^^^
No
Sheer Brass Neck
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Thistle
Well eff off then ;) :p
Saint Jiub
If the same person sings a melody and then sings a harmony as a double-track ... is that two voices?
If the same person sings a melody and then sings the melody again as a double track ... is that two voices?
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/double-tracking-vocals
If the same person sings a melody and then sings the melody again as a double track ... is that two voices?
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/double-tracking-vocals
Sebastian
How many Bayern Munich footballers were playing yesterday at the game? Correct answers include 11 (the maximum amount of BM players at any point) and 14 (assuming they used all their allowed substitutions), but it's not a matter of 'well, the Boateng who played on the second minute was different to the Boateng who played on the first minute and then the one just before getting injured, etc., therefore we had 532,234,234 different Bayern Munich players'.
If an actual 200-piece choir (i.e. 200 different people) sing a performance of, say, a Bach cantata, it counts as 200 voices. It's not a matter of ... 'well, on the first four bars the alto section didn't join in, so that's 150... and then for the next three bars there are all parts so that's 200 so we've got 350 so far... and then on bars 8-9 there are no basses and no tenors so we've got 100 voices, so far we've got 450 voices...'
It doesn't work like that.
If there are nine voices on 'Scaramouche - Fandango' and then 37 voices on 'Thunderbolt - frightening me', it still counts as a 37-piece choir, not as 46 (and counting).
[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]
If the same person sings a melody and then sings a harmony as a double-track ... is that two voices?
If the same person sings a melody and then sings the melody again as a double track ... is that two voices?
[/QUOTE]
Yes and yes. However, if there are nine backing vocals on a phrase and then ten backing vocals on the next one, it doesn't count as 19 backing vocals...
If an actual 200-piece choir (i.e. 200 different people) sing a performance of, say, a Bach cantata, it counts as 200 voices. It's not a matter of ... 'well, on the first four bars the alto section didn't join in, so that's 150... and then for the next three bars there are all parts so that's 200 so we've got 350 so far... and then on bars 8-9 there are no basses and no tenors so we've got 100 voices, so far we've got 450 voices...'
It doesn't work like that.
If there are nine voices on 'Scaramouche - Fandango' and then 37 voices on 'Thunderbolt - frightening me', it still counts as a 37-piece choir, not as 46 (and counting).
[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]
If the same person sings a melody and then sings a harmony as a double-track ... is that two voices?
If the same person sings a melody and then sings the melody again as a double track ... is that two voices?
[/QUOTE]
Yes and yes. However, if there are nine backing vocals on a phrase and then ten backing vocals on the next one, it doesn't count as 19 backing vocals...
Thistle
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
If an actual 200-piece choir (i.e. 200 different people) sing a performance of, say, a Bach cantata, it counts as 200 voices. It's not a matter of ... 'well, on the first four bars the alto section didn't join in, so that's 150... and then for the next three bars there are all parts so that's 200 so we've got 350 so far... and then on bars 8-9 there are no basses and no tenors so we've got 100 voices, so far we've got 450 voices...'
It doesn't work like that.
[/QUOTE]
You should have stopped right there - that's what I was driving at above,
Double tracking doesn't mean there's more voices - it means there's the same amount of voices, copied. If I take a picture of you and then use photoshop to add another picture of you, that doesn't make two of you. You're still only one person.
Queen only had 4 members, and they each had just one voice. I know, I know....it's technical jargon to say double tracking is two voices (or however many voices have been duplicated) but for me, it's a load of nonsense. 4 people cannot be 8, 16, 32 or 356.
There's a small amount of voices on Bo Rhap and that's the logical answer.
If an actual 200-piece choir (i.e. 200 different people) sing a performance of, say, a Bach cantata, it counts as 200 voices. It's not a matter of ... 'well, on the first four bars the alto section didn't join in, so that's 150... and then for the next three bars there are all parts so that's 200 so we've got 350 so far... and then on bars 8-9 there are no basses and no tenors so we've got 100 voices, so far we've got 450 voices...'
