Why does the vocalist get all the credit?

[Continuity]

Could somebody please explain the logic behind this

Simple, the vocals are unique but in the vast majority of cases one musician is as good as 1000's of others. The vocals define the group, in most cases you can even discard all the other members and so long as you keep the vocals the IP is alive.

So my point is basically that one guitar is like an other, and a good guitarist is like another good guitarist, however every singer has a unique instrument, i.e. their voice, so its not only their skill that makes them special but also their instrument.

 

[McNinja]

The drummer for a band called Saint Deamon has done quite a lot of work (helping produce, etc) with various other bands, such as Nightwish.

Being a drummer, I understand how much it takes to play the drums, but it isn't that easy to sing, either. Not everyone can sing like Brad Delp right off the bat. Also, it's hard for a drummer to be a frontman when they are always in the back.

 

[CrashBang]

It's not about the talent at all, it's about the image. The frontman is at the front of the posters and does the interviews because s/he represents the band. They usually write the lyrics so they represent what the band is 'about', what they deal with in their songs and albums. They're literally the voice of the band and they're also the one that talks to the crowd, they're in charge of motivating a huge room full of people, cracking jokes and spreading their enthusiasm

 

[Nouw]

Well probably because they're the 'face' or 'image' of the band. They also tend to be the song-writer although in some cases, like the OP mentioned, they're not. But sometimes they are, refer to Damon Albarn of the Gorillaz.

I understand completely that there is a certain style to singing and amking your voice do stuff can be difficult but in my eyes it's a natural born talent. (you can either sing or you can't. that sorta thing)

It's definitely not a natural born talent. In some cases it is but is what you're saying you can't improve? Anyone can sing, just not very well.

If you had an instrumental band (orchestras don't count). You could make brilliant music, but your songs would not have any meaning. And in turn wouldn't draw the attention of the listener.

What exactly is the difference between an instrumental band and an orchestra besides 'the latter has more instruments?' I feel that both can achieve the same results as both can use the same instruments to an extent.

Also, instrumental songs can still portray an emotion or give a message. I noticed your use of 'band' instead of musician and once again ask why is there a difference between say an instrumental band and a non-vocal house artist? So solo-musicians can produce instrumental songs with meaning but bands can't?

I can probably give you that instrumental bands aren't as successful because they're not popular or mainstream. Less people like them=Less popular.

I like to recognize each individual in the band. Yes, even the bassist. I love bass.

Not liking the bassist is a crime. Without the harmony, a song would sound stupid. I also prefer the sound of a bass in a song rather than the guitar.[sub]If a bass is present in a band, a guitar is usually present as well[/sub].

You cannot communicate proper emotion through instruments as they do not speak any human language, you can only interpret emotion.

Instruments can convey emotions. Tell me, is this song joyous or melancholy?

Spoiler: Adagio for Tron

 

[Estelindis]

While this is true in general, it really depends on the band. When I think of Nightwish, the first person to come into my mind is keyboardist Tuomas Holopainen, who writes all the lyrics and the vast majority of the music. Of course I love the vocalists, but the spirit of the band comes from him. I've found that most people who know the band beyond their most popular singles (and aren't still in denial over the departure of their very first vocalist) agree with me on this. Anyone else could leave and it would still be Nightwish. If Tuomas left, though, the band wouldn't exist as Nightwish anymore.

 

[Blubberburg]

A band would have to be super amazing to balance out the fact that their vocalist was shit if he / she was. (personally i dont like kings of leon because its just another one of those bands that there are already a ton of, but i cant stand the singers voice, i know plenty others dont mind/like his voice and therefore like the band because they are actually good but yeah the vocalist makes me dislike the band)

Unlike say if the drummer wasnt very good like The Beatles (although Beatles were super amazing so maybe they balanced it out) the band overall wasnt effected very much

 

[james0192]

Multiple reasons really.

The most obvious is that they are they are generally the face of the band.

Also the vocals are the part of a song the majority of an audience can appreciate the most. Whilst there are a lot of people who play instruments there are a lot who don't. A lot of these people won't be able to tell the difference between say, a good guitarist and a virtuso for example whereas they probably can distinguish a between singers.

