- Song's key means bass is either too high or too low...

[Sock Puppet IV]

Hi,

We're recording a nu-metal version of an old classic, and it turns out that
if we transpose the guitars a whole octave lower, we're right where we want
to be with those, while keeping the cover in the same key as the original
song (which I always try to do if at all possible). The vocals are also
perfect in this key.

However, the bass is in no-man's-land. Keeping it where it was originally,
it's too high for the thick nu-metal sound we want. One octave lower is -
unlike the guitars - too low. Kinda muddy.

We're torn between both versions. We don't know where to put the bass.

Would doubling the very low bass with a midi track that's an octave higher
but much lower in volume be the solution to this problem? We'd keep the
crunch of the real bass right where it is, but fill in the missing tones
with midi.

Is this a sloppy and non-recommended way of doing things, or a viable
solution?

[Mark Steven Brooks]

<<We're recording a nu-metal version of an old classic, and it turns out that
if we transpose the guitars a whole octave lower, we're right where we want
to be with those, while keeping the cover in the same key as the original
song>>

If you've dropped it an octave you haven't changed the key at all.
(Mark Steven Brooks/Elaterium Music)

[Mark Steven Brooks]

<<We're recording a nu-metal version of an old classic, and it turns out that
if we transpose the guitars a whole octave lower, we're right where we want
to be with those, while keeping the cover in the same key as the original
song>>

If you've dropped it an octave you haven't changed the key at all.
(Mark Steven Brooks/Elaterium Music)

[Jon J. Yeager]

"Mark Steven Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> <<We're recording a nu-metal version of an old classic, and it turns out
> that
> if we transpose the guitars a whole octave lower, we're right where we
> want
> to be with those, while keeping the cover in the same key as the original
> song>>
>
> If you've dropped it an octave you haven't changed the key at all.
> (Mark Steven Brooks/Elaterium Music)

You know what I mean. You can mix both songs together, something you
couldn't do otherwise.

[Jon J. Yeager]

"Mark Steven Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> <<We're recording a nu-metal version of an old classic, and it turns out
> that
> if we transpose the guitars a whole octave lower, we're right where we
> want
> to be with those, while keeping the cover in the same key as the original
> song>>
>
> If you've dropped it an octave you haven't changed the key at all.
> (Mark Steven Brooks/Elaterium Music)

You know what I mean. You can mix both songs together, something you
couldn't do otherwise.

[John Washburn]

"Sock Puppet IV" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We're recording a nu-metal version of an old classic, and it turns out
that
> if we transpose the guitars a whole octave lower, we're right where we
want
> to be with those, while keeping the cover in the same key as the original
> song (which I always try to do if at all possible). The vocals are also
> perfect in this key.
>
> However, the bass is in no-man's-land. Keeping it where it was originally,
> it's too high for the thick nu-metal sound we want. One octave lower is -
> unlike the guitars - too low. Kinda muddy.
>
> We're torn between both versions. We don't know where to put the bass.
>

You could try doubling the bass with an octave down (or up, depending on how
you look at it) tucked under, using just enough so it gives you the
thickness.

Or you could split the bass track into two, and squash one so that it sits
and gives you thickness, and distort the other with a low cut so that it's
mostly harmonics and cuts.

Or you could try doubling the bassline with a guitar and sneak that right
behind so that you get some attack while still having bottom.

Or you could try having it the octave up, and then adding a low freq
enhancement device (big bottom? or somesuch).

Or you could try EQ'ing out some of the low end of the guitars so that
they're not fighting with the bass as much.

> Would doubling the very low bass with a midi track that's an octave higher
> but much lower in volume be the solution to this problem? We'd keep the
> crunch of the real bass right where it is, but fill in the missing tones
> with midi.

You could try that too. Without have heard anything or knowing the bass
player, I'd be inclined to try to have him or her do the double with a bass
or guitar before I'd try using a synth. But that's just me.

> Is this a sloppy and non-recommended way of doing things, or a viable
> solution?
>

The better solution is to arrange it in a key where everything sounds right
in the first place. If that's not possible, then you need to do some slight
of hand to get the effect you want. There's nothing wrong with that.

