Not being recorded on a song you normally play live.

[waveman]

If there is no money involved and you can't figure out what is on the singers head, then let someone else give it a try. You might learn something. Either way, it sounds like you need to check your ego and let it go and see what develops. It's the songwriter's song, not the band's. In fact, I would be there to see how the songwriter interacts with another person playing the bass line just to get a better understanding.

 

[Nedmundo]

I have been in the position of having to chip in for a recording and discovering that the songwriter had umpteen additional guitar tracks that we had no idea about and I was upset because it pretty much covered up all the nuances and details I had crafted for that bassline. It would have been great to know about that up front... but in addition to that, he wanted to add keys to the mix that was already busy. When confronted about all this, he said everything will be 'tucked'. I ultimately had no say in the final mix when nothing was tucked except the bass - which was reduced to almost nothing, and I was livid because this was supposed to be democratic and everybody chipped in. Really, it was the guitarist's song and I was coaxed into doing the heavy work and paying for it.

So if I ended up in this kind of position again, I'd expect the songwriter to pay, and in addition, I would expect to have a band talk about this, depending on whether or not that person is the BL and calls the shots.

If I was the BL, which I can relate to now because I am trying to do the whole songwriter deal, I would be firing the musicians. This person should not have settled for musicians that can't play the parts of the music he has written... that's a no brainer!

I've been in a couple of situations somewhat like the one described here, and I agree problems are caused by lack of communication and lack of clarity about the nature of the project. Is the project really a band, so that all members have genuine input for live and studio arrangements? Or are the players just support for a songwriter who is, in effect, a solo artist?

In one situation, the band members thought it was the former, but come recording time, it was clearly the latter. If the leader had told us how he planned to approach the recording, I think we would have been cool with it, or at least come to terms with it more easily, but he said nothing about it. He didn't scrub any of our parts, and in fact was very patient with us during recording, but he added so many layers of other stuff that it didn't sound much like the band at all. Eventually, we all acknowledged they sounded great, but we were taken aback initially. (In his subsequent projects, he abandoned the band pretense. He just played everything himself in the studio, and used a rotating cast of players for gigs. He's brilliant, and the stuff was great.)

My last band was truly a band, with the songwriter constantly seeking our input on parts, arrangements, etc. Some tracks changed drastically from his initial vision, so much so that the drummer and I should have had songwriting credit on a few. He was totally into that. He was also open to suggestions for his own guitar parts during recording. But even this laid back dude had his limits. For example, years into the band we learned he absolutely refused to play music written primarily by anyone else -- even if he wrote the lyrics. That was frustrating.

 

[Fishyfishfish]

I would check out Kenny Arnoff’s story with Melloncamp. Much like working for a real company, loyalty has no cash value.

 

[mrcbass]

I do enjoy reading this forum, but never posted any of my own problems because of fear that it could cause drama in life, but I am indeed curious about this particular situation, so let's say that I'm asking for a friend here...

Let's say that a songwriter writes a song and brings it to a band. The band loves it, the band learns it, it becomes part of the live set, and then eventually, the band decides to record it. Now, the songwriter has always had specific ideas on how the song should sound, but didn't ever insist on playing that way live because live performance is more about energy than about specific notes, anyway.

But during recording time, songwriter decides, the live arrangement isn't going to be recorded because it's too simple. Hence, now, there are specific parts that nobody in the band has learned yet that need to be played a certain way to make this new arrangement work. What is the etiquette for recording those written parts?

Should the songwriter offer to give other band members the opportunity to learn these parts exactly and then to record them? What if the player doesn't want to learn them or if they are too technically advanced for a particular player? Is it then OK for someone else to record the parts? And if all this just seems like a huge waste of time to get a result that's probably not going to be better than just doing it by oneself in the first place, is it OK not to ask at all? What if the songwriter has tried to get the band to play a certain way in the past, only for the effort to fizzle out, and compromised on a working live arrangement which has kind of taken off in its own way, but still wants to record it the other way? It's not so much that the live version is bad, it's that it's not true to the vision of the song.

If you were the person in the songwriter's seat, having to deal with band members who can play a decent version of a song live, but isn't looking like they'll get you that note-for-note perfect take for your perfect vision of that song, but you know that you can do it in half an hour, what would you do? (Billy Corgan says hi.)

If you were the person who is the one who has learned a song, only to learn that another band member doesn't really feel like whatever you learned is worth recording, what would you do? Would you insist on trying to learn note for note an entirely new part? If it wasn't you on the recording after all, but the overall result is better than what you could have done, would that take your enthusiasm for the output down a notch, nonetheless?

