Top Of The World Tour 2023

[cramx3]

Personally, I prefer a full 100% live show.  It's just not the reality for most bands these days. But most importantly, I do, personally, want the main vocalist to be 100% live which I very much believe JLB is even if he's using backing tracks for support.  I don't mind that too much.  JP's mic off bothers me a bit more though because if you can't hear his actual voice, why bother making it look like you are singing.

[Ben_Jamin]

I had no issues with the backing vocal tracks because JLB is harmonizing and these harmonies are a part of the music. My issue was these backing tracks being just as loud, if not, louder than his actual live vocals.

There were moments where it was hard to differentiate between what he was singing live compared to what was a backing track. That's what happens when you harmonize with yourself.

Personally, I prefer a full 100% live show.  It's just not the reality for most bands these days. But most importantly, I do, personally, want the main vocalist to be 100% live which I very much believe JLB is even if he's using backing tracks for support.  I don't mind that too much.  JP's mic off bothers me a bit more though because if you can't hear his actual voice, why bother making it look like you are singing.

But JP is also singing live, his voice is just that low in the mix it's barely audible and noticable. But Alex Lifeson did the same thing.

[TAC]

But JP is also singing live, his voice is just that low in the mix it's barely audible and noticable. But Alex Lifeson did the same thing.

Then what's the damn point?

It's to give the illusion that he's singing the backing vocals, when they're piped in. It's not really a lip synch, but it's more of a mimic.

[cramx3]

Personally, I prefer a full 100% live show.  It's just not the reality for most bands these days. But most importantly, I do, personally, want the main vocalist to be 100% live which I very much believe JLB is even if he's using backing tracks for support.  I don't mind that too much.  JP's mic off bothers me a bit more though because if you can't hear his actual voice, why bother making it look like you are singing.

But JP is also singing live, his voice is just that low in the mix it's barely audible and noticable. But Alex Lifeson did the same thing.

I understand that, but it might as well be off.  It's not barely audible, his live vocals are inaudible.  Other than some instances where JLB's backing tracks weren't on the proper levels, JLB's voice is always heard live. (otherwise there wouldn't be so many complaints!)

[Stadler]

Personally, I prefer a full 100% live show.  It's just not the reality for most bands these days. But most importantly, I do, personally, want the main vocalist to be 100% live which I very much believe JLB is even if he's using backing tracks for support.  I don't mind that too much.  JP's mic off bothers me a bit more though because if you can't hear his actual voice, why bother making it look like you are singing.

I'm with you on this. I'll reserve comment until I ACTUALLY see it, but in theory I'm not down with the Vince Neil/Paul Stanley school of "I'm singing, but we're piping in a tracked vocal near to or identical to the main one". 

[Ben_Jamin]

But JP is also singing live, his voice is just that low in the mix it's barely audible and noticable. But Alex Lifeson did the same thing.

Then what's the damn point?

It's to give the illusion that he's singing the backing vocals, when they're piped in. It's not really a lip synch, but it's more of a mimic.

I don't know. Maybe they trigger the backing track by their voice. And for it to be heard and triggered, the one triggering the mic needs to keep saying words for it to be continuing to be heard.

This is what JP said about Backing Tracks...

"It depends on what people are doing because some people don't tour with their whole bands, so they have sound effects and things going on. If they're up there playing their asses off, and they have some sound effects backing that up while they're doing it, that doesn't really bother me. Having said that, I think that if anybody's up there faking it or pretending, that's a whole different thing. But I think things have changed a lot; you'll have a lot of bands that just go out with two guys now, maybe it's just a guitar player and a drummer, so they need a pre-recorded bass player. If that's the case, then I guess they have to do what they have to do to keep the show going. So, while I am not for people fake playing, it really depends on the situation."

https://blabbermouth.net/news/dream-theaters-john-petrucci-weighs-in-on-use-of-backing-tracks-at-live-concerts

[TAC]

I thought about the trigger thing but that's stupid. We're gonna trigger James' voice with JP's singing? WTF?

