Jump to content


- - - - -

Can aynone recomend a backing track software package


14 replies to this topic

#1 Grandpa FrankyZ

Grandpa FrankyZ

    What is your conceptual continuity?

  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,875 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Adelaide, Australia.
  • Original Name: frankyz84

Posted 13 May 2010 - 07:08 PM

What i am after is a software package that allows me to take out any instrument or vocal, on an mp3 or wave file. I know these software packages exist, but a search on the net has so far proven fruitless. I am also searching computer shops, and software dealers, but all they seem to come up with is kareoke software, for editing vocals. Can anyone help me?

#2 Crawdaddy

Crawdaddy

    Circus Animal

  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPip
  • 745 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne, Arssendofoz
  • Original Name: Crawdaddy

Posted 13 May 2010 - 10:15 PM

Well if the track that you want to work on is a multi track then it wouldnt be that difficult in most audio editors, but I'm guessing you already know that. A program that comes to mind that might be capable of doing the job you require from a single wave file is a software called Celemony:Melodyne Editor. It has a feature called DNA (direct note access).I can't vouch for it because I have never used it but it claims to be able to give you direct note access to any note/notes in multi instrument or polyphonic audio material that you wish to edit or delete as well as a whole bunch of other stuff. Its not cheap though but anyway here's the link if you want to have a squiz.
http://www.celemony....products_editor
SoundClick
--------------------

#3 guru of rock n roll

guru of rock n roll
  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Original Name: guru of rock n roll

Posted 14 May 2010 - 01:53 AM





Some kid on you tube says it works but I don't know.
Posted Image

#4 surfwhammy

surfwhammy
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,318 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Original Name: surfwhammy

Posted 14 May 2010 - 04:34 PM

What i am after is a software package that allows me to take out any instrument or vocal, on an mp3 or wave file. I know these software packages exist, but a search on the net has so far proven fruitless. I am also searching computer shops, and software dealers, but all they seem to come up with is kareoke software, for editing vocals. Can anyone help me?


In the grand scheme of everything, one might suggest that the best solution depends on what you need and desire to do from the perspective of the long run, which usually is the best and most practical perspective . . .

[NOTE: My experience has been that people tend to purchase a lot of stuff that they think they need only to discover sometime later that there were smarter solutions in the grand scheme of everything. It is very easy to make a lot of small purchases, but after a while what tends to happen is that you have a lot of small stuff which mostly does very specific things but no big stuff that does general and specific things. Part of this is the consequence simply of not knowing what you really want to do, as well as how to do it, from what I call a "big picture" perspective, so this is the reason that focusing on the "big picture" makes a bit of sense over the long run, because when you consider everything in terms of years rather than days, weeks, and months, you can keep productively busy with the stuff you have while you are saving to get some big stuff. Also, because of the specific question you asked, I can make the inference that you probably do not have a digital recording studio, or at least that if you have a computer-based digital system, then you do not understand some of the things it can do, otherwise you would not need to ask the question, since what you want to do for the most part is not very difficult to do if you have a workstation-class computer and the correct software applications. So, along with providing some suggestions for hardware and software, I am providing some insights into how everything works, although not in a lot of specific detail, because it is a bit complex, really . . . ]

Nearly half a century ago, folks used vinyl and other types of "platter" records and a variable speed or multispeed record player, along with becoming quite skilled in determining which physical groove of the "platter" mapped to a particular phrase, where the general strategy was to slowdown fast parts but to speedup slow parts, where for example if you wanted to learn the bass guitar part to a Beatles song on a 33 1/3 RPM "LP", then you would play the song at 45 RPM or perhaps 78 RPM, where the bass guitar part would sound more like a flute melody, but to learn a lead guitar part the strategy involved playing the song at 16 2/3 RPM or even slower if the turntable had a variable speed control, and some folks would stack a bunch of "platters" atop the turntable or perhaps add some lead weights or a brick if their turntable did not have a variable speed control . . .

And over time, this "slowdown and speedup" technique nearly always mapped to being able to hear instrumental and vocal parts very distinctly at normal playing speeds, which ultimately is the skill you want to master, since over the long run you want to be able actually to hear the music and singing as distinctly as possible . . .

Sometime later, when magnetic tape machines became affordable for common folks, the strategy shifted to using these types of machines, but while some of them had variable speed controls, most of them only had one slower speed and one faster fast speed, and it was a lot more difficult to replay the same phrase, since it required rewinding magnetic tape over and over, which after a while causes problems with the tape, although this strategy was helpful at times . . .

