Double Bass Auto-Tune Software for Studio Bass Today

[ctrlzjones]

Good point, it is exactly the added pressure that performers experience when they play on stage... And that is precisely why some artists play/sing on stage to recordings of themselves in "live" performances at venues which allow it.

Wasn’t it the case of Glenn Gould who stopped doing live performances because he was not happy with the possible quality he could reach with them?
Also I believe he was hold back by the sound quality, not by his insufficient ability to play… Was he the first “victim” of the tech-trap?

 

[ClusterFlux]

Anyone have a handle on how often computer soft ware is being used to make basses sound artificially in tune in the studio these days? Is everybody doing it?

In addition to Autotune and editing, some recordings aren't even using an actual bass. It's not just EB that can be emulated -- it's DB as well. You can program the entire DB part with MIDI, and get the rhythm and intonation perfect.



I recently saw Pat Metheny, who didn't have a bass player for his current project. The keyboardist played bass parts on a small synth with his left hand, often using a DB VST.

 

[Don Hergert]

It seems so silly to me. If it sounds off, re-record it until you get it right, or live with the imperfect take. Musicians who allow auto-tune to "fix" their tracks are just lazy, and or cheap.

And that should be your right to choose that, when you're recording in the studio at up to around $200/hour plus the cost of the engineer, plus the cost of the 3 to 5 other musicians who are there recording with you and who are waiting for your track to be re-recorded. Just keep in mind that the engineer (who you're paying anyway) can correct it in less than 5 minutes.

Don't get me wrong, my band and I have done three albums the way you suggest, and one 2-CD album with more automated fixes. Both paths produce interesting, if not fun to listen to results. Really all I'm saying is that artists should be the people to choose because they, more than anyone else, have to live with the results.

 

[Lee Moses]

Really all I'm saying is that artists should be the people to choose because they, more than anyone else, have to live with the results.

I can't disagree with that. But others have to live with the results as well. The impossible standard of perfection that this technology has created forces future artists/producers, etc. to use the same. And the audience, typically oblivious to the technology that has been used to make what they are hearing possible, has their ears conditioned to expect something that is entirely impossible with actual musicians, potentially contributing to the decline of live music(?)

 

[J_Bass]

I'm reading this thread and remembering how Miles' records were recorded at first try, and almost always the other musicians were reading the tunes for the first time. I love those imperfections on Miles playing, when I find one it's like I found a little hidden treasure. The other musicians, too.

Not only Miles, but a lot of players did that or almost that.

Herbie's Chameleon, that speeds up a lot, apparently unintentionally, but fitting the tune so well, making me think that the musicians felt the tune had to speed up.


All that gives dynamics to the music, and keeps the music genuine, in my opinion.


One mistake here and there, I understand, but completely altering a tune, or an album, seems a bit much to me, even disappointing.


I'm speaking from the listener's perspective. I have no recording experience, and the pressure that comes with it. It's just my romantic perspective as a Jazz lover.

 

[Don Hergert]

I can't disagree with that. But others have to live with the results as well. The impossible standard of perfection that this technology has created forces future artists/producers, etc. to use the same. And the audience, typically oblivious to the technology that has been used to make what they are hearing possible, has their ears conditioned to expect something that is entirely impossible with actual musicians, potentially contributing to the decline of live music(?)

This and the resultant energy of a live recording were the reasons we went without most auto-corrections with our first three albums. And we enforced that by recording together in one room, where completely isolated separate tracks could not be produced. While we really do like that energy, the only problem now, 10 years later, is that we're slightly embarrassed about some of the more glaring errors that we couldn't correct.

Listeners to these albums can turn them off if it bothers them, and to be fair, probably 90% of the errors wouldn't be noticed by normal listeners. But these recordings will pretty much exist forever as far as our lifespans are concerned, so we'll just have to live with the errors in them.

When your a band working with a difficult song and something goes wrong, there's a point of diminishing returns with trying to re-record it (instead of having it fixed). People get weary and start making more mistakes. Pretty soon everyone in the band is slap-happy and trying to choose between cuts of the song for the best one, when none of them are perfect.

