Who influenced J&P's early "unison singing" style?
Dennis B
recently, I was struck by something that I'd overlooked regarding
their sound. I've never seen it written about before, so I thought
I'd throw it out here: It's John and Paul's unison (unharmonized)
singing on the early singles (and a few LP cuts). It's one of those
things that's so obvious - and taken for granted - that no one seemed
to ever notice. The Tim Riley book gives it a passing mention, but it
seems like maybe it deserves more than that.
It's sort of hit me at this (very) late date that J&P's "let's sing it
together" approach was almost completely without precedent. The
singles that featured this are the ones that established the band (all
from '63): "Please...," "From Me...," "She Loves You" and "I Wanna
Hold Your Hand." This approch also pops up in the earlier "Misery,"
though. Paul often ran with the harmonies in segments of these tunes,
but the bulk was sung unhramonized by J&P, and that's one thing that
made them sound like no one else. (It's probably also one reason the
"serious" media thought they lacked talent...I mean who sings without
harmony? Music teachers would have fits!)
So I'm throwing this question out to the board: Where could they have
possibly come up with the idea of singing this way?
Not from the Everly Brothers - they always harmonized. And not from
the many '50s rockers they liked - they all sung solo. And not from
the girl groups (Shirelles, etc.)who put the lead up front and had the
bg. singers way behind. Is there an influence I'm unaware of? Obscure
Brit music hall stuff?
Also...who has done this since? The only bands I can think of are
Bananarama...and (gulp) the Spice Girls. And the only major '60s
single I can think of that features this is the frat classic "Double
Shot of My Baby's Love."
Hope this isn't too much of a music-geek question.
--
All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
Donz5
>So I'm throwing this question out to the board: Where could they have
>possibly come up with the idea of singing this way?
Perhaps from the recording studio -- it saved on the time and energy to
double-track (or even overdub) the vocals.
Rich Forman
> I'm no newcomer to the Beatles music, but after watching a video
> recently, I was struck by something that I'd overlooked regarding
> their sound. I've never seen it written about before, so I thought
> I'd throw it out here: It's John and Paul's unison (unharmonized)
> singing on the early singles (and a few LP cuts). It's one of those
> things that's so obvious - and taken for granted - that no one seemed
> to ever notice. The Tim Riley book gives it a passing mention, but it
> seems like maybe it deserves more than that.
> So I'm throwing this question out to the board: Where could they have
> possibly come up with the idea of singing this way?
>
> Also...who has done this since?
> Hope this isn't too much of a music-geek question.
No, you're right, I've thought about this too, it was a pretty
interesting technique, and showed they weren't on auto pilot but very
carefully considering their vocal arrangements. Most other people
would just automatically go to a textbook thirds-apart by-the-book
obvious harmony all the time. John's and Paul's blended "voice" was a
distinctive element of their early sound. And their application of
the device was surprisingly ego-free for singers, they both seem to
sing the same phrase the same way, and make their voices sound almost
the same, so that neither individual voice really stood out
distinguishably (is that a word?).
McCartney chose to use this old trick again on "Real Love," where he
said that he doubled up the lead vocal (or parts of it) with John's,
relying on a skill he had long ago developed of mimicking the sound of
John's voice with his own,
so that it wouldn't sound like a duet or both of them singing, but
just fatten up the sound of John's lead.
richforman
bunky_boy
"Dennis B" <denni...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34143041.02041...@posting.google.com...
> Also...who has done this since? The only bands I can think of are
> Bananarama...and (gulp) the Spice Girls.
The Doobie Brothers did some of this as well from "Living on the Fault
Line".
Specifically "You Never Change" and "Chinatown".
They kinda slip in and out of unison to harmony and back.
Peter and Gordon did it and Chad and Jeremy. The Dave Clark Five, The
Hollies.
The Byrds "Turn Turn Turn" etc,etc, it's a long list.
The Everly Brothers did the unison to harmony thing on Cathy's Clown.
That's one I can think of off the bat, I'm sure there are others.
All the great harmonizers did it, The Lettermen, The Crewcuts, The Beach
Boys (round round get a round).
