100 replies to this topic

[JTUK]

My point was really related to the REM clip... there is no excuse for that, they should use additional players.

People like Madonna and Britney can't sing a show anyway so they are going to fly in vox.. and if they do that then another few sequences is not going to matter.

[Jazzneck]

Just seen this topic.

Click track - can't do it and won't do it.

Backing tracks - sh*te - refuse to use or work with them.

Live music is live music and if you can't reproduce on stage what you do in the studio as live musicians with proper instruments, you are taking money under false pretences IMO.

I await being dragged to the stocks........................

Edited by Jazzneck, 13 March 2012 - 12:30 PM.

[JTUK]

Jazzneck, on 13 March 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

Just seen this topic.

Click track - can't do it and won't do it.

Backing tracks - sh*te - refuse to use or work with them.

Live music is live music and if you can't reproduce on stage what you do in the studio as live musicians with proper instruments, you are taking money under false pretences IMO.

I await being dragged to the stocks........................

off to the stocks you go then wait for the flaming

[BigRedX]

Jazzneck, on 13 March 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

Just seen this topic.

Click track - can't do it and won't do it.

Backing tracks - sh*te - refuse to use or work with them.

Live music is live music and if you can't reproduce on stage what you do in the studio as live musicians with proper instruments, you are taking money under false pretences IMO.

I await being dragged to the stocks........................

Here we go then.

That sort of attitude simply shows a lack of understanding of the music and acknowledgement that there are situations and genres where click tracks and programmed/recorded backing is perfectly appropriate.

As I said in my previous post there's two different kinds of backing tracks - ones that simply replace what musicians would be playing and IMO should be avoid as far as possible. Then there's others where you use the machines for their strengths to do stuff that no musician could or would want to do - complexity and repetition.

In previous bands where we have used sequenced or recorded backing as part of the live act and we would get comments from audience members saying that they thought the music would be better with a "real" drummer/keyboard player etc. my response would always be to ask them if they were interested in the job and if so to invite them to the next rehearsal. Unsurprisingly most of them turned down my offer, but one didn't. He turned out to be completely useless at playing the parts that we required despite being a more than competent keyboard player. I hope that he went away with an appreciation of what can be done with machines and when they might actually be more appropriate for the music than a human being.

[Jazzneck]

BigRedX, on 13 March 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:

Here we go then.

That sort of attitude simply shows a lack of understanding of the music and acknowledgement that there are situations and genres where click tracks and programmed/recorded backing is perfectly appropriate.

As I said in my previous post there's two different kinds of backing tracks - ones that simply replace what musicians would be playing and IMO should be avoid as far as possible. Then there's others where you use the machines for their strengths to do stuff that no musician could or would want to do - complexity and repetition.

In previous bands where we have used sequenced or recorded backing as part of the live act and we would get comments from audience members saying that they thought the music would be better with a "real" drummer/keyboard player etc. my response would always be to ask them if they were interested in the job and if so to invite them to the next rehearsal. Unsurprisingly most of them turned down my offer, but one didn't. He turned out to be completely useless at playing the parts that we required despite being a more than competent keyboard player. I hope that he went away with an appreciation of what can be done with machines and when they might actually be more appropriate for the music than a human being.

If it can't be played on an instrument by a human being it ain't music then, is it?

[Norris]

I was in a band that used click & backing tracks extensively. We had it set up on a PC and used Ableton Live, plus some other gismo software that could also cue video playback. As others have suggested, just the drummer could hear the click. It all worked well, although it did take many months to get all of the technology working together smoothly - and more importantly triggering instantly when the keyboard player hit the relevant key. It's a shame the band didn't last long enough to do any gigs

I'm not sure if a PC is the best way to go, but your options are limited when you are using a LOT of samples, without doing a final mix-down and want them all to hand without having to swap drives/reconfigure stuff. Most appliances don't have enough storage capacity (or at least didn't when we were doing our thing).

[jackers]

Jazzneck, on 13 March 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

If it can't be played on an instrument by a human being it ain't music then, is it?

Enjoy the responses you get for that comment

[Norris]

... and in response to the "backing tracks 'aint music" comments, you try doing a full-on Pink Floyd tribute without any sound effects. Or splitting the mediocre money between the three backing singers, saxophonist, three guitarists, two keyboard players, bass and drums you'd need to reproduce all of those overdubs accurately.

[BigRedX]

Jazzneck, on 13 March 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

If it can't be played on an instrument by a human being it ain't music then, is it?

