Should I learn solos or improvise with some solo structure?

[Mikeman9412@gma]

Hey guys, I was wondering your view on this topic, Should I learn solos note for note and play them at gigs and practices etc... or should I learn the first few bars (or nothing) and improvise the rest? Thanks!

[JazzMick]

No matter what style of music you play I think its good to find a balance between improvisation and pre conceived lines and phrases. It doesn't hurt to throw in licks and riffs from other players that you have heard though.

Different styles of music have more emphasis on improvisation than others.

Say jazz/blues and even country will have plenty of room for improvised solos and what not. In this case, its usually better to try and play your own stuff. Improvised or written before hand. Using licks and phrases that you pick up from other muso's is totally fine. However, simply copying someone else's solo and playing it exactly like they did may be a bit deceiving and some might even consider it cheating.

If its rock or pop or meal. Typically your solos will be written before hand and played generally the same each time. I know some groups still like to improvise solos though.

If your playing a cover band. Learning the original solo's from recordings and playing them verbatim is not uncommon.

No matter what It is your playing. Strive to be as creative as you can. Improvisation is something that takes along time to be comfortable with. So write your solo's out before hand. Maybe just leave room to embellish certain parts as you see fit when it comes time to perform the tune in rehearsals or at a gig.

I should add. Improvisation is not as improvised as some may think. Most players will Improvise on ideas they have written out before hand. So its rarely the case that someone will be jamming out 100% fresh ideas constantly. Most of the time its an idea they had been working on over a period of time and it may just come out differently for that particular gig. Even the greatest of improvisers like Miles Davis and Charlie Parker would recycle the same licks and ideas constantly.

Hope that helps. :)

[magpie74]

My rule of thumb is that if the solo is as memorable as the vocal melody, I play it note-for-note. A great example would be Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody." The song just doesn't sound right with any other solo.

If the solo has memorable elements but is not altogether memorable, I include the famous landmarks and improvise in-between. Examples would be the opening bars of the solo in AC/DC's "Back in Black" or Clapton's "Blue Moon" theme in Cream's "Sunshine of Your Love."

If the solo has nothing concrete to sink my teeth into, I usually just improvise the whole thing. Hendrix's "Manic Depression" falls into this category. In fact, I kinda doubt Jimi ever played it the same way twice.

There are also times when I learn solos note-for-note for personal reasons. When I play "Stairway to Heaven" verbatim, it's out of the deep respect I have for Jimmy Page and not because I couldn't improvise anything better. When I play "Somebody Get Me a Doctor" note-for-note, it's because I grew up admiring Van Halen and want to prove to myself that I can do it.

Of course, the more complex the music, the greater your understanding of that music needs to be in order to improvise effectively. If you tossed me into the middle of "Giant Steps," full speed, I'd sink like a stone. My knowledge of jazz and my chops simply aren't good enough to play anything other than a scripted solo over those changes. On the other hand, I could sit in with a blues band tonight, having never heard any of the songs beforehand, and be perfectly comfortable, but only because I understand how blues artists think.

Those are my guidelines, hope they can be of some help.

[Mikeman9412@gma]

My rule of thumb is that if the solo is as memorable as the vocal melody, I play it note-for-note. A great example would be Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody." The song just doesn't sound right with any other solo.

If the solo has memorable elements but is not altogether memorable, I include the famous landmarks and improvise in-between. Examples would be the opening bars of the solo in AC/DC's "Back in Black" or Clapton's "Blue Moon" theme in Cream's "Sunshine of Your Love."

If the solo has nothing concrete to sink my teeth into, I usually just improvise the whole thing. Hendrix's "Manic Depression" falls into this category. In fact, I kinda doubt Jimi ever played it the same way twice.

There are also times when I learn solos note-for-note for personal reasons. When I play "Stairway to Heaven" verbatim, it's out of the deep respect I have for Jimmy Page and not because I couldn't improvise anything better. When I play "Somebody Get Me a Doctor" note-for-note, it's because I grew up admiring Van Halen and want to prove to myself that I can do it.

Of course, the more complex the music, the greater your understanding of that music needs to be in order to improvise effectively. If you tossed me into the middle of "Giant Steps," full speed, I'd sink like a stone. My knowledge of jazz and my chops simply aren't good enough to play anything other than a scripted solo over those changes. On the other hand, I could sit in with a blues band tonight, having never heard any of the songs beforehand, and be perfectly comfortable, but only because I understand how blues artists think.

Those are my guidelines, hope they can be of some help.

About Jimmy Page, He is deff my favorite guitarist of all time and I play mostly Zeppelin, But he improvised the stairway solo at all his concerts and his solo on the studio version was the third solo he did and he just liked it better than the others, they were each different and he says the solo transformed during the recording, I don't think he ever pre wrote his solos, so I'm sure, I'm not done reading your reply but just thought I'd say that.

[All_¥our_Bass]

Doing both would be best, or you can combine the two when performoing, play a few parts that you find essential, and mix them in with improvised stuff. David Gilmour does this-he said he likes to keep it fresh, but familiar at the same time and if something he's improvising isn't clicking he'll fall back on a pre-written/pre-recorded bit of the song.

[Malcolm]

Hey guys, I was wondering your view on this topic, Should I learn solos note for note and play them at gigs and practices etc... or should I learn the first few bars (or nothing) and improvise the rest? Thanks!
IMHO If you are going to be a lead guitar sooner or later you will have to learn how to play the tune by ear. How much improve you add depends on the band you play with.

I'll just add this -- comes from the rhythm guitar's point of view. We play classic Country (covers) so the lead guitar solo is THE TUNE. Most every Country Lead guitar in my neck of the woods plays the lead break by ear. Perhaps not note for note exactly the same way each time, but enough of the tune that the audiance can sing along if they want - and a lot do. One thing our lead does - his solo is the same amount of measures as a verse or a verse and a chorus - that you can count on - helps the vocalist know when they are going to get the lead back. I've never asked him about this I guess he is singing the lyrics under his breath, whatever he does he hits the measure dead on. Knowing this helps us augment his efforts. i.e. if he is playing melody to a verse I can use the same progression used in the verse - we still harmonize through out his lead break. Point of interest - if you are improvising does the band know what you are doing so they can augment your efforts or do they have to lay out and let you do your thing?

IMHO - take the lead playing the tune, then cut loose on your interpertation if you like, but, give the lead back playing the tune's melody. This alerts the rest of the guys that you are about to turn the lead to one of them - back to the vocalist or to another solo instrument and gets the song back on track for who or what else follows. What ever way you elect to do it the rest of the band should understand how you intend returning the lead.

Good luck.

[fingerpikingood]

practicing alone i'd do both mostly practicing improvising, but also getting the real solo down. actually probably i'd do the real thing and then improvise once i can do it.

as far as live goes or in practices, you don't want to make too many mistakes at that point, so whether you copy the solo or invent your own depends on how good you are at it.

but start improvising right away first thing. you can improvise with 2 notes, you don't need much knowledge or anything. right away, first thing, practice it.