Three Dog Night "Out In The Country" etc Chicago "Wishing You Were
Here".etc.
80s Tears For Fears "Shout" and XTC did some too I'm sure.
Lately? Perhaps Backstreet Boys and like you say Spice Girls (I love Baby
Spice) who one might consider to be the best of the manufactured worst
types. Although they work hard you gotta respect that.
The Beatles of course were masters at it.
Good Thread.
MrGripweed
>>possibly come up with the idea of singing this way?
>
Maybe with crappy P.A. systems in the old days, they did it just to make the
vocals heard.
Brian Fried
> possibly come up with the idea of singing this way?
I'm hazarding a guess here, but I'd suggest it comes from Motown. In many a
Motown performance, such as those by the Temptations ("My Girl," etc.) and
the Four Tops, there's often a second person joining the lead to reinforce a
vocal that sounds singular and not harmonized the way two separate voices in
the same verse would sound. (Hopefully that statement is understandable....)
This might also explain the Fabs' preferance to Motown records and not
country and western (except, perhaps, for Ringo) or blues records -- Chuck
Berry, Bo Diddley and Muddy Waters are rarely mentioned as strong Beatles
influences the way the Miracles, the Shirelles and other Motown acts were.
saki
> It's sort of hit me at this (very) late date that J&P's "let's sing
> it together" approach was almost completely without precedent. The
> singles that featured this are the ones that established the band
> (all from '63): "Please...," "From Me...," "She Loves You" and "I
> Wanna Hold Your Hand." This approch also pops up in the earlier
> "Misery," though.
If I recall correctly, "Misery" was mostly John doubletracked in the
verses as well as middle-eight except for the harmonies in the chorus
on the word "Misery". But it serves to illustrate your point, or maybe
it brings up a new one: why the Fabs used doubletracking on voices that
were already perfectly capable of carrying the tune unaugmented by
studio enhancement.
And was this "doubling" of two lead singers a way of suggesting
doubletracking without actually using the technique? Although the
technology was available from the very first Beatles album, was there a
reason for trying something new?
I know that George Martin mentioned wanting to strengthen timid or
uncertain vocals with doubletracking (early Harrison and Starr tracks
suggest that this helped; listen to outtakes of Harrison's "Do You Want
To Know A Secret", for example). But John and Paul could belt out a
number like nobody's business and needed no artificial enhancements;
they also didn't need to sing together simply to strengthen their vocal
presence. So what's the deal?
> Paul often ran with the harmonies in segments of
> these tunes, but the bulk was sung unhramonized by J&P, and that's
> one thing that made them sound like no one else. (It's probably
> also one reason the "serious" media thought they lacked talent...I
> mean who sings without harmony? Music teachers would have fits!)
Actually, the serious non-music-industry media at the time (early
1960s) almost completely ignored or even denigrated rock and roll,
which was "teen" music and by definition "not serious" no matter
how many nice harmonies it had (and it had many).
There were a couple exceptions, such as appreciative Beatles
coverage emphasizing their musical ability in the Manchester
Guardian (June 1963) and the Times (December 1963), but on the
whole, critically speaking, the Fabs were dismissed as pure noise
or as the latest tiresome fad. Beatles fans knew better though.
> So I'm throwing this question out to the board: Where could they
> have possibly come up with the idea of singing this way?
Take a look at how many songs on "Please Please Me" or "With The
Beatles" actually use the technique you mention. I think only one
actually does: "Little Child" on "WTB". But there's lots of
doubletracking of single vocal leads.
What predominates in the four songs you mention (all of them single
releases, strong rockers as well as number one hits in 1963) is the
lead vocal sung by two voices, but stylistically isn't this approach
really an anomaly in the Beatles' canon? It was used a few times later
(the chorus of "Baby You're A Rich Man" comes to mind) but I don't
think it was common enough to entirely define the Beatles' unique
sound.
I agree with you that it's part of what made these particular four
songs sound so powerful and compelling, though each uses harmonies
to even greater effect, I think one might safely argue (especially
in the case of "Please Please Me").