Related to the last point - people can much easier sing along than take part with any other part of a song.

Finally, if you look only at the instruments a band plays (with the singer's voice being their instrument) the vocalist is the only one who is truely irreplaceable without changing the sound of a band. Whilst there may be a singer just as good or even better they will sound different as everyone's voice is different. drummers/bassists/guitarists etc. can all be emulated (albeit sometimes very dificultly)

 

[Vindestructable]

Listen to any song by All That Remains...

I rest my case.

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

I understand completely that there is a certain style to singing and amking your voice do stuff can be difficult but in my eyes it's a natural born talent. (you can either sing or you can't. that sorta thing) I also understand that to be able to sing in tune can be learnt but it's nothing like just being able to do it naturally.

Many would say the same thing about playing guitar, synth, drums etc. Your voice is an instrument, like any other, requiring some raw talent, yes, but also, MUCH much practice and patience.

I understand the point you're digging at. I do front for our band and I've often been told it's "my" group or people were going to see "me" tonight. The lead vocalist is the 'face' of the band, the voice and most identifiable personality for the audience, thus they tend to get the lion's share of attention. S'much like asking "why does the president get all the pos/neg credit for what happens in America when he has hundreds of people directly underneath him that do everything. He's only the face pf the administration, and doesn't actually have that much power."

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

You cannot communicate proper emotion through instruments as they do not speak any human language, you can only interpret emotion.

Maybe I am reading it wrongly but that sentence doesn't make much sense to me. Anyway instruments can convey emotion try watching Bambi without the sound because at least for me it really takes the joy out of the scenes and the weight out of his mum's death. Although this is usually used to describe music telling a story Word Painting is what it is called when music does what you say it can't.

For example in Bohemian Rhapsody the flanged crash symbol near the start is supposed to be the wind, the bell tree effect on the guitar is a shiver down a spine and the drums signify thunder and lighting. While those are relatively simple examples there are slightly more complicated ones.

In Romeo and Juliet Fantasy overture the "Strife theme" has many rushing quavers and various other techniques to symbolise the conflict and anger between the families. This can be present even in non orchestras but I suppose without a small bit of music theory or having this being taught to you most people wouldn't really notice this stuff too much.

OT: The reason is a lot of singers tend to be the front man/woman/thing. While this is not always the case eg Guns & Roses Slash is more known. Another big thing is that most non-music people or rather people without in depth music knowledge would be more accustomed to listening to voices and would recognise bands based on singers rather than say instrument playing styles. Although sometimes this can be obvious(compare AC/DC to Queen and the guitar and other instrument styles are worlds apart even though they are in more or less the same genre. Yes I know they do specialise in other styles but they are still at the back of it rock bands).


This is more a general comment for some people on the thread. Yes anyone with raw talent can sing or play an instrument relatively well but it doesn't mean they are good. To be a really good singer/player does require years of training no matter the raw talent. I really do not think a singer necessarily makes a band. For me Steve Harris is Iron Maiden rather than Bruce and he is the bassist.

 

[mrdude2010]

because most of the time the singer is the face of the band, and unless another member has unusual talent, (like the bassist for SOAD or the guitarist for liquid tension experiment), they usually get overshadowed by the more unique sound of the singer's voice, since there are quite a few people who can train to become as proficient at guitar, bass, drums, etc. as the members of the band

 

[Xaio30]

Easy. The band needs a frontfigure so the drummer can secretly get all the ladies.

 

[SovietX]

It really depends on the band. For example, that's not the case for Slayer, as the band is often viewed as a whole because each member has a role that intertwines with another. If anything, the member that gets noticed the most would be Kerry King, mainly because he is a god amongst men.

