Retracking a poor bass performance, unethical or necessary?

[henryrobinett]

I swear I really don't get it. What's the big deal about talking it over with the guys? Why the deceit? THAT'S what I can't get my head around. Why can't a person acknowledge that it's wrong to lie about this? You're doing the band a disservice by not telling them they're not making the mark. You can correct it for them or they can get it right. Here is before and after.

What's the big deal? I think it's a major deal NOT doing it. Fix it but don't pretend you didn't.

[AndrewsLaneRec.]

while i agree that it's unethical, i also agree with some earlier posters that this is no different than autotuning, drum grid alignment, part moving, copy/pasting, etc....which i rarely do. i think a band should know their crap and stop relying on the engineers to fix everything. i'll do my part to make it sound as good as possible, but sometimes it gets to a point where there's only so much you can do.....


im speaking from alot of experience recording bad bands.

[Quint]

Originally Posted by AndrewsLaneRec.

while i agree that it's unethical, i also agree with some earlier posters that this is no different than autotuning, drum grid alignment, part moving, copy/pasting, etc....which i rarely do. i think a band should know their crap and stop relying on the engineers to fix everything. i'll do my part to make it sound as good as possible, but sometimes it gets to a point where there's only so much you can do.....


im speaking from alot of experience recording bad bands.

While I don't agree with all of the fixing that goes on these days, I understand what you're saying about some bands coming in expecting that their stuff will be "fixed" to a certain degree. They may not be aware of what all goes into it (ie., autotune, time align, etc.), but they come in expecting that. What they don't come in expecting is that some of their parts will actually be retracked by someone else that's not even in the band. Fixing some bad spots in the computer is entirely different than an engineer retracking an entire part without the band's consent. That is the difference here and that is what seperates the ethical from the unethical.

Besides, why the need to lie?

[Jax]

What I hate is fixing the shit out of a project and it still sounds amateur because the players just don't know how to make a note sound musical.

I do it for them, they know I'm fixing one bad played part after another, and they still don't care. Cut this, paste that over, etc. etc. I did so much of this in April that I almost quit being an engineer forever. But I kept my mouth shut and did the job.

At least I'm not the one lying to them. They lie to themselves.

What can we do to make better musicians play better music?

I hate to admit I'm not looking forward to working with them again. At least they pay on time every time, which is much more than I can say for more experienced bands.

[Mark Kaufman]

I know why I keep coming back to this Moan...like Henry, I haven't heard a reason why you wouldn't just tell them.

What keeps me coming back, I now realize, is that I would like to think of the recording process as a group effort focused on a mutual goal. When I go into a studio, I have essentially hired a team to help me achieve something. Like the Beatles (they were a 60's rock group from England), I would be completely okay with whatever it takes to make a sound--unusual effects, pitch shifting, even having the engineer actually re-track a mistake I made on bass--yes, I would embrace all this.

But if they TELL me, then they're playing like they're on my team. If they DON'T tell me, then they are on their OWN team--they don't trust me enough to be honest, and the whole game becomes a con game. ONE SIMPLE PIECE of the puzzle: honesty.

That and loyalty... That's basically the difference between a good person and an asshole.

[sysexguy]

well in some cases, telling them (before the fact) is the end of the gig, which may be a good thing (even if this is the moan zone).

Andy

[Quint]

Originally Posted by Jax

What can we do to make better musicians play better music?

Unfortunately, computers are here to stay. That and modern attitudes, that our culture has towards all of the various things that go into many band's perception of what music is supposed to be, has unfortunately doomed music to a certain degree. Popular, top 40, MTV bullshit music that is. I feel like real music (read: comparatively underground) is doing as good as ever. I'm not saying that there isn't going to be any good music done by good musicians anymore. You just have to look harder. There are musicians out there that are playing better music. They're just not on your local "mix" station.

