Jump to content

playing ALONE


eyesore

Recommended Posts

  • Members

hi guys it seems wherever i go to see live music ;it's always a duo or someone using a sequencer.i 'm not a fan of sequencers or backing tracks.i know some guys here use them[ i don't have enough brain cells to figure backing tracks or sequencers out!].people seem to love it when they are hearing backing tracks!...i play 'just me ,guiatr,acoustic amp;no pedals.does anyone else play "stripped down music"? there is aguy here gets lots of comps because he uses this stuff.i think i'm as good but everyone loves him!thanks for reading my rant!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 242
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I'm with you there. I'm not a fan of backing tracks at all. Looping feels like cheating as well. That said I'd take a duo over solo any day, mostly for the vocal harmonies. When writing songs for acoustic guitar, it's a fun challenge to get a good full sound for all the different parts of the song (I don't always succeed, but I certainly have fun trying).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Pros and cons to all. A solo can call the tunes and never worry that his/her partner knows the material. The best solo performer in our town is full of surprises and is much more musically interesting than any of the duos--including his own. That said, harmonies are nice. Backing tracks are the single fastest way to the door for me and looping forces a peculiar structure on a performance; looping is rare here.

I'm quite able to perform solo and have done, but I have an excellent singing partner who adds more than her share of polish and panache to a show, so mostly I work with her and now also with a drummer, violinist and clarinet (I cover piano and singing and my partner Diane sings). Since there really isn't a living to be had playing music in Gananoque (pop 5000) I go for the fun.

But for listening, I generally prefer solos--on the whole quirkier and more interesting than most duos I've heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

To each his /her own. If it works for you, go ahead.

ME..I prefer backing tracks. Huh...You don't like it?...that's fine with me too.

It goes both ways. I dont like listening a guitarist playing without any backing track for the entire show. That's way too boring and plain to me. But hey...if you can stand it, no one will stop you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yes, I agree it's pretty monotonous to hear a strum-around-the-campfire type git player play all night. I listened to a local (no BT's) harmonica/vox/guitar duo some time ago and the quarter-note strums got old pretty fast. But if a guitar player is accomplished and versatile enough to mix styles like Travis-picking, classical-style fingerpicking (ala Fingerpicker here), flamenco, jazz standards with full chords, bluegrassy alternating bass with strums, etc., they aren't going to bore anybody- musicians or no IMO. Not saying ANYBODY can do all of the above equally well, but a reasonable talented person ought to at least be able to cover a couple of genres.

Unaccompanied and talented, versatile solo performers seem to be more and more of a rarity and IMO that will work in their favor, as they differentiate themselves from the vast majority taking the BT route- to the point they will eventually be a curiousity, a quaint relic of an earlier age, a harbour for the increasing numbers of the populace who suffer from technology-overload. Eventually they will be shellacked and placed as exhibits in museums.

Enough of this bloviating! Somebody put up some samples of their solo stuff, please! (peeps on this forum seem to be rather shy of doing that, for some reason).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

One of the biggest reasons that this debate, or discussion, keeps coming up here is because of the judgmental nature of people. And it's on both sides of this position. People think of backing tracks as cheating because it makes them feel superior to those who use them, which is judgmental. People who use backing tracks use them primarily because they feel it makes them sound better, and look at those who don't use them as being snobs - again, being judgmental. It's human nature.

The debate about "pure" art is a big common thread in all aspects of music. I sort of think it's funny that someone playing a cover on an acoustic guitar for a small group of people is bagging on anyone at all. My friends who are all original call that "being a human juke box" and they look down on it. No matter who you are or what you do in music, there will be people who look down on you. You can't control that. But there will also be people you look down on. You CAN control that. It is usually something that comes with age, but not always.

