Why does the vocalist get all the credit?

[Korolev]

Because the singer can be distinctive - the rest are replaceable. Any competent drummer can be trained to do the drumming. It is not always possible to find a replacement for the singer, because his or her voice might be distinctive or their face and personality might not be 100% replaceable.

Generally the people who get the most credit are the ones who are indispensable to the band, who can't be replicated. The main song writer/writers are, if talented, unique and can't be replaced. The singer has a distinctive face and is the one you focus on because they are the one singing and we are naturally drawn to human sounds.

But the Guitarist? The Bassist? The Drummer? The.... Tambourine-ist? The.... fluter? He or she can be replaced, if that's all they do. Just hire another guitarist who can play well - and there's plenty of them around if you have the money.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Vocals and lyrics are what speak to people. Its what truly defines what a song or band is about.

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.

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.
Ah but see the argument on the other side is that the words get in the way of what should be pure music and that the best kind of emotional music is powerful enough that it is actually better without words.
Could you imagine if the 1st movement of Beethoven's 5th symphony had words to it? It would ruin it. In case you don't actually know this by name here's the link. I'm 100% sure you've heard at least part of it before though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4IRMYuE1hI

Edit: Weird it didn't post any of my response....
Edit 2: This is what I had put but the Escapist decided to get rid of.
The argument from the other side is that words get in the way and don't allow the listener to focus completely on the music. The words could be considered a distraction.
Could you imagine if Beethoven's 5th symphony had words to it? It would ruin it.

 

[TornadoFive]

In my opinion, almost everyone has the ability to sing. Some better than otheres, some have a greater vocal range than others, but almost everyone has at least some singing capabilities.

By the same token, with enough time, anyone can learn to play an instrument. Again, some people are better, some people can do extraordinary things with a harmonica, etc. But anyone can learn it.

The people who REALLY deserve the credit in my opinion, are the composers. They create the music we all know and love. Next time you listen to a song, actually listen to the music and try and get a sense of how complex some songs actually are. Would you be able to think up something like that? I know I never could, not in a million years.

People like Thomas Bergersen, Hans Zimmer, Murray Gold and John Williams are absolute legends in my opinion. They do things that us mere mortals can never do.

 

[Rayansaki]

Other members can be replaced by equally skilled artists and people wouldn't even notice a difference. Vocalists can't be replaced without changing the band's sound forever. That's why the vocalists is seen as the soul of a band.

There are some exceptions tho, like in electronic music. For example in The Prodigy, Liam Howlett deserves all the credit, despite being rarely shown as the face of the band.

 

[RyanBishop]

To each his own I guess. I play both guitar and drums a bit, and I can tell you - most of the time at concerts I pay attention to the instrumentalists. Just my area of interest. Sure vocals mean a helluva lot but for me it's always been about the music behind the screaming/yelling/singing/rapping/opera vocals/burping/belching/whatever...

Also, fully agree with the point that the vocalist usually gets the crowd pumped... they are showmen and that's why they are always at the front. Doesn't mean that other members don't get any thunder for themselves, not by a long shot =)

And drummers... =) Hahah... well someone said that they still get all the girls no matter what - I've been witness to some stuff like this... it's true =D

 

[D-Pad]

A singer can be replaced / replicated, it's just slightly harder to do so compared to an instrument.

However, a band's sound is not completely reliant upon the singer, as many people in this thread seem to think. If you dub out vocals for a popular song, and play just the instrumentals, people will still be able to tell what rendition is playing. This is especially true if amplified or electric instruments are in play. I have a friend that can tell me what year every Jeopardy title theme came from just by listening to them. There's no vocals in that.

The whole Singer in front Music in back setup comes from when there was no amplification. Instruments had the potential to dwarf the vocals in terms of sound. The solution? Put them closer to the audience, duh. As a result, the whole "Frontman" concept is true, and is, at least in my opinion, the number one reason why people tie bands and their sound to the singer.

Also, people tend to think more about what the singer is doing. People who are not naturally versed in music, or have not studied it, are tuning in more to the language. They want to know what the Singer is saying. Since language is an integral part of our mental processes, those who do not know the musical "language" of a piece tend to gravitate more towards a language they DO understand, which is probably coming straight out of the Singer's mouth.

 

[General Ken8]

It's because that's what most people listen to when they hear music. If you ask someone about a song, they could sing it for you, but odds are they couldn't recite to you the guitar, bass, or drum part. The singer isn't the most important part of the band, in my opinion, every band member pretty much carries equal weight, since they all play and all have different responsibilities. What the singer seems to do in my opinion is act as a face for the band, and for the most part, they have to be the ones providing the most entertainment on stage, or getting the crowd excited. A few notable examples that are stellar at both, whether you can appreciate their music or not, are Billie Joe Armstrong from Green Day, Bruce Springsteen, Freddie Mercury of Queen, and Kid Rock.

 

[Naeo]

The vocalist is the most visible band member, almost without exception. They're frequently the frontman, and a lot of more mainstream bands tend to emphasize vocals over other things anyways. And it's easier for our ear to tune in to the vocals when everything is getting equal emphasis anyways.

I would say there's a psychology aspect to it, too, that has to do with speech. If you hear someone's voice, suddenly there's a jump and you get a sense of personality and humanity from them. Imagine the party or the group meeting where the one guy you've never seen before is there and doesn't talk for like half an hour, then when he starts talking you finally notice him, even when he's finished. Something about speech makes us look at someone and go "yeah, them".