As usual, JP doesn't say much of anything in that article.

[cramx3]

As usual, JP doesn't say much of anything in that article.

Yeah, there's nothing of interest there.  And I don't think it's triggered.  They play to a click track for that purpose.

[Ben_Jamin]

As usual, JP doesn't say much of anything in that article.

Yeah, there's nothing of interest there.  And I don't think it's triggered.  They play to a click track for that purpose.

They play to a click track because it also helps a lot with the production of the stage show, such as lighting and the video screens. Not just to trigger the backing vocals easily.

But then, what I think doesn't matter anyways, so why bother?

Personally, I don't give two shits whether a band wants to utilize technology or not. You have those DJ's and others utilizing AI technology to make it seem like a musician is performing. So does it bother you that music is not human anymore? 

[crystalstars17]

But this combination (of live singing + backing tracks) is still, technically, live ... So the argument for or against becomes rather generational, doesn't it? It's not simply about whether it offends "pop fans" vs "prog fans", I think it's the same mindset that leads some to call DT's recent shows "sanitized". It becomes about what people prefer because it's what they grew up with or not. That has nothing to do with genre, and everything to do with whether someone grew up with raw and unpolished live shows in the 70s and 80s and prefers that type of live sound over the refined and pristine sound of shows today. (and that said, I am in the latter camp, and I have never been a pop music fan). It's neither right nor wrong, it's just a preference.

Yet some speak as if it's something morally offensive? I don't get it. I makes more sense to consider it so if the singer isn't actually singing, no? And why does this bother people so much with singers, when there are obviously also backing tracks for the other instruments, this even being widely accepted, even expected for them?

[Ben_Jamin]

But this combination (of live singing + backing tracks) is still, technically, live ... So the argument for or against becomes rather generational, doesn't it? It's not simply about whether it offends "pop fans" vs "prog fans", I think it's the same mindset that leads some to call DT's recent shows "sanitized". It becomes about what people prefer because it's what they grew up with or not. That has nothing to do with genre, and everything to do with whether someone grew up with raw and unpolished live shows in the 70s and 80s and prefers that type of live sound over the refined and pristine sound of shows today. (and that said, I am in the latter camp, and I have never been a pop music fan). It's neither right nor wrong, it's just a preference.

Yet some speak as if it's something morally offensive? I don't get it. I makes more sense to consider it so if the singer isn't actually singing, no? And why does this bother people so much with singers, when there are obviously also backing tracks for the other instruments, this even being widely accepted, even expected for them?

People do prefer that raw and live, natural, sound of a human and their instrument playing the music live. I would contribute this with a human relation and connection we make when another human sings, creates music. Hearing them sing that live is a sight to behold. IF you want a true testament to the human voice and sound, is to hear music played acoustically, with no plug ins, just the drums, voice, acoustic guitars and other acoustic instruments.

With the integration of technology, we humans gained access to more electronic gadgets and devices to further explore our musical creativity. What I feel some are worried about and do not enjoy is the integration of technology creating the music, over the human making the music. To some, they would say the "Soul" is missing because of the mechanical sound associated with the technology used in modern music.

[Architeuthis]

What are you guys talking about?  JP is clearly singing the harmonies on the second leg of this tour and is very audible.
They actually listened to the fans after the first leg and ditched most of the backing tracks. JP is doing a good job with this.

[Architeuthis]

All this machinery making modern music can still be open hearted.. 

[cramx3]

What are you guys talking about?  JP is clearly singing the harmonies on the second leg of this tour and is very audible.
They actually listened to the fans after the first leg and ditched most of the backing tracks. JP is doing a good job with this.

I havent watched a single video from this leg, so if he's no longer faking it, that's a great improvement.

