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

Forostar

Ancient Mariner
Recently, there was some discussion about this in the Dream Theater topic. That started with a concert review in which was said that Petrucci playbacked a backing tracked backing vocal. Dream Theater uses backing tracks excessively. But such use has become a general "issue" in (hard)rock and metal. What do we think? Do you completely accept it, do you despise it, or something in between...? Which kind of backing tracks are "allowed" in your opinion, and which not? For example, what do you think of backing vocals from tape? Does the genre play a role for you? Which genres (or bands!) should absolutely not use backing tracks? Which genres or bands absolutely fail without a backing track? Do you (not) realize what is running on tape? Do you feel fooled because of that?


These following interview sections with Schmier from Destruction led me to open this topic. The topic title is a quote from the song Elegant Pigs (see below):
- - - - -

On the Destruction track "Elegant Pigs", which deals with rock bands using backing tracks:

Schmier: "It's just a sad fact that a lot of rock and metal bands nowadays are using backing-track tape for backing up the band, with vocals, and strings, and backing vocals, and guitars, and keyboards, and all kinds of shit. For me, when you play live, there should be no backing track. A lot of vocalists also back up their whole lead vocals with backing tracks nowadays, and that's a very sad fact. In that song 'Elegant Pigs', I'm asking 'What the fuck happened to rock 'n' roll?' It's lying. The fans don't know when the band is cheating, but for me it's a fucking topic that I want to talk about. A lot of my musician friends don't like the fact that I'm talking about it, but I don't care. For me, rock 'n' roll is a holy spirit, and it's a fucking no-go to do this in this kind of music. A lot of pop bands have been doing this for generations, but not in heavy metal. Yeah, I'm dealing with stuff that is basically bothering me. It's also a big release for me to write lyrics — kind of my own psychological session."

On why some rock bands use backing tracks:

Schmier: "I think there are different reasons. What I hear on times, of course, is that the big bands are doing it so they sound live like they do on the record. They say, 'The big bands are doing it, too. I wanna sound good live,' and so then they use all of this backing stuff. Then there's another reason, which is that there are a generation of singers that can't do it anymore, or could never do it. Then they're backing up their vocals; the high parts, the melodic parts, the harmonies. They're backing them up with all of those backing tracks. Then there's a third thing, which is the new generation. The new generation is the laptop generation, who grew up producing their albums on their own laptops. When you go onstage, you just flip out that laptop, and then you have like 20 backing tracks running with the band. I see this a lot with all of the new bands. There's one singer, and he's singing in three harmonies live, and it's, like, 'What the fuck?' It's different. It goes from generation to generation — it's not just the old guys that can't do it any more. It's also a new thing which the young guys do too."

Destruction - Elegant Pigs
 
Last edited:
You could also discuss the use of backing tracks live by musicians (particularly multi-instrumentalists) that don't record with other musicians; and for whatever reason, when they go on the road, choose to tour without a band. I'm thinking in particular of Buckethead, but also guys like Paul Gilbert (or even Petrucci) when they perform some of their guitar parts live to an audience but use backing tracks. This isn't a disguised backing track, but it's still a "why do they not have live musicians" question.
 
Shall we try to answer the question: "why do they not have live musicians"? Not using them to record, I am not sure if that is an entirely valid reason by itself.
Buckethead recorded more than thousand(?) tracks alone, or with some (musical computer geek doing the rhythms. But when he tours, he has a relatively small selection of songs, and could prepare and play these with a drummer (and bass player/keyboard player). Why does he not do that?

Maybe he can't play these songs if the drummer deviates one millisecond in tempo, or if he changes one cymbal hit?
 
