"Backer" clarification

[Pine]

I never heard the word "backer" until just a few years ago. I've heard all the arguments for the most part. I can understand that using samples or some bass and drums and guitar recorded who knows where else and adding yourself to it would both be considered using "backers". Here's my question: I often have used my keyboard rhythm presets as a base to build on...i write the arrangements, play the chords, most the notes, and all that...but sometimes add a "fill" preset or even a preset ending or intro. Is that considered a "backer"? I have a Boss DR-3 drum machine. Is using, say, the "funky blues" setting considered a backer? Those are pre-recorded loops..can i use them and still claim to have an "original" song?  All these recent discussions have me wondering!Can someone share with me the generally accepted point where we draw the line? Thanks!

Pine

[AndyR]

I personally don't see using rhythm presets on a keyboard or any drum machine as any different to using the preset drum patterns in the MBR or any of the other BR recorders - so I suspect that what you're doing is fine. I imagine most other folks would see it the same way.

I think most people on here use the term "backer" to mean a stereo recording of a complete band arrangement that you can play or sing over.

[T.C. Elliott]

A backer is a pre-recorded backing track. It is often used in smaller studios to allow a vocalist to come in and sing just a vocal track to make a demo of his/her vocal abilities.

On the Fender-Forum there was a section were members could post backing tracks for others to play over. (I'm sure it's been around other places, but that's where I learned of them.) Usually guitarists would put a guitar track over the backing track (backer) and then share the final work. Sometimes more instruments would be added.
Sometimes a member would write a lyric and melody and sing as well as add other instruments.

Original backing tracks can be made but there are also backing tracks for sale that one can buy and use. Sometimes you are allowed to share those tracks and sometimes not depending on how the tracks are sold.

On this site sometimes an instrumental track will be posted and then another member will write a lyric and sing over it resulting in a collab. This is technically using a backer. But in this case it's an all member composition.


Now, using a rhythm setting on a keyboard isn't a backing track. But if it contains a bass line and or horns or keys (and the like) that change just by hitting a key you probably wouldn't want to say you "played" that part. But it isn't, strictly speaking, a backing track (backer.)

Of course this is all from my own personal view point. I'm sure others have a better grasp on the subject at hand.

[Pine]

Thanks TC..i never would say i played something that i didn't..and as you and most everyone knows today's modern keyboards have a substantial ability to "embellish" the basics you lay down (e.g. a 7th chord on my casio CTK 691 can be played by hitting the root and the adjoining two keys when set on "casio chords". It's cheating in a way for sure).  So the way i am hearing this if I build the song myself with my own hands and instruments, even if they might use a drum loop (and with the Boss DR-3 drum machine you can have a bass loop as well), they will be considered as originals and not a song that utilizes a "backer"...yes? I dislike using those presets but i often do...and if the bass is crossing the line, actually so are drum loops. People who actually program every drum beat would be the only ones exempt...because how many folks here could actually play the rolls and drum stuff they use..and the very cool pro bass lines that are programmed into most drum machines (as well as many Boss recorders) I like to think of all my songs as "originals"...but in fact, techincally, they really aren't if any of the instruments involved are programmed in any way and not physically played. Right?
i would like to see what others think of this but i doubt this thread will get any more responses. Just the title probably scares most off at this point in time. Thanks TC.

[T.C. Elliott]

No problem.
I personally wouldn't give a damn about a bass line being programmed in a drum machine or not. And most of the time I program my own drums in my BR-900 as opposed to using the presets even though most of the time they end up pretty similar. Or I change the preset to work for me.

I did a song in February 2008 called Goodbye that was a 'casiocore' song. In which you used the preset beats of a keyboard for the foundation of the song. And this one had a bass line in it. So I 'played' the preset and then recorded guitar over it and wrote a lyric and sang. It is a favorite of some of my friends, but I can't say I played the drums or bass on it. Still kind of proud of it, though.

[AndyR]

I'm fully in agreement with TC.

But I'd also like to give you a way of looking at things which is slightly more empowering than you seem to be thinking at the moment. (Many apologies if you're not thinking like I'm imagining, but I've got a feeling that this stuff might help anyone who is.)

I don't know off the top of my head what sort of music you do, but in my case I regard all of the instrumentation as the arrangement of the song for that particular recording. I personally write songs that are usually vocal-based, verses and choruses etc. In this case, the bass line, the drums, even my own guitar parts are NOT part of the "song" itself. The song itself is the lyric and the melody lines (including sometimes melodic hooks played on an instrument). In some cases, you can even discount the chord sequence as a part of the song - you can re-harmonise any song (change the chords) without actually changing the copyrightable song itself. You can even change the time signature to a waltz and still have the same song.

So, how you generate the backing actually doesn't really matter. If you wrote the song, it's your original song. Now, if you've used loops of a famous bass-line, for example, your recording/performance isn't entirely original. And if you started with that bass-line, and wrote the song to that, then there's a strong argument that your song might not be original either.

But look at it this way - a lot of very famous songs were written in one of the following ways:

A:
1) Take the melody of an existing hit and write new lyrics.
2) Now write a new melody for the lyrics.

or B:
1) Take the lyrics of an existing hit and write a new melody.
2) Now write new lyrics for the melody.

This is a tried and tested and valid method that folks have always used. So if you've written a song over a famous bass-line, just take the bass-line off and add another of your own devising - problem solved.

