Tone, were they as bothered about it as us?

[Ancient Mariner]

[quote name='spongebob' post='1250378' date='May 30 2011, 03:14 PM']If your playing a pub/club with soggy carpet and flat beer, you can fiddle with the tone as much as you like, and it's still 'bass'!

I think only bass players actually listen to what we do. Others probably just look at the headstock![/quote]

Unless you're covering Another One Bites The Dust or Peaches then this is almost certainly true. There are plenty of records I can think of where, although the bass is playing an important part, the actual bass tone is relatively unimportant provided it fits with the music and the band. Yes, having a great bass tone can help make a record sound great, but most of the time a typical punter will not remember the subtle texturing your bass playing has provided. I remember reading an article about Dave Gilmour, and him being thanked by Roger Waters when Roger was given an aware for the bass parts Dave had actually recorded - I was a Floyd fan, but listening as a non-bass player, couldn't remember ever noticing a bass anywhere in their music.

I'm sure this is a reason slapping is popular when people want to 'show how they can play' - it actually makes the bass noticeable to non-bass players

So relax in the knowledge that the one you're actually serving with your careful tone sculpting is yourself, and just enjoy what you do for it's own sake.

[Doddy]

[quote name='4000' post='1250572' date='May 30 2011, 06:08 PM']To move this away from sonics for a moment, I think what you're effectively trying to say is that the colour is recognisable as green regardless of what shade it is. In a sense you are of course correct. However I feel you're also implying that the shade is therefore irrelevant, that there is therefore no real difference between the shades, which is simply not the case. As a painter that's something I can argue quite categorically. My argument was about sonics, not about style, and I still maintain that the sonics are different, just as Emerald and Viridian are not the same, despite both being green.[/quote]

Again,I am not talking about style either. As I said about the Claypool videos,the sound that he gets out of the instrument is recognisable.
As you mention Janek-he's also mentioned numerous times that the sound comes from the player.
I've never said that the 'shade is irrelevant',what I am saying us that a particular player will bring out a certain sound on an instrument.Sure a Stingray and P-bass have their own characteristics,but the way they I play them will bring out a different sound than how you play them. The Geddy Lee Ric/Jazz debate was mentioned earlier-two totally different instruments,yet both still sound like Geddy and have caused much confusion over the years.
More of the sound comes from the hands than people realise,that's why two people playing exactly the same bass will sound different to each other.

[Lozz196]

[quote name='Ancient Mariner' post='1250574' date='May 30 2011, 06:09 PM']Yes, having a great bass tone can help make a record sound great, but most of the time a typical punter will not remember the subtle texturing your bass playing has provided.[/quote]
+1

Most punters will probably think that the sound of both your bass, and that of the guitar, is all coming from the guitarist, so he/she gets the credit anyway.

[Robert Manning]

[quote name='silentbob' post='1248305' date='May 28 2011, 03:17 PM']Just been listening to Walk On By by The Stranglers and started thinking to myself, like i often do when listening to stuff, how did he get that tone? Then started wondering whether bass players had always strived to get their perfect sound, or was just a case of plug in your bass to whatever's available, bugger around with the pedal and amp settings for thirty seconds and that'll do, leaving future generations of bass players marvelling at their skill and spending hundreds of pounds trying to recreate that sound. Any thoughts?[/quote]


Ive spoken to lots of bass players in real bands, (like what non bass players listen to) and for many of them, its just 'go for it, and see what happens' i think a lot of the sound is the producer's responsibility at the end of the day...

i spoke to the young knifes the other day, and i asked the bass player what he used for the previous records... he couldn't quite remember. a lot of guys use the bass/amp that is hanging around the studio at the time of recording! until they they get development moneys to go out and buy a instrument of there liking!.

and us suckers, listen to our ipods thinking ' i wish one day i sound as good as that.. and ah i really want a rickenbacker so i can sound like .....'

