# Not been able to play live?



## JamieB (Jan 14, 2011)

Does anyone else hate it when bands write songs that they cant play live?

I personally write to play live and if we cant do it live then it isnt one of our songs.

Let me know what you guys think or tell me if you think am been silly?


----------



## Winspear (Jan 14, 2011)

Do you mean can't play it live because of their ability on their instrument? E.g. tracking solos bar by bar and screwing them up live.

Or do you mean writing arrangements that can't be pulled off live the same as on the record? (Extra guitar harmonies, synth parts etc).

I think the first is obviously wrong. I don't disagree with tracking solos bar by bar (or even note by note), because I am not against programmed music. If you can make electronic music by clicking your mouse, why not make a guitar solo? If it sounds good, it's good  But if you are going to play live you should be able to pull it off.

As for writing/recording arrangements that can't be played live, I don't see too much wrong with that. A live version doesn't always have to be the same as the record. The most extreme example being an acoustic set of a non-acoustic recrd.


----------



## JamieB (Jan 14, 2011)

Oh definatley an acoustic performance is perfectly brilliant as said artist has the pure balls to play unplugged which takes alot in its self but yeh solos tracked note by note are a pur disgrace unless they can be played live.

Im more bothered about the "third guitarist" in a band, or the on that doesnt exsist.
harmonising tracks and not be able to do it live

another thing that annoys me is a single guitarist band that has lead on there album but not live due to the fact they have on guitarist.

Just winds me up sometimes


----------



## Razzy (Jan 14, 2011)

JamieB said:


> Oh definatley an acoustic performance is perfectly brilliant as said artist has the pure balls to play unplugged which takes alot in its self but yeh solos tracked note by note are a pur disgrace unless they can be played live.
> 
> Im more bothered about the "third guitarist" in a band, or the on that doesnt exsist.
> harmonising tracks and not be able to do it live
> ...



When I was the only guitarist in my band, I played lead part in situations like that.. If your bass player is any sort of competent, it'll sound just fine.


----------



## Varcolac (Jan 14, 2011)

I don't like too much programmed orchestration. Xerath were pretty boring live to me for this reason. When everyone in the band's playing the groove and nigh on everything else in the song is piped-in string patches it irks me. Not that it's a bad thing _per se_, just when it's filling so much space in every song it gets stale to me.

Unplayable arrangements are fine; Carpathia recordings have keyboards all over the place but we don't currently have a keyboardist (all that goes through a guitar synth live). The role's filled, there's distant choirs and jabbing strings where there should be, and it's a human being behind the output with all the little imperfections that make live music, well, live.

I love the way Rush do their extra lines live though: Alex and Geddy have a second pedal board each, with triggers for all the extras. They don't play to a click, they match tempo to whatever glockenspiel or lazer gun or what-have-you part they've triggered. So there's still that human element in the timing. Read in an interview that they've sometimes triggered the part for an entirely different song by accident, to the great confusion of the audience.

I don't write songs I can't play. I'd prefer recordings to be an honest representation of the band than an artificially perfect specimen. Whether keyboard players agree with my assessment of "playable" is another thing...


----------



## Winspear (Jan 14, 2011)

I guess it depends on the genre.
Like I said, I don't think there's anything wrong with a 'programmed' guitar solo, as long as it's not in a context that claims it to be 'authentic'.

In a typical metal band where the basis is often "Look what I can play on guitar", yes, it's very wrong. 

I don't mind backing tracks with extra guitar - but choice of parts played is important. I saw an 80's hair metal band with one guitarist which had the solos on a backing track while the guitarist played the riffs  And it wasn't an emergency 'our lead guitarist left the band' setup either.


----------



## Varcolac (Jan 14, 2011)

EtherealEntity said:


> I don't mind backing tracks with extra guitar - but choice of parts played is important. I saw an 80's hair metal band with one guitarist which had the solos on a backing track while the guitarist played the riffs  And it wasn't an emergency 'our lead guitarist left the band' setup either.



I know what you mean. It's sort of my problem with Xerath. Not that I don't like the music, it's just a bit boring live since the synth strings are such a "lead" instrument in their arrangements. On record I just pretend they've got a keyboard player. I call him Jeffrey.


