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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Thanks for your opinions.

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

Ian.

[fingerpikingood]

Originally Posted by Crossroads

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

Originally Posted by Crossroads

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]

Originally Posted by fingerpikingood

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 -

Originally Posted by Crossroads

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

Originally Posted by fingerpikingood

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.

Originally Posted by fingerpikingood

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.