Big up front guitars

[DarkFriend]

In my opinion, its all about your guitar sound and EQ, not about how loud it is in the mix.

For a recent song, I recorded a guitar part as follows:

1) Bar chords using a Big Muff/Smashing Pumpkins sound, playing mostly the bottom three strings
2) Same chords but using traditional fingering using a crunchy, brighter sound, playing mostly the upper three strings
3) Double track both
4) EQ out the bottom mud where the bass already sits
5) Pan 75% left and 75% right

This made a unique, full, rich sound that sat nicely behind the vocals.

 

[DarkFriend]

Also..

For the first time, I'm not sure I agree with Glen completely. A lot of the powerpop/rock/alternative music I listen to has double-tracked guitars. Bands like Fountains of Wayne, Vertical Horizon, Owsley, etc., all double track constantly.

The real trick in my opinion is NOT double tracking for the entire song. It is tempting to keep it in as it sounds cool, big, rich, etc. But the idea is to sprinkle its use at appropriate times only, traditionally only in the song's chorus.

 

[Riffmaster]

A great thread, I don't know the number of people who've told me to copy guitar tracks and hard pan them. This discussion is gonna change the way I go about recording guitar tracks. Thanks for some insightful and informative information guys.

 

[jtees4]

Oh, please. You're going to sit there and tell me that jump rock, 50s rock, Delta rock, Piedmont rock, Tex-mex rock, latino rock, rockabilly, alt-rockabilly, bubblegum, rhythm n' rock, surf rock, fusion rock, psychadelia rock, space rock, Jersey rock, country rock, just plain ol' rock n' roll, or any blend of those use multipled lines lines in anything but an extreme minority of cases? Name the top rock acts of the past 50 years, you'd you'll be lucky to fine more than a couple of them that swung that way very often.

You headbangers really do need to get out more. The whole idea that there is no life beyond Van Halen other than Miley Cyrus and Justin Timberlake is just plain sad.

G.

DO NOT make fun of The MileSTRESS!!!

 

[BrentDomann]

Double-tracking may not be a bad idea, but 32 guitar parts is getting stupid IMHO. Try recording the guitars in stereo. You may find that you get that extra bloom you need without 50,000 mono tracks sitting in weird places in your panning field eating up the space you need for the ride or the "just to the left" echo you want on that guitar solo.

And when I say stereo, I mean something like a dynamic mic at the speaker grille, straight on to the dustcap or perpendicular to the cone angle, and one LDC in the room. If you have a crappy room, try copying a dynamic close-mic track, applying some very slight chorus to the copy, panning them out a bit, and putting a nice stereo reverb on it. If you can hear the chorus, you're using too much. It's true that in order to avoid just having a louder version of your original track, there needs to be some difference in tone or performance in the second take.

Also, it seems few people mention re-amping. Record a clean guitar track into the board. Run that out to as many amps as you want on overdub. Barring any latency issues, it doesn't get any tighter than that.

EDIT: You might also want to read Glen's webpage on Compression. This is something that will help you a ton. If you can get one good fat guitar track down, pay attention to your compression later in the mixing game. It's that last stage of pushing things that can make your whole song really fat - with the caveat that you go a hair too far with it and your mix is going to sound as smashed as Rosie O'Donnell's car seats.

 

[Daisy]

Oh, please. You're going to sit there and tell me that jump rock, 50s rock, Delta rock, Piedmont rock, Tex-mex rock, latino rock, rockabilly, alt-rockabilly, bubblegum, rhythm n' rock, surf rock, fusion rock, psychadelia rock, space rock, Jersey rock, country rock, just plain ol' rock n' roll, or any blend of those use multipled lines lines in anything but an extreme minority of cases?

Yes. I am.

Look SS, just because Glen Miller didn't double-track his brass section, and Frank Sinatra didn't make his stand-up bass player double anything back in your day ... doesn't mean that the only artists in the last 60 years who have employed multiple and doubled guitar lines are somehow in a minority group of mullet-donning metal heads.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Look SS, just because Glen Miller didn't double-track his brass section, and Frank Sinatra didn't make his stand-up bass player double anything back in your day ... doesn't mean that the only artists in the last 60 years who have employed multiple and doubled guitar lines are somehow in a minority group of mullet-donning metal heads.

Oh don't give me that crapola either. I stand by that last statement. Take the top 50 ROCK acts of all time and you'll be able to count the number of them that double-tracked on a regular basis on one hand. It's got nothing to do with "back in the day" and everything to do with people who have very little in the way of an actual working pallate in music making broad statements about what is common and what is not common based upon a knowledge of maybe 1% of the music out there.

To say that most rock music uses multipled guitar lines is just plain ignorant of what is actually out there. Out of the 400 or so albums (rock only) that I have including 200+ CDs, there's maybe 10 of them that feature multipled lines, and those are from my late teens when I went through my heavy rock period (Scorpoins, Rainbow, Montrose, Deep Purple, etc.) like most teens that age.