 

[Tinybear]

Several reasons:
1: The tune and the vocals need to fit. It won't matter if it has the best guitar/bass/drums in the world if the singer screws up. This also means that songs are written to fit the voice of the singer, making him more important.
2: The most impressive instrumentals often don't sound as good as simple clean tunes that are rather simple to play. Oasis' "Wonderwall" is a good example. There are exceptions of course. You have pure instrumentals that are awesome ("empire of the sun" by Edenbridge is a good example of awesome guitarplay)
3: The vocalist is the face of the band.
4: Anyone who brings up Metallica as an example should be ashamed, as they're greedy sellouts whose musical hearts stopped beating a long time ago.
5: In most other genres, there's a solo vocalist, this gives a mentality that affects how you view bands.
6: Most of the good old times when talent and awesomeness gave you fame is over. Rock isn't dead, but it sure ain't moving much these days. (Personally, I think it's just biding it's time for when it makes its glorious comeback)
7: Most people are braindead in all fields they don't give much interest to, so unless the person really loves music, he/she won't bother knowing much about them anyway.
8: Nightwish is a peculiar case, because the vocalist that replaced the first hasn't got the same opera voice, and although the first wasn't an active songwriter, it really shows that changes happen when the vocalist changes, for better or worse.

 

[wkim564]

Usually cause they are the face. Don't get me wrong, I love instrumentals, I play guitar and sing too. But for me, the singer is the one that conveys the most emotion in a rock setting, which is what most people currently associate a lead singer with. Not only that, but I feel the vocal harmonies are much more powerful than an instrumental harmony.

I value a good musician more than anything though. Flea is in my mind a better musician than the lead singer of the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Dave Grohl, I think, goes above and beyond most as a musician. He's a drummer, a singer, a guitarist, hell he almost recorded his first album with only himself playing all the instruments.

 

[Hosker]

You cannot communicate proper emotion through instruments as they do not speak any human language, you can only interpret emotion.

Spoiler: For example...

In this song, you cannot pull any emotional or any other connection from the music.
It is a brilliant piece, but there is nothing for us as human beings to relate to.

In this song, you can clearly understand what kind of emotion is being projected.
Because it has lyrics, and we can understand him.

I'd easily argue that you're wrong. I'd say that, more often than not, there is much more emotion in instruments, broadly speaking. This applies especially to piano.

On-topic: it's because the vocals are nearly always the focus of the songs.

 

[Weslebear]

You could replace all the instrument players in a band with anyone of equal skill and it won't change the sound. A guitar is a guitar and it will be the same as long as they play it right.

However, by default, no two voices will ever sound exactly the same.

The singer should not get any more credit than any other band member no, but they are the main differentiating point between that bands sound and another band and for this many see them as the most integral part of it, thus getting them more attention usually.

 

[Artina89]

Because Freddy Mercury (Queen)'s voice is ear porn.

That, and Freddie Mercury was the ultimate showman. When he performed on stage, he put his all into it. Having said that, Brian May is just as recognisable as Freddie Mercury.

 

[RedDeadFred]

So I know for a fact you've all listened to a song that consists of guitar, drums, bass and vocals and what really bugs me is the fact that people "oggle" the singer the most. Could somebody please explain the logic behind this if anything the singer is by far the least talented person on the stage.

I understand completely that there is a certain style to singing and amking your voice do stuff can be difficult but in my eyes it's a natural born talent. (you can either sing or you can't. that sorta thing) I also understand that to be able to sing in tune can be learnt but it's nothing like just being able to do it naturally.



EDIT: For those who mentioned it I know a lot of bands where the drummer does(<---/did(EDIT)) the composing. (off the top of my head "Three Days Grace" and "Avenged Sevenfold".

Although this is true for many bands, the instant I saw this thread I immediately thought of Keith Moon (RIP) from The Who.
Greatest drummer ever. His drumming was one of if not the biggest attraction of one of the greatest bands of all time.

 

[SillyBear]

So I know for a fact you've all listened to a song that consists of guitar, drums, bass and vocals and what really bugs me is the fact that people "oggle" the singer the most. Could somebody please explain the logic behind this if anything the singer is by far the least talented person on the stage.

I understand completely that there is a certain style to singing and amking your voice do stuff can be difficult but in my eyes it's a natural born talent. (you can either sing or you can't. that sorta thing) I also understand that to be able to sing in tune can be learnt but it's nothing like just being able to do it naturally

1. In most the bands I listen to, the singer plays a few instruments themselves.

2. Being able to sing is no more of a natural born talent than possessing fantastic natural rhythm and coordination that leads to fantastic drumming.