Today at the dawn of the early 21st century, there is readily available software for playing digital recordings at a virtual festival of speeds, and some of it includes the ability to separate instruments and voices, where the specific capabilities are dependent primarily on the power and speed of your computer, as well as your overall budget, since with the required computing power, audio interfaces, and software it is possible to do nearly anything you can imagine, really . . .

Really!

At what one might call the "low end" of the spectrum, Roni Music has an excellent software application called "Amazing Slow Downer", and you can observe and hear some of what it does in this YouTube video, where for reference during the latter part of the video when the lead guitar part is played at 20 percent of full speed, this is how the lead guitar solos sounded on record players, which is the way I learned the lead guitar solos for a variety of Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, and KISS songs when I was teaching myself how to play lead guitar, noting this is a lot easier when one begins by learning how to play bass guitar, because the lightning fast lead guitar solos sound like slow-motion bass guitar lines when played very slowly, and as you can hear, it is a bit surreal, which makes it like being in a time warp, for sure . . .

Roni Music (website)

Amazing Slow Downer (Roni Music) -- YouTube video

For sure!

This particular software application has various controls that make it possible to isolate instruments to some degree, and you also can change the pitch, so depending on what you need to do, it can be very useful . . .

As Crawdaddy observed, you can do a lot more with Melodyne Editor (Celemony), but it is important to understand that this software is processor-intensive, so you need to have a fast computer that is tailored for working with digital music . . .

I use Melodyne Editor primarily for having a bit of FUN with the "Cher Effect", although in a different way that includes doing a bit of yodeling, where the key bit of information regarding Melodyne Editor is that it does not do anything automatically with respect to creating the "Cher Effect", so if this is what you want to do, then you need to know enough about music to do it at a primitive level, which includes knowing how to transform vocal sounds into sequences of discrete notes and then knowing how to separate a longer duration note into a series of shorter duration notes which then can be assigned to different pitches, which is the way one creates the "Cher Effect" note by note. Melodyne Editor is vastly more powerful as a composing tool, but it requires more work and greater knowledge, really . . .

Melodyne Editor (Celemony)

Editing Polytonal Music with Melodyne Editor (Celemony) -- Video Tutorial

Really!

For reference, I use a 2.8-GHz Mac Pro with 8GB of memory and approximately 6TB of high-speed hard drives here in the sound isolation studio for digital music production, and this setup makes working with Melodyne Editor very easy, although it takes a while, since modifying a 10 second phrase can take 10 minutes or longer, depending on what needs to be done, which overall maps to perhaps a few hours for one vocal track of a 3 minute song . . .

There are other ways to doing something similar, and for constructing synthesized vocal harmony, the TC-HELICON VoiceWorks vocal processor is very nice and realistic, which is what I used for The Fabulous Cooters™ and The Amazing Lollipops™, two of my pretend backup vocal groups, on "It Don't Add Up" (The Surf Whammys), which for reference was mixed when I was doing headphone-only mixes, so it probably sounds good only when you listen with headphones at high volume, which is fabulous . . .

"It Don't Add Up" (The Surf Whammys) -- MP3

VoiceWorks Vocal Processor (TC-HELICON)

Fabulous! :D

As a general rule, although the initial costs are a bit higher, it is best to use an Apple computer for digital music production, since everything (hardware and operating system) is done by one company (Apple), and it is done in a way that maps to an Apple computer being what I call "born knowing" everything that needs to be done to support digital music production . . .

You will need a hardware audio interface for doing more advanced digital music production, and I like MOTU products, since they work very nicely with Apple computers . . .

One might suppose that people use Windows computers for digital music production, but my perspective is that it is so much easier to do the work in the Mac universe that it is a bit mind-boggling to consider doing it in the Windows universe, where for reference I have done advanced Windows programming since the first version of Windows starting sometime early in 1987 and know a lot about the way things work in the Windows universe, as well as knowing a lot about the way things work in the Apple universe, since among things I am a Mac OS X and iPhone OS application developer, as I have been for quite a number of years, hence I am not making the "Mac vs. Windows" comparison without knowing a lot about both platforms . . .

The fact of the matter is that pretty much all you need to do to have a fully capability professional quality digital recording studio that fits inside a briefcase is to get an Apple MacBook Pro, a MOTU 828mk3 Firewire audio interface, and MOTU Digital Performer software . . .

