John Lennon double track vocals

Posted on

Member Since: May 23, 2003

Did George Martin record John Lennon doing the same vocal track twice or just double the first track? This effect is most prominent on With the Beatles.

[ Back to Top ]


Member
Since: Jun 28, 2002


Oct 08, 2003 11:58 am

two different tracks

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Oct 08, 2003 12:05 pm

Ya, last time I talked to George, thats what he told me...

Member
Since: May 23, 2003


Oct 08, 2003 12:08 pm

So the exact same performance would have to be repeated? Would you pan these tracks at all or leave em dead center?

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Oct 08, 2003 12:10 pm

the theory would be to not get the EXACT same performance...slighty different to add some texture.

I would pan them, and George prolly did, he was a big fan of the pan knob.

Cone Poker
Member
Since: Apr 07, 2002


Oct 08, 2003 01:46 pm

wait Db knows george??? lol

Member
Since: Jul 02, 2003


Oct 08, 2003 02:22 pm

All of the Beatles double tracked their lead vocals in nearly all of there songs. Some more pronounced than others. Pick up just about any book written on the Beatles music and you'll find some references to it by none other than GM :) But really all you need to do is carefully listen and you can pick it up in many if not most of the songs. It wasn't limited to the Beatles either, and there are still quite a few singers that do it today.

Dan

Member
Since: Jun 28, 2002


Oct 08, 2003 02:40 pm

i absoultly love over dubing vocals. its by far my favorite technique

Member
Since: May 23, 2003


Oct 08, 2003 03:27 pm

Should I pan in mono or stereo? Sorry if it seems like a redundant question, but I really have just a basic knowledge of recording, which I mostly learned here I might add.

Member
Since: Jun 28, 2002


Oct 08, 2003 05:22 pm

well...do your vocals have stereo effects on them? if they don't then it dosn't matter, its the same thing

a.k.a. Porp & Mr. Muffins
Member
Since: Oct 09, 2002


Oct 08, 2003 06:16 pm

You can't pan something stereo (as a stereo track), if you pan it than you're only hearing one side of it (reffered to as balancing). You should just be recording mono tracks and panning them in the stereo field-- Unless you are using stereo effects, as Brock mentioned. Don't pan them too much-- 50% is probably good. Or if you aren't doubling them all the time than leave one dead center. Maybe double one 50% and a harmoney 50% on the other side or something.

Member
Since: Apr 19, 2002


Oct 08, 2003 07:01 pm

Imagine Gorge Martin with Sonar 3 and Sound Forge...

Any comments on Sonar 3?? It looks amazing!!

a.k.a. Porp & Mr. Muffins
Member
Since: Oct 09, 2002


Oct 08, 2003 07:05 pm

There's a Sonar 3?? Oh boy, I can't wait to see...

a.k.a. Porp & Mr. Muffins
Member
Since: Oct 09, 2002


Oct 08, 2003 07:17 pm

Woah.. Looks like... Cubase SX. Haha. Like-- practically exactly the same. I just hope it retains some of its user friendliness. It's more expensive this time around, too. Looks pretty, though. Sounds like a big step up. Awesome new logo!

Member
Since: Jul 02, 2003


Oct 08, 2003 07:35 pm

I'm with you brock, I overdub all my vocals except backing vocals which I don't find neccessary. I sound like #@$& if I don't LOL

Dan

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Oct 08, 2003 07:47 pm

I doubt I will upgrade Sonar until it supports surround, until that day comes, Sonar already has everything I need plus a lot more.

Contributor
Since: Dec 30, 2002


Oct 08, 2003 08:35 pm

Yes, double tracking is an oft used effect, great on guitar and other "mid and high range" type instruments.

Doesn't work so well at the low end of the spectrum tho...

jues

a.k.a. Porp & Mr. Muffins
Member
Since: Oct 09, 2002


Oct 09, 2003 04:28 pm

Woah, I just noticed it says Sonar 3 supports VST effects! Woooohoooo! Go Cakewalk :) The producer version has built in EQ in the mixer too, which is cool since it appears to be graphic parametric.

The mixer looks much better and the track view is a lot more flexible than before. I'm definately upgrading!

Contributor
Since: Dec 30, 2002


Oct 09, 2003 05:10 pm

hnmmm, good job Cubase has had those features for a looooooooooooong time ;)

Member
Since: Dec 16, 2002


Oct 10, 2003 06:52 am

On doubling up the vocals, I was listening carefully to Bowie's new album yesterday. In many if not most of the songs he doubles up on his voic, at least, and often adds a harmony all the way through.

Armed with this though I went back to a track I'm working on and tried doubling up in the chorus. it worked so well i decided to doubleup all the way through. It sounds so much better to my ears, and if its good enough for Bowie then certainly OK by me!

The only difficulty is tracking your own voice perfectly. It's mainly the endings of sustained notes which catch you out. If you don't hit the constanant at the end of the line at the same time it can sound like an echo! Can take a few goes to get it spot on.

I used to think only poor singers needed to do this kind of thing, but I certainly wouldn't class lennon and Bowie as poor singers!

Member
Since: May 23, 2003


Oct 10, 2003 01:56 pm

Wow, this has been a great thread so far, thanks to all those who have contributed.

I see what you mean about getting the endings right on the money glynb. If your not in synch it sounds like a poor echo imitation. Most of us hear are probably musicians and not vocalists, so you better get ready for a lot of takes.

Since this thread started with John Lennon and his use of double track vocals, I'd like to point out that yesterday would have been his 63rd birthday. What a pity. :(

What do you guys think about doubling harmony's. I heard once that the Beach Boys would double and sometimes triple certain harmony parts, but I find that they take emphasis away from the lead parts. Any tricks out there to help tone down doubled harmony's?

Member
Since: Jul 02, 2003


Oct 10, 2003 02:37 pm

Personally I find that most times it isn't neccessary since you already have 2 or more voices going. It can also start to sound way to thick and just off, for lack of a better word IMO. Of course there can be and always is an exception. :)

Dan

a.k.a. Porp & Mr. Muffins
Member
Since: Oct 09, 2002


Oct 10, 2003 09:52 pm

Jues- Well, that's true... But now we can have the best of both worlds together :)

Member
Since: Dec 16, 2002


Oct 16, 2003 10:37 am

It all depends on the style of music.
My frame of reference is the 70's and 80's - so I can only point to artists of that time in evidence (sorry to all you young guys who don't know who the heck I'm talking about!).

If you listen to Queen, Eagles and E.L.O. as examples the voices (harmonies) are multi-layered and it sounds superb. But that approach wouldn't work if you play rock with a more 'rough/punk' feel to it, you don't want that kind of polish production wise.

Some songs I have done I find that no more than a main vocal (double tracked sometimes) and one harmony is sufficient. One song I did the other day by contrast had a 'war' theme and I wanted it to sound like a whole battallion of soldiers joining in on the chorus, so I multitracked my own voice to 6 tracks and stereo mixed it down to 2 tracks - sounds great though I say it myself! But they were 'in unison' not six part harmony!

Your own vocal range will of course determine what you can do ultimately in any case.

I think to get more than 3 part harmony you'd have to be a pretty exceptional singer, with a lot of time and patience to spare - and even then you'd have to ask if it's really necessary to make the song work or just over-icing the cake.

Related Forum Topics:



If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.