Retracking a poor bass performance, unethical or necessary?

[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.

[Lori]

Do more bass takes???? or get a session bass player?

[obtainknowledge]

unethical. what do you want to be..an engineer or a musician?

[slaves666]

Originally Posted by obtainknowledge

unethical. what do you want to be..an engineer or a musician?

Seriously dude.......

I'd re-track if it needed it. I play guitar and bass, on more than I want to, but if it sucks, I'd rather it be good. No one gets hurt, and the end product is better.....so everyone wins.

[obtainknowledge]

Yes, and it has the added bonus of feeding your ego. I'm calling bullshit. The only way this isn't unethical is if the band/bass player are told that you're redoing their parts. But I suspect anyone that would do something so classless, wouldn't have the balls/integrity to do that.

[slaves666]

Originally Posted by obtainknowledge

Yes, and it has the added bonus of feeding your ego. I'm calling bullshit. The only way this isn't unethical is if the band/bass player are told that you're redoing their parts. But I suspect anyone that would do something so classless, wouldn't have the balls/integrity to do that.

It has nothing to do with ego, I sit in my room alone fixing a track, who am I impressing????

The reason I do it on occasion is the final product. Leaving crappy performances will reflect poorly on the final product. Many people equate poor performance with poor recording and a bad studio. I'd rather diminish that if I can with a little help.

[triez]

I would fix it up too, lets face it, how often do you slip things in time during mixing when you notice they are obviously out? How often do you fix pitchy performances? It is just another part of the job for an engineer, same as when we used to fly stuff in with a sampler to fix mistakes.

I think that most pro engineers are smart enough to tell the difference between an amateur performance that really needs help as opposed to something that should be left alone or referred to the producer for the call.

[Birdi]

bad form....

If the bass player is that bad, why dont you suggest they go and learn the part? or be a tracking engineer and record the part bit by bit: not like its hard to do drop ins in protools. One day some 'amateur' will catch you out.

B

[PoorGlory]

I know for a fact that a major hit by a major rock band in the late 90s had the bass tracks "secretly" re-recorded by a session player. I wish I could tell you the band and song, you would be surprised.

I'm going to be in the minority and say if you can get away with it, do it. Ethical or not, will it make the track better? You have to weigh how much a pain in the ass it would be to edit the hell out of it or get the bass player back in to re-track, vs the consequences if the band found out. Because lets face it... it really is deceiving the band and the listener. It could harm your reputation. But depending on the situation, I might do it too. It really depends on the band, nature of the project, style of music, etc.

[LowYaw]

retracking bass secretly is nothing different from aligning drum hits to grid and pitch tuning vocals

[henryrobinett]

Basically I think it's completely unethical. But it depends on who and what it is. If it's a band or a songwriter -- it depends. If you aren't up front about what you're doing I think it's completely unethical.

This is what I don't agree with a lot of contemporary AE today -- It's not about the bottom line that if it sounds good that's all that matters. If I'm a musician and go in to a place, write some songs and perform then and the f***ing ENGINEER decides it's not good enough, all on his own, and decides to re-record the performances HIMSELF I might just end up killing the guy.

IT'S NOT HIS GOD DAMN F***ING CALL. He's there to record the music; to mix it and to help to sound good. He can talk to me about choices and put whatever compressor, EQ, mic he wants to. But MUSICAL DECISIONS are not his call. I don't care who he his or how qualified he his. It ain't gonna happen without him paying a serious cost.

[joelpatterson]

There's a big, huge, day/night difference between a proper "musician" like Henry who has a seriously complete vision of what he's doing and a bunch of kids who are doing their best and falling short of the mark.

There is nothing to be gained from leaving a sloppy bass part in place in the name of some kind of purist, hands-off approach, that's just plain stupid. Fix it like you'd fix anything else. But find a subtle way to let the kids know this has happened, for their own good.

Not "for their own good" like you're some big know-it-all, but sincerely for their own good!

[Kris]

My vote: unethical.

[joelpatterson]

"Unethical" or not-- it's still a good idea!

[PoorGlory]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

Basically I think it's completely unethical. But it depends on who and what it is. If it's a band or a songwriter -- it depends. If you aren't up front about what you're doing I think it's completely unethical.

This is what I don't agree with a lot of contemporary AE today -- It's not about the bottom line that if it sounds good that's all that matters. If I'm a musician and go in to a place, write some songs and perform then and the f***ing ENGINEER decides it's not good enough, all on his own, and decides to re-record the performances HIMSELF I might just end up killing the guy.

