Is Performing With A Backing Track Cheating?

[mr_es335]

Good day one and all!!

The forum has been rather quiet as of late and I am hopeful that such quietness is not the result of SAW/SAC being relegated to an archive HDD.

Regardless, I do sincerely hope that all of you are doing well.

I happened upon a rather interesting video from Rick Beato entitled, "Is Performing With A Backing Track Cheating? My Opinion..." which I found both surprising and need-I-say, "shocking".

So, I thought that I would share this link with you and see what your thoughts and/or opinions are.

In particular, was his use of the term "stems" - though which I had heard many timed previously, and never really understood, at least until now, that is. Apparently, the use of such "stems" are very common.

In my days of playing "live", we used a single mixer "head" and two column speakers with 8-10's in each column. We had no idea what monitors were - or even what a FOH engineer was. There were generally, four of us, keyboards, bass , drums and guitar - left-to-right. Oftentimes, I never heard the keyboardist over the bass and drums. Yet, apparently, our band was one of the best around at that time. Interesting!

For a very short time, I had the opportunity of being "a roadie" for the Guess Who" during their Saskatchewan tour. Their setup was very similar to the one I had been accustomed to - with the exception of an engineer and two speaker cabinets located to the left and right of the performers - I cannot remember what these cabinets were referred to as. And yet, no monitors - at least that I can remember.

My, how things have changed - or have they?

Anyhow, "Is Performing With A Backing Track Cheating?"

Thanks for your time!

[jmh]

Only if your wife catches you...

[Warren]

Good day one and all!!

The forum has been rather quiet as of late and I am hopeful that such quietness is not the result of SAW/SAC being relegated to an archive HDD.

Regardless, I do sincerely hope that all of you are doing well.

I happened upon a rather interesting video from Rick Beato entitled, "Is Performing With A Backing Track Cheating? My Opinion..." which I found both surprising and need-I-say, "shocking".

So, I thought that I would share this link with you and see what your thoughts and/or opinions are.

In particular, was his use of the term "stems" - though which I had heard many timed previously, and never really understood, at least until now, that is. Apparently, the use of such "stems" are very common.

In my days of playing "live", we used a single mixer "head" and two column speakers with 8-10's in each column. We had no idea what monitors were - or even what a FOH engineer was. There were generally, four of us, keyboards, bass , drums and guitar - left-to-right. Oftentimes, I never heard the keyboardist over the bass and drums. Yet, apparently, our band was one of the best around at that time. Interesting!

For a very short time, I had the opportunity of being "a roadie" for the Guess Who" during their Saskatchewan tour. Their setup was very similar to the one I had been accustomed to - with the exception of an engineer and two speaker cabinets located to the left and right of the performers - I cannot remember what these cabinets were referred to as. And yet, no monitors - at least that I can remember.

My, how things have changed - or have they?

Anyhow, "Is Performing With A Backing Track Cheating?"

Thanks for your time!

We called those cabs SIDE FILLS
Cheating? only if your band gets caught lip syncing out of sync. Datsa nota so gooda!

[jmh]

I'm going to weigh in.

I hate it when somebody performs to pre-recorded tracks. I saw a Steve Howe show where he played just a couple of songs to recordings that just marred an otherwise great show with an unpleasant aspect.

One can argue that the musicians we see are 'recording artists' -- and this is an expression of that art. It is a valid point, but as someone who goes to a lot of shows, live music is the real deal. I appreciate good fidelity and good production, but being on the edge of making or not making mistakes, emotions enhancing or damaging a performance and the exercise of musical competence and also interactions within an ensemble and also between them an audience are all great aspects of the human experience. Anyway I'm a huge plus vote for live music, and thumb down at recording playback.

[John Ludlow]

One of the styles of music that I, for a time, spent a lot of time listening to and fiddling with is ambient. At one point, a co-conspirator and I were determined to hear ourselves on 'Hearts of Space'. I was a paying member and I listened to the 'station' a lot. So, it was pretty cool for me when it was announced that there would be a concert performance by several of the titans of the genre. A multiple day extravaganza featuring artists that I admire taking place in a hotel in California in a space outfitted with surround sound. Unfortunately, at the time I couldn't afford, well... anything. So, I couldn't go. But, someone offered to video all of the performances and broadcast them live over the Internet. I tuned in for every performance. And, from a thousand miles away, I thought the music was great.

