"Real bands don't use tracks"

[David Polich]

For the third time in two years, I've been "relieved" of my position as keyboard player in cover bands whose leaders told me, "we hate tracks, real bands don't use tracks".

I was the keyboard tech/programmer for Michael Jackson's This Is It tour rehearsals. Worked as keyboard tech/programmer on David Foster tours since 2011. Went on a world tour with the Cure in 2013, as keyboard tech. Programmed for Fleetwood Mac's 2014 tour, Buckingham-McVie's 2015 tour, programmed for Kasey Musgrave's 2022 tour. Of course, I know for a fact that most major artist tours use tracks playback (mostly using Pro Tools, but some use DP). I tell any band I'm invited to join that I come with tracks, because I don't have ten hands and if they want to sound like the records, and don't have enough players to do the songs right, they need to use tracks.

I never get this attitude from tribute bands. Virtually all of them use tracks and love it, cuz they can sound like the records. It's just the cover bands that sport this weird anti-track attitude. I really don't get it.

Anyone else encounter this?

[stubbsonic]

If a band has lots of experience playing live only, and not playing to a click, etc. then that is obviously a reasonable boundary to set. I agree though, it's weird if you tell them out front that you use tracks, they should stop there.

I suppose there is an almost "philosophical" difference between say, a DJ on one extreme, and a live-band on the other extreme. And to fall somewhere in the middle with some loops or backing tracks is obviously not wrong, but more just what kind of experience the players and audience are meant to have.

Do they otherwise play to a click anyway?

[bayswater]

I suppose there is an almost "philosophical" difference between say, a DJ on one extreme, and a live-band on the other extreme. And to fall somewhere in the middle with some loops or backing tracks is obviously not wrong, but more just what kind of experience the players and audience are meant to have.

A bit like what I was going to say but much more subtle and mature. To oversimplify, a band is playing for itself, or for an audience. Not trying to judge — I was always in the former category, wanting to see what a few people with basic equipment can do with songs they wrote. Otherwise, it seems to me that if band wants to do covers that sound like the originals, they have to stick to songs that have the same number of parts as they have musicians. Otherwise, they need tracks or more musicians. Queen did it so it should be good enough for everyone else.

[daniel.sneed]

Perhaps I'm not *mature* enough, after all, but I really don't get that *sound like the record* thing.
When I want to listen to something *sounding like the record*, I listen to the record, which is ok.
But when I go to a show, I enjoy musicians playing raw live (no click, no track). Of course, YMMV.
BTW, for some reasons, I don't go to DJ shows!
Any classical musicians around? (which I'm not)

[mikehalloran]

The Who settled that in 1971. Queen famously said they didn’t—until they did, then they shut up about it.

If a band can find their sound without tracks, more power to them I suppose. When I toured, it was with folk and jazz groups that didn’t use them. In church, some programs use backing tracks, others don’t — I’m fine either way. I had to use them with everything I did during the pandemic even if it was only my wife playing piano.

When I saw The Beach Boys 50th Anniversary tour, I’m pretty sure they didn’t (I could call Jeffery Foskett and ask, I suppose— we’ve talked a few times since high school) but there were twelve people onstage trying to sound like the five or six who made the original records pre (Pet Sounds)— with all the studio musicians that Brian used, of course. It was great to hear David Marks play all those cool guitar riffs that he played on the recordings that Carl never duplicated live. As a ten year old, I was in the audience for their Beach Boys Concert record (8/1/1964 date) at the Sacramento Memorial Auditorium in 1964 — my first rock concert and opened my ears to bands not sounding like the records. I owned that record for decades before reading the liner notes and seeing what shows were used.

In high school I would see Buckingham-Nicks with "Fritz" and the Doobies play at Ricardo’s Pizza place a block from my house. My dad and I would sit in with Chet Baker on Monday nights after I came home from San Jose Youth Symphony rehearsals. The music business has come a long way in the 50 years since then.

[HCMarkus]

Sorry to hear the gig is no more for you David. But, then again, maybe you are not sorry...

I play keys with a band that does live shows and taped for TV shows. We use samples and tracks on some songs. On others we don't. Personally, I enjoy both approaches, and being able to do a show that is not completely tied to tracks is, IMO, a good thing. But there are more than a few tunes on which having those "extra hands" available sure makes life better for me.

Whatever best serves the music is the key. Genre can have a lot to do with it.

PS: For our live shows. the only time we are "trying to sound like the record" is when the record we are trying to sound like is our own.

[stubbsonic]

When I see live bands, part of the energy for me is seeing them pull everything off live. And the level of skill required is part of my enjoyment of the thing.

I think general audiences aren't as aware of what percentage is realtime, and what is "pre-rendered". I'm guessing (projecting, perhaps) that if they were aware-- they'd still enjoy the performance, but perhaps without the same degree of wow-factor.

