Retracking a poor bass performance, unethical or necessary?

[PatBlair]

The trick is to let the band make the right decision. In college - summer of 2000 - I was in a studio for the 3rd time, nicest one I had ever been to by far. We were a pretty good band, pretty tight. None of us had heard of Auto-Tune until the engineer started applying it to vox.
When we (the band) expressed some doubt, he explained it thusly: "It's your choice. There are 3 ways to do this: spend a bunch of time (money) doing multiple takes to get an excellent record, use AutoTune (cheat, maybe) to get a similar result, or leave the pretty good takes you have, and have a good record as opposed to an excellent one. But I'd suggest doing it the right way when you have a huge budget, as opposed to right now." It was a pretty quick decision for us.
Not to get long winded, but the way to do this might be to retrack the bass, play it for the band the next day, play the original, explain their 3 options, and let them pick. Problem solved. It's all in the presentation.

[Quint]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

Earth to Quint, Earth to Quint...

If you don't think the engineers working on Hendrix and Zep bent over backwards and did double flips to fix EVERYTHING they could to make the BEST PRODUCT THEY COULD you are a resident of some parallel universe.

It's like you think there's something golden and magically authentic about a sloppy performance! Get real, friend. Tom Waits doesn't just reel off whatever inept first take and tie his hands behind his back and tell his engineers to send it to the record stamping plant.

When someone stumbles when they're striving to play a Chopin etude, no one needs to tell anyone it's a mistake. What kind of moron is going to ask them, "Hey, does your adherence to some ridiculous standard of purity mean you want me to leave your mistake in, when i could fix it?"

No one is talking about your straw man, running every tracking through autotune and snapping everything to a grid, we're talking about FIXING MISTAKES! As in, FIXING! As in, MISTAKES!

If I take my car to be painted, I don't want to hear the guy say, "Yeah, there were a few rust spots, but we didn't do anything BECAUSE WE THOUGHT YOU WANTED THEM LEFT LIKE THEY WERE."

This is just idiocy.

I"m not saying that mistakes shouldn't be fixed. If they're going to be fixed, I happen to think that they should be fixed organically instead of in the computer but that's a different conversation. What I'm saying is this: What is a mistake and what is it in the context of the song? An opera singer might think that they made a mistake if they pulled off a phrase that came out like Neil Young. However, given the context of his songs, Neil Young's voice sounds perfectly fine. This is the problem, too many engineers fail to recognize context and what a complete performance means to a song. I would way rather have a complete vibey performance with a little miff here or there instead of a performance that has been overdubbed to a dull point, yet is technically perfect. I'll take vibe over perfection any day of the week.

Besides, I still believe that an engineer's job is simply to push the record button. Let the artist decide what is or isn't acceptable. Afterall, it's their song, not yours. How in the world are you in a position to determine what's right and wrong for a song? Are you in the band? One person's "sloppy" performance is another person's "groovy" performance. It's all relative and I don't think you have some kind of magical barometer to judge what is and isn't acceptable to a song. Only the artist has that sort of context and, as such, should be the only one making these kinds of calls.

Also, this conversation started off discussing retracking a part behind the band's back. I'm sorry, but that is %100 completely unethical. There is no two ways about it. If you think that this is alright, well, good luck with that. You better hope you never get caught because that's a sorry practice that you're engaging in. You might wanna keep some bandaids and Neosporin around. Seriously, if someone in a band ever finds out that you're doing this, you really might actually get your ass kicked. I'm not joking. Arrogant behavior tends to piss people off.

[Quint]

Originally Posted by slaves666

I noticed that I am missing a post as well, but for some reason it was quoted, so it is there......

I do understand the other side of the "argument".......but from this side, there is no drawback to doing it......

The analogy I use is a "white lie"......you know, when you get invite to someones house you don't like, and you say you are away for the week-end......no one gets hurt and you don't have to sit though a horrible dinner.

The same with the re-tracking.....no one will know, not the band, not the fans, no one, but the end product is better and your work will be better.

As I stated, I produce bands for the most part. I rewrite parts, write new riffs, and the list goes on.....for me to re-track a part to make it better is just part of the whole picture.

Says you. How do you know what makes it better? How do you know that no one is getting hurt? Man, this is just, flat out, not your call. You have no right to do this and it is very wrong. As I mentioned to joelpatterson, you better hope you never get caught.

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

Bottom line - music is self expression. If you take the expression away without knowledge, covertly, then you also remove the expression of the musician.

Thank you. This comes to the crux of my disagreement.

Yeah, what he said.