-jw

[John Washburn]

"Sock Puppet IV" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We're recording a nu-metal version of an old classic, and it turns out
that
> if we transpose the guitars a whole octave lower, we're right where we
want
> to be with those, while keeping the cover in the same key as the original
> song (which I always try to do if at all possible). The vocals are also
> perfect in this key.
>
> However, the bass is in no-man's-land. Keeping it where it was originally,
> it's too high for the thick nu-metal sound we want. One octave lower is -
> unlike the guitars - too low. Kinda muddy.
>
> We're torn between both versions. We don't know where to put the bass.
>

You could try doubling the bass with an octave down (or up, depending on how
you look at it) tucked under, using just enough so it gives you the
thickness.

Or you could split the bass track into two, and squash one so that it sits
and gives you thickness, and distort the other with a low cut so that it's
mostly harmonics and cuts.

Or you could try doubling the bassline with a guitar and sneak that right
behind so that you get some attack while still having bottom.

Or you could try having it the octave up, and then adding a low freq
enhancement device (big bottom? or somesuch).

Or you could try EQ'ing out some of the low end of the guitars so that
they're not fighting with the bass as much.

> Would doubling the very low bass with a midi track that's an octave higher
> but much lower in volume be the solution to this problem? We'd keep the
> crunch of the real bass right where it is, but fill in the missing tones
> with midi.

You could try that too. Without have heard anything or knowing the bass
player, I'd be inclined to try to have him or her do the double with a bass
or guitar before I'd try using a synth. But that's just me.

> Is this a sloppy and non-recommended way of doing things, or a viable
> solution?
>

The better solution is to arrange it in a key where everything sounds right
in the first place. If that's not possible, then you need to do some slight
of hand to get the effect you want. There's nothing wrong with that.

-jw

[EricK]

Mark Steven Brooks wrote:

> If you've dropped it an octave you haven't changed the key at all.
> (Mark Steven Brooks/Elaterium Music)

Right, that's what he said.

--
Eric

www.Raw-Tracks.com

[EricK]

Mark Steven Brooks wrote:

> If you've dropped it an octave you haven't changed the key at all.
> (Mark Steven Brooks/Elaterium Music)

Right, that's what he said.

--
Eric

www.Raw-Tracks.com

[Karl Winkler]

"Sock Puppet IV" > wrote in message >...
> Hi,
>
> We're recording a nu-metal version of an old classic, and it turns out that
> if we transpose the guitars a whole octave lower, we're right where we want
> to be with those, while keeping the cover in the same key as the original
> song (which I always try to do if at all possible). The vocals are also
> perfect in this key.
>
> However, the bass is in no-man's-land. Keeping it where it was originally,
> it's too high for the thick nu-metal sound we want. One octave lower is -
> unlike the guitars - too low. Kinda muddy.
>
> We're torn between both versions. We don't know where to put the bass.
>
> Would doubling the very low bass with a midi track that's an octave higher
> but much lower in volume be the solution to this problem? We'd keep the
> crunch of the real bass right where it is, but fill in the missing tones
> with midi.
>
> Is this a sloppy and non-recommended way of doing things, or a viable
> solution?

I'd suggest using a bass with a longer scale so that the strings are
under greater tension. This will make more of a difference than most
people realize. Failing that, I'd suggest playing the bass in the
higher register and synthesizing a lower octave by using a harmonizer
or similar device. That way you keep the attack and the "stringy"
sound, and yet have the LF support you are looking for. Blending the
two carefully should give the illusion of the 9' long bass, played by
(a very musical) sasquatch... <g>

Karl Winkler
Lectrosonics, Inc.
http://www.lectrosonics.com

[Karl Winkler]

"Sock Puppet IV" > wrote in message >...
> Hi,
>
> We're recording a nu-metal version of an old classic, and it turns out that
> if we transpose the guitars a whole octave lower, we're right where we want
> to be with those, while keeping the cover in the same key as the original
> song (which I always try to do if at all possible). The vocals are also
> perfect in this key.
>
> However, the bass is in no-man's-land. Keeping it where it was originally,
> it's too high for the thick nu-metal sound we want. One octave lower is -
> unlike the guitars - too low. Kinda muddy.
>
> We're torn between both versions. We don't know where to put the bass.
>
> Would doubling the very low bass with a midi track that's an octave higher
> but much lower in volume be the solution to this problem? We'd keep the
> crunch of the real bass right where it is, but fill in the missing tones
> with midi.
>
> Is this a sloppy and non-recommended way of doing things, or a viable
> solution?

