Are there styles or genres where backing tracks are inappropriate?

[dboomer]

JT with backing track and vocal processing ...

 

 

[SusieP]

To many people jazz is all of that sax spiralling, self indulgent playing and dooby dooby cleo lainey type singing.
To others it's Nat King Cole singing Let There Be Love to a cool piano arrangement.

As Notes says...........depends who's listening.

I'd call this jazz.............. [with a backing track]

http://www.mediafire.com/?e7037afce6c643n

http://www.mediafire.com/?7boawzlh6dgmv0t


and this too

http://www.mediafire.com/?kriygwgyauvciid


But is it jazz?
I think we get away with it because the audiences aren't complete jazz purists.
Would a jazz club audience accept it - I'm still not sure. Without tracks, probably. With tracks? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm???

But one day I will try it at such a place and let you know it I get pitch fork scars.

:lol:

[pogo97]

Whiteman's place in the history of early jazz is somewhat controversial. Detractors suggest that Whiteman's ornately-orchestrated music was jazz in name only (lacking the genre's improvisational and emotional depth), and co-opted the innovations of black musicians.

 

 

 

[video=youtube;ZCDpYi-_lHY]

 

the debate continues

[Bob Dey]

I do some Jazz with backing tracks that sounds pretty good, but it wouldn't fly in a Jazz club. I'd say if you're doing a concert as a solo leave the backing tracks at home. Otherwise, use the best quality tracks you can and keep them consistent as possible.

[SusieP]

Our 'jazz' ones in the act are real piano, double bass and light drums on the bits where my partner can't play the drums himself because he's playing sax or keyboards or blues harp live at that point in the song.

 

 

Having said all this above,

I have today taken a booking for a retired double bass player who attended a party we played at two weeks ago.

He's a proper jazz guy who played in a live jazz trio all his life and we used backing tracks at the gig he attended - and he's booked us for his own upcoming Birthday party.

 

So maybe we CAN infiltrate the purist jazz tribe after all!!!!

 

Woo Hoo!!!!

[MrKnobs]

I dunno. Entertainment is entertainment, but I'd almost rather quit playing than perform to backing tracks these days. That's probably because I don't make my living from music. If I did, I'd be in a band called the horizontal vaginas dressed in a pink wetsuit playing mouth harp, if that's what it took to make a $.

 

Terry D.

[Voltan]

i'm liking this pink wetsuit idea... tell me more?

[Notes_Norton]

I dunno. Entertainment is entertainment, but I'd almost rather quit playing than perform to backing tracks these days. That's probably because I don't make my living from music. <...> Terry D.

 

That's where we differ, not that it makes either one of us right or wrong. I play music for a living, and I enjoy playing with live musicians and I also enjoy playing with tracks or a combination of the two.

 

It's just fun to make music for me.

 

And as long as the music speaks to me, I don't care how it was made.

[dboomer]

 

I'd almost rather quit playing than perform to backing tracks these days.

 

 

I do both. With the band it wouldn't work at all because it would kill the vibe (at least the way I think of it) and with the duo it wouldn't work any other way.

[richardmac]

I think the reason why people like to slam backing tracks is because they've gotten so popular. Around here, they're the norm rather than the exception for solo performers. It must really piss off the folks who hate them. If no one ever used them, there'd be no reason to complain about them.

 

I will say that a recent forum comment has got me really thinking about the tracks where I use them. The comment was that backing tracks sound better when they're more raw and uncompressed, as opposed to sounding like a CD, i.e. being mixed and mastered like commercial music. After thinking about it, I very much agree with that assessment. So I'm thinking about remixing the backing tracks I use, because I compressed and mastered the {censored} out of them. They'd benefit from being more raw, for sure.

[dboomer]

 

They'd benefit from being more raw, for sure.

 

 

But remember ... if you expand the dynamic range of the backing tracks by 6 dB you'll need 4 times the power in your PA to deliver it. Your 500w system now needs to be 2000W or you will just end up "compressing" again by clipping.

[Bob Dey]

I never compress my backing tracks because I like dynamics. But one problem I have is that some songs end up louder than others.

[MrKnobs]

I think the reason why people like to slam backing tracks is because they've gotten so popular.

 

They don't piss me off, I just enjoy playing with a full band. Not nearly as fun (for me) without the interactions. I've done a lot of both.

 

The comment was that backing tracks sound better when they're more raw and uncompressed, as opposed to sounding like a CD, i.e. being mixed and mastered like commercial music. After thinking about it, I very much agree with that assessment.

