Vinnie Vincent and the Two Million Dollar Album Nobody Wants...

 

Let me preface by saying I am an old-school KISS fan, because when I was a toddler in the late-70's, they were all over the place, and I still look back on some of their "big dumb rock songs" with adoration. As a guitarist, I learned many of my tricks and licks listening to those first several KISS records. I don't really care much for the post-70's stuff, but to each his own. To me, KISS was literally the same exact style of music as the Lynyrd Skynyrd crap my peers listened to, but more fun: riffs, rock shuffles, R&B-inspired basslines and silly lyrics. But KISS was a more entertaining band, and ultimately, had more songs that were worth a re-listen. I don't like the "Korporation" that the band became, but I am great at compartmentalization, so I can pretend the '73 to '82 KISS was a separate entity. That being said...

Sometimes you just feel embarrassed FOR someone. Case in point...

Ever since Ace Frehley (d.2025) started going on weird political rants during his band's live shows several years back, and capped-off last year with strange political theatrics by the remaining 3 original members of KISS for a photo-op and a grasp at relevance in the news, I had all but forgotten about the band's members during that bizarre period in the 80's when they shed their shock-rock image and went full glam/hair, forever alienating many fans of the group's campy, big, dumb rock-n-roll songwriting and stage theatrics. 

Eric Carr passed away over 30 years ago, Bruce Kulick has been out of active duty since they replaced him with former guitar-tech-turned-Ace-impersonator Tommy Thayer, and Eric Singer was the only consistent non-original member after the 90's-early-2000's reunion of the original four members ended. My guess is that with Paul and Gene being the "owners" of the trademark/corporation/whatever, the "sidemen" were not to draw too much attention to themselves. They were not much more than session players, hired to dress up, perform, collect their pittance and leave the press stuff to the boss(es). And then there's "Vinnie Vincent" (Vincent Cusano).

He joined the band on their last tour or so with a new makeup design ("the wizard" or "ankh warrior", depending on who you ask--either way, easily the least-imaginative design), and worked hard to be noticed as the little five-and-a-half-foot, nimble-fingered guitarist weaving in between Paul and Gene with his pointy guitar, playing in a completely different style (often OVERplaying) than the straightforward, sometimes-repetitive blues pentatonics Ace was known for. He was also around for that first tour after the band shed the comic book hero looks and switched to some of the most contradictory amalgams of hypermasculinity and cartoonish androgyny the "hair" genre would ever see. He butted heads with Stanley and Simmons over an employee agreement, and left the band mid-tour, replaced temporarily by Mark St. John (who also was not stylistically a good fit, and had to leave the band after a purported hand/arthritis issue (which later was found out to maybe be "something else", mysteriously enough). Vincent would, weird as it sounds, be hired from time to time to assist with songwriting, but never played with the band again. While some of his writing for the band was decent, a lot of it was schlocky and just BAD, as evidenced also in his songs written for his band, the Vinnie Vincent Invasion.

Vinnie disappeared for many years, but then around 2018, he started popping up on KISS Kruises and KISS Konventions and whatnot, hinting at a "new album" coming out (if I'm not mistaken, he's held onto calling it "Guitarmageddon" since even back then), featuring the "best rock songs in decades". He was the only KISS member who wouldn't get up and play onstage during these appearances, leading most people to think Vinnie had lost his ability to play altogether. He'd do a couple of halfassed, phoned-in sit-ins that ended up being filmed, but to say they were less-than-impressive is an understatement. In fact, due to his hairstyle, his wardrobe choices, his immaculate makeup and his increased tendency to behave more effeminately, there are still rumors going around that Vincent was also possibly about to come out as trans...and as you can imagine, the KISS fanbase was also split on that. Somehow, the guys who just couldn't put two-and-two together about Stanley's onstage prancing, primping, prissing and pouting also had strong feelings against this new Vinnie, who frankly, could pass for someone's Italian grandma at this point in every way. The rumors have never been confirmed or debunked, but that's not the most controversial thing. No, the problem now is this album, in both terms of its quality (or lack thereof), and this newest development.

Now's where I recommend that you read the article below, but DON'T listen to the song(s) just yet.

https://www.guitarworld.com/artists/music-releases/vinnie-vincent-guitarmageddon-two-million-dollars

Crazy, huh? TWO MILLION DOLLARS for an album that no record company wants (even SplitScreen Entertainment, who released a VVI "tribute" album 15 years or so ago, wouldn't touch it). I don't know what's more insane, the overall purchase price for the album, the purchase price per song, or the batshit loony "terms and conditions" the buyer would have to agree to. This shit is legit cuckoo as hell. What a way to ensure your new music is never heard again. No one is that big a fan of Vinnie to even ponder paying that kind of dough for an album of his, EVEN IF it didn't come with all the cringey stipulations.

I don't know if Vinnie owes some people a lot of money, has really got a bad problem with substances, is finally going through with some procedures, or is simply delusional, greedy and that pompous, but what a perplexing thing to do.

Okay, so you're probably thinking, cheesy title(s) aside, "no way is it REALLY that bad", or "you're being way too harsh", and to that I say: "Go for it."

Seriously. Go listen to "Ride the Serpent" [shudders]. See if you can make it past the first verse...if you can even tell where it begins or ends. I'm sorry it came to this, but you HAD to hear just how atrocious it was with your own ears.

That song alone sounds like there are literally four different songs just dumped into the same track. And this is supposed to be the "album" version. Ugh. REALLY? You can find many of the tracks in their 80's/90's "demo" versions on Youtube, and frankly, they're all horrible. I mean, what do you expect out of a song called "Heavy Metal Poontang" or "Cockteazer", really, but even if the "final" versions are mixed like "...Serpent", they will still be unlistenable. Because the "album mix" still sounds like it was recorded in an empty inground pool under a metal roof.

I hope Vinnie gets the help he obviously needs, and I will make a solemn vow here that when I win the Powerball/Mega-Millions lottery, I will use some of my winnings to purchase this work (I will offer much less, but I guarantee you he will take it), and I will see that it is thoroughly destroyed by sending it on a rocket straight into the sun. That will be my gift to mankind.

Removing Dead Weight Pt1 : The Contingency Approach

So in my last blog, we covered some really, really unprofessional situations you might run into with your band, or a member thereof, wherein you may be faced with having to have (for example), your frontperson bow out for the latter half of a show, or an entire show altogether. Now is where we talk in detail about a contingency plan to keep you from looking stupid in an uncomfortable situation. 

Yeah. It's a really important thing to consider, and something we don't all think about until it's too late and we're wishing we had a backup plan. Granted, if your drummer breaks his leg or your bass player has to get stitches on his fretting hand, those are pretty much situations where it's simply time to cancel the gig, unless you happen to have an incredibly talented multi-instrumentalist in the band who can bounce around to whatever instrument is needed and do the job, and I'm not sure about you guys, but most folks I know only play one or two instruments, and a lot of vocalists can barely play one if any at all, and those of us who DO play several instruments can only play one at a time, so we know that's not going to happen. What, then?

