How do you prefer them?  Why?  When? Etc.  No right answer, methinks ... just your thoughts about singular vs. multi-vocs ... You might approach the issue from any subjective/objective angle.  Perhaps,

Choirs vs. Solo vs. Barb-shop quartet
One-man-band vs. shared vocs
Multi-one-man vocs vs. singular euphonic (country)
Eclectic vs. solo styles
Enunciation vs. vocal smearing for minimal vs. busy mixes

IOWs: Your motives and/or techniques while orchestrating singular vs. plural vocals ... etc.

Thanks in advance (I'll share as you do).

almost all the pros mult voxes......

i don't do that. i probably should.
in fact, i'll think about changing my approach.
 i'm real old school the way i do it now, i use the daw like a tape machine, and literally hit the stop button, cue it up, and punch in most of my vox.

seems it'd be easier to just have it set up for 'loop' and multiple takes, and just go for it, go back and pick and choose the best portions, and mult it all together.



i like the aesthetic of capturing a complete vocal, but i end up punching in on most of my takes.

i'll do a line, and if i like it keep going til i hate it.
then, i'll punch in wherever i want to change, and punish myself on and on until i get a complete take i'm happy with.


with backup vox, i like to do two takes of each part.
so if it's 3-part harmony, i'll do 6 takes.

i never copy wavs and duplicate them.
i always track unique takes, i find the blend of that sounds so much better than clownphucking it.


sometimes i double lead vox, and blend the 2nd take just underneath, so it fills out, but doesn't stand out.
sometimes, just a single will do...
and a lot of times, with the double, i'll automate it in and out of just certain passages.


my harmonies, even on the hard stuff i do, is more influenced by 3 dog night, than anything else...
but i listen to a lot of modern too, and will steal ideas from wherever they come from.

batsbrew


almost all the pros mult voxes......

i don't do that. i probably should.
in fact, i'll think about changing my approach.
i'm real old school the way i do it now, i use the daw like a tape machine, and literally hit the stop button, cue it up, and punch in most of my vox.

seems it'd be easier to just have it set up for 'loop' and multiple takes, and just go for it, go back and pick and choose the best portions, and mult it all together.



i like the aesthetic of capturing a complete vocal, but i end up punching in on most of my takes.

i'll do a line, and if i like it keep going til i hate it.
then, i'll punch in wherever i want to change, and punish myself on and on until i get a complete take i'm happy with.


with backup vox, i like to do two takes of each part.
so if it's 3-part harmony, i'll do 6 takes.

i never copy wavs and duplicate them.
i always track unique takes, i find the blend of that sounds so much better than clownphucking it.


sometimes i double lead vox, and blend the 2nd take just underneath, so it fills out, but doesn't stand out.
sometimes, just a single will do...
and a lot of times, with the double, i'll automate it in and out of just certain passages.


my harmonies, even on the hard stuff i do, is more influenced by 3 dog night, than anything else...
but i listen to a lot of modern too, and will steal ideas from wherever they come from.

I'm quoting this because this is me to the *T* in how I also do things. One thing I do not like to ever do is double a vocal line because no matter who does it, it just always reminds me of Ozzy and I hate that sound. To me, you either have a good voice and can get it thick due to the mic and the eq curve you use....or you don't. Doubled voices never sound in key because one of them is always a bit out. If you tune them, you defeat the purpose of doubling. I just don't like dissonance. Though in certain situations, it can be perfect for a song.
 
When I do back-up vocals, what can I say...my 80's roots come out and I go for a Bonjovi or Def Lep type of back-up. I like whisper tracks, I like tripled back-up vocals and don't care if the back-ups end up being 15 tracks per side. I love it...it's my song, what can I say? However, because I sometimes get a bit sick of the whole "80's" bash from people that usually can't play or sing to save their lives (sorry to sound stand-offish, people just annoy me these days with their comments for the sake of having a voice box) on anything, I've been claming down on how many back-ups I use. It's also less time consuming but I have to say, I really like back-up vocal stacks.
 
