Sweet ass solos, bitches!

[Dog--]

What are some of your favorite solos, bitchs?

Listen to a song called After Dark by Tito & Tarantula (they played the vampire band from 'From Dusk Till Dawn') After Dark is the song they play when Selma Hayek starts her thang.

I just love this solo.

kick-ass.

 

[Vegeta897]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP_XG08JHyw

Not really a solo I suppose, but this guy has skills and it's improv.

 

[CrazyHarij]

zakk wylde has some pretty cool solo's live.

 

[Pulse]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WrqFHfVNITM

Favourite solo at the moment, played by some randomer. Pretty well covered too!

 

[knut]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jeWU2C2C2rs

The Sound of Animals Fighting - Horses in the Sky (live)

About 3 minutes in, the guitarist (Matt Embree) goes ****ing insane with the guitar. I normally dislike solos and guitar wankery (Hendrix and that bloke from Zeppelin, whatshisface, can go suck a lemon) but Embree, be it with the RX Bandits or these guys, really takes the cake.

 

[Shift]

I normally dislike solos and guitar wankery (Hendrix and that bloke from Zeppelin, whatshisface, can go suck a lemon) but Embree, be it with the RX Bandits or these guys, really takes the cake.

Can slate Zeppelin all you like, but calling Hendrix's work guitar wankery just shows how much limited knowledge you have of what PROPER guitar playing is, not any of the crap speed metal crap, with over the top effects pedals you have today. Back then, the only effect he had was a wawa pedal.

Never insult Hendrix in my presence.

 

[knut]

''Proper'' guitar playing? I don't even know what that is, and I'd be damned and impressed if ANYONE did, purely because it doesn't exist what with opinions n' all that. Well, it does, but only to the 'more talented = better' freaks.

I don't care how he made it, or what he had to use to make it or any other complications. That's grey area to me. All I care about is how it sounds, and to me, it does nothing. I don't even bring genres or equipment in to the equation - it just needs to strike me as good, nothing more and nothing less.

Believe me, I know more than I need to know of Hendrix, his style and what and how he played it - I've had to go through 3 years of High School listening to it, studying it for Music and Music Tech and recording others playing his works. I just simply don't like it.

Back on topic, Omar Rodriguez of At the Drive-In/The Mars Volta fame does it for me, if simply because he doesn't bother with making music that has to be in this key or has to be in time, or has to fit with the spoon fed theory music ego/fan. He just goes balls to the wall and unleases a ****ing barrage of raw, energetic noise straight from that drug pumped heart of his. Or something like that, anyway.

 

[Crushenator 500]

I agree with shift, and bring him some candy

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VblDwX67dS8

 

[redruM]

Can slate Zeppelin all you like, but calling Hendrix's work guitar wankery just shows how much limited knowledge you have of what PROPER guitar playing is, not any of the crap speed metal crap, with over the top effects pedals you have today. Back then, the only effect he had was a wawa pedal.

Never insult Hendrix in my presence.

Amen.

 

[Vegeta897]

Nice job calling everything else crap in your defense of Hendrix.

Grow up, you've just proved you're no better than him.

 

[Pesmerga]

I think anyone who plays a guitar is a pretentious little twat.

 

[Shift]

Nice job calling everything else crap in your defense of Hendrix.

Grow up, you've just proved you're no better than him.

I didn't call everything else crap, I called 'speed metal' crap, and if you think that refers to 'everything else' then you can gtfo now. Any famous guitarist WILL agree with me, that Hendrix is MILES ahead of speed metal. Hell that stuff wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Hendrix, him and Clapton pretty much started the idea of wild, over-the-top solos.

 

[Seppo]

I think anyone who plays a guitar is a pretentious little twat.

No, you are.

Adrian Smith from Iron Maiden has a lot of great solos.

 

[Markdude]

Sorry guys, I'm a huge Hendrix fan, but I'm still not going to lie. A lot of his lead playing (particularly improvised stuff) was complete wankery. It was TASTEFUL wankery, but still wankery none-the-less.

 

[Markdude]

As for the topic at hand, there's a lot of John Petrucci solos that I love (and a lot that I hate too). Some of my favorites are the solos in "As I Am", "Paradigm Shift" (the one over the half-time drums with the wah pedal), and "Biaxident" (the smooth jazzy one). I like Liquid Tension Experiment and Petrucci's solo stuff so much better than DT.

 

[Markdude]

Oh yeah, and "Damage Control" has got sweet ass solos all over the middle section.

 

[Dog--]

''Proper'' guitar playing?

'Proper guitar playing' is mostly called 'Technical guitar playing' It just means that you play songs in keys, you know notes, you know music theory (writing the music). Non-technical playing is when you don't really know any music theory and just play, example: you play guitar with tabs, and no notes are present when you play.

 

[Markdude]

'Proper guitar playing' is mostly called 'Technical guitar playing' It just means that you play songs in keys, you know notes, you know music theory (writing the music). Non-technical playing is when you don't really know any music theory and just play, example: you play guitar with tabs, and no notes are present when you play.