Whenever I've been in the audience of a performer who uses a looper for most of what they are doing, I get bored really fast. I think partly, it's because I'm so aware of how the sausage is made, it just distracts me too much. For some performers, I like them in spite of the looper, not because of it.

For tracks, there is the pragmatic problem solving of it. E.g., How can we do this without that iconic clave part?

[stubbsonic]

Perhaps I'm not *mature* enough, after all, but I really don't get that *sound like the record* thing.

I totally get your point. For specific cover/tribute bands, part of the goal is to impress the audience with how you were able to recreate it, and they get to hear it live. The iconic example is the Elvis impersonator who can actually pull off that one-of-a-kind vibrato.

[James Steele]

I've found that I have less and less tolerance for some of these dogmatic "purist" approaches. To me, as long as tracks aren't making up the bulk of a performance, but used for "reasonable" augmentation, I have no problem with it. I would make the disclaimer that, obviously, if you're using tracks because it's a part that is beyond your skill level to play live in realtime, that's not cool in my mind. Furthermore, if you're lip synching a lead vocal part because you can't hit the notes anymore, (I won't name names, but that's been a big issue lately), that feels pretty dishonest. At some point, if you're an athlete for example, and you can no longer hit a 90mph fastball, you have no choice but to recognize (hopefully gracefully) that there's no shame in winding down an otherwise admirable career with dignity. Today, now that everyone has a video camera in their pocket with mobile phones, it's all too easy to turn yourself into the butt of jokes because your ego—and even genuine love of performing—prevents you from walking off the stage gracefully. I *always* think about how Joe DiMaggio said farewell pretty much at the top of his game before his skills diminished too much.

There's another very practical reason to use tracks. It's *difficult* sometimes to field enough band members. It also may not be viable financially. I had a live original music project for a while, and I can tell you first hand, living in a scene where everyone and their brother/sister are pursuing the low-hanging fruit of tribute bands (those acts get paid well and venues can't seem to get enough of them because they're "safe"), trying to find competent musicians that want to do original music, which does NOT pay well, is a challenge.

So in my case, we used some tracks. We had a drummer, bass player and myself. I sang the lead vocals live, played all the guitar solos and prominent guitar parts live. However, I had supporting tracks with keyboards, basic rhythm guitar parts for fullness during solos and other sections. I'd also hasten to point out that because this was original music written by me, and guitar is my primary instrument, the keyboard parts were all very basic supporting parts. It would be ludicrous to have some ripping B3 solo coming from tracks with no keyboard player on the stage.

We also employed some backing vocal tracks. This wasn't what I wanted. Trust me. It's been my experience that finding musicians who can sing decent backing vocals is very difficult... unless maybe those musicians are already in aforementioned tribute bands where they can make some money. My drummer didn't sing. I maintain he probably could but he had a mental block some people have about it, as I believe EVERYONE can sing within a certain range. So he didn't sing. And we were a three piece band. As he and I were auditioning bass players, we had a hell of a time trying to get a bass player with strong backing vocals. And when my drummer would push for a guy who couldn't sing, I'd explain to him that we have only THREE people, and HE... my drummer... had the only *non-singing* slot I could afford to give up! There wasn't room for non-singers. My music was not like Rush where Geddy carries it all. My music was built in great part around the "big chorus." That meant strong backing vocals. In the end, necessity forced my hand and I had to go with someone who was and is a very solid bassist with a great sense of time, but by his own admission couldn't sing his way out of a paper bag. Well... now I had to have backing vocals coming off of tracks, as well. I had some people raise their eyebrows over it, but they don't know the challenges of fielding good musicians to play originals if you're over a certain age and there's easy money to be made in tribute bands. In fact, the gigs my band did I consistently lost money on because it was MY music, MY name was on the project, so I made sure my band members got paid even though I didn't. It came out of my pocket.

The backing vocal thing bothered me the most. I even had to go so far as to trigger a sample for one song. We'd throw some covers into our set to sort of keep people interested as they need some familiarity along with music they might be hearing for the first time. So we played The Ocean by Led Zeppelin as one of the covers. Probably most remember that in the second verse I believe, in between the phrases like "Sitting 'round singing songs till the night turns into day..." there's a vocal interjection that simply goes "oooh... ooooooh." For the life of him, event though it's a falsetto part, our bassist could not do it. I actually had to program a Note On message on a MIDI controller and trigger a sample of me singing the "oooh-ooooh" with my foot every time it came around. Because we were on a click, as long as I triggered it at the right moment, it sounded great. (As if I didn't have enough on my plate playing guitar and singing lead vocals.)