 

That's one thing we definitely agree on.

 

I think I stated the one exception in my earlier post making the case for uncompressed tracks, which is when you send a broadcast (TV) or internet feed. There's not a lot of dynamic range and you'll be competing against compressed tracks, so then you do the opposite and compress your live tracks to sit in the compressed backing tracks. The important thing is that both the backing and the live tracks match, or the difference will really stick out and make it sound amateur.

 

Terry D.

[leftyjay]

guess thats why i dont pre-record my BTs. i go the midi route and have full control on stage, just like mixing a band.

i've never been happy recording my BTs, be it mp3s or raw waves, compressed or not. main thing is volume issues. as i'm recording the tracks, the first 20 songs sound fairly close, but your ears get use to the volume and you start tweaking songs. the next thing you know, the volume starts changing and you have a louder BT. or the mix changes and you dont get the same level between the instruments.

when you have many hundreds of songs, it is nearly impossible to get the same recorded mix between songs. to me, it aint worth the effort of recording the BTs. i do carry about 150 of my standard playlist songs as wave BTs just incase my midi setup crashes. in 25 years of doing a solo act, i have never needed to go to my waves because my gear broke down.

believe me, i have backups (laptop,ipad,iphone) just incase. but have yet to use them on stage. i just feel better to have a backup just incase...

[Notes_Norton]

I think the reason why people like to slam backing tracks is because they've gotten so popular. <...>

 

 

You could be right.

 

I'd also like to suggest another possibility. Some people perceive them as "cheating".

 

And yes, do uncompress them. Dynamics are an important part of expression, and IMHO a live performance needs more dynamics than a recording.

 

I was talked into putting some light compression on my tracks (3db and I forget what other settings) by an audio engineer. He said it would make them hotter.

 

After I got done compressing them all, I replaced the uncompressed tracks with the compressed ones. We played the evening and all night long I felt uncomfortable. On the way home I mentioned that to Leilani and she jumped right in, the tracks sounded flat by comparison. The compression sucked the life out of them.

 

Luckily I had our old uncompressed tracks on an external drive and the next day put the uncompressed tracks back on the computer and deleted the compressed ones.

 

I used to do my tracks with MIDI and sound modules on stage. But that required a 10 space rack with a half dozen sound modules, a couple of samplers, and a sub-mixer. When one of the samplers crapped out, and I had difficulty getting a replacement, I decided to go high quality mp3 files. Now I carry a spare computer with duplicate files on it so if the first one fails, the show goes on.

 

But as I often say, there is more than one right way to do this.

[dboomer]

when you have many hundreds of songs, it is nearly impossible to get the same recorded mix between songs. to me, it aint worth the effort of recording the BTs.

 

 

Well I guess I don't have hundreds ... a hundred maybe, but I don't have any difficulties in this area. I have one song that I use as my reference loudness and simply dial up or down every other song compared to the reference (and I never change the reference)

 

I use to carry a full MIDI rig and generate the track live, but for me it is so much more convenient to have them mixed down to 2 tracks and directly tied to my mixer. I also don't have to worry about connecting any gear or cables falling out. Also being limited to MIDI tracks is constraining. With recorded audio tracks (I use AIFF) I can add recorded audio in addition to MIDI for things that are just too difficult to program in MIDI. Everything is on the laptop (and I carry a backup laptop as a spare ... which I've never had to use).

[dboomer]

And yes, do uncompress them. Dynamics are an important part of expression, and IMHO a live performance needs more dynamics than a recording.

 

 

So I think the discussion is where and how you compress. Big concert shows rely heavily on compression. Taking that 3 dB out as in your example means another 53' trailer full of gear.

 

If you are talking about MIDI tracks, they are already compressed by their very nature, as is just about anything played through a guitar amp, let alone any pedals. And if you've ever seen the limit lights fire on you sound system you have again compressed.

 

It's also possible to compress the hell out of some tracks while leaving others relatively uncompressed at the same time.

[Notes_Norton]

I've been using laptops since 2002, and I've used the spare PC only twice (and I do this for a living).

1) I noticed the hard drive making a bit of mechanical noise. Not wanting to take any chances, I swapped the two computers and the next day replaced the hard drive. Don't know if that was necessary or not, but the computer was about 6 years old then and it just seemed the right thing to do.

2) A CMOS battery failed ($5.00 replacement at Radio Shack). The CMOS keeps the clock running on the PC and it will not boot without it. The computer was about 7 years old at the time.

