i think one major problem regarding guitarists is just that ever since the late 60's, everyone who plays/listens/knows rock and blues music automatically places the guitar on a pedestal. they see it as the whole reason for that music's existence...which in a way may be true, but its a very slanted view and its been snowballing ever since. yea its a prominent instrument in the likes of rock, but who wrote the rules anyway?

i actually get kind of sick of hearing, as well as playing, solo's on every fricken song. its not about expression when that happens, but more like a routine. its bad when someone writes a song and outlines it as "verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, GUITAR SOLO, chorus chorus chorus OUTRO SOLO, etc etc etc". just as an example there. its one of my biggest critiques when i listen to the blues and rock music. you know, bands like ac/dc, SRV, or any other given blues/rock artist. turn on any random song, and you can predict when the solo will enter in, and what licks will be played. i'm at the point where i say to myself "yep, here he goes again". and i know that the blues is all about the kind of thing, because its about expression, but i honestly feel that that element kind of went to the wayside lately. i love the blues for that one reason, expression and passion, but its turned into a mandate to just wank all over the place, and i feel the soul element is lost in that.

believe me, i love long jams and improvisation however, i wont deny that. but it cant always be about the guitar, thats stupid. one reason i love bands like Santana is that they have all sorts of instruments involved and you can hear some exotic sounding soloing. its colorful. i like playing in jams like that because everyone is interacting with each other and putting their own voice in the joyous noise. one reason why im listening to jazz, fusion, and progressive styles more and more. there are less or no rules, and its different. you never know what you're gonna get.

anyway, im turning this into a guitar solo post...what i'm trying to say is the guitar is just another instrument, period. it has its own role to play, but there should be no reason why that is most important in a band. it seems like the guitarist is always the one prone to being an egomaniac, its weird.

i play in a band with a sax player, keyboardist, violinist, and even accordion. very eclectic sound. on one of my guitar solo's (yea maybe im straddling the fence right now haha) i actually play in unison with the sax player for awhile, we harmonize notes. it is VERY cool.
sometimes when i leave rehearsal, i look at myself with my guitar and wonder "oh God, am i just another face in the crowd?" granted, i cant really commit to learning another instrument right now, for sake of time and money, so i just stick to my guitar, which i love very much, but man when i listen to those musicians i admire the advantage they have for being unique, as in not playing guitar like everyoine else. its so cool how they do something DIFFERENT. i always pressure myself now to try and make my playing sound more interesting. i'm trying to incorporate different styles to try and diversify myself and sound different. furthermore, i just see myself as another band member, not the UBER LEET GUITARIST.

heck some guys i play with in my bar band would probably slap me silly for all this, because they're the "meathead" type who think rock = screaming guitars 24/7. they're always telling me TURN UP, PUT MORE DIRT ON IT.

i think thats why i like being the only guitar player though, strange as that sounds. just like theres one bass, one drummer, one sax, etc etc, theres also one guitarist. by taking out that second or third guitarist, you take away the focus that rock music places on the guitar, and so now i'm just another musician like evryone else. i like that.

so hopefully you find this long winding post somehow relevant to the topic, because in the end, it is actually relevant, but its hard to see how at first. i felt all of this needed to be said.

the moral of the story is, who cares if you can't dance to a drum solo? its music, its what we do.

[quote="lomitus"]This is kind of a tricky thing for some people...please know that these are -ONLY- my own personal opinions.

Well ya'll, I was about to say all of that, only he beat me to it. Couldn't have come from a more credible source. Each band has to decide on its mission, and what it's dynamics are going to be on the whole, and that might even change from song to song.

Some fool telling David Gilmour he's too loud would just not know what the hell he/she was talking about.

Way to go, Jim.

Doc

_________________
"Another day in paradise!"

The funny thing is that until recently, all the music I listened to (modern rock/hardcore/emo/metal) almost entirely lacked guitar solos. Most albums maybe have two or three guitar solos, maybe. Riffs galore, but improvisational solos are almost unheard of. So I actually like the classic rock/blues/jazz that I listen to mostly now, because I know there's probably a guitar solo coming.

_________________
Website: http://www.rebeccalaird.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rebeccalairdmusic
Twitter: https://twitter.com/beckslaird
Instagram: http://instagram.com/beckslaird

I don't really disagree with you but respectfully I don't think this is something that can really be blamed specifically on most recording artists as well. When it comes to "records" at least (including tape, CD, etc) or in other words, stuff that was recorded by a genuine label or record company there is another factor to consider there...what the record company folks think will sell. Unfortunately I don't think most A&R folks at record companies would really know "good music" if it bit them in the arse...otherwise we wouldn't have complete and utter trash out there such as Britney Spears. It's not a matter of people wanting to work "outside the box" as it were as much as those aren't the types of folks that the record labels are really looking for.

