51m0n

Last day of voting people.....

Keeping a lid on the overall volume is an absolute must, I agree, I have left pubs when the band has started up becaus ethey are too loud. Its not big, nor clever to hurt your audience....

Back on topic, I've been into slapping for almost as long as I've played bass, I do it my way now, which is a mixture of loads of different ways of doing it and has elements of all sorts of far better players than me that I've begged borrowed and stolen to get where I am. I can do what I need to to play what I want to, if there was a stylistic sub-genre of slap that I enjoy the most and therefore tend towards, its the Larry Graham to Meshel Ndegeocello groove orientated rather than flash for the sake of it thing (I can double thump really badly, so I dont really ever do it - ignore it for a year or two of slapping yourself at least!). I think you can get the basics down in a few weeks, work on keeping the first joint of your thumb (where it joins your hand) loose (even though the thumb is 'cocked'), and slapping by rotating your forearm rather than your wrist. If you put your hand in the shape that Kenny Everret's preacher hand is (the pointy index finger ting) but really relaxed, if you rotate your hand so that the index finger is in the middle of an arc described by the movement of your thumb, then thats the right action. In order to sound the note though your thumb must bounce of the string, having struck the string with the hard bit of bone in the last knuckle joint. Think of a piano hammer struck cleanly, it flies straight back off the string. You dont need to strike the string hard at all, this isnt anywhere near the physically monstrous activity that some players make it out to be, and again if you want to be able to swap between fingerstyle and slapping with impunity its necessary to get the slap to have the same volume and a good fat tone without mucking around with any electronics, its in the action of your hand more than anything else (took me years to get this right by the way, Alain Caron is [i]the[/i] man for making this work). Keep relaxed and just play 8th notes and go up and down the strings just trying to get an even slap note going. It will take about a week of nightly 10 or 15 minutes practices to get that really even and relaxed I reckon. Once you have this try slap, left hand hammer on; slap left hand hammer on etc. Keep it even, and work at a smooth relaxed action. Popping I do with index or middle finger, again its remarkably relaxed, there is no real sense of pulling at the string, as my popping finger gets into positon the action of cocking my thumb for the next slap (that rotating wrist again) pulls the popping finger up through the string, which lifts up just enough to hit the frets when it releases, any more than that and there will be a volume difference between slaps and pops. Learn to pop all the strings, eventually it should be easy to thump and pop the same string (work up to that though!) Like everything it will just take time and a little perseverance to get there, but it will come...

I play funk - what is this "chord sequence" of which you speak???

No, they are there, it sounds good because of well crafted arrangements and good FOH mixing. Simple as that. Have another listen to the Kit Richardson EP (see sig), in particular listen to Russian Dolls, there are strings (quite a lot of strings tracks, at least 4, maybe 8 cant remember for sure now), guitar, piano (2 tracks of piano I think), lead vocal, bass synth, and more than 50 backing vocal tracks, you are hearing everything mixed, if I took anything away it would sound different (more or less subtly but it would be different), yet it isnt cluttered, even with 50+ Kits singing together they arent building up mud or cluttered in any way, and that is because of the eq-ing techniques (and the compression/limiting used too). The whole EP hasthat kind of sound, lots and lots going on. The same principles are used in a big live show, you just have less time to build the mix.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1358770780' post='1944600'] Even more simplistically, I'd have thought that bassists should have an advantage when it comes to being heard because they've almost got their very own sonic space to work within. Yes, a kick drum will overlap our main frequency region, but singers won't and nor will guitarists usually. [/quote] If you concede that you need some mids (something somewhere between 200 and 800Hz lets say) to convey pitch and transient attack then the following instruments could easily be in your way:- Floor tom Low tom Kick drum Snare body Baritone male vox (go down to 80Hz fo rthe really deep chaps) Rhythm guitar Lead Guitar Hammond Clavichord Piano Strings Congas Djembe Didge Female contralto (seriously!) Baritone Sax Tenor Sax (in a section especially!) Tuba But the main contenders are the bottom of the guitar, lower toms, kick, snare (esp a big rock snare), and lower octaves of the keyboard, and the deeper horns depending on the arrangement obviously.

