Quote Originally Posted by Snowman999 View Post
I was wrong. Here's what my man told me -

If the song calls for it, fine. On 90% of recordings I did in the early days, there was doubling on pop songs. I never doubled either Rascals leads, but I did on some background vocals. Aretha, please. Dionne Warwick, no. Vanilla Fudge, not that I remember. Iron Butterfly, no, don’t think so. But on many no-name rock acts there was some doubling, even on lead. Rule of thumb: if you think it’s gonna sound good, do it; try it. It’s art; there are no rules. In the 60s and 70s there was a lot of doubling and
tripling.
There is no right or wrong way to record anything. Just what works best for any given project.

I have heard many recordings where double tracking of vocals worked for the project. But in most cases the doubled vocal is so far back in the mix that you would never really hear it. When used that way, it only supports the main vocal track and gives a bit of a chorus effect maybe. The point is that is not something that is always done, but more as an effect for a particular song, and definitely not something you would actually hear. Well, unless it is meant to be heard. That then goes back to what any song needs.

Why was this a topic? Oh yeah...

Sometimes it works, sometimes it is annoying. It just depends on what the song needs.