[Quint]

Originally Posted by Mark Kaufman

One brick wall that seems to be unbreachable is this one: if you are going to go ahead and fix something whether they like it or not, then why must you do it covertly? Because you failed to notice their mistake earlier on and are saving face? Because you simply have no respect or regard for them? Because your time is too precious to waste on communication and honesty?

I understand that things should be fixed. When the band Them first recorded for Bert Berns, every single band member except Van Morrison was systematically told to sit out while Jimmy Page and other session aces were called in to take over. It was brutal, but it was up front. That's an example of how one strong leader might handle the problem. What I don't get is why re-recording tracks secretly is good policy. That strikes me as cowardly. "Sssh, don't tell dumbass that I'm doing this...he'll never know, and then we won't have to endure the discomfort of telling him about it." I would never recommend a team who thinks this sort of arrogance and dishonesty is business as usual.

My take is:

Fixing the track = ethical
Fixing the track secretly = weasel-like

Weasel-like indeed.

[BeerHunter]

Redo the basslines without telling them? Seems unethical to me. Good thing the lead vocal turned out ok... oh and the lead solo.... actually, maybe just do the whole thing instead of them just to be sure.

[wreckd]

Yesterday I would have just re-tracked any part that was a poor relfection of their intial demo. So when people say how can you hear what they were trying to play? Because I’m listening to their reference demo. However after reading this thread, I’ve decided that I won’t do this without telling the band. You’re right, if you keep helping poor musicians thing be better “in the mix” they will never learn. I think I’ll just ask to have my name taken off instead.

[Birdi]

Originally Posted by wreckd

You’re right, if you keep helping poor musicians thing be better “in the mix” they will never learn. I think I’ll just ask to have my name taken off instead.

Theres always: 'engineered by' (your self) and 'mixed by' the band. Or 'produced and mixed by the band with engineering by (yourself)' ... useful ways of taking no credit without offending.

B

[slaves666]

Originally Posted by Quint

Says you. How do you know what makes it better? How do you know that no one is getting hurt? Man, this is just, flat out, not your call. You have no right to do this and it is very wrong. As I mentioned to joelpatterson, you better hope you never get caught.



Yeah, what he said.

How do I know it makes it better. It's bass guitar and it needs to lock to the drums and possibly follow the guitar, and if he messes up a part, and I can't copy and paste it from somewhere, there is no alternate take, what is point of leaving a mistake there?

Further, It'll take more time to call him have him come in and sit through bad takes, then the 10 minutes it'll take to complete.

I will go back to the auto-tune, and drum editing comment.....these days there is little remnants of a "band" when we record. So much is done, and so much is changed that to me it really isn't the same band once we are done mixing. They have undergone in some cases Major surgery. Therefore re-tracking a whole or part of a song is only an extension of this. It's not re-writing a song, or changing his parts that he came up with, merely getting his playing tight enough so that when someone hears the final product, they like it.

[moracspace]

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.

I agree 100%
But,the players these days would rather you just protoolit.
Yes,it is 1 word now.

[Quint]

Originally Posted by slaves666

How do I know it makes it better. It's bass guitar and it needs to lock to the drums and possibly follow the guitar, and if he messes up a part, and I can't copy and paste it from somewhere, there is no alternate take, what is point of leaving a mistake there?

Further, It'll take more time to call him have him come in and sit through bad takes, then the 10 minutes it'll take to complete.

I will go back to the auto-tune, and drum editing comment.....these days there is little remnants of a "band" when we record. So much is done, and so much is changed that to me it really isn't the same band once we are done mixing. They have undergone in some cases Major surgery. Therefore re-tracking a whole or part of a song is only an extension of this. It's not re-writing a song, or changing his parts that he came up with, merely getting his playing tight enough so that when someone hears the final product, they like it.

Well hell then. Why even have the band come in at all then? Just have them write the music down for you and you can track the whole thing and just call them to come by and pick up the finished product. Is this really what it's all come to now? This is just sad. Based on what you're saying, why even bother recording music anymore? Don't you have any sense of music as art? Does the fact, that music, when done for the right reasons, can be a very personal artistic expression, mean anything to you? For you to go and do this behind the band's back is basically robbing them of that expression. This is what makes this unethical and unexcuseable. Well that and the fact that you wouldn't be here asking this question if you didn't already know the answer deep down. All artistic decisions belong to the artist. Period. If you feel "above" the artist enough to make decisions for them, you are being arrogant and unethical. I can't put it any more simple than that.

[henryrobinett]

Quint - this is where it's gone. I personally won't do it. I will nudge tracks if really needed, but generally only when asked. I will edit tracks -- a solo from track 3 inserted into track 4. I will reasonably auto-tune IF THE ARTIST REQUESTS IT. I will not construct tracks and fix kick drum parts, except perhaps the odd one or two. I never have to with the musicians I record and I won't do it on principle.

