Walk me thru logistics of playing as solo artist with backing tracks

[toddkuen]

This pretty says all the arguments against "backing tracks" are sh*t:

 

[video=youtube;Zq8hiZPqj_U]

 

Solo performer + Guitar + Loop pedal = NO BAND

 

Use of "backing tracks" recorded on the spot = BACKING TRACKS

 

International recognition, big time, talented, signed, successful (whether you like her or not).

 

Is she more or less talented than the folks in the videos Lee posted a while back on this thread?

 

Hard to say... But as EightString says there's an unquantifiable "talent" element involved here: Some people have it and others don't.

 

Would you walk by her doing this on the Disney main street? Would you tip her?

 

Like many other arguments on this forum this is an argument about on thing: talent.

 

People can be talented musicians. But also talented performers and producers.

 

Technology advancements are allowing the lines between musician, performer, and producer to be blurred and crossed (Tunstall does this with this particular song). Not all musicians can be performers or producers, not all should be.

 

You have to measure the total package "talent" combining musicianship, performance skills and production.

 

The same arguments against backing tracks work for PA's or even instruments - after all isn't singing "more pure" than singing with a guitar?

 

[dboomer]

 

All of which misses the point entirely. There is a direct correlation to the amount of backing track utilized and the audience's boredom.

 

 

That may be your opinion, but I don't share it. I believe audiences generally are bored by lack of entertainment. If you can play spoons and entertain or if you use full track playback and lip sync ... To me it is about entertainment value.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Would you do the opening James Taylor slot with the tracks?

 

 

Context is, of course, important. Opening for James Taylor? Maybe not. Opening for Rihanna? Almost certainly.

 

In fact, I believe it's been common practice for quite awhile now for opening acts of all sorts of genres to perform to tracks simply to accomodate the logistics of the performance. That new singer who is given a 30 minute slot opening for a big artist? Just run tracks and let her sing.

[EightString]

Got it. So we'll have to agree to disagree. But I do so with the utmost respect for what you do.

 

That's the fairest answer possible to religious discussions like this.

[MartinC]

I attend a convention every Jan and they put me up at the grand californian in disneyland. I've seen all those downtown disney acts several times. I think the only one who makes any money via cd sales is the violin dude. And it's really one tune that generates most of the interest and sales. He does pretty well. But, I really don't think any of those acts are really good.

The violin guy would be playing with an orchestra if he was better. I went to the symphony last week, and I'm pretty sure if he could cut that gig, he wouldn't be playing in downtown disney. I know I wouldn't. The rest had decent talent, but not great. The nylon string dude was a joke.

 

And I think if similar acts with more talent played without tracks, they'd do much better. The tracks, except in the case of the violin guy, don't help IMO.

 

Even the violin guy, take away that one tune(forgot the name) and he blows as an act.

 

Lee, I looked at the loopers you think are great, and I disagree. Here's why-they can do well in that format for one song, after that it's a bore. That girl is cute, and that presentation would work well in a concert-for that one song. After that she needs a band. She tries that for 45 minutes and people are walking out IMO, even though she can sing. Both she and the guy are good singers, but they need more support(especially the girl) to do a concert. The guy could possibly do very well in a concert by himself, but the girl standing in front of a box on a stand for 45 minutes-she better take off more clothes.

 

And for Potts, I get why you use the tracks and the harmonizer, and you do it well, but for all the guys who say they do it for the money, to keep the gig, etc. that may be true in some venues, some styles of music, and some locations. But there are guys who play solo with no tracks and make just as much or more, And there are duos, trios, and quartets that earn more per man than solo guys with tracks-the extra energy of more musicians can make the difference.

 

In corporate gigs, pay is often quoted per man. I do gigs solo, duo, trio, and quartet. If they want more than two players, the agents always ask for a price for three guys or for four. I don't take a financial hit to bring more players. If the trio gets offered 1600, they aren't going to give me 1600 to show up by myself with a looper or tracks. They will offer 500.00

 

I've made the most money per man with four guys.

 

I would bet that if Potts for example, added another solid singer playing guitar, or even better a hot looking chick singing well, playing guitar and harmonizing, he'd be getting more than twice the income per gig. And have more opportunities. Have a bass player and drummer ready to go, even more gig opportunities.

 

Every situation has it's own multiple solutions.