Last edited:
Shall we try to answer the question: "why do they not have live musicians"? Not using them to record, I am not sure if that is an entirely valid reason by itself.
Buckethead recorded more than thousand(?) tracks alone, or with some (musical computer geek doing the rhythms. But when he tours, he has a relatively small selection of songs, and could prepare and play these with a drummer (and bass player/keyboard player). Why does he not do that?
Since he has toured with a band playing his own material (& recently enough), I'd suggest the reason depends on whether said trusted musicians are available (or want) to tour with him at any given time; not that they can't play these songs live (since they have). I don't know why he's not out on tour right now with Brain on drums & Dan Monti on bass. Even when he did do this though, a lot of the stuff that was massively de-tuned on record (or played, in all probability, with a 7 or 8-string guitar) he played his lead part over a backing track, with the other two going off-stage for a break. I don't know why he approaches performing on stage like this.

To go to one of your examples: why don't bands bring backing vocalists on tour with them, if they want to produce those three-part harmonies live (& only the vocalist in the band can sing)? Single performing popular artists, like Prince or Bowie (etc), would have no problem bringing a band (inc. vocalists) on tour with them. And that's what you'd view it as: Prince with a band. But actual bands (one identity) seem to have a problem bringing extra musicians into the live set-up; particularly, you might suggest, some Rock/Metal bands. This, I feel, is specifically what you need to explore. Why? Instead, they use backing tracks & don't bring in session musicians. There's the obvious economic reasons I'd guess, but I suspect it's more than this...
 
Last edited:
Sorry, just to add some obvious points...

I mean, with bands, it would often involve just one or two other parts being played by someone else from outside the band; and perhaps only on a few tracks. I think it's hard for bands to do this. Some just omit the part live (or don't do the track at all e.g. Thin Line, with it's multiple guitar parts), but some clearly can't resist trying to recreate the whole studio sound live. What do you do? You either use technology (backing tracks) or you get another musician in. Maiden just got "a tech" to do their keyboard parts, Michael Kenney; he's not really regarded as part of the band, doesn't play on every track live, doesn't play the parts on the studio recordings (that, I believe, is Steve), & doesn't (really) appear on stage with them (although, I concede, he has become part of the show). Is this a good solution? I don't know.

If you're a one-guitarist band though (e.g. DT), are you going to seriously bring in another guitarist? Would they stand off-stage, or what? They would have so many parts, that they'd probably be playing on every track. That would make them feel very much part of the band. I think bands feel a little uncomfortable with this. With guitar parts, they just don't play them anyway. But with vocals, I'm not sure how it should be approached. With Bruce, he would have done all the multiple recordings of vocals in the studio; but live it's just the one part. This doesn't sound the same. To counter this, Maiden have gone in the opposite direction. Maiden now don't do so many overdubs on record so that the vocals can be produced live to sound the same; Bruce has commented on this. But then people complain about this.
 
Last edited:
Careful about that spoiler mate! (better change that quick, even it might seem an obvious comment to most here).

edit:
Kenney did play keyboards on some Maiden albums/tracks. E.g., I think he did on Afraid to Shoot Strangers.

The main issue still is: do you think a band or artist should do his utmost best to only play live and have nothing on tape?

Would you (and others) answer all the questions from the opening post?
 
Last edited:
Kenney did play keyboards on some Maiden albums/tracks. E.g., I think he did on Afraid to Shoot Strangers.
Can't remember the detail either, but you're probably correct. Still doesn't change the relationship they have with him though; he's not part of the band.
The main issue still is: do you think a band or artist should do his utmost best to only play live and have nothing on tape?
I'd prefer this, yes. But if it's not practical (or affordable), I don't want nothing to be performed live; particularly for artists where all of their material falls into this pot. I'm happy enough with something in between provided it's obvious what's going on; I can still enjoy part of a song/track being performed live in the right setting.
Would you (and others) answer all the questions from the opening post?
Are you asking me to go though all of you questions, Foro? If you insist...