But let's say, for instance, in either a legitimate case of unintentional impairment, such as a sinus infection or the flu, or even if it's due to negligent misadventure  (drinking one's self into uselessness, for example, as mentioned in the previous blog), your band's vocalist either cannot perform at full range, or by halfway through the night is giving out and will be unable to finish the set. You might have a great relationship with a venue and they might let you call it an early night if it's not super busy. But odds are, they're not going to want to pay you your full rate for 1/3 or 1/2 of what you were supposed to play. So you need a back-up plan if you want to get paid and not be remembered negatively (or blacklisted). In most bands, there's at least one other member who is an accomplished vocalist themselves. Sometimes, the person might actually be as capable as, or in some cases more capable than, the person who inexplicably gets to spend the majority of that time up front. That person might need to finish out the night in cases where the primary vocalist is incapacitated. Now, I realize this takes a little bit of the glory and spotlight off of Mister or Miss Frontperson, but if it keeps your band from looking foolish, and helps you fulfill the obligation you signed up for when you accepted the gig, then put your ego aside and look at the big picture. Then take a seat with a smile on your face and be proud to be part of a capable, skilled outfit who can carry on with a member down.

What this means is that your band really needs to have what I like to refer to as a "contingency set". 

This is where you have a dedicated set, 45 minutes to an hour in length at the very least, where somebody else can step up and take over. Whether the frontperson wants to take a seat in the audience, hang back and just play guitar or fucking tambourine or something, or just leave altogether, that's up to them, and either choice is acceptable. But if somebody else can finish out the night and save the band from having to endure the embarrassment of either having to shut down early or suffer from increasingly worsening performance due to some kind of legitimate ailment or negligent self-induced impairment from overindulgence, then it's totally worth the extra effort to come up with a working alternative that will help the band save face and look like champs. And as previously stated, there's probably already a good candidate in your band who can do it. Actually, most likely, in a pinch that person could easily perform 75 to 90% of the material at the drop of a hat already if needed (based on my own experience), in addition to his/her guitar/bass/drum duties. There might come a time to put their talent and abilities to use, and not only should they be ready, but the rest of the band needs to be supportive and appreciative of it.

That's something I personally dedicated myself to doing long ago. Pretty much any act worth a damn that I have played with in the last 20 years has had the flexibility of having some sort of backup plan. In the bands that concentrated on original material, there was almost always some degree of splitting fronting the band with at least one other member. And in what I consider the more fun and successful stints in cover-bands, there also has been a division of lead vocal duties between two or more band members, which is a great way to increase stamina for the entire band, particularly if (as I do) you really push the limits of your power and range when you sing. They're not "your songs" anyway, so why not split up the duties if more than one person can help make the most of the performance?  I make it my goal to not only do my job well, but also to be ready to step up to the mic on those occasions the vocalist falls ill, decides to get so plastered by mid-set that he can't talk straight (much less sing or read his lyrics off his cheat-sheets) or when he throws his voice out with karaoke and bar-hopping throughout the week. 

At any given time, without whining about "needing to rehearse" and "how hard" everything is, with absolutely no notice whatsoever, I can fill not one or two sets, but even an entire show if I have to, if my bandmates can improvise and follow lead. That's one reason I cannot stand lazy goddamned musicians. And as I have mentioned before (and will likely again), I do admit that I have a certain beef with people who call themselves vocalists a lot of the time, because frankly, I don't feel like the vast majority of them deserve the right to stand up there with just a microphone while everyone else is working their asses off (especially those of us handling both instrumental AND vocal duties all night). Even when it comes to famous bands, I can't think of more than maybe 20 that feature vocalists who I really believe have earned the right not to have to play guitar or piano or bass or something while they sing. And I can count on one hand how many independent or local/regional acts I've ever seen in my entire life who have vocalists even remotely in that same classification. I certainly haven't ever worked with any. And the rest if them out there? If they're not contributing on an instrument, I don't really take them all that seriously. I can't. I won't. And that includes people I have worked with. They're nothing more than karaoke hacks who decided they wanted to feel like the cool kids by being in a band. But I'm not shy about it, and I have no problem saying such things directly to them (ask anyone I have worked with). Why? Because I have busted my ass over the years not only to be a decent guitar player, but also to be able to provide vocals so I don't have to work with somebody who I feel is a halfass, and when somebody doesn't put the same amount of effort into what they do as I put into my parts, it's absolutely insulting. Those guys inevitably will end up butting heads with me, because it's pretty much a given that if I ever have to implement the contingency, it becomes at the very least a challenge of rank at that point for them, and I've found most people cannot handle that threat of being usurped. But ultimately, if I have to implement the contingency for self-inflicted reasons (i.e. you're too drunk to do the job, or I just get sick of hearing complaints about "how hard" the job is), I can pretty much guarantee you that your days are numbered, because from that moment forward I'm going to do everything I can to prove how unnecessary you are the first time I ever have to pick up your slack. I never was in a band I didn't front/co-front till about 6 or 7 years ago, and I don't NEED to be now.

But I digress...back to your "contingency plan/set".

Be prepared, because the second you even mention a contingency set plan, your vocalist will lose his/her fucking mind, and will probably act one of two ways. The first is denial, coupled with a little bit of gaslighting, probably blaming his or her shortcomings somehow on the rest of the band, lack of band rehearsals, or some other nonsensical horseshit to try to talk you out of it and try to deem it "unnecessary". That's when you stand your ground, and put it to a vote. Hopefully your other bandmates are sensible folks, or they at least understand which member(s) they could do without and not have to cancel shows should an ultimatum be issued (and this is a possibility)--but if the other members push back, I'd recommend you go ahead and start looking for a better group to be a part of. The other reaction is likely to be a sudden massive surge in motivation and drive from the person who feels now that the cushy position on which they staked their claim and of which they think so highly of themselves performing is now potentially threatened. They may even do something like hire a vocal coach, or even [GASP!!!] start actually practicing on their own so that they are ready for rehearsals and shows. That's great and all (if not a case of "too little, too late"), but either way, no matter how they react, don't back down. Insist on a contingency plan, for the betterment and security of the band, and proceed accordingly. If they feel at all threatened, they will either leave the band or they will do their part with minimal hassle and maybe even demonstrate gradual, noticeable improvement going forward. Either way is a win for everyone else. You need to be prepared for at LEAST a little bit of general unease and discomfort. Your vocalist is not going to be a happy camper to begin with, but if the contingency vocalist knocks it out of the park, it's going to make things even more tense and add another layer of complexity and potential drama, so prepare for that as well. Expect a lot of tension if the audience applauds the performance enthusiastically the first time you have to implement the contingency live. And God forbid your exalted vocalist should overhear an audience member or friend ask the contingency vocalist why he or she doesn't sing more, or if someone suggests that they do. Most importantly, if the contingency vocalist does perform at least on par with your current vocalist, you and your bandmates need to ask yourselves if you have one too many members draining your mojo and your earnings. This is one thing the typical frontperson fears most. Despite his or her high opinion about his or her talent, and despite the façade of confidence that usually accompanies folks who vie for the position, a vocalist's ego is among the most fragile (often more so than even drummers and guitarists, and that's saying something), and they do not like to compete once they believe they have established the pecking order in their minds. They often become extremely cutthroat (even more than they usually are) if there is even a slight possibility they will be upstaged or replaced, and especially by someone they foolishly consider a mere "side person". Should you see this kind of behavior, I think you know what to do.

But enough of that. Now it's time to build your "backup set".

