Engineers and Precision Basses. The truth comes out.

[HolmeBass]

Yep. Most people are going to want to work with a known quantity simply because they already know how to make it work OK. This is why I always bring my old SM-58 to shows, even though I have a very high-end vocal mic I can use. That high-end mic sounds a lot better, but engineers sneer at it because it's extra work for them.

On the other hand, the best live engineers I’ve worked with always seem to accommodate the artists. And lo and behold, they actually give different bands different mixes!

Nothing says “phoning it in” to me more than an engineer who always dials in the same drum sound and bass sound for every band - funk, rock, country, they all get pretty much the same mix. So lame.

 

[Cave Puppy]

Reluctantly chiming in - Joe Osborn played a jazz bass exclusively. David Hood played a jazz bass. Carol Kaye played a P bass. Jamerson played a P bass. Will Lee plays a Jazz bass. I don’t recall ever seeing Sir Paul with a P bass. I have seen him with a jazz bass. The studio in which I recorded a lot has a studio P bass. Don’t know what point I’m trying to make here … and don’t know what point the op is trying to make.

 

[LBS-bass]

On the other hand, the best live engineers I’ve worked with always seem to accommodate the artists. And lo and behold, they actually give different bands different mixes!

Nothing says “phoning it in” to me more than an engineer who always dials is the same drum sound and bass sound for every band - funk, rock, country, they all get pretty much the same mix. So lame.

This is true, but laying odds I'm going to get one of the "best live engineers" at a festival show or something similar is a bet I'm not willing to take these days.

I used to travel with the choice between my AKG C535 EB, an SM-58, and an SM-58 beta. I've heard all sorts of horror stories about why the AKG and the beta aren't preferred. Mainly it's people not liking what they don't understand. They don't know why they'd choose the beta over the regular 58 - they only "know" it's hotter and will feed back more readily (which is true if it's placed incorrectly and that's why I'm giving you a choice).

The condenser is by far the better sounding mic but engineers run screaming from it because they think they're going to be dealing with feedback and the need to EQ it. I chose it because it works well for my voice when EQ'd flat but I never get the chance to tell anyone that because I don't even bother bringing it these days.

 

[Texican]

How long do you think it actually takes to turn down the high frequency shelving knob during mix-down?

The time difference we’re talking about is on the order of minutes. Maybe 15 extra minutes at most - like with a coffee break - to get a full-range bass track to sound like a muffled thud.

But if the mix engineer wants more high end in the bass and it isn’t there on the recorded bass track, they might need to re-record the track, and that will indeed take more time and added expense.

Most likely no more than 15 minutes, with a coffee break probably thrown in. The issue is that if he thinks the goal is to take a “full range bass” sound and reduce it to a “muffled thud” by simply killing all the treble, then he probably doesn’t understand what it is that makes a P bass sound great in a mix.

 

[LBS-bass]

Reluctantly chiming in - Joe Osborn played a jazz bass exclusively. David Hood played a jazz bass. Carol Kaye played a P bass. Jamerson played a P bass. Will Lee plays a Jazz bass. I don’t recall ever seeing Sir Paul with a P bass. I have seen him with a jazz bass. The studio in which I recorded a lot has a studio P bass. Don’t know what point I’m trying to make here … and don’t know what point the op is trying to make.

The point is, I think, that some studios back in the 80's had house gear and the bass of choice for that was usually a P-bass. It's uncomplicated and for the guys who'd come in with a hot mess of a bass that couldn't produce a functional signal, it was a suggested alternative.

Unfortunately the guys who had the hot mess with the weak or noisy signal never really took on board or understood that there was a reason they were asked to use the house bass instead, and that it was more about their gear not being functional than about the p-bass itself, so this mythology sprang up about the P-bass being the only thing worth recording.

 

[pbass2]

After reading through the first two pages, I’m once again astounded at how Talkbass doesn’t seem to understand the difference between a studio musician being hired to support an artist, vs an artist that happens to play the bass.

