Question about recording technique ie. Rock music

[ssinzig]

Hello everyone,

I have a friend who is currently in the studio recording an album with
his band. The plays hard rock/metal originals and in discussing with
him how the recording sessions were going we got into discussing some of
the technical details of how their recording is made.

He mentioned that when recording lead and rhythm guitar, they will
record several takes of the same track and 'layer' it in the DAW into
one track so that it creates a 'thicker' guitar sound. This process is
difficult for the guitar player because he has be to very exact from
take to take. He explained this technique is commonly done in the studio
by Metallica, Motorhead and the like.

Seems to make sense, but since they are doing this digitally anyway, I
asked him if they couldn't just create copies of the one take and layer
the copies on top of each other? He said that wouldn't give them the
sound they were after.

I guess my question is couldn't they digitally 'shift' the copies of the
one take to create different takes, and then 'layer' all that to get the
sound they are looking for? Is this a common recording technique for
this type of music?

TIA

S.

[Scott Dorsey]

ssinzig > wrote:
>
>He mentioned that when recording lead and rhythm guitar, they will
>record several takes of the same track and 'layer' it in the DAW into
>one track so that it creates a 'thicker' guitar sound. This process is
>difficult for the guitar player because he has be to very exact from
>take to take. He explained this technique is commonly done in the studio
>by Metallica, Motorhead and the like.

Yes, and what makes this work is that no two of those tracks is quite exact.
If they were -absolutely- exact, there would be no difference. If they are
-not very- exact it sounds like multiple guitars.

>Seems to make sense, but since they are doing this digitally anyway, I
>asked him if they couldn't just create copies of the one take and layer
>the copies on top of each other? He said that wouldn't give them the
>sound they were after.

That's what John Lennon asked.

>I guess my question is couldn't they digitally 'shift' the copies of the
>one take to create different takes, and then 'layer' all that to get the
>sound they are looking for? Is this a common recording technique for
>this type of music?

When John Lennon asked that, Ken Townsend came up with "Artificial Double
Tracking" which is very much what you describe. It does thicken things, but
not in exactly the same way as doing multiple layers, because the tracks
are still too much the same even though they are time-shifted.

ADT and similar effects can work well, but the heavy metal guys want this
thick, growling guitar tone that sounds absolutely huge, and getting that
sound is more practical with conventional double tracking. On the other hand,
it depends on how good the guitarists are... if they can lay rhythm tracks
down one on top of the other in their sleep then it's the way to go. If
they have real trouble getting consistent doubling, then the effects box is
more likely to be a workable a solution.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 4:20:47 PM UTC-5, ssinzig wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have a friend..

Amazing!

Jack

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 11/10/2015 4:20 PM, ssinzig wrote:

> I have a friend who is currently in the studio recording an album with
> his band. The plays hard rock/metal originals and in discussing with
> him how the recording sessions were going we got into discussing some of
> the technical details of how their recording is made.
>
> He mentioned that when recording lead and rhythm guitar, they will
> record several takes of the same track and 'layer' it in the DAW into
> one track so that it creates a 'thicker' guitar sound. This process is
> difficult for the guitar player because he has be to very exact from
> take to take. He explained this technique is commonly done in the studio
> by Metallica, Motorhead and the like.

Well, those people have probably spent more time in recording studios
getting "their" sound than your friend has. Layering guitar tracks is
pretty common in pop music, particularly in styles that are
guitar-oriented. You've probably heard it and wondered how they made the
guitar sound so powerful without being overly loud. That's how.

> Seems to make sense, but since they are doing this digitally anyway, I
> asked him if they couldn't just create copies of the one take and layer
> the copies on top of each other? He said that wouldn't give them the
> sound they were after.

He's right. Exact copies of the same part doesn't sound like several
guitarists playing the same part because the timing is offset. Sometimes
a delay can be modulated by a random amount but most of the time that
just sounds like a bunch of sloppy guitar players.