Now that said, if you look closely some folks -do- try to break out of that standard format from time to time. SRV is a great example in fact. Yea...most of his stuff is in that very basic, traditional format...it's what people have come to expect from "the blues". There are some basic preconceptions that people expect from most genres of music. -But- then there are some SRV tunes (such as Lenny) that really do break out of that basic I-IV-V 12 bar box. Some folks -do- try to slide a little something else in from time to time but if that were the bulk of his work, I serious doubt anyone here would have ever heard of Stevie Ray Vaughn because the record companies never would have had much interest.

Now I won't defend AC/DC here....yea, I like them...yea, I think Angus is incredible but honestly to me I've always felt that AC/DC albums always sounded pretty much the same to me. To me each album sounds like the last album which sounds like the next album. On the other hand it could also be argued that if you have something that works and "sells records", why change it? Again here I'm sure that to some degree that's just the record companies and the "corporate mentality" at work.

The thing that you have to remember about record companies and A&R people is that they aren't so much concerned with "good music" as much as simply what they think will sell and make lots and lots of money. They don't look for stuff like artist creation as much as "hooks"...things that will easily get stuck in people's heads so they remember it. The thing about all of this is that until recently with the internet, this was all MOST people had to listen to...what the record companies would shove down people's throats. What's worse is that there -are- people who will buy this crap...it's a sad truth but let's face it, someone must be buying those damn Britney Spears CD's. It's not right and it's not fair that far more talented artists never even get a chance but it -is- the sad truth of the matter.




I can't really argue with that but I also think you have to look at this from the perspective of who is actually recording the material. There are certainly some wonderfully multifaceted groups out there...huge fan of Pink Floyd myself because you not only have the incredible guitar work of David Gilmore but here you have layers and layers of sound (so to speak). That said you also have people/groups that are simply guitar oriented. Look at folks such as Stevie Vai or Jeff Beck for example...still some incredible work that does break out of that traditional box, -but- it's clearly guitar stuff...and there's nothing really wrong with that.

This certainly isn't limited to "just rock" either...as you listen to jazz and fusion, you will certainly hear work that centers around the guitar. George Benson is the first to come to mind but you certainly have folks like Al DeMiola, Wes Montgomery and Joe Pass let alone some "classics" such as Charlie Christian and Django. You also have other guys who are "centered around their instrument"...the great Miles Davis with his horn, recently I've been getting in to a lot of Dianna Krall who does some great piano stuff (and her voice is almost surreal in my mind), etc., etc.. Ultimately here, regardless of the genre I think it really just comes down to "different strokes for different folks".



Ok...I'm going to go out on a limb with a speculation here. I think that one of the biggest reasons that you find this as being much more of an issue with some guitar players is simply a matter of discipline. Most people who play instruments other than guitar typically come from a more traditional background as far as learning their instrument. In many cases, a person may have spent years taking private lessons, learning their scales, reading and music theory and "perfecting their craft". In other words, they typically "know their $@!&". I find the especially true of many keyboard and horn players (and certainly of more traditional "concert instruments" such as violin, cello, upright bass, brass, etc). Guitar on the other hand...or more specifically "rock guitar", isn't really all that complicated (depending of course on what style of music you want to do). I'm sure there's probably a lot of folks out there other than myself who are essentially self taught...maybe they took a few lessons at some point but for the most part they just picked up the basics and that's what they play. I think it's quite possible that this lack of formal discipline in regards to playing an instrument can certainly contribute to that whole "ego thang".

Also for better or worse, over the past 30 - 40 years with rock music the image of the "guitar god" has become VERY prevalent in our society...more so than with ANY other instrument. Think about it...even people who may never have heard the man's music have typically heard the name "Jimi Hendrix". Can you really name a single violinist, horn player, pianist or other solo instrumentalist in the history of recorded music who has risen to the same level of notoriety as Hendrix? What about Clapton? I've been a HUGE fan of Cream for many years but I have to admit that it was a rather long time before I ever learned the names "Ginger Baker" and "Jack Bruce". What's more is if you watch a Clapton concert, there's certain tunes you usually want to hear if not expect (assuming your a Clapton fan of course). Do these same tunes have the same impact if they are played by another guitar player working with Bruce and Baker? They've tried it...it just doesn't really fly.

From this point of view, it's very similar to something like sport's heros. Even now a days, how many kids are out there saying "I'm gonna get a scholarship and be a famous basketball (football, baseball...) player just like "so-and-so". People like to emulate those who have shown some superior performance and a huge degree of "stardom". This alone is a -very- powerful influence but with rock music you have another aspect too...the whole "rock star image". Thanks to people like The Beatles, The Stones, The Doors, Hendrix and many others from the late 60's/early 70's, you have this image in most folks minds of that whole "sex, drugs and rock & roll". Throw the guitar god ideology in on top of that...is it really a wonder why some guitar players become egomaniacs? LOL!!!