Getting everything setup and configured is a matter of connecting the MOTU 828mk3 to the Apple MacBook Pro via a single Firewire cable and then installing the MOTU Digital Performer software application, followed by doing a bit of very simple channel assignments to tell Digital Performer what you want to do with whatever microphones and instruments you decide to connect to the MOTU 828mk3 audio interface, although you might need to download and to install an updated driver from MOTU if the Apple MacBook Pro has a newer version of Mac OS X than the version for which the driver is provided in your copy of MOTU Digital Performer, but this takes just a few minutes and is trivial to do, since another fact of the Apple universe is that nearly all software is installed by simply running an installer program and dragging and dropping an image of the application onto an image of the Mac OS X "Applications" folder, since it is standard practice in the Apple universe not to bombard users with a virtual festival of completely unnecessary and quite frivolous questions and messages. Additionally, everything works the first time without any hassles in the Apple universe, which makes it extraordinarily easy to focus on making music rather than on tinkering with computers, really . . .

Really!

This is a short example of doing a modified "Cher Effect" using Melodyne Editor, where the original vocal track is in the right channel, while the modified vocal track is in the left channel, so if you listen with headphones like the SONY MDR-7506 (a personal favorite), then you can hear how it works, for sure . . .

"Tell Me" (The Surf Whammys) -- Modified 'Cher Effect" -- MP3 (approximately 10 seconds)

For sure!

As an example, I see no problems in using Melodyne Editor to separate a Beatles song into separate instrument and vocal tracks, although for advanced polyphonic analysis, you will want to use Melodyne Studio, since it is better suited for working with complex polyphonic material all within one window or whatever . . .

Whatever!

However, as noted in my introductory comments, the best strategy simply is to discover how to hear everything distinctly, which mostly is a matter of listening to the same song over and over and over, which I suppose can be considered by some folks to be an extraordinarily frivolous waste of time, but the reality is that such folks are greatly confused and generally have no sense, because unless you are one of the rare people who was born-knowing how to hear everything, then it is a skill that you need to develop over time . . .

For example, not counting the number of times I have watched the YouTube video for "Bulería" (David Bisbal), I have listened to the song 330 times over the past month or so, and I continue to hear more stuff every time I listen to it, really . . .

"Bulería" (David Bisbal)

Really!

And so far I have listened to "Aserejé" (Las Ketchup) over 600 times, for sure . . .

"Aserejé" (Las Ketchup)

For sure!

I do other things when I am listening to music, but by listening to the same song over and over and over, I am programming my mind toward the goal of incorporating the music intimately into my psyche, which sooner or later maps to being able to play in whatever genre and style without actually needing to think about it in any immediately conscious way . . .

Sometimes, I sleep while wearing headphones and have an iPod touch set to play the same song over and over and over while I am sleeping, which is another way to do the required programming . . .

It takes a while, where for example "Aserejé" is approximately 3 minutes and 30 seconds in duration, which maps approximately to 35 hours of continuous listening for 600 times, but so what . . .

So what!

And while it might appear that I need to listen to a song a lot of times to be able to hear everything distinctly, which is true, it is helpful to understand that my focus is on being able to play all the instrumental parts and to do all the singing, as well as being able to mix everything the same way it is mixed with respect to placement of instruments and voices within what I call the Spherical Sonic Landscape™, where one of its vector planes is the avatar I use (look to the left), and so forth and so on, hence when put into this perspective, if I need to listen to a song for perhaps 50 hours to understand every note played and sung by all the musicians and singers, then I think this it is not such a long time to listen to the same thing over and over and over . . .

The fact of the matter is that the more you know about a song which was composed and performed by other people, the better you are able to play it note-for-note and to make it sound nearly exactly like the original artists, which is a skill that I suggest is mandatory for any musician or singer who wants to be what I call "good" . . .

And this is just one of the many steps along the path to being "good" . . .

A few people do everything in ways that appear to be nearly instantaneous and remarkably intuitive, but even then it usually takes them from 5 to 10 albums of recorded songs to discover the genre and style that works best, where it mostly is a matter of doing approximately 50 to 100 recorded songs over time and then listening to them after the fact so that you can learn what works best for you by recognizing what works and what does not work, with the general goal being to identify in great detail everything that works, so that you can focus on it clearly . . .

