The Bass is LOUD, But...

[geoff_in_nc]

I don't have the experience and technical know-how to probably give real usable criticism with regards to compression, frequency response, blah blah blah... but what the hay.... speaking of the bassline now, I think I'm hearing more overtones and not enough fundamental for my tastes. I think I'm hearing Music Man when I want to hear Precision. I like juxtapositions, and the airy reverby quality of the guitars wants to be balanced by a solid thumping fundamental to anchor my ear. I think bringing the kick drum up like other folks have said would also help with that anchoring.

Dunno... just my two centavos. I do like it, and how you sort of took a different stab at the song... kind of taking it apart in a way.

 

[John D]

You fail to understand a few things.

First when someone asks for criticism, it's in the hope it's constructive. That can be an opposing opinion that sheds light on the situation. Just being negative is useless.

And second, I think it's hilarious that you feel I have an ego, yet you regard YOUR mix and one that shows how " the bass comes out when the music allows." It just connotes superiority.

Maybe you didn't mean it that way. Hey, I said I liked your stuff. You didn't say you like mine. And YOU'RE getting touchy?

No problem bro. It's just music

IMO Joe offered very good constructive criticism that obviously fell on deaf ears. I just went back and listened to his video, and I can't imagine a better mix for that song. His bass part was clearly the driving force in the composition, it was well defined, it mixed well with a killer drummer, and it wasn't in your face. The guitar played the important role of filling any holes, of which there were few. Kudos to Joe for being able to play that bass line and sing at the same time. Pardon me if that critique offends you, but you asked.

 

[plangentmusic]

IMO Joe offered very good constructive criticism that obviously fell on deaf ears. I just went back and listened to his video, and I can't imagine a better mix for that song. His bass part was clearly the driving force in the composition, it was well defined, it mixed well with a killer drummer, and it wasn't in your face. The guitar played the important role of filling any holes, of which there were few. Kudos to Joe for being able to play that bass line and sing at the same time. Pardon me if that critique offends you, but you asked.

I asked for what ? All you gave is your critique of Joes music.

I just think it's a little weird when someone points out what THEY do as an example of how to "do it right."

But I think it's great that you like it.

And if you read my response, you'd see that I said they were two completely types of music.

I'm not offended bro. I think you're looking for something that isn't there.

 

[Asomodai]

Ok here is some constructive criticism.

The bass is far to "Up front" I understand what you are trying to do, but its not working. The tone is fine, but the volume is somewhat inconsistent. I think more compression is needed on the bass, you can really tell on the track where the bass has been plucked harder and it does not work. Either use a compressor or play more consistently.

The problem with having a bass at the front of the mix is that its easy to hear the slight timing mistakes and inconsistencies in playing as well, which are generally hidden with other instruments on a typical recording.

Whilst i think its possible that your overall "lead bass" idea will work, in these examples it is not executed as well as it could be. It needs to be nigh on perfect to succeed, whereas "lead guitar" fluffing can be covered up with distortion, a clean bass is a bit harder due to the nature of the instrument and its role. Sometimes when more notes are played in a short space of time in the piece of music you have put up, it seems like the bass player is struggling to play those notes clearly enough and fluffs the odd one.

The above is something that also is apparant in "Big Swell" Not only that but it sounds like Steve Harris is trying to venture into Surf music, a bit too clicky for the genre IMO.

Is that constructive enough?

 

[John D]

I asked for what ? All you gave is your critique of Joes music.

I just think it's a little weird when someone points out what THEY do as an example of how to "do it right."

But I think it's great that you like it.

And if you read my response, you'd see that I said they were two completely types of music.

I'm not offended bro. I think you're looking for something that isn't there.

I used Joe's music as a polite way to tell you that your bass is TOO LOUD! Practically everyone in this thread has old you the same thing. If you aren't willing to listen, don't ask. Otherwise, I think the composition, including the bass, was pretty good, although it isn't my favorite style of music, but neither is Joe's.

 

[JoeVictim]

I think it could be better mixed. Kick drum is buried on my speakers, and the guitars seems a bit far away. There's enough room in the instrumentation for the bass to be clear and up front without it being as in your face as it is. Sounds like someone playing bass over some pre recorded tracks to me.