It doesn't work like that.
[/QUOTE]
You should have stopped right there - that's what I was driving at above,
Double tracking doesn't mean there's more voices - it means there's the same amount of voices, copied. If I take a picture of you and then use photoshop to add another picture of you, that doesn't make two of you. You're still only one person.
Queen only had 4 members, and they each had just one voice. I know, I know....it's technical jargon to say double tracking is two voices (or however many voices have been duplicated) but for me, it's a load of nonsense. 4 people cannot be 8, 16, 32 or 356.
There's a small amount of voices on Bo Rhap and that's the logical answer.
aristide1
It's not about the three (not four) separate vocalists, it's about how many separate vocal tracks they used.
180 is pure journalist speculation based on the declared intention to reproduce a huge choir of up to 200 people.
The actual number of overdubs is unknown since no one counted them. Most of them have been deleted after making the submixes.
Brian gave an explanation for the process of doubling, tripling, bouncing. He also mentioned the number of voices - "a lot".
We may try to guess, and 30-40 seems reasonable, but the image of Freddie asking anxious for "more Galileos", combined with the huge budget spent on studio time, point to a higher, unpredictable number.
180 is pure journalist speculation based on the declared intention to reproduce a huge choir of up to 200 people.
The actual number of overdubs is unknown since no one counted them. Most of them have been deleted after making the submixes.
Brian gave an explanation for the process of doubling, tripling, bouncing. He also mentioned the number of voices - "a lot".
We may try to guess, and 30-40 seems reasonable, but the image of Freddie asking anxious for "more Galileos", combined with the huge budget spent on studio time, point to a higher, unpredictable number.
Sebastian
It's about semantics:
- If Brian records a rhythm guitar part and then puts a solo on top of it, it's two guitars played by one person.
- By that same pattern, if someone records a vocal part and then doubles it, that's two voices recorded by one person.
'Bo Rhap' has 25-40-ish voices sung by three people, as well as a full drum plus an extra snare, two timpani, a gong and some cymbal rolls - all done by one person, 10-12-ish guitars played by one person, three tracks of one single-tracked bass (even if it looks/sounds contradictory) played by one person and two tracks of a single-tracked piano played by one person.
- If Brian records a rhythm guitar part and then puts a solo on top of it, it's two guitars played by one person.
- By that same pattern, if someone records a vocal part and then doubles it, that's two voices recorded by one person.
'Bo Rhap' has 25-40-ish voices sung by three people, as well as a full drum plus an extra snare, two timpani, a gong and some cymbal rolls - all done by one person, 10-12-ish guitars played by one person, three tracks of one single-tracked bass (even if it looks/sounds contradictory) played by one person and two tracks of a single-tracked piano played by one person.
Thistle
I know, I get it - I just disagree with it. As you say, it's semantics. For what it's worth, your two examples don't add up. If Brian records a rhythm part using one guitar and puts a solo over the top, with another, that's two guitars = 1 person. But you can't then say "by the same pattern" voices are the same idea - because it's not the same thing. It's still only one voice. Brian has several guitars, he only has one voice. As I keep saying, I know the jargon - I just don't agree with it.
Aristide - yes, I know. I only gave the number 4 as an example.
Aristide - yes, I know. I only gave the number 4 as an example.
Saint Jiub
If I sang the melody as a tenor, and then double-tracked the harmony in falsetto, would you consider that one or two voices?
Obviously it will sound like different singers, because you have never heard me sing. )p
Obviously it will sound like different singers, because you have never heard me sing. )p
Saint Jiub
If I sing the melody as an alto, and my identical twin sister simultaneously sings the melody the same way, is that one or two voices?
Sebastian
[QUOTE] [b]Thistleboy1980 wrote:[/b]
Brian has several guitars, he only has one voice. [/QUOTE]
He could've recorded both guitar parts using the same guitar (the Red Special). In that case, it's still two guitars played by one person using just one guitar.