Recording music is a lot harder than playing it.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[ssinzig]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> ssinzig > wrote:
>>
>> He mentioned that when recording lead and rhythm guitar, they will
>> record several takes of the same track and 'layer' it in the DAW into
>> one track so that it creates a 'thicker' guitar sound. This process is
>> difficult for the guitar player because he has be to very exact from
>> take to take. He explained this technique is commonly done in the studio
>> by Metallica, Motorhead and the like.
>
> Yes, and what makes this work is that no two of those tracks is quite exact.
> If they were -absolutely- exact, there would be no difference. If they are
> -not very- exact it sounds like multiple guitars.
>
>> Seems to make sense, but since they are doing this digitally anyway, I
>> asked him if they couldn't just create copies of the one take and layer
>> the copies on top of each other? He said that wouldn't give them the
>> sound they were after.
>
> That's what John Lennon asked.
>
>> I guess my question is couldn't they digitally 'shift' the copies of the
>> one take to create different takes, and then 'layer' all that to get the
>> sound they are looking for? Is this a common recording technique for
>> this type of music?
>
> When John Lennon asked that, Ken Townsend came up with "Artificial Double
> Tracking" which is very much what you describe. It does thicken things, but
> not in exactly the same way as doing multiple layers, because the tracks
> are still too much the same even though they are time-shifted.
>
> ADT and similar effects can work well, but the heavy metal guys want this
> thick, growling guitar tone that sounds absolutely huge, and getting that
> sound is more practical with conventional double tracking. On the other hand,
> it depends on how good the guitarists are... if they can lay rhythm tracks
> down one on top of the other in their sleep then it's the way to go. If
> they have real trouble getting consistent doubling, then the effects box is
> more likely to be a workable a solution.
> --scott
>


Thanks Scott,

That explains a lot. It intuitively made sense, I was curious as to the
reasoning behind that recording technique.
I'm under no illusion that heavy metal guys are looking for that
perfectly pristine audiophile sound, ha ha.

Music and audio reproduction has always been an interest of mine and I
have been following this group for years learning as much as I can from
your discussions.

Cheers,

S.

[ssinzig]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 11/10/2015 4:20 PM, ssinzig wrote:
>
>> I have a friend who is currently in the studio recording an album with
>> his band. The plays hard rock/metal originals and in discussing with
>> him how the recording sessions were going we got into discussing some of
>> the technical details of how their recording is made.
>>
>> He mentioned that when recording lead and rhythm guitar, they will
>> record several takes of the same track and 'layer' it in the DAW into
>> one track so that it creates a 'thicker' guitar sound. This process is
>> difficult for the guitar player because he has be to very exact from
>> take to take. He explained this technique is commonly done in the studio
>> by Metallica, Motorhead and the like.
>
> Well, those people have probably spent more time in recording studios
> getting "their" sound than your friend has. Layering guitar tracks is
> pretty common in pop music, particularly in styles that are
> guitar-oriented. You've probably heard it and wondered how they made the
> guitar sound so powerful without being overly loud. That's how.
>
>> Seems to make sense, but since they are doing this digitally anyway, I
>> asked him if they couldn't just create copies of the one take and layer
>> the copies on top of each other? He said that wouldn't give them the
>> sound they were after.
>
> He's right. Exact copies of the same part doesn't sound like several
> guitarists playing the same part because the timing is offset. Sometimes
> a delay can be modulated by a random amount but most of the time that
> just sounds like a bunch of sloppy guitar players.
>
> Recording music is a lot harder than playing it.
>


Thanks Mike,

Music and audio reproduction has always been an interest of mine and I'm
the type of person who likes to know the how things work. It's great to
learn about the technology and techniques involved in recording music,
rather than simply consuming music.
This group is an invaluable resource.

Cheers,

S.

[Tim Sprout]

On 11/10/2015 1:08 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 11/10/2015 4:20 PM, ssinzig wrote:
>
>> I have a friend who is currently in the studio recording an album with
>> his band. The plays hard rock/metal originals and in discussing with
>> him how the recording sessions were going we got into discussing some of
>> the technical details of how their recording is made.
>>
>> He mentioned that when recording lead and rhythm guitar, they will
>> record several takes of the same track and 'layer' it in the DAW into
>> one track so that it creates a 'thicker' guitar sound. This process is
>> difficult for the guitar player because he has be to very exact from
>> take to take. He explained this technique is commonly done in the studio
>> by Metallica, Motorhead and the like.
>
> Well, those people have probably spent more time in recording studios getting "their" sound than your friend has. Layering guitar tracks is pretty common in pop music, particularly in styles that are guitar-oriented. You've probably heard it and wondered how they made the guitar sound so powerful without being overly loud. That's how.
>
>> Seems to make sense, but since they are doing this digitally anyway, I
>> asked him if they couldn't just create copies of the one take and layer
>> the copies on top of each other? He said that wouldn't give them the
>> sound they were after.
>
> He's right. Exact copies of the same part doesn't sound like several guitarists playing the same part because the timing is offset. Sometimes a delay can be modulated by a random amount but most of the time that just sounds like a bunch of sloppy guitar players.
>
> Recording music is a lot harder than playing it.

