Earlier we examined the economic influence on the music industry with Motown. Here is an updated view of what influences the music industry today. What do you think?
If the embed below does not work, here is the link.
in my opinion, backing track is nothing bad. the trend is to use backing track because more teenager is looking for the feeling of electronic and heavy bass. the demand is there, teenagers like it. backing track is not deceptive. the music industry is just changing to fit in the puzzle. as a result, backing track gets popular. this is what people want, it sounds better. lt is just music ecology.
In this podcast, More on Music and Its All Economic, I feel as though Alex Kapelman made a really good point in saying that most of the live concerts that we attend nowadays are not completely live; most of the artists rely on backing tracks to beautify their songs. I agree with him and I feel that we, as fans, set such a high standard on the artists from hearing their songs through videos and media that we expect them to replicate that performance on the stage live. However I think that the artists, to begin with, create most of their songs with such a high level of technological help that all the work cannot be performed live. I feel that we have every right to expect a wonderful performance from artists at live shows that portray originality but due to the economy that they are facing (them not having enough personnel and funds to create the music live and direct), they have to settle for backing tracks instead. - Maresa M. Period 8
Although using backing tracks does foster some ethical issues, I don't know if I can completely disagree with their use. By decreasing the costs necessary to run a band, backing tracks make it easier to start a band. This effectively increases the supply of music, leaving consumers with both cheaper music and a wider variety of music to choose from. However, I also think that live performers should inform their audiences of the backing tracks in advance so that listeners do not feel lied to or scammed.
I never heard of the term backing tracks before this podcast, but I wasn't all too surprised since backing tracks have been appearing in a lot of today's music. I don't think there's anything wrong with backing tracks, as long as the band admits to using them and as long as they're not going so far as to lip sync at concerts. I understand how some music-purists might be against backing tracks, but their complaints sound a bit snobby. If people like the addition of backing tracks to their favorite songs and think it sounds better, I don't see a problem with that. They're made so people can enjoy certain songs more just like how there'll always be those pure bands for music purists to enjoy. Just because backing tracks is increasing in popularity doesn't mean that regular live music will be gone forever. People pay to hear their favorite bands perform at concerts and when they go there, they expect to hear the live version of what they hear on iTunes or Spotify. Stripping the songs of back tracking when they were distributed with it would be wrong and make people feel cheated. I think that people should embrace the better backing tracks that more advanced technology can provide and stay calm with a balance of both backing tracks and pure music. After all, there are probably millions of people who like songs that have backing tracks AND songs that don't. Backing tracks just gives people a wider range of options to choose from and whatever music a person likes, it's their own choice and opinion; they're always going to appreciate it. - VL Period 8
I all honesty, I don't really see a problem with bands using backing tracks in their live shows. I guess that's because whenever I go to a concert, I never expect everything to be live and I always expected some prerecorded track to be there. With modern music having dozens of layers of different sounds- most of them electronic- it's extremely difficult to afford hiring people to play all those parts. Also, most of these electronic sounds are from the computer, and therefore, it would only make sense for the electronic parts to be prerecorded. Also, if bands were not to do this, and were to play all their songs unplugged, it would sound thin, and the last thing the audience wants is to hear a plain, 2-dimensional version of the song that they love. Therefore, in order to give the audience the sound that they want, and to do it so that the expenses on the band's behalf is reasonable and the price of concert tickets for the audience don't skyrocket, back-tracking is needed. It's a wise economic decision in my opinion. - Maisha Savani Pd.8
I definitely agree with Kapelman to a certain degree. Technology is definitely changing our favorite bands let alone our lives. Live music is not live music anymore. Its use of backing tracks, prerecorded audios, is deceptive because it makes the live track richer and fuller. They are relying on them to sound better at live shows. Consequently, this increased use of technology in the music industry is making it easier for anyone to start a band because it's cheap and accessible. This increases competition between bands who actually play instruments well and bands who rely on prerecorded tracks to enrich their songs. At the same time, however, I think if it improves the sound of a song and makes the live show more grand and impactful, these live performers should be encouraged to use the backing tracks. The majority of the audience is not aware of that bands use them; therefore, they don't necessarily have to informed about the computer that plays the prerecorded audio. The fans have a certain expectation, and if their expectations are met when backing tracks are used, then they should be used to the band's advantage. If it helps them take their music career to the next level, then they certainly should utilize the backing tracks during their live shows. Opponents of the use of backing tracks should also take into consideration that it's clearly difficult to have more than 20 instrument players on stage during a live show.
It's interesting to hear that with everything that doesn't seem economic, can actually be economic. Music and the arts in general started out as a very specific niche that had to find itself into the marketplace. Now it's composed of many industries and it is so profitable. The new breakthrough that bands and musical groups have been using are backtracks, which are supposed to complement the musicians on stage. However, mostly everyone in the music industry uses backtracks to enhance their sound to a degree that isn't natural compared to what a live group actually sounds like. It's a misconception and a illusion to fans and also to musical purists that don't believe in using backtracks, like Alex Kapelman. From his point of view, it was apparent how the music industry has changed drastically and focused on how musicians can make more profit with less expenses. Backtracks are really accessible as well as cheap since it is all computer and machinery which means live musicians are replaced. Live musicians require time, space, and money; so if there are less of them, there would be less expenses for the group. The authenticity of a live band can be thrilling, but bands have been developed to sound a certain way to their audiences. So there is no way we can go back to normal live performances without the help of technology on stage. -S.S. Pd 9
I feel like backing tracks isn't such a bad thing because if it is to improve your entertainment and listen to music that actually sounds better then what's the big deal? I understand that as an audience we would feel disappointed to know that the band isn't 100% legitimate, but if it is half live and half back track then it's the best of both worlds. I also agree with the people who think back tracks are fine because no matter what people are going to like it or not. In my opinion, if it sounds better, then why not? It is ultimately up to the consumers whether or not they want to buy tickets to listen to a band is plugged or plays completely live. Also, sometimes making beats and saving them itself is a form of art and doesn't take away from any musical experience. Also, I feel like our generation especially is so used to listening to things that are so edited and watching artists who lip sync completely, that we don't mind as much. I think that we should take advantage of the technology we have, especially if it benefits both parties: the audience by having louder and better musical beats/sounds and the music industry that doesn’t need to spend as much money paying the other musicians that would have had to play live.