G.

 

[Nightfire]

It would help if we knew what kind of music the original poster was trying to record.
If hes recording rockabilly then obviously double tracking would be a little bit of an uncommon practice.
However, he asked how to get an upfront guitar sound, and double tracking is a legit suggestion since thats exactly what it will do for him Fatten up the guitar sound and bring them to the front without having to push the fader way up and isolating them too much.
Most rock acts nowadays do double track if not 12-time-track. And not just with one guitar and one amp. Often time during tracking you will find artists playing the same parts over and over again with different guitars, and different amp heads. Recording both a dry signal and an amped signal. Then at mixdown the engineer has a variety of options and often times ends up blending something like a Tele through a Blues Junior and a Les Paul through a Messa Boogie for a unique and up-front guitar sound...


Mike

 

[Chris Jahn]

As the originator of the this thread id like to say thanks for the info, most of it is worth a try, and all of it is at least good stimulus for trying new things.

One question though, if i went one of these routes that suggest doubleling, tripleing etc... and then panning all over creation, wont i lose the basic dynamic of STEREO. If i have two distinct guitar tracks, ie: a band with two players, and im doing some of this to make the guitars bigger, wont i lose the basic left right stereo image of two players on stage, or at least the distinction of two seperate parts. Wont some of this kill the dynamics of a song that has two seperate guitar parts and kinda make it all mush together.

Im not saying, im wondering, cause ive tried alot of this to varying degrees and what i said above is kinda the resault.

Very differnt than the genre that i specified in the begining, are the Kings of Leon, GREAT DAMN RECORDINGS for a modern band, and there guitars (although not at all heavy) sound big, upfront, but VERY seperate, like completely far L and R, thats what i want but with heavy super overdriven guitars!

 

[WhiteStrat]

Yes. I am.

Look SS, just because Glen Miller didn't double-track his brass section, and Frank Sinatra didn't make his stand-up bass player double anything back in your day ... doesn't mean that the only artists in the last 60 years who have employed multiple and doubled guitar lines are somehow in a minority group of mullet-donning metal heads.

Great turn of a phrase. Wonder if it will fit as a custom title?

EDIT: Yes, it clearly will. Thanks Daisy.

 

[WhiteStrat]

As the originator of the this thread id like to say thanks for the info, most of it is worth a try, and all of it is at least good stimulus for trying new things.

One question though, if i went one of these routes that suggest doubleling, tripleing etc... and then panning all over creation, wont i lose the basic dynamic of STEREO. If i have two distinct guitar tracks, ie: a band with two players, and im doing some of this to make the guitars bigger, wont i lose the basic left right stereo image of two players on stage, or at least the distinction of two seperate parts. Wont some of this kill the dynamics of a song that has two seperate guitar parts and kinda make it all mush together.

Im not saying, im wondering, cause ive tried alot of this to varying degrees and what i said above is kinda the resault.

Very differnt than the genre that i specified in the begining, are the Kings of Leon, GREAT DAMN RECORDINGS for a modern band, and there guitars (although not at all heavy) sound big, upfront, but VERY seperate, like completely far L and R, thats what i want but with heavy super overdriven guitars!

If you're recording a band with 2 guitarists--you're halfway there. If they're both playing a rhythm part, they will accomplish the double tracking for you. There'll be variety in how they play and how they sound. This was the genesis of double tracking with all the old rock n roll bands with 2 & 3 guitarists. They'd play similar but not exact parts and pan 'em left and right to simulate left and right placement on the stage. Voila, full and big sound.

Now when it comes time to track a lead solo part, you've got some decisions. At this point a lot of two guitar bands will have one guy double track the rhythm part (but much tighter than when the two were playing similar but different parts) while the lead guy goes right down the middle w/the solo. After the solo break, it's back to left and right for the two guitarists.

Please note that left and right can mean any degree of panning from close to far, depending on what works in your mix.

 

[Daisy]

It's got nothing to do with "back in the day" and everything to do with people who have very little in the way of an actual working pallate in music making broad statements about what is common and what is not common based upon a knowledge of maybe 1% of the music out there.

You're talking to a guy who played french horn in college and high school orchestra and marching bands ... along with a little coronet in Jazz band. Not to mention the 15 or so community and semi-pro broadway / theater productions in which I've had leading and support roles. Just re-upped my season tix to the Chicago symphony and have even occasionally stomached (admittedly through clenched teeth) a lyric opera performance or two.

But thanks for the constructive criticism on broadening the musical palette. I'll keep that in mind next time I read another one of your comments that completely dismisses certain music genres as somehow not being legit.