[LaughingSkull]

I would start from scratch, then explore various ideas. I would then develop the preffered one and continue to improve solo until it's no longer improvised ...but more or less part of composition.
Just my approach ...

[Crossroads]

Hey guys, I was wondering your view on this topic, Should I learn solos note for note and play them at gigs and practices etc... or should I learn the first few bars (or nothing) and improvise the rest? Thanks!

As usual my views on this seem to be different to most other guys here.

Imho - if you are intending to play any well known guitar song/piece, then definitely learn it note-for-note as accurately and skilfully as you can. For me there's just nothing worse than hearing someone trying to play a famous guitar song, but making half of it up as he goes along ... as if he thought he was improving on the original or something ... really that's just pathetic.

The reason most people don't do that is usually because they want an excuse to avoid what seems like hard work trying to learn something which may be tricky & which may need a lot of practice.

Personally I would save all the improvisational stuff for your own compositions (if you are trying to write songs), or else for live playing where improvisation is definitely a deliberate part of the show, eg in extended blues jams, or in many free-form jazz styles ... but you have to be quite good to bring that off convincingly.

Ian.

[fingerpikingood]

The guy who recorded the song won't play the same solo live.

is he just as terrible?

maybe the guy making a different solo will does or did make a better one?

or at least one that's as good.

music is not something quantifiable. you can't use theory to judge if one solo is better than another. one rendition better than another.

i find it's more artistic to take a piece and make it your own. the whole thing your own. solo and all.

lots of famous bands record and perform covers as well. but they'll never be exactly the same as the original.

what would be the point of that?

but again, if you're going to perform for people you need to use good judgement. your music needs to be entertaining for others.

if that means sticking to the original, then so be it. if you can make it your own and people enjoy it, then do that.

i find that's more artistic. the other way is still entertaining. but if your goal really is to copy it exactly, then why not just put in a CD?


for practice's sake though you should do both.

[Crossroads]

The guy who recorded the song won't play the same solo live.

is he just as terrible?

maybe the guy making a different solo will does or did make a better one?

or at least one that's as good.

music is not something quantifiable. you can't use theory to judge if one solo is better than another. one rendition better than another.

i find it's more artistic to take a piece and make it your own. the whole thing your own. solo and all.

lots of famous bands record and perform covers as well. but they'll never be exactly the same as the original.

what would be the point of that?

but again, if you're going to perform for people you need to use good judgement. your music needs to be entertaining for others.

if that means sticking to the original, then so be it. if you can make it your own and people enjoy it, then do that.

i find that's more artistic. the other way is still entertaining. but if your goal really is to copy it exactly, then why not just put in a CD?


for practice's sake though you should do both.

Thanks for your opinions.

However, I'm not looking for yet another silly argument.

Ian.

[fingerpikingood]

Thanks for your opinions.

However, I'm not looking for yet another silly argument.

Ian.
you're welcome.

a discussion need not be an argument.

that we disagree need not be an argument.

that we discuss need not be an argument.

but i think you must agree with me anyways. because although you said:

"there is nothing worse than someone playing a well known guitar song and making up half of it"

you must not have been thinking of tommy emmanuel playing beatles tunes. or Monte montgomery playing little wing.

or every single jazz tune in the universe.

i think really what you meant to say is something more like "there's nothing worse then when somebody takes a good song and butchers it with their own lousy interpretation of it"

and on that i'd agree.

but it is not necessary that just because someone interprets something it sucks.

music is sometimes good, and sometimes not.

there is no perfect recipe or description that can distinguish the two. right? otherwise everybody would just follow that, and everybody would be hit song writers, or world class musicians.

right? it is not which notes you play, not which rhythms you play, not which chords you use, not which modes you use, not what instruments you use, not what tempo you use, not whether you followed an existing song perfectly or not, that makes a song or a performance good.

it is the end result of the combination of all these things the will end up either good or bad.

right?


monte montogemery when he plays little wing is awesome right?

but he is doing that which you hate most right?

you might say, "ya well, your average joe that performs is not monte montgomery" and rightfully so in most cases. but monte montgomery used to be an average joe.

so then, it must be that it is not whether you are faithful to the original or not, whether you are improvising or copying, that makes your performance good or stink.

it is just whether what you're doing is good or not. and all you can do to judge it is listen to it and be objective and subjective about it, and listen to the feedback you get from others.

no discussion is silly. we all learn different things, come up with different things and see things differently. and it is by communication, via language that we can share these things and learn from one another.

this is the power of language. this is the intelligence of humanity as a whole. one generation of humans as we are currently from a genetic point of view, would come to discover very little without language.

anyways between the two of our posts yours seems the most argumentative to me.

you said nothing, except for cause tension. if you really wanted no silly argument, you should have posted nothing at all.

ar at least posted about the subject at hand. because as i said, a discussion need not be an argument.

you posted your thoughts, i posted mine, this is the purpose of a site such as this. is it not?

if we agreed all the time on everything that would kind of defeat the purpose. it would be kind of a boring world too.


.. maybe i should have posted exactly what you had posted

Thanks for your opinions.

However, I'm not looking for yet another silly argument.

Ian.

in response to your prior post. i think it would have been just as pertinent.

but maybe you were just bitter because you felt i had made a good point....

if that's the case then i don't understand it, because it should not be news to you that you don't know everything and aren't perfect.

if that's not the case, then i don't understand your reasons for having made such a post.


anyways more on topic i think the important part you hit right on the head is the last sentence. you need to be quite good to pull it off convincingly.

you need to be quite good not to butcher something.

but in practicing, butchering is ideal, as long as your learning from your mistakes.

[Crossroads]

you're welcome.
a discussion need not be an argument.
that we disagree need not be an argument.
that we discuss need not be an argument.
but i think you must agree with me anyways. because although you said:
"there is nothing worse than someone playing a well known guitar song and making up half of it"
you must not have been thinking of tommy emmanuel playing beatles tunes. or Monte montgomery playing little wing.
or every single jazz tune in the universe.
i think really what you meant to say is something more like "there's nothing worse then when somebody takes a good song and butchers it with their own lousy interpretation of it"
and on that i'd agree.
but it is not necessary that just because someone interprets something it sucks.
music is sometimes good, and sometimes not.
there is no perfect recipe or description that can distinguish the two. right? otherwise everybody would just follow that, and everybody would be hit song writers, or world class musicians.
right? it is not which notes you play, not which rhythms you play, not which chords you use, not which modes you use, not what instruments you use, not what tempo you use, not whether you followed an existing song perfectly or not, that makes a song or a performance good.
it is the end result of the combination of all these things the will end up either good or bad.
right?
monte montogemery when he plays little wing is awesome right?
but he is doing that which you hate most right?
you might say, "ya well, your average joe that performs is not monte montgomery" and rightfully so in most cases. but monte montgomery used to be an average joe.
so then, it must be that it is not whether you are faithful to the original or not, whether you are improvising or copying, that makes your performance good or stink.
it is just whether what you're doing is good or not. and all you can do to judge it is listen to it and be objective and subjective about it, and listen to the feedback you get from others.