Assuming that you're not trolling for effect...

My parents honestly believed that anything produced with amplified instruments wasn't music and they were by no means alone in this view. Thankfully you'd be hard pressed to find many people who think like that now.

The idea that using machines takes something away from the music is just as ridiculous as the idea that using amplification does. A good musician uses all the tools at their disposal and knows how to use them appropriately.

I would also argue though, that the PF tribute band should be using musicians rather than machines. As I said it's all about the right tools for the right job.

[Jazzneck]

Norris, on 13 March 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

... and in response to the "backing tracks 'aint music" comments, you try doing a full-on Pink Floyd tribute without any sound effects. Or splitting the mediocre money between the three backing singers, saxophonist, three guitarists, two keyboard players, bass and drums you'd need to reproduce all of those overdubs accurately.

Tribute act???
Don't get me started on that, either............................

BTW have a look at this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk...t-arts-17350688

Wierd.....

[Jazzneck]

BigRedX, on 13 March 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

Assuming that you're not trolling for effect...

My parents honestly believed that anything produced with amplified instruments wasn't music and they were by no means alone in this view. Thankfully you'd be hard pressed to find many people who think like that now.

The idea that using machines takes something away from the music is just as ridiculous as the idea that using amplification does. A good musician uses all the tools at their disposal and knows how to use them appropriately.

I would also argue though, that the PF tribute band should be using musicians rather than machines. As I said it's all about the right tools for the right job.

Thanks for the PF bit BigRedX and I will admit to a slight amount of trolling, but amplification is just that, amplification.
We use amps to increase sound in the same way as an orchestra uses numerous violins (for instance) all playing the same thing at the same time to amplify sound, don't we?

Maybe my problem is that I'm a self taught bass player and not a musician.

Edited by Jazzneck, 13 March 2012 - 01:24 PM.

[shizznit]

I have seen Metallica play 7 times since they released the Black album and not once have I seen them perform Enter Sandman where the sample of the kid saying his prayers has been in time with the break in the middle 8th. It sounds bloody awful! That's a classic example of when using a click sparingly to maintain an organic feel to the whole set is more than persmissable. As for the other songs they play...they tend to play them faster live which I actually welcome!

I know Hagis from Senser (forgive the name drop!) who doesn't play on stage with them, but a very important member of the band. He doubles up as their sound engineer/samples guy and controls their click tracks and triggers the samples from the desk. I have seen this guy at work and take my word for it...if these guys didn't play to a click track the would not be able to play to the samples and it would be nigh on impossible to perform their songs as the samples form a huge part of their style. Hagis is a muso too and is totally appreciative of 'keeping things real', but I do regard what he does as skillful as the other guys part on stage.

Edited by shizznit, 13 March 2012 - 02:55 PM.

[musophilr]

Jazzneck, on 13 March 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

If it can't be played on an instrument by a human being it ain't music then, is it?

I once sequenced a 16 bar passage of "The Mad Piper" in a song where I'd played everything else in real time. His sound was a piccolo (an instrument I can't play anyway), and other bits of his part I'd played on a Korg M1 but there was no way I could have played this in real time. This section consisted of argeggios in hemi demi semiquavers and at the tempo I guess an expert at the top of his game could have done it, but (1) I didn't know any of those and (2) I couldn't have paid him anyway.

IMO I was justified in making my music by conventional means plus using a little help from technology. Those 16 bars are as much "music" as the rest of the piece. I'm sure many other BassChatters could also provide similar tales to show that statements such as that quoted are just intended to provoke those of us with nothing better to do into telling our stories of how technology helped us achieve a musical goal.

[BigRedX]

Jazzneck, on 13 March 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

Thanks for the PF bit BigRedX and I will admit to a slight amount of trolling, but amplification is just that, amplification.
We use amps to increase sound in the same way as an orchestra uses numerous violins (for instance) all playing the same thing at the same time to amplify sound, don't we?

Maybe my problem is that I'm a self taught bass player and not a musician.

Amplification in modern music is about far, far more than just making the instruments louder. No matter how many acoustic guitars we double up it's never going to sound the same as a single guitarist with a Les Paul through a Marshall amplifier even on a "clean" setting.

Here's another question: Do you think the use of loopers (where you record part of your performance on the fly and then play along to it) any more "musically" acceptable than using a sequencer? IME the majority of the audience can't tell the difference and will assume that you're using a backing track.