[quote name='Doddy' timestamp='1358813016' post='1945660'] I never change anything other than the technique. [/quote] +1 My Roscoe through my rig with my technique sounds absolutely immense either slapped or fingerstyle, I have no need to change anything either. Its brilliant too, because it means I can mix the two techniques really nicely in a single bass line. [quote name='wal4string' timestamp='1358813806' post='1945669'] Your slap sound must be really naff then. [/quote] No you're wrong, whats really naff is either your kit, your technique, your ability to make them sound good together, or your ability to switch from one to the other quickly if you rely on some form of eq, gain or preamp change to go from one to the other (IME)

I dont think that is a case of everyone wanting to cut through, its a case of everyone wwanting only to hear themselves, at the expense of everything else. Cutting through suggests an incision to me, I like the idea of keyhole surgery, thats where it works best, rather thanout and out butchery.

[quote name='Lamont' timestamp='1358796518' post='1945246'] From my understanding 'cutting through the mix' relates to perception that a bass that sounds nice and loud (and clear!) on it's own, can completely disappear when you add a band into the room. If I'm right I think this is normally due to problem frequencies at around 400-600Hz. Most band members have a presence in this region (guitars, snare/toms, vocals etc.) and in a room these soundwaves will naturally interact with one another. 99% of the time, physics is cruel and these signals will be 'out of phase' with one another, effectively cancelling them out. If you have this problem scoop your EQ a little (just 3dB may be enough) and you'll often find you can 'hear' yourself again. The other option is play nice and quietly, with everyones amps arranged sensibly so they don't interfere with one another & most players can monitor themselves quite happily N.B. this might be complete bollocks if it is, sorry! [/quote] This is an oversimplification. It could be any or all frequencies turning to mush. that depends on the sounds in the band and very much on the acoustics in the room. You cannot narrow it down to 400-600Hz. Also cutting there on bass could be exactly the wrong place fo rthat bass and player's sound, you have to think of all the sounds in the band, if the kick is really deep then the bass doesnt want to be so deep, if the guitar is middly the bass can sit under it etc etc. The art (as a band live, or with the sound engineer) is to carve out the crud from each sound that competes with a part of another instruments sound that is 'signature' to that instrument in the mix. Good arrangement is the icing on the cake. Cutting through is such an aggressive way of putting it, its also known as frequency mixing. The more instruments in the mix the more careful you have to be to make space for them all. What the musicians hear on stage is one mix, by being closer to their respective monitors/amps they get a mix that favours them rather than the rest of the band for themselves to listen to. It is perfectly possible to create a mix that works in the context of the band on stage and in FOH, again the more the band accepts they need to work together to creat the sound of the band as a whole, the better the sound on stage and off will be.. This is personal opinion, there may really be some people who use extreme eq/compression/overdrive (who knows what else) to try and force their way to the front of a mix, but if its detrimental to the overall sound then it would seem to be damn stupid behaviour?

[quote name='bassman7755' timestamp='1358807784' post='1945563'] It means "I dont want a sound that is pleasant to listen to and which blends in with the band, rather I want a sound that is like a sonic poke in the eye with a pencil - it may be horrible but at least people can hear it". [/quote] Completely disagree with this....

Right you are then

[quote name='butlerk02' timestamp='1358773353' post='1944671'] Ok fellas. Are we putting a closing date on this? I reckon we let it run up until the 24th so it leaves a week for comments and ideas to be posted. It also gives me a week to post the CD out to the winner. [/quote] Agreed 24th as the last day of voting - although I dont know how I can stop people voting after then, other than to put the results up to that point into the OP?

[quote name='lowdown' timestamp='1358785485' post='1944944'] Hey Paul - I know you like your remix comps, this might interest you [and maybe others]............................... [url="http://www.puremix.net/zelab/"]http://www.puremix.net/zelab/[/url] Garry [/quote] Thats a lovely track isnt it!

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1358787423' post='1944989'] In my old 7 piece band I used to share one side of the stage with a keys player. He had an oldish keyboard amp with a 15" driver that often sat right next to my bass amp. ..... Simply working together like this made loads of difference and we rarely had an issue again [/quote] Great post, nothing can beat a great arrangement...