To repeat what I said -

As usual my views on this seem to be different to most other guys here.
Imho - if you are intending to play any well known guitar song/piece, then definitely learn it note-for-note as accurately and skilfully as you can....

... Personally I would save all the improvisational stuff for your own compositions (if you are trying to write songs), or else for live playing where improvisation is definitely a deliberate part of the show, eg in extended blues jams, or in many free-form jazz styles


no discussion is silly. we all learn different things, come up with different things and see things differently. and it is by communication, via language that we can share these things and learn from one another.
this is the power of language. this is the intelligence of humanity as a whole. one generation of humans as we are currently from a genetic point of view, would come to discover very little without language.
anyways between the two of our posts yours seems the most argumentative to me.

you said nothing, except for cause tension. if you really wanted no silly argument, you should have posted nothing at all.
ar at least posted about the subject at hand. because as i said, a discussion need not be an argument.
you posted your thoughts, i posted mine, this is the purpose of a site such as this. is it not?
if we agreed all the time on everything that would kind of defeat the purpose. it would be kind of a boring world too.
.. maybe i should have posted exactly what you had posted
in response to your prior post. i think it would have been just as pertinent.
but maybe you were just bitter because you felt i had made a good point....

if that's the case then i don't understand it, because it should not be news to you that you don't know everything and aren't perfect.
if that's not the case, then i don't understand your reasons for having made such a post.

Your posting style is quite confrontational and argumentative. I think you know that. And others here have commented on it in previous threads. By all means continue that way if you want, but people get fed up being drawn into endless confrontations like that, me too.

anyways more on topic i think the important part you hit right on the head is the last sentence. you need to be quite good to pull it off convincingly.
you need to be quite good not to butcher something.
but in practicing, butchering is ideal, as long as your learning from your mistakes.

OK, so back on topic (right?) ....

Well I don't think guys should be butchering stuff in that way if it's a live gig for a paying audience.

As I say - I think a common reason for this, is simply that guys can't be bothered to learn playing the original solos accurately ... it's often much easier just to wail away with their most familiar riffs & licks. But that's not "creative art", that's just a pathetic way to avoid playing it properly lol.

What would happen if classical musicians decided they couldn't be bothered to learn any of the Bach or Mozart before playing the concert, and instead just decided it was OK to play something where the intro sounded similar, but the rest was fair game to play whatever improvisation they felt like ... so that would be creative "art" right? ... well not for me ... that's not any form of "art" at all.

There is a place for live improvisation (I said that clearly to begin with). But personally, I don't think that place is in live performance of well known guitar songs (nor in classical concerts) ... if it's a relatively famous guitar piece, then I don't want to hear the guy avoiding the original solo, and replacing it with 5 mins wailing away on his favourite pentatonic scales.

Ian.

[fingerpikingood]

but then, what about monte montgomery and tommy emmanuel?

they do exactly that. granted they're really good. but i think that's the deal.

creative art is a difficult thing to put a label on. you're right just removing a solo and replacing it pentatonic scales is not really what i'd call artistic embellishment. or maybe actually it could be potentially. but really it depends on the individual case i find.

If it's good it's good. taking a popular song and changing it is risky though, because you need to be really good. you need to keep enough of the original, and whatever you change about it better be good because people are often immediately put off by the fact it is not like they expect from the album.

even when the guys who recorded the album perform it.

even for classical tune i think it could be cool to change everything around. but for that, it would need to be a popular classical piece that lots of people know. i think classical fans would be really tough to sell on that so you'd need to be outstanding at it.


maybe some people change solos because they're lazy or can't be bothered to learn the whole actual solo. and to be honest for me i'm sort of that way. but it's less laziness and more, why should i learn that solo he played?

he didn't write that solo like a classical piece was written. he showed up and played whatever came to mind at that particular point. sure, maybe he did a few takes but whatever, he's never going to play that solo again, so why should i in a way.

but of course there is entertainment merit in doing that as well.

but what i find more fun is to give a little taste some flavour of the original and then "me"ify it to give my own twist on it.

is it because i think i'm better than the guys who recorded the tune? no.

but art is art. it;s not one is better than another. it's one is some way and good for some reasons. one might be preferred by some, the other by others. or both equally when you're in different moods.

so idk, i kind of agree with you, i know what you're saying, but i think in art you can always change everything and make it your own, contemporise it or whatever, but it's not easy to do, in order to pull it off you need to be good.

learnign the original is much more fool proof.

[ChrisJ]

I think I'm restating what everybody else said but:

1. A solo that sound improvised probably should be improvised in the same or similar style of the original improviser. In other words, I often ask myself, would he do it the same way in a show? So for example, if I were to play Giant Steps, I would improvise something different, but play Coltrane's signature licks here and there (like the introduction add 9 arpeggios).

2. If the solo sounds composed, play it that way. Bohemian Rhapsody was a good example. Jimi Hendrix' All Along the Watchtower is another.

These are performance tips. Practice is a different thing.

3. When practicing, it is a good idea to learn things note for note. In this case, I might learn the entire Giant Steps solo note for note although I would never play it that way live. Same with a Blues. It would be silly to play an Albert King solo live the exact same way, but I may have very well learned it note for note. This helps you learn the true essence of the player, his phrasing and presentation included.

[fingerpikingood]

ya, i'll agree with that, except it is also different playing a tragically hip popular tune in your local pub and giant steps.

a jazz tune you can't really go and copy something because the whole idea of jazz is coming up with stuff.

but in a local bar you can be kind of just a live CD player basically. that's ok. people will enjoy it, they want to hear tunes they know.

they're not there to hear "you" play necessarily.

but i think even in that case, if like you said, you keep in flavour with the essence of the tune and performer, but adding your own twist on it. i think that can be really good too, but in order not to disappoint you need to do a really good job.

for jazz people know you will improvise, they expect it, so unless you sound like a cat dying in agony, you should be ok. and in this case you can't imitate note for note because that's straight plagiarism.

[ChrisJ]

for jazz people know you will improvise, they expect it, so unless you sound like a cat dying in agony, you should be ok. and in this case you can't imitate note for note because that's straight plagiarism.

Yup, but as I said, during practice it is in your best musical interest to copy note for note. This is how one learns to be a good soloist. When on the gig, it goes without saying, at least in regards to jazz anyways, that you will need to improvise your own solo.

[Crossroads]

I think I'm restating what everybody else said but:
1. A solo that sound improvised probably should be improvised in the same or similar style of the original improviser. In other words, I often ask myself, would he do it the same way in a show? So for example, if I were to play Giant Steps, I would improvise something different, but play Coltrane's signature licks here and there (like the introduction add 9 arpeggios).
2. If the solo sounds composed, play it that way. Bohemian Rhapsody was a good example. Jimi Hendrix' All Along the Watchtower is another.
These are performance tips. Practice is a different thing.
3. When practicing, it is a good idea to learn things note for note. In this case, I might learn the entire Giant Steps solo note for note although I would never play it that way live. Same with a Blues. It would be silly to play an Albert King solo live the exact same way, but I may have very well learned it note for note. This helps you learn the true essence of the player, his phrasing and presentation included.

