I’d like to hear a scientific explanation of this!
[Example song](https://youtu.be/C7HP9Xkim9o)
I have a few questions about this.
I was once told that it’s because multiple vocals of this era were done live through a single mic (rather than overdubbed one at a time), and the layers of harmonies disturb the hair in such a way that it causes this quality. Is this the case? If it is, what exactly is the “disturbance”? Are there other factors, such as the equipment used, the mix of the recording, added reverb, etc?
EDIT: uhhhh well I didn’t expect this to blow up like it did. Thanks for everyone who commented, and thanks for the gold!
In: Physics
Part of it might have to do with the loudness war and songs being mastered for shitty audio gear now days. The loudness war is artist wanting their music to be mastered louder and louder, which results in less fidelity in the song because its all kinda jammed up there rather than using the full spectrum.
Do you really want airy music from Pitbull?
I think it is just a style of harmonizing. These things go in and out of fashion over the years. It just so happens that CSN and S&G were active at the same time.
I’m sure there are modern groups that sing this way from time to time.
Check out a documentary called The Harmony Game. In it, the producer of many Simon and Garfunkel classics details his vocal recording and mixing style which basically amounts to having each vocal recorded and doubled individually and then both vocals on one mic giving the mixer several tracks to pan and balance.
Overdubbing was common even in this era; in fact, the effect here is produced by multitracking, a form of overdubbing in which multiple takes of the same part by the same vocalist(s) are overlaid and bounced to a new track. What you were told about acoustic disturbance isn’t totally inaccurate, as the perceived effect itself comes from the constructive & destructive interference of the overlaid waveforms, but this doesn’t require that they interact in the air, which you can test for yourself just by graphing any two simple waveforms and then graphing their sum. The same waveform summed with itself will produce the same waveform but with twice the amplitude/volume (1+1=2 (constructive)), while a waveform summed with its inverse will produce silence (-1+1=0 (destructive)). Where no two takes of a part will ever be identical, the multiple waveforms interact with one another in such a way as to create a complex pattern of interference, reinforcing & attenuating certain frequencies in a non-fixed way, which we perceive as this ‘airy’ quality you describe, and which cannot be produced quite the same just by processing the signal with a unison or chorus effect as is common today.
A lot of harmonies today are auto-tuned and represent only 1 – 3 voices. I sing in a church choir of 20 voices and we still sound like your “old fashioned” example. I think it is the fact that different singers’ voices have different timbre – different tone and a different mix of overtones / undertones – and that a larger number of voices has a more full and interesting mix of harmonics.
They loved doubling up vocals back then, as in you have the same vocal track repeated a fraction of a second later. John Lennon is doubled up on nearly all of his songs. They’d do this with harmonies as well – each vocal onto a single track and then doubled up. That’s a lot of vocal going on at once, with sounds overlapping and interfering with each other, giving it that swirling shimmery sound.
What I also notice about the example you posted is that every vocal harmony is at a similar level, as if you’re listening to a group of singers in a room. Modern music tends to go with the lead vocalist pushed to front, and backing singers for the harmonies, pushed further back in the mix.
Any kind of commercial music is competing in a kind of arms race of sound, attempting to stand out. Producers come up with a trick that makes their song sound bigger, then pretty soon everyone’s doing it. Vocal doubling was one of those tricks. As we move into the 80s, the backing track becomes more of a focus. There’s only so much you can do with vocals, but instruments and production techniques are changing all the time.
Some of it is the mixing/mastering. [this “Twenty Thousand Hertz” episode](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/twenty-thousand-hertz/id1171270672?i=1000450841062) and the following episode covers the differences in modern mixing/mastering, versus mixing/mastering in previous decades.
Some of it is that songs used to be recorded in a single session in a big group, yeah. There are differences in the way they were recorded, and the ways that it’s been mastered make a big difference. Same with the size and acoustics of the studio in which it was recorded.
Any recording engineer will tell you that a particular “sound” whether it be from the modern era or older is not due to any single factor but a number of little differences that produce the signature when stacked together. A few of them in this case could be:
1. Recording technique: As is mentioned already, tracking harmonies together verses stacked (individually at a time) creates a softer, but more cohesive sound. If you have ever played a digital piano you will notice that individual notes can (in the best emulations) be almost utterly convincing but chords less so, because the resonance of the notes together impact each other on a real piano.
2. Recording equipment: Tube gear and tape were used in these earlier eras. Tape in particular can mute the high end frequencies. When you add them back or compensate for them you get the same frequencies but sweetened by harmonic distortion and non-linear characteristics. Digital is cleaner but harder. Older technologies are (generally) softer and sweeter. Plate reverbs were also more popular back then. They produce a rich, haunting sound that is very beautiful but less suited to modern music. Yes plate reverbs still get used a lot today but it more subtle ways and often with a digital emulation rather than the real thing.
3. Recording spaces: A room is as important to a sound recording as light is to a film recording. And in the 70s there were some LEGENDARY rooms that simply don’t exist today. It’s also one of the reasons for THAT signature Motown sound. Recording spaces today are more perfectly designed and built for a variety of recordings. Older, less perfect, more creative spaces gave different sounds.
4. Fashion: There was a popular style for harmonies of that era. You can hear similarities in something like Fleet Foxes in more modern times but when you have a critical mass of artists all going for one “sound” you are going to get an overall higher standard and the best of those will be better than the best today, when the fashion is not as popular.
Add all these things together and although each is not a game changer, the cumulative effect is a unique sound that is not easily replicated today.
Mixing aside I think it’s 1 5 10 all male harmonies.
In the style youre talking about melody sings in normal range, male falsetto sings octave plus a third (10 total) and mid sings the 5th. [Simon and Garfunkel](https://youtu.be/9C1BCAgu2I8) Use octave separated male male harmony but are missing the third harmony that rounds it out . Csn’s use of 1 and 5 harmonies are definately unique since singing a third higher or lower is more common. But balanced with the falsetto third harmony up an octave you get massive range, and a different sound. Think [bohemian rhapsody](https://youtu.be/fJ9rUzIMcZQ) pushing the limits of their voices although they use more beach boys esque harmony (see below) but great range. [momma’s and the papas](https://youtu.be/N-aK6JnyFmk) have great harmony but use counter melodies male and female so it doesn’t mean the same way.
Next most similar is the most common duet harmony that your probably comparing csn to. Often mixed male and female it lacks the complexity. Sibling harmony like [first aid kit](https://youtu.be/PC57z-oDPLs) interesting haunting harmonies and they both sing the melody sometimes for a doubling effect. [Jack black singing extreme](https://youtu.be/1ISYT6EeUM0) Is another example of the much more common up or down a third harmony that’s common.
In comparison the beach boys use similar spread in their harmonies but they rely heavily of the seventh chord 2 4 5 7, a dissonant non smooth tense style that is actually popular in 50’s music and even old hymns and church music. Also maj7 chords.
Another comparison is barber shop. This has the same notes as csn but in the same octave usually 1 3 5 or 7ths but never the octave above. It sounds crowded and outdated. Depth in barber shop is given by adding a simple walking base line usually an octave lower playing the root note of any chord. This type of music usually also has simple chord progressions of 1st 4th and 5th.
Acapella harmonies usually have an ooh aah background sound so they aren’t singing the lyrics, producing another style. Same with choral arrangements or backup singers which dont sign the melody but instead add a rhythm section vibe.
So with all the harmony styles I can think of that all fundamentally use the same notes in different ways that style your talking about which I’m caling 1 5 10 male harmony is difficult to arrange, difficult vocally and just out of style compared to the third or choral/backup harmonies used so often today.
Latest Answers