 

 

 

 

They were attempting to sell their CDs. And they weren't from what I could see. So... my points might seem very focused to this one idea of not using FULL BAND BACKING TRACKS. And it is. By that term FULL BAND BACKING TRACKS, I'm referring to a cut you take off your album and mix it minus the guitar and vocal you intent to perform live. So yeah, the drums banging away, etc. The reason I'm so adamant about that specific issue is because it seems like such a great idea. You've already got the tracks. You slaved over them. You love those tracks, why not use them. It's exactly what the OP was intending to do. And that is a big mistake. It does not work for any credible sort of music and performer.

 

[MartinC]

not this tune again, yes it's good. But what's the encore? Another tune with a looper? The looper is a gimmick, and it's good for a tune or two. After that, you need to have skills that don't rely on that particular gimmick. I don't know this girl's work, but I'd guess that she does.

If I was walking in DD and saw her playing this tune, I'd keep on stepping. She of course would have a huge crowd around her mostly because she's famous. Not because this is so amazing. At least not so amazing anymore IMO.

 

Solo performer + Guitar + Loop pedal = NO BAND Use of "backing tracks" recorded on the spot = BACKING TRACKS International recognition, big time, talented, signed, successful (whether you like her or not). Is she more or less talented than the folks in the videos Lee posted a while back on this thread? Hard to say... But as EightString says there's an unquantifiable "talent" element involved here: Some people have it and others don't. Would you walk by her doing this on the Disney main street? Would you tip her? Like many other arguments on this forum this is an argument about on thing: talent. People can be talented musicians. But also talented performers and producers. Technology advancements are allowing the lines between musician, performer, and producer to be blurred and crossed (Tunstall does this with this particular song). Not all musicians can be performers or producers, not all should be. You have to measure the total package "talent" combining musicianship, performance skills and production. The same arguments against backing tracks work for PA's or even instruments - after all isn't singing "more pure" than singing with a guitar?

[Vito Corleone]

 

Not because this is so amazing. At least not so amazing anymore IMO.

 

 

Well, that was from 2006. Wasn't she pretty much the first one to have a big hit doing this sort of thing? So it was pretty amazing back then. She probably could pull off a whole show with the gimmick at the time.

 

Now, she'd have to move on to some other stuff, of course. Apparantly her concerts involve her both using the looper and a 4 piece band.

 

It's no longer amazing, but I still don't see it necessarily detracting from the strength of her songs.

 

[video=youtube;UuI1vqkkfOc]

[MartinC]

Exactly my point-it was very cool when she came out with it. Now she has a four piece too? Of course.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Exactly my point-it was very cool when she came out with it. Now she has a four piece too? Of course.

 

 

I agree with your point. But the other side of that....she's also a headliner at this point, I would imagine. Could she fill a 30 minute opening slot for James Taylor using just the looper and not bore people? I think she could if the songs are strong enough.

 

Lee's point seems to be that the use of tracks on such songs actually risk making the material and/or the artist come off WORSE. I don't agree with that. If the songs are good and you use the tracks/loops creatively--there's no reason one couldn't entertain people for 30-45 minutes doing so. Gimmicky or not, I think both of those songs of hers are probably better with the tracks than if she did them without them. I think the style of songs they are benefit from having the rhythm beat and vocal bits added it.

 

Could she come up with even better arrangements if she had 1, 2 or 3 other talented musicians playing with her? Of course. My choice would always be to work with other live musicians. But if the choice is either tracks/looping or just one instrument/voice? I don't think it's necessarily that cut-and-dried a choice.

[sventvkg]

This thread is still going???????..............

 

It's about the songs and playing to the correct audience of people who are into what that artist does. Has nothing to do with the presentation..Tracks no tracks etc...If people get what the artist is trying to say they get it..If whether or not you have flash is the make or break aspect than it doesn't matter anyway. That stuff should just enhance the statement an artist is making with His or her MUSIC. the SONG is king and it's what's lacking in all popular music....PERIOD.. End this inane debate because it's played out.

[dparr]

 

This pretty says all the arguments against "backing tracks" are sh*t:

 

 

I would never call looping as using backing tracks.

 

Two very different things IMO.

[Potts]

Martin coming in laying the smack down! I love it

 

would bet that if Potts for example, added another solid singer playing guitar, or even better a hot looking chick singing well, playing guitar and harmonizing, he'd be getting more than twice the income per gig. And have more opportunities. Have a bass player and drummer ready to go, even more gig opportunities.