If you learn that a band member's parts are replaced by another band member, would you consider that a sign of a band's weakness, or is it a strength that band members can check their egos for the sake of output?

Once again, asking for a friend.

Yeah, this can be a tough blow to the ego. I'm kind of in this situation myself - except I'm the one contemplating if somebody else should be recording my lines.

I'm in a jazz fusion based original band. Was the second guy on the project. The KB player (writes most of our stuff) has high regards for my playing which I think is unfounded. For most of our songs, I work alone with he KB player to flush out form and modify lines before the guitar and drums get involved. I'm fairly integral to the creation of most of our songs.

I can play the stuff solidly but not always perfect. I know my parts and can play most of them in my sleep, but I just make mistakes - I'm not perfect. Odds are high that I'll miss a note or two during any given song. The degree of my imperfection stands out dramatically on our recent demo recordings.

A clam here and there in a live situation, just passes with little notice most of the time. Recorded, they can just wreck a song. I'm torn about offering them to use another bassist for recording. I don't really want to share tracks of "my band" that I'm not playing on with friends, but I also don't want to share tracks that a brain fart ruins. I'd also be a little worried that someone good enough to come in and lay down my stuff "perfectly", might just add some lines that couldn't execute live.

So yeah I get it. If they were thinking the same thing and approached me with this, I'd likely be good with it. I'd be a little disappointed in myself, but would certainly understand the need for a "perfect" recording. It kind of comes down to what's important to you - if your ego needs you to be on the recordings, then perhaps this isn't a good fit for you. If you are satisfied having fun playing live, then let it go and let the song writers have what they want - it is their art.

 

[JRA]

OP: i would tell your friend not to be 'butthurt'. i would tell your friend that "it works that way, sometimes." i would tell your friend to practice more, even though he probably already knows that!

good luck to you and your friend!

 

[honeyiscool]

Hi! I've been reading all the various replies and getting a lot of insight into the matter. If I haven't responded to you, it's mainly because I was digesting what you said and didn't think I needed to engage a certain point in discussion. It was mainly to gather data and responses, and I think I'm getting a much clearer picture into what goes on in people's minds. It seems that most people are cool with the idea that recording can be a different process from live, but that everyone needs to be above board about the whole thing, and that there shouldn't be surprises.

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.

This is a point I wanted to discuss in detail. I'm not entirely sure it's realistic for the live arrangement of every song to reflect what the platonic ideal for a song should be. Some songs are recorded before they are performed, and some songs are performed before they are recorded. Sometimes, songs have a certain live energy that just really work on a recording, and you can just hit record and it's perfect. But sometimes, the live version just loses something with out the visual aspect of the show, and you need to be more subtle with it. Not only that, but there are logistical issues, too. If a singer is also playing an instrument live, there might be some complex things that are really tough to sing and play at the same time, but in a recording, that's not really an issue. And sometimes, you just don't have enough hands on deck. And sometimes, you might have a song that really just needs to be a soft, solo acoustic recorded ballad, but you just can't do that live, so you work out a live version that doesn't have people leave the dance floor.

The opposite can happen, too. Sometimes, a song that was made in the studio really comes to life when it gets taken on the road and it develops a whole new aspect of it that was missing in the recording. I was watching some live footage of Radiohead the other day when I noticed just how crazy good the live versions of Kid A songs are. I love the album, and I love the songs the way they are recorded, but man, the live versions are so different yet equally good in different ways.

I guess this is where I feel that people really benefit from learning music, not from learning parts. I've met musicians who just care about how to play a song and don't care how that fits into the song. If you know your scales, your chords, and you understand that your parts are just one of the many things that can be done within the framework of the song, then you'll be able to adapt to a new situation. But if you really get married to playing a certain part and you don't think about how it fits into the song, then you can't adapt. You don't necessarily have to learn advanced theory to be able to learn music at a deeper level, but it certainly helps to at least know basics. Like, I feel like, if you're a bass player, you should know, at the very least, what chord is playing on each part of the song, and how that relates to what you're playing.