I think that its very sad that performing to pre-played tracks is an "industry wide standard." When people pay tickets to go see a concert, they are paying to see a singer or band perform live, not just watching them try to lip sync with pre-recorded songs. But one person did bring up a good point, in most songs, there are usually many musicians playing that makes up the background, so it is hard to replicate it for the live concert; however, even if they have to make the background pre-recorded, there is no excuse for the voice to be pre-recorded too. Clearly in this case, they are putting cost and expenses before authenticity. E.S. Per 8
I think that its very sad that performing to pre-played tracks is an "industry wide standard." When people pay tickets to go see a concert, they are paying to see a singer or band perform live, not just watching them try to lip sync with pre-recorded songs. But one person did bring up a good point, in most songs, there are usually many musicians playing that makes up the background, so it is hard to replicate it for the live concert; however, even if they have to make the background pre-recorded, there is no excuse for the voice to be pre-recorded too. Clearly in this case, they are putting cost and expenses before authenticity. E.S. Per 8
I thought this was really interesting. I always knew bands used autotuning and back tracking, but I always just thought it was because they were not actually good or because they were moving around too much. I never thought about how much more musicians actually cost them. Having a musician for every instrument and sound is actually crazy. I have more respect for those who use back tracking now. Acoustic and unplugged versions never sound as great as the ones with backtracking. They are just supplying to us what we demand. We want good music live. And, backtracking may be the way to go. J.J. Pd 9
Often times people praise technology for improving the quality of life, but Alex, the man being interviewed, argues against it surprisingly and the element of backtracking. I’ve been to several concerts and I didn’t realize any backtracking that occurred and if it did occur, it certainly did not bother me. The concert was still fantastic and I still appreciated the music. The example that Alex played with the band without backtracking and the band with backtracking showed me the difference between the two that I didn’t previously know, but the backtracked version sounds a lot better. If I am at a concert, the experience is what matters to me most, and if a backtracked version, which sounds better, gives me the best overall experience, I am totally ok with that. Sure, backtracking and technology allows people who aren’t that musically talented to sound better, but it does not bother me that much as long as the product sounds better. On another note, I completely agree with the woman who “schooled” this Alex guy. He was trying to impose his opinion that backing tracks have a negative effect on the music industry, which the lady proved was wrong of him to do. He has his own opinion and shouldn’t impose it on everyone and argue with everyone that backing tracks are bad. Like the lady said, everyone has their own view and expectation of music and thus some people, like me, aren’t bothered by backing tracks one bit.
As mentioned in the podcast, the music industry is undoubtedly influenced by economics and practicality. Specifically, the implementation of backing tracks in live music is discussed and analyzed. It is indisputable that humans cost money because they need to eat food and pay bills. In most circumstances, bands cannot afford to pay humans and must resort to using backing tracks to replace them. Recently, backing tracks have become more readily available. In other words, there is quite simply inadequate funds or personnel, which requires bands to settle for backing tracks to attain that fuller sound. Whether backing tracks have a positive or negative impact on live music is controversial. The sociologist in the podcast makes the argument that each individual has his/her own access point and expectations of style. In other words, people have different standards of authenticity. Consequently, the sociologist encourages a culture that is eccentric and less judgmental, called arts ecology. In my opinion, I believe that live music should be performed without the use of backing tracks because it allows a band or artist to rise to new heights. Last winter, I went to a Kanye West concert and I observed that more and more of his songs now rely on backing tracks, more than they rely on lyrics; as a result, I feel that his music has declined over the course of his music career.
I don't think it is worng for a band uses background tracks in their music to cut down on expenses, but I don't think it feels right. Something about having a computer generated music becoming a regular thing annoys me. In Japan they have vocaloids. Vocaloids are computer generated singing voices, that are bassed off various singers (I might be wrong). Vocaloids gets rid of thr singer in a song. My personal feelings on the matter aren't that important. As long as people who buy tickets to concerts don't care, then there is no problem. AA Per 9
Though I enjoy listening to music a lot, I never really thought about backing tracks until I listened to this. It's really interesting to see how the songs are broken down. Unlike Alex Kapelman, I do believe that while some artists use too much backing music, for many artists, it also works out really well. From what I know, backing music is sometimes/often recorded by the artist/band beforehand, and while it's not live, it can be played in conjunction with live music in order to fill the sound. While some artists don't need to fill their sound, depending on the genre of music, it may be necessary, as was the case was Kapelman's friend. I never thought that the reason many indie artists use backing tracks is because they can't afford to have many other people with them on stage and off; they just can't pay for it. It's really interesting to see how it's all connected in that way. But I also agree with Kapelman in some ways. I don't impose my opinion on others, but I too enjoy live music in its fullest sense, without backing tracks or special effects or autotune. But I can also understand the use of backing tracks, and if used well, I think it helps elevate the work. And lastly, I don't think that simply using a backing track means the slow decline of live music; parts of the song and melody can still be played live and can be done so in a great way. Backing tracks allow a larger variety of artists and styles to shine and improve. I don't think backing tracks will go away, but we should think about its benefits to artists as well.
Really, I cannot blame industries for using backing tracks as a means to sell music to consumers. They are improving music by any means necessary to make bigger profits. I mean, if consumers are willing to buy this music, then I don't see the reason why live music is so much preferable to more manufactured music. This crisis has been widespread for a while; in fact, in some countries (Japan, for example) virtual musicians have replaced actual musicians, mass producing many new hit songs. Although i am not an artist and I am probably not looking at it in an artistic, genuine perspective, I am fine with backing track as long as people are willing to buy it. If the music sounds genuine enough and still sounds good or even better, what is the i problem with backing track. Jim Tse
From my perspective, I feel that the music industry's decision to back tracks as a means to sell music to customers is rightfully justifiable. They are simply trying to make the most profit by selling music in any plausible form. Watching a band perform live and listening to a backed track are essentially the same since they both produce the same outcome: the music people are willing to listen to. As a result, I see no wrongdoing in backing tracks by the music industry because if the music sounds the same and people are more willing to buy them than go to a live performance, then things should be left the way they are. K Chao Period 8
Personally, I don't think that musicians using backing tracks are a bad thing. Probably because I don't listen to bands but rather single artists who perform at concerts using pre-recorded tracks. But, I can see how a fan of a band would be disappointed to find out that his/her favorite band is using help to play so well. It's like having a favorite athlete and finding out that he/she uses steroids to be so good. It is a disappointment because you think that the bands/athletes are so skilled, but in reality it turns out that they had help. -ArjunL
I think the title pretty much explains it all. Why have live musicians when backed up music is much, much more cheaper, easier to put together, and takes less time? In addition to this fact, the trend of music has changed from band-like music to electronic, dubstep music which can't easily be replicated by live musicians. The narrators also mention that the electronic version sounds much more "fatter" and "fuller". To mimic such effect using live music, one would need to hire many vocals and instrumentals, which would sharply drive up expenses. So I do agree that it makes total sense to deviate towards electronic backed music. But focusing specifically on the bands that use backed up music, it reminds me of the baseball article we read in class. Just like how yankee fans came to less games, band fans may also exhibit similar behavior because they expect to hear live music. But I've read that the music industry has been slowly declining for years now, so I think that artists, especially the ones that don't make millions of dollars, are looking for ways to cut expenses; the easiest way to do that would be to cut workers who, in this case, would be the live musicians and vocals that could easily be replaced with electronic counterparts.
