Which Carpenters' songs use overdubbing entirely?
- Thread starter kennyv
- Start date
- Status
Dave
Well-Known Member
Is "Only Yesterday" over-dubbbed, too? The saxophone solo? Castanets? I think even something simple like "Hurting Each Other" might have some over-dubbing, as well... Don't forget about the guitar solo added to "Goodbye To Love"...and "Don't Cry For Me Argentina" (much like a lot of songs on Passage...)
Dave
Dave
Actually, all of their songs utilize the overdubbing process. Since the only sections of their songs that were usually recorded "live" were the drums, bass and piano, everything that got recorded on top of the original take or "track" is considered to be an overdub.
The reason you hear that word so often in relation to Carpenters, is because their harmonic sound, which was typically made up of 12 voices (4-parts, tripled) on the earlier cuts, and standard 8-voices (4-parts, doubled) on the later cuts, called for a lot of overdubbing because all of those voices were being handled by only (2) people, which at that time was considered pretty remarkable.
To answer your question Dave, "Only Yesterday" actually was a song that the Carpenters used the most amount of overdubbing, in comparison with the rest of their catalogue. -Chris
The reason you hear that word so often in relation to Carpenters, is because their harmonic sound, which was typically made up of 12 voices (4-parts, tripled) on the earlier cuts, and standard 8-voices (4-parts, doubled) on the later cuts, called for a lot of overdubbing because all of those voices were being handled by only (2) people, which at that time was considered pretty remarkable.
To answer your question Dave, "Only Yesterday" actually was a song that the Carpenters used the most amount of overdubbing, in comparison with the rest of their catalogue. -Chris
newvillefan
I Know My First Name Is Stephen
I remember an interview from a few years ago with Richard, where he talked about the overdubbing of Karen's lead on 'Hush' and he mentioned that in retrospect he didn't like it, because Karen's voice was soft to start with, and overdubbing the lead only emphasised this, which he felt was the wrong sound for that record.
The technical term for that is a "vocal double" or "doubled lead". Karen did this on several songs all the way through (i.e. Sweet, Sweet Smile, B'Wana She No Home, Goofus, Breakin' Up Is Hard To Do, etc...) and of course almost every chorus she ever sang, Rich had her break into a double.
Personally, I loved this sound when she used it sparsely (i.e. backing vocals and to set up choruses and bridges, etc), but with the exception of "B'Wana", I didn't much care for it when she did it all the way through a song. -Chris
Personally, I loved this sound when she used it sparsely (i.e. backing vocals and to set up choruses and bridges, etc), but with the exception of "B'Wana", I didn't much care for it when she did it all the way through a song. -Chris
newvillefan
I Know My First Name Is Stephen
It's interesting the effect he employed on Karen's vocal in the chorus of 'Tryin' To Get The Feeling Again'. It didn't quite hit the mark for me. He had to do that, because Karen was not there to 'double it up', which is what she would have done if they'd completed it at the time.
I don't understand why he didn't just cut and paste the original vocal for the chorus and lay it over the top. Wouldn't that have achieved the effect he wanted?
I don't understand why he didn't just cut and paste the original vocal for the chorus and lay it over the top. Wouldn't that have achieved the effect he wanted?
Well, without getting too technical here, the "effect" that is established with vocal doubling is based on what are known as algorhythms. In other words, the wave formations that each voice makes side by side. Karen could double her voice perfectly (unlike many artists) because she had the ear for it. But even with that said, she could never literally match each soundwave, note for note, word for word, which gave it that in tune yet slightly out-of-tune warm sound. A sort of "fattening" of the vocal if you will.
I believe for "Tryin to Get The Feeling", Richard used an artificial doubler. For years, the company EVENTIDE made vocal harmonizers and doublers (amongst others even better now), which basically creates a similar effect, by taking the raw vocal, and creating a delay which moves the wave formation of the second voice ever so slightly out of time, making it sound like there are (2) voices. I still believe there is nothing like an artist's true "double", but for those who don't cut it, there are always the computers. -Chris
I believe for "Tryin to Get The Feeling", Richard used an artificial doubler. For years, the company EVENTIDE made vocal harmonizers and doublers (amongst others even better now), which basically creates a similar effect, by taking the raw vocal, and creating a delay which moves the wave formation of the second voice ever so slightly out of time, making it sound like there are (2) voices. I still believe there is nothing like an artist's true "double", but for those who don't cut it, there are always the computers. -Chris
newvillefan
I Know My First Name Is Stephen
. What you're saying more or less equates with Richard's liner notes from Interpretations, but he didn't go into that detail, which surprises me 
Yeah, Rich doesn't really like to get too detailed unless people ask him specifially. He loves talking about it, but a lot of people either don't care, or wouldn't understand it if you tried explaining it!