Lotsa folks have clearly not done many (any?) pro sessions yet are apparently experts, and are convinced that some "engineer" is out to sabotage their precious bedroom tone. Again (as I rant earlier), the tracking engineer is not the one making the final decisions on what sounds work for the track, that would be the producer. The producer has been hired to make a great recording and realization of the song. Now, the producer can be the engineer too--so can the artist--but someone on the session has been deemed the producer. They make the final calls on sounds. Of course engineers make suggestions to producers and artists all the time. If it's just the artist and engineer in the room (like you've gone in as an artist and hired an engineer to record your music) and it's collaborative then both are "producing". It's an important distinction. If you're a hired session player you take the input from whoever the producer is and get them a sound they're happy with. That's the job.

 

[tminus10]

The sound engineer said he preferred the sound of other basses to that of a P bass.

So if that was the “P bass point” you referred to, yes he proved it.

Talk about selective reading and cherry picking!

I see that he said he prefers basses with more zing, yes. But he also said other things too that you're not addressing so maybe we're both cherry picking a bit but who really cares? But don't let it ruin your day. We're just talking and it's just the internet.

 

[Texican]

The point is, I think, that some studios back in the 80's had house gear and the bass of choice for that was usually a P-bass. It's uncomplicated and for the guys who'd come in with a hot mess of a bass that couldn't produce a functional signal, it was a suggested alternative.

Unfortunately the guys who had the hot mess with the weak signal never really took on board that there was a reason they were asked to use the house bass instead that was more about their gear than the p-bass itself, and this mythology sprang up about the P-bass being the only thing worth recording.

This was not my experience with an active German Warwick, nor was it Sean Hurley’s with his active Lakland. Warwick and Lakland produce top shelf gear. I did a session playing bass for a rock band that sounded similar to the Black Crows. This was around 2002 or 2003. The engineer suggested that I use his passive precision or even his passive jazz bass. But I was adamant that he record my Warwick. The band had “hired” me (for free) to lay down the bass tracks, so the engineer couldn’t really fire me. But I did use his jazz bass on one track for whatever reason. When I listened to the final recordings, the Warwick sounded just like a Warwick. It had a nice aggressive growl and burp, and the notes were quick and shot off the fretboard beautifully…………….. and it sounded ridiculously out of place in the overall mix! The track with the jazz bass fit much better, as I’m sure the precision would have as well. That was a learning experience for me. It was also humbling to realize that my own ego and stubbornness as an “artist” had gotten in the way of the actual artist’s art. Ooops.

Same goes for EBMM stingrays. Those are reliable, well built, industry standards. But the things that make them great “live” basses can also make them hard to record sometimes. Especially if you don’t want the bass “out in front” of the mix.

 

[legalbass]

Lotsa folks have clearly not done many (any?) pro sessions yet are apparently experts, and are convinced that some "engineer" is out to sabotage their precious bedroom tone.

I made this exact point in another thread recently.

I think tribalism has really hit the bass playing, eh, "community" hard over the years; people latch on to gear or artists or myths or whatever makes them feel like part of a "team" and with that goes an emotionally-charged need to defend their preferences and fixations at the first perception of any slight. It's so strange.

 

[LBS-bass]

This was not my experience with an active German Warwick, nor was it Sean Hurley’s with his active Lakland. Warwick and Lakland produce top shelf gear.

Please show me where I said these are hot mess basses with weak or noisy output.

My comments there are about all those non-pro players who went into the studio with little experience and crappy gear and were told to use the house bass. I thought that was pretty clear. That's where I think most of this mythology springs from.

However, engineers (especially when the brands were new) might not be so familiar with those brands and after they've seen a dozen hot mess basses, another unfamiliar (to them) brand might give them pause.