One of the reasons the Fabs used this double lead so rarely may have
been that it's actually a very difficult vocal technique. Harmonies can
hide mistakes, but two voices, alone and in front, singing the same
music in unison can reveal the slightest mistake. Doubletracking (and
later ADT) gave a more predictable effect.
Another point to consider: in 1963 the Fabs were still a live band
rather than regularly in-studio, and not in large stadium venues but
rather small concert halls and clubs. The "dual unison" style delivers
a song with a real punch in such situations, even overcoming poor amps
and stage speakers...or the screams of the audience. Also, the four
songs you mention were new releases for 1963 and a predominant part of
their live repertoire; if a powerful wallop was desired, what better
way to deliver it than double the lead vocal?
One gets the impression that it was a short-lived stylistic effect much
like the harmonica John used in the early hits, something that was
dropped when it began to become too noticeable.
> Is there an influence I'm unaware of?
> Obscure Brit music hall stuff?
I think there is, but also in American music that was popularly covered
in the UK. Think of Carol King's 1962 hit "It Might As Well Rain Until
September", which was heavily covered in the UK and also distinctive
for its wide doubletracking of the lead vocal, so much so that it
sounds like two women singing (and was in fact covered by a female duo
in the UK in 1962, the De Laine Sisters). And I hate to say it, but the
Dave Clark Five (pre-British Invasion) released a song in 1962 called
"I Knew It All the Time" with Mike Smith's vocal heavily separated into
two identical voices.
These weren't unusual approaches in pre-Beatles British pop. Joe Meek
used echo, doubletracking and reverb to multiply the presence of solo
artists whose music he produced (Johnny Leyton, Emile Ford, etc.) If
you're familiar with The Honeycombs' 1964 hit ( UK and U.S.), "Have I
The Right" (which also has a "doubled" lead vocal similar to the sound
you mention in the four Beatles singles), you can probably imagine the
sound; it really drives the music forward. And Norrie Paramor produced
Helen Shapiro tracks using doubletracking to enhance what was already a
powerful voice (the Fabs wrote "Misery" for her, originally).
I recall a similar technique in jazz; Dizzy Gillespie and Charlie
Parker come to mind...there's a version of "Night in Tunisia" that
doubles the horn and sax in one portion of the song (it's arresting but
not common). The Beatles weren't big jazz fans but George
Martin may have known the style. Then again, unison singing may not
have been Martin's suggestion!
> Also...who has done this since? The only bands I can think of are
> Bananarama...and (gulp) the Spice Girls.
Didn't the Go-Go's use it on "We've Got The Beat" in the early
eighties? And if you're thinking of Bananarama's "Really Saying
Something", that's a cover of the Velvelettes' 1964 hit of the same
name. I think I've also heard the style used in some Australian bands
(Midnight Oil and Hunters And Collectors come to mind).
> And the only major '60s
> single I can think of that features this is the frat classic
> "Double Shot of My Baby's Love."
The Honeycombs, as I mentioned, from 1964; the Velvelettes; the Hollies
("Look Through Any Window" seems to use two or three voices in unison
on some verses along with harmonies on others). There may be other
examples I'm forgetting....
----
"One and one is two, what am I to do?"
------------------------
sa...@ucla.edu
paramucho
>I'm no newcomer to the Beatles music, but after watching a video
>recently, I was struck by something that I'd overlooked regarding
>their sound. I've never seen it written about before, so I thought
>I'd throw it out here: It's John and Paul's unison (unharmonized)
>singing on the early singles (and a few LP cuts). It's one of those
>things that's so obvious - and taken for granted - that no one seemed
>to ever notice. The Tim Riley book gives it a passing mention, but it
>seems like maybe it deserves more than that.
As others have noted the Beatles weren't first to sing in unison. It's
more a question of asking why they chose to pick up this option.
I'd hazard a guess that they stopped singing in unison in the studio
around the time the time that they found out that they could double
track a vocal. And I'd hazard a further guess that it was because of a
massively insecure John Lennon.
Martin and others at Abbey Road have said a number of times that
Lennon always wanted ketchup added to his voice. He probably felt the
same way on stage -- there other reports of his nervousness at live
performances, even at the height of Beatlemania. Here's an example:
when he sang "Twist And Shout" for PLEASE PLEASE ME the Abbey Road
staff thought he'd just recorded Britain's best Rock 'n' Roll vocal.
