How does the guitar figure into the music you listen to?

[Eric]

For whatever reason, I took a few minutes just now to list out the music that I like and to figure out how important the guitar parts and/or guitar solos were in determining what music I like.

My conclusion? Of the groups I really like (i.e. will buy their music if they come out with new stuff, even if I haven't heard any of it), most of them make the cut because I like the melodies and hooks, and because the lyrics are either good or at least don't get in the way too much. Secondarily, I really like guitar-based music that has a neat riff or lick or something, just a general thing like you'd find in "Cinnamon Girls".

Surprisingly (to me), guitar solos were pretty far down on the list of what attracts me to different bands. Blazingly fast guitar work would probably be even less important.

I think that we as guitarists tend to place a high priority on lead guitar work, but the music listener in me tells me that it's not actually as important as the guitarist in me says it is. I always tend to focus on the guitar parts, because I want to know how good the guitarist is, and I focus on my own ability (more often inability) to play very challenging and fast parts because that's guitar-hero territory.

I just found it interesting that perhaps being able to set the world on fire with my guitar playing is less important than I might have thought at one point, at least when I view music from the perspective of the listener in me.

What do you think? Agree? Disagree?

[sunvalleylaw]

Like most things for me, it depends. But to oversimplify, I am similar to you, but maybe a notch or two over on the scale overall toward solos, lead and fill work. but it is the overall fit in the song that matters. I like hooks, rhythms and such like you too. Also, guitar parts such as Peter Buck's earlier REM work are often just as enjoyable, or sometimes more, than a hot solo. Or hot, punky rhythm playing like Joe Strummer or the Ramones. I do like good solos that fit, but they have to fit, and emote or say something. I love a good, sweet sounding solo that takes me somewhere. Speed, pure skill over emoting/story telling, and certainly shred are not high on my list.

BTW, depending on the mood, horns can take the place of guitar for me at time. Examples would be guys like Coltrane or Davis. In fact, I like guitars to sound like those guys played. This can also be the case with piano. I was a pianist first after all. And my first rock hero wore funny shoes and clothes, big glasses, and played a mean piano.

Lastly, I am definitely more guitar oriented now that I play. I listen for the guitar parts almost automatically now, both rhythm and lead.

[R_of_G]

I'd say at least 2/3 of my music collection doesn't even have a guitar on it.

That's not to say the guitar doesn't play an important role in the music I love that does have guitars in it. I do agree with your point there. While I do enjoy a good solo, I'm more concerned with what the guitarist adds to the piece overall. There are plenty of cool parts to play that aren't solos.

[marnold]

Unless it's classical music (and I've got some classical guitar albums too), the guitar is the most important thing for me. It doesn't necessarily have to be metal. I loves me a good solo, although "good" is a pretty vague word. Goodness comes in a variety of forms. Having said that, I also have an inexplicable love for 80s New Wave which is frequently guitar-free.

[Katastrophe]

My "straddle the fence" answer - it depends.

Most of the time, I just listen to the song as a whole and enjoy it.

In a metal tune, though, solos are usually an integral part of the song, so when the guitar player starts with the solo, I usually perk up and listen. Same with Jazz, where improvisation is the point for the tune in many cases.

You know, over the last year or so I've heard a couple audiences applaud the solos in the tune more than the tune itself. Of course, in both cases the guitar player was either giving it all he had, or was ultra tasteful in note choice.

[Eric]

I probably phrased the intro post the wrong way, for which I apologize. It's not at all uncommon for me not to know what I'm trying to say.

I think the point is this: even though sweet guitar solos and vocal histrionics are huge ego trips for the performer, they are not necessarily what draws me to music most of the time. This dichotomy is something that I find puzzling and at least kind of interesting. I can feel the two sides tugging at me when I'm playing the guitar or listening with a guitar-first ear, and I frequently need to remind myself of what attracted me to music in the first place and what I love about it.

These warring factions of ego and tastefulness are not usually present in such sharp relief in my mind. I guess I just had a mini epiphany and wondered if anyone could relate. I hope this isn't coming off as too defensive -- I just wanted to spur a little more conversation about it.

