Should vocals be buried in the mix?

A spinoff from some of Grants comments in the Stones singles thread...

I find vocals too prominent on a lot of albums, especially on records by mixing engineers who like to build a mix around a clear full vocal.

Of course, it is dependent on the genre of music, but on pop/rock music I generally prefer that the vocals are buried in the mix. Not literally, but blended in as just a part of the overall musical fabric, as opposed to being spotlighted or highlighted. IMO it should be like a good stew or soup recipe, where it only works if all the ingredients are properly measured and balanced.

If you listen to Let It Bleed, or Exile, you will note Jaggers vocals are simply another "sound", along with everything else. I think that this is the reason why those records sound so "rock and roll" and everything blends together in an energetic cohesiveness. Engineer Glyn Johns said that Jagger insisted on burying his vocal, and Johns maintained that he thought those albums would have been better with a little more vocal.

It is possible that one of the reasons we find some modern rock vocalists so annoying is that the voice is too prominent and we can't hear any music? Mind you, if I was mixing much of todays rock bands, I'd probably want to bury everything

Should the vocal be any more important than the accompanying instrumentation, mixwise?

 

I like the pop recordings to have the vocals up a bit in the mix. Nothing aggravates me more than a live mix with the vocals buried.

 

I think it's a mistake to look at mixing music as a simple formula (good mix=buried vocals or good mix=loud vocals). A great mix (I believe) is one that takes all the elements of a song and makes something nice (or even ugly) "happen". Each song (at least should) have it's own mixing needs to convey an image...

Todd

 

I'm glad Beagle and I can finally agree wholeheartedly on something!

I also find vocals mixed up front annoying. Of course, it is dependant on not only the genre but also the song itself.

I find most country has vocals mixed waaay up front. It is perhaps the main reason I don't care for it.

In general, I think the practice of mixing vocals up front is determental to the music itself. I think many modern producers have made the musical backing incidental instead of part of the whole picture. It has allowed people to be lazy and cheap with production on so many recordings.

 

Sure, i'm sure ours is a simplistic way of looking at the matter, but I think to bring up the vocals over all else, even when the song could benifit from them being more relaxed ruins all of the other elements. Again, maybe it is sometimes laziness. It is very hard to make a vocal sit well in a mix. It's perhaps the hardest thing to do in mixing a record.

 

I see your points Grant, I guess it's just down to differing taste and also sometimes laziness. I'm not a big fan of the vocals being too loud. I'm not crazy about them being buried too much. It is difficult finding the right spot sometimes. When I mix, I like to leave dead center clear for the vocals. Speaking of crap mixes, last night I listened to the 'Concert For NYC' SACD (2-ch) and I thought the mix was really, really weird. It sounded like the vocals were coming from behind the drums. Everything else sounded like a train wreck in different spots...

 

Dave & Friends,

Only those vocals that should be buried!

Bob

 

One problem is that in the last several years, the philosophy has been that the lyrics are the most important thing and it's what the listener remembers most. The casual listener, maybe...

 

Grant,

I always thought that everything today was about clever hooks, slick production, over-hyped, looped rhyhm tracks. Seems to me that the the lyrics have become less important than ever. Oh yes, and the artist should be able to dance well too!

Bob

 

Listen to the Beatle mixes the vocals are way on top. Is that a bad thing? One song that comes to mind is Cecilia by Simon and Garfunkle. That mix to my ears has to much background noise. It seems like many of the S & G recordings have that problem. I much prefer the mixes on the Art Garfunkle solo stuff where the voice is the instrument that is showcased.

 

Ken and Todd are right, of course. You do have to take each recording and use correct judgement based on the song and taste.

For example, I could not imagine mixing down Brook Benton's voice on "Rainy Night In Georgia".

But I was thinking more in terms of rock music, how some classic songs have the vocals blended in like they are another instrument. Case in point "Don't Fear The Reaper by BOC. It recalls the sound of those classic Byrds songs like Mr Tambourine Man or Turn Turn Turn the way the vocals and harmonies blend in with the guitars. Same with Boston's "More Than A Feeling", just a superb mix. Iggy Pop's "The Idiot" and "Lust For Life" are other examples of burying the vocals to good effect.

It is that perfect blend that gives me goosebumps, when everything hits just right.

Today, many bands have singers who can't sing and the vocals are highlighted. Eeeuuw.

 

I thought of a good album with some nice different vocal mixes (which I think are very human = works). Pete & Ronnie's 'Rough Mixes' (which I sometimes ignorantly call 'Rough Cuts'/Todd=tired brain). In some songs Ronnie Lanes vocals (superbly sung) are coming out of the left speaker (which I think work with the "feel" of the material) and Pete sometimes is coming out dead center (or "turning" poping from left to right, right to left). Again, I think whatever serves the song is mostly the right choice. Heck, it's almost like saying the color blue makes a perfect painting. "A blank canvas, so many possiblities..."

Todd

 

I always like the vocals up front and comin at cha!

 

IMHO, the remix of Quadrophenia (other improvements in sound aside) finally brought forward Roger's vocals from the way back of the stage to front and centre where they belong. Only Pete Townshend could write a complicated story line and then make sure the words were buried.

 

I think it is all very dependent on the material really. Both approaches can work with miraculous effects. When I mix, I try to make the vocals (and everything else) sound as natural as possible. I think to myself, if I were at a concert or in a Blues or Jazz club listening to a band unampified, how far up front would the vocals sound? Would there really be that much reverb on the drums? Etc. etc.

 

I remember hearing "I Feel Fine" playing through the overhead speakers at Walmart one time. The sound was compressed to mono which caused the backing track to drop down in volume signifigantely. All I heard was John's nasal gritty voice over the store noise. Not a flattering presentation of a great song.

So yeah, on most Beatles songs, especially before 1969, the vocal is too loud compared to the instruments and should have been more buried in the mix. When the Yellow Submarine remixes were done in 1999 they made the vocals even MORE forward in the mix compared to the originals!

Lance Hall

 

I think (naughty) Pete did that on purpose. Sometimes Pete and Roger had a "strange" working relationship...

Todd