The History of Doubled Rhythm Guitars. Does Anyone Know When it Began?

General Music Discussion
#1

For years I played in a heavy band and for years before that I listened to heavy music. I always took it as a given that tightly tracked hard panned rhythm guitars are how things are done. When did this start though? Just off the top of my head, I’m sure Boston used this technique back in the mid 70’s. Same for AC/DC. What I’d imagine, but I do not have proper source for, is that bands like Thin Lizzy or the Scorpions, or Judas Priest or Iron Maiden did this too (love all those bands but I don’t often listen to their early catalog).

To be clear I’m talking about the technique used in recordings when a separate but identically performed (as close to humanly possible, of course) is performed. I think I’ve read Tony Iommi would have things doubled by just shifting the same take slightly off a few ms and that sort of gave us the doubled sound. I don’t care about that, and I also don’t care about R/L “complimentary” tracks, unless we can identify these as a precedent that slowly evolved into the recording technique I’m asking about.

TL; DR;
I’m interested in who the pioneer was that decided it sounded cool and heavy to hard pan 2 takes that sounded “the same”. Does anyone know? I know we’ve got plenty of hard rock historians here :slight_smile:

#2

Not hard rock nor a direct answer to your question, but I’d reckon this technique is kinda an offshoot of Phil Spector’s “wall of sound”.

1 Like
#3

Great point. I guess I don’t care about hard rock actually, just wherever the idea of true doubles, panned L/R originated. EVERYONE does it today when they want a big, even non-heavy bands.

#4

In a metal/hard rock context like Judas Priest or Black Sabbath, Iommi did overdubs. Priest was the first two guitar heavy rock/metal band. Michael Schenker did some dual rhythm stuff in early Scorpions and later did self overdubs in UFO. Thin Lizzy a little bit later.

An important fact to remember is the limited amount of tracks in 60s era recording.

This is one of the earliest dual lead songs I know of. But that’s not the OP question. This is pretty much the earliest antrcedant of where harmonized lead playing in southern rock, hard rock, metal, and Melodeath would go though.

Was Day Tripper or one of the riffy Beatles tunes like I Want You, Helter Skelter, Revolution or Hey Bulldog doubled?

1 Like
#5

I would bet that recordings of symphonies and big bands would have made engineers very familiar with musicians playing in unison. It is almost like having just one guitar would be a departure from what they’d be used to, but they’d probably view that as a soloist.

Did Les Paul invent anything in this space? I think that he did, but can’t remember.

1 Like
#6

Orchestras to me don’t quite count because even though we hesr instruments play in unison, to my knowledge they don’t hard pan. I think they pan to recreate the natural position of a live orchestra and instruments of one type all sit together. For example we don’t seat half of the first violins far right and the other half far left.

Les Paul, not sure. I know he was a pioneer in many recording techniques but I never associated him with the tight precision in parts that I’d associate with Metallica or even Boston.

I could be wrong about any of that! Just my impression of orchestras and Les Paul

#7

He did, he was an early proponent of multi track recording. Unsure of the details.

Anyone thats seen “O Brother where art thou” any documentary on the Carter family or the early parts of Ken Burns masterpiece documentary on the history of country music has seen the older one mic in a room style of recording where players would gather round and perform live. Which I’d guess is how older orchestral recordings were done.

Bonus the “corner loading” recording style behind Robert Johnson’s sound.

There’s no overdubbing with most of these techniques.

#8

So we know it would likely have been 1957 or later,

1 Like
#9

Bit earlier than that, actually, per that Wikipedia page - it was being done in the 40s but didn’t really become widespread until third quarter 1957 when it appears to have become a standard.

As for multitrack recording, that’s Les Paul - looks like 1945.

https://www.les-paul.com/multi-track-recording/

Prior to multitrack recording it would be possible to make a stereo recording by using multiple mics capturing a stereo spectrum - the ability to go back and add additional tracks on top of the ones you;d already done, however, made “doubling” parts possible.

As to when that became a rock guitar standard, honestly, I’ve alwas wondered that too. I guess I’d have to say it was probably an offshoot or byproduct of a lot of high profile two-guitar hard rock bands, and the fact that as stereo became more of the norm, you would be more likely to put each guitarist in a different part ofthe stereo spectrum to improve seperation. Iommo intentionally doubling parts is interesting though and would seem to blow holes in this threory. :rofl: But otherwise, I’d have to think bands who were not Iron Maiden trying to make their guitars sound as “big” as Iron Maiden, might be a good guess. Or Thin Lizzy, I suppose, as they’re a bit earlier…

#10

I guess, to add a separate thought as a separate post, it’s also interesting that this is still evolving a little more than you might think, in the metal world. these days Andy Sneap is back to primarily recording 2 tracks, 100% L/R, for a more “immediate” sound, but for a while there his standard approach (and the standard approach of countless bedroom producers influenced by him) was quad-tracking, 100%/80% L and 80%/100% R. And, if you weren’t doing at least quad tracking on your guitars, in the metal world, you were the odd one out and probably would have to explain yourself.

