Mixing Baritone Vocal vs Tenor

[Nola]

Hey guys, if the vocal is in the baritone range, does that mean there will need to be even more mids/low mids cleared out than if the singer is a tenor?
If so, is this a reason most male rock bands have tenor singers?

Also, can you explain what you do differently if you have a tenor vs a baritone (or bass) singer? thanks!

 

[rob aylestone]

Eh? I don't do anything differently. I don't subscribe to the modern view that you have presets for everything, and so you spend ages putting people into categories.

I don't care what a singer's range is. You choose eq that suits their voice with the material. Especially when very much of the character is not glued rigidly to their 'label'. Bass, baritone, counter-tenor, tenor? Soprano, Mezzo, contralto etc etc All need appropriate eq depending on the spectral content of their voice. A Baritone might need some harshness sicking out at a specific frequency, but another might not have that problem at all.

Most Rock bands have tenor range singers because it's usually the most common. How would you categorise the singer who was in the Darkness? None of the traditional music categories quite fit. Same with the singers who use their falsetto register - their lower full voice needs to have the same eq as the high one, unless you want to be flipping presets on a line by line basis.

EQ is a person by person adjustment in my book.

 

[Nola]

okay cool. i agree and that's how i've been doing things, but just wanted to hear some thoughts.

i read that baritone is the most common male vocal range. is it tenor like you say?

 

[miroslav]

Eh? I don't do anything differently. I don't subscribe to the modern view that you have presets for everything, and so you spend ages putting people into categories.

Yeah...I agree.

I've never, ever cleared out/cut our frequencies of a mix to get vocals to fit in, regardless what range a vocal is in.
I will EQ the overall mix...to account for overall EQ balance....but it's usually about getting the instruments to all play nice...and even then, I don't specifically think in terms of "Cut out xxx frequencies in A in order to make room for B".

I'm not sure where that practice has come from, but I do see al of of people now days approaching EQing and mixing in that manner...that not everything can coexist, that it always requires removing something to make room for something else...and I don't think that's the right approach...but them maybe I've been doing it all wrong.

IOW...if the mix is too muddy...I may find the single culprit or it it's a sum-of-parts thing, I'll adjust the mud zone a little bit for everything....but I won't just remove all the low mids from one track so that another one can occupy that space...etc.

I think... in general...if you have to do a lot of cutting in order to get tracks to play nice...the problem originated in the tracking.

 

[miroslav]

okay cool. i agree and that's how i've been doing things, but just wanted to hear some thoughts.

i read that baritone is the most common male vocal range. is it tenor like you say?

In the male vocal range, the men sing as baritones...the rest as tenors...and sopranos if you're still waiting for puberty.

 

[mixsit]

Eh? I don't do anything differently. I don't subscribe to the modern view that you have presets for everything, and so you spend ages putting people into categories.

I don't care what a singer's range is. You choose eq that suits their voice with the material. Especially when very much of the character is not glued rigidly to their 'label'. Bass, baritone, counter-tenor, tenor? Soprano, Mezzo, contralto etc etc All need appropriate eq depending on the spectral content of their voice. A Baritone might need some harshness sicking out at a specific frequency, but another might not have that problem at all.

Most Rock bands have tenor range singers because it's usually the most common. How would you categorise the singer who was in the Darkness? None of the traditional music categories quite fit. Same with the singers who use their falsetto register - their lower full voice needs to have the same eq as the high one, unless you want to be flipping presets on a line by line basis.

EQ is a person by person adjustment in my book.

Yes..

Yeah...I agree.

I've never, ever cleared out/cut our frequencies of a mix to get vocals to fit in, regardless what range a vocal is in.
I will EQ the overall mix...to account for overall EQ balance....but it's usually about getting the instruments to all play nice...and even then, I don't specifically think in terms of "Cut out xxx frequencies in A in order to make room for B".

I'm not sure where that practice has come from, but I do see al of of people now days approaching EQing and mixing in that manner...that not everything can coexist, that it always requires removing something to make room for something else...and I don't think that's the right approach...but them maybe I've been doing it all wrong.

IOW...if the mix is too muddy...I may find the single culprit or it it's a sum-of-parts thing, I'll adjust the mud zone a little bit for everything....but I won't just remove all the low mids from one track so that another one can occupy that space...etc.

I think... in general...if you have to do a lot of cutting in order to get tracks to play nice...the problem originated in the tracking.

And yes

Shure, when/if the more the mix density goes way up, and/or it's got a lot of 'difficulties tone/arrangement wise, then yes, you have a lot more 'clearing (read 'fixing) to do.
But for me I agree- what you're hearing leads to how, how much, and where etc.
Maybe; Tackle the big worst most obvious stuff, step back and move on to the next.
Shure go for your best guesses right off, but see how far doing the least possible might actually take you. (I.e. sometimes it just doesn't seem to come together, I'll step back and start undoing stuff -that turned out to go sideways' and didn't make it better.

 

[skwee]

You have to go on a case-by-case basis, because within the various voice types there is such a range of qualities, resonances, areas of strength or weakness, vowel formants, and/or training, etc.

 

[VomitHatSteve]

i read that baritone is the most common male vocal range. is it tenor like you say?

I'm pretty sure baritone is the most common, but most singers try to train themselves beyond that range because there's nothing "special" about bari singers. (And tenor is more marketable than the other ranges. Probably something to do with how easy it is to understand words in a higher register and/or "the innocence of youth")

 

[Farview]

Yup, baritone is the more common range overall. But there are more tenors in rock bands simply because that is what a rock singer is supposed to sound like.

 

[miroslav]

Yup, baritone is the more common range overall. But there are more tenors in rock bands simply because that is what a rock singer is supposed to sound like.

It's the same reason a lot of guitar players will spend more time playing leads past the 12th fret, using their bridge pickup.

Tenor's higher frequency has more presence and can cut through, but it doesn't have the body of a baritone voice. Some male tenors have an almost feminine quality to their voices, as they are way up there, approaching alto range.

I great example of baritone and tenor vocals singing together from the '60s would be the Righteous Brothers...and the classic song that everyone probably knows of best from the movie "Top Gun"... ...but here's them doing it.
Bobby Hatfield is the tenor (on the left) and Bill Medley the baritone.

 

[Nola]

Cool, thanks guys. I am baritone, and since my mixes have been a bit muddy, I thought maybe I needed to EQ the vocal in a specific way, but I think I need to EQ the instruments around it better. I read that ~400-450hz is the mud region, so I'll focus on the instruments in that region.

That Righteous Brothers song is awesome. Man, what voices. What a weird mix, though. Way heavy to the left side ...I wonder what they were thinking.

 

[miroslav]

That Righteous Brothers song is awesome. Man, what voices. What a weird mix, though. Way heavy to the left side ...I wonder what they were thinking.

The late '60s churned out some weird mixes.
It was a transition period from mono to stereo, so early on, some stereo mixes were a total Left or Right commitment for some instruments.

That said...this song was a Phil Spector song, done in mono, and a major example of his "Wall of Sound" recording technique...which basically was a process of building the huge mix in the studio during the actual recording. When the tracking was done, the mix was pretty much done too.
Whatever "stereo" versions exist...are not the way Spector recorded it, so it's no wonder the balance is a little odd.