Yep, that's close to what I'm saying :).

Though personally I would play the Albert King song as close to the original as possible (definitely).

ya, i'll agree with that, except it is also different playing a tragically hip popular tune in your local pub and giant steps.
a jazz tune you can't really go and copy something because the whole idea of jazz is coming up with stuff.
but in a local bar you can be kind of just a live CD player basically. that's ok. people will enjoy it, they want to hear tunes they know.
they're not there to hear "you" play necessarily.
but i think even in that case, if like you said, you keep in flavour with the essence of the tune and performer, but adding your own twist on it. i think that can be really good too, but in order not to disappoint you need to do a really good job.
for jazz people know you will improvise, they expect it, so unless you sound like a cat dying in agony, you should be ok. and in this case you can't imitate note for note because that's straight plagiarism.

And that's also not greatly different to what I'm saying :).

Ian.

[ChrisJ]

[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3]

[SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]Though personally I would play the Albert King song as close to the original as possible (definitely).

Of course there is something to be said about playing an Albert King solo as he did but again: Would Albert do the same solo twice? Not too likely. I would learn it note for note and not play it that way.

[ChrisJ]

Actually, it would be better to learn all Albert's solos and play a solo that he might have played for the song in question.

[JonR]

I find myself agreeing mostly with fingerpikingood here.
When covering a well-known rock song with a familiar solo, I would at least learn the solo as close as possible to begin with. However, I wouldn't necessarily repeat it note-for-note live. A lot of the time this would be partly because I don't have the chops (or the equipment) - :o - and partly because I wouldn't remember it accurately enough - :o ; but mainly because I like to offer my own interpretation.
It would be different if I was in a tribute band (which I never have been). In that case I would pride myself on getting as physically close to the original as possible. (Including FX used.) That would be the point.
But in an ordinary rock covers band - covering many different kinds of artists - I don't think most audiences (in my experience) expect verisimilitude. Something close enough will do. Something that respects the original, in vibe and attitude without being slavish or unimaginative. In that case, I'd take pride in expressing myself (my take on the tune) within the general style of the piece.

Eg, just last night, I played "Hey Joe" live in a pub - with a band that covers everything from Dylan to Del Shannon to J J Cale. I used Jimi's intro, some of his fills, and the opening phrase of his solo - but the rest was all mine; tho with nods to typical Jimi licks. They loved it. Nobody came up to me later and complained "you didn't play Jimi's solo!" What I played was 3 or 4 minutes longer anyhow!
Something like "All Along the Watchtower" has a perhaps more distinctive solo. But then that was overdubbed - there's two guitars on it. Which one do I play? Again, I would use some of the phrases that stand out in my mind - but I would improvise other stuff in between. Copying Jimi's style to some extent (out of respect, but also because I like his style).
Not that my solo would be anywhere near as good as his. But I have to make a stab at doing it my way. Would Jimi have copied one of his heroes' solos? No way! (He stole from people like Ike Turner and Buddy Guy, of course, but made it his own.)

Another tune that band plays is "Folsom Prison Blues". That has a very distinctive (and very simple) guitar solo, which I have learned. In that case, I could (and often do) play something a lot fancier, in later solos, but generally play the original in the first solo. It's quite simply fun to get it right, it's part of the appeal of the tune. When I do play my own solos, I still use that vintage rockabilly sound - I regard that as more important than getting the solo note-for-note. IOW, he style of the genre matters more than the specific notes played.

With a blues tune like one of Albert King's, I would lean more towards a jazz approach. That means playing something appropriate to the genre, not to the artist. IOW, I'd see no reason to play in Albert's style (I'm not even sure what that is) - only in a generic electric blues style.
I might well sit down and learn Albert's solo, if it contained phrases that jumped out at me. But (as with Jimi) I wouldn't use them unless they were unique to that tune - which is pretty unusual in blues. (A solo is of course distinct from any riffs that are specific to the song.)
I might well incorporate B B King-type phrases, or Buddy Guy-type phrases, or whoever. It's all just blues. ;)

When I played in a Django Reinhardt-style hot jazz outfit, I transcribed a few of Django's solos, to get a feel for the style. But I never attempted to play any of his phrases note for note (not live anyhow). It wasn't a Django tribute act. It was a hot jazz group, playing some of the same tunes he played, in a similar style. (Much as any other similar group would have done in those days, and many do now.)

[fingerpikingood]

Actually, it would be better to learn all Albert's solos and play a solo that he might have played for the song in question.
I think there is definitely something to be said for that. but also i think if you're good enough to pull it off, it's good also to play whatever tune but to your own style. interpret the whole thing and play it in a way that's all your own.

like guns n roses playing live and let die for example. you couldn't expect them to play the tune the same way.

or if say you are playing a tune but only acoustic, then you'd need to change stuff around, fit the tune with the timbre of your voice, your instrument and whatnot. or else the same solo someone used on a guitar with lots of overdrive will probably sound horrible.

but again, it depends what your audience wants. if they might want to hear you play or if they want to hear covers of tunes they like.

so in short, sadly, the answer, i think, as is so often with music, is really kind of obscur, and really comes down to, if it sounds good, then it's good.

for practicing i think both learning the solo note for note and also improvising is the way to go. keeping in spirit of the tune, perhaps also you can change the spirit of the tune. try everything.

but for live performance this is the most dangerous because you can easily just butcher it.

so for live playing, whatever you do, stick within your ability.

this might mean stick to the original solo. or it might not.

but really it doesn't matter what you do. it never does. it doesn't matter which scales you use. or which velocities, or which tempo, or which whatever. as long as it sounds good.

I think all the answers brought forward so far are correct and also incorrect depending on the specific situation, what the crowd expects on the instruments used, and on the ability of the musician.

except in practicing i think you should do all of the options.

