Is the quest for "better" sound making live performances worse?

sjo89

I think it's fair to say that in the past two decades or so, there has been a sizeable shift in the world of live performance towards a more polished, refined and "hi-fi" sound. This has of course been facilitated by huge leaps in music technology which allow for things not previously possible for most bands.

Now, on paper, this is of course all a good thing. Who doesn't want to sound as good as their edited, produced records live? And therein lies the issue (for me).

I've been to many gigs over past few years and I've noticed a worrying trend (IMO), and that is that less and less of what I am hearing is "real" and the live experience is getting dangerously close to watching the lead singer doing karaoke over their own music - usually an overly compressed and autotuned karaoke at that. And this isn't just in pop, for which I dare say this stuff is almost expected. There's been a few rock gigs in recent memory that have left me distinctly underwhelmed sonically. 

For me, live music is about the performance and the experience. Yes good sound is important, but I want to feel like I'm witnessing something unique in the moment, and this growing over reliance on backing/click tracks, midi changes, autotune, modellers and other tricks is sapping the fun and authenticity out of it. 

I don't want to hear the same sound as the recording. If i did, i'd just stay at home and listen to that! I want the guitars loud and in my face. The kick drum punching me in the gut. The vocals raw and unaffected. I don't want an identical replication of the record, I want the LIVE version.

I can barely watch live festivals now as I know that, without fail:

1) the singer is autotuned and compressed to high heaven
2) the drummer is gonna spend more time tapping on those bloody drum pads than playing the real drum kit next to them
3) the guitar will be a DI helix or kemper and basically inaudible in the mix
4) the majority of the instrumental stuff im hearing is a backing track, including the backing vocals

And these methods are filtering down into lower level gigs too. Just this weekend my band did a gig and our two support bands both had more complicated and convoluted rigs than us, the first one using backing tracks, samples and background music in between songs. Now each to their own of course, but I'd be lying if I said I thought all of that added to the music in their case.

Same thing a few months ago when the headliner we supported had a bit of a mare with their modellers going rogue and then having backing track/click issues, which of course created this awkward moment between them and the crowd.

I get that music is rich, dense and complex these days. So much so that to replicate all the sounds on the record live you might need a small army of musicians, hence the need for backing tracks. But that's the point. I don't think you should be trying to replicate it. For me they're two different things and I don't expect or even want to hear a carbon copy. And whenever a band is playing to a click you can sense it IMO. There's a stiffness to them and the music lacks flow and freedom. Playing "in time" doesn't always meaning sticking to a rigid BPM without wavering at all. 

And IMO, a lot of the stuff relegated to the backing track wouldn't be missed live anyway!

Sorry for super long post. Interested to hear your thoughts.

Roland

The synthetic feel of autotune and static clicks are things I can sympathise with. However midi, modelling, and digital desks (to name just three) all make positive contributions to the sound. For many years I used to stand or sit within a few feet of any stage so that I could hear what the band were hearing, not what was coming through an old fashioned PA. Now I don’t have to.

From a performer’s perspective the music I’m playing has moved on from 60s and 70s rock, and I want modelling, I want midi to change sounds, I want automatic light synchronisation. If I’m playing any song with keyboard samples or sequences then it’s hard to do without a click. The technology doesn’t restrain music, songs from the 80s onwards were written and performed using it.

More kit does demand a greater level of technical competence, but that doesn’t mean that the performance should lose energy or fluidity. Wireless means that I can move around more without tripping over cables. IEMs mean that I can still hear myself, and the rest of the band, if I walk around the stage.

sjo89

Roland said:

The synthetic feel of autotune and static clicks are things I can sympathise with. However midi, modelling, and digital desks (to name just three) all make positive contributions to the sound. For many years I used to stand or sit within a few feet of any stage so that I could hear what the band were hearing, not what was coming through an old fashioned PA. Now I don’t have to.

From a performer’s perspective the music I’m playing has moved on from 60s and 70s rock, and I want modelling, I want midi to change sounds, I want automatic light synchronisation. If I’m playing any song with keyboard samples or sequences then it’s hard to do without a click. The technology doesn’t restrain music, songs from the 80s onwards were written and performed using it.

More kit does demand a greater level of technical competence, but that doesn’t mean that the performance should lose energy or fluidity. Wireless means that I can move around more without tripping over cables. IEMs mean that I can still hear myself, and the rest of the band, if I walk around the stage.

All true and valid points. And I was by no means say "modern tech" bad in any sense. In fact I'm even in favour of autotune in most cases so long as it isn't painfully obvious as so often can be the case. I myself use midi on my board and both me and the lead singer in my band have HX stomps on our boards and use multitudes over FX. And we long for the day we can afford IEM's as god knows most sound guys will never give you the monitor mix you want. 