There are a million different topics which show the two sides of technology being either good or bad for that topic, but this was the one you found to put on the blog. I really enjoyed hearing about the controversy of technology being used in music, more specifically live performances because music is already a controversial topic to begin with. No one person can say a type of music is good, bad, or even be able to argue that what they like can actually put under the category of music because that is just how subjective the field is. In this case, a more musically avid man argues that backing tracks ruin the experience of live performances, and is almost cheating. Backing tracks and technology in general without a doubt make performing cheaper and more "economic" from a strictly cost point standpoint. I agree that while technology and backing tracks should exist in the music industry depending on the kind of show the performers would like to put on, I would not enjoy a show on backtrack as much as one with all live sound. I play the french horn and I know firsthand how much better live playing sounds better than those recorded. Backing tracks come close, but real live music is irreplaceable. - Jugal Pd. 8
I personalty think that if a band needs a background track from a computer to make the sound that they want they should be able to use it with out criticizing them. If they have the fund to get people to actually play those parts live then they should be doing it live. if you cant at a live performance let the crowd have an influence on what you play then it is not really a live performance.
I believe that computer generated music should still be created because it helps the actual live performance better for the audience. Even though it is time consuming and costly at times to produce the background music on a computer, it really enhances the live show. The performance is still considered live since the artists are performing for their audience just with a little extra help from computer generated music and mix tapes.
i think that using the backtrack music for live performances is wrong for most bands because they have the funds to create it live. Huge bands use it to backtrack to enhance their performances. Small bands need it because they don't have the funds and is the only way they can put on a performance. For the fans the backtrack can take away for the authenticity of the performances.
I believe the pro-backtrack music is ideal because getting many musicians just to do a job that a single computer can do is just way better. The cost of a single musician is rather small compared to a professional computer. But if you add up all the musicians to perform live music, the price will be way more than a single professional computer. However, people may assert that a computer can not give the audience "live" music, and a musician is the only way to hear live music. But the economic cost of a single computer is way more efficient than many musicians. David Lee
I think this interview presents the challenge of quality versus authenticity. Although the interview seems to satirize some of the purists calling them annoying because they want standards, they do bring up a valid point. Regardless of the economics behind the matter, it is, in a sense, unfair for musicians to use and rely on backtracks (pre-recording of music played underneath live music). It’s sort of similar to how Athletes aren’t allowed to use performance enhancing drugs such as steroids. The entire thing is a competition and having these backtracks, regardless of the fact that they are cheaper, creates an unfair playing ground. The reason every Disney actress becomes a music star isn’t because of musical talent, but rather the capability of improving their lack of skill with technology. However, at the end of the day entertainment is key, so people will buy and listen to whatever sounds best. The sociologist was correct in saying that different people have different access points and expectations of style. There’s a reason why only such a select few people can become musicians. However, it’s encouraging for me to know that if I ever decide to create a band it will be just a few clicks of the keyboard away. -TB Period 9 AP ECON
I think it's a bit unfortunate how economics plays an influential role in something artistic like music as opposed to pure emotion in the art form. For the case of live showcases, I think that the band/artist should stay as pure as possible towards their music, but I can't blame them for the economic point of view. Like the interview claims, there are bills that need to be paid and having more people and such bring difficulties with that. I guess I just wish this wouldn't be the case because I don't believe in technology making music as opposed to actual instruments.
It is very interesting that technology allows people to start a 2 person band. This allows for maximum profit. With less players, you spend less money on paying members and achieve the same quality of sound. Although many like the traditional band of playing live music, many major singers use back tracks to achieve a fuller sound. It is amazing how they recorded their own song.
I think that backing tracks ruins the idea of live music, as the music is not actually being performed live, which deceives many members of the audience. However, i see how backing tracks is a viable solution to use instead of having 20 musicians up on the stage to replace all the sounds from the track. Although fans may be offended that the singers use tracks, singers use it to sound their best so that the fans can enjoy their best potential rather. Karan L. period 8
This video was very interesting and enlightening. I had never considered that bands use backtracks to make their music more 'rich'. I agree with the sociologists perspective that bands cannot be blamed for being rational and thinking economically. Though it may be deceiving for a band to use a backtrack during a live performance, it is smart to take the route that saves money. I am a big fan of Haim and am pleasantly surprised that they do not use a backtrack. AB
I personally feel that the allure of live performances is no longer about the music itself as a primary focus; granted, a live performance will sound better in most cases, but high fidelity recording and audio equipment easily available to consumers makes the sound quality of a concert less important. Many people attend concerts for the general vibe and mood, and if prerecorded tracks improves this then all the better. There is little value in attending a live concert of a known musician only to evaluate their musical talent and ability to produce music on the spot over the actual audio content and enjoyment of the song.
I think the link between backing tracks and economics lies in supply and demand. Nobody can afford to have 20 different musicians on stage making all the necessary sounds to replace backing tracks, and this is because supply is low. We don't have enough musicians to make lead artists sound "bigger, badder, fuller." This can be ascribed to the opportunity cost of playing as a backup artist--if you're a musician, wouldn't you want to be the lead artist yourself instead of backing up potential competitors? And demand isn't particularly inflexible either; people will come to concerts whether or not they have back tracks, despite the "music snobbery" of people like Alex. So why not save money and use a back track? It makes sense that it has now become the industry standard, and I think the professor from Columbia has a good point in arguing that this "music snobbery" leads people to argue for the sake of being right, not for the sake of improving music culture.
After hearing both Alex and the professor from Columbia's argument, I find myself more eagerly agreeing with the professor. I think backing tracks are acceptable if the musical group has used them consistently in non-live performances (C.D recordings, T.V performances, etc). In the listener's mind, the image of the musical group becomes connected with a specific sound that encompasses the backing track. Thereby, when a listener pays money to see a musical group live, they are paying to hear that sound. If the sound was created with enhancement, it should be performed with enhancement, or else live music will never live up to the high quality of enhanced music. The consumer should get what he pays for. This argument especially resonates with musicians who make electronic music. Such music cannot possibly sound the same without the aid of technology - people don't go to an electronic music concert to hear live guitar performance. They go to hear the tremendously cool effects that technology can create. However, I like the idea of an artistic ecology. Without diversity, the nation cannot progress. We can learn from old fashioned methods and still hold on to novel ideas. Just because technology exists does not mean that we have to discard other ways of doing things. If one way is more efficient than another, we probably WILLl utilize it more so than the other....but, we don't have to! We have the power to choose because of the type of government system we have, and I think that it what the art ecology truly signifies - choice.