Brian has several guitars, he only has one voice. [/QUOTE]
He could've recorded both guitar parts using the same guitar (the Red Special). In that case, it's still two guitars played by one person using just one guitar.
Thistle
That's not how your initial response read to me earlier, but I was heading out to work. Going back over it with more time, I see you mean using the same guitar twice (I thought you meant using two separate guitars). Again, the jargon may allow for that being "two guitars" - to me it's one guitar playing two different pieces. I GET the jargon (as I've said) I just think it's illogical. One guitar is one guitar, no matter how many layers - it's the same guitar. If he uses another - then it's two. One voice, regardless of how many takes, is still the same voice, so one. Fuck the jargon, it only opens itself up to arguments and false info, as fully illustrated in this thread.
Thistle
[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]
If I sang the melody as a tenor, and then double-tracked the harmony in falsetto, would you consider that one or two voices?
Obviously it will sound like different singers, because you have never heard me sing. )p[/QUOTE]
LOL.
Still one voice. It's the same with people doing impressions - "The man with 1000 voices" (and other such guff). Absolute nonsense. It's still just one voice - you're just using it differently.
If I sang the melody as a tenor, and then double-tracked the harmony in falsetto, would you consider that one or two voices?
Obviously it will sound like different singers, because you have never heard me sing. )p[/QUOTE]
LOL.
Still one voice. It's the same with people doing impressions - "The man with 1000 voices" (and other such guff). Absolute nonsense. It's still just one voice - you're just using it differently.
Sebastian
I suppose, just to be pedantic, that it'd be more correct in that case to label them 'four vocal tracks containing the same voice' or '6-8 guitar layers played on one guitar, by two different people' ('A Kind of Magic').
Still, regardless of what you call it, 'Bo Rhap' hasn't got 180 voices, it hasn't got 180 vocal overdubs, it hasn't got 180 vocal layers, 180 vocal tracks, a 180-piece choir or anything else with that '180' figure attached to it, except for myths, false legends, exaggerations, inflated figures, people's imagination and, of course, 'fanon'.
Still, regardless of what you call it, 'Bo Rhap' hasn't got 180 voices, it hasn't got 180 vocal overdubs, it hasn't got 180 vocal layers, 180 vocal tracks, a 180-piece choir or anything else with that '180' figure attached to it, except for myths, false legends, exaggerations, inflated figures, people's imagination and, of course, 'fanon'.
cmsdrums
The 'jargon' in the recording world for additional vocal parts would generally (and even then not definitively!) be to refer to 'vocals' rather than 'voices'. eg "that track has got 8 vocals on it" would pretty much generally be taken to mean that are 8 vocal parts on it (whether lead, harmonies or double tracking), regardless of whether they are recorded by one singer or a combination of 2 or more. If however you said "that track has got 8 voices on it" it would generally mean 8 different singers, but perhaps all singing multiple parts several times, and so resulting in tens of even hundreds of "vocals". Therefore I would refer to Bo Rhap having three "voices" but 30 or 40+ "vocals", but no way near the fabled "180" (which however I think was originally simply a figure of speech to emphasise the layering, overall sound and complexity of the vocals and not in any way an attempt to be definitive or deceive anyone).
Guitar-wise things are probably simpler....one guitar performance is "one guitar part/track" - if that is then repeated (perhaps the same part but with a different sound, or panned differently) that gives "two guitars" on the piece (regardless of whether it is the same physical guitar being played by the same player). Several more different guitar parts may be added, each one becoming an additional "guitar part/track" on the song.
Anyways....all good fun discussing our interpretation of recording semantics! :-)
Guitar-wise things are probably simpler....one guitar performance is "one guitar part/track" - if that is then repeated (perhaps the same part but with a different sound, or panned differently) that gives "two guitars" on the piece (regardless of whether it is the same physical guitar being played by the same player). Several more different guitar parts may be added, each one becoming an additional "guitar part/track" on the song.
Anyways....all good fun discussing our interpretation of recording semantics! :-)