It's good that you try to work outside of the box there...I try to do as much stuff like that as I can as well. There is one other truth though that I will throw at you in regards to all of this and that is simply finding the right musicians who are willing and capable of working that way. Personally I -LOVE- working with a good keyboard player and MANY times I've tried to bring in a sax player...the sad truth of the matter though is that they are REALLY hard to find. Most folks think that finding a decent bass player is hard but trying to find a good keyboard player...with decent gear...who can actually improvise? Now -that- is hard! From that point of view, it's really little wonder that most bands are 1 or 2 guitars...we guitar players are really a dime a dozen.



I won't debate this other than to reiterate "different strokes for different folks". I think there's plenty of room in this world for a little of everything in that regard. The only thing I would add is simply this; it's harder to sell what you describe if you are looking to be a "commercial success". Good jazz and even swing bands are great but from my own experience it's much easier to sell a good dance band to a bar or club owner and it's certainly going to be more appealing to a record label. That said, if you like it and you can make it work, dude...go for it!



Hey...it's a public forum. The whole point is to toss your thoughts out to the wind to see which way they blow! Also, I personally have no problem with "long winded posts"...all one has to do is read some of my stuff to know that! LOL!!! My opinion is simply "if you can't say what you mean, you can never mean what you say...it's all in the details".

Please know that I'm not really trying to debate you here...I do agree with a lot of what you are saying. If anything I'm just playing a little devil's advocate in that some of your comments sounded a bit one sided to me...just trying to give you a couple of things to think about.

Peace,
Jim

Hey Doc,
Thanks for the kind words. You actually bring up a very good point that illustrates what I was trying to say. With Gilmore, certainly his leads are "prominent in the mix"...when you think of certainly Floyd tunes...such as "Comfortably Numb" for example...most people instantly associate the tune(s) with Gilmore's guitar work. The first lead in Comfortably Numb is very "signature"...you hear that lead and you -know- what tune you are listening too (and who played it). However you are absolutely correct in saying that "anyone who say's he's too loud wouldn't know what they're talking about". Yes, his work is prominent but it doesn't drown out everything else in the mix...it's still part of the mix as a whole...you can still hear the keys, drums and bass quite clearly. If you listen to a Floyd CD you not only hear Gilmore's incredible guitar work but you can hear virtually every little subtle nuance in ALL of the music as well...Wright's keyboard work, Mason's drums, Water's bass work (in the older stuff at least), etc.. All of these "parts" contribute to the whole.

In Gilmore's case I would even go so far as to say this even goes for the way he plays his leads. I could be wrong here as I've never met the man let alone spoken with him but to me it really seems that he structures his leads around the music...his lead work always seems very well thought out to me as apposed to random improvisation (even live). In Gilmore's case it's certainly NOT about playing the greatest number of notes in the least amount of time, it's about playing "the right notes" at "the right time". I have no doubt that David Gilmore can "shred" with the best of them...but in this specific regard, that's simply NOT the Pink Floyd "sound".

To use a food analogy here, I think that making music is in some ways very much like cooking. It you're trying to make spaghetti sauce for example and you have -WAY- too much oregano, it simply doesn't taste like spaghetti sauce to most people. It's the way all of the ingredients blend together to create the finished product. Certainly there are "variations"...music or spaghetti sauce, everyone has their own personal taste and obviously in this regard there is no "right" or "wrong" however you still have to consider what's going to be the most popular as a whole. If you are just cooking for yourself (i.e. sitting in your bedroom jamming alone on your guitar) then you can put whatever you want in that sauce...dump a whole bottle of tabasco sauce in there if that's what you like...you're the only one who has to deal with the indigestion later! LOL!!! On the other hand if you are trying to serve a restaurant full of people (or play for a crowded bar on a Saturday night), then it's no longer strictly about "individual taste" as much as pleasing a much larger number of people...your customers. If you don't please the majority of your customers, they're simply not going to come back again...no matter how good -you- think that sauce is. In other words, maybe some folks like an entire jar or two of crushed garlic in their spaghetti sauce and that's they way they like to make it at home but for most people it's -way- too over-powering...too much...that much garlic is "too loud in the mix".

A great musician, like a great Chef has the ability to please a fairly large number of people. Certainly some people are not going to like that sgetti sauce (or simply prefer their own) while others are going to LOVE it...this is what separates a great Chef from a line cook or someone who just makes "pork & beans" at home. That said, the trick to all of this is to create something new and different without it being overly nasty in some way to most folks. After all, if -everyone- made spaghetti sauce the exact same way...who would really care? Now in this regard I would associate spaghetti sauce with "rock music"...different bands, different sounds but all still considered rock...everyone makes their sauce a little differently and some taste better than others but you can still recognize or associate the taste with "spaghetti sauce" because all the basic ingredients are there. The majority of people like spaghetti sauce, the majority of people like rock music. Of course you have other folks who may like something different....maybe you prefer a good Alfredo sauce over spaghetti sauce just as some folks prefer "jazz" over rock. Here the recipe is a little more "refined" and a bit more specific but the analogy is still the same. You get the idea.

Of course, David Gilmore and his various cohorts in Pink Floyd make one hell of a spaghetti sauce .

Damn....now I'm hungry. Time to go make lunch I guess...
Jim