“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”
― Hunter S. Thompson
― Hunter S. Thompson
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
Welcome to TalkBass! Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Not being recorded on a song you normally play live.
- Thread starter honeyiscool
- Start date
Its all about money, Time is Money in the studio. You would be surprised how many guys that play in Artist bands out of Nashville never see the inside of a real studio. The same small circle of session players play the albums and unfortunately that's why all the country crap out of Nashville sounds the same. Its been that way for a very long time. Cant say that for othe industry towns but I wouldn't complain. If they ak you to play a part do it to your best ability. If they hire another to lay down the tracks in the studio, develp your skills and network yourself to those that can get you in the studio.
Good Luck.
Good Luck.
JeezyMcNuggles
Inactive
- Feb 23, 2018
- 14,725
- 20,912
- 6,041
- Disclosures
- I suck, but nobody really notices
I don't know. If you can't play the song the way it's intended to be played live, then why record it differently then you play it? Or, why not learn and practice the song the way y'all want it to be played? I don't understand.
Everybody’s mind is going to money because that’s typically the rationale for the scenario you presented. Now, if this is some kind of home studio project and everyone is volunteering their time and efforts, which takes money out of the equation, that’s a whole different ballgame.
Now, it’s a matter of getting into this song writer’s head. First, if he had an idea for a bass line that is a lot different from the one you came up with, then he should have had that discussion with you early on. Only this song writer knows why he isn’t using you and your bass line for the recording. This subject can be discussed, which might open a can of worms, or you can just let it go. Right now, it seems like communication, or lack of it, is a problem.
Without actually knowing the people involved, and their personalities, it’s difficult to recommend a plan of action. One suggestion is approaching the song writer and saying something like, “Hey, I can lay down the bass line the way you want it if you need me to.” and go from there.
Yes. And a friend in the music business is someone who stabs you in the front.
Seriously, this situation sets off my pet-peeve meter, only because I have a problem with people who hire other people to do things they can't do and then tell them how to do them. I know that's not the case with every songwriter, some are very skilled, but if he wants the part a certain way and it's not what you think serves the song well, he can play it himself as far as I would be concerned. I wouldn't be too bent out of shape over it because this stuff happens all the time with creative types, but he might not be someone I want to work with much in the future, unless there's some big money involved due to my association with him. If that's the case, I'd just let him do what he wants with his record and keep making money as it comes.
This feels like what's happening. It's a game designed to trip you up. There's other things going on besides this one arrangement of this one song.
As far as advice for your friend, tell him to stand firm and ask songwriter dude what he wants played. Have him write it out. You're a bass player, not a mind reader.
It would be useful if you'd identify your role here. Barring that, it would have been nice if the songwriter had this realization about the bass line a little earlier in the process, but that's not what happened. Songwriter and bassist need to have a private conversation about this, because guessing what is on the other person's mind is fraught with difficulties, whereas actually asking them can be completely clarifying. If the bass player doesn't want to learn the new line, then obviously the songwriter has to get someone who will learn it. If the songwriter wants to keep the presumably reluctant bass player, that person can learn the new bass line after the fact from the recording.
TL;DR: Better to ask and get an answer you don't like than to not ask and never know.
It’s interesting that everybody assumes I’m the one not getting recorded. It’s more that I’m the one doing the recording and can play many of the instrument parts at a high level. First time, I started out with replacing a sloppy bass track mostly note for note, which I didn’t think was worth congratulating myself for so I didn’t put my name on it. Then, I contributed uncredited lead guitar parts to an album, which weren’t written for me, but the writer said “add something here” and it was a band that didn’t have a lead guitarist. I was only credited as a producer. And now, it seems like I am contributing more and more uncredited instrumental parts as time passes, especially on songs that I myself write, but I am in a world where bands are thought to be a meaningful unit of music creation, and I also record bands that I play in. I was mainly wondering what people would think about someone like me who can just play at being engineer, but can also cater to what a songwriter wants on various instruments. And if I’m producing, I should do whatever is asked of me, and I honestly don’t need the credit for playing instruments if bands want to keep up the image of self complete units.
And it seems like a lot of bassists here don’t care for the role that a utility person like me can play in recording...