But this combination (of live singing + backing tracks) is still, technically, live ... So the argument for or against becomes rather generational, doesn't it? It's not simply about whether it offends "pop fans" vs "prog fans", I think it's the same mindset that leads some to call DT's recent shows "sanitized". It becomes about what people prefer because it's what they grew up with or not. That has nothing to do with genre, and everything to do with whether someone grew up with raw and unpolished live shows in the 70s and 80s and prefers that type of live sound over the refined and pristine sound of shows today. (and that said, I am in the latter camp, and I have never been a pop music fan). It's neither right nor wrong, it's just a preference.

Yet some speak as if it's something morally offensive? I don't get it. I makes more sense to consider it so if the singer isn't actually singing, no? And why does this bother people so much with singers, when there are obviously also backing tracks for the other instruments, this even being widely accepted, even expected for them?

It is both generational (look at Eddie Trunk for example) and genre. 

[Stadler]

I know for me it IS age, in the sense that I'm old enough to have seen a lot of things.  I've seen shows that I felt were largely piped in (ZZ Top, for example).  I've seen shows that couldn't possibly have been piped in (the early Aerosmith shows; how do you pipe in the thud and clunk of Steven Tyler falling off the drum riser).

 But after a handful of shows - Page and Plant, Kiss with Def Leppard, Bruce on Broadway - I've really come to appreciate the "art" of music.  I could hear Bruce singing and playing guitar outside of the amplification/PA system and it was beautiful.    I saw a decent but not amazing Kiss show go to another level when Gene got pissed at his flying rig, and screamed at his roadies.  After the song he went over to Paul and Tommy and  from that moment on they played like a band possessed.  Even my daughter said "dad, what happened?  They kicked it up a notch!"

I don't know; I see those moments happening less and less the more the show is pre-planned.  That's not BAD: plays and operas are pre-planned and they are - or can be - wildly entertaining (Hamilton).   But I'm there for MUSIC, and I want to see that intangible of a man or woman who can play and sing way better than I can do what they do way better than I can.  I don't mind mistakes, I don't mind when voices are shredded, I kind of want to see what the band does with that.  That Kiss show was AFTER Paul's voice shit the bed; was it the best "Love Gun" ever?  NOPE.  But it was real.  Fish; every time I've seen him it's been progressively worse in terms of his vocals (see what I did there?).  Don't care; I get to see the Big Man playing the songs HE wrote and that I love.  My friend Jim and I saw Ace Frehley in a club about a year ago and it blew; he could barely sing, he looked wasted, but we had fun, the backing band was great (we hung with them for almost an hour after the show on the sidewalk in front of the club) and it's probably the show we talk about most between us.   

I don't void a band like Motley doing what they are allegedly doing; they have to fill stadiums and they need a level of continuity that you don't need in a club.  So be it; I know people that went to that show and LOVED it.  That's not a show that I'm going to probably see.   Not my thing.

[WilliamMunny]

I know for me it IS age, in the sense that I'm old enough to have seen a lot of things.  I've seen shows that I felt were largely piped in (ZZ Top, for example).  I've seen shows that couldn't possibly have been piped in (the early Aerosmith shows; how do you pipe in the thud and clunk of Steven Tyler falling off the drum riser).

 But after a handful of shows - Page and Plant, Kiss with Def Leppard, Bruce on Broadway - I've really come to appreciate the "art" of music.  I could hear Bruce singing and playing guitar outside of the amplification/PA system and it was beautiful.    I saw a decent but not amazing Kiss show go to another level when Gene got pissed at his flying rig, and screamed at his roadies.  After the song he went over to Paul and Tommy and  from that moment on they played like a band possessed.  Even my daughter said "dad, what happened?  They kicked it up a notch!"