Another strategy that I discovered a few weeks ago involves getting MIDI transcriptions of songs, which one can purchase from an Australian company (Hit Trax), where professional transcribers separate all the instruments and voices into separate MIDI channels and play them on synthesizers . . .

Hit Trax (website)

As an example, in the topic on "Modes Applied to Flamenco" (GuitarZone.com FORUM), I posted a screen capture of part of the melody for the MIDI transcription of "Bulería" (David Bisbal) that I purchased from Hit Trax, and when it is played in GarageBand (Apple), you can see the music script or, if you prefer, you can see the various notes as linear intervals represented by horizontal bars on a virtual keyboard (which is the way Melodyne Editor displays its detected and identified "notes") . . .

If you get Miroslav Philharmonik (IK Multimedia) and Notion SLE (Notion Music), then as best as I have been able to determine so far, I think that you can input the MIDI stuff from a Hit Trax MIDI transcription into Notion SLE, and after doing a few instrument and voice assignments, it should play very accurately, at least in a general way that probably does a lot more than you currently might imagine is possible, let alone practical . . .

Hence, this is why I put so much emphasis on taking a bit of time to determine and to identify what your needs and desires actually are with respect to the perspective of the long run, since based on the best information I have at present, I think that it is not only possible but also practical do to pretty much anything that anyone can imagine in the digital music universe with respect to isolating and examining everything that is present in a recorded song . . .

Some of it might require a warehouse filled with supercomputers and a team of advanced researchers and computer scientists, but for example there is a more than sufficient quantity of high-quality recorded Beatles songs to create thousands of new Beatles songs, although it would take a bit of work for the first few Artificial Intelligence (AI) generated Pretend Beatles™ songs, but so what . . .

So what!

It all depends on what you want to do, as well as your overall budget, and since doing everything in ad hoc or sua sponte increments without having a "big picture" or "global" goal and a corresponding strategy to achieve the goal tends to cost more over the long run, this is the reason that I suggest taking a bit of time to determine what you want and desire to do, since as an example it costs about the same to get a 20" iMac (Apple) as it does to get 10 or so entertaining but mostly useless external effects pedals, where in the grand scheme of everything, a 20" iMac is quite sufficient for a very nice, professional quality, digital recording studio, and for approximately $350 (the retail price of AmpliTube 3), you can use it to run AmpliTube 3 (IK Multimedia), which has a virtual festival of capabilities that very realistically emulate anywhere from $100,000 to $1,000,000 of real physical effects pedals, amplifiers, loudspeakers, and microphones, if you purchased the real stuff separately . . .

Of course, we all tend to do things without focusing so clearly on what I call the "big picture", since it takes a while just to have enough specific information to construct a "big picture", so my general view is that if something helps you make progress, then it has value, which as I look at the physical effect units sitting on the shelf to my right and observe that five of them (Fulltone Tube Tape Echo, BOSS DD-20 GigaDelay, Pigtronix Disnortion, DigiTech Harmony Man, and BOSS RE-20 Roland Space Echo) cost at least $2,500, piques me a bit, although it does not map to the end of the world, since I learned a lot from tinkering with these effects units, although in retrospect I probably could have used the $2,500 more wisely based on what I know today, which is that I can get pretty much the same TONE and effects using AmpliTube 3, which I also have, which is fabulous . . .

Fabulous! :guitar:

P. S. From a different but related perspective, I understand you want to do in a literal sense . . .

. . . to take out any instrument or vocal, on an mp3 or wave file


But what I do not understand is why you want to do this and what the overall goal of being able to do it is . . .

In other words, since there is a virtual festival of strategies for doing what you described, knowing the overall goal will be helpful toward providing more specific advice on various strategies for doing whatever you want to do in the most cost effective way from the perspective of the long run, for sure . . .

For sure! :)

Edited by surfwhammy, 14 May 2010 - 04:57 PM.

The Surf Whammys

Sinkhorn's Dilemma: Every paradox has at least one non-trivial solution . . .

#5 Grandpa FrankyZ

Grandpa FrankyZ

    What is your conceptual continuity?

  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,875 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Adelaide, Australia.
  • Original Name: frankyz84

Posted 14 May 2010 - 11:43 PM


What i am after is a software package that allows me to take out any instrument or vocal, on an mp3 or wave file. I know these software packages exist, but a search on the net has so far proven fruitless. I am also searching computer shops, and software dealers, but all they seem to come up with is kareoke software, for editing vocals. Can anyone help me?




