Why do vocal harmonies of older songs sound have that rich, “airy” quality that doesn’t seem to appear in modern music? (Crosby Stills and Nash, Simon and Garfunkel, et Al)

Question

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

Answer 1

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.