 

[Chris Jahn]

this is true, and when thats the case it does sound best, but with MY band we tend to not have leads, but two distinct rythem parts, Like Fugazi or At the Drive in if your familier with those two, yes there are "leads" at times, but NO solos, so i gues i want BIG guitars with sepertation playing juxtaposed rythmic parts. so in the case of the above suggestions, i feel that what im talking about would sound like a big fat mess.

 

[WhiteStrat]

this is true, and when thats the case it does sound best, but with MY band we tend to not have leads, but two distinct rythem parts, Like Fugazi or At the Drive in if your familier with those two, yes there are "leads" at times, but NO solos, so i gues i want BIG guitars with sepertation playing juxtaposed rythmic parts. so in the case of the above suggestions, i feel that what im talking about would sound like a big fat mess.

Well then I might not be understanding what you're talking about. If you play a song live with two guitarists, who are playing different but complementary parts, and it all sounds good together--you can record it that way too.

Maybe the confusion lies in how you're recording them (maybe not--I'm just taking a guess). If you're thinking of double tracking each of them, then yes, I can see how that could get messy (though I do that too). But if you record each of the two guitarists once, in mono, and then pan them away from each other, you're creating a natural double situation without creating a mess.

Make sense? If not, tell me how you're imagining the "mess"...

 

[Chris Jahn]

The "mess" im imagining would be the resualt of some of the suggestions above. If i use some of these "tricks" to make the idividual guitars sound bigger, then i feel it would make a big messy wall of sound (not the good kind of wall of sound).

If i took some of the others advice, and double or tripled guitar A, put one in the center, one all the way left, one at 70%, panned the reverb to the right, put some delay on another, some chorus on even another, then the same to guitar B, basically all these suggestions ( at least the mixing suggestions, im not really refering to the micing sugestions at this point) i feel i would lose the stereo feel of the song and i would like i said be a mess.

So what i would like to find is a way to get those guitars playing distinct rhythem parts, big, urgent, up front, etc.. but seperate.

Hope this clears it up

 

[true-eurt]

mullet-donning metal heads.

Great turn of a phrase. Wonder if it will fit as a custom title?

EDIT: Yes, it clearly will. Thanks Daisy.

.....

 

[WhiteStrat]

The "mess" im imagining would be the resualt of some of the suggestions above. If i use some of these "tricks" to make the idividual guitars sound bigger, then i feel it would make a big messy wall of sound (not the good kind of wall of sound).

If i took some of the others advice, and double or tripled guitar A, put one in the center, one all the way left, one at 70%, panned the reverb to the right, put some delay on another, some chorus on even another, then the same to guitar B, basically all these suggestions ( at least the mixing suggestions, im not really refering to the micing sugestions at this point) i feel i would lose the stereo feel of the song and i would like i said be a mess.

So what i would like to find is a way to get those guitars playing distinct rhythem parts, big, urgent, up front, etc.. but seperate.

Hope this clears it up

Yeah, that clears it up. The tricks we're talking about are for making one guitar sound nice and big by basically doing it twice. You're dealing with two guitars already. So what I'm saying is try recording the guitars--once each, on mono tracks. Now play with those in your stereo field. Maybe hard left and hard right, but more likely 80-20 or 70-30. The two different guitar tracks are already doing what we suggested as "tricks."

You're right, unless you really know what you're doing, recording each of those guitar parts a bunch of times and moving them all over could definitely create a mess. But if you're up for a challenge and learning experience, consider the following (it's what I do with two separate guitar parts):

I have two distinct rhythm parts--for clarity lets call one Les Paul, and the other Strat. I'll record the Les Paul part twice. Then I record the Strat part twice. Now I send one of the Les Paul parts to the left at "full volume" and I send the doubled Les Paul part to the right at a very low volume. With the Strat part, I do the opposite: send one to the right at "full volume" and one to the left at a much lower volume.

Now I have two separate guitar parts (Les Paul & Strat), each with it's own space on the "listening stage" (the stereo field) but with fullness and texture because each one has a doubled part on the other side. The key here is that the doubled parts are much lower in the mix--this avoids the "mess" you were talking about.

Sorry if this is too confusing. But you've got to practice these techniques just like you practice playing. Try 'em starting with one track per guitar, then move on to doubling and playing with pan & volumes along the way. You'll really only get it by hearing it...

 

[WhiteStrat]

.....

And thank you True. That's more hair than I've had on my head in 15 years!

 

[JTC111]

And thank you True. That's more hair than I've had on my head in 15 years!

That ain't a mullet! THIS is a mullet!

 

[Nightfire]

Also its very important that both your guitars have a distinct tone and sound. If your dealing with two Les Pauls both going through a Marshall with similar settings you'll have trouble getting a nice separation.
Also EQing them differently helps, roll of the lows on both (to make room for bass) and do slightly different settings for each guitar in the mids and/or highs.


Mike