I don't know; I see those moments happening less and less the more the show is pre-planned.  That's not BAD: plays and operas are pre-planned and they are - or can be - wildly entertaining (Hamilton).   But I'm there for MUSIC, and I want to see that intangible of a man or woman who can play and sing way better than I can do what they do way better than I can.  I don't mind mistakes, I don't mind when voices are shredded, I kind of want to see what the band does with that.  That Kiss show was AFTER Paul's voice shit the bed; was it the best "Love Gun" ever?  NOPE.  But it was real.  Fish; every time I've seen him it's been progressively worse in terms of his vocals (see what I did there?).  Don't care; I get to see the Big Man playing the songs HE wrote and that I love.  My friend Jim and I saw Ace Frehley in a club about a year ago and it blew; he could barely sing, he looked wasted, but we had fun, the backing band was great (we hung with them for almost an hour after the show on the sidewalk in front of the club) and it's probably the show we talk about most between us.   

I don't void a band like Motley doing what they are allegedly doing; they have to fill stadiums and they need a level of continuity that you don't need in a club.  So be it; I know people that went to that show and LOVED it.  That's not a show that I'm going to probably see.  Not my thing.

Super well-said and pretty much sums up my thoughts on this (especially those last three words)

[Stadler]

But what I didn't say is, Ace - "my thing" - was 400 people in a 700 seat club.   Motley - "not my thing" - is stadia with 60,000+/- people.  A LOT of people DO NOT CARE.  And Eddie Trunk needs to shut the fuck up, because it's not his call.  I cannot and will not void Motley Crue for wanting to play in front of 60,000 people every night and doing what they feel it takes to do that.  I get a boner when 6 people dig what I do (whether it's at work, playing music, or posting here); why would I not want to have 60,000 people hear my music if that was my gig? 

[WilliamMunny]

But what I didn't say is, Ace - "my thing" - was 400 people in a 700 seat club.   Motley - "not my thing" - is stadia with 60,000+/- people.  A LOT of people DO NOT CARE.  And Eddie Trunk needs to shut the fuck up, because it's not his call.  I cannot and will not void Motley Crue for wanting to play in front of 60,000 people every night and doing what they feel it takes to do that.  I get a boner when 6 people dig what I do (whether it's at work, playing music, or posting here); why would I not want to have 60,000 people hear my music if that was my gig?

Oh, for sure. And to that point, I don't know how much of a conscious decision it is.

For instance, Ace plays where he plays for a variety of factors, and he wears that 'no backing tracks' thing like a badge of honor (and rightfully so).

That said, I sincerely doubt he'd die on that hill if the only thing that stood between him and a four night run at MSG was the use of backing tracks.

This isn't a Metallica thread, but I keep checking out their live vids from this tour and their 'warts and all' approach is so ballsy—they definitely have my respect on that front.

[hefdaddy42]

Eddie Trunk needs to shut the fuck up

A thousand times this

[Dream Team]

God willing we have another 4-5 albums/tours. The shows will be tweaked here and there for refinement but broadly speaking, this is what we are getting until the curtain call. I am trying to make arrangements to see the Dreamsonic show but am under no illusion that he's going to be a new man if they'd just swap in a couple of different tunes, go with a new brand of ear monitors, and get him vocal coaching. The guy is 60 and his body is changing. It is what it is.

Surely one of the hottest takes of 2023. There is no way IN HELL James has 4 - 5 tour cycles left in him. Sorry but that's reality.

[Stadler]

But what I didn't say is, Ace - "my thing" - was 400 people in a 700 seat club.   Motley - "not my thing" - is stadia with 60,000+/- people.  A LOT of people DO NOT CARE.  And Eddie Trunk needs to shut the fuck up, because it's not his call.  I cannot and will not void Motley Crue for wanting to play in front of 60,000 people every night and doing what they feel it takes to do that.  I get a boner when 6 people dig what I do (whether it's at work, playing music, or posting here); why would I not want to have 60,000 people hear my music if that was my gig?

Oh, for sure. And to that point, I don't know how much of a conscious decision it is.

For instance, Ace plays where he plays for a variety of factors, and he wears that 'no backing tracks' thing like a badge of honor (and rightfully so).