This is just one of the dynamics that can occur in the studio and there are lots of other compelling reasons to go one way or another with fixes. It takes a little foresight and there are compromises between fix-everything and fix-a-little that artists can decide on. Ultimately it's successful if the artists are not embarrassed, and if the listeners don't notice the mistakes that are left behind.

 

[LowG]

I auto tuned a part of mine once that I just plain wasn’t talented/practiced enough to pull off in tune. It was arco in a higher register than I’m comfortable in. I’m somewhat embarrassed by that decision. A part of me feels like if you can’t pull it off either practice more or don’t do it (change the arrangement, get a better player, whatever).

No doubt to me that studio magic has diminished the value of good musicianship. Used to be that if you heard amazing and impressive playing it was because of a uniquely amazing, dedicated, and talented musician’s effort. Now it’s just sound unless you see it live.

I assume pitch and timing correction is on any recent recording unless the artist directly states that it’s live.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

I understand the debate, and can see points on both sides as valid. In real life, I have been shocked by a number of artists who sounded as good or better live than they did on their studio recordings, and many of these involve intonation intensive arrangements. Three of these groups were:
- Alison Krauss and Union Station
- Punch Brothers
- Bonnie Raitt

The first two involved tight 3 part harmonies that were just perfect on the recordings, and I remember walking into the shows thinking that there was no way they were going to be able to sing those parts that perfectly live. Wrong. Dead wrong. My mind was blown both times when I saw these groups for the first time.

With Bonnie's band, I doubted that she would be able to go from a blues-rock shout to a country-ish twang to that buttery soulful thing she does on ballads for 90 minutes in a show where those things come back to back to back. Wrong. Her intonation was perfect, and she nailed absolutely everything and made it seem effortless. The band also nailed the arrangements while somehow not playing exactly what was on the records. That may be the tightest band I've ever seen live, but somehow they also sound incredibly relaxed.

And not a smidgeon of auto tune in sight for any of them.

 

[Don Hergert]

I assume pitch and timing correction is on any recent recording unless the artist directly states that it’s live.

Maybe not...

It's possible to produce "live" recordings, everyone playing together at the same time, but with each musician in a separate sound room; that's what my band did with our most recent (4th) album. The reasons to do this include that you get the energy of a live recording, but you also get completely separate tracks that are fully editable.

When you do that, you have the ability to have pitch, timing and a host of other corrections done to any, or all tracks.

I haven't seen any artists document that they have had no edits at all on their album, meaning it is completely "raw". Aside from mistake corrections, there are also changes to tone, dynamic volume, echo, meter and a huge number of more discrete things that engineers and techs can control. A number of these controls were also available in the analog days.

I really doubt that anyone recording in the last 30 to 40 years has produced and sold a completely raw album.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

I really doubt that anyone recording in the last 30 to 40 years has produced and sold a completely raw album.

I was at this concert: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_(Alison_Krauss_album)

Check out the YT videos from it!

 

[lokikallas]

And that should be your right to choose that, when you're recording in the studio at up to around $200/hour plus the cost of the engineer, plus the cost of the 3 to 5 other musicians who are there recording with you and who are waiting for your track to be re-recorded. Just keep in mind that the engineer (who you're paying anyway) can correct it in less than 5 minutes.

Don't get me wrong, my band and I have done three albums the way you suggest, and one 2-CD album with more automated fixes. Both paths produce interesting, if not fun to listen to results. Really all I'm saying is that artists should be the people to choose because they, more than anyone else, have to live with the results.

It’s my opinion that a band should have worked out all of the kinks in pre-production. By the time you are in studio, you had better have your poop together.

 

[rickwolff]

I have to use just a bit of AUTO DE-TUNE because my playing is so damn perfect no one would believe it.




Bwahahahaha

 

[rickwolff]

I have to use just a bit of AUTO DE-TUNE because my playing is so damn perfect no one would believe it.




Bwahahahaha

Hey Don, I understand that it was you who invented 'Auto-Detune' for this very reason.

 

[Don Kasper]

MBOSLP
My Bass Only Slightly Less Perfect (tm)

 

[iAsh]

A few hundred dollars in turd polishing software vs. thousands of hours playing long tones. That’s a no brainer.

