Thoughts on doubling vocals on every track (ala Of Montreal)

How do you guys feel about the vocal mixing of doubling the track, then panning one hard left and one hard right? Of Montreal does it on almost all of their stuff, their new stuff at least.

Lately I've been recording vocals twice, so that they are pretty much the same but with minor differences, and then panning them to both sides, and I really like the sound, it makes them much more present.

This has been done on millions of recordings. Probably because it sounds so good. Wonderful on some stuff, mainly harmonies and background stuff. I wouldn't do it all the time.

This is personal taste, so I'm not saying it's wrong. If I do blatant doubling of vocals, I prefer to pan them at approximately 10-20% R-L instead of hard-panning. This is simply because, to my ear, the doubling sounds better and is not as extreme. But of course, if you like hard-panning, do it.

I also double background vocals. Well, doubling...actually, if I am doing background harmonies, I'll do anywhere from 3-6 passes of each harmony. This can sound really thick and lush when they are panned all over the soundfield.

I'll do it to mask a weak or pitchy voice. I bus both vocal tracks to a mono aux and pan it center if it's a lead vocal.

Going off on a tangent, I think a lot of producers will use that trick to help less than optimal vocals. If you're Perry Farrell, for example, I don't think there's really anything else to be done.

It's also really popular in the powerpop/psychedelic world. Bands/artists performing this kind of music consistently ask me to do this. They also sometimes like adding a little flange to some of the passages in the vocals or sneaking in another vocal underneath the doubled vocal that is EQ'd to sound like a telephone to emphasize certain passages.

Over the course of the album, do you think it should be uniform one way-or the other? I feel like if I double them on most, but then have a few songs where it's just single track, it will sound out of place and the album won't flow as well.

Personally I double and triple at times. The Beatles did it. Sounds great. I don't think there is anything wrong with doing it all the time. It's a particular sound. They do need to be right on each other though to sound right. Forget what those guys said like doubling is only for weak voices. That's not true. And Perry Ferell {censored}in sucks. Annoying ass high pitched freak.

I like Ustad's technique. I don't recommend panning that hard either unless you have a main vocal going through the center and the two other panned. Harmonies and background vocals are great for this technique too. I love the sound personally. Do it if you think it sounds good:thu:

On the two power-pop/psychedelia albums that i've done, we had a variety of different approaches to the vocals, and the album seemed to flow well. I used different mics, different reverbs, different panning, different EQs, and different effects on the vocals. There was enough commonality in having the same songwriter, musicians, and vocals and recording studio that the albums had continuity. I suppose it depends on what you are trying to achieve, but none of the band members for these recording projects thought that didn't flow.

Thanks for the replies, I feel more confident about doing it now, I didn't know how much it was done. The only thing I'm afraid of is being unable to replicate the sound live -- like with Of Montreal, their live vocals are always a little weaker, without the distinct doubling that they have. I'm more interested in using it as an instrument in itself, so I guess there's always some things you can do in the studio that won't show up live, just the way it goes.

You would need a ton of tonal and structural variety to pull that off without it sounding tiring three songs in - so I hope you're incredible.

Otherwise I've never heard it work.

I think we're probably thinking of different things, I'm thinking of doubling as in making the vocals sound more present - so it doesn't sound like two distinct voices, but one voice with a different kind of sound to it.

If it was two distinct vocals, panned l and r, then I would see that getting old, but the way I'm doing it, it just makes the vocal sound so much better, and I'm afraid if I didn't do it on some, the vocals would sound relatively worse/not as full.

BTW, if you are gonna pan them hard L and R, you'd have to make sure the consonants are super super tight, as it's obvious and often distracting if they're not. That's something to consider as well. I have a feeling you'll make your decisions as you go along and the whole album begins to gel, which is absolutely fine.

This is the kind of stuff I'm doing (rough demo):

(Click to listen)

http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/2152392_nz3rh/GoAheadIDareYouforsixtyone.mp3

Yeah, this makes sense, sometimes I like that dissonance it creates, but it would get annoying after a while.