When a performer does a gig, there are two perspectives that matter - that of the audience, and that of the performer. If a performer hates backing tracks but the audience loves them, the performer is making a sacrifice in order to please the audience. If the performer hates "Piano Man" but plays it anyway, same thing. How distasteful the performer finds the backing tracks or the song selections is balanced against how strongly they want to please their audience - assuming the audience wants to hear backing tracks and Piano Man, so to speak. How much the audience likes the performance, as well as how big the audience is... these are factors that normally determine the money involved. To make the most money, you would play the music with the most appeal to the audience, in the fashion that they would most want to hear.

As to whether most audience members would rather hear straight acoustic performances or backing track enhanced performances... I don't have any data to answer that question. My instinct is to say that by having backing tracks available would enable one to satisfy both types of audiences.

So is using backing tracks "cheating?" Depends on the definition. Cheating the audience? If the audience wants and expects them, then no. If the backing tracks are being used covertly, then yes. Cheating from a pure artistic standpoint? Sure. So is using effects, or a microphone for that matter. In the world of audio recording, it's ALL cheating. Multiple takes and Autotune are two ways of cheating via varying degrees.

But degrees matter. So each person weighs all of the decisions and comes up with a strategy that is best for them. So I don't like the word cheating because it's judgmental and in the strictest sense we all "cheat." Even those who write their own music are often just subconsciously lifting melodies from their heroes.

NOW... if I am at a function and a musician is playing music that sounds horrible to me, I will leave if I possibly can. AND, like stunningbabe, there are very few amateurs who can play just acoustic guitar and sing and keep me interested for more than 20 minutes. So I would not tell someone with awful sounding tracks that they are cheating - but I might tell them that the tracks sound terrible and it ruins the performance, if I were to say anything at all.

I've been awestruck by a single performer with a guitar (Jonatha Brooke, if anyone wants to know.) I'm glad she didn't use backing tracks. So I would speculate that the better player and singer and songwriter a performer is, the more they can create a stunning musical performance with just their guitar and voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

huh!didn't mean to hurt anyones feelins here.also yeah way2def "strumming and campfire songs get old after a few tunes.i play form doc watson ,fingerstyle to kebmo type of music.wish icould post my solo stuff here but i don't know how.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by way2def View Post
Yes, I agree it's pretty monotonous to hear a strum-around-the-campfire type git player play all night. I listened to a local (no BT's) harmonica/vox/guitar duo some time ago and the quarter-note strums got old pretty fast. But if a guitar player is accomplished and versatile enough to mix styles like Travis-picking, classical-style fingerpicking (ala Fingerpicker here), flamenco, jazz standards with full chords, bluegrassy alternating bass with strums, etc., they aren't going to bore anybody- musicians or no IMO. Not saying ANYBODY can do all of the above equally well, but a reasonable talented person ought to at least be able to cover a couple of genres.

Unaccompanied and talented, versatile solo performers seem to be more and more of a rarity and IMO that will work in their favor, as they differentiate themselves from the vast majority taking the BT route- to the point they will eventually be a curiousity, a quaint relic of an earlier age, a harbour for the increasing numbers of the populace who suffer from technology-overload. Eventually they will be shellacked and placed as exhibits in museums.

Enough of this bloviating! Somebody put up some samples of their solo stuff, please! (peeps on this forum seem to be rather shy of doing that, for some reason).
I think you should bloviate some more, because I agree with everything you just said! smile.gif

I have a medley of songs on the front page of my website that is what I sound like live - it is a medley of 4 songs. The first two are me playing keyboards and singing, the third is me with guitar and backing tracks, and the fourth is me playing guitar and singing. They're all covers. There's a link on my site to my bandcamp page, where I've got three original CD's. I know that Pat has links to his music on his website, too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yes, I think it's up to the individual. It is a pet peeve of mine hearing a guy play the same way all night long. I have worked hard for 42 years playing acoustic guitar and have tried to cultivate a wide range of styles- from Merle Travis and Chet Atkins to delta blues to a fingerstyle folk to complex rhythm strumming. I am very conscious of mixing it up and not being monotonous. I really, really enjoy the challenge of taking a song, stripping it down to it's most basic and raw elements and seeing if I can pull it off. I should add that I'm not a solo act substitution for a band, I'm a listening-type performer playing venues where the tables come right up to the stage. Backing tracks wouldn't serve a purpose for me because I'm selling the songs themselves, not my act.