_______________________________________________________
What do we think? Do you completely accept it, do you despise it, or something in between...?
As I said, something in between is acceptable to me depending on circumstances. I don't hate it or anything.
Which kind of backing tracks are "allowed" in your opinion, and which not?
It depends on how dominant a part the backing track is. If it was originally put on record to provide depth & texture then I can accept something like this being played from track provided the band are playing a dominant role over this e.g. a keyboard part, an operatic vocal wall of noise, etc. A guitar line while there are guitarists standing onstage? No.
For example, what do you think of backing vocals from tape?
I don't think it's that necessary to be honest; as in, I'm happy with just one vocal line, I don't need it to sound identical to the studio recording. Plus, I think the suspicion is that it's sometimes being used to disguise the fact that the live singer is not that good.
But if it's Does the genre play a role for you?
I don't care about genres, personally.
Which genres (or bands!) should absolutely not use backing tracks?
As I said, I don't think particular bands/genres absolutely shouldn't use them. I think this is just fans being fickle. It's all music.
Which genres or bands absolutely fail without a backing track?
Don't know. Did you have someone in mind?
Do you (not) realize what is running on tape?
No. I'm guessing this is probably part of the reason you don't like backing tracks? The dishonesty part of it. Should we mention integrity?
Do you feel fooled because of that?
I've not experienced the idea of being tricked, if that's what you're asking.

Is this for you, overall, about honesty & musicianship? So, you don't like not knowing; that's a given. But even when you do know, it takes away a bit from the performance, yes? Knowing that some of what you're hearing isn't actually being played in front of you? You'd much prefer a change of approach to accommodate not being able to replicate material live, rather than simply taking the easy backing track route?
 
Last edited:
I was always a fan of changing the song's arrangement to suit the band. You get a different song live (which is nice), and it still sounds great (if the band is great). For instance, David Bowie used to change the arrangements sometimes pretty extremely, to suit the current band/mood/whatever. On the other hand, he still used some backing tracks (for instance the jungle beats on Earthling songs, in addition to live drummer of course), maybe he felt it's an integral part of the song too much to be omitted or changed. But it was executed perfectly and I certainly haven't feel tricked or anything like that
 
Should we mention integrity?
O yes. That's for me the main question: Of course I wonder how much do people care about this aspect?

"What the fuck ever happened to the true spirit integrity of rock?"

I assume that Maiden is appreciated a lot for their integrity. I have to be careful with saying this but I have the impression that some of us turn a blind eye on (an)other band(s) regarding this aspect. As if I am hearing "Yeah, with this band, the same music should be produced as on the album".
I'd like to hear more about this and/or other points of view. What motivates people to judge bands differently?

For me it's indeed about honestly and musicianship. I do not like the not knowing, but knowing it isn't an inch better. Although, if the artist in question is open about it, it feels better than rather evading the topic. That said: I can tolerate additional choirs or keyboards, if these can't be generated because of (e.g.) budgetary reasons, especially when these really add something to the music. Still, I'd prefer the real thing.

I do not like individual non-live guitar lines or (backing) vocals. Very unnecessary, because a live band is live. Other environment, other experience. There are enough other aspects in a concert to enjoy.
 
Long story short, I don't care. Show being fun, that's all I give a damn about.

And as it's been well established, I don't consider integrity in music to be a topic worth mentioning. The moment your art becomes your source of profit, "integrity" goes out of the window. And that's not a bad thing, it's normal to care about money, no matter what extent. Some artists create music that intends to appeal to a wider audience so the success of their material is likely to be determined on the mass it reaches. Some artists are more niche, so they have their own criterion for success. But at the end of the day, if nobody's buying your albums or watching your gigs, you won't be a professional musician. And if you don't have the qualifications for another job, you bet your ass you'll be depressed.
 
Last edited:
You are not an artist. It's interesting if you can see why someone would do it, but let's not act too much as if we're a spokesperson, or part of their management.

What do you think as a fan? What do you expect from artists you care about.
Is your criterium really: if this artist has success I don't give a rat's ass about what they do (or not do!) on stage?

edit:
We're still talking rock and metal here.
 