And it seems like a lot of bassists here don’t care for the role that a utility person like me can play in recording...
Last edited:
Sorry, but credits mean s*** in the big picture. Get percentages for songwriting or get paid. if you are getting paid or getting percentages you are golden, and you'll be credited anyway. If you are subbing for others, just be gracious about it with the others. I can't decipher the details from your posts, but it seems like some people in the group are getting taken advantage of. It's so sad when I hear about artists taking advantage of each other. I hope that's not the case. If the other players are being used as session/live players without being payed or cut in they will eventually figure it out and be upset.
Most players, bassists or otherwise, will do what’s asked of them, and don’t care if they don’t record a part unless they feel like they were supposed to for some reason. The situation in the first post made it seem like a player in the live band was going to be butt-hurt if they didn’t get to record their live performance part, but now, that doesn’t seem to be the case.
You also commented on “interesting” assumptions being made. First, about money, when money is an important factor in recording, and this thread is about recording. Then, about who is, or is not being recorded. It’s not surprising that a bunch of bassists, on a bass forum, have a bassist’s point of view. Assumptions wouldn’t have to be made if details were provided.
The bottom line is, the songwriter owns the song, and the producer is in charge of the recording process, including who does the recording. The song should be recorded to their specifications, and everyone else should just learn to like it.
Live band performance is a separate situation.
Put yourself in the position of the weekend warrior who puts his heart and soul into the live band only to get rejected for the recording but still asked to pay for it.
There’s a group I played with for a little while, toured a little and all that. During one of the tours there was terrible flooding happening where we were from and the songwriter wrote a song about it and we performed it at every gig for a long time after that. He had even dedicated the tune to me on a few gigs because I was the only one in the group who’s home had acctually flooded. When they went to record it I wasn’t called, which wasn’t out of the ordinary because most of the work I got with them was due to sub work and the recordings he historically called another bassist who is a mutual friend and very talented player.
Nevertheless the whole thing broke my heart a little. I consider that flood to be the hardest trial thus far in my life, and I will never forget when I got home from tour to my home being torn apart by friends and family coming to my aid. It gives me goosebumps if I think about it too much. I never brought it up because I didn’t want to cause any commotion over a song that I had no creative rights over, but I still felt like I should have been included given the circumstances. It would have meant the world to me to be a part of that, and it really did come out well, but it wasn’t up to me because it’s not mine.
But the question:
What do you do in a situation like that?
It really just depends on the dynamic of the group and who is primary song writer. Sometimes the writer just has a certain vision of what they want it to be. Sometimes they just don’t consider you like I think happened in my situation.
I think if you can hold a good group of musicians together and have that group perform and record the tunes it’s the best case but at the end of the day it’s all about who has the rights to the music and who is paying for studio time, a lot of times that person is one in the same.
Nevertheless the whole thing broke my heart a little. I consider that flood to be the hardest trial thus far in my life, and I will never forget when I got home from tour to my home being torn apart by friends and family coming to my aid. It gives me goosebumps if I think about it too much. I never brought it up because I didn’t want to cause any commotion over a song that I had no creative rights over, but I still felt like I should have been included given the circumstances. It would have meant the world to me to be a part of that, and it really did come out well, but it wasn’t up to me because it’s not mine.
But the question:
What do you do in a situation like that?
It really just depends on the dynamic of the group and who is primary song writer. Sometimes the writer just has a certain vision of what they want it to be. Sometimes they just don’t consider you like I think happened in my situation.
I think if you can hold a good group of musicians together and have that group perform and record the tunes it’s the best case but at the end of the day it’s all about who has the rights to the music and who is paying for studio time, a lot of times that person is one in the same.
The people who tell you how things will be recorded and by who, in ranking order:
The people who are paying for it
The songwriter
That’s it. Bands are only democracies up to the moment that money and rights come into the picture. And they will, if you’re any good at all. Of course, if you find yourself in the position of having neither and someone else is going to play your parts, you can always walk. Everyone’s replaceable.
OP, good thought provoking post.
The people who are paying for it
The songwriter
That’s it. Bands are only democracies up to the moment that money and rights come into the picture. And they will, if you’re any good at all. Of course, if you find yourself in the position of having neither and someone else is going to play your parts, you can always walk. Everyone’s replaceable.
