'Cutting through' versus 'sitting in' the mix?

[Beedster]

Late night read of BC again raises the twin spectres of 'cutting through' and/or 'sitting in' the mix. Am I alone in thinking that 'cutting through' is not in itself a good thing, despite the fact that many bassists clearly aspire to it? OK, certain genres might require it, but 'sitting in' seems so much more preferable in most?

Slightly beer inspired post BTW

Edited February 27, 2012 by Beedster

[Wil]

It depends on the band and the song, really, but I always prefer a well rounded bass sound that will sit in the mix and compliment the kick drum. Some high end definition is nice but I don't like aggressive use of mids in order to make the bass prominent if it isn't naturally so - if you're having to do that and want to be heard better then then maybe the guitars/other instruments are taking up too much space in the first place.

[gary mac]

Totally concur Chris.

[endorka]

I know what you mean - "cutting through" seems to suggest a certain degree of sonic pushiness that is perhaps not always appropriate for bass.

On the other hand, I do wonder if for some people it is a question of semantics and that "cutting through" means the same as "sitting in the mix".

Jennifer

[Clarky]

I prefer sitting in the mix as people are less likely to notice when I f*ck up

[Vinny]

For my tuppence it depends on the song. If we're doing noisy punk-type racket then I like to not so much 'cut-through' as take the battering-ram approach. When going for more bluesy or melodic-type stuff then dial off the tone pot and just thump away underneath.

This also just happens to be the sum-total of my knowledge of such things as well, which is a fine coincidence in my book!

[rOB]

Interesting question. I think it depends on the situation, in a wall of distorted guitars the band might want a bass sound to cut through?

Side note - I know what you mean by cutting and sitting but isn't it funny that we use these physical words to describe sound.

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='endorka' timestamp='1330382884' post='1556723']
... On the other hand, I do wonder if for some people it is a question of semantics and that "cutting through" means the same as "sitting in the mix" ...
[/quote]
That's me ... if it 'sits well' in the mix then it has it's own sonic space and will be well heard amongst the other instrumenst and will not overpower or be overpowered by the other instruments, and that is to say it will 'cut through'.

[Dave Tipping]

My definition of cutting through would be.. being heard in the mix. i.e. not muddy and lost. It does ultimately boil down to the sound you are trying to create or replicate though.

[WalMan]

Chris

"Cutting through" in the context of what I was really getting at is actually a misnomer. I don't do solo's

What I really meant/want is MY fundamental bit of the frequency range not cluttered with loads of guitar bottom end that ultimately means I feel the bass often gets completely lost in the mix whereas if a certain person cut his full on bass boost and pushed his mids a bit more I think we would all end up with our defined bands and a better overall mix. (I'm starting to sound like a harping old moaning Minnie aren't I )

For the sort of classic rock we do in the band in question I tend to feel that the rythmn section needs to drive things along and the guitars can flash along over the top of that all they like, but if the bass is getting swamped out by guitar mush and lost in the mix the energy of the song gets lost

[WalMan]

[quote name='Dave Tipping' timestamp='1330385682' post='1556783']
My definition of cutting through would be.. being heard in the mix. i.e. not muddy and lost. It does ultimately boil down to the sound you are trying to create or replicate though.
[/quote]This, or at least it was what I was getting at

Edited February 27, 2012 by WalMan

[leftyhook]

[quote name='Beedster' timestamp='1330382349' post='1556709']
Late night read of BC again raises the twin spectres of 'cutting through' and/or 'sitting in' the mix. Am I alone in thinking that 'cutting through' is not in itself a good thing, despite the fact that many bassists clearly aspire to it? OK, certain genres might require it, but 'sitting in' seems so much more preferable in most?

Slightly beer inspired post BTW
[/quote]Hey!!! sober up!!!(slap, slap, cold water over head)

I refer to cutting through as not becoming a muddy wash with bottom end keyboards. that's what p***** me off.

[51m0n]

Semantics really.

Cutting through/sitting well/balanced/blending in

Same concept, maybe referring to different parts of the frequency spectrum being chosen as the dominant part of the bass sound to be heard (other than the 40-100Hz region which is, well bass).

Its all frequency mixing with the band, finding that 'hole' in the rest of the band (or more likely holes) that the bass can poke through at and thus be heard whilst staying out of the way in other areas for other instruments. And vice versa, ideally!

[gjones]

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1330384522' post='1556757']
That's me ... if it 'sits well' in the mix then it has it's own sonic space and will be well heard amongst the other instrumenst and will not overpower or be overpowered by the other instruments, and that is to say it will 'cut through'.
[/quote]

+1

[Lozz196]

I think, as the others have put, that this is all part of the same thing. The bass still being audible, and doing it`s role, without being swamped by the other instruments.

