• 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.

Doug Pinnick Question

#22
...Because I hate when trios overdub rhythm guitars...
Click to expand...

I used to feel the same way. I was a member of a "power trio" during the late eighties and early nineties (called Invalid Link Removed, kind of a cross between King's X and Queensryche) and we almost always recorded the songs the way we played them live, without "extra" guitars. But lately, I feel that the studio recording should be what you hear in your head - and if it includes five extra tracks of guitar (and seven tracks of bass, of course) than you should go ahead and overdub. Let the live show be "different," and more raw - but make the studio album really shine.

I'm not looking to change your mind on this - everyone has their own opinion on what's "genuine" and "keeping it real" - just thought I'd offer up my 1/50th of a dollar. :)
 
#24
Exactly, with careful arraigning and loops you can do it live too. I can hear the bass, but like PhatBasstard I want to hear more of it. It sounds like it's fighting it's way out to me. I can't hear it in my car very well, gets buried in road noise.
 
#25
I think the over-produced King's X really hit an apex during the Atlantic Record days. Since they've been recording on Metal Blade (Tapehead on) I think their sound is more organic, with less overdubs.

I own all the King's X albums through "Mr. Bulbous" (still haven't gotten around to getting the newer one) and, of all those albums, the only ones I wasn't able to really get into were "Ear Candy" and "Dogman." I got the impression that there sound was becoming too effected by the people around them. Since they parted with Atlantic and went to Metal Blade, they seem to sound more 'true to form'... I know that's vague but I don't know how else to put it...
 
#26
What's ironic about all of this is that in that
new BP article he says he uses in-ear monitors
now so that he won't have to be so loud on stage.

He always argued with soundmen about his stage volume.:rolleyes:

I personally LOVE Doug's sound but I admit it's very
unique and may be an acquired taste (distortion,
no mids, etc.), especially in the power-trio format.
 
#27
Originally posted by sgraham
What's ironic about all of this is that in that
new BP article he says he uses in-ear monitors
now so that he won't have to be so loud on stage.

He always argued with soundmen about his stage volume.:rolleyes:

I personally LOVE Doug's sound but I admit it's very
unique and may be an acquired taste (distortion,
no mids, etc.), especially in the power-trio format.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE his sound. I just want to hear more of it.

As far as the layer/overdub thing: the reason I like the straight trio sound is I feel the band has to come up with superior parts to make the song interesting and full. To me its just too easy to coast when you can overdub if the song sounds incomplete. I want to hear a definate part, not three or four guitars strumming in the background.

Ty double tracking the same part for the hard left & hard right stereo spread doesn't bother me though. I hate multitracked bass (which is why I don't buy many "Bass Olympics" albums by some of the solo bassists out there).
 
#28
Originally posted by PhatBasstard
As far as the layer/overdub thing: the reason I like the straight trio sound is I feel the band has to come up with superior parts to make the song interesting and full. To me its just too easy to coast when you can overdub if the song sounds incomplete. I want to hear a definate part, not three or four guitars strumming in the background.

Ty double tracking the same part for the hard left & hard right stereo spread doesn't bother me though. I hate multitracked bass (which is why I don't buy many "Bass Olympics" albums by some of the solo bassists out there).
Click to expand...

I know what you're saying about the overdub thing - a lot of bands do seem to try and get round having bad sounds by layering up more bad sounds, as though two spoonfuls of turd is going to taste better than one... :o)

However, it's interesting that you seem to list the 'processes' in music that you don't like rather than actual music. I've heard some terrible untampered-with trio records and some incredible bass-overdub-orama albums, as well as vice versa. In my teens I went through a phase of only buying trio records - it lasted about a year. I got ELP, Rush, Bill Evans, Air - anything so long as it was a trio. Boy did I end up with a bizarre collection of music. Some of it great, some of it crap - the thread that tied it together having nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the music.

If King's X bring out a CD, I'll listen whatever's on it, because I trust them to follow their muse. I'll just let the music be what it is - is it good layered music? is that what they are hearing? etc. etc.

I've been through so many phases of classifying music by process or line up rather than the quality of the music itself - no brass, no strings, no soul, no programming, nothing without bass, etc. etc. and now I find that my current favourite CDs list includes just about everything that I once excluded - just because I've discovered the people who do it well. It's like the 'rap sucks' threads - what, all rap? what kind of an insane comment is that to make? as though the style of the vocal is the thing that defines whether the music is valid or not?

anyway, that's quite enough from me - I'm sure I'll post some thoughts on this to my blog at some point... :o)

cheers

Steve
www.steve-lawson.co.uk
 
#29
Its a combination of both (material and presentation). Bach will suck if presented badly.

On the other side of the coin, I think Queen was light years ahead of most other bands and they were the "KINGS" of overdubbing extra stuff. But almost every part they overdubbed was integral to the song and you can't really imagine the song without it. Most bands use overdubbing (especially rhythm guitar) as simply filler to make themselves sound fuller. Usually mindless strumming.
 
#30
Originally posted by PhatBasstard
Its a combination of both (material and presentation). Bach will suck if presented badly.

On the other side of the coin, I think Queen was light years ahead of most other bands and they were the "KINGS" of overdubbing extra stuff. But almost every part they overdubbed was integral to the song and you can't really imagine the song without it. Most bands use overdubbing (especially rhythm guitar) as simply filler to make themselves sound fuller. Usually mindless strumming.
Click to expand...

...but by that token, most bands aren't really worth listening to, regardless of their instrumentation or approach to overdubbing... it's not the overdubbing that's the problem, often, it's just that the musicians/producer/engineer don't have any good ideas at all.... :o)

what percentage of music of any kind really does it for you? for me, it's not that high. I love hearing all kinds of music, and I tend to like music that's believeable - where it sounds like they mean what they are singing and have written it the way they have because they genuinely like it sounding that way, not because they think it's going to make them a million, or because they couldn't think of anything better to do... :o)

cheers

Steve
www.steve-lawson.co.uk
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back