 

[Don Hergert]

I was at this concert: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_(Alison_Krauss_album)

Check out the YT videos from it!

My wife and I love Alison Krauss. And yes, this live album is amazing...

That said, I wanted to check with someone on the inside before I responded to this one. I need to keep him and the band he works with anonymous, but... While my "I really doubt that anyone recording in the last 30 to 40 years has produced and sold a completely raw album." statement was focused on sound studio work, producing live albums is an important facet of recording that is worth addressing. For the most part I'm still comfortable with that statement, even for live albums...

As you're aware, recorded on-stage work does not allow for precise fixes to separate tracks, but it does allow for general volume, tone and tempo changes that may be desired or required in the mastering process in order to produce a finished album. If nothing else the lengths of songs may be adjusted to fit properly within the media being used, but most live albums will also have tone and volume tweaked in order to produce a whole album of songs that are more or less at the same volume level and present similar tone. Plus, there's the occasional audience or back-stage noise that can be cut out.

Whether or not the specific live albums you're thinking about had this or any other work is a good question that really only the artists and engineers involved can answer; these artists are at the top of their class and are fully capable of producing a perfect show. But the ability to do this kind of fix is out there, available and sometimes required for live albums.

 

[fdeck]

Wasn’t it the case of Glenn Gould who stopped doing live performances because he was not happy with the possible quality he could reach with them?
Also I believe he was hold back by the sound quality, not by his insufficient ability to play… Was he the first “victim” of the tech-trap?

From reading some comments by and about Gould, I gather that he suffered from bouts of debilitating stage fright, and gradually began to detest performing. For instance he expressed a dim view of the concerto literature, and preferred performances where the piano was "just one of the instruments."

As I understand it, he was one of the first classical musicians to be open about being a primarily studio musician, and "fixing" recordings. But he was also exploring the idea that the recording itself was the final work, and not the playing that went into it.

I actually don't enjoy recording very much. I'm barely good enough to do it, and am always oppressed by the thought that someone is paying by the hour for my mistakes, plus the time required to go back and fix them. So my recorded playing tends to be quite cautious, whereas on stage I can take more risks. But I'm just not at a level where there's any purpose served by trying to create a body of recorded work, except to see if it can be done. Nor am I at a level where I could even credibly claim to lay down clam-free tracks.

My kids are studying music, so I have an approximate sense of the time and effort required to reach the level of "a professional practices until they cannot make a mistake." I suspect laypeople underestimate the amount of work and care involved.

 

[ctrlzjones]

As I understand it, he was one of the first classical musicians to be open about being a primarily studio musician, and "fixing" recordings. But he was also exploring the idea that the recording itself was the final work, and not the playing that went into it.

I guess it all boils down to what experience you are aiming to have. Perfectionism is a great driving force, a fountain for bliss and frustration at the same time.

The use of technology is setting superhuman standards and more often than not we fall victim to those.
In you believe in the ideas of Max Webers concept about rationalism determining the “evolution” of the means of production (and seeing art as one of these) it becomes evident what technology (autotune) is bringing us: musical performances that are totally programmed with a music that is so perfect (quantized and autotuned), free from errors that it is also free from human expression. And the live performances are a replica of what can and must be done in the studio.
And it all can be done cheaper and faster. What’s not to like here. Max Weber would embrace that.

With the course of investigation in Artificial Intelligence the hope is to mimick us humans in a way that is able to predict even better what makes us tick, our future behaviour, than we know for ourselves. So maybe it is only a question of time until there’ll be an autotune and quantization algorithm that will be able to model Pau Casals playing perfectly. And we can stop trying to learn how to play instruments because the instruments will play themselves so much better without us.

 

[lurk]

For a few years I lived across the hall from a pianist who taught at Julliard. She thought the perfection in recordings was hurting students - literally. The unrealistic goal was forcing students to over practice difficult passages - this from a hard-ass-old school-these Americans are lazy and soft Russian - which was causing overuse injury. On a more esthetic note, she felt perfect recording was creating an Olympics type emphasis on perfect stunts over line and expressive playing. BTW, her recordings are loaded with edits

 

[CaseyVancouver]

The theme to the tv series ‘Succession’ is interesting. The violins are out of tune.

Hmmm