To back up for a minute, as far as copy/pasting, that would have done the exact same thing that an artificial doubling "effect" would have done, because you would just be taking a voice, copying that exact voice over and moving it slightly out of time. Again, it isn't as natural as if Karen had doubled it herself. If there were perhaps an alternate vocal take on the the master, and somehow miraculously Karen sang it almost identically to another take, he could pull the fader up and play them side-by-side on a playback, the same way he would if she had cut a second take intentionally for the double. -Chris
To back up for a minute, as far as copy/pasting, that would have done the exact same thing that an artificial doubling "effect" would have done, because you would just be taking a voice, copying that exact voice over and moving it slightly out of time. Again, it isn't as natural as if Karen had doubled it herself. If there were perhaps an alternate vocal take on the the master, and somehow miraculously Karen sang it almost identically to another take, he could pull the fader up and play them side-by-side on a playback, the same way he would if she had cut a second take intentionally for the double. -Chris
newvillefan
I Know My First Name Is Stephen
Chris, that reminds me of how ABBA achieved their sound too: recording everything twice, the drums, bass, guitars as well as the vocals.
And then for the vocal overdubs, their sound engineer Michael Tretow would adjust the speed slightly when recording them, making the resulting harmonies sound thinner and brighter.
That's the beauty of the studio. You can employ all kinds of effects and sounds. When you talk about copying and pasting, vs. doubling, etc, I have done all of these things in recording so I definitely understand how it all works. The Carpenters [in their own words] were "studio animals", so they managed to acheive perfection when it came to their vocals. -Chris
Vinylalbumcovers
Ah am so steel een luv weeth yoo
Doing a fake "double" like that is hard work. You could put a little reverb on one and leave the double "dry" or without effects but then, it can sound too harsh. Another danger is sibilance (an extra harmonic you didn't ask for) when you "manufacture" a double, where the waves are exactly the same. You can even get it when you're singing with yourself a lot. I know I've had that happen when I've created 12-voiced harmony with just my own voice. I agree with Chris in that you're always better off doing it naturally if at all possible.
I also agree that the effect used on "Tryin'..." didn't work at all. It would have been better to simply go without and add some a light reverb on it instead. What we ended up with just doesn't sound like it fits the overall mix. It's just...well...weird.
Another song that has a really interesting kind of "double" on it is "Love Me For What I Am". If my ears aren't deceiving me, not only is Karen "doubled" in the chorus, but she's also "flanged". Flanging, in short, is an effect you add to a sound that ultimately sounds like you're singing into a fan. I think they're might also be a "chorus" effect on it but I wouldn't swear to that. I love the almost robotic sound Richard went for. I also have to hand it to Karen for "doubling" herself as well as she did. That's a hard thing to do and it takes great concentration to do it.
Ed
I also agree that the effect used on "Tryin'..." didn't work at all. It would have been better to simply go without and add some a light reverb on it instead. What we ended up with just doesn't sound like it fits the overall mix. It's just...well...weird.
Another song that has a really interesting kind of "double" on it is "Love Me For What I Am". If my ears aren't deceiving me, not only is Karen "doubled" in the chorus, but she's also "flanged". Flanging, in short, is an effect you add to a sound that ultimately sounds like you're singing into a fan. I think they're might also be a "chorus" effect on it but I wouldn't swear to that. I love the almost robotic sound Richard went for. I also have to hand it to Karen for "doubling" herself as well as she did. That's a hard thing to do and it takes great concentration to do it.
Ed
ThaFunkyFakeTation said:
You are correct in this, Ed. I always thought it was a bit odd that out of ALL of the recordings that Karen doubled her lead on, Richard used additional effects on this recording only. I never could quite figure out why, mainly because Karen doubled extremely well just naturally, without any flanging, delay or chorus. Her voice was almost haunting when she did this, particularly in the backing vocals.
Another thing I noticed is that her voice sounded "fatter" when she doubled from about '74 on. I would bet it most likely is because unlike a lot of artists, when she doubled, she'd go right up on the mic. She didn't back up and leave space (however this can be heard on her solo album). She was truly one of a kind. -Chris
Chris, it's so great to have that kind of information dug up from a sound engineer. All that creating a delay to move the wave formation of the second voice, that's something our ears detected but just couldn't quite put a finger on it.