+1. More kick and bring the guitar up a bit. Otherwise, nice groove.

 

[Hellbastard]

You're not looking for constructive criticism, you're looking for people who like how you mixed the tune and share your point of view

Have we been brainwashed by so many guitarists, producers, club owners, that audible bass is something to be shunned?

 

[NateS]

i like how this thread is basically plagent asking for advice, then saying everybody else is wrong.

some discussion we're having...

 

[THand]

I asked for what ? All you gave is your critique of Joes music.

I just think it's a little weird when someone points out what THEY do as an example of how to "do it right."

But I think it's great that you like it.

And if you read my response, you'd see that I said they were two completely types of music.

I'm not offended bro. I think you're looking for something that isn't there.

He didn't say his was an example of how to do it right.
Jeeze, usually when someone says something critical they get the "oh yeah, let's hear your music". You should be glad he was willing to share his tune as an example of what he was trying to tell you, since you didn't understand his written critcism.
He didn't say he liked your music...hmmm, maybe that's the problem: you're looking for an "atta boy" instead of helpful criticism.

 

[plangentmusic]

Wow, lots of presumption. One has to wonder what the impetus is for all that.

Hey, some good comments on here. Believe it or not, I've taken a few into consideration. In some cases I may disagree or point out that I'm looking to do something different than what the poster suggests. I don't think that's fishing for compliments, but I can see how some people may think so. I guess there are a lot of kids on here who do that. But I've been at this a long time, made a good living as a musician (which is more than 99% of the people who play can say) and have different intentions at this point in my life.

Naturally, everyone wants their music to be appreciated, so when someone says the playing is uneven or they don't like my touch -- sure, who wants to hear that? But if that's what you think, that's what you think. I can't argue with that. And I'll keep it in mind.

At the same time, having done this for several decades, I have to decide what I think is legitimate criticism and what is just "looking to criticize." And that's fine. I think a lot of people can learn from this type of format. #1: You can't please everyone. And # 2: Given the opportunity, some people will take a swipe at you to knock you down a peg -- especially if you have something going on. It's up to the person being critiqued to decide which is which.

So this is all good as far as I'm concerned. I put it up there to get feedback and I got it. I appreciate the compliments, love it when someone digs the music and listen when someone offers advice.

As for people's imposed assessment of my intentions or how they think I'm reacting or anyone who thinks they can do it better -- that doesn't matter much. It comes with the territory. And thats something for everyone who presents original/private music up for evaluation should keep in mind. In that regard, I hope this thread has/will help others.

 

[THand]

...depending on how it's played and how it sounds and how it's voiced with the arrangement, a bass can be VERY up-front without it being "too much."

This is an example of something I presented a while back to BASS PLAYERS, many of whom felt the bass was mixed to high. Meanwhile, critics, reviewers and most people in general don't hear it that way. Have we been brainwashed by so many guitarists, producers, club owners, that audible bass is something to be shunned?

What do you think? All TB member opinions are welcome.


What's the verdict. Too much? Or just enough? Thanks.

I failed to address the bolded part of the OP.

I don't think we have been brainwashed into thinking that audible bass should be shunned. Quite the opposite. I prefer to listen to songs with a strong audible bassline (ex: The Police) myself.

But I do think that we hear things that the general music listener doesn't. We hear the different tones of the traditional basses, and we notice roundwound and flat string tones among many other things that others (including other musicians) couldn't care less about. We sometimes put too much importance in things that really don't matter to the typical listener. But, if we don't care, who will?

Honestly, the typical listener doesn't care about our tone, our gear, or our technique. They really only notice the bass if it is wrong. If they can rock or dance or otherwise groove to it, that's all that really matters.

But again, when you come on here and ask everyone on TB for an opinion, you are asking for the opinion of people almost obsessed with all things bass related to use their special powers and give you an edge by hearing things and pointing out things the typical listener won't hear or notice. So if you can gleen anything from the criticism, that's good. Maybe, you should just think about it all for a few days, and listen again with fresh ears and see if you agree with what has been said. Since you did all the instruments yourself, it is easy for me to understand that you may not be as objective as you could be right now.