. . . to take out any instrument or vocal, on an mp3 or wave file


But what I do not understand is why you want to do this and what the overall goal of being able to do it is . . .

In other words, since there is a virtual festival of strategies for doing what you described, knowing the overall goal will be helpful toward providing more specific advice on various strategies for doing whatever you want to do in the most cost effective way from the perspective of the long run, for sure . . .

For sure! :)


Ok simple answer is, i wish to create backing tracks for my students to be able to play along with, whilst learning guitar. I think that answers both why, and goal.

Thanks to everyone for your answers, and i will continue to searck for the ideal program.


What i am after is a software package that allows me to take out any instrument or vocal, on an mp3 or wave file. I know these software packages exist, but a search on the net has so far proven fruitless. I am also searching computer shops, and software dealers, but all they seem to come up with is kareoke software, for editing vocals. Can anyone help me?




. . . to take out any instrument or vocal, on an mp3 or wave file


But what I do not understand is why you want to do this and what the overall goal of being able to do it is . . .

In other words, since there is a virtual festival of strategies for doing what you described, knowing the overall goal will be helpful toward providing more specific advice on various strategies for doing whatever you want to do in the most cost effective way from the perspective of the long run, for sure . . .

For sure! :)


Ok simple answer is, i wish to create backing tracks for my students to be able to play along with, whilst learning guitar. I think that answers both why, and goal.

Thanks to everyone for your answers, and i will continue to search for the ideal program.

#6 Nealio

Nealio

    Better call Saul

  • Ombudsman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,219 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dundalk, Ireland
  • Donator:No
  • Original Name: nealmac

Posted 15 May 2010 - 05:07 AM

Rick, do you have Guitar Pro? You can do what you're looking to do very easily with that.

(I thought I posted this yesterday :unsure:)

93687336092664069705317.jpg


#7 Grandpa FrankyZ

Grandpa FrankyZ

    What is your conceptual continuity?

  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,875 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Adelaide, Australia.
  • Original Name: frankyz84

Posted 15 May 2010 - 06:31 AM

Rick, do you have Guitar Pro? You can do what you're looking to do very easily with that.

(I thought I posted this yesterday :unsure:)


I do Neal, and i have over 25,000 midi tracks to go with it, which make good backing tracks at a basic level, but what i am after is actual tracks, like the ones i use at the moment. I have a decent library of backing tracks from site like guitarbt.com and guitarbackingtracks.com, but even these site are limited in artists and bands, for example i want several Hawkwind tracks, but i cannot find any site with Hawkwind backing tracks, so i figure i will have to find a way of creating my own. There are many tracks i would like to turn into backing tracks, if i could only find the right software.

#8 surfwhammy

surfwhammy
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,318 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Original Name: surfwhammy

Posted 15 May 2010 - 08:56 AM

Ok simple answer is, i wish to create backing tracks for my students to be able to play along with, whilst learning guitar. I think that answers both why, and goal.


. . . for example i want several Hawkwind tracks, but i cannot find any site with Hawkwind backing tracks, so i figure i will have to find a way of creating my own.


This makes a bit of sense to me, although I had never heard of Hawkwind, so I listened to a few of their songs on YouTube, for sure . . . :)

"Master Of The Universe" (Hawkwind) -- YouTube music video

"The Psychedelic Warlords" ( Hawkwind) -- YouTube music video

"Mirror Of Illusion" (Hawkwind) -- YouTube music video

"Magnu" (Hawkwind) -- YouTube music video

"Space Is Deep" (Hawkwind) -- YouTube music video

"Quark, Strangeness, And Charm" (Hawkwind) -- YouTube music video

"Silver Machine" (Hawkwind) -- YouTube music video

For sure!

The last song pretty much is "Rock Me" (Steppenwolf), which is fabulous . . .

"Rock Me" (Steppenwolf)

"Quark, Strangness, And Charm" (Hawkwind) -- YouTube music video

Fabulous!

This is great stuff for folks who are at the stage in their careers where being in a garage band makes a bit of sense, and some of the Hawkwind songs are better than Spinal Tap songs, where this is one of my favorite Spinal Tap songs, since I really like the dance moves that David Ivor St. Hubbins (Michael John McKean on lead vocals and rhythm guitar) does starting at 1:11, which I recently discovered (this week, in fact) is "The Mashed Potato" dance, which apparently went in one ear and directly out the other ear in the 1960s, since at the time I was more focused on playing music than on dancing to it, really . . .

