growls low in the mix

[Puzzlebox]

I love watershed, but the only problem i have with it are that the growls are very low in the mix...

was this intentional?

I can't help but feel this was to make it "easier" to digest for mainstream roadrunner records audiences.

Of course, when Opeth plays live, all the vocals are at the same mix so it doesn't really matter much.

Just getting that off my chest and seeing if anyone else agrees with me.

Salud!

 

[Vivören]

No one will agree that "this was to make it 'easier' to digest for mainstream roadrunner records audiences".

 

[Heir Apparent]

I'm not sure it was intentional, and it was definitely not to make if more "mainstream". Maybe because this album has so many abrupt changes they wanted to make them smoother? Either way I don't really notice it being to low in the mix for my taste.

 

[Nasty-Fire]

So what? It's just fine this way.

 

[Prestige]

i wasnt 100% about the growls in watershed, they have grown on me now though! but i agree

 

[Under the weeping spoon]

Somehow I agree with you. Remember that I was thinking same thing while listening heir apparent for a first time.

 

[BlueSky]

What are you talking about? Makes no sense.

 

[philno]

can a dumbass please explain to me why lowering the volume of growls in a mix would make watershed more mainstream accessible?

 

[Necropeth]

 

[Vivören]

Can we ban Puzzlebox please?

 

[Witcher]

I have not noticed this ridiculous phenomena that you speak of... as others have said even if what you say is true.. which to my ears the vocal mix is the same as any other record.. why would it make it more accessible to listeners?

 

[Puzzlebox]

The growls are almost lost in the mix and are almost indistinguishable from the music. They're almost muted, giving mainstream audiences less of a harsh sound. while on other past albums, they have been just as audible as the clean vocals.

They are definately lower in the mix than on other albums, while the clean vocals are bright clear and crips.

It gives watershed an almost "muddy" sound to me.

p.s. I'm not going to respond to any criticism because obviously some people do understand what I'm talking about. I can't help it if some people don't.

 

[philno]

it's not a matter of us "understanding" what you're saying. we understand it completely, which is why i can safely say you're not giving this enough thought, or you've consumed to much lead in your lifetime.

 

[HaTeMaN]

Listen again to the CD please

 

[Carl Hungus]

I noticed from the get-go that the growls were low and didn't envelope the room like they do on other albums.

Those who don't notice it must not listen very closely to the music or have crappy systems (not that there's anything wrong with that, just don't jump all over a guy who's making an observation that is valid).

That said, I still love the album and it continues to grow on me so it's not that big of a deal to me.

 

[nizzon]

Yes the growls are lower, it bothered me quite a bit in the beginning, now i had almost forgotten about it.
I doubt it makes it any more accessible to the mainstream though, and im sure thats not why they did it this way.

Its kind of funny how topics with a hint of criticism allways get spammed with ignorant bullshit and erks.

 

[Ozzloaf]

I love low-in-the-mix vocals. It's makes the focus become on the music!

 

[Carl Hungus]

I love low-in-the-mix vocals. It's makes the focus become on the music!

I am starting to think this too, although I would like to hear what the album would sound like with the vocal volume turned up a bit just to hear what it would sound like. I bet you could do this with EQ but I never messed with that kind of thing.

 

[Katatonic89]

Awww noes!!! Da evul roadrunnerz made dem sell out... againz!!!

 

[BlueSky]

I love low-in-the-mix vocals. It's makes the focus become on the music!

They aren't "low in the mix" they're just more evened out. It's certainly nothing that would make a band more accessible or a big deal at all.