That your bass didn't work so well for that particular music was a good learning experience, but I'm not sure it negates the OPs point. The engineer might have been able to do additional some magic to seat those tracks better, but he knew the jazz and P would be easier to dial in.

 

[Confunk]

Thats true for most passive Jazzes, especially that the pickups are (1) generally too thin sounding and (2) like to add varying degrees of noise or buzz when soloed

Active Jazzes can be a different animal: On my Sire V7, the pickups dont buzz when soloed and the onboard preamp range and flexibility allows the V7 to do a very decent and full P facsimile when the neck pickup is soloed. Its not my first choice for P-tone - I own other basses - but if its the only bass someone has, its nice to know it can get in the ballpark if required on a project

I have some interesting J-basses, none of them made by Fender. I have a 3-band active DRAGONFLY CS-4 (Harry's Engineering, not Kelly) and a Sago OVE-4 2 band. Both top of the line, they can do a great J-bass and a great P-bass, each with their own character.
My passive J is a SUGI Nightbird, that should speak for itself. J-ness to the max.
But through judicious use of my signal chain, I feel I could perform live and/or record with any of these, and get a desirable result, with or without Zing.

... I guess what I'm saying is generally, the whole topic is useless except for discussion (including my .02's),
insofar as I think that although there are tone differentials, there is so much eq available in or out of a studio that the job can be done no matter what instrument is used. As long as intonation is correct-It's the player.

 

[pbass2]

Some TB'rs here could try looking at it from a different instrumental perspective. Let's say you're a session guitarist, hired by a producer to play on some artist's song. The first thing you plug in is your favorite Strat, your pride and joy that you feel you really speak through. Then the producer says, "hmmm, sounds cool but I really hear a Les Paul on this song". What are you going to do, push back and insist on the Strat? Hell no. That's how these sessions go. I've seen producers have a drummer try out 8 different snares before the "right" one is found for the song. It's actually a super fun, super cool process to be involved in. But if you're just stuck on "your thing" it's gonna be a struggle for everyone, and you won't work much.

 

[tb-player]

So, the opinion of one person has become “the truth” to you? Wow. That was easy.

Go back to the original post and read the fine print.

 

[Texican]

Please show me where I said these are hot mess basses with weak or noisy output.

My comments there are about all those non-pro players who went into the studio with little experience and crappy gear and were told to use the house bass. I thought that was pretty clear. That's where I think most of this mythology springs from.

However, engineers (especially when the brands were new) might not be so familiar with those brands and after they've seen a dozen hot mess basses, another unfamiliar (to them) brand might give them pause.

That your bass didn't work so well for that particular music was a good learning experience, but I'm not sure it negates the OPs point. The engineer might have been able to do some magic to seat those tracks better, but he knew the jazz and P would be easier to dial in.

I was replying specifically to your origin story of where this “mythology sprung up from”, despite the fact that my experience, along with top session pros, is anything but mythological.

You said: “Unfortunately the guys who had the hot mess with the weak or noisy signal never really took on board or understood that there was a reason they were asked to use the house bass instead, and that it was more about their gear not being functional than about the p-bass itself, so this mythology sprang up about the P-bass being the only thing worth recording.”
There are a lot of problems with this assumption. For example, if I showed up with a non-functioning bass guitar, even a tuba would be a better choice. It would be ridiculous for some mythology to spring up here implying that only tubas record well in the studio, despite the fact that they did record better than a non-functioning bass.

Now that I’ve clarified what I was replying to, let me address your second point about how the engineer could have made my Warwick more suitable for the track. If you go back and read, I pointed out that the Warwick recorded very accurately, and sounded just like itself. Think about that for a second. If the Warwick sounded exactly like a Warwick, and that sound needed correction, then a Warwick was clearly not the right choice for that track regardless of whether or not a skilled engineer could make it sound like something different. This is the real reason, void of any mythology, as to why precision basses are popular on sessions. They’re never in the way. They’re never out of place. They aren’t always the best choice, but they’re never the “wrong choice”.

