Backing tracks - opinions

Gulliver

I go out and gig just me and an acoustic guitar a bunch - no tracks, no looper. 

It's fine, I have a decent enough time, but it doesn't butter my muffin that much.   

I think the barrier to entry to being a live singer as a 'side-hustle' with backing tracks is so low now (£250 for a mediocre powered speaker with wireless mic, blue toothed to your phone for backing tracks from YouTube) - it means that pubs can get entertainment for much less.  A singer with a dog-shit PA who's not paying for tracks can charge £75 a gig, and be in profitable after 4 gigs.  Last acoustic gig I did, I took about £3k of gear.  Plus, there's only so much of a 'party' atmosphere I can create with just an acoustic.  If I was playing guitar with tracks - I would get significantly more bookings solo than I currently do.


As a result, I'm in the process of recording backing tracks for my arrangements of a bunch of songs I do with various bands. I'm playing all the parts (drums are MIDI from an electric kit so I can tidy them up in Logic as I'm not the best drummer) the idea is to cobble together a more electric-guitar based show.  Tracks are just drums, bass, and cues for IEMs - maybe a bit of rhythm guitar for solo sections occasionally - but it will allow me to do more gigs, and have a broader repertoire.

I'm going to give the tracks thing a go - I might find it more enjoyable than just bashing out acoustic tunes - but I'm enjoying the process of recording backing tracks, so even if I hate it I'm not wasting time doing it.

Plectrum

I've used my Trio+ to make/play simple backing tracks in the past. I can't say I particularly enjoyed the experience so stopped doing it. I have no problem with other people using them. But I think my approach to performing is very different from many here. I'm not trying to slavishly reproduce the record. I don't regard these songs as sacred texts to be revered. I'll often make up my own arrangements. As long as you get the lyrics, melody and chord sequence right everything else is up for grabs. 

ScreamingDave

Evo said:

So the question becomes not about "playing live" but about "reproducing accuracy". Most of the time, using a backing track is the only practical solution for making the certain songs sound the way the do on the record. 

Well, there’s the rub, you see.  I take issue with the idea of covers bands trying to make it sound as close to the record as they can.  It’s just my opinion, of course, and everyone is entitled to approach live music how they like, but I think that if you’re going to sound like the record then you might as well get a DJ in and play the record. 

Me, I’d rather play in a band where we play it all ourselves and do our version of the song.  We play it like us, not like the record. 

Of course, a lot of it is about why you play live.  If you do it for the money and you’re in a function band then, yeah, punters may want polish and backing tracks and being close to the original recorded sound*, but if, like me, you do it for the love of performing and being creative then backing tracks are more of an unnecessary inconvenience. 

* Having said that, I don’t think most punters are listening for subtle nuances. They just want to dance to something they recognise.  Vaguely. 

Just my take on it

fretmeister

For me, backing tracks are for the odd tune when the band doesn't have something and it would be unreasonable to pay a dep for 1 song. Or for things like when a song needs an orchestral part and the Dog n Duck can't fit 150 people on the stage.

At some point there has to be a cut off. A percentage of the set list where a taped horn section should be a real horn section.
If a band doesn't want to do that - then re-arrange the horn parts for the instruments that are available. Or get multi-instrumentalists in. There's loads of bassists that double on keys for example.

Sometimes I think that too many bands take an approach that is "50% of the set needs horns and we don't want a horn section standing around for half the set doing nothing."

That's a lack of imagination. Every song could have a horn part if the band has someone capable of doing the arranging (ask the horn players, not the guitarists). Or those players could be adding additional percussion - or even be backing singers when they are not blowing.

Imaginative arrangements help a band to stand out.

When Mr Big does "Baba O'Reilly" (The Who), Gilbert plays the keys part on the guitar, and Sheehan plays the guitar part on the bass. That sort of thing.

Snags

Ultimately doesn't this boil down to the old "you do you, I'll do me" thing in terms of preference etc.?

All that follows is with reference to pub gigs and covers, for the most part.

The band I'm in don't use tracks, and I don't think ever would. We all have a dinosaur attitude, don't want IEMs, do what amps on stage, like to move air, and do "reasonably faithful" covers. But we bring us to the party too, and that means playing sax solos on guitar, or not worrying about XYZ minor instrument or embellishment.

Personally I tend to think that using tracks for core parts that could be done by real humans is "cheating" a bit, but equally, there are circumstances where you just don't have the real humans, but want to do more than "sing + acoustic guitar". So if you can accept the limitations of tracks, in terms of flexibility, go for it.

I have a good friend who's made her living from music for all her life. Sometimes she just goes out her+acoustic. Sometimes she uses tracks and an electric so she can rock things up a bit more, or do some of her originals more faithfully to the recording. Occasionally she goes out as a duo. She's a busy lady (teaching, gigging, volunteer work, leading choirs, a couple of side hustles) and right now she doesn't have the time to pull together a 4 or 5 piece band, handle rehearsals etc. Plus it would require a lot more effort and expense in order to get a much, much smaller take home from the actual gig. I find it hard to begrudge her using tracks.