I recall quite a number of interviews where producers would put a song in a key that would place singers at the top of their range for songs. The singer having to strain to get the note translated (in their minds) to performance that brought more drama and energy.

Back in the 80s, I remember reading through the instructions for a digital sampler. The suggestion was that if a singer was having trouble hitting a high note, you would have them sing the highest note they could reach, and then transpose it up. That was partially because the formants don't get transposed (the "chipmunk" effect), but also because the need to mach the effort and intensity of the other notes.

Of course, you can't put the whole song at the top of the range, so the there, so it's reserved for the places that need that sort of impact.

So it's not whether the range is high or low, but if it's high or low for that singer.

Being able to duplicate that performance is a different matter. I've been at shows where the singer pulls out a capo and somewhat sheepishly admits that they now do the song in a different key. Or they'll simply sing lower notes, or even slip to a lower register for that phrase.

But as to the mix, Steve really nailed it. Every instrument in a mix serves a purpose, and they'll have their own frequency range in the mix. They all need to subservient to the vocal.

One way to make sure that happens is to think of an arrangement as placing each instrument in a particular frequency range, and keeping the remaining instruments out of that range. That's the best approach.

This can be augmented by EQing each instrument, with a low cut and high cut to keep it in bounds.

For example, the guitar can cover a wide frequency range. But for a particular part - say, low power chords, or perhaps high arpeggios - you only want a fairly narrow frequency of what it's capable of. So you could apply some drastic high and low EQ cuts to the part to help keep it in place.

When you solo the part, it's going to sound very thin. But in context, other instruments are going to fill in the missing parts, and the listener will never notice it's gone.

If there are spots where instruments that competing for the same frequency range, the simplest thing to do is figure out which is the most important (the voice always wins), and then remove the less important instrument at that point.

The question to be answered at every point in the arrangement is: what should the listener be paying attention to at this point? That should be the most active part, and that section should be mixed so that everything is secondary.

Ostinatos and patterns are a fortunate exception - if the "busy" part is a repeating motif or arpeggio, we tend to automatically take focus off that part.

Setting up a sort of call and response between the voice and the other instruments works really well. Giving the high instruments a repeating motif (so they get mentally tuned out) works well.

The good news is these are things you do to get a clear mix too, so you kill two birds with one stone.

As far as building energy goes, it's the same for high and low voices. Make sure the chorus is higher energy than the verses - it's hard to build energy if the chorus is a letdown. Pare down the instrumentation on the verses, so the chorus has more impact. The old trick of changing key before the final chorus is very effective in building energy. Less is more - make the listener look forward to an riff (like a horn stab), instead of overplaying it. Add more harmony to the chorus as the song progresses.

Most importantly, remember that an arrangement doesn't try to hide or make up for deficiencies of a vocal: it needs to highlight it and show it in the best light. The vocal is the song.

If you want to hear effective instrumentation for a low voice, have a listen to Swing Out Sister.

-- David Cuny
My virtual singer development blog

Vocal control, you say. Never heard of it. Is that some kind of ProTools thing?