Ive done it... then after studying music tech full time, you realise, that most musicians are in fact; idiots*


*(everyone on bass chat is awesome and not an idiot

[Thurbs]

There was a thread not so long ago along the lines of "what's the most over rated something...?" I was going to answer tone but bottled it!

Most of the gigs I play I just plug straight in to the PA. Of course with the DB, then the Fishman Platinum Pro is also used...

[4000]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1250606' date='May 30 2011, 06:31 PM']Again,I am not talking about style either. As I said about the Claypool videos,the sound that he gets out of the instrument is recognisable.
As you mention Janek-he's also mentioned numerous times that the sound comes from the player.
I've never said that the 'shade is irrelevant',what I am saying us that a particular player will bring out a certain sound on an instrument.Sure a Stingray and P-bass have their own characteristics,but the way they I play them will bring out a different sound than how you play them. The Geddy Lee Ric/Jazz debate was mentioned earlier-two totally different instruments,yet both still sound like Geddy and have caused much confusion over the years.
More of the sound comes from the hands than people realise,that's why two people playing exactly the same bass will sound different to each other.[/quote]

Of course each individual player will have an effect on the sound. But that still isn't 100% of the sound. The 2 sounds in question are not the same sound (obviously, as there are two of them). You've already agreed with me in saying that one has more midrange and less top, hence they are not the same. Using the Stingray / P-Bass analogy, of course you will sound different to me playing them. But you will not sound the same on both, and neither will I (I know, I've tried it many times).

[cycrowave]

[quote name='ZMech' post='1249985' date='May 30 2011, 10:30 AM']one example that jumps to mind is tame impala[/quote]

Thanks for this link loving this band!

[Doddy]

[quote name='4000' post='1250658' date='May 30 2011, 07:13 PM']Of course each individual player will have an effect on the sound. But that still isn't 100% of the sound. The 2 sounds in question are not the same sound (obviously, as there are two of them). You've already agreed with me in saying that one has more midrange and less top, hence they are not the same. Using the Stingray / P-Bass analogy, of course you will sound different to me playing them. But you will not sound the same on both, and neither will I (I know, I've tried it many times).[/quote]

No it's not 100% of the sound,but I think it's the biggest variable. While I agreed with you on the two sounds having
differences,it is still very recognisable as being a certain player by the sounds that are produced-in that case it is
unmistakably Claypool.
I think that the differences between two players (regardless of instrument) is more obvious than the differences
between two Rickenbackers....again I'm talking about sound,not style.

[lowdown]

[quote name='Robert Manning' post='1250613' date='May 30 2011, 06:41 PM']then after studying music tech full time, you realise, that most musicians are in fact; idiots*[/quote]



Garry

[51m0n]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1250694' date='May 30 2011, 07:44 PM']No it's not 100% of the sound,but I think it's the biggest variable. While I agreed with you on the two sounds having
differences,it is still very recognisable as being a certain player by the sounds that are produced-in that case it is
unmistakably Claypool.
I think that the differences between two players (regardless of instrument) is more obvious than the differences
between two Rickenbackers....again I'm talking about sound,not style.[/quote]


I'm going stick my big oar in here.

Sorry, can't help myself!

So I see it like this, tone = timbre. They are the same thing.

This means tone != note choice or phrasing. To me at least.

So removing the note choice and phrasing from the equation then the same player has the same hands and may or may not play two different instruments in the same way, I know I have played different basses that have made me approach the instrument at a very low level differently, in other words the way I pluck the strings themselves and the way I hold the instrument is definitely different.

In the case of the two Claypool tracks the timbre is hugely different. One is mildly overdriven and quite wide, the other is cleaner and very nasal/midly. Thats before the rampant fx use.

If you think about it, Les has a 'target tone' he is aiming for, like you and I, for any particular project, and he has within his available arsenal for achieving that tone, a spectacular array of fx, amps, preamps, cabs etc etc. So regardless of the bass in his hands he can go a huge way toward processing the output of two or more different instruments towards the same final goal.