"Gimme Some Money" (Spinal Tap) -- YouTube music video

"Mashed Potato Time" (Dee Dee Sharp) -- YouTube music video

"Despeinada" (Los Hooligans) -- YouTube music video

Really! :D

Of course, since I am focusing equally on doing music and YouTube music videos at the dawn of the early 21st century, I am teaching myself how do "The Mashed Potato" dance, and if I can discover how to do it pretty soon, then I will do a bit of it during the stylistic Flamenco Dance and Mime reenactment of The Mayan Story of the Creation of the World during the interlude for "Maríta de la Luna y Pablito el Petardo (No Es Tanto Lo Que Es Como Lo Que No Es)" (The Surf Whammys) while wearing a Venetian Mask, black and white ballet tights with an impressive codpiece, and cloud slippers, as well (perhaps) as a wizard costume, since one of the hallmarks of the Surrealería subgenre of Flamenco is that everything is vastly surreal, for sure . . .

Posted Image

For sure!

And while I make no promises, since among other things I switched exclusively to enjoying strong coffee and Mexican Coca-Cola several decades ago, if I had a decanter of José Cuervo "1800" tequila, some limes, and a bit of salt, which should be more than adequate for purposes of making me sufficiently stupid to be able to play late-1960s garage band music, I could do an album of this stuff in a day or two, which is as fabulous as it was mixed expressly for listening with studio quality headphones like the SONY MDR-7596 (a personal favorite) . . .

Posted Image

"Love Bandit (You're Such A Mind Bender)" (The Surf Whammys) -- MP3

Fabulous! :D

P. S. If you can find a drummer and bass guitar player, then you should be able to record some backup tracks using just about any computer-based recording software, since the Hawkwind songs are not difficult to play, which is the way I would do it, except that I would play all the instruments myself and would compose new songs rather than copy Hawkwind songs, really . . .

Really! :guitar:

P. P. S. To avoid any possible confusion, while some of this stuff is hilarious, and I get a bit tickled when I recall some of the stupid things that I thought were totally cool at the time, the fact of the matter is that this type of music is excellent for folks who are learning to play guitar, since it is pretty easy for beginners to play; it sounds cool; and it keeps them motivated, since they have a real and tangible sense of accomplishing something, for sure . . .

For sure!
:)

Edited by surfwhammy, 15 May 2010 - 10:23 AM.

The Surf Whammys

Sinkhorn's Dilemma: Every paradox has at least one non-trivial solution . . .

#9 Grandpa FrankyZ

Grandpa FrankyZ

    What is your conceptual continuity?

  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,875 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Adelaide, Australia.
  • Original Name: frankyz84

Posted 16 May 2010 - 04:14 PM

Thanks for the reply Surfwhammy. I first saw Hawkwind live around 1973, and have seen several incarnations of them since, including the Alan Davey version, where, i was invited to a party after the gig, and got totally smashed with the band. They were all a bunch of really nice guys. I also roadied for a band called Stone Cold, at a festival, and got to meet Dave Brock`s Hawkwind. Yes Hawkwind has 2 versions out there, both playing the same matrial, and both claiming to be THE Hawkwind. The fact is that after Bob Calvert left to go solo, the band split into 2 factions. But the original line up, which included Bob Calvert,Nik Turner, Dave Brock, and Lemmy, was always the best. Also chech out Bob Calverts solo album, "Captain Lockheed, and the Starfighters. And "Lucky Lief and the Longships.
Anyways, what has led me to wanting to create backing tracks of Hawkwind songs, is one of my students is completely obbsessed by them, and wishes to play along to their songs. But also, he has rekindlled my enjoyment of all things Hawkwind.

Edited by frankyz84, 16 May 2010 - 04:41 PM.


#10 surfwhammy

surfwhammy
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,318 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Original Name: surfwhammy

Posted 17 May 2010 - 01:26 PM

. . . one of my students is completely obbsessed by them, and wishes to play along to their songs. But also, he has rekindlled my enjoyment of all things Hawkwind.


The way I did it when I was learning how to play bass guitar for Beatles songs was a combination of listening to the songs; using the "speed-up" technique to learn the notes for the bass guitar lines; and then playing along with the records . . .

