Retracking a poor bass performance, unethical or necessary?

[narcoman]

you wouldn't believe the number of records I "ghost played" bass on in the nineties. Big ones too. Believe me, this ain't just a modern issue......

Record labels - If the band cannot play - find ones that can.

[Zooey]

Originally Posted by James Krumhansl

Lets get some opinions. I run a small project studio out of the home and on occasion I have had bassists so bad come in that once the band left I re-tracked the bass lines myself. I make no change (or nothing outstanding) to how the song was written just a means of having a better performance. These tracks turn out much better than any mixing techniques that could be applied to the original take. Do you other engineers think this is wrong or should learning bass be a prerequisite for any AE :-P.

Ha! I just did this on a project I tracked and mixed. We were under tremendous time pressure because the singer/songwriter flew out from the east coast and he only had 2 days.

The bassist got a little excited on one of tracks, and the bass was practically unusable. I started comping and editing, but it would have taken hours (hours the band didn't want to pay for). I re-tracked the bass and sent the band a rough mix to see if they would notice or comment...they didn't. That track is on the EP.

[henryrobinett]

I know, I know. That''s somewhat different if the record exec is doing it. They're making the call. The band may have a "for hire" contract. I've been in many situations where the A&R guy replaced a musician either in total or in the studio. But normally the leader of the band, at the very least, is either told about it or agrees under duress.

But not the engineer on his own determinism.

[PoorGlory]

I just realized that one of the first albums I recorded, the bass player simply could not play this one groove, which lasted all of 12 seconds. It was so bad, after the bass player left, the drummer re-tracked that particular bass part. We never told the bass player. He still doesn't know to this day.

But that wasn't my idea, so it was ethical.

[James Krumhansl]

I see this topic has had a lot of response. In all fairness, I deal with the 17-24 crowd for the most part. Some groups come in without bass players thinking that it is not important (a lot of metal groups), one just losing a bass player, and a few other situations where I offered to track bass for the session. Some bands have come in with poor bass players and the guitarist had opted to retrack the bass with out them knowing.
I have only done a secret retracking of bass on 2 or 3 occasions where the band had no concern over the bass but i felt it was necessary for the sonic foundation. So take it as you will. Is it unethical? I don't think I can refute that but when there disregard for there instrument has the potential to ruin a project I feel i must step in. It is much quicker to learn a basic bass line and play it properly than to edit the hell out of a take and not even get the same result.
I would never retrack a bassist who showed ability even if he was slightly off the mark. Those who have been ghosted couldn't even handle the task of playing the simple root melodies of guitar lines and lock in with the drum performance.

[henryrobinett]

Yeah man, I don't have a problem with re-tracking perse, but why not talk about it with the band? That's the part that tweaks my shorts. It's real easy to just pick up the phone or face to face it.

[James Krumhansl]

I definitely drop hints, "watch your dynamics", "sync with the drum performance better" etc. but it still yields little results. Some of these guys come in set on doing there parts cause its they are in the band and when they are in that mindset i would rather keep a smooth session than bring it to a halt. I give kudos to any player that will realize their limitations and hand it off to a more able member of the band whether it be one guitarist playing another's parts, a guitarist playing a bassists parts, a lead vocalist doing dubs instead of a backup vocalist who is less able to hit the parts. In the end its about the realization of a musical vision not appealing to every band members ego.

[henryrobinett]

Yeah, that's good. But I've been very upfront, saying, "What would you think if I played that, or got someone else, because it doesn't seem to be working."

I've found it works to drop hints sometimes but most often blunt honesty with kindness attached works the best for me.

More often than not I've been asked to play and declined. It's not my record and honestly I'd rather not be on it. But in my case it also might be because most guys know who I am and how I play, so maybe they'd be less offended for me to offer to either play the part or "produce it" by finding someone.

When push comes to shove and folks are stuck in quicksand, they're looking for viable options.

[Duardo]

I agree...doesn't matter if it's the best thing for the song, if you as the engineer are doing it behind the artists' backs then I'd say it is unethical. If you really feel that it's the best thing to do for the song then let the band know.

If you're the producer, that's a different story...still not the best idea to do it without telling the band, but that's your call as the producer.

[Infernal Device]

I don't see anything wrong with redoing it, teaching them to do it, or editing it,

**AS LONG AS YOU TELL THEM**

Isn't there enough lies, deceit and mistrust from studios these days?

Just tell them the truth...

"Which is more important, the part on the record or the player on the record"?

THE PART--you play it.

THE PLAYER--write a part they can play.

If I took a cooking class and they took my money and recooked it behind my back because I was awful, I would be *PISSED*.

Talk with them, you may end up playing it, having some clients that grow up to respect you, they tell friends and you can pay your phone bill not just this month, but years from now.