----------



## JamieB (Jan 14, 2011)

Thanks for getting back to me

and fair comment on the "competant bass player" but a bass player is not a rythm guitarist is he lets be honest? a bass player is meant to bring groove and keep time and be a cross over from percusion to guitars not to play rythm and if you use a bass player as a rythm guitarist then i thinks that person is not a bassist hes a guitarist playing bass.

unless you you use the bass player to fill out the lead with technical bass ideas NOT ROOT NOTES

as for arrangements and the whole human thing when it comes to sample synths
i totally agree with that

My drummer uses a sample pad to run our synths in my band which brings in the human timing you spoke of which i really like as it takes a amazing drummer to play beats and put samples in time and stay in time with the samples so there is no element of "Gig speed"

thanks for replying guys apreciate it


----------



## JoeMalov (Jan 15, 2011)

I am the lone guitarist in my band and we usually write all of our material to specifically cater to live settings. Plus I have a footswitch for harmonies and whatnot, so it kinda fills the sound out a bit more.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jan 15, 2011)

JamieB said:


> Thanks for getting back to me
> 
> and fair comment on the "competant bass player" but a bass player is not a rythm guitarist is he lets be honest? a bass player is meant to bring groove and keep time and be a cross over from percusion to guitars not to play rythm and if you use a bass player as a rythm guitarist then i thinks that person is not a bassist hes a guitarist playing bass.
> 
> ...



As a bass player, and a guy who has extensive 3 piece experience a great bass player will fill it out just fine. He will be playing between rhythm fill and some lead at the time but that is what it takes. We had a second guitarist sit in once or twice but there was no room for him, nothing he could contribute to improve the sound. Looking at bass as 'a bridge between rhythm and drums' is a pretty dangerous mistake. There is no 'meant to do roles' as Rush or The Who can attest to. Unfortunately most metal bassists I have heard are a fairly boring lot.

I don't feel you should ever limit your musical vision to what can be played live, as long as the key elements can be distilled and performed. I am not saying play outside your ability, but rather don't worry if a layer isn't there or queued.


----------



## Rick (Jan 15, 2011)

I've always thought what's the point to making songs you can't play live.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jan 15, 2011)

At 2:19, they zoom in on the guy who's not soloing, and then do the same thing when they switch. What the hell is that?  I thought they were both playing rhythm at first.



Yeah, I think that paying for a live concert implies that the music, too, will be as live as possible. Rush can get away with triggered samples during a concert, because everybody's working their ass off still, and the bulk of the musicality is not in the samples, but the performers. Of course, as ever is the case with art, it's subjective. My mother and sister went to see a performance of Tchaikovsky's "The Nutcracker", and the orchestra was completely from recording. If you're watching to see people dance, you won't mind. If you're watching for music, then you'll probably be sorely disappointed.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Jan 15, 2011)

Because playing live is the Be all, End all of music...
I have a recent track I did with 10 different guitar tracks. Its all about how it sounds, How the song builds and evolves. I don't plan to play any of this material live though, so....


----------



## JamieB (Jan 16, 2011)

Thanks for the feedback guys loving some of the comments and he guy who's discussing bass seems to know his stuff but the whole "MEANT TO DO" thing is dangerous but lets be honest dont play guitar on a bass.

Its not what its for.



Thanks alot guys much apreciated


----------



## JohnIce (Jan 16, 2011)

I tend to really separate the live show from the studio experience. My philosophy is that when you're in the studio, embrace the fact that you have possibilities that you don't have live. And when playing live, take the opportunity to express things that wouldn't come across, or you just wouldn't do, on a record. Such as extending songs, changing lyrics for fun, making up a great stage act etc. or even rearrange the stuff.

My point is that I prioritize differently live and in the studio. A live show to me is all about entertainment and creating an experience for the audience. A record is just meant to sound as great as possible, and if it sounds better with an extra guitar during the solo, then by all means put it there. A lot of people here on SS.org have heard my recordings but not a single one of you has seen me live, nor will you in the foreseeable future. A recording will last forever, with possibly millions of listeners, but a live show is a one-time occurance and will only be heard by the small amount of people attending that night, then it's gone. And the majority of those people will not be listening for that extra guitar during the solo, they'll be distracted by everything else. Some of them might not even have heard your record at all, they're there to see another band or they've just been dragged there by their friends.

That said, I agree with most people here in that the live show shouldn't be radically different from the record. That'd be tricking your supporters. They liked your record for a reason, so you better make sure they like your live show too. I think it's a great idea to go all out and enhance your material on a record but not at the expense of your live show being a letdown.


----------



## SnowfaLL (Jan 16, 2011)

I actually have always felt like playing live is the easy part. Writing is hard as shit, but learning songs, even if its someone elses songs, are usually easy to do with afew weeks of practice. (outside of some of the top crazy masters, like Jason Becker/Guthrie/Vai)

So for a band who releases a full album that is crazy, and cant play it live.. It makes me wonder about if they really wrote it on their own/without the help of "studio magic".. Dragonforce comes to mind.. but Im not sure. Its just suspicious.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Jan 16, 2011)

Its music, not sports. Do whatever sounds good to you.
And you can play whatever you want on a bass, Music has no limitations.


