Here is an example

by **froy** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:09 pm

A Great song by the Bee Gees
They are playing to a backing track and some of the vocals are taped
So what great song
The lead is real but you can hear Barry's voice when he is singing something else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMeUB98hX28

by **heardonthestreet** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:47 pm

froy wrote:A Great song by the Bee Gees
They are playing to a backing track and some of the vocals are taped
So what great song
The lead is real but you can hear Barry's voice when he is singing something else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMeUB98hX28

.................................

An example of what Froy?

by **larryfromnextdoor** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:10 pm

that was bad.....

by **Clasicrockldy** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:18 pm

heardonthestreet wrote:
froy wrote:A Great song by the Bee Gees
They are playing to a backing track and some of the vocals are taped
So what great song
The lead is real but you can hear Barry's voice when he is singing something else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMeUB98hX28

.................................

An example of what Froy?

HOTS,

I think Froy is referring to backing tapes and such........... or........ is Froy saying that the Bee Gees are lipping?

I happen to like the Bee Gees three part harmony. And it doesn't bother me in the least that they used backing tapes to make the sound fuller.

by **knox** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:37 pm

Backing tapes are NOT the same as LEAD VOCAL tapes.

How many times does this have to be stated?

by **ohsherrie** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:57 pm

The Bee Gees did a lot of that with background vocals, but like Froy said, the lead vocals were always live whether it was Barry or Robin on lead. They could also stand with the three of them on one mic and Barry on an acoustic guitar and sing beautiful three part harmony on any of their songs. I think Froy is saying this is the way taped vocals should be used. Instead of replacing a failing voice, they should enhance a great one.

by **Lilla_Forever** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:24 pm

knox wrote:Backing tapes are NOT the same as LEAD VOCAL tapes.

How many times does this have to be stated?

Very true knox.

by **Wally_Hatchet** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:34 am

knox wrote:Backing tapes are NOT the same as LEAD VOCAL tapes.

Says who?

by **knox** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:39 am

Wally_Hatchet wrote:
knox wrote:Backing tapes are NOT the same as LEAD VOCAL tapes.

Says who?

So, you are fine going to a concert where the lead singer lip syncs the whole show?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I, for one, couldn't care less about background vocal tapes to help the sound. However, to know that the lead voice is faking it would tick me off.

Are you saying these two are the SAME???? Seriously... These are the same to you?

by **Wally_Hatchet** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:36 am

knox wrote:
Wally_Hatchet wrote:
knox wrote:Backing tapes are NOT the same as LEAD VOCAL tapes.

Says who?

So, you are fine going to a concert where the lead singer lip syncs the whole show?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No I'm not. That's not the point I was making.

I hate all pre-recorded tracks, period. Lead, backing, keys, guitar, whatever.

But I see no difference in whether they are canned lead, backing, guitar or keyboards.

If Journey has been using pre-recorded backing tracks since the Perry era (as they are accused of) then I think that is kinda cheesy, just as I would think the same about lead vocals being piped in (not that I am convinced this is happening - yet).

I am in a local cover band who includes Journey music in our setlist. We aren't anywhere near as talented as Journey (obviously), yet whatever one hears in our live set is exacty that - live, screw ups and all.

These days, it seems many first tier bands are doing just that. It won't make me stop seeing them if I like the band, but I would admittedly lose a little respect for them.

I will now admit however, I am now starting to really wonder, only because of Journey's decision not to respond.

With that said, I am more shocked at how a few people are making it their life's mission to bring the band down. It borders on psychotic behavior.

by **whocares** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:40 am

phsychotic, perhaps, but I don't think it's about bringing the band down, it's more about getting answers. The band if they are guilty, will bring themselves down.

I'd lose respect without even spending money on a band, if I found out they were indeed using lead tapes. The backing stuff isnt' as big a deal to me, or most people who want to know the answers.

By not answering, the fans don't exist and aren't as important to the band as they claim them to be.

by **froy** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:04 pm

ohsherrie wrote:The Bee Gees did a lot of that with background vocals, but like Froy said, the lead vocals were always live whether it was Barry or Robin on lead. They could also stand with the three of them on one mic and Barry on an acoustic guitar and sing beautiful three part harmony on any of their songs. I think Froy is saying this is the way taped vocals should be used. Instead of replacing a failing voice, they should enhance a great one.

You are a babe Oh Sherrie thanks for the help./

by **ohsherrie** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:52 pm

froy wrote:
ohsherrie wrote:The Bee Gees did a lot of that with background vocals, but like Froy said, the lead vocals were always live whether it was Barry or Robin on lead. They could also stand with the three of them on one mic and Barry on an acoustic guitar and sing beautiful three part harmony on any of their songs. I think Froy is saying this is the way taped vocals should be used. Instead of replacing a failing voice, they should enhance a great one.

You are a babe Oh Sherrie thanks for the help./

Glad to be of assistance. :wink:

MR

Here is an example

Here is an example

Re: Here is an example

Re: Here is an example

Who is online