Page 4 of 4
Posted: 23 May 2014, 22:05
by sukhoi
Posted: 23 May 2014, 22:15
by Joy
Thank you!!
Posted: 23 May 2014, 23:03
by Nikolas Vitus Lagartija
LyanvisAberrant wrote:Hey, while we're on the subject of Sound and live bass, can anyone give me a clear answer as to why they actually... don't have a bassist? I mean, I would gladly take the job and play with them and even pay for the costs, if they provided the equipment which I simply don't have
There basically isn't a decent answer to your perfectly reasonable question. I can understand that it may have initially been a short term imperative to have no live bass, but it does pose the question "why stop there?". Why not just put the guitar on there too and have done with it. There have always been folk who thought that having the drum machine was somehow cheating, but a lot of casual punters paying fifty euros for a gig ticket are understandably a bit miffed to find that 50% of the sound is a pre-recorded backing track, just one step up the evolutionary scale from the "playback" performances the latest chart fodder wannabe puppets will be performing in a nightclub near you round about this time on a Friday night. Live bass would be the quickest and easiest way to restore the band's slightly faded live reputation, but I think it's only marginally more likely than new recorded material.
Posted: 24 May 2014, 22:37
by markreed
If you want to stab one of the band in the neck because his vocals aren't to YOUR taste, consider this :
Firstly, live Sisters in the so-called glory days were often a bloody shambles.
Secondly, Bands don't need fans like you. Stay at home. Listen to the records. And SHUT THE f**k UP.
Posted: 28 May 2014, 18:06
by panzerfaust
clap clap.
bands only need those who nod along.
go do your job.
Posted: 28 May 2014, 18:20
by Quiff Boy
Nikolas Vitus Lagartija wrote:LyanvisAberrant wrote:Hey, while we're on the subject of Sound and live bass, can anyone give me a clear answer as to why they actually... don't have a bassist? I mean, I would gladly take the job and play with them and even pay for the costs, if they provided the equipment which I simply don't have
There basically isn't a decent answer to your perfectly reasonable question. I can understand that it may have initially been a short term imperative to have no live bass, but it does pose the question "why stop there?". Why not just put the guitar on there too and have done with it. There have always been folk who thought that having the drum machine was somehow cheating, but a lot of casual punters paying fifty euros for a gig ticket are understandably a bit miffed to find that 50% of the sound is a pre-recorded backing track, just one step up the evolutionary scale from the "playback" performances the latest chart fodder wannabe puppets will be performing in a nightclub near you round about this time on a Friday night. Live bass would be the quickest and easiest way to restore the band's slightly faded live reputation, but I think it's only marginally more likely than new recorded material.
Nicely put.
I would also add that most (all?) Sisters basslines are very basic 4/4, and thus easily reproducible on a bass synth/keyboard/whatever.
Technically they are not pre-recorded but pre-programmed, like the Dr.
The guitar parts might be a bit trickier to reproduce effectively (because guitar parts sound awful when played on keyboards - like those midi files of old
). And swapping guitars for samples would be (IMHO) a step too far towards the "backing track" scenario you describe.
It would also leave a bloody huge hole stage-left and stage-right that even Andrew with his pacing around wouldn't be able to fill.
Me? I'd love a real bass sound on stage. If nothing else it adds some bottom-end from the speakers on stage, rather than the big hole we have in the middle of the soundstage right now (the doc and the bass all seem to come from the PA on either side of the stage, where as the guitars and vox also come from amps in the middle, filling in the soundstage). Think of when you're mixing and you pan channels hard-left and hard-right, and it leaves a big gap in the middle - typically that's where you put the drums and bass in a mix
)
But then I'm no sound guy so I may be talking out of my arse there. But that's how it feels to me, anyway
Posted: 29 May 2014, 09:46
by markfiend
panzerfaust wrote:clap clap.
bands only need those who nod along.
go do your job.
Have you ever heard of the first rule of holes? As in, when you find yourself in one, stop digging.
Posted: 26 Jun 2014, 09:56
by Joy
Posted: 26 Jun 2014, 11:17
by Being645
...
...
Posted: 27 Jun 2014, 17:43
by czuczu
Quiff Boy wrote:Nikolas Vitus Lagartija wrote:LyanvisAberrant wrote:Hey, while we're on the subject of Sound and live bass, can anyone give me a clear answer as to why they actually... don't have a bassist? I mean, I would gladly take the job and play with them and even pay for the costs, if they provided the equipment which I simply don't have
There basically isn't a decent answer to your perfectly reasonable question. I can understand that it may have initially been a short term imperative to have no live bass, but it does pose the question "why stop there?". Why not just put the guitar on there too and have done with it. There have always been folk who thought that having the drum machine was somehow cheating, but a lot of casual punters paying fifty euros for a gig ticket are understandably a bit miffed to find that 50% of the sound is a pre-recorded backing track, just one step up the evolutionary scale from the "playback" performances the latest chart fodder wannabe puppets will be performing in a nightclub near you round about this time on a Friday night. Live bass would be the quickest and easiest way to restore the band's slightly faded live reputation, but I think it's only marginally more likely than new recorded material.
Nicely put.
I would also add that most (all?) Sisters basslines are very basic 4/4, and thus easily reproducible on a bass synth/keyboard/whatever.
Technically they are not pre-recorded but pre-programmed, like the Dr.
The guitar parts might be a bit trickier to reproduce effectively (because guitar parts sound awful when played on keyboards - like those midi files of old
). And swapping guitars for samples would be (IMHO) a step too far towards the "backing track" scenario you describe.
It would also leave a bloody huge hole stage-left and stage-right that even Andrew with his pacing around wouldn't be able to fill.
Me? I'd love a real bass sound on stage. If nothing else it adds some bottom-end from the speakers on stage, rather than the big hole we have in the middle of the soundstage right now (the doc and the bass all seem to come from the PA on either side of the stage, where as the guitars and vox also come from amps in the middle, filling in the soundstage). Think of when you're mixing and you pan channels hard-left and hard-right, and it leaves a big gap in the middle - typically that's where you put the drums and bass in a mix
)
But then I'm no sound guy so I may be talking out of my arse there. But that's how it feels to me, anyway
This might sound a little heathen & retro but I think they could resolve a truckload of issues if their live mix was mono. (i reworded that cos fuckload isn't picked up by the swearfilter!)
Also, has anything had an actual bassline since Romeo Down? The occasional audible melody wouldn't hurt - they used to call it songwriting..
