Image is primary, sound is secondary?

From the second lecture, I gathered that Chion saw the image as primary with sound being subservient to it. In this way, sound can be seen as giving added value to the image.

But in the age where music videos are so prevalent, couldn't it be the other way round? My reasoning is this: a song is written and recorded and subsequent to this a music video is made and used as a way of selling the song. In this way, the image could be seen as giving added value to sound (the music) couldn't it? The music video being used as a way of getting wider exposure for a given song. Thus sound could be primary and the image secondary.

This is most readily the case in music videos where a band simply "plays" somewhere with the singer lip syncing and the rest of the group pretending to play their instruments (even if there are amps, the guitars aren't usually plugged into them). The example that comes to mind in "Welcome to Nowhere" by the Mint Chicks, where they "play" in front of a screen of images and move around as if they're playing live. These images are just simply adding to the song, rather than the song adding to the images.