Metal band (Lordi)'s backtrack fails during show

UncleGoatLips

tee hee...

It's not a youtube video so I don't know how to embed it, try this link:

http://www.break.com/index/metal-bands-backing-track-skips-2075202

Averatu

I'd be asking for my money back. Ramstein are all about show, but they still play their instruments. Playing to a backing track of samples and production elements is cool, but this is a joke.

G-Man

Ouch, they look like a bad gwar copy. You gotta have big cahoneys to put all of your faith into a backing track. Oh the fail.

UncleGoatLips

No way, GWAR kicks ass!!

And ya, if you can't play it, learn how to play it, maybe spend some more time with your instrument rather than in make-up.

G-Man

G-Man wrote: Ouch, they look like a bad gwar copy. You gotta have big cahoneys to put all of your faith into a backing track. Oh the fail.

UncleGoatLips wrote: No way, GWAR kicks ass!!

That's why I said bad ?

Hammeron

Pathetic.

Hammeron

Back tracking is totally unacceptable in any form of rock that is worth listening to.
If you can't do it live, don't do it at F*****g all.

Manfred-Klose

doing lots of live work, i get to see bands that use backtracks, the best one i have seen is where the complete vocal backtrack cut out. ?
karma sucks.

BluJu

Your fans will accept the fact that some music just sounds better in the studio.
I've heard dragonforce been referred to as studioforce.
In the case of Lordi though I think they just suck.

UncleGoatLips

I think whoever is their songwriter is pretty good but ya, unfortunately these days bands are measured according to what they achieve in the studio and not live.

There is no excuse for a backtrack.

For shame.

UncleGoatLips

It feels weird enough doing a music video.

Imagine lip syncing to your own album, sincerely, trying to con people into believing you are actually doing it for real.

Iron Maiden was once asked to lip sync on top of the pops, apparently they only realised it after they signed the contract so they did it but they were playing each other's instruments and changing places and doing the wrong things to show people it was what's happening. That's pretty cool.

That being said, I once played live on tv and tv sound guys have no idea how to mix music, my plexi ended up sounding like crap, I don't know how they did it but they did it. That day I wished they could overdub the track with the cd track, oh well.

Lethe

I saw you okes doing some colab with a rapper. Outcome was pretty cool...

Bob-Dubery

Averatu wrote: I'd be asking for my money back. Ramstein are all about show, but they still play their instruments. Playing to a backing track of samples and production elements is cool, but this is a joke.

How do you know when a band is playing to back tracks? Only when things go wronggo wronggo wronggo wrong

And where do you draw the line? Back in the 80s, after Milli Vanilli had their moment of infamy, Sting gave an interview in which he said that he no longer viewed it as his job to exactly reproduce the record on stage. Which prompted questions of what he had been doing up until that point and, more to the point, how he'd been doing it. There were also reports of him making some kind of comment at one show along the lines of "we're going to do something now that some people might not want us to do" before a surprisingly full-fledged arrangement of one of his songs started up.

How live is live? We know that Autotune gets used in live situations - and not just on TV reality shows. Reba McIntyre (big in country) admitted to having it patched in in case her voice was off on a night. She defended this saying that her fans did not pay good money to hear with the croaks that she occasionally got when she was on a long tour.

You simply don't know - unless amazing things start happening - how much technology is being used, how much any "live" performance depends on technology. OK.... I was at a restaurant recently where a band was playing smooth, lounge type music. Suddenly there were more vocal parts than musicians - and the keyboard player didn't even have a microphone. So clearly the vocalist was using one of those boxes that generates harmonies from a single vocal (probably autotuning at the same time). So you notice that - IF you're paying attention.

What was remarkable about this Lordi gig was that the gizmos failed. Where there any suspicions before then that they were playing to a backing track? Which takes us back to the start of my post - you only know the gizmos are there when they backfire. So how do you know who is using what?

doc-phil

But surely there is a difference between a little bit of lip-synching for the vocalist and the entire band pretending to play their instruments! I can somewhat understand the vocalist needing a bit of assistance after a long tour, but what was the guitarists excuse? That they had sore finger tips and couldn't play their guitars?

If I was at a live gig of a band I listen to regularly, I know that the live performance isn't going to be quite as good as the studio album, and I will dang well notice if the band is miming to a backing track... I know that no live performance (except maybe excluding Opeth) could be that good.

Hammeron

I've said it before and I'll say it again...keep it simple.
Keep it Real,warts 'n all.
From a Rock 'n Roll perspective, when you feel the need for false pre-recorded back-up it can no longer be called Rock 'n Roll.

Bob-Dubery

doc-phil wrote: But surely there is a difference between a little bit of lip-synching for the vocalist and the entire band pretending to play their instruments! I can somewhat understand the vocalist needing a bit of assistance after a long tour, but what was the guitarists excuse? That they had sore finger tips and couldn't play their guitars?

The question is where the line gets drawn - or even if a line can be drawn. In the case I mentioned, Sting, he was touring at the time with a very good band, but it was suspected that for a while and on some numbers they had some off-stage help (though not, as I recall, with vocals).

Or another example - Queen and "Bohemian Rhapsody". Impossible for them to do live with just the 4 of them. IIRC they didn't even try, leaving the stage for the big vocal section and coming back with a literal bang for the final rock out.

