Quote:
Originally Posted by days  Jagger also said that he would always tell his producers to keep his vocals low in the mix because he felt that doing this gave the listener a "less satisfying" experience. To Jagger, this was actually a good thing. His reasoning was that if you left the listener less than fully satisfied, he or she would keep coming back for more, playing the record more often than if he or she had been fully satisfied. I actually believe that this is true. |
I think this works with singers that just ooze confidence and swagger/attitude and Sir Mick surely qualifies. Otis Redding comes to mind as well . I love that expression 'Memphis ears'! There's this story that Stax was sending the master of Otis Redding's 'Dock of the Bay' to Jerry Wexler in New York and that he complained about the vocal being too low in the mix. Jim Stewart then told him 'That's the way we do it in Memphis' or something.
If you listen to Led Zeppelin you realize that the 'frequency makeup' of the instruments is just perfect. Plant sang in a high range mostly with extreme power, so often the voice could actually sit back a bit in the mix and still come through perfectly.
in most cases I don't like 'buried' vocals though, if the singer is a bit insecure and wants to be more 'inside' the band in the mix...well, what will happen then is the vocal becoming even more insecure. So pay attention to the arrangement and lsiten to the texture of the voice, some voices have just the right amount of midrange to cut through without much effort, others need help with EQ or just by being moer outfront.
Also remember that something HAS to be in the foreground, and in 99% of the cases it's the vocal that tells the story so bring it out!