I use ThinkPad computers exclusively, and I get an average life span of 8 years on them. Considering that I do one-nighters and the bounce around a lot (in the van, on the keyboard stand) and change temperatures a lot (from the house to the hot van to the cool gig) 8 years is a long time to use a laptop. At the end of 8 years they are still actually working, but they start developing issues. Like my 2002 computer, if you open the lid to the angle where I usually use it, it develops darker horizontal stripes across the screen. You can still read it, and repositioning the screen fixes the problem, but there is no sense depending on it so it sits at home in my office.

For a fairly complete explanation on how I make my backing tracks and use them on stage go to http://www.nortonmusic.com/backing_tracks.html

Insights and incites by Notes ?

[Bob Dey]

 

If you are talking about MIDI tracks, they are already compressed by their very nature,

 

 

I'm not sure where you get this from. MIDI has several ways to control volume for each instrument including volume, expression and velocity sensitivity. And some synthesizers are more sensitive to velocity than others. My Kurzweil K2VX is very sensitive to velocity which makes it difficult to maintain a somewhat equal volume between different types of songs. Compressing velocity can be done in the sequencing program you're using, but if you're recording by playing a synth (recording your own MIDIs) the velocity will vary from 1 to 127.

[Notes_Norton]

dboomer, if MIDI tracks are compressed by their nature, then virtually all modern synthesizers are compressed, as almost all modern synths use MIDI under the hood. Somehow I have trouble believing that. Do you have evidence to back that up? Not to argue with you, but I'm truly interested.

MIDI notes have a velocity (affects volume) graduation of 128 steps, Continuous Controller 7 (volume) can add 128 steps to that, and continuous controller 11 (expression - also volume) adds another 128. That is a potential of 384 different increments of volume.

Of course, the synth itself that MIDI is controlling can be either very sensitive to these changes or not at all.

I play a wind MIDI controller on stage (Yamaha WX5) with a Yamaha VL70m synth module. I can play from a whisper to well over and ear damaging 130dba if I run the volume levels that high on my PA set. I normally don't run them much over 90 though.

That's enough dynamic response for me, and more than I can play on my saxophone without a microphone (it tops out at around 100dba).

So if they are compressed by nature as you say, I can still get enough dynamic response for my own playing.

[pogo97]

Saying MIDI is compressed is like saying a piano action is compressed. Both have a limited range--numerical for MIDI and physical for the piano action. But that's the nature of the instrument. What is meant by compression in audio is something quite different.

[dboomer]

 

Saying MIDI is compressed is like saying a piano action is compressed. Both have a limited range--numerical for MIDI and physical for the piano action. But that's the nature of the instrument. What is meant by compression in audio is something quite different.

 

 

OK ... but the practical effect is very much like compression in that you have a fixed dynamic range. Because electronics are limited by peak voltage values AND you have setup your MIDI instrument to operate inside these limits you have effectively limited your signal.

 

Your peak-to-average ratio (generally speaking) behaves much more like a compressed/limited acoustic instrument would. Think about it more in terms of a snare drum hit from a synth compared to a rim shot on an acoustic drum. It's very difficult to get a rim shot from a drum machine to make you blink.

[pogo97]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Bob Dey]

Kurzweil synthesizers have several ways of increase the output of each patch and the channel it's using. If you're not careful it will result in blown eardrums or speakers. And since each channel can be played back via MIDI, you better get a rack mount limiter or compressor if you want compression. Guess you might need a demonstration to see what I mean. Bring earplugs.

[Notes_Norton]

MIDI information does not contain any real-world dynamic limitations.

• 
  So while all these changes seem like a lot of dynamic changes, they are nothing but data information. MIDI has no sound, MIDI has no volume, MIDI has no expression, MIDI only has data.
  
  The synthesizer takes the MIDI data and then uses oscillators, samples, and other sound producing waveforms and process them according to the MIDI data.
  
  So the synthesizer and amplifier, NOT the MIDI data is the limiting factor for dynamics. If you take the average synth and put it in my PA set and turn the volume up, I can easily play from silence or just barely audible to well over ear damaging volume on any note. That's more dynamic response than I can get out of my saxophones, flute, and acoustic guitar.
  
  If you have a lame or cheap synthesizer, you will have limited dynamic response, but for any synth designed for the pro musician, you can easily have more dynamic response than any acoustic instrument.
  
  And since audio compression limits dynamic device, logic tells me that MIDI does not compress dynamic response.
  
  Insights and incites by Notes ?