Overdubbing I feel definitely adds richness to Karen's voice since her voice was soft (remembered you talked about Karen singing a room without a mic and you couldn't her from across the room). And Richard used this technique a lot when it came to a part where she had to sing in higher notes. The only problem I had with overdubbing Karen's lead is that it made her sound a bit less genuine, but technically it sounded great on the ears.
Overdubbing I feel definitely adds richness to Karen's voice since her voice was soft (remembered you talked about Karen singing a room without a mic and you couldn't her from across the room). And Richard used this technique a lot when it came to a part where she had to sing in higher notes. The only problem I had with overdubbing Karen's lead is that it made her sound a bit less genuine, but technically it sounded great on the ears.
Vinylalbumcovers
Ah am so steel een luv weeth yoo
Chris May said:
I agree. They did something slightly reminiscent of this on "Calling Occupants..." for obvious reasons. They also seemed to play around a lot with "large hall" reverbs later on. It was hard to do in the early days because there were only 8 tracks on 1-inch tape. If you decided to use an effect, it had to be mono. That was all you had room on the tape for. As technology enabled the use of 16 tracks on 2-inch tape, there were enough tracks to add stereo effects as long as you didn't go nuts with it. They got downright choral as time wore on and it sounded spectacular. "So let me gooo" at the end of "Love Me..." just gives me chills. Not only that but do you notice the way they sing it? The phrasing is very staccato and nuanced. They bend the word "go" into something slightly sharper and it does wonders for it. Richard was clearly really paying attention to nuances like this. He's far better in this capacity than he's ever given credit for. He should have been as big as David Foster. Why he wasn't is a total mystery.
Chris May then said:
I agree. I think that may also be the result of more tracks. It was around that time that 24-track 2-inch tape showed up (the dreaded Ampex 456). With 24-tracks, you can play even more without the fear of running out of tracks. The more tracks they got, the more polished the sound got. I'm sure the only track that got ugly was "Calling Occupants...". I can't imagine all the "bouncing" they must have done on that one...LOL! It also helped that she got right up against that pop-stopper too. That must have made "punching in" and "punching out" (editing the vocal during the session) a real nightmare for Ray and Roger. This might also be why Phil had her back off of the mic a bit for her solo record. Editing becomes far simpler when you don't have to deal with excessive breathing. In the case of Karen, though, she had such a presence that to not take total advantage of that is just silly - breathing be darned.
Ed
Dave
Well-Known Member
Ed said:
Had he branched out on other people's (peoples') projects, he probably could've been as big as Foster... As far as session keyboardists/arrangers (sometimes producers) go, Richard could out-arrange and out-wit the best, but just never took that iniative, let alone, having ever been (yes, ironically) even noticed for having a knack for such by others he could've worked with in that capacity... There were still much bigger names in keyboardist/arrangers that the business was more used to giving the better recognition to and that's why they seemed to have long been playing this "role" that Richard just incidentally missed out on... Things have sure changed since his beginnings in New Haven...
...Ah, but, can Richard bang out a "mean-sounding" clavinet like David Foster can? A "wicked" Hammond Organ? An "Elton John-sounding" Farfisa? Does he really have the piano/electric piano skills, Foster exhibited for the likes of the many he played for? As well as being able to handle a Moog/Korg/ARP, etc. Lead Synthesizer Set-Up, that will give the musical backing-up "just the right touch"? (...And not have you wondering what's backing IT up...!) ...That is, NOT sounding too "up-front"!! And what about ORCHESTRATIONS?--String & Horn Sections?!
Dave
ThaFunkyFakeTation said:
When Karen sings "You close your eyes, you concentrate, together that's the way; to send a message we declare World Contact Day", on the original mix she isn't doubled. But on the remix, Richard added what sounds like a large chorus with delay to the vocal to make it sound almost "doubled". I always figured this was something that Rich would have prefered Karen doubled on, therefore the reason for adding the effect in later years.
Regarding the backing vocals in general, I remember producing a session several years ago with an engineer who recorded everything 16-track, 1 inch. There were several vocal overdubs that had to be recorded. To save fidelity on the tape (and YES, it was good 'ol Ampex 456), we ended up sub-mixing the track to 2-tracks in stereo, flying it over to a new reel, laid out 12 overdubs, then mixed the backing vocals down to 2 tracks [stereo] and locked it back in on the original master.
