FIXED: most important part of band

[OldFogey]

OK, this time I'll be more careful with the poll.

Again the question is what's most important to you in a band.

IF YOU VOTE PLEASE POST YOUR REASONS.

[BhindBluEyes430]

Im gonna go with Songwriting, because you can have a perfectly in time song with tons of solos but that dosent mean its good. The songwriter is the one who give the band the identiy through lyrics and melodys.

Second would be Rhythm because it give the music the drive and some of the soul

[OldFogey]

I voted songwriting. I've heard tons of music from great players that just doesn't stand up because the songs just aren't that strong or interesting. OTOH, I've got lots of music I listen to over and over even tho' the solos aren't so great because the songs are so awesome.

I would put singing second -- so I've just hit on my two pet peeves with some of my favorite guitar players, for example. Why they insist on writing and singing their own material when they are second rate vocalists and writers I just don't understand. Yes I mean you Eric Johnson....

But I could probably have said rhythm, too -- a good rhythm section really holds things down well.

Of course, best is when all come together.

[barber78]

i picked rhythem section. but if i could pick two it would be singers voice as well. Hmm, maybe i shouldve voted all equally important...I picked drums cause i feel like they set the tone kind of for a song. and if you have a bad drummer, the whole band will sound bad.

[a21schizoidman]

I say all are equal, Bass, Drums, Guitar, Keyboards, Vocals, Songwriting... without really any section, you don't have much of a band, (minus prog rock bands cuz thats what makes them special sometimes) I mean, yes, you have solo guitarists and pianists, but together, as a band, I think they all are equal.

[King_Nuthin]

I put voices, second would be songwriting. I just can't get past awful vocals. That doesn't mean I can't like "bad" singers if it suits the music and I don't like good singers who sing crappy songs, but there are quite a few acts that are remarkably talented with vocals that don't suit the pieces they perform and it absolutely kills it for me.

[AxlVanHagar]

I went with songwriting being the most important. Without a well written song you just have a bunch of folks singing and playing.

I liken it to movie making. You need a great script first. The best director, best actors, best tecnical crew in the world can't make a bad script into a good movie.

Same with music. A well written song is going to shine through the performance of subpar musicians. Most successful bands are proof of that.

[Quinarvy]

I selected all because the Rhythm section adds a fuller song and keeps the music going. Solo instruments add interesting bits that people would find more interesting and probably define the song. Voices of course give the song a bit more of a meaning and help define what the song is about. Lastly song writing because without good song writers the music can be only be decent. But all pieces need eachother to work.

[k87]

I said voices because if a singer is bad it can totally ruin a song.

[OldFogey]

I put voices, second would be songwriting. I just can't get past awful vocals. That doesn't mean I can't like "bad" singers if it suits the music and I don't like good singers who sing crappy songs, but there are quite a few acts that are remarkably talented with vocals that don't suit the pieces they perform and it absolutely kills it for me.

I definitely hear what you're saying - but then I have to put my affection for the Grateful Dead to the test. They suck. Nobody can sing well. But I still dig 'em because the other elements are so strong - the songs, the rhythm section and the soloing. And then there's Dylan, too. So I guess if I'm being honest with myself there's certain cases where I cut the band a slack for having bad vocals.

[AlterEgo]

Song compostion is the most important aspect of any genra of music. Without that core idea or that initial "spark", the written piece isn't worth anyone's time, no matter how technically skilled the musician may be.

Take Kenny G. for instance. Not many people can deny his skill at the Saxophone, and most people can drop his name when asked who a good soprano sax player is. Recently though, most his songs have been generic and bland synth beats underneath a boring Saxophone melody line. The kind of stuff you hear at a dentist's office, or on most crappy "Jazz" radio stations.

Song writing is a combination of all of the other aspects of the poll, and arguably the hardest to produce.

[polishdog90]

I say all are equal, Bass, Drums, Guitar, Keyboards, Vocals, Songwriting... without really any section, you don't have much of a band, (minus prog rock bands cuz thats what makes them special sometimes) I mean, yes, you have solo guitarists and pianists, but together, as a band, I think they all are equal.

Thats what I was thinking.

[Onslaught_fei]

I put all are equal although I usually prefer solo instruments, then songwriting, then rhythm/vocal style.

[Maelphaedor]

I answered all equal, because each element is unsustainable without the others. However, the element I'm must likely to notice sucking 1st would be the vocals. If I can't stand your vocalist, it pretty much won't matter how awesome the rest of your band is or how awesome the songwriter was crafting the song. It's pretty rare for any single member of a band to ruin a song for me, however to my ears, it's the vocalist that has the most power to bring a song out of "meh, same old - same old" and into "ooh! nice!" territory. The vocalist also has the same power to bring a song down.

That's actually why I enjoy cover/tribute albums so much, I like to see what a different band can bring to a song that's already known to me.

[KingofQUEEN92]

Im gonna go with Songwriting, because you can have a perfectly in time song with tons of solos but that dosent mean its good. The songwriter is the one who give the band the identiy through lyrics and melodys.