That said, I sincerely doubt he'd die on that hill if the only thing that stood between him and a four night run at MSG was the use of backing tracks.

This isn't a Metallica thread, but I keep checking out their live vids from this tour and their 'warts and all' approach is so ballsy—they definitely have my respect on that front.

1000% on both those last two sentences.  Ace has already said he's up for a Kiss reunion - Kiss notoriously augmenting their live lead vocals and basically piping most if not all their backing vocals - "if the money is right".  Of course - on Trunk's show, go figure - he took shots at Paul for what he's doing, but the overarching theme of his position is "I'm in if the money's right, full stop."

As for James and gang, agreed.  I want to see Metallica more now than I ever have.   I WILL see them at some point before they call it a day (I just hate the stadium thing, so bad!)

[Azyiu]

As for James and gang, agreed.  I want to see Metallica more now than I ever have.   I WILL see them at some point before they call it a day (I just hate the stadium thing, so bad!)

Same here, I am too old for that stadium 2 nights 2 setlists thing. I don't think my back can handle standing around for hours for one show, let alone two.

[cramx3]

I know for me it IS age, in the sense that I'm old enough to have seen a lot of things.  I've seen shows that I felt were largely piped in (ZZ Top, for example).  I've seen shows that couldn't possibly have been piped in (the early Aerosmith shows; how do you pipe in the thud and clunk of Steven Tyler falling off the drum riser).

 But after a handful of shows - Page and Plant, Kiss with Def Leppard, Bruce on Broadway - I've really come to appreciate the "art" of music.  I could hear Bruce singing and playing guitar outside of the amplification/PA system and it was beautiful.    I saw a decent but not amazing Kiss show go to another level when Gene got pissed at his flying rig, and screamed at his roadies.  After the song he went over to Paul and Tommy and  from that moment on they played like a band possessed.  Even my daughter said "dad, what happened?  They kicked it up a notch!"

I don't know; I see those moments happening less and less the more the show is pre-planned.  That's not BAD: plays and operas are pre-planned and they are - or can be - wildly entertaining (Hamilton).   But I'm there for MUSIC, and I want to see that intangible of a man or woman who can play and sing way better than I can do what they do way better than I can.  I don't mind mistakes, I don't mind when voices are shredded, I kind of want to see what the band does with that.  That Kiss show was AFTER Paul's voice shit the bed; was it the best "Love Gun" ever?  NOPE.  But it was real.  Fish; every time I've seen him it's been progressively worse in terms of his vocals (see what I did there?).  Don't care; I get to see the Big Man playing the songs HE wrote and that I love.  My friend Jim and I saw Ace Frehley in a club about a year ago and it blew; he could barely sing, he looked wasted, but we had fun, the backing band was great (we hung with them for almost an hour after the show on the sidewalk in front of the club) and it's probably the show we talk about most between us.   

I don't void a band like Motley doing what they are allegedly doing; they have to fill stadiums and they need a level of continuity that you don't need in a club.  So be it; I know people that went to that show and LOVED it.  That's not a show that I'm going to probably see.   Not my thing.

I'm with you on this, other than I did enjoy the Motley crue shows  before I knew it was a lot of backing tracks, but honestly, I was pretty sure there were some while watching but when you hear Vince sing, you kind of fall back into "well this has to be legit because he sounds so bad!" 

As for the bolded.  I have a GREAT example of this from a show last weekend.  The band, Set It Off, is alike a pop rock / pop punk band.  They play to a backing track and they don't really hide it.  I've seen the singer talk about it in interviews.  But, he's live. And in this one song, he's doing the intro and the backing track is already playing as he says something kind of stupid (see for yourself) and then as the song keeps going he just can't sing because he's laughing.  It's a moment where, yeah, the music isn't totally live, but you still saw a real live moment on stage.  I loved it.  It'll probably make my top 10 concert moments video at the end of the year.   

https://youtu.be/9SwaTWK23GQ?t=1316 in case you want to see what I'm talking about, and if you watch till later in the video, he get's called out for that comment 

[TheBarstoolWarrior]

they were obviously piping in the track to help him out and make it sound more like the studio recording. Yes, it does smooth out the overall delivery but I do not like piped in instruments unless it's critical to the song. In the case of DT it was not. I want to hear the band in all their glory when I go to a live show. I do appreciate the perfecting of the live shows but also want them to remain live performances as much as possible.