I'd suggest using a bass with a longer scale so that the strings are
under greater tension. This will make more of a difference than most
people realize. Failing that, I'd suggest playing the bass in the
higher register and synthesizing a lower octave by using a harmonizer
or similar device. That way you keep the attack and the "stringy"
sound, and yet have the LF support you are looking for. Blending the
two carefully should give the illusion of the 9' long bass, played by
(a very musical) sasquatch... <g>

Karl Winkler
Lectrosonics, Inc.
http://www.lectrosonics.com

[Mikey]

"Sock Puppet IV" > wrote in message >...
> Hi,
>
> We're recording a nu-metal version of an old classic, and it turns out that
> if we transpose the guitars a whole octave lower, we're right where we want
> to be with those, while keeping the cover in the same key as the original
> song (which I always try to do if at all possible). The vocals are also
> perfect in this key.
>
> However, the bass is in no-man's-land. Keeping it where it was originally,
> it's too high for the thick nu-metal sound we want. One octave lower is -
> unlike the guitars - too low. Kinda muddy.
>
> We're torn between both versions. We don't know where to put the bass.
>
> Would doubling the very low bass with a midi track that's an octave higher
> but much lower in volume be the solution to this problem? We'd keep the
> crunch of the real bass right where it is, but fill in the missing tones
> with midi.
>
> Is this a sloppy and non-recommended way of doing things, or a viable
> solution?

My pet peeve.

Repeat after me:

Electric guitar is a mid-range instrument.
Electric Bass guitar is a bass instrument.

If electric guitar was meant to be an octave lower, it's neck would be
longer and it would be called a 'bass guitar'. If electric bass guitar
was meant to be an octave lower, it's neck would be longer and it
would be called something else.

You can double an octave above the bass, but you will still have a
mess on the bottom end, and the doubled octave will fight with the
dropped guitars.

It's not about bass, it's about music. Learn how to arrange (you're
learning a lesson in arrangement already). Why keep the song in the
original key? Be yourself.

Mikey Wozniak
Nova Music Productions
This sig is haiku

[Mikey]

"Sock Puppet IV" > wrote in message >...
> Hi,
>
> We're recording a nu-metal version of an old classic, and it turns out that
> if we transpose the guitars a whole octave lower, we're right where we want
> to be with those, while keeping the cover in the same key as the original
> song (which I always try to do if at all possible). The vocals are also
> perfect in this key.
>
> However, the bass is in no-man's-land. Keeping it where it was originally,
> it's too high for the thick nu-metal sound we want. One octave lower is -
> unlike the guitars - too low. Kinda muddy.
>
> We're torn between both versions. We don't know where to put the bass.
>
> Would doubling the very low bass with a midi track that's an octave higher
> but much lower in volume be the solution to this problem? We'd keep the
> crunch of the real bass right where it is, but fill in the missing tones
> with midi.
>
> Is this a sloppy and non-recommended way of doing things, or a viable
> solution?

My pet peeve.

Repeat after me:

Electric guitar is a mid-range instrument.
Electric Bass guitar is a bass instrument.

If electric guitar was meant to be an octave lower, it's neck would be
longer and it would be called a 'bass guitar'. If electric bass guitar
was meant to be an octave lower, it's neck would be longer and it
would be called something else.

You can double an octave above the bass, but you will still have a
mess on the bottom end, and the doubled octave will fight with the
dropped guitars.

It's not about bass, it's about music. Learn how to arrange (you're
learning a lesson in arrangement already). Why keep the song in the
original key? Be yourself.