Yikes. Sounds un-fun for the guitar player. The first take could be spontaneous, maybe, and then...not. I guess those guys don't use a lot of string bends and vibrato.

Tim Sprout

[Nil[_2_]]

On 10 Nov 2015, ssinzig > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> I guess my question is couldn't they digitally 'shift' the copies
> of the one take to create different takes, and then 'layer' all
> that to get the sound they are looking for? Is this a common
> recording technique for this type of music?

They want the parts to be very similar, but not exactly the same. The
minute differences in timing and pitch create a chorus effect that
makes the part sound "fatter". Think of the difference in sound between
a single singer and a whole chorus, or of a single violin and the
entire violin section of an orchestra. If the doubled part is
replicated TOO precisely, it begins to sound artificial, as in what's
known as Automatic Double Tracking. Electronically shifting the parts
(ADT) creates a different sound that you might describe as less
natural. It's a legit and common technique. You use whichever method
gives you the result you want.

When they double guitar parts in the studio, they often play the
doubled parts using radically different guitars and/or amps. This can
give the combined effect even more complexity.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 5:47:20 PM UTC-5, ssinzig wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote:
> > On 11/10/2015 4:20 PM, ssinzig wrote:
> >
> >> I have a friend who is currently in the studio recording an album with
> >> his band. The plays hard rock/metal originals and in discussing with
> >> him how the recording sessions were going we got into discussing some of
> >> the technical details of how their recording is made.
> >>
> >> He mentioned that when recording lead and rhythm guitar, they will
> >> record several takes of the same track and 'layer' it in the DAW into
> >> one track so that it creates a 'thicker' guitar sound. This process is
> >> difficult for the guitar player because he has be to very exact from
> >> take to take. He explained this technique is commonly done in the studio
> >> by Metallica, Motorhead and the like.
> >
> > Well, those people have probably spent more time in recording studios
> > getting "their" sound than your friend has. Layering guitar tracks is
> > pretty common in pop music, particularly in styles that are
> > guitar-oriented. You've probably heard it and wondered how they made the
> > guitar sound so powerful without being overly loud. That's how.
> >
> >> Seems to make sense, but since they are doing this digitally anyway, I
> >> asked him if they couldn't just create copies of the one take and layer
> >> the copies on top of each other? He said that wouldn't give them the
> >> sound they were after.
> >
> > He's right. Exact copies of the same part doesn't sound like several
> > guitarists playing the same part because the timing is offset. Sometimes
> > a delay can be modulated by a random amount but most of the time that
> > just sounds like a bunch of sloppy guitar players.
> >
> > Recording music is a lot harder than playing it.
> >
>
>
> Thanks Mike,
>
> Music and audio reproduction has always been an interest of mine and I'm
> the type of person who likes to know the how things work.


So am I. That's why I search outside of this group to find what happened in the past. Try it, it may help you.

Jack


It's great to
> learn about the technology and techniques involved in recording music,
> rather than simply consuming music.
> This group is an invaluable resource.
>
> Cheers,
>
> S.

[Nil[_2_]]

On 10 Nov 2015, Tim Sprout > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> Yikes. Sounds un-fun for the guitar player. The first take could
> be spontaneous, maybe, and then...not. I guess those guys don't
> use a lot of string bends and vibrato.

You'd use different method in different situations. If the part is
written out in great detail, it's a good candidate for manual double
tracking. A loose or highly improvised part would be less suited for
that effect. On the other hand, manually doubling a complex part can be
very striking. An example I like is Jay Gradon's guitar solo in the
Manhattan Transfer recording of Twilight Zone. Jay plays a fancy solo
full of complex phrasing and bends, then lays a harmony part on top of
it that precisely duplicates every note nuance.

I noticed an example of that the other day. I was listening to The
Monkees song "Randy Scouse Git" with headphones. The lead vocal is
double-tracked all the way through until it get to the middle bit where
the singer scats a verse, and suddenly he's single-tracked. It may have
been done partly to give that section a different feel, but I bet part
of it was so he could just get loose and improvise without having to
worry about replicating the performance later.

