Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 120

Thread: Lip syncing: a necessity?

  1. #51
    Member Vic2012's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    La Florida
    Posts
    7,554
    Heaven forbid that a live Rush track depart significantly from the album version or that something spontaneous happen at one of their gigs. I think they could make it easier on themselves, have more fun playing and deliver something more special to the audience in one fell swoop.
    Yep, totally agree. Stick to the song and basic arrangement, okay, but if there's a little room to jam and stretch out, do it. Otherwise I could just listen to the CD.

    Lip-synching is done to overcome a lack of ability, whereas backing tracks is typically to overcome a lack of extra band members.
    I disagree. I'm not defending lip synching but it has some legitimate uses. It's nothing new in pop music. It's been around for decades. I think people usually pick on the "pop" stars because we all hate dance/pop. There are examples where lip-synching during a performance makes sense, for dance/pop shows, TV shows, etc. But saying backing tracks are used to overcome a lack of band members is as bogus as lip-synching. If you need a keyboard player to cover those parts, get a keyboard player. Hire a backup singer if you have to. Again, I'm not condemning the use of either, I'm just saying I don't see a difference. I won't accept one over the other.

  2. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by GuitarGeek View Post
    What I'd like to know is where the "singing live to playback" thing started. That is, having a backing track with typically only the lead vocal being live. I wonder who the first to do that was, and why.
    That started in the UK with the unions, from what I understand. Something like part of the performance had to be live to avoid paying them differently, I believe.

  3. #53
    Member Vic2012's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    La Florida
    Posts
    7,554
    Originally Posted by GuitarGeek
    What I'd like to know is where the "singing live to playback" thing started. That is, having a backing track with typically only the lead vocal being live. I wonder who the first to do that was, and why.
    It started with Jethro Tull at the Rolling Stones R&R Circus. I don't know for sure. The Beatles performance on live TV of All You Need Is Love was a mix of live and a basic backing track that was pre-recorded. George Martin explains on the Anthology.

  4. #54
    Oh No! Bass Solo! klothos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    308
    Quote Originally Posted by battema View Post

    Whether it is backing tracks or lip synching, in both cases it means the musicians are tethering themselves to a click track and removing their ability to allow the music to breathe. They cannot stretch out, they cannot push or pull the tempo as the energy of the performance plays out. They are following a script.
    No bigger rebuttal than this than Modern Country Music - which, by its nature, is supposed to breathe - is all done these days with drummer's using click tracks (even live)

    Sometimes, The intent of the song(s) may be cold, sterile, and machine-like (Hence, genres like modern Industrial). No better way to grab that feel than clocking to a machine or (better yet) have the machine do it.

    In Rush's case, machine-like precision is part of their sound.

  5. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Vic2012 View Post
    It started with Jethro Tull at the Rolling Stones R&R Circus. I don't know for sure. The Beatles performance on live TV of All You Need Is Love was a mix of live and a basic backing track that was pre-recorded. George Martin explains on the Anthology.
    Actually, it started before that. I know Michael Lindsey Hogg filmed the Beatles performing Hey Jude and Revolution with live vocal overdubs a few months earlier. Surely, there has to be something prior to that.

    The broadcast of the All You Need is Love was, in fact, a live performance as they were overdubbing full band and orchestra onto the rhythm track.

  6. #56
    Member Magic Mountain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Stockton, NJ
    Posts
    228
    What does everyone think about electronic bands like, for instance Radio Massacre International? I remember at their NEARfest performance, there were times that music was playing but the musicians were standing around.

  7. #57
    Member rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,765
    Quote Originally Posted by Vic2012 View Post
    Stick to the song and basic arrangement, okay, but if there's a little room to jam and stretch out, do it. Otherwise I could just listen to the CD.
    Then again some bands are better at "jamming" than others. I'm not familiar with Rush (as I made perfectly clear recently) but perhaps they prefer to play exactly the same parts at exactly the same tempo in exactly the same order, night after night after night. Maybe it's all they can do.

