Is the singer single most important element of the song ?

F

folker

New member
Hi all, while browsing other forums i came across this statement:
"The singer is the single most important element of a song. Gtr licks, bass notes or kybrd gymnastics are not."
Click to expand...
(from www gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/803766-whats-your-opinion-about-changing-songs-key-fit-vocalist.html )
and reading further, people seem to agree completely. Which kinda bothers me, cause i never felt it such way.
Let me explain. I have allways been "alternative" musician, basically it means i never cared for pop music, or radio songs in general. Granted, if you take away vocals from any pop hit, there´s nothing left.
However, i had been allways fan of "weird" bands like Current 93, Comus, Legendary Pink Dots, Skinny Puppy, Tom Waits etc. None of these sound "radio friendly top notch" vocalist, but still Tom Waits is one hell of an influential artist, and in their genres, Skinny puppy and Current 93 were some of most influential bands too.
I am experimenting musician and my vocals kinda sucks. But i always hear music itself first, vocal is mere another instrument to me. Yet now i see "vocal is everything, screw the music" as generally accepted opinion. To be honest, almost every "top notch production" professional radio hit that has great vocals i ever heard, used very few simple phrases to express absolutely uninteresting lyrics about "i love you and allways will" blah blah something like this.
Thus, it seems what the lyric says doesn´t matter, or better, they don´t have to say something ineresting or important, rather the opposite - they dont have to pass any sense not to distract from actual "vocal performance".
Lyrics has to be crap but sung professionally :-) , kinda sad to me.
NOw, lately i moved to listening and writing folk music, which has been allways about "civil" vocals with focus on text itself.

So, whats your point of view on subject ?
Does these claims apply only to "pop" music ?
Or does "bland" vox ruins everything regardless of genre ? Regardless of what lyrics are about to say ?
 
folker said:
Or does "bland" vox ruins everything regardless of genre ? Regardless of what lyrics are about to say ?
Click to expand...

Immediately screams dylan to me! lol. OK, he wasn't bland, but certainly monotonous if you're not into him.


I don't have a lot to contribute here, but I'll be very keen to see this thread grow.

The two guys that I'm currently working with are wordy singer/songwriters.
Both of them want to be on the radio but both of them want to be Dylan, deep inside.

One has what you'd call a nice enough voice, the other I'd say is a 'take note' singer.
To be fair, the stronger, more intricate lyrics probably lie with the weaker voice, but I'd almost guarantee that radio plays and CD sales will go to the other guy.

Good question.
 
I've always been told that even if you don't like the voice or the lyrics or the melody, the vocal still needs to be front and center in the mix. The vocal is what [usually] hooks people in and makes them want to keep listening. It's the melody that people will get stuck in their head and want to hum to themselves after they hear a really catchy song. Nobody ever hums a guitar solo or a bass groove. It's always the lead vocal that sticks with people.

That's my opinion. Of course, this is a generalization and will vary with each genre, band, and song. But if you're aiming for something "radio-friendly" then the lead vocal is where it's at.
 
Singers only matter to old ladies, teenage girls, and people that aren't musicians. Dumb masses and musically clueless types can only relate to singing, so that's what they focus on. My mom, for example, doesn't appreciate or understand a cool drum pattern or interesting guitar playing. She only listens to words and melodies. That's how most music listeners operate. The reality is that singers are no more or less important than any other instrument of the band - even in pop music. They are just another instrument. The singer has to fit the music just like the guitarist does, or drummer, or whatever. Celine Dion wouldn't be right for hardcore punk just like Jello Biafra wouldn't be right for Disney soundtracks. So it really just depends on the audience. Yngwie Malmsteen's fanbase couldn't care less about singers. Buddy Rich's fans don't care about singers.
 