IT'S NOT HIS GOD DAMN F***ING CALL. He's there to record the music; to mix it and to help to sound good. He can talk to me about choices and put whatever compressor, EQ, mic he wants to. But MUSICAL DECISIONS are not his call. I don't care who he his or how qualified he his. It ain't gonna happen without him paying a serious cost.

What if I am the producer as well as the engineer? Does that make it a little better if I decide to have someone else secretly re-record bass?

That is why it has to be done ultra-discretely. Don't kid yourself... this stuff happens all the time. Besides, if the engineer can play bass better than the bass player, the band has a way more serious problem than a re-recorded track. Hiring a session player behind the band's back is another story... As to which one is more offensive to the band probably depends on the band.

Don't get me wrong, I totally see your point and I would be pissed too if I had my tracks re-recorded. I have never done this yet, but I can honestly say I have considered it. I have recorded myself playing the drummers kit after the session to nab some samples for the mix later... is that as bad a crime? Is sample-recplacing equally as bad? The bottom line for me is I get work through my reputation. I would never do anything I felt would risk my reputation, but at the same time I would never let anything shitty be released with my name on it. My gear and my space certainly aren't the best around, but bands come to me because they've heard my work and liked what they heard. For that reason alone I will never let anything that I think sucks leave my studio.

[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.

[joelpatterson]

Good point, in the abstract-- but from any engineer's point of view, letting out anything that's noticeably flawed is borderline suicidal. And that is just that.

[henryrobinett]

Because it happens all the time, does that suddenly something ethical??

If you are the PRODUCER, then I can see pulling the guys aside and having a pow-wow. "Looks this part isn't working. I'm going to have to replace that part. Any objections? Listen, if there aren't any serious objections, I'll play the part and you guys let me know if it meets your satisfactions. No one else has to be the wiser."

That's how I'd do it. If they wanted to keep it or spend paid hours replaying the part, that's THEIR CALL.

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

Good point, in the abstract-- but from any engineer's point of view, letting out anything that's noticeably flawed is borderline suicidal. And that is just that.

Then get better clients. It does no one any good enabling these poor SOBs.

Engineers should engineer and Musicians should musician. These engineers who decide unilaterally and DISCREETLY to cross borders really upset me.

[joelpatterson]

"Hello, telephone company? I had planned to pay my bill this month, but instead of compromising my ethics, I'm going to take the high road and seek out some better clients. You understand, right? Great, I knew you would."

[henryrobinett]

No I don't, not when it comes to lying to the client.

[olivia_nb]

vote: unethical (though understandable)- just let it be what it is. I did a record for a guy who can't sing to save his life, the music and the mix sound great, but I don't include the material in any of my demos. I did autotune more than he knew (or he would admit to), but he knew it was part of the deal and wanted to do whatever it took to make it as good as possible.

I had a bass player friend who did a demo deal for a major and the big name producer had a session bass player come in and replay his part and my friend was the guy who wrote the song, talk about a kick in the teeth... (he wasn't that bad either)
I personally wouldn't do it unless the person was sucking up a commercial product and even then I would probably be upfront about it. It's a sad fact that a lot of "musicians" ignore their instrument for their image and a fair number of bands who get signed are not good enough to cut it in the studio, all tricks and studio magic aside.

Speaking of bass players in studios and unverifiable anecdotes , I also know of a very huge and cool record by a metal band that had all (or at least most) of the bass lines played on a keyboard because the bassist was a better keyboard player than a bass player... I would never have guessed, but once told I can kind of tell now, but really it doesn't make the record any less cool.

[PoorGlory]

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.

If musicians can't tell that they suck just by evaluating their own playing, they sure aren't going to realize it after hearing themselves recorded.

And that still doesn't help me produce a quality product. I don't have time to wait for some band to get good, all the while trying to get out of paying me/trying to pay me less/trashing my studio/complaining about the free drinks in the fridge/not having their parts worked out.... why should I help them see the light at the cost of future business to me? **** bands that can't play. They can come in, record, and I'll do what it takes to give them a good finished product.

So you can remain a purist and do what you want. We all have lines we don't cross when it comes to producing music... for instance, I won't do autotune or any kind of beat detective/snapping-to-grid thing.

Nobody would have to do any of this if bands came in rehearsed and ready to lay it down. But the ones that don't have enough respect for their own music to learn their shit don't get any respect from me. I take pride in my work, and I'll be damned if some ******bag slacker is gonna make me look bad.

Then again, I haven't done anything like that yet. And I don't want to. All I'm saying is that I think I'm justified in merely considering it sometimes.