I completely abandoned all of the traditional avenues years ago. I never listen to the radio or watch tv to find any good music. However, the indie scene is as strong as ever and I feel like that is the only truly redeeming endeavor to be involved in. There's a ton of excellent indie music out there now (and it covers all sorts of genres too). The internet, even with its flaws, is the wave of the future. Now indie bands can actually make a living without a label being anywhere within miles of them. To me, that's really encouraging. I feel like this scene is where the good musicians are that actually "get it" when it comes to knowing how to play and understanding what actually goes into a quality song.

As for all of the rest of that shit....

[Quint]

Originally Posted by Mark Kaufman

I know why I keep coming back to this Moan...like Henry, I haven't heard a reason why you wouldn't just tell them.

What keeps me coming back, I now realize, is that I would like to think of the recording process as a group effort focused on a mutual goal. When I go into a studio, I have essentially hired a team to help me achieve something. Like the Beatles (they were a 60's rock group from England), I would be completely okay with whatever it takes to make a sound--unusual effects, pitch shifting, even having the engineer actually re-track a mistake I made on bass--yes, I would embrace all this.

But if they TELL me, then they're playing like they're on my team. If they DON'T tell me, then they are on their OWN team--they don't trust me enough to be honest, and the whole game becomes a con game. ONE SIMPLE PIECE of the puzzle: honesty.

That and loyalty... That's basically the difference between a good person and an asshole.

Agreed. Joel, Glory, Slave... We're waiting. I have yet to hear one real reason that justifies not being truthful with a band.

Or maybe you guys just enjoy being assholes.... That's a distinct possibility.

[AndrewsLaneRec.]

the fact that we need to have discussions about fixing a band's work is just proof that the musician pool is super diluted. i think it comes down to band members playing beyond their means.....

i still find fixing parts in a computer the same as a better musician playing them.... either way, i've felt cheap the few times i decided to fix an entire record

[Diskordia]

didn't GnR retrack drums with a different drummer for appetite for destruction? i know it was done with the first poison record too.

i don't think there are any ethics in music. bands screwin studios. bookers screwin bands. labels screwin everybody. not a whole lot money out there to be had and fragile egos hurt more than help..especially if you can't back it with talent.

there's that old hunter s thompson quote that everybody knows....

[Quint]

Originally Posted by Diskordia

didn't GnR retrack drums with a different drummer for appetite for destruction? i know it was done with the first poison record too.

i don't think there are any ethics in music. bands screwin studios. bookers screwin bands. labels screwin everybody. not a whole lot money out there to be had and fragile egos hurt more than help..especially if you can't back it with talent.

there's that old hunter s thompson quote that everybody knows....

So what are you saying?

[ChaNce144]

Awesome, I just asked my girlfriend the OP's question, and she immediately said the following:

"Well, how attractive is the bass player?"

[jigsawlogic]

When a model arrives for a photo shoot, she'll be made up, spend time with a hair stylist, and then be adorned with fashion, whether high or low, customized to accent her sex appeal. Afterwards, the shots are digitized. In Photoshop, her legs are lengthened, overall body proportions adjusted to conform to an ideal, and any uneveness in skin tone blended into a homogenous gradient.

But nobody replaces her head.

That's because there's a "just something her" factor, that is accented, rather than replaced, through photographic tools. Which kinda relates to why she is a model in the FIRST PLACE. If you have to "replace her head", as in, "**** that Michael bass player, where's Wolfgang?", then you've admitted that factor is non-existent. In effect, you've lowered the "model agency" drawbridge to admit sea hags and disease-bearing toothless leper women who, even in their prime, would have considered Kathy Bates a run for their money.

This thread's quesiton, in photographic terms:

If I am forced to photograph a Wookie in a swimsuit, should I tell it that I replaced its head with Jessica Alba's, eyelashes just barely protruding over a ridge line of matted chest hair, or I should I just try to fool the Wookie into thinking that I've uncovered its natural beauty?

Some say, "It's a Wookie, which is stupid by nature. Let it think Jessica Alba's head is its own, and collect your cash." Others say, "After you've substituted Jessica Alba's head, tell the Wookie why it was so ugly."