When you put together this set of material, I would also strongly recommend that you completely exclude the musician for whom the contingency will be the spare tire. By all means, be honest and make sure your vocalist knows you will be putting together a set of songs specifically for usage without him or her. But they don't need to show up to those rehearsals. Their presence is not necessary, nor is their critique and/or approval. You need to rehearse just like you would have to perform the songs live, as if "this is the band". Do it like you mean it, because you SHOULD mean it. Another recommendation is to include as many songs already in your set as possible in addition to your supplemental set of new, "contingency vocalist" material. That will give you an idea of just how much material you would be able to do total should you have a very important event or gig that you did not want to cancel but otherwise wouldn't be able to do. Because you might find yourself having to cover for more than one set, so be prepared to do an entire show without the individual. This is especially important, depending on how he or she feels about the band putting together the contingency set, and be prepared that he or she might actually walk out to avoid eventual dismissal, in which case the contingency plan now IS the band. Rest assured, the vocalist will be definitely in touch with at least one member asking how things went, and wanting to know all the sordid details, but it's best to keep things vague and simple and change the subject. If he or she really is that curious, tell them to sit out a set at the next show and see firsthand that you'll be just fine if they fall ill or can't control their vices. Or tell them not to worry about it, because if he or she is doing the job, you will never have to implement the backup plan except in the event of an excusable emergency.

People sometimes need to be reminded in this situation that unless you are an original artist with a following, you are in no way, shape or form entitled any more than anyone else, nor are you any more important or irreplaceable than any other member of your band. And particularly with bands playing all covers, you don't own those songs. That's not your art. You are a mimic. There are no stars in that scene. It is essentially live band karaoke, and you're just another schmuck onstage going through the motions. Having an insufferable ego in a band that doesn't even write their own damn material is absolutely laughable at best. And therefore, don't be a stolen valor diva. Don't take yourself too seriously. Lose the "me" mentality. Do what's best for the band, and what makes you all sound as professional as you can possibly be (at least as "professional" as a dive bar cover-band CAN be, anyhow). And if that means you need to step your ass aside for a few songs, do it. If that means you have to step aside or half a night or more, so be it. It could mean the difference between getting another booking at a club or not, and it could generate either positive or negative word of mouth which might affect the band's opportunities down the road. The band doesn't need to be made to look like idiots because of your personal mismanagement or irresponsibility. So keep in mind that if you insist on being a liability, you are dead to rights when you fuck up bad enough to force the hand and have someone else cover for you. Again, nobody's going to hold it against you if you have some actual health issue, but if the band can still do a show, or finish a show, let it happen and don't be a dick about it. Politely excuse yourself and either relax while enjoying the rest of the show, or leave and go continue to drown your sorrows while you worry about whether or not your services will be required in the future with that project. Just like you replaced the guitarist who you didn't think was doing the band justice and the drummer who can't play, it would be just as easy to replace the singer who renders him-/herself useless by the second set, or who complains about the job incessantly.

Bonus point of consideration: One thing you see a lot of is a strange sense of allegiance when issues like this come up. There are people who will procrastinate, or even choose not to make decisions for the better of the whole band based solely on their personal friendship with one or more members. While I prefer to play with people I actually like, I have only been lucky enough once or twice to actually be in a band where I genuinely like all the members. Some people believe that you should put your friendship before the music, or the product, or whatever you want to call it. I'm going to have to disagree there, particularly if you're only having trouble getting along with one person in particular, which is usually the case. Now, when you have invested time and heart into a project, your feelings are going to be hurt if you are made obsolete and your bandmates choose to dismiss you from the project, but a FRIEND (and just decent human beings in general) will understand and listen, and won't go ballistic or seek revenge like some angry preteen with hormonal issues. And I'm not saying anybody should be asked to leave a group or kicked out or whatever without some kind of discussion prior, and an opportunity should always be offered to give somebody a chance to improve, whenever possible. Again, when possible. It's not always possible, though. Sometimes there just isn't enough time for somebody to get their shit together. And sometimes people just selectively "don't hear " what you tell them. I have had this happen to me multiple times, where somebody just doesn't seem to pay attention when you tell them things that need work, and then they go apeshit when several months down the road they haven't done with expected and they are sacked. The point of that is, just because you don't want to hear what somebody says, it doesn't mean they didn't say it, and if somebody approaches you with things that need to be fixed, whether in an official capacity or as an aside (as a "buddy"), you need to be paying attention. It's not just going to go away. And as I have learned the hard way, there are often certain personality types who talk a lot, but never have an actual interactive conversation because they don't listen to what they're told. Or they will come up with some silly excuse to blame anybody or anything but themselves. It is unfortunate, but sometimes feelings will just have to be hurt. I can think of maybe three times I have ended a band or asked somebody to leave that didn't wind up being a big melodrama or end up creating mortal enemies out of the other parties. Some worse than others, and as pathetic as it is, most of the "worst" I have had to deal with have been in the last several years, with middle-aged men, even more so than teenage band breakups in most cases. Yeah, I know. Sad. You can work with people you don't necessarily call friends, but when it becomes a drain on your mental health, don't prolong it and perpetuate the toxicity. Just take care of it. Don't waste YOUR time or allow someone ELSE to waste it. The point here is that sometimes you may have to base your contingency plan also on personality, and sometimes you have to be ready to replace someone who creates an unhealthy atmosphere. Because otherwise, the band may be stuck with that ultimatum to either get rid of the drinking buddy or lose an integral member (or two, or three) of your band.

To sum it all up, there are legitimate excuses for having off-nights. There are legitimate excuses for cancelling shows. There is no legitimate excuse for not having a contingency plan for those off-nights that can be salvaged. And there is no excuse to allow off-nights to increase either in frequency or in severity, or both. Upon reasonable examination, it's easy to spot the difference between genuine off-nights, and a shift to a toxic band culture. The former can be mitigated. The latter must be eliminated.

But what about a specific example? Check back next time and I'll give you one, and then some...

EMERGENCY PSA: OMG - LEARN HOW TO USE YOUR GUITAR WITH UNPOTTED PICKUPS!

Kudos to those of you have Custombucker-equipped Gibson Custom Shop guitars out there and gig without any issues.

I had the "pleasure" of sharing the stage a couple weeks ago at a very important gig with some dude who really struggled embarrassingly to rein-in the microphonic feedback from the Custombuckers on his top-end Murphy Lab "aged" blue Custom Shop '64 SG Standard, and it was perplexing to say the least.

Most players I've ever ran across who are dumping over $6K on an instrument or piece of equipment generally know what they're getting before buying it. Every spec list on the Custom Shop SG's clearly states they use Custombuckers, and Gibson is pretty clear these are unpotted pickups like the originals on which they're based (which is one of the appeals, in some ways). I didn't realize there were still people out there who don't know that an unpotted humbucker (especially a covered one) can be more prone to squealing under certain circumstances, and arguably, if someone's ever gigged or rehearsed with said instrument at performance volume, one would already know that you can't go combining high volume AND super-high gain with it, especially when one is required to be within 5 feet or so from the amp for the entire performance. But I've comfortably played mine with my Marshall JTM-30 at stage volume and only when I goosed it to kind of ridiculous amounts of preamp gain did it become harder to manage.