I have rambled. But my point is that I would LOVE to have the luxury of being a purist and be able to put 5-6 band members on a stage to perform my own original music. At this stage that's just not a viable economic reality... hence I'll use supporting tracks. Of course, if by some ridiculously long-odds, after putting in all the hard work, I was able to make something successful out of it, then there's no shortage of musicians who will be clamoring to be part of something after all the heavy lifting is done. But that's just the way of all business... not just music.

[David Polich]

If a band has lots of experience playing live only, and not playing to a click, etc. then that is obviously a reasonable boundary to set. I agree though, it's weird if you tell them out front that you use tracks, they should stop there.

I suppose there is an almost "philosophical" difference between say, a DJ on one extreme, and a live-band on the other extreme. And to fall somewhere in the middle with some loops or backing tracks is obviously not wrong, but more just what kind of experience the players and audience are meant to have.

Do they otherwise play to a click anyway?

Well... This particular band did but doesn't now.. Cuz here's the weird thing - I was in the band for a year (it's a country cover band) and we used tracks on about ten songs, because there is only one guitar player in the band, no fiddle player, no pedal steel player, no mandolin player, no banjo player. Some of the songs require those instruments, and we just didn't have them, as I was busy covering piano, organ, and some synth pads. So things went well for the year, then there was one of those career-ending train wreck gigs at a sports bar that soured everybody on even playing anymore, so the band dissolved. Then the band leader changed his mind, called everybody up again and said let's give it one more shot, I agreed but told him there would be tracks. And this time he said, no tracks anymore. So I was out.

To me, this is tantamount to me telling a guitar player, hey, come do the gig with us, but leave your pedalboard home because...I hate pedalboards, they're ugly, bulky, and real guitar players don't need them. I mean, it struck me as that stupid.
Someone with a Luddite attitude got to him, that's my conclusion.

I'll be honest...the bands/musicians I have played with who "hated" tracks were the ones that couldn't understand this simple fact - if there is tracks playback, you have to know the arrangement and follow the computer, because the computer can't "adjust" on the fly if you miss your entrance or get a few beats behind. On the pro tours, everyone understands this because they have been playing to Pro Tools for so long, even the Aviom monitor mixers all have a channel marked "Pro Tools".

[mikehalloran]

I just saw this. We're number 1, I suppose. Damn…

Screenshot 2023-10-09 at 5.25.16 PM.png (146.57 KiB) Viewed 2712 times

Sunnyvale minimum wage went to $17.95 last January so this beats that. I have no idea where any of these bands are playing, however unless it's private parties. The few clubs sure aren't paying that… uh… well?

Here's the rest of that list. Oh boy…

Screenshot 2023-10-09 at 5.32.46 PM.png (95.91 KiB) Viewed 2712 times

[Bobbyd]

I have a duo with a chick singer, we use tracks and audiences don't seem to know the difference. I also use tracks when I play solo.

Anyway, I started making my own background tracks in the late 80s with a drum machine, synth, guitar and bass with a 4 track cassette recorder. Eventually started using Performer, then DP and I'm still making tracks to enhance live performances.

Other than that, when I play with bands, none have used tracks so far. It's more fun to play without tracks of course.

Technology has been taking away and giving over the years.

[James Steele]

…we use tracks and audiences don't seem to know the difference.

This. The only people that will generally give you flack over the *reasonable* employment of tracks, are other musicians who seem to have dogmatic views about it. In the end, the only opinions that matter to me are those of the audience.

[Michael Canavan]

This is one of the issues that IMO shouldn't be one, that happens with the rise of the studio as an instrument and shaper of a sound. You can go back to the 50's at least for songs that are almost impossible to pull off live because some of the appeal is studio trickery.

I went an saw Roger Waters a while ago and didn't even bother attempting to figure out what was live and what was being played back, because it's all big studio production music, If I was to see Green Day or some other act that literally made their name touring like AC/DC etc. I would maybe feel the opposite.

No one wants a Jazz band doing backing tracks, but if you expect the sequenced electronic R&B pop music of Beyonce to be played live you're out of your mind. What you expect is for them to play it through a sound system that makes it fun. Maybe a few live strings and drums to spice it up.

[James Steele]

This is one of the issues that IMO shouldn't be one, that happens with the rise of the studio as an instrument and shaper of a sound. You can go back to the 50's at least for songs that are almost impossible to pull off live because some of the appeal is studio trickery.

I agree. It really is genre dependent as well as what role the tracks are playing. And again, this seems to only be an argument amongst musicians. The general public could give a rat's ass... UNLESS it's covering a lead vocal because an aging singer is losing his voice, or they find out that a musician is only miming his/her part, sacrificing authenticity for the sake of a big stage show. There was a major broohaha on social media recently when Mick Mars from Motley Crue basically blew the whistle on the band going overboard with tracks, and supposedly Nikki Sixx not really playing his bass on tour.