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    Then again some bands are better at "jamming" than others. I'm not familiar with Rush (as I made perfectly clear recently) but perhaps they prefer to play exactly the same parts at exactly the same tempo in exactly the same order, night after night after night. Maybe it's all they can do.
    Rush can jam if they want to.

  9. #59
    Oh No! Bass Solo! klothos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    308
    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Mountain View Post
    What does everyone think about electronic bands like, for instance Radio Massacre International?
    See middle paragraph of my post (#55) above

  10. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GuitarGeek View Post
    Actually, Milli Vanilli could sing
    They could?

  11. #61
    Member Vic2012's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    La Florida
    Posts
    7,554
    The broadcast of the All You Need is Love was, in fact, a live performance as they were overdubbing full band and orchestra onto the rhythm track.
    That is true, but still they used a pre-recorded track (a "click track" for all intents). I have no problem with that. But what if there was (maybe there was) a pre-recorded vocal track too? Again, it doesn't bother me because, well it was the ... gulp ....Mother effin BEATLES. One could argue that they cheated. Whether they cheated or not isn't really the point. They were broadcasting this thing on live TV all over the world via satellite. Why take a chance on the thing being a trainwreck. They had the right idea and they nailed it. I believe that the basic, pre-recorded track was more than just a rhythm tracl. It sounds like there were some vocals on that basic track.

    but perhaps they prefer to play exactly the same parts at exactly the same tempo in exactly the same order, night after night after night.
    I guess they think that that is what the audience wants, especially nowadays.

  12. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by JIF View Post
    Rush can jam if they want to.
    They can leave their friends behind.

  13. #63
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by trurl View Post
    They can leave their friends behind.
    If they don't dance, then they're no friends of mine.

  14. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Vic2012 View Post
    That is true, but still they used a pre-recorded track (a "click track" for all intents). I have no problem with that. But what if there was (maybe there was) a pre-recorded vocal track too? Again, it doesn't bother me because, well it was the ... gulp ....Mother effin BEATLES. One could argue that they cheated. Whether they cheated or not isn't really the point. They were broadcasting this thing on live TV all over the world via satellite. Why take a chance on the thing being a trainwreck. They had the right idea and they nailed it. I believe that the basic, pre-recorded track was more than just a rhythm tracl. It sounds like there were some vocals on that basic track.



    I guess they think that that is what the audience wants, especially nowadays.
    The basic track also had backing vocals. Remember, this was actually a live broadcast of a recording session, not really a stage performance, so the comparison is not quite the same. So, like any other session, you lay down backing tracks and then overdub. Anyone who argues that they cheated is wrong, IMO. I do believe John rerecorded the lead vocal for the final release.

  15. #65
    Member rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,765
    Quote Originally Posted by JIF View Post
    Rush can jam if they want to.
    I meant to do that.

  16. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    Then again some bands are better at "jamming" than others. I'm not familiar with Rush (as I made perfectly clear recently) but perhaps they prefer to play exactly the same parts at exactly the same tempo in exactly the same order, night after night after night. Maybe it's all they can do.
    Alex was asked about the lack of spontaneity in Rush's performances once. He said that when he was a teenager, he was disappointed when he went to see Cream and Jimi Hendrix. His response was, "You mean you can't play it like the record?". Then he added, "Nobody's expecting us to launch into an extended jam in the middle of Manhattan Project".

    While I certainly wouldn't expect an extended jam in the middle of a song like that, I just can't imagine being so married to what you played on the record, that you would play exactly that every single night, tour after tour, for years on end. I mean, I'm not asking for Grateful Dead/King Crimson style improvisation, but you'd think he'd want to change up, say, the solo at the end of Xanadu, for instance.

    There was a video for Closer To The Heart that was done back in the 90's, I guess when Different Stages came out. They cut together video footage from the original video done back in 77, with new live footage, as well as material from all the band's concert videos from the 80's (ie Exit...Stage Left, the Grace Under Pressure video, and A Show Of Hands), but using the audio from just one version. And every single shot, regardless of what show it was from, even in the instrumental sections, synched up almost perfectly to the audio. I guess I some people like that, but it seems to me it'd get boring after awhile.