You may come back and say you think everyone is wrong, and it sounds exactly like you want it to. There is nothing wrong with that either. It's your music, and it's your picture that you are trying to paint musically. If it says what you want it to say, and how you want to say it, then screw what I, and others have said critically and just be proud of your work.

 

[plangentmusic]

I failed to address the bolded part of the OP.

I don't think we have been brainwashed into thinking that audible bass should be shunned. Quite the opposite. I prefer to listen to songs with a strong audible bassline (ex: The Police) myself.

But I do think that we hear things that the general music listener doesn't. We hear the different tones of the traditional basses, and we notice roundwound and flat string tones among many other things that others (including other musicians) couldn't care less about. We sometimes put too much importance in things that really don't matter to the typical listener. But, if we don't care, who will?

Honestly, the typical listener doesn't care about our tone, our gear, or our technique. They really only notice the bass if it is wrong. If they can rock or dance or otherwise groove to it, that's all that really matters.

But again, when you come on here and ask everyone on TB for an opinion, you are asking for the opinion of people almost obsessed with all things bass related to use their special powers and give you an edge by hearing things and pointing out things the typical listener won't hear or notice. So if you can gleen anything from the criticism, that's good. Maybe, you should just think about it all for a few days, and listen again with fresh ears and see if you agree with what has been said. Since you did all the instruments yourself, it is easy for me to understand that you may not be as objective as you could be right now.

You may come back and say you think everyone is wrong, and it sounds exactly like you want it to. There is nothing wrong with that either. It's your music, and it's your picture that you are trying to paint musically. If it says what you want it to say, and how you want to say it, then screw what I, and others have said critically and just be proud of your work.

Of course, most people don't notice the nuances we put into the sound, but on a certain level they feel it -- it has an effect -- even if they don't know what it is. Yeah, I'm not sure what kind of brush Picasso used to paint "Girl Before a Mirror" but I'm sure HE thought about it.

 

[swelltrain]

The bass is indeed way too up-front in the mix. It is not serving the song well. I would isolate the bass and kick and play with EQ until the two fit like a hand/glove. And then mix the song building up from there.
I think it is a really good thing that you are sharing and asking for critique. Mixing bass is just damned super hard. I also think it would be awesome if you did the same thing over at gearslutz.com and see what some professional mastering engineers think. The comparisons to the responses here would be really informative/enlightening. -s

 

[plangentmusic]

The bass is indeed way too up-front in the mix. It is not serving the song well. I would isolate the bass and kick and play with EQ until the two fit like a hand/glove. And then mix the song building up from there.
I think it is a really good thing that you are sharing and asking for critique. Mixing bass is just damned super hard. I also think it would be awesome if you did the same thing over at gearslutz.com and see what some professional mastering engineers think. The comparisons to the responses here would be really informative/enlightening. -s

Thanks for the heads up with gearslutz.

The thing that's also omportant to kee in ind is that if something isn;t "accepted" there's always going to be some uncertainty. In other words, if Rush sells 10 million albums with an aggressive bass tone , then that's a sound that's a winner. But if no one heard the album -- even if it were the same exact album -- they'd be dozens of opinions as to why the bass tone may be wrong. (Does that make sense?)

And again, that's not a dismissal of what anyone is saying, it's just the nature of the beast.

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

if Rush sells 10 million albums with an aggressive bass tone , then that's a sound that's a winner. But if no one heard the album -- even if it were the same exact album -- they'd be dozens of opinions as to why the bass tone may be wrong. (Does that make sense?)

The bass tone may still be contentious, even if the album is wildly successful.

 

[NateS]

The bass tone may still be contentious, even if the album is wildly successful.

+1

i can think of a few albums that i like, dispite glaring tones from one instrument. Does'nt make it less popular, per se, just one part is disliked.

 

[plangentmusic]

+1

i can think of a few albums that i like, dispite glaring tones from one instrument. Does'nt make it less popular, per se, just one part is disliked.

True, but in general it's more accepted. You can't argue with success!