I also like to send the back-ups through a bus where I may put something like Clone Ensemble on them to sweeten them up a bit and then heavily comp that bus. I'll send some of them through that bus and then what's left will go through a regular bus with normal vocal processing. The mix of the two is pretty awesome.
 
With lead voices, the mic is what matters and from there, knowing what eq curve to use as well as what effects you may need for your particular voice if any are the keys for me. I sometimes like to use that vocal plug that comes with Sonar (I always forget the name of it) and use a bit of the delay lightly just to thicken. You can barely hear it...but without it, the vocal loses a little. I use all UAD plugs for eq and compression and absolutely love the sound of the vocals I record here whether they be mine or someone elses.
 
There are times when you can go nuts with a lead vocal though. One of the most memorable times for me was when I did that CHB cover of Countdown to Insanity. I did so many trippy things with my voice...it was a blast. I doubled, used harmonizers, delays, chorus, it was so different for me to just let myself go and be a bit strange.
 
Hey Philip, I hope you are well. I was actually going to email you tonight to see how you've been. I think I may do that. :)
 
-Danny

I love double- triple- and quadruple-tracked lead and harmony vocals. Lennon & McCartney, David Gilmour, The Carpenters, Fleetwood Mac, 10cc, Queen, 80's hair bands, Toto's Africa, Badfinger, Klaatu, Enya. Lush, fat enveloping vocals. The closer to white noise the better.

However, my own best vocal tracks always seem to be the ones I sing all the way through in one take with no comping, no overdubs, and no pitch correction. That may be more an indication that I'm just not Pink Floyd, the Beatles, or Alan Parsons. If I was better at it, I'd love to sound like the Beach Boys in their prime.

Danny Danzi


I'm quoting this because this is me to the *T* in how I also do things. One thing I do not like to ever do is double a vocal line because no matter who does it, it just always reminds me of Ozzy and I hate that sound. To me, you either have a good voice and can get it thick due to the mic and the eq curve you use....or you don't. Doubled voices never sound in key because one of them is always a bit out. If you tune them, you defeat the purpose of doubling. I just don't like dissonance. Though in certain situations, it can be perfect for a song. 
 
-Danny

Danny, I find this comment interesting, because as much as I've played around with doubling plugins, multiple vocal takes mixed together, I never like the end result of a lead vocal sound with so much sonic treatment applied to it. I also think a well mic'ed , and well practiced performance can be better time spent, that the seemingly endless tweaking to get a lead vocal sounding better electronically.
 
 . . . having said that, it's a lot different if it's your own voice you're hearing get tweaked.
Guess I don't like the sound of my own voice altered too much.
When I record someone else's voice, it seems easier, more acceptable to my ear, to electronically alter the recorded vocal.
 
Many of the great pop music recordings in recent years apparently have this doubled, multi-tracked, effect laden alteration added after the original vocal performance. The best sounding of these is when the engineer keeps it so subtle, it can only be heard on a closer headphone listen.
 
 

I'll add my two cents, I guess. Like some above, I HAAATATTATE the dissonant vocals sound... Although I actually really like doubling the box and then hard panning them to either side. It relieves the dissonance, gives a bit of space and width in the mix for harmonies and stuff, AND (for me) helps add some thickness that one vox couldn't pull.
On most stuff, though, I tend to do a single lead vox with nice EQ and usually add 1 or 2 harmonies on top to diversify.

My take:  I try to do a vocal track complete. I will rehearse until I think I have it and am in the groove (zen)..... then I hit record. 

If I blow it before the halfway point I will often delete and restart. I will punch when it's necessary but prefer the straight through method. A solo on the instruments is, to me, a legitimate reason to have 2 clips in the vocal track. 

I will record doubled or tripled lead vox tracks.  I will use manual ME to fix certain things in the vox track. Usually only the lead vox. The other leads are left with the pitch and other issues (mostly) because they are going to be way down in the mix anyway, and will not be heard as well. The flaws give them character. 

Harmonies are done the same way.... pitch is fixed only if they are really bad such as the proverbial fingernails on a chalkboard. 