folker said:
people seem to agree completely. Which kinda bothers me, cause i never felt it such way.
Click to expand...
When you say it like that, it sounds like you are trying to get validation for your tastes and choices.
folker said:
Granted, if you take away vocals from any pop hit, there´s nothing left.
Click to expand...
Virtually any song with vocals, if the vocals are taken away, you have a different song. Regardless of the genre or style.
folker said:
I am experimenting musician and my vocals kinda sucks.
Click to expand...
You make this sound like a "I can't sing so I'm going to take it out on vocalists and vocals" type rant. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but you make it sound that way.
folker said:
But i always hear music itself first, vocal is mere another instrument to me.
Click to expand...
For me, it really depends. The voice is merely another instrument but it has a function that, frankly is unlike any other.
guitarplayr82 said:
The vocal is what [usually] hooks people in and makes them want to keep listening.
Click to expand...
The direction of a song with vocals is very often set by the vocals so it has an importance that is undeniable.
But really, the OP's question is reflective of the obsession of Western man with individuality and leaders and those "out front" rather than the reality of components, process and what it really takes to get something done. Songs are made up of a variety of components, each of which is crucial to the overall effect. One of the things that has been increasingly lost as instrumentalists have taken a back seat to machinery is the idea that every instrument has a part to play and that human beings contribute imoprtant parts to a song. It shows how much distinctiveness was taken for granted. "A drum beat" was not enough. A drummer supplying beats, patterns and fills was.
I could go on, but suffice it to say, just because other elements support the vocal does not mean that the vocal is more important. There isn't really a "more important". All the components have their part to play.
folker said:
Yet now i see "vocal is everything, screw the music" as generally accepted opinion.
Click to expand...
Well, not really. Many do feel the vocal is all important but it certainly doesn't follow that people in general aren't interested in the music. Music and vocals, however you look at it, go together. I think that we often oversimplify this whole topic.
folker said:
To be honest, almost every "top notch production" professional radio hit that has great vocals i ever heard, used very few simple phrases to express absolutely uninteresting lyrics about "i love you and allways will" blah blah something like this.
Click to expand...
You can't have heard many songs on the radio if that's what you think all the songs are about. As to whether lyrics are interesting or not, that's always personal taste.
folker said:
They dont have to pass any sense not to distract from actual "vocal performance".
Lyrics has to be crap but sung professionally - kinda sad to me.
Click to expand...
Well, sometimes, what the lyrics say isn't felt to be particularly important. Sometimes, the melody, the way it meshes with the music and the brilliance of the performance helps make the song and the lyrics become unimportant. Or the lyrics may be fantastic but pass over the listener's head because of the melody, the way it meshes with the music and the brilliance of the performance. The artist may feel the lyric is important but the listener may not and vice versa.


guitarplayr82 said:
It's the melody that people will get stuck in their head and want to hum to themselves after they hear a really catchy song. Nobody ever hums a guitar solo or a bass groove. It's always the lead vocal that sticks with people.
Click to expand...
That's partly true and partly not true.
There are more musicians in the world than we often realize and musicians hear music differently. But the advent of the air guitarist and the cult of the guitar hero and the way percussionists are revered in Asia, south America and Africa and the way kids will respond totally differently as soon as they hear drums {artificial or otherwise} indicates that actually, lots of people all over the world hear different parts of songs.
I hum solos and riffs all the time and my 11 year old son does likewise. We hum solos together then laugh heartilly.

Greg_L said:
Singers only matter to old ladies, teenage girls, and people that aren't musicians
Click to expand...
One has to remember that long before there was recording, there were live singers and they had to be the focus. Human beings speak and the singer communicates the words. That would make them stand out.
Greg_L said:
doesn't appreciate or understand a cool drum pattern or interesting guitar playing....only listens to words and melodies.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I will suddenly pick out an interesting guitar melody or bass part or drum pattern or tambourine or harmony vocal ~ and yet I could've been listening to that song for 20 years ! Sometimes a song appears to me as the overall sound. Then as I listen to it more, I zoom in on particular aspects. And sometimes it's the other way around.
Greg_L said:
The reality is that singers are no more or less important than any other instrument of the band - even in pop music. They are just another instrument. The singer has to fit the music just like the guitarist does, or drummer, or whatever.
Click to expand...
So true. Which brings me back to my main point ~ every element has a part to play. No one element is more important. They all do different things. I've spent most of my life listening to music that has no singer as well as all the stuff with singers.
It's all Iraq and roll to me.......
 
grimtraveller said:
Which brings me back to my main point ~ every element has a part to play. No one element is more important. They all do different things. I've spent most of my life listening to music that has no singer as well as all the stuff with singers.
It's all Iraq and roll to me.......
Click to expand...


Yeah I've said it many times, for me personally, I'd be just fine with only listening to instrumental music. Hell, I spend a great deal of my listening time listening to The Ventures, Man or Astroman, Dick Dale, and other surf rock instrumental stuff. I do value the right singer for the right band, but like I said I treat the voice as just another instrument in the band, not the focus.
 