Legend has it that Automatic Double Tracking was "invented" by George
Martin while recording the Beatles. I don't necessarily believe that he
was the first to do so, but you can hear in the records that up until
Revolver they used lots of manual doubling, especially on the voices.
Then on Revolver suddenly there's ADT on many vocals and instruments,
and it's used heavily for all their subsequent records.

I know from my own few studio sessions and home recordings that
doubling yourself is difficult but gets somewhat easier the more you do
it. You learn to really listen closely to yourself and to embrace your
personal performance tics, oddities and cliches. It can help you to
understand your own style.

[Gray_Wolf]

On 11/10/2015 6:14 PM, Nil wrote:
> On 10 Nov 2015, ssinzig > wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
>
>> I guess my question is couldn't they digitally 'shift' the copies
>> of the one take to create different takes, and then 'layer' all
>> that to get the sound they are looking for? Is this a common
>> recording technique for this type of music?
>
> They want the parts to be very similar, but not exactly the same. The
> minute differences in timing and pitch create a chorus effect that
> makes the part sound "fatter". Think of the difference in sound between
> a single singer and a whole chorus, or of a single violin and the
> entire violin section of an orchestra. If the doubled part is
> replicated TOO precisely, it begins to sound artificial, as in what's
> known as Automatic Double Tracking. Electronically shifting the parts
> (ADT) creates a different sound that you might describe as less
> natural. It's a legit and common technique. You use whichever method
> gives you the result you want.


> When they double guitar parts in the studio, they often play the
> doubled parts using radically different guitars and/or amps. This can
> give the combined effect even more complexity.

I've played 'parts' many times. What puzzles me is why the effect is noticeable
even when the guitars are the same model and playing through the same channel of
an amp... Yet when I play the same thing by myself the effect is missing. I've
wondered if having a pickup for each string would make a difference.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 7:41:47 PM UTC-5, Nil wrote:
> On 10 Nov 2015, Tim Sprout > wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
>
> > Yikes. Sounds un-fun for the guitar player. The first take could
> > be spontaneous, maybe, and then...not. I guess those guys don't
> > use a lot of string bends and vibrato.
>
> You'd use different method in different situations. If the part is
> written out in great detail, it's a good candidate for manual double
> tracking. A loose or highly improvised part would be less suited for
> that effect. On the other hand, manually doubling a complex part can be
> very striking. An example I like is Jay Gradon's guitar solo in the
> Manhattan Transfer recording of Twilight Zone. Jay plays a fancy solo
> full of complex phrasing and bends, then lays a harmony part on top of
> it that precisely duplicates every note nuance.
>
> I noticed an example of that the other day. I was listening to The
> Monkees song "Randy Scouse Git" with headphones. The lead vocal is
> double-tracked all the way through until it get to the middle bit where
> the singer scats a verse, and suddenly he's single-tracked. It may have
> been done partly to give that section a different feel, but I bet part
> of it was so he could just get loose and improvise without having to
> worry about replicating the performance later.
>
> Legend has it that Automatic Double Tracking was "invented" by George
> Martin while recording the Beatles.

I understand Giles Martin (of all people) remixed The Beatles. Once my friend gets his new site up, I'll hear how well Giles did. They should allow Americans to remix, tired of these UK people.

Jack

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

ssinzig wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have a friend who is currently in the studio recording an album with
> his band. The plays hard rock/metal originals and in discussing with
> him how the recording sessions were going we got into discussing some of
> the technical details of how their recording is made.
>
> He mentioned that when recording lead and rhythm guitar, they will
> record several takes of the same track and 'layer' it in the DAW into
> one track so that it creates a 'thicker' guitar sound. This process is
> difficult for the guitar player because he has be to very exact from
> take to take. He explained this technique is commonly done in the studio
> by Metallica, Motorhead and the like.
>
> Seems to make sense, but since they are doing this digitally anyway, I
> asked him if they couldn't just create copies of the one take and layer
> the copies on top of each other? He said that wouldn't give them the
> sound they were after.
>
> I guess my question is couldn't they digitally 'shift' the copies of the
> one take to create different takes, and then 'layer' all that to get the
> sound they are looking for? Is this a common recording technique for
> this type of music?
>
> TIA
>
> S.


Doubling is a common enough technique. The theory behind is actually
that the small imperfections will average out. The imperfections
are the point of it.