At first, it took a while to learn a small set of Beatles songs, as in several days or a week for each song, but after a while it took less time, since the fact of the matter is that Paul McCartney has a very specific style, and for all practical purposes the only big leap in his style occurred around the time the Beatles did "Rain", which curiously had a bass guitar line that was very similar to what I had been doing as an experiment, hence was virtually trivial for me to play, really . . .

"Rain" (Beatles) -- YouTube music video

Really!

In fact, I think that this was the first Beatles song where Paul McCartney played what I now call "texture" rather than specific "notes", and once you have learned the bass guitar parts for all the Beatles songs that preceded "Rain", it is the only logical way to do something new and different that is consistent with the set of patterns that Paul McCartney developed and perfected . . .

The primary differences are that everything is vastly more fluid and that there is considerably more focus on using the entire range of notes, with particular emphasis on high register notes . . .

At the time, I thought that Paul McCartney was playing the bass guitar part for "Rain" on a Hofner "Beatle" bass guitar, since Paul McCartney played a Hofner bass in the video performances that were shown on television, but according to the information in the wikipedia entry for "Rain", he apparently was playing a Rickenbacker Model 4001S bass guitar in the studio when they recorded the song, which makes it all the more impressive, since the fretboard on a Rickenbacker bass guitar is distinctly different in the sense of having fewer frets but being longer (a scale length of approximately 33.5 inches versus 30 inches for the Hofner "Beatle" bass guitar), although it is easier to play high register notes on the Rickenbacker, since all the frets are available before the neck joins the body on the Rickenbacker, which is not the case with the Hofner . . .

Posted Image
Rickenbacker Bass 4003 ~ Current Model

Posted Image
Hofner Bass 500/1 ~ Current Model

And while it clearly is easier to reach the high register notes on the Rickenbacker, the difficulty is a combination of the Rickenbacker having longer neck length (scale length, if you prefer) and greater tension on the strings, which overall requires more hand strength and effort for playing especially fluid bass lines . . .

At the time, I had a Gibson EB-0 bass guitar, and it was very easy to do "texture" playing in the "Rain" style, since it had both a shorter neck and the neck joined the body in a way similar to the Rickenbacker, which overall mapped to a Hofner "deep bass" TONE with the Hofner ease of playing, although it did not have so many frets as the Hofner, for sure . . .

Posted Image
Gibson EB-0 Bass ~ Original Model

For sure!


Since I did not have headphones at the time, which mostly were things that audiophiles or recording studios had rather than being something everyone had, I played the records on a loudspeaker system and played along with the songs in one of two ways, either at low volume with the bass guitar not run through an amplifier and loudspeaker or at a higher volume with the bass guitar run through an amplifier and loudspeaker, both of which were strategies worked nicely . . .

For all practical purposes, I did not hear any Beatles songs on headphones until after "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" was released, so discovering all the stereo imaging was quite fascinating, as it continues to be . . .

In fact, for what one might call "older folks", it continues to be the exception rather than the rule that everyone listens to music at least some of the time via iPod earphones or studio-quality headphones, which took me a while to realize, since from my perspective it is quite strange for anyone not to listen to music at least some of the time with headphones . . .

Nevertheless, the important skills involve listening to the music and being able to play with the music, which from my perspective has little to do with a particular instrument being present or absent, at least when the goal is to be able to play a specific instrumental part as precisely as possible, since in what one might call "play-along" mode, it should be obvious when what you are playing is nearly identical to the part on the record . . .

Of course, I suppose that it is possible that everyone I know simply discovered how to "play-along" with the full record, since at the time there was no other way to do it, but if so, then this also tends strongly to suggest that it is an excellent strategy, because everyone I know with just a few exceptions plays extraordinarily well, to the level at which it is not the least bit difficult to put together a "Beatles" band that sounds exactly like the Beatles, although I have not done this in a while, but so what . . .

So what!

I had a "Beatles" band in the early 1980s that was quite amazing, and as an example, we played "Strawberry Fields Forever" (Beatles) note-for-note (to the extent that it was practical with just one guitar) and sounded pretty much the same in real-time with a drummer, bass guitarist, keyboardist, and guitarist (me, of course), with the keyboards being the primary aspect of being able to do this particular song, since there actually is not so much prevalent electric guitar, for sure . . .

"Strawberry Fields Forever" (Beatles) -- YouTube music video

For sure!

Somewhere, I have some cassette tapes of a few Beatles songs, and if I can remember where they are, I might transfer them to the computer and whatever . . .