[Crossroads]

I find myself agreeing mostly with fingerpikingood here.
When covering a well-known rock song with a familiar solo, I would at least learn the solo as close as possible to begin with. However, I wouldn't necessarily repeat it note-for-note live. A lot of the time this would be partly because I don't have the chops (or the equipment) - - and partly because I wouldn't remember it accurately enough - ; but mainly because I like to offer my own interpretation.
It would be different if I was in a tribute band (which I never have been). In that case I would pride myself on getting as physically close to the original as possible. (Including FX used.) That would be the point.
But in an ordinary rock covers band - covering many different kinds of artists - I don't think most audiences (in my experience) expect verisimilitude. Something close enough will do. Something that respects the original, in vibe and attitude without being slavish or unimaginative. In that case, I'd take pride in expressing myself (my take on the tune) within the general style of the piece.
Eg, just last night, I played "Hey Joe" live in a pub - with a band that covers everything from Dylan to Del Shannon to J J Cale. I used Jimi's intro, some of his fills, and the opening phrase of his solo - but the rest was all mine; tho with nods to typical Jimi licks. They loved it. Nobody came up to me later and complained "you didn't play Jimi's solo!" What I played was 3 or 4 minutes longer anyhow!
Something like "All Along the Watchtower" has a perhaps more distinctive solo. But then that was overdubbed - there's two guitars on it. Which one do I play? Again, I would use some of the phrases that stand out in my mind - but I would improvise other stuff in between. Copying Jimi's style to some extent (out of respect, but also because I like his style).
Not that my solo would be anywhere near as good as his. But I have to make a stab at doing it my way. Would Jimi have copied one of his heroes' solos? No way! (He stole from people like Ike Turner and Buddy Guy, of course, but made it his own.)
Another tune that band plays is "Folsom Prison Blues". That has a very distinctive (and very simple) guitar solo, which I have learned. In that case, I could (and often do) play something a lot fancier, in later solos, but generally play the original in the first solo. It's quite simply fun to get it right, it's part of the appeal of the tune. When I do play my own solos, I still use that vintage rockabilly sound - I regard that as more important than getting the solo note-for-note. IOW, he style of the genre matters more than the specific notes played.
With a blues tune like one of Albert King's, I would lean more towards a jazz approach. That means playing something appropriate to the genre, not to the artist. IOW, I'd see no reason to play in Albert's style (I'm not even sure what that is) - only in a generic electric blues style.
I might well sit down and learn Albert's solo, if it contained phrases that jumped out at me. But (as with Jimi) I wouldn't use them unless they were unique to that tune - which is pretty unusual in blues. (A solo is of course distinct from any riffs that are specific to the song.)
I might well incorporate B B King-type phrases, or Buddy Guy-type phrases, or whoever. It's all just blues.
When I played in a Django Reinhardt-style hot jazz outfit, I transcribed a few of Django's solos, to get a feel for the style. But I never attempted to play any of his phrases note for note (not live anyhow). It wasn't a Django tribute act. It was a hot jazz group, playing some of the same tunes he played, in a similar style. (Much as any other similar group would have done in those days, and many do now.)

Sure. That's why my very first line in the first post was to say that my opinion is different to most others here.

And also, we've discussed this question before in the past. So I know you have expressed the above view before.

But I think this is just a matter of personal opinion as to whether any of us feels free to change famous songs, or whether we think it should sound as close to the original as possible.

Obviously, I favour the latter approach - play it as the original.

But just a few general comments, maybe to show my personal thinking on this -

...partly because I don't have the chops (or the equipment) - - and partly because I wouldn't remember it accurately enough - ; but mainly because I like to offer my own interpretation.

Of course, any of us might like to give our own "interpretation". But imho, too many players think they can do that successfully, when in fact they can't actually play well enough. IOW - they may think it sounds great, but actually it doesn't ... & would have been far better if they could have played it as originally recorded ... but often the real reason is they have not learnt it well enough to do that.

Something close enough will do..

When you put it like that, saying " it will do", that does sound as if you are acknowledging (unintentionally?) that an accurate copy of the original would have been at least as good ... and perhaps, in principle, always at least as good ... because otherwise it's not quite the same song any more.

It's all just blues.

OK, well I know from all you've said in the past that you don't really take this sort of electric blues genre seriously ... not in comparison to jazz, or even early acoustic blues.

Personally I do take it seriously. If I'm playing Clapton's version of Steppin Out, then it has to be as per the 1966 recording. Anything significantly different is just not good enough.

Now you may say Clapton would not, did not, or even could not, play it exactly like that live. OK, well in that case, I say two things - (1)that's a poor show by Clapton if he can't play it "properly", and he should have taken the trouble to learn it! And (2)on many famous renditions, Clapton was often too drunk or drugged to know accurately what he was playing on stage, and I think that has applied to many famous musicians .... ie in live shows they were often in no condition to do more than just play familiar phrases as best they could ... but that did not make it remotely artistic or creative.

Same applied to Jimi in many live shows ... his playing was often a complete mess ... for all sorts of reasons.

They loved it. Nobody came up to me later and complained "you didn't play Jimi's solo!" What I played was 3 or 4 minutes longer anyhow!

OK, I'm prepared to believe you did it very well, and it worked. Meaning I'd also have been happy to hear that. But very few members of any audience are going to bother coming up to musicians after a gig to tell them they should have played various solos more accurately ... so that lack of complaint is not really a reflection of whether the approach was the best or not.

But also, in a small pub gig, people often just go for a generally good time. They are not going to be critical just because the guitarist didn't play a famous solo exactly spot on. They are happy if the overall sound and feel are good ... that's what they've gone for, ie a general fun evening.

However, are you saying it would have been inferior if you, or even Jimi, came along and played it just like the record? Do you think the audience would have approached you afterwards saying "man that wasn't very creative, you played Red House, and it was exactly like the record, but I wanted to hear your own version of it!" I doubt many would make that complaint either.

OK, if guys are going to do extended versions of famous songs (6 min. on Hey Joe), then obviously the song has to be re-interpreted. But personally I don't really like hearing extended jams on songs like that anyway. I would cut that stuff out of the performance ... but that's just me, I guess.

But that's all just 2:cent's, just chatting (definitely not disagreeing or arguing lol :D).

Ian.

[bluesking]

Here's my take:

If you want to be able to play a solo note for note you need to learn it note for note.

If you want to be able to improvise well you need to learn a lot of solos note for note. A lot of people also need to learn their scales/chords & make sure they have good ears.

Anyone interested in becoming a good improviser needs to do some improvisation (goes without saying surely!?) I would never suggest to someone that they shouldn't improvise because they can't improvise as well as their heros. Thats like telling a baby not to learn to walk because adults can already do it better than them.

Some styles of music are not improvisational. A lot of classical musicians have no significant need to be able to improvise. They need to work on building repertoire.

Some blues musicians only 12 bar blues. They don't really need a significant repertoire, but they need to be able to constantly improvise in interesting ways.

Most rock/pop musicians need a good mix of improv/repertoire.

Jazz musicians generally need a huge amount of both.

Context is important. I would never start the solo to sweet home alabama with anything but the note-for-note lick on the recording. Conversely I would never play any note-for-note parts in voodoo-chile but would improvise it.

I always improvise live for several reasons:
1.) Its more fun for me
2.) Its more fun for our loyal fans who know our repertoire well
3.) All our songs are original so there is no template for success
4.) I personally learn more this way

[Crossroads]

Just to see if we can find more agreement on this - here's Mikeman's original question -

Hey guys, I was wondering your view on this topic, Should I learn solos note for note and play them at gigs and practices etc... or should I learn the first few bars (or nothing) and improvise the rest? Thanks!

Over the past 2 months Mikeman has asked a huge number of questions, because afaik he's just starting on guitar and trying to progress as quick as he can.

But if by asking the question the way he has above, he's thinking it may be a good idea to play famous songs without ever even attempting to learn the solos (not even learning a single note), then can we agree that will never work?