I think as that backing tracks is should not be seen as negative progress in the music industry. Backing tracks is only don't because of its economic efficiency. There will never be a point where an entire track will be backed because that ruins the point of a live show; however many can argue that this has already occurred with the live performances of the EDM genre.
This makes me feel a mix of emotions. I think a musician is someone who can create good sounds and/or play good sounds. If someone can use a background track and make something sound good without actually playing an instrument, that requires musical skill and is therefore being a musician. If someone can play an instrument extremely well, that requires skill and is therefore also being a musician. Although they are very different, I don't think there's a reason to say this change of adding backtracks is bad. As technology advances, changes are bound to happen. To assume that some aspects of our lives will remain completely human is, in my opinion, unrealistic. And although I think it's sad that we lose this human aspect (in this case the skill to actually play an instrument) to a more computer-based one (making songs sound good with backtracks), it's something we have to accept. This reminds me of an article I read once about how computers are taking jobs. Personally, I love the idea of advancing technology. There are so many different possibilities for us to explore and so much untapped knowledge to discover, but, as economics has taught us, there are always trade offs. I think that any change has positive and negative effects, so it makes sense for us to lose a sort of human aspect to our music for more computer-based sounds. B.T 8th Period
Technology has been growing at such a rapid pace and as stated in the link above, is starting to cause problems. It is so common for musicians to use "autotune" and other detail fixers to alter their sound. In a way, this is deceptive to the public because people pay hundreds to thousands of dollars to watch these performers.
In my opinion, the use of backing tracks is not a bad thing. In fact, I think it is an efficient use of resources. Although it may sacrifice some of the musical sincerity of performance, artists can focus on improving in other aspects (showmanship, theatrics, etc) instead. If a backing track is not replacing live musical instruments but instead is a supplement to musical instruments, it is only improving the quality of the music. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with using technology and resources to improve live music.
I think that while the music industry is changing, it's not bad change. Being able to utilize technology rather than pay however many band members is good because, one, there might be tension between the band members, and two it's cheaper and allows for more consistency in music. The one caveat would be old school music enthusiasts who love their live music.
One of the economic reasons brought up as to why live performers are using backup tracks now is that many bands cannot afford to hire additional musicians to fatten the overall sound. However, as a musician myself, I don't think that backup tracks are a substitute for real music (similarly to how carnations are not substitutes for roses). The point of live music, in my opinion, is to hear how a band actually sounds. One of the main reasons I'd listen to live music is to hear a different sound than what you can find on youtube or iTunes, and if a band uses backup tracks in their produced, published music as well as in their live music, then I don't really see the reason to go out of your way to listen to it live if it's going to be the exact same thing as what you can easily find online. Live music should be a different experience, unless of course the band in question never uses backup tracks in any of their music. However, these bands are so rare today that I don't believe they're worth accounting for, at least in popular music. My point is, there is no substitution for full sounding, genuine music. -KH8
I thought this was extremely interesting. I also can't believe that I never caught onto this before. I mean, it seems pretty obvious in some cases. Imagine there is a single singer one stage and they start preforming and all of a sudden a symphony of base guitars, drums, and other vocals just come out of no where. A lot of people won't even bat an eye at this. They'll just go along like its normal. Obviously that was an extreme and detecting this can be a lot harder, especially for those who aren't musically trained, like me. I believe the term they used was "musical civilian" or something to that effect. This whole thing, the introduction of this new technology to the music industry, is happening everywhere. Every industry is being changed because of technology. In a way, the music industry can act as sort of an example to a bigger picture. The fact of the matter is that humans can be expensive, but technology has given us a cheaper alternative. I made this joke once that when I have kids, they won't know hoe to open a door because everything will be automated in the future. At the time, it was just a harmless joke, but now it's seeming more like reality. I mean, I'm not planning on having kids for a long time, but the basic premise still holds true. Technology is becoming bigger and better, and its growing at a rapid pace.
Backtracking has been a big part of the music industry for a long time. Concerts have been the bulk of its money ever since people started downloading their music online illegally. A lot of pressure is put on concerts and the performance being put forward. Industries use backtracking and electronics to save money. Also if you look at it practically, the price it would take to fill all the music roles for all aspects of a song live, would be extremely high. I have no problem with this especially because acoustics don't ever sound that great.
I think that backtracks can be quite ambiguous when they are expressed by certain types of bands. For instance, in a big and famous band, they shouldn't need to have backtracks, even though it enhances their live performances, because they have budgets that they can afford. Meanwhile, for small indie bands, they don't necessarily have the financial backing that big famous bands have, and therefore, should be able to have backtracking, even though their live performances probably won't be the same exact music that we buy.
This gave me mixed opinions. On one hand i can see why people would be annoyed that musicians are performing with backing tracks and not actually singing which is what the audience expected. on the other hand, i also see why the artist do it. We are living in a time where technology is rapidly progressing and in the Music world, artists may use this tech on their songs, like auto tune or other voice modifiers. They only want to keep up with the demand of society. When they are performing live, especially when they are on tour, it is understandable that at some points during their performance they might not be at their best, but the audience paid for a show. As a result these artist are backing their tracks to ensure the audience a great show. I would rather see a performance with a musician backing the track and be ensured a great show as opposed to not backing the track and possibly having a bad show. - Yash Shah PD 8
I think the backing of tracks is a particularly concerning change in that audiences have adapted to that form of music and never question the various parts, instrumentals behind the music. The difference between backed tracks and live musicians is not very discernible to a large crowd, unless a listener is attentive, and in concerts sound quality is distorted regardless. I think this is an economic decision made that would least compromise music quality and is a cost effective alternative to actual musicians who are far more expensive. There are a few downsides/accidents in backing tracks, but it really does not affect music quality too badly, from the video, and does seem to work quite well if not many people notice the difference. D.M , 8
in my opinion, backing track is nothing bad. the trend is to use backing track because more teenager is looking for the feeling of electronic and heavy bass. the demand is there, teenagers like it. backing track is not deceptive. the music industry is just changing to fit in the puzzle. as a result, backing track gets popular. this is what people want, it sounds better. lt is just music ecology.
ReplyDeleteper9
yan
In this podcast, More on Music and Its All Economic, I feel as though Alex Kapelman made a really good point in saying that most of the live concerts that we attend nowadays are not completely live; most of the artists rely on backing tracks to beautify their songs. I agree with him and I feel that we, as fans, set such a high standard on the artists from hearing their songs through videos and media that we expect them to replicate that performance on the stage live. However I think that the artists, to begin with, create most of their songs with such a high level of technological help that all the work cannot be performed live.