    Of course, in the case of Rush, if Alex varied one of his guitar solos spontaneously, it might turn the arrangement into a train wreck. I distinctly remember an interview he did one time where he said that sometimes when they were working on the demos before recording a new album, he wouldn't be too sure what he'd want to do for a given guitar solo. So he'd just toss something onto the tape, with the intention of "coming up with something later". But the thing was, Neil would adjust his fills to fit that particular guitar solo. So Alex would be stuck with it.With that in mind, I imagine any change made to at least some of those arrangements would have been to be worked out in rehearsal.

    On the other hand there's little bits like on Exit...Stage Left, where Geddy plays slightly different things in La Villa Strangiato (I'm talking about the synth bit at the beginning, just after the pseudo-Spanish guitar thing) and I think also in Jacob's Ladder. They could do little things like that, where you sort of play a variation, not necessarily launching into an extended jam, just doing something slightly different.

    As far as whether it's "what the audience wants", I think they've built a reputation on the ability to recreate the music night after night, and I think the audience has come to expect it.
    It's the inverse of the Grateful Dead deal. The Dead built a reputation on playing a different show night after night, even doing a completely different setlist every night, and after awhile, audiences knew to expect that they might not play your favorite song. And even if they do, Jerry certainly wasn't going to play the guitar solo you remember from the studio version, nor were Bill and/or Mickey going to play that really cool fill during the chorus that you.

    With Rush, they still might not play your favorite song (especially if it was something on the first three albums), but at least if they did play your favorite song, you could be rest assured you'd get to hear exact guitar solo that Alex played on the record, and Neil's gonna play exactly the same fill in the third verse that made you want to become a drummer or whatever.

    I can see an argument for either approach. I like improvisation, I like the idea of hearing a band spontaneously create something they'd never played before (and most likely never would again). But on the other hand, I remember when I saw Yes back in 2004, I think it was, and they did Wondrous Stories, and on the studio version, there's one particular keyboard line in that song, at the end of Rick's solo, as they're coming back to the chorus, and Rick plays this descending sort of chromatic line that I've always loved. Well, on the night, he didn't play it, and I was bit disappointed. But hey that's how it goes sometimes. (shrug)

    One of the nice things about classical music is you know the Cleveland Orchestra or whomever you're seeing perform isn't gonna futz around with the finale of the Firebird Suite or Mahler's Symphony No. 1 or whatever. All, you have to do is sit back, clear your mind, and just wait for that big spine tingling fanfare to kick in.

  17. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by JIF View Post
    Rush can jam if they want to.
    "But they probably won't" )

  18. #68
    Member rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,765
    I saw Kraftwerk around 1977, 1978 when they were into this 'pretending to be robots' business. The concert started before they came on stage, and when they did appear they mostly just stood there. Everything was preprogrammed, everything was prerecorded, everything was exactly the same every night on that tour.

    I guess they were making a point about modern music being devoid of human input, of the prepackaged tedium of commercial music, of the cookie cutter nature of modern pop music.

    Then again, maybe it was a Rush tribute

  19. #69
    Member Vic2012's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    La Florida
    Posts
    7,554
    Remember, this was actually a live broadcast of a recording session, not really a stage performance, so the comparison is not quite the same.
    But it was still a public performance. But whatever, I really have no problem with it. I said earlier that lip-synching, or using pre-recorded tracks in certain situations isn't a bad thing. Remember when Beyonce got ripped mercilessly for miming the Natl. Anthem? I understand why it bothered people, but when you think about it, it made sense. The whole thing was just a show anyway. I'm pretty sure The Who used some canned tracks and vocals during their half-time performance at the SB a few years ago. It was a quick little set on a HUGE stage for billions of people all over the world. It was a spectacle. They were in and outta there in 15-20 minutes. They didn't lose their integrity (imo).