[henryrobinett]

God damn it - this is what is wrong with music today as far as I'm concerned. You want a quality product, either find a quality band, find a band that needs some work and work with them, or do it yourself, all yourself -- your own project.

Smoke and mirrors is fine if it's not behind anyone's back. The audience doesn't need to know, but they'll likely be pissed when they find out, like Ashlee Simpson on SNL.

It's not about being purist, it's about giving the art back to the artist. Engineers should do their engineering chores and not lie about it. You want to pretend you're a fantastic bass player and can pull the wool over everyones eyes, fine. It's the Squeegy Bob Band wants to sound as good as they can, with plenty of smoke and mirrors fine. But don't hide it from THEM!!! They''re the artists. Give THEM the control. Just because they're stupid is no excuse to take advantage of them.

[joelpatterson]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

No I don't, not when it comes to lying to the client.

Let me back up a minute: I was fantasizing that *if* the phone company agreed with my strong ethical orientation, they were going to let my bill slide this month. I don't really think they would "understand" at all. I don't think they care.

Remember, I'm the guy who said you should let the band know what's happened, but that everyone wants a good recording, not simply a document that highlights their every flaw.

Or, look at it this way. The phone company can't send a repairman out to fix my line, because the guy was late to work today so he was fired.

Thank you, phone company, for upholding high ethical standards.

[PoorGlory]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

God damn it - this is what is wrong with music today as far as I'm concerned. You want a quality product, either find a quality band, find a band that needs some work and work with them, or do it yourself, all yourself -- your own project.

Smoke and mirrors is fine if it's not behind anyone's back. The audience doesn't need to know, but they'll likely be pissed when they find out, like Ashlee Simpson on SNL.

It's not about being purist, it's about giving the art back to the artist. Engineers should do their engineering chores and not lie about it. You want to pretend you're a fantastic bass player and can pull the wool over everyones eyes, fine. It's the Squeegy Bob Band wants to sound as good as they can, with plenty of smoke and mirrors fine. But don't hide it from THEM!!! They''re the artists. Give THEM the control. Just because they're stupid is no excuse to take advantage of them.

Why do you need to swear at me? I didn't do anything to you. So check your choice of words before you post. There is LOTS more wrong with music today than pulling a fast one on a shitty bass player.

And artists do have all the control. They can control their performance. And if they didn't do the quality control that they needed to, someone else has to wipe their ass for them. I constantly tell bands "that take sucked, do another one". All the time. All day long. If you can't nail it, then forget it. I'll get it done one way or another. Whether it be mixing it low in the mix, editing in Pro Tools, or splicing multiple takes together. I don't see a ghost player as being much of a stretch.

[henryrobinett]

Look, the OP asked for opinions and he's getting them.

I don''t think one unethical action equals another reaction as justification. One is one and another is another. Differences. The Phone Company is not a recording studio.

Having to pay bills is not, in my mind, justification for unethical practices. If a person is in business because of his unethical "business practices," that's fine for him, but not for me. As an artist and as an engineer I think it's way, way wrong and out of bounds.

If the only way you can pay bills is to have unsuspecting musicians come in, play and be flabbergasted that those wrong notes really weren't there after all -- even if it's on tacit agreement, is just wrong. At the very least let them in on the joke.

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by PoorGlory

Why do you need to swear at me? I didn't do anything to you. So check your choice of words before you post. There is LOTS more wrong with music today than pulling a fast one on a shitty bass player.

And artists do have all the control. They can control their performance. And if they didn't do the quality control that they needed to, someone else has to wipe their ass for them. I constantly tell bands "that take sucked, do another one". All the time. All day long. If you can't nail it, then forget it. I'll get it done one way or another. Whether it be mixing it low in the mix, editing in Pro Tools, or splicing multiple takes together. I don't see a ghost player as being much of a stretch.

Sorry. I'm not swearing AT you. I'm swearing.

I see a ghost player as a stretch, unless it's disclosed.

"Damn it!" is not a comment directed at YOU. It's an exclamation of disgust.

Look, I don't like pulling "fast ones" on anybody. I don't think "fast ones" are ethical. Hence the term.

[joelpatterson]

Life abounds with "give and take," and I say it's important to keep at least some very slight focus on what the priorities are rather than being absolutist about never stepping on a crack in the sidewalk or whatever the "sin" at hand is. In the long run, everyone benefits from the re-tracked bass part. Next!

[henryrobinett]

Yes, everyone MAY benefit from re-tracking, but not being lied to.