You trying to stress test the multi-quote function there Grim? :)

I think the plethora of TV talent shows that almost exclusively feature singers and the various spin off activities that come with them are placing an emphasis on singers/singing at this particular point in time...

If you take away the vocal, and the music bores you, then it's not much of a tune. Sadly that's the case with a lot of what sells at the moment. I get bored with music that I can instantly deconstruct and know exactly what everyone's doing immediately because it's all so "standard" - but that's just me.

Ever heard Sigur Ros? They make up their own language, so you never have the faintest idea what they're singing about, therefore the voice is purely an instrument in that setting. Others do similar things. Does it work? Don't know... I'm not a huge fan but they seem to have a reasonable support base.

All genres of music can be really tedious if not approached with imagination and skill, irrespective of the quality of the singing/melody.

Do what you want to do and don't worry about what everyone else is doing.
 
grimtraveller said:
When you say it like that, it sounds like you are trying to get validation for your tastes and choices.
Click to expand...

No. I dont go to forums to rant. I was curious to see different opinions on subject. The quote i posted is clearly engineer's point of view, and homerecording residents are mostly musicians (though engineers too).
And for that "i always love you blah blah" part, that was simplification, man.
My grammar may fool you to think i am native english speaker but far from that, excuse my lack of communicating skills.
I know (from reading KLF's Manual :-) that pop lyrics deal with emotions, as that is simple most effective way to get anyone hooked.
I know anyone listens to different aspect of music, my drummer friend only values music with great drums no matter singer does :-)
Thanks for reply everyone, keep em coming ;-)
 
...people that aren't musicians...hmmm...Well I suppose the main reason there are singers is to appeal to the folks that have money. Most musicians don't have any money! BTW- I'm a singer and consider myself a musician. I don't take any offense to your stance, however.
 
Is the singer important? It depends on what your intent for the song is. If you write solid lyrics, then you probably want a good singer to sell those lyrics. Do most people focus on the singer - of course. Given that music is basically melody, harmony and rhythm - with melody normally the most focal point - the singer (melody) has the largest focus.

Some musical genres may not place as much importance on the lyrics or melody - in which case, perhaps the singer is not as important. Clearly the singer is not a factor in instrumental music - but I must assume the original post was not addressing instrumental music.

As a musician I can and do focus on all elements of a song when I listen and can appreciate a creative drum groove or a intricate bass line, etc. - however, most of the listening audiance can not. So, when we write/record is it our goal to appease the masses or to create a piece of music we feel has integrity - regardless of the vocal talent? While I say this somewhat tongue in cheek - I feel that if I write & record simply to satisfy my musical integrity - it is basically musical masturbation. I prefer my music to be heard and enjoyed by as many people as possible - thus, I can't masturbate in public.

I personally write songs with a goal of being published and placed - so I do have to write/arrange with the masses in mind - and I do need a solid vocalist to sell the songs to publishers. in addition, I consider myself a better than average lyricist/storyteller - so I want a good vocalist to be able to bring my lyrics to life.

So - in my view, for the intent of my song, yes, the singer is the most important element.
 
ok, fair enough. it's understandable if artist wants best singer he can get to sing his lyrics. Everyone will want best performers for his own songs.
I'm curious to hear how would you approach other people's music, so let me ask pretty greasy question :
If you had to choose between two artists and have to listen to their songs for whole bloody day, who would you choose ?
Option one: Enrique Iglesias (he's considered great singer, isn't he ?)
Option two: good ol' Robert Zimmerman (rather 'decent' one)

...that's kinda unfair i know :-)
(my choice is obvious LOL)
 
Like a lot of really good questions, the answer is- it depends. The important thing is what the artist is trying to do. Greg L. is at one end of the spectrum. OK, he's a musician. I'm at the other end of the spectrum. I'm a storyteller, and to me, the music is just a vehicle to tell the story. In that sense, folk music, country, and rap share that mission. In the middle are the dance/R&B/disco/pop people, where neither the story nor the music matters. The only question for them is- can you dance to it?