The Beatles invented "automatic double tracking" and because
of it and the Leslie cabinet, various chorus, flanger and
delay pedal regimes have come into ( and out of ) use. It's
always possible to use those. It's very unlikely they''l
actually improve things.

What you'll find is that one good take is way better than four
equally good takes, sonically. Think if you were talking -
would it be easier to understand one track of that or four tracks of
that? Multiple tracks results in interference.

If he doesn't want to do it, don't do it. I will refrain from
commenting about the inability of somebody to play the same part
twice, but it should be obvious that this is not a strength
unless it's improvised or spontaneous by design.


The very best way to fix that that I know of is to
take that show on the road. After a month or so of
playing the same set 7 or more times per week, you'll
be able to play the parts in your sleep.


--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Nil wrote:
> On 10 Nov 2015, Tim Sprout > wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
<snip>
>
> I know from my own few studio sessions and home recordings that
> doubling yourself is difficult but gets somewhat easier the more you do
> it. You learn to really listen closely to yourself and to embrace your
> personal performance tics, oddities and cliches. It can help you to
> understand your own style.
>

It's probably the single most valuable thing about home recording
for guitar players. You go from having to wait a day to catch
why the doubles are different, to catching it at mix, then to
catching it a verse later, then learning to *feel* when it's wrong
in real time.

--
Les Cargill

[geoff]

On 11/11/2015 1:14 p.m., Nil wrote:
> On 10 Nov 2015, ssinzig > wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
>
>> I guess my question is couldn't they digitally 'shift' the copies
>> of the one take to create different takes, and then 'layer' all
>> that to get the sound they are looking for? Is this a common
>> recording technique for this type of music?
> They want the parts to be very similar, but not exactly the same. The
> minute differences in timing and pitch create a chorus effect that
> makes the part sound "fatter". Think of the difference in sound between
> a single singer and a whole chorus, or of a single violin and the
> entire violin section of an orchestra. If the doubled part is
> replicated TOO precisely, it begins to sound artificial, as in what's
> known as Automatic Double Tracking. Electronically shifting the parts
> (ADT) creates a different sound that you might describe as less
> natural. It's a legit and common technique. You use whichever method
> gives you the result you want.
>
> When they double guitar parts in the studio, they often play the
> doubled parts using radically different guitars and/or amps. This can
> give the combined effect even more complexity.

Whereas simply duplicating the track and (say) moving slightly in time
or pitch will likely sound mechanical and more 'blur' the sound rather
than 'thicken'.

geoff

[geoff]

On 11/11/2015 1:41 p.m., Nil wrote:
> Legend has it that Automatic Double Tracking was "invented" by George
> Martin while recording the Beatles. I don't necessarily believe that
> he was the first to do so, but you can hear in the records that up
> until Revolver they used lots of manual doubling, especially on the
> voices. Then on Revolver suddenly there's ADT on many vocals and
> instruments, and it's used heavily for all their subsequent records. I
> know from my own few studio sessions and home recordings that doubling
> yourself is difficult but gets somewhat easier the more you do it. You
> learn to really listen closely to yourself and to embrace your
> personal performance tics, oddities and cliches. It can help you to
> understand your own style.

FWIW legend has it that Macca was(is ?) fantastic at actually singing
doubled parts incredibly accurately.

geoff

[geoff]

On 11/11/2015 2:14 p.m., JackA wrote:
> I understand Giles Martin (of all people) remixed The Beatles. Once my friend gets his new site up, I'll hear how well Giles did. They should allow Americans to remix, tired of these UK people.
>

Why not go out and buy a CD ? And some decent headphones while you're at it.

geoff

[JackA]

On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 8:40:48 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 11/11/2015 1:14 p.m., Nil wrote:
> > On 10 Nov 2015, ssinzig > wrote in
> > rec.audio.pro:
> >
> >> I guess my question is couldn't they digitally 'shift' the copies
> >> of the one take to create different takes, and then 'layer' all
> >> that to get the sound they are looking for? Is this a common
> >> recording technique for this type of music?
> > They want the parts to be very similar, but not exactly the same. The
> > minute differences in timing and pitch create a chorus effect that
> > makes the part sound "fatter". Think of the difference in sound between
> > a single singer and a whole chorus, or of a single violin and the
> > entire violin section of an orchestra. If the doubled part is
> > replicated TOO precisely, it begins to sound artificial, as in what's
> > known as Automatic Double Tracking. Electronically shifting the parts
> > (ADT) creates a different sound that you might describe as less
> > natural. It's a legit and common technique. You use whichever method
> > gives you the result you want.
> >
> > When they double guitar parts in the studio, they often play the
> > doubled parts using radically different guitars and/or amps. This can
> > give the combined effect even more complexity.
>
> Whereas simply duplicating the track and (say) moving slightly in time
> or pitch will likely sound mechanical and more 'blur' the sound rather
> than 'thicken'.

