DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Music Discussion => Topic started by: WildRanger on May 15, 2018, 12:32:30 PM
-
In your opinion who and why?
-
It's more the creative force in the band. In Iron Maiden, it's the bassist. In Dream Theater right now, It's the guitarist and to a lesser extent, the keyboardist. It isn't the instrument, it's the creator.
-
"Most important member in a band?" thread, a.k.a. "Screw you, keyboard players" thread. :biggrin:
But yeah, what King said, I guess.
-
the saxophonist
-
That guy that plays cowbell in that song
(https://media.giphy.com/media/CMtBKBCUL2tvG/giphy.gif)
-
From a compositional standpoint, in my opinion the keyboard/piano is the best instrument to lay a foundation for a piece which then can be built around effectively, especially to create the basic structure and to play with (vocal) melodies.
Decided to interpret it this way because the thread topic itself makes 0 sense, it obviously depends on the people in the band, their personalities and the way they interact.
-
It's more the creative force in the band. In Iron Maiden, it's the bassist. In Dream Theater right now, It's the guitarist and to a lesser extent, the keyboardist. It isn't the instrument, it's the creator.
It kinda kills the discussion when the most correct reply is already the first one.
-
Depends on the band, although if the singer is bad, then he can screw it up for everyone else.
Could you pick a "most important" member of Rush? In Iron Maiden, the "most important" member is arguably the bass player, but the bass player in Judas Priest might be the least important member (I think a trained panda could probably handle most of Ian Hill's parts). In Jethro Tull, the "most important" member is the flautist.
-
It's more the creative force in the band. In Iron Maiden, it's the bassist. In Dream Theater right now, It's the guitarist and to a lesser extent, the keyboardist. It isn't the instrument, it's the creator.
^Pretty much this.
But trying to put this in a context where we can actually debate/discuss it: If we are talking about rock/metal bands, and talking about performance of the music itself (vs. the creative vision and creation of the music), I would say it's a tough call between vocalist and guitarist. For the vast majority of songs, the guitar riffs, chord progressions, and solos, and the vocalist's singing are at the forefront. Those are what people pay the most attention to. Those are what people remember. Those are what people focus on primarily and remember the most. When you hear a song for the first time and are forming that initial impression about whether or not you like it, it is usually one or both of those. Unless there is a very specific and unique thing the bass or drums (or keyboards) are doing, that isn't what stands out. I can think of obvious exceptions. For instance, as a young kid, when Another One Bites the Dust was all over the radio back in 1980 or whenever that was, it is obviously that very prominent bass line that grabs your attention and is the main driving force in that song. But, again, that is the exception rather than the rule. Even in a band like Dream Theater where you have virtuosos like John Myung on bass and Mike Portnoy or Mike Mangini on drums, on most songs, for most people, the immediate hook will be the guitar or the singing. You usually notice the drums, bass, and keyboards later, or at least, to a lesser degree.
Having narrowed it down to guitar and vocals, I'm really hard pressed to pick one over the other. It really depends. But if you put a gun to my head and made me choose, I'm going to go with vocalist, for basically two reasons. First, you sing along to the vocals, which makes them stick in your head. Even if you don't know the words, how many of us have caught ourselves involuntarily humming along to a vocal line in a song? It is infectious and hard NOT to do when a song speaks to us on any level. I remember a quote from Ritchie Sambora a long time ago, where he was saying that the best, most effective guitar solos were the ones that weren't necessarily the ones that had mind-bending shredding going on. They are the ones that are melodic that make people involuntarily hum along. That quote about his philosophy as a guitar player has always resonated with me. And I think it really speaks to the quality of vocals in any given song. Second, more often than not, the singer is a HUGE part of the recognizable signature sound of any given band. Even people that have a terrible ear for music who could never recognize a guitar player's signature sound can usually recognize their favorite singer by voice, even if presented with a new song they haven't heard before. There is something unique about the voice that an instrument cannot fully capture.
So, yeah. For what it's worth, my vote goes to vocalist.
-
The thread topic itself makes 0 sense, it obviously depends on the people in the band, their personalities and the way they interact.
Hell, the question isn't even clear. Most important member in a band for what? Writing songs? Writing lyrics? Performing? Being the loudest on a recording? Being the best guitar player? Drinking most beer back-stage? Come on man...
-
I abstain from this one. :lol
-
I also agree with Bosk, but as he did with Another One Bites the Dust, I think we can have exceptions for other specific songs. For example, in Smoke on the Water it's the riff the most memorable part of the song. The coworker that sits next to me knows next to nothing about rock music, and when I asked him to name me a Deep Purple song, he hummed the riff of Smoke on the Water without even being able to remember the title of the song.
