"guitar solos are about as revelant as VCRs....

[guitarbilly74]

What kinda music does he play, indie shoegaze? Seriously though, to answer your question... It's all about the context of the song. Some songs may call for a solo, others may not.

 

it's mainstream rock I guess... nothing heavy but not to poppy either. I saw his band last weekend, pretty decent but no solos at all. We had this jam a few weeks ago and he was soloing and doing it well, that's why I asked him about it.

[Jerry_L]

Still revelant, dammit!

[newholland]

i kinda agree to a certain extent... but it also brings to the fore yer definition of 'guitar solo'. if you're talking wanky leady impertinent noodlies... well... sure-- that {censored} and the 80s... fill in the blanks. but if you're talking about a musically critical part where the guitar plays by itself in a song that it makes sense in? {censored} yes, absolutely-- keep it in.

i think the DE FACTO guitar solo in every rock song died in the 80's. but like in any other music with multiple voices-- sometimes it's a critical arrangement tool to have any one of them 'speak' their part over the others.

i'm not one for rules-- but i'm certainly against the 'rule' that all songs NEED a guitar solo.

[Nick H]

they are covering spelling next week. baby steps.

Oh, cut me a break dammit! Thats what happens when I type fast!

[Bumhucker]

Well then, St. Anger sounds right up his alley.

[Phrophus]

This is the first time that I've ever heard a sweeping generalization be anything less than totally accurate.

[SnowStorm]

I think a good solo is one that also elevates the rest of the band.

[guitarbilly74]

i kinda agree to a certain extent... but it also brings to the fore yer definition of 'guitar solo'. if you're talking wanky leady impertinent noodlies... well... sure-- that {censored} and the 80s... fill in the blanks. but if you're talking about a musically critical part where the guitar plays by itself in a song that it makes sense in? {censored} yes, absolutely-- keep it in.

 

 

 

I didn't think I had to define what guitar solo is to a forum full of guitar players.... a solo is a solo, you all should know what it is... its the part of the song where the guitar takes over the voice as the lead melody. Whether there are 10 or 10,000 notes on that part is irrelevant, it's still a solo.

 

So is there a limit to what you should play? How many notes separate soloing from wanking?

 

That's highly subjective IMHO.

 

For example, is the first half of the Hotel California solo wanking? It's all pentatonic playing until the harmonized guitar parts...

 

 

What about.. say "Cowboys From hell"? Highly technical, yet very memorable.

 

Actually, for the most part people will call wanking something they don't like - or can't play (not you necessarily just in general).

[BrendanO]

I pretty much agree. Like, I dunno, 85/15?

[RSBro]

 

engrrrish is hard, mmkay

[soundgardener75]

engrrrish is hard, mmkay

My shirt bro:

[RSBro]

My shirt bro:

 

lolol, awesome

[rushtallica]

 

...actually they went out of fashion around the same time" A friend of mine just told me that. Agree or disagree? I'm in between "disagree" and "agree but don't care"

 

 

A solo just for the sake of soloing can still sound fairly cool occasionally, but unless a solo adds to a song, helps it to transition one part to another, etc., it's just a waste IMO.

 

Shred, fusion, blues, and some other styles of music often rely on at least some soloing, but IMO the solo should still fit the criteria of adding something worthwhile to the song.

[guitarbilly74]

 

A solo just for the sake of soloing can still sound fairly cool occasionally, but unless a solo adds to a song, helps it to transition one part to another, etc., it's just a waste IMO. Shred, fusion, blues, and some other styles of music often rely on at least some soloing, but IMO the solo should still fit the criteria of adding something worthwhile to the song.

 

 

well ok...but what separates a solo that adds something from one that doesn't? Isn't that highly subjective?

 

I don't know, once you're taking a solo there is always a risk that some will like and some will think you're wasting time/wanking... Is the risk worth it or not?

[shane159]

Whenever I hear some {censored} like its usually from someone who can't play lead and is trying to justify it to themselves.

 

 

This

[Orbis_Mortis]

I definitely disagree. I love hearing solos

[rushtallica]

Sounds like some kind of hipster coolerthanthouism. If you dig 'em then they are relevant to you , and If you are a player and want to play them they are equally relavant. Worrying about what other people think about something (anything) will get you nowhere. I love guitar solos and always will.

In the early-mid '90s I was at a music store playing a guitar for a couple minutes and played just a few seconds worth of soloing when some douche walked around the corner and told his friend loud and clear where I could hear it that guitar soloing was dead and lame. I had a quick impulse to check and see if guitars still made capable melee instruments but remembered it wasn't my guitar to do so with.

[Phrophus]

 

well ok...but what separates a solo that adds something from one that doesn't? Isn't that highly subjective? I don't know, once you're taking a solo there is always a risk that some will like and some will think you're wasting time/wanking... Is the risk worth it or not?

 

 

Once you start playing music, there is a risk that some will like it and some will think it's horrible or not music or whatever some crusty bastard wants to say. Play a solo if you want to play a solo. Some will appreciate, some won't. That's kinda the nature of art.

[rushtallica]

 

Once you start playing music, there is a risk that some will like it and some will think it's horrible or not music or whatever some crusty bastard wants to say. Play a solo if you want to play a solo. Some will appreciate, some won't. That's kinda the nature of art.