 

I see what you're saying but it's not just true to this area- and I'm not sure how many areas that this line of thinking is correct. I know I look young and adorable but this isn't new to me in Western NY. This is like year 26 or something. I ended up as "solo guy" because it's the most profitable. Duo and trios are making slightly more than me in Buffalo and I'm pretty inexpensive for the little show I put on. I've always done duos but the money just isn't there to help support the family.

 

As far as opening more opportunities, nobody around here can book me in a duo or trio 15-20 dates a month. I don't have to travel more than an hour either. As far as originals go, I've sold a good chunk of CD's locally and had some decent airplay with a tune for about 12 months and that was cool. This is where I landed and I'm content with it

[Lee Knight]

Solo performer + Guitar + Loop pedal = NO BAND Use of "backing tracks" recorded on the spot = BACKING TRACKS International recognition, big time, talented, signed, successful (whether you like her or not). Is she more or less talented than the folks in the videos Lee posted a while back on this thread? Hard to say... But as EightString says there's an unquantifiable "talent" element involved here: Some people have it and others don't. Would you walk by her doing this on the Disney main street? Would you tip her? Like many other arguments on this forum this is an argument about on thing: talent. People can be talented musicians. But also talented performers and producers. Technology advancements are allowing the lines between musician, performer, and producer to be blurred and crossed (Tunstall does this with this particular song). Not all musicians can be performers or producers, not all should be. You have to measure the total package "talent" combining musicianship, performance skills and production. The same arguments against backing tracks work for PA's or even instruments - after all isn't singing "more pure" than singing with a guitar?

 

As for me, I'm a HUGE KT Tundstall fan. And personally, I've been making a distiction between loopers and FULL BAND BACKING TRACKS. I thik what she does is awesome. No disagreement from me.

[Lee Knight]

I attend a convention every Jan and they put me up at the grand californian in disneyland. I've seen all those downtown disney acts several times. I think the only one who makes any money via cd sales is the violin dude. And it's really one tune that generates most of the interest and sales. He does pretty well. But, I really don't think any of those acts are really good. The violin guy would be playing with an orchestra if he was better. I went to the symphony last week, and I'm pretty sure if he could cut that gig, he wouldn't be playing in downtown disney. I know I wouldn't. The rest had decent talent, but not great. The nylon string dude was a joke. And I think if similar acts with more talent played without tracks, they'd do much better. The tracks, except in the case of the violin guy, don't help IMO. Even the violin guy, take away that one tune(forgot the name) and he blows as an act. Lee, I looked at the loopers you think are great, and I disagree. Here's why-they can do well in that format for one song, after that it's a bore. That girl is cute, and that presentation would work well in a concert-for that one song. After that she needs a band. She tries that for 45 minutes and people are walking out IMO, even though she can sing. Both she and the guy are good singers, but they need more support(especially the girl) to do a concert. The guy could possibly do very well in a concert by himself, but the girl standing in front of a box on a stand for 45 minutes-she better take off more clothes. And for Potts, I get why you use the tracks and the harmonizer, and you do it well, but for all the guys who say they do it for the money, to keep the gig, etc. that may be true in some venues, some styles of music, and some locations. But there are guys who play solo with no tracks and make just as much or more, And there are duos, trios, and quartets that earn more per man than solo guys with tracks-the extra energy of more musicians can make the difference. In corporate gigs, pay is often quoted per man. I do gigs solo, duo, trio, and quartet. If they want more than two players, the agents always ask for a price for three guys or for four. I don't take a financial hit to bring more players. If the trio gets offered 1600, they aren't going to give me 1600 to show up by myself with a looper or tracks. They will offer 500.00 I've made the most money per man with four guys. I would bet that if Potts for example, added another solid singer playing guitar, or even better a hot looking chick singing well, playing guitar and harmonizing, he'd be getting more than twice the income per gig. And have more opportunities. Have a bass player and drummer ready to go, even more gig opportunities. Every situation has it's own multiple solutions.

 

This is cool that you actually saw those guys. You make a great point about them not being great. And even though I said they were the guys that are "good at this stuff", I honestly wasn't saying that they were great musicians. Though they're certainly competent (but the nylon string player was pretty suspect). But my point was, I personally felt a big reason they were less then compelling was the static nature of the FULL BAND BACKING TRACKS. There was no potential for any sort of rave up and energy swell. If the audience is on one plane, it's a bit more tricky switching over to their vibe. Like a band can. Or a great DJ. Or a guitarist and percussionist.