Depends what you want from the bas. if anyone here wants people (ie punters) to be able to differentiate the notes they are playing (ie the pitches) in a live venue, then pay attention to the midrange of your bass. Its [i]all[/i] about Fletcher-Munsen curves (again - dreary isnt it). We hear best in the mid range of our hearing, we perceive pitches best in the midrange of our hearing, so if you roll off everything over 300Hz to get "that sound" then most punters wont be able to humm the bass line back at you, rhythmically yes, pitch wise, they wont hear what you want. "Cutting through" is a term with some troubling connotations for a lot of bass players - to me it means making sure that tehr is enough mid range and enough low end, in balance, and with a hole somewhere for the meat of the guitar at the same time. At the same time the guitar has to make a whole fo rthe bass pitch info, you kind of get a 'ladder' of important frequencies between bass and guitar a bit like this:- Bass - bass frequencies Guitar - bass frequencies && Bass - mud frequencies Bass - mid frequencies (pitch info) Guitar - mid frequencies (pitch info) Guitar - 'sizzle' If you dont make a space for that bit that says Bass - mids (pitch info) in the guitar (in other words the bass 'cuts through' at that point) then the punters cant hear the bass as well. Similarly if you dont pull back a little in the Bass - 'mud' area there is no where for the Guitar bass frequencies to pop out and you tend to get that mud inducing war for control of the low mids. If you take too much away from the Bass here then it sounds weak and has no impact - hardest area to mix IMO... Now one guitar on its own usually doesnt make too big an impact, but two guitars, or even guitar and keys with a heavy left hand can really take the shine out of your day unless everyone works together to make these spaces happen for each other, its about eq, and arrangement, and in a mix its about milliseconds of difference in attack time and so on. Lot sof tools/techiques are availabel to help a recording work in this way beyond eq that arent really available down the dog and duck unfortunately.

No, parallel compression is a completely different thing from changing the attack on an inline compressor. You can (and probably would) set up parallel compression with a (far) faster attack than you can an inline compressor, since the dry signal is going to contain all the transient info you will need, so you get all the benefit of that nice juicy spike with all its associated top end and so on, whilst at the same tame beefing up the meat of the sound as soon as the spike is passed. Even then this is a very differetn thing from carefuly regulating attack, since you tend to have enough of the dry signal to convey dynamics as if there were no comrpessor running at all. Its quite tough to describe precisely why and how it can be so different, but I promise it is (sorry!). Because the compressor is parallel you can 'get away' with far more overt compression than with an inline comrpessor, with all the benfits of massive amounts of compression (really fattened punchy sound) with far less overt side effects (diminished dynamic range, and asssociated nasty feel to playing into a really smashed compressor, implications of compressing the nuts out of the transients leading to a far darker apparent timbre than you want etc etc). Upwards compression is not striclty speaking, exactly the same as parallel compression, although there are similarities, to the extent that a lot fo the time people suggest parallel compression in place of upwards compression.

Any pedal you like with an SFX "split and mix"? Say with a Cali76 (ooooh now that [i]is[/i] a thought). Would be my way forward on this one

Exactly! I'm doing these as quick mixes by my standards. Thast still several hours of time right there (easily). You want me to track the bass as well? Why??