A common part of the Claypool sound is the compression he uses, there's almost always plenty, and you can really really hear it. It almost defines his timbre more than any other effect to me. The possible exception is the mild overdrive he likes on the low end.

Could I make any instrument sound like that? Not quite, but given the right rig and time I could get so close that not one of you could tell the difference. Certainly not from a youtube clip of the output of the PA.

Except for the note choice and phrasing of course, I cant play like Les (believe me I tried for long enough in my yoof).

What I am saying I think, is that the note choice and phrasing makes two players sound different far more than the attack on individual notes. And that the plethora of tone and transient shaping tools out there can make two players timbres sound incredibly similar timbrally, what you cannot do is make the players play music the same way.

So any time a player picks up a different instrument he is likely (though not always guaranteed) to try and play the instrument the same as any other, but his phrasing and note choice will be the same almost always, which makes us say "He sounds the same on any instrument". We should add the caveat that he sounds the same, DESPITE the obvious timbral/tonal change.

All IMO, IME etc etc....

[Dave Vader]

[quote name='spongebob' post='1250378' date='May 30 2011, 03:14 PM']If your playing a pub/club with soggy carpet and flat beer, you can fiddle with the tone as much as you like, and it's still 'bass'!

I think only bass players actually listen to what we do. Others probably just look at the [s]headstock![/s] singer/guitarist[/quote]

Fixed

[BigRedX]

The two Claypool examples don't really work since one looks like a professionally filed gig while the other looks and sounds like it was done on someone's phone.

[4000]

[quote name='51m0n' post='1251143' date='May 31 2011, 10:03 AM']I'm going stick my big oar in here.

Sorry, can't help myself!

So I see it like this, tone = timbre. They are the same thing.

This means tone != note choice or phrasing. To me at least.

So removing the note choice and phrasing from the equation then the same player has the same hands and may or may not play two different instruments in the same way, I know I have played different basses that have made me approach the instrument at a very low level differently, in other words the way I pluck the strings themselves and the way I hold the instrument is definitely different.

In the case of the two Claypool tracks the timbre is hugely different. One is mildly overdriven and quite wide, the other is cleaner and very nasal/midly. Thats before the rampant fx use.

If you think about it, Les has a 'target tone' he is aiming for, like you and I, for any particular project, and he has within his available arsenal for achieving that tone, a spectacular array of fx, amps, preamps, cabs etc etc. So regardless of the bass in his hands he can go a huge way toward processing the output of two or more different instruments towards the same final goal.

A common part of the Claypool sound is the compression he uses, there's almost always plenty, and you can really really hear it. It almost defines his timbre more than any other effect to me. The possible exception is the mild overdrive he likes on the low end.

Could I make any instrument sound like that? Not quite, but given the right rig and time I could get so close that not one of you could tell the difference. Certainly not from a youtube clip of the output of the PA.

Except for the note choice and phrasing of course, I cant play like Les (believe me I tried for long enough in my yoof).

What I am saying I think, is that the note choice and phrasing makes two players sound different far more than the attack on individual notes. And that the plethora of tone and transient shaping tools out there can make two players timbres sound incredibly similar timbrally, what you cannot do is make the players play music the same way.

So any time a player picks up a different instrument he is likely (though not always guaranteed) to try and play the instrument the same as any other, but his phrasing and note choice will be the same almost always, which makes us say "He sounds the same on any instrument". We should add the caveat that he sounds the same, DESPITE the obvious timbral/tonal change.

All IMO, IME etc etc....[/quote]

I think that is probably pretty much the point I've been trying to make, except that I'd describe "Tone" in this context not as "note choice / phrasing", but as "sound produced" (which to me is different). The [i]sound itself[/i] is not the same, however identifiable the playing may be, although Doddy doesn't seem to agree. If I play a Stingray, you might be able to tell its me, but it will also still sound like a Stingray. If I play a Ric, again, you also may be able to tell its me but it will still sound like a Ric. The Ric will not sound like the Stingray and vice versa, and not just to my ears. Indeed on many occasions I can hear other people playing either of the above when I am not familiar with the player at all and still be able to tell they're using a Ric or Musicman (as an example).