It`s funny though, thinking about this. Given how powerful bass rigs are nowadays, we could all adopt the same principles as our guitarist brethren, and turn everything up on full, and decimate the bands sounds, yet we don`t. I wonder why that is.

Maybe there`s something to be said for the fact that the instrument matches our personalities, and we naturally prefer the background. Or, that we actually look to the sound of the whole band, rather than me, me, me. I know which I reckon it is.

[charic]

[quote name='Lozz196' timestamp='1330413548' post='1556903']
I think, as the others have put, that this is all part of the same thing. The bass still being audible, and doing it`s role, without being swamped by the other instruments.

It`s funny though, thinking about this. Given how powerful bass rigs are nowadays, we could all adopt the same principles as our guitarist brethren, and turn everything up on full, and decimate the bands sounds, yet we don`t. I wonder why that is.

Maybe there`s something to be said for the fact that the instrument matches our personalities, and we naturally prefer the background. Or, that we actually look to the sound of the whole band, rather than me, me, me. I know which I reckon it is.
[/quote]

Done exactly this at practice the other day to prove a point

[Conan]

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet....

Unless it's a rose with no fragrance.

[Beedster]

Mmmm, I wonder if we as bass players are a little self-congratulatory and naive? If I had a pound for every band I've seen in which the bass player is either booming ominously and thereby turning everything into mud, or cutting through like a razor and thereby destroying the musicality of the performance (assuming there was some there to start with), I'd have a new rig. OK, if these are deliberate stylistic decisions, no problem (and there are of course probably an equal number of examples of bass that can't be heard). I guess what I'm saying is that I think 'sitting in' and 'cutting through' are different things. OK, the musicians, especially the bassist, need to hear the bass, but the audience don't, they just need to hear the whole thing, and I'm not sure that, for live music anyway, and even for recorded music, the idea of partitioning instruments into discrete audio ranges in which each can be clearly identified and heard is necessarily musical, in fact it strikes me as all too often being an exercise in science as opposed to an exercise in aesthetics (despite the fact that as an audience we are increasingly being lured into thinking that what is 'well recorded' is also musical)? For sure, JJB's bass sitting in the mix would have lessened the impact significantly, likewise Macca's mid-era baselines cutting through would have messed up some good songs, so it's horses for courses, but I do wonder when i hear bassists talking of 'not cutting through' - and all too often blaming other band members for this - whether in attempting to cut through, we're trying to do something that isn't musical?

[Dave Vader]

[quote name='Lozz196' timestamp='1330413548' post='1556903']

It`s funny though, thinking about this. Given how powerful bass rigs are nowadays, we could all adopt the same principles as our guitarist brethren, and turn everything up on full, and decimate the bands sounds, yet we don`t. I wonder why that is.

[/quote]

Speak for yourself

[fatback]

Some confusion around, I think, between frequency competition and relative levels. As in recording, you don't want to turn up to solve the problem of competing frequencies, you need to make sonic space for each instrument. That's what EQ is for.

In recording (I'm no expert here, but from what I've seen) you might even shift timings a little to avoid competition, like separating out the attack of the kick and the bass.

Live, the important thing is [i]what [/i]people play. if the keys are all over you with their left hand, your bass is going to have a problem. Same with guitars and voice.

Cutting though imo is a bad term. If there's a hole, you shouldn't need to cut.

just my 6 cents.

[51m0n]

[quote name='Beedster' timestamp='1330420076' post='1556975']
Mmmm, I wonder if we as bass players are a little self-congratulatory and naive? If I had a pound for every band I've seen in which the bass player is either booming ominously and thereby turning everything into mud, or cutting through like a razor and thereby destroying the musicality of the performance (assuming there was some there to start with), I'd have a new rig. OK, if these are deliberate stylistic decisions, no problem (and there are of course probably an equal number of examples of bass that can't be heard). I guess what I'm saying is that I think 'sitting in' and 'cutting through' are different things. OK, the musicians, especially the bassist, need to hear the bass, but the audience don't, they just need to hear the whole thing, and I'm not sure that, for live music anyway, and even for recorded music, the idea of partitioning instruments into discrete audio ranges in which each can be clearly identified and heard is necessarily musical, in fact it strikes me as all too often being an exercise in science as opposed to an exercise in aesthetics (despite the fact that as an audience we are increasingly being lured into thinking that what is 'well recorded' is also musical)? For sure, JJB's bass sitting in the mix would have lessened the impact significantly, likewise Macca's mid-era baselines cutting through would have messed up some good songs, so it's horses for courses, but I do wonder when i hear bassists talking of 'not cutting through' - and all too often blaming other band members for this - whether in attempting to cut through, we're trying to do something that isn't musical?
[/quote]

Please use the carriage return key and the occasional paragraph!