But yeah, generally the voice of a band is the most important, unique and defining element.
-
I know who the most important member in Radiohead is though
(https://img.morphthing.com/i/3569005/2/0/d9614fd9/Thom-Yorke-and-Yoda.jpeg)
-
Is that Tom York morphing into Yoda? It's a bit scary...
-
In terms of making a band stand out, definitely the singer. While there are many different techniques for playing instruments, they're going to sound basically like what they are. Drums will always sound like drums. Guitars will always sound like guitars. But the human voice is so individual, and the singer is quite literally the voice of the band, the spokesperson that transmits the band's message to the rest of humankind. Gotta be the singer.
-
I voted vocalist. That's in most cases the first thing you either like or don't like about a band. Vocals are usually very personal as well, in the sense that you sing a long to a lot of songs. Sure some of us also air drum and hum the guitar/keyboard/base lines, but its the vocals that connect with most people (I'm thinking more than just the rock genre too, such as pop which is pretty much all about the vocals).
however,
It's more the creative force in the band. In Iron Maiden, it's the bassist. In Dream Theater right now, It's the guitarist and to a lesser extent, the keyboardist. It isn't the instrument, it's the creator.
I think this is the real answer. There's often the one person in the band who is the leader and who writes most of the music. That person is probably the most important as that person is who artistically makes the band what it is.
-
I was initially going to agree it's the 'lead creative force' but what about circumstances in which said individual is no longer in the mix? Part of why I abstained from voting is because for me, my favorite band ever (Stratovarius) lost the guy who wrote 99.9% of the music and lyrics and handled the production and arrangements, and yet their last 4 albums without him in the band have been some of their best stuff ever: musically, lyrically, production, arrangements, artwork, the works. Now everybody else contributes equally. So it raises another interesting question: when that original 'leader' leaves, is the band still the same band, even if they carry on with the same musical style and themes? I guess what I'm asking is this: is there room for changing of the guard, after the established leader leaves? I feel that's kind of relevant.
-
Is that Tom York morphing into Yoda? It's a bit scary...
Yoda or Gollum.
-
Is that Tom York morphing into Yoda? It's a bit scary...
No, that's just Thom Yorke, why?
-
YEEESSSSS. Stop the noise, please you could, Rest I'm trying to get some
From all chicken, unborn voices in my head....
-
It depends on the band, honestly. Whoever has the most creative control is obviously the answer, but even different genres will place emphasis on different band members. For something like Meshuggah, the drummer and guitars are more important. For a symphonic metal band like Epica, it'd be the vocalist and keys/guest orchestral musicians. For a pop band, it's the vocalist. For a classical piece, it's never the violist. For Rush, it's the bass and drums. For Yes, it's mostly equal. And so on.
-
I was initially going to agree it's the 'lead creative force' but what about circumstances in which said individual is no longer in the mix? Part of why I abstained from voting is because for me, my favorite band ever (Stratovarius) lost the guy who wrote 99.9% of the music and lyrics and handled the production and arrangements, and yet their last 4 albums without him in the band have been some of their best stuff ever: musically, lyrically, production, arrangements, artwork, the works. Now everybody else contributes equally. So it raises another interesting question: when that original 'leader' leaves, is the band still the same band, even if they carry on with the same musical style and themes? I guess what I'm asking is this: is there room for changing of the guard, after the established leader leaves? I feel that's kind of relevant.
I think it depends case by case. For example I don't see Dream Theater sounding and "feeling" like Dream Theater should John Petrucci be out of the band. I know that most people couldn't figure either the band being the same without Portnoy, but it happened, so we don't have the counter proof, but Petrucci is more vital for the DT core sound.
-
As a bassist I’m a bit biased, but the bass is the bridge between the rhythm and the melody.
-
Every single band with a bassist would sound like shit without a bassist.
Then again; every instrument contributes to the sound in some way.
-
There's no such thing. Every member brings their identity/personality into the music. You can't say "if this guy wasn't playing/singing it wouldn't make a difference."
-
Obviously the accordion player whenever he's in a band.
-
In your opinion who and why?
I don't think there is a correct answer to that, and if there was it depends on the band.
-
In your opinion who and why?
I don't think there is a correct answer to that, and if there was it depends on the band.
And you call yourself a guitarist. ;D
-
In most cases i'd say the vocalist because they are usually the face of the band and a change could change the band's entire sound. It's actually hard for me to get into bands that have a lot of vocalist changes.