I've seen some extreme examples of this. As a bass player, I worked with a drummer who was in a band with a singer/songwriter/guitarist and there was a really brilliant, beautiful song that was recorded as a solo guitar + vocal ballad. Then they wanted to do a live version of that song. It was obvious to anybody in the room how it needed to happen. Bass plays a few quiet notes, maybe a couple slow arpeggios, and the drums should mostly stay out of the way and then put a little something on the choruses. But this drummer couldn't get over the fact that this certain arrangement of the song didn't fit the awesome drum beat that had been made up when the song was initially being written. I didn't say it, but every fiber in me was like, "Who cares? This recorded version is really great! It's not about you or your amazing drum beat that you made up. It's a ****ing soft ballad now, just hit your ride cymbal and shut up." Of course, I was just the bass player, so I didn't say anything, but people like that, who seem to care more about what they're playing and how they're playing, rather than what the song needs and requires, really bug me. We didn't even end up playing that song, and it's a shame, it was easily one of the best songs on the album. And all because of the drummer. Drums are not even a melodic instrument, not like we changed the key on you. No wonder the song was recorded without the drummer being around, the song would have been worse with the drummer. If you can't be at least THAT flexible, you'd better be the writer, because otherwise, you're replaceable. And yes, the drummer has been judged since to be replaceable, though the actual replacement hasn't happened yet.

 

[honeyiscool]

Yeah, this can be a tough blow to the ego. I'm kind of in this situation myself - except I'm the one contemplating if somebody else should be recording my lines.

I'm in a jazz fusion based original band. Was the second guy on the project. The KB player (writes most of our stuff) has high regards for my playing which I think is unfounded. For most of our songs, I work alone with he KB player to flush out form and modify lines before the guitar and drums get involved. I'm fairly integral to the creation of most of our songs.

I can play the stuff solidly but not always perfect. I know my parts and can play most of them in my sleep, but I just make mistakes - I'm not perfect. Odds are high that I'll miss a note or two during any given song. The degree of my imperfection stands out dramatically on our recent demo recordings.

A clam here and there in a live situation, just passes with little notice most of the time. Recorded, they can just wreck a song. I'm torn about offering them to use another bassist for recording. I don't really want to share tracks of "my band" that I'm not playing on with friends, but I also don't want to share tracks that a brain fart ruins. I'd also be a little worried that someone good enough to come in and lay down my stuff "perfectly", might just add some lines that couldn't execute live.

So yeah I get it. If they were thinking the same thing and approached me with this, I'd likely be good with it. I'd be a little disappointed in myself, but would certainly understand the need for a "perfect" recording. It kind of comes down to what's important to you - if your ego needs you to be on the recordings, then perhaps this isn't a good fit for you. If you are satisfied having fun playing live, then let it go and let the song writers have what they want - it is their art.

In your situation, I think you have the attitude and humility required to be on a recording. You don't have to be a great player to make a great track.

What I mean by that is this. In this modern era, there are other options for someone like you who perhaps has performance anxiety but the right attitude. When I play engineer, I care precious little for my routine. I care about the performer being comfortable. What's the point of having the best recording chain in the world if the musician is feeling uncomfortable? And if the only problem is that you make too many mistakes for your high standards, all we really need to do is to record multiple takes and punch in. Of course, this will mean everything will take longer, so it might be a lot of studio time, and if you couldn't afford it, I would still want you to have something to show for being in this band.

So, if I'm your engineer, and you brought all of this to me, I would sit down with you and say this: "I understand about your performance anxiety. Can you record and edit your own parts? Here's my Audient id4 and an outboard DI. This is not my usual interface, but I trust these converters 100%. Here's a WAV file of the music without any bass, and here's the click track that goes with it. Put it all into this software. Here are the settings you must use, and here is the file format I want it back in. Give me dry track, no effects, I'll apply those myself. Make sure everything is perfectly aligned. Edit together a track yourself."

There is hope for people like you because you're perfectly aware of your deficiencies. Most engineers want to please people like you. Where I get asked to "fix it" is usually because of laziness in others.

 

[biguglyman]

If money is not an issue, I think the songwriter has the right to do whatever the heck he wants with it when recording. A buddy of mine recorded a cd years ago. I even helped him write one of the songs. When he went to record it (his money) he got another bass player to play on it. Was he better than me? Well, he could play more notes faster than I could. When it came time for the cd release gig, he came to me. I played it. Good gig. IMHO the creator should have final control over his creation.

 

[Skybone]

If the songwriter isn't happy with the live, working version of the song, it should be discussed with all the band members BEFORE the studio to record.

This will allow band members to adjust what and how they play the song, and learn/write the new parts.

If this announcement is made actually in the studio, right before doing the song, then the songwriter is wasting everyone else's time by not allowing them to prepare, and asking them to change the song they're used to playing. However, saying that, the band should try to accommodate the songwriter's vision to the best of their abilities (but without wasting too much time).

 

[JRA]

Of course, I was just the bass player, so I didn't say anything

 

[mellowinman]

A good session player will put his stamp on the creative side of the recording.

Then the band player can learn to play it like that for live performance.

Sometimes that happens.

 

[mrcbass]

In your situation, I think you have the attitude and humility required to be on a recording. You don't have to be a great player to make a great track.