#11

Yeah I briefly recall the quad tracking trend. I think even at the time that may have been a little controversial. I remember reading some interview with the guys from Lamb of God and they said a lot of bands were doing more tracks but to the them, nothing sounded “bigger” than 2 perfectly synced takes panned hard. I think that “washed” out comment I had in that other thread (Erotomania) increases with each extra layer. Sometimes of course, that’s what someone would want. I think the more complexity there is in the parts (palm mute vs not palm mute, gallops etc) starts to lose some definition when it’s more than just 2 takes panned. Probably a little different than, say, Linkin Park or Nickel Back where there’s a big sound of less frequently strummed chords.

1 Like
#12

I could see quad tracking working with slower nu metal style riffs and a Ross Robinson style production. But for mid or faster tempo like thrash and extreme metal no way it would become slop quickly.

You could probably get away with “quad tracking” with double tracked guitars that are hard panned L / R.

#13

I mean, a lot of the bands Sneap was working with at the time WERE pretty technical - I think Nevermore was one of the bands he was quad tracking. To be fair, Jeff Loomis doesn’t really set a fair standard for the rest of us. :laughing:

I never bothered myself, with RARE exceptions, partly because I’m just not that metal, and partly because if you’re writing guitar-driven instrumental rock having “huge” rhythm guitars can actually be a bit of a problem as it makes it a little harder to Tetris your lead part in there, but something I do on occasion is take a doubled track of dar, heavily saturated guitars and double a brighter, way less distorted track, often with singlecoils to really plau it up, on top of them. More of a “rock” sound than a metal one, but it can sound pretty damned good.

Going a little closer to the original topic, the most persuasive argument I’ve heard for why it works is this - when you play a guitar in the room, you’re hearing it coming directly from the amp… but you’re ALSO getting all these reflections from the sides and back as the sound bounces off the walls. In a recording context, when you hear just the original amp sound alone, without all these echoes, it sounds kind of small by comparison; two tracks, coming from two different sides, gives it some of that breadth and wideness that sounds “normal” to listeners.

2 Likes
#14

It would seem to me that songs should ship in a format where they get mixed in your phone to your taste and immediate situation (headphones, whatever).

#15

I’m pretty sure Nile quad tracks. And if memory serves me, I remember Gorguts’ Luc Lemay talking about multiple layers of guitars in a ‘From Wisdom to Hate’ era interview.

IME, quad tracked = huge sounding with muscular low end resonance at the cost of sounding less present & in your face and making the attack kind of washed out and blurry.

1 Like
#16

When I was recording bands, I wouldn’t allow quad tracking with anything technical. Essentially it would make my editing job a major pain in the ass and I wasn’t getting paid for editing.
I only ever went with it with rock stuff or anything where there is space and things can be a little loose.

2 Likes
#17

You trust the average person off the street WAY more than I do. :laughing:

I mean, also, one of the biggest mixing lessons I’ve learned has been the growing realization of how much of a great mix starts from the arrangement, and an understanding of what elements of the mix the song really hangs together on. Cranking up the guitar on a mix that’s really being driven by the bass and drums is gonna sound, well… less good, regardless of what your personal preferences are.

2 Likes
#18

I’m pretty sure Black Sabbath was first in doubling guitar, meaning one guy played the same thing twice. Especially on Paranoid.

2 Likes
#19

I’d wondered, but something I read about them made me think they used the same part and shifted a few ms. Tony was such a pioneer that I’d love to give him the award though lol! Do you have any sources?

#20

On Paranoid you hear that the guitar is recorded twice. The sound on one side is a bit darker and more distant which makes it bigger. When the solo comes he doesn’t remember exactly what he played so after a while it turns into two solos. In 1970 there was no technology to “shift something a few ms” other than tape machines, but they were on a budget and the fastest and cheapest thing was just to redo the guitar. Sabbath was the first to have this sound. People like Les Paul were multitracking guitars before, but always different parts. This was probably a happy accident: “I played a bit sloppy and I"ll give it another go”, and in the mix someone turned both faders up and it sounded huge.

1 Like