Ie - you can't play any sort of sensible rendition of famous songs unless you have learnt to play the whole song to some decent extent and in fairly competent degree, right?

Otherwise your rendition is not going to be so much "improvised", but more likely sounding nothing like the original song.

IOW - you need to learn cover songs at least well enough to play a decent sounding recognisable rendition.

As a lead guitarist, you can't get away without ever learning any of the solos for anything.

Do we at least agree that far?

So, I'd say - even if guys want to improvise the solo sections, they have play something fairly close in sound to the original. Your solo can't be so different that it's completely unrecognisable as having anything to do with that song.

IOW - my answer to Mike is - No! If you are intending to play covers of famous songs, then you can't get away with never actually learning how to play those songs ... inc. at least a decent rendition/approximation of the original solo.

If you really can't pull off the solo convincingly, but still want to play that song, then maybe as guys above are saying, you can improvise in similar style.

Of course, guys above are saying they definitely can nail the solo, but they prefer to improvise parts of it. OK, that's a perfectly reasonable personal preference (even though my own strong preference is to play and hear the solo as per original), but that's very different from what I think Mikeman is suggesting, ie to avoid ever learning the solos at all (or even any other parts!), and just inventing something in the right key.

Ian.

[bluesking]

But if by asking the question the way he has above, he's thinking it may be a good idea to play famous songs without ever even attempting to learn the solos (not even learning a single note), then can we agree that will never work?

As I say, if you want to be able to improvise well you need to learn a lot of solos note for note. Scales are useful, but not enough in and of themselves.

Like anything in life, taking the easy option will not teach you anything. If you improvise because you can't play the original solo then you should learn the original solo. If you improvise because you can play the original solo and have a musical statement you want to make or you want to improve your improvisation then there is nothing wrong with that.

From Mikeman's many recent posts I would have to agree with you Ian and give him the same advice as I have done several times before: Learn songs. Learn solos. Improve your ears. Forget theory and scales for the time being, you can get to them when you are ready.

[Crossroads]

As I say, if you want to be able to improvise well you need to learn a lot of solos note for note. Scales are useful, but not enough in and of themselves.

Like anything in life, taking the easy option will not teach you anything. If you improvise because you can't play the original solo then you should learn the original solo. If you improvise because you can play the original solo and have a musical statement you want to make or you want to improve your improvisation then there is nothing wrong with that.

From Mikeman's many recent posts I would have to agree with you Ian and give him the same advice as I have done several times before: Learn songs. Learn solos. Improve your ears. Forget theory and scales for the time being, you can get to them when you are ready.


Ha, ha (:D ) ... yep, I think that's mostly what I was trying to say in my much longer and far less clear posts above ... I must learn to be more succinct and direct to the point (mind you, I've been saying that for decades lol :rolleyes:.)

By the way, in case I gave the wrong impression - I do plat a LOT of improvisational stuff, and if it doesn't sound like a contradiction in terms, I also spend a lot of time practicing improv. (at least 2 or 3 hours a day on that alone ... amongst a load of other stuff! :eek:).

Ian.

[fingerpikingood]

one thing i'd like to add is that i find personally that one of the great things of music is improv. now i know we all do it, but for me, personally, i hate it when artists perform exactly as on a CD. to me, a great thing is that they play something freestyle, something those listening hear that one time. that one energy of that one room that one day. a special thing. just copying what's on the cd i prefer much less.

although for some performances with large dance numbers and stuff i think it's more acceptable, but even then i'd like ot hear them change it a little. i know though lots of people like ot hear it like it is on the CD.

but also for performing covers. you need to be good enough to go and change it otherwise stick to the original, that, i totally agree with.

but as far as solos go, honestly, i've learned very little songs, learned very little solos.

the honest truth is i think i've only learned probably about 5 solos in my entire life. i can only think of one and parts of one right now. but i must have learned a few more i can't remember. and i don't find i'm such a slouch at improv. but i could maybe be better if i had learned more. so i don't think it's necessary in order to be able to improvise but it's good.

i mean look at it this way. if you can repeat a solo or melody by voice after having heard it once, then it stands to reason that you could the same on an instrument.

if you can do this, then every lick, every solo, every melody, as long a s you can remember it in terms of sounds, becomes learned on the guitar immediately.

but don't take this as me saying not to bother with learning solos. i think it's a very good excercise. and honestly, not in terms of solos, but in terms of songs i wish i learned more of them, because in mostly only writing tunes, licks whatever, i ended up kind of sticking to what i know a little more than i would have liked, and learning songs really helped me learn stuff. i could think of a few specific songs that helped with a few specific things.

but i'm not at the point yet where i can imagine any chord sequence and play it. so the remembering it is the same as learning it on the guitar doesn't hold true for me there at all.

for solo notes, i'm pretty damn close to get anything immediately but even at that i goof too.

so again, i think it's maybe dangerous to use words like "always" or "is necessary" and stuff like that. i mean we are all different and different things help people out in different amounts.

i mean i'm sure some might say you must learn to read music to be a good musician. but then there's guys like tommy emmanuel and paul mccartney that can't read sheet music.

i think the major scale though should be learned first thing. the key scale is of utmost importance imo. but mostly because it gives you reference points. this does not really teach you cool rhythms and stuff, teach you "music" but it does give yo ua solid reference point in which to place any solo or lick or chord progression you learn. i think this is the main power of it. also the pentatonic is good as well.

then when you learn solos and stuff that will give you rhythmic ideas and phrasing ideas and teach you stuff like that. and you'll see where and which parts of it are pentatonic or major.

but i'll agree with the statement that just throwing in some improvisation because you can't learn the solo is maybe not the way to go. if it's because you want to be artistic that's different.

but for me, it's been a while where i completely gave up on learning solos, and only from time to time, when i hear some part of one i really like, i'll learn that.

one i know i've learned that is cool is a sublime one santeria, and i've learned parts of talib kweli and tamia's officially mising you, but other than that, i can't think of any right now. on piano i've learned some parts and licks of oscar peterson, but without being able to read music, most of what he does is just too long and difficult to ear out, cause he's crazy.

so idk, learning solos is good, but not necessary at least i hope not because if it is then that means i suck hairy testicles.

[bluesking]

Ha, ha (:D ) ... yep, I think that's mostly what I was trying to say in my much longer and far less clear posts above ... I must learn to be more succinct and direct to the point (mind you, I've been saying that for decades lol :rolleyes:.)

I wouldn't say you are the prime culprit as far as lack of clarity or brevity are concerned.

It usually takes me 3 metaphors and an argument with fingerpickingood to make my point. I commend you.

[fingerpikingood]

i think i'm the big loser in that category. if anyone lacks brevity and clarity i think it's probably me. except for this one post. we should stop to take it all in and really enjoy this moment. like a calm serene night with a full moon on a beach in bermuda with the waves.... o crap.

