etc) for its existience falls into a different categaory.

 

[Homegrown Vinyl]

My comments here mainly apply to music played on instruments in the conventional way (eg guitar based rock), music which relies on computer technology (house/techno etc) for its existience falls into a different categaory.

Yeah, and this board does have a rock bias...

For example if you produce beats for hip hop, you first have to make them on a computer or record them somehow, and THEN get them transferred onto vinyl if you wanna spin it.

I've seen many many hip hop artists skipping the vinyl step and rapping with an MP3 player. It works, but I still think it's much better when you have somebody spinning real vinyl.

 

[stonepiano]

Yeah, and this board does have a rock bias...

I don't know if it's a rock bias so much as it is a musician bias.

Rappers are vocalists and entertainers. A vocalist's instrument is his or her voice. Hence, rappers are using their instruments.

Are stirring the pot towards the inevitable and unanswerable question: is the dude spinning vinyl a musician?

 

[MadAudio]

The only artist I've ever seen who can pull this off is Peaches. If you haven't caught her act, you're missing something!
http://www.peachesrocks.com/