He thought his vocal performance was terrible.
My guess is that if you go through the songs where they sing in unison
you'll find that it's mostly McCartney strengthening Lennon's lead
vocal.
So, IMO, it's Lennon's insecurity regarding his voice.
An interesting spin-off of this habit is found in the songs where they
sing a mixture of unison and harmony parts. I think "She Loves You" is
one of those. It's a little like the early development stages of
polyphony which where singers generally sang in fourths or fifths but
sometimes sang unisons or passing notes.
Ian
AppleCorp3
>Boys (round round get a round).
I thought in most cases the just double-tracked it, instead of doing a unison
thing like John and Paul.
Simon and Garfunkel were great pros at this whole thing. I've read interviews
where Art said they would study how eachother sang, and try to copy eachothers
diction as close as possible.
>The Beatles of course were masters at it.
Definately. And still to this day the jury is still out in my mind on several
tracks. Every Little Thing is one and the last verse of Eight Days A Week is
another.
A lot of people mistake Misery and I Want to Hold Your Hand as double-tracked
John, but I'm pretty sure it was John and Paul.
Bob Gill
> denni...@yahoo.com (Dennis B) wrote in
> news:34143041.02041...@posting.google.com:
>
> > It's sort of hit me at this (very) late date that J&P's "let's sing
> > it together" approach was almost completely without precedent. The
> > singles that featured this are the ones that established the band
> > (all from '63): "Please...," "From Me...," "She Loves You" and "I
> > Wanna Hold Your Hand." This approch also pops up in the earlier
> > "Misery," though.
>
> If I recall correctly, "Misery" was mostly John doubletracked in the
> verses as well as middle-eight except for the harmonies in the chorus
> on the word "Misery".
I believe the liner notes to the first album say specifically that this song
is not John double-tracked, but John & Paul singing in unison.
-- Bob G.
robertandrews
>So I'm throwing this question out to the board: Where could they have
possibly come up with the idea of singing this way?
Two lead singers -- and co-songwriters! It was a natural thing.
Most of the John-Paul parts are harmonized -- they often move from harmony
to doubling, & vice-versa. The Everly Brothers & other singing groups did
this as well. The tape echo on some Sun records sounds like doubling.
The doubling is mostly when John sings lead. Legend has it that he hated
the sound of his voice, & perhaps there were technical concerns as well.
For sure he liked the strengthening effect, whether with Paul's voice or by
adding his own second track in the studio. It became one the Beatles'
trademarks.
>And the only major '60s single I can think of that features this is the
frat classic "Double Shot of My Baby's Love."
I think Gary U.S. Bonds doubled his voice -- Quarter to Three, New Orleans,
etc. There are earlier examples.
Michael Davis
> If I recall correctly, "Misery" was mostly John doubletracked in the
> verses as well as middle-eight except for the harmonies in the chorus
> on the word "Misery". But it serves to illustrate your point, or maybe
> it brings up a new one: why the Fabs used doubletracking on voices that
> were already perfectly capable of carrying the tune unaugmented by
> studio enhancement.
The liner notes claim "Misery" was John & Paul in unison. Perhaps the
doubletracking was a sound they liked?
> And was this "doubling" of two lead singers a way of suggesting
> doubletracking without actually using the technique? Although the
> technology was available from the very first Beatles album, was there a
> reason for trying something new?
While the technology was available, there's the possibility that they sang
in unison to save time. If the voices are double-tracked with two-track
tape, not only do you have to spend time singing the second part, but you
have to use a second tape to mixdown the original track. In other words,
while copying the first two-track to a second two-track, the vocal must be
superimposed onto the vocal track. Even if everything is done right the
first time, there's the performance and set-up time to take into account.
Given that the first album was done in a day, perhaps they just didn't have
time to do all the double tracking they wanted?
> Take a look at how many songs on "Please Please Me" or "With The
> Beatles" actually use the technique you mention. I think only one
> actually does: "Little Child" on "WTB". But there's lots of
> doubletracking of single vocal leads.
