Understood, and I'm not losing sleep over this.

But what I'm hearing from you guys is that many stadium performances are too risky to allow for live performances, so synching to pre-recorded tracks is the norm -- "they all do it."

That's quite a surprise to me, and I feel it is belied by the dozens and dozens of stadium shows I've seen live and on DVD where I'm fairly certain the band is playing in real-time.

I'm having a hard time believing that even a small fraction of of stadium rock show drummers are playing to pre-recorded drums.  Heck, I have a huge shelf of live DVDs -- Queen, Rush, The Who, The Stones, etc., etc.  Those drummers are playing live.

But you keep saying they are not performing live when in fact they are. This isn't Milli Vanilli ... this is real bands, real musicians, playing live, but the music you are hearing is not what is coming from stage, rather pre-recorded. Sometimes there's just a few backtracks while they entire mix is pre-recorded.

I'm not saying, nor is anyone else saying, that all or even a large percentage of the "stadium" shows are pre-recorded. It all depends on the situation, the venue, the music, etc.  If you have only a few minutes to set-up before you have to play on live television in front of millions of people, choosing to use pre-recorded tracks is a valid choice. If you have days to set-up for a stadium concert, it's unlikely that pre-recorded tracks are used as much.

Sometimes bands use backing-tracks because they can't afford to bring the orchestra that is on the album to the live event. Sometimes they need something to help them sync up to video or other multimedia.

It's weird to see a band like The Who use pre-recorded drum tracks though.

As you you should IMO. No, Bart I can't at all agree that this performing _live_, because... well, we all no what performing live is.  Creating music out of the air where there otherwise wouldn't be music, taking the risk (as we do every time we put ourselves in front of people) that something could go wrong. That's performing live - miming to tracks that you've recorded yourself is, and always has been called "lip-syncing" (That is until Milli Vanilli did their even more deceptive thing, and somehow confused the lip-syncing's meaning ever since).

* * * * * * *

Wow! What was I smoking here??? Sorry about that, I should always, always, always proof read before hitting POST.  Let's try that paragraph again...

As you should IMO. (Speaking to the person who posted immediately before this). (And then to Bart) No Bart,  I can't at all agree that this performing _live_, because... well, we all no what performing live is.  It is creating music out of the air where there otherwise wouldn't be music. It is taking the risk (as we do every time we put ourselves in front of people) that something could go wrong. That's performing live.  Miming to tracks, even ones that you've recorded yourself, is and always has been called "lip-syncing". (That is until Milli Vanilli did their even more deceptive thing, which has somehow created great confusion as to the term's meaning ever since).

*** There that makes a little more sense (though I will go through and clean the rest of it up as well.) ******

I just know that 90% of TV production folks will 99% of the time push for lip syncing of all instrumental and background tracks - its cheaper (because there is less audio futzing on camera $$$ day), and it's less risky (performance errors, train wrecks, etc. are greatly minimized). Now, singers are more of a judgement call for them, because a lead singer lip-syncing badly, really looks bad.  But as far as playing instruments go -  with the exception of those few shows that pride themselves on real, live performances - SNL, Letterman, etc and coverage of live musical events like Live Aid, etc. - if you're seeing and hearing a player actually playing an instrument on mainline TV, it's because the artist has had to really, really insist. Like I said, its cheaper, easier to just pre-record and mime - it's more easily cued, timed, pre-rehearsed, mixed - it allows you to practice and program lights and effects like the Superbowl easily - which, of course....

Is why there is never a buzz from these events... because it looks safe.... because it is as safe as they can make it. I mean Pete Townsend could've fallen over dead of a heart attack in the middle of that medley and the pre-record would have just plowed on through to the end - including his guitar and vocals, if the sound man neglected to look up noticed his death before he threw up the faders that controlled the pre-recorded safety tracks.

But I get your point - it is not at all that these players couldn't have done this live - even at the Superbowl. As for the set-up difficulties: I get the throw it together challenges of this. But guys, did you see the in-stage light rig? It was much more  complicated than the audio set-up would've been.... and it came to together live just fine! What I'm getting at is that this was a custom designed, purpose built stage - completely pre-wired for sound, lights, everything - all designed to snap together and just work. This would be completely doable from an audio perspective just as it was doable from a lighting, pyro and camera perspective.

There not being time to put this together- is one the excuses for not playing live, not one of the reasons IMO.