ReplyDeleteI feel that we have every right to expect a wonderful performance from artists at live shows that portray originality but due to the economy that they are facing (them not having enough personnel and funds to create the music live and direct), they have to settle for backing tracks instead.
- Maresa M. Period 8
Jonathan Chen
ReplyDeleteAlthough using backing tracks does foster some ethical issues, I don't know if I can completely disagree with their use. By decreasing the costs necessary to run a band, backing tracks make it easier to start a band. This effectively increases the supply of music, leaving consumers with both cheaper music and a wider variety of music to choose from. However, I also think that live performers should inform their audiences of the backing tracks in advance so that listeners do not feel lied to or scammed.
I never heard of the term backing tracks before this podcast, but I wasn't all too surprised since backing tracks have been appearing in a lot of today's music. I don't think there's anything wrong with backing tracks, as long as the band admits to using them and as long as they're not going so far as to lip sync at concerts. I understand how some music-purists might be against backing tracks, but their complaints sound a bit snobby. If people like the addition of backing tracks to their favorite songs and think it sounds better, I don't see a problem with that. They're made so people can enjoy certain songs more just like how there'll always be those pure bands for music purists to enjoy. Just because backing tracks is increasing in popularity doesn't mean that regular live music will be gone forever. People pay to hear their favorite bands perform at concerts and when they go there, they expect to hear the live version of what they hear on iTunes or Spotify. Stripping the songs of back tracking when they were distributed with it would be wrong and make people feel cheated. I think that people should embrace the better backing tracks that more advanced technology can provide and stay calm with a balance of both backing tracks and pure music. After all, there are probably millions of people who like songs that have backing tracks AND songs that don't. Backing tracks just gives people a wider range of options to choose from and whatever music a person likes, it's their own choice and opinion; they're always going to appreciate it.
ReplyDelete- VL Period 8
I all honesty, I don't really see a problem with bands using backing tracks in their live shows. I guess that's because whenever I go to a concert, I never expect everything to be live and I always expected some prerecorded track to be there. With modern music having dozens of layers of different sounds- most of them electronic- it's extremely difficult to afford hiring people to play all those parts. Also, most of these electronic sounds are from the computer, and therefore, it would only make sense for the electronic parts to be prerecorded. Also, if bands were not to do this, and were to play all their songs unplugged, it would sound thin, and the last thing the audience wants is to hear a plain, 2-dimensional version of the song that they love. Therefore, in order to give the audience the sound that they want, and to do it so that the expenses on the band's behalf is reasonable and the price of concert tickets for the audience don't skyrocket, back-tracking is needed. It's a wise economic decision in my opinion.
ReplyDelete- Maisha Savani Pd.8
I definitely agree with Kapelman to a certain degree. Technology is definitely changing our favorite bands let alone our lives. Live music is not live music anymore. Its use of backing tracks, prerecorded audios, is deceptive because it makes the live track richer and fuller. They are relying on them to sound better at live shows. Consequently, this increased use of technology in the music industry is making it easier for anyone to start a band because it's cheap and accessible. This increases competition between bands who actually play instruments well and bands who rely on prerecorded tracks to enrich their songs. At the same time, however, I think if it improves the sound of a song and makes the live show more grand and impactful, these live performers should be encouraged to use the backing tracks. The majority of the audience is not aware of that bands use them; therefore, they don't necessarily have to informed about the computer that plays the prerecorded audio. The fans have a certain expectation, and if their expectations are met when backing tracks are used, then they should be used to the band's advantage. If it helps them take their music career to the next level, then they certainly should utilize the backing tracks during their live shows. Opponents of the use of backing tracks should also take into consideration that it's clearly difficult to have more than 20 instrument players on stage during a live show.
ReplyDelete-R.L. Per. 8
It's interesting to hear that with everything that doesn't seem economic, can actually be economic. Music and the arts in general started out as a very specific niche that had to find itself into the marketplace. Now it's composed of many industries and it is so profitable. The new breakthrough that bands and musical groups have been using are backtracks, which are supposed to complement the musicians on stage. However, mostly everyone in the music industry uses backtracks to enhance their sound to a degree that isn't natural compared to what a live group actually sounds like. It's a misconception and a illusion to fans and also to musical purists that don't believe in using backtracks, like Alex Kapelman. From his point of view, it was apparent how the music industry has changed drastically and focused on how musicians can make more profit with less expenses. Backtracks are really accessible as well as cheap since it is all computer and machinery which means live musicians are replaced. Live musicians require time, space, and money; so if there are less of them, there would be less expenses for the group. The authenticity of a live band can be thrilling, but bands have been developed to sound a certain way to their audiences. So there is no way we can go back to normal live performances without the help of technology on stage. -S.S. Pd 9
ReplyDeleteLP Pd 8
ReplyDeleteI feel like backing tracks isn't such a bad thing because if it is to improve your entertainment and listen to music that actually sounds better then what's the big deal? I understand that as an audience we would feel disappointed to know that the band isn't 100% legitimate, but if it is half live and half back track then it's the best of both worlds. I also agree with the people who think back tracks are fine because no matter what people are going to like it or not. In my opinion, if it sounds better, then why not? It is ultimately up to the consumers whether or not they want to buy tickets to listen to a band is plugged or plays completely live. Also, sometimes making beats and saving them itself is a form of art and doesn't take away from any musical experience. Also, I feel like our generation especially is so used to listening to things that are so edited and watching artists who lip sync completely, that we don't mind as much. I think that we should take advantage of the technology we have, especially if it benefits both parties: the audience by having louder and better musical beats/sounds and the music industry that doesn’t need to spend as much money paying the other musicians that would have had to play live.
I think that its very sad that performing to pre-played tracks is an "industry wide standard." When people pay tickets to go see a concert, they are paying to see a singer or band perform live, not just watching them try to lip sync with pre-recorded songs. But one person did bring up a good point, in most songs, there are usually many musicians playing that makes up the background, so it is hard to replicate it for the live concert; however, even if they have to make the background pre-recorded, there is no excuse for the voice to be pre-recorded too. Clearly in this case, they are putting cost and expenses before authenticity.
ReplyDeleteE.S. Per 8
I think that its very sad that performing to pre-played tracks is an "industry wide standard." When people pay tickets to go see a concert, they are paying to see a singer or band perform live, not just watching them try to lip sync with pre-recorded songs. But one person did bring up a good point, in most songs, there are usually many musicians playing that makes up the background, so it is hard to replicate it for the live concert; however, even if they have to make the background pre-recorded, there is no excuse for the voice to be pre-recorded too. Clearly in this case, they are putting cost and expenses before authenticity.