I don't put a lot of faith in George Martin being a great audio person. However, IF it was his decision to us a 4 track recorded with 1/4" wide tracks, did impress me.

Jack
>
> geoff

[JackA]

On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 8:45:22 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 11/11/2015 2:14 p.m., JackA wrote:
> > I understand Giles Martin (of all people) remixed The Beatles. Once my friend gets his new site up, I'll hear how well Giles did. They should allow Americans to remix, tired of these UK people.
> >
>
> Why not go out and buy a CD ? And some decent headphones while you're at it.

Well, I figured I'd ask you first before buying, the expert, since you own every brand and model since the birth of Jesus!!

Jack :)

>
> geoff

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

geoff wrote:
> On 11/11/2015 1:41 p.m., Nil wrote:
>> Legend has it that Automatic Double Tracking was "invented" by George
>> Martin while recording the Beatles. I don't necessarily believe that
>> he was the first to do so, but you can hear in the records that up
>> until Revolver they used lots of manual doubling, especially on the
>> voices. Then on Revolver suddenly there's ADT on many vocals and
>> instruments, and it's used heavily for all their subsequent records. I
>> know from my own few studio sessions and home recordings that doubling
>> yourself is difficult but gets somewhat easier the more you do it. You
>> learn to really listen closely to yourself and to embrace your
>> personal performance tics, oddities and cliches. It can help you to
>> understand your own style.
>
> FWIW legend has it that Macca was(is ?) fantastic at actually singing
> doubled parts incredibly accurately.
>
> geoff


Unison singing parts appear frequently on his records. But at varying
times, he's had some hardcore singers with him. Denny Laine was
no slouch.

--
Les Cargill

[david gourley[_2_]]

Nil > said...news:XnsA54EC85B5477Bnilch1
@wheedledeedle.moc:

> On 10 Nov 2015, Tim Sprout > wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
>
>> Yikes. Sounds un-fun for the guitar player. The first take could
>> be spontaneous, maybe, and then...not. I guess those guys don't
>> use a lot of string bends and vibrato.
>
> You'd use different method in different situations. If the part is
> written out in great detail, it's a good candidate for manual double
> tracking. A loose or highly improvised part would be less suited for
> that effect. On the other hand, manually doubling a complex part can be
> very striking. An example I like is Jay Gradon's guitar solo in the
> Manhattan Transfer recording of Twilight Zone. Jay plays a fancy solo
> full of complex phrasing and bends, then lays a harmony part on top of
> it that precisely duplicates every note nuance.
>
> I noticed an example of that the other day. I was listening to The
> Monkees song "Randy Scouse Git" with headphones. The lead vocal is
> double-tracked all the way through until it get to the middle bit where
> the singer scats a verse, and suddenly he's single-tracked. It may have
> been done partly to give that section a different feel, but I bet part
> of it was so he could just get loose and improvise without having to
> worry about replicating the performance later.
>
> Legend has it that Automatic Double Tracking was "invented" by George
> Martin while recording the Beatles. I don't necessarily believe that he
> was the first to do so, but you can hear in the records that up until
> Revolver they used lots of manual doubling, especially on the voices.
> Then on Revolver suddenly there's ADT on many vocals and instruments,
> and it's used heavily for all their subsequent records.
>
-snip-

I was just reading more about ADT in Geoff Emerick's book, although I'd
known a little about it already. Sometimes they'd 'wobble' the tape on ADT
for a more extreme effect. It's very pronounced on Sgt. Pepper's 'Good
Morning, Good Morning' (with the guitar solo played by Paul according to
Emerick). The tape wobble actually bends the pitch of the final note in
the solo.

david

[Matt Faunce]