Am I alone in thinking, HOW DID WE SINK SO LOW THAT A WOOKIE IS DOING A FEATURE SPREAD FOR MAXIM???

*****rant out*****

ps. tell the Wookie it was ugly....at least that preserves the fragile strand of truth, even if it does nothing to change an industry predicated on its opposite.

[henryrobinett]

Exactly. Who needs a wookie when you can have Jessica Alba? But tell the wookie that or get Jessica Alba. If it's the wookies shoot, shoot the wookie.

[Quint]

Originally Posted by jigsawlogic

When a model arrives for a photo shoot, she'll be made up, spend time with a hair stylist, and then be adorned with fashion, whether high or low, customized to accent her sex appeal. Afterwards, the shots are digitized. In Photoshop, her legs are lengthened, overall body proportions adjusted to conform to an ideal, and any uneveness in skin tone blended into a homogenous gradient.

But nobody replaces her head.

That's because there's a "just something her" factor, that is accented, rather than replaced, through photographic tools. Which kinda relates to why she is a model in the FIRST PLACE. If you have to "replace her head", as in, "**** that Michael bass player, where's Wolfgang?", then you've admitted that factor is non-existent. In effect, you've lowered the "model agency" drawbridge to admit sea hags and disease-bearing toothless leper women who, even in their prime, would have considered Kathy Bates a run for their money.

This thread's quesiton, in photographic terms:

If I am forced to photograph a Wookie in a swimsuit, should I tell it that I replaced its head with Jessica Alba's, eyelashes just barely protruding over a ridge line of matted chest hair, or I should I just try to fool the Wookie into thinking that I've uncovered its natural beauty?

Some say, "It's a Wookie, which is stupid by nature. Let it think Jessica Alba's head is its own, and collect your cash." Others say, "After you've substituted Jessica Alba's head, tell the Wookie why it was so ugly."

Am I alone in thinking, HOW DID WE SINK SO LOW THAT A WOOKIE IS DOING A FEATURE SPREAD FOR MAXIM???

*****rant out*****

ps. tell the Wookie it was ugly....at least that preserves the fragile strand of truth, even if it does nothing to change an industry predicated on its opposite.

Nice analogy. You won't find any disagreement from me. Although that should have probably been pretty evident by now anyway. You're not alone in your thinking, however, sadly, there are just too many engineers out there with the wrong priorities.

[Duardo]

Deception is the LAST option. Given that, I find it hilarious that so many of you are angrily and vehemently opposed to such a minor thing as secretely re-tracking a shitty bass part.... aren't there more important things to get a torqued up about these days? Seriously... priorities.

Well, that's what this whole thread is about, isn't it?

Having said that, I don't consider any deceptive practice such as this a "minor" thing. Re-tracking, sure, that's a minor thing. Even a producer re-tracking without the bassist's knowledge...that's not how I'd do it but that's his or her call. But for the engineer to do it? That's not his or her call. It's like a parent doing their kid's homework, as I mentioned earlier...but worse than that, it's like a parent doing their kid's homework without the kid even realizing it. Someone mentioned what happens when this band goes to play live, and that's a great point...if their album sounds good and they don't realize their bassist can't lock in, they're in for a rude awakening when they play live and they won't see it coming. Just like the kid whose parents did all of their homework for them, without letting them know...they've done their homework, and they think they did it right, but what happens when it comes time to take a test?

while i agree that it's unethical, i also agree with some earlier posters that this is no different than autotuning, drum grid alignment, part moving, copy/pasting, etc....which i rarely do.

I guess it is a fine line, but when you auto-tune, align drums, or move/paste parts...at least you're working with that musician's part, even if it is mangled beyond recognition. And even then, that should be done with the consent of the band or producer. Even if you told the bassist you were going to "fix" his part and then re-tracked it...that wouldn't be nearly so bad as doing it without his knowledge. But if he asked what you did to "fix" it you should be prepared to tell him...