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.