Last edited:
For me it's indeed about honestly and musicianship.
Can read you like a book...
And as it's been well established, I don't consider integrity in music to be a topic worth mentioning.
But yet you mention it...
But at the end of the day, if nobody's buying your albums or watching your gigs, you won't be a professional musician.
Just not "professional"; you'll still be a musician & an artist though. You have to accept that there are people out there who aren't making money, but are still performing (& aren't deluded about their appeal, or lack of) and who don't care about making money from performing. Some guys just like drumming, just like being on stage playing guitar. People like performing & the attention. It's not all about money.
Is your criterium really: if this artist has success I don't give a rat's ass about what they do (not!) do on stage.
No. And it's far more than just what they do on stage. I pretend that the music is all that matters, but the truth is that who's behind the mask is important to me. I can't really deny that I'm interested in who Buckethead is; or what Lovecraft &/or Tolkien were like, what they thought & believed in; etc.
 
You are not an artist. It's interesting if you can see why someone would do it, but let's not act too much as if we're a spokesperson, or part of their management.

That's not what I'm doing. And I don't need to be an artist to have an idea on what it means to be an artist.

Is your criterium really: if this artist has success I don't give a rat's ass about what they do (or not do!) on stage?

That's not what I said. The first part of my posts explains what I feel about what happens on stage. The rest of the post is about artistic integrity.

We're still talking rock and metal here.

I'm not a hypocrite about genres.

But yet you mention it...

I didn't bring it into the discussion.

Just not "professional"; you'll still be a musician & an artist though. You have to accept that there are people out there who aren't making money, but are still performing (& aren't deluded about their appeal, or lack of) and who don't care about making money from performing. Some guys just like drumming, just like being on stage playing guitar. People like performing & the attention. It's not all about money.

But we're not talking about some random dude that plays a gig on his local pub for no money here. We're talking about professional musicians. I put the line pretty clearly: Once it's a profiteable business, integrity becomes irrelevant. What happens behind that line doesn't concern me.

I never said it was all about the money. Artists go into music because they like creating, playing, performing. But once it's your job, money is a part of it that you can't deny.
 
Behind the line? What happens on stage, is that behind the line?

The line is between being an amateur and a professional. Has nothing to do with stage. You might want to read that part again because this question gives me the impression that you didn't really get what I said there.

I'll say it again: The first part of my post has everything I think about what happens on stage. The rest is a commentary on the legitimacy of artistic integrity among professional musicians.

Long story short, I don't care. Show being fun, that's all I give a damn about.
 
I indeed do not get what you mean in relation to what this topic is about. Perhaps we do not agree that artist integrity exists on stage?
 
I don't believe artistic integrity exists in a professional environment. That's my entire premise. That obviously covers the stage as well.
 
I think you cannot (and certainly do not) know what goes in the mind of certain artists. And when they speak their mind: Maybe you do not follow interviews, or if you do, you do not believe them (or do not understand them).

Are artists lying robots?
 
Probably missed my edit (Don't blame you) there but that covers this question. So I'll post it again seperately:

I should point out, I know I'm coming off pretty sharp and even harsh here, but that's not my intention. What I'm saying is not "all pro musicians are sell-outs who are in it for the money". I'm not arguing for a side of the spectrum -Spectrum of having artistic integrity or not-, I'm arguing to do away with the spectrum.

It's not "No artist has integrity". It's "Integrity is irrelevant".
 
"Integrity is irrelevant".
In your view when related to music business.

But if integrity exists on stage... if someone cares about a full real performance.... then why is that irrelevant?

Didn't these interview segments I posted show, that these matters are relevant for some artists? Schmier didn't use the word integrity, but if it weren't important for him, he wouldn't be worked up about it.

From my point of view, as member in an audience, If I see a band giving 200% and realize that they try to do as much "for real" as possible, it certainly attributes to my appreciation for the performance (and the band) as a whole.
 
Back
Top