OK to be clear - I'm not at all ranting about the fact that they did it that way. Everybody's right, in that it happens all the time. I get all the reasons - including the fact that if you do it well (and they really did it well - particularly Zak - after lead singers, drummers the are most easily caught at this and he did really well). Heck, I've done this myself (though not at the Superbowl :-) ) And Billy's right about those cymbals being heavy. Earlier I was just considering the paint, I forgot about "Video Cymbals"! And how could I forget?  A few years ago, when I did a "live" Brian Boitano "Bacharach on Ice" show for NBC, we prerecorded all the instrumental parts. The excuse?  So the "skaters could practice to everything at the right tempo". Which, of course, made it easier - but, also of course, wasn't necessary. We could have pre-recorded for rehearsal purposes and then still played it live - and they would've had the same tempos, if that was what they needed. :-)  But ding the band live certainly would have made a challenging day even more challenging from a production standpoint , then add in the "90% of people won't know anyway" philosophy, and there you have it. Anyway, not my call - so, oh well. Anyway, on the filming, we brought in a set of video cymbals and drums filled with foam - plus I covered the tips of my sticks with that rubber tool handle grip goo. Worked great. But if you're not careful, you can hurt yourself on those video cymbals (the ones we got weren't pop riveted, but rather the two cymbals were stuck together with a thin layer of black silicone sealant.  Which made them even deader.) If it looks like Zak isn't really laying into those crashes as much as it sounds he is... Well those cymbals are like hitting an anvil - so it's very understandable.

Anyway - longer rant than I intended - :-)  In a nutshell, not surprised, not offended, but not at all impressed either, etc. - but it wasn't live. The Beatles on Ed Sullivan was live. The band on Dancing with the Stars (at least for the East Coast) is live (except for the guest artists - which are almost also pre-recorded in the hour before). Most musical guests on SNL are live. Live Aid was live.

This year's Superbowl was American Bandstand with two live singers and occasional guitar.

David

***********

Wow - lots of edits!  Who wrote this? My word.... Note to Dave: proof before you post, proof before you post, proof before you post...

-dc


************

 

Me, I miss seeing a good marching band during halftime. But I'm an old fart.

David, I've re-read the first paragraph of your previous post at least four times and I still can't make it out. Don't post late at night after the NyQuil. 

I think I understand what you are saying regarding this Who performance not being "live" music, but it is still performing. I agree with you. What I was trying to get across to Smitty was that they were still PLAYING their instruments. If we were on stage, we would have heard some acoustic sounds coming from the drumkit.

I, unfortunately, have had my fair share of having to play drums to pre-recorded drum tracks. Sometimes it's my own playing, sometimes it's not. I hate it nonetheless.

So if I'm up on that stage, playing the tune and you can hear what I'm playing on stage, but the sound engineer is feeding the pre-recorded tracks that I'm forced to play with to the audience, I'm now not playing live? Perhaps I'm splitting hairs here, but I think to make a blanket statement that it's not "live", as a whole, is inaccurate. To call it "cheating" or a "lie" or whatever, is pretty hard to swallow as a performer who has no choice in the matter. I can play everything perfectly with a great sound but am no longer playing live and am now considered a cheater or liar if the producer, production company or whomever, is replacing my sounds with pre-recorded tracks.

There's not enough terms, that I know of, to fully clarify what is going on here. There are live elements happening, but if the producer is choosing to do something other than allowing that "live" sound to be heard by the audience, he may be cheating the audience, but I would never say that the musicians themselves were cheating, lying or faking it. If the musicians played a role in not producing the live sound, having a role in production, then I guess they too are "cheating" the audience. It's just hard for me to accept a broad judgment call placed on a musician or group of musicians whom are playing the music, but you can't hear actually what they are playing. I wish there was another way to word it, but I guess there isn't.

If I carry the definition of "live" performance, as we seem to be doing, then anytime a drummer's sound is replaced on a recording (eg. samples), or even one note of his playing is shifted a millisecond ... that is cheating and is no longer a live performance. That's hard to take if I'm the drummer and played no role in the decision. So where does it begin or end? Pitch correction because one note was out of tune and it's quickly to just repair than re-record it ... versus pitch correction because the singer is all looks and can't sing in tune to save themselves. A drummer performing on an album whose performance has been altered slightly (whatever the reason), versus a drummer who can't play in time or get a decent sound out of the drums ... whose recorded performance has gone through microsurgery via Pro Tools. Where is the pivot point? I don't know, but I don't like any of it. This is why I think LIVE music will have a resurgence because of the demands from the general public.

I'm just blathering.

I love live music. I love albums that were recorded live. I like the raw sound captured on tape. Musicians/artists/groups/bands that sound great in those instances ... those are the music masters.

