What the fuck ever happened to the true spirit of rock? (use of backing tracks)

Generally I subscribe to the idea that 100% live is always much better than using overdubs. It is also better to try to rearrange songs before you decide that a backing track is a must... Playing live starts to lose its point when you try to make an exact copy of a studio version no matter the cost. What's great about Maiden's live recordings is how different they can be - not only compared to the studio take, but also to other live performances of the same song.

However, I have to admit that I changed my tune a bit after seeing Altar of Plagues last year. They used a lot of pre-recorded stuff - including all the bass (the band consists of just 2 guitarists and a drummer live). And you know what, it sounded freaking amazing. The sound was crushing and I think it wouldn't be possible to achieve 100% live in that environment (or at least would be very difficult). Take a listen if you're interested: https://altarofplagues.bandcamp.com/album/live-at-club-colectiv-bucharest It's their live album from that tour. As I said: 2 guitarists (very simple rigs) and a drummer - the rest is samples. Of course, the sound makes a much bigger impression live, but you can hear how the set worked.

What sucks about samples in the live environment is that usually you have to play to the metronome in order to use them. You're basically locked within song's boundaries and can't get carried away, which certainly would be very limiting for some bands. So it all depends on what you play.
 
Srogyy said:
What sucks about samples in the live environment is that usually you have to play to the metronome in order to use them. You're basically locked within song's boundaries and can't get carried away, which certainly would be very limiting for some bands. So it all depends on what you play.
Click to expand...
This is honestly worse than the whole "fake" aspect of it.
 
I like stuff like Nine Inch Nails and Devin Townsend, but I have to admit that when I saw them both live, it felt like karaoke. Both Reznor and Townsend are GREAT singers, but it just felt a little strange to me musically. Part of the fun of the live experience is to see how bands will pull off certain material in a live context. I respect Type O Negative for that. They sounded much different live than they did on the studio, but they didn't use any backing tracks to make up the difference and they worked with what they had.
 
I'm seeing Devin Townsend next month. Looking forward to seeing how much the backing tracks make a difference in person compared to the DVDs (which, frankly, bore me).
 
Mosh said:
I'm seeing Devin Townsend next month. Looking forward to seeing how much the backing tracks make a difference in person compared to the DVDs (which, frankly, bore me).
Click to expand...
Townsend is awesome (one of the best live singers I've ever heard). I'll be curious to know what you think of the overall live sound. Some of the samples just felt overwhelming to me (he even had guitar samples!) , and I missed the organic quality of a more traditional rock band.
 
Yea that's what I'm worried about and the reason I haven't seen Devin yet despite him being one of my favorite artists.
 
Same here. A very driven, skillful and independent artist. But the music is too dull to get excited about.
 
I don't know very much about him other than an interview I once watched where he talked about meeting Lemmy. He did the humanly impossible and made it boring.
 
I do wish he'd strip down a bit sometimes, but that's his style. These days I find his less Metal centered material is far more interesting and inspired. Stuff like Casualties of Cool and Ki. Great albums.

Can't imagine any interview involving him being boring though.
 
@jazz from hell Same for me. Hevy Devy is probably the best example of an artist whom I should totally like/love for many reasons, but in the end I can hardly endure his albums. For all the prog inclinations and general experimentation, he just doesn't have that knack for melody as some of my other favourite artists do (the only memorable song off City was the Cop Shoot Cop cover) he's often unnecessarily heavy/overproduced and his storylines and lyrics can be just as annoying as they can be bright. I respect the dude and some of the atmospheric touches are cool, but I have yet to learn to enjoy him.

Therefore even though I've been told many times over how amazing it actually is to go see him live, I never felt the need.
 
I often feel like I'm missing some important point with him. He's quite highly acclaimed, but can't get into his music at all.
 
You're probably not missing anything. I put him with the likes of bands like Tool or Opeth. It's a very specific style that you either enjoy or don't.

@JudasMyGuide I actually think his ability to write melodies is one of his greatest strengths. One of the major flaws with his tendency to overproduce is that it often obscures some of his great melodies.

Devin can also be an acquired taste. My first experiences with his music were mostly negative, but then I tried the Addicted album and something just clicked for me.
 
Mosh said:
I put him with the likes of bands like Tool or Opeth. It's a very specific style that you either enjoy or don't.
Click to expand...

I've never checked out Devin Townsend but this is a pretty interesting explanation, because Opeth is tied for my favorite band while I can't for the life of me stand Tool.
 
The Flash said:
I've never checked out Devin Townsend but this is a pretty interesting explanation, because Opeth is tied for my favorite band while I can't for the life of me stand Tool.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much what I mean. People usually either strongly like or dislike those artists. Not a lot of room for casuals.
 
Nah, nothing like those bands.

Although he does have an Opeth connection in that I'm pretty sure the last time Mikael ever recorded growls on a studio album was for Devin's Deconstruction album, which came out the same year as Heritage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top