What I mean by that is this. In this modern era, there are other options for someone like you who perhaps has performance anxiety but the right attitude. When I play engineer, I care precious little for my routine. I care about the performer being comfortable. What's the point of having the best recording chain in the world if the musician is feeling uncomfortable? And if the only problem is that you make too many mistakes for your high standards, all we really need to do is to record multiple takes and punch in. Of course, this will mean everything will take longer, so it might be a lot of studio time, and if you couldn't afford it, I would still want you to have something to show for being in this band.

So, if I'm your engineer, and you brought all of this to me, I would sit down with you and say this: "I understand about your performance anxiety. Can you record and edit your own parts? Here's my Audient id4 and an outboard DI. This is not my usual interface, but I trust these converters 100%. Here's a WAV file of the music without any bass, and here's the click track that goes with it. Put it all into this software. Here are the settings you must use, and here is the file format I want it back in. Give me dry track, no effects, I'll apply those myself. Make sure everything is perfectly aligned. Edit together a track yourself."

There is hope for people like you because you're perfectly aware of your deficiencies. Most engineers want to please people like you. Where I get asked to "fix it" is usually because of laziness in others.

Since you seem to be addressing me, it's not really an issue of performance anxiety. Probably the opposite for most tunes when recording. I know them so well, that I'm a bit too relaxed and just get lost in the groove. Yes I can and have redone tracks or parts of tracks from home. And so far, we're recording in a bedroom studio for peanuts so right now, money isn't a concern. I guess I'm a bit concerned what will happen if we go to a real studio for "real" non-demo recordings.

And thanks for your perspective, but the point of my post really wasn't meant to be about "me". I was mostly providing another angle on how to look at "somebody else recording my line".

 

[electracoyote]

Hi! I've been reading all the various replies and getting a lot of insight into the matter. If I haven't responded to you, it's mainly because I was digesting what you said and didn't think I needed to engage a certain point in discussion. It was mainly to gather data and responses, and I think I'm getting a much clearer picture into what goes on in people's minds. It seems that most people are cool with the idea that recording can be a different process from live, but that everyone needs to be above board about the whole thing, and that there shouldn't be surprises.


This is a point I wanted to discuss in detail. I'm not entirely sure it's realistic for the live arrangement of every song to reflect what the platonic ideal for a song should be. Some songs are recorded before they are performed, and some songs are performed before they are recorded. Sometimes, songs have a certain live energy that just really work on a recording, and you can just hit record and it's perfect. But sometimes, the live version just loses something with out the visual aspect of the show, and you need to be more subtle with it. Not only that, but there are logistical issues, too. If a singer is also playing an instrument live, there might be some complex things that are really tough to sing and play at the same time, but in a recording, that's not really an issue. And sometimes, you just don't have enough hands on deck. And sometimes, you might have a song that really just needs to be a soft, solo acoustic recorded ballad, but you just can't do that live, so you work out a live version that doesn't have people leave the dance floor.

The opposite can happen, too. Sometimes, a song that was made in the studio really comes to life when it gets taken on the road and it develops a whole new aspect of it that was missing in the recording. I was watching some live footage of Radiohead the other day when I noticed just how crazy good the live versions of Kid A songs are. I love the album, and I love the songs the way they are recorded, but man, the live versions are so different yet equally good in different ways.

I guess this is where I feel that people really benefit from learning music, not from learning parts. I've met musicians who just care about how to play a song and don't care how that fits into the song. If you know your scales, your chords, and you understand that your parts are just one of the many things that can be done within the framework of the song, then you'll be able to adapt to a new situation. But if you really get married to playing a certain part and you don't think about how it fits into the song, then you can't adapt. You don't necessarily have to learn advanced theory to be able to learn music at a deeper level, but it certainly helps to at least know basics. Like, I feel like, if you're a bass player, you should know, at the very least, what chord is playing on each part of the song, and how that relates to what you're playing.