[JonR]

And also, we've discussed this question before in the past. So I know you have expressed the above view before.I have indeed. But I try not to repeat it word for word, just improvise on the same theme...
:D :rolleyes:

But I think this is just a matter of personal opinion as to whether any of us feels free to change famous songs, or whether we think it should sound as close to the original as possible.For me it depends on the things I said above: the song itself, the kind of band I'm in, the audience I'm playing to. Sometimes as close as possible, sometimes a bit more freely. Some songs demand accuracy (including solos). Some don't, even in rock.
And sometimes the same songs can be treated differently at different times. Sometimes I feel I want to play it exactly like the original, sometimes I feel lie stretching out a bit. (Might depend on the venue and crowd.)

Of course, any of us might like to give our own "interpretation". But imho, too many players think they can do that successfully, when in fact they can't actually play well enough. IOW - they may think it sounds great, but actually it doesn't ... & would have been far better if they could have played it as originally recorded ... but often the real reason is they have not learnt it well enough to do that.Wel, that's their problem. And yours if, as an audience member, you expect or demand that level of accuracy. (I don't mean you're wrong to feel that way. Only that you will be harder to satisfy.)

I do think most rock audiences appreciate it (highly) if a covers band plays a great rock song with total accuracy. But I also think most audiences appreciate musicianship beyond the skill needed to reproduce a recording. They are aware that a covers band is not the original band; it will be playing songs (probably) by many different artists and, moreover, the band has its own identity and style too. It will inevitably sound different; it might even sound better than the originals! (At least it's live, and not on a piece of plastic in a machine...)
I'm much more anal about getting chord sequences right than most of the musicians I play with. IMO that's an unshakeable foundation, in rock at least - I really hate it when I hear a wrong chord. (And of course I think a vocalist should sing the original melody as damn near close as they can, allowing for their personal expression. But I'm not a singer...) But the solos are (a little) more up for grabs.

When you put it like that, saying " it will do", that does sound as if you are acknowledging (unintentionally?) that an accurate copy of the original would have been at least as good ... and perhaps, in principle, always at least as good ... because otherwise it's not quite the same song any more.Ah, well that's the issue. Is the solo part of "the song"? Part of its identity? Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
In "Watchtower", I think it is. In fact, in Jimi's version, the guitar solo is arguably the main reason we listen to it! (Whether we're guitarists or not.) Let's face it, it's not a great melody or chord sequence, and the lyrics are, well, not Dylan at his best.
In "Hey Joe", IMO the solo is less critical. The vocal and chord sequence (and riffs) are more distinctive in comparison.
But even with Watchtower, there's an argument for NOT doing Jimi's version. He didn't write the song after all. Why not go back to Dylan and do your own version? Same as Jimi did? (That's why I love Dylan songs - you can twist them around into all kinds of shapes - as he does himself of course, constantly - they're still great songs. Well, not all of them... "Watchtower" is average at most; he's done worse, he's done better.)
Why pretend that you (or me) is as great a guitarist as Jimi?
What's the point, after all, in copying what he put together in a studio 40 years ago, even if we can? Would he have played it the same way live? Every time? Certainly not. (I expect he would have repeated some of his favourite licks. But he was too good a musician to have been satisfied with regurgitating a recorded improvisation. Of course, with Watchtower, one can argue that his solo was a composition more than an improvisation - and as such, repeatable.)
But even if I could play that solo accurately, note for note, and an audience went wild with appreciation as I did it, I would find it a deeply unsatisfying and meaningless experience. It's not what I play music for.

And IMO it sends the wrong message. If that's what the audience really wants, it's wrong. Normally I believe the customer is always right; and I often play simplistic "pop" music (and enjoy it) because people enjoy it - eg to dance to. But live music is emphatically NOT about reproducing a studio recording. That's putting the cart before the horse. The more live bands try to reproduce studio recordings on stage, the more it kills live music. I actually think audiences do understand that, deep down. There will be a kind of admiration at hearing a pristine reproduction of a CD on stage - but it's an empty experience in the end. You go to a gig to have a unique experience - at least something much more 3D and in your face than a CD. The idea of listening for any discrepancy in a guitar solo is a crazily trivial thing. The band up there should be blasting away any memory of what you heard at home on your hi-fi (or on your ipod). It shouldn't make you want to go home and listen to the CD again; it should make you want to book tickets for their next gig.

Of course, we want famous bands to play their greatest hits. And we expect them not to screw them up! (Deliberately or accidentally :rolleyes:) But if a band ONLY did that, something would be seriously wrong. Even when they do play their old favourites, we want a little more - maybe a solo pretty close to the original (those nostalgic old phrases we can sing along with), but ideally going beyond the original. (Because we've all grown up a little since then.)

But then maybe that's just me... ;)

[Sorry this is a really long response - but you brought up what I think is a very important issue... and I don't think you're wrong - totally!:) - but it's worth discussing...]

[JonR]

[PART 2...]
OK, well I know from all you've said in the past that you don't really take this sort of electric blues genre seriously ... not in comparison to jazz, or even early acoustic blues.On the contrary - I take it as seriously as any music, more so than most. But my view is that "taking it seriously" means adopting a similar attitude to the original artists - respecting the genre. They weren't conscientiously constructing masterpieces, designed to last and be reproduced accurately in every detail. It's not classical music! :rolleyes:
Does (say) B B King play the same solo every time he plays "Thrill Is Gone"? He may well play a lot of similar phrases - things that work, that he likes. But he won't be exactly reproducing some past recording.
So why should I? I'm not B B King anyway.
Personally I do take it seriously. If I'm playing Clapton's version of Steppin Out, then it has to be as per the 1966 recording. Anything significantly different is just not good enough.OK, that's a valid viewpoint. I think we can regard that recording as an iconic performance (seminal, historic, influential), and I can see a value in reproducing it live.
But I still think there are better things to do live. I mean, if an audience can sit at home listening to it, what do they get by going to see you do it on stage? Why should they pay money to watch you do something they could hear for nothing at home?
OK: "Wow", they might say "he can play as well as Eric!" OK, er... so what?

I always ask myself: would Eric play Steppin' Out the same way he did in 1966? Exactly? If an audience didn't actually ask him to? (Or even if they did?)
And in any case, why worship Eric, when you can worship the guys he copied? Clapton was not an original; he was a copyist, and would be the first to say so. What would he say if he heard you copying his 1966 recording? I suspect he'd shake his head with a mixture of admiration ("hey, even I couldn't do that again...") and wry despair.

Now you may say Clapton would not, did not, or even could not, play it exactly like that live. OK, well in that case, I say two things - (1)that's a poor show by Clapton if he can't play it "properly", and he should have taken the trouble to learn it!Oh dear - if you're serious, I really think you don't get it at all...
To "learn" what exactly? Blues is about improvisation (within well-known generic rules). Steppin Out is a riff (the composed part, unchangeable), followed by improvisation (changeable every time). Obviously he ought to learn the riff! (I agree it would be the height of incompetence if he forgot the riff, or got it wrong.) But why should he repeat any of the solo, unless he felt he'd hit a few phrases that really worked, every time? It's totally missing the point of the exercise.