 

So we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

Regarding the acts that I posted doing looping, I've maintained all along that looping is dusty. I was merely pointing out possible avenues of creativity, all the while acknowledging that trick's old news. Kimbra and Ed Sheeran get some awesome mileage out of it though. BTW, Kimbra is a big pop star with real musician skills in Aus/New Zealand and has full backing. This was SXSW. It was a one off. She's done a few radio gigs like this. I agree, and I'm sure she does as well, that it's not going to cut it for 45 minutes.

 

I've been more that upfront with my lack of answers. I don't have them. But what I've been trying to say plain and simple is, FULL BAND BACKING TRACKS are a static medium. Therefore, they'll either make you sound better because you're not all that great, as in the Downtown Disney scenario, or they'll be a chain around your ankle if you've got the goods.

 

But that's just me. As I said, I mean no disrespect and sorry I've been so adamant. It didn't occur to me we'd have guys doing a gig like that. And that's great that they are. Some guys don't want to play in Irish Pub Band and some do. To each his own. It is, as they say, all good.

[Lee Knight]

^^^ and I've been making this point only because a guy who has recorded an album, the OP, is about to invest lots of time and thought into a solution that seems less the appropriate. By him using his tracks from the albums as backing. Sorry, but "ick".

 

I would, by no means, be telling EightString or Potts the same thing. They are not what I'm referring to in the least.

[EightString]

So relative to the idea that backing tracks are "a chain around the ankle if you've got the goods":

 

Were Nelson Riddle's "static" arrangements a chain around Sinatra's ankle when he would interpret a song?

 

And what about those great performances on his television show, where you never even saw the orchestra, just the singer?

 

Those big-band arrangements could have been pre-recorded and no one aside from musicians concerned about a technicality would have cared, because people tuned in to hear the singers sing. IMO, of course.

 

Admittedly, television is a different medium than a live stage performance, but I don't think tracks have to be inherently limiting, especially when one can certainly have on-tap multiple arrangements of the same song.

 

The irony is, I believe that the songwriting and the vocal interpretation are the two most important aspects of popular music, which aligns me fairly well with the people who dislike tracks. I just happen to believe that tracks CAN be used in SUPPORT of the song and vocal interpretation to ENHANCE a performer's ability to deliver a compelling show.

 

My personal experience has borne this out. YMMV.

[EightString]

^^^ and I've been making this point only because a guy who has recorded an album, the OP, is about to invest lots of time and thought into a solution that seems less the appropriate. By him using his tracks from the albums as backing. Sorry, but "ick". I would, by no means, be telling EightString or Potts the same thing. They are not what I'm referring to in the least.

 

 

I appreciate it. Even though we agree to disagree, I've still got my hat in the ring for the moment. Hope you don't mind.

[toddkuen]

 

As for me, I'm a HUGE KT Tundstall fan. And personally, I've been making a distiction between loopers and FULL BAND BACKING TRACKS. I thik what she does is awesome. No disagreement from me.

 

 

If she recorded some or all of those loops back-stage before the show it would be full band backup?

 

I would bet virtually everyone here uses reverb, delay, or a guitar pedal - gimmicks (OTOH watch Pete Townsend play guitar - not too many gimmicks there).

 

A guitar used by someone talentless is no better or worse than a a looper and guitar used by someone talentless.

 

Technology is there to enhance what the artist brings good or bad.

 

If you have the talent to hold everyone's attention with a full band backing track you can probably do it without.

 

But the reverse is less likely to be true: Most musicians are not usually talented producers and engineers.

 

Making good backing tracks (looper or otherwise) is hard work - it requires a lot of arrangement skills.

 

Usually less is more - here is where I think Tunstall succeeds.

 

Is a full band really going to make that song of hers any better?

 

As sventvkg says: does the package reach the audience or not?

[Lee Knight]

 

So relative to the idea that backing tracks are "a chain around the ankle if you've got the goods": Were Nelson Riddle's "static" arrangements a chain around Sinatra's ankle when he would interpret a song? And what about those great performances on his television show, where you never even saw the orchestra, just the singer? Those big-band arrangements could have been pre-recorded and no one aside from musicians concerned about a technicality would have cared, because people tuned in to hear the singers sing. IMO, of course. Admittedly, television is a different medium than a live stage performance, but I don't think tracks have to be inherently limiting, especially when one can certainly have on-tap multiple arrangements of the same song. The irony is, I believe that the songwriting and the vocal interpretation are the two most important aspects of popular music, which aligns me fairly well with the people who dislike tracks. I just happen to believe that tracks CAN be used in SUPPORT of the song and vocal interpretation to ENHANCE a performer's ability to deliver a compelling show. My personal experience has borne this out. YMMV.