When I first heard "Influences" by Mark King, I was able to tell that the slap part on the first side ("The Essential") was a Status bass. Why? Because that's similar to what they sound like when I play them. I later found out that was indeed the case. I was also able to tell that on the fingerstyle solo he was using a different bass; his Jaydee. Why? Because I could hear the difference, if only because I am familiar enough with specific sounds. I still maintain that if you listen to Mark King playing his Jaydee, his Alembic and his Status, they are recognisably different sounds, despite them all sounding like Mark King.

There are some people out there who really do overwrite the instrument tonally. I have a friend who plays guitar (and plays really hard) who really does sound very similar whatever he plays/plugs into. But not everyone is like that.

As for the Claypool clip, I have evidence enough on various dvds, all obviously recorded slightly differently at different gigs, but on none of the examples I have does his CT sound like his Ric to me. FWIW, I actually prefer his CT sound as I think it suits his playing better.

Anyway, I suspect this argument is going nowhere....for a change.

[Lozz196]

I always sound like me - if I play a Jazz, then a Precision, through the same amp with the same settings, they both sound like the individual instruments, but still sound like "me" playing them. No way are an active Status and a passive Precision going to give the same sound, but the individuals style will make them sound similar.

[Muzz]

I posted a while back, just after I'd got the first mixes back of the album we were recording in a local studio, and I was a bit sensitive about what I saw as 'my sound' being buggered about with. Incidentally, we were in the studio for 14 or 15 days, and it took me about 3 minutes to get the bass sounding good. More than 5 minutes, and I'd have been getting embarassed...

I've just got the final mastered product, and I was completely wrong about my sound. It's been changed from what I was hearing in my cans while tracking, sure, but to the benefit of the band (and album)'s overall sound, and the changes are appropriate to the relevant tracks. Unless you're a professional sound engineer, or your band sound is built on a specific bass sound, or yours is the ego that runs the band, then having faith in the guy responsible for the overall sound is the most sensible option.

I realise this isn't always the safest route when playing live, as there are good sound guys out there and bad ones, but as I've said before, live environments are such a crapshoot in what they do to your sound that it'll be a miracle if you get the same sound twice anyway.

I'd also agree with the poster who mentioned he has a sound for home/practice/playalong use, and one for the band.

[51m0n]

[quote name='4000' post='1251305' date='May 31 2011, 12:02 PM']I think that is probably pretty much the point I've been trying to make, except that I'd describe "Tone" in this context not as "note choice / phrasing", but as "sound produced" (which to me is different). The [i]sound itself[/i] is not the same, however identifiable the playing may be, although Doddy doesn't seem to agree.[/quote]

Thats what I said, but for clarification since my inner geek did get the better of me != means Not Equals, so where I said:-

tone = timbre
tone != note choice or phrasing

I was saying that tone does Not Equal note choice or phrasing. It is the timbre or sonic quality of the sound, as measurable in terms of adsr (envelope) and frequency spectrum. Anything BUT the 'artistic nature' of the racket being created.

I truly believe that the better a musician you are the harder it is for you to seperate the two (timbre and phrasing) when you hear someone play. Unless you also spend a significant (if not equal) amount of time sound engineering. Just my opinion, but I cant see how someone who can hear a player and get all the info out of their playing in terms of note choice, and phrasing could ever truly divorce that from the timbre.

So people with very advanced ears for relative pitch and playing tend to have a harder time with treating timbre as a completely seperate objective aspect to the sound you are hearing.

This is not a criticism its just something I have noticed.

Fortunately for me (in this case) I am a truly crap musician (certainly by the standards of the really pro players on this site - Doddy, Jakesbass et al), but pretty good at hearing timbres etc etc....

