http://ultimateclassicrock.com/boston-dont-look-back/

Last week, I was going through my Dad's vinyl and came across this album. I really like it. My friends say "that's old people music" but, I like what I like.

Anyway, today I found this article and my question is...The music in the video (a live performance) sounds exactly like the album cut. How can this be? Did the band just put the recording of this song from this live performance on the album?

Boston was a semi-fraud of a band...


First of all, they were all pretty talented and their production was really good. I like many of their songs and the sound they got, particulary from the drums.

Many artists use double tracking, Led Zeppelin did. Sorry, but John Paul Jones couldn't play bass and keys on at the same time on the same song, nor could Page do a simultaneous rhythm and lead.

Boston really abused the double tracking. The vocalist,(can't remember name) would do BG vocals to his own lead. Tom Schultz, guitatrist. producer and band leader played a lot more of the instruments than given credit for, basically it was his vision, arrangements etc.

To top it off, the band had no live following or club play whatsoever.They were a studio creation and recorded before they ever played a live gig. Like the rappers of today who sing about riches they've never had, Boston did a song called "Rock and Roll Band" which is a phony autobiographical of how they were "discovered", not a bad song but it's all horseshit.

Oh, and the video you are talking about is probably lip synched.


I like the song "Don't Look Back" though, I have to admit. The bridge in the middle and the slow down is great and brings back a lot of memories. When it's just the drummer and the phased or flanged guitar then it builds back up is pretty classic, even though the band is somewhat counterfeit.

No Santa Claus either, but it's fun for the kids so WTF...

Whatever happened to King Lerxist?

He used to post some good stuff from that same site.

EVERY band double tracks, which simply means to record the instrument or vocal take onto 2 tracks simultaneously.Then a short delay, or other effect is added on one of the 2 tracks to give it a richer, more 3 dimensional sound.

Some musicians prefer to record separate tracks that vary slightly from the original to intentionally throw the tracks out of sync. One can be sent slightly to the left and one to the right or one compressed and one further back in the mix.

These are some of the things that give songs dimension and depth, and every producer since the mid 60's has been doing it.

"A semi fraud" band? Sure, they did double tracking because they had to. That doesn't have anything to do with being a fraud. They were a great band, mainly because they had a great talent, Tom Scholz, and a fantastic singer, Brad Delp.
The Beatles were a studio band from 1967-1970; that didn't make them a "semi fraud" band.

WingNut Just Passing Through Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whatever happened to King Lerxist?
>
> He used to post some good stuff from that same
> site.

I'm not sure who King Lerxist is but...that was a nice thing of you to say. The spelling is important...Alex Lifeson would be really mad. ;)

The lead singer for Boston was Brad Delp. And Sib Hashian is in my opinion one of the most underrated drummers in rock. Google pictures of him from the 70's! What a great look!

As for the band...as I understand it not only did they abuse double-tracking but, Tom Scholz played all of the instruments on the debut album and THEN went out and found/hired guys to actually make up the band.

And yeah, I don't understand why Boston didn't make a better go of it as a live band. The timing of the start of their career was perfect and they held the world in the palm of their hands for a bit and then simply let go. They should've been bigger. That debut album was basically handed out to citizens in the American suburbs in the late summer of 1976. We all woke up on August 25th and there it was lying next to the morning paper on the front stoop. Dad brought it in and threw it down on the breakfast table and said, "This came...I think it's for you..." and then you finished your Lucky Charms, bacon, eggs, milk, juice and toast (because back then THAT was a balanced breakfast!) popped it into your GTO's tape deck on the way to school and it's all anyone was listening to.

Scholz is a known perfectionist. He made Jimmy Page look sloppy and careless. No debut album was more carefully crafted and engineered than theirs. Scholz spent days...weeks getting that album right. Later when he actually brought musicians in to learn the songs and mesh musically, he allegedly had them play for hours and hours and hours before he ever turned on any recording equipment. Most musicians, even if they're just fooling around ALWAYS have a recording device on...because you never know. And in today's digital age, there's less of a cost associated with storage. Too bad that hasn't lead to better music...

I think you could also make the case that it's possible that Scholz simply wanted to test the limitations of multi-tracking. Could an album with one musician playing all of the instruments be made and sell 25 million copies worldwide? And then, when it became so popular...the perfectionist realized he couldn't cage the beast any longer.

