Death of the Guitar Solo

atomic_punk · Post by **atomic_punk** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 5:29 pm

To me, the grunge movement signaled the end of the guitar solo because "they didn't need it", phrasing for "we can't do it". I like a lot of the music from that period because it is experimental and pushing the boundaries with different tunings, etc. but technical musicianship was not a priority. It was more about "feel" and became more about how "alternative" you were. Remember, it is easy to justify things in any way you want, depending on your perspective. If you wrote something with a melody, it was like selling out.

There were no real guitar solos in punk rock, either. If there were, it was a quick one. Some songs are taken to a higher place with the guitar solo, some go on too long.

atomic_punk · Post by **atomic_punk** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 5:32 pm

Mick, to me rap WAS a vital art form back in the days of Public Enemy and the Beastie Boys, now it has been corrupted by the commerical aspects and the gangstas and the bling bling. Look on your local Craigslist and see how many people are "selling mad beatz". To me, the Crunk and the Grillz and the ilk are killing it because they really have nothing to say anymore, it just comes wrapped in a nice shiny wrapper and fed to the kids on MTV, when they show videos, that is.

westtexasrickenbacker · Mon Aug 21, 2006 6:43 am

Hey Karl,

Good writing. Yes, timeless is not a word that will be applied to many pop/rock/RnB performers of the last 16 years or so. There are a very few good to great songs, but for the most part, much of the newer performers' work is lacking.

Your point about the bargain bins is very telling. What was hot 4 years ago is now hard to sell.

We still hear the Eagles, Stones, Beatles, Led Zep, (and a very long list goes continues), on the radio, but you are hard-pressed to find a station that will play some of the "Big" nineties hits anymore. People don't want to hear them. They are not 'unforgettable'! It just shows that quality endures and the rest falls by the wayside.

The Leno/Letterman/etc. performers look like street people

It's that fab, "I don't care" attitude in action.

expomick · Post by **expomick** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 6:51 am

Agreed! No argument here, Steve.

In terms of what most of us refer to as "commercial music", well, even in the period from 1964 to 1979, there was still a pile of **** music being made, played, and bought.

Okay, so the Beatles and Dylan and Marvin Gaye, and later, Pink Floyd and Elvis Costello and so on, were all producing fine music, but the Carpenters and Bread, and countless Mersey Beat knock-offs, and "Disco Duck" and so on still did really well.

Same thing today; all the **** (like the Ashley Simpsons and Nickleback's of the world) dominate.

Watered down music like Shania Twain is carefully manicured and marketed. Same with Avril Lavigne (hey kids...it's...SKATE PUNK!!.. okay, but next week, it's...).

So I agree with all of you. Just that there has always been music made for the right reasons in ALL genres somewhere. Just hard-to-find a lot of times.

winston · Post by **winston** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 7:00 am

It's interesting to look at clothing trends in music. I am sure that if we were to just look at the changes from 1963 through to today we would perhaps agree that clothes in music are used to make a visual statement about the artist(s).

Personally I don't care what artists wear just so long as they are good at their selected craft be it as musicians/writers/singers or whatever.

It irks me when record labels rush out to sign acts that today are cool but have a definitive and predictable shelf life. The economics of the recording and distribution business dictates that cash flow is king. I just wish that the majors would look for acts with talent, business sense, and with a probability factor between 70-90% that they will be still viable in ten years.

Those would be amongst my goals if I were a record mogul. Thankfully I am not because I would probably be broke in todays reality.

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 7:12 am

If by 'America' we're referring to mainstream culture in the USA, I don't think it's particularly dumber than it's been throughout my lifetime...or H. L. Mencken's, for that matter.

Some years ago, I went to see a friend of mine compete in a guitar soloing contest sponsored by a big chain music store...(my friend, who was quite a master of several styles, was frequently compared with Randy Rhoads by his peers). By the end of the afternoon's gymnastics, my buddy had taken third place. The kid who won could certainly make it look and sound like he had three hands, but his solo was little more than a million notes looking for a melody. I found out later that he had never played with other musicians, and spent all his time in his parents' basement seeing how many more 64th notes he could fit into 60 seconds of time.

Like what you like, and hate what you hate, but that ain't what music's about, fellas....

beatlefreak · Post by **beatlefreak** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 7:40 am

Mick wrote:
"We must be showing our age (all of us) when such a genre is dismissed."

Nobody batted an eye when we dismissed disco back in the 70's, and we were a lot younger then.

captsandwich · Post by **captsandwich** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:45 am

Disco never died, it just moved to Montreal.

winston · Post by **winston** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:39 am

Paris Hilton just re-introduced disco with a reggae feel and not surprisingly she says it's a great CD.

johnallg · Post by **johnallg** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:02 am

Oh joy, rapture...... NOT!

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:45 am

Paris Hilton is the best reason I can think of not to abolish the (so-called) Death Tax...