  20. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Vic2012 View Post
    I'm pretty sure The Who used some canned tracks and vocals during their half-time performance at the SB a few years ago.
    The Who have been using canned tracks for decades. They've always used backing tapes when doing Won't Get Fooled Again, Baba O'Riley, Who Are You, and Eminence Front. They also used a lot of backing tapes when performing Quadrophenia originally back in 1973.

    As far as "losing their integrity", it's hard to lose what you gave up years ago.

  21. #71
    Member Yanks2014's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    0
    I'm sorry, but this talk about Rush makes it seem they are not a good live band to see. That couldn't be further from the truth. I've seen plenty of jamming bands or groups who make major changes to songs in a live setting. I certainly like that sort of thing. But even with Rush keeping things close to what was recorded, they manage to bring such a high energy level to their performance, I find their playing to be inspired even if it's not all that different to the studio work. Now anyone who saw Rush in the past couple years would have to notice how "on fire" Alex Lifeson has been, he's raised his performance up quite a few notches over the years. Still playing the songs and solos not far off what we are familiar with, yet it's clearly better. Maybe I can't quite put it into words, but I'm not just being a fanboy either. A strong performance is a strong performance. When I saw them two years ago, they played a song I was never crazy about, Presto. Live? Totally kicked butt, I thoroughly enjoyed the rendition they did. I still don't have a live recording of that, but If I get it, that will be the version I choose, no doubt.

  22. #72
    Jazzbo manqué Mister Triscuits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Utopia
    Posts
    5,390
    Quote Originally Posted by GuitarGeek View Post
    The Who have been using canned tracks for decades. They've always used backing tapes when doing Won't Get Fooled Again, Baba O'Riley, Who Are You, and Eminence Front.
    The first time I saw the Who live was in 1971, when they were doing the Who's Next material for the first time. In those days before laser shows, they simply turned the lights out during the solo keyboard bit in "Won't Get Fooled Again" where the live musicians had nothing to do. About a year later I heard a local band play "Won't Get Fooled Again" at a high school dance. Their organ player simply played the part live. I think it's kind of funny that four high school kids could do it all live but the Who couldn't.

  23. #73
    Okay, so maybe Rush doesn't want to jam ... or can't. They could still mix up the set list during the tour. Maybe there's a half dozen or so floating numbers. That would be cool, with a chance to see something like "Natural Science" one show and maybe "The Camera Eye" another.

    But, that's getting a bit off-topic.

  24. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Triscuits View Post
    The first time I saw the Who live was in 1971, when they were doing the Who's Next material for the first time. In those days before laser shows, they simply turned the lights out during the solo keyboard bit in "Won't Get Fooled Again" where the live musicians had nothing to do. About a year later I heard a local band play "Won't Get Fooled Again" at a high school dance. Their organ player simply played the part live. I think it's kind of funny that four high school kids could do it all live but the Who couldn't.
    Well, I think the reason The Who did it was because they didn't want to hire an auxillary keyboardist, just to play on a couple songs. The strange thing is, even after they started using an onstage keyboardist in 79, Won't Get Fooled Again still used the taped organ part.

    The other songs I can understand them continuing to use the tapes. Baba O'Riley was probably a bitch to play correctly for a live keyboardist, and I'm not sure what degree sequencer technology developed to in 1979. The other songs, like Who Are You and Eminence Front had the keyboardist being busy with playing other parts live, so they still needed the tapes to fill in the remaining bits.

    But you'd thought that any competent keyboardist could have recreated what Townshend did on Won't Get Fooled Again.
    Last edited by GuitarGeek; 08-29-2013 at 09:44 PM.

  25. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by GuitarGeek View Post

    But you'd thought that any competent keyboardist could have recreated what Townshend did on Won't Get Fooled Again.
    To replicate that sound accurately is actually very very tricky. It has a couple different types of filter envelope happening at the same time and they would have had to carry around an old ARP 2500 or modular filter bank to really get it. The keyboard part itself is pretty basic but for something as iconic as that it really is easier to just run the tape. Even today if I was asked to replicate that live I'd have to really think long and hard about how I would go about it.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •