Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Mark Hoppus Tone???
- Thread starter BassistSVT
- Start date
- Status
Well I also wanted to point out that, if it is the desire of a band to have the bass cut through the mix, then the guitar players have to make room for the bass, somewhere. The bass not cutting through is as much a function of less than optimal guitar tone as it is less than optimal bass tone. It's easy to point the finger at the bass player when he's not cutting through but the guitards are to blame as well!
Also, if they ween't happy with this sound it would have changed after cd no.1
It seems it didn't, so they must be happy sounding this way, more power to them.
Which also means his tone is good, to him, his band and his fans, and that should be all that matters.
It seems it didn't, so they must be happy sounding this way, more power to them.
Which also means his tone is good, to him, his band and his fans, and that should be all that matters.
I just spent the last 1/2 hour watching the Flight of the Conchords vids, laughing hysterically.
Reminds me of Roy Zimmerman, but less political.
Reminds me of Roy Zimmerman, but less political.
I understand Mark's point and I agree with the basic sentiments. When I was a music critic, I didn't judge whether or not I liked the music as much as whether I thought the band/artist accomplished their goals within the framework of the genre.
Whenever Justin Timberlake's album came out, I was sent a copy from a friend who still works as a critic and who wanted my input. I said it should get a glowing review. Now, would I listen to it? No. It's simply not where my interests lie. But in terms of making a modern R&B*/Pop album, it was a great success.
Which is all a longwinded way of saying that I feel the same way about bass tones. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean that it doesn't serve its purpose well. I LOVE the sound of James Jamerson's bass, but I would never want that tone for what I do, it wouldn't fit.
With that as a basis for criticism, I do agree with Bongo. Hoppus plays in a pop-punk band and I simply don't think his tone (especially the one linked to in the OP's vid) suits the music well. Having the bass be "felt and not heard" is not appropriate based on their songs/band makeup. As previously mentioned Mike Dirnt has almost the same setup and gets a much more fitting tone for pop-punk stuff.
*Pet Peeve - is Rhythm & Blues (R&B) the biggest misnomer in modern music? It's right up their with "alternative" as a useless and misused description.
Whenever Justin Timberlake's album came out, I was sent a copy from a friend who still works as a critic and who wanted my input. I said it should get a glowing review. Now, would I listen to it? No. It's simply not where my interests lie. But in terms of making a modern R&B*/Pop album, it was a great success.
Which is all a longwinded way of saying that I feel the same way about bass tones. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean that it doesn't serve its purpose well. I LOVE the sound of James Jamerson's bass, but I would never want that tone for what I do, it wouldn't fit.
With that as a basis for criticism, I do agree with Bongo. Hoppus plays in a pop-punk band and I simply don't think his tone (especially the one linked to in the OP's vid) suits the music well. Having the bass be "felt and not heard" is not appropriate based on their songs/band makeup. As previously mentioned Mike Dirnt has almost the same setup and gets a much more fitting tone for pop-punk stuff.
*Pet Peeve - is Rhythm & Blues (R&B) the biggest misnomer in modern music? It's right up their with "alternative" as a useless and misused description.
By 'Cut Through' I mean, Be heard. Sure, if you are of the thought of Bass is supposed to be Bass, then crank it, be in that low range. If you don't have a keyboardist or a synth player, I'd be willing to be that you are in your own range with that, so you occupy that space of the mix, and you are heard. I happen to love Doom music. And part of that is nothing more than droning right in that 20Hz range. But its cutting through the mix. I can hear that, as well as drums, and the guitars above it. See what I'm saying?
I cannot picture any bassist, other than one who is highly self conscious of his playing, that would actually seek out and attempt to be buried in the mix, in any sense.
And I'm not saying anything about Mark Hoppus. I am a Blink fan, but that's because its catchy, fast, and generally very lax in nature and comedic to listen to, certainly not for Mark.
But I've addressed this point in my statement above. A band that is not willing to work together with the EQ is one that is surrendering itself to a crowded mix. I'm not attempting to bicker with you Mark, but I personally find that we wave the 'Bloody Shirt' of guitarists a little too much around these parts, just as much as we are quick to point fingers at the bass player. Its not a sole responsibility. Its the bassist, the guitarist, the drummer, and especially the producer, which is one we often fail to mention at all. This has turned into a blame game for no reason. Everyone that touched the mix is to 'blame,' so really no one is to blame at all. Its something that I and many others find to be a fault of the music that everyone at every stage of production was apparently satisfied with.