Granted, this particular fellow in question was also using some serious overkill of a floor unit for simply going from clean to distorted (since I was trying to preserve my remaining hearing I avoided risking going over to confirm whether it was a Headrush or Helix, but it was one of those kind of things) into a perfectly nice Marshall 2x12 combo that would've provided a perfect meat-and-potatoes, more musical clean AND distorted tone on its own--or if one MUST use one's fancy footpedal, why not bypass the preamp and just go into the power-amp-in since they're obviously using some kind of IR/modeler anyway??? Anyhow, it just seemed like a rig thrown together haphazardly in an attempt to impress the 'spensive-geetar guys, the tube-amp guys AND the tech-savvy players, somehow failing to do anything other than annoy every other player onstage when in between songs or during quiet parts we kept being bombarded by tinnitus-inducing squealing. When your musical director and listeners are squinting and getting more annoyed, it does not make for a fun or productive evening of entertainment.

To make matters even more secondhand embarrassing, when we said something to him between songs, he acted like it wasn't him, and the looks on the other musicians' faces were epic. When I noted that I had a newer version of the very same guitar, same setup, same pickups, and noted "yeah, you have to watch the amount of distortion you use with those Custombuckers, they're not wax-potted", his response was "huh? It's a Murphy Lab, it has 'Murphy pickups' in it..."

I politely told him they were indeed, "Murphy-aged Custombuckers", but they're the same as the ones in my glossy M2M SG, and if he backed down the distortion a tad or used the noise gate on his pedal it might help. No response; he looked at me the same way the dog used to look at the answering machine when he heard my voice on it and I was standing right beside him. For a second I held my breath because he low key looked like he was about to stroke out and I was starting to internally panic because I thought I'd broken him.

You could tell by dude's custom bike shop couture and hipster emo Ned Flanders moustache/haircut/glasses that maybe there was a combination of disposable income (probably "family money") and wanting to give a pro "impression" of some sort, but we weren't surprised to later find out he really wasn't ever a gigging musician and had not played with a band but once or twice ever--not knocking inexperience at all, we all start somewhere, but spend some time learning at least how to use that fancy gear, bro! I think that's what bothered me the most, because I honestly don't believe he ever cranked that setup beyond "3AM-in-the-bedroom (so as not to wake the roommates/family)" levels, if he ever used any of it together at all, which is again, debatable.

Sorry about the rant, it was just super wild to me to see someone have gear that is capable of sounding great, but when used improperly can sound like hot garbage, and I just couldn't believe the level of denial when we were trying to be helpful and at least save some folks in the audience a headache (or keep them from walking out). There are plenty of folks who are successfully gigging with their Custombuckers WITHOUT breaking glass or causing permanent hearing loss for audiences and bandmates, and it's just just insane to think someone dumps over $10K into a rig without taking the time to learn how to properly use it.

Don't make Emo Ned's mistake and get up onstage with a rig that you've never used before and/or just don't know how to operate, and PLEASE, for the love of God, if you're going to buy a guitar with unpotted pickups, know their limits, how to dial in your tone and if need be, how to simply use a noise gate in the event of using the guitar for super-saturated distorted sounds. It'll keep you from being embarrassed, or from feeling awkward and needing to gaslight and deny when your fellow musicians approach you about your sonic abuse of their sense of hearing.

So I Hear You Have Dead-Weight in Your Band : Recognizing the Problem

Has lyrics and chords...still forgets lyrics and chords...

On a recent thread I saw, a participant wrote in asking about something most people in a band will have to face at some point or another: how to get rid of a member that is holding you back or robbing you of your enjoyment in general. 

He wrote:

I am finding myself in a tricky situation. I want to "fire" my singer, but in a way that a bit more delicate. The problem is that he and the drummer seem to be really good friends, and I dont want to loose the drummer. He is a good guy, but cant seem to create any original vocal melodies\lyrics. He has been using the same melody lines for the last 3-4 songs, and parts of the same lyrics for a few songs. One time he accidently sent me some demos from another band he is in, and he is using the same melodies\lyrics for those too. it's like he only can only play one chord on the guitar.

Wow. Been there, done that. More times than I care to admit. Since my beginnings in my teens up through my 40's, it seems this always finds a way to rear its ugly head. I responded to the OP as follows:

I've been in a very similar situation more than once, and it always sucks. It's one of the primary reasons I stopped working with "singers/vocalists" who don't play an instrument as an active contributor in the band in ANY capacity (originals OR covers), and a perfect example of literally every "original material" wannabe-frontperson I've EVER worked with (and hence why I don't work with them either). 

With my hired-gun cover-band gigs, I've occasionally worked as just a support musician, if the money is right. It was never "worth it", let's get that part out of the way, but at least I have to compensated to enough of a degree that it's worth my time. After firing the "singer and occasional guitarist" from one of the cover-bands I work with back in 2018, my price for working with a "frontperson" instead of co-fronting or just fronting the band myself has gone up--I call it my "cost of living" increase. We fired that guy (Hi, Ben!) for a number of reasons:

- He could not perform without a full-on binder of lyrics/notes on a stand in front of him (later an iPad, but still), even for songs he'd been playing/singing for decades (I find when the person who wants to be noticed most in a band has to have a reference source available for almost EVERY song it shows an embarrassing lack of skill and professionalism, especially when...

- He drank a lot (in spite of health issues that would keep most sensible people from drinking to begin with), to the point where by middle of the first set, he was buzzed, and by mid-second-set, he was utterly plowed. This was especially annoying when he was also too drunk to read all of his cheat material, and he ended up screwing up/missing parts anyway on both his vocals and his now-out-of-tune guitar that he was too inebriated to tune.

- He started getting cringily political and weird (pro tip: don't bring up your personal politics in your band when you already know your opinions and ideologies clash significantly with other members, unless you want it causing unnecessary stress and tension and you're low-key wanting to cut ties anyway).  

- He strutted around at every gig (and OUTSIDE of gigs), despite his embarrassing failures to fulfill his duties, chest puffed-out, acting like some rock god, and it got more annoying with every beer or shot, seemingly oblivious that without a solid group behind him, he'd literally just be a drunk karaoke hack.

- He had a weird combination of goofy "alpha" mentality and imposter syndrome. In other words, he often tried to nose-in on everything and wanted to be considered "the leader" while doing the least amount of work, and would contradict himself by showing how actually insecure he was as a human being. It was a bizarre mix of personalities.

- The last straw was at a gig where, I kid you not, he got too drunk early into the middle set to play, started slurring and just not singing at all, and I finished out the set fronting the band. Immediately thereafter, he literally decided to lie across the table in front of the "stage" area and proceeded to pass out. The drummer and I gave the bassist an ultimatum, he'd have to fire his frontman and we continue on as a trio, or we walked and they'd be replacing half their band. He was gone the next day.

It didn't stop the fat POS from talking smack about us for a few years to come and trying to get us blacklisted at our normal haunts for 'doing him wrong' (WTF, really?), but when you're dealing with people from certain demographics who have certain personality defects, you learn to not be "shocked" when they act like spoiled 7 year olds. And then there was the more recent falling out with an original music collaborator...