[WilliamMunny]

I know for me it IS age, in the sense that I'm old enough to have seen a lot of things.  I've seen shows that I felt were largely piped in (ZZ Top, for example).  I've seen shows that couldn't possibly have been piped in (the early Aerosmith shows; how do you pipe in the thud and clunk of Steven Tyler falling off the drum riser).

 But after a handful of shows - Page and Plant, Kiss with Def Leppard, Bruce on Broadway - I've really come to appreciate the "art" of music.  I could hear Bruce singing and playing guitar outside of the amplification/PA system and it was beautiful.    I saw a decent but not amazing Kiss show go to another level when Gene got pissed at his flying rig, and screamed at his roadies.  After the song he went over to Paul and Tommy and  from that moment on they played like a band possessed.  Even my daughter said "dad, what happened?  They kicked it up a notch!"

I don't know; I see those moments happening less and less the more the show is pre-planned.  That's not BAD: plays and operas are pre-planned and they are - or can be - wildly entertaining (Hamilton).   But I'm there for MUSIC, and I want to see that intangible of a man or woman who can play and sing way better than I can do what they do way better than I can.  I don't mind mistakes, I don't mind when voices are shredded, I kind of want to see what the band does with that.  That Kiss show was AFTER Paul's voice shit the bed; was it the best "Love Gun" ever?  NOPE.  But it was real.  Fish; every time I've seen him it's been progressively worse in terms of his vocals (see what I did there?).  Don't care; I get to see the Big Man playing the songs HE wrote and that I love.  My friend Jim and I saw Ace Frehley in a club about a year ago and it blew; he could barely sing, he looked wasted, but we had fun, the backing band was great (we hung with them for almost an hour after the show on the sidewalk in front of the club) and it's probably the show we talk about most between us.   

I don't void a band like Motley doing what they are allegedly doing; they have to fill stadiums and they need a level of continuity that you don't need in a club.  So be it; I know people that went to that show and LOVED it.  That's not a show that I'm going to probably see.   Not my thing.

I'm with you on this, other than I did enjoy the Motley crue shows  before I knew it was a lot of backing tracks, but honestly, I was pretty sure there were some while watching but when you hear Vince sing, you kind of fall back into "well this has to be legit because he sounds so bad!" 

As for the bolded.  I have a GREAT example of this from a show last weekend.  The band, Set It Off, is alike a pop rock / pop punk band.  They play to a backing track and they don't really hide it.  I've seen the singer talk about it in interviews.  But, he's live. And in this one song, he's doing the intro and the backing track is already playing as he says something kind of stupid (see for yourself) and then as the song keeps going he just can't sing because he's laughing.  It's a moment where, yeah, the music isn't totally live, but you still saw a real live moment on stage.  I loved it.  It'll probably make my top 10 concert moments video at the end of the year.   

https://youtu.be/9SwaTWK23GQ?t=1316 in case you want to see what I'm talking about, and if you watch till later in the video, he get's called out for that comment 

Your point—that spontaneous can happen even with backing tracks—is well said.

But, watching that video, I feel like I was watching something more inline with N'Sync than, say, a rock band (hope that doesn't offend...just what it sounded like even if they did have guitars).

The expectations are VASTLY different depending on the genre. Go to a hip-hop show and no one's gonna be pissed about the backing tracks, but in the context of an old-school rock band, well, that's where I think the issue is for most fans (or posters on this board).

[cramx3]

Your point—that spontaneous can happen even with backing tracks—is well said.