I could see that because it's adding texture, not layering on molasses. I love R&B and the harmonies in that music (even the oversinging to some extent), but the really good rhythm and blues singers sound badass alone. They can easily carry a song by themselves and never need tricks or gimmicks or excess.

Then their church background shows through and a chorus appears behind on the VMAs!

Not bad. That's exactly the kind of technique which could get worn out quick (unless you're Polyphonic Spree where it's the entire point). For a couple on songs in the album sequence it's perfect.

If I double vocals, I usually do one track dead center and one panned 100% in one direction. I do it on a song by song basis depending on the song and what sounds good.

I like to save the hard pans for the chorus or to emphasize specific phrases. My pan envelopes are usually quite complicated. I almost never set the pan on the track, I'd much rather use an automation envelope.

Volume and pan envelopes are definitely your friend. I've got tracks where I have way more than doubles going on. It gets tricky when you start to stack multiple vocals tracks...they want to take over the mix. So, when I have multiple vocal tracks, I tend to use a good bit of eq to get them to mesh and still fit within the mix.

I always double my vocals. And I usually don't edit out most of the variations, I tend to like them. I end up having a lot of stuff going on that you really won't hear unless you really focus on the background.

It's rap, but I think you can learn a lot from listening to Dre's earlier productions. That's where I picked up most of my doubling/panning tricks.

I was doubling guitar lines way before I started rapping, so I've always been a fan of doubling tracks.

Really, what ends up happening with most of my mixes is I have tracked ten or twelve takes on a vocal track and when I'm comping that together, it opens up a whole bunch of opportunities...

One of these days, I'll be able to rap as good as I mix.

Can anyone do one of those crazy "this is exactly what effect is being used" things and tell me about the vocals of Of Montreal? If you aren't familiar, heres a youtube of a song:

That's some different type stuff there.

I'd say you have some doubling and it's sounds like some pitch shifting/alteration, but I'm not sure it is. It could be that when they sing and follow the pitch of that sweep, it ends up sounding effected.

Plus, when you start doubling tracks, you can get all sorts of phase shifting going on...I even slide around tracks to screw up the phase because sometimes it works as an effect.

I would guess you have a typical vocal chain there...and most of what you hear is the artifacts of the doubling. But, they may have shifted one of the vocal tracks just a hair to get a phasey/comb filtering effect.

Sweet, thanks. I realized that the youtube isn't (I think) in stereo, so you don't get the whole effect, but it looks like you're right.

I do a lot of power pop, which means lots of harmonies where all the parts are doubled. I love the technique. I also like to have one main lead vocal plus an effected double that isn't really heard much.

I wouldn't get too hung up on whether it's "OK" to do this all the time. Just try it, and if it sounds good on that particular song, use it, if not don't. I don't think it takes anything away from an album to have some songs that use this technique and others that don't. I find that usually there are some songs that lend themselves to it and others not so much. And it's never a bad idea to have singers double or triple their vocals - you can use them for comps if nothing else. Of course, some singers are better at doubling themselves than others, but generally singers who like that sort of sound become good at it.

Perhaps, though I think that comes through naturally in the voice. There are a few spots with a sweep near the end which could easily be a mild flange.

I've done a few where I sang the vocals twice and got the pronunciation and timing and all spot on. It does work great as a wide pan. This is totally different than just copying a track and altering one of them to sound different than the other. Only suggestion I have would be to check how it sounds in a mono mix as well. The overall vocal volume can dip if theres phasing due to different mike differences, or the vocal level can drastically increase if the phasing is right on.

Two things to consider:

1. Of Montreal writes great harmonies with two voices that really complement each other. That upper third or fifth interval is as important as step #2 is going to be.

2. Just doubling the track and panning it won't always give you that effect. Sometimes it's just better to get one good take, copy it twice, pan the copies left and right 10-20%, and change the pitch of each 3-4 cents. A slight delay doesn't hurt either.

That way you're leaving the emphasis on the center lead vocal.

Im a fan of doubling vocals and sometimes tripling when the Chorus comes along..

my question is : what happens at a LIVE SHOW? any necessary moves that gotta be made to still sound good live as you do on CD?... how do you double live if theres only 1 singer?