But I noticed that most of the 'performers' themselves sat in a chair on stage and sort of fiddled with knobs. Or, perhaps even... pretended to fiddle with knobs. For most, as far as I could tell, their main feat was to press play on a MIDI sequencer. One reserved a small guitar part, featuring highly FX-ed noises, for himself to play live part way through. Although the resulting music was no less wonderful, I found myself wondering whether it should be called a 'performance' at all. As someone who had, at that point, spent a lot of time attempting to create my own ambient masterpiece (don't scoff until you try it) I could appreciate the genius that had gone into the music's creation. And yet... why not just bring a CD and be done with it, you know? Part of a performance is the possibility that it might fail altogether, or accidentally be wonderfully different in a brand new way.

Not all the artists did this. Jeff Pearce used multiple looper pedals, a reverb rack box, a guitar, and his fingers to create his live performance. He built it one 'track' at a time, and added and removed tracks over time as the resulting piece required. His performance had that high-wire, without a net, effect because there was the possibility of utter failure. And I knew that what we were listening to was a one-off. He had performed pieces similar to it in the past, but none that were exactly the same. And I found that, as a listener and a fan, I really appreciated that. It took nothing away from the resulting genius of the studio work of the other artists. But I found that I didn't think that they should call what they did 'performing'.

To a lesser extent, guys that bill themselves as one man bands who press play on the sequencer, resulting in a bass, drums, rhythm guitar and backup singers, and then play a keyboard and sing along... I don't appreciate them maybe as much as I should. It's clearly different than pressing play and fiddling with knobs. There's still a live performance happening. But it's narrower because all the other instruments are always exactly the same.

Maybe it's because I despised that disco was taking work away from working bands back when I was a rock-n-roll performer. At the time it seemed possible that actual live performance might disappear altogether. But I find myself resenting them for taking a gig that could have gone to a working band. Or - from a solo performer who does not require a backing track to still be engaging. It's almost certainly not fair of me, prejudicial even, but I think that there's something special and particular about performing live and I don't appreciate the result of those that include pre-recorded parts as much.

[mr_es335]

Note: I have bolded the link to the Rick Beato video...just in case no one knew that the title was an actual link.

Warren...thanks for the clarification...appreciate it!

jmh...I would tend to agree with you, though John has some very valid points as well.

John...I agree with the skill required to perform "an ambient masterpiece" - thus my position never to attempt to do so. As an audience member, I can certainly appreciate the efforts.

As a side-note, I remember seeing Julian Bream - noted, but passed, classical guitarist, perform at a venue here in Vancouver, BC, that was quite large and all that was on stage was a piano bench and a foot stool.

He walked on stage with nothing but an acoustic guitar and literally filled that venue with sound. Incredible!

• Of the six times that I aw him perform live, once he was 20 minutes late, and walking on stage "in a rather harried manner" - he sat down and the said, "Where is my bleedin' foot stool!" That was classic!
• One other time is worth mentioning. There was an elderly woman who always sat in the same spot. During a performance of Bach's "Fugue in A Minor", she began to literally "doze off"! Near the end of the piece, Mr. Bream, for whatever reason, stomped his right foot on the stage and that sweet, elderly woman, awoken by the sound, said "Oh!" This "interruption" made Mr. Bream take notice, wherein he then smiled and continued on to finish the piece. Another memorable event!

Did Mr. Bream make mistakes? "Sure!" One thing about music is that the music - while being performed, is in a continual state of movement...so accept the mistake for what it is and then move on. All that I can say is that listening to Mr. Bream "over-and-over-again" in recordings and then having the opportunity of hearing him perform "live" - will remain in my memory forever - mistakes and all!

[Carl G.]

[I]One thing about music is that the music - while being performed, is in a continual state of movement...so accept the mistake for what it is and then move on.
[/SIZE]

If you ever got a chance to see Buddy Rich LIVE with his band.... you'll understand why nothing can substitute for real talent LIVE with NO backing tracks.
Buddy and Steve Marcus were absolutely amazing on whatever they felt and played for each different performance.

That said... for youngsters who pay to see a live performance match a well rehearsed/mixed/mastered studio performance....seems the only way they are going to get their money's worth... is to accept and enjoy backing tracks.

It's all in the minds, ears and expectations of the audience..... and the ability, talent, and situation of the performer.

