Exact Vocal Recording Process

[SgtTimBob]

Not too sure if this has already been covered but something I always wonder about the 60s Beach Boys records is what exactly was the process involved in recording the vocal harmonies. I know the lead vocal was usually double tracked, but what about individual harmony parts? I'd always assumed those were recorded with the whole group around a mic, and there was no double tracking involved. But sometimes it sounds almost like there might be some double tracking at work in the harmony; did they ever double track an entire vocal section (can't imagine that sounding too good)?

I'm really quite interested in the exact process that was at work with this, down to the tape bouncing and compression. Any rare nuggets of info much appreciated.

[BergenWhitesMoustache]

I'd always assumed those were recorded with the whole group around a mic, and there was no double tracking involved. But sometimes it sounds almost like there might be some double tracking at work in the harmony; did they ever double track an entire vocal section (can't imagine that sounding too good)?

I've not particularly looked into it, but I've assumed the opposite. I record stuff too, and recording people who can sing, around one mic, then double tracking the whole thing, perhaps with a slight shuffling of the positions around the mic is a pretty surefire way to get instantly great BVS.

Total madness that the opposite is standard practice now- take some people who can't really sing, layer them all up one at a time, tune them, then try to make the blend soundl ike they were...STOOD AROUND A MIC SINGING AT THE SAME TIME!

[SgtTimBob]

Interesting. And yeah... it's so weird how the industry has shifted from what always produced great natural sounding results, to producing stuff that just sounds so clinical and plastic. I mean... who can fault the sound produced by classic harmony groups?

I record too just not too often with a large group.

[Billgoodman]

Yes they did, you can hear it on The Smile Session.

[c-man]

Most of the time, both the lead & backing vocals were doubled.  Slap on a pair of headphones & listen to "Little Deuce Coupe", for instatnce.  Check out my essays on the "Today!" and "Summer Days" albums for more specifics:  www.beachboysarchives.com

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

Most of the time, both the lead & backing vocals were doubled.  Slap on a pair of headphones & listen to "Little Deuce Coupe", for instatnce.  Check out my essays on the "Today!" and "Summer Days" albums for more specifics:  www.beachboysarchives.com

Right, double-tracking was the rule on just about everything (even a lot of instruments, at times) rather than the exception, until, really, when Desper came on board and they started doing some stereo tracking of vocals and more unique things.  But even then, plenty of doubling both leads and group vocals even up to the present day.

As for compression, I have heard varying and sometimes conflicting reports.  Mark Linett reported that a lot of studios only had one limiter which they would use for mastering only.  Bob Olsson has also said something to this effect.  I've also read anecdotal evidence that studios were able to patch in compressors across an output buss.  In other words, in a group vocal, if they were around two mics (which was often the case) being mixed to one track, live, the compressor/limiter would be effecting the everything at the output stage of the console.

However, you can't discount tape compression, which was the real sound of these things.

Vocals were bounced, but much less than instruments.  This is why we've lost some vocals--Brian would prefer to sing a double live to mono rather than bounce again.  And of course, on the Pet Sounds 8-track multis, it's one track instruments and 7 tracks vocals.

[AndrewHickey]

Yep, pretty much all the vocals were double -- or even triple -- tracked. One thing to note, though, is that it wasn't quite "all round one mic" -- Mike Love would often sing at a separate mic from the rest, when singing a bass part, because his voice is very quiet in that range.

[Gregg]

On the early stuff, Brian would often sing into a separate mic as well. I remember reading an interview with Chuck Britz a long time ago and he stated that  he had Brian sing into a separate mic - I don't remember the exact model, but he indicated that it was a rather cheap mic, in professional recording studio terms, but that Brian sounded great through it so that's what he used. And I believe he was talking about background vocals, falsetto stuff, not leads.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

On the early stuff, Brian would often sing into a separate mic as well. I remember reading an interview with Chuck Britz a long time ago and he stated that  he had Brian sing into a separate mic - I don't remember the exact model, but he indicated that it was a rather cheap mic, in professional recording studio terms, but that Brian sounded great through it so that's what he used. And I believe he was talking about background vocals, falsetto stuff, not leads.

The mic about which Chuck spoke in that interview is a Shure 545, which is similar to the Shure 57.  It is inexpensive today, as it was then--probably even more so then because I get the sense that the equipment reps were really aggressive in trying to get studios to pick up their products.

Chuck actually was referring to leads, and it's interesting you should mention falsetto, because the quote from that interview has always been a favorite of mine because it tends to corroborate my theory that Brian never had to resort to a true falsetto.  Chuck notes in that interview that Brian did not go into falsetto for the high stuff.

[Gregg]

Thanks for clearing that up, aeijtzsche. That was several years ago when I read that so I'm not surprised I had a few of the facts wrong. I didn't recall Chuck's other comment about Brian's voice though. That's true though. Brian didn't have to go to a true falsetto on most of those early leads -- SG and DWB come to mind. He just had the natural ability to smoothly go into this beautiful head voice. And I do recall the mic looking like a Shure SM57. And, yes, he sounded amazing on it!

[SgtTimBob]

Thanks for all the awesome insights. Fascinating stuff.

[c-man]

It bears mentioning that when they got to the point of using 8-track, the lead vocals were oftentimes TRIPLED ("California Girls", for example).  In the opinion of many, that's a much smoother sound than doubletracking affords.

[guitarfool2002]

In my opinion and (limited) experience, doubletracking a lead removes a lot of little pitch issues, where the "chorusing" effect created by layering the two tracks on each other compensates for wandering notes and whatnot. Tripletracking may sound more full, but when it comes to mixing I have found that if you go beyond one doubling of any track, it almost clouds it up too much, the frequencies start doing all kinds of weird interactions and phasing out and all of that, and the sound can wash out. If that's the desired effect, that's one thing, but when it comes to mixing something like three tracks of rhythm guitar playing the same thing, some of the sonic punch is lost in the tracks.

Of course when it's done right and works for the song, it can sound fine! But overall I don't think tripletracking a vocal adds much of anything that doubletracking doesn't already offer. I'm a "less is more" fan, after going overboard with tracking too many guitars Noel Gallagher style and ending up with sonic mush after all the work. 

[guitarfool2002]

And I'd like to concur that many engineers in the mid-60's didn't do as much plugging into external limiting amplifiers and compressors as they did by simply knowing the ebb and flow of a vocal melody and performance and riding the faders accordingly as the followed the musical score. And often for vocal/orchestral recordings like Dean Martin and whatnot, these mixing moves were done on the fly.

It's a lost art - seriously - to have an engineer follow the music this way. More often now a guy in his early 20's will sit at the ProTools rig watching the track scroll by and not even consider the peaks and valleys of the song or performance...it can all be "fixed" by some plugin after the fact. It's just the nature of the way hit records are constructed now versus then. Why bother tracking like the old timers when Maroon 5 can cut a hit record based on samples and scraps of digital audio which they can each send through an FTP server and not even interact with the song's construction in the studio? 

[SgtTimBob]

Hah. Yeah. I don't play too much with faders in my own production, instrumentally, I tend to build the sound landscape with layered instruments in an ensemble, allowing the quieter stuff to peep in when it wants to, I do a lot of blending with echo and reverb and send it all to a single bus where it passes through a plug-in that simulates analogue tape compression/distortion. I tend to enjoy the warmth that comes with the limiting and compression offered by that plug in.