I'm a self-taught bass player too. I'm also a self-taught guitarist, keyboard player, synth and sequencer programmer. I like to keep my options and mind open when it comes to creating and playing music.

[oggiesnr]

So my mate who's a singer got pee'd off with paying all those (sometimes unreliable) bozos behind her and invested in some professional backing tracks and a decent PA and lights. She now makes a lot more money and can have all the effects and sounds that she wants, all programmed by another mate with a keyboard and a PC.

Downside of course is that the drummer, bassist, multi instrumentalist and guitarist are out of a job.

I think there's a slippery slope between being a live, gigging band who can be spontaneous and go with the flow, and a singer backed by a file of noughts and ones.

Steve

[Jazzneck]

oggiesnr, on 13 March 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

So my mate who's a singer got pee'd off with paying all those (sometimes unreliable) bozos behind her and invested in some professional backing tracks and a decent PA and lights. She now makes a lot more money and can have all the effects and sounds that she wants, all programmed by another mate with a keyboard and a PC.

Downside of course is that the drummer, bassist, multi instrumentalist and guitarist are out of a job.

I think there's a slippery slope between being a live, gigging band who can be spontaneous and go with the flow, and a singer backed by a file of noughts and ones.

Steve

Ah ha, now we get down to it.

Is music making for the musicians / music makers or the punters?

For the musicians, fair dos (is that how it's spelt?) but the majority of punters don't know what they're getting and in my opinion are getting ripped off.

However, I was in our local a few weeks ago and the act turned up with all the techno bits and pieces as above and she could sing and perform very, very well within 45 minutes the "audience" had reduced from about 100ish to 6.

A large group of people left saying "I came to see a band, goin' up the road to see a real one".

Landlords comment was "OK, live bands from now on then, for the same fee!" - that's fine with me.

[Jazzneck]

BigRedX, on 13 March 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

Amplification in modern music is about far, far more than just making the instruments louder. No matter how many acoustic guitars we double up it's never going to sound the same as a single guitarist with a Les Paul through a Marshall amplifier even on a "clean" setting.

Here's another question: Do you think the use of loopers (where you record part of your performance on the fly and then play along to it) any more "musically" acceptable than using a sequencer? IME the majority of the audience can't tell the difference and will assume that you're using a backing track.

I'm a self-taught bass player too. I'm also a self-taught guitarist, keyboard player, synth and sequencer programmer. I like to keep my options and mind open when it comes to creating and playing music.

Never used a looper or played in a band that has used one I'm afraid, so I can't really comment, but are they really necessary or are they just complicating things in a live situation? I don't know.

And, yup I'm an old git who started in the 60s, I play guitar and a lot of other things too but I just can't abide the synthetic, machined, highly digitized and produced stuff that's being pumped out today - just doesn't sound natural, is all.

[BigRedX]

Jazzneck, on 13 March 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

Ah ha, now we get down to it.

Is music making for the musicians / music makers or the punters?

For the musicians, fair dos (is that how it's spelt?) but the majority of punters don't know what they're getting and in my opinion are getting ripped off.

However, I was in our local a few weeks ago and the act turned up with all the techno bits and pieces as above and she could sing and perform very, very well within 45 minutes the "audience" had reduced from about 100ish to 6.

A large group of people left saying "I came to see a band, goin' up the road to see a real one".

Landlords comment was "OK, live bands from now on then, for the same fee!" - that's fine with me.

Music making is for musicians. Performance is for the audience. IMO the audience is only getting ripped if they're not being entertained. That's got nothing to do with the technology being used to perform the music and everything to do with how the musicians perform and interact with the audience.

[crez5150]

Jazzneck, on 13 March 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

Never used a looper or played in a band that has used one I'm afraid, so I can't really comment, but are they really necessary or are they just complicating things in a live situation? I don't know.

And, yup I'm an old git who started in the 60s, I play guitar and a lot of other things too but I just can't abide the synthetic, machined, highly digitized and produced stuff that's being pumped out today - just doesn't sound natural, is all.

Jumpers for Goalposts..........

[BigRedX]

Jazzneck, on 13 March 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

And, yup I'm an old git who started in the 60s, I play guitar and a lot of other things too but I just can't abide the synthetic, machined, highly digitized and produced stuff that's being pumped out today - just doesn't sound natural, is all.

And I'm probably only a few years younger than you.

Your attitude towards synthesisers and sequencers is exactly the same is my parent's attitude towards amplification, and in the end both are equally subjective and pointless.