So OP: If you really just want to be Mark Hoppus, sure, seek out the EQ settings that will get you buried in the mix. But if you want the sound you hear when you actually hear him (i.e. with Tom isn't playing), work with your band mates, follow all of the advice above that isn't tinged in sarcasm, and I'm more than willing to bet you'll get as close to his solo tone, full on in a mix, as you otherwise could.
+1 - out of anybodys tones that is the least unimpressive. Its not too hard or complex to get that tone.
You want your trebel at 100%, moderate amount of mid range, and some bass to give it the "garble" sound when lower strings are played... and use a pic.
I would say just keep playing Carousel and messing with the dials until it sounds right.
I would say just keep playing Carousel and messing with the dials until it sounds right.
Really, boosting the treble that much will just get ridiculously harsh, IMHO. In my experiences, the best way to get that growly top end is a fresh set of strings. I'm more than willing to bet that Mark doesn't play but one, maybe two shows between every new set.
if he didn't have any "tone" whatsoever then he wouldn't have a signature Fender bass being put out to the masses. Of course, you can argue that only brainwashed kids of America would ever want to buy that bass and that it's being put out so that Fender can cash in on the siutation because it's a money making scheme....blah blah blah. I think people are mostly bashing just because they simply do not like Blink 182 but I do see how he does usually get buried in the mix. As for his tone, if I were in his shoes I would try to make most of the gear I had (ampeg 810, svt 4, various american fender basses) and not simply dime the treble and boost the mids with low bass. But i guess that's what he wants for the music he's playing....Blink 182, + 44, etc. He's also a record producer and has done some work for some pretty well known bands in the realm of pop-punk (Motion City Soundtrack, New Found Glory, Idiot Pilot) so I bet he does have knowledge on how to get a "good" tone.
P.S This thread has gotten plenty of attention.....
P.S This thread has gotten plenty of attention.....
I think some people have missed my point completely, but for what it's worth I downloaded some Blink 182, and with my ears I can hear the bass clearly. Of course I am a natural bass player, my ears are tuned to the bass, bass is and has been my main and only instrument, and it's what I hear, I can't assume everyone's ears are tuned like mine. But I also watched that video the original poster linked and I can hear the bass in that as well, although you should all note that it's not the most hi fidelity recording to deal with when trying to judge someone's tone.
Don't you think it's a little harsh on the guy to judge him on one not so high fidelity recording of what's clearly not one of his band's best performances?
And it's not fair to judge Mark Hoppus against Mike Dirnt. They both have their own signature tone. They both sound like themselves. Who is better is completely subjective at that point. And yes, I said from what I hear Mark Hoppus has found his signature tone, simple and standard may it be, I think it sounds a little thin and weak to be honest, but like it or not, having your own signature tone is something all of us should strive for, I know it's something I strive for, and it's a great accomplishment.
I hate to be the one who has to say this, it doesn't give me any pleasure, but if you want to be so quick to judge someone else's tone, you should have some soundclips of your own signature tone to demonstrate how much better you sound. I'll post soundclips of my signature tone if you'd like because I'm not ashamed of it, and yeah, personally I like my tone better than Mark Hoppus'.
And just for the record I personally dislike Blink 182, but I do respect them as musicians trying to do their thing, and musicians that have sold a fair amount of records at that.
Don't you think it's a little harsh on the guy to judge him on one not so high fidelity recording of what's clearly not one of his band's best performances?
And it's not fair to judge Mark Hoppus against Mike Dirnt. They both have their own signature tone. They both sound like themselves. Who is better is completely subjective at that point. And yes, I said from what I hear Mark Hoppus has found his signature tone, simple and standard may it be, I think it sounds a little thin and weak to be honest, but like it or not, having your own signature tone is something all of us should strive for, I know it's something I strive for, and it's a great accomplishment.
I hate to be the one who has to say this, it doesn't give me any pleasure, but if you want to be so quick to judge someone else's tone, you should have some soundclips of your own signature tone to demonstrate how much better you sound. I'll post soundclips of my signature tone if you'd like because I'm not ashamed of it, and yeah, personally I like my tone better than Mark Hoppus'.
And just for the record I personally dislike Blink 182, but I do respect them as musicians trying to do their thing, and musicians that have sold a fair amount of records at that.
Blink 182 has their own order of when you get to hear the instruments, bass plays when vocals go, guitar plays heavy when there are no vocals.
Remember guys that the first video was live... Live usually means things are EQ'd wrong, iv'e been to concerts where there is too much bass, too little vocal volume, too much guitar, etc.