This is not to say they cant hear by any means, timbres, and they are usually well ahead of the game compared to punters, but the fact is that top flight engineers do hear differently from top flight musos. Horses for courses I think.

[i]<Runs away to put on his flamesuit with the chamois leather interior>[/i]

[51m0n]

[quote name='Muzz' post='1251353' date='May 31 2011, 12:40 PM']I posted a while back, just after I'd got the first mixes back of the album we were recording in a local studio, and I was a bit sensitive about what I saw as 'my sound' being buggered about with. Incidentally, we were in the studio for 14 or 15 days, and it took me about 3 minutes to get the bass sounding good. More than 5 minutes, and I'd have been getting embarassed...

I've just got the final mastered product, and I was completely wrong about my sound. It's been changed from what I was hearing in my cans while tracking, sure, but to the benefit of the band (and album)'s overall sound, and the changes are appropriate to the relevant tracks. Unless you're a professional sound engineer, or your band sound is built on a specific bass sound, or yours is the ego that runs the band, then having faith in the guy responsible for the overall sound is the most sensible option.

I realise this isn't always the safest route when playing live, as there are good sound guys out there and bad ones, but as I've said before, live environments are such a crapshoot in what they do to your sound that it'll be a miracle if you get the same sound twice anyway.

I'd also agree with the poster who mentioned he has a sound for home/practice/playalong use, and one for the band.[/quote]

I remember that thread, really glad it turned out the right way for you!!

Its really important to bear in mind how close you are to the music, it takes a person with a completely different 'head' on to think in terms of the way the sounds should all slot together as a whole, and in turn for best results it almost always takes another person to turn a bunch of mixes into a finished album (mastering) from the guy who tracked and mixed it in the first place.

[4000]

[quote name='51m0n' post='1251422' date='May 31 2011, 01:17 PM']Thats what I said, but for clarification since my inner geek did get the better of me != means Not Equals, so where I said:-

tone = timbre
tone != note choice or phrasing

I was saying that tone does Not Equal note choice or phrasing. It is the timbre or sonic quality of the sound, as measurable in terms of adsr (envelope) and frequency spectrum. Anything BUT the 'artistic nature' of the racket being created.

I truly believe that the better a musician you are the harder it is for you to seperate the two (timbre and phrasing) when you hear someone play. Unless you also spend a significant (if not equal) amount of time sound engineering. Just my opinion, but I cant see how someone who can hear a player and get all the info out of their playing in terms of note choice, and phrasing could ever truly divorce that from the timbre.

So people with very advanced ears for relative pitch and playing tend to have a harder time with treating timbre as a completely seperate objective aspect to the sound you are hearing.

This is not a criticism its just something I have noticed.

Fortunately for me (in this case) I am a truly crap musician (certainly by the standards of the really pro players on this site - Doddy, Jakesbass et al), but pretty good at hearing timbres etc etc....

This is not to say they cant hear by any means, timbres, and they are usually well ahead of the game compared to punters, but the fact is that top flight engineers do hear differently from top flight musos. Horses for courses I think.

[i]<Runs away to put on his flamesuit with the chamois leather interior>[/i][/quote]

Thanks for the clarification. I thought it was a typo.

Interesting point regarding the sound thing. I do all my band's recording and mixing (although not to what I would class anything like a professional standard as I don't have the necessary technical knowledge and hence rely on my ears) and sound in that sense is something I've always been very interested in, so I think I can separate the 2 quite easily.

EDIT: in fact the more I think about it I probably spend far more time these days listening to the sounds produced than the actual playing in most cases.... a career as a sound engineer awaits! (not!).

Edited May 31, 2011 by 4000

[51m0n]

[quote name='4000' post='1251462' date='May 31 2011, 01:38 PM']Thanks for the clarification. I thought it was a typo.