I asked Richard about this, particularly when he and Karen were limited to just (16) tracks from '70-'73, and he said that they just did all of the vocals, two at a time on the master until they reached twelve voices (4-part, tripled). As more and more got overdubbed, the backing vocals simply got subbed to a total of (4) tracks right on the original tape. It made it easier to do the sub mix right then and there rather than struggle with two separate reels of tape to try and get everything recorded. That's why you hear (especially with the earlier albums) two parts (usually the outer parts of the chord) panned to one side, and the remaining two "close" voices panned opposite. They were already sub-divided/mixed that way on the master. It really was an undertaking I'm sure back in those days. Great engineering at A&M and two incredibly gifted people. -Chris
Vinylalbumcovers
Ah am so steel een luv weeth yoo
Dave said:
I agree. It's a real shame. Ah, what might have been. Everyone seemed to assume that Carpenters was all Karen. I remember a photograph in which Richard was credited as "the keyboard player for the Carpenters". That had to hurt. It also couldn't possibly be further from the truth.
Our David Foster fan then said:...Ah, but, can Richard bang out a "mean-sounding" clavinet like David Foster can? A "wicked" Hammond Organ? An "Elton John-sounding" Farfisa? Does he really have the piano/electric piano skills, Foster exhibited for the likes of the many he played for? As well as being able to handle a Moog/Korg/ARP, etc. Lead Synthesizer Set-Up, that will give the musical backing-up "just the right touch"? (...And not have you wondering what's backing IT up...!) ...That is, NOT sounding too "up-front"!! And what about ORCHESTRATIONS?--String & Horn Sections?!
Dave
Foster is excellent - make no mistake about it. He has a way with a Moog that few do. He can be incredibly funky. There are few better on that synth (except for maybe Bernie Worrell). He's got a variety of things and he can play in many different styles (Pop, R&B, Country, Rock). It also never hurts that he knows a million and one chords. That's likely what's kept his productions so relevant for so long. He can do the "musical chameleon" thing while still maintaing a recognizable sound. When you hear one of his productions, you know it's him.
Ed
Vinylalbumcovers
Ah am so steel een luv weeth yoo
Chris May said:
See, I wondered if he didn't use the delay with the "doubling"? I always figured they were both there. It sounds so fat in that section. Because of the swelling strings and the "melodramatic bang" that occur at the end of that section, he probably decided that her vocal track needed more "fattening" to make it "cut" in the remix.[/quote]
Chris said:
Well, he'll end up having to bake that tape in a few years if he wants to get the information off of it. That formulation has become a real nightmare. Who woulda thought...? I'm so glad we moved on to 24 tracks because I just hate to commit early. I'd rather have it all out there in front of me, dry as a bone, so that I can work with it free from commitment. LOL! Flying things like that also drops a little of the resolution because those vocals end up third generation instead of just your typical second. Did it sound okay?[/quote]
Chris continued and said:
16 tracks in 1970? That's interesting. I just remastered an album a few days ago that was done in 1971 and it was on 8 tracks. Guess it was a mixture of both at that point. I'm sure vocal overdubbing like that had to be a nightmare back then. I just prefer not to have to sub-mix anything. What can I say? I have a fear of commitment. LOL! With 24 tracks, you also got so many more choices with regards panning (positioning). You could really place those vocals exactly where you wanted to in the sound field rather than having to commit (there's that word again) to a couple of positions and being stuck with them. You could also feel free to mess with them later if you felt differently then next day about what you did.
The only nice thing about digital is that you can have limitless tracks and we don't have to worry about things like that anymore. The sound? Well...
Ed
Well as you well know Ed, no producer or engineer likes to commit ANYTHING to tape unless they are damn sure that they have exactly what they want! So don't feel bad.
As far as number of tracks with the Carpenters at A&M, it went as follows:
OFFERING/TICKET: Recorded on 8 tracks, some of the recordings were originally cut four-track at Joe Osborn's studio, then transferred to eight at A&M for additional recording and remix for album completion.