I worked for many years with a guy I'd known all the way back in elementary school, a guy who was big into indie music, always wished he was in an indie band like some of us he knew from school, and after doing "a lot of karaoke" when he was stationed in Japan, he decided he wanted to form a group of his own (yes, that was his "resume" for starting a band). Long story short, it was mostly an online collaboration that eventually became a performing situation with some guys I helped round up, but it wasn't well-received. For 95% of the recorded material, I wrote, arranged and performed all the instruments, and this guy (who we'll call "John") only wrote lyrics and "sang". His vocal range was almost nonexistent and I tried (but failed) to push him to better his skills--fine for indie shows to an extent but NOT for legitimate venues. In addition to lacking vocal skills, he had the same issues your guy has: no creativity when creating melodies, and his lyrics were either directly recycled from previous ones or were thematically the same as the others, often with the exact same terminology/verbiage even. Things came to a crash and burn because we had a couple bad shows (one in particular was NOT well-received, with the booking person citing his vocals as "f*cking awful" and saying "as long as he's singing, we can't have you back"), and I believe what finally got through to him was when John submitted one of our songs (the music of which was kind of like Audioslave, very groovy and strong--but lacking of those piercing, strong Chris Cornell style vocals, of course) to a local station's morning show where they listened to local groups and critiqued their music. Our track got the longest airtime to date because they liked the music portion, but they were brutal about how bad the vocals sucked. John had taken it upon himself to be the sole person on the phone with them (as usual, us "auxiliary musicians" were not required--or welcome, evidently--for PR), and they didn't realize they were talking to the crappy vocalist who they said essentially robbed the otherwise-killer-song of its thunder until the end of the conversation. John spent a few weeks in denial about their "taste in music" or whatever made him sleep better at night, but he's a smart guy and I believe he knew deep down that he was not the indie hero he wanted to think he was, nor was he considered "good enough" to front an actual band. The drummer (who works with me in our power-duo to this day) backed out the next month, and John decided not to go on with the band. The way he went about it, and started showing resentment towards my power-duo project, he burned this bridge permanently. He's tried to reach out, re-friend me on social media and presumably needs help again, but I refuse to acknowledge or respond. Last I heard, he was working with some "DJ" guy who makes songs with looped beats and random samples, and I affectionately refer to them as "TiT" (Two Inch Tacks). 

Sorry to be so verbose here, I just wanted to give some personal examples to show I know exactly what you're going through, and hopefully to demonstrate that what you DON'T want to do is have this person's attitude, laziness, incompetence, hubris or lack of ability to hold you back OR cause your band to eventually implode. If you have an otherwise cohesive, strong band, having one person drag it all down makes for a miserable time. A few things to think about...

Yeah, he MIGHT be close with the drummer, but that's not unusual for a couple of folks in a band to be a little more buddy-buddy than the others. In the cover-band I mentioned earlier, we had to replace our drummer (amicably, as the previous drummer was moving to go be with his family), and out of the trio, the bassist and new drummer are friends who live near each other, while I'm a half hour away and I don't go to the pub with them or hang out. Fun fact: the frontman we fired was really close with the bassist too though, however, when pressed to lose the rest of the band or lose the guy who was an obvious problem, he chose to let his friend go who was holding the band back. In an events band I am an ongoing member in, the keyboardist and bassist are longtime friends who hang out all the time, but the drummer and I don't hang out with them outside the band. So don't worry about that. 

The best thing you can do is have a "band meeting" sans the vocalist and let your feelings be known. Back up your opinions with examples (the more facts, evidence and examples you can provide, the more likely you are to get a positive outcome). Discuss how important the group is to you and what you hope to achieve, and tell them the only reason you're even thinking about a member adjustment is because you want to see progress and have success in one way or another with the band. Tell them how strong you think their contributions are and how strong the band can be with the right frontperson (one who earns his/her keep and actually has some creativity). Bring to light the dude's other band's demo you heard where he's using the same melodies/lyrics and use that as a means to take the angle of him maybe focusing on that band, since that's where his creativity lies (which is true, since he hasn't come up with anything unique or original with your group). Let's consider best- and worst-case-scenarios.

Worst-case-scenario, the drummer takes offense at you daring to want to sack his buddy, and you're forced to find another drummer (which is a pain, I know that drummers are the hardest instrumentalists to find in most instances). But cup-half-full, you're no longer held back by someone else and you'll eventually find someone whose allegiances are to the greater good.

Best-case-scenario, he listens, agrees that the singer is the weakest-link and you guys amicably dismiss the singer to go spend fulltime with his other band (again, tell him he is a better fit for them and it's not doing you OR him any favors for him to stay with you), and you guys keep working on material. I GUARANTEE you that you will not have a lot of trouble finding a singer/frontperson, because they, like "guitarists" are the most plentiful out there, and there's ALWAYS another one around the corner, a stone's throw away. Now, you might need to go through a few auditions to make sure the chemistry is good AND that the new person has some creativity when it comes to lyrical and melodic contributions. There's ALSO the possibility that going the trio route might be an option, don't write that off. But if you need a 4th member, just make sure they're doing what you need, and aren't just looking for a band to make them look good.

It's NEVER "fun" having to change band members, whether it's amicable or under duress, but if you approach the drummer right, despite his relationship with the singer, he will listen to the rational explanation as to how you came to your decision. And either way, you can't simply continue on like you're doing now, because  you're not happy or making progress, and I can assure you that life is too short to go on like that. You got this.

And that applies to anyone else out there going through a similar conundrum. I've been around long enough and have gone through this many times, and I can tell you DON'T WASTE YOUR LIFE trying to work with any project that doesn't bring you either artistic satisfaction OR financial compensation worthwhile of your contributions/commitment. Respect yourself and make yourself happy, first and foremost!

Factory "Aged"/"Relic'd" Guitars : Homage to the Greats, or Just the Ultimate Poseur/Try-hard Trophy Guitars?

 

WHAT THE HELL?

From Jonathan Horsley in Guitarist Magazine in November, 2025:

It doesn't take much to set the guitar-playing public off. But if there is one subject in electric guitar that’s guaranteed to ruin Thanksgiving dinner, it is the idea of relic'ing a guitar.

For some, a pre-worn finish is a crime against humanity, up there with not muting your guitar when tuning up. Others think it looks cool.

Many might argue either way, but isn’t relic'ing just a case of tying a guitar to the back of your car and doing donuts in the carpark?

In a recent interview with Guitarist, Fender’s Chief Product Officer Max Gutnik tries to explain that there is a lot more to it – claiming it has taken their luthiers years to perfect (?) the relic jobs we see on its Custom Shop builds. "Perfect"? Um...no.

“You know, relicing is hard to do. It’s ironic because people think you can just drop it a few times and drag it down the street,” says Gutnik. “But it’s actually a really intensive process that adds a lot of hours to the guitar.”

Me? I'm calling bullshit. I would take the "Pepsi Challenge" with 10 random guitars, and I could pick out the actual vintage ones from the shitty relic'd ones. I've been around vintage instruments for 4 decades now, and there are "tells" you pick up along the way. 

Finish wear is often the most obvious dead giveaway it's a fake. After all, we all play the guitar differently, in terms of technique as well as how we treat our instruments in general. Where one player’s belt buckle might grind down the finish on the back of a guitar might be different to another’s (or not at all). Not all guitars age the same. Look at John Frusciante’s and Mike McCready’s Stratocasters, for instance. But then you have guitarists who are not delicate with their instruments (Angus and Malcolm Young, Neil Young, Billie Joe Armstrong), and the wear on their guitars looks nothing like the aforementioned. 