But people do this all the time. It's the quality of musicians on one hand and the smoke and mirrors technology on the other. You got it, why not use it? It makes the engineer look like a hero. I think it makes him look more like a crook -- a modern day snake oil salesman.

[slaves666]

Originally Posted by Quint

Well hell then. Why even have the band come in at all then? Just have them write the music down for you and you can track the whole thing and just call them to come by and pick up the finished product. Is this really what it's all come to now? This is just sad. Based on what you're saying, why even bother recording music anymore? Don't you have any sense of music as art? Does the fact, that music, when done for the right reasons, can be a very personal artistic expression, mean anything to you? For you to go and do this behind the band's back is basically robbing them of that expression. This is what makes this unethical and unexcuseable. Well that and the fact that you wouldn't be here asking this question if you didn't already know the answer deep down. All artistic decisions belong to the artist. Period. If you feel "above" the artist enough to make decisions for them, you are being arrogant and unethical. I can't put it any more simple than that.

It isn't about being above anyone.....it's about doing what every band I work with asks for......to sound the best they can.....they ask to be tuned, edited, comped word by word......the tracks look like this ||||||||||||||||||||||||

I don't want you to confuse all these things being done, to me wanting to do them. I would rather track a band that needs no fixes anyday.

a quick anecdote......2 projects ago, I tracked a singer, 10 songs in 3 days.....he killed it. No tuning needed, comping is simple..... a pleasure to work with. Since the drums were programmed, and I tracked all the guitars and bass in 3 days......If only all projects were this easy, I'd be in heaven.

[henryrobinett]

All my projects pretty much are that way. Couple of months ago I did an entire CD for a singer/songwriter. She played piano and sang. It was a beautiful thing. I comp two tracks; just small bits. And she did it,meaning I didn't allow here, nor would she have allowed me to decide myself.

I've never had to fix drum tracks. I guess all the drummers I record are better than you guys record. I've recorded a bunch of rock, pop, funk bands. I just won't do it.

[Mark Kaufman]

...and once again, just out of blind hope:

Fixing it is okay.

Doing so on the sly, is not.

[Quint]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

Quint - this is where it's gone. I personally won't do it. I will nudge tracks if really needed, but generally only when asked. I will edit tracks -- a solo from track 3 inserted into track 4. I will reasonably auto-tune IF THE ARTIST REQUESTS IT. I will not construct tracks and fix kick drum parts, except perhaps the odd one or two. I never have to with the musicians I record and I won't do it on principle.

But people do this all the time. It's the quality of musicians on one hand and the smoke and mirrors technology on the other. You got it, why not use it? It makes the engineer look like a hero. I think it makes him look more like a crook -- a modern day snake oil salesman.

Henry, yeah I agree. It has gotten to that point. I was just making a point by asking a question. Unfortunately, I'm fully aware of how common these "fix it" practices are. It's a sad state of affairs but most engineers seem to be doing it. As for retracking behind a band's back, hopefully engineers that are doing that are still in the minority. I hope.

I'm glad to see that there's still engineers out there that frown upon fixing everything for a band. Yet, people wonder why music sucks. Go figure.

[Quint]

Originally Posted by slaves666

It isn't about being above anyone.....it's about doing what every band I work with asks for......to sound the best they can.....they ask to be tuned, edited, comped word by word......the tracks look like this ||||||||||||||||||||||||

I don't want you to confuse all these things being done, to me wanting to do them. I would rather track a band that needs no fixes anyday.

a quick anecdote......2 projects ago, I tracked a singer, 10 songs in 3 days.....he killed it. No tuning needed, comping is simple..... a pleasure to work with. Since the drums were programmed, and I tracked all the guitars and bass in 3 days......If only all projects were this easy, I'd be in heaven.

Yeah, but has a band ever asked you to retrack a part without them knowing? You said you would or have done it. Just to be clear, that is what I'm saying is unethical. While I don't agree with all of the other "fixing" that goes on in the computer recording age, I don't believe that that is unethical. Is it screwing the quality of music on a daily basis? Definitely. That, however, is not what I'm saying is unethical. It's the retracking of a part, unknown to the band, that I think is unethical. Hopefully, I've made this distinction clear now, if it wasn't before.

Anyway, you guys do what you want.

[Mad Cat]

OK, I know this isn’t accurate, it’s only an illustration, so go easy on me........