 

 

Wow!!!!!!!!! How could you ever interpret Riddle's arrangements when performed as "static". I'm not speaking to improv, I'm speaking to living and breathing interpretation. One take is different form another take. It lives and breaths. Backing tracks do not. That's not an opinion but a fact. Backing tracks don't move. They can't.

 

But your point about the TV performances is a very good one. You're right, if they were canned backing tracks, then Sinatra and Vicki Carr and Dino or whoever etc. did a great job making it work. Point taken. I will say, the TV medium lends itself better to that than a guy standing in a promenade alone, live. Or a singer/songwriter stage! But once again, that's just me.

 

BTW, I should say, I've got a couple friends who do exactly this. Smooth Jazz on archtop with some prerecorded tracks. Etc. One guy makes great supplemental dough at the local malls. He's a great musician, but his mall gig bores me. When he play at night with band, I'm not bored.

 

Clearly I can't speak for everyone. But that's been my experience.

[Lee Knight]

 

If she recorded some or all of those loops back-stage before the show it would be full band backup? I would bet virtually everyone here uses reverb, delay, or a guitar pedal - gimmicks (OTOH watch Pete Townsend play guitar - not too many gimmicks there). A guitar used by someone talentless is no better or worse than a a looper and guitar used by someone talentless. Technology is there to enhance what the artist brings good or bad. If you have the talent to hold everyone's attention with a full band backing track you can probably do it without. But the reverse is less likely to be true : Most musicians are not usually talented producers and engineers. Making good backing tracks (looper or otherwise) is hard work - it requires a lot of arrangement skills. Usually less is more - here is where I think Tunstall succeeds. Is a full band really going to make that song of hers any better? As sventvkg says: does the package reach the audience or not?

 

 

I think we're talking two different conversations. Sorry.

[Vito Corleone]

 

BTW, I should say, I've got a couple friends who do exactly this. Smooth Jazz on archtop with some prerecorded tracks. Etc. One guy makes great supplemental dough at the local malls. He's a great musician, but his mall gig bores me. When he play at night with band, I'm not bored. Clearly I can't speak for everyone. But that's been my experience.

 

 

You're also a musician. Could that be part of it? We're able to see behind-the-curtain in a way other people are not. So it's make more sense we'd be more easily bored and/or unforgiving.

 

The average person probably doesn't even know whether Tunstall uses tracks or a looper. Most people can't tell the difference between a lip-synced performance on TV and a live one. They just know whether they enjoy the performance or not.

[EightString]

 

Wow!!!!!!!!! How could you ever interpret Riddle's arrangements when performed as "static". I'm not speaking to improv, I'm speaking to living and breathing interpretation. One take is different form another take. It lives and breaths. Backing tracks do not. That's not an opinion but a fact. Backing tracks don't move. They can't. But your point about the TV performances is a very good one. You're right, if they were canned backing tracks, then Sinatra and Vicki Carr and Dino or whoever etc. did a great job making it work. Point taken. I will say, the TV medium lends itself better to that than a guy standing in a promenade alone, live. Or a singer/songwriter stage! But once again, that's just me. BTW, I should say, I've got a couple friends who do exactly this. Smooth Jazz on archtop with some prerecorded tracks. Etc. One guy makes great supplemental dough at the local malls. He's a great musician, but his mall gig bores me. When he play at night with band, I'm not bored. Clearly I can't speak for everyone. But that's been my experience.

 

 

When I say "static" I don't mean what you think I mean.

 

I have often heard contemporary big-bands perform a Riddle arrangement of, say, "Night and Day", and it seems to be done most often at the same tempo as the 50s recording, and even with the same horn solos and other flourishes. "Verbatim" is the word that comes to mind.

 

Oh sure, the music may "live and breath" in terms of the live musicians introducing some subtle nuances here and there, but with well-known arrangements like that, if you go too audibly "off the rails", people notice. So I hear most bands "stick to the charts" in those situations.