[sunvalleylaw]

. Having said that, I also have an inexplicable love for 80s New Wave which is frequently guitar-free.

I have some of that too. I call it nostalgia. But some of it was kinda good.

[Katastrophe]

I understand... I think "moderation in all things" is key here. While I enjoy a powerful vocalist doing some cool runs, or the guitar player showing technical prowess, there's got to be some restraint somewhere, or else it becomes an excercise put to music, instead of a sonic demonstration of emotion.

I think the idea that there be some balance to the music has to do with maturity - both on the part of the performer and the listener!

[msteeln]

Virtually everything I listen to has at least some kind of good 'guitar' in it, and if it doesn't it would probably be even better with some. It's always been that way having grown up with Scotty Moore and Dick Dale, but I like plenty of other instruments too, like drums and organ, especially if they sound like a guitar!

[Tig]

I like such a wide variety of music, it is hard to generalize how much or how important guitar is.

Most guitar virtuosos tend to bore me since they forsake the song when they constantly blaze the look-at-me ego solos. I appreciate great and skilled playing until it gets in the way of the music.

For most rock and blues based music, the solos and most rhythms have to be melodic. Without melody, it is a dead fish. The most simple solo or hook can be the best and longest living music. Punk doesn't require melody, but some of the timeless classics have some thrown in (think Hüsker Dü or Social Distortion).

Metal is always guitar based, naturally. It has to be driving. Modern metal chorus and verse tend to be complex, and if done right, flows well with the drive. Some of the best and most loved solos are heavy with melody, so that is a major factor again.

Jazz works with or without solos as long as the guitar part fits the music. To me, jazz is all about enhancing the song seamlessly. Everything should just fall in place during improv. Collaboration is the key. Phrasing is the blood. We can learn so much from jazz, even without guitar in it. Think Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Charles Mingus, Thelonious Monk, and Art Tatum (and his incredible left hand).

[NWBasser]

I like such a wide variety of music, it is hard to generalize how much or how important guitar is.

Most guitar virtuosos tend to bore me since they forsake the song when they constantly blaze the look-at-me ego solos. I appreciate great and skilled playing until it gets in the way of the music.

For most rock and blues based music, the solos and most rhythms have to be melodic. Without melody, it is a dead fish. The most simple solo or hook can be the best and longest living music. Punk doesn't require melody, but some of the timeless classics have some thrown in (think Hüsker Dü or Social Distortion).

Metal is always guitar based, naturally. It has to be driving. Modern metal chorus and verse tend to be complex, and if done right, flows well with the drive. Some of the best and most loved solos are heavy with melody, so that is a major factor again.

Jazz works with or without solos as long as the guitar part fits the music. To me, jazz is all about enhancing the song seamlessly. Everything should just fall in place during improv. Collaboration is the key. Phrasing is the blood. We can learn so much from jazz, even without guitar in it. Think Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Charles Mingus, Thelonious Monk, and Art Tatum (and his incredible left hand).

I concur.

Tig, I think you summed up my thoughts quite well.

I'll add that most of what I listen to is either bass-centric or guitar-centric, but the common denominator is playing to serve the song first.

[Tig]

I concur.

Tig, I think you summed up my thoughts quite well.

I'll add that most of what I listen to is either bass-centric or guitar-centric, but the common denominator is playing to serve the song first.

By agreeing with me, it proves just how incredibly intelligent you are, and will likely rule the world soon! (I could barely type that out :rollover )

Even before playing bass, I have always loved a great bass line. It doesn't matter what kind of music, though it is hard to find a groovy bass in country music!

[R_of_G]

Perhaps I don't understand the question which is probably on me and not Eric. I've re-read the rephrased version several times and I'm not sure I'd change much from my original answer. I'll just watch where the conversation goes and see if I can pick it up at some point.

