In the end, this really is the truth. Music would become stale and regressive without including everyone.

That's riddled with indecision, you're completely downplaying the importance of individual instrumental parts in a piece of music, they all have better or worse parts, softer or louder, that further rank them in order of importance.

To say that every instrument is equally important in every piece of music is kind, but a lie.

So I could write a song with a 5 second kazoo intro and it would be as important as 4 minutes of guitar and drums?

Another example is bass. In lots of music the bass is so low in the mix that you can only hear it clearly through a good stereo or live. Although when you do hear the bass it can add a whole new angle to the song, you can also listen to the song hundreds of times through cheap iPod headphones and not even know the bass is there. On the other hand I don't think many people could listen to their favorite songs if the guitar was cut out.

Like Snickers said, its nice to think that all instruments contribute an equal and unique aspect to every song, but its just not true.

Actually it is. If the bass is not audible to you, either get better speakers or go to a doctor to get your ears checked. I ****ing hate it when you can't hear the bass, I keep the bass turned up on all of my cd players and radios.

Well keane has bass gien theres a piano there. It may not be a bass guitar but it has bass.

I'd say whatever instrument is keeping rhythm.

Wait...you say that I should get my ears checked if I can't hear the bass, and then say that you hate it when you can't hear the bass? If bass is so easy to hear you wouldn't need to turn up the bass all the time. Just saying... because I do the same thing, and its because with a flat EQ you usually can't hear the bass much at all.

I also mentioned before that you can hear the bass through good speakers/headphones, but usually not through bad ones, which lots of people use and don't seem to mind the missing bass. That was kinda my main point.

Also, depending on the genre, the bass can be mixed very differently. Or just if its a ****ty recording. I got new speakers for my ipod that are really nice, and I'm starting to notice the bass more in a lot of songs, but a lot of punk songs I can still barely discern the bass. On the other hand, even with pretty bad speakers I can hear the bass in ska songs. So I would say its probably just the music rather than my ears.

Get a subwoofer, geez. Anyway, in response to everyone else. Do you know how empty some guitar lines would sound without at least a four count beat to back them up? And why would you put a kazoo intro in if it didn't mean something to the music?

You are using examples to say that you'd rather just play songs that are 4 minutes of guitar because that's the only thing people want to hear.

Personally I love listening to music and picking out all the parts, even when something is maybe outshining the other instruments (definitely not more IMPORTANT, just more noticable). If you think something isn't as important as the rest then it would be hypocritical to even listen to music that had said instrument.

My new speakers have a subwoofer, and I'm really enjoying it.

I would put a kazoo in because kazoos kick ass. Why else?

And saying one instrument is less important doesn't mean it isn't important at all, and that I don't appreciate what it adds to the music. I still believe that people would much rather listen to their favorite songs without the bass, or even without the drums, than without the guitar. Except if they like rap.

My thoughts are that not one factor of the band is more important than the other...thus the reason it is called a band. If one instrument played a more important factor than any other instrument, then it wouldn't be a band, it's just be that instrument alone.

That makes no sense.

But this debate isn't going anywhere, because its purely one's personal opinion. It is making me feel like an *******, though.