Tracking bass is tedious

Re: Tracking bass is tedious

That's it really. I just hate tracking bass guitar. With guitar you can make little flubs here and there and it adds to the character of the song. Bass mistakes are immediately audible and not enjoyable to hear. So yeah, take after take after take. Ugh.

Its no more tedious that tracking guitar. I don't agree that you can be sloppy on guitars parts. Its just as obvious as sloppy bass parts. You can play it or you can't
 
Re: Re: Tracking bass is tedious

Re: Re: Tracking bass is tedious

I'm going to be in the minority here and this practice will probably be frowned upon as such, but I honestly pocket (by hand) every bass note to it's corresponding kick/snare beat. Graph-tune it a lot of times, too. Bass is one thing that can really make/break a mix, and having it off-beat and out of tune is the absolute worst thing for song, unless that's the intent.

I know we've discussed this before, but I think I can be more open-minded about this now. I won't deny that editing bass tracks by this method can be an ingredient in a great mix (if that's your style) , but at that point, why not just sequence a bassline with FLstudio or something?

How much human involvement is really necessary for your average rock-based bass tracks, if you're already editing them into perfection? It's not like there's really that much dynamic content happening..

Is recording and mixing actual bass tracks just a means of placating the ego of a Guy who isn't essential to the recording process?

Please take this for what it's worth; an honest probe to your perspective. Nothing more.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
 
Re: Tracking bass is tedious

I'm not saying that the bassist has to play along with every single kick stroke of the drummer. I'm just saying that when he does, it has to be tight, or it sounds terrible.

I know we've discussed this before, but I think I can be more open-minded about this now. I won't deny that editing bass tracks by this method can be an ingredient in a great mix (if that's your style) , but at that point, why not just sequence a bassline with FLstudio or something?

How much human involvement is really necessary for your average rock-based bass tracks, if you're already editing them into perfection? It's not like there's really that much dynamic content happening..

Is recording and mixing actual bass tracks just a means of placating the ego of a Guy who isn't essential to the recording process?

Please take this for what it's worth; an honest probe to your perspective. Nothing more.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Because you do still miss out on things like unique pick strokes per hit (if he's using a pick), organic changing of velocities as the song goes (there is quite a bit of dynamic content, especially after the processing to fit it into the mix), slides up and down not sounding accurate, gliss-up's not sounding accurate, and the overall 'breath' that the bass will add to the low end. Consider it kind of like a POD vs real amp recording scenaro with guitars; the POD can sound pretty good, but it adds a sort of static 'air' to the feel of the mix, whereas a real amp will breathe and pump much more naturally with the track. The same goes for real vs programmed bass in the low end.

A bassist is still essential to me in the recording process, just like a drummer, guitarist, and vocalist is. If you have it in your head that editing notes into place removes the need for human involvement, that's just simply not true. Bass and drums are the easiest instruments to 'fake,' but the end result of programming drums and bass is hugely different to that of recording real instruments and editing them.

If the bassist is really geting into the track and digging in with his pick, I want to hear that grind and aggression.

What I don't want to hear, in any way, shape, or form, is the kick drum and pick attack of the bass flamming against each other, hitting 32nd or 64th notes apart. That sounds terrible to my ear, and removes me from the entire groove of the song.

If the bassist is great to begin with, not much work at all will be done. If he's not and he's going to compromise the sound of the recording, though, I'm going to edit his tracks into oblivion if that's what it takes.
 
Last edited:
Re: Tracking bass is tedious

Wait, so if the drummer is off, you edit the drummer so its perfectly in time, and then the bass so it matches up to that?

That's a lot of editing!
 
Re: Tracking bass is tedious

^^Sortof, you track the drummer, edit if he's straying too far off tempo, and then track the bass to that. With good players, there's very little editing. Most people aren't good players.

But yeah, it takes a while when you have to do it, but is totally worth it when the players aren't great and are demanding a great or even good sounding record.
 
Re: Tracking bass is tedious

^^Sortof, you track the drummer, edit if he's straying too far off tempo, and then track the bass to that. With good players, there's very little editing. Most people aren't good players.

But yeah, it takes a while when you have to do it, but is totally worth it when the players aren't great and are demanding a great or even good sounding record.
Kinda makes you wonder how producers retained their sanity in those days without DAWs...
 
Re: Tracking bass is tedious

Back then, the editing we now call quantization was known as "hiring a ghost musician" to actually play the part correctly. :lol:
 
Re: Tracking bass is tedious

Back then, the editing we now call quantization was known as "hiring a ghost musician" to actually play the part correctly. :lol:

For that you would want a bit of extra silence dough to not go out and say "Guess what general public! (famous musician) can't even play on time!" Reminds me of something Dave Mustaine mentioned in his book when they were trying to recruit a lead guitarist for So Far So Good when the guy they had in mind said 'uhh, can I get my guitar teacher to record it and then teach the parts to me?'. That teacher is who we now know as Jeff Young.
 
Re: Tracking bass is tedious

Personally I don’t find tracking bass anymore difficult than rhythm guitar.
If I’m just doing a demo of a new song for the rest of the band to learn I tend to record all the way through, get the bits that sounded the best and paste em all over the place.
If the recording is more serious I try to get it down in one take and then go back through make sure it’s all bang on with the bass drum and edit accordingly.
 
Re: Tracking bass is tedious

Wait, so if the drummer is off, you edit the drummer so its perfectly in time, and then the bass so it matches up to that?

That's a lot of editing!

and not really necessary if you have decent players. All that editing kills the groove. Good players will be in the pocket where they should be
 
Last edited:
Re: Tracking bass is tedious

and not really necessary if you have decent players. All that editing kills the groove. Good players will be in the pocket where they should be

Agreed, won't argue with that. The issue that you run into when you're recording a guy who has no groove or a terrible groove to begin with - no sense in preserving that!
 
Re: Tracking bass is tedious

yo VK - have you been in a situation where dudes have said "don't fix it" to their bass or drums? let's say the musicians dig it but you hear it as bad - what happens?
 
Re: Tracking bass is tedious

To be honest, no. If the end result they want is a tight and polished record, then it's pretty easy for me to explain to/show them what it takes to get that, and I've never had someone say "I like the end product but don't like the work it takes to get there, so don't do the work."

That said, the guys that come to work with me do so because they like the sounds I get and trust my ear - I wouldn't expect a band who wanted super raw, gritty production to listen to my previous work and say "This sounds like the right man for the job."

And THAT said, I did all the editing aside from vocals on the last Cephalic Carnage record, and they're usually heralded as one of the dirtiest metal bands to have 'made it,' so to speak.
 
Re: Tracking bass is tedious

It is said the human ear likes organic sounds more than machine made sounds. All this nano editing is killing the longevity of the music it's applied to. I know it's a style thing so it is what it is but could you imagine a Rolling Stones record hard quantized? Most of the current production techniques sound good for a moment but don't wear well.
 
Re: Tracking bass is tedious

^^Not really a fair comparison, considering Stones records have been around 4-5 longer than the modern records you're comparing them to. The songs themselves are the more important part in that equation, anyway. You're also assuming that the older productions are sonically "better," and it'd be impossible to get an unbiased user-base to test that hypothesis.
 
Re: Tracking bass is tedious

I didn't say they are better, but as an avid listener I can honestly say newer productions lose their appeal very quickly. I sincerely doubt many if any of today's recordings will have the same impact 20 years from now. This has nothing to do with song writing as I do think there are some amazing songs being written now. This isn't a personal opinion it's just the way the human brain is wired.
 
Back
Top