I think Guitarhacker has nailed it. Your perception of 'karaoke' is possibly more of an arrangement issue, not so much a mix issue.

House of the Rising Sun for example. The famous Animals version of this song uses what some would say a light 6/8 that has a swing to it, but all of the instrumentation supports the 6/8 feel, even the rather loud organ parts.

Herb also pointed this out: The tracks you have chosen for instrumentation do not sit well with each other in 6/8 and at that tempo. Specifically the clavinet track is being used at a much slower tempo than the original most likely, I'm guessing over 10 bpm slower than the orginal RT. This lends to the plodding nature of it's sound, where clavinet often drives the song along when used as a rhythm instrument. Here, the opposite effect occurs.

The last arrangement 'oops' are that the sax and harmonica solo over top of your vocals. This isn't the way a band would behave; at least a good band. A band that has no awareness of the other players in the band might behave this way, but not in a tight band that is cooking and supporting a vocalist. The great bands know when to stay out of the way of the vocalist. You have to 'conduct' the lead instrument tracks in the same way. 'Tell' them to lay out by mixing them out unless it's a clear space for a solo. How often did Clarence Clemmons play over top of Bruce Springsteen's vocals? Almost NEVER. And yet, he is identified as one of the best rock-band sax players of all time. This live video of "Born To Run" is maybe the best example of this: https://youtu.be/IxuThNgl3YA Note how you only hear the sax significantly in the mix is for the solo. Note how much Clarence isn't even playing. When he is playing the mix engineer has his mic turned nearly off for most of the song. And it sounds great. Even though that's Clarence Freaking Clemmons - his level in the mix is buried for the most part, very light in the left channel, but nearly inaudible compared to the vox, piano, drums and guitars which are really driving the song.

In the Animals mix from '64, one could argue that the organ crowds the vocal lines in places but for the most part, when the vocals are featured, the organ at least gets simpler and then goes back to 'grace note festival' mode when the vocals drop out. This might have been prior to easy fading mixing but the mix is handled instead by the instrumentation 'busy-ness' or lack thereof.

Finally, resist the urge to 'over-arrange' just because there's a track available in RT/RB/BIAB.

I counted the following in this song:

Vox
Trombone (for a few bars - maybe this is a trumpet - some type of brass instrument)
Harmonica
Flute (for maybe a 3 bar section)
Saxophone 1
Saxophone 2 (for that really short harmony line you use in the song)
Clavinet
Drums
Bass
Vibraphone (for 2 or 3 bars)
Rhythm guitar
Lead acoustic/nylon string guitar

Even the Animals version had just two guitars, organ, drums, bass and vocals

The 'band' that you present consists of
11 or 12 members, unless there's a guy running around trying to play as many instruments as possible during the song. That's going to lend to an unnatural progression of sonic variety. Cut it down to 4 or 5 'people' and see if that doesn't make it seem more real.

If you are playing the guitar live with your vox and then the rest of these tracks, it presents an unrealistic sonic landscape to the listener - just based on the number of little bits here and there of so many different instruments. Add in the lack of a 'tight' rhythm section, and you have something that all of the mixing in the world will not correct.

Sweet Home Chicago is much much better, with tracks that are congruent, rather than unnatural together. Main criticism there would be to work on how to bring in the song overall. No proper blues rock band is going to side-stick click in the band and then everyone is full bore out of the gate. Replace the side stick count off with a proper drum intro, and then lay off the harp until later. There is one really unrealistic mix/arrangement cue in this one - on the last section, you have TWO different harp players going with the exact same sound, one panned left and one panned right. Ask yourself when the last time you saw/heard a regular blues band do that? Edit one of them out and the song will be better for it. Oh, and where did this sax player all of a sudden come from in the last section? Either use him throughout the track, or again edit out. Edit out first. Is the sax necessary? If not, it's out.

Mix wise, your guitar could benefit from either being mic'ed to get more of the acoustic sound in the recording, or go the opposite and get it dirtier (Amplitube comes with RB correct?), and then your vox level could come up a little and as I believe others have pointed out, some bit of reverb to try to match the 'room' sound that is going with the drums. But not too much. Also consider high-pass filtering your vocals. Start at roughly 100 Hz or so and go up from there until it sounds too thin to your ear and then leave it right there. Our problem that we all deal with at some point in time is that when we mix our own vocals, we often don't hear the 'mud' in the mix of our vocals, because we can't unhear the imbalance toward low frequency part of our voice live. We think it's ok to mix so the voice sounds like it does in our own ears live. Others do not hear the big bias toward low frequencies when they hear you speak or sing. Go ahead and cut out the lows - lots of the lows. Again, cut the lows out until it sounds thin, then leave it there and bring up the level of the vox. You might be surprised what this one thing can do for your mixes of your own voice. I listen back to my mixes sometimes years later, and can identify that I didn't cut out enough lows of my vox. It's that internal conflict of wanting my voice to sound like I hear it instead of what it probably sounds like to others at a socially appropriate distance from my face when I speak or sing.

-Scott

My Songs, photos, writing,etc.
My Sound Cloud