There's lots of doubletracking on WTB, not so much on PPM. Then again, they
had more time to make the second album. After all, the first album took
half an hour, and the second took even longer...
> One of the reasons the Fabs used this double lead so rarely may have
> been that it's actually a very difficult vocal technique. Harmonies can
> hide mistakes, but two voices, alone and in front, singing the same
> music in unison can reveal the slightest mistake. Doubletracking (and
> later ADT) gave a more predictable effect.
True. Perhaps with the early songs, they had sung them so many times live
that they could sing a doubled lead flawlessly on the first take. The later
songs were developed in the studio, so they weren't familiar enough with the
tunes to instinctively get the unison singing right.
Another consideration is that many of the "double lead" songs were
cowritten, 50-50 compositions. As the writing split into "John" and "Paul"
songs, perhaps they need and/or desire for double leads disappeared.
Mike Davis
******************************************************************************
"They've forgotten all about God, but He's the only reason we exist..."
--George Harrison (1943 - 2001)
http://fornax.pa.msu.edu/~davism -- Check out my music on mp3!
******************************************************************************
saki
news:3CB4D921...@erols.com:
> saki wrote:
>>
>> If I recall correctly, "Misery" was mostly John doubletracked in
>> the verses as well as middle-eight except for the harmonies in the
>> chorus on the word "Misery".
>
> I believe the liner notes to the first album say specifically
> that this song
> is not John double-tracked, but John & Paul singing in unison.
Could be; I'm willing to be convinced. But when I listen to the
outtakes on Unsurpassed Masters, I hear what sounds to my ears like
John doubletracked with Paul chiming in on harmonies. But I'll give it
another closer perusal....
----
"It's gonna be a drag...."
------------------------
sa...@ucla.edu
BigStar303
<< Take a look at how many songs on "Please Please Me" or "With The
Beatles" actually use the technique you mention. I think only one
actually does: "Little Child" on "WTB". But there's lots of
doubletracking of single vocal leads. >>
My ears tell me that John is singing harmony with himself on "I'm so sad and
lonely...." I don't think Paul is heard at all until the obvious "Oh yeah" near
the fadeout.
But I have to agree with everyone that John and Paul sing in unison on
"Misery." Listen to "Send her back to me...." There's an inflection there
that's Paul all the way.
BigStar303
<< Simon and Garfunkel were great pros at this whole thing. I've read
interviews
where Art said they would study how eachother sang, and try to copy eachothers
diction as close as possible. >>
Yes. I read their biography not long ago, and Artie said they would literally
get in each other's faces back in the Tom and Jerry days, carefully studying
where the tongue hit the palate, etc. Now that's dedication!
<< And still to this day the jury is still out in my mind on several
tracks. Every Little Thing is one and the last verse of Eight Days A Week is
another. >>
No hung jury in my mind. :)
That's John double-tracked on the verses of "Every Little Thing," with Paul
joining on the chorus. I hear no hint of Paul on the verses.
On "Eight Days a Week," John sings in unison with himself through the verses,
harmonizing with himself on "Hold me, love me" on the second and fourth verses
and on the title phrase at the end of each verse. Listen to "Hold me, love me"
on verses one and three. Ostensibly unison, though John wavers a bit on the
third verse. But it's unmistakably him singing both parts.
Paul enters on the bridge to sing the high part on "Eight days a week, I love
you; Eight days a week, is not enough to show I care." Then it's back to John
double-tracked.
Much the same vocal arrangement is used for "I Don't Want to Spoil the Party."
John harmonizes with himself on the verses (with Paul and George adding "ooo"'s
on "There's nothing for me here...").
Then Paul enters to do the high part on the bridges ("Though tonight she's made
me sad...").
All according to my ears rather than anything I've read. But I have listened
with headphones, and that's what I hear!
BigStar303
<< My guess is that if you go through the songs where they sing in unison
you'll find that it's mostly McCartney strengthening Lennon's lead
vocal. >>
"I'll Follow the Sun" is one example of the other way 'round. (Although for
years I swore I heard George in "I was the one." But that doesn't make sense,
as it's clearly John singing the low harmony on the bridge.)