On 11/10/15 8:17 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
> ssinzig wrote:
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I have a friend who is currently in the studio recording an album with
>> his band. The plays hard rock/metal originals and in discussing with
>> him how the recording sessions were going we got into discussing some of
>> the technical details of how their recording is made.
>>
>> He mentioned that when recording lead and rhythm guitar, they will
>> record several takes of the same track and 'layer' it in the DAW into
>> one track so that it creates a 'thicker' guitar sound. This process is
>> difficult for the guitar player because he has be to very exact from
>> take to take. He explained this technique is commonly done in the studio
>> by Metallica, Motorhead and the like.
>>
>> Seems to make sense, but since they are doing this digitally anyway, I
>> asked him if they couldn't just create copies of the one take and layer
>> the copies on top of each other? He said that wouldn't give them the
>> sound they were after.
>>
>> I guess my question is couldn't they digitally 'shift' the copies of the
>> one take to create different takes, and then 'layer' all that to get the
>> sound they are looking for? Is this a common recording technique for
>> this type of music?
>>
>> TIA
>>
>> S.
>
>
> Doubling is a common enough technique. The theory behind is actually
> that the small imperfections will average out. The imperfections
> are the point of it.
>
> The Beatles invented "automatic double tracking" and because
> of it and the Leslie cabinet, various chorus, flanger and
> delay pedal regimes have come into ( and out of ) use. It's
> always possible to use those. It's very unlikely they''l
> actually improve things.
>
> What you'll find is that one good take is way better than four
> equally good takes, sonically. Think if you were talking -
> would it be easier to understand one track of that or four tracks of
> that? Multiple tracks results in interference.
>
> If he doesn't want to do it, don't do it. I will refrain from
> commenting about the inability of somebody to play the same part
> twice, but it should be obvious that this is not a strength
> unless it's improvised or spontaneous by design.
>
>
> The very best way to fix that that I know of is to
> take that show on the road. After a month or so of
> playing the same set 7 or more times per week, you'll
> be able to play the parts in your sleep.

This reminds me of traditional Celtic music. Lots of doubling, but each
player will ornament differently. Here's a sample.

https://youtu.be/CqYQLR-5xMg

--
Matt

[Nil[_2_]]

On 10 Nov 2015, gray_wolf > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> I've played 'parts' many times. What puzzles me is why the effect
> is noticeable even when the guitars are the same model and playing
> through the same channel of an amp... Yet when I play the same
> thing by myself the effect is missing. I've wondered if having a
> pickup for each string would make a difference.

Well, no matter how much you try, when you play an analog instrument
there will always be small differences in timing and attack. It's
impossible to exactly duplicate your physical performance, even if the
electronics and amp are the same. That's where the "fattening" effect
happens.

I recall a story from a producer where the singer he was working with
was TOO good at doubling their vocal parts, and he wasn't achieving as
strong an effect as he wanted. He had to coach the singer to sing
looser and make more "mistakes"!

[Nil[_2_]]

On 10 Nov 2015, david gourley > wrote
in rec.audio.pro:

> I was just reading more about ADT in Geoff Emerick's book,
> although I'd known a little about it already. Sometimes they'd
> 'wobble' the tape on ADT for a more extreme effect. It's very
> pronounced on Sgt. Pepper's 'Good Morning, Good Morning' (with the
> guitar solo played by Paul according to Emerick). The tape wobble
> actually bends the pitch of the final note in the solo.

Another good example is Clapton's guitar solo in "While My Guitar
Gently Weeps" - it's got very prominent ADT applied to it, with an
exaggerated wobble. It's even more obvious on the mono mix version.

[geoff]

On 11/11/2015 5:23 p.m., Nil wrote:
> On 10 Nov 2015, gray_wolf > wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
>
>> I've played 'parts' many times. What puzzles me is why the effect
>> is noticeable even when the guitars are the same model and playing
>> through the same channel of an amp... Yet when I play the same
>> thing by myself the effect is missing. I've wondered if having a
>> pickup for each string would make a difference.
>
> Well, no matter how much you try, when you play an analog instrument
> there will always be small differences in timing and attack. It's
> impossible to exactly duplicate your physical performance, even if the
> electronics and amp are the same. That's where the "fattening" effect
> happens.
>
> I recall a story from a producer where the singer he was working with
> was TOO good at doubling their vocal parts, and he wasn't achieving as
> strong an effect as he wanted. He had to coach the singer to sing
> looser and make more "mistakes"!
>


I've had one like that. Sounded like a phaser !