CLOSE TO YOU, CARPENTERS (S/T), A SONG FOR YOU, NOW & THEN: Recorded on 16-tracks
HORIZON & REMAINING CARPS ALBUMS: 24-tracks. On the later albums, (2) 24-track machines synced up for the larger production to handle orchestra charts, etc
I think the people that REALLY got overlooked throughout the Carpenters' career were Ray Gerhardt and Roger Young. Their engineering skills were incredible. They had to do LOTS of sub-mixing on every master. For instance, on the first 4 or 5 albums, the drums were subbed onto (2) tracks only (Kick on track one, remainder of kit on track two, mono/centered). Piano got one track, and strings were cut cello to one track, violins all to one, and violas to one, so you only had so much you could do in the way of mixing the strings in stereo. Backing vocals got (4) submix tracks on virtually every song. Often times things like woodwind intros, harp swells, etc all shared a track, because obviously those floater tracks were only being used when a certain figure would come in, so it could be used for multiple instruments, and you'd just ride the fader. Karen's vocal usually got one, occasionally two (this is where the vocal "doubles" were often kept for the choruses, on the same track where she'd cut an alternate lead or work lead.
In around '74 when A&M employed 24-track, the drums got (4) tracks instead of (2). Kick on one, snare on one and the remaining (2) tracks got stereo overheads of the kit. Piano got two tracks, backing vox the same as earlier and so on, with LOTS of track sharing. It's
pretty interesting! -Chris
As far as number of tracks with the Carpenters at A&M, it went as follows:
OFFERING/TICKET: Recorded on 8 tracks, some of the recordings were originally cut four-track at Joe Osborn's studio, then transferred to eight at A&M for additional recording and remix for album completion.
CLOSE TO YOU, CARPENTERS (S/T), A SONG FOR YOU, NOW & THEN: Recorded on 16-tracks
HORIZON & REMAINING CARPS ALBUMS: 24-tracks. On the later albums, (2) 24-track machines synced up for the larger production to handle orchestra charts, etc
I think the people that REALLY got overlooked throughout the Carpenters' career were Ray Gerhardt and Roger Young. Their engineering skills were incredible. They had to do LOTS of sub-mixing on every master. For instance, on the first 4 or 5 albums, the drums were subbed onto (2) tracks only (Kick on track one, remainder of kit on track two, mono/centered). Piano got one track, and strings were cut cello to one track, violins all to one, and violas to one, so you only had so much you could do in the way of mixing the strings in stereo. Backing vocals got (4) submix tracks on virtually every song. Often times things like woodwind intros, harp swells, etc all shared a track, because obviously those floater tracks were only being used when a certain figure would come in, so it could be used for multiple instruments, and you'd just ride the fader. Karen's vocal usually got one, occasionally two (this is where the vocal "doubles" were often kept for the choruses, on the same track where she'd cut an alternate lead or work lead.
In around '74 when A&M employed 24-track, the drums got (4) tracks instead of (2). Kick on one, snare on one and the remaining (2) tracks got stereo overheads of the kit. Piano got two tracks, backing vox the same as earlier and so on, with LOTS of track sharing. It's
pretty interesting! -Chris
Dave
Well-Known Member
Funky said:
Kind'a like how "The Captain" (Daryl Dragon) of Captain & Tennille was "Tony Tennille's Keyboardist"! I'm sure he could do the same thing "outside" as Richard could've done--Arrange, Produce and even Orchestrate! And HE had one Hell of a Keyboard Set-Up, as well!--But didn't...for "his" reasons, too!
Dave said:
--Well, that pretty much sums it up, there!
Dave
davidgra
Active Member
I remember reading a few years ago about how Brian Wilson used to record in the studio during the PET SOUNDS era. He would start with the band, recording to eight tracks, then create a mono mix of the instrumental backing and fly it over to one track on a new 8-track tape. He would then use the remaining seven tracks for vocals and some post-production overdubs, and mix to mono from that.
The reason PET SOUNDS was not available in stereo for so many years was because the instrumental backing track on the 8-track master with vocals was mono, and there was no easy way to create a stereo mix using the two different tapes until the digital era came along and the two 8-track masters could be synchronized, allowing the engineer to create a new mix from 15 tracks.
David
The reason PET SOUNDS was not available in stereo for so many years was because the instrumental backing track on the 8-track master with vocals was mono, and there was no easy way to create a stereo mix using the two different tapes until the digital era came along and the two 8-track masters could be synchronized, allowing the engineer to create a new mix from 15 tracks.
David
davidgra said:
I heard some time back David that another reason Brian preferred mixing to mono was because of his being deaf in one ear as a result of early child abuse. Amazing that guy could put together all he did. I own both the Pet Sounds box set as well as Good Vibrations, and BOTH tell quite an interesting story of Brian's incredible abilities. You should hear the stereo instrumental remix of "Good Vibrations"-- Another tune recorded in three pieces, three different studios and edited to completion. It's chilling. -Chris
- Status