AppleCorp3
>harmonizing with himself on "Hold me, love me" on the second and fourth
>verses
>and on the title phrase at the end of each verse.
Got it - yeah, I hear it now.
>That's John double-tracked on the verses of "Every Little Thing," with Paul
>joining on the chorus. I hear no hint of Paul on the verses.
>
I just gave it a relisten...and i'm still undecided. I hear hints of Paul on
the end words "people tell me i'm LU-CKY.." etc.
>Much the same vocal arrangement is used for "I Don't Want to Spoil the
>Party."
>John harmonizes with himself on the verses
Hmm - I think I hear bits of Paul in the verses too..."theres no fun in what i
do if she's not there." That phrase - especially "there" definately has got
Paul on it.
Like you've said...this is all according to my ears...geez - these guys were
just TOO good, huh?
Bob Gill
> Ian wrote:
>
> << My guess is that if you go through the songs where they sing in unison
> you'll find that it's mostly McCartney strengthening Lennon's lead
> vocal. >>
>
> "I'll Follow the Sun" is one example of the other way 'round. (Although for
> years I swore I heard George in "I was the one." But that doesn't make sense,
> as it's clearly John singing the low harmony on the bridge.)
I'd forgotten about this one; I agree, it sounds like J&P in unison on the
verses, except the high "Tomorrow may rain" line. I think they're singing in
unison on the verses of No Reply too, by the way. The best evidence to my ears is
heard on the Anthology CD where they make several attempts and keep laughing at
"in my place." I hear two voices there, and it wouldn't be double-tracked on the
original take.
I wonder if Beatles for Sale was the last album where they used this technique?
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any later ones.
-- Bob G.
Gary Rosen
"Brian Fried" <comi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6C0t8.7418$rp4.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> I'm hazarding a guess here, but I'd suggest it comes from Motown. In many
a
> Motown performance, such as those by the Temptations ("My Girl," etc.)
I'm not aware of any unison singing on "My Girl" - lead vocal was David
Ruffin.
and
> the Four Tops, there's often a second person joining the lead to reinforce
a
> vocal that sounds singular and not harmonized the way two separate voices
in
> the same verse would sound. (Hopefully that statement is
understandable....)
> This might also explain the Fabs' preferance to Motown records and not
> country and western (except, perhaps, for Ringo) or blues records -- Chuck
> Berry, Bo Diddley and Muddy Waters are rarely mentioned as strong Beatles
> influences the way the Miracles, the Shirelles and other Motown acts were.
The Shirelles were not a Motown act. "Motown" is not a generic name, it
refers specifically to a group of record labels for which the Shirelles
never
recorded.
- Gary Rosen
bunky_boy
"BigStar303" <bigst...@aol.comma> wrote in message
> Yes. I read their biography not long ago, and Artie said they would
literally
> get in each other's faces back in the Tom and Jerry days, carefully
studying
> where the tongue hit the palate, etc. Now that's dedication!
John and Paul Both have stated that this the way they wrote, right in each
others face.
I suppose that kind of intensity would have a way of flushing out any
imperfections in both writing and vocal performance.
the bunkster
--
bunky_boy
Time to feed the bots!!
tos...@aol.com, ab...@aol.com, ab...@yahoo.com, ab...@hotmail.com,
ab...@telstra.com, ab...@msn.com, ab...@microsoft.com, ab...@msn.com,
ab...@sprint.com, ab...@earthlink.com, u...@ftc.gov, spa...@spamcop.net,
ab...@swbell.net, u...@ftc.gov, ab...@hotmail.com
JBaker1956
vocals as in "Words of Love," but did he ever double track a vocal in unison?
Dennis B
> "BigStar303" <bigst...@aol.comma> wrote in message
> > Yes. I read their biography not long ago, and Artie said they would
> literally
> > get in each other's faces back in the Tom and Jerry days, carefully
> studying
> > where the tongue hit the palate, etc. Now that's dedication!
>
> John and Paul Both have stated that this the way they wrote, right in each
> others face.
> I suppose that kind of intensity would have a way of flushing out any
> imperfections in both writing and vocal performance.