Oh...and anything after "Third Stage"...is crap.

King.Lerxst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Just Passing Through Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Whatever happened to King Lerxist?
> >
> > He used to post some good stuff from that same
> > site.
>
> I'm not sure who King Lerxist is but...that was a
> nice thing of you to say. The spelling is
> important...Alex Lifeson would be really mad. ;)
>
> The lead singer for Boston was Brad Delp. And Sib
> Hashian is in my opinion one of the most
> underrated drummers in rock. Google pictures of
> him from the 70's! What a great look!
>
> As for the band...as I understand it not only did
> they abuse double-tracking but, Tom Scholz played
> all of the instruments on the debut album and THEN
> went out and found/hired guys to actually make up
> the band.
>
> And yeah, I don't understand why Boston didn't
> make a better go of it as a live band. The timing
> of the start of their career was perfect and they
> held the world in the palm of their hands for a
> bit and then simply let go. They should've been
> bigger. That debut album was basically handed out
> to citizens in the American suburbs in the late
> summer of 1976. We all woke up on August 25th and
> there it was lying next to the morning paper on
> the front stoop. Dad brought it in and threw it
> down on the breakfast table and said, "This
> came...I think it's for you..." and then you
> finished your Lucky Charms, bacon, eggs, milk,
> juice and toast (because back then THAT was a
> balanced breakfast!) popped it into your GTO's
> tape deck on the way to school and it's all anyone
> was listening to.
>
> Scholz is a known perfectionist. He made Jimmy
> Page look sloppy and careless. No debut album was
> more carefully crafted and engineered than theirs.
> Scholz spent days...weeks getting that album
> right. Later when he actually brought musicians in
> to learn the songs and mesh musically, he
> allegedly had them play for hours and hours and
> hours before he ever turned on any recording
> equipment. Most musicians, even if they're just
> fooling around ALWAYS have a recording device
> on...because you never know. And in today's
> digital age, there's less of a cost associated
> with storage. Too bad that hasn't lead to better
> music...
>
> I think you could also make the case that it's
> possible that Scholz simply wanted to test the
> limitations of multi-tracking. Could an album with
> one musician playing all of the instruments be
> made and sell 25 million copies worldwide? And
> then, when it became so popular...the
> perfectionist realized he couldn't cage the beast
> any longer.
>
> Oh...and anything after "Third Stage"...is crap.

I remember back in the day their was a Boston tribute band that used to play around Arlington and Alexandria, called "Ballston". Always thought that was a pretty good play on words.

This started way back. I've heard a lot of the later Beatles songs couldn't be played live by the group without tape backing. The production of their songs had become too sophisticated.

Most bands don't want the live version of the song to sound exactly like the album version. If so, fans could just listen to the record.

Part of the joy of playing live is leaving room for improvisation, variations, experimentation and extended versions.

Musicians would be bored beyond belief if they had to play songs the same way every day for one year, much less 20.

Albums should have more stuff on them because that's how the writer envisions them, in most cases. To me, the album version should have layers and a bit of subterfuge. That way every time you listen, you can pick up new things.

> Part of the joy of playing live is leaving room for improvisation,
> variations, experimentation and extended versions.

That almost sounds like that hippy jam band crap, like dudes playing super extended solos in every song and doing 30 minute versions of mostly instrumental stuff. And everyone gets all excited because they played some song they haven't played since 1994 and they did a reggae version of it.

That shit is awful!

jambands are horrible Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> That almost sounds like that hippy jam band crap,
> like dudes playing super extended solos in every
> song and doing 30 minute versions of mostly
> instrumental stuff. And everyone gets all excited
> because they played some song they haven't played
> since 1994 and they did a reggae version of it.
>
> That shit is awful!

Or Yes, Zep, Floyd, Purple, Sabbath, Clapton and all the other great bands.
Some knew how to do it, some didn't.

Boston is a terrible band, it's music that 50 year old chicks are into. There should be more threads about music here though, rather than all that other crap about mizery and those crazy women.