Though some bands do make it work. I like all eras of Iron maiden and almost every era of Black Sabbath.
-
Though some bands do make it work. I like all eras of Iron maiden and almost every era of Black Sabbath.
Well, in both situations there was a constant member who had the leadership and the vision, and was also the major songwriter...
-
Though some bands do make it work. I like all eras of Iron maiden and almost every era of Black Sabbath.
Well, in both situations there was a constant member who had the leadership and the vision, and was also the major songwriter...
Thats why I said in most cases.
-
Bosk nailed it: there is "creation" and "performance". I don't think "instrument" matters in "creation"; it's whoever has that intangible to write songs and know how to present the idea. In Twisted Sister, it's the singer. In Maiden, it's the bass player. In Dire Straits, it's the guitar player. Etc.
I do know this though: you can't have a truly GREAT band without a great drummer. We can debate "great", I suppose, but in my opinion there is no truly "great" band without a great drummer. Kiss is the best example; when he was young, poor and hungry, Peter Criss was a dynamo. Listen to the live set at Winterland in '75. They are EN FUEGO. He hit the skids, and the band hit the skids, and didn't pull out of it until they got Eric Carr, and all of a sudden the critics are like "wow, Kiss can play!" Sabbath has a similar trajectory with Bill Ward. Priest; they put out some decent (some might say great) albums with their revolving cast of characters behind the kit, but didn't break through until the legendary Les Binks got on board. Rush: Peart. Purple: Solid as a rock for 50 years despite a revolving cast of characters. Why? Because Little Ian Paice is as reliable as a Swiss watch. He falters? The band decides this is the last tour. Yes. A live powerhouse. Recently? Not so much, and most point the finger at Alan White.
-
It's really a tie between whoever wrote the majority of the songs, and the voice that ties it together.
The voice alone, even if a lyric writer, to me, doesn't qualify as the most important person in a band. Because the person or people who wrote the actual music are also vital.
It really depends on the band. In Sevendust, for example, the main music and lyric writers are Clint Lowery, Morgan Rose, and John Connolly. But obviously, vocalist Lajon Witherspoon is vital, and he DOES write lyrics too. When Clint was out of Sevendust, they still sounded great, but the records they did were missing his melodic touch.
In Queensryche, it very much started out with DeGarmo/Wilton/Tate, before it ultimately transitioned more to DeGarmo/Tate. Without DeGarmo, QR never sounded quite right, and without Tate, while they are good, and work hard to write in the same general vein, you can tell the difference.
Alice in Chains is another one -- Layne Staley wrote lyrics, but also music (Angry Chair is a solo credit to him, I believe). Once he was gone, while AiC still sounds great, they are missing Layne's more...creepy vibe. But had Jerry been gone, it would have missed him.
So, for me, it is vital to have the main songwriters in the band, performing. Without them, it naturally just takes a different course. But it is all so subjective...
-
I picked, I can't tell, because that's why it's called a band.
It's a group of people making music together and that only works when all of them are there.
-
I do know this though: you can't have a truly GREAT band without a great drummer.
I would say Metallica is a truly great band without a great drummer. Lars is better than a lot of people give him credit for, but he still isn’t a world class drummer. Still, Metallica are titans in the music industry and their live performances still kick ass.
-
I do know this though: you can't have a truly GREAT band without a great drummer.
I would say Metallica is a truly great band without a great drummer. Lars is better than a lot of people give him credit for, but he still isn’t a world class drummer. Still, Metallica are titans in the music industry and their live performances still kick ass.
Huh. I was going to reply with a snarky comment about Ringo Starr and Phil Rudd - who may not be Neil Peart or Mike Portnoy, repectively - but are great in their own way, but even on that standard, Lars fails. John Bonham was incredibly fluid with time - that was, in my opinion, why Zeppelin was so great live; they were all fluid with time and tempo, but were locked into to each other in a way that was transcendent (in my opinion, so many Zeppelin covers fail because they are TOO perfect in that regard; you can't play Zeppelin to a click track). But Lars seems to boot the time too often for that. I guess we found the exception to the rule. :)
-
Priest; they put out some decent (some might say great) albums with their revolving cast of characters behind the kit, but didn't break through until the legendary Les Binks got on board.
I don't agree with the premise that a "truly great" band (there's that term again, "truly great") must have a "great" drummer. However, I really don't agree with it as it relates to Priest. What's "legendary" about Les Binks? Prior to his tenure with Priest, he played on a few obscure albums. He's well-regarded for his work on Stained Class and Killing Machine/Hell Bent for Leather, but neither of those albums were real breakthroughs for the band. Without thinking about it too hard, I'm inclined to rank Sad Wings and Sin After Sin a little higher, but those four albums are all pretty similar in terms of quality and popularity (SAS had the best UK chart performance, while HBfL charted best in the U.S., and all but SWoD went gold in the U.S.).
