Do you ever get a bit fed up with guitar solos?

[metalheadUK]

In the process of putting some new metal stuff together, I'm tending to find that I'm arranging st6uff in a way where there are a lot less solos... a fir few don't have any at all.

 

I'm finding it with "The Plague" as well...lots of the new material has an arranged break, or a pounding chord sequence, and a marked absence of solos.

 

Dunno why this is...in the old days pretty much everything I played had a solo, but as I listen to you guys on here, and youtube and stuff, I'm staggered jhow many great lead guitarists there are...Y'know, {censored}in' hell, that rocks, wow!. thats awesome etc,

 

Sometimes doesn't seem much point if I can't do it as well as others...or maybe I'm just thinking about the song more...I dunno!

 

What are your thoughts?

 

[crowguitar]

it truly depends on the song. Having the obligatory "GUITAR SOLO" doesnt always work. I've definitely heard songs over the years that didnt need any solos, but then again, there's some that may have benefited from a lil break here and there.

 

I tend to write my own material with minimal solos(if any), but the irony is I get hired by other bands for crazy lead work..lol

 

And to be honest, I sometimes get sick of solo-ing for too long (or too much). Sometimes you just gotta bury yourself in the groove and lose the ego of it all and just enjoy the song.

[DavidMgT]

it truly depends on the song. Having the obligatory "GUITAR SOLO" doesnt always work. I've definitely heard songs over the years that didnt need any solos, but then again, there's some that may have benefited from a lil break here and there. I tend to write my own material with minimal solos(if any), but the irony is I get hired by other bands for crazy lead work..lol And to be honest, I sometimes get sick of solo-ing for too long (or too much). Sometimes you just gotta bury yourself in the groove and lose the ego of it all and just enjoy the song.

 

 

Well said:thu:

[55gibby]

I'm not a fan of a guitar solo, for the sake of a solo. Most of the time it seems to be a way to make a 3 minute song 3 1/2 minutes long. It also seems to me that a lot of music is written backwards. It appears that some songs they write the solo then fill in the rest after. Both of these bore me. I find that a great quality song doesn't need a solo. In my (feeble) mind, a solo should only be there there to enhance the entire song... if it soesn't add something, then drop it

[jpnyc]

For the most part I

[Frets99]

Nowadays, I look at a solo as something of a bridge that should either tie two thoughts together, leading from one thought to another or for emphasis in a passage. I also consider the average solo should be a short phrase or statement much like a lyrical phrase or statement.

 

That being said, I'm enchanted by people who can construct a lyrical statement musically like Satriani or Jeff Beck does.

[lowbrow]

4 to 8 bars typically...if it calls for one...and it may not....beyond that and it's pretty much like jacking off in public.

[Engl Kramer]

Hehe- you probably saw my name on here and thought - 'Oh God its that numpty come on here to winge about solos as usual'.
Its no secret that I usually find solos wanky and cheesy.

Thing is you are obviously very gifted at lead guitar and it seems a shame to waste that talent.

Is there maybe a middle ground which isn't a solo per se but is still a lead break?

I always think of Zappa - he loved lead guitar but actually banned his players from playing face pulling crusendos.

[cratz2]

I used to be a lot more of a lead player in the 80s and early 90s. I don't know if I was just going on with the grunge movement (which I didn't really terribly embrace overall) but around that time, I figured if I was in a regional band, I'd probably move towards playing mostly rhythm with some lead, but very minimal solos and certainly no extended solos. Maybe just some Iron Maiden type lead harmony stuff within the song, but very little in terms of actual 'I'm going to solo for 16 bars, then you can solo for 16 bars' stuff.

I was never much of a shredder as I was largely into punk AND metal during the shred heyday, but I think there were just SOOOO many instances of a band having a decent song, then the solo comes in and doesn't pertain in any way to the rest of the song. That was always useless to me. I'd rather just listen to instrumental stuff if I wanted an all out wank fest.

[Yngtchie Blacksteen]

For certain music, solos are best kept to a minimum, or done more as melodic embellishments rather than a bunch of licks played in various sequences. This is particularly obvious in a lot of metal, where the solos tend to be anonymous-sounding wankery that serves absolutely no musical purpose.

 

Twin guitar melodies are nice examples of "solos" that don't sound like some guy trying to show off his latest tapping trick.