But, watching that video, I feel like I was watching something more inline with N'Sync than, say, a rock band (hope that doesn't offend...just what it sounded like even if they did have guitars).

The expectations are VASTLY different depending on the genre. Go to a hip-hop show and no one's gonna be pissed about the backing tracks, but in the context of an old-school rock band, well, that's where I think the issue is for most fans (or posters on this board).

Yeah, Set It Off is not far off from being a "boy band" as my gf calls them.  If I played you a different song you'd say "pop punk" but they are basically pop in my mind and I"m pretty sure one of the two guitarist's amp's is off    As to your second point, that's what I was trying to say the other day.  Genre kind of matters in terms of people's response.  I don't think anyone besides me in that venue cared too much about the backing tracks. (and I didn't care too much, I'm familiar with the band, it was no surprise, but the first time I saw them I was like wtf??? since they opened for a fully live punk band).

[Stadler]

Well, you guys are now talking about the distinctions between supplemental and fundamental.  You don't go see Eminem show to see that keyboardist lay down that exquisite beat.      You're going to hear him spit truth, and as long as THAT is live, I see no issue.

I won't continue to talk about Motley, because I haven't seen them on this tour.  But I'm not as lenient if a guy or girl stops signing physically, but you still hear the vocal as if they were still singing. 

[cramx3]

But I'm not as lenient if a guy or girl stops signing physically, but you still hear the vocal as if they were still singing.

Yeah, this for sure. 

[Ben_Jamin]

Well, you guys are now talking about the distinctions between supplemental and fundamental.  You don't go see Eminem show to see that keyboardist lay down that exquisite beat.      You're going to hear him spit truth, and as long as THAT is live, I see no issue.

I won't continue to talk about Motley, because I haven't seen them on this tour.  But I'm not as lenient if a guy or girl stops signing physically, but you still hear the vocal as if they were still singing.

I will say though. There is a big difference of energy and vibe when a Hip-Hop artist has a backing band. Compared to when they have a DJ. Both types of shows are an entirely different vibe. For a show with a live band, it's about the music and it almost feels like a party where everyone is there to enjoy the music and have a good time. With a DJ set, it's more about the skill of rapping, and hearing the rapper rap. It's still a party vibe, but it's more about jamming out and hearing the rapper do what they do best.

This is the same for Pop artists as well. I actually prefer a lot of live versions from big Pop acts such as Justin Bieber and Demi Lovato. What's great about their shows with a live band is the band is actually live. The artist will also give recognition to the live band by letting play extended sections or even add some solo sections, even if they're short. But also, they do what JLB did during this tour. They have a backing track they harmonize with and they will let it play it's backing tracks while they dance, or do some stage production stuff, but will still sing along live, there's a difference I can pick up that tells me they're singing live.

[the_silent_man]

What are you guys talking about?  JP is clearly singing the harmonies on the second leg of this tour and is very audible.
They actually listened to the fans after the first leg and ditched most of the backing tracks. JP is doing a good job with this.

Just want to second this as I fear this post got missed. While the backing vocal tracks were an issue on the first leg, when I saw them  in Birmingham, UK earlier this year the only backing vocal you could hear was JP, live and (finally) audible.
So these concerns WERE addressed. Not sure if this has carried forward to the Asia leg.

[crystalstars17]

I've finally caught up on how this conversation has progressed, and with great interest, and, wow! Most here do really prefer shows that are unpolished. I'm trying but I still can't get my head around it. I realize I'm in the vast minority here, but I'm actually mildly annoyed by those moments in shows that are as wild and untamed as some of the moments described about other bands. I wouldn't pay good money to see a band member drunk, or making unforgiveable mistakes that make the music sound like noise instead of music. I mean yeah, even when my beloved James is talking too much onstage or practically choking on his gum (may heaven forbid), I'm sitting there rolling my eyes, like, on with it already, lol. I bought a ticket to see the best moments my favorite band can bring, and I expect it to be polished. This is extremely high level music, not a garage band by any stretch, these are virtuoso musicians with classical training and, at least in my mind, I expect an extremely high level of polish. To me, that's true professionalism. So I have absolutely no problems with a planned and pristine show. 