More music Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Boston is a terrible band, it's music that 50 year
> old chicks are into. There should be more threads
> about music here though, rather than all that
> other crap about mizery and those crazy women.
____________________________________________________
Terrible band? Are you fucking serious? Look out there today and its nothing but a bunch of tattooed, illiterate niggers with their pants around their ankles. Those niggers cant sing and have no idea how to play a musical instrument.
Now that's terrible!
No nigger could ever write and perform a song like "more than a feeling"

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jambands are horrible Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > That almost sounds like that hippy jam band
> crap,
> > like dudes playing super extended solos in
> every
> > song and doing 30 minute versions of mostly
> > instrumental stuff. And everyone gets all
> excited
> > because they played some song they haven't
> played
> > since 1994 and they did a reggae version of it.
>
> >
> > That shit is awful!
>
> Or Yes, Zep, Floyd, Purple, Sabbath, Clapton and
> all the other great bands.
> Some knew how to do it, some didn't.

This is a really great topic of discussion and one that I never get tired of listening to people talk about it.

There have been a few bands that have said, "We want to create the album sound at our live shows and if we can't do that...we're not touring." The most famous example of this is Steely Dan. Given the state of 70's technology they, too were perfectionists and when it became clear that they could not bring the studio sound to a live show...they didn't tour. Fast forward to 1993...and the technology caught up (namely, it got smaller and more easily transportable) and they went out on tour. I saw them at Wolf Trap in about 2008 or so and they were great...just great. If you don't like their music, that's totally fine...many people don't. But, they're still sounding as good as they were 40 years ago.

The other example of a band not being able to bring the studio sound on tour is not really a band...but an album. One of my favorite all time albums, "Quadrophenia" was toured in 1976-77 and it was a train wreck. It wasn't until the 1996-1997 tour, where The Who played the album cover to cover, that they were able to reproduce the album's intricate sound live...albeit with lots of guest appearances.

And then there's the other side of the coin. The artiste side of the coin...which says, "Look, you've already bought the album. If you want to hear that, stay home and listen to it. But, as a band, we think you work pretty hard for your money and we want to give you something that you can't buy at a record store. We want the memory of seeing us and hearing us play live to last with you the rest of your life and for you to walk away from our show with more than a ticket stub and a high. And by improvising and playing songs differently or with new sections...that gives you value because we're never playing the same song the same way twice."

Jambands are not my cup of tea. I've listened honestly...and I don't care for them. I saw Elton John and Billy Joel play Nats Park in 2008 and Elton did a version of "Rocket Man" that went 12 minutes. That's about the end of my rope. On Led Zeppelin's "How The West Was Won" the song "Dazed and Confused" runs 26 minutes. I love Led Zeppelin...that version of the song is bloated and unlistenable. That version is Jimmy Page saying, "I'm so fucking high that I'm going to just string this song out as far as I can go for the hell of it and because I can. I'm not making an artistic statement...I'm just doing it. Go ahead and complain...the show was sold out and there's thousands more people out in the parking lot setting up a Mad Max Thunderdome to decide who gets the last 2 tickets."

I see both sides of it. I like some improvisation. I like hearing something at a live show that I can't get on an album. But, I need the framework of the original studio version to be there and be strong.

And then there's Pearl Jam, a band I like...who have made available for sale nearly EVERY live show they've ever done since 2000. And that, I think, is wrong, too. If I can buy a recording of any and every show and have those improvisations and unique altered sounds...then, it's not special anymore in the way that MY memory of the experience is.

And then there's The Grateful Dead...not a band I like. They turned the whole bootleg scene on its end by being the first band to permit, welcome, and encourage bootleggers by setting aside specific "Taper Sections" at their shows. And everyone who sat there knew recordings were being made and to shut the fuck up already. And they likely gave away millions in royalties by letting the tapers profit on those recordings rather than the band. I'm sure Jerry said, "Naw, man...we've got enough cash here to last us fine. I'm good. If we can help someone out by letting them sell recordings of show...it's good. It's all good. Pass me that pipe..."

Jerry Garcia was not a drug user.

More music Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Boston is a terrible band, it's music that 50 year
> old chicks are into. There should be more threads
> about music here though, rather than all that
> other crap about mizery and those crazy women.


This. It was crap then. Still crap.