I do agree with most of what Tig said though as much as I love melody, I've heard many a good player make the non-melodic solo work quite nicely in a rock context. Robert Quine defined a lot of it for me particularly with the Voidoids and Lou Reed. Ribot perfected it. There's a quote of his I'm too lazy to look up but says something to the effect of it being a big moment for him musically when he realized a solo didn't have to follow a dynamic arc, that stasis could work as well. It was a big moment for me too.

I certainly agree about the value of guitar-less jazz. I've said it often and it remains true, I draw far more influence from horn players and pianists than I do other guitar players. I never should have quit trumpet when I was nine. I'd be awesome now.

[MAXIFUNK]

All depends on my mood which can change 20 times a day.

today was SMV (CLARKE,MILLER,WOOTEN), Rage, Primus, Dave Matthews Band, Esmeralda Spalding, Weather Report, Automatic Man, Mother's Finest. and now the soothing sounds of Joe Sample............................ All depends on the mood...............

[deeaa]

Good post, Eric.

Guitar: For me, it's mostly guitar, and preferably a little dirty too. There are very few songs or bands I like that don't feature guitar at least to some degree. But if they do, my taste is quite diverse.
I don't like very basic blues or jazz much, or prog-rock or blackmetal, nevermind how much guitar is there, though, or anything that's done too well and clinically accurately. You know, like I'd pick Motörhead over Dream Theatre any day, and Sex Pistols over Gov't Mule etc.

I really don't care for guitar solos much at all in most cases; if it's an integral part of a song and not too long, they can be priceless of course...but in most cases, aren't those more like solo-like licks? Those I like and usually try to put in my own songs as well. I like solos that sound composed, not too superfast and melodic, kinda like, say Iron Maiden's solos that turn into licks and vice versa.

Some songs just would not be the same without the solos; Maiden comes to mind first. But, it's like 90% of the time I don't care if there's a solo or not, really, unless it's really somehow remarkable a solo.

About the lyrics...I don't much care about the lyrics, it's just words to me in most cases. Sometimes, of course there are poignant and heartfelt lyrics; I used to listen to Pearl Jam lyrics for instance quite a lot. Aimee Mann is superb. But here too, 90% of the time it's just inane crap from pop band's 'I love you versions' to the opposite - Numetal's 'nobody knows my pain' etc...true lyricists are few and far between, most of the time it's really very corny and kitsch all the way. In some music - well Maiden comes to mind again - it's not the lyrical content but the way how the syllables work to reinforce the music, you know, think of a song like 'Where Eagles Dare'...It's Snowingoutside....the Tumblingroar of en-gin-nesroarin the ni-i-ight...I mean, it's a rhythmic device as much as literary, and you sort of listen to it once and it sticks in your head.

I usually don't even write down my lyrics; when the time comes to sing the song on 'tape' I just sing the words off the top of my head, maybe change a little when I touch it up etc...but that's it...seldom write any 'proper' lyrics; I don't think people notice either way, if I've sweated over the words for a week or just thrown them off the top of my head they're just as good.

But, to sum it up - guitar in its various forms is usually the key to music I like.

Sometimes just the sound of a driven electric screaming, like when Angus Young rips it, all my hair in my arms stands up. That's what it's all about, just that primal scream of the sound, it's just so exciting and thrilling.
I'd bet its hardwired into our species memory, bringing up defenses and primal feelings because it reminds of screams of predators our ancestors had to fight for a million years...that's what I think.

[BlackAngusYoung]

I also get really bored with guitar virtuoso stuff. I'm amazed when I see people like Vai or Satriani but I never really want to listen to them. It's probably over my head. I've always been partial to music where I can keep track of what's going on and where the guitars sound more raw and, I guess, oldschool.

I like things like Muddy Waters or Buddy Guy playing slow, paced and intense. They'll play a few things with fingers, pause a second and grab a pick or a slide... no rush and no showing off... just cool. I like the philosophy that music is just as much what about what you leave out as what you put in. To me, the perfect guitar song is Peter Green's "Jumping at Shadows." On songs like that it seems every note means something to the player and therefore it does to me. The more technically amazing artists just sound too planned out and rehearsed to me and I get bored like I'm watching a big stage magician's act.

