what's more important to you?

Question

most of the time (about 98% of the time) only the vocalist(s) get interviewed and not the other band itself.
so my question is: "what do you think is more important; the vocalist(s) or the instruments (sound) themselfs?"
both do go great together, sometimes, but what do you think (your own opinion)?

if you can.....why do you think that?

Answer 1

I think each are equally imortant. Some vocalists can go without the band, and some bands can go with out the vocalist and sound great. Sometimes they need each other. It's all about opinion~but I do believe that vocalists are given way more press.

Answer 2

both are necessary. the only reason why the vocalists are the ones that get interviewed is because the vocalists are in front on stage and its their faces that become associated with the band, as opposed to, say, the drummer who sits in the back.

Answer 3

i think they're pretty equal, the background is just as important if not more important than the vocalist. it would kinda suck to just be forgotten like that.

Answer 4

The vocalist is the most important.

You can use synthesizers for anything else if need be. Look at Trent Reznor.

Answer 5

Well im usually attracted to singers, and sometimes the vocals can make up for bad beats. But for the most part, I dont like bands unless they have both qualities

Answer 6

If the vocals suck, it won't matter how well they play.

I feel the vocals are the main key. Most musicians can play their instrument well.

Answer 7

I think the band itself is more important!!!!

Answer 8

vocalists

Answer 9

vocalist

Answer 10

Both are important. Otherwise one of them wouldn't exist.