This is a topic that has become a popular issue, with some folks, but I have found myself wondering about it myself. There have been some who have made the argument that live music from a band enhances a groups sound and the concert experience for those in atendance. In alot of respects I agree with that. I read a post by McCray Dove of the Dove Brothers, on his blog on www.dovebrothersquartet.com, where he stated he witnessed young people at a event walk by Southern Gospel artists using tracks, not listening to them. Yet these same kids stopped and listened to the Dove Brothers and their band.
I don’t know if this is entirely true. I will say that a live band does add a level of energy to a performance, but I don’t necesarily agree that groups with a live band have more energy than a group with tracks. Although it is a great asset to have, not every group can afford to have a live band. There are also some groups that could afford to have a live band that do not have one. I grew up on groups that had live music, The Kingsmen & Gold City had full bands, while the Cathedrals and Inspirations had mainly piano and bass accompaniment.
Today, the Kingdom Heirs & Ernie Haase & Signature Sound are a few of the major artists that have a live band, along with the Dove Brothers. Both Gold City and The Kingsmen no longer have live music, except a pianist. The Inspirations & Mark Trammell Quartet (in the spirit of the Cathedrals) have simple piano & bass accompaniment, with the former using a multi instrumentalist.
Personally, I enjoy a live band, but if the singers in the group have no stage presence and cannot perform the songs themselves with energy, the band is in vain. So what say ye? Does the live band make or break the concert experience for you? I’m interested to hear your thoughts…