Whatever!

And while one might think that any band that can play highly accurate recreations of Beatles songs should be completely and totally famous, the reality was that pretty much every band within probably a 100-mile radius could do this, so rather than being exceptional, it was more along the lines of being a bit mundane, really . . .

Really!

It was grand FUN, but by that time it was a bit outdated, hence was more useful from the perspective of discovering how to put everything together, which certainly is an important skill, especially since this was my first band as a lead guitar player, hence was a big step, for sure . . .

For sure!

Overall, I suppose it depends on the skills, talents, and motivations of the particular person, but from my perspective I see no added value in not having particular instruments present when one is "playing-along" with a recorded song, at least with respect to discovering how to play instrumental parts exactly like they are played on the record, since all you really need to do is to set the level of your instrument so that it is louder than the instrument on the record, and then there you are . . .

However, if one is recording a song and decides to redo something, then there are times when you do not want to hear a previously recorded track, so you do a new track, while saving the previously recorded track, which works nicely here in the sound isolation studio, because there nearly always is some "good stuff" on every track, hence it is a smart idea to save everything, which is fabulous . . .

Fabulous! :guitar:
The Surf Whammys

Sinkhorn's Dilemma: Every paradox has at least one non-trivial solution . . .

#11 surfwhammy

surfwhammy
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,318 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Original Name: surfwhammy

Posted 03 June 2010 - 06:51 PM

What i am after is a software package that allows me to take out any instrument or vocal, on an mp3 or wave file. I know these software packages exist, but a search on the net has so far proven fruitless. I am also searching computer shops, and software dealers, but all they seem to come up with is kareoke software, for editing vocals. Can anyone help me?


It looks like guru of rock n roll discovered a perfect and very affordable solution, which is fabulous . . .

Ordering [JamVOX] Friday (GuitarZone.com FORUM)

Fabulous! :)

Edited by surfwhammy, 03 June 2010 - 07:34 PM.

The Surf Whammys

Sinkhorn's Dilemma: Every paradox has at least one non-trivial solution . . .

#12 Crawdaddy

Crawdaddy

    Circus Animal

  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPip
  • 745 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne, Arssendofoz
  • Original Name: Crawdaddy

Posted 04 June 2010 - 05:25 PM

Yep looks like gurus got what you need, I just checked it out on their website and wouldn't mind one myself....only trouble is in oz they're going for between 350 to 400 snicks online at various places. Be cheaper if you could import one if you want one.
I checked out the vox forum which had an answer to the question you were asking.
http://www.voxamps.c...pic.php?id=2366
SoundClick
--------------------

#13 guru of rock n roll

guru of rock n roll
  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Original Name: guru of rock n roll

Posted 05 June 2010 - 10:29 AM

I just ordered one I'll let you guys know how well it works when it gets here. :cheers:
Posted Image

#14 guru of rock n roll

guru of rock n roll
  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Original Name: guru of rock n roll

Posted 08 June 2010 - 07:47 PM

I don't think it will block the guitar out all the way but it will reduce it some. Some tracks work better than others. I've played with on a few songs I have only had a few hours. It isn't recording quality but what do you expect for 130 dollars. I think some the tracks on backing tracks and fresh bt's were made by it. Still gonna play with it. it is fun to play with anyways on a computer. Response time with the action is very good.
Posted Image

#15 atza

atza
  • Member
  • 2 posts
  • Original Name: atza

Posted 29 April 2012 - 10:24 AM

I use Chord Pad ( chord sequencer) It lets you create chord progressions and backing tracks in minutes,with 300+ styles it is great fun to use

http://www.desktopme...hord_sequencer/





Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Please consider donating to GuitarZone.com.
With more and more people using ad blocking add-ons for browsers, ad revenue has plummeted.
If you can spare even US$5 it would mean a lot to help pay for GZ's monthly server bill.
Thank you to all. Cheers! --Rob



Method #1: PayPal



Click 'Donate' above
to donate with any
major credit card or
existing PayPal funds.


E-mail on record with PayPal
[ ]



Method #2: Bitcoin


Option A )  Scan Bitcoin QR Code


Scan above box with mobile phone, or click...



Option B )  Copy and Paste Bitcoin Address

  13NA7exoZVPGBAxnKXcQAz35JQ5PvnhYDE  


Copy above address and paste into Bitcoin app...



Learn more about Bitcoin...