The audience certainly do need to hear the bass. It is the root note of the harmony after all, and the gel between the rhythm section and the harmony as well. It is fundamental. Take it away and the music loses a huge amount, make it too loud and the music loses a huge amount too. It is a very significant part of the whole. The whole is, and should remain, greater than the sum of its parts though.

The idea of partitioning instruments by frequency is not new, its been around since mixing became a real option (ie since eq's were available and multitracking and overdubbing became the norm), it is utterly vital to creating a well balanced mix. The human brain is incredibly adept at 'filling in the blanks' with acoustic information. It is called frequency misxing, and virtually every single record you have listened to made since the early 1960's has used this technique to some degree in order to let you hear the [b]music [/b]better. Since the early 70's it has been used extensively in all genres.

In order to hear the complexities of all the different instruments it is necesary to play with their frequency spectrum. So where you have two instruments hot in a specific area the mixer makes a choice based upon stylistic and musical knowledge as to which should be the prominent instrument in that area. They cut the other instrument there to allow the one they want to have less to compete with. Otherwise we get frequency build up and a confusing mess instead of a nice blended whole.

The art is in the choice of instrument in any place and the nature of the eq cut (how many dB, how steep the cut, how wide the cut) and so on.

This is further enhanced by the ability of the mixer to change things in the time domain, the proper use of compression to tame peaks on some instruments and not on others , the use of compression as a tool to duck instruments out of the way - most commonly used to drop the bass by 3 or 4 dB when the kick strikes, to give better headroom and tighten the band up, but certainly not limited to that.

The thing is bass guitar isnt just a sound between 50Hz and 120Hz, the harmonics of the bass can be as high as 4KHz (higher with piezo pups in there), if you choose carefully you can retain all the info the human brain needs to build the entire tone of the bass in the listeners head, without stepping on the other instruments toes at all. Similarly for guitars, keys, drums and vox. It is a seriously complex task to do really well, I think many people dont understand this or appreciate it very much at all.

However if everyone just ignores each other and takes their 'bedroom tone' to the gig then there will be a large set of frequency build ups that are not condusive to a clear clean and powerful mix and the band as a whole will sound worse for it. Much much worse. And the engineer on the night cant help because there is no sonic boundary between stage and audience, any mud you create on stage will spill into the area the audience are in.

Listen to the [url="http://kitrichardson.bandcamp.com/"]music here[/url], I can guarantee you that this was mixed using the principles of frequency mixing, that there was use of ducking, and serious compression tricks to change the transients of certain sounds so that everything could be heard correctly.

Is the result musical or not? You tell me, but I know that no one yet has responded with anything other than praise for the musicality of the result. I can also guarantee (and prove) that if those techniques were not used (and used well) the result would have been a lot worse.

[51m0n]

As a further point wrt to mixing, the result is only ever as good as the song and the arrangement.

A really good (read expensive) mixologist will happily cut swathes of instrumentation out of your tracking in order to deliver a better mix. The recordist will record everything the musicians come up with (the tracking process), the mixologist turns that into a brilliant cohesive mix that is catchy, driving, emotionally enthralling, and moves from section to section pulling the listener along whether they like it or not, (the mixing process).

It is an absolute art and science at the same time.

The mastering engineer turns the recorded songs into an album by balancing them as a whole together (and adding the correct codes, printing the CD, working out the gaps between tracks etc etc) and brings the whole up to an acceptable level (without damaging the music hopefully).

[shizznit]

+1

Great post...pretty much sums up everything I wanted to say (honest!)

[Beedster]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1330429856' post='1557236']
Is the result musical or not? You tell me, but I know that no one yet has responded with anything other than praise for the musicality of the result. I can also guarantee (and prove) that if those techniques were not used (and used well) the result would have been a lot worse.
[/quote]

Don't take is personally mate, i was only thinking out loud. Generally speaking things done well sound good, but that is not quite what the OP was about! As ever, I bow to your expertise.

C

[thisnameistaken]

It's interesting that whenever this topic comes up, it's always discussion of frequency ranges and mixing and never anything about how the songs are arranged. If everybody's playing the same note or the same rhythm then nobody is going to 'cut through' - try thinking about harmony and syncopation a bit more. Or *horror* space!