But I also know there are some great singers who are not as accomplished on guitar who may benefit from backing tracks. I've heard some that sounded awesome. And if they're playing in a tavern or bar where it gets loud and rowdy, I would think tracks might be a must in some of them. Bottom line, an artist has to find what works for them and as long as tracks don't cross the line into being karoake, it doesn't bother me. Vive la difference, I say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by fingerpicker

View Post

I can list local guys who will bore you that play stripped down as well as play with tracks. I dont think it has anything to do with if you use tracks or not.

 

I Agree. As much as there are good ones around...there are also bad ones. Backing tracks or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

if the venue has "acoustic singles or duos", then thats what people expect to listen to.
if the venue has small bands, singles or duos that use backing tracks, the people expect to listen to that.

personly, i make 5x more money using backing tracks. funny, it should be the other way around because its harder to pull off a GREAT acoustic only act. i make sure thru the night i play a few songs with no BTs just to quiet the nay sayers that think i need my BTs to perform.

problem is, there are a lot of piss poor acoustic acts that are hurting the other good ones at making any good money. they come in and play for tiddly winks and tips and the owners get use to paying nothing for that kind of act. when a good one comes along, the owner still wont pay more for him because he knows there are 10 more guitar players waiting to play for nothing at his venue. hell, there are even acoustic solos playing at Hooters down here. they make $50/nite plus whatever tips they can make. they hire acoustic only and you perform for 4 hours (7-11pm). most are just strummers and sing the songs. every song sounds like the next song. zzzzzz

i'm sorry, but my days of making squat as a soloist are long gone. i love playing music, but i also want to make a good living doing it.

so the bottom line is,... i make more money using BTs. doing an acoustic only act around here (southwest florida) doesnt pay crap. this has to be the hotspot for solos and duos in the whole country. they are a dime a dozen down here. everyone of them want to be the next buffett. they all play for nothing just so they can say they play for a living. you have to do something special to rise above the mountain of low budget musicians around here. once you make yourself a nitch that nobody else can duplicate, then the money and jobs improve and you become in demand. thankfully, i can say i found my nitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by leftyjay View Post

so the bottom line is,... i make more money using BTs. doing an acoustic only act around here (southwest florida) doesnt pay crap. this has to be the hotspot for solos and duos in the whole country. they are a dime a dozen down here. everyone of them want to be the next buffett. they all play for nothing just so they can say they play for a living. you have to do something special to rise above the mountain of low budget musicians around here. once you make yourself a nitch that nobody else can duplicate, then the money and jobs improve and you become in demand. thankfully, i can say i found my nitch.
I can't agree more :-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And I couldn't agree more, also. A BT performer who can sing well and who kicks ass on both guitar AND keyboard solos has far more appeal than a BT-less solo performer who might sing decently but plays a boring, monotonous guitar accompaniment to every song. Which if they do, means they suck at soloing and improv, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

A BT performer who can sing well and who kicks ass on both guitar AND keyboard solos has far more appeal than a BT-less solo performer who might sing decently but plays a boring, monotonous guitar accompaniment to every song.

 

idea.gif Who would have thought?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by way2def

View Post

Yes, I agree it's pretty monotonous to hear a strum-around-the-campfire type git player play all night.