Remember the Beatles? You know, John Paul George & Pete? I guess at some point during their recording career this dude named Ringo (???) was hired by George Martin to come in after hours and redo all of Pete Best’s drum parts since Pete couldn’t keep very good time. Nobody ever told the band about it because George Martin didn’t want to hurt anybody’s fEEElings. To this day we see Pete Best getting credit for all the drumming on Beatle’s LPs when all along it was really some obscure session drummer named Ringo. Right? I know, it’s hard to believe, but it’s a little-known historical fact....


Does anybody see where I am going with this?


1. If you replaced the bass part with your own playing, then it is silly and even downright absurd to give credit to some guy who didn’t even really appear on the album.

2. Don't pussyfoot around the poor sucky bass player pretending he is great, hopelessly feeding his delusions of grandeur. Politely tell him to clean up his act, or tell him to git!

3. If the band is happy with their own bass player’s playing then let them have it. If not, advise them that it would be expedient to begin looking for a more professional bass player. The Beatles were not playing games, and you shouldn't either. They were honest with themselves about their weakest link and made executive decisions to fix their problem. Sounds like your band might not be all that serious yet anyway, so I wouldn't worry too much about pressuring them like that unless they are truly serious (and not delusional about their talent). Point is, honesty is the best policy. Are they talented or delusional? Is it worth your energy to worry about it?


I wouldn't worry too much about a bad bass line ruining your career. The band you are working with is not the Beatles. They are probably not even Starland Vocal Band . I doubt that very many people will even hear their album. Part of your job is to be a cheerleader and do everything you can to help and encourage the band succeed, keeping in mind that cheaters never win (well maybe sometimes they do win, damn, I wish it wasn't so easy to cheat! Stoopid protools)!


Ethical? No it is not, but I'll bet if you posted before and after sound clips so we can see how truly terrible the original bass line was, some of us might wind up changing our minds!

[henryrobinett]

We already went down this road -- a producer is a different thing. That's an executive decision. It's not an engineer.

The example you're giving would only be accurate if Joe Blogs, the engineer, after hours and without Paul, John, George, Pete, Ringo OR George Martin, went in redid the tracks himself, because he fancied he was a better drummer, and didn't tell anybody.

Yeah, that'd work. Nobody would be the wiser.

Get the picture?

[jigsawlogic]

This is really a question about vision vs. execution. Hopefully, we're talking about a situation in which the former is present, but the latter is questionable.

Recording is more or less a virtual art--for better or for worse--meaning that it is possible to project a perfected version of one's aims, regardless of instrumental technique. But there is still a separation between actual and virtual. By replacing a performer's recorded performance with your own, you blind him to the reasons for doing so in the first place, and he will perceive the virtual as actual. You, as the engineer, have thrown your good coat down over a puddle to allow poor musicianship to walk across without getting its boots wet. And that allows poor musicians to continue in the illusion that rain only wets "the other people", rather than perceiving their faults and mustering up the gumption to correct them.

When engineers, as a collective, complain about the fact that poor musicianship interferes with their craft, they only have the more virtual aspects of their craft to blame. The engineer's toolbox must share the same lid as Pandora's...once open, people who can't play or sing have a level playing field with those who have shed blood and sweat developing their natural talents. In the days of real time recording, the people you complain about wouldn't even get past the door, and questions such as this shouldn't exist. You do a disservice to both the artist, and the rest of us, by replacing his parts on the sly. The artist, by removing any evidence of his lack of skill, thereby insuring that he will never improve. The rest of us, by insuring that someone like him will walk through the door.

At the very least, play his own bass part back-to-back with your replacement. Point out to him what you did, and why you did it. If, on the other hand, you decide that discretion is the better part of valor, then know that when you read another post about a terrible band that can't play, you have helped contribute to the problem.

[Quint]

Originally Posted by Mad Cat

OK, I know this isn’t accurate, it’s only an illustration, so go easy on me........

Remember the Beatles? You know, John Paul George & Pete? I guess at some point during their recording career this dude named Ringo (???) was hired by George Martin to come in after hours and redo all of Pete Best’s drum parts since Pete couldn’t keep very good time. Nobody ever told the band about it because George Martin didn’t want to hurt anybody’s fEEElings. To this day we see Pete Best getting credit for all the drumming on Beatle’s LPs when all along it was really some obscure session drummer named Ringo. Right? I know, it’s hard to believe, but it’s a little-known historical fact....


Does anybody see where I am going with this?


1. If you replaced the bass part with your own playing, then it is silly and even downright absurd to give credit to some guy who didn’t even really appear on the album.

2. Don't pussyfoot around the poor sucky bass player pretending he is great, hopelessly feeding his delusions of grandeur. Politely tell him to clean up his act, or tell him to git!