I was not a fan of Boston when they first came out. They were usually being blasted over the PA of the pool I would hit on summer evenings after work while I was in college, so when I hear them now, that is what I flash to.

I saw Boston in the late 80's at the cap center. They were polished but sounded note for note like their albums. They played mostly from their third album which was just released (that album sucked) and the audience wasn't really into it until they played the known songs. One of Boston's problems was that every song on the first two albums sounded very similar. Their music never progressed.

King.Lerxst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh...and anything after "Third Stage"...is crap.


Corporate America is a great album. One of my all time favorites.

Boston was good for fucking in the back of my Vega GT!

A lot of bands wanna do different interpretations of their songs, some times this turns out well, sometimes not so much. I can understand there is a sense of boredom if you've played it same way each time, but a lot of fans are there for an exact recreation with maybe a shout out to Bristow or Landover thrown in.

The endless noodling is good when it's good, but when it's bad it's horrid. I'm with King and could do without about 10 minutes of "Dazed" (Achilles Last Stand is another story)

It all comes down to what you do with the music. I've heard bands do 20 minute versions of songs that were 4 or 5 and wanted more.

Back to Boston, I think they used pre-recorded tracks in the 70's as did Kiss and ELO. No Googlin', just remembered hearing it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2015 09:35PM by WingNut.

When I think of extended songs or improvisations, there are some that do it really well and keep it interesting. An extended song doesn't have to be a long guitar solo. It can have a basic structure with room for improvisation. I think bands like BOC,Purple and Zep did it very well whereas bands like Grateful Dead and Phish did not.

BTW, I actually like the Live SRTS version of Dazed, but that could be because I love the way Jimmy Page plays. I also like the variation of No Quarter and SRTS.

Boston was my first album which I purchased about the same time I was jumping on the Star truck. I remember talking about it on the truck right after I got it. I was so excited about it; and later so disappointed they never made another one. Now that I’m thinking about it, my first concert was Aerosmith at the Cap Center. I was 14. After that, I saw Led Zepplin with Bad Foot (I think) playing first (what was that called “backing-up”?). haha Also saw Fleetwood Mac, Santana, ACDC, Ted Nugent. Shit! Crazy Fucking Times. Later in life I saw Grateful Dead at RFK but that was nothing like when I was a teen. Crazy fucking shit! I can’t believe as I’m sitting here thinking about it. Crazy fucking shit!

> Phish did not

Phish used to cover Boston's "Long Time" in concert quite a bit and it was awesome. The vocals weren't as good as Delp but man Trey could wail those guitar solos. Who cares if it was twelve minutes long, Trey Anastasio really ripped that solo and did Boston some justice. Easily found on youtube.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm with King and could
> do without about 10 minutes of "Dazed" (Achilles
> Last Stand is another story)

And this is my next beef...

Bands that simply REFUSE to play certain songs live. My favorite Zeppelin track is "Ten Years Gone". There are live performances of this up on YouTube but, it was SELDOM played live and has never been released as an official live recording...studio only. I'm sure there's a bootleg version out there or I could just rip the audio from the YouTube videos but, it's puzzling.

Same with "Achilles"...it has never been officially released in a live version and it was seldom played live.

Obviously, both of these songs were released 4 years prior to John Bonham's death and the end of the band's touring but, it's still disappointing.

RUSH has this problem, too of course. 10 live albums, 40 years as a band...and there's lots of top shelf material that never sees the light of day. 1st world problem, I guess...

King.Lerxst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm with King and could
> > do without about 10 minutes of "Dazed"
> (Achilles
> > Last Stand is another story)
>
> And this is my next beef...
>
> Bands that simply REFUSE to play certain songs
> live. My favorite Zeppelin track is "Ten Years
> Gone". There are live performances of this up on
> YouTube but, it was SELDOM played live and has
> never been released as an official live
> recording...studio only. I'm sure there's a
> bootleg version out there or I could just rip the
> audio from the YouTube videos but, it's puzzling.



John Paul Jones played triple guitar/bass/mandolin with bass pedals backing JP's lead on "Ten Years Gone", there are good versions on Youtube. Pretty tune, always liked.

My musician friends say the Stones are kinda resigned to playing "Tumbling Dice" and "Start Me Up" etc because most of the big tours are for casual fans there for the hits.