“Trying to make the relicing not look uniform is really important,” continues Gutnik. “The processes we use have improved so much: you want the feel and the look of a broken-in guitar, but you don’t want anything actually broken! So we just keep improving that process, the lacquer and paint…”

Let's stop right there. First, there was a period where even Fender was using some kind of programmed etching pattern, and there are posts on threads out there to this day that demonstrate 4 or 5 different guitars with almost identical wear---but hey, glad they finally learned that people don't want their fake-old guitar looking like someone else's fake-old guitar. But just as importantly, let's talk about the actual paint work. Today's lacquers are not formulated the same as those used on the Golden Era classic guitars (different plasticizers and mixes thereof), and in cost-cutting measures, they're not even applied the same, so it's never going to be apples-to-apples. I can look at, for example, my Angus Young signature SG and my late-60's EB-0 bass (from the time period the Angus is supposed to replicate), and the EB-0 has minimal shrinking of the lacquer, still retains a mirror-like smoothness, but the AY has the telltale woodgrain pores peeking through that make the surface less smooth. That's just one example, but very, very obvious to me. 

“It’s like getting a pre-washed pair of jeans: they’re broken in so they’re comfortable right out of the store, but they’ll continue to wear and become your own,” says Gutnik. “That’s what’s so great about nitrocellulose lacquer. If you have to wait 25 years to get to that place, I mean, you might not get there! So starting that process and having the guitar feel super comfortable out of the gate is what we’re aiming for.”

But here's the thing: the comparison is not even in the same ballpark, as some of us cannot fathom paying a premium for "new" jeans that already had the worn-out knees or tears, and even if they were more affordable, would we REALLY have bought a new pair of pants with half the wearable life of a fully new pair? I just simply cannot get on board with "relic'd" or "factory aged" guitars, and I doubt I ever will be able to. But then again, I wouldn't buy a car that's beat to hell (unless it's as an intended restoration project), and if I want a "used" guitar, I'll just buy a "used" guitar, save myself the added premium for the "custom shop aging" and be done with it. Hell, I've seen original vintage examples of certain guitars for literally only a few hundred more dollars than a badly "aged" replica, and if I want that particular model with "age" on it, I'd rather just pay a little extra for the real thing and not a counterfeit.

Out of the dozens, or probably hundreds, of guitars have seen that have had this kind of process performed on them, I can literally count three that actually looked legitimate (except on one of the guitars, supposed to be a reissue of a '64 Gibson SG, it was before they started doing the horn tip shaping properly, so that ruined the façade instantly for anyone who knows SG's, and while the aging wasn't the worst I'd ever seen, the slabby upper horn tip told me it wasn't a vintage SG). The rest were either overdone, worn in bizarre places that you never find certain types of wear on an instrument, or just otherwise too clean looking to pass. It's almost like guitar satire or something, where you're just exaggerating this preconceived thing and it's not really to be taken seriously. I know I'm pissing off a lot of well-to-do's with disposable income and weekend warriors who saved up for months or years to buy their fake-aged Strat or Les Paul by saying this, but it's corny as hell. Stop it, please.

I bought my prized Custom Shop '64 reissue Gibson SG Standard last year to replace my original near-mint '64-'65 one that I had to sell 8 years ago after being laid-off at work (since my then-wife certainly wasn't going to help with the household expenses or Christmas for our child). In mid-2023 the Gibson Custom Shop FINALLY (after 23 years) started shaping/tapering the horn tips on them properly, and I knew I would finally be able to get a suitable stand-in for my lost Holy Grail SG. Not being a fan of the overly-faded "cherry" they use on their stock models (I prefer an "as-new" unfaded finish), I ordered mine in "Wine Red" (GLOSS), which looks more like the as-new "Cherry" finish back then, and no, I did NOT opt for either the "VOS" nonsense OR the "Murphy Lab" crap. I wanted a brand new instrument that carries on the spirit of my old one, for me to "age" (or not) on my own via natural playing. And even as a custom "Made 2 Measure" one-off, it still was cheaper than a production-line Murphy Lab guitar.

Personally, I think these custom shops that produce these pre-aged instruments should be replaced by a player-centric program that allows players to purchase brand new Custom Shop instruments for a deep discount, or do an "abusive leasing program", where you get a brand new shiny vintage reissue guitar, and literally your job is to gig it, play it around the house nonstop, take it to rehearsals, play the crappy, smoky dive bars with it, really just don't give a crap about it and treat it like some regular player's guitar or a beater, even stuff like leaving it out in the trunk of your car in freezing temperatures or subjecting it to environmental changes quickly, like bringing it out of the cold from that freezing car into a warm house and cracking open the case to influence weather checking and stuff. You know, never wash your hands before playing it, don't be careful when it comes to eating or drinking around it, let the schmutz really build up on the hardware and stuff. In other words, methods that cause NATURAL wear and "aging". Yes, it would pretty much require one to put all their focus on banging around that one guitar during the process, but that's the point then, innit? Once you have achieved the level of play wear desired,  you box it up, ship it back to the manufacturer for a once-over, some adjustments or restringing (maybe a fret-job of some sort if you did a really, really good job with it), and then you get a new guitar in the mail to repeat the process over and over again. That would at least be more legitimate, and the wear on the guitars would be more honest. Because paying a premium that sometimes adds anywhere from 25 to 75% extra cost to have a badly faked vintage guitar just seems laughable to me.

No matter how much you want to convince me (or yourself) that your Murphy Lab Gibson or your Journeyman Relic Fender is "art" or "passable" as a vintage guitar, let me go ahead and be brutally honest with you and say, "no, it isn't". It will fool your country club buddies or maybe some dude in the audience at the local bar who "knows just a little about guitars" (insofar as he can tell the difference between a Les Paul, Strat, Tele and so forth), but you're not fooling anyone who's had their hands on actual vintage instruments. So again, I say: stop it, please.

Thoughts for the "Lead" Guitarist #2 : Hear Me Roar! Please??? (The "LEAD Guitarist" Mentality)

 First off, I AM a guitarist, so I have every right to say everything I'm about to say. While some blogs I write are a little more from an objective, general perspective, many of the guitar-centric ones I write are written from my point of view as a guitarist with a conscience. And I realize that guitarists HATE to be scrutinized, just like vocalists, drummers and other musicians, but especially by other guitar players. Well either stop reading or put on your big-girl panties if you're a "lead guitarist" who might be a little sensitive on the topic.