ReplyDeleteE.S. Per 8
I thought this was really interesting. I always knew bands used autotuning and back tracking, but I always just thought it was because they were not actually good or because they were moving around too much. I never thought about how much more musicians actually cost them. Having a musician for every instrument and sound is actually crazy. I have more respect for those who use back tracking now. Acoustic and unplugged versions never sound as great as the ones with backtracking. They are just supplying to us what we demand. We want good music live. And, backtracking may be the way to go.
ReplyDeleteJ.J. Pd 9
Often times people praise technology for improving the quality of life, but Alex, the man being interviewed, argues against it surprisingly and the element of backtracking. I’ve been to several concerts and I didn’t realize any backtracking that occurred and if it did occur, it certainly did not bother me. The concert was still fantastic and I still appreciated the music. The example that Alex played with the band without backtracking and the band with backtracking showed me the difference between the two that I didn’t previously know, but the backtracked version sounds a lot better. If I am at a concert, the experience is what matters to me most, and if a backtracked version, which sounds better, gives me the best overall experience, I am totally ok with that. Sure, backtracking and technology allows people who aren’t that musically talented to sound better, but it does not bother me that much as long as the product sounds better. On another note, I completely agree with the woman who “schooled” this Alex guy. He was trying to impose his opinion that backing tracks have a negative effect on the music industry, which the lady proved was wrong of him to do. He has his own opinion and shouldn’t impose it on everyone and argue with everyone that backing tracks are bad. Like the lady said, everyone has their own view and expectation of music and thus some people, like me, aren’t bothered by backing tracks one bit.
ReplyDeleteZeeshan Anwar
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned in the podcast, the music industry is undoubtedly influenced by economics and practicality. Specifically, the implementation of backing tracks in live music is discussed and analyzed. It is indisputable that humans cost money because they need to eat food and pay bills. In most circumstances, bands cannot afford to pay humans and must resort to using backing tracks to replace them. Recently, backing tracks have become more readily available. In other words, there is quite simply inadequate funds or personnel, which requires bands to settle for backing tracks to attain that fuller sound. Whether backing tracks have a positive or negative impact on live music is controversial. The sociologist in the podcast makes the argument that each individual has his/her own access point and expectations of style. In other words, people have different standards of authenticity. Consequently, the sociologist encourages a culture that is eccentric and less judgmental, called arts ecology. In my opinion, I believe that live music should be performed without the use of backing tracks because it allows a band or artist to rise to new heights. Last winter, I went to a Kanye West concert and I observed that more and more of his songs now rely on backing tracks, more than they rely on lyrics; as a result, I feel that his music has declined over the course of his music career.
I don't think it is worng for a band uses background tracks in their music to cut down on expenses, but I don't think it feels right. Something about having a computer generated music becoming a regular thing annoys me. In Japan they have vocaloids. Vocaloids are computer generated singing voices, that are bassed off various singers (I might be wrong). Vocaloids gets rid of thr singer in a song. My personal feelings on the matter aren't that important. As long as people who buy tickets to concerts don't care, then there is no problem. AA Per 9
ReplyDeleteThough I enjoy listening to music a lot, I never really thought about backing tracks until I listened to this. It's really interesting to see how the songs are broken down. Unlike Alex Kapelman, I do believe that while some artists use too much backing music, for many artists, it also works out really well. From what I know, backing music is sometimes/often recorded by the artist/band beforehand, and while it's not live, it can be played in conjunction with live music in order to fill the sound. While some artists don't need to fill their sound, depending on the genre of music, it may be necessary, as was the case was Kapelman's friend. I never thought that the reason many indie artists use backing tracks is because they can't afford to have many other people with them on stage and off; they just can't pay for it. It's really interesting to see how it's all connected in that way. But I also agree with Kapelman in some ways. I don't impose my opinion on others, but I too enjoy live music in its fullest sense, without backing tracks or special effects or autotune. But I can also understand the use of backing tracks, and if used well, I think it helps elevate the work. And lastly, I don't think that simply using a backing track means the slow decline of live music; parts of the song and melody can still be played live and can be done so in a great way. Backing tracks allow a larger variety of artists and styles to shine and improve. I don't think backing tracks will go away, but we should think about its benefits to artists as well.
ReplyDeleteReally, I cannot blame industries for using backing tracks as a means to sell music to consumers. They are improving music by any means necessary to make bigger profits. I mean, if consumers are willing to buy this music, then I don't see the reason why live music is so much preferable to more manufactured music. This crisis has been widespread for a while; in fact, in some countries (Japan, for example) virtual musicians have replaced actual musicians, mass producing many new hit songs. Although i am not an artist and I am probably not looking at it in an artistic, genuine perspective, I am fine with backing track as long as people are willing to buy it. If the music sounds genuine enough and still sounds good or even better, what is the i problem with backing track.
ReplyDeleteJim Tse
From my perspective, I feel that the music industry's decision to back tracks as a means to sell music to customers is rightfully justifiable. They are simply trying to make the most profit by selling music in any plausible form. Watching a band perform live and listening to a backed track are essentially the same since they both produce the same outcome: the music people are willing to listen to. As a result, I see no wrongdoing in backing tracks by the music industry because if the music sounds the same and people are more willing to buy them than go to a live performance, then things should be left the way they are.
ReplyDeleteK Chao Period 8
Personally, I don't think that musicians using backing tracks are a bad thing. Probably because I don't listen to bands but rather single artists who perform at concerts using pre-recorded tracks. But, I can see how a fan of a band would be disappointed to find out that his/her favorite band is using help to play so well. It's like having a favorite athlete and finding out that he/she uses steroids to be so good. It is a disappointment because you think that the bands/athletes are so skilled, but in reality it turns out that they had help.
ReplyDelete-ArjunL
I think the title pretty much explains it all. Why have live musicians when backed up music is much, much more cheaper, easier to put together, and takes less time? In addition to this fact, the trend of music has changed from band-like music to electronic, dubstep music which can't easily be replicated by live musicians. The narrators also mention that the electronic version sounds much more "fatter" and "fuller". To mimic such effect using live music, one would need to hire many vocals and instrumentals, which would sharply drive up expenses. So I do agree that it makes total sense to deviate towards electronic backed music.
ReplyDeleteBut focusing specifically on the bands that use backed up music, it reminds me of the baseball article we read in class. Just like how yankee fans came to less games, band fans may also exhibit similar behavior because they expect to hear live music. But I've read that the music industry has been slowly declining for years now, so I think that artists, especially the ones that don't make millions of dollars, are looking for ways to cut expenses; the easiest way to do that would be to cut workers who, in this case, would be the live musicians and vocals that could easily be replaced with electronic counterparts.