 

I agree that if the performer is just a guitar strummer it gets boring real fast. One thing I am not is a strum around the campfire guitar player. I have been playing almost 52 years. I am well adapt to many styles of playing from Chet Atkins/Merle Travis to driving Jerry Reed to R&R, blues, folk, bluegrass etc.. I can easily do complex cross picking with a flatpick while singing no problem as well as thumbpick or flatpick assisted fingerpick rolls and comps. I always keep the gain on my guitar up so I have reserve for in your face dynamics when needed. I am also a person who can engage the crowd in between songs and have fun. I'm just not a backing tracks guy and I don't knock those who use them as long as they are done well and I have seen people fall on their faces mid show with BT technical difficulties. When that happens they are lost. The ones I have seen, when their playback system breaks down (which is not often), cannot continue with the show. It is kind of sad for those people if you ask me. If you use BT's you should be able to continue a show in the event of a problem. That's just me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by leftyjay View Post
problem is, there are a lot of piss poor acoustic acts that are hurting the other good ones at making any good money. they come in and play for tiddly winks and tips and the owners get use to paying nothing for that kind of act. when a good one comes along, the owner still wont pay more for him because he knows there are 10 more guitar players waiting to play for nothing at his venue. hell, there are even acoustic solos playing at Hooters down here. they make $50/nite plus whatever tips they can make. they hire acoustic only and you perform for 4 hours (7-11pm). most are just strummers and sing the songs. every song sounds like the next song. zzzzzz

i'm sorry, but my days of making squat as a soloist are long gone. i love playing music, but i also want to make a good living doing it.
Ain't that the truth! I've been a working pro for over 30 years. I did the "backing tracks" thing when you had to actually know a good bit about music and electronics to sequence your songs. I've been permanently in the Florida Keys since 1984, and gave up the backing tracks thing when everyone started downloading "MIDI Hits" or showing up with a laptop running Band-In-A-Box. There were actually acts who just showed up with a laptop and a sound module and sang badly. Some even mimed playing instruments. It ceased becoming live music and turned into bad karaoke.

That being said, many would be amazed at how many large arena acts use backing tracks in their performances. As an example, I'm sure that nobody walked out of Roger Waters' The Wall performances in disgust because many of the orchestral sequences and the English kids' choir in "Another Brick Pt. II" were recordings synced with the live band. Backing tracks are a fact of life.

As for me, I play guitar and keys, and mostly play solo with acoustic guitars (6 & 12), sometimes piano, a looper, and a harmony pedal. Some may consider that cheating. I couldn't care less. I have a repertoire of over 1,000 songs, and I play a variety of styles and genres. I also have quite a few original songs that I get requests for every gig. None of my nights or sets ever sound the same. (FWIW, I also play lead electric guitar in a three-piece band.) I have made a good living at music, and fortunately for me, my services are still in demand.

Every season, we get a new influx of "piss poor acoustic acts" who come in and are willing to work for $50 and $75 a night, and there are club owners who can't tell the difference between them and musicians who have actual talent... EXCEPT for the fact that they are only paying a fraction of what I charge!

I don't mean to come off sounding elitist here, but it all comes down to the talent and ability of the performer, whether it's a solo acoustic act, a duo, or a band -- with or without tracks. There are a lot of people performing on local club stages who really need to spend a lot more time in their bedrooms or garages and get some more woodshedding in before playing in front of people. Sadly, they'll never recognize themselves in that last sentence.

Enough bloviating for now. Sorry if I offended anyone. Have a great day!
Totally_jammin_out.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've done shows every which way. Some are just me playing a nylon string acoustic with no vocals for 5 hours at a restaurant. Some are me with a 4 or 5 piece band rocking out on electric guitar and screaming my lungs out. I've played bagpipes, Celtic harp, and banjo to all kinds of crowds. I've played along to backing tracks and I've used a programmable bass/drum machine to make my own tracks.

To me, the important thing is not what you're using to put your act across, the thing you have to ask yourself is "Are you putting your act across?" In other words, is the audience being entertained.

And the definition of audience entertainment changes from venue to venue.

One of my favorites gigs is my one-man German band, where I wear my lederhosen, put on goofy hats, and play a cheap Yamaha keyboard. It's always fun and the audience has a good time. I even put on an iPod version of the Chicken Dance, pop on a giant chicken mask, and lead the audience from the center of the dance floor. Not something I'd be likely to do at a rock and roll gig, but for the audience at the German show, it's perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by richardmac View Post
One of the biggest reasons that this debate, or discussion, keeps coming up here is because of the judgmental nature of people. And it's on both sides of this position. People think of backing tracks as cheating because it makes them feel superior to those who use them, which is judgmental. People who use backing tracks use them primarily because they feel it makes them sound better, and look at those who don't use them as being snobs - again, being judgmental. It's human nature.