Growing up, it was always lyrics that attracted me to music. If someone's words sounded dumb, I'd cringe. I usually don't like things that are too popular. A good example might be Madonna. I'd find some of her songs could be catchy but the lyrics usually ruin it. I always liked people like Leonard Cohen where the words obviously come first. I didn't really start listening to or thinking about the instrumentation in things until a few years ago when I got into guitar. Before that, I'd just look at a song as a complete sound where I had no clue what was really going on. I guess because I was used to communicating through words but had no idea about playing music. I always preferred acoustic/unplugged stuff but now that I'm into guitars and understanding the simple pleasures like gain, heavier things seem more accessible.


it is hard to find a groovy bass in country music!
Check out some of the very early Johnny Paycheck that most people don't even know about (I'm talking 15-20 years before "Take This Job..." and before he got even better known by shooting someone in the face in a bar fight) or early George Jones where Paycheck played bass. For country, I've noticed what I'd call interesting/captivating bass, maybe not "groovy." I think that's because he played bass and he's the main man, so it seems like more of a focal point in the music... although maybe my focus is just on the frontman more and he happens to be playing bass so it stands out to me more, like Roger Waters.

Doesn't get much cornier than this, but good strong country bass and singin' I'd say.... and an awesome country audience:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsryzCWqrLg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Nw7jIaRDgA

[Eric]

Perhaps I don't understand the question which is probably on me and not Eric. I've re-read the rephrased version several times and I'm not sure I'd change much from my original answer. I'll just watch where the conversation goes and see if I can pick it up at some point.
I'll keep trying to get my point across. It was more of a statement of opinion than a real question.

I think that being a part of a guitar forum, we get guitar on the brain. We listen for guitar parts in songs, try to learn new stuff, listen for new, inspiring tones, etc. It's easy for us to get wrapped up in the idea that it's all about the guitar, and that our chance for the spotlight (i.e. solos) are the most important parts of a song. If we want to become better guitarists, we need to figure out ways to write and perform better guitar solos. For example, David Gilmour = great solos = guitar god, therefore we should aspire to write better solos and have the music be all about us as guitarists.

It's easy to fall into that trap. While entrenched in how to make up a good intro and lead to a song I'm working on, I decided to analyze music that I like, and see how often a sweet lead, solo, or guitar part is the reason that I like an artist or song. What I realized is that it's far less important than I thought. And if I don't even really give a rip about one-note-at-a-time guitar parts, how much would a non-guitarist care about them? Probably not much. We as guitarists tend to put too much emphasis on the idea of "lead guitar", when it's really not very important to a song, all things considered.

So the main thrust of what I was trying to say is that in our playing, it makes sense to me to put less time into making a great, melodic solo, and more time into just writing a good song. It seems counterintuitive to the way we think as guitarists, particularly when it comes to the dick-measuring that seems to be so ubiquitous in guitar circles. At the same time, it seems obvious: good songs and tasteful solos are better than guitar wankery. But in practice, how many people show the restraint to do this if they have the skill to do impressive things in guitar solos?

Sorry, no definitive statement to wrap things up, but I hope that helped to get across my main point in all of this. If not, I'll try again.

[BlackAngusYoung]

You're analyzing something that's hard to analyze and even harder to get others to see on the same wavelength. Sort of in the ear of the beholder.

I know people (and still feel pretty close to being one myself) who don't know anything about guitar but still enjoy guitar stuff like you're describing.

I've had a musician explain to me that his music is better than Pink Floyd because he doesn't include long boring guitar intros like "Shine On..." which he claimed nobody likes anyways.
I've known non-musical housewives who absolutely love that same part. (Stoner housewives.... but still.)

From music documentaries and interviews, I get the impression that most people just do what they love and the right audience catches on to it and everything seems genuine. Over analyzing, cracking a code or developing a formula could result in something very good for advancement of your musicianship, but think about who's gonna be impressed if the end result gives any of that away. Of course, I like that you say you are analyzing the music you like and not the music that is popular with a target audience... but that's what makes it hard to relate one person's comments/ideas to another's. We might all enjoy some of the same music for different reasons (as evidenced by looking into the crowd at a concert for any band you like and thinking "where the hell do these people come from?")