Of course, this is all dependent upon how it sounds. If I go to the trouble to do all the tracking and enveloping and eq'ing and pitch correction and the result doesn't sound good, I mute the tracks and proceed with just one lead vocal. 

I don't get locked into the project with multi-vox just because I spent hours of time on them. 

Sometimes it works in the song and sometimes it doesn't. The trick is knowing when it does.  

Phillip,

another interesting thread.  And always, it depends.

If you are doing a Ramones punk song, doubling is required.  If you are doing country, better not.  If you are doing a modern pop song it doesn't matter since you are going to go all Cher on it ;-)

The next question is can the singer do it?  Doubling will almost always add some thickening.  Whether that sounds better than a single voice is the question.  Sometimes it just makes a bad singer twice as bad.  In general, I find it best to try to get an all-in-one take w/ the necessary emotion and flow-thru.  That makes it easier to splice in corrections w/o damaging the overall emotion.

@

Bat: Thanks for your indepth thoughts and inspiration.  3-Dog-Night harmonies are to die for!  I noted your last song-forum song did not contain vocals ... but the instruments and percussives harmonized wonderfully (Southern Jam Wall of Sound-like).  I think my techniques are most similar to yours.

Danny: Thanks for going in depth on your astonishing techniques and models.  I've stolen your ideas oft and ended up sounding like Jefferson Airplane (before the Starship) ... and now see some of the missing ingredients ... in your post here.

Oft you've given me 9 takes ... "3 Mids", "3 Highs", and "3 Lows" ... and I'd stack them with plate verb (50msec pre-delay'd) ... instead of your "Clone Ensemble".  (The clone ensemble can also be found in waves plug-ins and Nectar ... iirc).

As you (all) probably realize, I aspire that every song's vocal riff must exceed that of every song before.  I don't care so much if the singer is having a good/bad day ... because the weight of the vocal production is on the PRODUCER.


Except for euphonic singers, if the producer (chief painter/singer) isn't inspired, the singer(s) will not sound beautiful in today's competitive pomp.

DavDud: I follow your doublings for Haas effects, especially in chorus-hooks.

Noynekker: Recently I listened to ZZTop's "DoubleBack" (BackToFuture-3) and noted that the song was cursed due to 'early reflections' from the Lead's recording technique.  The comb-filtering was hideous enough to make me shut-down the song after the 1st verse.  

Doubling vocals is tricky and requires a minimum of 32 msecs, iirc.

Bit and GuitarHacker:  I suppose yours is the 'ideal' ... performing the song and accepting the whole take (or none).  I've always aspired that but usually end up like Bat ... dubbing in with the 'R' button ... or stealing phrases from other takes.  

Memorizing lyrics is one thing.  Being on-key, on-time, on-dynamics, inspired, into each word, every phrase, every sweet accident, every rasp-gasp, and/or every dramatic conflict/resolution, singing from the diaphragm-to-voice-mask ... etc. etc.  ... that is another thing.

A bad day is too oft a good day ... and vice versa ... IYKWIM.  ... despite years of faithful public singing twice to thrice a week.

(Sort of like multi-vocs ...)

Then there is singing to balance/harmonize/enhance the instruments (and vice versa).  And the painting becomes more of a landscape than a portrait ... where various instruments become the dominant element(s).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the skating rink, 90-95% of the hip-hop cr&p vocals and lyrics seem ugly misfits.  Take away the beatz garb and their nakedness would seem pretty scary (to me).

That said, an inspired polyphonic producer (lyricist writer arranger mixer) 'should' be able to redeem almost ANY vocal issues ... theoretically, methinks.

Vocals are like chess; you've got to think several moves in advance and then trick your opponent-listener into your hook ... and keep him 'involved' emotionally.

Multi-vocs seem a proven riff-technique with 'sweet-accidents' awaiting.

Thanks all for your most excellent thoughts and invokings.

I enjoy reading your posts and questions Philip. But there are times where I believe you "over think" something. On the other hand, however, it does cause me to think about aspects of the topic in ways that I would not normally do..... 

so I will say..... Thank you for your insightful look at the various aspects of this recording thing we all enjoy.