The debate about "pure" art is a big common thread in all aspects of music. I sort of think it's funny that someone playing a cover on an acoustic guitar for a small group of people is bagging on anyone at all. My friends who are all original call that "being a human juke box" and they look down on it. No matter who you are or what you do in music, there will be people who look down on you. You can't control that. But there will also be people you look down on. You CAN control that. It is usually something that comes with age, but not always.

When a performer does a gig, there are two perspectives that matter - that of the audience, and that of the performer. If a performer hates backing tracks but the audience loves them, the performer is making a sacrifice in order to please the audience. If the performer hates "Piano Man" but plays it anyway, same thing. How distasteful the performer finds the backing tracks or the song selections is balanced against how strongly they want to please their audience - assuming the audience wants to hear backing tracks and Piano Man, so to speak. How much the audience likes the performance, as well as how big the audience is... these are factors that normally determine the money involved. To make the most money, you would play the music with the most appeal to the audience, in the fashion that they would most want to hear.

As to whether most audience members would rather hear straight acoustic performances or backing track enhanced performances... I don't have any data to answer that question. My instinct is to say that by having backing tracks available would enable one to satisfy both types of audiences.

So is using backing tracks "cheating?" Depends on the definition. Cheating the audience? If the audience wants and expects them, then no. If the backing tracks are being used covertly, then yes. Cheating from a pure artistic standpoint? Sure. So is using effects, or a microphone for that matter. In the world of audio recording, it's ALL cheating. Multiple takes and Autotune are two ways of cheating via varying degrees.

But degrees matter. So each person weighs all of the decisions and comes up with a strategy that is best for them. So I don't like the word cheating because it's judgmental and in the strictest sense we all "cheat." Even those who write their own music are often just subconsciously lifting melodies from their heroes.

NOW... if I am at a function and a musician is playing music that sounds horrible to me, I will leave if I possibly can. AND, like stunningbabe, there are very few amateurs who can play just acoustic guitar and sing and keep me interested for more than 20 minutes. So I would not tell someone with awful sounding tracks that they are cheating - but I might tell them that the tracks sound terrible and it ruins the performance, if I were to say anything at all.

I've been awestruck by a single performer with a guitar (Jonatha Brooke, if anyone wants to know.) I'm glad she didn't use backing tracks. So I would speculate that the better player and singer and songwriter a performer is, the more they can create a stunning musical performance with just their guitar and voice.
Great post man, agree with you 100%
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by BlueStrat View Post
idea.gif Who would have thought?
Yeah, film at 11.....but no way I would attempt to minimize the talent of leftyjay, because he's GOOD. (I don't mind kissing people's asses on the 'net if they're talented and can back up what they say with actual demonstrated ability- guess that leaves ME out, BTW, cause I SUCK..on harmonicas, that is, when I'm not blowing) And I appreciate that but he's upfront about BT's as a money-making thing, the same as others here are upfront about it doesn't get any better for them than performing with BT's and they don't miss playing with a full band.

I don't get on a soapbox to cut anybody down, but I'm upfront about how I appreciate that there are still some performers that devote themselves to doing the best show they can "stripped-down", because IMO it's a challenge and a dying art. But I know it will be a great relief to everybody here that I'm done talking about the subject. FWIW, I have approached a successful and popular BT-using duo about playing with them (moreso to satisfy my curiousity than for $$), and if they take me up on it, I will approach the gig with an open mind. I hope that's penance enough for everybody, bye! smile.gif PS Richard, I promise to listen to your stuff, thanks for directing me to it!

PS, I also want to be clear that I have nothing per se against guitars strummed around campfires, or even against those doing the strumming. It's nice to have an alternative wood supply handy, anyway- you would be surprised at how long those things can burn!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...