Oh so many years ago when I started playing guitar, my primary influences ranged from AC/DC to the Sex Pistols to Nirvana, and I just wanted to be a guitarist in a good band. In the beginning it was all power-chords and downstrokes, punk rock fury at its finest. When I actually started learning a couple of simple scales (ones like major, minor, blues, pentatonic, etc. that are the foundation of "guitar solos"), my confidence boosted quite a bit and I actually began incorporating guitar solos into songs. Once I started learning to cop some Angus Young and John Christ licks I was branching out from Johnny Ramone "chords only" playing, and it felt good. After a couple of failed attempts at bands, finally in my senior year I put together my first "serious" band, Idle Minds, of which (in its ORIGINAL TRIO INCARNATION, prior to adding a 4th member, switching drummers and taking on some really corny attempts at a "big dumb live show" mentality) remains one of my fondest periods of musical memories. Along with Danny (drums and vocals) and Zack (bass and vocals), I got behind the mic for the first time in a serious capacity and started really writing songs. Some forgettable, others I haven't played since the band split but I will always remember and could whip out my guitar and play right now. Why? Because songwriting came FIRST and I tried to write memorable, meaningful material. When I had put together groups in high school, I wanted to play "lead guitar", and thankfully I remained just a couple of notches ahead of my co-guitarists in skill so I was just that. But even after only a couple of situations where I found myself battling for volume, hearing duplicate parts mushed together instead of a mesh of different voicings (in other words, we were playing the exact same parts at times, which was redundant as hell, and sounds like crap most of the time) and just sometimes experiencing overall clashing of egos with someone who needs more validation than just being part of a non-shitty band, I decided that unless I were to find my perfect match as co-guitarist, I wanted to be the sole 6-string in a band. Not a "lead" player, per se, but THE player. BIG difference. If I couldn't either find a "Malcolm" to my "Angus" or even a "Ronnie" to my "Keef" (or vice-versa...lol), then I was going to combine the individual styles of my favorite guitarists and cover all the territory I possibly could on one guitar. Not an easy task, but definitely more rewarding than having to deal with the aforementioned afflictions often associated with dual guitars in a band. Kind of like why I preferred to front a band while playing an instrument (or have another instrumentalist in the band front the group) instead of having to deal with some whinging meat-mic-stand who fancied themselves a "vocalist"---to this day, I still abhor working with "vocalists", maybe more than ever thanks to more bad experiences with them.

The reason this subject has come to mind again is because for over ten years in a row, we have a fellow--we'll just call him "Jimmy" for now-- locally who continues to seasonally put ads up on Craigslist looking for a band, and it's attitudes/perspectives like his that unfortunately represent a pretty narrow, shitty attitude towards playing in a "band" (aka: a "team effort"). Here's one of the ads, copied and pasted, sans personal details (because, frankly, I'm embarrassed for him):

Blues Rock/Rock LEAD Guitarist (Greenville Upstate)

I am an experienced lead guitarist looking for a gigging band in the Upstate. My style is heavily influenced by Hendrix, Satriani, Gary Moore, David Gilmour and Rory Gallagher.

I am looking for a rock, blues, and or - blues rock band; please no metal, or church bands.

I am very effects friendly and I can emulate organs, strings and bizarre noises. My tone is all Marshall based, check out the link at the bottom!

I like male and /or female fronted bands, blue to melodic rock. Serious inquiries only please.... And please notice, it says LEAD not Rhythm, I dont do rhythm, Im a lead player - THANKS!!!

Transportation, TEAM PLAYER, non drinker, hard working guitarist with a massive drive to make the band the best it can be.

For a taste of what I can do.... Http://www.reverbnation.com/jam*****ton

Wow, right? "Too cool for chords", huh? Well, apparently other CL readers thought so as well, because he got a couple of public "responses" worth noting (both anonymous, but nonetheless still valid and SHOULD be seen as great constructive criticism by the guy who posted the original ad). Here they are:

First response reads:

Scotty Anderson, which is arguably the master of the electric guitar today, has always said that being a good rhythm guitar player was much more difficult than playing single note lead guitar. Even his lead lines are harmonized, and not with a pedal, by his own knowledge and ability. The best lead players are the ones who know and understand chords and harmonic balance. I'm a guitar player, and a strong enough player to not have to rely on a 'rhythm player' or a 'lead player' because I play both as needed. I'm not looking for a guitar player, but as I've seen you post on this forum for years, and obviously to no avail because you post regularly... Maybe take it as a sign to change your attitude, or at least the projection of it because any seasoned player isn't going to want to play with someone that stresses they are a 'lead player.' That's like saying I play 'Lead Piano' or 'Lead Steel Guitar.' I think that it is implied if you play an instrument and understand music theory at all, then you can play lead...

Well put, my man. Here was someone who followed this guy's retort:

I couldn't have said it better. I have wondered why J***s' postings have been on here so long. I listened to reverb nation and got half my answer.

I also wondered,,,,if he doesn't play rhythm at all, does he just stand there thru the song and only play when the leads come in or does he play leads thru the whole song?????? 

So, thankfully I'm not the only person out there who feels like the "don't burden me with trivial 'rhythm' guitar parts" point of view is fucking lame. In my experience, people with this mindset have so for a couple of reasons (outside of sheer narcissism, that is), both of which make you as undesirable a candidate for a band as the singer who can't hold pitch or the drummer who lacks dynamics.

One, it means you "don't like learning songs". Many times people use euphemisms like improvisation to sell themselves, but most of the time it simply means that he/she simply doesn't like to be bothered with the little things, like actually having to learn the songs entirely. I've seen this in people ranging from those "hey man, let's jam" types to even some guys who consider themselves "pros" (or at least "local rockstars"), including one in particular who blew a legit professional gig due to lack of musical commitment (and evidently a bit of a drug/alcohol problem to boot), and it's pitiful.

Secondly, it means that regardless of your claims, you more than likely are NOT a team-player, and have no truly constructive contribution to the overall band outside of your own musical masturbation. No wonder you spend the majority of the last 20 some-odd years of your playing looking for a band to join, because no self-respecting band will hire you based on your self-serving demands, or after having watched you embarrass yourself at a tryout.

Summing it all up, why don't you just say you want to be the ONLY guitarist in a band? Assuming of course that in all your massive talent you can actually hold your own as the band's only guitarist. Then you don't have to worry about labels and rank. Then you're TRULY contributing to a band instead of just noodling around acting like top rooster when you're really just another cock. Even to this day I don't like working with another guitarist for the most part. Unless the parts are well-defined, or in the case of the other player being a primarily-acoustic player, I've found it to be more annoying than not, and more headache than it's worth. Especially when I've worked with people 20 years older than me who still don't know what real "tone" is, or who don't play their parts right to begin with. I can think of 2, MAYBE 3 guitarists I've actually enjoyed playing with over my career, and particularly after my tenure in a band I like to call "Shitterville" (IYKYK), and the brief time I had to share guitar duties with a drunk asshole who only played a third of the time in a certain 90's cover band, I won't be taking any offers to join a two guitar band seriously ever again. I don't need some other lousy guitarist ruining the experience for me. Thanks to having learned how to be in a band in general, I frankly don't NEED another guitarist in most cases, period. Is it nice to have someone occasionally helping to fill-out performances and "make it sound like the studio recording" on some things? Yeah, absolutely, if the person actually can play the right parts. But not required, and most of the time not desired. It keeps the stress and drama down, not having to pollute my time and space with that kind of nonsense.

Guitarists are a dime a dozen, outnumbered only by the amount of wannabe "vocalists" who want to front a band, so you have almost limitless choices for either, should you decide to take out an ad or audition players to fill your missing spot in your band. And I recommend you audition them, take notes, and watch for red flags to make sure you don't end up having to hire someone else when that person fails miserably to successfully provide your needed musicianship or complete your team unit. Also never forget that there's ALWAYS a better player out there, perhaps with a better attitude for working/playing with others. So do NOT commit until you know you are a good match, both ways.