The difference betweeen a producer and a mix engineer may seem to be blurred, but it isnt really. A mix engineer is given a set of tracks that have been recorded with more or (if he's a name engineer) less rigourous instruction as to the desired result, and a couple of rough mixes (which he must choose how much to listen to) which he must blow out of the water. He can change the arrangement a little, (ie by choosing to leave stuff out, or fly some stuff in elsewhere) but he must absolutely be able to back those choices up, best if the missing parts arent even noticed. If that sounds unlikely, bear in mind that there were over 120 tracks in some of the songs on Pink's last album (for instance) - clearly some of those could have gone walkies and no one would really be sure. A producer on the other hand is there from preproduction, she gets to hear the initial ideas and shape the arrangements from the beginning before tracking, she is there to ensure the budget is stuck to (massive massive part of producing) and to make the bands efforts gel into her concept of the album (or EP or single or whatever). So if your engineer is tracking you and mixing you, they still arent producing you, because they arent managing the budget, and they didnt hear the preproduction, they didnt help evolve the arrangement beforehand, and they dont have a vision, they are flying by the seat of their pants. If they say they are producing you at that point they are talking baloney, dont let them have delusions of grandeur about tracking and mixing a session, it isnt the same thing! This is so different its a totally different ballpark. A good producer will hand off to an expert mix engineer to help that vision be realised. The mix engineer will be happiest to receive the fewest tracks possible with an outstanding arrangement that pays off the listener into and through every section, but more often than not somewhere in the process up to that point there is ususally more than there needs to be, and that is where a mix engineer needs to be an expert musically as well to recognise this and improve the final mix of the song by cutting or changing that little bit to realise the best possible mix. Thats the bit I find hardest to do, I love getting it all sounding great together, I love pushing the boundary on the sound and trying not to mix to safe (safe mixes are boring, you need to find something extra in there somehow or it wont convert into anything other than another fine but boring song). But actually by the time I'm doen with it I ususally love it, so I stick with every part up tp that point, and dont want to lose a thing.... Having said that ther was one track on No Second Chance that I nearly binned, I didnt like it at all, it stayed in the end, but it still makes me feel 'off' in there now. And we havent touched on editing at all either, which you wont get done by any full on mix engineer for you without paying (loads) extra. They arent there to fix the performance, they are there to make it sound the best tey can - its a different thing. If we can do mixes and find something that everybody wants to learn from in some of them each time, then as long as the people involved share their thoughts and ideas and how they went about achieving things, then there is a huge worth in what we are doing. Its not about who is the best at mixing its about provoking thought and questions and getting answers, and help fo ranyone who wants it. Well that was the intention from me anyway. The voting thing is just a bit of fun anyway, its the learning bit that matters!

I've covered Hard to Handle, fun song to play that, never really got punters boogeying away though, not like LaBamba did (the shame)...

All good then, as you were, carry on etc etc

Walk This Way - the RunDMC version, still got the hugemongious guitar riff, but funky as hell if you can pull of the hip hop feel...

[quote name='Roland Rock' timestamp='1358439340' post='1939195'] Funk, but not from the '70s?! Does not compute? :-D IMO funk became dodgy with the arrival of disco, and has only declined since ([b]happy to be proved wrong[/b]) How about something from the '60s like Lee Dorsey? [/quote] Meshell Ndegeocello - funky as anything ever created in the 70's (IMO):- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_0SU2jLTjY

Interesting points. But its a different discipline from composition, so it will be a different experience to find a preferred version. You can not like the track and still find the mix that either conveys the track the best to you, or seems in some way better on a technical level (if you really cant stand the music). That is, however, very much the nature of mixing, and I actually think that people who bother to try and find a favourite in this kind of thing will end up gaining a new found respoect for mixing as it finally slowly dawns on them that sometimes mixers can create great fabulous engaging mixes of songs [i]they[/i] dont like either. That is a part of the challenge of mixing, its finding a way to like what you are doing irrespective of whether or not you like the song or some aspect of it very much. If you read the entire thread about it (and why would you) you would have seen the question of remixing turn up. The idea is to do the best mix, so that is not to replace everything with new parts and create a new arrangement from scratch, effectively using the multitrack as a set of samples to dip into as and when you feel like. Having said that it is well within the remit of a mixer to alter arrangements here and there, by dropping a part they cant stand, or feel doesnt improve the song at all, or leaving it to come in later as an added boost to a song further into it. Furthermore the use of drum samples to beef up drums isnt disallowed, although I have never ever liked this approach, I'd personally rather take what is there and make it the best it can be and find something in it to love, however bad it is , it is at least unique, and uniquely of that song/band then. Of course if you hate the song, or all the mixes, then dont bother getting past a couple before deciding voting on this is not for you. I think its fair to say that whilst the compostion competition is focussed on the very macroscopic creativity of writing the piece, and if the recording of it doesnt sound great then thats fine and shouldnt stop a track doing well, the mix competition is incredibly microscopic, looking at tiny details of how a song is presented to the listener, and if the song isnt your cup of tea, then thats not relevant, the quality of the mix is what matters. It requires an ability to seperate the soudn of a mix from the content of the song, I honestly think some people just cant do that very well at all...

Ta! OldG's entry is working again now for anyone waiting to hear it before casting their vote...