Discussion in 'The Sound Hound Lounge' started by neastguy, Apr 13, 2019 at 8:05 PM.
Man, I hate cover bands so you're not winning this argument with me.
Vai, Satch, and EJ inspired licks are going to be pretty shredderiffic or they’re not really inspired by those guys.
Plot twist, people are already on the dance floor in a state of excitement when you guys break into your head cutting duel. Not really the same thing as replacing well known portion of a song with an off the cuff lick fest that gets a hugely positive reaction.
Yea, despite the title, what I got out of the OP is that their friend's lead guitar playing is bad, not that guitar solos are.
These days people don't care about the rest of the song either....
Bands in bars are just for a visual enhancement of of giving the establishment a "cool happening place" impression. That's why they are so adamant about volume. The loud volume distracts from their perfect picture and can create an image of chaos.
Not much of a fan of confirmed solos either, I prefer when they're on the fly like Frank Zappa used to do it.
Some of your heads might explode when I tell you this blasphemous tale...
Another thing my last band used to do was inject a well known solo from one song into another song. For example, we cut & pasted the solo and bridge from Panama into “Everybody Wants You”, then right back into EWY. It sounded awesome, and believe it or not, people didn’t seem to miss the original solo from EWY. But you’ll be happy to know I did play the Panama solo note for note.
As for whether audiences appreciate guitar solos, depends on the audience. The Armstrong Bearcat band here literally does 10 minute guitar solos that are super wanky on precisely those type of Joe Walsh and Robin Trower repitoire tunes and such - and the crowd who goes to those shows loves it. This includes getting on one's knees on the floor, crouching down, walking around into the audience, etc. Basically, cliche egotistical rock guitarist showmanship stuff. Played on bread and butter classic rock and blues cover material like Goin' Down, Funk 49 and Purple Haze and such.
I personally hate it. But not because I hate extended guitar solos per se. But because that particular kind of rock showmanship is boring to my musical taste, musically superficial, and doesn't merit stretching blues standards and classic rock tunes out into a 20 minute noodle fest. But from what I observe, the average 40-60 year old non-guitarist in the audience is actually very impressed by it. As a guitarist, I'm unimpressed by it because it is just cliched weedly weedly stuff played for too long on dull overplayed material. That's super tedious to me.
It's not like we're talking about interesting improvisation on extended chord progressions that goes somewhere here or something. We're talking turning 2-3 chord vamp and riff based tunes that don't go anywhere into a 20 minute noodle fest filled with rock guitar cliches. I think a lot of guitarists who are very familiar with the scope of guitar playing and have heard it all before are likely to be unimpressed by that or find it tedious.
I love Fleetwood Mac!
The Vai, Satch, EJ reference wasn’t to be taken literally. The idea is simply to inject some energy and life into what are mostly boring guitar solos from the general audience’s perspective. Obviously doesn’t have to specifically be a Vai or Satch lick, use your imagination for crying out loud and have fun with it. Very very few people care that you can play any classic rock solo note for note, and would likely be more impressed if you spiced it up with something unexpected.
No idea what your point was on the second part. The OP was about audiences not caring about guitar solos. I’ve suggested that audiences might be more interested in guitar solos if they were more imaginative instead of simply parroting the original that they’ve heard more times than they can remember. I provided an example of how being creative with the guitar solo of a very popular cover song became one of the highlights of our show. Couldn’t care less if you mock it, the audience was highly entertained and that’s the whole point isn’t it? Sure, they would’ve continued dancing had we just played the original solo, but the back & forth guitar thing brought the energy and excitement level up a couple notches, not to mention it challenged us as guitar players to outdo ourselves, more so than each other. It was fun for everyone, and that part of our show became something people looked forward to, as opposed to just another forgettable note for note solo.
This is spot on. It’s not about what we as guitarists like. It’s about what the audience finds entertaining. A note for note solo of a classic rock song simply isn’t very entertaining to the average Joe, regardless of how technically difficult it may be. Be creative and find ways to turn the boring solos into something fun and interesting. It may seem cheesy at times to other guitar players innthe crowd, but if the other 99% of the crowd digs it I’d call that a success.
If you are the front man playing and singing, people to seem to care a bit more about the solo as long as it doesn't get boring and self indulgent.
Interesting discussion and it reminds of that ol saying, “Give the people what they want”.
Sometimes it isn't the solo or advanced technical skills or lack of technical skills. Some players are just more mesmerizing than others regardless their skill level.
So much is dependant on visual effects. Some players are just boring to watch. I'm not talking cartwheels or karate kicks will make a difference either. Some players never smile, some players don't have rhythm in their body movement, some stand still staring down at their fretboard giving the appearance hitting each note on time is a struggle.
When observing a lot of bands you can tell the 2 most unhappy people on the stage are the drummer and lead guitarist. The drummer is mad because everyone is on him because he's too loud and the guitarist is mad because everybody else is screwing up the songs.... While the bass player is looking like it's the best day ever.... It becomes real apparent to the crowd.
'Solo' is a bad name for it. The whole band is playing. The guitar solo is part of the song. A good guitar solo adds something to a song, and is a critical part of the song. Like an intro, or bridge. Without it, the song is not as good. People will notice. They might not know why the song doesn't sound right, but they will notice. Take a song, like "Something" (Harrison). Skip the solo, or just wing it, and you ruin the song.
What if it's a great cover band, playing a song you like, and nailing it. Why wouldn't you like that? Because they didn't write the song? Most musicians are playing someone else's music. Your way of thinking makes no sense. Would you rather hear a bad original band, playing bad songs, badly?
I just have zero interest seeing a cover band. Would you rather see a cover band pink floyd or real pink floyd?
Of course I'd rather see Pink Floyd. OTH, I still like to go to a packed club, featuring a great cover band, every once in a while. There aren't that many great cover bands these days. Yes, they still exist, but back when live band entertainment was king, there were countless, really good cover bands. Most (not all) cover bands playing in bars, these days, suck. I can say that, because I've done my share of crappy cover band gigs.
I am a 40 minute train ride from NYC. I'm blessed to be able to see any kind of music I'd like on a given weekend or weekday. I've never seen a cover band I've enjoyed because usually the real thing rolls into town fairly often and is superior, at least for my tastes.
Sure, you'd rather see the real thing. Who wouldn't? I'm not talking about buying tickets to a concert or show. I'm talking about a great band playing at the nice club, down the street. Not compared to the real thing, compared to sitting in front of the computer/tv/phone? What's not to like?
This is the solo people care about today...