The questions are to be asked of the audience as well. What do we think is acceptable in a concert situation? Do we want to hear the album produced exactly or will we accept compromises for the sake of the excitement of a live performance? Assuming, of course, that we knew that anything was going on in the first place. Is it OK if it's obvious?

I saw Richard Thompson with his band in 2007. He was supporting his then current album but omitting what many people considered the stand out track - Guns Are The Tongues. That track, on the CD, started off with a drone note (played on a hurdy gurdy) which lasted quite a way into the long first verse and then came back as the song ended. No way to do it live with the band he had - they'd all be busy with other instruments. So he didn't do it. But the clamour grew and eventually, later on in a long tour, he gave the fans what they wanted but it meant having the sound guy trigger a sample from the mixing desk. OK... it was literally a drone, no timing issues, no click-track required - the sound guy could just fade it out during the first verse and back in at the end. It wasn't 100% live by the guys on stage, but it was what the fans had been demanding.

It was, admittedly, a very unusual situation for Thompson who has never been concerned about exactly reproducing the record (and has sometimes deviated quite markedly), but I guess he figured out there was no other way to deliver that song live , and since that tour he's never done that song again.

So maybe we're to blame some of the time :-\

If I was at a live gig of a band I listen to regularly, I know that the live performance isn't going to be quite as good as the studio album, and I will dang well notice if the band is miming to a backing track... I know that no live performance (except maybe excluding Opeth) could be that good.

Well live performances can be good without being exactly like the CD. Not being able to reproduce the recorded sound exactly does not mean that the live performance isn't exciting and excellent. I've seen Thompson live and solo. He does tracks from albums recorded with a band and they're not exactly like the CD - how can they be? - but they're still exciting, convincing performances.

However if a particular song relies on something that can't be done live (EG Bohemian Rhapsody) then something has to give. Did Abba do "Does Your Mother Know" live? On the record Agnetha's and Frida's vocals were quite obviously given the chipmunk treatment. I saw Billy Joel on TV a while back. He can't hit the high notes anymore and so he gets one of the backing singers to sing the chorus on "Innocent Man". You've got hits and your fans want to hear them - what do you do?

IceCreamMan

Lordi were eurovision winners as i recall

i kinda like em ☹

doc-phil

@ - Bob:

I agree with everything you say there. I wouldn't mind at all if the band I was listening to used samples and or backing tracks for the purposes of playing a song live that they otherwise would not be able to play. In Lordi's case however, they take it way to far by just pretending to play the entire song. If they needed their sound guy to trigger a few samples, or for the backing track to play what a third guitarist would have played, then that's fine.

I think the line should be drawn at the point where backing tracks go from complimenting a live performance in order to 'complete' a track to the point where the musicians on stage aren't even playing their instruments at all.

I often wonder how I would play the songs that I've composed at a live show. In my recordings I will often have two leads playing with a rhythm section behind it (which I believe is pretty standard) - unless I have three guitarists in my band a la Iron Maiden or maybe if I use a harmonist pedal for the leads, there is no way that I would be able to re-create that sound live. So I hope that any potential audience that I may have the pleasure of playing for would accept that a certain small proportion of the playing would be from a backing track.

UncleGoatLips

There is nothing wrong with sound effects, even when there's extra singing or keys or instruments that you don't have, I have no problem with it whatsoever. If anything it makes you a better band because you have to play live to a click (easy enough I know but some bands, eish).

What would AC/DC's Highway to hell be without the bell in the beginning (still pretty awesome I know but the bell is definitely needed). I've seen bands that have choirs in choruses or sounds in intro's etc. and that's totally fine with me. The band is still playing their instruments. Where I draw the line is where you have your track playing in the background and you're cracking all rockstar when in fact you aren't doing anything.

Between vocals and guitars there is a difference, when you pick up your guitar and you put your fingers on the fretboard the note is going to ring, with your voice that is not necessarily the case. I have been in the situation where I had to sing after a few weeks tour and you still have to perform even though your voice doesn't want to play along. What would I choose between a croaky squeeky voice and lip syncing? My crappy voice. I would never get it over my heart to deceive people like that. In the case of your Biebers and Cyrusses it doesn't matter because the "music" is synthetic (on a few levels) anyways. When it comes to "real" musicians, don't be such a baby! Play your instrument dammit! If you can't do it, get a real job.

@Lethe: Yup, the show was a bit of an abortion (not the one I was talking about earlier where I played and my guitar sounded crap, that was "dit is hoe dit is met Steve" this one was SABC's Jam Sandwich) but the song at the end came out okay-ish, here's the video:

Bob-Dubery

doc-phil wrote: I often wonder how I would play the songs that I've composed at a live show. In my recordings I will often have two leads playing with a rhythm section behind it (which I believe is pretty standard) - unless I have three guitarists in my band a la Iron Maiden or maybe if I use a harmonist pedal for the leads, there is no way that I would be able to re-create that sound live. So I hope that any potential audience that I may have the pleasure of playing for would accept that a certain small proportion of the playing would be from a backing track.

Or just accept that they're not going to hear the album reproduced. I think it depends on the artist and the audience. I see some artists getting on stage singing to backing tracks with any band very conspicuously absent. To me that's one step up from karaoke, but the fans don't seem to mind.