 

So with this sort of consistent performance of known arrangement, I as a vocalist am going to interpret the song based on the fact that I already know the arrangement, and know what's coming from moment to moment.

 

Unlike improvisational blowing through changes in an underground clup ala Miles Davis or Charlie Parker, to me, a Riddle (or similar) arrangement works for me as a structured scored repeatable piece of music, providing a solid foundation for vocal interpretation.

 

The paradox is, the more consistent the band performance, the more wiggle room I have as a singer to work in interesting variations, at least in that milieu. I would approach a song quite differently when interleaving my vocals with other more improvisational instrumental performances.

[Lee Knight]

You're also a musician. Could that be part of it? We're able to see behind-the-curtain in a way other people are not. So it's make more sense we'd be more easily bored and/or unforgiving. The average person probably doesn't even know whether Tunstall uses tracks or a looper. Most people can't tell the difference between a lip-synced performance on TV and a live one. They just know whether they enjoy the performance or not.

 

Let me dig myself another hole.

 

Of course I hear and see things differently. You know what? I'm going to pull a major backtrack and say, I'm NOT RIGHT. It is only my opinion based on my experience. Other musicians have other experience. Some more, some less. Non-musicians have other experiences. And all this stuff can and probably does go unnoticed. But we all know what unnoticed means.

 

Someone can still enjoy or not enjoy music performance based on things they aren't noticing. It's the old argument, "What does it matter if they don't know?" Except there are lots of things they think they don't know but do.

 

But this is all fine. If everyone feels that using prerecorded FULL BAND BACKING TRACKS works for them, by all means do so. I'm am seriously sorry for offending anyone that does this. I spoke openly about my dislike of the practice and shot myself in the foot. I can't lie now and say I didn't mean it.

 

 

My sincerest apologies to all those using this method or are planning to. I hope you all do it way better than the Downtown Disney crew.

[EightString]

Let me dig myself another hole. Of course I hear and see things differently. You know what? I'm going to pull a major backtrack and say, I'm NOT RIGHT. It is only my opinion based on my experience. Other musicians have other experience. Some more, some less. Non-musicians have other experiences. And all this stuff can and probably does go unnoticed. But we all know what unnoticed means. Someone can still enjoy or not enjoy music performance based on things they aren't noticing. It's the old argument, "What does it matter if they don't know?" Except there are lots of things they think they don't know but do. But this is all fine. If everyone feels that using prerecorded FULL BAND BACKING TRACKS works for them, by all means do so. I'm am seriously sorry for offending anyone that does this. I spoke openly about my dislike of the practice and shot myself in the foot. I can't lie now and say I didn't mean it. My sincerest apologies to all those using this method or are planning to. I hope you all do it way better than the Downtown Disney crew.

 

I wasn't offended at all.

 

I think it's a healthy sort of discussion, as long as personal attacks are avoided, which I think we have done a great job of avoiding so far.

 

Quite frankly, putting it "on paper" in terms of a friendly debate has helped me quantify in my own mind WHY certain things work for me, and your posts have help me see where you're coming from.

 

So I hope you didn't think I was offended by anything you said because I wasn't.

 

We can probably all agree that whatever methods one uses to put on a performance, everyone should strive to make WHATEVER they do as compelling as possible. The one thing I can't stand is someone "phoning it in". THAT'S when I get up and walk out.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Someone can still enjoy or not enjoy music performance based on things they aren't noticing. It's the old argument, "What does it matter if they don't know?" Except there are lots of things they think they don't know but do.

 

 

It's not a matter of them knowing or not. It's a matter of them not knowing enough about the details of the process to care.

 

Say I'm watching a performer playing to tracks with my wife. I'm not really enjoying it because I think the tracks sound stale and, in my view, detract from the performance. But my wife still really enjoys it. So I take the time to explain to her the process. "You see, hun...he's playing to recorded tracks. They sound stiffer than what real musicians would play, they sound exactly the same every time, and there's no human interaction. AND he's using a cheap, outdated system that doesn't possess near the sonic reproduction that it should."

 

So now she "knows". Do you think it will really change her perception of the performance? It might, only the degree that I have now put a wet blanket over something she was hoping we were both enjoying, but I really don't think her having the information will degrade her perception. Why? Because, since she's not a musician, she can't "know" on the same level as those of us who fully understand the process.

 

And since the performance isn't really intended for us, what we think as trained professionals really isn't particularly meaningful.