-BenJung Period 9
There are a million different topics which show the two sides of technology being either good or bad for that topic, but this was the one you found to put on the blog. I really enjoyed hearing about the controversy of technology being used in music, more specifically live performances because music is already a controversial topic to begin with. No one person can say a type of music is good, bad, or even be able to argue that what they like can actually put under the category of music because that is just how subjective the field is. In this case, a more musically avid man argues that backing tracks ruin the experience of live performances, and is almost cheating. Backing tracks and technology in general without a doubt make performing cheaper and more "economic" from a strictly cost point standpoint.
ReplyDeleteI agree that while technology and backing tracks should exist in the music industry depending on the kind of show the performers would like to put on, I would not enjoy a show on backtrack as much as one with all live sound. I play the french horn and I know firsthand how much better live playing sounds better than those recorded. Backing tracks come close, but real live music is irreplaceable.
- Jugal Pd. 8
I personalty think that if a band needs a background track from a computer to make the sound that they want they should be able to use it with out criticizing them. If they have the fund to get people to actually play those parts live then they should be doing it live. if you cant at a live performance let the crowd have an influence on what you play then it is not really a live performance.
ReplyDeleteThomas F
Robert Lis
ReplyDeleteI believe that computer generated music should still be created because it helps the actual live performance better for the audience. Even though it is time consuming and costly at times to produce the background music on a computer, it really enhances the live show. The performance is still considered live since the artists are performing for their audience just with a little extra help from computer generated music and mix tapes.
i think that using the backtrack music for live performances is wrong for most bands because they have the funds to create it live. Huge bands use it to backtrack to enhance their performances. Small bands need it because they don't have the funds and is the only way they can put on a performance. For the fans the backtrack can take away for the authenticity of the performances.
ReplyDeletePeriod 9. NG
I believe the pro-backtrack music is ideal because getting many musicians just to do a job that a single computer can do is just way better. The cost of a single musician is rather small compared to a professional computer. But if you add up all the musicians to perform live music, the price will be way more than a single professional computer. However, people may assert that a computer can not give the audience "live" music, and a musician is the only way to hear live music. But the economic cost of a single computer is way more efficient than many musicians.
ReplyDeleteDavid Lee
I think this interview presents the challenge of quality versus authenticity. Although the interview seems to satirize some of the purists calling them annoying because they want standards, they do bring up a valid point. Regardless of the economics behind the matter, it is, in a sense, unfair for musicians to use and rely on backtracks (pre-recording of music played underneath live music). It’s sort of similar to how Athletes aren’t allowed to use performance enhancing drugs such as steroids. The entire thing is a competition and having these backtracks, regardless of the fact that they are cheaper, creates an unfair playing ground. The reason every Disney actress becomes a music star isn’t because of musical talent, but rather the capability of improving their lack of skill with technology. However, at the end of the day entertainment is key, so people will buy and listen to whatever sounds best. The sociologist was correct in saying that different people have different access points and expectations of style. There’s a reason why only such a select few people can become musicians. However, it’s encouraging for me to know that if I ever decide to create a band it will be just a few clicks of the keyboard away.
ReplyDelete-TB Period 9 AP ECON
AHirani, Prd. 9
ReplyDeleteI think it's a bit unfortunate how economics plays an influential role in something artistic like music as opposed to pure emotion in the art form. For the case of live showcases, I think that the band/artist should stay as pure as possible towards their music, but I can't blame them for the economic point of view. Like the interview claims, there are bills that need to be paid and having more people and such bring difficulties with that. I guess I just wish this wouldn't be the case because I don't believe in technology making music as opposed to actual instruments.
It is very interesting that technology allows people to start a 2 person band. This allows for maximum profit. With less players, you spend less money on paying members and achieve the same quality of sound. Although many like the traditional band of playing live music, many major singers use back tracks to achieve a fuller sound. It is amazing how they recorded their own song.
ReplyDelete- won park
I think that backing tracks ruins the idea of live music, as the music is not actually being performed live, which deceives many members of the audience. However, i see how backing tracks is a viable solution to use instead of having 20 musicians up on the stage to replace all the sounds from the track. Although fans may be offended that the singers use tracks, singers use it to sound their best so that the fans can enjoy their best potential rather.
ReplyDeleteKaran L. period 8
This video was very interesting and enlightening. I had never considered that bands use backtracks to make their music more 'rich'. I agree with the sociologists perspective that bands cannot be blamed for being rational and thinking economically. Though it may be deceiving for a band to use a backtrack during a live performance, it is smart to take the route that saves money. I am a big fan of Haim and am pleasantly surprised that they do not use a backtrack.
ReplyDeleteAB
I personally feel that the allure of live performances is no longer about the music itself as a primary focus; granted, a live performance will sound better in most cases, but high fidelity recording and audio equipment easily available to consumers makes the sound quality of a concert less important. Many people attend concerts for the general vibe and mood, and if prerecorded tracks improves this then all the better. There is little value in attending a live concert of a known musician only to evaluate their musical talent and ability to produce music on the spot over the actual audio content and enjoyment of the song.
ReplyDelete-JW
I think the link between backing tracks and economics lies in supply and demand. Nobody can afford to have 20 different musicians on stage making all the necessary sounds to replace backing tracks, and this is because supply is low. We don't have enough musicians to make lead artists sound "bigger, badder, fuller." This can be ascribed to the opportunity cost of playing as a backup artist--if you're a musician, wouldn't you want to be the lead artist yourself instead of backing up potential competitors? And demand isn't particularly inflexible either; people will come to concerts whether or not they have back tracks, despite the "music snobbery" of people like Alex. So why not save money and use a back track? It makes sense that it has now become the industry standard, and I think the professor from Columbia has a good point in arguing that this "music snobbery" leads people to argue for the sake of being right, not for the sake of improving music culture.
ReplyDeleteKaran Singhal Pd 9
After hearing both Alex and the professor from Columbia's argument, I find myself more eagerly agreeing with the professor. I think backing tracks are acceptable if the musical group has used them consistently in non-live performances (C.D recordings, T.V performances, etc). In the listener's mind, the image of the musical group becomes connected with a specific sound that encompasses the backing track. Thereby, when a listener pays money to see a musical group live, they are paying to hear that sound. If the sound was created with enhancement, it should be performed with enhancement, or else live music will never live up to the high quality of enhanced music. The consumer should get what he pays for. This argument especially resonates with musicians who make electronic music. Such music cannot possibly sound the same without the aid of technology - people don't go to an electronic music concert to hear live guitar performance. They go to hear the tremendously cool effects that technology can create. However, I like the idea of an artistic ecology. Without diversity, the nation cannot progress. We can learn from old fashioned methods and still hold on to novel ideas. Just because technology exists does not mean that we have to discard other ways of doing things. If one way is more efficient than another, we probably WILLl utilize it more so than the other....but, we don't have to! We have the power to choose because of the type of government system we have, and I think that it what the art ecology truly signifies - choice.