> the bunkster
>
> --
> bunky_boy
>
> Time to feed the bots!!
> tos...@aol.com, ab...@aol.com, ab...@yahoo.com, ab...@hotmail.com,
> ab...@telstra.com, ab...@msn.com, ab...@microsoft.com, ab...@msn.com,
> ab...@sprint.com, ab...@earthlink.com, u...@ftc.gov, spa...@spamcop.net,
> ab...@swbell.net, u...@ftc.gov, ab...@hotmail.com
Thanks for all the responses, everyone...lots of food for thought. I
think this topic really warranted some bigger mention in a book. Ian
MacDonald, you listening? Everyone has some good points: The fact
that they wrote together, the fact that Paul strengthened John's
voice, John's insecurity, simplifying the doubling process...
I wanted to clear up some confusion about doubling vocals, however.
That technology was used by artists way before the Fabs. Patti Page
and Les Paul and Mary Ford not only double-tracked lead vocals, but
did their own harmonies that way. And of course, the Beatles circa
63-65 had lots of double-tracks leads, especially when it came to
Lennon (I remember reading in "Revolution in the Head" that "Hide Your
Love" featured his first non-doubled lead vocal in years).
What I was getting at - and I think we've all found some answers - is
why they both went at the lead vocals on their most crucial singles.
I was thinking that most of the songs they sung live featured solo
vocals, so it's not like they were used to onstage group vocals.
Though this apporoach DID have precedent (and let me add the Kingston
Trio's "Greenback Dollar" into the fray), it wasn't employed as
standard fare.
The neat thing is, just when you think you have the Fabs figured out,
you notice some OTHER new thing that reminds you (to quote one of the
posters) they "weren't on auto-pilot."
BigStar303
is "If I Fell," though the passages they do this on are brief -- linking the
two phrases in the verses and leading into the bridge.
This song is also unusual in that John sings the lead in the introduction, then
gives way to Paul singing the melody through the rest of the song, with John
adding the low (and very effective) harmony part.
D. Rusnak
melody and the McCartney is singing the harmony.
BigStar303 wrote:
>
> Another song that hasn't been mentioned in the dual unison vocals sweepstakes
> is "If I Fell,"
>
> This song is also unusual in that John sings the lead in the introduction,
> then gives way to Paul singing the melody, with John adding the low (and
BigStar303
<< I have come to understand that the Lennon low part on "If I Fell" IS the
melody and the McCartney is singing the harmony. >>
Not so. If you were doing an instrumental version of the song and only
replicating the melody line of the verse, it's Paul's part you would use. Try
imagining using John's instead...it definitely wouldn't work.
Another way to tell is the unison parts. Imagine singing "I must be sure" and
then following that with only John's part. It leads naturally into Paul's.
AppleCorp3
>melody and the McCartney is singing the harmony. >>
>
>Not so. If you were doing an instrumental version of the song and only
>replicating the melody line of the verse, it's Paul's part you would use. Try
>imagining using John's instead...it definitely wouldn't work.
>
>Another way to tell is the unison parts. Imagine singing "I must be sure" and
>then following that with only John's part. It leads naturally into Paul's.
Another way to tell is if you listen to any of John's demos for If I Fell, he
clearly sings Paul's high part...not his low harmony part.
alubman
apple...@aol.com (AppleCorp3) wrote:
> Another way to tell is if you listen to any of John's demos for If I Fell, he
> clearly sings Paul's high part...not his low harmony part.
Except for the bridge ("middle eight").
--
Andrew
Teddy
close, mentioning Simon and Garfunkel in their Tom and Jerry days.
THE EVERLY BROTHERS!!!!!!
Phil and Don were a HUGE influence. Paul wrote "On the Wings of a
Nightingale" for them, and it's a very good approximation of their
trademark sound, which he obviously really gets. If you can get hold
of "Hey Schoolgirl", you can hear "Tom and Jerry" copy it, too. Of
course the Beatles took this influence and did what they did with
every influence, which was to add their distinctive touch so it never
sounded like a copycat thing. But the harmonies are tight in the same
way, in both cases.