Actually the group is Korean (not that it really matters as I agree the singer isn't great, although the band itself isn't too bad). To answer the main question, if it is a rock band then I usually listen to the vocals/lyrics and the main melody (i.e., guitar riff) at the same time. They are equally important to me. That being said I think vocals make a particular band more distinct or give it its unique character. To the untrained ear, you can interchange many musicians in the band (except maybe lead guitar) and it still sounds generally the same. If you change the lead singer, I think all bets are off especially if they are the ones writing the lyrics. Case in point might be Van Halen. I couldn't imagine U2 without Bono or Radiohead without Thom Yorke, but if say there was a stand-in for Adam Clayton for one of the U2 songs, I might not notice immediately (but being such a die hard fan, I am sure it will sound a bit off to me).
I listen to music all day, yet I don't really pay attention to the lyrics at all. To me its more of the guitar work and beat than anything that makes a song. My favorites songs by Interpol, I have listened to a thousand times, yet I don't know the lyrics to it. Other bands which don't have a pretty voice that I like alot are Sound Team and Repeater. I think sometimes a harsh voice makes the music more interesting. Tom Waits is a good example of this.
Wierd. Once again I guess I have a different opinion about what a "bad voice" is. Personally, I really like Matt Oliver's voice with SOUND Team. I can't help but belt out The Fastest Man Alive at the top of my lungs when I'm driving down the road.
Im similar to those that seem to concentrate on the music. Ive always wanted to be a good musician, but my talent isnt up to the task so I have a tendency to look at songs as technical pieces....I appreciate a song that is very difficult to play over simple repeating lines. the lyrics dont get my full attention unless I make it a point to pick them apart for meaning.
I get what you're saying, Manny. The 13th Floor Elevators do what I consider an outstanding version of It's All Over Now, Baby Blue, by Dylan, although I doubt your lady would find Roky Erickson's voice pleasing to her ear, either. I just think there is too much micro-parsing of musical talent going on in this thread. Jeff, for example, blows off music from before 1980, because he thinks the era was so different that comparisons don't fit the input and opinions he's looking for. (at least that's how I read it) That's cool, but I can't see cutting off a huge, actually more than huge, part of the music that led to what he's doing today in the discussion. Now he might disagree with that opinion, but it's one I hold. Just as the music of the '60's, going into the '70's (through the early '70's, as far as I'm concerned) grew from, and was influenced by, what came before, especially music from great Black blues artists, so is the music today enormously influenced by the music of that era. I just don't see how you can dismiss it from the discussion. Of course, it is Jeff's thread. He can do what he wants. (you can put a "LOL!" in there somewhere)
I don't know about everybody else, but I definitely "hear" the band. Some of the things I hear: 1. The overall sound of the band. Or how they mix the instruments. I suspect that some bands that just sound plain bad on stage do it for the "garage effect." But I have begun to think that a lot of these bands just don't know how to mix their instruments right to actually sound good. 2. I seem to know, without actually knowing why, if a band is playing in the pocket. I have been to enough concerts to not be that excited by some fancy solo or something and so if a band is a little off timing-wise, I am not deeply moved by their sound. But if they are playing in the pocket, I get really excited by great playing and rhythm. 3. A great beat and riffing on that beat. I love to hear interesting beats. A fine example of this is Brad Paisleys song "Ticks." I would love to hear him play that live. It has a natural point of riffing in that song that really exciting to me.
Hmmm.. If you guys are trying to define what a "good voice" or "good music" is, then you are being real silly... There's no way the entire group will agree on the definitions of those two terms.. What would make more sense is if you were just comparing/contrasting your DIFFERENT views on what makes a "good voice" or "good music".. I think Timbaland is a great musician. He has a horrible voice which he uses all sorts of gadgets to "enhance", he doesn't really play any instruments, he's no good at writing lyrics. But what comes out sounds good to me. So to me, he entails a "good musician". I don't expect anyone to agree with me. Similalry, I think the uniqueness of a voice makes a great voice. But not everyone considers that important. Bob Dylan's voice is unique... But would we ever know anything about him if his lyrics weren't great? Hell no. Still, I consider his voice a "good" one because it IS unique and IMO enhance the value of his lyrics. Eddie Vedder is awesome to me. Him and Chris Kornell, I think, have terriffic voices. Their voices define their genre of music. But I understand why someone would say they don't have great voices. It just might not be everyone's cup of tea. As for the main question... I love singing, wish I hadn't quit it so early.. I play the guitar, some bass, some drums.. My brother's a jazz vocalist and my other brother's a proffesional DJ. Both older than me, so I basically grew up around music. THEREFORE, I enjoy picking apart music. Melody, lyrics, singer's voice, guitar, drums, bass, everything. I'll listen to a song 20-30 times if I really like it, just so I can individually pick out every detail in the song. I guess one thing we can all agree on though, regardless of genre or voice or lyrics.... is that we need more cowbell in music.
When I was a teenager I exclusively focused on the intricate solos of bands like Rush and Yes. As I grew out of their music I grew out of that mind set, as well. I still enjoy skillful musicianship, but mostly how it fits with the entire piece. My favorite music transports me to another place...it's almost like I prefer not having clear demarcations in the music that announce the individual parts. As for the singers, I really only notice really great, or really horrible voices and lyrics. I mostly focus on the melody and hope for surprises, a little weirdness and energy.
Actually the Impressionists were interested in capturing the real nature of light, atmosphere, weather, etc.. They cared little for mood or feeling and mostly the visual. Jeff is obviously right about singers getting more credit and attention. People like a hero and usually singers are more visible and as someone else said, you don't need a lot of understanding of music to appreciate someone's singing. For music, there is a little more of a need to understand time signatures or technical aspects of an instrument to really appreciate complexity or talent. That is why pop music is usually pretty simple and/or unoriginal. It taxes listeners the least. Dance is similar but there are still two dance shows on TV...one very popular (DWTS) and one that I think is moderately popular (SYTYCD). I suppose they work to a degree because dance is visual and people can interpret what they think looks good or hard so that makes it a little easier than understanding nuance in music? At the same time, though, if you don;t know much about dance you really can't evaluate properly. I do know that in SYTYCD even the judges often use the incorrect terminology or say something that is just wrong (and that is pretty bad if I can catch you) so they actually rely on the audience being superficial in understanding.
To me, it all depends on the genre of the music you listen to as to whether the lyrics or the music plays a more significant role. Rap music is all about the beat. Punk music is about rhythm and energy. Rock music, to me, is more about guitars, bass, and drums than the lyrics. Country music, on the other hand, is completely focused on lyrics and storytelling. Pop music tends to borrow from so many different genres that it can be about the beat, music, or lyrics depending on the song.
I've found that "gadgets" in some cases require just as much talent and certainly more technical savvy than everyones beloved guitar. Hip-hop producers have to do so much more than adjust levels and add reverb. I think musical taste comes from the music you listened to as a kid. I grew up learning gospel and played jazz for years, but in high school I fell in love with Chicago so for me lyrics don't play as big a role in my taste as does the music, specifically, the instrumentation. Each to his own? Art is subjective.
I think that there are bands who have an average lead singer yet I still find them amazing. (The Walkmen is a good example) I think the increasing popularity of "post rock" has proven that you don't need a singer at all to be able to play amazing music. But in many instances, a great lead singer can more than make up for a mediocre band