ReplyDelete-Shweta L.
Pd; 8
Chirag Soni pd.8
ReplyDeleteI think as that backing tracks is should not be seen as negative progress in the music industry. Backing tracks is only don't because of its economic efficiency. There will never be a point where an entire track will be backed because that ruins the point of a live show; however many can argue that this has already occurred with the live performances of the EDM genre.
This makes me feel a mix of emotions. I think a musician is someone who can create good sounds and/or play good sounds. If someone can use a background track and make something sound good without actually playing an instrument, that requires musical skill and is therefore being a musician. If someone can play an instrument extremely well, that requires skill and is therefore also being a musician. Although they are very different, I don't think there's a reason to say this change of adding backtracks is bad. As technology advances, changes are bound to happen. To assume that some aspects of our lives will remain completely human is, in my opinion, unrealistic. And although I think it's sad that we lose this human aspect (in this case the skill to actually play an instrument) to a more computer-based one (making songs sound good with backtracks), it's something we have to accept. This reminds me of an article I read once about how computers are taking jobs. Personally, I love the idea of advancing technology. There are so many different possibilities for us to explore and so much untapped knowledge to discover, but, as economics has taught us, there are always trade offs. I think that any change has positive and negative effects, so it makes sense for us to lose a sort of human aspect to our music for more computer-based sounds. B.T 8th Period
ReplyDeleteIf musicians do not want to play live, then they do not have to. Ultimately, it is the fans' choice whether or not the music is good.
ReplyDeleteTechnology has been growing at such a rapid pace and as stated in the link above, is starting to cause problems. It is so common for musicians to use "autotune" and other detail fixers to alter their sound. In a way, this is deceptive to the public because people pay hundreds to thousands of dollars to watch these performers.
ReplyDeleteKK period 8
In my opinion, the use of backing tracks is not a bad thing. In fact, I think it is an efficient use of resources. Although it may sacrifice some of the musical sincerity of performance, artists can focus on improving in other aspects (showmanship, theatrics, etc) instead. If a backing track is not replacing live musical instruments but instead is a supplement to musical instruments, it is only improving the quality of the music. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with using technology and resources to improve live music.
ReplyDeleteI think that while the music industry is changing, it's not bad change. Being able to utilize technology rather than pay however many band members is good because, one, there might be tension between the band members, and two it's cheaper and allows for more consistency in music. The one caveat would be old school music enthusiasts who love their live music.
ReplyDeleteD.C.
One of the economic reasons brought up as to why live performers are using backup tracks now is that many bands cannot afford to hire additional musicians to fatten the overall sound. However, as a musician myself, I don't think that backup tracks are a substitute for real music (similarly to how carnations are not substitutes for roses). The point of live music, in my opinion, is to hear how a band actually sounds. One of the main reasons I'd listen to live music is to hear a different sound than what you can find on youtube or iTunes, and if a band uses backup tracks in their produced, published music as well as in their live music, then I don't really see the reason to go out of your way to listen to it live if it's going to be the exact same thing as what you can easily find online. Live music should be a different experience, unless of course the band in question never uses backup tracks in any of their music. However, these bands are so rare today that I don't believe they're worth accounting for, at least in popular music. My point is, there is no substitution for full sounding, genuine music.
ReplyDelete-KH8
I thought this was extremely interesting. I also can't believe that I never caught onto this before. I mean, it seems pretty obvious in some cases. Imagine there is a single singer one stage and they start preforming and all of a sudden a symphony of base guitars, drums, and other vocals just come out of no where. A lot of people won't even bat an eye at this. They'll just go along like its normal. Obviously that was an extreme and detecting this can be a lot harder, especially for those who aren't musically trained, like me. I believe the term they used was "musical civilian" or something to that effect. This whole thing, the introduction of this new technology to the music industry, is happening everywhere. Every industry is being changed because of technology. In a way, the music industry can act as sort of an example to a bigger picture. The fact of the matter is that humans can be expensive, but technology has given us a cheaper alternative. I made this joke once that when I have kids, they won't know hoe to open a door because everything will be automated in the future. At the time, it was just a harmless joke, but now it's seeming more like reality. I mean, I'm not planning on having kids for a long time, but the basic premise still holds true. Technology is becoming bigger and better, and its growing at a rapid pace.
ReplyDeleteBacktracking has been a big part of the music industry for a long time. Concerts have been the bulk of its money ever since people started downloading their music online illegally. A lot of pressure is put on concerts and the performance being put forward. Industries use backtracking and electronics to save money. Also if you look at it practically, the price it would take to fill all the music roles for all aspects of a song live, would be extremely high. I have no problem with this especially because acoustics don't ever sound that great.
ReplyDeleteKJ PD 8
I think that backtracks can be quite ambiguous when they are expressed by certain types of bands. For instance, in a big and famous band, they shouldn't need to have backtracks, even though it enhances their live performances, because they have budgets that they can afford. Meanwhile, for small indie bands, they don't necessarily have the financial backing that big famous bands have, and therefore, should be able to have backtracking, even though their live performances probably won't be the same exact music that we buy.
ReplyDeleteThis gave me mixed opinions. On one hand i can see why people would be annoyed that musicians are performing with backing tracks and not actually singing which is what the audience expected. on the other hand, i also see why the artist do it. We are living in a time where technology is rapidly progressing and in the Music world, artists may use this tech on their songs, like auto tune or other voice modifiers. They only want to keep up with the demand of society. When they are performing live, especially when they are on tour, it is understandable that at some points during their performance they might not be at their best, but the audience paid for a show. As a result these artist are backing their tracks to ensure the audience a great show. I would rather see a performance with a musician backing the track and be ensured a great show as opposed to not backing the track and possibly having a bad show. - Yash Shah PD 8
ReplyDeleteI think the backing of tracks is a particularly concerning change in that audiences have adapted to that form of music and never question the various parts, instrumentals behind the music. The difference between backed tracks and live musicians is not very discernible to a large crowd, unless a listener is attentive, and in concerts sound quality is distorted regardless. I think this is an economic decision made that would least compromise music quality and is a cost effective alternative to actual musicians who are far more expensive. There are a few downsides/accidents in backing tracks, but it really does not affect music quality too badly, from the video, and does seem to work quite well if not many people notice the difference.
ReplyDeleteD.M , 8