Interesting point regarding the sound thing. I do all my band's recording and mixing (although not to what I would class anything like a professional standard as I don't have the necessary technical knowledge and hence rely on my ears) and sound in that sense is something I've always been very interested in, so I think I can separate the 2 quite easily.

EDIT: in fact the more I think about it I probably spend far more time these days listening to the sounds produced than the actual playing in most cases.... a career as a sound engineer awaits! (not!).[/quote]


Read a lot, practice a lot. Thats all that seperates you from the 'pros' really. The amount of time you have spent on it.

You have acces to more gear than almost anyone did just 25 years a go. For free. Really.

[4000]

[quote name='51m0n' post='1251614' date='May 31 2011, 03:15 PM']Read a lot, practice a lot. Thats all that seperates you from the 'pros' really. The amount of time you have spent on it.

You have acces to more gear than almost anyone did just 25 years a go. For free. Really.[/quote]

Got plenty of gear. Just need to somehow lose my day job so I have more time. Wait, I sense a flaw in the plan....

[merello]

[quote name='silentbob' post='1248305' date='May 28 2011, 03:17 PM']Just been listening to Walk On By by The Stranglers and started thinking to myself, like i often do when listening to stuff, how did he get that tone? Then started wondering whether bass players had always strived to get their perfect sound, or was just a case of plug in your bass to whatever's available, bugger around with the pedal and amp settings for thirty seconds and that'll do, leaving future generations of bass players marvelling at their skill and spending hundreds of pounds trying to recreate that sound. Any thoughts?[/quote]
Did JJ not get his tone cos he couldn't afford a bass rig? Sure it was a Hiwatt amp and speaker for a guitar.

[4000]

[quote name='merello' post='1251850' date='May 31 2011, 06:28 PM']Did JJ not get his tone cos he couldn't afford a bass rig? Sure it was a Hiwatt amp and speaker for a guitar.[/quote]

I believe you're right. In this case, necessity was the mother of a mother of a tone!

[Robert Manning]

I think being a pro, is knowing how to achieve a particular timbre, understanding materials and HARMONICS, (not the things that you play on your bass) (learn about fundamentals and harmonics its enlightening)

i think being an artist is writing songs and falling into the timbre by mistake in a way.

think of some rock bass players... do they work out how achieve a gritty mildly distorted bass sound with a pick by studying the art of tone, or is it just the only way they know how to do what they do.

hard to say, until you meet them.

[Lozz196]

[quote name='Muzz' post='1251353' date='May 31 2011, 12:40 PM']I posted a while back, just after I'd got the first mixes back of the album we were recording in a local studio, and I was a bit sensitive about what I saw as 'my sound' being buggered about with. Incidentally, we were in the studio for 14 or 15 days, and it took me about 3 minutes to get the bass sounding good. More than 5 minutes, and I'd have been getting embarassed...

I've just got the final mastered product, and I was completely wrong about my sound. It's been changed from what I was hearing in my cans while tracking, sure, but to the benefit of the band (and album)'s overall sound, and the changes are appropriate to the relevant tracks. Unless you're a professional sound engineer, or your band sound is built on a specific bass sound, or yours is the ego that runs the band, then having faith in the guy responsible for the overall sound is the most sensible option.

I realise this isn't always the safest route when playing live, as there are good sound guys out there and bad ones, but as I've said before, live environments are such a crapshoot in what they do to your sound that it'll be a miracle if you get the same sound twice anyway.

I'd also agree with the poster who mentioned he has a sound for home/practice/playalong use, and one for the band.[/quote]

I remember your thread Muzz, and could see your obvious concerns at the time, am glad that it worked out well for you.

[Muzz]

Cheers guys! I'll post some links in the appropriate place as soon as the songs are ready for release.

Current delay* is band name - we're having to change it. I think I'll start a completely different post about this, though...


* Just one in a seemingly endless series - if you were to theoretically add in a personal wealth of millions of dollars and access to unlimited drugs, I'm beginning to see why it took Axl 11 years to record Chinese Democracy...