Mikey Wozniak
Nova Music Productions
This sig is haiku

[Tapani Rauha]

> it turns out
> that
> > if we transpose the guitars a whole octave lower, we're right where we
> want
> > to be with those,

You must have some heavy gauge strings if you are retuning guitars one
octave lower? or are you just playing the key riffs one octave lower
with normal tuning? Just curious. Sounds like a great project!

Tapani

[Tapani Rauha]

> it turns out
> that
> > if we transpose the guitars a whole octave lower, we're right where we
> want
> > to be with those,

You must have some heavy gauge strings if you are retuning guitars one
octave lower? or are you just playing the key riffs one octave lower
with normal tuning? Just curious. Sounds like a great project!

Tapani

[knud]

If the guitars are literally an octave down, there may not be room for bass in
the arrangement. Its hard to say what you mean, if the riff was originally low
in the guitars range and you literally detuned the guitar an octave somehow,
then the guitar is no longer a guitar but a bass with really wimpy strings.
"I'm beginning to suspect that your problem is the gap between
what you say and what you think you have said."
-george (paraphrased)

[knud]

If the guitars are literally an octave down, there may not be room for bass in
the arrangement. Its hard to say what you mean, if the riff was originally low
in the guitars range and you literally detuned the guitar an octave somehow,
then the guitar is no longer a guitar but a bass with really wimpy strings.
"I'm beginning to suspect that your problem is the gap between
what you say and what you think you have said."
-george (paraphrased)

[knud]

Try a contrabassoon or something!

If the guitars are really detuned an octave (how did you pull that off?
Happen to be some kind of master luthier?) then you really don't need bass
logistically. In fact the "bass part" becomes a sub bass at that point, well
below the range any electric bass is designed to play.


"I'm beginning to suspect that your problem is the gap between
what you say and what you think you have said."
-george (paraphrased)

[knud]

Try a contrabassoon or something!

If the guitars are really detuned an octave (how did you pull that off?
Happen to be some kind of master luthier?) then you really don't need bass
logistically. In fact the "bass part" becomes a sub bass at that point, well
below the range any electric bass is designed to play.


"I'm beginning to suspect that your problem is the gap between
what you say and what you think you have said."
-george (paraphrased)

[meandeanmachine]

What key is the song in?

If the bass player is using a 4 string bass where the lowest string is
E, maybe try using a 5 sting bass where the lowest string is a B below
the E.

What I have done on my 4 string bass is to buy a 5 string set and just
use the lowest 4 strings, essentially giving me, a 4 string player
that additional lower 4th. If the song is in the key of B C or D that
might be the trick.

you might try applying some music theory and re write some bass lines
incorporating some inversions, it might be better than the original
typical bass lock step to chord root syndrom.

You might try adjusting you kick/bass mix and EQ, the kick and the
bass may not be sincing well making it muddy. You may have to re
record the drums and the bass so they compliment each other.

[meandeanmachine]

What key is the song in?

If the bass player is using a 4 string bass where the lowest string is
E, maybe try using a 5 sting bass where the lowest string is a B below
the E.

What I have done on my 4 string bass is to buy a 5 string set and just
use the lowest 4 strings, essentially giving me, a 4 string player
that additional lower 4th. If the song is in the key of B C or D that
might be the trick.

you might try applying some music theory and re write some bass lines
incorporating some inversions, it might be better than the original
typical bass lock step to chord root syndrom.

You might try adjusting you kick/bass mix and EQ, the kick and the
bass may not be sincing well making it muddy. You may have to re
record the drums and the bass so they compliment each other.

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:25:40 -0500, "Sock Puppet IV"
> wrote:

>We're recording a nu-metal version of an old classic, and it turns out that
>if we transpose the guitars a whole octave lower, we're right where we want
>to be with those, while keeping the cover in the same key as the original
>song (which I always try to do if at all possible). The vocals are also
>perfect in this key.

