• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Different recording preferences than Band mates

BDL1991

BDL1991

Sep 7, 2008
365
11
35
spennymoor, england
#1
if this is in the wrong place I apologise, shift it to the right thread,

TLDR: Guitarist is in love with getting a DI signal of everything and Just using modelling Software with Cubase to create a sound, that he has complete control over. I have no say in the sound I have and I'm not a fan of DI bass or Modelling software if there's no need

So My band has been talking about fully recording a DIY album, and I feel like i've been butting my head against a wall for the past year when it comes to the topic of recording with the guitarist/singer, the longest standing one was, the place we practice offers to record the practice for and extra £20 an hour, I've suggested we spend the extra during a practice and to record the drums or the entire band, but have been shot down every time, with a "nah I can just write them drums in on cubase" or "yeah but we can get somewhere free" and then last night He came up with the idea to record the drums at the place we record.

Secondly and my main gripe, after he realised this he then said oh and then we can record the parts on their own, and i suggest that if we were doing that I'd look into purchasing a decent Bass amp Mic, to which the conversation became
him - "I only want a clean, dry signal. I've recorded bass straight into my interface loads of times and it works a treat and is easy to work with, if it works perfectly then it is only counterproductive to complicate things"

me -"it doesn't really complicate things, just gives you a choice between, my tone which you can mute the channel of or use it in sections if you like the sound, or the clean DI channel, only complication would be trying to use the two in tandem which would be phasing issues"

him - "I prefer to edit the tone afterwards so wouldn't even touch the wet recording, meaning the only thing it will do is take up space on my hard drive and waste processor usage"

Am I wrong for wanting to get an actual Amp sound along with a DI sound?
Sorry, am I wrong for wanting my sound on the recordings, he's on about recording DI, with no pedals either, which means there are none of the changes I make live, which i would try to do on the recording, which is why I suggested Micing up my amp.

And yes I know Modelling software is very good, going DI just DI is very popular, but they just don't sound right to me as a player and a music fan, I just personally don't like them individually, it's like taking a prime Speciman of a Race Horse and then chopping off two of his legs because that's how you prefer your legs to be. In fact I don't see a need to use modelling software if there is an option of getting a tone from an Amp, am I wrong?

Again sorry if this is in the wrong place, or if it's just me venting my frustrations and has no solid matter
 
Last edited:
#2
Who paying?

Pay more and get another tracks recorded, or do a re-amp session with the recording engineer. Tracks can live forever now, you can go back and do it again at any time.

If it's really that important that your amp is on the recording. I don't recall any amp ever getting recording credits on the liner notes. Just the Musicians.
 
#6
I'm with you, I would have a difficult time listening to a band leader or guitard about MY tone on a recording. A lot of us buy gear to hopefully have it tracked on a recording someday.

However, I always welcome a DI signal to both recording and live applications because the signal can be ran in parallel with a mic'd cab and achieve the best of both worlds.

If you can not convince the producer to work with your tone, I would pay for a few hours of studio time and dial in my tone.
 
#7
I wouldn't get upset about it unless you owe your left hand to the mob and they're collecting in two days. Let him do his computer recording. None of his twelve mixes will sound pro, but they won't be worthless as promo material either. The band will grow and you'll all eventually get to a real studio with people who know what they're doing. Maybe. I don't know. Hopefully.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Osztertag2112 and Luke19Boarder
#8
I'd just record it as the guitarist wants to do it. Just get it done. You may like the mix or not, but at least you have something recorded. At least record one song to test out how it's going to work out after the final mix.

I'm just surprised he used the "take up space on my hard drive." He has the rare 100MB hard drive and a Pentium 4 processor?


The few things I do know about recording are: I do it wrong, I can't mix for anything, and it's a long frustrating process (make one mistake, redo it again because I don't want mistakes on a recording, then I just give up). Whenever I mic my amp, it's a disaster for many reasons: cheap mic, poor placement, background noise. Then I might use too many VST-effects (what's a compressor do again? whatever, I'll use it. Reverb? Sure, I'll use the one that mimics a stage or something). There's audio-bleed and all other unintended things happening. And as stated before, the final mix is bass-heavy because I use crappy headphones instead of studio monitors. But hey, at least I have something to show folks. Compressed to .mp3 goodness.