Another point might be that since the majority of the population doesn't play an instrument but has tried to sing a lot, we can generally more easily recognize outstanding vocal talent than outstanding instrumental talent, because most of us (myself included) don't know what all really goes into playing an instrument well. And also since most of us don't play instruments and so aren't as finely attuned to, say, a guitar's range of timbres as a guitarist/musician would be, it's noticeably harder to distinguish different styles of guitar playing, even when two different people play the same thing back to back. But we can very easily tell the difference when two people sing the same thing back to back. Our ears are very well-attuned to vocal differences, since we talk almost every day to different people and learn to identify their voices, but our ears aren't as keenly attuned to differentiating instrumental styles since we don't communicate in guitar riffs, though I think we totally should. Anyways, the trouble in differentiating means that guitarists don't stand out as much any more than that one bush does from that other bush (unless you're a botanist), where vocalists stand out a lot more.

Last point. The vocalist is, if anyone in the band, the one who will be free to move around on stage and, well, do stuff. This doesn't apply if they also play an instrument and have their hands full. If they just sing, they have both hands free for performance things and aren't weighted down/constrained by an instrument so they can move very freely, even moreso if they're wearing a headset rather than carrying a traditional mic with them on stage. This lets them have much more personality visible on stage, so we focus on them more at live events, and thus connect more with them than the others musicians for the most part.

Again, there are always exceptions, but I think between various mixes of the above you probably have your answer.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

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.

But without any back ground knowledge of a song or its composer's feelings, an instrumental piece is not about anything, it is just a broad overview of many possible emotions.

Lyrics give context and let the listener relate to something.


I want you to listen to those two songs again (or for the first time if you didnt) in my original reply...
-Try to relate a past experience or specific emotion to the instrumental.
-then do the same for the one with Lyrics.

 

[PayneTrayne]

Because some people, myself included, can't stand instrumental music as much as full band songs.

The singer can either make or break a band, and as previously mentioned they're the front man.

Don't get me wrong though, solos get my attention.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

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.

I'll say exactly what I said to the other guy.

I want you to listen to those two songs again (or for the first time if you didnt) in my original reply...
-Try to relate a past experience or specific emotion to the instrumental.
-then do the same for the one with Lyrics

 

[Sad Face]

it's because they're the face of the band.

They're the face of the band and they're the one who is directly interacting with the audience. They directly addressing the listeners, so of course they're going to get the most attention.

 

[Riccan]

Well to be honest, many metal bands typically have fan bases devoted to just how the guitars or drums sound, regardless of how talented the vocalist or the bassist are. Likewise, there are people who only like the vocalist for his/her 'br00tal kvlt' growls, regardless of their lyrics or competence as a frontman, or the talent of the band as a whole. Really, it just depends, unless you're a bassist. They, regretably, are usually completely phased out of the band.

 

[Snake Plissken]

They don't.

Slash > Axl

Jimmy Page > Robert Plant

Pete Townshend > Roger Daltrey

Eddie Van Halen > Whatever douche happens to be singing for them at any given time

Scott Ian > Joey Belladonna

 

[Marter]

For me, the vocalist makes or breaks the band for me. If it's a bad vocalist, I can't stand listening to a band, but if I like the vocalist, then I'll listen to pretty much anything they produce.

At least, this is what happens most of the time.

 

[justnotcricket]

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.

I'll say exactly what I said to the other guy.

I want you to listen to those two songs again (or for the first time if you didnt) in my original reply...
-Try to relate a past experience or specific emotion to the instrumental.
-then do the same for the one with Lyrics

I think this might actually have more to do with how well an individual relates to words or music. I personally relate much better to the music than to any lyrics, and usually end up feeling that many songs would be better off without their words. That's just me, however. You (EightGaugeHippo) might just be the kind of person who relates better to lyrics. I think it works both ways. =)

 

[NEMESIS 94]

Because they're what you focus on most during the song. If you listen to someone like say Anamanaguchi or anyone who didn't have a vocals in their songs you'd appreciate the whole band more because your not listening the persons voice rather than the sweet drum beat or the awesome guitar hook or bass line

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

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.

I'll say exactly what I said to the other guy.

I want you to listen to those two songs again (or for the first time if you didnt) in my original reply...
-Try to relate a past experience or specific emotion to the instrumental.
-then do the same for the one with Lyrics

I think this might actually have more to do with how well an individual relates to words or music. I personally relate much better to the music than to any lyrics, and usually end up feeling that many songs would be better off without their words. That's just me, however. You (EightGaugeHippo) might just be the kind of person who relates better to lyrics. I think it works both ways. =)

Alright, I guess.
But, muse me, what emotion or past experience did you associate with the instrumental song that you didn't with the one with Lyrics.

 

[justnotcricket]

Hm, I guess it's more that lyrics distract me from the emotional connection I get from the music. I don't suggest that this is an *exclusive* thing, naturally there are some songs where the lyrics speak to me (usually because that song was *playing* when something important or memorable happened) - of course, that means that it wasn't natively the lyrics that hooked me - it was the connection with the circumstances.

A sort of an example might be the metal music that my partner is fond of - I love the guitar solos, but the lyrics/vocal sections I find awful. They say nothing to me, and get in the way, somehow. It's difficult to put into words (no pun intended), but I just switch off at the lyrics, even if the singer has a nice voice.

I also meant to add in an edit that (for me at least) my own thesis breaks down in the context of songs where the music *is* the lyrics. For example, despite not being religious myself, I adore ecclesiastical music of the chant/polyphony variety.

EDIT: Whoops, clicked reply instead of quote - EightGaugeHippo, this was a reply to your post immediately above!

 

[Vault101]

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".

I think its because the singer is the first thing you indentiyfy with and make a connection with, and they can pretty much become the bands indentity, replace the drummer/lead guitarest and no one notices...replace the singer? people notice and may not be too happy about it

I mean I couldn't imagine Disturbed with a different singer