[FoonkySteve]

I think the cliched 'Guitar Solo' died some time in the 90s, in mainstream music, guitar solos just got shorter and shorter and less wank. I personally think its a good thing. A good example of a mainstream band in the 90s could be BonJovi? the early hair stuff had tons of tasty sambora wank, fast forward to now, he's lucky if he gets 2-4 bars.

Then again it depends on the type of music, your never gonna be short of some guitar wankery in Dragonforce or hotleg or any instrumental guitar music, vai, satch, etc...

I think the days of the classic solos like in hotel california, kid charlemaigne, sweet home alabama, freebird, sultans of swing, back in black, etc are gone. At least in mainstream music.........

[Ratae Corieltauvorum]

What are your thoughts?

 

Maybe you need to invent a new genre of raw rock without solos:)

[humbuckerstrat]

No, never.

[notjonahbutnoah]

The

 

 

 

{censored}ing

 

 

 

RAMONES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[EllenGtrGrl]

I've usually done the lead guitar duties in my bands, and in spite of that, I've been saying, ever since it was unfashionable for a guitar player to say so back in the late 80s, that you play for the song. If a solo fits the song, fine. If it doesn't, don't play it, because all it will do, is stick out like a sore thumb, and be nothing more than instrumental wanking, or an ego trip. Like Pete Buck (or maybe it was Mike Mills) of R.E.M. said way back when. Rock & Roll is about rhythmn. A song with good rhythmn patterns & riffs will interest me much more, than a song, that is boring other than the solo (a lot of songs written by shredders are like this for me). A solo should at least do one of several things:

A. Tell a Story - as in, be a song within a song

B. Help tie together different parts of the song (in other words like a bridge or a lead break),

C. Act as a monotony breaker in what would otherwise be a boring song, due to repetitive parts.

One of the biggest reasons I can't stand jam bands, and blues jams, is because you have this boring rhythmn part in the song, with everybody taking their obligatory solo. Most of the solos are so extraneous to the song.

[Hotrod Lincoln]

This is why i'm not a great "jammer". I prefer to play a tune than just wank over a backing track all day like my friend

[Elias Graves]

Context. The songs I write are story and character oriented and I only use lead work for openings, transitions and endings. Even then it's only one or two bars.

Now, when I go see a good jammin blues band, I expect to hear some killer leads.

Your typical three minute pop or rock song doesn't need all that much.

I'm a believer in keeping things moving in a song. You don't have much time to work with so I feel you need to keep things moving forward. Lengthy solos don't do that much.

 

EG

[dcooper830]

I love solos! The more the merrier. Even if it's boring stock pentatonic licks... if the guitar tone is really good, I totally enjoy it.

If it's interesting un-predictable and tasty intricate lead work with really good guitar tone..... then it's even better.

[55gibby]

I wonder if wanting solos are an age thing? I would be intereseted in finding out.


I have a theory...

[Hubert Stumblin]

As most people here have said, a solo being a complement to a song is where it's at. If it fits the song. Some bands don't always feel the need for them. The Smithereens come to mind.

A good solo must inhabit that sacred middle-ground. But it's hard to convince both the Shred Fanatics AND the Anti-Solo Taliban of this.

[lowbrow]

A nice long solo is better than a shot of Nyquil for 96% of the population.

[humbuckerstrat]

This is why i'm not a great "jammer". I prefer to play a tune than just wank over a backing track all day like my friend

I don't even use a backing track:o

[CreamTele2]

i never get fed up with guitar solos, even tho some of the music i listen to (lamb of god, KSE) doesnt have a lot of soloing in it, most of it (Rush, Dream Theater, Yes, Iron Maiden) has very prominent, and usually extended soloing. To agree with some of the other people however, most of the bands i noted are exceptional bands, progressive in nature, and can make a solo that bridges to parts of a song, or fits in well. I have never written a song without a guitar solo, i actually prefer intro or outro solos to mid song solos, which im sure most people hate.

[YOUTUBE]vbuCNSm3Tb0[/YOUTUBE] one of my favorite intro solos starts at 0:28

[Hubert Stumblin]

I wonder if wanting solos are an age thing? I would be intereseted in finding out. I have a theory...

I think you'll find the line is cultural. Taking a dim view of solos or demonstrations of musical skill seems to be more prominent among the Brits: " 'Ats a bit too flash, mayte. Know wuh' Aw mayne?"

Whereas, Americans tend to go in the complete opposite direction: "Tootally burnin' solo, dyude! WOOOOHOOO!" (flash Satan horns)

[Hotrod Lincoln]

I don't even use a backing track:o

Or a guitar