The real issue with synth generated backing (bass and chords, and even drum patterns) is not that you've ended up with an "un-original" song, you haven't if you're the one who invented the melody and lyrics. The problem is that most listeners usually find such arrangements a little generic, computerised, and therefore boring. If I was using a synth, I'd happily use the accompaniment facilities to write the song in the first place, but I'd probably ditch the accompaniment and record something else that sounded better. I'd still have written the song though.

I have no issue at all with using the patterns in a drum machine - it's just an automated drummer that I've paid for, the thing is gonna play on my session and like it, and it won't argue back like real drummers I've known. And it certainly didn't put any effort into the songwriting so it's not getting any songwriting royalties! The performances in a drum machine, if done by a human, were paid for at session rates - the original drummer does not own them. The drum machine was sold to you with the rights to use those beats in your recordings if you so wish - even in commercial recordings. So the drum machine doesn't even get performance royalties for being on my session


All this talk of "original" elsewhere at the moment is possibly somewhat misleading.

It's only the rules that songcrafters want to impose on recordings for the purpose of classifying them on different boards.

I have no problem with that either, I can see how it might help folks to "know" what level of skill was involved in making a recording (although personally I have NO interest in knowing this - I only want to hear the finished article, if someone used the preset on a Casio like TC and produced an original song that's good to listen to, well that's an extremely good thing in my book).

But that's all this discussion of "original" is, proposed posting rules for the songcrafters website. In the wider world, there are NO RULES in creativity except one - you must never ever steal someone else's creativity and claim it as your own. If you buy a tool that has certain facilities that can accompany you, that's just a tool, not someone else's work, you drove the wretched thing and chose the noises it was going to make, and Boss or Casio or whoever are not going to come after you for royalties when you have a massive hit!

[Pine]

TC...your response hit home as on my first CD i had just bought a keyboard...was eager to record my songs, and my band had broken up years ago...so i used the keyboard to death for bass and drums and fills, etc.
This brings me to Andy's post. Much appreciate your time Andy and your lengthy and thoughtful response. It addresses alot of my situation. As stated, i used the casio too much on my first CD and i think, in hindsight, it robbed alot of the tunes of their personal identity. It gave the overall album a rather pasturized/homogonized feel.
I am terrible at doing covers so stealing anybody's stuff would never happen...wouldn't even occur to me as original songwriting just happens to be all i care about musically. I have read some of your posts elsewhere and it appears you are also cut from that same cloth. The less i use "outside equipment", the more i usually end up liking my finished product. It may not be as full or well liked by others, but it gives me more personal satisfaction and that's more important. I'll continue to build my own "backers" (that word bugs me in a way as it seems to minimize the work and importance that goes into doing all the parts in an arrangement) so that they offer the utmost support and enhancement for the real core of the song...the melody and/or lyrics. Your comment about using all the synth generated stuff to build the song and then abandoning it all has me thinking of a redo of my first album. It was all acoustic, guitar based songs that really didn't need all that. My electric bluesrock album was a different story (most all those songs in my jukebox here) My most recent "soundscape" CD had alot of synth strings but for the most part was all acoustic instruments and i did indeed get alot more satisfaction from the end result. You guys both make good points and i appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts. Looking forward to listening to your work.

Pine

[AndyR]

I'm so glad it was a help

After I'd typed it, I very nearly binned it!

I haven't done any listening (or recording) at all for a few months - I'll try and find a moment to have a listen to your stuff this week. (I just WISH I was allowed to do it at work during lunch...)

[Rata-tat-tat]

PD... AndyR summed it up much better than I could've so I'll give some additional personal thoughts>>>

I have tried just about all of the above... I have to say as a drummer... I would tend to lean more toward listening to a track that was produced from raw instruments rather than a drum machine or pre programmed loops. As I said I have done all of the them... I think that I get more satisfaction out of a raw drum track even if there are mistakes all over the place. I understand that due to time constraints there is a need for drum machines... Who want's to wait for a drummer to lay there track down to get the structure of the track ironed out? This is why I believe the final drum track should be made toward the end of the project.  But there just aren't many drummers out there collabing... Do I think it's cheating??? No... not if you are the one programming the machine... or editing the loop... If you are simply playing to a rhythm or laying vox over a drum track (Similar to what ORH did with "Surface Detail") the answer is still "No"... this is what a collab is all about. Now if you are wanting to release a CD to the public... I think it might be in your best interest to have some folks play over your already composed (IE real drums/ guitars/bass and so on)... I think that using your synth to lay down ideas is a great tool. This allows for a clear understanding of what you want and how you think the end result should sound. I can tell you put a lot of work into your recordings... for this forum i think your right on track.

[Saijinn Maas]

I didn't really have anything to add originally, since so much of what I would have said has been said. But the other day I was talking to my Dad, who has been a vocalist in various bands since he was 14. We got on the subject of backers due to the other thread. And he actually made me realize a different way to view it.

In the old days, the old legendary blues men essentially played to backers. There were the standard 6 or so different progressions, tweaked by different feels and time signatures. It didn't matter who you had in the backing band, everyone played them. Chances are that if they had the tech back then, they'd have just traveled around playing to backing tracks heh

The soul of the music, the creativity, the mojo, was in the melody. When that guitar, or harp, got going, it really was something. There was no one standing there saying, "That's not real music! You're just noodling over the same 4 chords Blind Man Johnson down the street played over the other night!" That was the thing. Given the same essential backer, is was all about "what can YOU do".