I don't know; I see those moments happening less and less the more the show is pre-planned.  That's not BAD: plays and operas are pre-planned and they are - or can be - wildly entertaining (Hamilton).   

I can kinda see where some fans may view those "unplanned" moments as somewhat endearing and memorable. But I do appreciate them being kept to a minimum in favor of the polished performance that I described above. But you mentioned "plays and operas" and, that's actually the background I'm coming from. And I know for a fact that those singers, for all the planning and polishing, are singing. So consider the source I guess, these are just the snooty ramblings of a musical theater snob (Sorry not sorry). 

[Adami]

I've finally caught up on how this conversation has progressed, and with great interest, and, wow! Most here do really prefer shows that are unpolished. I'm trying but I still can't get my head around it. I realize I'm in the vast minority here, but I'm actually mildly annoyed by those moments in shows that are as wild and untamed as some of the moments described about other bands. I wouldn't pay good money to see a band member drunk, or making unforgiveable mistakes that make the music sound like noise instead of music. I mean yeah, even when my beloved James is talking too much onstage or practically choking on his gum (may heaven forbid), I'm sitting there rolling my eyes, like, on with it already, lol. I bought a ticket to see the best moments my favorite band can bring, and I expect it to be polished. This is extremely high level music, not a garage band by any stretch, these are virtuoso musicians with classical training and, at least in my mind, I expect an extremely high level of polish. To me, that's true professionalism. So I have absolutely no problems with a planned and pristine show. 

I don't know; I see those moments happening less and less the more the show is pre-planned.  That's not BAD: plays and operas are pre-planned and they are - or can be - wildly entertaining (Hamilton).   

I can kinda see where some fans may view those "unplanned" moments as somewhat endearing and memorable. But I do appreciate them being kept to a minimum in favor of the polished performance that I described above. But you mentioned "plays and operas" and, that's actually the background I'm coming from. And I know for a fact that those singers, for all the planning and polishing, are singing. So consider the source I guess, these are just the snooty ramblings of a musical theater snob (Sorry not sorry). 

I get that. I disagree with it, but I get it. However, I'm sure you'll agree that different genres are held to different standards and expectations. If I go see Phantom of the Opera, or La Boheme, I'm not really going to see those specific performers or cast, I'm going to hear/see the piece and those people are merely the temporary people performing it.

Similarly, if the actor playing Erik, for instance, gives even two or three performances as terrible as many of James' has been recently, that dude gets axed and replaced. People don't go see a shoddy vocal Phantom performance out of their undying love for that actor.

So if DT were holding themselves to the standards of a play/musical/opera, James would have been kicked out and replaced years ago, because it would be all about the music and not the individuals. However, that's not their standard, and it's clearly not anyone else' standard. So people are going to expect what they do and be happy or upset with what they are.

[Dream Team]

A lot of good, really intelligent discussion the last few pages but I guess the bottom line for me is: if somebody told me it didn't bother them that their favorite rock band totally faked a live show, I'd never take a word they said seriously again, on any topic. I mean, I'm supposed to trust a recommendation they make for a good restaurant or good movie?

[Architeuthis]

Not to be too critical, I think chewing gum while singing on stage should be a big NO-NO!  It looks awkward and I doubt it's helping him sing any better.  I wonder if a vocal coach actually advised him to do this?

[Madman Shepherd]

Not to be too critical, I think chewing gum while singing on stage should be a big NO-NO!  It looks awkward and I doubt it's helping him sing any better.  I wonder if a vocal coach actually advised him to do this?

Lots of older musicians do this. I think it helps generate saliva which helps their performance.  If it were me, I would have choked on that gum within the first verse.