Well, they would be! It hasn't changed :-)

>
>However, the bass is in no-man's-land. Keeping it where it was originally,
>it's too high for the thick nu-metal sound we want. One octave lower is -
>unlike the guitars - too low. Kinda muddy.
>
>We're torn between both versions. We don't know where to put the bass.
>
>Would doubling the very low bass with a midi track that's an octave higher
>but much lower in volume be the solution to this problem? We'd keep the
>crunch of the real bass right where it is, but fill in the missing tones
>with midi.
>
>Is this a sloppy and non-recommended way of doing things, or a viable
>solution?

It's worth trying. But, in this case, seems to have led you into a
dead end.

Are you PLAYING these guitar parts on guitars? Or playing them, then
processing the track? Or synthesising the sound?

Maybe you like the low guitars because, by themselves, they contain
the "Nu-metal" sound (whatever that is?). But they don't contain the
bass notes, and leave no room for them. A classic example of
over-focusing on one track and forgetting about the song?


CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:25:40 -0500, "Sock Puppet IV"
> wrote:

>We're recording a nu-metal version of an old classic, and it turns out that
>if we transpose the guitars a whole octave lower, we're right where we want
>to be with those, while keeping the cover in the same key as the original
>song (which I always try to do if at all possible). The vocals are also
>perfect in this key.

Well, they would be! It hasn't changed :-)

>
>However, the bass is in no-man's-land. Keeping it where it was originally,
>it's too high for the thick nu-metal sound we want. One octave lower is -
>unlike the guitars - too low. Kinda muddy.
>
>We're torn between both versions. We don't know where to put the bass.
>
>Would doubling the very low bass with a midi track that's an octave higher
>but much lower in volume be the solution to this problem? We'd keep the
>crunch of the real bass right where it is, but fill in the missing tones
>with midi.
>
>Is this a sloppy and non-recommended way of doing things, or a viable
>solution?

It's worth trying. But, in this case, seems to have led you into a
dead end.

Are you PLAYING these guitar parts on guitars? Or playing them, then
processing the track? Or synthesising the sound?

Maybe you like the low guitars because, by themselves, they contain
the "Nu-metal" sound (whatever that is?). But they don't contain the
bass notes, and leave no room for them. A classic example of
over-focusing on one track and forgetting about the song?


CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Geoff Wood]

"Sock Puppet IV" > wrote in message news:tbNkd.20474
>
> Would doubling the very low bass with a midi track that's an octave higher
> but much lower in volume be the solution to this problem? We'd keep the
> crunch of the real bass right where it is, but fill in the missing tones
> with midi.
>
> Is this a sloppy and non-recommended way of doing things, or a viable
> solution?


You could choose a bridge pickup (if available) and/or crank the hi tone...

geoff

[Geoff Wood]

"Sock Puppet IV" > wrote in message news:tbNkd.20474
>
> Would doubling the very low bass with a midi track that's an octave higher
> but much lower in volume be the solution to this problem? We'd keep the
> crunch of the real bass right where it is, but fill in the missing tones
> with midi.
>
> Is this a sloppy and non-recommended way of doing things, or a viable
> solution?


You could choose a bridge pickup (if available) and/or crank the hi tone...

geoff

[james of tucson]

On 2004-11-13, meandeanmachine > wrote:

> What key is the song in?
>
> If the bass player is using a 4 string bass where the lowest string is
> E, maybe try using a 5 sting bass where the lowest string is a B below
> the E.

That's uncommon enough a request to need custom work.
The 5th string on a 5 string bass is toward treble.
It's quite common to have a C-extension on upright basses.
Put a LPF on it if it's not bass enough for you! Or let the
Hammond player do it with his feet!

[james of tucson]

On 2004-11-13, meandeanmachine > wrote:

> What key is the song in?
>
> If the bass player is using a 4 string bass where the lowest string is
> E, maybe try using a 5 sting bass where the lowest string is a B below
> the E.

That's uncommon enough a request to need custom work.
The 5th string on a 5 string bass is toward treble.
It's quite common to have a C-extension on upright basses.
Put a LPF on it if it's not bass enough for you! Or let the
Hammond player do it with his feet!

