Should I learn solos or improvise with some solo structure?

[JonR]

Originally Posted by Crossroads

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...

Originally Posted by Crossroads

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.)

Originally Posted by Crossroads

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.

Originally Posted by Crossroads

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 ) 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...]

Originally Posted by Crossroads

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!
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.

Originally Posted by Crossroads

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.

Originally Posted by Crossroads

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.

Originally Posted by Crossroads

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.

Originally Posted by Crossroads

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....]

[JonR]

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

Originally Posted by Crossroads

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.

Originally Posted by Crossroads

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.)

Originally Posted by Crossroads

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.

Originally Posted by Crossroads

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...

[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