[henryrobinett]

[kpaw]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

No, no, no!!!!!!!! That's what f***s musicians up. Let them hear how lame they are so they can improve. If they go in to a studio, play like shit and it comes out sounding sweet, what f***ing motivation do they have to actually play better?????

No way do I see this as ethical, from any number of vantage points. And DEFINITELY NOT DISCREETLY. Up front all the way.

What happens if they don't realize how lame they are? Oh, I vote for unethical.

[James Krumhansl]

I see a lot of engineer vs. producer opinions, I neglected to mention this is a project studio and I do demos and small ep's of which I have never had a producer on any project. In many cases I will step in on the production level but mainly I am just around to track the band and make them shine in any way I can. I'm not making any justifications I just wanted that stated should it make a difference.

[slaves666]

Originally Posted by Infernal Device

I don't see anything wrong with redoing it, teaching them to do it, or editing it,

**AS LONG AS YOU TELL THEM**

Isn't there enough lies, deceit and mistrust from studios these days?

Just tell them the truth...

"Which is more important, the part on the record or the player on the record"?

THE PART--you play it.

THE PLAYER--write a part they can play.

If I took a cooking class and they took my money and recooked it behind my back because I was awful, I would be *PISSED*.

Talk with them, you may end up playing it, having some clients that grow up to respect you, they tell friends and you can pay your phone bill not just this month, but years from now.

The problem with this is the artist that says "I think its fine the way it is" or "I don't hear a problem" or my favorite "what groove?".

It doesn't happen often, but when it does, I'd rather re-track it in 15 minutes when they leave, then sitting for 4 hours to take one song. When I see the bass takes in Nuendo hit the 60's and 70's, it's time to re-think the approach.

FWIW, I'll try and get a guitar payer in the band to give it a try 1st. Usually one of them can nail it.

[henryrobinett]

The problem I have with this is it's NOT YOUR RECORD, you know?

I have a problem with engineer's thinking it's their record because people come into THEIR studio. They don't want to release an inferior product. But it's not your call. You can beg, you can encourage, you can plead, but ultimately it's not your call.

[Infernal Device]

Originally Posted by slaves666

The problem with this is the artist that says "I think its fine the way it is" or "I don't hear a problem"

Then they have relieved you of your duty. They like it. The end.

[slaves666]

Originally Posted by Infernal Device

Then they have relieved you of your duty. They like it. The end.

You may think so, but as per my previous post.....When the final product makes the rounds of fans and local musicians, they sometimes equate my work as inferior because the band is not good. That is why I spend extra time editing drums and tuning vocals, so that it doesn't reflect badly on me, and my work. Even if it means a few unpaid hours.

I am mixing a record now. 1 of the tunes, the drums were all over the place.....since I already quoted a rate, I figured rather than leave the drums a mess, I'd fix them. Since technically they weren't played that way, I am essentially doing the same thing, except in the end, with the extra work, I won't be embarrassed of the product.

[henryrobinett]

To the same, perhaps lesser extent, when the talk makes the rounds about how you changed, butchered, didn't listen to the band and the bands opinions; thought you were better than them and looked down your noses at them, that too could have severe repercussions.

It's the bands choice, period, embarrassment be damned.

[Infernal Device]

Originally Posted by slaves666

You may think so, but as per my previous post.....When the final product makes the rounds of fans and local musicians, they sometimes equate my work as inferior because the band is not good. That is why I spend extra time editing drums and tuning vocals, so that it doesn't reflect badly on me, and my work. Even if it means a few unpaid hours.

I am mixing a record now. 1 of the tunes, the drums were all over the place.....since I already quoted a rate, I figured rather than leave the drums a mess, I'd fix them. Since technically they weren't played that way, I am essentially doing the same thing, except in the end, with the extra work, I won't be embarrassed of the product.

Thanks for the replies! I hope this helps the poster.

Anyway, that (for me, not everyone) can be a very stressful way to run a studio, making it your personal responsibility to make sure everything is PERFECT (Nickelback comes to mind). Battle that can never be won.

The band liked it, engineer did not.

Engineer liked it, better clients did not.

Better clients liked it, label did not.

so on and so on.

Battle that can never be won.

Just do what you are hired to do. Move onto the next and hopefully better client.

If said engineer gives the band options, points out his opinion but lets the band decide, they will sing the praises of the studio regardless of product.

If I saw a really good picture of what I thought to be not an attractive person, I would not blame the photographer. As long as it is recorded well, you did your job.

As a producer, much much different story.

If said engineer is worried about the local music fans hearing a bad bass track, he will be working with that type of artist for a long long time.

Evolve past that, and never again will that be a problem, as those types will go somewhere else while he works with better artists.