I completely agree that the most important thing to do is to write a good song, overall. Just look at all the great songs that have been recorded over and over again by different artists of different genres. Bob Dylan probably didn't have Jimi Hendrix in mind when he wrote "All Along the Watchtower."
Be a good songwriter... and then cover your own song as a good musician. Then nothing will suffer because you won't disregard weak writing because you have guitar chops to fall back on... and you won't clutter your recording with useless instrumentation, out of respect for the great material you're working with. Naturally, it's all easier said than done.

For me, the rhythm and beat are draws that will make me like a song instantly, the melody keeps it interesting and the hooks get lodged in my brain and make me come back to it again. "Hook" probably means melodic hook usually, but I think there are vocal hooks and clever turns of phrase where you want to hear again how someone put something or it could just be a burst of amazing playing or a certain guitar tone that I want to hear again... but of course that's one of those things you were talking about spending too much time in guitar forums.

[Eric]

Yeah, I think you're right that it's very much a personal thing. Thinking that others might relate to how I had been wandering away from what I like about music is probably not the most realistic expectation.

All of that being said, I do find it interesting how there frequently seems to be a "right" type of music in guitar-player circles, and it's usually not based around the guitar playing of Bob Dylan or Kurt Cobain. I get sucked into that mentality sometimes, which I guess was the whole point of this thread to begin with.

[R_of_G]

All of that being said, I do find it interesting how there frequently seems to be a "right" type of music in guitar-player circles, and it's usually not based around the guitar playing of Bob Dylan or Kurt Cobain. I get sucked into that mentality sometimes, which I guess was the whole point of this thread to begin with.

But often, at least in the circles I frequent, they are based around the guitar playing of lead players Mr. Dylan has employed like Michael Bloomfield, Robbie Robertson, Mark Knopfler, etc.

Even in these cases though, it's not always a killer solo that's the focus but a particularly cool lick, or a great tone or something that, as Tig explained earlier, adds to the overall texture of the song instead of screaming "ok, now listen to the guitar player!"

[BlackAngusYoung]

As I read your comment, Bob Dylan playing/singing "Blackjack Davy" just started shuffling from my very wide-ranging iPod, as I sit in my office at back of my secondhand shop.

I've always had different musical tastes from people I know, especially young people. Personally, I like when something sounds raw and full of real emotion... or real lack of emotion... as long as whatever it is, it's something I can believe. I've mostly always concentrated on singers and usually favour singers with strange voices. Sometimes widely considered strangely good (Judy, Barbra, Frank) and sometimes considered strangely bad, as long as they stand out as uniquely individual. It took me a long time--partly due to being a total loner--to realize that people consider some of my favourites to have "bad voices." Bob Dylan or Neil Young might be examples of that to some. I always loved Victoria Williams and Diamanda Galas, who probably don't have anything in common except that they make most people cringe. Then there's Yoko.

Same goes for guitar stuff now that that's what I'm into. All my favourites seem to be engaging and intense with timing that's a little off and unexpected, just like my favourite singers usually are. I guess that's why I usually shy away from anything too mainstream or radio-friendly. I like music that makes me feel like someone I know is telling me something, not that sounds like someone has prepared a polished presentation for me.

Of course, that works since I usually have music loud enough to hear everything and consider whatever else I may be doing while listening to come secondary. As nice quiet background music, my personal playlist would be pretty annoying. All depends what you're after, I guess.

[BlackAngusYoung]

Oh, I meant to say something earlier that I heard somewhere. I think it was the Gibson documentary Wired For Sound and I think it was the guy from Soul Asylum, but I could be wrong. Whoever it was... they said that they always play a new song on solo acoustic and see if it holds up before trying to work it into a whole band arrangement and if it does, it's strong enough to bother with. If it doesn't, it'll probably never be too interesting to anyone.
I don't remember the exact wording, but that was the sentiment and think it's probably pretty wise for much of the time.