I was more so commenting on what seems to be an increasing over reliance on these things to make the music happen and how I feel some of the 'rawness' and 'rough edges', be that in rock or pop music, is being diluted as much as possible. There's no reason in theory why using one or all of these mod cons should negatively affect a live performance, but as I said, a lot of the time, there's more instrumentals coming from the backing track than the actual musicians on stage, at which point, for me, it loses its charm.

As I said, I get budget constraints come into play, and that if they could, most people would have a real person playing over a backing track. 

JayGee

Kind of. I’m not against technology in music, and I appreciate that there are some genres which are heavily dependent on technologies like sampling. What bothers me, and where I think we’re in danger of losing out is when “live” performance becomes an exercise in consistently reproducing the closest thing possible to some kind of platonic ideal of a show rather than a unique experience in which performers and audience collaborate to create something specific to the time and space it occupies.

How are you going to have spontaneous extended audience sing-a-longs, stop mid-chorus and walk out into the audience for an a Capella rendition of something else, go off into just for the hell of it extended spontaneously improvised instrumental breaks, or change the set on the fly with an unexpected, unplanned, and unrehearsed cover of a song (or an old song of your own which nobody’s heard live in years)[1] if doing that breaks 500 pre-programmed sound and light cues…?  

[1] To pick just a few moments of magic I’ve experienced at gigs over the years…

thecolourbox

I think you've just maybe seen bands who don't know how to do it will, but then again maybe I'm biased as I often enjoy that neater kind of sound.

That said, my favourite artist is Jack White who obviously doesn't use those things apart from the occasional drum machine, but again it's a case of the artist owning their style of performance more than the style of performance itself.

I like to give The Kills as an example of using backing tracks but maintaining their groove:

Or Yeah Yeah Yeahs did similar with triggered samples and click tracks. It can be done

sjo89

thecolourbox said:

I think you've just maybe seen bands who don't know how to do it will, but then again maybe I'm biased as I often enjoy that neater kind of sound.

That said, my favourite artist is Jack White who obviously doesn't use those things apart from the occasional drum machine, but again it's a case of the artist owning their style of performance more than the style of performance itself.

I like to give The Kills as an example of using backing tracks but maintaining their groove:

Or Yeah Yeah Yeahs did similar with triggered samples and click tracks. It can be done

Cool, but you know all I could think when watching those? "man, those guys really should get a drummer"

sjo89

JayGee said:

Kind of. I’m not against technology in music, and I appreciate that there are some genres which are heavily dependent on technologies like sampling. What bothers me, and where I think we’re in danger of losing out is when “live” performance becomes an exercise in consistently reproducing the closest thing possible to some kind of platonic ideal of a show rather than a unique experience in which performers and audience collaborate to create something specific to the time and space it occupies.

How are you going to have spontaneous extended audience sing-a-longs, stop mid-chorus and walk out into the audience for an a Capella rendition of something else, go off into just for the hell of it extended spontaneously improvised instrumental breaks, or change the set on the fly with an unexpected, unplanned, and unrehearsed cover of a song (or an old song of your own which nobody’s heard live in years)[1] if doing that breaks 500 pre-programmed sound and light cues…?  

[1] To pick just a few moments of magic I’ve experienced at gigs over the years…

The funny thing is that say when a big name like Beyonce, Stormzy, Miley Cyrus etc. play live and have a real band playing their own arrangements of the track, without fail, everyone says how amazing it sounds and in many case, "better" than the original recording. Nobody says "man i wish that drummer was using a sample pad instead of that real kit" or "hey! there's no electric guitar in the original!?". There is an energy that comes from real musicians playing live on stage that can't be replicated or replaced.

I remember last year when Doja Cat did a "live" set for MTV and she had a rock band playing her tracks in a sort of heavy metal style and everyone loved it.

And i'm not even saying I prefer live instruments because of the element of spontaneity they can provide. I'm perfectly happy with a band playing things pretty much the same gig after gig. There's enjoyment in the craft of a good polished show. I'm talking more from a sonic perspective or the raw, "imperfect" sound that comes from using live instruments, which to me, is what gives it that "live" edge. 

thecolourbox

sjo89 said:

thecolourbox said:

I think you've just maybe seen bands who don't know how to do it will, but then again maybe I'm biased as I often enjoy that neater kind of sound.

That said, my favourite artist is Jack White who obviously doesn't use those things apart from the occasional drum machine, but again it's a case of the artist owning their style of performance more than the style of performance itself.

I like to give The Kills as an example of using backing tracks but maintaining their groove:

Or Yeah Yeah Yeahs did similar with triggered samples and click tracks. It can be done

Cool, but you know all I could think when watching those? "man, those guys really should get a drummer"

I suppose that's the beauty of difference in taste, as listening to them usually makes me think...I wish there were less drummers

jpfamps

sjo89 said:

I get that music is rich, dense and complex these days. So much so that to replicate all the sounds on the record live you might need a small army of musicians, hence the need for backing tracks. But that's the point. I don't think you should be trying to replicate it.