Whilst live playing shows the players attitude, it is the recording studio that usually shows tone and style.
This thread has been more or less an attack on the artist rather than a scientific method process.
I like Greenday and Blink-182, and comparing both I think you hear Mark Hoppus more than Mike Dirnt per song.
Also Mark Hoppus does more double string playing.
To poster: You're using a Jazz bass yes? On my Jazz I play the opening to Carousel (Here) with a max EQ and it gets it done, if it doesn't sound close (Due to amp EQ and such) just roll whatever it feels like it has to much of back.
Remember guys that the first video was live... Live usually means things are EQ'd wrong, iv'e been to concerts where there is too much bass, too little vocal volume, too much guitar, etc.
Whilst live playing shows the players attitude, it is the recording studio that usually shows tone and style.
This thread has been more or less an attack on the artist rather than a scientific method process.
I like Greenday and Blink-182, and comparing both I think you hear Mark Hoppus more than Mike Dirnt per song.
Also Mark Hoppus does more double string playing.
To poster: You're using a Jazz bass yes? On my Jazz I play the opening to Carousel (Here) with a max EQ and it gets it done, if it doesn't sound close (Due to amp EQ and such) just roll whatever it feels like it has to much of back.
I think its all fair posts, and that does kind of agree with what a said above. Clearly, Blink 182 is happy with it. Clearly Mark Hoppus is happy with it.
But my original post had little to do with Mark or Blink 182 per say, but AqueousView posted a comment whether it was to be expected that he be heard beneath Distorted guitar, and my answer was yes. My whole point in this debate has been to say that there is never reason to not be heard. Bands should EQ as a whole, to create a balanced mix. Every instrument heard, none above the other, equal, blending. That's what everyone attempts to accomplish, but few people get because no bands seem to take the time to sit down and be willing to sacrifice the ability to boast their 'special frequency,' to better the mix of the whole band. By overlapping frequencies between instruments, you create a crowded mix, and something about the music is ultimately sacrificed, which, IMO, is a very bad thing.
If you want to hear my 'signature tone,' I'll be happy to post it when our EP gets finished. And there's almost nothing signature about it. Sharp pick attack, steel strings, high output Jazz bass, a Sansamp PDDI with a heavy mid boost around 400Hz, and a tube head. I have no difficulty being heard in the mix of two guitars and a drummer in a 'Post-Hardcore' project, because my lead guitarist finds his tone best scooped, and my rhythm guitarist likes a boost around 800Hz. I personally like my mids in a solo setting around 750-800Hz, but I'm willing to sacrifice that, compensate for the slight muddiness with the pick attack and the steel strings, and it all works.
Put it this way everyone, bass is subtle. I don't feel bass needs to "cut through the mix" to provide proper support for a band in all situations. Different bands have different sounds, and within these different sounds the bass may be more or less prominent. There's nothing wrong with it either way, bands are free to choose their own sounds. But how prominent does the bass have to be for you to be happy? As bass players we're liable to think bass ought to stand out more than it really needs to, right? I don't think we need to hold it against players that have the character to not need their bass tone to be in the limelight. Yeah I think Tom Delonge is a frequency spectrum hog and I don't think Blink 182 has the best sound in history but it is their sound, not mine.
Besides, if we want to start coming down on bass players for not being very prominent in the mix why don't we come down on Metallica's bass players? (Yes I have owned like every Metallica CD and listened to them plenty of times.) I really think we're all coming down on Mark Hoppus more out of anti Blink 182 sentiment than a qualified dislike of his bass tone, and that's kind of immature.
Besides, if we want to start coming down on bass players for not being very prominent in the mix why don't we come down on Metallica's bass players? (Yes I have owned like every Metallica CD and listened to them plenty of times.) I really think we're all coming down on Mark Hoppus more out of anti Blink 182 sentiment than a qualified dislike of his bass tone, and that's kind of immature.
I think you're getting a little excited about this and missing what I'm saying. Just relax, I'm not here to argue and personally I couldn't care less if someone wanted to hate on Mark Hoppus' tone, but I think it's an interesting conversation, and I thought it would be fun to play the devil's advocate.
Blink
-1 rhythm guitar player with a Strat
-1 solid drummer
Metallica
-1 rhythm guitar player with an ESP Explorer with EMG 81/60 pickups
-1 lead guitar plater with an ESP KH-2 with EMG 81/81 pickups
-1 solid/heavy handed drummer
- Status