I'll never be able to capture my "live tone" when recording. I just don't have the skills. It gets all corrupted during the mixing process anyways. Whenever I hear an "isolated track" that someone shoves on Youtube, it usually sounds like garbage anyways. It's all engineer magic to make sure the final mix is beautiful.

There are times musicians use totally different instrument and amps when recording because they sound better on the recording. Or DI and hope the modeling software is up to par (not the goofy free VSTs I find online).

If anything, if someone hears the recordings and thinks the bass tone is iffy, you can go, "You should see us live. That's when we really melt your face with our real sound."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Osztertag2112
#9
Seems to me he's more interested in his favourite software than actually representing and respecting everyone in the band. Maybe he'd even prefer to sequence the whole thing using samples instead of recording how you actually sound? Everyone should have a say, you'll all be on the album and have to live with how it sounds - preferrably like you, not like someone else - when it's done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Osztertag2112
#11
FretNoMore said:
Seems to me he's more interested in his favourite software than actually representing and respecting everyone in the band. Maybe he'd even prefer to sequence the whole thing using samples instead of recording how you actually sound? Everyone should have a say, you'll all be on the album and have to live with how it sounds - preferrably like you, not like someone else - when it's done.
Click to expand...
It is the way to a mess. Producers and engineers every day solve problems like this, when Drummer wants to sound like Gavin Harrison, Guitarist - Clapton, Bassist - Webster and Vocalist - Dio in the final product. And every band member has 100 foots wings of EGO behind his back and the donkey confidence in his mind that he is qualified super professional in his instrument recording :))) I have to say that even lots of huge musicians know nothing about it. Even they talk about how they have been recorded it is only a small peak of the huge iceberg of music production. Decisions about "how" are very complex and depend of lots of things.

IMO technically guitarist is gonna make it right. In this situation convolution processors tend to sound better.
 
Last edited:
#15
As an individual, I am not fun to record with. I love multitracking with different basses and amps and effects, which is time consuming and not fun for anyone but me, which is why I usually do it by myself and submit it for the final mix after.
This guy sounds like less fun than me! I'd be very upset if anything I'd put my heart and soul (and cash) into was left in so unnatural a context as cubase and DI. It might just be me but Id actually be a little hurt if I didn't have a say in my sound unless it was explicit I wouldn't have a say (which is a different situation, if you want a bass track to play with you pay me). That sucks man I'd put my foot down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dima B
#16
First and foremost, grow a pair, then finish the conversation as below.
BDL1991 said:
him - "I only want a clean, dry signal. I've recorded bass straight into my interface loads of times and it works a treat and is easy to work with, if it works perfectly then it is only counterproductive to complicate things"

me -"it doesn't really complicate things, just gives you a choice between, my tone which you can mute the channel of or use it in sections if you like the sound, or the clean DI channel, only complication would be trying to use the two in tandem which would be phasing issues"

him - "I prefer to edit the tone afterwards so wouldn't even touch the wet recording, meaning the only thing it will do is take up space on my hard drive and waste processor usage"
Click to expand...
You -"I've listened to everything you've said and I understand. Now, I'm the bass player, you aren't the boss and I'm going to tell you how we are doing this."

Threads like this have me going back and forth between furious and sad. Furious that he would treat you like that and sad that you seem to let him.
 
#17
from the responses I've said I'll spend £100 plus on getting an ok bass amp mic, and DI it at the same time,
I have the Facilities to record my own bass, but he wants it all in one place and he's buying a brand new laptop with 1TB,
it'll either be "free" software or free software for the VST's,
personally it makes the most sense to me, to double track with amp and DI, it's more about sound quality rather than my need to be in front of the mix, due to the fact I know what software he'd be using, I have a TC Electronics BH500, it's got a decent sound with the pedals I use, there's no need for him to use a VST to get an amp sound
we already have enough tracks recorded with some friends at a University Studio for an EP of a decent quality that he mixed to use as promo material
 
Last edited:
#18
Ok, so here's another question- Do you tend to use a lot of overdrive/distortion effects? And are they integral to your sound/performance? If yes, then continue to fight for 2 (or more) tracks w/ parallel inputs (Dry DI, small mic for highs, big mic for lows).

If you are using mostly time/compression based FX, I'd skip the hassle and go DI only. The TC has a DI, run off that and a clean DI? If you were using a wound up tube amp to get your sound, I'd arm wrassle a bear to get a mic in front of it, but if its just pedals, go DI, possibly with a speaker sim.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back