I've seen some extreme examples of this. As a bass player, I worked with a drummer who was in a band with a singer/songwriter/guitarist and there was a really brilliant, beautiful song that was recorded as a solo guitar + vocal ballad. Then they wanted to do a live version of that song. It was obvious to anybody in the room how it needed to happen. Bass plays a few quiet notes, maybe a couple slow arpeggios, and the drums should mostly stay out of the way and then put a little something on the choruses. But this drummer couldn't get over the fact that this certain arrangement of the song didn't fit the awesome drum beat that had been made up when the song was initially being written. I didn't say it, but every fiber in me was like, "Who cares? This recorded version is really great! It's not about you or your amazing drum beat that you made up. It's a ****ing soft ballad now, just hit your ride cymbal and shut up." Of course, I was just the bass player, so I didn't say anything, but people like that, who seem to care more about what they're playing and how they're playing, rather than what the song needs and requires, really bug me. We didn't even end up playing that song, and it's a shame, it was easily one of the best songs on the album. And all because of the drummer. Drums are not even a melodic instrument, not like we changed the key on you. No wonder the song was recorded without the drummer being around, the song would have been worse with the drummer. If you can't be at least THAT flexible, you'd better be the writer, because otherwise, you're replaceable. And yes, the drummer has been judged since to be replaceable, though the actual replacement hasn't happened yet.

Well, as elaborate and philosophical as that may be, one thing stands: The live bass player got benched for the studio track.

Make of that what you will.

I know how I would have handled it to ensure I was the bass player both on the stage and in the studio.

 

[mohrds]

It seems to me that too many people are going into the studio unprepared.

You should be decided on what you want to do and practice it that way for weeks so you are tight when you walk in the door. The studio is no place to bring up ideas you've had for a while on major changes.

Yes, new ideas come to light in the studio. That is part of the magic. Heck, we've written and recorded entire new songs while the engineer was setting up mics and getting levels, but you should not walk into the studio without a solid plan.

We always sent a recording of the practice to the engineer a couple weeks ahead so they'd be familiar and had a chance to make any suggestions for changes before we showed up at the studio. It was discussed when the studio was booked and price agreed upon, so the engineer was more than happy to get paid to just listen to us ahead of time. It also gave them a chance to think about what effects or mixing they thought would go well with the songs.

 

[mohrds]

But during recording time, songwriter decides, the live arrangement isn't going to be recorded because it's too simple. Hence, now, there are specific parts that nobody in the band has learned yet that need to be played a certain way to make this new arrangement work. What is the etiquette for recording those written parts?

I do not believe for one minute that this was first thought of at the studio. The songwriter probably had this on their mind for a while. They either didn't respect the other band members enough to talk about it at practice or didn't care how it affected them or the studio engineer. All it did was waste studio time and create animosity between people.

 

[Omega Monkey]

The whole concept of a democratic band is a hoot - more so for one doing originals and recording. If the band did ever get "signed" it would just be (one or more of - not necessarily all of) the songwriters and vocalist. The rest of you would be Pete Best'd .

What did you just time warp here from 1965? I don't think this has been the rule since at least the early 90s. And is mainly prevalent if you're foolish enough to try to be making "hit" music.

Anyway, this thread is kind of a jumbled mess. Why don't people just ask what they want to ask?

I think a lot of the issues brought up in this thread depend on the dynamic of the band (or "band"). Is it an ACTUAL band, or is it 1 guy with sidemen? If it's "1 guy with sidemen" that means that 1 guy is paying for everything. Essentially, dollars get votes. Sorry, but I'm not paying to record "your" song where I don't get any creative input or stake in the outcome.

As far as arrangements, I think a recording is the time to be a little more expansive/experimental, get into layering parts, etc... Live is live. Obviously there are certain challenges and restrictions and logistical issues when playing live. The string quartet probably can't tour with you to play on one song, so the keyboard player has to use samples to approximate. Or maybe the arrangement is just really different. Some bands weirdly do more elaborate arrangements live. Watch some hiphop/r&b performances at awards shows and things. Wait, why didn't they use this badass drummer on the album and do all these cool transitions and changes that make the song actually interesting?

As far as other external people stepping in, again it depends on the situation. But that should be figured out well beforehand. Sometimes people have a failure of imagination and if the songwriter or producer lays down a guide track (maybe not even on the same instrument, like playing a bass line on guitar), then the band member can recreate it. Sometimes maybe they can't recreate it. Is the band a going concern? Maybe it makes more sense to work with what you have rather than having Victor Wooten play bass on your album when you have Mike Dirnt in the band. How can you maximize the talent on hand in the band? That's a producer's job after all, to get the most out of the band, not to just play everything themselves. That makes more sense when you're just working with a singer who's got great lyrics and melodies, but maybe needs help with arrangements and someone to actual play and/or program parts.

But if the producer/engineer/session musician DOES play, they should definitely be credited. Especially if the actual band members are not very good, it just appears more on the up and up if parts on the album are credited. Then the audience when they see the band live aren't like "***, this guy played a killer solo on the album and now it sounds like crap!". Hopefully the band as a whole brings something to the live experience to make THAT worthwhile for the audience, so they add some session parts on the album to make THAT worthwhile for the audience, in ways they maybe couldn't do themselves.