 

[LBS-bass]

There are a lot of problems with this assumption. For example, if I showed up with a non-functioning bass guitar, even a tuba would be a better choice. It would be ridiculous for some mythology to spring up here implying that only tubas record well in the studio, despite the fact that they did record better than a non-functioning bass.

Well, my point is that the p-bass is what was there, not a tuba. So more than a few inexperienced bassists left their first studio situation having been handed a p-bass, not a tuba, and then went out and told all their friends that the engineer insisted they use a p-bass because it's what sounded best.

The Warwick sounded like itself, yes. I got that the first time I read it. That the engineer didn't want to put the time into making the Warwick sound right for the track underscores the OPs point: starting with a known quantity equals a need for less work to produce the best result.

It may also underscore the point that the p-bass was a better choice for this music, that doesn't make it the better choice for all music.

 

[N. Kentucky Bass]

Well, my point is that the p-bass is what was there, not a tuba. So more than a few inexperienced bassists left their first studio situation having been handed a p-bass, not a tuba, and then went out and told all their friends that the engineer insisted they use a p-bass because it's what sounded best.

The Warwick sounded like itself, yes. I got that the first time I read it. That the engineer didn't want to put the time into making the Warwick sound right for the track underscores the OPs point: starting with a known quantity equals a need for less work to produce the best result.

It may also underscore the point that the p-bass was a better choice for this music, that doesn't make it the better choice for all music.

I've learned two lessons from this discussion.

1. Some bass players are not very smart.
2. The smart bass players are all on TalkBass.

 

[g-dude]

They were all caracatures of hillbillies. Some of them cleaned up real nice.

Not talking about the characters. I'm talking about the actual musical guest stars!

 

[g-dude]

Lavazza guys … Lavazza .. coffee is a pleasure, if it’s not good what pleasure is it? (famous Italian ‘70s TV commercial’s statement)

Used to have a pretty decent place that served Lavazza near where I used to work.

My general coffee of choice overall tends to be Julius Menl out of Austria.

 

[g-dude]

The first thing you plug in is your favorite Strat, your pride and joy that you feel you really speak through. Then the producer says, "hmmm, sounds cool but I really hear a Les Paul on this song". What are you going to do, push back and insist on the Strat?

Couldn't you just put your G string out of tune slightly and call it a day?

I say this as someone who happens to have a Les Paul...

 

[Texican]

@LBS-bass
I never said the P bass was the best thing for all music. In fact, I literally said it might not always be the best choice. So we agree about that whether you realize it or not. I’m also glad you agree with me about the Warwick not being the right choice since literally sounding like itself was a problem… even if you don’t realize you agree with me. That’s OK too.

Now let’s get rid of the tuba analogy since you didn’t get it. When you say that the mythology of precision basses being best for the studio springs from people with non-functioning instruments having to use a precision bass that was available, I’m telling you that you’re wrong. I don’t mean to be rude, but for this premise to work, the P basses on hand at all these studios would have had to have already been an industry standard. Not to mention that this unlikely scenario would have had to have happened hundreds or thousands of times to become a driving force in the trajectory of the industry for decades to come. I’ve already illustrated how my experience mirrors that of professional session musicians with decades of experience. I pointed out that my Warwick, along with Sean Hurley‘s Lakland, were high quality instruments that still needed to be replaced by a precision bass on real (not hypothetical) sessions. Once again, not trying to be rude, but I know things can be misunderstood or misconstrued through text, so let me break it down one last time:

1.) There is no “mythology” as to why Precision basses work on sessions. They work because they are safe and inoffensive like a navy suit and white button down shirt.

2.) It’s highly doubtful that enough amateur musicians with non-functional instruments were getting enough session work to create an industry standard, and that all of those studios just happened to have the same instrument on hand.

3.) If my choice of instrument has to be changed into something else sonically during production, then it wasn’t the correct choice to begin with.