Gonna have to disagree with you here. It is perfectly possible and common for someone who is 'non-technical' to know notes and play songs in keys (although they may not know the actual name of the key); and that's two of your prerequisites for 'technical playing' right there. A lot of people don't know any music theory but still have an ear for what sounds right and doesn't. I do understand what you're saying about the differences between technical and non-technical playing, but I just think your examples aren't really appropriate ones.

I think the real differences between the two come into the technique of playing and the approach to writing. A technical guitarist will likely have a well-developed sense of rhythm and be able to play articulately and cleanly (ie: Yngwie Malmsteen). The downside is that it can sometimes be flat out 'machine-like' and lifeless. Whereas non-technical playing is less 'perfect' and sometimes generally simpler. A lot of non-technical playing may focus more on experimental sounds, which may be more important to the song than perfect technique (ie: Johnny Greenwood, and Jimi Hendrix is a great example too). The trade-off is that non-technical playing may seem more lively and lifelike.

The two kinds of players could both write a song with the same chord progressions and write melodies and solos in the same key without trouble, but their approaches to their playing will be radically different.

 

[Markdude]

I just went back and read over TheAntipop's post again. There's some great examples of what I'm talking about there. Omar Rodriguez is a prime example of a 'non-technical' player. In short, non-technical playing often wows the audience and gets the musical point across by playing without constraints for rhythm, key, etc. Technical playing usually tries to do the same purely musically with technique, note-choice, rhythm, etc.

And Shift, I would not definitely not slate Hendrix's playing as 'proper'(/technical) AT ALL. In fact, I cited him as an example of a non-technical in my previous post. He was a great musician and an innovative guitarist, but he was also very sloppy in his playing, and yes, a lot of his lead playing was what most would call 'wankery', whether you'd like to admit or not. But that's part of his music and what made him famous.

 

[knut]

All this talk is the stuff that I throw right back out the window just because, to me, it's a distraction from music that, at least in my eyes, has swayed the opinions and judgements of others in my life (high school, college, etc) towards music and their musical horizons. I'm not bothered for how - be it how technical, or simple, or how it was generally made - the music is made, it just needs to sound good, to make me nod my head or simply make me want to repeat the song over and over. But I can understand that it's important to some people so I respect that, I just don't like to involve it with enjoyment. Not anymore, anyway.

Basically, I've come across far too many people who listen and/or praise certain styles of music or artists because of how talented they are, or because of their techniques, or whatever else... I really don't think I could bare to have the time to care about such unnessecary features. I just want to enjoy it as it is, with no constraints to pull me back. Someone could make a drum beat by recording themselves tapping their fingers on a table and I know for a fact some people wouldn't be able to enjoy it because of the method it was made. It's crazy. I let my brain do the driving when it comes to judging music, and I'll go with whatever it seems to enjoy.

/drunken ramble

ragh feck new years gurls.

 

[Markdude]

Same here on all counts, but I still am a sucker for trying to clarify the differences! :bounce:

 

[Dog--]

I just think your examples aren't really appropriate ones.

I think the real differences between the two come into the technique of playing and the approach to writing. A technical guitarist will likely have a well-developed sense of rhythm and be able to play articulately and cleanly (ie: Yngwie Malmsteen). The downside is that it can sometimes be flat out 'machine-like' and lifeless. Whereas non-technical playing is less 'perfect' and sometimes generally simpler. A lot of non-technical playing may focus more on experimental sounds, which may be more important to the song than perfect technique (ie: Johnny Greenwood, and Jimi Hendrix is a great example too). The trade-off is that non-technical playing may seem more lively and lifelike.

The two kinds of players could both write a song with the same chord progressions and write melodies and solos in the same key without trouble, but their approaches to their playing will be radically different.

Yea, that's kind of what I was trying to say, there are disadvantages to both, but also very good qualities for both. Some 'non-technical' guitarists can sound technical, but not even be technical, they won't know notes or anything, and vice versa with technical guitarists. I'm not good at explaining things, but you said what I meant.

 

[Markdude]

Yep. But at the end of the day, if it sounds good; it sounds good.

 

[Shift]

'Proper guitar playing' is mostly called 'Technical guitar playing' It just means that you play songs in keys, you know notes, you know music theory (writing the music). Non-technical playing is when you don't really know any music theory and just play, example: you play guitar with tabs, and no notes are present when you play.

Thom Yorke stated that proper musical language is just jiberish to him, and there is no question of his musical and guitar ability. Try playing Street Spirit, you need to have a mastered picking technique and to have clear, focused concentration to play that the way he does it, not mention he sings while doing it to :O

I meant 'proper guitar playing' as they actually use the full potential of the guitar, not just fancy, fast solos with power chords, but arousing the feedback with the wammy bar, appegios using proper chords, improvisation, the list goes on.

 

[Naph]

Not really a solo, but I looooo- -oooove 'All the Colours You Like' by Pink Floyd.