Not seeing/hearing the actual LIVE performance is common place in every area of the music industry, not just the Super Bowl. SNL still has plenty of performances where tracks are present; the musicians could stop playing yet the song would continue. Ashely Simpson got caught, but there have been plenty more since then who have had some degree of non-live in their performance.

All of this is the way our society has gone. You see it on the billboards with the supermodels who are dog ugly without the make-up and hours of prep time, to the artists/bands who sell millions of albums, yet could not even come close to reproducing any of it live ... really live. Very few people can live up to the standards that have been established. Very few women are as naturally beautiful as what the media has put out there. Very few musicians are as good as the media has led the public to believe. The sad thing about all of this is that it diminishes the value of those who truly have the gift, skill, paid the dues, etc. Everyone body gets an A. Everybody gets a prize ... even though they haven't really done the work ... or even worse, couldn't do it in a million years.

Whew! I'd better stop! 

Oh ... another +1 on the marching bands during half-time.

+2
And I'm not even a fan of marching bands in particular, it just seems more appropriate than the classic rock medley.

I needn't be that clear cut.  In general, I think people can discern what is a reasonable use of prerecorded tracks or samples and what takes it to a level where it’s no longer an authentic live performance.  To me, reasonable use includes pad-triggered sounds, sequenced keyboard parts, and other preset orchestrations and sound events that accompany actual live playing.  These are regular features of contemporary live music.  

I think a rock performance where everything but the vocals is pre-tracked crosses the line into deception. I realize that’s a strong word, and I don’t think the Who should be brought up on charges or anything, but I think it can be reasonably argued that the Super Bowl audience was deceived into believing the band was actually making the sounds coming from the amplifiers right there on the spot.  I think the average fan would feel a little ripped off if he or she knew the truth.  

I also take issue with the “they’ll never know it’s not live” mentality. That attitude acknowledges that there’s a deception in place. Again, I think there’s a reason the truth behind pre-tracked performances is kept secret. The people responsible for that performance know that the truth would not go over well.

I think David said it best when he said authentic performance is creating music out of the air where there otherwise wouldn't be music. I have no problem with enhancing that live performance with human-triggered synthetic sounds or even some limited pre-tracked parts – especially if no one is miming those parts.  Come to think of it, that’s the heart of the issue to me:  the miming.  Miming has a deceptive quality that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Incidentally, I really do understand the unique situation that is the Super Bowl and the overall motive of making sure everything goes right.  I don’t think what The Who did was the crime of the century.  It’s just kinda weird.  I think David’s right that the Milli Vanilli thing really over-sensitized people to this stuff.  That’s probably at play in the my negative impression of the truth behind The Who’s performance.

Oh yeah, I know there's lotsa post production magic on those!  I always crack up when they spike the crowd noise during particular parts!

I am certainly in no way even near the professional level of some of the members who have posted in this thread, which I have found very interesting.  It’s hard for me to “argue” with posts from the likes of Bart, David Crigger, Chris Whitten, Billy Ward, and Mr “A” (not to mention anyone else who posted in this thread) who have had experience in the “real” world of music today unlike myself who has basically been a club player for my whole playing life.

Plus, I have to add that I didn’t even see The Who’s performance because we lost power in our house on Friday night and didn’t get it back until Monday night due to a severe winter storm.  I only got to hear the Super Bowl on a portable radio that my wife fortunately found in one of our closets.

I have to agree thoroughly, though, with Smitty’s thoughts on this subject.  I understand, based on some of the responses, what it would take to be able to put together a “half-time” show instantly and understand the need for tracking various instruments; however, in the voice of some kind of purist, I still think of it as “cheating”.  The one time I was ever on live TV was on a cable access show called “Larz from Mars” which ran in the Northern Virginia area back in the 90’s.  A great show it was not, but we were given the choice of either playing live or playing to one of our recorded songs.  I remember insisting that we play live, otherwise “what was the point”.  This is such a rash comparison, cable access vs. the Super Bowl and I understand that, but I still think the principle applies.  Whenever I find that something musical I have witnessed was somehow not “live, live”, I feel cheated.

I’ve always preferred “live” albums to studio albums for that very reason.  And just an example of how well done a live album can be is Joe Jackson’s “Big World” which was recorded live but was made to sound like a studio album.  A fantastic piece of work, to me, simply because it WAS live and it was seriously good. 

Oh, and I also DO think that it’s a big deal.  Just my 2 cents.  Thank you for your time 

Having been on both sides of this thread, makes me realize how old I am....