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 11/11/2015 02:03, JackA wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 8:45:22 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
>> On 11/11/2015 2:14 p.m., JackA wrote:
>>> I understand Giles Martin (of all people) remixed The Beatles. Once my friend gets his new site up, I'll hear how well Giles did. They should allow Americans to remix, tired of these UK people.
>>>
>>
>> Why not go out and buy a CD ? And some decent headphones while you're at it.
>
> Well, I figured I'd ask you first before buying, the expert, since you own every brand and model since the birth of Jesus!!
>
People here have listed their favourite headphones for you on more than
one occasion. It has even been explained to you that various headphones
are best for different jobs. How many more times do you want us to do
this? It's an easy job to cut and paste our previous posts....

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[None]

"John Williamson" > wrote in message
...
> People here have listed their favourite headphones for you on more
> than one occasion. It has even been explained to you that various
> headphones are best for different jobs. How many more times do you
> want us to do this? It's an easy job to cut and paste our previous
> posts....

He doesn’t really give a ****, as long as he can get people to keep
responding to his posts. A few people are always willing to support
him by responding.

[Scott Dorsey]

Tim Sprout > wrote:
>
>Yikes. Sounds un-fun for the guitar player. The first take could be spontaneous, maybe, and then...not. I guess those guys don't use a lot of string bends and vibrato.

It's not too often the whole lead part would ever get doubled, but it's very
common to double, triple, and quadruple rhythm guitars. You will hear the
lead part doubled on choruses but them the doubling dropped out for a solo
in order to emphasize the solo. Listen to some records and see if you can
separate out all the pieces in your head!

But it does mean an awful lot of session time for the guitarists.

It's not unusual to double lead vocals either.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 6:46:32 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 11/11/2015 02:03, JackA wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 8:45:22 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> >> On 11/11/2015 2:14 p.m., JackA wrote:
> >>> I understand Giles Martin (of all people) remixed The Beatles. Once my friend gets his new site up, I'll hear how well Giles did. They should allow Americans to remix, tired of these UK people.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Why not go out and buy a CD ? And some decent headphones while you're at it.
> >
> > Well, I figured I'd ask you first before buying, the expert, since you own every brand and model since the birth of Jesus!!
> >
> People here have listed their favourite headphones for you on more than
> one occasion.


So have I (my cheapo ($$) Philips). And your point?

It has even been explained to you that various headphones
> are best for different jobs.

Oh, I see. One set of headphones can never do a great job everywhere, because...?

How many more times do you want us to do
> this? It's an easy job to cut and paste our previous posts....

It was a joke to Geoff. Not sure why you people lack any humor. Maybe because you lack audio work? Frustrated?

Thanks.

Jack
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Tim Sprout > wrote:
>>
>> Yikes. Sounds un-fun for the guitar player. The first take could be spontaneous, maybe, and then...not. I guess those guys don't use a lot of string bends and vibrato.
>
> It's not too often the whole lead part would ever get doubled,

It does happen and probably more than you'd think.

> but it's very
> common to double, triple, and quadruple rhythm guitars. You will hear the
> lead part doubled on choruses but them the doubling dropped out for a solo
> in order to emphasize the solo. Listen to some records and see if you can
> separate out all the pieces in your head!
>
> But it does mean an awful lot of session time for the guitarists.
>
> It's not unusual to double lead vocals either.
> --scott
>

--
Les Cargill

[Angus Kerr]

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 6:23:44 AM UTC+2, Nil wrote:
> On 10 Nov 2015, gray_wolf wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
>
> > I've played 'parts' many times. What puzzles me is why the effect
> > is noticeable even when the guitars are the same model and playing
> > through the same channel of an amp... Yet when I play the same
> > thing by myself the effect is missing. I've wondered if having a
> > pickup for each string would make a difference.
>
> Well, no matter how much you try, when you play an analog instrument
> there will always be small differences in timing and attack. It's
> impossible to exactly duplicate your physical performance, even if the
> electronics and amp are the same. That's where the "fattening" effect
> happens.
>
> I recall a story from a producer where the singer he was working with
> was TOO good at doubling their vocal parts, and he wasn't achieving as
> strong an effect as he wanted. He had to coach the singer to sing
> looser and make more "mistakes"!

On an album I produced, I did about 8 overlays of violin to get the disco era single line 'section' sound. I really had to concentrate on 'de-personalising' the performances, to avoid a 'caricature' of myself. You find that your vibrato, pitching and phrasing and bowing is so close take to take, that you consciously have to change it around to avoid a very 'weird' sound. I also used a different violins as well. If you don't take this into account the effect is a large single personality performance, which is exactly what you DON'T want.

-Angus.