The better artists with whom I have worked (and larger budgets) has never yet been determined by a bass track, but rather how I handle sessions and treat bands.

I just got the deposit last night for a 4 song demo that I make $7500.00 and it had nothing to do with bass tracks, microphones or edits. It was 100% based on reputation and talking with them. I think quietly in the background some of my work was playing while we talked.

I am sure that same evening somewhere, someone was pitching a $300 demo to someone that involved bass tracks and edits and stuff like that.

Something to think about.

To end this long-winded response, the bad bass track is not the problem. Your personality will determine your future. Will you be retracking bad bass stuff in 5 years? 10 years? I won't because I never have.

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by Infernal Device

To end this long-winded response, the bad bass track is not the problem. Your personality will determine your future. Will you be retracking bad bass stuff in 5 years? 10 years? I won't because I never have.

Neither have I! Good post!

[joelpatterson]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

To the same, perhaps lesser extent, when the talk makes the rounds about how you changed, butchered, didn't listen to the band and the bands opinions; thought you were better than them and looked down your noses at them, that too could have severe repercussions.

What the hell are you talking about???

"Yeah, man, he changed our shitty bass track, man, I mean, it was pretty dreadful and he made it sound like it rocked!
And here's our CD man, listen to it! It sounds like so much better than us!

I ask you-- is that the way you wanted to be treated?"

I do hear the chorus of voices that say leave it be and move on, but I don't hear anything like a convicing downside to improving the music. The idea that the kids' band is going to complain(?) about that is

[henryrobinett]

Listen the gosh darned (grin) engineers job is to ENGINEER!!!! If he wants to make musical changes he needs to consult with the friggin' band. I swear to god I will shank somebody who messes with my music, you know? I'm kidding but only barely. And those rules aren't Henry's rules to be applied to myself. You should know that there may be some oher people who might see things less kindly than I do in the world.

You F*** with my music you're going to have hell to pay.
I just don't think it's the responsibility of the ENGINEER to do that. Discuss, hell yes.

[sanddigger1]

I agree with Henryrobinett's posts in this thread.

to use a movie analogy : I'm not the director of the record, I'm the cameraman, my job is to communicate with the band or the producer about the problems I find, not to 'solve' them on my own.

I'm not here to think in place of people. If there are wrong notes and that noone is bothered, so, they arent wrong. The band is the client and my personal idea of music doesnt have to interfere.

They play with pans and pots if they want to, it is not my problem. I dont care about the music, i care about the signal. I try to record wrong notes perfectly.

I'm not their art director (untill they ask me), I'm the plumber. I solder ducts and they must not ooze. For the rest, it is not my bathroom.

If I hear problems, I tell them, if they think it is fine the way it is, it remains the way it is.
I'm not paid to judge if a note is wrong or right, I'm paid to record it with the best sound possible.

I'm a mercenary, I'm loyal to who's paying me, not to this or that idea of music.

[sanddigger1]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

Listen the gosh darned (grin) engineers job is to ENGINEER!!!! If he wants to make musical changes he needs to consult with the friggin' band. I swear to god I will shank somebody who messes with my music, you know? I'm kidding but only barely. And those rules aren't Henry's rules to be applied to myself. You should know that there may be some oher people who might see things less kindly than I do in the world.

You F*** with my music you're going to have hell to pay.
I just don't think it's the responsibility of the ENGINEER to do that. Discuss, hell yes.

I agree 200%

[joelpatterson]

I'm going to agree to disagree, here. This is my perspective: your loyalty is primarily to the listeners who have not been born yet. If your loyalty is strictly to the band in your studio, the people who are not born yet will never hear this CD because your ethical approach leaves a CD reeking of mistakes and wrong notes. Bizarro panning moves and other artifacts of inexperienced kids learning the ropes.

If, on the other hand, you take the long view and you steer these kids towards their best potential, potential that may be latent in the tracks they laid down, then future generations will have the chance to enjoy it because you've created something timeless and good and not a document of ineptitude.

Although, I realize, reasonable people may differ, and I respect that.

[henryrobinett]

OMG, chances are you're not recording the next Beatles. You aren't their producer. You're their engineer. That's your glory. Unless you've been asked to take a higher role, that's it. Don't try and live your dreams through them. It's their dreams. Consult with them and their dreams. But don't change their music, to improve it in your mind. IT'S THEIR MUSIC, not yours. You are the engineer.

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

Although, I realize, reasonable people may differ, and I respect that.

Reasonable? Who said I was REASONABLE??

[slaves666]

FYI - in all the projects I have worked on, I have only engineered 2, the rest I act as producer. That includes Pre-Prod, engineering, mixing and sometimes playing as well as mastering.