Originally Posted By: JohnJohnJohn [/quote

I guess I'd have to say that is a somewhat arbitrary line you've drawn! If it is billed as a live performance and a significant part is recorded the audience is being "fooled".


I, of course, accept your view. But I don't think mine is "arbitrary" at all. If the "live" artist is performing "live" with his/her instrument and/or voice then no one is being fooled. If the singer is lip-synching, that is, by definition, pretending to sing.

Totally different scenarios.



Quote:

Yeah, I think this would be a better strategy. However, you know that at least 1/2 your audience will not understand what you have just described so IMHO you are still fooling a large portion of them by using pre-recorded music as part of your show.


I assumed the performance was being given to those beyond the 2nd grade in which case 99% of the people in advanced civilizations would understand when you explain that you are using computer generated accompaniment.

(-:

Quote:
but like I said before, if your audience accepts it then it is probably ok. for me personally, I would not be comfortable doing it and I would never pay to see a gig where the music was pre-recorded! of course, I have been in more than one tiny bar where the singer was using a drum track and it never bothered me much cause all I was paying for was my drinks!


To each his own. But unless the performer is Tommy Emmanuel, I can think of a relatively few solo artists (known or unknown) whose performances wouldn't be more full and pleasing by adding first rate rhythm section tracks.

Anyone ever heard Kristofferson in a solo gig? I have. But with GREAT respect for all of his legendary talents...dude can't sing on pitch to save his life. It's just painful to listen to him and having accompaniment of ANY sort would result in a much more pleasing gig.

(And anyone familiar with how Pro Tools "saves" recording artists in the studio knows what I'm taling about.)

(-:


Jim

Last edited by av84fun; 09/30/13 10:48 AM.