And (2)on many famous renditions, Clapton was often too drunk or drugged to know accurately what he was playing on stage, and I think that has applied to many famous musicians .... ie in live shows they were often in no condition to do more than just play familiar phrases as best they could ... but that did not make it remotely artistic or creative. Well, that's beside the point. If a musician is in that state, they are in no state to reproduce their original solo either, any more than they are to be creative.
Same applied to Jimi in many live shows ... his playing was often a complete mess ... for all sorts of reasons.Like... ?
I never saw Jimi live, but I've never seen any filmed performance where you could say that. (Although there is one studio recording with a messy solo: Purple Haze.)
There's one example on the notorious Lulu show performance (where he stops midway through one of his own songs - "we're gonna stop playing this rubbish" - to play a Cream tune in honour of their recent break-up), where you see him tuning his guitar mid-song with a grin. How do you feel when you see that? Do you tut and shake your head? "The stupid fool can't even play in tune..." What I feel is an extra frisson of excitement - this guy is on the edge; he is really doing this stuff, pulling it back from chaos. Jimi's performances always seemed to be like that, in some way: he was going out beyond where anyone else dared to go. That's what gobsmacked his contemporaries. In some ways, it's cheap showmanship. But showmanship (alongside consummate musicianship) matters. It's a show, after all!
IOW, where you may see a mess, I see genius at work - forging ephemeral beauty out of potential chaos.

Buddy Guy is a case in point. He is obviously a highly skilled player. He never plays the same solo twice (because he is, er, a blues musician). But he is often dull on stage - whenever he plays safe, playing well-rehearsed phrases you know he's played a million times (and probably lots of other blues players have too). But occasionally he catches fire. That's what makes him great - when he's taking risks, or surfing some new wave of inspiration.
He is responsible for the best gig I ever saw in my life, as well as one of the most disappointing.
The best was a potential disaster, because it started lazy, with him and Junior Wells going through some familiar motions, and Wells apparently a little drunk. They got booed. Not because they weren't playing well (they were OK), but because it was dull, predictable. Buddy turned it around at the end by taking charge, attacking the audience for impoliteness, and improvising something truly spellbinding. He improvised lyrics too "London you don't know what's going on" - meaning blues isn't about expecting your heroes to play their greatest hits. It's about a vibe, creating a shared experience off the cuff; holding an audience in a special place for an hour or two.
Buddy can't always do that - he sometimes misjudges the crowd, or doesn't quite hit his stride. But he's a LIVE performer, in the grand tradition (of blues as well as jazz - but not of rock). The gig is the point - not the recording.

[cont again....] :rolleyes:

[JonR]

[PART 3... aaargh... hope you don't have any work to do...]

OK, I'm prepared to believe you did it very well, and it worked. Meaning I'd also have been happy to hear that. But very few members of any audience are going to bother coming up to musicians after a gig to tell them they should have played various solos more accurately ... so that lack of complaint is not really a reflection of whether the approach was the best or not.Well, that's true of course. It would take a particularly anal, humourless (and arrogant) guitarist to come up to a musician afterwards and make that sort of complaint.
In a sense, I try to care about accurate reproduction as far as I judge the audience to care, and then a little bit more (for my own satisfaction) - but I'm sure I get it wrong sometimes.

But also, in a small pub gig, people often just go for a generally good time. They are not going to be critical just because the guitarist didn't play a famous solo exactly spot on. They are happy if the overall sound and feel are good ... that's what they've gone for, ie a general fun evening.Exactly. And that's the kind of gig I like. For me, it's what live music is all about: a fun evening. No more, and certainly no less.
That's not a trivial thing to me. Nobody gets deeply philosophical about it, of course, but there is something really primal and crucial going on at such an event.
I've also played jazz gigs, and folk club gigs, where people sit in rows and clap politely. In jazz and folk, people expect improvisation ("live-ness") even more than at rock gigs, which is good. But there's definitely some element missing at those things - as if the gig is pretending to be a mini-version of a symphony concert, where the musicians are delivering something like a lecture, to be appreciated with stroking chins.
IOW, the idea of arranging seats in rows facing a stage, encouraging serious (and immobile) contemplation of the music seems artifical to me. (I have some sympathy with the view that jazz lost its way when bebop turned it into listening music rather than dancing music. Jazz got po-faced, as if it wanted to emulate classical music, as if it had some essential message in the notes themselves.)

However, are you saying it would have been inferior if you, or even Jimi, came along and played it just like the record? Do you think the audience would have approached you afterwards saying "man that wasn't very creative, you played Red House, and it was exactly like the record, but I wanted to hear your own version of it!" I doubt many would make that complaint either.Maybe not, but I think it's more likely than the opposite complaint. (In a jazz audience, you would certainly get many such complaints - tho maybe not to your face, jazz buffs are too damn polite for that...)
I do think that if Jimi were (magically!) to come back and play it, it would be more disappointing if he played it just like the record than if he played a whole new solo. It would be like a robot version of Jimi, not the real Jimi.

OK, if guys are going to do extended versions of famous songs (6 min. on Hey Joe), then obviously the song has to be re-interpreted. But personally I don't really like hearing extended jams on songs like that anyway. I would cut that stuff out of the performance ... but that's just me, I guess.I kind of agree. At least, for many classic songs, it's right to keep them to their original length. It's like showing off to extend them unnecessarily.
But Jimi's recording of "Hey Joe" fades, and the only reason for that was the physical limitation of the 45 RPM format (and maybe pop commercial considerations). Live, it makes sense (to me) to extend the song as much as necessary (and it will vary night to night) for it to feel right. It may feel right to extend a solo, if it's going well. It may not. (I try to be always alert to the Miles/Coltrane criterion: "Take the f****** horn outa your mouth" ;)) "Less is more", that kind of thing. It's down to the vibe on the night. You can always tell if an audience has had enough (and of course it's always too late by that point...)
"Hey Joe" is a particular problem, because it's quite hard to finish that cycle. Even when you feel like you've done enough, it always seems like the chords need to go round one more time... :rolleyes:

[OK, now this post has gone on well beyond that point...]

[bluesking]

Here's another factor:

If you play a lot of the solo exactly like the recording but change choice phrases to express yourself it generally doesn't work out too well. It looks like you are trying to play the solo verbatim, yet you have forgotten some parts of it or they are too hard for you to play.

There are only a few options available which still work:
1.) Play the solo exactly as recorded
2.) Plat the first lick as recorded then go fully improvised (this is a nice nod to the original artist but gives plenty of scope for expression)
3.) If its a really long extended solo you can pop in the occasional phrase from the original to capture the feel. Don't overdo it for the reason above. Of course in this case, even what you improvise should try to retain the feel of the original artist if not exactly note for note. You could even use some of their stock licks from other songs to make your intention clear.

For me, I would choose the catagory based on the original artist. E.g:
1.) Brian May / Queen
2.) Most other bands
3.) Stevie Ray Vaughan