More so Queen in 70's?

sjo89

jpfamps said:

sjo89 said:

I get that music is rich, dense and complex these days. So much so that to replicate all the sounds on the record live you might need a small army of musicians, hence the need for backing tracks. But that's the point. I don't think you should be trying to replicate it.

More so Queen in 70's?

Queen's music was usually dense thanks to vocal harmonies, which they could do amazingly live. There was lots of overdubbed guitar stuff but you never heard Brian May playing to backing tracks of his guitar work. He just prioritised certain parts live and it still sounded full, rich and amazing 

Winny_Pooh

Sounds like you are watching the wrong bands live. If you listen to music using lots of samples and drum machines then....er... listen to some more rock n roll, folk or jazz...

HAL9000

My two cents…

The quest for ‘better’ sound makes sense but only up to a point. I grew up in a time when the band would roll up in a Bedford van that had seen better days. The van’s owner was only allowed to be in the band because he happened to have a van (and occasionally a driving licence). The sound and the performance would have, what might kindly be described as, ‘some rough edges’. The bands were often best described as ‘enthusiastic’. And it was bloody fantastic!

I like my rock music to have some rough edges, to be a bit warts’n’all. The idea of courses and institutes that you can attend in order to become a rock musician feels all kinds of wrong to me - but I guess I’m of an age and have a certain perspective on things. Younger musicians probably see things rather differently.

CaseOfAce

Personally I love a band to play live / in the moment 100%.
(I find it intriguing when a band tries to replicate live what they've done in the studio).

However if the backing tracks / samples are used tastefully and unobtrusively to aid the song/ performance - fair enough.
e.g Queen at Live Aid - the intro to Radio Ga Ga is a backing track... or watching Genesis Live in Rome last night on Sky Arts- 
yep - backing tracks in use but you also have 5 killer musicians on stage and it's all hands on deck playing wise.

Where I draw the line is with an act like Coldplay - at which point it's pretty much glorified karaoke.
(shakes fist at cloud - whilst they tour the world playing to stadiums of people who love every minute of it).
But then again the records they make are so dense in production there's no way a bloke with a telecaster, a bass player, 
pianist (sometimes) and drummer are gonna get round the issue.

dindude

I don’t think it’s a quest for better sound, I think it’s a quest for ease of use and reliability - either way I kinda agree with you 

thecolourbox

I suppose it depends what you like - I lost interest in the "experience" of gigs for the same of it ages ago, whereas now I like to hear the songs and styles I like in the way the artists see fit to present them.

For similar reasons I've never understood the "ahh if you saw Coldplay/Floyd/whoever live, you'd enjoy the experience". No I wouldn't, because I don't like the music

Legionreturns

I'm afraid I can't identify with your experience at all! 

I'm a, regularly booked (and with a 100% rebook rate from venues I've worked at) sound guy. 

The biggest advantages of modern tech for me are the ability to provide a good FoH mix, and personal monitor mixes whether in a wedge or iem. 

I've never been asked to accommodate or add autotune, rarely use much compression except a very light touch on some drums, and bands are generally blown away by how much better they sound with good kit, good monitoring and a good engineer. 

sjo89 said:

I can barely watch live festivals now as I know that, without fail:

1) the singer is autotuned and compressed to high heaven
2) the drummer is gonna spend more time tapping on those bloody drum pads than playing the real drum kit next to them
3) the guitar will be a DI helix or kemper and basically inaudible in the mix
4) the majority of the instrumental stuff im hearing is a backing track, including the backing vocals

This doesn't compute at all. 

1 - Still pretty rare in a live situation IMHO

2 - E Drums and pads are now part of a drummer's arsenal, whether you like it or not. However, samples have come on massively in recent times, and in some cases you'd be very hard pushed to tell the difference, on a festival stage, between a drummer hitting a floor Tom, with a mic attached, and a drummer hitting a pad triggering a sample. 

To muddy the waters even more, you'll often find hybrid kits on stages, where they have real drums with triggers inside. From a sound engineer pov, it's considerably easier to provide a good FOH drum sound with a multi input trigger rig than a full acoustic kit with everything mic'd. For one, you don't need gates or compression, and you have no issues with feedback. 

3 - The guitar source sound is largely irrelevant. Getting it to sit well in the mix is significantly easier with a DI signal or mic'd cab, and because you don't need huge stage volume, monitoring becomes significantly easier. 

There's also the age old problem that guitar amps are very directional. If you're in line with the amp, you get blasted, but off at 45 degrees and you can't hear it above the drums. 

4 - Backing tracks, I would say, are far more common on the pub / social club covers circuit. It's definitely not a new thing either. £250 bookings don't incentivise a 6 piece anything like as much as a solo or duo. 

Sure, there are bigger acts that use a lot of loop tracks or samples, but that's part of their makeup, whether on stage or not. The current biggest touring artist in the world is a guy with a guitar and a looper! 

Yes, occasionally you'll get *some* of the things on your list, but ...without fail?!

I think you're going to the wrong festivals!