Backing tracks - hindrance or help?

[JerryPH]

I was reading a little about that. When the Beatles made the St. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club record, they often used a 42 piece band that included a whole strings section, oboe, cello, double bass, etc. It was physically impossible to carry around a whole orchestra while on tour, along with their own equipment so of course they had to make a choice, either use backing tracks or not play songs that used this as it did not sound the same.

I guess I am neutral about them. There is a time to use backing tracks (and just to be clear, I mean anything in that area like arrangers or complete audio that plays everything except the main/solo instrument), and a time to not use them. In my last video, I used an arranger and really enjoyed the results, but there was a little extra work to do in the audio post processing to balance things out properly. You can bet that I will make more videos with the BK-7m, I simply like the sound and find it s lot of fun.

 

[JerryPH]

someone once said to me something on the lines of a good sound man can turn shit into milk chocolate. Could it be that in some cases thats what backing tracks do?

You cannot polsih a turd. Thats a very valid old saying. Sure they can do a lot from adjusting voice pitch and like in MIDI, change the notes post recording, but bad music is bad music, whether alone or in an orchestra of 1,000 instruments, there is no hiding that with or without backing tracks!

 

[george garside]

:lol:
g

 

[Anyanka]

When the Beatles made the St. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club record, they often used a 42 piece band that included a whole strings section, oboe, cello, double bass, etc. It was physically impossible to carry around a whole orchestra while on tour, along with their own equipment so of course they had to make a choice, either use backing tracks or not play songs that used this as it did not sound the same.

The Beatles never used backing tracks in concerts. They stopped touring in 1966 - Sgt Peppers was the result of spending more time in the studio from then on, was released in 1967 and never performed live.

 

[JerryPH]

Exactly... and though they were offered the chance to do a St. Peppers tour, it was impossible, so the choice was made... backking tracks or no tour, because packing that many people on tour was not viable for them, so was never going to happen. Basically they made a choice not to use backing tracks.

 

[jozz]

yes but it's comparing apples with pears

the old days and now, there is no comparison.

they could get away with anything, bad playing, bad singing...nowadays when everything is recorded by everyone you can't

it always strikes me how 'perfect' shows are these days...a lot of it is backtrack...not necessarily a better experience? I find myself remembering the better shows as the ones where songs are played ad hoc...like Bruce Springsteen

 

[george garside]

I particularly enjoy playing in folk/trad acoustic sessions where what is played comes out warts an all with no electronic add ons or amplification. Nobody expects perfection but sometimes it comes near to it, but everybody is listened to with respect whatever their stage in the lifelong leaning curve is!

george

 

[Anyanka]

Exactly... and though they were offered the chance to do a St. Peppers tour, it was impossible, so the choice was made... backking tracks or no tour, because packing that many people on tour was not viable for them, so was never going to happen. Basically they made a choice not to use backing tracks.

That wasnt really why they stopped touring though - their fans made so much noise that nobody could hear the music anyway. The whole backing track issue is a red herring.

 

[JeffJetton]

That wasnt really why they stopped touring though - their fans made so much noise that nobody could hear the music anyway.

Yeah, the state of sound amplification back then was nowhere near what it is today. When they famously played Shea stadium, they were just piped through the little bullhorn speakers that wouldve normally been used to amplify the announcer during baseball games. No real monitors on stage. Not only could the audience not hear them, they couldnt hear themselves!

But I wouldnt discount their shift to using the studio as an instrument in their work either. If they had kept on creating the sort of music they played in those early years, and with a bit of recovery from their tour-induced burnout, who knows? Perhaps they wouldve toured again when the PAs began to be able to cut the mustard (as PAs eventually would by the time Woodstock rolled around a few years later).

 

[JeffJetton]

Also, let's not forget that a musical act that has created complex, sophisticated music has many choices. Sure, they could tour with backing tracks to reproduce what the record sounds like. Or spend a fortune to tour with a gazillion musicians. Or they could just not tour at all.

But they could also play their music differently on tour. That can be an interesting live experience too--to see an artist reinterpret their hits to fit the instrumentation at hand.

Some of the best shows I've seen have been someone playing songs (from their fully-produced album) completely on their own, with just their voice and guitar or piano.

Heck, if you want to hear it sound "just like the record", why not just stay home and listen to the record?

 

[Anyanka]

That wasnt really why they stopped touring though - their fans made so much noise that nobody could hear the music anyway.

But I wouldnt discount their shift to using the studio as an instrument in their work either.

Absolutely - the move toward more complex tunes was already evident from Rubber Soul onwards. The Beatles were musically highly ambitious and keen to experiment, something the screamers probably would have neither appreciated nor respected. Only Paul McCartney missed live performance and returned to it with Wings in the 1970s: he has a need to be adored....

Ive been keeping my responses short until now to avoid hi-jacking this thread... the Beatles were my first musical passion, and I know more about them than is strictly necessary (I even spent 4 1/2 hours outside a hotel in Hamburg as a teenager, waiting to see George Harrison). In 2015, I finally got around to making a pilgrimage to Liverpool after breeding a fellow fan to travel with, my younger daughter (see below)

 

[JeffJetton]

the Beatles were my first musical passion

Among my first too. My early musical education as a ten-or-so-year-old kid was basically A) a piano in the living room, B) a two-volume collection of the sheet music for nearly every Beatles song, and C) some key Beatles albums (the red, blue, and white albums, Sgt Peppers, and Abbey Road, mainly)

I literally learned the foundations of pop music from those songs.

Anyway, Liverpool mustve been a fun trip!