British Steel was the real breakthrough album, and Priest was at its most popular during the Dave Holland era, and I don't think anyone would seriously argue that Dave Holland was even close to "great." Priest put out one great album after Holland left (an album which, in terms of drumming, was superior to anything Priest had previously done) but then mostly fell off the map.
-
Priest; they put out some decent (some might say great) albums with their revolving cast of characters behind the kit, but didn't break through until the legendary Les Binks got on board.
I don't agree with the premise that a "truly great" band (there's that term again, "truly great") must have a "great" drummer. However, I really don't agree with it as it relates to Priest. What's "legendary" about Les Binks? Prior to his tenure with Priest, he played on a few obscure albums. He's well-regarded for his work on Stained Class and Killing Machine/Hell Bent for Leather, but neither of those albums were real breakthroughs for the band. Without thinking about it too hard, I'm inclined to rank Sad Wings and Sin After Sin a little higher, but those four albums are all pretty similar in terms of quality and popularity (SAS had the best UK chart performance, while HBfL charted best in the U.S., and all but SWoD went gold in the U.S.).
British Steel was the real breakthrough album, and Priest was at its most popular during the Dave Holland era, and I don't think anyone would seriously argue that Dave Holland was even close to "great." Priest put out one great album after Holland left (an album which, in terms of drumming, was superior to anything Priest had previously done) but then mostly fell off the map.
Well, I'm not confusing (or defining) "great drummer" by "most technically proficient". I think both Ringo Starr and Phil Rudd are true greats in field, and yet Phil Rudd is likely the LEAST technically proficient drummer in his own band! Yet, the band is a different band with him than without him (and even Malcolm said that, and Malcolm - at least for a time - HATED Rudd).
I guess Lars is the exception to the rule here. It's not JUST a bazillion fills per second, or strict metronome timing; hell, John Bonham was not a metronome. He ebbed and flowed the tempo, but did so brilliantly, and in tandem with the rest of the band. I firmly believe that most covers of Zeppelin suck, for precisely that reason. They try to play it like it's to a click track, and that doesn't work for Zeppelin. Lars kind of is the exception on all points, I agree, and in my opinion, Metallica IS a great band, so...
-
Priest; they put out some decent (some might say great) albums with their revolving cast of characters behind the kit, but didn't break through until the legendary Les Binks got on board.
I don't agree with the premise that a "truly great" band (there's that term again, "truly great") must have a "great" drummer. However, I really don't agree with it as it relates to Priest. What's "legendary" about Les Binks? Prior to his tenure with Priest, he played on a few obscure albums. He's well-regarded for his work on Stained Class and Killing Machine/Hell Bent for Leather, but neither of those albums were real breakthroughs for the band. Without thinking about it too hard, I'm inclined to rank Sad Wings and Sin After Sin a little higher, but those four albums are all pretty similar in terms of quality and popularity (SAS had the best UK chart performance, while HBfL charted best in the U.S., and all but SWoD went gold in the U.S.).
British Steel was the real breakthrough album, and Priest was at its most popular during the Dave Holland era, and I don't think anyone would seriously argue that Dave Holland was even close to "great." Priest put out one great album after Holland left (an album which, in terms of drumming, was superior to anything Priest had previously done) but then mostly fell off the map.
Well, I'm not confusing (or defining) "great drummer" by "most technically proficient". I think both Ringo Starr and Phil Rudd are true greats in field, and yet Phil Rudd is likely the LEAST technically proficient drummer in his own band! Yet, the band is a different band with him than without him (and even Malcolm said that, and Malcolm - at least for a time - HATED Rudd).
I guess Lars is the exception to the rule here. It's not JUST a bazillion fills per second, or strict metronome timing; hell, John Bonham was not a metronome. He ebbed and flowed the tempo, but did so brilliantly, and in tandem with the rest of the band. I firmly believe that most covers of Zeppelin suck, for precisely that reason. They try to play it like it's to a click track, and that doesn't work for Zeppelin. Lars kind of is the exception on all points, I agree, and in my opinion, Metallica IS a great band, so...
Stads, I agree with your overall point about drummers. I disagree about Lars though, sure his skills have declined over the years, but (while never super technical) I'd consider his drumming on RtL through to the Loads - all great drumming. It's just what it needs to be for everyone of those records. Watch live footage of the Black album tour, he was a force on the drums.