In closing, I honestly can't think of one band that's going to hire someone so full of themselves as to say "I'm too good to play rhythm guitar in any capacity". Readers, can you?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Thoughts for the "Lead" Guitarist #1 : Does a Song HAVE to Have a Solo to be 'Good'?

 

OK, this topic was actually started by my buddy Eddie some time ago, but I thought I'd carry it over here and toss my 2 cents into the ring (comments are welcome):

"Does a song have to have a solo to be 'good'?"

I'm noticing a number or reviewers bagging on bands, or at least taking "points" off when a song does not have a solo in it.

Personally, i don't think it should be a "deal-breaker." The first Stone Temple Pilots CD has no solos at all. i can't cite the source, but i remember reading that somewhere, and realizing that i didn't even notice in all the times i had listened to it. i just really liked that CD (still do), and that was all that mattered. 

I think the worst thing a guitarist (or any potential soloist) could do is add a solo just for the sake of having one. If there is no statement to be made, then don't say anything.

Now don't get me wrong- i like a great solo as much as anyone (Vai's "Call It Sleep" remains my personal fave). i just don't see why some think it's an absolute necessity. Bear in mind, i'm not saying for one second that my opinion is right, or better than anyone else's. i submitted this to Vin in hopes of starting some discussion about this issue here. i'll take all the insight you folks are willing to offer.

-eddie

My response on his post:

I think that throwing a solo into a song just to give the lead guitarist an excuse to wank-off or satiate his/her personal insecurities is utterly pointless, boring and a waste of stage time or tape (or "virtual" tape). I'm a lead player myself at heart, and some of my favorite songs which are done by bands who are known for their outrageous lead players have little or no solo work at all in them.  If someone can take a lead break in a song which reinforces the melody or the hook of the song, or take the song to another level energy-wise, then great; more often than not that's what I incorporate into my own songs nowadays, something which goes with the feel and vibe of the song instead of another blues-box solo with a few wheedly-wheedly parts to wow the few who care. If it's just so the lead guitarist can stroke their own ego with the same-ol', same-ol' flashy trash, in-the-box solo work he/she does in every other song (having worked with people like this, I have a very strong opinion here), then it's doing the song (and the band) a terrible injustice. 

[Side note: I always struggled with watching, listening to or playing alongside guitarists who "play too much", and I think it really came to a head around 2005-ish, when I was recruited to be a ringer/turd-polisher in my then-brother-in-law's band. I started on bass before moving to guitar after basically being fed up with the idea of sitting back in the rhythm section while Mister Only-Knows-One-Blues-Scale played several-minutes-long solos every chance he got utilizing the exact same formula and patterns, void of understanding that one type of solo doesn't fit in every song, and oblivious to the idea that not every song needed to be dragged out so he could play guitar hero for drunk people. It was embarrassing, and thankfully when I moved over to guitar, I was able to provide a foil for some of that ridiculousness, but I screwed up by waiting for it to boil over instead of saying something earlier on, so the damage was done, and the lifestyle was locked in until I had enough and left in mid 2007 after the way his brother's death was handled by the others. From that moment on, I decided that I'd never be a slave to the "guitar solo culture" ever again, and to this day about half of the songs I write intentionally do not feature unnecessary guitar "masturbation".]

Now, I'm not going the extreme grunge-90's hipster anti-solo route and saying that any tasteful, decent lead-work is prohibited, I just think it should FIT or be forgotten. No, not all songs NEED a solo (STP was a good example of just having the occasional "traditional solo", and of course you have Nirvana, Green Day, etc), and not all solos need to be fast, flashy or time-consuming. Some of the best solos ever are short, simple, and ballsy as hell. I'll take Angus Young, Neil Young, Paul Kossoff and Mick Ronson over any of your technical noodly players any day. Not always because of what they played, but sometimes for what they DIDN'T play, and the emotion/feel they put into those bursts of notes (especially when we talk about, for example, Angus' and Kossoff's vibrato technique, WOW!).  A lot of lead players tend to neglect the fact that sometimes it's what's NOT played that's important and impressive, not how many notes you can cram into a minute. Giving the song a chance to breathe is important, and the spaces in between can actually ADD value to what you're playing.

"Less is more" is sometimes the key, as tired and overused as that saying might be. One of my personal credos is that if you can hum/sing along to a solo, it's a keeper. There can even be a little flash in there, a "wow-worthy" lick or two, but if there are memorable parts the average listener can remember and recognizes as strongly as the vocal melody or hook, you've got a winner. Think "Sweet Child O' Mine" by Guns N' Roses, "You Shook Me All Night Long" by AC/DC, or even (as much as I personally am not a fan) "Hotel California" by the Eagles. There are parts even the most casual listener waits for and instantly recognizes. I agree with with the sentiment that anyone who emphasizes technical skill over musicianship/taste is more likely than not to fail. Of course, folks (especially other guitarists) often conflate musicianship and technical skill, leading some to underappreciate a good, simple guitar solo. But think about how blown-away all your non-playing friends and family (or the crowd at the local pub you play) seem to gush over how "good" you are, even when you're just playing some basic riff to a song they love. In most cases, the audience doesn't know how technically proficient you are, they just like hearing coherent music---and with many corner pubs and cover-band scenarios, it doesn't always have to be THAT "coherent", even.

I don't think songs or bands which don't showcase a lot of lead work should be trashed at all, and I think before anyone dares to speak negatively about the lack of solos they need to ask "does the song really need it?"  I'd rather a song leave me wanting more (Foo Fighters) than wanting it to just friggin' end (hello, Pearl Jam's Mike McCready). I don't think a lead guitarist's technical ability should matter if the band has great songs. Look at "nu-metal" from the late 90's and early 2000's: most of that stuff is nothing but "chugga-chugga" riffs and noises (no real lead work), and with a lot of what passes as "metal" these days, they do old-school style neo-classical shredding (along with the overuse of sweep-picking and other "Youtube tricks"), and either way both are completely unlistenable to me because the songwriting's just plain horrible and forgettable. However, take a band like System of a Down who crosses all the same "metal" territory but has guitarists who have some taste and the ability to keep from over- or underdoing it when the time is right (not to mention some really unusual but good songwriting--and those haunting vocals) and you have a listenable, entertaining album full of decent songs which don't bore the piss out of me. Same with Rage Against the Machine, early Danzig, or even Ghost: enough fretwork to be exciting, but most of the time reined-in to serve the song. Good stuff.

Of course there will always be people "amazed" by technical prowess over song quality, and there will always be guitar-centric tours/concerts/conferences to appease those people. And on the flipside, there will always be those who believe that solos are egotistical, frivolous & pompous, who give a purpose to minimalist songwriting and the idea of creating textures and movements over milquetoast guitar solos. I prefer a middle-ground, but there has to be SOME relevance or it gets out of hand. Does a solo make a shitty song (or a band in general) sound better though? Hell no! Can bad/boring/too-long solos ruin a good song or band? You bet your ass they can! Serve the art, not yourself, and if the song doesn't NEED a lead part, don't muck things up! The song should ALWAYS be priority. Let that solo ELEVATE the song, not break it.

ME? When I want to impress I just bend a note, shake the fuck out of it, and smile. That's art.