Doubling vocals

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.
 
That's a rather heroic claim. Fortunately, "from what I've been told" doesn't constitute evidence. For me to accept your claim, I would need something more convincing than that.

Always the consummate skeptic :laughings: Truth GZ!
 
I double my vocals, but not so much for an effect. I do it to smooth out my voice. I clone the track then offset the length by a few MS (no delay) - barely noticeable on playback, yet very noticeable when muted.

If I had a clear singing voice like a good ol' country singer (not nasal), I wouldn't use it.
 
One of my songs was reviewed as needing work on the singing, with it being a bit lifeless, which I think, too. Someone said to give it reverb, another said to try Leslie. I imported the singing again, leaving them out of time by milliseconds. I gave one reverb and the other, flanger. Feedback says it works, going as far as to make the lead break fit better.
 
Last edited:
2 performances, separate performances... Yes, one on left, one on right, sometimes no reference of the prior vocal(s),,,
Depends on the desired out come... If really that close, give just a bit of delay to one track after the fact...
We all keep learning. Each song has its own needs,,,
 
T-C Helicon makes a Duplicator unit (about $100) that adds a bit of artifact to a duplicated signal, just enough artifact to make it sound as if not merely a duplicated track (as the intent of the unit.) I recently purchased the unit but have not used it at this juncture for this purpose--it has some other features I found desirable for purchasing.

From another prospective, after recently reading on Sweetwater's InSync about how a producer for a Talking Heads' song had the musicians come in on different notes each using a different musical style (notably, without the playback tracks of the other musicians), I wondered how this would sound vocally instead of seeking a "tight" vocal sound whether of the same singer or a second backup singer--maybe even with harmony parts. Just a notion I'll try when I come across a song this might add something pleasing--JeffF.
 
I double my backing harmony lines more than my main vocal...it thickens the sound, if that's what you are looking for. BTW....I have the ADT and don't really like it...but I did use it subtley recently on a nylon string rhythm part instead of a chorus effect. Nice.
 
I can appreciate this is an older thread but the question made me think. I used to think doubling up the same vocal line was a good thing . In retrospect I now think it's better to correct the reason the original voice needs something . In my case I don't feel doubling really adds anything artistically . it's just trying to fix something that lacking presence without addressing the real problem whatever that may be either artistically or sonically or dynamically .... Not wishing to throw a spanner in the works
 
what jimmy said. It's like a chorus, but better.

Right! If done well and placed appropriately in the mix... :)

Think of a chorus effect used on a single guitar part. It widens the sound quite a bit, but it can kind of washy and phasey. As compared to a second recording of the guitars, when tight, gives a bigger sense of space because it isn't just a modulation of the original. It is two separate instruments. The effect is totally different.


Seems the OP left this thread a while ago. :(

The conversation is still relevant tho.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top