One of the differences between me and the Gerg is that I can see, and value, his perspective, wheras he tends to devalue music where the story is the point. I just try to remember what I'm doing, and what I'm mixing. A lot of mixing engineers will mix folk music so the vocal sits wonderfully in the mix, but only a dog could make out the words. Listen to Sara Watkins on the first "Nickel Creek" album, and you'll hear exactly what I mean. The story is lost, and therefore, the mix sucks. If you are mixing "Baby, baby, baby, I want you so bad, ooh, ooh", the vocal is just an instrument, and you should mix it like one. If you are mixing Juliana Hatfield, the vocal may suck, but it still needs to be up front, because she's trying to communicate- with words. This is true of country pop, also. OK- take a song like "Ain't Goin' Down 'til the Sun Comes Up" performed by Garth Brooks. The rhythm and chord structure is wicked simple, and it does contain a truly badass harmonica break. When that harmonica is being featured, it needs to be up front, but when Garth is singing, everything takes a back seat to it, so that the story isn't lost.

In the end, the artist and the producer are the only ones who decide what matters, and it's the job of the mixing engineer and the mastering engineer to make their vision concrete. Those decisions define who you are as an artist. I care about the story, because that's the only thing I do well. But, I care enough about the vehicle to bring in session people who can drive that car. Every one of them works with me because they believe in my stories, and with one clear exception, they don't have their own story to tell. They are just musicians, and they are secondary to my mission. The difference is that I can see the worth in other people's missions, and I try to track and mix their stuff to create what they want, not what I want. I don't have anything against music, it's just not what I bring to the table. As Joni Mitchell said, "I'm just the chirp".
 
This thread rocks.

The way I see it is like this-

The voice is the oldest instrument. Using the voice to make noises that sound pleasurable to the ear has been going on since humans first grunted, or groaned, or whatever. Everyone who listens to music can identify with some vocalist or another- whether its Bruce Dickinson and his operatic style, or Tom Waits and his rambling, or his throaty shouts. (Tom Waits is just so cool, isn't he?)

So, like it or not, singers remain to be the focal point of MOST music, and it's because (apart from usually being the 'hook') EVERYONE (or almost everyone) has a voice. Not everyone plays an instrument, so its hard to identify those sweet para-diddles that the drummer is doing when you don't know a hi hat from a crash.

That being said, its all situational. A singer can ruin a band, a singer can make the band. Sometimes I feel like vocals and lyrics are just dead, creatively, but then I turn off the radio and pop in a Clutch album.
 
FromtheSOUTH said:
So, like it or not, singers remain the focal point of MOST music
Click to expand...
Agreed. But does that automatically qualify the singer as the most important individual and the voice as the most important element ?
I stand by my conviction that it's a moot question. Unless it's an accapella piece, the truth is that all the elements work together. I only know one person that likes accapella music exclusively. Many people may well focus on the vocal {I do on some songs} but without the other instruments to shape, frame and surround the vocal, the vocal piece itself is more often than not plain boring. And interestingly, the OP didn't make any mention of backing or harmony vocals which are definitely the poor relation to many people in the vocal pecking order.
It's like a house. What you see on the outside may be what initially attracts you, but it is by no means the whole story..........
 
grimtraveller said:
Agreed. But does that automatically qualify the singer as the most important individual and the voice as the most important element ?
I stand by my conviction that it's a moot question. Unless it's an accapella piece, the truth is that all the elements work together. I only know one person that likes accapella music exclusively. Many people may well focus on the vocal {I do on some songs} but without the other instruments to shape, frame and surround the vocal, the vocal piece itself is more often than not plain boring. And interestingly, the OP didn't make any mention of backing or harmony vocals which are definitely the poor relation to many people in the vocal pecking order.
It's like a house. What you see on the outside may be what initially attracts you, but it is by no means the whole story..........
Click to expand...

Exactly. Imagine listening to Rush 2012 with no Geddy vox. Or even worse, ONLY Geddy vox.
 
FromtheSOUTH said:
Exactly. Imagine listening to Rush 2012 with no Geddy vox. Or even worse, ONLY Geddy vox.
Click to expand...
An interesting example. I love that album. I could listen to it {just......} if a gun was put to my kneecaps, without Geddy's vocals, but only because that kind of music has so much space for the instrumental. I could not listen to it without the instruments. I dig Geddy's voice, but I cannot think of Rush as being any one particular element. They are a unit. Take away Geddy's voice, bass playing or synths or Alex's guitars or Neil's drums or pointed lyrics and you don't have that unit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top