What is more important?

[Ptd]

What do you feel is more important for a band to have; amazing instrumentals or amazing vocals? Assuming that you can have one or the other, not both.

It's something a few moments ago that I was thinking about to myself. It really is a tough call to make. Obviously, you don't want to listen to a band that sounds like they have never touched any instrument in their lives, but on the other hand you don't want to listen to a band where their vocalist sounds like complete shit.

When i thought about it, i decided that the instrumentals are a lot more crucial for a band to sound good. I listen to a lot of modern hardcore punk, which most of the time has amazing instrumentals, but thing is if you don't listen to any modern hardcore punk you'd probably think the vocals are horrible, and say something like all it is is shouting in which I can't understand what is being said. I will admit some vocals in that genre are below average, but if it has good instrumentals I will still listen to it

 

[X]

Definately instrumentals. Vocals are of course very important, but as a fellow hardcore punk fan, I find vocals to be pretty irrelevent most of the time. I listen to alot of punk/metal/screamo, so vocal range and talent don't mean very much to me. Besides, even men with the worst of voices can convey emotion without a shred of vocal range or talent (Johnny Cash for example).

But without the actual music itself, the band/album/song is meaningless. The music itself is what connects with someone, vocals and lyrics are always secondary to that.

And of course there are amazing talents like Link Wray for example who didn't need any vocals at all, just amazing instrumental music.

 

[TSG]

That is truly a tough one, but I'd say vocals for two reasons.

1. Vocalists really lead the band. They are the frontmen, do alot of publicity, and are usually the main voice of the band.

2. If a band has a terrible vocalist, then listening for two-three minutes really sucks. It's why I don't like screamo and rap. All they do is scream (screamo) or blabber on (rap) and it gets really annoying. Whereas the instrumentals can suck, and you might not like it, but good vocals can cover it.

So the way I look at it, if you have a band with really good instrumentals I'm gonna really enjoy it, but if you cannot stand there vocalist than you're gonna hate them. Whereas you can have someone with a bad instrumentals but an amazing voice and you are going to listen to them just for the voice. I mean I guess you could always tune out the voice, but it's easier for me to tune out music than a voice so I perfer vocals.

 

[Ptd]

That is truly a tough one, but I'd say vocals for two reasons.

1. Vocalists really lead the band. They are the frontmen, do alot of publicity, and are usually the main voice of the band.

2. If a band has a terrible vocalist, then listening for two-three minutes really sucks. It's why I don't like screamo and rap. All they do is scream (screamo) or blabber on (rap) and it gets really annoying. Whereas the instrumentals can suck, and you might not like it, but good vocals can cover it.

So the way I look at it, if you have a band with really good instrumentals I'm gonna really enjoy it, but if you cannot stand there vocalist than you're gonna hate them. Whereas you can have someone with a bad instrumentals but an amazing voice and you are going to listen to them just for the voice. I mean I guess you could always tune out the voice, but it's easier for me to tune out music than a voice so I perfer vocals.

Yes, vocalists do usually lead the band and are the main voice, but that absolutely has nothing to do with the overall sound of the music that the band produces.

And you really need to acquire a taste for the screaming, or rapping, or whatever you normally don't enjoy. It's all about appreciating what they are trying to do. You also say good vocals make up for bad instrumentals, I completely disagree. If the instrumentals are bad the song is out of tune and you can't even focus on the vocals.

 

[TSG]

Yes, vocalists do usually lead the band and are the main voice, but that absolutely has nothing to do with the overall sound of the music that the band produces.

And you really need to acquire a taste for the screaming, or rapping, or whatever you normally don't enjoy. It's all about appreciating what they are trying to do. You also say good vocals make up for bad instrumentals, I completely disagree. If the instrumentals are bad the song is out of tune and you can't even focus on the vocals.

But seriously, what do you think is going to be the easier thing to tune out if it sucks: The vocals blaring into your ear or the music in the background.

And the only reason you enjoy the instrumentals so much, is because you listen to punk music, where the vocals usually suck. That's the thing though: they don't care. That's the whole intention of most punk bands: To shout, to suck, and to not care that they do suck. And the fans don't care either, which is why they listen. But personally, I think if the vocals suck, then listening to those vocals scream right into your ear for two to three minutes is gonna turn you off in the first 20-30 seconds, whereas if the instrumentals suck, but the voice is awesome, then you can focus simply on the lyrics and singing coming from the vocalist. It's kind of hard to focus on the music soley when you have an extremely sucky vocalist either screaming(almost any screamo singer) or just singing (Taylor Swift anybody?)

And on another point, one I forgot earlier, if your lead singer needs to be replaced, it really changes the sound and it really kills your band in most cases (AC/DC an exception of course), whereas replacing a drummer or base player isn't gonna do as much damage.

 

[X]

And the only reason you enjoy the instrumentals so much, is because you listen to punk music, where the vocals usually suck.

Depends on what you consider good vocals. If the blues has showed us anything it's that emotion and spirit mean a fuck lot more to the creation of good music then having a pitch-perfect voice.

That's the thing though: they don't care. That's the whole intention of most punk bands: To shout, to suck, and to not care that they do suck.

Typical uninformed opinion of punk music, that they all are trying to "suck". Clearly you've never heard The Clash, or The Damned among others. Punk vocalists are among the best, does the name Glenn Danzig ring any bells?

In relation to hardcore punk, the entire scene arose out of a mutual hatred of the 70s rock radio mentality of jam bands and playing guitar solos to show how awesome you are. They wanted to be nothing like them.

I'll take the screams of Ian MacKaye over the vocal "skills" of the American Idol winners any fucking day of the week.

But personally, I think if the vocals suck, then listening to those vocals scream right into your ear for two to three minutes is gonna turn you off in the first 20-30 seconds, whereas if the instrumentals suck, but the voice is awesome, then you can focus simply on the lyrics and singing coming from the vocalist. It's kind of hard to focus on the music soley when you have an extremely sucky vocalist either screaming(almost any screamo singer) or just singing (Taylor Swift anybody?)

A) The large majority of screamo bands mix a lot of regular singing in with the screaming.

B) You want emotion in your singing don't you? Well anger is one of the most common and strong emotions on the planet, and screaming is a natural progression of that. If you're not an angry person, then you probably won't like it. This is why so many young people fall in love with punk/metal/screamo, because they can relate to it and it expresses what they're feeling. That's cool if you don't like that, but don't demean those who do as though their music is less important or "good" as traditional singing. I find ten times as much emotion in a screamo band's vocals then I do in a Freddie Mercury song (yeah thats right people, I took a shot at everyone's boy, bring on the backlash).