 

 

Excellent post. :phil:

[The Anomaly]

I think some folks here are missing the point, plus, "relevant" means different things to different people.

 

To me, "relevant" means something on a large scale, mainstream, widely known, etc. In that sense, Billy, your friend is right. If you want to hear some predominant guitar songs and/or solos, on a large scale, you need to be listening to what some call "country" these days.

 

Now, you have your, "there's good music everywhere, you just have to find it" crowd, and sure, maybe solos are present with a lot of lesser known bands, but again, do those bands or bands at that level, fit what is generally known as "relevant"? They are to YOU, but to EVERYONE? Don't forget, we are guitar players here, what we listen to may be quite different than other demographics. Ask this same question to some artsy girl who listens to a bunch of great underground music, she might say no.

 

I'd say guitar solos are as relevant as a G3 tour. Relevant to me? Sure. Any joe-schmoe non-musician? Probably not.

[Mike LX-R]

I think most of us are tired of hearing the same techniques and passages being used in solos. We could definitely use more meaning in a lot of our music. I can understand where a player would feel the way your friend does.

 

That said, virtuosity is admirable and to a certain extent should remain a pursuit for most of us, however we might choose to apply it.

[rushtallica]

I think some folks here are missing the point, plus, "relevant" means different things to different people. To me, "relevant" means something on a large scale, mainstream, widely known, etc. In that sense, Billy, your friend is right. If you want to hear some predominant guitar songs and/or solos, on a large scale, you need to be listening to what some call "country" these days. Now, you have your, "there's good music everywhere, you just have to find it" crowd, and sure, maybe solos are present with a lot of lesser known bands, but again, do those bands or bands at that level, fit what is generally known as "relevant"? They are to YOU, but to EVERYONE? Don't forget, we are guitar players here, what we listen to may be quite different than other demographics. Ask this same question to some artsy girl who listens to a bunch of great underground music, she might say no. I'd say guitar solos are as relevant as a G3 tour. Relevant to me? Sure. Any joe-schmoe non-musician? Probably not.

 

I've gotta' admit, I've got to have at least an occasional guitar solo fix and like everything from feedback, noise-drenched solos to classic rock, metal, and blues-rock, jazz, and occasional shred. Some new-ish music still has it, though I wouldn't consider a lot of it too mainstream.

[video=youtube;10r_oNn5-wc]

 

But if a band writes something very simple and yet profound or just puts a lot into the rhythm and leaves no room for a solo, it's all good to me.

[chevybusa]

LOL Well with regard to pop music and the general population's feelings I'd say it's true, ESPECIALLY with regard to pop music, for all the reasons we;re all familiar with (the advnet of grunge back in the early 90's, how cheezy the 80's look now, etc. etc.)....Really the only place guitar solos (or ANY solos for that matter LOL) are wanted are in blues or jazz....

[guitarbilly74]

 

I think some folks here are missing the point, plus, "relevant" means different things to different people. To me, "relevant" means something on a large scale, mainstream, widely known, etc. In that sense, Billy, your friend is right. If you want to hear some predominant guitar songs and/or solos, on a large scale, you need to be listening to what some call "country" these days. Now, you have your, "there's good music everywhere, you just have to find it" crowd, and sure, maybe solos are present with a lot of lesser known bands, but again, do those bands or bands at that level, fit what is generally known as "relevant"? They are to YOU, but to EVERYONE? Don't forget, we are guitar players here, what we listen to may be quite different than other demographics. Ask this same question to some artsy girl who listens to a bunch of great underground music, she might say no. I'd say guitar solos are as relevant as a G3 tour. Relevant to me? Sure. Any joe-schmoe non-musician? Probably not.

 

 

That's more what I was getting at. Of course most guitarists like guitar solos. but is it still an essential part of what is "rock music" on a larger scale? Like in the 60's - 80's you wouldn't have a hit rock song without a guitar solo and good soloists were held in high regard not only by guitar players but by rock audiences in general....

[guitarbilly74]

I think some folks here are missing the point, plus, "relevant" means different things to different people. To me, "relevant" means something on a large scale, mainstream, widely known, etc. In that sense, Billy, your friend is right. If you want to hear some predominant guitar songs and/or solos, on a large scale, you need to be listening to what some call "country" these days. Now, you have your, "there's good music everywhere, you just have to find it" crowd, and sure, maybe solos are present with a lot of lesser known bands, but again, do those bands or bands at that level, fit what is generally known as "relevant"? They are to YOU, but to EVERYONE? Don't forget, we are guitar players here, what we listen to may be quite different than other demographics. Ask this same question to some artsy girl who listens to a bunch of great underground music, she might say no. I'd say guitar solos are as relevant as a G3 tour. Relevant to me? Sure. Any joe-schmoe non-musician? Probably not.

 

 

That's more what I was getting at. Of course most guitarists like guitar solos. but is it still an essential part of what is "rock music" on a larger scale? Like in the 60's - 80's you wouldn't have a hit rock song without a guitar solo and good soloists were held in high regard not only by guitar players but by rock audiences in general....