[Geoff Wood]

"james of tucson" > wrote in message
atory.com...
> On 2004-11-13, meandeanmachine > wrote:
>
>> What key is the song in?
>>
>> If the bass player is using a 4 string bass where the lowest string is
>> E, maybe try using a 5 sting bass where the lowest string is a B below
>> the E.
>
> That's uncommon enough a request to need custom work.
> The 5th string on a 5 string bass is toward treble.
> It's quite common to have a C-extension on upright basses.
> Put a LPF on it if it's not bass enough for you! Or let the
> Hammond player do it with his feet!

I think he might have been referring to a 5-string bass GUITAR, in which
case the additional B string is LOWER than the normal low (E) string. I
certainly assumed he is talking bass guitar, esp given the nature of teh
music.

geoff

[Geoff Wood]

"james of tucson" > wrote in message
atory.com...
> On 2004-11-13, meandeanmachine > wrote:
>
>> What key is the song in?
>>
>> If the bass player is using a 4 string bass where the lowest string is
>> E, maybe try using a 5 sting bass where the lowest string is a B below
>> the E.
>
> That's uncommon enough a request to need custom work.
> The 5th string on a 5 string bass is toward treble.
> It's quite common to have a C-extension on upright basses.
> Put a LPF on it if it's not bass enough for you! Or let the
> Hammond player do it with his feet!

I think he might have been referring to a 5-string bass GUITAR, in which
case the additional B string is LOWER than the normal low (E) string. I
certainly assumed he is talking bass guitar, esp given the nature of teh
music.

geoff

[meandeanmachine]

> > What key is the song in?
> >
> > If the bass player is using a 4 string bass where the lowest string is
> > E, maybe try using a 5 sting bass where the lowest string is a B below
> > the E.
>
> That's uncommon enough a request to need custom work.
> The 5th string on a 5 string bass is toward treble.
> It's quite common to have a C-extension on upright basses.
> Put a LPF on it if it's not bass enough for you! Or let the
> Hammond player do it with his feet!

No it is a standard 4 string yamaha bass guitar, i just put the
thickest string on the top. B E A D is how it is tuned. It works
great.
Why would i want a hammond player to play my chops?

It did not require any custom work, and if you do have to widen your
notch for the string a little bit, so be it. ive done a lot weirder
configuratons with guitars, this is no brainer... very easy.

[meandeanmachine]

> > What key is the song in?
> >
> > If the bass player is using a 4 string bass where the lowest string is
> > E, maybe try using a 5 sting bass where the lowest string is a B below
> > the E.
>
> That's uncommon enough a request to need custom work.
> The 5th string on a 5 string bass is toward treble.
> It's quite common to have a C-extension on upright basses.
> Put a LPF on it if it's not bass enough for you! Or let the
> Hammond player do it with his feet!

No it is a standard 4 string yamaha bass guitar, i just put the
thickest string on the top. B E A D is how it is tuned. It works
great.
Why would i want a hammond player to play my chops?

It did not require any custom work, and if you do have to widen your
notch for the string a little bit, so be it. ive done a lot weirder
configuratons with guitars, this is no brainer... very easy.

[Harry Houdini]

I'm wondering if your room's acoustics aren't coming into play here.
Perhaps the bass tone you're looking for IS there, but you're not
hearing it because of modes, comb-filtering etc.

Harry


On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:25:40 -0500, "Sock Puppet IV"
> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>We're recording a nu-metal version of an old classic, and it turns out that
>if we transpose the guitars a whole octave lower, we're right where we want
>to be with those, while keeping the cover in the same key as the original
>song (which I always try to do if at all possible). The vocals are also
>perfect in this key.
>
>However, the bass is in no-man's-land. Keeping it where it was originally,
>it's too high for the thick nu-metal sound we want. One octave lower is -
>unlike the guitars - too low. Kinda muddy.
>
>We're torn between both versions. We don't know where to put the bass.
>
>Would doubling the very low bass with a midi track that's an octave higher
>but much lower in volume be the solution to this problem? We'd keep the
>crunch of the real bass right where it is, but fill in the missing tones
>with midi.
>
>Is this a sloppy and non-recommended way of doing things, or a viable
>solution?
>