[mr_es335]

Carl

"It's all in the minds, ears and expectations of the audience..... and the ability, talent, and situation of the performer." ... How true!!

[John Ludlow]

For those like Beato, I would presume the thought process is, "We're just trying to present the best overall performance we can. If no-one can tell - what's the harm?". But of course, as a producer, he frequently surreptitiously replaced band members, on their own albums, with studio musicians too. Maybe it's a question of 'artist performer' vs. just 'performer'. From a producers perspective, or someone for whom being in a band is just a job, "if everybody's making money - who cares how the stew was made"? Whereas, from an artists (and fans...) perspective, "What's the point of making an album of me if I'm not on it?". I've listened to Beato describe how frequently, as a producer, he canned the drummer for the record - and then the drummer quit the band and the band had to get a new drummer.

The bottom line maybe is, if there's nothing wrong in deceiving the audience for their own benefit, then why hide it? Why not put a roadie on stage with a big red button that he presses to begin every song? Why are there legendary fails at all when a band is discovered having attempted to hide using pre-recorded material? Clearly - it's lying and cheating and everyone involved intrinsically knows it!

Dell, I think maybe I know where you're going with this because we've written back and forth about similar things before (and - if I'm wrong, I apologize in advance). Where does one draw the line? If it's not OK to replace a band member with a studio musician (who isn't mentioned in the album notes) for their own benefit, why is it OK to edit a studio performance in the mix? Why is it OK to combine two flawed lead performances into one better apparent performance? If the studio performer did not use reverb in their performance - is it cheating to add it in after the fact? And in this context, I think those are interesting questions. Where does one draw the line?

I think the answer is really complicated and nuanced. But, at least in my mind, performance and recording are different situations. I accept that there may be an anonymous sax on the album although the band doesn't have a horn player. Whereas, I would not accept a sax player behind the stage where he cannot be seen in a live performance (let alone pre-recorded). And I accept that there are ways to improve a flawed studio performance (short of replacing the performer and hiding it...) on an album that are simply not possible live.

Most of all though, at least I think it comes down to basic integrity. I may not appreciate a 'live' one man band performance, in which there is a backing track he plays along with, as much as one man playing - but he's not trying to hide what he's doing. He's not trying to fool you. If you have to hide what you're doing for it to be accepted, and you know it - maybe you lack integrity.

I'm a huge Grateful Dead fan. I most especially admired them for never playing a song the same way twice. Every performance was a big risk. Part of being their fan was accepting that, periodically, they're going to totally flop on stage. Nobody likes to screw up badly in front of thousands. But that's what they risked every time and they knew it and did it anyway - because when they didn't fail, the result was often incredible.

But they didn't make albums that way. Like everyone else, they attempted to present the best studio result they could. They re-did tracks until there were no mistakes. If someone forgot the words - they re-did it until they didn't. They polished vocals. And they fussed over tone until it was as good as they thought they could get. And I like those recordings - but they're not sheer magic the way portions of some shows are - flaws and all.

[mr_es335]

John,

Concise and to the point - as always. Appreciated!

Eve Cassidy's most famous recordings were performed live - string "squeaks' and all! However, those momentary "flaws" never, ever detracted from her overall actual performances. Her talent overshadowed such "mishaps".

• Danny Boy: Approximately 1:53-1:56

And then there is Holly Cole, who apparently would "upset" her band members by creating new arrangements "on-the-fly". Incredible performances, regardless.

John, your statement, "The bottom line maybe is, if there's nothing wrong in deceiving the audience for their own benefit, then why hide it?" - is "provocative" to say the least....and to which, I heartily agree!

I guess the bottom line for me is, "Why do it in the first place?"

Someone asked me what Bach would do with a Moog? And my response was, "I have no idea!" Bach is dead - and if history is at-all correct, he might have not looked too kindly on that "instrument". Apparently, Bach even frowned at the idea of the use of a Metronome! However, all this is mere speculation.

As a solo performer, I always make my audience well aware of what I am doing - and will often introduce them to my "invisible band members". This being said, I only use backing tracks during my electric guitar performances. The nylon-strung and steel-strung sets are all performed live.

• However, I have been toying with the idea of performing via KONTAKT, the stringed portions from various Vivaldi scores - and them implementing those recordings as backing tracks for a few nylon-strung performances. I can then inform the audience that what they are hearing had been previously recorded by me. We will see what transpires.