3. If the band is happy with their own bass player’s playing then let them have it. If not, advise them that it would be expedient to begin looking for a more professional bass player. The Beatles were not playing games, and you shouldn't either. They were honest with themselves about their weakest link and made executive decisions to fix their problem. Sounds like your band might not be all that serious yet anyway, so I wouldn't worry too much about pressuring them like that unless they are truly serious (and not delusional about their talent). Point is, honesty is the best policy. Are they talented or delusional? Is it worth your energy to worry about it?


I wouldn't worry too much about a bad bass line ruining your career. The band you are working with is not the Beatles. They are probably not even Starland Vocal Band . I doubt that very many people will even hear their album. Part of your job is to be a cheerleader and do everything you can to help and encourage the band succeed, keeping in mind that cheaters never win (well maybe sometimes they do win, damn, I wish it wasn't so easy to cheat! Stoopid protools)!


Ethical? No it is not, but I'll bet if you posted before and after sound clips so we can see how truly terrible the original bass line was, some of us might wind up changing our minds!

Okay, I'm gonna have to rant for a second....

Do some of you guys even bother to read what's been written in a thread before you decide to throw your two cents in? Seriously, this is like the guys that respond with "get an Apogee" (non PC compatible) when somebody starts a thread about what converter to get for their PC. Or what about the "is your room treated?" police? Yes, we all are aware that our rooms need to be treated but if someone asks a question about a compressor, just answer the damn question about the compressor. My favorites are the guys who respond with "Mytek" when somebody asks what tape formula is the best.

I think things could get solved a lot quicker here on Gearslutz if some people would just bother to read what's already been written before answering with something completely irrelevant. Seriously, this kind of stuff happens way too much and is a real pain in the ass.

So, how in the world does the Beatles making an executive decision equal an engineer retracking a part on the sly? If everyone is in on it, then do whatever the hell you want. It's the "behind the back" practices that are untethical. Anyway....

[Quint]

Originally Posted by jigsawlogic

This is really a question about vision vs. execution. Hopefully, we're talking about a situation in which the former is present, but the latter is questionable.

Recording is more or less a virtual art--for better or for worse--meaning that it is possible to project a perfected version of one's aims, regardless of instrumental technique. But there is still a separation between actual and virtual. By replacing a performer's recorded performance with your own, you blind him to the reasons for doing so in the first place, and he will perceive the virtual as actual. You, as the engineer, have thrown your good coat down over a puddle to allow poor musicianship to walk across without getting its boots wet. And that allows poor musicians to continue in the illusion that rain only wets "the other people", rather than perceiving their faults and mustering up the gumption to correct them.

When engineers, as a collective, complain about the fact that poor musicianship interferes with their craft, they only have the more virtual aspects of their craft to blame. The engineer's toolbox must share the same lid as Pandora's...once open, people who can't play or sing have a level playing field with those who have shed blood and sweat developing their natural talents. In the days of real time recording, the people you complain about wouldn't even get past the door, and questions such as this shouldn't exist. You do a disservice to both the artist, and the rest of us, by replacing his parts on the sly. The artist, by removing any evidence of his lack of skill, thereby insuring that he will never improve. The rest of us, by insuring that someone like him will walk through the door.

At the very least, play his own bass part back-to-back with your replacement. Point out to him what you did, and why you did it. If, on the other hand, you decide that discretion is the better part of valor, then know that when you read another post about a terrible band that can't play, you have helped contribute to the problem.

Exactly

And yet so many engineers constantly ask why music sucks so bad these days....

[nostudio]

Originally Posted by slaves666

The reason I do it on occasion is the final product.

The performance is the final product. Anything that we can do is packaging. You can make sure the package is really nice, so people are more likely to pay attention to the thing in side.

Point being, you crossed some kind of line here. It's not really an ethical issue; no one died or anything. But the band were obviously happy with the bassist*, or they wouldn't have spent time and money recording with him.

You made the call that your musical ideas are more valid than theirs. On your head be that.



*or didn't care enough to kick out a bassist that they weren't happy with, in which case, do what you like, it dosen't matter.

[joelpatterson]

Originally Posted by nostudio

You made the call that your musical ideas are more valid than theirs....

Good call, at least someone's paying attention!


There's a whole theme in this thread that there's something sacrosanct about some inexperienced band that's rushed for time and maybe doesn't even have a complete grasp of what's going on around them, and the engineer that will tip slightly backwards to help them out is some kind of power-mad control freak.

News flash: there really is a "real world" out there, and CDs that include sloppy bass parts are doomed fast. You wanna be part of that? Great, sure is noble of you.