OP, good thought provoking post.
I don't recall seeing that question asked, but since you've asked it now: If you can play a lot of different roles, that's great. Why would you care what anyone else thought about it? I'm useless as an engineer, but I've played bass, guitar, and small percussion instruments on studio gigs, and I don't recall anyone making an issue out of it. Am I missing something?
So to set the record straight (swear to god no pun was intended)... you're just the engineer who happens to also be a multi-instrumentalist, and the songwriter of a band that booked a session with you has approached you either before/after tracking instrumentals to see if you could get closer to what was intended when the band didn't meet their expectations. Correct?
In that case, I think you should be given credits for playing whichever parts that you tracked or wrote for the songwriter. You probably won't be given credits, though. As someone pointed out earlier, it's not all that uncommon for bands to have studio musicians track and produce their stuff, and I'm sure it's also common for things to get changed around because the bands aren't always professionally trained. This is pretty unfortunate. I personally could not live with myself if I was stuck in this kind of situation because I actually do value the music that is original, creative, and written exclusively by the artists.... unfortunately, the music industry is not a meritocracy.
Well, to be fair, your OP was intentionally vague and somewhat misleading.
And no one IN a band takes kindly to being bumped when it comes to recording time. Yes, we're side men, but we're not lackeys, or ego less saints. I can think of one project where a fairly complex part (guitar) I played was trashed in favor of a hired side man (sax), and while I did agree it sounded good, better even, it still hurt a bit. But it was a good learning experience for me, I was young and raw.
The song and the recording are two different things. If it's your song, it's not costing the band any money, and you're releasing it as yourself, record it however you want. If the recording is going to involve the band's time, money or name, then the band members have an interest and they are entitled to have a say in the process.
The key to all of this is communicating clearly with the involved parties prior to any action being taken.
The key to all of this is communicating clearly with the involved parties prior to any action being taken.
It all comes down to who is paying for it, who is getting credit for it. If it's not a situation like I had assumed earlier it would be, where the full band is involved in the creative process as a unit, and if the songwriter is paying for the recording and expects to receive whatever profits might be made from it, then he or she has every right to direct and produce it as she sees fit.
I have songs that I would never bring to either of the bands I play in because neither of those bands would get the music or the vibe right. So I guess I don't really understand how it works that a band compromises with what it's playing live and then goes into the studio and does something different. I would assume that what they're doing live is not going to change at that point, so no one is going to get that as part of the live experience.
But that's a creative decision on the part of the songwriter, I guess, to be okay with something half-baked as a live performance.
ETA: I just realized that what I guess I'm saying is that the songwriter needs a better band to begin with.
I have songs that I would never bring to either of the bands I play in because neither of those bands would get the music or the vibe right. So I guess I don't really understand how it works that a band compromises with what it's playing live and then goes into the studio and does something different. I would assume that what they're doing live is not going to change at that point, so no one is going to get that as part of the live experience.
But that's a creative decision on the part of the songwriter, I guess, to be okay with something half-baked as a live performance.
ETA: I just realized that what I guess I'm saying is that the songwriter needs a better band to begin with.
I think that philosophy is the crux of the issue and speaks volumes about the present dilemma.
If the bass player had been more sensitive to and learned "the notes" on stage that the songwriter REALLY wants played on this song, it's far more likely the bass player would get the nod in the studio.
Taking that "I just go for energy, not notes when playing live" philosophy too far gets you sidelined in the studio. The song should have been arranged and played live to the songwriter's satisfaction from the start.
For fledgling bands on a tight budget, stage time is rehearsal for the studio. It seems the songwriter got one sound/performance on stage, but isn't happy with it and willing to commit that performance to a recording for prosperity.
Last edited:
As others have hinted, it is not uncommon for players who play on a recording and players who play live for the same band and song to be completely different people. That's the songwriter's prerogative.
I know you said this isn't about money, but if you're paying for the studio time, I'd raise a stink anyway. And sometimes the producer has other ideas.
I know you said this isn't about money, but if you're paying for the studio time, I'd raise a stink anyway. And sometimes the producer has other ideas.