Second would be Rhythm because it give the music the drive and some of the soul

Exactly!!!

[yelladog32]

I voted equally important. A well-written song may not get as much attention if it sounded like smashing amps whereas a well-written piece of music or percussion may not get the look without some good lyrics that people can relate to and sing. Sum of the parts...I'd say, though, that being a great songwriter is easier than being a great and creative musician. Few musicians' music itself ever transcends beyond themselves whereas a great lyric is just like a folk song and continually passed on from generation to generation. Consider the fact that the music we talk about is only 50-60 years old or younger. The general themes of the songs and the way they are written (eg metaphor) are almost to the time when people could actually write.

[Drewsky56]

It is the combination of all the different elements of guitar, bass, vocals and, drums that make a song <b>great</b>. A song could have the greatest solo, the smoothest rhythm form the bass, the best drumming and vocals but all of that wont matter if all those elements don't work well together.

[Parodygm]

I think they're all equally important.

Generally I would consider songwriting to be a major factor, since highly technical music with no soul bores me whereas simple music and lyrics with feeling can be a winner.

I also mostly need to be somewhat inspired by vocals/lyrics but that's not exactly a given either. I listen to fair amount of instrumental music and am impressed by bands where voice is used more as an instrument (eg. Cocteau Twins).

I'd admit that the instruments I pay slightly less critical attention to are bass and drums. As long as they are functional and don't stick out like a sore thumb I'm usually happy enough. That being said, I love powerful drumming and intricate bass work.

If the guitar/keyboards don't move me then that's a sure-fire recipe for a disaster song for me. Overall, they have an edge in importance in terms of musical content to my way of thinking.

I couldn't take any of them in isolation though.

[TakeABow]

All equally important. Each component is merely a part of a whole, but taken together, they are greater than the sum of thier parts.

As Jack Black would say "Creating musical fusion".

[Stew]

Generally it's the rhythm that attracts me to a song. I'm usually nice enough to listen to a whole song through because you never know if some songs have some hidden sweetness to it but if it sounds like it's never changing (Tokio Hotel....whatever the hell their song is) then forget it. Once I'm attracted to the rhythm, or listen to the lyrics and rhythm at the same time.

[topperharley]

For me, they're all equally important.

That said, whether or not I like the vocalist is a make or break. Nirvana is a good example. As far as the music goes, and even the lyrics, I kinda dig a lot of their stuff. But Kurt Cobain's voice simply does not appeal to me, so I never listen to Nirvana. On the other hand, if I'm crazy about the singer's voice and skill, the music itself doesn't have to be epic.

As far as solo and rhythm goes, I'd rather have a song with a solid beat and tight rhythms than a "simpler" song with a lot of flashy solos. My favorite band, Cowboy Junkies, is a good example. Michael Timmins doesn't do a lot of solos, and when he does, they fit with the rest of the song rather than being merely a reason for the guitarist to flex his chops. Keith Moon is another good example. He layed down some great rhythms that were more than generic drum beats, but even though he threw in a lot of variations, you never felt like he was trying to show up the rest of the band.

On the other end of the spectrum is a lot of the stuff from the guitar virtuosos. I get it, you can play the **** out of the guitar, but can you write a song? For me, it's like free-form jazz, which I've never been a fan of.

[harper83087]

the rythym section because i play bass and am a closet wanna be drummer haha...but thats just my bassist side talking, i think that in order to have a great song everything in the mix has to mesh well.

[Jhail83]

I put all equal but I changed my mind.
Songwriting is the most important. That's not to say the others aren't important but the songs have to be good for me to like a band.

[frostywolf]

I voted for "All are equal" but I'm not 100% confident in my choice. Personally, I generally consider memorable guitar/drum/bass/vocal parts to be good rather than purely technical ones, so I wouldn't really consider that seperate from good song writing, since the two are closely related in my eyes.

I voted "all are equal" mostly because of indecision over the other choices though. I'd say that I like memorable parts/songs better than technical ones but there's always exceptions. I like Necrophagist, which is purely technical and really isn't going for catchiness and memorability but I often find "Extreme Unction" and "Seven" stuck in my head.

Plus, there are always exceptions to the rules as far as bands I like go. Sometimes, I like bands that have none of the above because I enjoy some dumb, fun songs every once in a while.

[The real Anteraan]

I put voices, second would be songwriting. I just can't get past awful vocals. That doesn't mean I can't like "bad" singers if it suits the music and I don't like good singers who sing crappy songs, but there are quite a few acts that are remarkably talented with vocals that don't suit the pieces they perform and it absolutely kills it for me.

Bingo! That's almost exactly what I would have written myself.

My Reasoning (as requested):
I feel that there is a wider span between the excellent vocalists and the poor vocalists than there is between excellent and passable rhythm sections/guitarists/etc.

I mean, there are some horrible vocalists out there, but you don't hear any drummers who can't keep a reasonable pocket. Some instrument players may be significantly more talented with the ability to play better solos, but you don't hear them blatantly miss notes like you do with vocalists.

Bottom line (for me): Great band with horrible vocalist = lousy band