----------



## scottro202 (Jan 17, 2011)

JohnIce said:


> I tend to really separate the live show from the studio experience. My philosophy is that when you're in the studio, embrace the fact that you have possibilities that you don't have live. And when playing live, take the opportunity to express things that wouldn't come across, or you just wouldn't do, on a record. Such as extending songs, changing lyrics for fun, making up a great stage act etc. or even rearrange the stuff.
> 
> My point is that I prioritize differently live and in the studio. A live show to me is all about entertainment and creating an experience for the audience. A record is just meant to sound as great as possible, and if it sounds better with an extra guitar during the solo, then by all means put it there. A lot of people here on SS.org have heard my recordings but not a single one of you has seen me live, nor will you in the foreseeable future. A recording will last forever, with possibly millions of listeners, but a live show is a one-time occurance and will only be heard by the small amount of people attending that night, then it's gone. And the majority of those people will not be listening for that extra guitar during the solo, they'll be distracted by everything else. Some of them might not even have heard your record at all, they're there to see another band or they've just been dragged there by their friends.
> 
> That said, I agree with most people here in that the live show shouldn't be radically different from the record. That'd be tricking your supporters. They liked your record for a reason, so you better make sure they like your live show too. I think it's a great idea to go all out and enhance your material on a record but not at the expense of your live show being a letdown.



^ Basically what I wanted to say, but better.


----------



## metalheadpunk (Jan 17, 2011)

I'm with JohnIce on this one. for example, when i am recording, if i have an awesome idea that happens to need 3 guitar parts, im not going to dismiss it just because i know my band only has 2 guitar players. then when we are preparing to play it live we figure out the live arrangement, a version of the part that best represents it with the constraints of the stage.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Jan 17, 2011)

metalheadpunk said:


> I'm with JohnIce on this one. for example, when i am recording, if i have an awesome idea that happens to need 3 guitar parts, im not going to dismiss it just because i know my band only has 2 guitar players. then when we are preparing to play it live we figure out the live arrangement, a version of the part that best represents it with the constraints of the stage.


----------



## Bloody_Inferno (Jan 18, 2011)

If I were to add to what JohnIce had already said:

Studio and Live will always be different animals. Even in the case of recording your exact same live arrangement. 

John had already stated about the Studio being an everlasting captured moment. The live side on the other hand not only is gone, once the show is over, but will change in the next show and will constantly evolve as the artist plays more and grows as a musician. 

There are a few ways to tackle live playing:

Prepare backing tracks or so every little studio recorded nuance is perfectly recreated live, or hire touring musicians to recreate it to a certain degree. I'm not totally against this, and there will be small things that can be taxing, like picking the right guitar part to fully enhance the live performance. Some bands to this well, and then there was Rush. 

The the pre studio/pre production arrangement to the stage. By that, I mean, if the song was already performed live in a certain arrangement before it hits the recording stage. 

Rearranging the song, and allowing it to be it's own live animal. Once a song is captured, that's the set arrangment of the recording. However, that can also change into another arrangement. A lot of one guitar bands do this and greats like Hendrix and Zeppelin are great at rearranging a studio recording into a something else. I guess it's the necessity to fill the sonic space with what little you have. Say with a riff, the guitarist can fill in extra space with a few lead breaks or so, or the bassist plays chords etc. 

It's all about having a keen sense of arrangement that can be used not only to maintain the integrity of the song, but to enhance it when performed live. Then again, on the flipside, I'm a strong believer of the song should be able to stand on it's own regardless of the arrangement. IMO, arranging the song is just as important and fun as writing it.


----------



## JohnIce (Jan 18, 2011)

Sometimes, especially with really slow, emotive ballads, a rearrangement from the record might even be required to prevent the set from feeling disjointed or to lose the audience completely. If you're doing a 25 minute set of high energy rock and then stick a piano ballad in there, it can be very counterproductive. Even if it does sound amazing on the record, when you're at home in your armchair puffing your pipe or whatever, doesn't mean it has that effect in the middle of a high-energy rock set (especially a short set). But add some drums and guitars to that song, and it might be just what the set needs to calm down and regroup before the final moshfest or whatever.

In my folkrock/pop band we even make a point of having more aggressive and energetic arrangements of nearly ALL our songs for live shows, aswell as even chiller versions for small, unplugged shows. On many of the songs on the record there isn't even any guitar, but live, we all play on every song. It's definately beneficial for us. Granted, our record features a bunch of obscure instruments that none of us play, such as accordions, harmonicas and old organs and weird effects, and we couldn't recreate that live, but our live show probably wouldn't be as enjoyable for a standing audience if we did strive to recreate all that.


----------

